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)

Monday, February 24, 2014

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 6, Number 4

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

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 2014

The House met at 1:33 p.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

C. James: I have three introductions today of individuals who are connected to an amazing theatre in our community that contributes so much. I'll have a little more to say about that as we go on in the proceedings. Erin Macklem is the artistic associate for the Belfry Theatre. Laura Sackville is a person unto herself, but her claim to fame for today is that she is playwright Joel Bernbaum's mother. Christopher Hooper is a contributor and an adviser to a play that is called Home Is a Beautiful Word. Thank you very much.

I ask the House to please make them all very welcome.

Hon. S. Bond: I have the pleasure today of welcoming…. I'm hopeful they're here. With weather issues, obviously, I don't know if all of them have arrived today, but I wanted to welcome 17 councillors and staff from the Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of B.C. Obviously, they are represented by their president, Mike Bapty, and Ann English, their CEO and registrar.

As I'm sure all members of the House would know, APEG regulates and governs the professions under the authority of the Engineers and Geoscientists Act. They represent over 29,000 hard-working professionals who do exceptionally important work every single day for the people of British Columbia. I hope that all members of the House would make them most welcome.

[1335]

K. Conroy: It gives me a great deal of pleasure to introduce some representatives from the Canadian Federation of Students who are here today visiting with members in the Legislature. These are really well-spoken young people who it's great to meet with and to know that we've got such aspiring young people in universities now. Jacelyn Lacroix, Madeline Keller-MacLeod, Christian Avendano, Kirsten Brooker, Zachary Crispin and Jenelle Davies are all here.

Zach is actually from my area, and I had the great pleasure of getting to know him really well in 2009 when he ran against me in the election. He ran as a Communist, and he was a great addition to our election campaign. I loved getting to know him. He's a really inspiring young man. Jenelle is also from the Selkirk College area. It's great that they're here in the House. Would the House please join me in making them very welcome.

Hon. S. Thomson: It gives me great pleasure today to introduce Scott Benton, executive director of the Grasslands Conservation Council, who is in the House today. The council does very important work, as you know, in promoting stewardship and sustainable management practices to ensure the long-term health of B.C.'s grasslands. I'd ask the members of the House to please join me in welcoming Scott Benton today.

G. Holman: It doesn't look like they're quite here today, not yet. I have two introductions I wanted to make.

Tributes

JAMIE BENN

G. Holman: I can't help but mention Mr. Jamie Benn from Central Saanich. Of course, Canada won the gold medal, and Jamie scored the only goal in the 1-0 game against the United States, probably the toughest game that Canada had to play. Jamie wasn't even slated to make the team and ended up scoring two game-winning goals. I'd like everyone to congratulate Jamie and his family. Of course, I'm hoping as much of that reflected glory will shine on me as possible.

Introductions by Members

G. Holman: The second introduction…. It doesn't look like the students are quite yet here. Aaron Mueller and grade 11-12s from Parkland Secondary, again in my constituency, are going to be viewing the question period today. I'm sure we'll all be conducting ourselves accordingly.

Tributes

CAREY PRICE

D. Barnett: I'd just like to say congratulations and ask everybody in this House to congratulate Carey Price — four games, three goals. Congratulations.

KELSEY SERWA

N. Letnick: Since we're on a roll, I'd like to offer congratulations to everyone from British Columbia, but especially from the Central Okanagan, to the granddaughter of a former MLA and minister of this House, Cliff Serwa. Let's all give congratulations to Kelsey Serwa and her family.

Introduction and
First Reading of Bills

BILL 13 — OFF-ROAD VEHICLE ACT

Hon. S. Thomson presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Off-Road Vehicle Act.
[ Page 1508 ]

Hon. S. Thomson: I move that the Off-Road Vehicle Act be introduced and read for a first time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. S. Thomson: Today I introduce the Off-Road Vehicle Act, or ORV Act. This act replaces the outdated Motor Vehicle (All-Terrain) Act in regulating the use of off-road vehicles and is a significant step in implementing the off-road vehicle management framework.

The ORV Act will lay down specific rules governing British Columbia's growing off-road sector and will help ensure these vehicles are driven in a safe and environmentally responsible manner. The act will establish a more efficient registration scheme which will be self-funded and allow for the development of safety standards and conditions for a wide range of off-road vehicles.

[1340]

Off-road vehicles, as you know, include snowmobiles, all-terrain vehicles, quads, dirt bikes and utility terrain vehicles.

I move that the Off-Road Vehicle Act be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting after today.

Bill 13, Off-Road Vehicle Act, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Statements
(Standing Order 25B)

COMMUNITY SERVICE PARTNERSHIP
INITIATIVE IN RICHMOND

J. Yap: Collaboration is paying off for people who access community services in Richmond. Two Richmond organizations, Volunteer Richmond Information Services and the Richmond Community Foundation, recently received a $150,000 community gaming grant to support the costs of their new joint program called Richmond Cares, Richmond Gives: "Our Cause is Community."

By collaborating, Volunteer Richmond Information Services and the Richmond Community Foundation will have a bigger impact on the communities they serve and will achieve a better outcome for families in Richmond.

Recently I met with Elizabeth Specht, executive director of Volunteer Richmond Information Services; Sylvia Gwozd, chair of the board of directors for Richmond Community Foundation; and Mary Kemmis, president of Volunteer Richmond Information Services; along with you, Madame Speaker, and the Minister of International Trade.

The Richmond Community Foundation combines and invests donations, distributing investment income to local charities. Initial investments grow and enable the foundation to give new grants the following year. The foundation will partner with Volunteer Richmond Information Services, which is a charitable organization that provides programs needed by the citizens of Richmond and connects people to various volunteer opportunities with community services and organizations.

Richmond Cares, Richmond Gives, the result of a long-term initiative, enables these two great organizations to leverage their strengths in both volunteer and financial resources. Together, they are going to benefit the Richmond community in a significant way, through collaborating in this new joint program, Richmond Cares, Richmond Gives: "Our Cause is Community." Together, it will help continue to make Richmond a strong and caring community.

GARY ROBINSON

H. Bains: I rise today to remember a good friend, community activist Gary Robinson, who passed away suddenly this past November.

Gary worked at CN Rail for 24 years, where he served as president of his local for 18 of them. Gary was a devoted Surrey city councillor. He was credited for saving the genealogy collection at Surrey Public Library. He fought to save Surrey Bend, Green Timbers and Sunnyside parks. The Olympic-sized ice arena in South Surrey would be gone if it weren't for Gary Robinson.

He was married to Susan Sanderson, with whom he had two fine sons, Derek and Trevor.

Gary's greatest accomplishment was founding the Realistic Success Recovery Society with his wife, Susan. Gary was under the control of addiction for a portion of his life, and when he chose to end that dependency, he wanted to give back to people in need.

Starting out with just one home for men, the Realistic Success Recovery Society grew into a compassionate, professional organization that helped to fill an enormous void in services for people suffering with addictions. They have received national awards for their ethical business practices, including awards from CEP humanity fund, Home Depot Canada Foundation, Surrey Foundation, Toskan Casale Foundation and, most recently, a $20,000 grant from Surrey Homelessness and Housing Society.

Seven hundred men have called a Trilogy home, home, since 2007. I have had the good fortune to meet with many of those men, as most homes are located in Surrey-Newton. We need more homes like Trilogy House to help people in need. Please join with me in remembering the good work of Gary Robinson.

INDUSTRIES AND SKILLS TRAINING
ON ANNACIS ISLAND

S. Hamilton: I'd like to talk about an area in my riding that deserves a little time in the spotlight. For many
[ Page 1509 ]
years Annacis Island was an afterthought for residents of the Lower Mainland. It was off the beaten path, out of sight and perhaps out of mind. Part of the reason is that the island was served by small bridges. It wasn't an ideal place for industry to do business, but that's changed. In 1986 the construction of the Alex Fraser Bridge created a new connection between Annacis Island and Delta. That connection helped the island grow by leaps and bounds.

[1345]

It's now home to one of the largest business parks in the Lower Mainland and employs more than 10,000 people. Annacis Island may have once been an afterthought, but its geographic location and improved transportation infrastructure makes the island an ideal location for industry.

I'd also like to shine a little light on one of the longtime businesses that call Annacis Island home. Ideal Welders has served industry for more than 40 years. Company founder Jim Longo has played a role in some of the most significant projects in British Columbia's recent history.

This is not just a simple welding shop. This is a company based in Delta that's worked on projects up and down the west coast of North America. Ideal Welders helped build key components for both Expo 86 and the 2010 Vancouver Olympics. Today Longo and his company are excited about the opportunities offered by the liquefied natural gas industry. The company expects to double in size within the decade, and that means investing in new technology and their employees.

That is something our government also believes in. We've worked hard to create a business climate that attracts investment, and it's working. We're also investing in helping train the workers of tomorrow. Annacis Island will soon be home to the new motive power centre. Our government helped fund the move of two programs into a centralized location on Annacis Island. The new school will offer heavy-duty transportation programs that were formerly offered at BCIT and Vancouver Community College.

Moving to Annacis Island helps those operations, and it allows for more students to learn the skills that they will need to be first in line for new jobs — jobs that have been identified as part of a priority industry in the B.C. jobs plan. With vast amounts of industrial land base, Annacis Island's future looks incredibly bright.

We need this place. It's been my pleasure to take two minutes today to shine a little light on this hub of industry.…

Madame Speaker: Member, thank you.

EDUCATION INITIATIVE
IN CLAYOQUOT SOUND AREA

S. Fraser: An incredible opportunity is presenting itself in Clayoquot Sound, inspired by the Tla-o-qui-aht First Nations and the district of Tofino — a grass-roots vision of a locally based hub for post-secondary education to work through and to provide in situ education and academic studies, trades training and professional development to the students on the west coast of Vancouver Island.

This far-reaching plan is to enable universities and colleges to use the natural and social capital assets of the west coast of Vancouver Island to bring an unparalleled experience to the students, from an incredible outdoor classroom to the wisdom and knowledge of local Nuu-chah-nulth leaders and scholars. We are talking about building a learning economy in B.C.'s first UNESCO biosphere reserve. The Clayoquot biosphere region includes Tofino, Ucluelet, the Alberni-Clayoquot regional district and five Nuu-chah-nulth nations. The partnerships are already there, and they're united through the Clayoquot Biosphere Trust.

The previous Minister of Advanced Education has visited the region and was presented with the concept. She has urged to push it forward. This is promising because we need the province's help. The opportunity here is for the province to partner, to set an example on a new education model in British Columbia — an education destination. This fits perfectly with this government's stated goal of growing foreign student enrolment by 50 percent.

This is a real opportunity for the province to create real jobs and prosperity not just for the Clayoquot region but potentially for all 13 resort municipalities in British Columbia that could follow. Let's seize that opportunity. I look forward to working closely with the current Minister of Advanced Education, the Minister of Jobs, Tourism and Skills Training, and the Minister of State for Tourism and Small Business on this exciting initiative.

INGE WILSON

L. Throness: A few weeks ago I had the pleasure of attending a unique gathering in the city of Hope in my riding — a community thank-you to a special person named Inge Wilson. Inge moved to Hope 30 years ago with her husband, Steve, and immediately got involved in her community. She spent 18 years managing Hope's chamber of commerce and, for the past decade, operated both the visitor information centre and the museum.

Over her career she has influenced the travel decisions of some 1.6 million tourists. But Inge has been involved with just about everything else too — whether it's salmon enhancement, the development of the famous Othello tunnels area, the construction of Memorial Park, sports lighting improvements or the beautiful chainsaw carvings that now stand everywhere downtown. She helped with them all — not to mention countless committees, organizations and task forces. She was even a torch bearer for the Paralympics in 2010.

That's why 65 close friends gathered at the Owl Street
[ Page 1510 ]
Café in a spontaneous outpouring of affection for Inge and Steve. It wasn't a goodbye, because Inge isn't moving away or quitting. In fact, we're all wondering what she'll do next.

[1350]

The people of Hope just wanted her to know that they appreciate what she's done. They told funny stories, showed pictures, and gave gifts and heartfelt expressions of love and thanks. Then, my favourite part — we socialized over a really good lunch.

In our electronic age, when many feel more of an attachment to their computer screens than their communities, it's great to know that the spirit of volunteerism is alive and well in B.C. Inge and Steve stand out as the kind of people on whom towns and cities are built. I want to commend them to all British Columbians as examples of good citizenship.

Communities have value. Let's invest in each other.

Home Is a Beautiful Word
PLAY ABOUT HOMELESSNESS

C. James: For Victoria's Belfry Theatre, "home" is a beautiful word. This January the theatre staged what was likely Canada's first verbatim theatre play about homelessness. The result has been remarkable and inspiring.

With a script filled with words uttered by real people, Home Is a Beautiful Word shone the spotlight on some of the city's most disadvantaged citizens. Under the direction of Michael Shamata, Home Is a Beautiful Word gave authentic voice to Victoria's homeless when it played January 7 to 19 to sold-out audiences. Created with stories collected by Joel Bernbaum from 500 interviews, the two-hour show has achieved what great theatre does so well. It has people thinking, talking about the issues and finding ways they can make a difference.

The process of building the play inspired a group of Victorians to put a powerful idea into action. This group of ten included Belfry staff, board members and supporters who call themselves the Power of Ten. They are ten housed citizens who came together to support one non-housed citizen. That's the power of ten.

Each member committed to a monthly mentorship session with the person transitioning off the street. They also committed to a monthly financial contribution to be used toward rent, food and utilities. More than a year later the person they helped is now housed and has returned to school after 20 years of living on the street.

Congratulations to all those in the Belfry community and the wider community who made this production their passion. Thank you to the citizens who stepped up to ensure that this play turned into positive action.

I ask all members to join me in offering appreciation for an exceptional artistic, cultural and community achievement. "Home" really is a beautiful word.

Oral Questions

BUDGET POLICIES AND FEE INCREASES

A. Dix: As part of her budget mystery tour 2014, the Premier has been making a series of counterfactual statements around British Columbia, presumably in hopes that the people of B.C. will believe them. In Kelowna she said this week, "We said we weren't going to increase taxes, and we didn't increase taxes," referring to the 2013 and 2014 budgets.

Except that if you read those budgets, you know that they increased taxes in 2013. They increased taxes in 2014. They increased hydro rates in 2013. They increased hydro rates in 2014 to help pay for their pretend surplus. They increased the medical services premiums, the medical services tax, in 2013 and in 2014. In fact, the facts are exactly counter to what the Premier was trying to tell the people of British Columbia.

My question to the Deputy Premier is this. How can you make these claims? How can the Premier make such a claim across British Columbia when it is so obviously not true?

Hon. R. Coleman: I am proud to stand in this House as a member of the government, a government that has balanced the budget for the second year in a row. I think it's clearly evident to the world that we are on the right track.

[1355]

When I sit down with people who want to spend billions of dollars in investment in different industries in British Columbia, the first thing they say to me is: "We're looking for a jurisdiction that has its fiscal house in order." That's the balanced budget. "We're looking for a jurisdiction that's a safe harbour for investment." That's our triple-A credit rating. "We're looking for a place where the people at $120,000 or less are paying less taxes than anywhere else in the jurisdiction." That's British Columbia.

I think we're on the right track. We've done the right things, and we'll continue to do them, in spite of the fact that the members opposite really don't have a vision for the future of the economics of British Columbia.

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

ELECTRICITY RATES AND
BUDGET REVENUES FROM B.C. HYDRO

A. Dix: Well, the Premier made those statements. I note that the minister didn't answer the question. When the Premier said she didn't raise taxes — when the Premier said that in Kelowna — it wasn't true. The minister knows it's true, and the government knows it's true.

The Premier said something else very interesting in
[ Page 1511 ]
Kelowna. She said: "We said we weren't going to increase taxes." She said that she was going to balance the budget "without raising taxes, borrowing or stealing." Well, they raised taxes. The budget itself says so. They increased the debt — the fastest increase in debt in B.C. history, contrary to what the Premier said. And they stole money from B.C. Hydro to pretend to have a surplus.

How can the Deputy Premier explain…? What's the real explanation for increasing the average annual dividend of B.C. Hydro from $243 million to $410 million, contrary to what the government itself said last July?

Hon. R. Coleman: You could go read the budget documents a year ago, and you would find that there was a plan relative to MSP premiums in the fiscal plan. It was there. I know you didn't read it. I know you don't take the time to actually come up with a plan and do your fiscal planning in such a way that you actually look to the future.

The budget is balanced last year and this year. This is a very good thing for British Columbia to attract the investment necessary for our children and grandchildren to have their jobs in the future. It's the right place to be, for us to have a triple-A credit rating, because we do this job through focused hard work. We've engaged in a budget process that has brought us to another balanced budget, which I am very proud of.

I know the member opposite…. I know that thought is foreign to the members opposite, because I've sat in the House already for a week after the budget, and every single budget speech I've heard from a member of the opposition is where to spend more money and never where to find it, invest it, attract investment or get jobs.

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

A. Dix: It's not a defence, the one the Deputy Premier made, that the Premier doesn't understand or didn't read the budget. That's not a defence in this Legislature. It's not a defence to say that the Premier, after being elected in this Legislature in 1996, doesn't know the difference between debt and deficit. It's not a defence.

That kind of tour around British Columbia, the misleading claims being made by the Premier around British Columbia — there's no defence for it. The fact of the matter is that it's B.C. families who are paying for all of this, B.C. families who are seeing a 20 percent increase in hydro rates, because they are playing around with Hydro finances.

They are forcing B.C. Hydro to give them a fig leaf of a surplus, to send over money for that purpose. But it's the people of B.C., the small businesses of B.C., jobs in B.C. that will pay the price for their incompetence at B.C. Hydro.

Let me ask the Deputy Premier again. He said that the reason…. Presumably his defence is that the Premier doesn't understand their own budget, for the Premier's remark. But can he give us a specific defence: why has the average annual dividend at B.C. Hydro jumped from $243 million to $410 million in this budget?

[1400]

Hon. R. Coleman: I was suggesting that the Leader of the Opposition actually read the budget documents and figure it out. Literacy is a beautiful thing, hon. Member, when you make use of it on your behalf.

Read the budget. We've got balanced budgets in B.C. You don't like it. I get that you don't like balanced budgets. I get that. I know it's not your philosophy. It upsets you that we are balancing the budget. It upsets you that we have a triple-A credit rating. My goodness, why would we want to have that?

Madame Speaker: Deputy Premier, through the Chair. Please continue.

Hon. R. Coleman: I apologize. It's just that they haven't asked me a question in so long, and I got really excited about it. That's all. Thanks, Madame Speaker.

Here's a jurisdiction…. The people of British Columbia made it very clear in the election of May 2013 that they wanted a government that would have a balanced budget. We put that before them and told them there were tough decisions to make, and they accepted that plan on behalf of British Columbians.

They also were looking for a vision for the future. We put the vision in front of British Columbians. That's why we're a competitive jurisdiction, because we do balance our budget. We do have a triple-A credit rating, and we are attracting investment to British Columbia.

J. Horgan: I'm delighted to see the Deputy Premier up on his feet answering questions, particularly about B.C. Hydro.

Interjections.

J. Horgan: The trained seals are done, so I'll proceed with the question. The question is quite simple.

The Deputy Premier says that he's on the right track. The Deputy Premier said the very same thing in 2012 when he stopped a rate hearing at the B.C. Utilities Commission. He interfered, and he said everything was fine. Fast-forward to the current member that represents the Energy profile, and the minister said that everything was fine and no rate increases necessary. Now we're looking at 28 percent over the next five years.

The Premier says we haven't raised taxes. The minister said that everything is under control. Which is it? So 28 percent out of people's pockets and taxes riddled through the budget. Yes or no. Who is right — the Premier or the
[ Page 1512 ]
Minister of Finance?

Hon. B. Bennett: This member and other members have raised over the past few days in question period the issue of the dividend paid by B.C. Hydro to the provincial government. I understand why, and it's certainly a fair thing to raise.

The first thing I'd like to say for the benefit of the members is that the dividend is actually a transfer of cash within the government reporting entity and has zero impact on whether this side of….

Interjections.

Hon. B. Bennett: I'm sorry, hon. Speaker. The other side of the House is not known for its accounting proficiency.

It is a fact that the dividend that is paid by B.C. Hydro to government does not impact the profit-and-loss statement for government.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members. Members.

Hon. B. Bennett: In addition to that, I think it is also relevant that in fact the dividend today is calculated in a certain way, and that certain way was actually created, defined and implemented in 1992.

Madame Speaker: Thank you, Minister.

Hon. B. Bennett: In fact, we calculated the dividend exactly the same way as these folks did when they were in government. They also defined how much debt that B.C. Hydro could handle in 1992. They said that it could have a debt-to-equity ratio of 80-20.

J. Horgan: Well, hon. Speaker, we have incoherence from the Premier on television. We have incoherence from the Deputy Premier, and now we have I don't know what from the Minister of Energy.

[1405]

Let me see if I can try and translate for the people of British Columbia what just came out of the mouth of the minister responsible for B.C. Hydro. The minister said: "Don't worry about all the big numbers. Everything is fine." Well, Minister, the people of B.C., businesses small and large, and small and large residences right across this province are going to pay 28 percent more on their hydro bill. That's after a 50 percent increase over the past ten years.

So let's try and get right to the root of the issue, Minister. How is it that you can say with a straight face that there are no new taxes in this budget when you fixed the hydro dividend number so you could balance, and you're taking 28 percent out of people's pockets? How does that make sense?

Madame Speaker: Members will conduct their remarks through the Chair.

Hon. B. Bennett: Well, it is true that this government, and the previous government for ten years, does take, has taken and will continue to take dividends from B.C. Hydro. That is a fact.

It is also true that it was these very folks over here — in fact, the two making the most noise right now…. They were there. One of them was advising the Premier and the other one was advising the Energy Minister when they actually established, by special direction, the thing that the Energy Minister is always going on about. These special directions established how the dividend will be calculated, and they also established in those days how much debt B.C. Hydro could carry.

Now, this side of the House has a plan. We've announced a ten-year plan. In that ten-year plan we actually have a plan to take less from B.C. Hydro. We're going to take less dividend. We're going to get the equity-to-debt ratio down to 60-40. B.C. Hydro, over the life of the ten-year plan, will have $3 billion more to spend than they would have had under the old plan.

CORE REVIEW PROCESS AND GOVERNMENT
MANAGEMENT OF CAPITAL PROJECTS

S. Simpson: On page 47 of the budget and fiscal plan we're told that the core review is about improving outcomes for the public. Yet Liberal mismanagement in five capital projects alone has led to a $3.1 billion overrun, almost 100 percent over the initial projected costs. This will take about $122 million out of the annual operating budget to cover debt-servicing costs on $3.1 billion; $122 million would fund 10,000 new skills-training spaces or hire 1,200 nurses or pay for 2,000 care aides for seniors. Instead, it's adding to a bloated debt load.

Does the Minister Responsible for Core Review intend to have the core review investigate and report out on how to end Liberal mismanagement on capital spending?

Hon. B. Bennett: It's actually a pleasure for me to rise in the House and talk a little bit about the core review process. It's something that our leader on this side of the House thought was important for us after being in government for 12 years — that we go back and do what we did in the early days, in our first term, and review everything that ministries and Crown corporations do, how they do it and whether or not the taxpayer is receiving full value, really, for what those Crown corporations and those ministries deliver.

It's a difficult, exhaustive, comprehensive process, but it's an important thing. It's something that taxpayers want
[ Page 1513 ]
us to do. I noticed that it wasn't in the NDP platform, because frankly, their history would indicate that they don't really care what things cost.

We're proud on this side of the House that we have a core review process in place, and I'm proud to have the opportunity to lead it.

[1410]

S. Simpson: The problem is that so far what we've seen from the core review is that it's about attacking important regulatory organizations like the Utilities Commission, like the Agricultural Land Commission. It's not about attacking Liberal mismanagement of spending across this province.

We have heard grandiose claims of being debt-free from a Premier who is presiding over a record debt, a debt that's going to hit $70 billion by 2016. And what do we have here? We've seen the northwest transmission line, the B.C. Place roof, the convention centre, the Port Mann and the South Fraser Perimeter Road. Those five projects were projected by this government to cost $3½ billion dollars. They cost $6.6 billion when they were done — $6.6 billion.

Madame Speaker: Member, pose your question.

S. Simpson: To put that in context, that overrun would have paid for a new SkyTrain line. It would have paid for Surrey's light rail system. It would pay for health care facilities. That's the public interest, and you're not serving it.

Madame Speaker: Member, pose your question.

S. Simpson: Will the minister commit today that the core review will investigate the outrageous mismanagement of capital spending in this province and dramatic cost overruns in the billions by this government?

Hon. B. Bennett: Last week I had the opportunity to answer a question right at the red light, so I really didn't get a chance to say everything that I needed to say at the time about how the kettle is calling the pot black when it comes to: "What have you invested in capital?"

Part of my file is the B.C. Hydro file. When I began to get up to speed on the history of B.C. Hydro and what was going on with rates and pressure on rates and the need to invest in capital, I came across one particular graph that was provided by the Crown corporation that showed capital investment going way up in the 1980s, and of course, rates went up at the same time.

Then for some reason or other in 1991 that graph went way, way down — like that — and for ten years that graph was pretty much flat all the way across. So I don't know how the hon. members on the other side would know anything about capital investment, because they never did any.

ELECTION CAMPAIGN STATEMENTS AND
FUNDING FOR HOSPITAL PROJECTS

J. Darcy: Let's be very clear. We're talking about promises that the B.C. Liberal government made that were broken. Let's be very clear about that.

Let's talk about some that relate to hospitals. During the general election campaign last year the member for Peace River South promised $50 million for a new hospital in Dawson Creek. Asked about it last summer in this place, I have to say the Minister of Health was remarkably candid when he admitted the promise was made for political purposes in the course of an election campaign. The minister said: "Most things during an election campaign are made for political purposes."

Can the minister confirm that the $50 million that his colleague promised is nowhere in the budget and that the empty promises were made purely for political purposes?

[1415]

Hon. T. Lake: I guess I will continue a theme that the Minister of Energy started, talking about what we have done in terms of capital: in the health care sector $8½ billion of new hospitals across this province.

I could talk about half a billion dollars for the Surrey Memorial Hospital critical care tower; $429 million for patient care towers in Vernon and Kelowna; $300 million in Fort St. John; $51 million in Nanaimo; $15 million at Kootenay Lake Hospital; $367 million for the Interior heart and surgical centre in Kelowna; Royal Inland Hospital; Vernon; Victoria, Royal Jubilee Hospital. The list goes on and on and on, as we invest in health care in this province.

J. Darcy: I would note that the Health Minister completely ignored the question of the broken promise for Dawson Creek Hospital. Of course, we know…. Yes, we're learning very quickly that it's not answer period; it's question period. But one would think that on a very specific question, the minister would stand up and give a very specific answer, so let me try another one.

In March, just before the election, the Premier insisted that there was $300 million in the budget to redevelop Penticton Hospital. She said, "We know the money is there," for the Penticton Hospital. After the election the new member for Penticton admitted that the so-called commitment to Penticton is only "a notional indication at Treasury Board." In other words, the Premier's wild assertions about money already being in the budget were simply not true.

There is constant overcrowding at Penticton Hospital…

Madame Speaker: Pose your question.

J. Darcy: …and the best the Liberals can make is notional indications. My question is: what comfort does the
[ Page 1514 ]
Premier's notion give to patients waiting for care in hallways today at Penticton Hospital?

Hon. T. Lake: MLAs, of course, advocate for their constituencies on both sides of the House. I have to say the member from Dawson Creek was advocating for his community, the member for Penticton advocating for his community.

I've got to tell you that I have toured Penticton Hospital. The men and women who work in that hospital are doing amazing work in a facility that does need to be replaced. The promise is there to replace that facility; it is in the ten-year capital plan. We are working through the business plan with Interior Health at the moment.

But while we're talking about promises, for ten years the NDP government promised a new Abbotsford hospital — for ten years. Who built that hospital? This government.

BUDGET PROVISIONS FOR
ST. PAUL'S HOSPITAL REDEVELOPMENT

G. Heyman: In seven weeks of sitting in this House, I've yet to hear the Minister of Health actually get in the same ballpark as the question he's been asked, and nothing today has changed that. But I'm pleased to see that, at least in the spirit of the questions, the minister is giving fact-free answers.

In 2012 the Premier stood at St. Paul's Hospital and promised there was $500 million in the budget to renew St. Paul's right away. British Columbians have lost track of how many times over the past decade the Liberals have promised to renew this important infrastructure. It's an important hospital. It serves patients from across Metro Vancouver — in fact, from across British Columbia. It's one of the busiest hospitals in the province. It's a top health priority for the Vancouver Coastal Health and the city of Vancouver.

My question to the Minister of Health is simply this: given that the Premier promised the people of Vancouver that St. Paul's would be renewed, can the minister tell me if $500 million for St. Paul's renewal is in the budget, or is that simply another instance of the Premier making empty promises for political purposes only?

[1420]

Hon. T. Lake: We go through quite a process when we are looking at redevelopment of hospitals, of course. It is a process that has to be rigorous when you're building a facility. I wouldn't take lessons from the members opposite about how to engineer and design infrastructure, like fast ferries. That is not the lesson that we take on this side of the House.

So $8½ billion in health care infrastructure. We promised a new hospital in Abbotsford; we delivered. We promised a new hospital in Surrey; we delivered. We promised a new hospital in Kelowna; we delivered. We will get a new hospital at St. Paul's, because when we say we're going to build something, we actually build it.

GOVERNMENT USE OF LEGAL SERVICES
FOR TEACHERS' BARGAINING COURT CASE

R. Fleming: When the Minister of Education was asked two weeks ago how much of the public moneys the B.C. Liberals were exhausting on legal bills to keep B.C. kids in overcrowded, undersupported classrooms, the minister said there was no cost. He said: "We've been using in-house legal counsel, and we used in-house counsel throughout the entire process." But on Friday we learned this isn't true. The government's arguments to prevent the release of open court documents to the public that exposed the B.C. Liberal strategy to provoke a provincewide strike was made by high-priced external legal counsel.

My question is to the Minister of Education. If the public can't get real answers on simple questions like this, how can the Minister of Education expect British Columbians to trust him on anything else in his file?

Hon. P. Fassbender: The members opposite are trying to take the facts and distort them. Let me bring the facts back.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Order.

Hon. P. Fassbender: I clearly said when I was asked the question that up to that point we had used in-house counsel. I stand by that. The bottom line is, again: this government worked tirelessly to provoke a settlement, which we did. We provoked a settlement through negotiation, through mediation — much to the chagrin of the members opposite.

[End of question period.]

Tabling Documents

Hon. S. Anton: I have the honour to present the following reports: the British Columbia Ferry Commission Annual Report for the Fiscal Year Ending March 31, 2013; the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal Annual Report 2012-2013; the Crown Proceeding Act report for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2013; and the Public Guardian and Trustee 2012-2013 Annual Report.

Madame Speaker: Member for Nelson-Creston.

Interjections.
[ Page 1515 ]

Petitions

M. Mungall: Thank you to my colleagues for the applause to present a petition.

I'd like to present a petition today. It has 182 signatures. I also have 128 postcards from people living in the Nelson-Creston riding calling on this government to protect B.C.'s farmland.

Orders of the Day

Hon. T. Stone: I call continuing debate on the budget.

Budget Debate

(continued)

M. Karagianis: I stand to take my place in the continuing budget speech.

[1425]

Madame Speaker: Please proceed.

M. Karagianis: The other day I started my remarks by canvassing what I believe to be the crisis of our time, which is affordability for families, and the issue that will face future generations around lack of skills training and education opportunities and, thirdly, the care of the environment.

I made those points in my earlier remarks. I'd like to continue on that because, in fact, we have a budget before us here that is going to make life less affordable for people right across this province — for families, for seniors and, especially, for those who are struggling from paycheque to paycheque. That is a large number of British Columbians.

We have a government that in this budget speech is about to make it much more difficult for families. We've canvassed quite often in this House over the past few days the issue around increased costs and taxation to families. It is about to get a lot tougher for anyone on a fixed income.

Seniors, in particular, will feel the pinch. Families will feel the pinch. Single-parent families, most specifically, will feel the pinch as we see hydro rates skyrocket. This is to try and balance off a budget on the backs of the consumers of British Columbia who are least able to afford it.

We are going to see ICBC rates go up. We are going to see MSP premiums go up. All of these are direct costs to families that they have no way to offset, from a government that seems not to be able to grapple with the concerns that we have across British Columbia and that the economists have about affordability for families.

We are eroding the middle class. These kinds of costs continue to push the middle class down into being the working poor and living at poverty's edge. That has a huge detrimental effect on small business, on the economy and the future economy of this province. It is very shortsighted.

I think that the issue around B.C. Ferries — and I touched on this briefly last week — is such a colossal failure by this government. It is one of the main conduits we have for coastal communities. It is an imperative link for coastal communities to have a thriving economy, for people who live in communities that are ferry-dependent to take part in the economy of this province. We are about to see this government again deal a really crushing blow to those families as we see services cut and as we see fares go up.

[D. Horne in the chair.]

Contrary to anything you might think about a business-savvy government…. We've heard those claims for over a decade from this government, and yet we have seen contrary business practice. We have seen, under the B.C. Liberal government, ridership go down and fares that have gone up. What is the solution that the B.C. Liberal government brings to the table?

A very straight sort of business formula: if your business is starting to lose customers because your prices are too high, you don't cut service and jack up the prices even higher. But in fact, that is exactly what this government is doing. Anyone who is taking business 101 will tell you that that's the reverse formula of what you need to do to encourage a thriving business. But this is not just any business in British Columbia.

This is an integral part of the transportation system of this province. This is not some small business somewhere that the government can kind of sideline and say: "If we cause your business to fail, well, too bad, so sad. That's what the free enterprise market is all about."

This, in fact, is an integral part of the economy of coastal communities because it is our marine highway. It is the transportation infrastructure that is so necessary to those communities.

I would also say that the B.C. Liberal government has missed a huge opportunity in using that same infrastructure system to invest in the B.C. economy. We have certainly seen the logic on that side of the House. They understand that building bridges and building roads are good for the economy but, apparently, not building ferries or building a thriving marine highway system here on the coast.

In fact, we've invested in other economies. I talked in my opening remarks the other day about the impact it has directly on my community because, in fact, my community builds ships. It is a very important part of the economy here on the south Island.

We have seen this government over the last decade marginalize our shipbuilding industry to the point where it began to fail. It began to disappear. A traditional stronghold in the economy of British Columbia
[ Page 1516 ]
began to just evaporate under the mistreatment by this government.

The federal government, luckily, has shown great faith in our industry, and we have seen an upsurge in shipbuilding here because of the faith of the federal government.

[1430]

What did we see from the B.C. Liberal government? We saw that dollars from our taxpayers were invested in another economy in another country in another shipbuilding industry. That has caused a slowdown in our ability to increase the infrastructure here that we would need, to have long-term sustainable jobs here in British Columbia that are around shipbuilding.

Luckily, the federal contract looks like it'll bring about 30 years of work, and that'll begin to build some confidence in jobs here so our workers don't have to go to Fort Mac to use the skills that they could be using in the shipbuilding industry.

However, I think there are two huge shortcomings here again by this B.C. Liberal government in their budget. Number one, we're looking to build more ferries for our coastal ferry corporation. Are they going to be built here in British Columbia? No, this government has repeatedly refused to try to encourage a made-in-B.C.-first contractual RFP system.

So we could very well see our jobs once again go offshore because it's cheaper. Although, I would argue that, certainly, by the time you take in duties and by the time you look at environmental impact and social benefits, the triple bottom line would show that our industry certainly deserves those jobs, that it's competitive and that it would be a better investment in our economy to build those ships here.

The second piece of this is the lack of training and skills-training investment by this government. Now, this has been a decade-long effort by this government to slowly dismantle the Red Seal program in this province, to dismantle the whole basis for skills training. We are now facing a crisis. After ten years of the government slowly taking apart the apprenticeship program — taking apart and doing these modules for construction training — of underinvesting and underfunding skills training year after year after year, what do we find ourselves with now?

We're on the brink of some opportunities in the future that are going to depend on skills training, and we've missed the boat for ten years. We have failed to invest in those very necessary skills-training supports and structures. Now we are finding ourselves with a crisis.

The government talks about it now. We have a crisis in workers. What is the solution going to be to that? Well, in fact, we talk. We have slogans about how we're going to invest in skills training, but the reality is, as the budget shows, we are doing the very opposite.

Once again, the government is going to be cutting infrastructure to skills training. That will lead inevitably to the other piece of the puzzle that we're beginning to see appear from the B.C. Liberal plan here around liquid natural gas and other resource revenues, which is more foreign workers coming in and taking jobs away from British Columbians. So we see a lot of sloganeering about skills training, but in fact we see funding being cut to skills training.

We also see that the whole education system has been compromised year after year by this government. For our young people to think about getting a post-secondary education, we are seeing crushing debt that they will have to try and crawl out from under for decades after they graduate. This has been a pattern, again, repeated by this government.

Yet we know that we need to have the best-educated young people of the future in order to take jobs in the economy of the future. But we've underfunded skills training and managed to, basically, kind of destroy the whole infrastructure there. We have seen repeated issues around affordability of education for post-secondary education.

Again, these are the very skills, the very support systems, the very investments that our government should be making in the middle class, in those families who are facing issues around affordability, who are now, because of this government, going to foist the same issues onto the next generation. They come out of school, burdened with crushing debt. The opportunities for jobs may or may not be a fit for them. There may be temporary foreign workers taking many of those jobs. They may have to leave this province to go find jobs.

This budget is, again, a very, very vivid example of how the government says one thing, does something completely different and fails completely to address the challenges of our time, which are: trying to make life more affordable for everyone so they can participate in the economy, so everyone can prosper; making sure that our young people have the education and skills training to take the jobs of the future — our young people first and foremost; and thirdly, making sure that we take care of the environment. I think that anyone, from grade 1 up, can tell you that these are three imperative things for our future well-being.

[1435]

We've seen the government completely consumed by this issue of liquid natural gas being the only kind of opportunity that they have been able to envision for the future of British Columbians. That is so far in the future that it's not relevant or real to the people who live in my community, who want to see some solutions right now. They're about to be overburdened with all kinds of new taxes and fees. They've seen education compromised for their young people. They have seen post-secondary education leave young people with crushing debt when they do come out of school.

We are now seeing that it's a government that has side-
[ Page 1517 ]
lined the whole issue around environmental responsibility. I could list off a whole number of things that occurred under this government over the last 12 years — everything from cuts to oversight in environmental protection to the lack of protection for endangered species, and the whole issue around tanker traffic expansion.

We know that these are critical issues, not just for people who live on the coast but for citizens right across this province. It doesn't matter where you are; people have a strong, firm commitment to protect the environment. Citizens from every corner of the province know that these are the issues we must come to terms with.

We have a government that talked a lot about greenhouse gas reduction and full environmental consciousness a number of years ago, but that seems to have completely evaporated in this budget. While the budget lumps a lot more costs on working families and pins a whole lot of hopes on liquid natural gas at some time in the long-term future, it completely ignores the other crisis of our generation, which is environmental protection.

If you go through the list, it is shocking to me. It is shocking how little the government cares about environmental protection at this point and how many of the support systems and the basic infrastructure to protect our environment have been stripped away. How completely hypocritical we are around the issue of looking after our own environmental footprint and responsibilities here while we are saying: "Well, you know what? Liquid natural gas will help to take care of China's environmental issues." I think that we need to look after house and home here first, in British Columbia.

There was a time when there was just a glimmer of hope that we might be leading edge on this, that we might actually step forward and lead the way for communities on how we could change our behaviours. People in this House will know that I have been long been an advocate of better options for bridging into the future. Someone joked the other day about me taking my biodiesel car to my zero-footprint little cabin over on Mayne Island, where I'm experimenting with solar power and I ride my electric motor scooter to get bread every day from the local bakery. I have a real firm commitment to living the way I want to see British Columbians live.

It may seem hokey to lots of people. But if we don't make those advancements, if we don't invest in those kinds of advancements now, then who can take advantage of any of those opportunities? It is frustrating to me that all the options that we should be and could be investing in to make that bridge for people to start living differently, living with a smaller footprint, being more environmentally responsible…. This government has bypassed all of those. It hasn't been in our budgets or throne speeches for many, many years.

Now, I know that I have only a limited time here, and I want to touch on a couple of other things lacking in this budget that I think are very critical. I have two critic portfolios. One is the women's critic. I touch a little bit on shipbuilding, because that is also one of my responsibilities. But as the women's critic and as the child care critic, I want to talk on two very specific issues that are lacking in this budget, which feed into this issue of not addressing the crisis of our times.

Number one is a child care plan. We've heard this government talk for the last couple years about a jobs plan, and never once have I heard them talk about a child care plan. Every working family in British Columbia knows you cannot have a jobs plan without a child care plan.

Now, the government will brag about how they are putting $55 per child into families' hands every month as part of their solution. In fact, anybody who's tried to get child care knows that $55 per child buys you half a day. It doesn't buy you a month of child care. It doesn't help offset the cost of child care to help you to get back to work and to manage the ability for families to participate.

[1440]

Families are either left with only one income so there can be a stay-at-home parent, because child care is very expensive, or else they are again stretched and marginalized. Going to work and keeping child care costs covered has got them stretched to the point where it makes no sense whatsoever. In fact, when we look at the kind of cost increase that we're talking about here that the government is foisting on us — from new hydro costs to MSP to ferries to ICBC; it goes on and on — $55 a month barely offsets even a portion of that.

I want to talk a little bit about women's issues as well. The other, kind of, big elephant in the room here, I think, that has not been touched on in the budget is the issue of poverty. We talk about the working poor and about marginalized middle-class incomes, but poverty is the other most crushing crisis that is affecting families today. This budget has done absolutely nothing to address that.

Sadly, poverty tends to be primarily an issue for women, for children and for single-parent families, most of which are women. And we have seen this government do absolutely nothing. They've taken no steps. Year after year we hear about British Columbia having the very shameful statistic of being the highest in child poverty. One of the wealthiest provinces, certainly one of the most desirable places to live, and yet we continue to ignore the issue of poverty in this province.

Now, I think that that shows a level of skepticism on the part of the government, which is very evident in their budget — that there is no optimism about our ability to solve these issues. I actually think we can solve these issues. I think there are lots of components there that this budget could have addressed but completely missed.

It completely missed all of the opportunities. While we look at this pie-in-the-sky dream of liquid natural gas in the future, with astronomical numbers that may or may not be true…. You only have to read the paper today to
[ Page 1518 ]
see that Shell — one of the primary investors, I believe, in liquid natural gas of the future — is already saying: "I don't know if B.C.'s got the right regime. Are we too late? Are we late to the game?"

That is not going to be an option for us, so we need to deal with the crisis of how we make it more affordable for families. This budget missed it. I will be voting against this budget based on that.

M. Morris: Before I commence my support for this budget, I just want to acknowledge a couple of people in my life that make things a lot better for me.

My wife of 36 summers has stood by me through thick and thin, and I have her unmitigated support as I venture into this new life as a politician — something that both of us had never looked at before. I also have the support of my two sons and their beautiful wives who unconditionally support my presence in the House here today. But the true inspiration for me being here is the four grandchildren that I have and doing what I can to make life better for them in the future.

One of the other key inspirations that I had when I said yes to taking this challenge on, just over a year ago now, was leadership. I was impressed with the leadership that our Premier had exhibited and that this government had exhibited, and I wanted to be on board with that. So I want to identify the four key roles that I see as very important in the role of leadership.

The first is a compelling vision that is shared by your entire team and is supported by the grass roots of the organization, by the people in this province. There's an old Sioux proverb that says: "If you don't know where you're going, any path will take you there." I think that's the mantra, perhaps, that the members opposite have used very often in their role. Our Premier has a vision, and that vision is a strong economy, a secure tomorrow and a debt-free B.C. — very clear and shared by everybody in government and by everybody in B.C. that voted for us.

The second key element is that we need to align our systems, structures and processes to make sure that we're focused on the goals and objectives of this province and this government to make sure that we achieve them. Our side of the House is strong and united. Our side of the House supports small government as a structure.

[1445]

Currently this government is conducting a core review to make sure that we're focused on those core elements, those core things that we need to focus on in order to achieve our objectives and our goals. We're going to realign any resources that we see that aren't focused on that core responsibility.

We're also making sure that we have the right people who make the right decisions at the right time based on the right information. And to ensure that we have the right systems and processes in place, we'll continually measure our progress to make sure that we are doing as we are required and as our plan has stated.

The third role of effective leadership is that we have to empower our team. We have to provide them with the tools and the guidelines they need to achieve our objectives and goals. Everyone in this House has read the mandate letters that each of our ministers has received from the Premier. Everybody understands the mandate that each of our ministers has, and it's very clear and transparent.

The fourth element in good leadership is modelling and walking the talk. The character and competence of my colleagues in government is what makes us strong. It brings the diversity of experience and talent necessary for effective leadership.

Our team emulates our core values. Integrity and decision-making that's consistent, fair, transparent and balanced. Fiscal responsibility to implement affordable public policies. Accountability means efficient, effective and credible government. We treat all citizens respectfully, equitably, compassionately. And we afford citizens the opportunity to exercise self-determination.

The Premier has communicated her vision clearly to British Columbians: the strong economy and a secure tomorrow; a debt-free province, supported by a strong natural resource sector; and balanced budgets year after year after year. That is why British Columbians elected this government on May 14 last year. We are committed to manage the people's money and responsibly manage the services we provide so we don't impose debt on future generations. Our grandchildren will benefit from living in a province that is debt-free.

The healthy economy and a secure tomorrow require that every British Columbian who wants to work has a job. That's not an easy objective to meet. It requires a laser focus in light of the global economic challenges all governments in Canada and, quite frankly, around the world have faced. Our jobs plan is in good hands with my colleague from Prince George–Valemount, the Minister of Jobs, Tourism and Skills Training, who has a long and proven track record in this government for getting things done.

As our population grows, the demands on our infrastructure grow. Our hospitals, our schools, our children and youth, our seniors, our roads, our bridges — everything has a greater impact on them now than it did 20 or 30 years ago.

In January of this year I was lucky enough to host a natural resources forum in Prince George. This was the 11th year that we've held such a forum in Prince George, and it was the first year that we've been able to refer to it as the Premier's Natural Resource Forum, demonstrating the importance that our Premier and our government places on responsible natural resource development.

Some of the largest resource-based companies in the world were represented at this forum. Represented by their CEOs or senior vice presidents, all gave posi-
[ Page 1519 ]
tive messages about the business opportunities and investment climate our government has created in this province. Over 650 people from across North America attended to gain insight into the future of resource development in British Columbia.

Members opposite often refer to the fact that this province is singularly minded when it comes to resource development as being LNG. I say that nothing could be further from the truth.

We have a strong forestry sector in this province that started many, many years ago. In the mid-'60s we had the pleasure of having Mr. Ray Williston, the Minister of Forests at the particular time — who served as Minister of Forests from 1966 to 1972 — have a look around and say: "We have got a great source of fibre in the interior of this province that has been virtually untouched."

[1450]

At the same time we had W.A.C. Bennett, who said: "We've got some great opportunities in British Columbia to generate hydroelectricity." The W.A.C. Bennett dam came to fruition as a result of that.

Mr. Williston had a look around, and he said that we have opportunities here — unprecedented opportunities at that particular time — to delve into forestry in a more aggressive fashion. He brought the pulp industry to British Columbia. That is still thriving in this province to this day. He brought mills to British Columbia that were nonexistent or were running on a small scale in the Interior.

We went from virtually no logging in the interior of B.C. to 60 or 70 million cubic metres of wood harvested every year in that part of the province. That continued until today. In fact, over the last decade, because of the pine beetle harvesting that we've had to do in relation to the pine attacks there, sometimes we were approaching 90 million cubic metres of wood per year being harvested.

Despite the world recession in 2008 and 2009, the crash of the U.S. housing market and the impacts of the mountain pine beetle epidemic, our forest industry still remains a strong economic contributor in British Columbia. In 2012 over 56,000 people were directly employed in the forest industry. B.C. exported over $6 billion in forest products in 2013.

Our government has worked extremely hard to help diversify our markets and has played a major role in increasing lumber exports to China. In 2013, B.C. exported $1.4 billion worth of forest products to China — and get this — roughly a 3,684 percent increase in exports to China since 2001. I think that's a remarkable feat. I think that was done from the insight of a Forests Minister back in the early days of the 2001 era of government as well as my predecessor for Prince George–Mackenzie working on that file.

Our government is also investing in exploring new wood technology. The Wood Innovation Design Centre is currently being built in downtown Prince George. In fact, I think they're working on the final storey of that structure at this particular time. Our government has invested $25.1 million into that project.

The centre will be recognized internationally for its innovation and incorporation of value-added wood products. The building will house research facilities and classroom space for the University of Northern B.C.'s new master's degree programs in wood engineering and science, and office space for industry organizations.

B.C. leads the world in sustainable forest management. It has the world's largest share of third-party certification forests in the world and is the largest exporter of softwood. It will continue to hold that status for time to come.

In the coming year we'll finish our review of the effectiveness of the B.C. Timber Sales and report out on recommendations to strengthen B.C. Timber Sales. We're committed to continuing to grow the forest sector, including through embarking on annual forest industry trade missions to Asia to find new markets and create jobs at home. There are opportunities in India and other countries in the Asian markets. That wasn't LNG. That was forestry, which still contributes significantly to the B.C. economy.

I will mention LNG. It offers generational opportunities for British Columbia. To ensure LNG is given every opportunity to succeed and come to fruition, the Premier has appointed a veteran member of this House, a senior member with a reputation for getting things done, as the minister responsible for natural gas development.

Budget 2014 provides $29 million over three years to ensure appropriate management of the province's LNG strategy to foster the successful development and growth of the industry. An additional $9 million over three years will help support environmental assessments of resource development, impacts of proposed LNG facilities and pipelines, mining and other projects.

This funding will facilitate coordinated and timely processing with respect to British Columbia's regulatory and permitting requirements and provide a strategic framework that benefits British Columbians while ensuring ongoing environmental protection, management and stewardship.

As the Finance Minister outlined when he delivered the budget, our government continues to develop and implement all the elements of a competitive tax and policy environment to assist with LNG development in B.C. The new B.C. LNG income tax is just one of several sources of new revenue British Columbians will see as the LNG industry develops in this province.

[1455]

Increased production of natural gas provides increased revenues through royalties. Construction creates economic benefits and generates revenue through income and sales tax. Once LNG plants become operational in British Columbia, new revenue will also be realized through additional corporate and personal income tax,
[ Page 1520 ]
sales tax, carbon tax, motor fuel tax and property taxes.

The LNG tax regime is based on four core principles that ensure a fair and balanced approach. A fair share for British Columbians is the first one. Natural gas is a publicly owned, non-renewable natural resource. As owners of the resource, British Columbians deserve an appropriate return. Our government will receive the revenues to invest in the priorities of British Columbia. This includes investing in programs and services that benefit taxpayers, help make family life more affordable and reduce provincial debt.

Competitive is the second one. B.C. taxpayers, workers and families will benefit from the jobs, investment and economic activity that come with the establishment of this new industry. The overall taxation framework, including all taxes, will be competitive with similar jurisdictions for this type of LNG environment. B.C.'s advantage is based on more than just a competitive tax rate. We have a skilled workforce. We have proximity to markets. We have large natural gas reserves, and we have a cooler climate.

Predictability is another factor. It provides proponents with a clear description of the fiscal regime prior to a final investment decision. The proposed tax is subject to approval of the Legislature. And we provide a level playing field. All proponents are subject to the same framework.

In addition to creating a tax to develop a source of revenue, we will create a prosperity fund into which a portion of new revenues will flow and be protected. Instead of servicing debt, we can move forward and invest in education, skills training, health care and other priorities.

We have another area that we're looking at, and that's liquid pipelines. We've had liquid pipelines in this province for 60 years in some cases. There's a liquid pipeline that's been running through Prince George now for over 50 years. There's a liquid pipeline that's been running from Edmonton to Vancouver for just as long.

We believe in combining environmental safety with British Columbians' fair share of economic gain. That is why the following requirements must be established before we consider supporting any new heavy-oil pipeline proposals.

Successful completion of the environmental review process is the first. Second is world-leading practices for oil spill response, prevention and recovery systems for B.C.'s coastline and ocean. Third, world-leading practices for land oil spill prevention, response and recovery systems. Fourth, legal requirements are addressed for treaty rights, and First Nations are provided with opportunities, information and the resources necessary to participate and benefit from heavy-oil products. And fifth, British Columbia receives a fair share of the fiscal and economic benefits of a proposed heavy-oil project that reflects the level, degree and nature of the risk borne by the province, the environment and the taxpayer.

When these five conditions are met, I will certainly be supporting heavy-oil pipelines in the province of British Columbia. In fact, we have another project in the very early stages of discussion — that of David Black's Kitimat Clean oil refinery. Should this project meet the five conditions for heavy-oil pipelines and meet the rigorous environmental standards of this province, I would certainly stand behind that project.

We have another resource that we're looking at in British Columbia: mining. Members opposite wrongly claim that this government has all its eggs in one basket, referencing, of course, the strategic focus that we have on LNG. The reality of the matter is that as they went through their 200 days of apparent inactivity, this government continued to work hard at developing a strong economy.

Since 2001, B.C. has been a leader in tax cuts and other fiscal measures to create a positive investment climate that is necessary for a thriving mining industry. At the Natural Resource Forum in Prince George in January our Premier referred to the mineral exploration and mining industry as a great comeback story. We are extending the B.C. mining flow-through share tax credit to December 31, 2014, to support mining and exploration.

Since the introduction of the jobs plan, two new mines have begun production. Two more will open this year, three more are permitted, and the province has approved seven expansions of existing mines.

[1500]

Today there are nine coal mines in operation, ten metal mines and more than 30 industrial mineral mines, and hundreds of aggregate pits and quarries across the province. This includes the new Mount Milligan mine located between Mackenzie and Fort St. James that opened in 2013, the first new mine in over a decade. It was my pleasure to attend that opening up there. To see the looks on the faces of the employees there was very gratifying. That was a $1.5 billion project. It provided 1,000 construction jobs and 400 permanent jobs.

The mining sector is a significant economic driver in our province, producing high-quality jobs all across our province. More than 30,000 people work in mineral exploration, mining and related activities, with an average salary of $121,000 a year. The 2012 mining revenues in B.C. were $9.2 billion, resulting in $504 million that we were able to spend on health, education and other government services.

Vancouver is the centre of one of the world's largest pools of international expertise in geology, mine engineering, project financing and environmental sustainability. All of those lead towards better services, towards families.

As I have previously stated, much of the inspiration that I've had to come to this House has been through my grandchildren. This government is committed to ensuring that our future generations aren't burdened by government debt and have access to education and jobs.
[ Page 1521 ]

Legislation will be introduced this spring to move the B.C. early childhood tax benefit forward. Beginning in April 2015 the tax benefit will provide $146 million each year to approximately 180,000 families. These families will receive up to $55 per month for each of their children under six years of age. While that isn't a huge quantity, this will help families.

In addition to the early childhood tax credit, the B.C. training and education savings grant program, announced in Budget 2013, is anticipated to benefit 27,000 children in 2013-14. In the year since government first announced the program, the number of B.C. families with RESPs has increased 10 percent. Children born in 2007 or later are eligible for the $1,200 grant. Families now have up to three years, after a child turns six, to apply for this grant. This is only one of the measures our government has taken to help set up our children for success in life.

With respect to small businesses, which are the backbone of this province, Prince George and Mackenzie are great places to invest and raise families. The cost of living is more affordable in these areas than large urban centres. Facilities and amenities are close together, providing convenience for families. Prince George and Mackenzie, like other communities in the province, offer great small business opportunities for entrepreneurial-minded people.

Small businesses, as I said, are the backbone of our provincial economy, and to increase British Columbia's competitive economic advantage, our government has committed, following through on reducing small business tax by 40 percent by 2018 and lowering our corporate income tax rate by 10 percent by 2018. When all taxes are considered, British Columbia enjoys one of the lowest overall tax burdens in Canada.

One of the other things that British Columbia enjoys that not too many other jurisdictions in Canada enjoy is a triple-A credit rating. Prudent and responsible management of public finances means that British Columbia holds on to its triple-A credit rating, the highest standard available, and is one of only three provinces to enjoy this status.

A triple-A credit rating is important for two reasons. It reduces the cost of servicing our debt compared to other provinces such as Ontario, with only a double-A-minus rating. We would be spending an additional $2 billion a year servicing the debt that we have, money that could well be spent elsewhere on vital programs and services.

Secondly, by lowering the government's borrowing costs, B.C. has the fiscal freedom to make significant capital investment in provincial infrastructure projects such as roads, bridges and improvements to health care facilities, schools and post-secondary institutions. British Columbia holds this status along with Alberta, Saskatchewan and Canada. All other provinces and territories are lower than triple-A.

[1505]

B.C. also has a low debt-to-GDP ratio, at 18.5 percent. Ontario, meanwhile, has a 37.5 percent debt-to-GDP, and Quebec has a 55.7 percent debt-to-GDP.

Balanced budget 2014 includes forecast surpluses in all three years of the fiscal plan: $184 million in 2014-2015, $206 million in 2015-2016 and $451 million in 2016-2017. B.C. is forecast to end the fiscal year of 2013-14 with a surplus of $175 million. While the fiscal plan shows continued spending discipline, modest surpluses allow government to make choices and ensure new spending is put towards priority areas.

In closing, I'd say that a balanced budget requires a disciplined approach on a daily basis to control spending. B.C. is only one of two provinces that are balancing their budget, which is something for us to be proud of. This budget is efficient, and this budget is practical.

L. Popham: It's an honour to rise in this Legislature and contribute to debate on Budget 2014 from the elected seat of Saanich South. The treasure this government has the privilege to spend is derived from the extraordinary natural wealth of this province. Of course, one of our greatest resources of all is the people of British Columbia. Their ingenuity, their labour and creativity allow this government a $44.416 billion budget.

The privilege of spending the provincial coffer brings with it a tremendous responsibility — responsibility to increase opportunities for all British Columbians, responsibility to link prosperity with equality, responsibility to protect our environment, responsibility to mitigate climate change so that we're prepared for a changing future and a responsibility to engage all citizens to embrace what they have to offer.

By those measures, surely measures that matter most, this budget is a failure, a complete failure. The failure to focus on our climate change crisis and preparing us for the challenges this will bring us is irresponsible and negligent. The failure to acknowledge the rapidly growing gap between rich and poor is cruel and a foolish political choice. The choice to underfund the very things that would grow our middle class, making our economy the very strongest it could be, is irrational, and it's reckless.

How did we get to this point? Part of the answer lies in the simple fact that this government has been in power for too long. Like all governments that become entrenched, this government has fallen in love with itself. We no longer have a people's government, a place where British Columbians are represented. We have a government that believes its own spin, regardless of facts, a government that has stopped listening to the 4.5 million citizens that live in B.C., shushing them away so that they can hear more clearly the words coming from their own government song sheets.

There are many examples where this is very apparent. The first example is the record of how many days we have sat in this chamber: just 36 days in all of 2013, shut-
[ Page 1522 ]
ting down democracy so that, I suppose, more mirrors could be hung around the cabinet table, reflecting only the thoughts of conformity and concurrence and tolerating no room for dialogue or disagreement — no room for democracy in their house of mirrors.

The next obvious example of a government which governs by elitism is shutting down parliamentary committees. How ironic that the Premier recently rattled off an official announcement of legislative committees, when we all know that most will never sit at all. It's obvious to me that the empress has no clothes. Our democratically elected Premier has a very thin commitment to democracy itself. It's not surprising, then, that she called Victoria a sick culture.

In fact, the parliamentary committees have much to offer. I have had the pleasure of sitting on the two select standing committees that are bipartisan and sit regularly. They are Public Accounts and the Standing Committee on Finance. Both committees have been extremely useful to the work of this House. They are places where all members have value.

The B.C. Liberal government fails to recognize that each of us in this House represents a part of British Columbia. We were all elected to participate in governing this province. Select standing committees allow us to do that, and I believe that's why they are underutilized by this current regime.

[1510]

I called for a select standing committee on agriculture for four years straight, but my request was ignored by the B.C. Liberals. That, in my view, is completely daft. It's like building a house of cards and expecting it to be strong. The funny thing is that this government believes that British Columbians gave them a mandate in the last election to do whatever they wanted to do in this budget. But the election results actually tell a different story. So 3.1 million of B.C.'s 4.5 million population registered to vote in the last election, and only 52 percent of registered voters voted. That means that only about 1.6 million people voted, out of 4.5 million residents.

Of course, they didn't all vote for the B.C. Liberals. In fact, 733,000 voters voted B.C. Liberal, but 2.5 million registered voters didn't. That's the way our system works at the moment, and it has allowed the B.C. Liberals to stay in power.

We all have to live with that and work with that unfortunate reality for three more years. But given the numbers, one might think that the B.C. Liberal government, instead of being punch-drunk in love with itself, would have a little respect for everyone else in B.C., regardless of how they voted.

They have been given the honour of governing B.C.; it's not supposed to be a position of entitlement. But as we see in this chamber and outside this chamber, they continue to primp and preen and apply lipstick in the rearview mirror while driving through the red lights in British Columbia. This is today's B.C. Liberals.

Over the last week my colleagues have exposed numerous deep flaws in this budget. There is a theme in Budget 2014: pay more, and get less. The B.C. Liberals have a sorry history of broken promises, bungled initiatives and eye-popping boondoggles.

I know that this debate and the estimates debate to follow create a thin opening through which we can poke and prod the members opposite. Maybe, just maybe, they will acknowledge to themselves, in a quiet moment of obvious truth, that the budget could be improved if they listened to their opponents with humility and an open mind. That is the respect that all British Columbians deserve from this government.

This budget would be improved if they used our criticisms to identify and correct the errors and shortcomings which are inescapable in a project of this kind. To that end, I will focus my remarks on five areas: the environment, small business, tourism, arts and culture, and agriculture.

The environment. The budget introduced an outline of how liquid natural gas revenues will be structured, but in doing so, the government continues to deny a fundamental contradiction. This is a contradiction we must confront as a province before moving ahead to exploit this resource. This contradiction, a painful and glaring contradiction, is between the government's LNG goals and the urgent need to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions.

It is an obvious and enormously consequential truth that if the Premier were to deliver on her LNG promises, B.C. could not even come close to meeting our targets for reduction of GHG emissions. Are the good members opposite so blinded by the billions that just might flow into government coffers through this risky gamble of LNG that they cannot see the devastating environmental consequences which could result?

Leaving aside, for reasons of time today, the tremendously important question of freshwater usage and other unaddressed health and environmental concerns with current fracking techniques, which an independent scientific study could address, there remains the challenge of LNG's carbon pollution.

For the Premier to keep her election-winning promise of a "Debt-free B.C.," she will need five LNG plants on-line. According to the Pembina Institute, those plants, and the shale gas extraction and processing associated with them, would create more than 73 megatonnes of carbon pollution each year — 73 megatonnes. And yet our modest legislative climate targets are 43 megatonnes by 2020 and 13 megatonnes by 2050.

In other words, the government is promising a new industry that brings with it 73 megatonnes of carbon pollution in a year, while maintaining legislation requiring provincewide emission reductions to 13 megatonnes a year. What hypocrisy.

Instead of acknowledging this contradiction, the gov-
[ Page 1523 ]
ernment said in its throne speech that LNG is "the greatest single step we can take to fight climate change." That was a whopper big enough to make George Orwell blush.

Natural gas is a valuable resource. It could, and perhaps should, be used as a transitional fuel as we move towards a low-carbon economy. But to get there, we need this government to come clean about the consequences of LNG and lead a much-needed debate on how best to take advantage of this resource. Instead, we are insulted with exaggerated promises that contradict the environmental crisis we face in this province.

[1515]

Small business. Turning to small business, there are many examples of failure in this budget, but I'd like to focus on the decision not to renew the LiveSmart small business program. This shortsighted decision also provides further illustration of this budget's unacceptable lack of attention to the environment.

Conservation is the cleanest and least expensive way to meet the increasing demand for electricity in British Columbia. The more energy we conserve now, the fewer sources of supply our province will need in the future. Who would disagree with this statement? Certainly not the Minister of Energy and Mines. It is taken verbatim from the ministry's website.

The obvious truth of this conservation principle makes it easy to understand why the B.C. government boasted before the election about renewing funds for the LiveSmart B.C. small business program. At the time the government and B.C. Hydro called this funding big news for small business. The modest $1.5 million program provides eco-audits for B.C. businesses that want to reduce their energy usage. What is harder to understand is why the B.C. government is not renewing funding for this program in the budget.

It couldn't be because it hasn't been successful. In fact, since 2011 the program has completed 4,500 assessments and inspired businesses to spend over $3 million in energy-efficient changes. Small business owners have saved over $13 million annually in energy costs, lowered electrical consumption by 145 gigawatt hours and reduced greenhouse gas emissions in B.C. by over 3,000 tonnes. Nor could it be because the program has completed its work. Less than 5 percent of eligible B.C. businesses have participated in this program so far.

It certainly can't be because energy rates are going down for business. This program will end March 31. The day after, on April Fools' Day, B.C. Hydro rates will spike by 9 percent.

Hydro rates are expected to increase 25 percent over the next five years. If the B.C. Liberal government doesn't reconsider and renew funding for the LiveSmart B.C. small business program in the budget, it will be further evidence of their appalling failure to confront climate change and their betrayal of their supposed commitment to small business.

Tourism. This budget also gets a failing mark from the tourism industry. I will focus on an example which also demonstrates further evidence of this government's failure to adequately support small business.

While the province extracts almost $3 billion in direct taxation from the industry, it's failing to adequately support it. This is clearly seen in the penny-wise, pound-foolish decision to defund the Discovery coast ferry route which runs between Port Hardy and Bella Coola.

Many of the resource-based industries in the area are struggling, and tourism has become more and more important to the local economy. In fact, one-third of local businesses rely on visitors who come by ferry. That is why provincial tourism associations are calling the cuts to ferry service in this budget a disaster.

The ferries are an extension of the highways. Inland ferries are treated as such, and the costs to run them are described as investments by this government. But there is a double standard when it comes to ferries on the coast. Here the operating costs paid for by taxpayers are labelled subsidies. In the government's twisted logic, highways cannot lose money; only ferries can.

To add insult to injury, cancelling this ferry service will cost the province more in lost tax revenue than it would to subsidize the run. According to the Tourism Industry Association of B.C., the total provincial taxes generated by the route are almost $800,000, while B.C. Ferries reports that it loses $725,000 on the route.

The report goes on to note that every year the Discovery coast ferry brings in almost $6 million in revenue for the B.C. tourism industry, and 47 percent of tourist-dependent businesses between Bella Coola and Williams Lake will likely go out of business if the summer ferry service from Port Hardy to Bella Coola is cancelled.

Once we were "Super, natural B.C.," but I guess now we are supertanker B.C. If the government had analyzed the impact of ferry services on the tourism sector and on its own bottom line, it would not have acted the way it did.

[1520]

In estimates last year when I asked the Minister for Tourism how many tourists ride the ferries, she was unable to answer the question and said: "I don't have access to that information." This government claims to have made a hard decision when, in fact, it was an uneducated decision.

Arts and culture. This budget also fails the arts and culture community. There is so much talk about growing the economy from that side of the House, repeated so often that the meaning has been lost. How about creating the economy?

Once again this government is failing to capitalize on the enormous talents of B.C.'s 26,000 artists. The creative sector GDP is more than $4 billion annually. Between 2002 and 2007 the growth of this sector outpaced agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting combined, yet investment in arts and culture is flatlined in this budget.
[ Page 1524 ]
This comes after years of harsh cuts and underfunding between 2009 and 2011.

For example, there was a 40 percent cut to the B.C. Arts Council. The latest data I have access to from 2012 shows this government to be the lowest per-capita funder among all provinces in Canada. Arts groups have called for investment in B.C. Arts Council grant programs to be a minimum of $32 million in the 2014 budget, but this request was ignored once again.

Even this government's own Select Standing Committee on Finance, which I sat on, wholeheartedly recommended additional funding to the B.C. Arts Council. Before the members opposite indulge with their usual heckled clichés about living within our means and so on, let me remind them that this government's own research has indicated that every dollar invested in the arts brings back $1.38.

The members opposite only have to refer to an excellent document called Moving B.C.'s Creative Industries Forward. It's a cross-sectoral approach to being educated on the need to embrace this sector for the sake of our economy. It's part of a creative and greener economy that we're all looking for.

Investing in the arts is an investment that pays handsome dividends, and just as importantly, the arts enrich our lives. The arts bring us joy and inspiration and can help us see the world in new ways. I call on the members opposite to recognize the remarkable creativity and potential of the arts and culture community.

This government is in desperate need of new energy, new ideas and new ways of seeing old problems. This budget is definitive evidence of that. So why not draw on the creative sector itself? Why not create a select standing committee on arts, culture and the creative economy? We can give people who are experts in arts and culture direct access to the parliamentary process.

The select standing committee on arts, culture and the creative economy could help create and move forward a provincial vision for arts and culture, something that is currently missing in B.C., as this budget demonstrates. This committee could help fill the gap by forging stronger connections between people working in the arts and the people making arts policy so the decisions we make today will keep the creative industry thriving in this province for years to come.

This committee could also help forge stronger connections between arts leaders and tourism advocates, including our new Crown corporation Destination B.C. We can formalize this connection and make arts a more central part of our provincial tourism strategy. This is a simple and long-overdue step that could lead to an improved regional economy, protection and support for our unique cultural institutions and more stable careers for those working in the creative industries. This is a relatively inexpensive idea that could be accomplished within the existing budget.

Hundreds of artists across B.C. have joined me, through a petition, in calling on government to create this committee. Why not take advantage of the creative sector? Certainly, this government has not met a resource it didn't want to exploit.

Agriculture. I never thought I would see such a hideous attack on the public trust as I have seen in the past six months with agriculture. I have watched something play out over the past five years that I've been elected in regards to the B.C. Liberals and their unsupportive position for agriculture in B.C. Agriculture is the reason I got into politics to begin with, and I knew that, coming in, I was going to have to fight for our future and food security for agriculture. This fight has now reached a point that I consider a complete emergency.

If a poll was done and over 85 percent of people in B.C. supported a certain policy direction, like the agricultural land reserve, what do you think most governments would do? Well, any rational, trustworthy government would respect the public trust and carry on supporting that policy direction, but not today's B.C. Liberals.

[1525]

The Minister of Energy and Mines has taken it upon himself to do a core review within government. Is this problematic in principle? Not at all. But this minister's intent, in my opinion, is not about fiscal responsibility when it comes to the core review on the Agricultural Land Commission.

This minister doesn't deserve the power he holds, as he has betrayed the trust of the people in this province with his intention to weaken the Agricultural Land Commission. He would hog-tie them when it comes to protecting our agricultural land reserve.

I don't trust this minister. I don't know what type of legislation this government is planning on presenting in this Legislature around the Agricultural Land Commission in the coming days, but it's obvious that there was no need to do a core review on an organization that was becoming stronger by the month and becoming more able to fulfil its mandate of protecting our food-growing lands and encouraging farming.

Spin it as much as you like, but this minister, in my view, has never supported the ALR. It's always been in the way of his own short-term vision of development. Don't tell me that this isn't a problem within the Liberal caucus. Don't tell me that the cabinet isn't fighting internally over this enormous threat and proposed changes. I know that there's trouble brewing in B.C. Liberal paradise.

For those members of the government side of the House who know that the ALR is worth fighting for, I plead with you to fight. Don't be bullied into submission by a minister who is willing and happy to destroy our agricultural land reserve.

Last week in the chamber my colleague the member for Port Coquitlam, our Finance critic, was responding to the budget and the fiction of the LNG file. The Minister
[ Page 1525 ]
of Energy and Mines yelled out from his seat that we on the opposition side of this House should start getting a taste for crow, implying that we would be eating crow over the LNG file.

Perhaps unicorns really do exist — just as the gazillions of dollars of profit we will see from LNG. But I thought it was fitting that the minister made a comment on what we will be eating, because if left up to this minister, crow is all the homegrown food we will have left to eat in B.C.

This minister and this government have embarked on a plan to fatally weaken the Agricultural Land Commission. They can deny it. They can claim to be making it stronger, but everybody is watching, and everybody knows they can't be trusted with this file. They can't be trusted with the most effective land use tool this province has ever seen.

The agricultural land reserve is the reason we have food-growing lands left in this province, land put aside for the future. For me, politics is not simply about power; it's about our collective future. Farming and food production are a key part of the sustainable economy if we embrace its potential.

It's with a great deal of sadness that I have watched the scandalous behaviour of this government since the election — relentless pressure to influence an independent commission and weaken the Agricultural Land Commission; a minister in charge of a core review so enthralled by power that he bats away the majority of British Columbians, who believe in the agricultural land reserve.

Led by former Premier Dave Barrett, the New Democrats — and people from all political walks of life who were brave enough to push hard — put the ALR policy in 40 years ago. With this government's decision to attack farmland, they are not just taking us back 40 years to when the agricultural land reserve was created; they're taking us back 50 to 60 years to when food-growing lands were disappearing fast. This is an alarming direction — to dismantle the agricultural land reserve and push forward and turn our food-growing lands into gas lands in order to feed the government's budget with LNG.

This B.C. Liberal government is not just dismantling the agricultural land reserve; they're dismantling our future. The chair of the Agricultural Land Commission said it so well last year: "One day oil and gas up there is going the way of the dodo bird. There's going to be nothing left." But agriculture on that land, if it's looked after and looked after well around this province, will continue to help feed us. To me, this is our very, very important natural resource.

None of the reasons that the B.C. Liberals are giving British Columbians now to destroy the ALR change the validity of the reasons why the ALR was put in place. This policy was right then, and it's right now. The B.C. Liberal philosophy is all about short-term gain and political expediency. In the case of the intent of the ALR, it was never about short-term gain. The agricultural land reserve was about long-term sustainable growth, our natural resource and, by extension, our economy. It was about protecting our food-producing lands.

[1530]

How can we ensure that the ALR is secure for us? Agriculture and food production are not a sunset industry in British Columbia. It's an integral part of our future. It's about climate change resiliency. It's about small business. It's about tourism. It's about our culture. And it's about a stable economy.

It was a rare moment, a proud moment in our history as British Columbians, that we came together and made a commitment for future generations. We committed to protecting our food-growing lands, and we made a decision to protect what was left. And now, more than ever, we know we did the right thing. We have no clear idea of what's coming down the track with regard to climate change, but we do know that food production will be affected.

We are seeing that right now in California — the terrible impact of climate change on agriculture. Some 300,000 acres of prime farmland that are usually green and full of food are dusty and devoid of life. I have brought this challenge up every chance I've had since being elected. The reality is that we are not prepared for climate change effects and food security. We are not, but we could be. It should not only be part of a proper emergency preparedness plan in this province but part of a business opportunity that we go after with the same energy as an opportunity like LNG.

We know that our current food-sourcing locations will change as weather affects production capacity. We see it already. Talk to any farmer, and she will tell you that there are already changes and challenges with weather and farming. Not only will we need to feed ourselves, but we will have the opportunity to feed other regions more heavily affected.

Driven by their shortsightedness, this government is sure to destroy what we need for the future. Political expediency will not only cost us but will have cost everyone who comes after us. Shame on this government.

From my comments, you may surmise that I will not be supporting Budget 2014. It's a budget that is designed by a government that has forgotten that the opportunity to govern is a privilege and not a right; designed by a government that has failed to bridge prosperity with equality and doesn't understand that the widening gap between rich and poor is a political choice; designed by a government that is willing to gamble away our future, betting on an industry that is unstable and unproven; and finally, designed by a government that is profoundly failing the people of B.C. by ignoring the climate change crisis.

G. Kyllo: It is with great pleasure that I rise today in
[ Page 1526 ]
the chamber and respond to our balanced budget 2014. Our government's fiscal plan was presented to this House last Tuesday.

First, I would like to ask the House to indulge me for a moment to congratulate the Olympic men's hockey team on their incredible win on Sunday morning — in particular, in giving a special warm welcome and a thank-you to the pride of Sicamous, Shea Weber. Shea was instrumental in scoring the very first goal of the tournament and also scored the winning goal in the very close game against Latvia. Shea did a marvellous job in bringing home gold in back-to-back Olympics.

And a special thank-you to all the Canadian athletes who represented us in Sochi. You did such a fantastic job.

I'd also like to take the opportunity to extend my sincere appreciation to my family and a number of individuals that have been of great assistance to me this past year. First and most importantly, I wish to thank my lovely wife, Georgina — my wife of 25 years, my high school sweetheart.

Georgina, thank you for all of your love, your dedication and your understanding and support this past year as I've made the transition from our family business to becoming the MLA for Shuswap.

I'd also like to thank my beautiful, kind and caring girls: Sarah, Brittany, Angela and Samantha. And yes, I'd like to also mention my beautiful granddaughter, Kylie Angela Plock, who is just eight days old today.

A very special thank-you must also go to Brian Cowan, president of the Shuswap Liberal Riding Association. Brian is truly the hardest-working riding association president in B.C. and was instrumental in assembling a team of equally talented and hard-working volunteers to run an extremely effective election campaign in the Shuswap.

I'd like to thank Holly Cowan, my constituency assistant, for all of her diligent work keeping me informed on the issues of the Shuswap. Holly is truly amazing, and I'm fortunate to have her managing my constituency office in Salmon Arm. I'd also like to thank all the staff here in Victoria for all of their hard work and dedication in assisting me and the other members of the government caucus.

[1535]

Lastly, I'd like to provide a special thank-you to the residents of the Shuswap for electing me this past May and providing me the incredible opportunity to represent you in Victoria. I am truly honoured.

Now, on to the business at hand: balanced budget 2014. This year's budget fulfils the most fundamental promise we made to British Columbians in May: to balance the budget by controlling spending and keeping taxes low. It was a tough challenge to overcome, but by making the tough choices and prudent planning, we achieved this goal to achieve our commitments and keep B.C.'s finances in the black, one of only two jurisdictions to do so in all of Canada.

This budget is a model of what responsible government looks like and how focusing on long-term goals will help to ensure we'll have a strong economy and a secure tomorrow for all British Columbians. On this side of the House we believe in spending the public purse prudently and wisely. We do not try to make excuses — supporting running deficits and burdening future generations with debt they didn't incur. The sound financial management of this government is an example of a responsibility to keep British Columbia's triple-A credit rating in a world where economic fluctuations and uncertainty continue to put pressure on the global and provincial economy.

This is exactly why I commend the Minister of Finance and our Premier for their leadership and hard work to achieve this commitment to balance this year's budget for the people of British Columbia. A promise made. A promise kept.

Budgeting and financial prudence is an incredibly important aspect in managing your own household and running a business and, indeed, in running a government. Our government understands this and has taken the same approach in responsibly managing the public accounts and spending your tax dollars in a wise and prudent manner. We cannot keep our province on a path of a secure tomorrow unless we plan, save and manage our provincial finances accordingly.

Before I became the MLA for Shuswap, I worked in the private sector, spending the past 26 years growing a small family business in Sicamous into Canada's largest houseboat company, serving over 26,000 houseboat vacationers annually with two full-service marinas on beautiful Shuswap Lake. Shuswap Lake truly has to be the best boating in western Canada, and I feel blessed to have been able to both work and live in the Shuswap. Houseboating is truly an incredible vacation experience, and we have enjoyed showcasing the Shuswap Lakes to visitors from around the globe, showcasing the best that B.C. has to offer.

Our family businesses have expanded and diversified over the years to include manufacturing operations through a number of affiliated companies with a variety of product lines, including the production of houseboats for the commercial rental industry both in Canada and the U.S.; modular buildings for the oil, gas, mining and forestry industry; and composite roller-coaster bodies for the amusement park industry.

I truly believe that building and running a business and having the responsibility of providing jobs for B.C. families provide one with an impassioned and unique perspective that will be of immeasurable value to me in serving government. There is a marked difference between those who have had the responsibility for signing the front of a paycheque from those who have only signed the back.

I have firsthand knowledge of the enormous positive
[ Page 1527 ]
economic and social impacts small businesses have on communities. Job creation and skills-training opportunities for youth are the lifeblood of small communities throughout B.C. A healthy community is a working community, and our small business sector plays a pivotal role in B.C.'s economy. In addition to direct wages and investments in capital and equipment, the reach of businesses is far greater.

However, business growth has its ups and it has its downs. We witnessed economic crisis in 2008, and we saw it take its toll on the many businesses and industries throughout the world and, indeed, in British Columbia. My businesses were not immune to this economic shock, and we had to make tough decisions to weather that economic storm. We were nimble and had to think outside the box — diversify operations in order to keep our men and women working and the factory doors open. Thousands of other businesses across B.C. experienced similar realities and exemplified the determination, the creativity and the resilience of British Columbia.

B.C. businesses are in a great position to capitalize on growth opportunities in B.C. in the years ahead. Through this experience and now as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Jobs, Tourism and Skills Training and responsible for the B.C. jobs plan, I have a good understanding of the needs of small business.

[1540]

What businesses want government to do is to stabilize the economy and deliver competitive tax rates in a predictable and streamlined regulatory regime, creating a business-friendly environment for businesses to both grow and prosper. Our government is delivering just that.

The most effective role our government can do in balancing the budget is controlling spending in all sectors of government and public service delivery, maintaining a disciplined approach to spending while keeping personal and corporate income taxes low. Creating efficiencies wherever possible in the delivery and management of public services is not just the right thing to do, but it's one of the most important core values that this side of the House works on every single day.

The core review process is determining the priorities and evaluating the effectiveness of government programs and services and changing the way we're delivering public services throughout the province. Finding the best possible use of taxpayer dollars and using government resources wisely is one of the key aspects by which we tabled a balanced budget in this House.

As a member of the cabinet working group on core review, I will say that my colleagues are working diligently on finding ways to find savings wherever possible, looking for opportunities to streamline operations and to make the most use of every hard-earned tax dollar. Our ministers and deputy ministers have already been to work on reviewing all of the programs that our government delivers, including agencies, boards and commissions that fall under each ministry.

That being said, we are not reviewing or accepting recommendations that will affect programs or services that affect the most vulnerable British Columbians, who truly depend on the programs and services they so much rely on. For instance, our government is investing $243 million in Community Living B.C. to maintain existing services for adults — and their families — with developmental disabilities and a further $50 million for children and youth with special needs.

We have already been accomplishing many of the goals we set out in our mandate, yet there is still much work to be done. We are committed to continuing to work hard every single day to achieve these goals.

Investing in our infrastructure is benefiting the people of the Shuswap and in the interior of B.C. Projects such as four-laning of Highway 1 from Kamloops to the Alberta border will help my region tremendously. Improved safety and reduced travel times will benefit locals, tourists and the commercial transportation industry moving goods throughout the interior of B.C. to markets both east and west.

Our balanced budget also makes the essential investments for the completion of the NorKam trade centre of excellence in Kamloops and the Okanagan College trades training complex in Kelowna that will provide our region a new source of skilled labour and tradespeople, particularly in construction and industrial skills that are in high demand in the Shuswap. The people of the Shuswap understand that their well-being and economic prosperity does not come from government subsidies or reckless spending.

On the strong economy. By committing to balance the budget for the next three years, we are laying the foundation to foster and grow our economy, instilling confidence among businesses that our financial position will remain one of the best in North America for many years to come. That's extremely important in attracting new investments from around the world.

Why is this important? Why does it matter that the government of British Columbia balances the books? It matters because stability matters in a global economy that's been shattered by financial crises in Europe and right here at home in 2008 and 2009.

When economic crises happen, businesses reduce spending, lay off workers and reduce economic output, which makes everyone else worse off. This government is doing everything we can, on this side of the House, to make sure that we keep our own fiscal house in order and the B.C. economy strong. Simply put, we are not going to recklessly spend away our future's best interests.

Keeping a balanced budget ensures that we will not burden the future generations of British Columbia — not for my kids, not for my grandkids — with the spending we do today. That's what this government believes, and that is what I believe.
[ Page 1528 ]

However, we achieved a very laudable goal in balancing the budget without burdening taxpayers with higher taxes, as personal income tax rates for individuals and families earning less than $121,000 remain the lowest in the country.

When we keep taxes low and reduce the cost of doing business in British Columbia, we keep businesses right here in B.C. When businesses across B.C. are strong and our government takes leadership to encourage new investment from around the world, the result is creating new jobs and opportunities in industries in every region of the province — yes, including my constituency of the Shuswap as well.

[1545]

The Conference Board of Canada in their most recent report cited British Columbia to be a leading province in the nation in economic growth by 2015. This is possible largely because this government has already put in place the necessary fundamentals — a tax regime that encourages foreign investment and trade, and encouraging and supporting new and proposed natural resource projects.

Because this government is keeping taxes low on businesses and on B.C. families, we are fostering and encouraging stable economic growth. Continuously investing in infrastructure projects will meet the demand of industries and businesses to increase exports. As a result of our fiscal record, investors and companies from around the world know that B.C. is truly one of the best places to invest and grow.

Our budget is much more than dollars and cents. The people of British Columbia are our greatest resource. We are keeping our commitment to invest in British Columbians, particularly in families and our children.

Our government is providing the necessary funding to help families save for their children's post-secondary education through the B.C. education savings grant, providing every child in B.C. born after 2007 a $1,200 grant to be invested in their RESP. This program will provide 40,000 families a head start in saving for post-secondary education — for university or trade school tuition and any other education costs that they may incur.

Our balanced budget is also investing in the B.C. early-years strategy with funding of $17.7 million for 1,000 new child care spaces, with priority going to areas particularly underserved by existing child care facilities. By expanding child care services across the entire province, more parents can easily achieve a work-life balance and have confidence that their children are taken care of in safe and accredited facilities and by child care professionals.

Another program that is benefiting our children and families is the child and youth tax credit, providing families with eligible children up to $55 per month to help families pay many expenses for their child. Having raised four daughters myself, I know that every little bit counts.

Helping young British Columbians buy a home is also another highlight worth mentioning. This government has increased the threshold for the first-time-homebuyers exemption from the property transfer tax to $475,000, reducing the cost of first-time home ownership and providing up to $7,500 of savings, which can be reinvested in renovating or paying down their mortgage. These investments make the quality of life for families, which is already the best in the world, just that much better.

A secure tomorrow also means expanding British Columbians' opportunities around the world, where the end result will be increased economic growth, more job opportunities and diversified export markets.

I commend the work by our Premier, our government and the staff of the Ministry of International Trade for taking the time to build the relationships overseas with the fastest-growing economies in Asia. Several successful trade missions have brought together government, the private sector and key stakeholders from across the province to promote and highlight the advantages of investing in B.C.

This government has been proactive since coming into office in 2001. Trade with Asia grew from just 19.5 percent of GDP to over 40 percent today. These are real results, real leadership by our government to expand and diversify our markets and to grow our economy. Creating new relationships with foreign markets increased demand for our forestry, our manufactured goods and natural resource products, guaranteeing that we will always have buyers ready to purchase B.C. products.

This diversification of our export markets helped reduce the shocks and impacts of the U.S. economy, which, as we all know, had a dramatic impact on our economy and our provincial finances. But we recovered, and we have learned the lessons from the most recent economic crisis. We will continuously work to ensure our economy is stronger and more prepared in the event of an economic crisis that may occur in a foreign economy. Diversification is key.

By keeping B.C.'s debt-to-GDP ratio two times less than Ontario and three times less than Quebec, we are in a very enviable position to make us an economic leader in our nation. This is real leadership, and we've been rewarded a triple-A credit rating, providing worldwide lenders and investors the confidence they need to invest in British Columbia.

[1550]

By laying the foundation for a stable, growing economy and by commitment to prudent fiscal management, investors have increased confidence, investing in multi-million-dollar — in the case of LNG projects, multi-billion-dollar — projects in our province.

Our debt-to-GDP ratio will continue to improve through our plan to utilize revenues and royalties from LNG projects. We will continue to work towards making British Columbia the best place — and I'll repeat — the best place in the world to invest and grow your business.
[ Page 1529 ]

A strong economy and a secure tomorrow matter to B.C. We have a duty in this chamber to strive towards ensuring that we leave this province in a better state than we inherited it and in a financial position that is on a path of prosperity that will benefit many generations to come.

Our balanced budget 2014 is building a path for a better British Columbia, and I am proud to stand in this chamber and speak of the importance of fiscal responsibility, of having a framework for economic growth — from diversifying markets, continuing to invest in infrastructure projects throughout the province and, of course, the promises that this side of the House made to the people of British Columbia and that I made to the people of the Shuswap last May.

I'm extremely proud to be a member of this government, and I'll be voting for this government's second consecutive balanced budget. As we continue to work hard to control spending and expand our economy, I know that I'll be standing here this time next year and supporting our government's third consecutive balanced budget.

K. Conroy: I'm pleased to rise in the House and respond to the budget that was delivered last week. In reference to the nautical theme that the minister invoked, I have to say that as I sat listening to the budget presentation, I turned to my colleagues and said that I was getting decidedly seasick. I see others have felt the same way, as I have heard it repeated. Certainly, people from my constituency have.

We heard about rising costs to British Columbians, without the jobs needed to pay for those costs. There are so many ways that people in my constituency are affected, I hardly know where to start. I talk to parents in my communities, parents who are struggling to make ends meet while raising their kids, while they themselves are working or going to school.

One mom said she was trying to figure out how to continue to pay for child care while working and going to school part-time so she could get a good, family-supporting job. She has to work, as she can't afford the tuition and costs associated with school on her budget, and her daughter takes any additional costs that she can get. Another mom said that with two kids needing after-school care and a newborn, her dream of going back to school to finish her nursing degree has to be put on hold. Nursing — a career that not only pays a family-supporting wage but also a profession that we really need in this province right now.

Both have said that they would rather have the $55 a month invested in an affordable, accessible child care system that they could utilize to support them becoming contributing taxpayers in this province. For them, $55 doesn't even begin to cover child care. For example, in our area infant-toddler is about $47 a day, three-to-five-year-old care is $37, and out-of school care is $22. If it's before and after school, or it's on a full-day basis, it's $35. And this is relatively inexpensive compared to Lower Mainland costs.

For the Kootenay moms, the $55 would cover, for one of them, 1.5 days a month of child care. For the other one, the one with the infant and two school-aged kids, not even one day. They said to me: "How can the $55 help us to get a good, family-supporting job to make sure that our kids will get the kind of care that they need? We can't do it." One mom said that it doesn't even cover the cost of Pampers for the month. She said: "What am I going to do?" I said: "Yeah, this is what's happening with the $55. What's it going to cover?"

[1555]

I had another mother that said to me that while she liked the idea of money being invested in an RESP for her two-month-old…. She said, "What I really need right now is not an investment in an RESP that my child might use in 18 to 20 years. What I really need is to make sure that he gets a good early childhood education right now." Something that all the studies show is that in order for a child to succeed in post-secondary education, they need a good quality early childhood education experience.

Her suggestion was to put that money into early childhood, because even though there is some commitment to open more spaces, there's no commitment to ensure funding for those spaces. There's no commitment to ensure that early childhood educators should receive the decent wages and working conditions that they deserve. They're taking care of some of our most precious people in our community, in our society, and not getting the recognition that they deserve.

People are talking to me about the education system and what's happening to their kids. They talk about the crowded classrooms, the kids who need extra help, the teachers and teaching assistants who struggle to make sure all the kids' needs are being met.

One example really stood out for me. I attended a Christmas concert. Three of my grandkids are all in the same elementary school, and I try to go every year to their Christmas concerts. I think this is the fifth one that I've been to. The principal, Mr. Naka, pointed out this year that this is one of the few schools in our region, in fact, in the province — when he talks to other principals — that still has a music program in the elementary school age and that even do a concert at Christmas.

He said it's primarily due to this commitment from a teacher, Mrs. Bagshaw, an incredible teacher who gives that extra effort to make sure they have a choir. Can you imagine a choir of kids from kindergarten to grade five? But she does it, and it's incredible what those kids do. Those teachers struggle to ensure that everyone is included and that everyone gets a chance to perform. I have to tell you, there are hundreds of parents, hundreds of grandparents and people that cram into the gym to watch this concert.

We think: "Imagine the patience of these teachers."
[ Page 1530 ]
Then I think of what they're up against. I think of the kids who aren't getting services that they should be getting. I mean, are we going to relegate education to reading, writing and arithmetic? Isn't that what it was in the '50s?

I think we have to make sure that kids get a really rounded education. It's all since this government began the attack on our school system that things are being lost in the school system. Music is just one of those things. Removing supports from the classrooms, increasing class sizes, changing the funding formulas — those have all contributed to ongoing struggles for kids, teachers and administrators throughout this province.

I spoke to a grade 11 class recently. Those kids have been subjected to the systemic eroding of their education the entire 12 years that they have been in school. Some have done okay, and others haven't done okay. The shortsightedness of the policies that have been implemented — they'll cost us. They're going to cost us the children. They're going to cost those who didn't get the proper education they should have got. And it's going to cost in the supports that they'll have to get once they become adults if they're struggling.

It's a financial burden, one that we will all have to pay. I think we can thank the current Premier for that, as a former Education Minister, for her lack of foresight and true commitment to the education of children in this province, a lack of commitment that carries on today, especially when one looks at the budget and what funding is actually earmarked for education.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

Then to learn that the Premier and the B.C. Liberals have been caught out deliberately trying to provoke a strike that would have hurt kids and our schools for their own political advantage. One hardly knows what to say. But I know parents in my constituency have said what they'd like to say, and they've said things that I can't repeat in the House. They're frustrated. They watch what happens to their kids in the classrooms, and they can't believe that this would happen in this day and age.

I talked to a number of people who are struggling to complete their post-secondary education, struggling because we have some of the highest costs in the country for our students. Another area where this government is number one — but they don't seem to have a slogan for it. We have the highest interest rates for student loans and the lowest support for student grants.

[1600]

I got some figures today that were really quite telling, figures from a Bank of Montreal survey — a fairly credible source, not some radical left-wing outfit, as the government often accuses us of quoting, but a Bank of Montreal survey.

The average student debt upon graduation in B.C. is $34,866. If the loan to pay it back is amortized over a ten-year schedule, they will pay $10,546 in interest, which results in a 33 percent premium being paid by those students who have to borrow to attend post-secondary education in this province — a cost that really shouldn't be incurred. It's just not right.

You need to ask: who is really the tax-and-spend party in this province? Obviously, it's this Liberal government, who are taxing students by having them pay some of the highest interest rates in the country. It's cheaper in B.C. to get a mortgage for a home than a student loan. Who really benefits by those interest rates to students? Certainly not the students.

What was the response in the budget to people in this province who are getting or hoping to get post-secondary education? A $109 million cut to post-secondary institutions, with no support or relief to students. Despite a ten-year skills-training plan announced in the throne speech, there is no increase to the skills-training budget. And the government's empty slogan about creating jobs — well, how is that really working for folks?

Let's see what the real numbers are in this province, the real facts. B.C. has the worst in Canada on private sector job growth. B.C. had 85,000 private sector jobs lost in January alone — just this past January, a month ago; B.C. has 21,400 full-time jobs lost since the Legislature last sat last July; and B.C. has lost over 25,000 jobs in the forestry sector alone since 2001.

I say to the Jobs Minister — actually, to any members on the other side: please tell the Premier to stop the so-called jobs plan, as the people of this province really can't afford it anymore. Just accept that it's not working. We need to put people in this province back to work.

This province has lost over 13,000 people to other provinces over the last two years, people who have packed up and left. That doesn't take into consideration the numbers of people who might still live here but no longer work here, the thousands of men and women who leave regularly for Alberta, Saskatchewan — two, three, sometimes four weeks away and then one week at home. How is that working for families in this province — the parents who aren't there for their kids, helping with homework, coaching hockey, reading bedtime stories or tucking their kids in at night?

The parents who are left at home…. Well, one mom said to me: "I have so much respect for single moms now." She said: "I'm a single mom now four weeks out of every five. Then he comes home for a week. We know he has to work, but it is so hard on our kids, and on us too."

It is interesting. There is a greater migration now to other provinces than there has ever been, even in the '90s. The net interprovincial migration to B.C. during the '90s under the NDP was 130,000 people. The net interprovincial migration to B.C. under the Liberals is 56,000 — less than half — with three or more extra years there.

Actually, there is a little-known fact in this House. Someone who did think it was a good idea to move to
[ Page 1531 ]
B.C. in the '90s, someone who was attracted to what we offered in this province in the '90s was in fact the current member for Kootenay East. Maybe some of us are thinking that we shouldn't have done such a good job of attracting people in the '90s, but he seemed to think it was a great idea to come in the '90s, as did many other people.

Now we have the highest unemployment rate of western provinces, with a lower annual job growth than we had had in the '90s. In fact, the budget numbers show that unemployment in this province will continue to grow for the next two years. How is that addressed in this budget? Well, with a $25.5 million cut to employment programs — a 46 percent cut.

[1605]

Everyone knows…. Well, I thought everyone did, but obviously this was missed by the Liberals. Studies show that an investment in people, to help them get the training they need and the support they need to get good family-supporting jobs, returns so much more to the economy in taxes and savings than the initial investment — shortsightedness, again.

The Finance Minister says that they, the government, are sticking to the commonsense proposition that guides families across the province: don't spend more money than you have. It's a great idea. Too bad it's just another empty slogan to this government, as they continue to incur a debt that not only will our grandchildren be paying off but probably our great-grandchildren too.

B.C.'s debt has risen by $2.5 billion since we last sat, climbing faster under this Premier than any other Premier in our province's history — $7 billion under this Premier alone. The debt will hit $70 billion by 2016. So much for the campaign slogan, "Debt-free B.C." It's more like a debt-spree B.C., as our Finance critic has more aptly said. Far from being the wonderful economic managers they claim to be, this Liberal government has a long history of wasteful spending and megaproject mismanagement.

Just to name a few, we know that the Vancouver Convention Centre was $341 million over budget. The B.C. Place roof was $514 million on the cost instead of $414 million. The Port Mann highway, a $100.8 billion overrun. The Basi-Virk settlement — how much did the government pay to keep people quiet? That's never come out, what happened there in the B.C. Rail corruption trial.

In the Interior the government paid a $30 million settlement to Boss Power because of their mishandling of uranium mining in this province. You have to look at these and say: where does it end? Why do they keep having these? It's hard to even imagine that they could keep doing it, keep doing more mismanagement. Is this good — fiscal mismanagement? How are things being paid for?

Interjection.

K. Conroy: The minister opposite laughs, but really, it's hard for him when he sees the facts.

Interjection.

K. Conroy: Well, yeah, three more years. God forbid how much it's going to cost us in that time frame. God forbid.

The increases to B.C. Hydro alone are set to skyrocket. They can laugh, but the people in this province are paying for this mismanagement. That is what is so wrong about it. They're paying with the increase to B.C. Hydro, and once again, medical premiums are going up.

We're the only province in the country that continues to charge medical premiums at the rate that this government does. It's like their cash cow — B.C. Hydro and medical premiums. That's what going to be costing millions of families again in B.C.

We remain the province with the highest child poverty for more than a decade.

Interjection.

K. Conroy: Oh, let's laugh about that too, members on the opposite side. That's not very funny. I don't think that's funny at all. Another number one thing for you people to be proud of — that we have the highest child poverty in this country. Shame on you. How can you even consider laughing at that? We don't see a slogan about that, do we?

No, we see kids lining up for food banks because they don't have the food. And kids aren't in poverty alone. They're in poverty with parents. It's appalling that that continues to happen in this province and that someone thinks it's funny.

How did the budget deal with it? It showed an overall cut to income assistance. That's a fact. That's in your budget.

Interjection.

K. Conroy: There are no jobs. The member opposite says jobs. Jobs will deal with it. Well, where are the jobs? That's a good question. There are no jobs.

Interjection.

K. Conroy: Our employment rate was lower than yours.

We cannot wait for the LNG fantasy to deal with poverty in this province. When is it going to happen? It's not even in the budget. Kids and parents, people in this province are struggling now. They need answers now. They need a government that doesn't laugh about it but at least acknowledges that there is a problem in this province — acknowledges and does something about it in the budget.

[1610]

There is no poverty reduction strategy, as was promised — another broken promise. Almost every province in this country has a poverty reduction strategy. Saskatchewan is the only other one, and they're coming on stream. They're developing one as we speak. Where is this government's poverty reduction strategy? It's not here. There are no jobs for people that are looking for them.

You know, resources are a major economic driver for our province and the West Kootenay region. The lack of recognition in this budget is, again, really shortsighted.

We have a forest industry that needs some attention. It's an economic driver that, with proper investment and attention, will return the investment through good, family-supporting jobs and a healthy forestry that will sustain this province for years to come. That is a current investment with current return, not a potential return or a fantasy that might or might not happen.

I continue to get asked by seniors in this province: "When will the seniors advocate be hired? When will he or she start providing services to seniors and their families?" Now, I am thrilled that we are finally getting a seniors advocate. It has taken a number of years and much lobbying. But I'm not so thrilled that it won't be an independent position.

How much longer do we have to wait? I understand that the position, potentially, could be in place soon, but there's nowhere in the budget that shows funds to set up an office, hire staff or begin the work that this position actually needs to get done.

We know that people from across the province lobbied for this position. People from all walks of life, people from both sides of our parties — everybody lobbied for it. It will be very welcome, but I hope that this position will be able to carry out the necessary work it needs to carry out with the lack of resources that seems to be in this budget. I know we'll have an opportunity to discuss it more in estimates, and I certainly hope that we can drill down with the minister and find out where it is.

I was also really disappointed to not see any funds for the promised hospice centres. All across the province I talk to people who discuss the issues of hospice, palliative care and dying with dignity. In B.C. 80 percent of British Columbians, when polled, agree they want to die with dignity. However, there isn't a general agreement on what that actually looks like.

I believe we need to have that discussion. However, we need to ensure the services are in place so that there are some supports to the dying process. Rural B.C. is the hardest-hit with the lack of hospice facilities and services. Most long-term-care facilities talk about having to ensure they have beds and resources set aside for palliative purposes, often with no additional funding or resources.

I want to commend the people in our region who are working hard to bring a regional hospice centre to the West Kootenays. The city of Castlegar needs to be commended, for donating the land, and the many hospice volunteers, under the capable guidance of Suzanne Lehbauer, who are working hard to get funding in place. It is a joy to watch a region come together to support a much-needed service that can benefit so many people in our area.

Seniors and their families are also quite disappointed by the lack of commitment from this government to ensure that the recommendations from the Ombudsperson are being dealt with — issues around regulations that could be implemented and support to facilities, all well researched over a number of years and from across the province. Hopefully, the minister has more answers during estimates.

Seniors, many on a fixed income, are really concerned about the cost of living in the province as they see their hydro rates going up, their MSP premiums increasing and ICBC going — for those who are still able to drive and who haven't had to deal with DriveABLE.

The ferries too. Ferries for the seniors…. You know, seniors talk to me. The seniors that went on and got half-priced senior rates were on days when the ferries weren't full. It wasn't costing the government anything. It wasn't costing B.C. Ferries anything to be able to utilize that, and it saves seniors. It gave them the ability to get to medical appointments in Vancouver, to get to visit their grandkids. That little bit extra just helped them out, especially those on a fixed income, and that's gone.

I continue to get the stories of seniors who have to decide between prescriptions and foods, seniors who cut back on their prescriptions so they last longer.

Senior women are among the fastest-growing demographic of people in this province who are living below the poverty line, as well as beginning to use food banks more. Food banks have increased in our area when they should be decreasing — a sad state of affairs in such a resource-rich province.

I know seniors who are on wait-lists in our area for cataract surgery, knee surgery and pain management. Imagine being in such incredible pain that just day-to-day tasks are so difficult to do.

[1615]

You're told that in order to deal with this, you'll have to wait a year to two years to get the necessary services you need for pain management just so you can live. People have said to me: "I don't want to be taking these seriously strong pain medications so that I can just survive, and we can't access pain management."

Not only are the clinics full, with wait-lists…. They're full in the Okanagan. There's nowhere in our region. People from the East Kootenay have to travel to Kelowna for pain management. You can bet that that's a tough one on all people that are dealing with it.

Members on the other side keep saying: "Where are we going to get the money from to fund such important programs?" We only need to look at their mismanagement of
[ Page 1533 ]
capital projects to answer that question. Just five projects alone we know led to a $3 billion overrun — 100 percent over the initial projected costs. To carry that is like $122 million in annual carrying costs.

You know what that could have funded? Some 10,000 new skills-training spaces or 1,200 new nurses, or it could have hired 2,000 new care aides. I think what those nurses and care aides could do in a facility for seniors, the additional care that could be provided — the hands-on, "Hugs, not drugs" philosophy that was part of the Delta View care home's way of taking care of seniors with dementia, being there for seniors, having that extra bit of staff to be there for them.

Shouldn't we pay a bit extra to give seniors the quality of life they deserve in the end of life? I don't think anyone who has watched a loved one die a long and painful death or seen a parent slip away into the oblivion of Alzheimer's would disagree.

We just need to ensure we have the political will to make it happen. It takes political will to ensure that there are resources in the province to fund what needs to be funded, priorities that need to be chosen, decisions that need to be made.

Members opposite shake their heads and chastise us for saying that we need to support children, need to support families, need to make sure that there are good jobs in this province when they are proving to us that there aren't, that they have not brought the jobs that their plan says it's supposed to have brought.

We keep getting a government that makes empty slogans and promises without backing it up. For instance, despite the throne speech promise of a comprehensive plan to support women experienced in fleeing violence and to make B.C. violence-free, there's no targeted funding of any kind and no mention, for instance, of funding a bus to help people in northern B.C., women who don't have access to any transportation. There's no shuttle bus. That's been promised for years.

Indeed, there are cuts to the Ministry for Children and Family's budget envelope that includes a provincial office of domestic violence and to the Justice budget for prosecution services. Victim services and crime prevention are also down, not increased, so how can they ensure that they're going to provide a violence-free B.C. — violence-free for women and children in this province — with empty promises like this? It's just empty promises.

It's like the LNG promise of revenue coming that won't materialize any time soon. There are not even any LNG revenue forecasts contained in the budget's three-year fiscal plan. How do you make promises with funds that you know you can't deliver? I say more deception and empty promises.

We know with this budget that families will pay more and get less. Working people will work harder, pay more, get less. Those in need will struggle to get a hand up when what they really want…. They don't want a handout. They want a hand up. They want a good-paying job. They want to support their families. They don't want to go to the food banks. They want to make sure that they have the jobs they need to do what they want to do.

I have amazing, resilient constituents in my constituency. They will rise above this budget. I know they will. They've talked to me about it. In fact, they work hard to ensure that things happen in our constituency.

I think one of the best examples of a project that's working well in our constituency is the Waneta expansion project, a project that was number 3 of a series of projects that were started in the '90s under the '90s government that created the Columbia Basin Trust and the Columbia Power Corp., which has jobs in our area for people that live in our area — good, family-supporting jobs for people that live within 100 miles of the project.

[1620]

Those are jobs that are going to be there for a number of years, and yes, kudos to the current government, which made sure that this carried on. I'll say good things when it's deserved, as few as they are.

But it is a project that came about because of the work from the '90s, the farsightedness of people who said: "We need to ensure that there are jobs for people down the road — not in our next four-year plan to get elected but down the road." There are jobs now that were created, that were talked about in 1995, and that are being worked on almost 20 years later.

That was an investment of the former government, which made sure that those jobs would be there for the people of the Kootenays. And I say kudos to them for having the foresight to do it over a three-year project so that you had jobs for people in the late '90s, you had jobs for people in the mid-2000s — 2004 or whenever it was. It was jobs there for people over a long series, which brought investment back into the region, investment to the people of our area. I think that's a great example. That was money in the bank, an investment that was there for the people of our constituency.

There are a number of reasons that it's obvious we can't support this budget. Number one, it doesn't support the people of my constituency. It doesn't support the people of this province. All the facts show that it's empty promises, slogan-filled. When you have members in this House who laugh at the concept of poverty in this province, I am appalled by that. For that reason alone, I cannot support this budget.

Hon. B. Bennett: Well, it has been interesting this afternoon. It was interesting last week to listen to members from both sides of the House. I really admire the speech given by the member for Shuswap and also the speech given by the member from Prince George, both people with a lot of on-the-ground life experience and, I thought, very reasonable points of view.

I have come to a conclusion. You can interpret it, I
[ Page 1534 ]
guess, any way you want to, but this is it: the NDP have learned nothing from the last election — nothing. As a B.C. Liberal, maybe I should be happy about that. Somehow or other, I'm not happy about that. I wonder: what is it that they just don't get? The budget that we just introduced in this House is largely the budget that was introduced last spring, so we actually ran on that budget. The people of the province elected us on the strength of that budget.

Yet they stand up in this House, member after member, and they essentially say: "All those people who voted for the B.C. Liberals don't know what the heck they're talking about." That's a really good way to ingratiate yourself with the electorate and get elected next time. Again, I guess I should be happy, but it is a strange, strange situation to be in this House and listen to them question things like balanced budgets, for example: "Not important. Who cares about balanced budgets?" We do on this side of the House.

I'm going to talk about a few things in my speech. Certainly, one will be the importance of balancing the budget and some of the implications from that. I'm also going to talk a little bit about Kootenay East, because any time I get on my feet in this House I like to talk a little about home. And I'm going to talk a little bit about an under-the-radar aspect of the budget, something we did for credit unions. I'm also going to…. Because of the speech given just recently this afternoon by the member for Saanich South, I feel like I need to address some aspects of the core review process.

A balanced budget, clearly, is an accomplishment in and of itself. It's something that a family would be proud of. Families have to balance their household budget. A business would be proud of that. Businesses have to balance their budget. Actually, municipalities have to balance their budget. I don't know why it's characterized by the opposition as such an extreme thing for the provincial government to do. It seems like a responsible thing, given that families do it, businesses do it, municipalities do it.

[1625]

It does seem like a reasonable thing. In fact the majority of people who voted in the last election agreed with us, thankfully. At the most basic level, it means that you've managed to spend less of the income that you brought in.

The alternative to a budget surplus is, of course, a budget deficit, which means that you must borrow the amount that's in excess of your income that you decided to spend nonetheless. You can make that decision. You can say: "We're going to have X amount of income come in, but we're going to spend more than that." That's a choice that individuals can make, that businesses can make and that governments can make, and in fact, the NDP government, for ten years, made that decision year after year.

Governments around the world, in fact — I think, notably — have spent more of their income, their revenue, than they should have, perhaps in the mistaken belief that someday soon the economy would return to rapid growth and they'd be able to balance easier and, perhaps someday, maybe they would even be able to pay done their debt. That's a dangerous thing.

Some nations, particularly in Europe, have been in deficit for far too long. They are now essentially bankrupt. There are nations on earth today that are essentially bankrupt, and the only reason that they're not acting like they're bankrupt is because, frankly, of the reluctant largesse of other nations in Europe, like Germany. Right here in Canada there are provinces that can't remember the last time they balanced their budget, and their debt continues to pile up year after year. Their credit ratings have sunk out of sight, and the choices available to those provincial governments for their citizens continue to diminish.

Yes, we are proud on this side of the House of balancing the budget. It certainly meets a key election commitment. We said we would do that. We have done that. It means ultimately that the people of the province of B.C. will have more choices, more opportunities.

Now, I have heard recently some folks say that during difficult economic times it isn't necessary to balance the budget, that borrowing is cheap, interest rates are low and deficits are appropriate. But aside from the very real-life benefits of managing public money carefully, there is an overriding ethical obligation, in the view of this side of the House, on the part of all governments to not spend what rightfully belongs to our children and our grandchildren.

For ten years this group on the other side — many of whom weren't there, of course, but they still subscribe to the same point of view, the same ideology — decided, made the conscious decision, that they were going to take from their kids' and their grandkids' future. They were going to spend it today, and hopefully somewhere down the line they'd be able to balance the budget and maybe pay off some of that debt.

We're not doing that. This side of the House is not doing that. It's true. We haven't always balanced our budgets. I've been here since 2001, and there have been some years where we didn't and some years where we did. But under this Premier there is an understanding, on this side of the House, that as a group we'll make the difficult decisions. We're going to do the right thing.

The Premier talks about her modest upbringing. Her dad was a teacher, her mother a stay-at-home mom. Many of us, and I suspect on both sides of the House, have had experiences in our life where we've been taught the value of a dollar, that the nickels follow the dollars — all the things that our parents taught us and that our life experience has taught us.

I think that translates here to the floor of this House and it translates to us as a government. The opposition has the same opportunity to work through these ideas. I
[ Page 1535 ]
know that when I was a father — I'm still a father, thankfully — with kids at home, I really wanted to buy my two boys new skates. Frankly, there were some years where I was not able to buy them the new skates that they wanted. Their mother and I discussed it, and we bought them used skates because we couldn't afford new skates. That's what you do as a parent, and it is what you should do as a politician.

We look at the need. We look at good causes, if you will. We'd like to pay public servants more than we can afford to pay public servants, because they do such a great job. I've worked with them now for almost 13 years, and I so admire how hard our public servants work in this province, particularly the ones that we interact with here in Victoria.

[1630]

But if we succumb to that temptation to invest in these entirely legitimate and important priorities before we can afford to do that, we're asking our children and our grandchildren to pay later for what we've decided to buy today.

Again, that's what drives us here on this side of the House, and I think that's an important ethic to state. There are, of course, some very important practical benefits of balancing the budget. One of them was mentioned by my colleague — the triple-A credit rating. And you say: "What's a triple-A credit rating? Who cares? It's a bunch of people from New York, a bunch of bankers from New York or from London or Zurich, and they decide what a jurisdiction's credit rating is."

I'll give you one reason why it really matters. There's more than one, but I'll give you one reason why a triple-A credit rating matters. Ontario doesn't have as high a credit rating as we do here in B.C. They pay about nine cents on every dollar they take in, to service their debt. Nine cents out of every dollar goes to servicing the provincial debt — interest.

If we had Ontario's credit rating…. If we did not have our triple-A credit rating, we would be spending roughly $2 billion more on interest and, of course, $2 billion less on public services. So anybody who says that the triple-A credit rating doesn't matter or is just something that accountants care about clearly doesn't understand accounting or fiscal matters.

It's interesting that $2.2 billion is the difference between what we would spend on interest if we had Ontario's credit rating and that we put $2.5 billion new money into health care this year. I find that an interesting comparison. If we didn't have the credit rating, we'd have to spend that $2.5 billion, basically, on interest instead of putting it into health care. Of course it matters that you have a triple-A credit rating.

One of the most important indicators — and, arguably, the most important indicator — in terms of the fiscal health of a business or an individual or a government is the debt-to-GDP ratio. I hear lots of nonsense from the other side about the debt that we have in this province, and of course, I wish we could pay it off tomorrow. That's not going to happen. If LNG gets going, I think we have a chance of paying it off over a longer period of time.

The reality is that B.C. has a debt-to-GDP ratio of 18½ percent. How does that rate with the rest of the country? Well, Ontario is 37.4 percent. Quebec is 55.9 percent, and Canada — the federal government — is 33 percent. So we are clearly leading the country in terms of the amount of debt that we have compared to the size of our economy.

And 18½ percent isn't just a number. It's the same thing that a doctor does when a doctor examines a patient. You look for things to determine whether the patient is well or whether the patient is sick. When people who know about fiscal matters look at a province, or any jurisdiction, and say, "They have a triple-A credit rating, and their debt-to-equity ratio is 18½ percent," they're in pretty skookum condition. And B.C. is in pretty skookum condition, despite the rhetoric and the nonsense that I have heard here in this House today and last week.

I'm responsible for working with the mining industry, and mining investment comes to this province from every nook and cranny around the world. It comes from Asia, Europe, South America — probably everywhere but Antarctica. I was minister in 2005, so I have a novel perspective on the industry. I was there when things were not as good as they are today.

In fact, I remember being in Toronto, in 2005, at the annual mining conference that takes place every March. I remember Toronto mining companies and investment people coming up to me and saying, "We're never coming to B.C. You won't get us to come to B.C. That's an unreliable jurisdiction. The next time you guys allow an NDP government to be elected, we're…." I won't use the word.

At the time, there was $29 million a year being invested in mineral exploration in this province. Of course, that's what these investors, these mining people, were afraid of, because everywhere else in the country there was lots more than that.

Fast-forward to 2012. After all the changes to policy — the reduction in regulation, the changes in how we do business in this government — what do you have in exploration investment in B.C.? It's $750 million, at its zenith. We have two record years, 2013 and 2012, to be proud of.

[1635]

We actually have almost 20 percent of all the mineral exploration investment in Canada happening right here in British Columbia.

I'm going back to Toronto next week, I think, for the same conference. I will be sure to report back to the members of the House what I hear from the investment community when I come back after that two- or three-day excursion to Toronto.

What about these huge international companies that my colleague, the minister responsible for natural gas and
[ Page 1536 ]
LNG…? What about them? What about those big companies that are already investing billions in the northwest and also upstream in the northeast in anticipation of their final investment decisions? Do you think that those kinds of companies would come to this province if there was the kind of significant uncertainty about us, about our fiscal situation, about us as a government if we didn't have the triple-A credit rating — if we were like, in other words, the way the NDP was when they were in government? Do you think they'd want to come here? I don't think so.

Do you think that business people around the world — in China, where we have worked very hard to build trade, or in the U.S. or in Europe, where they have a lot of investment capital looking for safe havens…? Do you think they'd be attracted to B.C. if B.C. didn't distinguish itself with this triple-A credit rating and these balanced budgets? No, I don't think we could count on that.

I want to say there are always ups and downs. It's never going to be glowing. Sometimes you go the wrong way. You take two steps forward, and you go half a step back. Sometimes that's the nature of the economy. As the Finance Minister said in his speech to us here, B.C. is not immune to economic fluctuations forced on us by external events. That is always the way it has been and always the way it will be. Monthly job numbers are going to go up and down.

B.C. will continue to fight for more than our share of investment, in our industries and in our people. I'll you one thing for sure. The B.C. story of fiscal responsibility, of low taxes, of low debt-to-GDP, of strategic investment in the Asia-Pacific gateway and in Asia trade, which we started in 2003….

It's really paying off. It's one of the things that I think those of us who've been around for a while are really most proud of. That took guts to do that, to spend the money to go over there and just start talking to the Chinese about buying softwood. It took a lot of guts. The current Finance Minister was the first one to go over there, and good on him. That has paid off.

The irony is that many of my colleagues from the other side of the House come from forest-dependent communities, and they have always derided this idea that somehow or other government can do anything about generating new revenue. Well, we've done it, and we're going to continue to do it. It has helped your constituents, the people that you are accountable to.

We're poised. We're ready to continue building this province for our children and our grandchildren. We have a positive vision on this side of the House. I think it's fair to say that everybody on this side of the House wakes up glass half-full. We wake up in the morning thinking what we can do today to make the world a better place. That is who we are.

You know what's great about that? The people of B.C. kind of like that too. Apparently, the people of B.C. like positive people with a positive vision. They don't want to hear all this carping and complaining and making up stuff, which you hear from the other side of the House. They want people to get down to business in their government and make things happen, accomplish things.

That's what we do, and I'm proud of the fact that this group on this side of the House wakes up in the morning, they're glass half-full, they're positive, and they get things done.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members. Members, the minister has the floor.

Please continue.

Hon. B. Bennett: The success that we've had in balancing the budget, really making some very difficult decisions and putting us in a position where we can take advantage of opportunities that are out there, has allowed us to invest all over the province.

I'm going to just take a second and talk about the investments in Kootenay East. I'm very proud to come from there. I had a whole section of my speech where I was going to talk about Kootenay East and how wonderful it is and my family and the people who work in my constit office and everything, but I was so inspired by the previous speakers that I decided to get right into the budget speech.

[1640]

Over the past couple of years we have seen about $21 million invested in Kootenay East, all of it in very important infrastructure, things like bridges and highways, education, health care. Also, something I wanted to draw the House's attention to….

We found $2.7 million to spend on infrastructure relating to the devastating floods that we had last spring. I want to say this on behalf of my constituents. I know we all saw on television the flood damage in High River, Alberta, in Calgary, and it was awful in those places. What you didn't know and what you didn't see — because we're a long ways out; these are really tiny little communities, and Global doesn't have a reporter there and all that kind of stuff — is that there were communities in the Elk Valley, just over the mountain from Alberta, that experienced the same kind of flood damage.

The beautiful alpine coal-mining town of Elkford saw most of their industrial lands flooded, with significant damage. There were houses just north of Elkford, which the mayor and myself went and viewed, completely submerged by a wild, raging Elk River. It was a terrible thing to go through for the people there. I'm proud of the fact that, frankly, our government stepped up, and we provided money to help repair that damage.

I also want to say that I'm extremely proud of the British Columbia families that I saw. During that flooding episode I spent time there with them. I saw elemen-
[ Page 1537 ]
tary school students bagging sand, putting sand in bags for sand-bagging. I saw high school students with dad's half-ton truck, loading up sandbags and taking them down to the bottomland in Hosmer, just outside of Fernie. A tremendous community effort — the volunteer firefighters, the search and rescue people that really went to bat for everyone who lives in that area. I'm very, very proud of those folks and glad that we were able to help.

We invested in Alexandra Bridge on Highway 3. Now, many members will not know this, but Highway 3 is actually the second Trans-Canada Highway. It is not quite as busy as the No. 1, but it is almost as busy, and there are times of the year when, actually, Highway 3 is busier than No. 1. I bet you didn't know that.

We have replaced every single old bridge on Highway 3 since I was elected in 2001. The Alexandra Bridge is the last one. It was $5.3 million, and we have replaced every single one of them.

We've got passing lanes that were put in because of our proximity to Alberta. We have a lot of Albertans who come. They visit us, and they bring their money. They come and buy condos. They ski at our ski resorts, and they golf at our golf resorts, so we welcome them. We want them to be safe, and we want the people to be safe that are going back and forth to those unbelievably good jobs at the mines in the Elk Valley. Just one of those projects this past year, a passing-lane project, cost $7.5 million, and I genuinely thank the Minister of Transportation for that investment.

On the health care side…. Nothing is more important than health care. We all know that. When I first got elected…. Let me just take a second and tell you a true story.

The year before I was elected, in 2001, I was leafing through Maclean’s magazine and, holy mackerel, there was my friend Dr. Bill Post, right there in colour, in a picture. It was an exposé by Maclean's magazine on how bad rural health care was in Canada. Guess where that was. That was the hospital in Cranbrook. That's the year before the B.C. Liberals were elected. True story.

Fast-forward 12 years. What do we have today? Well, I'll tell you what we have. We have a regional hospital with all of the specialists — and not just one. I mean, we've got four gynecologist-obstetricians. We've got five orthopedic surgeons. We've got four general surgeons. This government has spent, by the time this next investment is done, $50 million.

It's a regional referral centre. It's not called the Cranbrook hospital because it's not the Cranbrook hospital. It's the East Kootenay Regional Hospital, and if you're really sick or really hurt, you want to be there. You didn't want to be at that hospital when the NDP were in government. I guarantee you. You'd want to get airlifted over to Calgary. That's the way it was in those days.

[1645]

Just ask the mayor of Elkford. He had some health issues, and he was taken into the regional hospital in Cranbrook. He is so grateful and so impressed with the service that he got from those physicians and those nurses and how wonderful that hospital was. To put the icing on the cake, this current budget that we're talking about right now includes $12 million for a brand-new ICU in that regional hospital.

There is so much good news that I'm not going to be able to get through it. There are new school buses. There is just so much stuff, but I don't have time to get through it.

There is one thing that I really want to mention, and that's the credit union story. We like credit unions on this side of the House. They are cooperatives. We like them. We really like credit unions, and so I am very grateful and pleased that the Finance Minister decided that we were going to include in the budget legislation something that would protect B.C. credit unions from what the federal government did in changing their income tax legislation. I'll just tell you what that means. If you don't really have an example, it's hard to know what it really means. Here's what it really means.

The East Kootenay Community Credit Union has branches in Cranbrook, in Fernie, in Sparwood and in Elkford. That's where I live. That's my riding. They've got branches in all four of those places. Every year they spend about $100,000 on donations to worthy causes. We've got a lot of worthy causes, just like any other place. We've got these festivals that we do in the East Kootenay. In Cranbrook it's the Sam Steele festival. It's the largest festival in the Kootenay region, even larger than the ones they have in Nelson. We have Griz Days in Fernie, we have Coal Miner Days in Sparwood, and we have Wildcat Days in Elkford.

The East Kootenay Community Credit Union invests in all those festivals. They invest in issues around children, children's services. They invest in all kinds of good things. I just talked to the manager, just the other day, because I knew I was going to give this speech and wanted to make sure I was accurate. He said that about $100,000 is what they invest in those kinds of worthy causes. Well, if we had not made that change, they wouldn't have had that $100,000, and we wouldn't have had those investments in our festivals and in all the other charitable causes that the credit unions invest in.

I have to tell you that during the campaign I didn't have a lot of time to watch TV or anything like that, but I read the clips every night to see what people were doing and where the Premier was and where the opposition leader was and so forth.

I came across a story that talked about the opposition leader being in Kamloops, the great city of Kamloops, in May. He was at a beautiful arena, criticizing us, and that arena was actually paid for by the Interior Savings Credit Union — a credit union. There he was, standing in this arena, this beautiful arena, saying that we should bring back that tax on banks and credit unions. That's
[ Page 1538 ]
what he said. That's what their policy was. It was in their campaign document. Bring it back. "Let's bring it back," standing there in this beautiful arena in Kamloops.

Do you know how much the Interior Savings Credit Union invests in Kamloops in worthy causes? They invest $500,000 a year in worthy causes in Kamloops. All of that would have disappeared because the cost to that credit union, if we had not done what we did, would have been $1.53 million. So good on the Finance Minister for doing that.

A little bit on core review. I know you're having a lot of fun, hon. Speaker, and you probably want me to go on longer, but I've only got a few minutes left. A little bit on core review. I wasn't going to address core review here. I didn't think I'd have time. But the hon. member for Saanich South truly did inspire me with that speech. So let me say this much.

When you get elected and you're lucky enough to be in government, you always run into these sacred cows. You always run into these things that are untouchable that you should never, ever look at. You think about that. If you have an agency that's within government…. It doesn't matter whether it's the B.C. Utilities Commission or the Agricultural Land Commission or B.C. Ferries or whatever — ICBC. Name them.

[1650]

There are about 100 of them in government. Some of them…. Because of the politics and the controversy and the kind of fuss that can be generated by people that want to generate fuss, most politicians just leave them alone.

I was tasked with leading up the core review process, and the commitment that I made to the Premier and to my colleagues and to the people of the province was that we were going to look, potentially, at everything.

Now, the member for Saanich South sings a pretty compelling song about the importance of agricultural land, so I want to make the point here today that I actually agree with her. I've always agreed with her.

I come from dairy farm stock myself. My wife is a dairy farmer. A great many of my constituents are farmers and ranchers — by the way, they all vote for me — and they're not completely happy with the commission. That's all I'm going to say about that. It is our job as MLAs to fix the things that our constituents and other people in the province tell us need to be fixed.

I'll close there and just say that I'm incredibly proud to stand here in this House and support the second consecutive balanced budget in British Columbia.

G. Heyman: It gives me pleasure to rise today to speak on the budget, but before I begin my remarks, I want to offer some thanks to some people who help me do my job.

I want to start by thanking my two constituency assistants, Ashley Fehr and Jarrett Hagglund. They're in the office every day. They meet the constituents who come in with problems. They help them navigate those problems, navigate some of the systems in government that they need to access or interface with. They also make sure that I stay in touch with the issues that are important to the constituents and that I am accessible to them.

I also want to thank my legislative assistant, Jean Lawson, who helps set up the important meetings that I have to have with various stakeholder groups within my critic portfolio areas and who also keeps me on the straight and narrow on a daily basis.

I also want to thank the research staff for our caucus. I won't name individuals, because I think at one time or another I've been in every single one of their offices or cubicles to seek advice on a particular issue. They, frankly, have been great.

Let me start my remarks on the budget by saying that I actually agree with the Minister of Energy and Mines, on one thing. I agree with the Minister of Energy and Mines that British Columbians are tired of people making things up. That's why I'm going to focus my remarks on this budget on the things that I think have been made up, are misleading, as well as on the great gaps, the flaws that this budget of the Christy Clark government has for the needs of British Columbians.

Deputy Speaker: Member.

G. Heyman: Sorry. The Premier — the Premier's government.

Let me also thank the residents of Vancouver-Fairview — the ones I've met on the street, the ones I've met in small businesses, the ones who come into our community office and who talk to me about the things that are important to them. It's not always the things that I want to hear, but it's important for me to know the issues that affect them and their families on a daily basis. It's those conversations that help me shape my views about what is important for us to do in this House as well as what I think is important to establish as priorities in a budget.

The other day a number of high school students came to visit me in my office. They came under the banner of Defend Our Future. They are sometimes known as Kids for Climate Action. Nick Milum is actually the first student appointed as a school trustee in the Vancouver area. He came with Justin and Tiffany. Others who have met with me over the time are Sophie, Sharon and Sam.

These are the children that the government so often talks about that shouldn't be saddled with a debt, and I agree that they shouldn't be saddled with a debt. I agree that they shouldn't be saddled with an environmental debt, with a climate crisis debt — something that will hang over their heads for years to come and will impact not only their personal lives but the economy that they will inherit from us, an economy that can be devastated by the unforeseen consequences of runaway climate change.

[1655]

I also want to thank the many residents of Vancouver-Fairview who came to a recent town hall meeting. They raised concerns with me, including transit and the environment. Both those issues were raised by seniors. One of them, who could attend the meeting, I've met several times.

Ruth talked to me about her ability to get around, her desire for the kind of health care that will enable her to stay and age in place in her home. Another senior, who has e-mailed me on a number of occasions but can no longer get out of her apartment, Anne, often shares her worries about the future, not just for herself but for her children and grandchildren.

Others came and talked about education and the economy. Ruth's grandson Alex, her adopted grandson, is looking for a future. He's undergoing trades training and apprenticeship so that he can become a plumber. He's hoping to have opportunities for a good job. We'll get back to that in a little while.

Let me also say that within this budget…. No budget from any side of the House appears totally negative. There are a couple of things in this budget that I want to start off by praising. I was happy to see the tobacco tax increase, because the smoking of tobacco not only impacts the people who smoke. It impacts those around them and costs the health care system and, of course, our budget untold millions of dollars.

I was also happy to see a commitment to cancer prevention and research initiatives. The B.C. Cancer Society — whose CEO, Barbara Kaminsky, is a resident of Vancouver-Fairview, and the society itself operates out of Vancouver-Fairview — has talked to me often about the things we need to do and can do to help prevent cancer and raise awareness. I'm pleased to see this government make at least a modest commitment to working with the society and others who work in this important area.

I have to say, notwithstanding the importance of those issues, that overall, I just do not see enough in this budget that matches up with the concerns of British Columbians in Vancouver-Fairview or other parts of British Columbia who come and talk to me on a regular basis. It just doesn't match up.

Overall, British Columbians will pay more and get less. That's a theme that permeates this budget throughout. It's a flawed budget from this Premier's government, and I will oppose it. It's a budget that's long on politics but short on support for British Columbians, and it doesn't even keep the promises that were made in the throne speech a mere couple of weeks ago.

In the throne speech was a reference to a commitment to a violence-free B.C., specifically dealing with the important issue of violence against women and, particularly, aboriginal women. Two weeks later — nothing in the budget that relates to this. No funds to implement the recommendations of the Missing Women Commission. A cut to victim services, including the line item that has the office of domestic violence. What a difference two weeks make.

I also want to talk briefly about an issue that came up recently in question period, and that's the risk of violence to women, primarily aboriginal women, on Highway 16, otherwise known as the Highway of Tears. We talked about the importance of a shuttle bus, so women would not have to put themselves at risk through hitchhiking, and so their families would not have to worry about women who go missing or women who are moving from one community to another.

Not only did we not get a satisfactory answer to the issue of funding a shuttle bus on the Highway of Tears, we had the Minister of Health heckle across this chamber and say: "You'll get a shuttle bus when you win an election." I can't imagine a more reprehensible comment by a member of a government.

The shuttle bus isn't for us. It's for women who are at risk in northern British Columbia. It's for their families. It's in memory of every woman whose life was lost. It's a shame on this chamber, but it's also specifically a shame on this government that neither the minister nor anyone in the government nor any MLA apologized for that insensitive remark — not to us but to the families of the women who have gone missing.

[1700]

Another broken promise was one to enhance skills training in British Columbia and to put British Columbians first in line for B.C. jobs. So what do we have in the skills-training budget? It's flatlined. While the Industry Training Authority credentials issued declined 4 percent last year, post-secondary education funding is cut. There's a $109 million cut in transfers to post-secondary education. The Minister of Advanced Education can stand up in the House if he'd like and say that this has to do with administrative savings, but frankly, that puts him directly at odds with all of the university presidents who sent a letter to this government warning that if there was a decrease in funding to post-secondary institutions, it would be education and students and the future of British Columbia that would suffer.

I just came about an hour ago from a meeting with representatives of students associations across B.C., and they reaffirmed what I understand to be true. British Columbia is the only province without post-secondary student grants. It lends the least to students going to post-secondary institutions, with the highest interest rate in Canada. We have the highest level of student debt in North America here in British Columbia, almost $35,000 per undergraduate student on graduation. British Columbians simply can't afford to attend post-secondary. That's demonstrated by the fact that British Columbians are the least likely to study and attend post-secondary institutions on a full-time basis. They simply cannot afford it.

This budget cuts employment programs by 46 percent.
[ Page 1540 ]
So what does that say to us? It says that we're going to build B.C. and fill whatever jobs are created with temporary foreign workers; 29 percent of new jobs in B.C. over the last period of time have been filled by temporary foreign workers, almost double the Canadian average. Of course, under the jobs plan, the flawed jobs plan of this B.C. Liberal Premier, we have seen a net number of jobs lost overall.

Let me move on to the issue of taxes. In this House the Minister of Finance said that with respect to taxes, British Columbia was number one in competitiveness. Well, I'm not sure what the Finance Minister means by that, but what we actually see in this budget is an increase in what I will term "flat taxes," or fees for a variety of services. We have the medical services premium flat tax, a premium that despite the government's promise to hold Medical Services Plan flat tax fee increases to the level of increases in the Health budget, will go up 4 percent while spending on health only goes up 2.6 percent. Over three years those increases will cost the average B.C. family $400.

Let's deal with B.C. Hydro. The Minister of Energy talked a lot about B.C. Hydro. So what do we have? We have rates climbing 28 percent over a five-year period, 20 percent in the next three years alone, or another $477 per family. Medical Services Plan and hydro rate increases alone will equal about $800 for the average family.

That makes life less affordable for British Columbians. When you combine that with ICBC rates going up — they went up 4.9 percent last November — and tuition fees for undergraduates $2,300 higher today than 2001, we have a litany of measures under this government that have replaced a progressive tax system with regressive flat taxes and fees that hurt the people who can afford it the least. Under this Premier's flawed plan for B.C., we will pay more and we will get less.

[1705]

Now let me move to the issue that the Minister of Energy and Mines, every speaker on the other side of the House and the Minister of Finance talked about so much, and that's the importance of the fact that they have balanced the budget. Let me simply say that it looks real nice on paper, but it's a fiction. It's sleight of hand — or perhaps I should say that the budget is balanced by putting the government's hands in the pockets of British Columbians.

What do I mean by this? We see an increase in the dividend taken from B.C. Hydro, from $243 million to $410 million, despite the promise of the government before the election that they would not increase this dividend. This is from a debt-ridden corporation — a debt-ridden corporation with $16 billion in debt and rising, with $4 billion hidden in deferral accounts. An additional $2.9 billion in debt will accrue to this troubled Crown corporation.

What does this government do? It takes a dividend from a corporation that is not profitable, not producing a profit — and I want to make it absolutely clear I am not talking about water rents here; I am talking about dividends — transfers it into the budget as income, and presto, we have a balanced budget.

Who pays for this balanced budget? It is the businesses in British Columbia — small, medium and large. It's the people of British Columbia who will see the 28 percent hydro rate increase over five years — a rate increase made worse by the fact that this government is balancing its budget by taking dividends.

We normally associate the term "dividend" with a profit, and yet we're taking dividends from a corporation that is debt-ridden, that's drowning in debt, whose debt is increasing.

This government will not submit the issue of a rate increase to the B.C. Utilities Commission, to an independent third party. If the minister opposite believes that this is appropriate, then let the B.C. Utilities Commission, the independent third party, rule on this. But no. The Minister of Finance goes to the Minister of Energy and says: "I need money." And the Minister of Energy goes to the CEO of B.C. Hydro and says: "Cough it up."

This dividend alone exceeds, in every year of this three-year budget plan, the slim surplus projected by this government. That's not even including the one-time asset sales that should never be included in an operating budget. This government and its predecessor like to accuse the New Democrat government of creating a structural deficit. This budget contains three structural deficits in a row, with no end in sight.

The Premier says that this government and their ministers are good economic managers. Unfortunately, I do not — as the members opposite may have assumed — agree with the Premier on this flawed analysis.

Let's talk about the good economic management of this government. The debt will go up $7.1 billion over three years. Let's talk about living within our means. Northwest transmission line — 82 percent over budget. Port Mann Bridge — $1.8 billion over budget.

B.C. Hydro accounting has $4.8 billion in 18 different deferral accounts, which led the Auditor General to utter this quite memorable and instructive phrase: there is an "appearance of profitability where none exists." Yet this does not stop this government from taking an unearned dividend from a corporation that's drowning in debt to pretend that it has a real balanced budget as opposed to a paper balanced budget built on structural deficits.

This government has the worst record in private sector job growth in Canada from September 2011 to January of this year. It has the highest unemployment rate of the western provinces. Under this budget we will see the unemployment rate go up this year.

Interjection.

G. Heyman: To the Jobs Minister: this budget will see
[ Page 1541 ]
the unemployment rate go up and up and stay high. From 2006 to 2012 we went from the second-lowest….

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members, through the Chair.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members, Members. The member for Vancouver-Fairview has the floor.

Please continue.

G. Heyman: Thank you, hon. Speaker. It's an honour to have inspired such passion in the members of the House.

From 2006 to 2012 B.C. went from having a second-lowest young adult unemployment rate in Canada to having the highest young adult unemployment rate in Canada. One in five 25- to 29-year-olds is not working and not in school. That's not good news for Alex, my young friend who is looking for a career as a plumber.

The list goes on. The Finance Minister can crow if he wants, and he can use all the nautical analogies that he wants, to make fun of the budget and to crow about what a great job his government has done in balancing the budget and having a great credit rating. But the truth is that B.C. families are drowning under unaffordable fee increases and continuing economic uncertainty, highlighted by growing unemployment and the fleeing of people to other jurisdictions because of the loss of private sector jobs in British Columbia.

The budget contradicts the throne speech in three key areas of concern. Let me start with jobs. First of all, all of the eggs of this government's plan are in the LNG basket, and yet in this budget there's no LNG revenue projected, and there are no LNG jobs in the three-year plan. But there is tremendous opportunity in other sectors that, regrettably, we don't see this budget address.

The scientific research tax credit is flat. B.C. is among the lowest jurisdictions in Canada in terms of this tax credit, yet it could spur investment in technology. It could double the amount of the GDP from this important sector that results. It could increase the number of jobs on a much steeper curve. Ontario exceeds B.C. in research and development, and Alberta exceeds B.C. in funding its innovation council.

The result — although we have had growth in tech jobs, and I'm pleased with that, and I applaud it — is that our tech sector job growth in B.C. lags the Canadian average and lags the global average. We should be growing the technical pool, the talent pool, the science and technology pool by graduating more post-secondary students in these areas, and yet we see $109 million in cuts.

Let me talk briefly about digital animation. A couple weeks ago the Finance Minister said in an interview with the Times Colonist, when he was questioned about extending the distant-location tax credit to Victoria, that it was a promise that was made in the election, and therefore, they should probably keep it. And he did. He kept that promise, and I applaud him for that.

But he broke another promise made during the election, and that was to extend the digital animation or visual effects tax credit to post-production. That is nowhere to be seen in this budget.

My colleague from Saanich South spoke this morning about the importance of the creative sector. We believe, on this side of the House, that not only is it important culturally in B.C.; it's important in many, many economic ways. It employs many people. Yet Creative B.C., a worthwhile organization, has had its funding established and capped at $1 million.

[1715]

Compare this to Ontario. Their Media Development Corporation received $23 million in funding from their government. This is money that can be used for research and development, for export marketing, for market research and seed funding for all the arts.

When B.C.'s film sector asked this government for $600,000 to $800,000 for feature film seed funding, compared to Ontario's $4.3 million, the government said no. This is funding that would have levered additional investment and created jobs, and this government did not think it was a worthwhile investment.

We see no economic analysis from the Transportation Minister on the cuts to ferries, notwithstanding the fact that the MLA for Cariboo-Chilcotin has talked about the devastating impact on the tourist industry in her constituency. We see nothing, no plan to support energy retrofits. Instead, we see the end of the LiveSmart program and a cut to the innovative clean energy fund of 54 percent.

We see fewer services. Unaffordability is increasing. We pay more; we get less. Ruth and Ann are seniors in my constituency who worry, justifiably, not only about their kids and grandkids but about their future — their ability to be taken care of at home, to age in place. They see fees increase — but a mere 2.6 percent increase in the Health budget and not a significant commitment to the kind of health care that will save the system money in the long term and make them more comfortable and established in their community.

We see government cuts implemented through health authorities. We see the Arts Studios cut. We see a cut in funding from Vancouver Coastal Health, because they're being starved by this government of necessary funds, to the West Coast Mental Health Network. They service their clients at an average cost per year of $125. Compare that to the costs of people with mental health problems who don't get the support, the peer support and the treatment they need. It's far greater. It may be penny-wise, but it's certainly pound-foolish.
[ Page 1542 ]

In Fairview the cost of housing is a concern, but there's no mention in this budget of innovative approaches to make housing affordable, whether it's support for co-ops or for non-profits.

We see a minuscule amount of money for child care — $55 per child, stacked up against the cost of over $1,000 a month for most parents. We offered a 20 percent reduction in fees. The business community understands that child care is important to the economy. They understand that it helps families.

Finally, in terms of the overall economy, let me simply say to members opposite who talk about what a great job they do in creating jobs in this province — and of course, I say it to the members opposite through you, hon. Speaker: over 21,000 private sector jobs lost in the 200 days this Legislature did not sit to deal with the issues that British Columbians face every day.

Unemployment is rising in the next two years. While I'm cautiously optimistic about some of the recent conversations between the Transportation Minister and the mayors in the Lower Mainland, the fact remains that five years ago this government made a commitment to work on funding, and nothing has happened. Nothing on transit. Congestion is building, costing the whole B.C. economy — not just the Lower Mainland, as regions try to get their goods to port — up to $1.5 billion a year.

Nothing additional for tech industries. Debt climbing to almost $70 billion in 2016-17. So much for being debt-free. If the government or the Premier or any of the ministers opposite think that LNG can pay off this debt by 2028, let me simply say that that will take a paydown of over $6 billion a year. If anybody believes that, there are lots of bridges around British Columbia.

In summary, let me simply say that British Columbians deserve honesty in this budget, honesty from the government, real job prospects and not merely pipedreams. I will not support this budget, because under the Premier's flawed plan, we will pay more, and we will get less.

[1720]

The Finance Minister can talk about the budget ship all he wants, but it's heading straight for our lifeboats. It's going to capsize the average British Columbian and drive us under the water.

I think about Ruth and Ann, worried about the health supports they need to age in place. I worry about Alex, trying to access trades training so he can be a plumber and have a good job and raise a family in Vancouver-Fairview. I worry about that in the context of employment program cuts and education cuts.

I think about Nick, Sophie, Sam, Tiffany, Justin and Sharon, who reject the false choice that this government and this budget offer them, saying they have to choose between the environment and the economy, when we know that a strong economy depends on a healthy environment and the social licence of British Columbians to develop it.

Those young people will be the ones who will inherit a dangerous and expensive future — the future in store if we don't address in very real terms greenhouse gas reductions in this province, take real action on climate change and build an economy that furthers our addressing of climate change while providing real jobs for the children of future.

So I will oppose this budget.

Deputy Speaker: Any other speakers?

Hon. P. Fassbender: Hon. Speaker, I'd like to ask leave of the House to make a short introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

Hon. P. Fassbender: I rise to introduce two very capable constituency assistants who are sitting in the gallery. I have Brittany Comrie and Preet Parhar, who work so hard for me in my constituency and for the people that we represent in Surrey-Fleetwood. If the members would join me in welcoming them to the gallery. I'm delighted to see them here, and as I said, they work very hard on everyone's behalf.

Debate Continued

D. Plecas: Thank you for the opportunity to speak to the budget. I want to speak, of course, in support of the budget.

I think it's a budget that we can be especially proud of, because it exemplifies this government's commitment to a very secure and prosperous tomorrow. It's also a budget which demonstrates that we understand what it takes to get to a prosperous tomorrow. Significantly, we want to remember that it's a budget which shows that this government is keeping its promises, made prior to the election, that we will balance this budget.

At the same time, it's both interesting and disappointing to me how easy it is for some people to forget the budget behaviour of this government over the last decade and the very long list of things which go with that — good things.

Certainly, if you think in terms of what this government has done — in terms of health, transportation, housing, education, forestry, public safety and resource development, to mention a few — it's a pretty impressive listing. This House has been reminded over and over again of those in the last week.

I've seen this long listing firsthand in my own riding of Abbotsford South. For example, we had the building of a new regional hospital, which includes a world-class cancer centre. I'm at the same time reminded that that goes along with what's happened with health care
[ Page 1543 ]
around the province over the last decade — an over $8 billion investment.

I have a very good recall of what we had in Abbotsford South prior to this government coming in, in the beginning of 2000. That was years of getting nothing, years of a completely inadequate hospital.

[1725]

I'm also reminded of what this government has done with respect to transportation in my riding — new roads north, east, west and south of the riding. In fact, as we know, it amounts provincewide to a whopping $17 billion investment. As I'll explain later, we haven't seen the last of that investment.

We've also had in Abbotsford South a commitment to our campus-of-care project — a $3 million investment to help make that happen for hospice care, for children with special needs.

We also know what this government has done with respect to supportive housing. What does that amount to? There is not one single jurisdiction on this planet which has done more for, invested more in supportive housing than this government.

In terms of higher education, in my riding we had the development of a regional university, a full-status university, in Abbotsford and other campuses in surrounding ridings. All of that is part of the single largest investment in higher education in British Columbia's history.

I look at that against what we had in my riding prior to this government — a big fat zero, nothing. It was as if time stood still with respect to advanced education.

I'm also reminded of what this government has done with respect to public safety and the investments made in that regard — not just in terms of the money but the smart moves with money. At the end of the day, we have a situation in British Columbia where there isn't a single jurisdiction in the western world which has reduced crime more than we have. Of course, we've seen that clearly, again, in my riding.

One need only look at the facts. I think those facts are abundantly clear.

Having said all that, I'm also aware, as I think all of us are in the House, that there is a need to do more. All of us in the House want to do more. I think those of us on this side of the House are especially attentive to what those needs might be in the future.

It's about having a readiness to address growing needs. It's understanding that, if we really do want to provide for the needs, we need the capacity to do that. We need the foundation and the security to do that. We need to do it with respect to an understanding of changing demographics. We need to understand that we're trying to make this happen in an increasingly complicated world, in uncertain times.

Worse, we are increasingly at financial risk because of what's happening elsewhere on the globe. We've already experienced this in British Columbia. Indeed, governments around the world, many already on shaky ground well before the global financial crisis in 2008, began to drag the rest of the international community down. They were spending well beyond their means.

The impact on British Columbia was pronounced, as expected revenues dried up, as trade with our major partner, the United States, began to grind to a halt. With less money coming in and the fallout from the global economy on communities all around us, we could have been in a disastrous situation.

But it didn't happen. It didn't happen because of the financial smarts of this government and the toughness to respond to what was necessary at the moment and to position us for a better tomorrow.

[1730]

In the face of falling revenues, this government did not resort to running to the taxpayer for more personal income tax. The government did not fall back on the private sector and place a heavy burden on our business community. Nor did this government make the big mistake — the mistake that governments everywhere in the world have been making for decades — to borrow and keep borrowing, adding to the debt load.

No, this government has decided, instead, to streamline its operations, save money where we can and use those savings to fund our current operations. That's part of what core review is all about.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Instead of responding with widespread layoffs — and I remind you that this is what has happened in nearly every other jurisdiction in the world, with catastrophic consequences — we have been able to keep people in the public sector at work, with modest wage increases, and still find savings in our own budget.

This means we have been able to maintain essential public services and still make strategic investments where they are needed most. This is precisely why British Columbians chose this government last May. We are a government which understands fiscal responsibility, and we do it at every turn.

British Columbians know that racking up debt for day-to-day operations is simply not sustainable over the long haul. Doing what we do now is not sustainable over the long haul. We need to get smart and get creative. You can't spend your way out of an economic downturn and hope that someday your financial problems will simply go away. Fiscal responsibility requires making tough decisions and having the courage to follow through.

Balancing the budget is the heart of fiscal responsibility. British Columbia is leading the country by being one of the only provinces in Canada — the other being Saskatchewan — to provide a balanced budget. Moreover, our outlook is to provide balanced budgets for the foreseeable future. We already have a plan in place to provide
[ Page 1544 ]
three more balanced budgets.

It is the reason why the Conference Board of Canada — never mind that this is an independent review body — has singled out British Columbia as the province to lead the country in economic growth in 2015. The Conference Board recognizes that B.C. is getting the fundamentals right and creating favourable conditions for the private sector to flourish.

Balanced budgets provide investors with certainties. This is a precious commodity in a fragile global economy. One need only ask any investors what they want to see for British Columbia from government. It begins with a balanced budget and good fiscal management.

As one journalist aptly said about the budget, other governments in Canada would kill to be operating a surplus budget like we have today in British Columbia. Prudent and responsible management of public finances means British Columbia holds onto its triple-A credit rating. As we've heard, that is the highest standard available.

Why is that important? Well, as we've already heard, it's important for two huge reasons. It reduces the cost of servicing our debt. If you look at that, relative to what's going on in other provinces and other jurisdictions beyond that, for us this amounts to $2 billion in savings. It's like a financial windfall simply because we've been fiscally responsible, money that can be spent on the kinds of things that we know we still have yet to do.

Secondly, by lowering the government's borrowing cost, we give B.C. the fiscal freedom to make capital investments in provincial infrastructure, which can ultimately add to further enhancing our capacity to provide for needs in the future.

[1735]

I just would like to remind the House about what the government is doing already, in terms of making use of scarce tax dollars, to make strategic investments in areas that matter most to British Columbians.

We are, for example, spending $1.5 billion to maintain, renovate and expand K-to-12 facilities. I should have mentioned earlier that I saw that in my own riding, the redevelopment of schools, and I know that has been happening all across the province.

We're investing $2.3 billion in capital spending for post-secondary institutions. We're spending $2.6 billion on health care infrastructure, $3.4 billion on transportation infrastructure. These are huge investments, all pointed towards a vision of prosperity for the province.

The nature of B.C.'s economy is changing. In 2001 almost 70 percent of B.C. exports went to the United States. Here we are just over a decade later, and that number has dropped to 45 percent, while trade with Asia has expanded exponentially. By comparison, if we look at Alberta and Ontario, in both of those, over 75 percent of their exports are to the United States.

Diversification helps shelter us from downturns and 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. By 2012 the situation had completely turned around. Now China is our largest market in Asia, with 18 percent of our exports. In fact, British Columbia's exports to China have risen over 600 percent in the last decade.

India is a fast-growing market as well. Exports to that country have totalled nearly half a billion dollars in 2013. That alone represents a 45 percent increase from last year.

Overall, international exports of B.C.-made goods and resources increased nearly 7 percent over 2012. In total, we exported last year a whopping $33 billion worth of goods.

I should also make reference to the government's effort on LNG and the constant reference of tying the resource development to what's happening with respect to the budget.

Yes, we are looking to develop LNG and the resource sector in general. We're doing that because we know emerging economies in China, India and other parts of Asia are significantly increasing their demand for natural gas. Recognizing the competitive nature of this market demand in Asia, this government is taking action to harness our abundant reserves in natural gas and seeking to become a world-class, world leader in LNG.

British Columbia is going to enjoy enormous benefits from this. For example, we are going to see hundreds of millions of dollars in new investment. We're going to see thousands of construction jobs, growth in local and regional economies. Particularly notable, much of that development is going to be happening in parts of the province which have historically suffered in terms of their development.

We're going to see higher government revenues, which of course will ultimately translate into enhancing our capacity to provide the services that we know we still need to provide. It will enhance our ability to provide services to the most vulnerable. The spinoffs will be untold.

[1740]

We're also enhancing our commitment, and have through our budget behaviour, to small business. We know that small business also plays an important role in British Columbia exports. It accounts for 42 percent of the merchandise shipped abroad. For that reason, the British Columbia government is making a concerted effort to assist small businesses by slashing red tape, and I'm reminded again that this government was acknowledged for its ability to do that, more so than any other province in the country.

Excessive paperwork and making businesses jump through too many hoops creates a drag on the economy and ultimately costs jobs. Our goal simply is to become the most business-friendly jurisdiction in Canada. The business community, the investment community, know we are working in their best interest, and for the third
[ Page 1545 ]
year in a row the Canadian Federation of Independent Business has awarded British Columbia an A grade rating for continuing its program to slash red tape. We are, in fact, the only province to receive that designation.

We're also committed to investing in social infrastructure. One of the biggest advantages of a balanced budget is having the fiscal freedom to do that, to help B.C. families. We have, for example, established the B.C. training and educational savings fund, a one-time $1,200 grant contribution towards a child's RESP following their sixth birthday. In the last year alone the number of families with RESPs has increased by 10 percent, and we look forward to begin making payments to as many as 40,000 eligible families. Starting in April 2015 the early childhood tax benefit will provide $146 million to approximately 180 families with children under six years old.

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 service. 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 to set the province on a course towards economic expansion and eventually a debt-free province. Again, that is precisely the kind of initiative that we need to ultimately provide more services to more British Columbians. Budget 2014 makes British Columbia a leader in restoring the fiscal health of government so that we have the fiscal freedom to make our own choices and shape our own future.

S. Robinson: I'm pleased to finally be able to rise in the House after an absence of many, many months. I'm glad to see that they've dusted the place. That's good.

People have been asking me since the middle of the fall how things have been going in Victoria. They're curious about how I'm adapting to my new life. What's the rhythm like? What does my husband, Dan, think about me being away for half of the week? People were just curious about what it is that we do here. And time after time, people from all the constituencies in the Tri-Cities were shocked to learn that we had not sat in the Legislature since July. The look on their faces became predictable as they would go from shock and then to disappointment and finally to disengagement. No wonder politicians get such a bad rap, and no wonder voter turnout is sinking lower and lower.

[1745]

Cancelling the fall session puts a further nail in the voter coffin, leaving our constituents to believe that provincial politicians only drink from the public trough, lumping us into the Senate scandal, leaving us painted with the same brush, making it harder and harder to engage citizens to be active, to care about their governments and to be active in their communities.

But I'm glad to finally be here. The voters of Coquitlam-Maillardville put me here, and they are pleased that we are finally sitting in the Legislature. I'm looking forward to representing their concerns and being their voice here in the House.

I rise today in response to the budget last week. I wasn't here last week. I had a medical emergency that landed me in hospital, but with some good painkillers and my trusty BlackBerry, I was able to watch the budget.

As I lay there in my room, looking at the three elderly gentlemen in the other beds in the room and thinking about the two older women sleeping in beds at either end of the hospital hall, I listened carefully, making sure that I would be able to explain to the constituents of Coquitlam-Maillardville and those people in those hospital beds how this Liberal government would make life better for them and for their families, how this Liberal government was planning to balance the budget and what it would mean for them.

Of course, as I listened, I listened in the context of my life experiences as a daughter, a mother, a family therapist and a public servant, bringing all of my experience to this job — a job that I believe everyone in this House takes with great consideration and commitment.

As a family therapist with 20 years of experience, I listened closely to what was in the throne speech and the subsequent budget. But I also know, with 20 years of experience, that it's not just what people say that matters. It's what they are not saying that speaks volumes. The most interesting and revealing part of any therapy conversation is what people are not telling you.

What I heard was a lot about jobs — promising jobs to British Columbians living in poverty, jobs to our young people, jobs for single mothers, jobs for those with disabilities and jobs for our First Nations people.

I heard about LNG creating 100,000 new jobs throughout the province and even the development of a prosperity fund that would eliminate the debt that continues to grow under this current Liberal government. Of course, it will be years before any of these jobs could be realized and still years before this prosperity fund would get this province out of debt.

But what didn't I hear? I didn't hear anything about how those living in poverty today will be able to put food on the table for their children today, tomorrow or the next day. If I recall, most British Columbians believe that government does have a role to help to feed our neighbour's children — not like a certain MP who comes from my neck of the woods. But this government seems to think along similar lines to that MP.

Clearly, the Premier and her government think that it's someone else's responsibility to feed our neighbour's children because there's absolutely nothing in the throne speech or the budget that speaks to putting food on the
[ Page 1546 ]
table today or tomorrow. Those British Columbians who are working two jobs, who are picking up extra shifts to make ends meet, those parents who are reducing their food intake so that their children can have more food in their bellies — there's nothing for them in this throne speech or in this budget.

Then there was a promise of jobs for single parents. Single parents got special mention in the throne speech. I didn't hear anything about how those single parents will manage the child care demands of those so-called jobs that eventually are supposed to come on line. We all know that after a mortgage — if you can afford to buy a home — child care is the greatest expense for any family.

For those who are struggling to find affordable daycare, those who find that most or all of their paycheques go to pay the care provider, those who find that they actually have more money in their pocket if they don't work — there was absolutely nothing in this budget for them.

I didn't hear, about jobs for people living with disabilities, about what their needs are in terms of participating in the economy. I didn't hear anything about putting supports in place so that they could get the training they need in order to have a job. I didn't hear anything there that would help them manage the challenges that come with a cognitive impairment, a mental illness, a drug addiction — nothing to help them get treatment, nothing to help support their ability to seek the training they need for their jobs so they can have a living wage.

This budget doesn't help them participate in the economy. They're going to have to wait — 15, 16, 20 years, whatever it is — until this prosperity fund happens.

As for jobs for First Nations people, I didn't hear anything about working with these groups to build trust, settle land claims, work with these First Nations to build a stronger province. It's as if offering jobs as shiny trinkets should be sufficient. No, nothing in here for them developing workable relationships for the long term. They are going to have to wait like everyone else.

[1750]

I did hear a whole lot in the throne speech and, subsequently, the budget about LNG. I think we heard a whole lot — about six or seven times, I think, in the throne speech.

What I didn't hear or see in the budget was how this Liberal government will support the municipalities who are going to have to scramble to build infrastructure needed to accommodate all those workers who are going to be coming to their towns and into their villages. How are those workers going to access their worksites? Who is going to build the roads that will get workers from their homes to the worksite? Who is going to pay to ensure that there is sufficient sewage and water for the influx predicted?

Who is going to ensure that there's adequate housing for these boom times that are being predicted? We're already seeing housing costs…. In places like Kitimat regular workers can't find a place — people working in Tim Hortons, people working as recreation workers, people who are pharmacy techs. They cannot find places to live.

The challenge is that this government has not built in anything in this budget that will support those municipal governments to build the structures that they need to make these communities livable. Clearly, this Liberal government leaves the important work of building livable communities to local governments. When there isn't sufficient water or when the housing supply is simply not available, it's because they don't care. They don't care how livable these towns and communities are. This budget says that those towns are on their own to figure out how to support new residents and the new economic activity that's going to be a challenge for these communities.

I did hear, however, the minister say several times that the budget is balanced. Now, I've been on municipal councils for five years, and every single one of our budgets was balanced. It's not actually that difficult to balance a budget. I balance my family budget. Sometimes it means that we don't take a vacation. Sometimes it means that we do. Sometimes it means that I get to redecorate a room, and sometimes I don't.

Balancing the budget with cost pressures without raising taxes — now, that takes talent. This government says they haven't raised taxes. Well, that's a bunch of hooey. We need to take a look and see how this budget was balanced. What did the government do to balance the budget?

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members. Members.

S. Robinson: Now, what's this business about no new taxes? Well, we have the medical services tax — because that's really what it is. It's a tax. That's certainly going to be felt by families. Hydro rate increases, ferry rate increases, ICBC increases — that's how they're going to balance the budget. They're increasing taxes. Let's be clear and honest. The cost of living for most British Columbians will go up. They will pay more, and they will get less.

Another tool used to balance the budget is to fire-sale some lands. On the north side of Coquitlam the B.C. Liberals are taking an appreciating asset, some lands in Burke Mountain, some of which, albeit, are ready for sale. They have undergone the neighbourhood planning process, and they're ready for sale — absolutely. It's time to sell them to the highest bidder. But there's a whole bunch of land up there that is undergoing the planning process in the next few months.

Those lands are going to appreciate over the next 18 months. They will be worth two, three, maybe four times what they currently will get today, and this government, in order to balance the budget, has decided — I think a
[ Page 1547 ]
very unwise decision — to sell it now, before they have reached their full potential for value. That is a poor business decision.

What else didn't I hear in this budget? I didn't hear anything about addressing climate change. I didn't hear anything that would look at systemic poverty. As I listened, I paid particular attention to what might be in the throne speech or budget that might make life a bit easier for my sister and her husband, who operate a small family business in the Lower Mainland. Well, I didn't hear anything in that budget that would help them at all.

I didn't hear anything about funds for the violence-free B.C. motto that this throne speech brought forward. The throne speech, I imagine, is a blueprint for the budget, a strategic plan or a visioning document that would inform the budget. So we have a visionary document, a throne speech that says one thing, but the supporting document is absolutely silent on how this is to be achieved.

I have to ask the members on the other side of the House: is the Premier planning on promoting another special T-shirt day that rallies the troops or the taxpayers to buy a special-coloured T-shirt that will raise funds to educate people on why violence is a bad thing?

On top of that, to add insult to injury or to provide a real smack in the face, there are less funds in this budget for real programs, programs that address the issue of violence towards women and girls. We know that we need real funds for real programs.

[1755]

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Member, please take your seat for a moment.

Please continue.

S. Robinson: If this government was serious about a violence-free B.C., we would see resources dedicated to addressing violence in women's and girls' lives. Say one thing, do another. The therapist part of me, however, is so curious. I am curious that if there's no money in the budget, then why would you put it in the throne speech? I can only guess that it's part of the "say one thing, do another" style of government that we see time and time again: use empty slogans to woo voters.

If this is the case, then how can we believe the LNG story, if they keep saying one thing and doing another? The B.C. Liberals have no credibility when they pull these kinds of stunts.

I didn't hear anything about the sacrifices families today are going to have to make as we wait for the prosperity fund to take care of us. I didn't hear anything about how families in all of our communities are going to have to manage their challenges on their own because this government is out of ideas, out of creativity and out of hope.

I reflect back on my inaugural speech here in this chamber back in July, and I recall the woman I talked about, the woman who came to the door waving that knife because she was telling me how hard it was for her and her family. If I can remind this chamber, this woman had a job. She had a good job as a medical technologist. She was frustrated that she couldn't afford child care. The lack of transit forced them to buy another family vehicle.

I imagined telling her that this B.C. Liberal budget would perhaps make a difference in her life, something that would give her hope. But alas, that's not the case. I have nothing to tell her. The fact that she has to take on additional shifts to make ends meet…. These extra shifts take away precious time with her family, time that she can never get back — because time is truly the only non-renewable resource.

There is nothing in this budget for this woman, nothing that will make life easier. In fact, I'm going to have to tell her that she's going to have to take on yet more shifts. She will have to work harder to cover the added costs that the middle class will have to bear with this budget.

She will need to spend more money on hydro, on ICBC and on MSP. Let's not forget the added costs that she's going to have to go over the Port Mann Bridge, which she now has to bear. This family will find living in the suburbs of Vancouver more costly — most of them hidden taxes. This woman will be spending less time with her family over the coming years under the administration of this B.C. Liberal government, and that's why I cannot support this budget.

J. Sturdy: It's nice to see that the member opposite is seeming to believe that there will be a prosperity fund coming forward and there is faith in all those jobs that are going to be coming forward to LNG. That's nice to see.

It is my pleasure to stand and speak in favour of this boring balanced budget of 2014. In describing the merits of the aforementioned budget, I also propose to take the opportunity to tell the House a little bit about West Vancouver–Sea to Sky.

Like so many other ridings in the province, it is the best one, only in the case of West Vancouver–Sea to Sky it's true. Think of Lighthouse Park, Cypress Bowl, Horseshoe Bay, Bowen Island, Britannia Beach, Squamish, Whistler, and Pemberton from Anderson Lake to the Lillooet ice fields. Deep-sea ports, railways, forestry, tourism, energy, agriculture, islands, rivers — and not one, but two volcanoes. And unique communities to match the resources. West Vancouver–Sea to Sky in so many ways is B.C. compressed.

Before I get too far down this road I'd like to begin with some traditional thanks to my lovely wife, Trish, who has been by my side for better or for worse since meeting almost 30 years ago in a Prince George parking lot as rookie tree planters.

[1800]

She was still with me years later in the decision to
[ Page 1548 ]
begin farming in the Pemberton Valley, a dubious decision for a couple of born and bred Vancouverites but one that turned out well against some odds. Our farming operation became a very public one, with U-pick berries, wagon rides to the pumpkin patch, school tours, a bakery and later evolved to include weddings and long-table dinners. We even made a couple of attempts at corn mazes when they were all the rage but reconsidered for a number of reasons, culminating in the experience of a family of five as they emerged from the corn patch thrilled with the experience — amazed, even. But when they told me that the best part was that they saw five bears, we decided it was time to make some changes.

As you can appreciate, a supportive spouse at your side is a pretty handy thing, and Trish has been all of that. Over the course of time we've had two girls, and it's amazing to realize they're both now attending UBC. I can't thank these three women enough for ensuring that I was well-trained to live with them and keeping me in touch with the community far better than I ever could have done alone.

I also need to acknowledge my mother, who has been a supporter and mentor. She has encouraged all her children to explore life's opportunities and never find themselves regretting not trying. These four women have been and continue to be the pillars on which our family is firmly built and for which I am ever so grateful.

To date, my experience in this new role as MLA is proving to be, as expected, endlessly fascinating and uniquely challenging. As MLAs, we may be at the pointy end of the public stick, but as we know, it's really the constituency staff, the legislative assistants and caucus support that allow MLAs to keep files moving forward, resolving constituents' problems and ensuring that we're aware of issues as they emerge. Thank you especially to my CA, Lisa Ames, who has been invaluable as we both learn this job.

It's a privilege most days to serve the citizens of British Columbia in this Legislature and, specifically, my constituents of West Vancouver–Sea to Sky.

I do also want to recognize my esteemed colleagues on both sides of the House, both those that are old — excuse me, experienced — and those like myself who are newly elected.

My experience in municipal and regional government at many UBCMs, mayors conferences and local government forums has led me to conclude that although we may not all agree as politicians on a particular — or, in some cases, any — issue, what I will not dispute is that we're all here for the right reason. We all believe that we can contribute, that we can make a difference in helping this province become a better place for all of us, for our children and for their children. For that I thank you for your ideas and positive — mostly — contributions.

This debate is clearly one of those times, though, that agreement seems unlikely. This House is clearly not aligned on the principles of this budget. This type of budget really shouldn't come as much of a surprise to members opposite. Perhaps it doesn't. After all, fiscal responsibility was a theme this government campaigned on. It's a theme that was compelling to me and, in many ways, familiar.

I come at this job as an MLA peering through a number of lenses that reflect my experience. First, as mayor. It is interesting to note that municipalities do not have the right or opportunity to run an operational deficit, which makes sense in limiting the ability of a council to compromise a community's future. The second is as a parent who wouldn't compromise my family's future by spending more than is earned. And third, as a farmer, notoriously frugal, who has a personal right as a business owner to run an annual deficit. It's something that can happen when disaster strikes, but it's not a recommended long-term plan, either fiscally or environmentally.

Fiscal responsibility is, at times, all too tempting to try and shirk. It's easy to understand how demand and desire can and do continuously put pressure on the necessary and overriding objective of sound financial management. Many of you have seen that principle abandoned at times, for as a society wanting to get the things done that we would like to do, we never seem to have enough — not enough people, not enough time and never enough money. But the working principle is and must be that, operationally, you run in the black. Income must at least meet expenses, or you wouldn't be in business long.

Certainly, one of those expenses can be long-term debt servicing. There's value investing in infrastructure and assets that increase your efficiency and enhance your productivity.

[1805]

In my farming life I have more, I must admit, long-term debt on my farming operations than when I initially acquired the asset. I have invested and amortized in power supplies and irrigation systems, cooling and storage systems, buildings and more equipment than I care to think about. I've made mistakes, as any entrepreneur is bound at times to experience, and there have been times when an investment hasn't been as successful as planned. But taken as an aggregate, my ability to produce food, receive a return and raise a family has been enhanced by the investments that have been made.

I see these types of investments made by this government in West Vancouver–Sea to Sky and around the province, investments that have been amortized — and rightly so — investments that are providing a good return. A classic example in my riding is the Sea to Sky Highway. No longer described as the highway of death, it's now a marvel of engineering and efficiency. I've driven this highway thousands of times over the decades, and it has become something of a joy. This highway has opened up the Sea to Sky with opportunities that are even now just being realized.
[ Page 1549 ]

As a result, Squamish is increasingly in the public eye and growing — not only as the outdoor capital of Canada for its rock climbing, mountaineering, ski touring, mountain biking, rafting, hunting, salt- and freshwater fishing and, of course, the Brackendale eagles but also as a deep-water port with rail connections and highway access, a world-class university and a vibrant business community. This community of 18,000 is forecast to double in population in the next 25 years. Much of this has only become possible because of capital investments by the province of British Columbia.

Some 40 kilometres further up the highway is the Resort Municipality of Whistler. The impacts that the highway has had on the vibrancy of this unique community are profound. It's a destination of global significance — a host community of the 2010 Winter Olympic and Paralympic Games, a community which, interestingly, contributes 22 percent of the province's tourism export revenue. It's a resort that provides a GDP contribution to the province of $1.4 billion annually, that throws off $1.1 million per day in taxation to government, 365 days a year. So $428 million a year — now, that's a return on investment.

This highway leads to communities and regions beyond: Gold Bridge, Pemberton, Bralorne and on to Lillooet and the Cariboo. This type of investment can add to our provincial debt service, but it's proved a smart investment for a secure tomorrow. These investments help buffer our risk as we find ourselves in a fragile financial environment, not just within North America but globally.

In 2009 our economy took a massive hit that was not anticipated, and it created a $2 billion hole in our provincial revenue stream. In B.C. we've worked hard to close that gap. On the expenditure side, the focus is reflected in this budget in the control of spending — a theme that has served us and will serve us well into the future, for the alternative is to manage decline. For this government, this is not an option. This is not an option for families in this province, this is not an option for businesses in this province, and it shouldn't be an option for the future of this province.

As the Finance Minister noted in his budget, 57 percent of the cost of government is transferred to the hard-working public sector of this fine province. As a B.C. ambulance paramedic for over 20 years, I've certainly seen what it takes for those front-line staff, especially in the pre–hospital care environment, and throughout the system — a commitment to a job well done and to the type of dedication to patient care that it takes to generate some of the best health outcomes in this country.

I join the minister in thanking labour leaders for helping keep it that way by agreeing to share the benefits of growing the economy of British Columbia. Labour is investing in the health of the provincial budget because leadership from the public sector is working with the minister to close the gap and balance fiscal realities with the demands and desire for services. The public will benefit from cost certainty and labour stability.

This is how government wants to move forward: together, working to best position British Columbia to find ways to grow the economy, to grow the revenue stream and to meet service demand in the right balance. This government has worked hard in a very difficult fiscal environment to grow revenues, expand markets for B.C. products and support new investments in British Columbia industry.

[1810]

As Canada's Pacific Gateway, our future lies in expanding trade with growing economies in Asia. The Premier has led four trade missions there with teams that include leaders from across every region and sector throughout the province, including labour, local government, business, education and First Nations. As one result last year, B.C. broke a record for lumber exports to China and will be following up, taking the same approach with mining and the ag sector.

Clearly, there are opportunities created by the need for energy. In an era of a growing middle class in Asia, some numbers are worth considering. By 2020, a mere six years away, the Asian middle class is forecast to have tripled to 1.7 billion people. This is truly an amazing transformation that creates enormous opportunities. We must do what we can to best position the people of this province for advantage.

Clearly, LNG is one such prospect. I've heard the criticism that this government is putting too much focus on LNG, but I would argue that to not work diligently while the opportunity exists would be tantamount to a dereliction of duty. The real challenge is to find the right balance of cost structure that does not leave money on the table or, conversely, drive investment away.

In this I have every confidence in the minister for LNG and the focus and mandate that the Premier has provided by creating a single-purpose ministry to ensure that every opportunity and nuance is explored, understood and acted upon to the advantage of the people of B.C.

LNG projects will be coming not just to the north of the province but, in fact, to West Vancouver–Sea to Sky. We hope to have one of the first export projects in the province.

Wood fibre LNG is proposed for Squamish and planned to come on line as early as 2017. That's $1.5 billion in capital expenditure, 600 jobs during construction and 100 full-time jobs during operation. A brownfield site of an old pulp mill will finally be remediated — and an existing deep-water port adjacent to multiple high-voltage transmission lines — within a municipal tax base.

This opportunity has the hallmarks of a really exciting project for Squamish. This is the kind of project that this government is working to bring to British Columbia. As the industry grows, I'll be surprised if ancillary businesses and industries do not become established in Squamish,
[ Page 1550 ]
taking advantage of the location, the port capacity, the class 1 rail access, the highway infrastructure and, of course, the willing and qualified workers.

In West Vancouver, as in the province as a whole, it's not just about LNG. No, in some ways in West Vancouver–Sea to Sky LNG is a bit of a footnote because it's principally about renewables. We have the first run-of-river projects in the province. The Soo River project was commissioned in 1994. Since then, over 450 megawatts of renewable power is currently being generated or in the development stage with the EPAs.

The confidence with which critics of IPPs criticize this energy supply and long-term, fixed-price contracts confounds me. I don't claim to understand their view of a 40-year energy future. Somehow they don't seem to think that the price of non-carbon energy will go up.

Well, I have a different view. I believe that over the term of the current fixed-price energy purchase contracts the taxpayers of this province will be the winners. And at the end of the contract we have an asset on Crown land. That sounds like a leasehold improvement to me.

In W.A.C. Bennett's time, during the development of what we now describe as heritage hydro assets, critics said that they were hugely expensive for power that the province didn't need. Sound familiar? Well, I see demand growing as populations grow. Just imagine what happens to demand if even part of the transportation fleet transitions to electricity.

Non-carbon-producing energy should be evermore valuable as the world moves in the direction that B.C. has gone already and that California, Washington and Oregon are going. Carbon-heavy energy will push up the valuable renewables.

In the long term the future of energy is in renewables. In the Sea to Sky over the last 20 years we have gained tremendous experience in small hydro, and we have become somewhat expert. The quality and efficiency of developments and operations have continuously improved, project by project. Mistakes are recognized and lessons learned. As the industry matures, we have begun to see the advantage of clustering, and we're improving our ability to monitor cumulative effects.

The beginning of a concept of a Sea to Sky centre for excellence for renewable energy production is emerging — local knowledge and experience that is valuable and exportable.

Knowledge and education are important pieces of the future of this province and the future of West Van–Sea to Sky. The most successful example in the riding of an exceptional educational opportunity is the development of Quest University, which is Canada's first independent, not-for-profit secular university.

[1815]

Quest offers only one degree — a bachelor of arts and sciences — and focuses entirely on excellence in undergraduate education, where all students complete a major senior thesis. Founded in 2002 by former University of British Columbia president Dr. David Strangway, it opened with a 73-student inaugural class in 2007 and is now in full enrolment with 650 students, half of whom are from Canada and the rest from around the world. This is an excellent fit and export for Sea to Sky and a B.C.-based, value-added experience.

The diversity of the people in this riding reflects the diversity and strength of the province as a whole, from urban West Vancouverites to Pemberton farmers, from Bowen Islanders to Lil'wat forestry workers, from Whistler businesses to Squamish and Vancouver commuters. The range of family life is unparalleled by any riding in the province. But some of that population, who live from one end of the riding to the other, have been left behind in the economic growth of this province. That is First Nations.

In the Sea to Sky we have four First Nations who are rediscovering their strengths: the Squamish Nation on the North Shore and around Howe Sound; Lil'wat Nation in Mount Currie and in the Pemberton Valley; N'quatqua in D'Arcy and Anderson Lake; and the In-SHUCK-ch Nation of Lillooet Lake, who are in final agreement of treaty settlement. All of these peoples are being engaged by government.

These nations are engaging society and industry with impact-and-benefits agreements, natural resource–revenue-sharing and shared decision-making, because we must ensure that the First Nations become the self-sustaining communities that we all want and the communities that their leaders envision — healthy, safe and vibrant places where every child gets an education that serves them into the 21st century and where each has an equal opportunity for a prosperous future.

As I've described, First Nations are already involved in renewable industries, and I would be remiss in not mentioning two or three other renewables that figure prominently. I've touched on the tourism that ranges to every place in the riding and how this industry brings new money into the province and the growing economy, especially with new events like the Squamish live festival and, of course, my favourite, the Pemberton music festival, returning July 18-20.

I want to also talk about the forest sector. This is an industry that really opened up the Sea to Sky after the gold rush of the 1860s. Forestry built most of the roads throughout the region. It was a mainstay of the economy for 50 years.

It's rising again as we come into second growth, although there are many challenges. Nearly half the forest land base is in some sort of protected area status or is rock and ice. Much of this sector is managed jointly with various First Nations. As we work through the challenges generated by a challenging forest profile, limits to log exports, long hauls and high road-maintenance costs in this dynamic mountain environment, we are beginning to see
[ Page 1551 ]
the industry come back into its own.

The other renewable industry that serves the riding well is a growing agriculture sector. The Pemberton Valley has 8,000 hectares of class 1 and class 2 farmland that help feed B.C.

Pemberton was known historically for its elite and virus-free seed potatoes, shipping all across western North America. Potatoes continue to be the backbone of ag in the valley, but increasingly, beef and other forage animals are being grown for food. Mixed vegetable and berry operations, increasingly with organic production methods, are catering to the hotel and restaurant businesses in Whistler and Vancouver.

Some value-added industries are beginning to thrive, such as the award-winning Pemberton Distillery, which produces organic Pemberton potato vodka, single malt whiskey, gin and absinthe. The latest agricultural venture to evolve in the valley is the reintroduction of hops production. Dozens of varieties are now being grown for processing and are shipped out to the craft brewer industry throughout North America. The desire for local is serving the industry well, and its future looks promising.

All the activity that I've just been speaking of, all the people that industry employs, all the opportunity that this region presents, is supported by a solid financial footing through reasonable taxes, good governance and efficient process, and we get an economy that attracts investment. This government is doing that.

[1820]

This government has maintained a debt-to-GDP ratio that generates confidence in the financial markets, which keeps our debt-servicing costs within our means. This budget stays the solid financial course. This budget invests in our collective future, even if it is boring. This budget I support.

J. Kwan: I rise to speak to Budget 2014, and I thank the members who've spoken before me about this budget.

I was listening to the member for West Vancouver–Sea to Sky. He said that this budget shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone. Well, I'll tell you this, and you'll hear this first in this House. I agree with the member on this point — that this budget didn't come as a surprise, certainly not to me.

When I read the budget, here's what I found — what this budget was all about. The truth is — if people choose to see it for what it is, they will actually see the truth around that — hidden taxes, missed targets and broken promises, page after page after page. When you look at this budget, that's what it told me.

Now, you'll say: "Why wouldn't you be surprised about that?" Well, I'm not surprised about that, because I witnessed the election.

Let me just start with the most obvious item that we all saw. All members in this House and many thousands of British Columbians saw this on the side of the B.C. Liberal bus that the Premier rode in. What did it say? If you ask the members opposite, they will all honestly tell you. It said "Debt-free B.C."

That's what the bus said, and that's what the Premier campaigned on. Relentlessly, she told British Columbians that it was going to be debt-free.

What did we find in this budget, you might ask? We found more debt than ever in the history of British Columbia. In fact, under this very Premier the debt increased faster than with any other Premier that preceded her. Not only that, the size of the debt increase was the largest under this very Premier than with any other Premier in the history of British Columbia.

Interjections.

J. Kwan: Now I have woken up some of the Liberal members, because they're heckling me.

You know why? You know why the Liberal member heckles? It's because he knows and the members know I'm telling the truth, and British Columbians know that we're telling the truth.

Now, let's just take a look at the budget by its numbers so that nobody is accusing me of making them up. If the members choose to look in the budget book, they will actually see that the debt has risen up to over $70 billion under this Premier. The Premier, when she became the leader of the B.C. Liberals, actually increased the B.C. debt by $26.8 billion, rendering it the biggest increase in the history of British Columbia.

Now, you will say: "Why are you not surprised by this budget?" Because the budget shows that the government is not telling the truth, that the Premier is not telling the truth. Her budget shows that the debt had actually increased under her tenure. It did not decrease, as she suggests. Nor did it disappear, as she suggests.

In fact, the Premier managed to deliver the line, during the budget and post-budget, without blinking, that she somehow was going to magically make the debt disappear.

Here's a reality check for the Premier. To pay off $69 billion of debt within 11 years would require $6.3 billion per year in paying down the debt. So I just ask the members on that side of the House: what page exactly did they see a reduction in debt in the budget books? I challenge any member on that side of the House to get up and point that out and say that I am wrong.

[1825]

Okay. I now note and have been reminded by my colleagues that the House has to adjourn. So with that, I am going to reserve my space to continue on with this….

Interjections.

J. Kwan: I would happily indulge. To be sure, I would happily indulge. If any of the government side….
[ Page 1552 ]

I see, I think, that the Government House Leader for this period might actually rise up and make a motion to extend the sitting of the House. We would welcome that, but if that doesn't come forward, I will take my place at the next sitting of the House.

Madame Speaker: The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant has moved adjournment of the debate?

J. Kwan: Madame Speaker, I'll move adjournment of debate. I thought that maybe the Government House Leader might rise up and actually extend the time.

J. Kwan moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. T. Stone moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

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

The House adjourned at 6:26 p.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

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

TV channel guide • Broadcast schedule

Copyright © 2014: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada