2014 Legislative Session: Second Session, 40th Parliament
HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

official report of

Debates of the Legislative Assembly

(hansard)

Thursday, February 27, 2014

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 6, Number 9

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

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 2014

The House met at 1:32 p.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Speaker's Statement

MEDICAL INCIDENT
ON LEGISLATIVE PRECINCT

Madame Speaker: Members, it is with infinite sadness that I share the following with you. This morning a tourist from Ontario was on the precinct grounds with his wife and suffered a heart attack. Within a minute Legislative Assembly Protective Services were able to start CPR with our automatic defibrillator. Paramedics arrived four minutes later, followed by advanced life support. Despite resuscitation attempts for 45 minutes, the gentleman died.

On behalf of all members of the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia, I would like to express our collective condolences to his wife and family. Arrangements have been made with victim services and a family friend in Victoria to offer assistance.

To our legislative staff: thank you for being there on our behalf.

Orders of the Day

Hon. D. McRae: I call continued debate on the budget.

Budget Debate

(continued)

N. Simons: Thank you to the one member from the opposite side who applauded with two fingers on his desk.

It's my pleasure to continue with my comments on Budget 2014. For those who missed it this morning, I was full of praise and congratulations. So this half of my remarks will be devoted to the other side, where I think maybe the government could have perhaps improved some of its projections and been perhaps more precise in their wording and perhaps more accurate in their goals.

[D. Horne in the chair.]

However, that's all part of this. Part of this budget was the selling and the advertorial nature of it, and some of it really does beg further discussion and serious criticism.

What I would have liked to see in this budget…. And it's not all about spending. It's not all about finding more money to spend more money. It's partly about making sure what we do spend is being spent on the right priorities.

[1335]

As I've said before, I have disagreed strenuously with this government's priorities for many years, partly because of my background in child protection and my understanding of the impact that poverty has on families in this province. I think that unfortunately for every child in this province, especially every child living in poverty, this budget wasn't boring to them. It was very impactful to them, and they see another example of a government that thinks that they can wait, that they can wait until their parent takes a third job in order to keep them from having to go to the food bank every week.

I would have loved to see, even if it didn't involve the allocation of money, at least some evidence that the government was going to contemplate the consideration of issues around reducing poverty in this province besides just parroting a slogan, a slogan that jobs are the only answer to address the issue of poverty. Don't tell that to the seven-year-old who is living in poverty and has been for seven years of their life. We can't wait. If we are considering the impact of this budget on future generations, we should at least contemplate the inaction that will result in worse outcomes for children and families in this province.

I see what this government is doing — borrowing money or taking money from other agencies in order to balance the budget, selling off assets. I can't tell somebody that my house is in good order if I have just sold the back porch. I think what we have to recognize is that when the government tells everybody in this province that everything is good, we have to know what they mean by good.

We have to realize that what they mean by good is that they're patting themselves on the back, and they're looking good in the eyes of their supporters. But actually, this is a situation where most people in this province realize that this government could do better and should do better. Just because they won the gold in the last election and we got the silver doesn't mean they have to ignore the interests of those who we represent.

Every time members of this Legislature, especially on the government side, talk about tax burden, every time they talk about red tape, and every time they talk about bloated government they are insulting the public servants of this province. I don't consider it red tape when there is someone to make sure that the food in my restaurant is going to be safe. I don't consider it a bloated government when you have too few social workers going to investigate child protection concerns that are reported on a daily basis in this province. I don't consider it a burden to ensure that children and families in this province are cared for and looked after.

I take great offence on behalf of citizens of this province when we hear the government parroting all sorts of clichés about red tape, cutting red tape and reducing the burden. It's not a burden to me to have a well-educated workforce. It's not a burden to me when we pay for the
[ Page 1682 ]
skills training that is necessary in this province. I wish this government recognized the importance of government, the importance of public programs, so that our communities can be healthy, can have good-quality air, good-quality soil and we can have some interest in protecting the interests of people in this province.

Now, we've seen waste in this government. We've seen waste, and we can allocate blame wherever we want, but a government that isn't keeping track of what their ministries are doing is a government that has to, every once in a while, go back to a core review. They haven't been paying attention for so long that they have to do another core review.

I would like to remind this House what happened the last time a core review was undertaken. The Ministry of Children and Family Development won the deregulation award, the Deregulation Sprint Award. If people in this House remember, it was in the same year that this government failed the family of little Sherry Charlie. This is a direct impact of government cuts that are done blindly at a time when issues are important to deal with and there aren't adequate resources to deal with it.

Stop making so many changes in ministries that rely on secure funding. I think that this government has already learned, had an opportunity to learn its lessons, but we see them failing to learn from their past mistakes.

I think that this fiction-infused budget, with respect to the idea that it is tax neutral…. It is certainly not. We are going see burdens on our families, especially on the Sunshine Coast, where we are ferry-reliant. Our basic transportation needs are being taken away from us — our basic transportation needs.

I hear the Minister of Transportation crowing about all of the projects that are being undertaken, while at the same time they are choking off our communities. If B.C. Ferries ran the Port Mann Bridge and saw the traffic go down the way they did, they would probably close a couple of lanes and raise the price. That's not the way to stimulate economies. That's not a way to support jobs-promoting communities such as Powell River, such as the lower Sunshine Coast.

[1340]

These are communities that contribute to the health and welfare of this province, and this government is turning its back on them. It's turning its back on children on Texada Island who, because of their decision to cut services, are no longer going to be able to participate in extracurricular activities.

That is a shame, especially when this government talks about doing preventative health and making sure people are involved in their community. It's a farce to suggest that this government has contemplated any of the impacts of their serious cuts on ferry-reliant communities, such as the entire Powell River–Sunshine Coast constituency.

I hear this government talk about a violence-free B.C., and who wouldn't agree that we should strive for a violence-free B.C.? But everyone in this House knows in their heart that you can't just have a statement. You can't just have platitudes.

You need action, and that action needs to come from where the problem exists. The problems about bullying, the problems about violence — family violence and every type of violence — and social breakdown have to do with poverty, have to do with the fact that the underlying cause is poverty.

If we could address poverty, we would reduce the burden of MCFD costs. We would reduce the burden of our health care system. We would reduce these things that the government likes to refer to as drains and anchors on our economy.

We know that British Columbia is a welcoming place. It is an attractive place for investors, not just because we had to beat everybody and have the lowest corporate tax rate. No, that's not the reason. People come to British Columbia because of its natural beauty, because of its skilled people, because the community looks after one another.

This is a good place to do business and not just because of government policy, not just because of slogans and attractive advertorials. It's because the people of British Columbia care for their province. The people of British Columbia have invested in their transportation infrastructure. They recognize that a good school system and safe communities are what attract businesses.

I would have loved to have seen this government at least pay some attention to the issues around environmental assessments. We have seen what's happening in British Columbia with the coal exports. We don't even see a government paying any attention to my constituents who have legitimate questions that deserve some answers about the impact of coal exports through the constituency.

That's not even taking sides. It's about answering basic questions from citizens of this province. This government shouldn't be running from those questions. An open government is one that recognizes its successes and its failures and doesn't try to hide them. Unfortunately, that's what this government seems to be doing.

Clichés and platitudes don't do it. If only this government considered the importance of diversifying our economy instead of putting all eggs in a leaky basket. We have to promote industries and sectors that have for so long been neglected, including promoting agricultural production, promoting farmers, ensuring that we can meet the challenges of future generations.

It's not just looking after ourselves. We can't just think about what's going to work for the next three and a half or four years. We need to contemplate the impact of our policies on future generations. If we fail to do that, we're failing the future generations.

Now, I would have loved to have seen some explana-
[ Page 1683 ]
tion or some indication in this budget that we would abandon the most abusive policy towards seniors, which is the DriveABLE system. The whole system of testing senior drivers when they turn 80 is, in my mind, a form of emotional abuse. I've spoken to enough seniors to recognize the symptoms.

What we have in this situation are driving tests that the policy, the doctor test, the computer test and the on-road test were developed by a husband-and-wife team, and this government purchased that whole system without going to tender. Unfortunately, the result is we have an inaccurate test that takes as many good drivers off the road as bad.

This government knows about that problem. This government fails to address that problem. If we continue to fail when we know what the problems are, we should know that we should do better.

Though it concerns me that the government tries to put a certain spin on its budget, they get away with it anyway. They'll get away with it. This is the regular season, and the only thing that counts, apparently, is playoffs.

[1345]

In this particular case, while we're waiting so much more could be done for the children of this province. So much more could be done for the environment of this province. We don't have to completely sacrifice all our future goals and our vision for this province by pretending to balance a budget.

We're upping our medical services taxes. We're upping our ICBC taxes. These are taxes — a rose by any other name, you know. It's the same thing. It's trying to change the channel or put fancy words on it — lipstick on a pig, as they say, as my friend from Saanich South said the other day.

I think that we need to make sure that…. If we continue in this regard, we're going to have problems in the future.

Interjection.

N. Simons: I'm sorry. Let me just wait one moment. I believe there's a member on the other side who wants to get a message to me.

Yes, sir?

Interjection.

N. Simons: The member has a very good question. He knows that I'm the Agriculture critic, but no, I have not, as many of my colleagues may have, attempted to put lipstick onto a pig. But I know from deductive logic that it will not change the nature of the pig.

Interjection.

N. Simons: Thank you very much. I believe that I have convinced the minister opposite that what I say on this side of the House is probably accurate.

Interjection.

N. Simons: The minister has asked a very prescient question, and I appreciate it. With the few minutes left, it's always important to fill every corner of a room.

It's a question to do with housing. In fact, it's a perfect opportunity for me to make a request of the minister, because I apparently have his attention. Now, that request…. We will soon see if that's in fact the….

Interjections.

N. Simons: We'll judge it for a few days.

There was a time when the minister responsible for homelessness — Minister Responsible for Housing — came to the Sunshine Coast and proudly, with me, little buddy, in tow, opened a beautiful new residence for people with challenges. It was legacy housing, a wonderful program in the constituency — Sechelt, in fact.

The minister was there, and ribbons were cut. Hands were shaken, tea was drunk, and a program of great value was provided to the citizens. Let me just say that not only was it a great program; it remains a great program. But the funding for the support part of it has dropped significantly so that it's only open four days a week.

The minister probably needs this to be put in writing. I can write big, and I can send him a note. I'm sure he's going to respond, because I do know that the minister takes an interest in the impacts of mental health and takes housing problems seriously.

I think that in fact, the….

Interjection.

N. Simons: He wants me to change the subject because he knows that he's getting the list of to-dos, and right now he's not to-doing.

Maybe, with my opportunity….

Deputy Speaker: Member, it's you that has the floor for another 30 seconds.

N. Simons: With my 30 seconds, I'm doing a duet with the member responsible. It's almost harmonic. But I will update the House on my progress with the Minister Responsible for Housing on the issues facing constituents in my riding.

I'm sorry that this budget didn't meet the test of my constituents. I hope the next one does. In the meantime, I'll still fight for the constituents of Powell River–Sunshine Coast.

With that, I cede the floor.
[ Page 1684 ]

J. Tegart: Well, good afternoon. The member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast is a hard act to follow.

On behalf of the constituents of Fraser-Nicola, I'm pleased to rise in this House and support Budget 2014.

Before I begin my address to the budget, I'd like to take a few moments to talk about my riding. I'm so pleased to be here in this House to represent the people of Fraser-Nicola. A year ago I thought I was probably the only person who thought this was possible. I'm so thankful that a team of believers came forward and assisted me to get to this place.

[1350]

A special thank-you goes out to family, both immediate and extended, and to my friends who helped get me here today. To my staff in my constituency office, Lori Pilon and Shirlee Johnson: you are an absolute pleasure to work with. I hear nothing but good things from constituents who contact my office about the work being done by my two office staff.

I'd also like to thank the LAs, who help us here in this House, and the communications staff, who help to make me be able to speak in this House and also to keep us aware of all the things that are happening in the province.

Fraser-Nicola is a large rural riding with many small communities that are passionate about where they live and the work they do. We're fortunate to have many resource industries, including mining, forestry and agriculture. A prosperous future in Fraser-Nicola depends on government policy that supports resource industries.

I'm proud to represent Fraser-Nicola and to work with such an incredible team on this side of the House. I have to say, as a new member, I'm absolutely amazed at the work that can be done in a riding in working with the ministers of this House.

I'm watching the member opposite and wondering if he's going to give me some pointers, but he's not.

Now on to the budget that I will be supporting. As a member of the bipartisan Finance Committee, I had the opportunity to travel across the province and consult with British Columbians on what they thought were the top budget priorities facing British Columbia. It was an incredible committee to be a part of.

A special thank-you to the staff who supported that committee and also to all of us that worked on that committee.

It was an incredible opportunity to hear about what's important to citizens of British Columbia from all walks of life and from different regions — rural and urban, coastal, interior and the north. Their opinions were distinct and far-ranging, as one might expect from a province as large and as geographically diverse as British Columbia. But if there was one single underlying theme that resonated throughout all of our consultations, it was the need to balance the budget, even if it meant making tough decisions.

British Columbians know the value of their tax dollar. They know that deficit spending just to finance day-to-day operations will spiral us into uncountable debt. If left uncontrolled, debt will grow to such an extent that it becomes a struggle just to cover interest payments.

We've witnessed this on a global stage, where some jurisdictions end up being forced by international organizations to impose draconian budget restrictions on populations already suffering from some of the highest unemployment rates in the world. Contrast that to here in British Columbia, and we see a totally different story.

Last week the Finance Minister tabled the second balanced budget in a row, making British Columbia one of only two jurisdictions in Canada to be operating in the black. This provides us with an incredible competitive edge, because we can now start investing even more of our resources into our people and our infrastructure to grow the economy and create more opportunities to diversify export markets.

Balancing the budget is no easy task. It requires making tough decisions and having the courage to follow through on our promise to run government within its means.

This government has put in place a solid plan that provides economic certainty for our families. Over this plan, controlled and reduced spending across government will free up over $1 billion. This translates into a balanced budget, an investment across our province to protect and support economic growth and family livability.

A balanced budget creates economic certainty. Our economy is also the only one in Canada to have a positive outlook for a projected three more balanced budgets. By stopping the deficit gap now, we are making gains for the future.

[1355]

According to the Conference Board of Canada, B.C. will lead the country in economic growth in 2015. A balanced budget sets the economic conditions for the private sector to flourish. A balanced budget and strong fiscal climate also reinforces British Columbia as an attractive destination for global investment.

Labour stability lends itself well to economic certainty, and last December the government announced it had reached tentative deals with three public sector unions representing 51,000 hard-working members of the public service. By reaching long-term labour agreements, the government is promoting greater economic certainty and a more predictable business environment.

Low tax programs are instrumental to attracting investment and creating a competitive economy. Government has taken steps to reduce personal and corporate income taxes. In fact, personal income tax for most taxpayers has been reduced by 37 percent or more since 2001. For many low-income British Columbians, they don't pay any provincial income tax at all. British Columbians generally have one of the lowest overall tax burdens in Canada when all taxes are considered, including income tax, con-
[ Page 1685 ]
sumption tax, MSP premiums and payroll tax.

Through smart financial planning, British Columbia holds onto its triple-A credit rating, the highest standard available. A triple-A credit rating is important for two reasons. First, it reduces the cost of servicing our debt. Compared to Ontario, for example, which has only a double-A-minus rating, we would be spending an additional $2 billion a year servicing our debt, money that could be well 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.

In total, taxpayer-supported capital spending on schools, hospitals and other infrastructure across B.C. over the next three years is expected to total $11 billion, including $1.5 billion to maintain, replace, renovate or expand K-to-12 facilities, $2.3 billion for capital spending on post-secondary institutions, $2.6 billion on health care infrastructure and $3.4 billion on transportation infrastructure.

We are also diversifying our economy. The nature of B.C.'s economy is quickly changing. We can no longer rely on the U.S. as our major trading partner. Diversification helps shelter B.C. from downturns in the U.S. and enables us to take advantage of growing markets such as China and India. For example, in 2001 almost 70 percent of B.C. exports went to the United States. In 2012 that number has dropped to less than 45 percent, while trade with Asia has expanded exponentially.

In 2001 less than 3 percent of B.C. exports went to China, and Japan was our largest customer in Asia. In 2012 the situation has completely turned around. Now China is our largest market in Asia at 18.4 percent of total exports. In fact, British Columbia's exports to China have risen over 600 percent in the past ten years.

India is a fast-growing market also, and exports to that country totalled $467 million in 2013. That represents a 45.1 percent increase since this time last year.

When we talk about diversifying our economy, we also need to talk about LNG. Emerging economies in Asia are significantly increasing their demand for natural gas. Our province, with abundant reserves of natural gas, is poised to become a world-class LNG exporter.

[1400]

British Columbians will enjoy significant benefits, including hundreds of millions of new investment dollars, thousands of construction jobs, growth in local and regional economies, higher government revenues, untold spinoff benefits. After ten years of production, estimates are that one single LNG plant could generate up to $1.4 billion in LNG income tax alone.

We are also providing assistance to small business. B.C. is getting the fundamentals right in creating positive conditions for small business. Excessive paperwork and making businesses jump through too many hoops creates a drag on the economy and ultimately costs jobs.

The government of B.C. is enhancing the ability of small business to thrive by cutting red tape. The province's goal is to become the most business-friendly jurisdiction in Canada. We are well on our way to doing that. The Canadian Federation of Independent Business has awarded B.C. the highest rating in the country for committing to reduce barriers to business. We are in fact the only province in Canada to receive that designation this year.

What does this mean to people in Fraser-Nicola? We all want British Columbians to be first in line for jobs and access to high-quality training. As I go out into my small communities, I see lots of optimism. Government is making sure that our young people can study at state-of-the-art educational facilities while staying closer to home.

In my area the new NorKam trades centre of excellence in Kamloops, scheduled for completion this fall, will offer students from the Fraser-Nicola better access to trades training closer to home. New facilities at Okanagan College in Kelowna will more than double the size of the current trades training complex by 2016, creating more opportunities for students. I am also very, very fortunate to host the NVIT campus in the city of Merritt, working in partnership with the school district, to look at the opportunities for trades training through that facility.

We are also investing in social infrastructure. One of the greatest advantages of a balanced budget is having the fiscal freedom to make strategic investments that help B.C. families. Operating funding for public K to 12 is at record levels — over $4.7 billion this year.

Compared to 2000-2001, the ministry is now providing nearly $1 billion more to school districts, despite an unprecedented decline in student enrolment over the same period. There are 70,000 fewer students in enrolled in B.C. schools compared to the September enrolment level in 2000-2001. The average per-pupil funding is over $8,600, our highest level ever. B.C. is also the only province in Canada to commit to and fully deliver a full-day kindergarten program.

B.C. is working towards contributing even more to education and training grants. The B.C. training and education savings grant is a one-time $1,200 grant contribution towards a child's RESP following their sixth birthday. I am pleased to say that I have many grandchildren that will take advantage of that. In just the past year alone the number of B.C. families with RESPs has increased by 10 percent, and we look forward to begin making payments to as many as 40,000 eligible families in British Columbia every year.

Starting in April 2015, the B.C. early childhood tax benefit will provide $146 million to approximately 180,000 families with children under the age of six. Families will receive up to $55 a month for each child
[ Page 1686 ]
under the age of six. While this may not seem like much for young families starting out, every single dollar counts. B.C.'s early-years strategy will invest $46 million over three years to support the creation of new child care spaces and improve the quality of child care and early-years services.

[1405]

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, when I travelled the province with the bipartisan Select Standing Committee on Finance to listen to ideas and input from the citizens of B.C., we heard loud and clear that the citizens of B.C. want a stronger economic future.

Certainly, many elements in the B.C. 2014 budget…. It delivers on some of the ideas that we heard across this province. I think people were very well aware that we are in tight times. They were very understanding about the difficulty of balancing the budget. Many were not asking for increases. Many were very aware that in order to move forward, we needed a balanced budget.

Budget 2014 represents a commitment to stay the course and control government spending, delivering on fiscal responsibility, achieving a balanced budget and putting the province on track towards economic expansion and eventually a debt-free province. Budget 2014 makes British Columbia a leader in creating a sound future for our children and our grandchildren.

It was an absolute pleasure to be a part of the Finance Committee, to serve with members from both sides of this House and to see our recommendations considered and many of them taken into serious consideration during the development of the budget. So I will be voting in favour of this budget.

V. Huntington: Fiscal prudence is a laudable goal for government, especially given how many national, provincial and state governments are broke and how many B.C. households are making ends meet with borrowed money.

I actually congratulate the Finance Minister for his efforts in balancing the budget. But I do have to say: is this rather boring budget truly balanced? While the Minister of Finance took great pleasure in presenting the budget as balanced in spite of all the detractors who said he couldn't do it, there's some fudging in the budget that I'm very curious to hear the Auditor General and the comptroller general comment on — in particular, the "reprofiling," to quote the budget, of $57 million in asset sales from the last budget into this year's budget. It looks like money that has been booked twice.

Also, as the minister pointed out with his budget graphics, truly balancing the budget is the process of managing costs within annual revenues. This budget is actually balanced on the back of one-time asset sales. As some have pointed out, this approach to balancing the budget is akin to selling the furniture to pay the mortgage.

I'm very curious to see what the Legislature's independent officers have to say. As the House knows, one of the reasons I believe we need to change the date of the election to the fall is so British Columbians always have the benefit of this independent assessment on the government books before they go to the polls.

There's another key question I believe the government has not addressed in their political promise to balance the budget. Who is truly bearing the burden of this government's efforts to fulfil the election promise?

I believe government must manage the books carefully, and I know this requires tough decisions. However, I also believe it's essential for government to be honest with British Columbians about where the pain will be felt from the fiscal prudence we require and the tough decisions that will impact their lives, and an approach to this and to the people is sadly lacking in the budget speech.

What public services will have to be cut or curtailed? Who will be affected by these cuts? How will the government mitigate the implications of their decisions by generating revenue through other means? Or can the implications be mitigated? And where the tax breaks or cuts are involved, where is the government getting its revenue to replace the lost income? Or can it be replaced?

[1410]

Unfortunately, this government continues to pretend it can balance the budget without paying and that the cuts to public service aren't really cuts. This does a great disservice to British Columbians, especially those who depend on government services for their quality of life, and for those agencies and sectors that have government-mandated responsibilities and insufficient resources to fulfil their obligations.

I believe that British Columbians are willing to tighten their belts and pay a little more if they are presented with a reliable plan and purpose that shows how their tax money will translate into government services, a plan that honestly reflects the difficult road to the future. In fact, the Finance Committee's prebudget consultations found there was support for increases to taxes — tobacco taxes, some income taxes — provided this additional income translated into improvements in public services.

It's my hope that the government and the opposition can find ways to work together to have this important conversation about taxation and public services with British Columbians through our parliamentary committee process, and that we can provide some certainty on how the budget and taxes will make a meaningful difference. Let's talk to the people about the truth, about their future and about the future of this province.

Low-income earners, people with disabilities and people with multiple barriers to employment who depend on income assistance will all feel the pain of this government's prudence.
[ Page 1687 ]

According to Budget 2014, a two-income family of four making $30,000 a year will experience the highest increase in provincial taxes this year of any of the government's sample groups — nearly 1 percent of their annual income. The ministry will say these numbers aren't designed for year-over-year comparison, but I think they're telling. They are harbingers of the future, but we fail to talk the truth and prepare our constituents for the realities we are all going to face.

While I applaud the government for the moderate lift to disability benefits they've given in this budget and the slight increase to the budgets for Community Living B.C., B.C. Housing, MCFD, the RCMP and legal aid, it's unfortunate that it took tragedies and public embarrassment for these particular agencies to get the government's attention and additional resources.

I'd like to remind the Finance Minister that the Finance Committee unanimously recommended that government consider increasing income assistance rates, earning exemptions and the minimum wage and that it address the full range of affordable housing needs. The committee also recommended that the government develop a comprehensive poverty reduction strategy. None of this is easy, and it requires a completely new approach, in my opinion. I agree with the committee's recommendations and would like to see government act on them.

B.C.'s consistently high poverty rate and increasing income disparity requires a much more comprehensive and strategic response than the tinkering shown in this budget. If the government truly wanted to be fiscally prudent, it would address the systemic reasons for poverty. Are the continuing suggestions that we raise minimum wage, income assistance rates and disability rates above the low-income threshold, indexing them to…? Is this really the way to go — the way we've gone year after year, budget after budget, question period after question period? Or is it time that we do an analysis to see whether a guaranteed minimum income would be easier, cheaper and more reliable to operate?

Unlike corporate subsidies and more tax benefits for higher-income earners, looking at how public money is directed to address poverty could provide an immediate boost to local economies, in effect lifting people out of government-imposed poverty. All of the income assistance programs could be viewed as a community economic development and community job creation strategy, as every additional penny put in the pockets of the poor will be spent in their local economies.

Perhaps guaranteed annual income's time has come — a plan that would restore dignity to those who are vulnerable and in need of a hand up. Addressing systemic poverty is a way for the government to both void and reduce costs in many government services — in the health care system, the education system, the justice system and even the social welfare system.

I hope the government will listen to the Finance Committee and creatively work with the opposition to create a truly comprehensive poverty reduction strategy that will examine new ways to address the increasing income disparity in this province, a disparity that is unhealthy for any compassionate, modern democracy.

[1415]

Our seniors are another group that will feel the pain of this budget. Many already find it increasingly difficult to make ends meet. Increases to the MSP, the ICBC, B.C. Hydro rates, B.C. Ferries and other fees and services will all negatively impact seniors on fixed incomes. These are the people who don't have the ability to absorb government-imposed increases to their cost of living.

It is particularly galling to these people that the government continues to pretend that it is balancing the budget without tax increases. Fees and rates are exactly the same thing to those on fixed income. Too many of our seniors are now struggling to make ends meet to pay for their medication, good nutrition and shelter, and we have to figure out how to deal with this problem.

The reality is that this government has shifted the tax burden away from our progressive income tax system to regressive forms of taxation that negatively impact seniors and families on fixed incomes. As I said before, the government is not being honest with the people of British Columbia when it claims it is not raising taxes. Seniors in particular should be outraged by this claim.

Deputy Speaker: I'd caution the member on her use of language.

V. Huntington: Another area of the government that is being disingenuous is their claim that they can balance the budget without making cuts to critical government services. The budget clearly shows that the entire education and training system will see budget cuts, especially when inflation and unfunded MSP increases, hydro increases and wage increases are taken into account — let alone a successful appeal in the BCTF conflict.

While the health sector will see budget increases over the next three years, these increases will not allow the health authorities to keep pace with inflation or the increasing demands on the system, particularly as our seniors population puts more demands on the system. Health systems, too, need a completely creative and new look at how we distribute, access and provide health care in our province.

The government's continued assertion that it is balancing the budget while maintaining or increasing funding to the SUCH sector does a great disservice to British Columbians and, specifically, to the boards and staff of these sectors, who must deliver the government's health care, social and education services with reduced year-over-year funding. There is one choice for the government. It must stop adding unfunded increases in requirements within this sector.
[ Page 1688 ]

As elected representatives, we have an obligation to be more honest with British Columbians about the trade-offs that must be made and the real implications of tax cuts on government services. This is a conversation that British Columbians want and are ready to have and that the government should provide.

One conversation that the government doesn't seem to be willing to have is a meaningful negotiation with B.C. teachers. One of the most telling lines in the budget is that the numbers assume "no additional funding for the teachers' contract, pending the outcome of the appeal." For negotiating in bad faith, the B.C. government may have to pay a penalty of between $300 million and $1 billion. So much for a balanced budget.

Our school districts are facing a funding crisis. In Delta our students can no longer rely on school buses to take them to or from school because the transportation funding has been cut and the buses aren't running anymore. The ministry says it's the district's choice to match ministry transportation funding to its transportation spending levels. But it was a ministry choice — a change to the funding formula — that resulted in reduced funding for 22 districts across the province.

The Delta school district saw its transportation funding cut by 47 percent over three years. Delta is classified as an urban school district, and it's eligible for less funding than other regions despite our unique rural geography. Having our young students walk miles to school across agricultural land and across four or five busy highways isn't safe, let alone practical. Nor can students in Delta turn to public transit because it doesn't exist in our rural community.

This government says it's a balanced budget, but it's hurting our students and their families in the process. In what sense is rural Delta urban? We need a government and a budget that will reopen the book and be flexible on school district transportation funding.

This government's answer to its detractors has always been that job creation is the best way to address poverty and increase the government's revenue through corporate and income taxes. Unfortunately, the government's jobs strategy has been somewhat of a failure. Under the government's jobs plan, B.C. has lagged behind eight other provinces in job creation, and unlike the rest of Canada, B.C. continues to lose private sector jobs.

[1420]

The best government can say about the jobs plan is that it has added low-paying, part-time positions more than any other. This budget does little to address that issue, with its cuts to post-secondary education and training.

I find it particularly galling that while the government is cutting the funding needed to train our young people to fill the supposed million job openings that will be created by 2020, we now have two ministers saying that we will have to depend heavily on temporary foreign workers to fill all those LNG and mining jobs the government claims will be created through the jobs strategy.

Both the Minister of Energy and Mines and the Minister of Natural Gas have publicly stated that we will simply have to accept that we will need temporary foreign workers to fill the jobs this government will create over the next few years.

With the youth unemployment rate hovering around 14 percent in this province, cutting the post-secondary training budget while claiming we have no choice but to fill resource jobs with temporary foreign workers is simply unacceptable to British Columbians.

Heavy and unnecessary dependence on temporary foreign workers will minimize the return British Columbians will get from the exploitation of their natural resources. Not only will the foreign- and, in many cases, state-owned companies take their profits out of this province, temporary foreign workers will send their paycheques home to their country of origin.

This will guarantee British Columbians will not obtain the maximum benefits from the development of our natural resources. This is a shortsighted and fiscally imprudent approach to our natural resource development that will not help us address youth unemployment or maximize government revenues so that we can fund public services to the level required to address the needs in British Columbia.

One way to avoid heavy dependence on temporary foreign workers is to develop our resources over a longer period of time. This more prudent approach to resource development is also warranted from a land use perspective, as the current mad rush to open multiple mines and LNG plants and to develop more roads and port facilities will have cumulative effects that we do not yet fully understand or have the ability to take into account in our environmental assessment processes.

I note that the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations service plan indicates it will be trying to address the cumulative impacts of B.C.'s natural resource development. But frankly, a few cumulative impact pilot projects are too little, too late. We have to move quickly and thoroughly and cumulatively.

Again, the Finance Committee highlighted this issue as one the government must come to grips with quickly. They unanimously recommended that government address this as a priority concern. I'm extremely concerned that the Premier's emphasis on making changes to the environmental assessment process to get to yes faster could disregard this recommendation of the Finance Committee.

I would like to see Delta become a pilot project for expanding the EA process beyond its current single-project focus, to take into account the cumulative impacts of multiple projects, compounded by climate change and changing social and environmental concerns.

The George Massey Tunnel replacement project, the SFPR, the planned terminal 2 expansion at Deltaport,
[ Page 1689 ]
Deltaport's third berth expansion, the railway expansion, the overpasses — all of this is part of the Pacific gateway program. It's all part of a planned expansion to accommodate the port, and yet not one discussion of the cumulative impact on Delta's farmland and social, environmental and economic interests has been discussed.

Finally, I would like to comment on the centrepiece of the government's throne speech and budget and the mandate the government was elected on: LNG.

I think the government members need to be better aligned on what their expectations are for LNG in this province. Does the government truly expect all ten proposals will become actual operations, as some government members seem to suggest?

Does the Premier really believe we'll see five LNG plants? Or, as a result of the government's delay in establishing the tax framework for LNG, will B.C. be lucky to get one or two plants, as some experts in the field are now saying?

Given the realities of developing LNG in this province, does the government truly believe it can pay off the debt and have a $100 billion prosperity fund from this new industry within any foreseeable future?

If the LNG scenario for B.C. has shifted dramatically, as more and more experts are now saying, then the government owes it to British Columbians to be more honest and forthright about their expectations for this industry.

[1425]

Failure to adjust the rhetoric around the potential for LNG in B.C. to the realities of this complex and changing sector means the government is simply promoting a false vision for the future of the industry and its impact on future government budgets and the provincial debt.

If the LNG sector is shifting in a way that we will not realize all of the government's election promises for jobs, economic benefits and a debt-free B.C., then, we will all have much harder work to do in this House to develop an alternate future for the province.

I believe the government is foolish to place the entire burden of the province's fiscal future on LNG. We have renewable sectors — fishing, farming, forestry, renewable energy, tourism — that deserve as much if not more of the government's attention. These are sectors that can provide British Columbians with generational jobs and economic development too, while providing the government with revenue to provide the public services we need.

It is my hope that the government will become more honest in the near future about the real prospects for LNG in British Columbia, more forthright about the real state of B.C.'s finances and the state of our public services and more open to real discussions with British Columbians about the balance between taxes and public services.

S. Sullivan: I'd like to speak in support of the balanced budget 2014. Thanks to fiscal discipline for the second year in a row, British Columbia's budget is balanced. This is what British Columbia has elected us to do: control spending and balance the budget. Another promise made; another promise kept.

Balancing a budget is the first step to making sure we are on the path to a debt-free B.C. As a result of our fiscal discipline, we are able to make sustainable investments into the programs that matter to British Columbians, like health care and education, and for people who require additional supports, such as those served by Community Living B.C.

Our government is not prepared to compromise future choices and spend more than taxpayers provide us. This would be bad leadership, plain and simple.

Because of a balanced budget, we continue to enjoy a triple-A credit rating and a lower debt service obligation, giving us more money to advance key priorities, including job growth, skills training and education, helping families build for the future and providing additional resources for individuals and families in need. B.C. is also in the very enviable position of being only one of two provinces that are balancing their budget.

To assist with B.C.'s LNG development, we will introduce tax legislation applicable to the LNG industry later this year.

I wanted to speak briefly about my riding of Vancouver–False Creek. It's remarkable — a constituency that includes the largest commercial and retail area in British Columbia. Some have even referred to it as "downtown British Columbia." It is also the headquarters of many arts groups — very important to our quality of life — and a number of educational institutions.

We have some important news in the budget. Certainly, the seismic upgrade to the Lord Strathcona Elementary School is much welcomed. The community has been waiting for many years. There have been serious problems with heritage costs that have been added on to this. This school will cost more than twice the amount of a regular school because of these heritage issues, and it has taken a lot of delays. So we're very pleased that the minister has announced money for the school.

Emily Carr University at the Great Northern Way Campus — a new campus for 1,800 students. This Emily Carr University is world-renowned for arts, culture and design. It will be a huge asset to our area.

Budget 2014 confirms $5 million over five years to help the Aerospace Industries Association of Canada, Pacific division, to grow the province's world-leading aerospace sector and help attract additional global aerospace and defence contractors to B.C.

[1430]

I wanted to speak very briefly about St. Paul's Hospital. I know that government remains firmly committed to redeveloping St. Paul's. We spent over $8.4 billion on health care capital projects in the last 12 years.

Redeveloping St. Paul's Hospital is not simple. It's not
[ Page 1690 ]
as simple as building a new hospital on vacant land, and it's not a small redevelopment. It's a complex project on a very busy site offering care to a large population. The current building is over 100 years old, and it's in the middle of a very dense area of the city of Vancouver.

We must get the concept plan right, as we need the redeveloped hospital to effectively serve the current population during the redevelopment and for the next 100 years. We continue to work with Vancouver Coastal Health and Providence Health Care to develop this important plan and move this project forward.

Regarding the school investments, we have another school that is being developed. The Elsie Roy School was the very first school in North America to be developed in an urban area in the last several decades, and it represents a very interesting and important development of people moving back into cities after a period of suburbanization.

We're making B.C. students safe. We have modern learning environments through the award-winning seismic mitigation program. We have spent or committed more than $2.2 billion to upgrade or replace 213 high-risk schools since 2001, and this work is continuing. So far 133 seismic projects have been completed, 14 are under construction, seven are proceeding to construction, and 60 have been supported.

While we work to make sure schools are safe, we're also increasing capacity. Since 2001 we have committed or spent nearly $4.1 billion for school capital and maintenance projects throughout B.C.

Just a couple of points about Lord Strathcona School. It's 122 years old, and it's getting a $25.6 million seismic upgrade. It was originally constructed in 1891 and is located in the city's Downtown Eastside. Although it is not in my constituency per se, many of the children who go to this school come from my riding. It is the only elementary school in the area that has legal heritage status from the city of Vancouver. Three of the school's five buildings will be upgraded. Another 1972 building is not considered high risk, and one built in 1922 will become surplus once the upgrade is complete.

During construction students will be relocated to classes in the two buildings where the work is not being undertaken. Given the complexity of the project, extensive engineering, consultation and due diligence were conducted to assess the project requirement and to ensure completion within budget. The structurally upgraded school will accommodate up to 510 students, including 60 kindergarten students and 450 grade 1 to 7 students.

The project will also include additional space for a neighbourhood learning centre to serve the school and area residents through an expanded partnership with the Strathcona Community Centre. The centre will feature a larger music room, youth and family counselling, an enhanced library for French immersion, a performance space, out-of-school care and a learning exchange centre. There's a lot of excitement about this new development.

We also have the International Village elementary school being built. It will be ready for the start of the 2016 school year. So $26 million will be put into the two schools in Vancouver. The International Village elementary school will have capacity for 60 full-day kindergarten and 450 grades 1 to 7. It will have a multipurpose room located on the ground floor adjacent to an existing daycare facility to maximize space. Construction is expected to begin in spring 2014, with an anticipated completion date of fall 2015.

[1435]

This will have a great impact on the quality of life of people in Vancouver–False Creek. Right now there's a serious problem of school shortages, and it wasn't really anticipated several decades ago that the downtown of Vancouver would have more children in school than, say, Point Grey. But that's the reality. If you were to go to the Roundhouse Community Centre in the daytime, you would find a traffic jam of baby strollers, as all of the young mothers, etc., and their babies are enjoying the beautiful experiences there and the programs that are provided.

I thought that a lot of the things that have been said about budgets have been already said, so I wanted to look into past budgets of British Columbia. I thought it would certainly be worthwhile for me to know where we've come from and give a sense of where we're going.

I went right back to 1871 and the budget speech then and the budget that was presented. It was very enlightening. I actually went back to 1858, when British Columbia first became a colony, and 1849, when Vancouver Island was a colony. It was actually contracted by the British government to the Hudson's Bay Company.

It's interesting to note that we talk about P3s as a public-private partnership, and we think of it as when you take a function of government and give it out to the private sector. Well, British Columbia was actually started as a P3. It was a corporation developing the province, and Hudson's Bay — they called it the honourable Hudson's Bay Company — ran a program which was, as I referred to in a previous speech, marked by incredible racial harmony, incredible multiculturalism. It wasn't until we received democracy that we got our racism.

It was the very first session of this Legislature where it was moved by a member of the De Cosmos faction that many non-white people not be allowed to vote. That was passed, and the Premier at the time, John McCreight, complained to the federal government and wrote a letter. He was not able to get a favourable response, and therefore, we ended up with 50, 60 years of very racist legislation coming from this House.

When I went back to 1871…. I'll just give you a little bit of sense of where we were at the beginning of this Legislature. The province had a debenture of $1.2 million, most of it spent developing roads in the province,
[ Page 1691 ]
especially the Fraser Highway, the Fraser Canyon road, and a floating debt of $300,000. In its entirety, there was $1.5 million in debt. Now, wouldn't we like to have that? On hand, they had cash of $500,000, so the total debt was $1 million.

Deputy Speaker: I'm giving the member some considerable latitude, but I'm certain he's going to come back to this budget at some point soon.

S. Sullivan: Well, it eventually does bring us back.

At that time the subsidy…. Half of all the revenue of British Columbia came from the federal government, and it turned out to be that by 1886 one-third of all the revenue came from the federal government. The province had created municipalities at the time which then reduced a lot of the licence fees, so there was a big gap in the provincial budget.

As I moved forward over the years, it turned out that one item that was very troubling was the head tax. In the year of 1903 fully 10 percent of the provincial revenue came from the head tax. It's interesting that almost the same amount of money that was spent building this building was revenue from the head tax.

[1440]

I must say that our Minister of Finance gave a very poetic, very interesting speech. When I read through the speeches of the previous Finance ministers, they're very much a recitation of numbers, whereas ours was very poetic — talking about the ship of state and sailing it through the shoals and the adverse winds — and it was a pleasure to listen to.

I wanted to just speak about some of the issues that have stood out to me in the budget. We have ten provinces, three territories and the federal government in Ottawa. It's 14 jurisdictions, and of the 14, just two have a balanced budget — Saskatchewan and British Columbia.

The reason for that is because we had to say no to a lot of things — things we really wanted to do. But we realized that because of declining revenues, especially with the recession that took place at the end of 2008, the only way to balance the budget is either by increasing taxes or cutting spending. There were a lot of serious decisions that were made to try to develop a balanced budget.

I'm very, very pleased to be part of a government that has developed not one but two balanced budgets. Our Finance Minister has introduced a second consecutive balanced budget. The three-year fiscal plan projects surpluses totalling $841 million. That is a promise made and a promise kept.

One of the key ways that we were able to accomplish this was through labour agreements, because the public sector wages are by far the greatest cost. We need to thank the labour leaders. They've lived through some difficult times, and it's not easy to tell the hard-working men and women that there is not a lot of money in the pot for raises that we'd like to be able to give. But we have to realize that raises of 2 percent would have cost $790 million more to support the wage increases. That's the equivalent of $450 per household or increasing the PST to 8 percent.

What would almost $800 million pay for? That would be four replacement schools, seven new schools, Surrey Memorial Hospital's new ER. We are very pleased that a lot of these hard decisions have resulted in a balanced budget.

Our debt-to-GDP ratio compares well to everyone else in this country, and I'm very pleased to see that we're driving it down even further. Right now our debt-servicing costs are about $2.5 billion per year. If we had Ontario's credit rating and relative debt level, we would be spending $4.7 billion on interest payments alone. You saw the impact that a $2 billion hole had in the provincial budget. That's why the only responsible choice was to make tough decisions and balance the budget.

Because we've done the hard work, we're able to keep working to keep the economy strong. We're able to make investments in the future. Over the next three years we're investing $11 billion in capital projects — $1.5 billion to expand or replace schools, $2.3 billion for post-secondary institutions, $2.6 billion on health sector infrastructure and $3.4 billion for transportation improvements.

We're wanting to help young families, especially those that are just starting out. We realize how expensive it is to live in some of the communities of this province. That's why we've increased the threshold for the first-time-homebuyers exemption from the property transfer tax to $475,000.

[1445]

Next April we'll introduce the B.C. early childhood tax benefit. This will provide $146 million per year for 180,000 families across B.C. They'll get $55 per month for every kid under the age of six, and for a young family, every penny counts.

We also want them to help save for their kids' education. That's why we're working with the federal government to invest more than $1,200 per child — so that the interest can pay for post-secondary education.

We're making investments to ensure that as we grow the economy, British Columbians will be prepared for the jobs that will come. By 2020 there will be over one million job openings in B.C. As has been stated before, that's the equivalent of the populations of Atlin, Fort. St. John, Prince Rupert, Quesnel, Revelstoke, Cranbrook, Duncan, Surrey, Richmond and Kelowna combined.

The only way to ensure that British Columbians are first in line for those jobs is to ensure they have the skills to fill them. Where can that training be found? Consider some of the new facilities we're investing in right now: NorKam trades centre of excellence in Kamloops, which my colleague mentioned just earlier; the trades-training facilities at Camosun College in Victoria; Okanagan
[ Page 1692 ]
College trades-training complex; and the new campus at Emily Carr University. That, especially, is a facility that affects my area very much.

We're working every day to make sure there will be plenty of opportunity for them to build their lives right here at home, which is why we're ensuring that we bring home the greatest single opportunity of our generation: LNG.

I was referring to previous budgets, and I noted that in 1902 the revenue of the entire budget was $2 million. By 1908 it was $6 million — an incredible threefold increase. It was all basically through timber royalties. We saw timber royalties go up 1,000 percent. It was a remarkable increase. This was under the time of McBride. So we do have some precedence to see the use of royalties to help expand the economy and to improve the provincial budget.

We're creating an environmental framework with safeguards to ensure we have the cleanest LNG industry on the planet; a labour component to ensure that British Columbians are first in line for the jobs that will come — we know that there's opportunity for 100,000 new jobs through that alone; a social infrastructure component to smooth out the rough edges of sudden growth in smaller communities; and a component to ensure that B.C.'s First Nations are participating as full partners.

All this additional economic activity is going to create more opportunity. As we produce more, we're working to expand our markets overseas and grow our exports. Our economy will grow, leading the country, according to the Conference Board of Canada, in 2015. When you grow, jobs get created and wealth gets created for citizens right across this province.

We want to ensure a strong economy, an economy that will ensure a secure tomorrow. As a result of the balanced budget, we're in the black and heading to surpluses. We've got discipline, unwavering determination to live within our means and to honour taxpayers, and that is not going to change.

Mr. Speaker, I don't know if you will permit me to read a couple of lines from a previous budget speech. I've read through many of them, but the one that entertained me the most was the speech of 1886. I will take my chances on this because it was so interesting.

Now, whereas our Minister of Finance….

[1450]

Deputy Speaker: If you'll assure me it's relevant, I'll let you go ahead.

S. Sullivan: Yeah, I think it is relevant. I think it is, but you won't see that until the very final statement. You'll have to have a little bit of patience.

This is the hon. Simeon Duck — I kid you not — the Minister of Finance in 1886. He says:

"The question of the country's finances has been freely discussed and ventilated on both sides of the House, by the press and from the platform, by all classes, men of ability and others whose only knowledge of finance is their own admitted ignorance of its first and last principles, and who, in their ignorance, have the conceit and impudence to arrogate to themselves the ability to judge of the fitness and capabilities of others, and who also desire to measure the intelligence of other people by their own miserable standard.

"We have had the strange spectacle of a class of individuals parading their own ignorance as a qualification which they think fully justifies them in denouncing others, of whom they know nothing, as being totally unfit and incapable of performing the duties which usually pertain to the duties of Finance Minister. Verily, Mark Twain spoke the truth when he said: 'The less a man knows about a subject, the better qualified and the more willing he is to speak upon it.'

"By this, he evidently intended to convey the idea that whenever the speeches of this peculiar class of individuals run counter to the facts of the case, so much the worse it must be for the facts. That the speeches themselves may be interesting as showing the brass and stupidity of the speakers, and that their gushing, flowing eloquence may still be admired as demonstrating that a lively flow of language is not always conclusive evidence of profound wisdom, but very often, on the contrary, is an index pointing to the upper story and indicating 'Rooms to let.'

"No doubt Mark Twain had this peculiar class of individuals in mind's eye when he gave utterance to the sentiment that I have just quoted. Still, it cannot be denied that many able and excellent criticisms and dissertations on the financial state of the province have been made day after day, week after week, both in the House and out of the House, by the press and from the platform since the opening of the present session.

"Indeed, so much has been said upon this question that every honourable gentleman must be as well acquainted with the financial affairs of the province as he is with the multiplication table, and hence, if it were not for the prevailing custom which makes it obligatory on my part to come down to the House with what is called the budget speech, there would be little or nothing further for me to do but simply move the House into a committee of supply."

And it goes on.

But I will read the final paragraph. He spoke for the entire afternoon, so we do thank our Minister of Finance for sparing us….

Deputy Speaker: Fortunately, the member only has three minutes and 21 seconds at this point.

S. Sullivan: Oh, okay. Well then, this will complete it.

"Now sir, having explained the financial condition of the province and the policy of the government therewith to the best of my ability and in a manner which I trust honourable gentlemen opposite will be able to understand and appreciate and, understanding, will have the intelligence and moral courage to admit, notwithstanding their savage and untimely onslaughts and their apparent anxious solicitude for their country, that the finances of the province, all things being considered, are in a very satisfactory condition; that the phantom bugbear of embarrassment, the goblin product of their own mental genius, that has been so long haunting them, has at last been dissolved in the multitude of facts that I have presented, like Banquo's ghost, in the light of modern science; and that their patriotism need not now be strained to the necessity of appropriating their own individual fortunes in order to relieve the province from a difficulty that exists only in their own diseased imagination."

I support this budget.

J. Darcy: With the greatest respect to the member for
[ Page 1693 ]
Vancouver–False Creek, whose historical treatise I'm sure we all appreciated, I'm going to confine my remarks to a budget in this century and specifically to Budget 2014.

[1455]

I welcome the opportunity to speak to this budget. I think my first comments would be that the Finance Minister referred to this as a boring budget. In fact, I don't find it a boring budget, because budgets have an enormous impact on the people that we represent. They have a human impact.

Budgets are about choices. Budgets are about priorities. When I look at this budget, I judge it from the point of view of how it relates to the priorities of my constituents in New Westminster. I have to say that on every major issue my constituents have raised with me, this budget would have to be given a failing grade.

First of all, the government says that the budget is balanced but then effectively downloads costs onto just about everybody else — onto individuals, and I'll speak more about that; onto school districts; onto health authorities. It's a very long list.

Let me begin with the issue of affordability for families. Certainly, if I've heard one thing from my constituents, it's about the additional burden that this budget places on them. I wish I could say it was about passing the bucks, but it's actually not. It's about passing the burden.

Other people before me have spoken about the fact that ordinary families are going to be forced to pay more and, in fact, get less. Despite the government's claims that we are heading towards a debt-free B.C., the total government debt will rise by $7.1 billion over three years and will reach $68.9 billion by the end of 2016-2017.

Others before me have talked about B.C. Hydro rates that will increase by 20 percent by the end of three years, costing the average customer $477 over those three years. MSP rates, which I will return to, will rise by 4 percent every year. ICBC rates have already gone up and will continue to climb. Ferry rates are rising by $32 for a round trip over the next couple years at the same time that services are being cut.

Let me talk about MSP premiums, which is, as I've said, an issue that I've…. My constituency assistant Nadine Nakagawa does a wonderful job and deals with so many of these issues when people come in the door. This is an issue that she's heard about over and over and over again.

I want to share with you a letter that I received recently from a constituent, who said: "MSP premiums have risen again. This has to affect many more people than the Liberals care to admit. I for one am primarily self-employed, and I'm not so 'poor' as to benefit from premium assistance, but I'm certainly not so rich as to not notice the debt that the government is imposing on me."

She also referred to having recently left a part-time retail job, after 2½ years working there earning an hourly wage of $10.86. That would have meant she would have to have put in seven hours on the job in order to just pay for her MSP premiums.

We have people coming into our office in New Westminster regularly who are compiling substantial MSP debts that they are unable to pay. This is a major source of stress for families who are already paying incredibly high costs for child care and housing.

For a single mother of one earning between $24,000 and $26,000 a year…. Members opposite may say a 4 percent increase is not significant, but paying $50 a month, for that single mother, is very substantial.

We had a mom come into our office, a mom with a seven-year-old daughter. She's come in repeatedly. She was previously on income assistance, has since gone back to work, and she's now paying for MSP even though she's struggling to make ends meet.

So I would say to the Finance Minister and I would say to the members opposite that if you're raising taxes on British Columbians, which indeed you are, you should be upfront enough to say that in the course of an election campaign, instead of saying over and over and over again: "No new taxes from the B.C. Liberal government."

The rhetoric of a debt-free B.C. certainly does not apply to students in post-secondary education in this province. Again, the government is passing the burden, but it's certainly not passing any bucks.

[1500]

I want to read to you a letter that I received from a student at Douglas College in New Westminster. She's currently a student at Douglas College, currently has her diploma, but with the current job market, a diploma isn't enough. She's two years away from her degree. She already has a student debt of $29,000. Average student debt for a degree in British Columbia is $35,000, so the thought of pursuing further education, which she needs in order to get a decently paid job, is discouraging for her.

The cost of education, she says, is not the only barrier for her to complete her education. There are classes that she hasn't been able to get into at Douglas College because that college, like so many others, is over capacity. "Not enough teachers in the classroom to offer the courses that students like myself," she says, "need to graduate." Because the class she needed has a 70-person wait-list she's now having to delay her education.

As she points out, the longer she delays her education, the longer it will be before she's able to participate fully in B.C.'s economy — buying a car, buying a house, starting a family. And not only that. The debts that she will pay, the interest that she will pay…. She'll have to pay her debt at prime plus 2.5 percent, which equals 5.5 percent, a higher interest rate than most people's mortgage payments today.

British Columbia not only has some of the highest interest rates on student loans; it's also one of the only provinces that doesn't have provincial grants. It has some of the highest tuition fees in Canada.

Now, I can't count the number of times during the
[ Page 1694 ]
last provincial election and the times since then when we didn't see the Premier don a hardhat and talk about investment in skills training in order to realize the huge potential of our resource economy in the future.

Well, in New Westminster we are lucky to have the headquarters of the B.C. Building Trades Council, who represent 35,000 construction workers in 13 trades across British Columbia. Here's what they have to say about Budget 2014. They call it a missed opportunity to prepare for the upcoming resource boom that is expected in this province, according to everything that we hear from the other side of the House.

They say: "With an expected skills shortage of over 40,000 highly skilled construction workers…if we are to be prepared for the upcoming resource boom" — especially in LNG — "we need to be given the tools from the provincial government to increase the number of apprentices in our system."

They know what they're talking about, the B.C. Building Trades. They practise what they preach, because it's, in fact, their union-sponsored apprenticeship programs…. They invest over $13 million annually in training programs. They are the single largest sponsor of apprenticeship programs in the province, with an average completion rate of 85 percent.

They say they're prepared to invest more in those apprenticeship programs, really practise what they preach and double their training capacity if the funding and the market conditions are in place. They were sorely disappointed that they didn't see a commitment.

Despite all of the talk about a ten-year skills-training plan, there's no increase in skills training in this budget, no increase in money for the Industry Training Authority, where the number of credentials issued by the ITA declined by 4 percent last year. All the photo ops with hardhats in the world are not a replacement for investing in skills-training programs in this province.

I want to talk for a minute about child poverty because, when those questions have been raised in the House, we've heard the Premier and members opposite say: "The best poverty reduction plan is a job." It absolutely is. There is no question about that — that the best poverty reduction plan is about jobs.

What's happened as far as jobs and the much-touted jobs plan in this province? Well, the fact of the matter is that we have the lowest private sector job growth in the country. The fact of the matter is that we have a $2.5 million cut to employment programs, a 46 percent cut at a time when the Premier's jobs plan has clearly failed and when, by the government's own estimates, the unemployment rate will go up for the next two years.

[1505]

Are the children living in poverty in this province — I would reiterate what other members on this side of the House have said: ten years running, the worst child poverty rate in this country — supposed to wait until some supposed great surge of jobs in the future that are going to come with the LNG, which is even outside the framework of the government's three-year fiscal plan? Those children need support now.

Across this country other provinces, regardless of political stripe, have undertaken poverty reduction plans. It is absolutely long overdue that this government adopt a poverty reduction plan so that children in British Columbia, the place where we hear Canada starts, should not have to go to bed hungry at night.

I want to turn to the issue of a violence-free B.C. The government's throne speech…. It wasn't that long ago — 2½ weeks ago, I think that was. There was a promise in the throne speech to move towards a violence-free B.C. and ensure that women, including aboriginal and vulnerable women, have the supports they need to help to prevent violence, to escape from violent situations and to recover if they have been victims of crime, yet this budget actually cuts funding for victim services and crime prevention.

There's also no new dedicated funding to implement the recommendations from the Missing Women Commission of Inquiry. Despite repeated questions from my colleagues on this side of the House, we can't even get a commitment from the Attorney General of this province that a bus will be put into service on the Highway of Tears to ensure that women there have a choice — a safe choice — and so that we can, hopefully, not repeat the tragedies of the past.

If we can build and brag about having put in place the widest bridge in the world — I'm talking about the Port Mann Bridge, 11 lanes wide — surely we can afford to put in place a bus for women on the Highway of Tears.

We talked about the poetry — the previous speaker, the member for Vancouver–False Creek, talked about the poetry — in the budget and some of the inspirational words, which included references to John F. Kennedy and the speech that was about putting a man on the moon. Well, if we can soar to great flights of rhetoric about putting a man on the moon, surely, I repeat, we can afford a bus on the Highway of Tears.

I want to talk about health care for a few minutes. I've already spoken in this House about broken promises — broken promises when it comes to building hospitals. The Penticton Hospital, where before the election there was going to be money for a $300 million expansion. From the Premier: "We know the money is there. We know there is room in the budget." Yet even the business plan is being delayed from last year, much less $300 million for the Penticton Hospital.

The Dawson Creek Hospital. Again an election commitment: $50 million for the expansion of the Dawson Creek and District Hospital. "I will achieve this during my first term of office," said the Liberal MLA for Peace River South. Not a penny in this budget for that hospital.

The Burnaby Hospital, which my colleagues from
[ Page 1695 ]
Burnaby have spoken about repeatedly. The Burnaby Hospital has been the subject of all kinds of political gamesmanship prior to the election from members on that side of the House. Again there was a solemn commitment: "We're going to build that hospital." Not a single penny in this budget. As for the member's comments….

Sorry, I'm not picking on you, the member from False Creek. It's just you spoke immediately before me, so you've given me some opportunities.

The member says that it's complicated to build a new hospital on that site, and indeed, it is. That's nothing new. That was known before the first commitment was made ten years ago to build a new St. Paul's Hospital. A commitment was made repeatedly over the last ten years, was made very clearly prior to the last election by the Premier: there will be $500 million to upgrade that hospital. Again, not a penny in this budget.

[1510]

I want to talk about some other promises that the government has made, because the government says: "You know, we're transferring…. The budget has increased by 2.6 percent. We're going to achieve a lot more savings through Lean programs in the health authorities." Well, I can tell you that there have been lean programs in place for about a decade now, and it's an illusion to think that enough more money can be squeezed out of those health authorities to meet some of the commitments that this B.C. Liberal government has made.

I hope that I'm proven wrong, but what has often happened in previous budgets when the government says, "We're going to restrict severely the money we transfer to health authorities," is that a few months after the budget is announced, when there's far less media attention, we start to see the cuts rolling out.

We saw it in 2009 when all of a sudden it was discovered that we had half a billion dollars more in deficit than had been projected. It happened last year when we saw a round of very serious cuts to community mental health services, and I'm deeply concerned that we're going to see that in the coming months.

We have a crisis in mental health in this province. In my community, in New Westminster — but other people, other members on both sides of the House could confirm these facts — one out of three calls to police departments are about mental health issues.

Fully one in three persons who are dealing with mental illnesses end up going to the police first. Why? Because there aren't sufficient mental health beds. There aren't sufficient mental health services in our communities. Effectively, what that means is that we end up criminalizing mental illness, especially the most severe cases of mental illness.

I can tell you that in my community and others often when police officers accompany someone to an emergency room — because that's where an awful lot of people go when there aren't the services in the communities, and it means our emergency rooms are even more overloaded — police officers often have to wait for an entire shift before someone else is in a position to take charge of that patient. Again, it ends up meaning we download costs onto municipal governments, onto police forces.

We already have in many of our facilities a crisis of hallway medicine. That's certainly the case where I live, the community that I represent, in Royal Columbian Hospital. It makes headlines when the overflow is directed to the Tim Hortons, conveniently right on the same floor as the emergency room. It doesn't make headlines every other week of the year when there's a sufficiently great crisis. They've just been shifted other places. There are now regular holding units in the hallway. You've heard the member for Coquitlam-Maillardville talk about her own experiences with hallway medicine in Eagle Ridge Hospital.

In Surrey Memorial Hospital we open the hospital's new emergency room to great fanfare, and we have an incredibly, intensely overcrowded emergency room. I was speaking to a psychiatric nurse in Kelowna recently. I said: "What's it like having the new facility, the new emergency room?" She said: "You know, it's a beautiful building. Previously, people were in hallways. I have to say, now they're in nicer hallways." That's just not acceptable.

I don't know how this government, with the transfers it's giving to health authorities in this budget, thinks that we're going to address the crisis of hallway medicine and overcrowding.

We also know that overcrowding in our health care facilities, coupled with insufficient cleaning, are the conditions in which some of these superbugs, like CPE and MRSA and C. difficile, thrive in our facilities. That's not just me, as MLA for New Westminster and the opposition Health critic, speaking. That's the Centre for Disease Control in British Columbia that says those are the conditions for these superbugs to thrive.

We need to improve standards for our seniors in this province so that we can guarantee them at least…. They often don't get one bath a week, much less two, which the Ombudsperson recommended. I don't see any money in this budget to improve standards in seniors care. I don't see the commitment in this budget for home support to enable our seniors to live independently in their own homes longer, which they want to do and which is also the most cost-efficient form of care. I don't see that in this budget either.

[1515]

I find the health care budget deeply concerning. Again, I hope to be proven wrong, but I think that, as with previous budgets that underfunded health care, we can expect to see some major cuts rolling out in the months to come when there's less media attention on our health authorities.

We, in fact, need investment now in mental health. We need investment now in home support. We need invest-
[ Page 1696 ]
ment in those programs that are the right care for the right patient in the right place at the right time, but also because if we invest now, upstream, we will incur less cost downstream in the health care system.

I want to touch on one other issue as it relates to health care, and that relates to rural and northern health. We've spoken a great deal in this House about cuts to ferry service. I want to share a couple examples with you about what the cuts to ferry service mean about access to health.

At the present time we have a ferry from Haida Gwaii to Prince Rupert. Each Monday the students pile on that ferry. They miss a day of school, but they pile on that ferry. They go to Prince Rupert. There's an orthodontist who works late that night in order to make sure these children get the dental care they need. They then get back on the ferry. They sleep on the ferry on the way back to Haida Gwaii so that they can go to school the next day.

Well, the fact of the matter is that the cuts to ferry service means that they will not have the ability to miss just one day of school. They will have two choices. They will either not be able to come to Prince Rupert to get the orthodontic care that they desperately need, or they will have to miss several days of school. That's one of the impacts of ferry cuts on health care for, in this case, children in Haida Gwaii.

The route 40 ferry also does a circle route from Port Hardy to Bella Coola and Bella Bella, small remote communities on the central coast on the way to Prince Rupert. One of the things that women are able to access is mammography services in remote communities because of that ferry service. Again, that is something that women in those remote communities will not have access to as a result of cuts to ferry services.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

This budget really cuts in many different ways, some of them direct, some of them indirect. Those are some of the issues. This budget is not boring. This is about a real impact on people's lives.

What about the issue of climate action? Now, I want to preface my remarks by saying that my list of disagreements with the previous Premier, Gordon Campbell, is a very long list. It would begin with the layoffs of 8,000 women workers, the biggest layoff in Canadian history, in 2003-2004. But I will give the former Premier credit for showing leadership on climate action.

I think it must be said that this government is not following through on those previous commitments. In fact, there are some very, very worrisome elements of this budget when it comes to action on climate change, which is absolutely and urgently needed.

We're very concerned about not seeing anything about the government's plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions — no clear plan to meet the climate target actions by 2020, as originally committed. It would have been good to see significant investment in green energy retrofits — again, important environmental initiatives. And on so many environmental assessments that we've talked about on many occasions in this House and elsewhere, this government is passing the buck.

There is a gaping hole in the policies of this government on climate action, and this budget certainly underlines that fact.

I want to talk for a minute about small business. We have hundreds of small businesses in our community, and they, in fact, employ more people than most of the other businesses combined. What they come to me to talk about are some of the same issues that other working families in this province talk about.

Not surprisingly, they talk about the enormous burden from this budget on them for MSP, both for their own families and paying for their employees. They talk about the impact of ferry services on their businesses when they have to transport goods. They talk about Hydro. They talk about ICBC.

[1520]

One of the programs that they also very much appreciated and would have liked to have seen supported further in this budget is the LiveSmart small business program, which my colleague the Environment critic spoke about extensively.

The B.C. government, before the election, boasted 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. It was a modest $1.5 million program that provides eco-audits for B.C. businesses that want to reduce their energy usage. Since 2011 this program has completed 4,500 assessments and inspired businesses to spend more than $3 million more. Small business owners have saved $13 million as a result. Cancelling this program is not just part of the abandonment of climate action initiatives; it's also proof that this government is not supportive of small business and will now be placing an even greater burden on them.

A couple of final issues that I'd like to talk about — transportation and public education. As I have shared with members of this House already in response to the throne speech, my community was deeply disappointed about the vague words about a ten-year transportation plan in this budget. We are at the crossroads of the Lower Mainland — horrific traffic problems, close to half a million vehicle trips that go through without stopping. We are relatively well served by public transit. I would say that without any hesitation whatsoever, but when Surrey and other communities south of the Fraser are not served well by public transit at all, that means that more and more of that traffic passes through my community.

The South Fraser Perimeter Road, in which this government invested so much money, opened to great fanfare — no connection to the Port Mann Bridge. Again, an
[ Page 1697 ]
absence of real regional transportation. It's a 14-kilometre detour trucks have to make in order to go from the South Fraser Perimeter Road onto the Port Mann Bridge.

The tolls on the Port Mann — again, not part of a regional transportation plan, because it just ends up pushing vehicles to go elsewhere. And no solid commitment in this budget to public transit, to expanded public transit — one of the biggest disappointments for my constituents in this budget.

Finally, and most important of all, our children's education, which I really believe is the biggest single disappointment in this budget. A flatlining of funding for public education at a time when classrooms in my community and in thousands of communities across British Columbia are getting bigger and at a time when teachers and special education assistants are struggling to meet the needs of special needs children.

I say that as a mother who knows the struggles that my son had in his youth, struggles of not being able to get the support he needed as a special needs child in a classroom. We are failing not just special needs children in our classrooms. We are failing all children in our classrooms when we don't properly fund both teachers and special education assistants, resource teachers and resource librarians in this province.

Our children deserve better. Our children are our future. We say that over and over again in this House, on both sides of the House. This budget has clearly failed our children. It has clearly failed public education. For that reason and the other issues that I've spoken to, this budget gets a failing grade, and I won't be able to support this budget.

Michelle Stilwell: It is truly a privilege for me today to be here to speak on behalf of my constituents in the Parksville-Qualicum riding. I would not be here without the support of so many people, and I hope, before I address the budget, you'll allow me to take a moment to thank some of those people.

First and foremost, the constituents of Parksville and Qualicum, because they spoke loud and clear that they wanted a government to look after the economy, a government with clear commitments and dreams for the future, one that controls spending to keep life affordable and the same things that I want for our future.

[1525]

Unlike the member opposite who just spoke about the future for our children, what I see for our future is a strong economy and secure tomorrow because we are planning for their future. We are creating a stronger future for our children.

There are so many people who support me in my role as MLA. My staff in the constituency office, Shari Cummins and Heather Mahony, work hard every day to help on my behalf to support the citizens of Parksville, Qualicum and Nanaimo. They work to solve the problems for my constituents and keep me informed while I'm here in Victoria representing them. Without all of my staff here in the Legislature — Emily Phillips, Christina Bates, Primrose Carson, Ben James and Jim Zeeben — the day-to-day work could not be accomplished.

Of course, my riding association gives me a great deal of support and so many volunteer hours for both myself and the rest of the team on this side of the House. Without my president, Jack Doan, vice-presidents Janet Smukowich and Paula Peterson, the rest of the board and the volunteers, the events would not get organized or be successful. For them, I am so truly grateful.

Then there are those who are most important to me, the people who have given me unconditional love and support. Even though our work takes us away from my husband Mark and my son Kai, they know, as I do, that the important work we are doing here in this session is laying the groundwork for a secure tomorrow that the voters of British Columbia have tasked us with creating. I am so grateful for their love and support.

I would not ask them to sacrifice the way they have if I did not believe wholeheartedly in our government's vision for the future of this province. I believe that the sacrifices my family is making to support my role as an MLA will pay off, just as our government's focus will pay off for every single family in British Columbia. I believe this not because I'm an optimist by nature but because I have lived my life, as an athlete and a private citizen, according to that principle that great things can be achieved if you plan carefully, you work hard and you stay focused.

You don't have to look any further than our Canadian women's hockey team and their remarkable gold-medal victory in the Sochi Olympics for proof that even when things look bleak, it is possible to dig deep and make something amazing happen. There's no question. There is no question that sometimes things are tough. And sometimes even things looked bleak for British Columbians since 2008. But we are charting a course for our own comeback, one that will benefit everyone in our province by building that strong economic base that will allow British Columbia to flourish.

I was not raised in this province. My husband and I, like so many people, chose to move to British Columbia because it was, and continues to be, a remarkable province filled with amazing people. I want to recognize, as every member in this House no doubt also recognizes, that despite the challenges we face, we are so incredibly fortunate. We live in a part of the world that is the envy of people around the planet. British Columbia is blessed with breathtaking landscapes, abundant resources and, most of all, an amazing history of people who have worked hard.

Perseverance resulted in a better life for their families and stronger communities for all of us. It took purpose, drive and focus to build this remarkable province we enjoy today. It took hard work to build the economy
[ Page 1698 ]
that is based on solid fundamentals. We are incredibly fortunate to have an economy that is not weighed down by uncertainty, that is not reliant on debt.

Let's be clear: running up a deficit has been compared to breaking out our credit cards to pay for what we can't afford. The truth is we wouldn't be breaking out our credit cards. If we spend more than we can afford, we are racking up the bill on our children's credit cards. That's not the right thing to do. That's not a choice that I would make for my own family, and it isn't a choice that I make for future generations of British Columbians.

When I was a child growing up in Winnipeg, my parents made it clear to me just how important it was to be financially responsible. They taught me to manage my personal finances by being willing to work hard and never live beyond my means. I am proud to see that core value reflected in this budget. I know for a fact that it is a value that is shared by the citizens of my riding. As a parent now myself, I know one of the most important lessons my son will learn is how to take care of himself financially. It starts with planning and creating a blueprint for a successful future.

[1530]

Our government has a vision for the future of this province, a vision that includes a strong economy that will provide a secure future for generations to come. Not only do we have a vision; we have a plan — a clear, well-defined road to success. This balanced budget is one purposeful step on that path.

We have balanced the budget today because the public has told us clearly that they want a government to manage tax dollars in the way that makes every single penny count. When I spoke with people in my riding, the residents of Nanaimo, Parksville and Qualicum Beach were crystal-clear to me that they wanted their government to show fiscal restraint. That's exactly what we're doing.

This may not be a very exciting budget, but it is a balanced budget, which is what a budget should be. It's a budget that makes sense to me and to my constituents in Parksville-Qualicum. They know, like I do, that we need a plan that reflects our fiscal realities and makes sense for our families today and in the future.

They also know that to help communities thrive we need to support economic growth. By encouraging investment, British Columbia has become known as a place that is open for business. This positive climate is reaping real, tangible rewards in our communities.

In Qualicum Beach, for example, there's a burgeoning digital media industry that's being helped with support by local government. There is a plan to create a shared space for digital media talent and mobile professionals. This space will serve as a hub for these businesses in the mid-Island to north Island. It will draw young families to our community, growing those families to diversify and strengthen mid-Island communities. It's a perfect example of the kind of plan that paves the road for success.

You need a long-term vision if you're going to succeed. Our government has that vision. As an athlete who has competed around the world at the highest level, I know that success requires proper preparation. I've been an athlete my entire life. I've stood on podiums around the world and earned gold medals at one of the greatest sporting competitions known to mankind.

People along the way many times have asked me how I got there. Let me tell you that it wasn't quick, and it wasn't easy. There are many, many years of training, planning and practice.

What got me started on the road to athletic success and kept me there was the knowledge that, through careful planning and hard work, I could accomplish great things — even winning Paralympic gold medals. I dreamed of athletic success at the highest level. I planned and worked for many years. Finally, with the help of my coaches and my family, I achieved my goals.

Athletics are still a part, a huge part, of my life, but now I also dream of a province that is even stronger and more successful than it was when I decided to make it my home. Our government has set goals for our province. We have a clear vision for that future, and through our careful fiscal management, economic stimulus and job creation, we will achieve our dreams.

Our government has listened when British Columbians told us that they want a strong and thriving economy that will allow them to achieve a better quality of life for themselves, their families and their communities. This budget is a critical part of a plan to achieve that goal, to secure the future for future generations. I have no doubt that the people of this province have that strength and that focus needed to stick to the plan to achieve our goal of a strong, secure province.

Some would have you believe that British Columbians should be afraid of our plans for economic growth, that we should have fear of change and innovation. But fear will get us nowhere.

In my athletic career I've faced many challenges, from physical ailments to the constraint of pressure of other athletes around me who were my competitors and wanted the same medals I did. Many times I wondered and even feared what competition would have in store for me, if my training or my planning and preparation would actually work out.

Yet I couldn't let fear stand in the way of my dreams. You can't think: "What if this doesn't work out?" You can't think: "What if I put all this effort in, make all the sacrifices, and I don't get what I want?"

I knew that if I believed enough in the process, the success was going to follow. I just needed to focus on the plan, so that's what I did. I'm a planner. Many people would probably tell you that I even plan to plan. Sometimes I even plan to be spontaneous.

[1535]

At the London Paralympic Games I wanted every de-
[ Page 1699 ]
tail thought out. I wanted to be sure that there was nothing left out when I crossed that finish line, that I could walk away without any regrets, knowing that all the thought and preparation had been put into accomplishing that ultimate goal. I could have been overwhelmed by the details of the process. I could have let fear stand in the way of my plan and let it fail or overwhelm me. But over the years I've learned that you can't be trapped by fears. Limits, like fears, are illusions. You must see beyond short-term fears to achieve long-term goals.

Fear is what I hear from the other side of the House. Their response to our efforts to do what the people of British Columbia have asked us to do — to show fiscal responsibility and to make tough decisions that come with governing — has been to try and make people afraid. But to do what is right, we can't be afraid. We must believe that we can accomplish what people have asked us to do. I believe it, and so should you.

I'm proud to have the chance today to speak in favour of this well-planned, fiscally responsible budget. The document includes the B.C. jobs plan, which is based on five measurable points to evaluate labour force needs and to help every British Columbian achieve employment. We are fiscally responsible. We are controlling our spending. We are leveraging many strengths that our province has to offer. We're creating an LNG industry that will provide us with an incredible opportunity to eliminate the province's debt.

We're training British Columbians to have the skills necessary that they need so that they, too, can succeed. You have to look no farther than Vancouver Island University and its thriving trades program and groundbreaking initiative to waive tuition fees for students who were formally in government care for proof that we are making strides to provide a better future in the labour needs of our province.

We're also opening new markets and growing the economy — in my own community constituents like Order of Canada recipient and Juno nominee Phil Dwyer, who is successfully navigating his business to explore new Asia markets. I'm proud that our government is supporting his efforts. Trade missions led by the Premier have been very successful.

In the throne speech we told you that governments can choose to manage decline, spending their way into bankruptcy, or we can find new ways to grow our economy. We promise the people of this province that we will govern responsibly, that we will control spending. That's why there's a core review going on to ensure that the public service runs efficiently and effectively. We're making those decisions and moving forward rather than becoming mired by endless process.

One important element to creating a better future is allowing people to benefit from their own ingenuity and hard work, allowing people to keep more of what they earn by giving them a lower tax rate. This is especially important for small business owners.

Small business plays such an important role in British Columbia's exports, accounting for 42 percent of merchandise shipped abroad in 2011. For that reason, our government is making a concerted effort to assist small business by cutting red tape. Excessive paperwork and making businesses jump through too many hoops will just drag on the economy and ultimately cost jobs. In the mid-Island doing business recently got much easier thanks to a new mobile business licence agreement which allows business owners to work in multiple jurisdictions with a single licence.

Our goal is to become the most business-friendly jurisdiction in all of Canada. The business community knows we are working in their best interest, and for the third year in a row the Canadian Federation of Independent Business has awarded British Columbia with an A rating for its continuing program to slash red tape. We're making a difference. We are, in fact, the only province in Canada to receive that designation this year.

Small businesses are vital to British Columbians, but they really are critical to helping the economy in my riding of Parksville-Qualicum. Small businesses are the key to ensuring that there are jobs in my communities. An attractive climate for small business will encourage entrepreneurs and businesses to grow and hire more people from my community.

[1540]

High regulatory costs and high taxes discourage business. High costs discourage savings and thereby discourage capital expenditure and hiring. Reducing B.C.'s small business tax by 40 percent and reducing corporate income tax rates to 10 percent by 2018 will help business owners across our province keep more of what they earn, keep more in their own pockets.

Our economy succeeds by producing the things that people need, and only economies of the people can accomplish this. By this, I mean that there are these economic relationships that are unique to people alone, where they live and what their circumstances are. This is not something that can ever be planned or directed. It's organic by nature of a healthy economy.

Only business owners can decide how to make capital expenditures, how they want to hire and the complexities needed to be undertaken to deliver goods and services to people. Less taxes for business owners help us to do this.

If these decisions are poorly informed, then the businesses will fail, and they will not grow. It really is as straightforward as this.

Governments need to be able to plan for tomorrow. Our government has an obligation to plan in a way that will benefit British Columbians, and that is exactly the approach the government is taking, as outlined in this balanced budget.

With a rich abundance of liquefied natural gas here in B.C., all British Columbians have economic opportun-
[ Page 1700 ]
ities. This is an industry that is going to create thousands of jobs around British Columbia. It's an opportunity for our tradespeople to earn a living and support their families and communities.

Even in places like Parksville-Qualicum, which might not seem to have a connection to the LNG industry, there will be real benefits, as businesses around the province will provide the specialized labour and the materials that are needed in such a massive industry.

Throughout our province's history people have gone where the work is, and then they come back to their hometown to share that wealth. I believe this is one way of helping people in my riding benefit from our government's work with the LNG industry.

Every community in our province will reap these benefits, not only in bringing money home to their families but in the benefits that we will see in infrastructure, in health care and in education that LNG will provide.

While LNG has the potential to generate a wealth of income and abundant resources, it will not permanently eliminate all of our challenges. There is always going to be tomorrow, and government must be extremely responsible in spending and must endeavour to save, just like anyone else, for that proverbial rainy day.

Being responsible in spending will allow our province to succeed in more difficult times, just like we experienced in 2008. Many, many nations have taken on radical deficits, spending to avoid facing their fiscal reality. They are addicted to debt.

Racking up more debt is easy. It's always easier to ignore the problem than it is to confront or solve the problem, but British Columbians are smarter than that. They know, as I do, that by balancing our budget, we will be able to focus on growing our economy for everyone's benefit.

One thing that's essential to a positive investment climate is lower income taxes. The lower tax regime is fundamental to a competitive economy and attracting more investment. That's why our government has taken those significant steps to reduce those corporate and personal income tax rates.

B.C. currently has the lowest personal income tax rates in Canada for those earning up to $121,000 per year. In fact, personal income taxes for most taxpayers have been reduced by 37 percent since 2001, and so many low-income British Columbians don't even pay provincial income tax at all. An individual can earn up to $19,000 before paying provincial income tax.

Balancing our budget means that British Columbia keeps a triple-A credit rating. That triple-A credit rating is important. Do you know why?

Number 1, it reduces the cost of servicing our debt and will allow us to spend money on vital programs and services. Number 2, it costs less for governments to borrow and gives us the freedom to make significant investment in provincial infrastructure projects such as roads, bridges, improvements in health care facilities, schools and post-secondary education institutions.

[1545]

In total, taxpayer-supported capital spending on schools and hospitals and other infrastructure across B.C. over the next three years is expected to be a total of $11 billion.

There is more to life than dollars and cents. Even though we've made the choices in order to balance the budget, we have found ways to provide essential support for health care and education that is vitally important to British Columbians.

We need to continue to train our young people for the jobs of tomorrow. Education is a critical investment to providing the young people of my riding…. Our government is investing in young people with this budget.

The B.C. training and education savings grant provides $1,200 towards a child's RESP, following his or her sixth birthday. Starting in April 2015, the B.C. early childhood tax benefit will provide $146 million to approximately 180,000 families with children under the age of six. Families will receive up to $55 a month for each child under the age of six.

This is how we are supporting our families. This is how we are creating a better, stronger future. The B.C. early-years strategy will invest $76 million over three years to support the creation of new child care spaces and improve the quality of child care and early-years services, supporting the families of British Columbians.

The government will also support by providing incremental funding to $243 million over three years to Community Living B.C. to maintain those services for adults with developmental disabilities and their families.

Investing in education, combined with furthering our B.C. jobs plan, is going to continue to give a future for British Columbians — a secure future. This security will help make life easier for the families of British Columbia.

In my riding there has been a large-scale investment that will help make life easier for families, and that's the recent opening of the Oceanside Health Centre. As an MLA, as a parent, as a resident of my community, I'm very happy to have this health care centre at home, only a block away from my house. Equipped with highly advanced technology, the Oceanside Health Centre is changing the way that we provide health care.

Some of the most advanced equipment is in the health care centre. It includes ultrasound, X-ray exams, diagnostic mammography and bone densitometry. It has telehealth, which is allowing so many of my residents to save the travel to get health care needs met. Doctors, nurses and health care technicians are taking a more collaborative approach to how they deliver health care and provide a higher quality of service for the patients and families.

Already the Oceanside Health Centre is helping the residents in my riding by providing accessible and immediate care for the patients. I've heard from so many in
[ Page 1701 ]
my community how grateful they are to have it here at home. The health care centre is a fundamental component to our community development.

For the next four years it's a crucial time for our government to grow our economy for British Columbian families, with their best interests in mind. I know that if we take advantage of our current economic opportunities while the door is open, while it's there, while maintaining fiscal responsibility, we can create a prosperous future for our children and our grandchildren.

It has been an honour for me to speak today in this House on behalf of my constituents of Parksville and Qualicum, and I am extremely pleased to speak in support of the government's budget.

S. Chandra Herbert: I first want to acknowledge, of course, the Songhees and Esquimalt First Nations, whose traditional territories we are on, and to acknowledge the Musqueam, Tsleil-Waututh and Squamish people, whose traditional territories Vancouver–West End is on.

It's important that we recognize that the history of this place doesn't begin just at the building of this building but, of course, has a much longer history with a lot of challenges for us that still remain.

[1550]

As others have done, I would like to thank my family. I would like to thank my husband Romi, my parents, my brother and my incredible staff who work in my constituency office.

I think it has been a trying week, given an incident that occurred last week. But you know, the community in the West End has come together in a way that has made us all feel incredibly great. It looks almost like a florist's now, I'm told, with the number of flowers that have been brought to my office to show support, to show solidarity against violence and against hatred.

I'm incredibly well served by my staff — as I know we all are by our assistants, who allow us to do the work that we do so ably — but also so ably served and supported by my constituents. I don't think any of us can do our jobs well unless we have good relationships with the people we represent.

We talk often of government or opposition. People blame the government. People are upset or want things to change. We have to remember, I think, that the government is all of us, not just all of us in this room but everybody in society, to an extent — some with more power, obviously, and some with less.

I think that sometimes in this place when we approach budgets and we approach these conversations, we say things like: "The government is giving you X, Y and Z" or "The government is doing this for you." Well, sure. There may be people officially known as government, but in the end, the money belongs to the people of British Columbia. It's their money that's doing that work, not the government's money.

That's something that I always hold close to my heart, because nobody does this work alone. Nobody succeeds in society alone. Nobody gets rich alone. It takes a community to raise a child, a village to raise a child, as they say. But indeed, you talk to any number of business people, you talk to any number of academics, politicians, civil servants, health care workers, etc., down the road. It's taken people working together to help them achieve their dreams.

I think we should reflect on budgets in the same way. How do we work together? How does a budget build resilience, build interdependence amongst a community to achieve success? Just as nobody gets rich alone…. Although they may have had a great idea, they did not pay for the highway alone to get their products to market. They did not pay for the health care system, which allowed their assistant to get healthy again to be able to assist in whatever the great discovery might have been. It takes all of us. It takes a society. It takes the public good in order for us all to be truly wealthy, I believe.

It also takes all of us to solve problems like poverty, problems like issues with mental health. And just as no one gets rich alone, really nobody struggles in poverty alone. Those impacts, I believe, are felt by all of us, whether or not it's in our hearts or it's physical in terms of our own communities, in what we see and who we relate to, intention, in illness, in our health care system, in our legal system and so on.

When I look at a budget like this, I think of my constituents in the West End. I think of my constituents in Coal Harbour. I think about how a budget like this affects that interdependence, that community, that public, that working together.

Does it leave a community more resilient, more able to put up with challenges and slings and arrows? Does it leave us more able to deal with things like the 2008 economic recession, which really hit the province just as I was entering this place through a by-election? Does it leave our people able to withstand stormy seas? Does it give them that life raft — to pull on a rather tortured metaphor that was woven through the budget — or does it leave them with a leaky boat that's going to sink? Does it leave them without a life jacket when they need one?

Unfortunately, I don't think this budget leaves our community more resilient. I think it leaves us more open to challenges down the road. I don't think this budget leaves our people, as a whole, more prosperous. I don't think it leads to more opportunity for our people.

You know, I'm a hopeful person. I think that we need to be hopeful, because you never get change if you're always focused on just no. You never get change unless you have a hope for change and unless you believe to your core that you can make a difference.

Coming to this place, speaking, asking questions, writing letters, petitions, protests, and so on…. I think the people of B.C. sometimes would be forgiven for losing
[ Page 1702 ]
hope — sometimes. Sometimes, because change does not seem to come to this place all that often. Change does not seem to enter into the realm of the closed doors of the cabinet, of the government all that often.

[1555]

It does occur. Certainly, it does occur. We do push for things, and sometimes the government acts when the community has managed to make the case. But again, change has to come from all of us, and the government has to stop treating itself like the government above us all and start treating us like the government for us all.

What does that mean in a budget? What do West Enders tell me they want to see? What do people in Coal Harbour tell me they want to see? They tell me they believe in fiscal responsibility, and I agree. I am a cheap person. I'm a frugal person, if you want to put a nicer spin on it, but my husband would tell you I'm a cheap person. I like to get my clothes, my goods, my things at a good, affordable price. I like to keep money in the budget, and that's how I treat myself. That's how our family operates.

That's how I've been taught by my parents. They worked in the arts, and the arts is not a business that you work in to get rich. It's a business that you work in to get rich in your spirit and in your soul. They always made sure that we knew the value of a dollar, so I think fiscal responsibility is key.

When you can look at a budget — and say, "Is it a balanced budget?" — you need to look at what that is built on. Just like my family would never say our budget is balanced by selling our car, selling our silverware, selling our furniture to say, "Well, we're running a balanced budget. Isn't this great," we would never look at this budget, which is partially built on a fire sale of assets, to say that this is truly balanced in that sense.

Balance is not just about fiscal responsibility. We also have social responsibility. I don't think we would ever believe — certainly, the folks in my neighbourhood would never believe — that you could get rich by treating somebody badly, by ignoring somebody struggling with a health care issue. They would say: "Well, yes, you might have a little bit of extra money in your pocket, but if your neighbourhood is suffering, if you are leaving people struggling on the street, are we truly wealthy? Is that good money? Is that good wealth?" We have to look at social responsibility. What is our responsibility to each other?

They want to know: "What is our responsibility to the earth that we rely on? You can have a booming economy, but if you tear everything down and blow it all up, and you've got no environment left, that's not balanced, either. That's something that we have to hold in our hearts too.

You have balance in many different ways, but if you sell out the social systems and the environmental health systems that we rely on, for a short-term buck to be able to balance the budget, that's not environmental, social or fiscal responsibility. That's short-term thinking, and that is not resilient. That leaves you prone to risks and making poor judgments in a short-term fashion.

My constituents — how do we make life more resilient? How do we make their lives more sustainable? I think we have to think of a couple things. One, does this budget make their life more affordable? For the average constituent, I would say probably not.

The number of people, particularly seniors that I speak with — but also folks living with disabilities, young families, people who are paying their student loans on a not-particularly-high-wage job — look at things like medical services premiums or, really, medical services taxes. They're flat taxes, taxes which make Jimmy Pattison pay the same amount as the person working at cleaning out the hallway. Both people working hard, but with grossly different incomes, and paying exactly the same thing. Is that fair? Is that balanced? I think not.

I think we need to look at these issues. How do we build balance? How do we build resilience amongst all of us so we all prosper? That's what I think government should be about.

Many have said: "Well, the people voted, and they said this is what they want." Well, about 40 percent of the people voted for the New Democrats and said this is what they want. If a government truly wants to be balanced, they have to listen to all points of view, rather than saying, "Nah, nah, nah, we won. We don't have to listen to you," which, on the worst days, is what the government seems to say, what some MLAs on the government side seem to say. That's unfortunate, because I think it sours the well of democracy and public discourse.

It's not how we build a resilient province that listens to each other and works hard together. It's not how you build a resilient province where you can trust and respect each other. We need to come together in these instances. This place could do a heck of a lot more to make that possible, including having the committees sit together, including looking at the budget together, rather than playing the silly game of "We won, you lost, and we don't have to listen to you," because that doesn't build resilience.

Now, when we look at resilience, we've got issues of affordability. Of course, I hear from seniors in my community around challenges when they receive SAFER. Their rents keep going up, and that stays the same. Hydro bills are rocketing up, so they're taking more and more of their food budget to go into their rent budget.

[1600]

That's the same for families. That's the same for many who have seen their incomes stagnate for years now under this government. They don't see the helping hand reaching out to them. They see a helping hand reaching out to the government's selected few, and it's not them.

There have been clear issues with Residential Tenancy Act amendments required, clear issues with affordability in rental housing, but again, the government largely says: "No. Forget it. We don't have to listen to you." That
[ Page 1703 ]
is wrong, so I'll continue to work, because I have hope in my heart. I hope one day we can convince these folks that they should listen to all British Columbians, not just the select few, so that those concerns can start to be addressed and people can have more resilience in their life, more hope in their life and more food in their fridge.

How do you build resilience for small businesses in my community? Well, one thing they tell me is: "We need our local people to be able to shop more often. We need more people to be able to buy locally." But the folks that I talk to will sometimes say to me: "You know, I'm going to Washington State to try to save some money because I haven't had a raise in years. So I'm going to try to save some money here." That takes money out of the local economy and supports the American economy.

I think we need to do a better job of supporting our local businesses through government procurement policies, through support for local people so that they actually have money in their pockets and they can buy things in the community — deal with that affordability gap, which is pushing people further and further out or pushing them so that they don't go out to enjoy the many beautiful restaurants and things that we have in our community.

Resiliency requires education. It requires being able to think, to dream, to dream big. This budget cuts advanced education. It does not reach out to deal with the challenges facing even our public schools.

I've told the story about one young man and his father. His father wanted to get him some help, some speech pathology, because he was having a hard time speaking. Very bright young guy. He couldn't get the help he needed because of cuts to the public education system. Now, we were finally able to get him help he needed, but we shouldn't have to go try and raise money through the newspaper system, through charities and so on to be able to pay for a public education system.

That's something that we all should believe in. That's something we all should work for, because it raises us all up as a society. It builds hope for us all. The smarter people, educated people, people who have the chance, the opportunity to dream big — that's what builds an exciting, vibrant economy. That's what builds a society that we can all dream and believe in. That's what gives people hope.

If you know the history, if you know each other, if you know society, you can actually see the opportunities, see the openings to make a difference, see where there are gaps in the business sector. You might have a brand-new idea that could change that system.

That's what the education system can do. It can build equality. It can build culture. It can build the things that we all look to, that we all dream for.

Unfortunately, this government does not build resilience in the education system. It does the exact opposite by making it harder for B.C. students to get the education they deserve, by making it harder for adults to retrain. The number of adults who come into my office, folks often in their 50s and even early 60s, who need to retrain because they do not have a job….

We've lost more jobs in the last year than we've gained. We've got one of the worst job creation records in this country under this government. We have a jobless plan from this government when we need a jobs plan from this government. We need to be able to retrain folks, to give them skills, whether or not it's English as a second language so that new immigrants coming to this country have a fair shot as well.

Those are all issues that should be addressed by a government that's looking for true prosperity, for true opportunity, for true resilience for all people, not just the chosen few.

We need to deal with child poverty. I don't know why this government insists you cannot deal with poverty except for talking about a job. You know what? They've been talking about jobs for 12 years, and with the worst job record in this country right now, that's not a solution for the people living in poverty. Most of those folks actually have jobs. They're working minimum-wage jobs, often two jobs, and their kids are still struggling in poverty, still struggling to get food in their fridge.

Often that's because this government has not prioritized, through budgets supporting equality, supporting those kids to have the greatest opportunity. We know those kids struggle, we know those families struggle, and we know those have long-term impacts that will be with us for decades to come.

[1605]

When you're just worried about trying to get some food, you can't focus on your education, because you're hungry. It's becoming more and more prevalent. The students, the teachers that I talk to, talk about the kid who lives in the closet because his parents can't afford anything more than a bachelor suite. They're still struggling because they can't afford the food that the kid needs to eat, let alone the various fees that seem to be added on to education again and again and again.

We need a jobs program that works, and we need an anti-poverty program that works. They should go together. They are not exclusive. I do not understand why this government refuses, absolutely refuses, to address child poverty.

We should have a goal as a province to say: "We will have the lowest child poverty in all of Canada." Why is that impossible? Why is that a goal this government refuses to set for itself? When you refuse to set goals, you accept the reality of what you've got. I don't understand how anybody on the government side could accept what we have.

We know the measurement. We know the need for change. The statistics are there. The moral reasons are there. The only people who aren't there seem to be this government, and that is wrong. That is wrong, and that's
[ Page 1704 ]
something we must keep fighting for until this government backs down and realizes that kids matter. They need our help. This government has the ability to do that. Our people of B.C. — any poll you look at, they want action. I don't understand why this government doesn't want action.

What is a resilient economy? How do we get those jobs for people who are looking for jobs? How do we build a resilient economy that supports everybody in this province? Well, there are so many different places that we could talk about.

One area that I do want to acknowledge and thank the government for finally acting…. I don't know how many times I got up in this House and requested action — which is, I guess, why I still have hope. Sometimes you have to request many times, and then, eventually, something happens. It's the film industry.

We were mocked at first for calling for action for the film industry. Well, they said, "No, no. We don't need to talk to those Hollywood fat cats," ignoring completely our domestic film industry.

We finally got some action. The Victoria film industry finally has a tax change which will help them, and I think that is a good thing.

The post-production industry also has some work which was required years ago, and I thank the government for acting on that as well. I know that one of the ministers said, "Well, thank you," as if he was the one that made it happen when, of course, it was the industry that made it happen.

We, in the end, are mere vessels, in some ways, for the dreams and desires of our constituents. So when arrogance takes over and we think that we are all that…. Well, we're not all that; we're wrong. I hope the minister takes that into consideration. It certainly helps when we make mistakes and get embarrassed if we don't think we're all that, if we think we are just mere vessels trying to make a difference in the world without the brilliance and without the amazing intellect that some on the government side like to suggest they have.

You know, a resilient economy in my community is about a vibrant tourism sector. Our hospitality sector employs so many people in this province. Hundreds of thousands of people are employed in the hospitality sector — over 100,000 people.

We used to have a goal of doubling tourism by 2015. It was a good goal. It was a stretch goal. It was a dream. It was something that we would reach for.

The Olympics were supposed to shoot us into that stratosphere, which is why we spent billions on them. But you know what? The minute the Olympics were out of the door, the government reduced that support, after throwing it into chaos with the Tourism B.C. debacle, and only now are we starting to creep up back to 2008 levels, which aren't even as good as they were in the early part of the 2000s. We've got to do a much better job of supporting and investing in tourism in this province and understanding that the spinoff effect is massive.

The creative economy. Again, what's inside our heads, what's in our brains — we need to value that. Just as we shouldn't be cutting advanced education, we need to value what's in our brains, the creativity, whether it's in the forestry sector, where value-added approaches through creativity have added so much to our economy and to our jobs, where you take one small number of jobs and, through a value-added creative approach, you can create hundreds through the manufacturing sector.

I think about being the best, the greenest, the most environmentally friendly jurisdiction in Canada. We should be the most efficient jurisdiction in Canada, and that talks about the building code. If we look at forestry, we've got a lot of wood in this province. We've got a lot of people who have lost their jobs because of this government's inaction in forestry.

[1610]

What could we do with that? We could say to the building code that we want to implement the Passive House standard for building code all across B.C. Now, what is that? That is a standard which says that you need to make sure that you use almost no energy in the building. It's very little because the heating energy is low. You have good-sized insulation, triple-pane windows.

It was an innovation created in Saskatchewan back in the '70s. They thought they had this brilliant idea, that Canada would go: "My goodness, we shouldn't waste fossil fuels like we have them forever. We shouldn't waste energy like we have it forever. We should preserve and conserve energy. We should use less of it. We should use our design and our brains to make sure we use the absolute most of the resources we have."

Unfortunately, we just kind of trucked along without very good energy standards, without a building code that really pushes innovation, without a stretch goal to dream big, without a goal which would say we could be the real innovators in housing construction in this province, one that really uses our resources wisely — or wood wisely.

This product, if we reached for it…. Maybe it's pilot projects through B.C. Housing or what have you. We could be spreading this technology around the globe and cut resource waste, cut the climate change impacts of ultimate burning of fossil fuels, like we seem to do as if they are going out of style. Just "Burn, baby, burn."

Well, no. It should be "Conserve, baby, conserve." We should be fiscally responsible, environmentally responsible and use our natural resources responsibly so that they're there for future generations, rather than selling them out in a quick race to the bottom.

We need to understand that the actions we take today impact the future hundreds of years down the line, climate change being the ultimate example of that. If we cut our greenhouse gas emissions drastically, we're going to leave a better future for generations to come. If we don't,
[ Page 1705 ]
we are going to cost our future billions. We are going to cost our future by throwing our children and our children's children into environmental chaos we don't even understand yet.

That this budget, this government, still has no plan to reach our legally legislated targets to cut climate change pollution from this province is wrong. This budget should be part of the implementation plan so we can drive down our greenhouse gas emissions and give ourselves hope for the future, not sell out the future, not ignore the future, not pretend the future is never going to come and not pretend climate change isn't quite here.

Just the other day, with the ocean acidification up here Parksville-Qualicum — I'm sorry the member didn't refer to it in her speech — we lost ten million scallops. That's a loss of jobs. That's a loss of a major industry in B.C., the shellfish industry — could be, if we continue down this road.

Why? Because of climate change, ocean acidification. Again, the costs are here today. Pine beetle was here today and cost us billions as well — again, climate change.

So we need to dream big. We need to look at environment resilience. We need to look at the cleanest air, the cleanest water, the cleanest land, the best environmental regulations that help drive innovation, that help reach the top.

You talk to the people in the business world, and they expect it. They want to be challenged. They have kids too. They have future grandchildren too. They want a good future as well. Sometimes working with them, supporting their efforts but also putting realistic targets so that they're no longer just the one business trying to be environmentally responsible while their competitors are undercutting them by using unsustainable means….

We all have to raise the bar here. This government is abandoning the environment. They are abandoning good policy that would drive those sectors — clean energy, technology, the kinds of things that we can all get behind through a strong education system, with good support in our natural resources. You know, we've got incredible wealth here. We should be using it better. We should be using it much better, and this budget does not do that. This budget continues the same old, same old: "Well, we've done it this way forever, so let's just keep doing that."

But that's wasteful. This government is continuing wasteful ways, which are wasting our natural resources in a quick-buck scheme when we could be getting much more value out of them with the companies. The companies could be getting much more value for them too, and the environment could be a lot healthier for it.

One area that we should talk about, as well, is our health care system. How do you make a resilient health care system? Of course, proactive. We've got to focus on: how do we make sure that people live healthy lives?

[1615]

That cigarette tax? I congratulate the government on deciding to tax the people. The Liberals love taxing the people, and they're doing it with a cigarette tax. That one we can agree on. While I don't like the regressive medical services tax the government is putting on, I agree with their cigarette tax.

It's not a popular one for smokers, and I know some smokers in my life. Maybe it'll convince my dad, finally, to quit the habit. I certainly hope so. But hey, it's an addiction, and we also know that addictions are hard to beat. Addictions are a challenge for us all.

That one I can agree with. You know what I can't agree with? Telling my constituents, as the Liberal government did, as the Premier did before the election, that they were going to rebuild St. Paul's Hospital after the election — that they had the plan, that they were going to build it.

I've got the documents which show we were supposed to be into construction by now, that the business case was supposed to be out by now. The Health Minister said to the media the other day: "Well, it might be another five or six years, if that, maybe more, before we begin any construction on St. Paul's Hospital."

Why is it so important? Why is it something that we need resiliency on? Because the hospital will crumble if there is a earthquake. Because the hospital is crumbling now, even though there isn't an earthquake. Because it's not a hospital that meets modern standards. It's not a hospital that attracts doctors to want to work there, if it wasn't for the other really good doctors who are already there. The staff are incredible. The people do the best they can, but the facility does not meet the needs of today.

There's no surge capacity in Vancouver if that hospital ever went down. Thank goodness it hasn't, but we needed a new St. Paul's Hospital ten years ago. This government has been promising a new St. Paul's Hospital since 2002. The government before that was promising a new St. Paul's Hospital, and here we are 14 years later. Now they're saying that maybe it's another six years.

Well, that'll be 20 years since the government first started promising a new St. Paul's Hospital — a hospital which is vital for the economy of the West End, vital for the downtown economy, vital for all of British Columbia. The number of people who come from constituencies outside of the West End to use that hospital is vast. Probably half the traffic into that hospital is from outside of Vancouver because of the specialized services.

That hospital reclamation…. I see a woodpecker over there. He is agreeing. I appreciate that the member from Delta is agreeing. We need to have this hospital built right away, because his constituents use it as well.

Everybody on that side of the House should cheer, and I'm waiting for it, to get St. Paul's Hospital rebuilt. Oh, I see a lot of smiles. I see a lot of nods. People on this are side cheering and applauding. Well, maybe we can still have hope that in its next budget the government will actually fulfil its promise to the people and actually rebuild St. Paul's.
[ Page 1706 ]

The Liberal candidate who ran against me in the election said: "Oh yeah, it's going to be built. Don't worry. It'll be built." Well, unfortunately, the Health Minister after the election decided that that was no longer a priority.

Elections — well, I guess, as the Premier said: "We all say things to get elected." I say things that I actually think we can do and can achieve to get elected, because otherwise my constituents would be at my door with a lot of anger pretty quickly. They're pretty angry at this government right now for telling them one thing and then doing another.

To wrap it up, I will be voting against this budget.

Interjections.

S. Chandra Herbert: I know. I'm so hopeful. You know, maybe a couple of amendments from this House to fulfil all of these things in these pages, and then we could do that. That would be cooperation. That would be resilience. That would be working for all British Columbians, not just the chosen few the Liberals choose to listen to but every last British Columbian, because that's who the government should be about. Democracy should be about all of us, not just the chosen few.

I appreciate the hon. ministers, the MLAs, embracing this speech, deciding that they're going to change their ways. I see some smiles, some nods, maybe a little laughter. No, they're not going to change their ways. They're going to continue governing for the chosen few while ignoring the 60 percent of the British Columbians who didn't support them.

Hon. Speaker, I appreciate the time today. Thank you on behalf of the people of Vancouver–West End.

S. Hamilton: It is indeed an honour to respond to the budget on behalf of the people from Delta North. I'd like to begin by first thanking the important people in my life — my wife, Kristen; our daughters Paige and Lauren.

[1620]

I'd be remiss if I didn't also thank, of course, my constituency assistants Kim Kendall and Debbie Ward for all the hard work that they do. I want to go a step further and take a moment to thank all of the volunteers in my community, a community that would never operate without the hard work of the people on the soccer pitches, on the softball fields and in the ice rinks. They are the heart and soul of a community, and we have a lot of good people in Delta North.

It's a proud time to be a British Columbian. This is a time when we can stand tall among the provinces of this country and, indeed, among jurisdictions around the world. We can look our children in the eye and know in our hearts that we're doing the right thing for them. We're not passing on debt in order to pay tomorrow for what we simply can't afford today.

You've heard the joke in this House about the boring, balanced budget — or the triple-B, as it's come to be known. But the truth is that there is an excitement to this day. This is a beginning, and it's a foundation for better days ahead. Our government has freed up more than $1 billion by reducing spending over the government's fiscal plan. About half of that $1 billion is being invested to help families, to support jobs and to promote economic growth.

Fiscal responsibility requires discipline. We've made tough decisions and followed through with those decisions. It hasn't been easy. Much of what you hear in these responses to the budget will sound familiar. It's a sign of a solid plan, an idea that's straightforward but incredibly difficult to make reality.

British Columbia and Saskatchewan are the only two provinces in Canada that have balanced their budgets. It's a rare feat because it's not easy to do. But all British Columbians will see that fiscal discipline has its rewards.

A boring, balanced budget gets economists and investors excited. The Conference Board of Canada is forecasting British Columbia to lead the country in economic growth in 2015. By getting our fiscal house in order, British Columbia has created an environment that will attract investment and encourage business in this province.

The world's economy has had its share of surprises and uncertainty, and investors have had their fill of roller-coaster rides as nations around the globe struggle to pay their bills or create certainty over their economic health. Investors are ready for boring. British Columbia and its triple-B is exactly what global investment wants, and time will prove that the pain that we went through as citizens and taxpayers of this province will be worth it in the years ahead.

This really is something all people of British Columbia should celebrate. When our government tasked a commission with travelling around the province and meeting with people of this province, they told us that a balanced budget mattered. They understood that all of us are expected to do our part to keep our houses in order. Working people in my riding of Delta North and across B.C. do this day in and day out. It's not magic. It's not rocket science. We run our households in as effective and efficient a way as we can, and people in British Columbia expect us to do the same thing in this House on their behalf.

We all go to work and earn a living, and we live within our means. That's what people do, and that's what they expect their government to do as well, as I said.

Well, we promised we would do our part and balance the budget, and we kept our promise. We also recognize the importance of labour stability, and in December our government reached an agreement with three public sector unions representing 51,000 working people in this province. The great thing about these agreements is that they include an innovative way to share the province's
[ Page 1707 ]
prosperity. As the economy grows faster than projected forecasts, our public servants will see their benefits grow along with the economy.

Once again, labour certainty attracts investment and leads to economic growth, and that benefits all of us. By reaching long-term labour agreements, the government is promoting greater economic certainty and a more predictable business environment. These things — a balanced budget and labour security — are ingredients in the recipe for economic prosperity.

In order to prosper in the future, we need to be competitive in the global economy and open new markets. This is something that's very important to B.C. and to my riding of Delta North.

[1625]

We're blessed by our geography — B.C. as Canada's west coast province and Delta as a key location for transportation. More and more B.C. exports are heading west. British Columbia exports to China have risen by more than 600 percent in the last ten years. We're extremely well positioned to leverage even more prospects for overseas exports, resulting in the creation of even more jobs and business opportunities.

The recently completed South Fraser Perimeter Road will generate some 7,000 long-term jobs in Delta and Surrey through improved industrial development opportunities along the Delta-Surrey corridor. This, too, will mean better economic opportunities for new and existing business. This is one of the major routes for moving goods through British Columbia's Pacific gateways, and it's a boon for workers and businesses in the Lower Mainland, and Delta specifically.

The Tilbury and Annacis Island industrial districts are home to a vast and diverse number of businesses that are providing solid, good-paying jobs for my constituents and others from around the Lower Mainland. There are some 300 businesses in Tilbury and another 430 or so on Annacis Island. Altogether, they employ nearly 20,000 people between those two districts.

These two areas offer a broad range of products and services, from high-tech to manufacturing, distribution, aerospace, warehousing and logistics. The list goes on and continues to grow. Annacis Island and Tilbury are great examples of how creating an attractive climate for business leads to opportunities for growth and prosperity. With vast amounts of industrial land, Annacis Island's and Tilbury's futures look incredibly bright.

Annacis Island is also home to some of the most skilled tradespeople in the country. They're already benefiting from our government's work creating a liquefied natural gas industry. A new skills-training school on Annacis Island will allow British Columbians to learn the skills needed to be first in line for new jobs.

There'll be new jobs for British Columbia. To support this point, the Conference Board of Canada, an independent research organization, has singled out British Columbia as leading Canada's economic growth in 2015.

LNG is one of the ways we're opening up new markets and diversifying our economy. The hard work we're doing now will pay off for everyone in this province. The Premier has made LNG a priority for British Columbia. The demand for natural gas in Asia represents a huge opportunity. In B.C. we have an abundant supply of natural gas, as we know. When B.C. prospers, we all share in that prosperity. That is something we can feel proud about. The decisions we make today will guarantee a prosperous and secure future for British Columbians for generations to come.

Through the efforts of our Premier and our government, we're reaching agreements with partners in Asia — new agreements — and we're developing the capacity in this province to meet the demand of Asia's growing economies. Investing in LNG will provide British Columbians with significant benefits, such as thousands of construction jobs and many more permanent positions. It's estimated that after ten years one single LNG plant could generate up to $1.4 billion in LNG income tax. That's new revenue that can be used to pay for new public services such as health care and education.

We all will get there, as we did with this budget. Our Finance Minister likes to call this the triple-B budget, but this boring, balanced budget is the reason British Columbia will be able to keep this triple-A credit rating. Of course, we all know that's the highest credit rating a jurisdiction could possibly hope to achieve.

It's a huge benefit for British Columbia, as it reduces the cost of servicing our debt and lowers the cost of borrowing. Lowering the government's borrowing costs gives B.C. the fiscal freedom to invest in infrastructure projects such as roads and bridges. Lower borrowing costs would allow government to make improvements to health care facilities, schools and post-secondary institutions, as has been asked for many times by the members opposite. But we've got to get there first.

In total, taxpayer-supported capital spending on schools, hospitals and other infrastructure across B.C. over the next three years is expected to total $11 billion. And Delta is going to play a large part in moving forward.

In Delta I'm known for my efforts to get things done in our community to help make our community an even greater place to live than it already is. One of the reasons I'm here in this House today is because I saw a need and decided to work to address that need. I wanted better sports fields in my community, so I became involved.

I was asked to become a parks commissioner many years ago. Moving forward, I started speaking up and looking for solutions. We found one and got it done. But to accomplish what we wanted and to make life better for our community, we needed to have a plan. It also needed to make financial sense. This was a positive experience for me and my community.

[1630]

Eventually, I was able to serve as a Delta city councillor and now as the community's MLA. I feel lucky to be able to represent the people of Delta, and I'm proud to call this community home.

Great things are happening in Delta. We are a community that is truly benefiting from the work of our government. One of the investments I'm most excited about is the South Fraser Perimeter Road, or Highway 17, as I mentioned earlier. Our government, in partnership with the federal government, made a huge investment in this highway. It's an investment that's already starting to pay off.

The South Fraser Perimeter Road may have only officially opened in December, but it's already a key piece of this province's transportation network. Over time this new route will help businesses create 7,000 long-term jobs in Surrey and Delta through industrial development opportunities along the corridor.

The South Fraser Perimeter Road is almost 40 kilometres long and connects to all five major Fraser River crossings. One of the best things about this road is that it cuts time for commuters. That means families can spend more time together instead of having mom and dad stuck in traffic after work. The B.C. trucking industry endorsed this project because it provides a critical link between industry, ports and major highway routes.

The road is also great for people travelling to Tsawwassen to catch a ferry. The drive from Highway 1 to the ferry terminal is now less than 30 minutes. That's great news for anyone who travels between Victoria and the Lower Mainland, including so many of us here today. I know it makes a difference for me and my constituents in Delta.

I'd also like to talk about the partnership with farmers in Delta as it pertains to the South Fraser Perimeter Road. Construction of that highway brought benefits for the environment as well. The project included one of the largest environmental and agricultural improvement plans for a highway project in British Columbia. More than $100 million was spent on environmental and agricultural improvements.

A new irrigation system in Delta brings fresh water from the Fraser River to more than 15,000 acres of farmland. This allows farmers to grow more diverse and higher-yield crops. This access to fresh water helps create certainty for farmers, who in the past have had to deal with problems from brackish water.

The project also led to the cleanup of five old landfills, some contaminated, with one of them being converted to usable industrial land. We can also thank the project for the creation of more than 40 environmental areas, including 80 fish habitats, 25 wildlife crossings and one bumblebee habitat that helps berry farmers with pollination of their crops.

Our province worked with local government in Delta to make sure this investment in our economy was done in the best way possible. There were compromises, and all in all, the people of Delta know that this new road will benefit them and their children for generations to come.

The people of Delta, the people of British Columbia care about future generations, which is why they wanted our government to balance this budget. People do not want promises that lead to debt — debt that takes away opportunities for British Columbians. Our government is all about creating opportunities.

Consider education. As a father, I'm proud to say that our government's priorities ensure education remains a core focus in this province. As we know, children are our future. An investment in education is an investment in our children and our future.

Government funding to school districts remains at record levels, despite what we hear in this House. The Ministry of Education is providing $4.7 billion to districts in operating grants in 2014-2015, an increase of 27 percent compared to the $3.7 billion in operating grants provided in 2000-2001. British Columbians can rest easy knowing that their government is investing in their children.

Our government has created this climate by being fiscally responsible and balancing the budget. Budget 2014 represents a commitment to control government spending to achieve a balanced budget and set the province on a course towards economic expansion and, eventually, a debt-free province. Budget 2014 makes British Columbia a leader by maintaining the fiscal health of government so that we have the fiscal freedom to make our own choices and shape our own future.

One of the investments in our community that I'm also proud of is being made by the Tsawwassen First Nation. Tsawwassen First Nation is an example of the success of our government's treaty process. In 2009, when our government reached an agreement with the Tsawwassen First Nation, we made history by signing the first urban treaty in B.C. and the first modern treaty negotiated under the B.C. Treaty Commission process.

[1635]

Today TFN's vision is a model for other nations in the treaty process. They are proving that self-government can lead to new and exciting social and economic opportunities.

Over the next fiscal year this government will spend $9.8 billion improving this province. That's money spent on things like schools, post-secondary institutions, health care and transportation infrastructure. One of the greatest advantages of balancing a budget is having the fiscal freedom to make strategic investments that help B.C. families.

Now, contrary to much of what's been said by members opposite, not only are we investing in schools, health care and transportation infrastructure that will benefit British Columbians for generations to come; we're also investing in our children.
[ Page 1709 ]

How do you deny the benefits of this government's commitment to children with the introduction of the B.C. training and education savings grant, the one-time grant of $1,200 towards a child's RESP following his or her sixth birthday? That's a commitment. Please don't tell anyone on this side of the House that we are not committed to the future of this province through the children that are being raised in this province. Starting in April 2015 the B.C. early childhood tax benefit will provide $146 million to approximately 180,000 families with children under six years of age.

This is a proud time to be a British Columbian. We faced a worldwide financial tsunami that effectively swamped government economies around the world. We stood strong — not by accident, by design. We were positioned in British Columbia as one of the strongest economies in this country. This country was positioned as one of the strongest economies in the world, and as such, we were able to weather that storm.

We were very fortunate to ensure that the financial house was in order to the point where we were able to overcome that adversity. Not that there haven't been challenges. Everyone has been hit by it, but there are economies around the world that are still suffering and will continue to suffer for many years to come.

As elected representatives, we're leaders, and leaders must demonstrate leadership — something that I'm proud to say our Finance Minister has done with this budget. I'm proud to stand in this House today and support British Columbia's second balanced budget.

D. Routley: It's my pleasure to stand and respond to the budget documents that have been presented by the B.C. Liberal government. I can sum it up by saying they're not telling the truth. There. My speech is done. It's done. It's simplified: they're not telling the truth.

You know, it's not as simple as that. It is as simple as that in equation, certainly. We've heard member after member stand up in the House and declare platitudes like "We want to run our budget like a household runs its budget" and "We can't afford to spend more than we earn." Well, look at the B.C. Liberal record. The last four budgets have been deficits totalling over $5 billion.

They can say they don't believe in deficits, but to them, it's like saying: "We don't believe in air." It simply is. It simply has been four straight deficits, over $5 billion. These last two budgets they declare as balanced have been balanced by thieving resources from B.C. Hydro. Last year $520 million was taken from B.C. Hydro to declare their phony balanced budget, the baloney budget — $520 million.

At the time they said: "You know what? It's not probably a good idea for us to take money from B.C. Hydro that B.C. Hydro doesn't have." Because, of course, B.C. Hydro is losing money. So what they forced B.C. Hydro to do is borrow money to balance their budget. Who pays for that? Have you checked your hydro bill lately?

[1640]

Fortunately, those of us in the House here earn enough money not to be terribly troubled by the increases, I assume. But so many of the people who come through the doors of my constituency office — seniors, people who struggle — are rather upset by what now will amount, over the next couple of years, to another 26 percent increase in their hydro bill. Why? So that this government can stand there and tell us something that isn't true — that they've balanced the budget.

They said, "Well, this probably isn't a good idea" — to balance their budget by taking profits from Hydro that don't even exist. So they promised they'd reduce that take from Hydro — just last year $520 million. What did they do this year? They reduced it by adding $60 million to their take and took $580 million. That's what they did.

That's the record of this government. It's hard to grapple with the cynicism that's growing in the populace that we represent. It's really hard to grapple with that, because they look at their government, and they see their government tell them things that are absolutely not true.

They have a government that parades itself around the province with a bus that says "Debt-free B.C."

The member for Abbotsford-Mission shakes his head. He's a business school teacher. What does he tell his students? "Well, what you do to get a business financed is you go to the bank and tell them that you've got a profit, when you've actually got a loss, and you tell them that you're hiring ten people, when you're actually firing five."

They say they've got a jobs plan, but they've lost 26,000 private sector jobs since they implemented their jobs plan. They say they care about putting British Columbians first. He's shaking his head. They say they care about putting British Columbians first, but then they cut supports for skills training. How can that be? It's almost impossible to consider.

They claim…. Member after member gets up, and they say: "We will not burden our children with debt to pay for today's choices." Hey, come on. This Premier, in her two years, has so far raised the debt by over $10 billion — $10.7 billion in debt. It's called debt, and your government is adding it.

Member after member on the other side says they won't burden our children with their choices. Yet we look at the debt. Since 2011 it has risen from $45.2 billion to, at the end of this budget cycle in 2016, projected at $69.8 billion — $70 billion in debt.

This Premier, from her time since being elected as the leader of that party to the end of this budget cycle in 2016, will have raised the B.C. debt by $24 billion. Yet member after member of the government has the gall to stand up and claim that they don't believe in debt and that they're going to pay down the debt and that they are not going to burden our children — my children — with their choices. But these are the numbers. These are the facts.
[ Page 1710 ]

You know, at the end of this budget cycle that government that stands there, member after member, proclaiming not to favour debt, proclaiming that there's some sort of a poison that would add burden to our children, will raise the debt by $7.1 billion. Those are their numbers. Yet they have the gall to stand here and tell British Columbians they don't believe in debt. Like I said, they may not believe in air, but it is. They may not believe in debt, but it is.

They're adding debt at a rate of $771,000 per hour — per hour. Every hour this government raises the B.C. debt by over $700,000. Every minute of every day, not just during the working day but all day, throughout 24 hours, this government raises the debt by $12,854 — every minute of every day. Those are the facts.

We've got a bunch of people who call themselves hon. members, who go to the doorstep of British Columbians and plead for their support, and the facts are that they're not telling the truth.

[1645]

You're not telling the truth. You say you don't believe in debt, but you've added debt at a greater rate than any government in history. That's what your record is.

Deputy Speaker: Through the Chair, Member.

D. Routley: You say that you don't believe in deficits. But you have….

Deputy Speaker: Member, through the Chair.

D. Routley: Yes, thank you.

Through the Chair, you say that you don't believe in deficits, but we've had four in a row that total over $5 billion.

The member from wherever, over there, is shaking his head — Abbotsford. He's shaking his head as though there's some kind of insanity because we haven't drunk the Kool-Aid. We haven't absorbed the truth. We haven't absorbed the religion that allows us to stand and say that $7 billion of debt accumulation in this budget cycle means that we don't believe in debt.

It's funny. The members shake their heads. I think they really believe it. I think they really believe their spin, and that's really dangerous for British Columbians.

The Premier said she wouldn't balance the budget through borrowing or reaching into the pockets of British Columbians or stealing. Those were the words of the Premier. She said she wouldn't beg from the pockets of British Columbians, borrow from the future or steal. Those were her words. Well, let's talk about stealing and theft.

What is a raid of ICBC for $1 billion dollars — $1.1 billion over this budget cycle? What is that? Every ratepayer in British Columbia who buys public insurance is paying to excuse them for not telling the truth. Rather than return these billion-dollar profits of ICBC to the ratepayers, as that public entity was set up do, this government raids it. That's the stealing.

B.C. Hydro. As I said, they're taking $580 million this year from every B.C. Hydro customer in the province.

I represent Nanaimo–North Cowichan. I have two pulp mills in my constituency. One of them, the Catalyst mill in Crofton, recently emerged from bankruptcy. The only way it was saved was by the sacrifices made by employees and retired employees. This is acknowledged by the executive team of Catalyst.

They provided some $60 million of benefits in order to rescue Catalyst from bankruptcy. What does this government do? It adds $50 million to their annual hydro bill. It erases the gains that were given to the corporation by the sacrifice of existing workers and retired workers.

That's your government's record. That's what you've done to my constituents.

Deputy Speaker: Member.

Interjection.

D. Routley: It is a shame.

Deputy Speaker: Member, through the Chair.

D. Routley: It is a shame.

Mr. Speaker, thank you for that reminder.

When we look at debt, at the end of this budget cycle they'll be at $69.8 billion in debt. They will have doubled the provincial debt two times since they took power — two times the debt.

Then we look at off-balance-sheet commitments, which the former Auditor General, who they fired because they didn't like the way he told them the truth…. In a mere nine years this government has taken those off-balance-sheet commitments — It's like Enron accounting — from $12 billion to $96.8 billion. Add the $70 billion, and what do you get? You've got almost $170 billion in debt. That means that when they came to power, the per-capita debt load of this province per person was $8,000.

What is it now, Mr. Speaker, you might ask? I would answer: it's $40,000 — $40,000 per person, per-capita debt. Since they took over, a five-times increase. That's the truth.

[1650]

Yet again, these wizards of fiscal gymnastics stand in this House and tell people that they don't believe in debt. I mean, I don't believe in air, but I'd better take a breath, you know? Seriously, I don't believe in air, but….

Interjections.

D. Routley: The debt-to-GDP is higher in 2017 than when you took power, Mr. Member. That's the truth. You
[ Page 1711 ]
have added….

Deputy Speaker: Member.

D. Routley: Yes.

Deputy Speaker: Through the Chair.

D. Routley: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The debt as a percentage of GDP. Well, let's see. It's going to be…. Well, it's 18 percent now. It's going to be over 20 percent.

Interjections.

D. Routley: When you took over, what was it, Member — through the Chair? Member, what was it? I'll tell you what it was. It was 19 percent. That's just the on-book debt. That's just the on-book debt.

Why don't we look at the off–balance sheet debt and add $96 billion to that? I mean, it's a joke, Mr. Speaker. When it's all good, this government is all good.

Bridgewater Associates — it's one of the world's biggest and most respected hedge funds — predicts that the Canadian economy has a tough decade ahead of it. What it says…. Ray Dalio is the founder. He's one of the most respected…. He's actually rated in financial circles as being one of the top 100 most influential people on the globe.

He says that we are beginning a tough period of rebalancing. He says that this country, after a long boom, is likely to go through a retrenchment as consumers cut spending, pay debt. There are also risks in our long surge in housing prices. But he also points to something else.

He also points to the fact that the Canadian economy and, in particular, provinces like B.C. have become so dependent on a resource economy that they have "hollowed out" — these are his words — the capacities of other industries, particularly manufacturing.

What he says is that this period has left the Canadian economy unbalanced and at significant risk for the next decade. It says that we are one of the highest-cost producers, meaning that capital investment by energy producers in particular will go to lower-cost countries. He says: "The rest of the Canadian manufacturing economy has been hollowed out to a significant degree due to years of underinvestment."

Well, what do we see in this budget? We see all of the eggs thrown into some pie-in-the-sky promise of LNG benefits. It's like Disneyland. I mean, they'll pay off the debt. They'll get rid of the sales tax. They'll have trillions and billions and millions of dollars for everybody.

Well, in 2005 our natural gas exports to the U.S. were $4 billion. Last year they were $1.75 billion. So in fact, our natural gas revenues have declined precipitously. What do they do?

Well, I'm going to tell you a little story about somebody who I worked with in business when I was manufacturing bicycles. I used to import really high-quality bicycles, high-end bicycles. I decided I would venture into middle-range bicycles, which meant much larger orders, a much bigger commitment.

The supplier that I worked with in Japan was late delivering my bicycles. You know, being late in the bicycle industry is like being late in the ski industry. It's a real problem. When they finally sent the bikes to me — after I pleaded with them to move quickly — the problem was they couldn't supply brakes. I had to find brakes in North America. It doesn't sound like a big deal, but to the profit of that enterprise, it was devastating.

I went to my mentor in business who worked for Vancity, and I complained to him about the problem I was facing. He said to me: "You know, in business every bump needs to be a boost. Everything that you meet as a challenge you need to turn to your advantage, so this is your advantage. Turn this into new relationships with new suppliers, and your business will be that much stronger."

[1655]

This is what the B.C. Liberals do. They're faced with a $4 billion export value of natural gas to the U.S. that declines precipitously to $1.75 billion. So what do they do? They say: "No, this is great. This is a great opportunity. The loss of half the revenue from natural gas is actually a great opportunity." The trouble is, it's going to take about — I don't know — ten or 15 years to pay off.

The real problem is they use it. They use it to divert attention from what they're not doing. We have, currently, $6 billion worth of exports of wood products to world markets — $6 billion compared to under $2 billion for natural gas and some pie-in-the-sky promise that this government stands up and relentlessly repeats.

J. Yap: It's visionary.

D. Routley: Yeah, visionary, all right — dream-like, in fact.

Then we go back to the words of our hedge fund friend, who says that Canada's commodity-dependent economy is in trouble because we're one of the highest-cost producers and that energy producers are going to go to lower-cost countries and that the rest of the Canadian manufacturing economy has been hollowed out to a significant degree due to years of underinvestment.

What does this budget do for the industry that we have now? Nothing. It doesn't even mention it. It doesn't even mention those mills in my constituency. It doesn't even mention the industry that's providing $6 billion worth of exports. It doesn't even mention the fact that the skills-training crisis in that industry is immediate and it's now.

In Catalyst mills in Crofton they are going to lose 125 skilled tradespeople in the next three years. This government has sat on its hands for ten years on apprenticeships
[ Page 1712 ]
and skills training, and now it cuts funding to support training. What do I tell the workers and the managers of Catalyst about this government? And they're….

Interjections.

D. Routley: Yeah, vote…. They'll get cuts to skills training. That's what they'll get if they vote Liberal, and they'll get debt, and they'll get deficits. That's what they get. They'll get forgotten by the government, despite the fact that they and their industry supply exports of $6 billion currently, right now.

They're ready to train people, but there are no programs available to train them. They're in my office, saying: "I can't even make my way through their website." That's what they told me. That's the kind of help they get from this government.

This is the truth. I guess people can be forgiven for becoming cynical. Earlier today I gave a two-minute statement about some people in my constituency who have rallied to push back government decisions that they disagreed with, to save a park. They have been successful — so far.

We saw people respond to the HST deceit and push government back. We sometimes see government forced to retrench from its positions because citizens become engaged and they force upon the government the reality that we work for them, that we're meant to be responsible to them.

Those people can be forgiven for becoming cynical, listening to each and every member of the B.C. Liberal government sit and snicker and laugh at the massive debt that they're accumulating. They'll stand up, and they'll read their sloganistic chimes.

J. Martin: Change for the better.

D. Routley: Change for the better, yeah. This is from a member who spared no insult for the current leader when he ran for the B.C. Conservatives, but it's all about principle. It's all about principle.

[1700]

You know what? My constituents could be forgiven for becoming cynical, watching their government members stand up and say they don't believe in burdening the children of my constituency and the grandchildren of grandchildren of grandchildren because they don't believe in debt.

Then I have to tell them that in five years, from the time our current Premier took over her party to the end of this budget cycle, she and her government and every member who stood up here and said they don't believe in burdening our children will have raised the debt by $24.3 billion — a 51 percent increase in a mere five years. This is the fastest in the history of British Columbia.

This is a debt-building government. This government does nothing but build debt. It is built on deficit. Seven of their first 12 years were deficits; the two largest deficits in the history of this province.
[ Page 1713 ]

They've closed hospitals. They've closed schools. They've closed courthouses. We have the highest child poverty rates. What can a person do, a citizen, watching this farce? Really, what could be more farcical than members standing up, one after another, proclaiming that they don't believe in debt and they don't believe in deficit, snickering and laughing at the issues that people face?

Yet the truth is seven of their first 12 years — deficits; the largest two deficits in the history of the province. The last four years have been deficits totalling $5.1 billion. These two so-called balanced budgets — balanced by raiding the ratepayers of B.C. Hydro. They took $520 million last year, and they will take $580 million this year, and who will pay?

Then the members have the gall to stand up and say that they don't believe in taxing people. But they're going to take $580 million from the ratepayers of B.C. Hydro — tax. They raised ferry fares over 80 percent. On the small runs that I represent — I've got seven ferry terminals in my constituency — 115 percent, on average, raised rates, fees.

We have seen MSP premiums raised 100 percent in the time of this government. The most regressive tax there is — a tax on health care that is flat. Then they boast that, well, there are 800,000 people who don't pay it. Well, they don't pay it because they live in poverty. I hardly think that's something to boast about. That's why they're not paying premiums. This is absolutely pathetic.

I mean, the majesty of this building — right? — and the former slogan of this province, "Beautiful British Columbia" — all the things that people hold as sacred about this province are trampled on by a government and members individually who are not telling the truth, who are telling British Columbians falsehoods about their future and about their present.

They're telling British Columbians the most ridiculous things: "We don't believe in deficits." Didn't you have four in a row? Aren't you taking from us $580 million from our hydro, from ratepayers, to so-call balance this year's budget? "We don't believe in debt. We believe in a debt-free B.C." Yet they add debt at a faster rate than anytime in the history of British Columbia.

Interjection.

D. Routley: Yeah, I'm repeating myself. One of the members says I'm repeating myself, like the members who repeatedly stand up and deliver these falsehoods. That is the real gymnastic achievement in this House. The members can absolutely flip on their feet and say that they don't believe in debt and yet submit a budget that is adding debt at a faster rate than anytime in the history of this province.

[1705]

Remember, Mr. Speaker, and remember, every British Columbian, and remember, every cynical member of the B.C. Liberal government that will stand up and deny it: this government is raising your debt. This government is raising your debt in five years by $24.3 billion. This supposedly fiscally responsible government is raising your debt by $771,000 per hour, $12,854 per minute, every day. That's the reality. So $18.5 million per day is added to the debt of British Columbia by the B.C. Liberals. That's their record.

Interjection.

D. Routley: So, yeah, I'll end on something positive. The member wants….

I'll go back to the member for Abbotsford-Mission, who is a business school teacher, and I'll congratulate him because he can tell students in his business classes that they can go to the bank and they can tell the bank: "Fund my business. Believe in me because I have a profit," when really they have a huge loss. "I'm going to hire ten people," when really they lose five. "I don't care about profit, because I'm going to tell you what you want to hear, and then you're going to fund me."

That's what they told British Columbians, and if they're proud of it, so be it. It's disgraceful. It's not true. This is a government that builds debt like no other government we have ever seen, and this budget does nothing to help the people who are going to have to pay for it, nothing to help the children in poverty, nothing to help seniors, nothing to help the forest industry. That's sad.

Hopefully, British Columbians will pay attention and recognize that the next speaker who's going to get up is going to tell them they don't believe in debt and they don't believe in deficits. But they'll see through it, because the truth is quite different. The truth is that this is the government of debt, this is the government of denial, and this is a government that doesn't tell the truth.

Hon. T. Wat: I'm absolutely privileged to respond and show my support for balanced budget 2014 on behalf of my riding, Richmond Centre. I'm going to provide members opposite all the facts and truths, but first, I would like to sincerely thank my constituents in my riding of Richmond Centre for their trust and confidence in voting me as their voice in the Legislature.

Special thanks must be given to my riding team executives for their staunch and relentless support of me in the past ten months since I was elected. My three lady CAs, Trix Chan, Regina Tsui and Stephanie Fraser, deserve special recognition for their hard work and commitment. Without them, I would not have been able to serve my constituents in Richmond Centre so effectively.

I would also like to extend my sincere thanks to my staff in the minister's office and my ministry staff, who have worked so hard, not only helping me with the duties of minister; they also do their small part in being frugal to manage budgets so that they can help contribute to our balanced budget.

I'm especially grateful for my two 90-year-old parents for their kind understanding and unconditional support of my public service, even though that means I am not able to spend as much time with them as before. And, of course, my gratitude and love to my daughter Tin Lee, who was instrumental in my decision to run for political office in 2013.

You can probably tell that family is important to me. They are a big reason that many of us in this House are here. Growing up in a family that values living within our means, I am particularly encouraged by our government's mandate to control spending and be fiscally responsible to ensure prosperity for future generations.

Building that vision of a new life always presents major challenges that have to be met with focus and responsibility. I applaud the Minister of Finance for his responsibility with this budget. Today's B.C. Liberals were elected on a vision of prosperity, and that prosperity requires that same focus and restraint every immigrant faces as they build a new life.

[1710]

It is only from the solid footing of a balanced accounting sheet that we can truly grow the economy while we work hard to invigorate our industries and grow our economy. While showing restraint, this budget still shows strong initiatives that will impact Richmond's families and initiatives that will grow our economy.

I am proud to know that the B.C. early childhood tax benefit will provide $146 million to approximately 180,000 families, like the many young families moving to Richmond. Families with young children can receive up to $55 per child per month, which will be a strong help in my community.

I'm also in strong support of the B.C. training and education savings grant program, which is expected to benefit 27,000 children in 2013-14. There are 52 public schools in all of Richmond. This program will help many young families with the financial resources needed for their children to attend post-secondary school and gain the necessary skills for the jobs of the future. This is surely a wise investment.

Also within the balanced budget, government is providing $350 million in new additional funding over three years to help support families and community saving, including a continuation of the $243 million to maintain existing services for adults with developmental disabilities and their families, a benefit that will impact the several community living providers in my riding — $50 million for children and youth with special needs, $50 million for increased RCMP policing costs and another $6 million for legal aid–related services.

In a riding and city like Richmond, this goes a long
[ Page 1714 ]
way to foster a safer and kinder community — all this while maintaining low tax levels. My constituents will be pleased that B.C. will still have the lowest personal income tax in Canada for those earning up to $121,000 per year.

In Richmond we have a strong local economy which includes YVR airport. Vancouver International Airport is a huge economic generator for my constituents. Budget 2014 confirms $5 million over the next five years to help grow the province's world-leading aerospace sector and help attract additional global aerospace and defence contractors to B.C.

Many of these future contractors will no doubt have ties to the airport and its 26,000 employees, many of whom live in Richmond. YVR is the second-busiest airport in Canada. It moves 17.5 million passengers a year, a sign of a strong economy and growing prosperity.

Worldwide business travellers visit YVR as a hub between North America and Asia, making it truly an Asia-Pacific gateway. In July 2013 China Eastern Airlines doubled their daily flights from Vancouver to Shanghai. There are currently more than 70 direct flights between Vancouver and China every week, more than any other airport in North America.

I'm absolutely proud to say that even more recently both JAL and China Eastern have started flying the latest technology in aircraft, the Boeing 787, the Dreamliner, to Vancouver. These are all signs of confidence in an economy with a triple-A credit rating. British Columbia is leading the country by being the only province other than, possibly, Saskatchewan to have a balanced budget.

I'm absolutely proud to say that B.C. is the only province with a positive outlook for three more balanced budgets, a solid fiscal plan that provides economic certainty. It is the reason why the Conference Board of Canada has singled out British Columbia as the province to lead the country in economic growth in 2015. The Conference Board recognizes that B.C. is getting the fundamentals right and creating favourable conditions for the private sector to flourish.

[1715]

A balanced budget provides investors with certainty, and that is a precious commodity in a fragile global economy. Global investment gravitates to a stable and predictable business environment, and with a balanced budget, British Columbia continues to be an attractive destination for investment.

As global investment is a priority for my Ministry of International Trade, we work to not only attract investment but to pressure companies to set up head offices in British Columbia. I am pleased to say that we are making good progress.

This was evident as recently as this past November, when I joined the Premier on a highly successful trade mission to China. Representatives from over 160 organizations, including businesses, First Nations, labour representatives and communities, took part in the jobs and trade mission, confident in our economy. Together we promoted British Columbia's competitive advantages to increase export and trade in key areas such as LNG, agrifood, clean technology, life sciences, international education and resource development.

The result? We have strengthened our relationship with governments in China, Japan and Korea. We had the highest number of government-to-government meetings to date, establishing B.C.'s credibility on the global stage, and witnessed over 35 agreements between British Columbian and Chinese companies.

I attended the three at-capacity Friends of B.C. events that engaged over 500 prominent members of the business communities in Shanghai, Guangzhou and Hong Kong. I engaged in detailed discussions with 20 major investment targets at round tables in Shanghai and Hong Kong and promoted our province's competitive advantages.

We are using many of our personal, business and educational connections to Asia as we build a bridge to some of the world's fastest-growing markets.

This groundwork in Asia will undoubtedly lead to increased trade and investment and create jobs for British Columbians — investment like that of Samsung Electronics, the world's largest electronics company, who recently announced that they established their first Canadian research-and-development centre in Burnaby; and like Woodfibre LNG, which has now officially established its headquarters in Vancouver and will be opening their offices next month.

The Bank of China is one of China's big four state-owned banks. It has branches in Vancouver and in my own riding of Richmond Centre. Recently the Bank of China has consolidated their trade finance services in Canada from Toronto to B.C. I'm so encouraged that the Bank of China is growing investment attraction into our province and making B.C. a hub for Asia-Pacific trade finance services.

We also received letters of intent from two major Chinese corporations stating their intention to establish North American head offices in B.C. This investment will help to grow our economy and create jobs for British Columbians.

As I mentioned, one of the goals of our trade mission was to promote LNG. We met with the heads of China National Offshore Oil Corp., CNOC, and PetroChina, two companies that are already developing LNG projects in B.C. We also met with Sinopec, another company eager to invest. These are the three largest petroleum companies in China.

In Tokyo Premier Clark renewed a memorandum of understanding of mutual cooperation with the Japan Oil, Gas and Metals National Corp., JOGMEC, to work together and share information on natural gas activities.

The University of British Columbia and the Korea
[ Page 1715 ]
Gas Corp. signed an agreement to formulate a joint strategy related to fuel cell technology and the production, processing and liquefaction of natural gas. I spoke at the B.C.-Guangdong LNG seminar to a crowd of the Guangdong Oil and Gas Association, one of China's largest and most influential associations, promoting B.C.'s burgeoning LNG industry.

All this to tell you that the interest and demand for LNG is there in Asia. I have seen it firsthand and know that B.C. is poised to benefit.

[1720]

With $29 million to the Ministries of Aboriginal Relations, Forests, Environment and Natural Gas Development, Budget 2014 is providing the necessary support to develop our LNG industry.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

After seeing the demand myself, I'm so excited that the 2014 budget provides a proposed LNG tax regime. This is needed for British Columbians to receive their fair share of their resource. The B.C. LNG tax will be competitive to other jurisdictions and, along with other competitive advantages of large natural gas reserves and short transport times to Asia, will enable B.C.'s LNG industry to prosper. Most importantly, by proposing the competitive tax early, we provide the clear, predictable fiscal regime that any potential Asian investor requires.

Of the many competitive advantages B.C. offers, the one I'm most proud of is our diverse and highly skilled people. As I mentioned in the beginning, B.C. is home to people from all around the world. Along with their hopes and dreams, they bring with them professional skills, business expertise, education and connections. Their connections are an asset to British Columbia because it is these British Columbians who have and will become our bridge across the Pacific to help foster our economy.

Balanced budget 2014 does an honour for B.C.'s immigrant values. It manages our debt, supports jobs and investment, and helps families build for the future. This budget represents a commitment to control government spending to achieve a balanced budget and sets the province on a course towards economic expansion. It's a balanced budget that gives foreign investors and new and old immigrants the confidence that British Columbia is the place to grow. It provides a foundation my ministry can build upon in attracting investment and diversifying British Columbians' export markets.

Prosperity begins with a balanced budget, and I'm so proud to vote in support of balanced budget 2014.

L. Krog: It's always a pleasure to rise in the House — always a pleasure. I think I'm going to do something I don't usually do. I'm going to be a little traditional today. I'm going to mention, firstly, my wife — I've had the loyal support from my wife for 40 years now — our children, Jessica and Parker; my wonderful son-in-law, Ray; and our three lovely grandchildren, Portia, Archer and Alasdair. I am a fortunate man, a very fortunate man, to be in this chamber, and with their support and love, it makes the job easier.

I'm also fortunate to have the support of two outstanding constituency assistants, Pauline Carroll, who served both Lois Boone and Paul Ramsey when she was living in wonderful Prince George many, many years ago; and Sue Little, my part-timer, ably supported by Linda Llewellyn, who also worked for Lois Boone and Paul Ramsey way back when in the good old days of the '90s — what many of us look back on very fondly as the best decade of the last century, perhaps with the exception of the time Dave Barrett was in power.

I have a wonderful legislative assistant, Elizabeth Parkinson, and formerly Susan Vasilev. All of those people assist each and every one of us in our work, and we need to be grateful and mindful of them.

I'm very proud to represent the best chunk of the old city of Nanaimo, the third-oldest city in the province of British Columbia. We have a first-rate mayor. I don't share his politics, but I think John Ruttan does the best job he can in the difficult circumstances that all mayors find themselves in, supported by a council, all of whom I know and whose work I respect.

Nanaimo, of course, is part of the regional district of Nanaimo, headed by Joe Stanhope. I don't think Joe will mind this if I say it: having passed his 80th birthday a little while ago — I won't mention the exact number of months or years — he still continues to enjoy the support of the regional district and the good people of the area that keep electing him back as their area representative.

These are good people. These are people devoted to public service, hon. Speaker. They have the great advantage — the mayor and council and the regional district — of working in an atmosphere where there isn't the kind of partisanship that dominates this chamber.

[1725]

Of course, I'd be remiss if I didn't say that partisanship is what dominates the debate around both the throne speech and the budget. As much as I'm tempted to try to be as non-partisan as possible, it's not in my nature. It's not entirely in my nature. I'm always inspired, when it comes to that partisanship, by listening to the members on the government benches. God bless them, every one.

You know, I'm not an overly religious person. Indeed, the minister at the Anglican church, who sees me so very rarely, jokingly says that I'm a holiday Christian. I said to him, of course, that that wasn't a fair designation because I generally avoid the Christmas service and Easter. I go for christenings and weddings and, increasingly, funerals.

When I'm listening to the members opposite read their speeches — I hate to say this — it reminds me of peasants in medieval England who could perhaps mimic the Latin but couldn't actually understand what they were
[ Page 1716 ]
saying. You know, the speeches read out: "It's the best. It's the greatest government. We've established a basis for economic growth, and liquid natural gas is going to pay for everything, and it's all grand and wonderful, and it's perfect and brilliant, and we're the best government that ever existed, and we're great athletes, and we manage our households perfectly."

Let's get back to a little reality. The member for Delta North said something to the effect: "We run our households in an effective way. That's what people do." Well, it reminds me of the Canadian government under Brian Mulroney. Now, there was a real, first-rate, old-fashioned Conservative who managed to run up the national debt in leaps and bounds in ways that people couldn't understand. What was always amusing to me was the Reform Party nipping at his heels, coming into the '93 election, talking about how: "You know, the government has had to manage, just the way the households of Canada did."

Of course, if you looked at the figures for private debt, including both corporate and personal debt, under the Mulroney years — I hesitate to go back that far, but it's a good example — guess what. The rate of private debt and the growth in private debt was far greater than the growth in government debt, even under Brian Mulroney, who spent like a drunken sailor — before he sobered up, in any event.

I'd like to try and bring the debate back to some realities. The reality is that for decades in this province, under Social Credit governments, under Dave Barrett, under succeeding Social Credit governments, under the B.C. NDP from '91 to 2001, and even under the B.C. Liberals, the debt-to-GDP ratio has never been that high. The reality is that based on resource revenue, this province has never faced significant debt. That's the reality. But we play back and forth here in this chamber — that's what I mean when I talk about credibility — as if we were headed to hell in a handbasket when Mike Harcourt was Premier and we've been saved by Gordon Campbell.

Now, let's be blunt about this. The three biggest deficits in British Columbia's history were under the B.C. Liberals.

Interjection.

L. Krog: Yes. The three biggest dollar deficits were under the B.C. Liberals.

Now, I'm going to be kind today. Lord knows, the Minister of Energy today certainly abandoned old Gordon Campbell pretty quickly. He said, "We've got a new Premier and a new leader," during question period. I thought that was wonderful. It reminded me of the famous line of Sam Rayburn, who was the Speaker of the House of Representatives, who said rather unkindly that somebody had all the qualities of a dog except loyalty. Well, I love that the loyalty of the B.C. Liberals to Gordon Campbell, who led them to victory and ran successive elections successfully, is now being abandoned, but that's another story.

[1730]

I want to come back to Gordon Campbell. Even running up those enormous deficits, even with those tremendous tax cuts that best helped the richest in our province, particularly people making over 250 grand a year…. Those folks made off like bandits — like bandits.

The debt-to-GDP ratio has never been that significant in comparison to other economies, leading economies, around the world. So let's try and bring a little rationality to this debate.

The reason I want to bring some rationality to this debate is because what happens with a budget is actually important. It's particularly important for the poorest amongst us. That's where I'm going to try and start today.

The latest edition of the New Statesman has a quote in the "Politics" column, as it's called.

"No MP today says, as 19th-century moralists once did, that social strata are divinely ordained or that the appetite for advancement among the lower orders is sedition. The only disagreements are over how tolerable it should be that some advance faster than others — the problem of inequality — and how vigorously the state should act to help the stragglers, possibly at the expense of the furthest advanced."

I have listened for nine years to this government brag about how well it's managing the economy, how British Columbia is so much better off and how the best social program is a job. I see them all nodding, and the minister over there is just getting excited every time they hear their words repeated back to them. It's like the echo in a canyon, except the canyon is by definition empty.

When they came to power, a person on social assistance in this province, a single employable, was getting $500 a month. We are now 13 years, nearly, down the road from that election, and a single employable in this province on social assistance gets about $600 a month.

Interjection.

L. Krog: I'm glad to hear the minister clap and mock when I'm talking about something as serious as the poor in this province, because each and every member of this chamber makes over $100,000 a year, and it ill behooves any one of us to mock someone who's talking about poverty in this province.

Interjection.

L. Krog: You know, if the member wishes to speak, I wish he would take his place in the debate.

Interjection.

L. Krog: I didn't listen. I should have. I would have paid him some respect.

The point is this. While this government has engaged
[ Page 1717 ]
in this wonderful tax-cutting regime about which they so proudly brag — so they can say we have the lowest income taxes in Canada for people earning up to $120,000 a year and the lowest corporate income taxes and all the benefits that are supposed to flow from that — the reality is that for the poorest amongst us, they can't actually think of spreading some of the wealth, as we live in a province of great wealth and great disparity at the same time.

I want to focus in on that. In the budget the total expenditure — I refer the members to the estimates, page 7 — is $44.416 billion. It's a lot of money. Page 6, the spending on social assistance — listen to this number — is $1.576 billion. For child care services — who knows where that's going to be spent — $1.015 billion. So of all of the money, the $44 billion, that's what we're giving to the poorest amongst us.

When I hear the members opposite go on and on about how they're really concerned about the poor and they brag about the tax credit that they provide in this budget for families, you know what? It is a wonderful thing. I'm going to be complimentary. It's a wonderful thing for those families that have employment and have an opportunity to actually pay some income tax. That tax credit will be a nice boost for them.

[1735]

But it will do nothing for those children who live in poverty in this province, whose parents are on social assistance or whose income is so low that they don't pay income tax. That is, for me, the major measure of this government's performance in the last 13 years, and it is the measure which I think people who care — and I believe that the members do actually care — should use when they examine a budget of $44.416 billion.

When the member for Kamloops–North Thompson was here, he used to talk about how the Bible says that the poor will always be with us. Well, it's not a great argument anymore when you've got $44 billion to spend and you can't, in fact, increase the amount to people who are on social assistance, when the only folks you're prepared to benefit are those who are going to actually pay some income tax.

There's something wrong about this. There's something dreadfully wrong about this. I'm not sure how many times I have to say it. I don't wish to be tedious and repetitious. The member opposite who was speaking earlier says he's heard it before, and he probably has. I'm just hoping, you know, getting into the 13th year, that maybe the members opposite would actually pay attention to it, that they'd be moved by the concept that as we sit here and argue and debate in comfort and security, there are tens of thousands of our fellow citizens who live in circumstances that none of us care to even think about.

We have this argument back and forth on this plane of "the debt is too big" or "the debt is too small" or "if you don't believe in balanced budgets, you must believe in deficits," and somehow in all of that obscure language is lost the truth. The truth is that, relative to the world, we are a wealthy, wealthy society, and yet we cannot find it within ourselves to support the poorest and weakest amongst us.

Now, if it was just that alone, if it was just on the issue of poverty, I'd give the government a failing grade right then and there, and I could perhaps ignore the rest. But it is completely apparent to me that this government has no interest in ever doing anything for people on social assistance. It's pretty hard when you look at the sources of revenue, on page 5. Personal income tax: $7.491 billion. Corporate income: $2.348 billion.

Sales tax, which disproportionately affects the poor, of course…. After all,notwithstanding the provincial sales tax credit, I think it's a little easier for the person making $100,000 a year, like the members in this chamber, than it is for the person making $15,000 a year to pay sales tax. Sales tax generates $5.964 billion.

Every member heard me talk about what social assistance estimated expense by function was: $1.576 billion. Just imagine. The top tax rate in this province on high-income earners is — what? — about 44 percent. So you're making a quarter-million a year, and your top dollar is past the 120 — whatever. You pay a few bucks. But you know what? Realistically, you walk pretty safe streets, your kids get to go to university, you can afford to pay for a vacation and you can afford to tuck money into an RSP. Life is pretty good.

Just imagine if you picked up another billion in income tax — even on a temporary basis. Just imagine what you could do with that on the social assistance budget. Just imagine it for a moment. Let's argue this from a business perspective. I'm sure many members in this chamber put money in an RSP, and some of it probably gets invested abroad. It helps benefit somebody else's economy.

[1740]

But if you gave another $100 a month to a single employable on social assistance or $300 or $400 a month to a family living in poverty on social assistance or a better tax break, or a tax credit, to low-income earners — or some form of guaranteed annual income — what do you think they'd do with that money? What do they do with that money? Do they stuff it in their offshore RRSP?

Interjection.

L. Krog: Grand Cayman, my friend says.

No, they spend it. Because you know what? There's not a member in this chamber who believes you can live on $600 a month. If there is, I'd like them to stand up and make the pitch.

They spend it — not in some community far away, not on a holiday, not in some other province. They spend it within a mile or two or three of their home.

Now, just think. If you took that billion dollars — and
[ Page 1718 ]
I've just pulled that figure out of the air — that billion dollars is going right into British Columbia's economy, right back into local economies, into the communities that may be suffering high unemployment. Is that such a difficult proposition? Is it so hard to make a case for that?

Is it hard to make a case for that when we know, based on statistics from right-wing think tanks to left-wing think tanks to every academic in between, that the gap between the rich and the poor is the worst it's been, in most respects, since the Gilded age, since Teddy Roosevelt — when I was talking about dear old Teddy — took on the big trusts. That's how bad it's become.

I don't know how it's going to get better. I honestly don't. We have tried the great experiment here. We gave this enormous tax cut. We have the lowest income taxes for income earners up to $120,000 a year in the country. We have the lowest corporate taxes.

If that's the formula and it works, where's the massive investment after 13 years? Where is the unemployment rate that is so low that by the standards of economists…. The member for West Vancouver–Capilano could tell us all about that. He's a bright and able guy and a pretty honest fellow, too, according to what we heard in question period. Where is the employment rate so low that even an economist would say you have full employment? It's not there.

A very long time ago when I was articling — and the Attorney General will appreciate this, because she remembers what it was like to article — you got all the dog files. The first thing anybody in a firm, particularly a small firm, does is give all the dog files to the articling student.

I was given a file. It involved getting a leased property put in the name of the fellow who held the lease at that point. It was land that belonged to the New Vancouver Coal Mining and Land Company Ltd. It was one of those companies that went bankrupt at the turn of the previous century, literally a hundred years before, yet the property had been transferred by lease from time to time. But under the law, the title escheated to the Crown, so you could apply for an order-in-council and get the land vested in the name of the then-holder of the lease.

I didn't know anything about the file. I thought: the first thing I'll do is I'll phone up this old guy and just let him know I was on top of it and that I was going to get it done finally. He was deaf. I got him on the phone. After I finally got through yelling, and he understood who I was and what I intended to do, he said in this lovely Scots accent: "Aye, but it's been five years, and that's too long."

It's been 13 years. If you're poor, how much longer do you have to wait? I mean, when do the benefits of all of this policy, which has been stated and repeated ad nauseam in this chamber, flow down? That's what I want to know. When does it flow down?

This government is committed to maintaining a low tax regime — absolutely committed to it. It is the mantra of this chamber for them. When is the investment going to flow in and create all these jobs? And if it does, when is the government going to raise social assistance rates or reduce tuition to make it more affordable?

When — because I said it wasn't just on the poverty issue I had concerns — is the government going to put money into skills and training that will create and enable the social mobility that is the hallmark of a free and democratic society?

[1745]

When? I'm waiting. If one of the members over there could tell me, I would say thank you. Even if they — unlike the talk of liquid natural gas — said it was going to be 20 years and if they had a plan to get there, I might believe them.

But I've got tell you, the only thing I hear about the future from the members opposite is the pie-in-the-sky liquid natural gas, in a competitive world where there's a whole host of nations well ahead of us, and that somehow this is going to be the panacea.

Is that when the poor are going to get something? Is that when seniors in this province are going to feel secure? Is that when the child poverty rate in this province — the worst in Canada, year after year after year — is actually going to change?

Of course, to be honest I hate the term child poverty. Children don't live in the streets by themselves. This isn't Dickensian England — although sometimes when I walk the streets of even communities like Kelowna and Nanaimo and you see people sleeping in doorways, you think maybe Dickens is alive and well.

Children don't sleep in the streets on their own, although a number of our young people do, maybe not ten- and 12-, but 13- and 14- and 15- and 16- and 17- and 18- and 19-year-old and 20-year-old kids do. When is it going to get better for them? If I saw something in this budget, some commitment, I would have more faith. But I have waited, and I have waited, and I have waited, and I see nothing.

The members opposite talk about how tough it was and how hard these decisions were. The decisions may be tough, but the people who feel the consequences of those decisions — that's where the rubber hits the road. That's what's tough, actually having to live with the decisions of this government.

It's tough when students coming out of post-secondary education programs in this province face horrendous debt levels. My generation, living under a far kinder and gentler regime, both federally and provincially, could emerge from university without debt, literally hit the ground running, start participating in the economy, start accumulating, start investing, start saving, maybe buy a home. That's not the reality today.

What have we done in terms of wealth transfer, if we will? I come back to my point. In the real world the debt-to-GDP ratio of succeeding governments for decades
[ Page 1719 ]
hasn't changed much. What we have done under the B.C. Liberals and Gordon Campbell's leadership, in that sense — and I use that term with all the sarcasm I intend — continued by his successor, is that we have reduced the ability of government to do what governments historically did in creating opportunities for people.

It's harder to go to university, harder to get ahead, harder to climb out of poverty. When Grace McCarthy, for heaven's sake, whose name I was mocking here just a few days ago in my response to the budget address, was Minister of Social Services, you were way better off on social assistance back then than you are today — way better off.

Studies show…. Even the Economist, for heaven's sake, and we all know that's not exactly a left-wing publication. It's not the New Statesman. If you live in the United States today and you're born poor, as opposed to being born in a country like Norway, one of those social democratic countries that the members opposite get all so scared about…. Goodness gracious. Heavens, they might tax us and provide services. Your chances of rising out of poverty are far better there than in the leading economic power of the western world. Why is that?

Interjection.

L. Krog: Higher taxes. The member is absolutely right.

Is there something wrong with a society where you're guaranteed an opportunity to go to university if you've got the intelligence, where you're guaranteed good public health care and where…? By the way, if the member wants to mock dear old Norway…. Unlike the province of Alberta, which for the last 40 years has had a regime in place to take oil revenue and set it aside for a rainy day…. Do you know how much the Albertans have? In Alberta….

Interjection.

[1750]

L. Krog: The member is getting excited.

In Alberta they have a grand total, after 40 years, since Peter Lougheed started out…. You know what the total is? It's $13 billion. It's about one-third of the annual budget of the province of Alberta. But you know what that crazy, social democratic country called Norway has salted away, invested around the world so they won't hyperinflate their own economy? It's $760 billion.

Now, my point is this. If you invest wisely, if you ensure good public education, health services and decent social services, you build equitable societies in which people can prosper and move ahead. If the members opposite really believe in free enterprise and that kind of opportunity, then this budget fails on every level.

I want my grandchildren to have the opportunities that my generation did. That's what I'm looking for. In a nation of such great wealth and such small population, and in a province of such great wealth and small population, that should be possible. So I want to say to the members over there, who are always talking about the NDP as being negative and blah, blah, blah: I believe in this province, but what I believe is that we can do a better job.

This government was given a mandate. I suggest they take that mandate and actually try and improve the lives of British Columbians instead of repeating slogans in their speeches and telling the poorest in this province how good things are and pretending that there's real opportunity — when in fact we're becoming a more stratified and calcified society in which the real opportunities that existed for my generation don't exist anymore. They've got the power. They've got the opportunity. I suggest they use it.

J. Yap: It's my pleasure to rise to speak on the budget, the balanced budget 2014, which I enthusiastically support.

I just want to note…. The member for Nanaimo made a number of thoughtful comments. I was listening carefully the last half-hour, and he ended with a mention that we have a mandate. He's absolutely right. We have a mandate to control government spending and balance the budget. That's what this budget delivers.

While I would just dearly love to address a number of points that the member for Nanaimo raised, noting the hour, I reserve my place and move adjournment of the debate.

J. Yap 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. Monday morning.

The House adjourned at 5:53 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