2013 Legislative Session: Fifth Session, 39th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

official report of

Debates of the Legislative Assembly

(hansard)

Monday, March 4, 2013

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 43, Number

ISSN 0709-1281 (Print)

ISSN 1499-2175 (Online)

CONTENTS

Page

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

Bill P r 402 — Mennonite Brethren Biblical Seminary Act

R. Hawes

Bill P r 401 — The Hooper Family Foundation (Corporate Restoration) Act, 2013

J. McIntyre

Ministerial Statements

Apology for multicultural outreach strategy and partisan activities

Hon. C. Clark

A. Dix

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

Bill 18 — Health Authorities Amendment Act, 2013

Hon. M. MacDiarmid

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

Social workers

G. Hogg

C. Trevena

Dining Out for Life and work of A Loving Spoonful

M. McNeil

Colliery Dam Park

D. Routley

Dining Out for Life and work of A Loving Spoonful (continued)

M. McNeil

Alfred Scow

D. Horne

Marine communications and traffic services centres on west coast

S. Fraser

Oral Questions

Role of Premier's office in multicultural outreach strategy

A. Dix

Hon. C. Clark

C. James

M. Farnworth

Implementation of multicultural outreach strategy

M. Farnworth

Hon. C. Clark

J. Kwan

Possible release of personal information to B.C. Liberal Party by government

M. Elmore

Hon. C. Clark

Investigation into partisan activities relating to multicultural outreach strategy

J. Horgan

Hon. C. Clark

L. Krog

Petitions

K. Krueger

J. Horgan

Orders of the Day

Budget Debate (continued)

Hon. M. MacDiarmid

J. Trasolini

J. Les

S. Hammell

D. Horne

B. Routley

R. Cantelon

J. Kwan

H. Bloy

L. Popham

[ Page 13239 ]

MONDAY, MARCH 4, 2013

The House met at 1:37 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Hon. S. Bond: We're delighted to have on the floor of the House this afternoon a visitor. We have the Hon. Mike Nixon, who is the MLA for Porter Creek South in the Yukon. He is the Minister of Justice and also the Minister of Tourism and Culture. I'm very delighted to have been working with Minister Nixon on a number of files. We're delighted that Mike is able to join us. He was sworn into cabinet on November 5, 2011.

I should share this with the House. Inspired by his son Jack, who has autism, Mr. Nixon co-founded Autism Yukon and has worked with the government to develop a system to offer specialized services for children and adults. He's done some phenomenal work, both as the Minister of Justice and also as Jack's dad — a real advocate for autism support.

We're very delighted. I hope that everyone in the House would welcome Minister Nixon here today.

G. Abbott: In the gallery today is a friend, a financial adviser and a constituent from the Shuswap area, from Salmon Arm, Mr. Steve Hammer. He is here along with others over the next couple of days from the organization Advocis to talk about some of the issues of concern to them. I'd like all of the members of the House to please make Mr. Hammer welcome.

D. Black: In the gallery today is my friend Lynn Hunter. Lynn was a Member of Parliament in Ottawa from 1988 to 1993. She's recently been a councillor for the city of Victoria and an all round good person who works on many community issues, has been an advocate for the environment for some 20 or 30 years — for a sustainable environment. With her today is her partner, Don Armstrong. I ask everyone in the House to please make them welcome.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

BILL P R 402 — MENNONITE BRETHREN

BIBLICAL SEMINARY ACT

R. Hawes presented a bill intituled Mennonite Brethren Biblical Seminary Act.

R. Hawes: I move that a bill intituled Mennonite Brethren Biblical Seminary Act, of which notice has been given on the order paper, be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion approved.

R. Hawes: It's with pleasure that I sponsor this bill, which will provide degree-granting status for the Mennonite Brethren Biblical Seminary.

They provide graduate-level theological training in support of the 250 churches and 55,000 members that make up the Canadian Conference of Mennonite Brethren Churches. Since 1999 the seminary has been part of the innovative and fully accredited Associated Canadian Theological Seminaries, called ACTS — the acronym. It's a consortium of five seminaries located at Trinity Western University.

[1340]

This bill is needed because there has been a decision made by the Mennonite Brethren to organize their seminary independent from that in the United States and to create a separate degree-granting institution in British Columbia. They have been granting university graduate degrees in British Columbia for many, many years under the California charter.

Mr. Speaker, the only way that we can bring degree-granting status to the graduate students in the Mennonite Seminary is through a private bill, which is before us today.

I move that the bill be referred to the Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills.

Bill Pr402, Mennonite Brethren Biblical Seminary Act, introduced, read a first time and referred to the Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills.

BILL P R 401 — THE HOOPER FAMILY

FOUNDATION

(CORPORATE RESTORATION)

ACT, 2013

J. McIntyre presented a bill intituled The Hooper Family Foundation (Corporate Restoration) Act, 2013.

J. McIntyre: I move that a bill intituled The Hooper Family Foundation (Corporate Restoration) Act, 2013, of which notice has been given on the order paper, be introduced and now read a first time.

Motion approved.

J. McIntyre: This bill is being introduced in order to restore the Hooper Family Foundation to the British Columbia register of companies. The society was removed from the register of companies in 2002 for un-

[ Page 13240 ]

intentionally failing to file annual reports. The society did not become aware of this until recently and now proposes to apply for restoration. Due to the number of years since the society was removed from the register of companies, the only avenue for restoration is by way of a private bill.

I move that the bill be referred to the Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills.

Bill Pr401, The Hooper Family Foundation (Corporate Restoration) Act, 2013, introduced, read a first time and referred to the Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills.

Ministerial Statements

APOLOGY FOR MULTICULTURAL OUTREACH

STRATEGY AND PARTISAN ACTIVITIES

Hon. C. Clark: Mr. Speaker, I rise to make a ministerial statement to this House.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

Hon. C. Clark: Let me start by saying there is no value more important to me than respect for the taxpayer and ensuring that rules are properly followed so that we can ensure we are respecting the hard-earned money that taxpayers send us.

Last week this House was presented with a document, a draft outreach document. I want to reiterate to this House what the Deputy Premier said on my behalf on Thursday, which is that that document was wrong. It was wrong.

It's right that we reach out to all of the communities in British Columbia. It's right that we make sure that they are full participants in our province in every way, but the document should never have been created.

I want to, now that I'm here personally, offer a very sincere apology for the fact that that document was created by staff on the government side of the House. I want to apologize for the ideas in it, and I want to apologize for the language in it as well.

When mistakes occur — and they do — we must confront them and take responsibility for them. We must also deal with them. I've talked to the member for Richmond-Steveston, and he has agreed that he is going to step aside from cabinet pending the John Dyble review of the draft document on multicultural outreach. While that review is being conducted, the Minister of State for Seniors will take on the role of Minister of Advanced Education, Innovation and Technology.

A. Dix: Obviously, these are very serious times and very serious matters, and I appreciate the circumstances and the action taken by the member for Richmond-Steveston. I have always respected him, and I respect the action he's taken.

I would say that this issue is one that's a critical one in our democracy. The issues, when we talk about how events in the past are characterized…. That's essential, because much of who we are as a province and some of our worst moments as a province are involved here. How we deal with those and how we characterize them as a people says a lot about us and who we are.

There's always talk about responsibility, and there's always talk about political fallout in these things. But the pain that people suffer is real, and the disrespect intended towards people and felt by people is real. I know that members of the government side, just as members of the opposition side, will have heard those concerns this weekend throughout the province.

[1345]

I would say that it's not, of course, just the document. It's the actions that flow from the document. Over this period, obviously, we will be interested in the report by Mr. Dyble and perhaps other reports that are produced. I want to say that the issues involved, the way we conduct ourselves, the links between the public service and political activities, the way we characterize "historical wrongs" — these are significant issues for our province, and we have to do better than this. I think we can all agree we have to do better than this and, hopefully, in future we will.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

BILL 18 — HEALTH AUTHORITIES

AMENDMENT ACT, 2013

Hon. M. MacDiarmid presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill intituled Health Authorities Amendment Act, 2013.

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

Motion approved.

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: This bill amends the definition of "nurse" in the Health Authorities Act to include licensed practical nurses. This change will permit the inclusion of all LPNs within the nurses' bargaining unit under the act. As a housekeeping matter, the definition of nurse will also be amended to reflect the fact that all three nursing groups are regulated under the Health Professions Act.

I move that the Health Authorities Amendment Act, 2013, be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

[ Page 13241 ]

Bill 18, Health Authorities Amendment Act, 2013, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

SOCIAL WORKERS

G. Hogg: Social workers have driven through snowstorms in northern British Columbia to save abandoned children. They've helped to guide and console families with end-of-life care, and they have provided support to people at all stages of life.

Those in the field of social work are often faced with extremely tough decisions — decisions that have lasting impact on the lives of individuals they are serving. But they're also guided by purpose, driven by a calling to improve the health and well-being of those they work with and those around them. We respect and honour their judgment in making these life-changing and difficult decisions.

Social workers and clinicians are dedicated advocates for human rights and for social justice. Every day they fight discrimination, open doors of access and create opportunities for those in need. Social workers and clinicians strengthen communities, build relationships and enrich lives. They believe in the dignity and worth of the person, nurture diversity and build brighter futures by educating society to the benefits of looking after each other.

Social work enhances the worth, self-determination and well-being of individuals, families and communities through the promotion of social and economic justice and respect for diversity.

March 3 through 9 is Social Work Week in British Columbia. Please join me in thanking the thousands of social workers and clinicians for their dedication and service to improving the lives of British Columbians.

C. Trevena: As my colleague from Surrey–White Rock mentioned, this week is officially an opportunity to celebrate social workers, those hard-working people on the front lines who try to pick up the pieces of other people's lives, who deal daily with the problems of others and try to give stability to individuals and families in crisis.

The theme this year is "Celebrating the past, present and future." Unfortunately, many social workers do not feel much like celebrating the present and are extremely concerned about the future.

Child and youth mental health teams, short-staffed and dealing with heavy caseloads of kids in crisis, are fearful that one will fall through the cracks, and they do. Suicides happen, and they're not in isolation, with the devastation to the families, to the community and to the workers themselves, who fear they might have been able to do something more if they'd had the time.

Child protection social workers are trying to keep on top of all their many files and trying to work when they're still navigating the cumbersome and inadequate data management system, ICM, as well as working with new reporting requirements.

[1350]

Kids helpline, the phone line that's promoted as round-the-clock help for kids facing abuse, is going unanswered. That's because staff numbers have dropped by about a third, down to 40 people on the 24-hour service. Some of them are working three back-to-back shifts to provide cover, and still they can't answer every call. Those calls are not picked up elsewhere. They ring until they stop.

The loss of a shift of the after-hours service, which covers the province during the hours the ministry offices are closed, could mean more problems. There are times, as there were last month when there was a stabbing in Tsawwassen, when two overnight social workers are tied up, leaving just one to deal with dozens of other calls from everywhere else in B.C.

There's a freeze on hiring or replacing staff. Staffing levels are being kept at 92 percent, and that's hurting the workers and the work. When the worst happens, it's those front-line workers who are in the spotlight. The back story is rarely known.

So take a moment this week to thank social workers for their dedication, for their commitment and for picking up the pieces when no one else is there.

DINING OUT FOR LIFE AND

WORK OF A LOVING SPOONFUL

M. McNeil: If you've been thinking about heading out on a date night sometime this week, the night to go is this Thursday. Thursday, March 7, is the night of Dining Out for Life, B.C.'s largest restaurant fundraiser and an annual fundraising event benefitting A Loving Spoonful and Friends for Life, two Lower Mainland charities supporting local people living with AIDS.

Dining Out for Life happens because of the generous participation of volunteers, corporate sponsors and restaurants. Over 200 restaurants, from Whistler to White Rock and into the valley, have joined the fight against AIDS by donating 25 percent of their food sales during this important event.

A Loving Spoonful is a volunteer-driven, non-partisan society that provides free, nutritious meals and nutritional counselling to men, women and children living with HIV and AIDS.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you, Member.

M. McNeil: Oh. Thank you.

[ Page 13242 ]

COLLIERY DAM PARK

D. Routley: I'd like to share with the members a story about Colliery Dam Park in Nanaimo. Before I can paint a picture of the park, you have to understand that it's in south Nanaimo. South Nanaimo is a community of working families who struggle every day to put food on the table, pay the rent and generally get by.

Paid recreation is not an option for many of these families, so they've become very attached to the recreation that's provided by the Colliery Dam Park. These are two lakes that were created by two dams that were put in place over 100 years ago in order to wash coal for the coal industry. The lakes provide walking trails, fishing and swimming for the residents of Nanaimo.

Recently the dam safety branch has instructed Nanaimo that there is a one-in-10,000-years' chance that these dams might fail in an earthquake. Schools are built to a one-in-2,475-years' chance, hospitals to a one-in-3,000-years' chance. The dams must be built to one-in-10,000-years' chance of failure.

The people of Nanaimo are very upset about the potential loss of the dams. The city has responded by quite rightfully taking the immediate steps of potentially removing the dams at a cost of $7 million. This would take away from the community this vital asset, and the community has responded by forming a society to save these dams.

The community wants to siphon off the water, reduce the risk — to find an alternative other than removing these dams and losing their precious park. The city of Nanaimo is open to this kind of an approach. The dam safety branch is open to a mitigation of the risks and a study of what might be done to save this park.

I hope that the government and this House will be willing to partner with the city of Nanaimo and the people of Nanaimo, my constituents, to save this valuable city asset. It has great educational, historic and recreational value, and the people of Nanaimo hold this park very precious to their hearts.

Mr. Speaker: My apology to the member for Vancouver–False Creek. Somehow they only gave you a minute, so you can continue and finish up. Now you've got two minutes again.

DINING OUT FOR LIFE AND

WORK OF A LOVING SPOONFUL

(continued)

M. McNeil: I thought you were just too upset, Mr. Speaker, because I was talking about a date night.

[1355]

A Loving Spoonful is a volunteer-driven, non-partisan society that provides free, nutritious meals and nutritional counselling to men, women and children living with HIV and AIDS in Metro Vancouver. Over 100,000 free meals are provided each year to some of those most vulnerable in our community. Meals are delivered by volunteer drivers who use their own car, gas and time to ensure that those in need are fed.

This past Christmas Day, after 23 years of service, A Loving Spoonful officially served their two-millionth meal — a huge milestone for them and for the community. Every week their volunteers deliver approximately 1,200 frozen meals and over 250 snack packs to men, women and children who are primarily homebound with AIDS.

To find out more about this wonderful organization, please go on line to alovingspoonful.org, and don't forget that this Thursday, March 7, is a great date night.

ALFRED SCOW

D. Horne: It is with great sadness that I inform the House of the passing of a distinguished and important figure in the history of British Columbia. Last week I received word of the passing of the hon. Alfred Scow, a true maverick who spent his life breaking down barriers and inspiring others to reach new heights. At a time when B.C. prohibited aboriginals from pursuing a career in the legal profession, Scow chose to enrol in the UBC Faculty of Law, becoming the first aboriginal to graduate from the program and the first aboriginal lawyer in B.C.'s history to be called to the bar.

In 1971 he was appointed a B.C. Provincial Court judge, serving in this capacity for more than two decades. Throughout his career he showed a deep commitment to social justice, volunteering his time and leadership to many community organizations and First Nations initiatives. His generosity extended to a variety of causes, from helping law students overcome their financial barriers to aiding in the establishment of First Nations studies at UBC.

In 2001 he founded the Scow Institute, which works towards creating a greater understanding between aboriginal and non-aboriginal peoples. In recognition of all of his contributions, he was awarded the Order of British Columbia in 2004 and the Order of Canada in 2010. His legacy remains B.C.'s altered landscape, a province where First Nations voices are integral to the decisions that shape our society. He will be remembered not just for his wisdom behind the bench but for his kindness and ability to inspire others to become leaders and give back to their community.

MARINE COMMUNICATIONS AND TRAFFIC

SERVICES CENTRES ON WEST COAST

S. Fraser: Most people have heard of the dangerous and unsupportable decision made by the federal government to close the Kitsilano Coast Guard station. British

[ Page 13243 ]

Columbians are about to face another major hit to marine safety. The marine communication and traffic services, strategically located in Comox and Ucluelet, are slated for closure next week.

Anyone who has been out on the water in B.C. knows that this is a very bad idea. These centres monitor for distress signals from vessels, everything from pleasure craft to tour boats to fully laden tankers and freighters. They are like a marine 911 service and air traffic control service on the water. They provide vital safety and weather information, and the operators know their regions intimately. The Coast Guard's marine communication and traffic services are the eyes and ears of the coast.

The Ucluelet centre in my constituency is wisely located at Amphitrite Point, overlooking what is known fittingly as the Graveyard of the Pacific because it has claimed so many lives. The highly trained personnel live in the region, and they know the waters like the backs of their hands. Closing this centre will put mariners' lives at risk and be a big hit to the local economies.

At a time when the Port Alberni mayor and council are working to diversify their economy by expanding their deep-water port capability, closing the Ucluelet marine communications and traffic centre looks even more ludicrous.

One half of all emergency calls and marine traffic in Canada are here on the west coast. With these closures and Kitsilano's closure, B.C. will have only two centres for the entire west coast. Back east, with the other half of Canada's emergency and traffic calls, they'll have ten. Maybe it is time that we in this House plan a non-partisan trip to Ottawa. I know a few B.C. mayors who would be more than happy to go. Let's put politics aside and protect our coast.

[1400]

Oral Questions

ROLE OF PREMIER'S OFFICE IN

MULTICULTURAL OUTREACH STRATEGY

A. Dix: Last Thursday the Premier said of the involvement of her office, the Premier's office, in the multicultural outreach plan: "It was distributed by someone in my office, but it wasn't crafted by them. There has been no suggestion that anyone in my office had any hand in crafting it at all." Does the Premier still stand by that statement?

Hon. C. Clark: Let me start by again offering an apology, and not just an apology to this House — more particularly, an apology to anyone in British Columbia who read that document, heard about the language in it and was offended. They had a right to be offended by the language in that document. It was wrong, and I'm very, very sorry that it was ever created. I want to start by offering that personal and very sincere apology.

Second, I want to make very clear that this was a very serious mistake and that I am taking responsibility for this mistake. When mistakes are made, small and large — and this one was large — we have a responsibility to confront the mistake, accept responsibility and do everything that we can to try and address it.

Let me finish by answering the member's question. Over the last few days John Dyble, the chief of the public service, has begun his review of exactly what happened. The most important element of that review is determining that no taxpayer money was expended for the wrong purposes.

I don't know what else will result from that review. There may be new details that emerge, things that we don't know now. Certainly, when that review is delivered, I will act on the recommendations that he offers, because British Columbians deserve to know that not only am I sorry but that I am prepared to accept responsibility and make sure I do whatever is necessary to address the mistakes that were made.

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has a supplemental.

A. Dix: I agree with the Premier that the language in the document to which she is referring is wrong. It is wrong. But we're not just talking about language here. This was part of a plan that was implemented over time.

Mr. Dyble has, from the opposition, a copy of a similar document produced on December 8, 2011. It was produced as a result of a meeting involving a very significant number of the Premier's senior staff, including her deputy chief of staff at the time, her director of outreach, her senior outreach coordinator and her current ministerial assistant. One of the items, just to point this out, under the "Quick wins" category, "Research community-focused wins, e.g., historical wrongs" was directly under the lead of the Premier's office.

The Premier has asserted: "There was no suggestion that anyone in my office had any hand in crafting it at all." I want to ask if that is still the view of the Premier today.

Hon. C. Clark: As I said, Mr. Dyble is conducting a review. I have no new information to add to what I said on Thursday. It may be that new information emerges. I do not know the answer to that. The review is entirely independent, being conducted by a group of senior deputy ministers in the government.

With respect to the issue of historical wrongs, let me say this. Historical wrongs should be righted. When the government, no matter how many years ago, wronged people, we have an obligation to do what we can to make that right. And historical wrongs are not something that can be righted or should be righted for political purposes.

[1405]

[ Page 13244 ]

When we address historical wrongs, it is something for all of us to do together. I cannot say how deeply I believe that the language used to describe that in the document was absolutely wrong. It doesn't in any way reflect my view of what needs to happen. As I said, righting historical wrongs is an obligation that belongs to all of us, and it's something that we can only do together.

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has a further supplemental.

A. Dix: Well, that is undoubtedly true, and I think it's particularly important when some of those historical wrongs occurred at a time when politicians, some of whom have sat in this Legislature, sought to take political advantage of views that we would view as completely unacceptable today and were unacceptable then. There weren't very many heroes on some of these issues at that time. We all have to acknowledge that.

I think, though, the question is just very simple for the Premier today. It's very simple for the Premier today. We have documents here that show her staff taking the lead with respect to better coordination between party, government and caucus at meetings that included staff of party, government and caucus — the Premier's staff.

The Premier has made a categorical assertion not weeks ago but days ago that this was not the case. Now, I appreciate that new information may come forward and that the Premier may feel she was incorrect a number of days ago. But that information clearly was wrong.

What we need from the Premier today, I think, is at least an acceptance, an understanding that what was said, that the assertion that was made by the Premier that this did not involve her staff — it involved somebody else, but not the Premier's office — was incorrect. Will the Premier confirm that today?

Hon. C. Clark: This is indeed a very, very serious issue. What happened was wrong. Characterizing historical wrongs as anything other than something deeply felt and deeply serious is wrong. I would ask the member to be careful to characterize what I said, which was that there is no evidence that I'm aware of that my staff was involved in this. As far as I know, my staff were only involved in creating it. That is what I said, and that remains true.

As I said though, Deputy Minister John Dyble is collecting information and conducting a very thorough review. It may be that new information, which we do not possess at the moment, can emerge that suggests that. If the member has evidence or has documents that confirm otherwise, he should please make sure he gives them to Deputy Minister Dyble. That should absolutely form part of his review so that we can make sure that we get absolutely to the bottom of this.

British Columbians want to know because they know that a very serious mistake was made. They want to know that the government will take responsibility for it, which we are, but much more importantly, that we'll address it. We will only be able to do that when we are in possession of all of the information that we can gather.

C. James: I'd like to inform the Premier that those documents have gone to Mr. Dyble. All of those documents were there. But these are documents directly from the Premier's office. These are documents that show a list of staff from the Premier's office that were directly involved in a planning meeting on this outreach strategy.

Just to review again the list of staff at this meeting: former deputy chief of staff, Office of the Premier; director of outreach, Office of the Premier; senior outreach coordinator, Office of the Premier. It stretches anyone's belief for the Premier to state that she had no involvement and that her office had no involvement in crafting the document.

My question is again to the Premier. Given that your senior staff were a direct part of putting this document together in the planning meeting on this document, how can your claim of no involvement stand?

[1410]

Hon. C. Clark: We will know the answer to that member's question more precisely when Deputy Minister Dyble reports. He will have the full range of information. He will have a chance to have spoken to many of the people that were involved in the creation of the document. I'd ask for the member's patience on that, because we will be able to get a full answer to her question when that report is released.

I think it is important that we make sure we have the right information, that that report is done in a non-partisan way, that it takes the time it needs to take to do it absolutely properly so that we can get to the bottom of this. I would also, though, remind the member that my deputy chief of staff has resigned with no severance and accepted responsibility for it. If there are further actions required, they will be taken once we have the full report from Deputy Minister Dyble.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

C. James: With all due respect to the Premier and the actions that have occurred, I think the public expects the Premier to be accountable. The public expects the Premier to be accountable for this.

I want to review a few of the topics that happened at that meeting where the Premier's staff were attending. Under the to-do list it includes "better coordination between party, government and caucus"; "build lists"; "secure funding — caucus or party"; "political asks, as the election nears."

This to-do list shows public dollars being used for partisan purposes. Remember that this meeting included

[ Page 13245 ]

the former deputy chief of staff, the current ministerial assistant in the Office of the Premier and the director of outreach.

I want to read back to the Premier again her quote from simply a few days ago. "It was distributed by someone in my office, but it wasn't crafted by them." So while I respect that there is a review going on, while I respect there is an investigation, I believe that the public expects the Premier to be answerable for the use of their tax dollars.

Again my question is to the Premier. How can she continue to claim no involvement?

Hon. C. Clark: I said on Thursday what I knew to be true at the time, and I have no reason to believe that it was not true.

As I said, though, when Mr. Dyble reports, we will have full information. The deputy is gathering information, which I think is probably not available to the opposition or to the government, and is reviewing that. He will issue a full report and will have a very complete answer to her question.

As I said, when the member talks about accountability, she's right about that. The public wants to know that the government is going to be accountable for this. People in this province want to know that staff who were responsible are going to be held accountable for it.

People want to know that we are going to take action to address it, and we are. It began with the resignation without severance of my deputy chief of staff, the individual who was most clearly responsible for overseeing the distribution of the document.

The second step in that is the creation of the review team, led by Deputy Minister John Dyble, with access to all documents and all individuals involved. The third element is a commitment on my part to take further action when all of the information is known.

Those are the steps that we are taking to ensure that we are fully accountable for this. The public expects that the government will be accountable. I agree with that. Serious mistakes were made. We need to confront those mistakes, accept responsibility and do everything that we can to address them. That's what I'm doing.

M. Farnworth: The Premier has stood in this House and said she had no involvement. The documents show considerable involvement by very senior members of her office and within the B.C. Liberal Party.

At the meeting that took place on the eighth of December…. It was referred to as a coordinated-effort meeting. I'd just like to read out for the Premier, because she said that this was prepared by somebody way down the chain on Friday: "…in attendance way down the chain crossed the line…."

[1415]

Anyway, in attendance at this meeting were the deputy chief of staff, operations, Office of the Premier; director of outreach, Office of the Premier; senior outreach coordinator, Office of the Premier; outreach director at B.C. Liberal caucus; executive director at B.C. Liberal caucus; communications officer, B.C. Liberal caucus; MA to the Premier's office; executive assistant to a former cabinet minister; an executive assistant to another cabinet minister; outreach manager, Liberal caucus. That's some chain, hon. Speaker.

My question to the Premier is this. She claims that she had no involvement. Did she have knowledge that these meetings were taking place? Did she have knowledge that this strategy was in fact being developed?

This document, and the direction it took to try and execute on that idea, was wrong. Had I known that this document existed, I would have put a stop to it immediately. The individual in my office who did know that it existed…. Clearly, Kim Haakstad was that person, and she has resigned without severance. That was the right thing to do, because that document should have been stopped in its tracks. Let me say that first.

Second, let me add this, because the member…. Again, another member in this question period has misquoted me — I'm sure without intending to. But the member should be careful about how he characterizes what I have said, because this is a very serious issue. It deserves…. It is serious enough that a team of deputies is reviewing it thoroughly. That is the right thing to do so that we can ensure that we get to the bottom of it. I'm sure that that member and other members across the House would not want me to prejudge the outcome of that review, given the importance we all attach to its conclusions.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

IMPLEMENTATION OF

MULTICULTURAL OUTREACH STRATEGY

M. Farnworth: Well, we know the deputy chief of staff is gone. We know the minister responsible is gone. We know there's a very serious investigation underway, hon. Speaker. The Premier has denied any involvement.

Given the fact that all these people have gone and that the Premier has denied any involvement, does the Premier stand by her statement from last Thursday that no public money was spent in this appalling strategy?

[ Page 13246 ]

Hon. C. Clark: As I said on Thursday, that is an issue about which we need to be concerned. There is no evidence that public money was spent, but it is possible. And if it was spent, John Dyble is going to find out. That is one of the critical issues that he is considering in the course of this review: was the Public Service Act violated? Was any public money spent for partisan purposes? And a range of other issues. But that is one of the central issues that we need an answer to.

It seems apparent at the moment that most of that document — particularly the things that most of us, including me, find most offensive — was not acted on. But as I said, we are going to wait and not prejudge the outcome and see what Deputy Minister Dyble concludes. When we have all of the information, we will act on it, because the creation of that document was wrong. Many of the ideas in it were wrong. The language in that document was wrong.

We need to get to the bottom of it, and we need to do that so that we can address it.

[1420]

J. Kwan: The Premier refers to the Liberal government's leaked multicultural outreach strategy as a draft. Yet according to leaked documents, signing off on the hiring of partisan outreach staff from the Premier's office, from the former Minister for Multiculturalism and the Liberal caucus was completed as of December 8, 2011. So it appears that the leaked documents show that all the internal hurdles have been checked off.

Can the Premier advise who, on behalf of the Liberal caucus, signed off on this abuse of power and abuse of taxpayers' money?

Hon. C. Clark: I appreciate that the member is willing to prejudge the outcome of the review. I am not prepared to do that. It is a very serious issue, so it is going to require real answers, not prejudgments, not suppositions. So I'm going to await the outcome of that review. I'm sure that the review will answer that question as well as many others.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

J. Kwan: I'm referring to leaked documents. Based on the leaked documents, the plan has moved along to the point that at least two of the partisan outreach staff had already been hired by December 8, 2011.

So will the Premier please tell this House just when her cabinet was first briefed on the hiring of the staff, and when her caucus was briefed on this. Was it before December 8, 2011, or was it after the hiring had already been initiated?

Hon. C. Clark: I can say that I never saw the document and I was never part of the creation of the strategy, although I will say it is certainly a legitimate role for government to coordinate outreach to multicultural communities. I think that's the responsible and right thing for government to do.

In terms of the document itself, the ideas in it that are offensive and the language in it that is offensive — I never saw that information. As I said, the member is going to have — we will all have — a real fact base to work from when Deputy Minister Dyble releases his report. The member may not be, but I am very cautious, given the seriousness of the situation, about wanting to prejudge that outcome.

POSSIBLE RELEASE OF PERSONAL

INFORMATION TO B.C. LIBERAL PARTY

BY GOVERNMENT

M. Elmore: According to leaked documents, the plans called for collecting lists and names that would feed into the B.C. Liberal voter contact database. The director of communications for the ministry for Multiculturalism, Brian Bonney, was put in charge of creating partisan staff positions to support this. It is not legitimate to harvest information for political purposes.

Will the Premier confirm that names were collected for the B.C. Liberal Win 2013 campaign database using the public service?

Hon. C. Clark: There are absolutely crystal-clear rules around the sharing of that information. Sharing of that information outside of government is not permitted, nor should it be permitted.

Deputy Minister Dyble is looking at whether or not any of that information was shared. It is my understanding that none of it was, that that recommendation was never acted on. But again, we will await the results of Mr. Dyble's report, and then we will have more information and more facts from which to work.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

M. Elmore: This plan is very upfront about using the ministry for Multiculturalism, government communications and intergovernmental relations to help the B.C. Liberal Party build its contact database. Will the Premier inform this Legislature if she has asked the B.C. Liberal Party if they have received names from the public service arising out of this plan?

Hon. C. Clark: I have. They have not. There is no evidence that that recommendation was ever acted on. Again, Mr. Dyble will report back. We will get more information as a result of that report.

Again, there are clear rules about that. Anyone who shared that information would have been violating those rules of the public service. It would have been absolutely

[ Page 13247 ]

wrong for that to happen. I don't believe that it did.

[1425]

When Mr. Dyble reports, we will find out the full facts on this. As I have said, when we confront the full facts, we will take further action, in addition to having instigated the review and accepted the resignation without severance of my deputy chief of staff.

INVESTIGATION INTO PARTISAN

ACTIVITIES RELATING TO

MULTICULTURAL OUTREACH STRATEGY

J. Horgan: I think the Premier has hit on the big challenge for John Dyble. He doesn't have access to the B.C. Liberal Party. He doesn't have access to the B.C. Liberal caucus. He doesn't now have access to Kim Haakstad. I imagine that he will have access to the Premier.

My question is to the Premier. Has she been interviewed, and if she hasn't been interviewed, when she is interviewed, will she have counsel?

Hon. C. Clark: I haven't been asked to do that. Certainly, I would if I was. And the member is wrong. Deputy Minister Dyble has been talking to Ms. Haakstad.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

J. Horgan: Again, it speaks to the reach of Mr. Dyble as the head of the public service when we're not just talking here about the public service.

It's bad enough that the deputy to the Premier and three other senior deputies are taken away from the public's business to see if they can clean up the mess that's been created by operatives in the Premier's office, but the challenge we have is that Mr. Dyble is a public servant. He has no access to the Liberal caucus across the way. He has no access to the B.C. Liberal Party. If Ms. Haakstad chooses to not participate in an investigation, he has no access to her as well.

I would further add that Mr. Dyble has no access to private e-mails. Mr. Dyble has no access to information that's being stored in the east annex.

Again, my question to the Premier: does she not realize that although Mr. Dyble is a very capable public servant, this job is beyond him, and it's time now to find someone independent to get to the bottom of this?

Hon. C. Clark: I do agree that Mr. Dyble is a very competent public servant. I'm glad that the member is finally coming around to that view, because he is a very competent, independent public servant. He has spent 20 years in the public service in various roles and served the province of British Columbia well.

He is undertaking this review with other deputies across government and will be reporting back. I'm confident that he is going to have the information that he needs to make that review. If he does not have the information that he needs, I can assure you that he will say that in his report.

He does certainly have access to Ms. Haakstad. She's been talking to him extensively. As has anyone else that he or any of his fellow deputies have sought to interview with respect to this, because this is an extremely serious issue.

The language in that document was wrong. Many of the ideas that were contained in that document were wrong. We have an obligation as a government to make sure that we respond not just to the concerns that people have but to make sure that we are doing the right thing — to make sure that we are addressing the very real needs of multicultural communities out there, and doing it in a responsible and ethical way.

We take full responsibility for what happened. We are addressing it. Ms. Haakstad has taken responsibility for her role in overseeing it. Mr. Dyble is reviewing it, and when that review is complete, there may be more action necessary.

I would urge members of this House to ensure that they do not prejudge the outcome and that they do not decide, on an issue that is incredibly serious, to start suggesting there will be conclusions that may not be there. We will see what he reports at the end of the day. When he does report, I will be accountable for that, and I will act on the recommendations that he delivers.

[1430]

L. Krog: Well, I'm rather surprised that the Premier doesn't seem to get the point here. Mr. Dyble has no lawful authority to conduct an investigation. He is not statutorily charged to conduct an investigation. He is not a police officer. He doesn't even have the status of a lawyer in a civil lawsuit who could demand that the other side produce documents and examine under oath the other party to the proceeding.

Mr. Dyble is in the difficult position, having been a career and much-admired public servant, of having to ask questions of people he has worked with. He has no lawful access to B.C. Liberal Party records. He has no way of compelling anyone to give him the evidence that is necessary. That is clear to everyone in British Columbia who understands this issue.

My question to the Premier is very simple. Given his complete lack of legal authority other than the request made of him by the Premier herself, will the Premier not agree…? In order to ensure that the public interest is protected in this matter, that we get to the bottom of this matter and that all the evidence that should be made available is in fact made available, will she not agree it is time to appoint an independent investigator and relieve Mr. Dyble of the obligation she's placed on him which he simply is unable to perform appropriately because he lacks that statutory and legal authority?

[ Page 13248 ]

Hon. C. Clark: I want to be really clear. John Dyble has served the public for over two decades. He is an absolutely independent, incredibly capable man who will do this free of any political influence. He has his own reputation as an independent public servant to preserve.

Despite the words of the critics and some certain members of this House, I believe that he is going to be able to conduct this investigation, this review, absolutely thoroughly. If, at the end of the review, he feels — as a non-partisan, independent, thorough reviewer of the facts — that further review is required, he will most certainly say that in his report. But there is no reason to think that this review will be anything less than thorough, anything less than independent.

I promise you this. We will act on the facts and the recommendations when he provides them.

[End of question period.]

Petitions

K. Krueger: I rise to table a petition signed by many hundreds of people. I haven't counted the signatures, but the constituents who gathered it say that it reflects the view, they believe, of 98 percent of the people who live along Highway 5A near Kamloops.

J. Horgan: I seek leave to present a petition.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

J. Horgan: I have a petition signed by 2,500 residents of the Westbank First Nation calling on the government to immediately repay homeowners residing on the Westbank First Nation lands the carbon tax rebate for 2011 and 2012 as well as any future years in which the carbon tax rebate is provided.

C. Hansen: I ask leave to make an introduction.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

Introductions by Members

C. Hansen: There's a group that couldn't join us for the normal time for introductions today, but they have since come into the House. I'd ask the House to welcome 38 grade 11 students from Prince of Wales Mini School, the two parent volunteers with them, and their teacher, Mr. Andrew Humphries.

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

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

J. Horgan: Joining us in the gallery today is Coun. Mike De Guevara from the Westbank First Nation. Mike is down and has been down for the past number of days meeting with the Tsawout First Nation and other First Nations leadership in the south Island to share notes and compare how we can move forward on land claims and treaty rights settlements across British Columbia. Would the House please make him very, very welcome.

S. Chandra Herbert: I, too, would like to seek leave to make an introduction.

Mr. Speaker: We're just doing introductions over. Proceed.

S. Chandra Herbert: I would like to join with the member for Vancouver-Quilchena to welcome the students from Prince of Wales. I'm an alumni — alumnus, I guess it would be — and I'm really glad that they have joined us in the House today.

[1435]

The member for Surrey-Whalley also wanted me to mention that he was from that school as well.

Orders of the Day

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

Budget Debate

(continued)

[L. Reid in the chair.]

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: I am pleased to continue speaking about Budget 2013. I had the opportunity to start speaking at the last sitting of the House and to speak a bit about my riding. I want to continue on to talk about the budget and what it means to the Ministry of Health.

We are a government that understands that every tax dollar is important. In health care there are some things that that means. It means minimizing duplication and overlap, keeping administrative costs low and slowing the rate of growth to ensure sustainability. We are doing all of those things.

When we took office, there were 52 health authorities in British Columbia. That meant 52 separate entities, each with their own board and senior administration. One of our first acts as government was to reduce the number of health authorities down to six.

We have also, over the last few years, dramatically reduced the rate of growth in health expenditures, reducing it by more than half. Before the worldwide economic crisis health funding was growing by about 7 percent per year. In our last budget growth was down to around 3 percent.

Health authority administrators and health profession-

[ Page 13249 ]

als are certainly doing their part, using lean techniques to maximize existing resources. They're finding savings through consolidation, shared services and bulk purchasing that will save the system more than $200 million by the end of 2014.

Our efforts are leading the country. A Canadian Institute for Health Information study in 2009 found that administration costs right here in British Columbia in our health authorities were the second lowest in Canada at 3.8 percent. That was down from nearly 5 percent just two years earlier. We're doing this all without diminishing our services for patients. CIHI also shows that our per-capita health spending is the second lowest in Canada but that our health outcomes are among the best. I'll talk a little more about that later.

With respect to this budget, health spending growth will increase by $374 million in 2013 to $16.6 billion. In this budget we are protecting and maintaining health authority budgets while also ensuring that the health services that British Columbians rely on are maintained.

Over the next three years health authorities and regional services, which is the front-line care for patients, will still see an average annual growth of 3.2 percent. We are using strategies to hold the line on PharmaCare and MSP expenses, and their growth will be a more modest 1.1 percent annual growth.

In Budget 2013 we are maintaining the health services that British Columbians rely upon, but we're finding savings and efficiencies by reducing what the ministry pays for some services, including PharmaCare cost savings through the use of generic medications; savings through the reform of laboratory services, something that's been very successful in this province already and across Canada; setting a clear mandate for further discussions with the B.C. Medical Association on holding the line on overall expenditure on physician services; and also increasing the use of pay-for-performance or patient-focused funding.

Health spending was growing at an average of 7 percent per year between 2005-06 and 2008-09 before being reduced to an average of 4.4 percent annually during the subsequent four years.

[1440]

First and foremost in this budget, as I've said before, we are protecting and maintaining health authority budgets, while ensuring that the health services that British Columbians rely upon are maintained.

I'm going to speak more about our operations budget, but I want to take a moment to talk about capital projects around the province, which are extremely important to people wherever they are.

As noted in the budget speech, we are continuing to move forward with the following capital health projects: the redevelopment of B.C. Women's and Children's hospitals in Vancouver; a new Surrey Memorial Hospital emergency department, which should open later this year, and a critical care tower.

Work is underway for a new Interior heart and surgical centre in Kelowna, the replacement and expansion of north Island hospitals, the redevelopment at East Kootenay Hospital in Cranbrook, the replacement of Lakes District Hospital in Burns Lake and the replacement of Queen Charlotte–Haida Gwaii hospital. There is also work underway to redevelop the Royal Columbian Hospital, the Vernon Jubilee Hospital in Vernon and the Royal Inland Hospital in Kamloops.

Part of the way that the Ministry of Health and our government have been able to bend the cost curve in health expenditures is using lean techniques, by doing things differently. There is a substantial innovation and change agenda throughout the ministry and throughout the health authorities which is providing true patient-centred care but being very respectful and careful with the resources that we have in terms of tax dollars. Our use of lean techniques across the health care system is significantly reducing patient wait times and is maximizing efficiencies that can then be redirected into patient care.

I want to give a couple of examples. A couple of weeks ago I had the opportunity to visit the Vancouver General Hospital and the UBC Hospital, where they told me about actions that they've taken with respect to total surgical wait-lists. Over the last year, through simple and creative techniques, they have been able to reduce their total surgical wait-lists by nearly 25 percent. Every single surgeon who has patients on wait-lists in those two hospitals has seen their wait-list decrease.

They have been able to shift surgical procedures between hospitals to take advantage of operating room efficiencies, they have made better use of their operating room capacity by coordinating patients better, and they have made a concerted effort to regularly monitor and analyze wait-lists.

With these different techniques and with everyone participating, it was truly inspiring to see what had been accomplished in a relatively short time. These kinds of innovative changes are things that can be transferred to other health authorities as well.

Another example of amazing innovation and change is at the Jim Pattison Outpatient Care and Surgery Centre in Surrey in the Fraser Health Authority, another place I had the opportunity to visit. I spoke with members of the team, which included physicians, pathologists, surgeons, plastic surgeons and radiologists. It also included other members of the team: nurses, booking clerks and technologists — all of them working together so that during a single visit a woman who has an abnormality, whether it's a mass in her breast or an abnormal screening mammogram, can have imaging, cytology and physical examination, all on a one-stop-shopping basis.

Women are informed of their appointment, and they are informed that it's not clear how long that appointment will take. It may be an hour that day, or it may be much longer. But during that time the collaborative care

[ Page 13250 ]

and working together as a team allows for very thorough provision of services to those women patients. Procedures that were taking many, many weeks, sometimes months, are now taking two to three weeks on average. Amazingly better care for the women patients and, of course, benefiting their families as well.

In the Northern Health Authority the amount of time that it takes for patients to be referred through the Prince George home and community care office, until they actually receive long-term care support, has been reduced from an average of 68 days down to 14 days. And there are many other examples of lean techniques that are really making a difference around the province.

I mentioned the fact that although we are the second-lowest in terms of per-capita expenditures in our health care system, we have some amazing achievements, some outstanding achievements in this province. I want to outline a few of those.

[1445]

We have the best overall cancer survival rates in Canada. According to the 2012 estimates in the Canadian Cancer Society's Canadian Cancer Statistics report, mortality rates for all cancers combined are lowest in British Columbia. We have the longest life expectancy in Canada. We have the lowest heart attack rate in Canada.

We have been able to accomplish, working across all health authorities, thousands more surgeries. Since 2001 we have increased the annual number of knee replacements from about 3,000 to over 7,000; hip replacements, from about 2,800 to 5,100; cataract surgeries, from 31,000 to 51,000. There are a number of other surgeries where there have been substantial increases in the number of cases done.

Overall, the total number of surgeries received by British Columbians last year was 531,000. Over half of those patients, Madam Speaker, were never on a waiting list. This is an increase of 26 percent from the 420,000 surgeries that were performed in 2000-2001.

We have the best HIV/AIDS care in the country. We are the only province in Canada that is actually showing a consistent decline in HIV diagnosis. HIV/AIDS-related deaths have decreased in British Columbia by more than 90 percent since 1996, and I would be remiss if I did not acknowledge the Centre of Excellence at St. Paul's Hospital under the leadership of Dr. Julio Montaner.

With his extraordinary team, the dedication that they have shown has led to these extraordinary outcomes. But this is also spreading beyond British Columbia's borders, across Canada, throughout North America and around the world. Dr. Montaner and his team have travelled to every continent, and the techniques and the things that they have developed, the research that we have all gained from, is now being exported worldwide. We should be very proud of that.

Another accomplishment is that we have thousands more doctors and nurses in the province today than we did in 2001. We have more than doubled the number of medical students that are being trained. Two years from now we will have 288 students graduating each and every year. We have increased the number of practising nurses to more than 50,000, which is an increase of over 13,000 practising nurses since 2001, and we are training more than twice as many as we did back in 2001.

I have also talked about the capital investments, but let me say that we have better patient care, through excellent infrastructure, having invested more than $8 billion in health capital over the last ten years.

Our PharmaCare expenditures are another important area that British Columbians really count on. We are maintaining the health services that British Columbians rely upon in Budget 2013, but we're finding savings and efficiencies by reducing what the ministry pays for these services. One of the important things that we are doing is the new generic pricing regulation that was introduced in the spring of 2012. Our PharmaCare program has been evaluated and has been found to be one of the most comprehensive drug programs in Canada.

Where else are we investing, Madam Speaker? Well, we are investing in smoking cessation — tobacco use being one of the single most preventable causes of disease and death in British Columbia. We are proud that we have made great progress in reducing tobacco use prevalence in the province. We have the lowest smoking rates in Canada at approximately 14.2 percent. We are committed to reducing that further and protecting British Columbians from the danger of second-hand smoke.

As part of this commitment and our commitment to healthy families, we are investing between $15 million and $25 million annually in British Columbia's smoking cessation program, which offers smokers the choice of coverage of nicotine replacement therapies or prescription drugs. By doing this, we are making the healthy choice the easy choice for people who are smokers. By reducing the number of people who smoke, not only will we prevent or delay the onset of diseases like heart attacks and cancer but also avoid the millions of dollars of cost on our health care system.

The innovation and change agenda is something that is not new, but some extraordinary new programs have been rolled out in the last little while. Last week I met with a group of family doctors and health providers. There was one patient representative present for the announcement we made about integrated primary and community care. These are not just words on a page. This is an approach that is being embraced by family doctors, by people who work in health authorities and by the ministry.

[1450]

What we talked about was a program which includes something called Home is Best, where people who are in hospital for acute care are able to return home instead of going into residential care. There was a young woman

[ Page 13251 ]

called Vivian, who attended the event on Friday and talked about what it meant for her grandparents who had been married for over 65 years and were facing separation. They were facing the fact that Vivian's grandfather was thought to be too frail to live at home and that he would need to go into residential care.

The proposal was made that the Home is Best program would be tried. Services were brought into the home, and this couple is able to be together in the home of their choice. That is really what this program is all about.

It's also about keeping people out of the emergency department, where that is possible, and keeping people out of the acute care hospital setting. Quite frequently patients are leaving hospital earlier than they otherwise would have because of the coordination of care between their family physician, home and community care nurses and other important providers, so that they can be home where they would prefer to be. It's been demonstrated very clearly that the healing process is better, that they're stronger and that this program has been extraordinarily successful.

Another program that we recently talked about is A GP for Me, which is a program that supports our government's promise that by 2015 everyone in British Columbia who would like to have a family doctor will have one. This work is something that we have been doing in partnership with the B.C. Medical Association, rolling out a comprehensive suite of supports and incentives to improve primary care in B.C. The work is supported by $132 million in funding, and a significant proportion of that is from the existing physician master agreement, which was negotiated between government and the BCMA in 2012.

There have been some successful pilot programs around the province in White Rock, South Surrey, Prince George and the Cowichan Valley. I'm happy to say that this program started in June of 2010. There are over 9,000 patients that did not have a family doctor at that point who have a family doctor today.

New family physicians have been recruited, and other health providers are also included in these communities. We are rolling this out to the entire province, including divisions of family practice, so that the family doctors in a community can look at the unmet needs of their community and then decide how best to meet them.

In different neighbourhoods of the province, it may be increased access to a registered nurse or a nurse practitioner or perhaps a pharmacist. In other cases, special clinics have been developed for maternity patients, for patients who don't have physicians. Who knows where the innovation will lead us with this excellent new program. It certainly has made a difference for patients so far in this province, as I said, with over 9,000 of them that didn't have a family doctor in 2010 having a doctor today.

At the event where we talked about this, a family came, and they spoke about what a difference it had made for them to have a family physician in their community. Again, a young woman came to speak, and she talked about the fact that not only could she and her husband and their children have access to a family doctor, but that family doctor actually said: "Do you have any other family members in White Rock–South Surrey?" Her parents are now receiving care from that same family physician — so three generations of the same family. In White Rock–South Surrey today if you want a family doctor, there is no wait at all.

We are also investing in health research. Over the last 12 years our government has invested more than $900 million in health research around the province, including places like the Vancouver Prostate Centre, the Michael Smith Foundation for Health Research, six leading-edge endowment fund chairs, Genome B.C. and the Centre for Drug Research and Development. That's just to name a few.

I want to just take a moment to talk about why we invest in health research. Research can definitely help to keep our health care system sustainable. Using the valuable data we have here in British Columbia, we can find ways to improve care and reduce spending, allowing resources to be redirected to direct patient care.

The research sector, importantly, also provides economic benefits and great jobs, and attracts research dollars from many sources. The research funding that we provide to institutions like the Michael Smith Foundation for Health Research and Genome B.C. is levered sometimes five, ten or even more times by the private sector in some cases and by other research funders across Canada and around the world.

I wanted to speak briefly about other ways that we are doing things differently here in British Columbia. First I'd like to talk about our very successful nurse practitioner program.

[1455]

In 2005 nurse practitioners were established as an important part of health care teams in B.C. In fact, we were the first in B.C. history to establish a nurse practitioner training program. We currently have 252 nurse practitioners who are registered with the College of Registered Nurses of B.C. and the ability to train up to 45 nurse practitioners annually.

Last year we announced that we would be funding 190 nurse practitioner new positions over the next three years. This is a $22.2 million initiative, and it is net new funding over and above the current $17 million provided annually to health authorities for nurse practitioners.

We heard a number of announcements recently about the communities who are going to receive nurse practitioners. In fact, in some cases those nurse practitioners are already providing care. They help to meet the growing need for primary health care, including management of chronic diseases. They perform the full range of nursing functions as well as some functions that are similar

[ Page 13252 ]

to what physicians do, such as diagnosing and managing common, acute and chronic illnesses; prescribing; ordering diagnostic tests; and referring to specialists.

In my home community of Trail, when I left the community, my partners were not able to recruit a family physician, and a nurse practitioner joined the team. She has been an extraordinary addition to the team. Other nurse practitioners have come through for training in our clinic — my old clinic. The nurse practitioner in the clinic provides very important care. She does office visits. She does chronic disease management. But she's also part of the palliative care team and chronic disease management, and she provides valuable support for her patients and the clinic's patients by doing house calls.

It has been demonstrated that this kind of care very frequently can help us to avoid unnecessary hospitalizations and emergency visits, and again, it feeds into the whole idea that home is best for people.

I also wanted to talk about our midwifery program. Canada was the last developed country to legally recognize the practice and profession of midwifery. A few months ago I joined in the celebration of the ten-year anniversary of the establishment of UBC's midwifery program. Midwives were first registered to practise on January 1, 1998. Today in this province midwives are providing about 11 percent of all deliveries. In some cases they're doing these deliveries of babies in hospitals. In other cases they are home deliveries for selected low-risk pregnancies.

High-quality maternity care is vital to our health care system, and the midwives provide maternity care from early pregnancy through labour and birth until six weeks postpartum. They are now a firmly established part of B.C.'s health care system. They're practising evidence-based, women-centred maternity and newborn care, and they do give healthy, low-risk women the opportunity to give birth at home or in hospital.

In 2006 there were 2,376 midwife-assisted births, but in 2010 that number grew to 4,393. The option of using the services of a midwife is growing amongst British Columbia families, and midwives are in high demand.

I can tell you, Madam Speaker, that at that celebration it was clearly demonstrated that midwives also know how to have a good time. It wasn't a raucous party. It wasn't a wild party, but they certainly were celebrating thoroughly the success they've had over the last ten years. It was really a fantastic opportunity to be there to celebrate the anniversary with them.

These are just some of the ways that we are successful with our innovation and change agenda, demonstrating very clearly that it is possible to provide choice. It's possible to provide service and care for people in their homes, and it's possible to support primary care and specialty care and to be excellent, as is clearly demonstrated by the number of health measures where we are the best in Canada — something to be very proud of.

So I am strongly in support of this budget, Budget 2013, and it's been a privilege to have an opportunity to speak in support of the budget.

J. Trasolini: It is an honour for me to rise to respond to the government's budget and fiscal plan. But first, I would like to thank the citizens of the Port Moody–Coquitlam riding, which includes the villages of Anmore and Belcarra, for trusting me to be here representing them.

[1500]

I also want to thank my wife, Cecilia; my stepdaughter, Helena; my two sons, Phil and Darren; and my four grandchildren. I think we can all agree that it is a sacrifice to be here and missing your family.

Now I want to go back to the 2009 budget, because there are similarities with today's budget in both content and process. In 2009 the Finance Minister tabled a pre-election budget stating that there would be a deficit of $495 million. After the election the deficit exploded to almost $12 billion. This led directly to the Liberal government HST fiasco that has afflicted the business community and British Columbians for the past four years.

Now let's look at the 2013-14 budget. For the past year the B.C. Liberals have been talking about a balanced budget for 2013-14, even though in the past four years they have produced four consecutive deficit budgets and quarterly reports showing deficits in the past year. However, the government has continued to talk up a balanced budget.

Guess what. February 19 comes and — poof! — as preordained, like pure magic, a so-called balanced budget is tabled. It has been called a fantasy, incredible, unrealistic. I call it a bogus budget.

[H. Bloy in the chair.]

The 2013-14 budget is a deficit budget. I do realize that it's easy for anyone to simply claim that this budget is a deficit budget. However, I will, within the time that I have, clearly point out the specific areas in this budget that point to an unmistakable conclusion of a deficit budget.

The Liberal government budget includes unrealistic shortsighted, ill-conceived real estate sales from sales that have not been realized, yet the revenues are on the books. It also includes annual B.C. Hydro dividends, which gives the mistaken message that B.C. Hydro has made a profit where none exists. They also include unrealistic cuts to the health budget and B.C. housing, cuts in forestry and cuts in post-secondary education and skills training, to name a few.

There is no mention of the film industry, mining, climate change and the environment. The HST — incredibly, not mentioned. Not a word about money from the prosperity fund, the central theme of the throne speech.

First, let us take a look at the real estate sales component of the government asset liquidation. The plan in-

[ Page 13253 ]

cludes the sale of land worth $475 million in the 2013-14 fiscal year and up to a total of $625 million for the two years. Let me say that there may be sound reasons for government to, at times, sell surplus real estate properties. That has happened. However, the systematic wholesale liquidation of Crown-owned real estate of this magnitude is not a normal occurrence, nor is it a sound decision.

These actions by the B.C. Liberals are a one-time fire sale designed to bolster their political fortunes in the May election. The sales have not been completed. How can the government be sure of the sale or the proceeds of such transactions?

As respected economist Don Drummond stated…. He advised the Ontario government that if assets have not been sold, never incorporate the revenues from such planned sales into the budget prior to the sales. Yet this is what the Finance Minister has done, and in a big way.

[1505]

Why sell? What is the hurry? Where's the compelling reason? It is my opinion that this is a shortsighted political gimmick. In a growing Lower Mainland and throughout this province useful real estate needs to be managed properly. Government land holdings need to be reserved for all British Columbians.

Once sold, these assets will be gone forever, and if needed in the future, government would be forced to pay much higher prices to get them back. Serious economic decisions require this forward-looking perspective, but this government is acting in a shortsighted way, and they're only motivated by politics.

There seems to be a B.C. Liberal fixation on appearing to have a balanced budget prior to the May election. That is not good reasoning. There are better choices to make sure that the financial future of British Columbia is assured.

If the Liberals really had the best interest of British Columbians in mind, they would explore better, more economically sound options for these so-called surplus lands — options that would ensure land ownership remains in government hands and, as well, options that would secure sustainable, yearly, long-term income for the government.

Selling real estate assets for one-time revenues to attempt to balance an operating budget is not sustainable for government, nor is it sustainable for business. One-time revenues should only be used for one-time expenses. Nobody would argue with that.

A better and more financially sound option would be to utilize surplus real estate by first upzoning land for highest and best use and making lands available for lease opportunities that would be presented by investors like pension funds and business investors to capture sustainable, long-term rental income. This fiscally prudent action would have resulted in sustainable yearly revenues that could and would be used as operating funds in the budget.

I'll give you some examples of where this plan would be very useful. Take a look at the Little Mountain lands — a large acreage in a growing area; close to transit; suitable for mixed-use development, different housing forms, including affordable housing; as well as retail space and commercial space.

Take a look at another site, the 25-acre Pearson hospital, Dogwood health care on 52nd and Cambie — again, in an area where it is served by public transit. Where growth is needed, similar opportunities would exist. There are 14 other sites ID'd in the 2013-14 budget and then another 65 unknown sites that have been identified as surplus lands in the following years.

I wouldn't be standing up here speaking about something that I don't have any experience on. I will give you some ideas. I'm not speaking about opportunities that are groundbreaking, Mr. Speaker. I am talking about what is commonplace.

[1510]

In my experience as mayor for the city of Port Moody for 12 years, we faced a financially uncertain future over the 12-year span. I and my council did exactly what I'm suggesting the Liberal government ought to do here as a sustainable financial alternative to selling real estate. We negotiated deals on city-owned lands to secure long-term sustainable revenues. I'll give you some examples. For a small city of 33,000 people, these are some of the examples.

We leased land at Rocky Point Park to a restaurant, which brings in $240,000 per year. That is happening today, and it will happen into the future. There was an affordable housing site. Again, we leased the land, and we are receiving $150,000 per year. We rented office space on a parcel of land that we built, and we are receiving $100,000 per year from some tenants.

These are three perhaps minor opportunities, but the point is that there are ways to invest in those lands so that future generations would take advantage of it, and future taxpayers would be able to have their taxes defrayed because of the income.

Those were done years ago. The city is currently enjoying these benefits right now. The income, because it is sustainable, can be used for the operating budget. That is what sound business decisions look like. For a government that claims to have business knowledge, it is sure making poor business decisions. Or is there in fact another motive — that is, a selfish, shortsighted plan to sell as many real estate assets as possible in the attempt to give the illusion of a balanced budget to bolster the political fortunes in the upcoming May election?

Regardless, either motive points to a government that is not doing its job, not looking after the interests of British Columbians. Counting on $475 million of one-time land sales in the 2013-2014 fiscal year — sales that have not taken place — is neither looking after the interests of British Columbians, nor does it point to a bal-

[ Page 13254 ]

anced operating budget.

This huge item alone demonstrates that the 2013-14 Liberal budget is truly a deficit budget. There is more, much more, like the item about the Finance Minister is counting on dividends from B.C. Hydro, giving the mistaken message that B.C. Hydro is profitable. The taking of $245 million from B.C. Hydro as a dividend is not realistic, as B.C. Hydro borrows large sums of money and then pays dividends to the tune of $245 million so that, I guess, the Liberal government can give the illusion of a balanced budget.

The Liberal government is employing the deferral account method, which was denounced by the Auditor General a year or so ago, and taking the $245 million from B.C. Hydro's profit, where there is none. This is not a prudent action, nor, may I suggest, is it sustainable for the government. There will be a day of reckoning. This action is taking from future generations, and it's taking away from our youth.

[1515]

Now I want to talk about some unrealistic cuts in this budget, and I want to look at housing, my critic area. The service plan for B.C. Housing does not include a single change in the ministry's goals, priorities or strategies relative to housing.

The ministry service plan does not reflect the situation that too many B.C. families face, particularly the working poor, seniors, homeless, First Nations and vulnerable people suffering from mental health issues, addictions and other challenges.

I want to make a point that without adequate housing help, these people will continue to suffer and put more pressure on emergency shelters, hospital emergency wards, public safety services and volunteer organizations, to name a few, and will, in the end, result in more budgetary pressures on the government.

Recent reports are showing that there are 200,000 households in B.C. living in core housing need — that is, spending more than 30 percent of income on housing. Overall, homelessness is increasing across B.C. Recent homeless counts have shown that even though street homelessness has been reduced with the increase of homeless shelters, overall homelessness numbers are still up over the previous year and increasing. This is likely to continue over the next few years, due to the recent recession and the expectations in the economy.

There is a serious shortage of housing for people living on low incomes, and there are three- to five-year waiting lists for B.C. Housing. The government is way behind

schedule on its single-room-occupancy projects, which it first promised in 2007. Over the last five years the Liberal government has only created a net increase of 280 social housing units. Yet the government has put little focus on the importance of housing for low-income families who have the hardest time finding affordable housing options in B.C.

I know this firsthand. I have been around the province for the past six months, and let me tell you, the story is not pretty. I have visited cities in the Okanagan, the east and west Kootenays, the Cariboo area, all over Vancouver Island and throughout the Lower Mainland. The stories make me feel that there are forgotten people out there — seniors, young people, women at risk, low-income, marginalized people. They exist, and they are waiting for housing throughout this province, and not much is being done.

Recent budgets have illustrated that housing is not a priority for this government. For example, the overall budget for B.C. Housing in 2012 was cut by $139.4 million, or 18 percent, year over year. Housing subsidies were cut by 26.9 percent.

The 2013-14 budget offers more of the same. Despite the number of homeless and persons requiring assistance being 5 percent and 7 percent respectively, the operating budget has been reduced by $2.4 million.

B.C. Housing plans to spend $30 million less in the 2013-14 budget. B.C. Housing capital funds are reduced by $11 million, in spite of affordable housing needs provincewide. The number of new beds proposed, including priority areas, has been reduced by 250.

[1520]

B.C. Housing, by reducing its target for the number of homeless who will remain housed after six months from 85 percent down to 75 percent, is predicting that homelessness will worsen. Yet this government is doing less and, with this budget, is planning to do even less.

Now let's look at the Health budget. The 2012-2013 Health budget that was forecast from last year called for a 3.7 percent increase for the 2013-14 budget, yet the budget just tabled has lowered that increase down to 2.6 percent. This is a decrease of $236 million.

Within the 2.6 increase we need to account for 1.5 percent inflation, population growth, aging demographics and funding for hiring nurses, which is a government contractual obligation.

Well, the most junior accountant would spot something wrong with this lack of accountability. This begs the question: what does the Liberal government plan to cut within the health services to match this cut in funding growth?

Waiting lists will go up. Emergency wards will overflow. Mental health service care will deteriorate even further. If the government doesn't agree with this list showing the impacts on health services delivery, then the government needs to give British Columbians the list that they have. What do they anticipate?

They need to tell British Columbians what impact this budget will have on health care provincewide. Is the Liberal government willing to accept the overall deterioration of health service? That is what this budget plans for.

A couple of words about forestry. The $35 million cut in the forestry budget further negatively impacts forest

[ Page 13255 ]

re-inventory, replacing and managing the forest resource. Forestry is an important resource industry in this province. This Liberal government's forestry policies have contributed to the loss of thousands of jobs in this province. Now it seems the government has given up entirely.

The film industry. No help for the film industry. B.C. lost 3,500 direct and spinoff film and television production jobs during the year ending March 31, 2012, while Ontario gained 8,000 jobs, according to the Vancouver Sun report last week. In dollar value, that is a loss of $134 million to the B.C. economy.

B.C.'s share of Canadian film and television production fell by 8 percent, to $1.58 billion. The future of this vital B.C. industry is deteriorating rapidly. This Liberal government is happy to pay $11 million to host the Times of India Film Awards — prior to the May election, may I add — while our TV and film industry is struggling to survive.

A bit about post-secondary education and skills training. Without exception, business leaders that I have met throughout this province ask with a common voice that the province fund post-secondary and skills-training programs. And 80 percent of jobs in the near future, if not presently, will need some sort of post-secondary education, yet the Liberal government is cutting operating funds for post-secondary education.

There is a $46 million cut to the Ministry of Advanced Education over the next three years, adding to the $50 million in cuts in the last budget. Educators in a united voice are condemning these cuts.

[1525]

Again, Don Drummond, the noted economist I mentioned earlier, has stated that if you are looking for places to cut the budget, advanced education is not the place to cut. This Liberal government thinks that it can gamble the future of our youth and with it the future prosperity of British Columbia.

Now, there's an obscure item which calls for selling of financial instruments. The government plan to sell public assets also includes the disposal of millions of dollars worth of some mysterious financial instruments. The Minister of Finance alluded to this action in the budget presentation last week but only in a brief, cryptic reference.

A report in the Vancouver Sun newspaper, following an interview with the minister, has the minister confirming that the Liberal government plans to sell such mysterious financial assets to realize income of $125 million in the coming year. The minister is quoted as saying: "These financial instruments are things the ministry of the government from time to time sell." He would not elaborate, he said, because "they are very, very market-sensitive and more disclosure could compromise the selling price on the open market."

Further information released — later, I assume — spoke about these assets as bonds, derivatives or promissory notes. The $125 million profit resulting from these financial asset sales means that hundreds of millions of dollars worth of these instruments would have to be sold. I ask: how realistic is that?

I believe that I have carefully outlined some of the key areas that point to the undeniable truth that the B.C. Liberal 2013-2014 budget is a deficit budget. It is the fifth consecutive deficit budget for this government.

The only question remaining is: what would the amount of the deficit be if this budget was to be adopted? Well, we may never know the answer to that question.

Thank you for the opportunity, Mr. Speaker.

J. Les: It's an honour for me to be able to rise this afternoon to respond to the budget. This will be my last opportunity to do so. Given that, I am particularly pleased that I am able to respond to a budget that's balanced.

Listening to the comments from members opposite, one thing that strikes me right off the top is that the same writer has written all of their speeches and didn't have an original thought from beginning to end. It is simply the same thing regurgitated over and over again, regardless of how wrong it might be.

This budget is truly balanced, and numerous commentaries from people who study these things bear that out. We've taken a very cautious and a very prudent approach to the budget. We've even gone so far as bringing in outside experts to verify the revenue projections and adjusting those accordingly. I think we can certainly say to British Columbians that not only is this budget balanced, but it was carefully balanced, and it was done in a way that withstands scrutiny.

Now, it is actually very important to me personally as a legislator, as a father and as a grandfather to be able to say that the budget is balanced. I am tired, frankly, of governments almost everywhere taking such a casual approach to deficit budgeting.

Deficit budgeting is nothing more than robbing the future to pay today's needs, taking from our children and grandchildren so that we can have things today. That's what deficit budgeting is, and it's been engaged in far too often by governments everywhere.

[1530]

I am pleased that British Columbia is now the second province, post-recession, to be able to say that we have a balanced budget.

We see governments right across Canada, provincial governments to be sure…. Alberta, for example — billions and billions in deficit. Manitoba, an NDP government — billions in deficit. Ontario, frankly, has billions upon billions in deficit, with no idea how they're ever going to get back to a balanced situation. The Quebec government — I'm not sure if they even remember when they last had a balanced budget. And on it goes.

All of those bills, though, are either going to come due, or subsequent generations are going to have to continue

[ Page 13256 ]

to pay the interest on those ever-accumulating deficits, further restricting the policy options that governments of the future are going to have at their disposal. That is the tragedy of ongoing deficits.

Look at the United States. They're currently adding about $1.4 trillion a year to their deficits, to their accumulating debt. Frankly, there is no plan as to how to get out of that vicious cycle. Their policy options at the city, state and federal levels in the United States are very quickly narrowing. As I said, they really don't seem to have too much of a plan as to how they're going to get out of it, short of bankruptcy.

Balancing budgets is extremely important. Over the last decade we have balanced a number of times. Of course, the members of the official opposition take no end of delight in pointing out that the 2009 budget went deeper into deficit than was originally anticipated.

Interjection.

J. Les: Yes, it did.

Now, British Columbians, I think, are fair-minded people. They will also readily understand that we were then in the midst of the greatest recession since probably the 1930s, and our budget indeed went from a deficit of $495 million to a deficit of $1.8 billion. For sure, it did.

When you compare that to the extreme worsening of fiscal conditions that happened in other jurisdictions, I think you'll easily come to the conclusion that it wasn't nearly as bad as it might have been. It was the careful financial management that had preceded those years that allowed us to not go as deeply into deficit as we otherwise might have done.

So here we are. We're dealing with the budget of 2013-2014. Happily, it's back in a balanced situation, and it also anticipates the two subsequent budgets beyond this fiscal year being balanced as well.

Now, I see members opposite making light of the fact and thinking this is all very humorous. We know that their leader has already dismissed the importance of balanced budgets. Their Finance critic has said: "Oh, maybe we would balance, if we were government, in four or five years. Whatever. It's not important." The Leader of the Opposition has said one of the first things that he'd be interested in would be to repeal the balanced-budget legislation.

It's not important to balance the budget, to members of the NDP. We saw that in the '90s. Most of their budgets were in deficit. They had six credit-rating downgrades — six credit-rating downgrades while the NDP were in office.

We had to work awfully hard since 2001 to undo all of those credit-rating downgrades to where we today enjoy — and we continue to enjoy — a triple-A credit rating here in the province of British Columbia. The members opposite can heckle all they like, but those are the facts — credit-rating downgrades under the NDP and a triple-A credit rating under a B.C. Liberal government.

So how do you achieve a balanced budget? Well, I can tell you it's not easy. It involves saying no a lot more times than you would say yes to different spending ideas. Basically, what we have said is that we're going to constrain spending.

Spending in this budget is up by 1.5 percent, which might sound familiar. It's roughly equal to the current rate of inflation — a pretty responsible thing to do. Actually, it's 1.5 percent and then your revenue growth, which we have in this budget, of about 3 percent, so revenues continue to improve. Although somewhat modestly, they are improving.

[1535]

We have a 3 percent increase in revenue, a 1.5 percent increase in spending. In a few broad strokes, that produces for the province a balanced budget. But as I said, it's not easy. There are a lot of other things that…. I'm sure if members opposite could sit down, as they often do, and suggest areas where we need to spend more money, soon you'll be spending billions more.

Although members opposite have been a little unclear from time to time — very unclear, actually — in terms of what their policy options would be, sometimes it's interesting to listen to their friends and supporters. The Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, I find, often echoes the policy preferences of the NDP.

One of their staff, a person by the name of Iglika Ivanova, was speculating on the budget, I think about a month ago, and suggesting what she thinks would be appropriate policy options. I listened fairly clearly as she was speaking and thought this might be as close as I'll ever get to understanding what the plans of the NDP opposition might be.

She suggested that there should be approximately another $3 billion worth of taxation levied on British Columbians. I thought: "Oh, that's interesting. That sounds to me like it could be a 10 percent provincial sales tax when we get back to the PST." That's roughly what that would equate to.

I wonder how excited British Columbians would be at the notion of a 10 percent provincial sales tax, because if their cousins in the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives had their way, you would need about that kind of revenue to fulfil their spending ambitions. I think it's just important to reflect on that.

Members opposite, as I said, give us precious little in terms of specifics. We heard from the member who spoke before me that it is unwise to sell government properties, although NDP governments did that in the 1990s. And where we have surplus properties, we continue to dispose of them. But I guess the member opposite and I have a slightly different philosophy in respect of that.

He related his experience when he was mayor of Port Moody. I was mayor of Chilliwack for 13 years, and when

[ Page 13257 ]

we had surplus property to dispose of, we indeed did dispose of it. Private sector investors invested in that property. They started paying property taxes on that property.

They continue to pay property taxes on those properties — very nice restaurant properties, very nice office buildings in private hands, producing private sector revenue, private sector jobs, property taxes for the municipality, sales taxes for the provincial government. I would suggest it's a very sustainable situation. It gets the provincial government — or, in that case, the civic government — out of the necessity of managing a large real estate portfolio, which they really don't need to be doing.

This is a budget that I think continues along that philosophy of government creating the conditions in which the private sector can expand and thrive. It controls spending. It focuses on growing the economy and not on growing government.

You'll see modest reductions in staffing where it's possible to do that. We think that's the responsible way to grow. Bigger governments do not necessarily at all translate into bigger economies. Usually it's the opposite.

Members opposite have their particular points of view as to: what about this budget? But there are independent validators across this province. I know that members of the opposition from time to time quote these exact same people, so I'll quote them this afternoon as well.

From the Vancouver Board of Trade. They represent thousands of businesses in the Lower Mainland, and they assigned what they characterize as a B-plus rating to the 2013 provincial budget, based on the criteria of debt reduction, spending restraint, tax competitiveness and the overall economic vision. These aren't my words. These came from the Vancouver Board of Trade.

[1540]

We saw this commentary in the Globe and Mail . The Premier and the Finance Minister "deserve praise for a sober pre-election budget which does not attempt to buy the voters with their own money" — not my words, the Globe and Mail .

John Winter. As members opposite will know, he's the president of the B.C. Chamber of Commerce. He said: "Good on them for living up to the commitment to balance the budget. It's hard to do, but I think it's realistic."

We also heard from Roslyn Kunin. Members opposite, I'm sure, are quite familiar with Roslyn Kunin from the Canada West Foundation. She said: "It's probably more balanced, in all senses of the word, and more realistic than any budget that I have ever seen." I thought it a pretty interesting validation from Roslyn. She's not particularly a political person but calls them as she sees them, so I was very pleased to see that.

We did have to implement a couple of modest taxation increases in the budget. It's not something we've been known to do as a B.C. Liberal government, where we've prided ourselves over the years on maintaining amongst the lowest taxes in all categories in all of Canada, if not North America.

We have increased the taxes on tobacco by $2 a carton. There is a 2.1 percent increase on net income over $150,000 per individual. The general corporate tax is up by 1 percent for two years, and the small business rate, of course, stays where it is.

I would suggest to you that these are modest increases. In the case of the general corporate rate, it has a two-year sunset clause attached to it. They're modest and responsible, and they are certainly helpful in balancing the budget and making sure that we stop the flow of red ink in the province of British Columbia and not add to the debt of future generations.

Again, I'm not going to take too much more time. I find it comforting that in British Columbia we're no longer adding to the debt. We have a set of economic and fiscal conditions in the province that will allow our private sector economy to grow, to continue to create jobs.

The job creation record here in the province of British Columbia has been one of our country's best over the last decade. It also sets the stage, by wise investments in skills training, to make sure that we have the workforce to support the exciting new industries that are opening up, particularly in the northeast and in the northwest of this province. I'll have more to say about that in my response to the Speech from the Throne sometime in the next number of days.

All in all, as I said before, each of us would have a wish list, I am sure, on which we would really love to spend more money. But when your spending is constrained, when you're forced to act responsibly….

I think this budget is a great reflection of the current realities and the current situation that we find ourselves in not just here in the province of British Columbia but globally around the world. These are very troubled financial times, with many governments, frankly, with no idea as to what tomorrow is going to look like for them.

In British Columbia we do have a future, and it's a very clear future of investments in the economy that are going to enable revenues to flow to the provincial government in a very healthy fashion in years ahead so that we can continue to support important programs like health care, like education, like post-secondary education and many, many others that are so important to British Columbians.

Underlying all of that is, very fundamentally, a solid budget. I'm very pleased to be part of a government that has once again delivered a solid budget on which British Columbians can count to continue to grow the future and prosper.

S. Hammell: Hon. Speaker, nearly two weeks ago this government brought down a pre-election budget for 2013 full of promises to take into the upcoming election. On closer examination, it immediately became clear that the budget is in fact empty of the means to fulfil those promises.

[ Page 13258 ]

[1545]

The budget came down a few days after a throne speech that was similar in character. The throne speech contained many promises about what would happen five, ten, 30 years out, based on looking at a crystal ball that saw liquefied natural gas paying vastly increased revenues to support government programs. That throne speech laid out a fantastic future of prosperity funds, renewed services and disappearing sales taxes in the distant future, beyond the next term of government and, frankly, quite unbelievable.

When some in Alberta are musing about instituting a sales tax, this government, sometime in the future, can see in their crystal ball a future when they can go poof, and there'll be no sales tax.

Now with another sleight of hand, we have a budget that this government claims is balanced. The federal government is not tabling a balanced budget. The Alberta government is not tabling a balanced budget. Nor are many of the other provinces, as has been mentioned before me.

Yet this government and its Finance Minister are not only trying to convince this House that the budget is balanced; they are wasting $17 million of taxpayers' money on television commercials to convince British Columbians that the government's budget is balanced.

These advertisements are designed to try to make voters forget that on the eve of our last election four years ago this B.C. Liberal government brought in a budget that promised a deficit of only $495 million. Once that election was over, the deficit turned into a gigantic $3 billion of red ink, and we haven't seen a balanced budget since. This is the fifth consecutive deficit budget that this government has tabled here in this House.

These same B.C. Liberals have almost promised in the previous election budget that year that we wouldn't have a harmonized sales tax. That was another broken promise, and it was broken in spectacular fashion. Just in case anyone forgot, the PST in four weeks will be returned. Our businesses and consumers will have to go through another difficult tax change that flowed from that broken promise.

Now we are on the eve of another election. We have another pre-election budget from this government, and it is unbelievable. It tests credibility entirely that we could have gone from the last deficit of $1.2 billion that was promised for last year — at least $1.2 billion in deficit — to a $200 million surplus this year.

During five years of recession, one that this government did not prepare British Columbians for, they have suffered with reduced opportunities, fewer jobs, higher fees and diminished levels of service from this government. Beyond the soothing words about levels of low income taxes is the reality of higher taxes that have hit working British Columbians hard. The prime example of this is the skyrocketing Medical Services Plan premiums, which will go up again under this government's plan for the coming year.

British Columbians know better than to believe that this budget will be balanced — not from a government that regularly promises balanced budgets and, in fact, legislates balanced budgets but fails to deliver more often than it has succeeded and not from a government that has failed to balance a budget in this current mandate.

[1550]

Unfortunately, this charade will be executed in the worst possible fashion. That's by selling off capital assets to pay for operating costs.

Selling off capital assets to pay for operating costs is not sustainable. This fire sale of assets smacks of desperation. Again, it is a strategy, to put it kindly, that is not sustainable. It's a strategy that may not even succeed on its own terms.

The Finance Minister says a total of $800 million will accrue from this fire sale of our assets. My colleague from Surrey-Whalley has quoted Don Drummond, a bank economist, warning against counting chickens before they are hatched in such asset sales.

The centrepiece of this government's fire sale hits close to home for me and my constituents in Surrey–Green Timbers, as a parcel of land strategically located near the geographic centre of the city of Surrey is up for sale. The Minister of Health hoped to see this 13-acre site used for hospital expansion. It's a good location for future health services, located by a central traffic route and major public transportation routes.

Right now there is an expansion underway at Surrey Memorial Hospital, after many, many delays. But the population of Surrey, now at over 400,000, is growing by 10,000 to 12,000 people a year, and the value of the land that is to be sold by the government is growing along with it.

There is plenty of reason to think that the day is not far away when a substantial expansion of health care services will again be needed for Surrey. Surrey Memorial is the only hospital inside the Surrey boundaries. But this government is so desperate to appear to balance its budget that it wants to sell this land and ignore the consequences. I have spoken of this matter before in this House, about the importance of this piece of land.

On the day he presented his budget, the Finance Minister went on television and told the media that this was a good example of surplus land sales. Not true. Just not true. What makes this fire sale sadder is that the proceeds will go to help pay for this government's relentless delivering of taxpayer-financed partisan advertising, advertising that is trying to convince the people of British Columbia that this bogus budget is actually balanced.

This government is spending money on partisan ads when the money would be better spent providing more child care. Child care remains one of the biggest issues facing British Columbia families today. Across the pol-

[ Page 13259 ]

itical spectrum people are understanding that this is an economic issue, allowing women and men to go to work and know that their families are being well cared for.

For 12 years this government has done nothing to help B.C. families looking for better child care. Instead, it has made child care more expensive and harder to find. Eleven years ago this government took $40 million away from child care and never restored it. When the Conservative government in Ottawa cancelled federal transfers for child care, this government was the only province in Canada that passed those cuts along to families and service providers. Child care in B.C. is in a crisis.

It was no surprise to hear big promises in the throne speech that opened this session, but the promises were not matched in the budget. In the coming year the government will spend an additional $6 million for child care services, less than the money being spent on partisan ads. More money is promised for child care in later years, but we know what happens to pre-election promises that are made by this B.C. Liberal government.

When this budget promised some modest tax benefit of $55 a month per child for families, those that are eligible can use this money to help with child care. But today many families are paying more than $1,000 a month or more for child care, so this benefit won't make a significant difference.

[1555]

This benefit doesn't take effect for another two years. Again, this is another promise that can vanish without a trace once the election is safely over and done with.

After this budget B.C. families are still looking for change, from growing waiting lists and higher fees for child care. It will take years to repair the damage this government has done to child care in this province. This budget is disingenuous in the extreme to be saying to the families of B.C. children that this budget will make it easier to find affordable, quality child care.

The outstanding health care measure of this budget is a 4 percent increase in Medical Services Plan premiums, a tax that is too regressive for other provinces. The policy of this government previously was that the medical services premiums would not be higher than the increase in the health care budget. This increase means that the government will take in $2.39 billion from this tax from hard-working British Columbians — more than the government takes from corporations.

As for health care services, tight money continues. I wonder whether health care authorities will be asked again, like they were after the last election, to make further cuts in badly needed health care services by the B.C. Liberals.

When children go to school in the education system, they will find that nothing has changed, because there's nothing in this throne speech to improve our schools. Education is again frozen.

There is advanced training and skills training. Now, when this government's partisan advertising campaign isn't showing falling dominoes, it's talking about skills training that British Columbians need and want to get ahead in today's economy. So what is there in this budget to back up the television ads? Nothing. Absolutely nothing.

In fact, this budget contains fewer student spaces in colleges and universities, cuts to student assistance and less money for advanced education. There's no new money for apprenticeships or industry training. So much for partisan public ads.

This budget is also silent about climate change when we need to take action to face up to this problem. This government is silent. We have a carbon tax, and it could be used to fund transit and other measures to reduce carbon emissions.

Then again, there is a problem whose growth will always be associated with this government: poverty. We need a poverty strategy to address this problem in a province which has some of the highest poverty rates in Canada, yet the budget is silent.

The silence on these important matters shows that the government is out of step with the realities faced every day by British Columbians. This budget is the final one of this government's electoral mandate. The four years that have gone by since the last election have been a dead loss for British Columbians looking for leadership and for help from their provincial government.

The first two years of this mandate saw this government attempt to implement a major tax change that they didn't dare talk about in the last election campaign. Soon that tax change will be consigned to the history books, but not until we get through one more round of economic and bureaucratic dislocation.

In the past two years a new Premier has tried and failed to get British Columbians to forget about the errors committed by this government. Now the government is running out of credibility. It is desperately looking for quick fixes and quick wins. With an expensive barrage of government advertising claiming this budget is balanced, the members opposite are once again trying to convince British Columbians that they are worthy and should be re-elected.

[1600]

The voters are also growing to appreciate the leadership of the member for Vancouver-Kingsway and his colleagues on this side of the House, who are offering a new vision and a new set of practical policies. Soon the voters will render their verdict on this government and this budget. I'm sure that the verdict will be a condemnation of this worn-out government and this empty budget.

D. Horne: It's with pleasure that I stand again in the House today to speak on Budget 2013. As Chair of the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services during last fall's budget consultations, it's with

[ Page 13260 ]

great pleasure that I see that the budget is balanced. It was one thing that I was very proud of in last fall's report. That was that we did get a unanimous report, meaning that both this side of the House and that side of the House agreed on the importance of balancing the budget.

[D. Black in the chair.]

That's what we heard throughout British Columbia as we toured from the Lower Mainland, on the Island, central British Columbia and the north. We heard it over and over again. It became one of the central themes of our report and what we heard over and over again.

It's interesting, because since we've had that report…. The member for Surrey-Whalley, the Finance critic, sat on that committee and agreed to that recommendation. It seems that he has now come to the position that he believes that it's far too difficult to balance the budget and achieve what British Columbians would like.

I also find it interesting, as the member for Chilliwack said earlier as he was addressing the House…. It's interesting, because as we listen to the opposite side of the House, they seem to…. It's the same thing said over and over and over again. One of the most unique things that I find quite humorous, actually, is that each of the members…. The member for Surrey–Green Timbers, who just spoke, actually attributed this comment to the member for Surrey-Whalley rather than to Drummond, who actually wrote the report in Ontario.

Each and every one of the members on the opposite side has quoted a portion, recommendation 3-5 of the Drummond report in Ontario, which talks about the sale of assets. Actually, the Drummond report more holistically talks about the sale of assets overall. It talks about….

Ontario is contemplating selling off some fairly significant operating assets, including their gaming operations and a number of other operating Crown corporations. The difficulty is that there's a difference between selling off operating assets and selling off capital assets like property and land and buildings. The difficulty is when you take the report and you take a certain portion of it and don't sort of deal with the entirety of it. It's interesting that you can reach the conclusions.

Obviously, what the members opposite have said over and over, repeatedly, is that if assets are to be sold, you don't incorporate the revenue. It goes on to basically say the reason why you don't do that is because there's uncertainty over the accounting treatment and the ultimate market value and a number of other issues which go, really, more to an operating asset than a capital asset.

It's interesting, because oftentimes what the members opposite will do is they'll talk about the fact that…. They'll read the Drummond report and say that you can't incorporate it. Then they'll talk about the Little Mountain property, and they'll make a point of the fact that that was included in a budget previously — trying to say that it might not be able to be included this time. But it's an interesting thing because members opposite fully understand.

The most unique part of the whole exercise, though, is that the members opposite fail to read the first part of recommendation 3-5. Given their absolute excitement and their willingness to sort of completely embrace the Drummond report, I find it very, very interesting that the first few sentences of recommendation 3-5 in the Drummond report haven't been mentioned by a single member on the opposite side.

I feel it's important that perhaps I read that. Recommendation 3-5 from the Drummond report says: "Do not hang on to public assets or public service delivery when better options exist. Consider privatizing assets and moving to the private delivery of services wherever feasible. We suggest pursuing this course only when the public can get better value for money spent without compromising access to services, not for ideological reasons."

[1605]

It's interesting that the members opposite never read the first part of the recommendation. It's the second part. The other half, I guess, fits within the message that they want to deliver. Obviously, that's very important for them to incorporate into their messaging. But the first part, perhaps, isn't so much on what they'd like to do.

The report actually goes on, and it mentions time after time…. The member for Port Moody–Coquitlam earlier today said: "Oh, well, we need to hold on to these assets. We need to make sure that we hold on to them forever." Even the member for Surrey–Green Timbers mentioned the fact that we purchased a piece of property in Surrey to build a health facility. That health facility is now being built on another location, but all of a sudden we need to keep that asset forever.

I find the most humorous part of it is that the member from Port Moody–Coquitlam actually used to make money…. His occupation was in property development, actually building things and moving things forward and in that business. So for him to go from a point where that's how he used to make his money to basically saying, "No, no, no, let's never sell a piece of property again," I find very, very humorous.

The other issue that's brought up from time to time on the other side is the treatment by B.C. Hydro, of its accounting — how it operates and the use of deferral accounts. I find this interesting as well, because person after person has gone up on the other side and said, "Oh, my gosh."

I think that one of the members, if my recollection is right, actually stood up and called this a made-in-British-Columbia accounting practi