2009 Legislative Session: First 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)

Wednesday, September 16, 2009

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 2, Number 5

CONTENTS

Page

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

Sarah M c Lachlan Foundation concert

J. McIntyre

Skeena River swim by Ali Howard

D. Donaldson

Robbie Thompson and World Transplant Games

D. McRae

Terrace and Hockeyville event

R. Austin

50 th anniversary of Fort St. John Petroleum Association

P. Pimm

25 th anniversary of Craigilea Housing Co-operative

R. Fleming

Oral Questions

Federal funding for infrastructure projects

C. James

Hon. S. Bond

B. Ralston

S. Fraser

D. Donaldson

M. Farnworth

Funding for repairs at Johnston Heights Secondary School

J. Brar

Hon. M. MacDiarmid

Mining exploration permit in Flathead Valley area

R. Fleming

Hon. B. Lekstrom

Orders of the Day

Budget Debate (continued)

D. Hayer

M. Karagianis

P. Pimm

S. Fraser

Hon. M. MacDiarmid

N. Macdonald

Hon. P. Bell

S. Simpson

T. Lake

[ Page 435 ]

WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 16, 2009

The House met at 1:33 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

Introductions by Members

C. James: Mr. Speaker, I have three guests visiting the Legislature today. The first is an individual — a retired teacher, an activist, a person very active in his community — Bob Pettit, who is here visiting from Vernon. He's visiting with his two great hosts, who are members of my constituency, Ian and Robyn Whitbread. Would the House please make these three people very welcome.

N. Simons: Today in the House we have visitors who I hope the House will join me in welcoming. The first is Gregg Dow of Save Our Ferries. It's never too late. Joining us also in the House are Chris Boag, Gord Christmas and Ann Stefanyk. I would like the House to please make them welcome.

J. Rustad: I am pleased to rise today to introduce representatives of the Applied Science Technologists and Technicians of B.C., an organization representing over 9,400 technologists, technicians and technical specialists in the province. They've been serving the province for over the last 50 years.

Their executive director, John Leech, is visiting today with several members of the House. With John are Sarah Campden, chair of the ASTTBC's women in technology program; and Keith Trulson, a member of the ASTTBC's governing council. Would the House please make them feel welcome.

[1335]

J. Horgan: I want to acknowledge to those in the House the presence in the gallery of my very, very good friend Fred Hiigli, a representative from the riding of Victoria–Swan Lake. Would the House please make Fred very, very welcome. He's a tireless advocate for social justice and an awfully good realtor. If you need anybody, call Fred.

R. Fleming: I would like to introduce to the House a friend of mine, Rob Mealey, who is here with his spouse, Gerlis Fugman. I want the House to make them feel welcome. They apparently watch the Legislature on a regular basis. Maybe it's the secret to their new and happy marriage. I would also like the House to congratulate them on being wed on August 22 of this summer.

J. Les: I just noticed in the gallery a constituent of mine who is here this afternoon, Mr. Theo Vandeweg, who is also the assistant inspector of independent schools in British Columbia. Would the House please make him welcome.

Hon. P. Bell: I wanted to also acknowledge, with my colleague the member for Nechako Lakes, the presence of John Leech in the gallery. John grew up in the home that I now live in and have lived in for quite some time, and I appreciate that he left it in wonderful condition over the years. Again, welcome to John Leech.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

SARAH M c LACHLAN FOUNDATION CONCERT

J. McIntyre: I rise to pay tribute to the Sarah McLachlan Foundation, which just sponsored an amazing fundraising concert in Ambleside Park in West Vancouver in support of the artists' music outreach program. It was a magical late-summer evening last Saturday, where almost 10,000 enthusiastic fans were mesmerized by the outdoor performances of Sheryl Crow, Neil Young and Sarah McLachlan herself, in very fine form.

The Sarah McLachlan music outreach, an Arts Umbrella project, brings music into the lives of Vancouver's inner-city children in grades 3 to 12. More than 200 students receive group and individual instruction in guitar, piano, percussion and choir through a repertoire of musical genres, including contemporary, jazz and world music. Public performances are an integral part of the program and allow students to develop skills, foster pride and reach out to the community.

Sarah McLachlan's childhood dream to open a free music school for inner-city youth is reflected in the foundation's mandate to bring music into the lives of young Canadians, to build self-esteem and to foster creativity through the power of song and sound. The start of a relationship with music has a lasting impact on all parts of a youngster's life.

The school is dedicated to helping young people find their voices to explore their creative potential. For that, British Columbians, and especially the youth who are so fortunate to participate, should be grateful to Sarah McLachlan for her vision and ability to develop this foundation, which, I might add, has been supported by the province in the past to the tune — no pun intended — of $500,000.

Our deep thanks should also go out to all the organizers, the sponsors, the mayor and the district of West Vancouver, including the West Vancouver police, for all their contributions in making the evening so seamless. This was a first for West Vancouver and likely a preview of the 2010 festivities to come — a memorable concert

[ Page 436 ]

with hints from Sarah McLachlan on stage of an encore presentation next year.

SKEENA RIVER SWIM BY ALI HOWARD

D. Donaldson: She swam over shallow gravel bars at the 4,000-foot headwaters. She bounced off rocks and canyons. She slingshotted out of whirlpools in class 4 rapids, and she fought her way through tidal waters. Her name is Ali Howard. On August 15 she became the first person to swim the Skeena River, 610 kilometres from its headwaters in the Klappan to where it joins the Pacific Ocean near Prince Rupert.

This 33-year-old woman from Smithers, a chef at the Bear Claw Lodge in the Kispiox valley, persevered for 28 days, often swimming eight hours a day in the cold waters. She is brave and courageous and was supported by an extremely skilled professional team, many of them members of the Skeena Watershed Conservation Coalition. I know that, because I jumped in and swam a 30-minute segment of the river with her and was only able to do that with any degree of confidence because of the support of her crew paddling nearby.

Ali did the swim to represent all living in the northwest concerned about the impact of proposed developments on the Skeena, like coalbed methane in the Sacred Headwaters, like the Enbridge pipeline that threatens important tributaries to the Skeena, and the oil supertanker traffic that is part of that project.

[1340]

Most of all, Ali swam to bring together communities along the Skeena, to challenge us to talk with each other about how we take care of our lifeblood, the Skeena River. Community members turned out in droves along the banks to welcome Ali.

From the Tahltan at the source; to the Gitxsan and the Wet'suwet'en and the Gitanyow on the main stem; to the Tsimshian at the mouth; from municipalities like Hazelton, New Hazelton, Telkwa, Smithers, Terrace, Port Edward and Prince Rupert — we stood as one on the banks of the Skeena during Ali's journey. Now we stand as one to salute her courage and dedication, and we vow to continue the journey she began for us by fighting for our river's health.

Thank you to Ali Howard for all you've done.

Robbie thompson

and world transplant games

D. McRae: I'd like to congratulate a young constituent of mine, Robbie Thompson. This 11-year-old young man has known more challenges than most people seven times his age. Moreover, through it all he has been selfless, heroic and a role model for all who meet him.

Robbie was born in 1998, and by the time he had reached five months of age, he was diagnosed with defective heart muscle tissue. After struggling with the condition and waiting for a donor, Robbie underwent a heart transplant surgery. Unfortunately, his body rejected that heart, and he had to receive a second one at the age of five.

It is hard to spend any time in the Comox Valley and not hear about this young man. This past summer Robbie had the opportunity to participate in the World Transplant Games in Australia. Over 1,500 athletes from 70 nations went Down Under to attend these games. All Transplant Games participants have received a life-saving organ transplant and are on a regime of immunosuppressant medication.

The games embrace all ages, from four years old to 85 years young, and all are invited to participate, provided they have receiving a life-saving organ transplant at least one year before the games takes place. The World Transplant Games are the single biggest organ donation and transplant awareness program in the world and a fantastic way of showing the world what a difference organ transplants can make.

Robbie is a poster child for why organ donation is so important. He decided he wanted to attend these games. Robbie blossomed athletically while training for the games. Last May he was only dog-paddling in the local pool, but by August he was able to swim five lengths. He also trained hard to compete with his age group in a cycling event.

While just competing in the games is a victory unto itself, I am pleased to announce that Robbie excelled in his events. Robbie won the gold medal for his age group in cycling and added two bronze medals in the pool.

People like Robbie Thompson are excellent examples of overcoming adversity and having a can-do attitude. Members of the Legislature, I ask you to recognize the achievements of Robbie Thompson and the importance of organ donations to our society.

Mr. Speaker: Member for Skeena, better known as Hockeyville.

Terrace and Hockeyville Event

R. Austin: On Monday I had the great privilege, along with the Premier, of attending an extraordinary community event in my hometown of Terrace. I am speaking, of course, of the culmination of an incredible few months of feverish buildup to winning Hockeyville 2009.

In a small town in northwestern B.C., every kid's dream came true, as some of the hockey stars of the NHL came to town and played a pre-season game. It's hard to describe what this has done to Terrace in terms of galvanizing the entire community with a spirit of excitement and optimism. Just under 1,000 were in the arena itself, but over 4,500 got to watch the Canucks

[ Page 437 ]

and Islanders outside in George Little Park on a giant TV screen.

Families lined up on Sunday for over two hours to have a picture taken with the Stanley Cup as well as meeting NHL alumni like Bryan Trottier, Dave Babych and Cliff Ronning. When news spread through town that Ron Maclean and Don Cherry had arrived, people were delirious.

In fact, the picture of Grapes arriving at the Terrace airport was on a local website in minutes, as though the messiah had arrived — on Air Canada, at that. I'm just not used to members of the media being treated with such adulation and respect. Everywhere they went, they were surrounded by throngs of people wanting autographs and photos.

Terrace winning Hockeyville, of course, was no accident. Recognition must be given to those whose dedication, enthusiasm and drive was the catalyst for this marvellous event. Hats off to all members of the Hockeyville committee, led by the incredible duo of Carol Fielding and Bob Park. They were assisted by our new Mayor, Dave Pernarowski, and the Terrace council.

To get 1.9 million votes for a small town takes lots of work, so thanks to all those who voted for Terrace, from the first nations communities to Prince Rupert, Kitimat and further east. On a personal note, I would like to thank the former MLA for Bulkley Valley–Stikine, Dennis MacKay, for his warm and generous support, which just helped to solidify support throughout the northwest.

[1345]

Many thanks also to Kraft Canada, the CBC and the NHL for making this all happen. The final note, though, the cream on this most wonderful cake, goes to our hockey heroes — the Vancouver Canucks 2, Islanders 1. Way to go, Terrace.

50 th ANNIVERSARY OF

FORT ST. JOHN PETROLEUM ASSOCIATION

P. Pimm: I stand today to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the Fort St. John Petroleum Association, one of the longest-serving petroleum clubs in the province of British Columbia.

The association is one where friends are made and business associations are grown. These are lifetime bonds that keep our oil and gas industry strong in our area.

This past August the 50th anniversary of this great organization was celebrated in Fort St. John from August 27 to August 29. The group put on a parade that displayed all the oil and gas equipment that's used on a daily basis in our area. They also had a golf tournament that was attended by 130 golfers, including MP Jay Hill and federal Finance Minister Jim Flaherty, who also was the keynote speaker on Thursday at an evening function that was attended by 265 people.

They also put on a riverboat run that saw 65 riverboats and about 140 people head up the Peace River for lunch and a day on the water. They also had a Saturday evening wrap-up banquet that saw 600 folks in attendance, including the mayor of Fort St. John; MP Jay Hill; Senator Richard Neufeld; B.C.'s Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources; myself; 27 past presidents of the association; and many other local politicians.

I'd like to congratulate Greg Hammond and Dave Middleton, who co-chaired the event, as well as their committee, who worked so hard to put the event on.

The association is the cornerstone of the oil and gas industry in Fort St. John, and the group should be very proud of its many accomplishments.

The association also named its oilman of the year on this evening, and I'd like to congratulate a very surprised co-chairman of the event, Greg Hammond, who is a very deserving oilman who has spent well over 30 years in the oil and gas industry in a variety of different companies that he started and made successful.

Congratulations, Greg.

25 th ANNIVERSARY OF

CRAIGILEA HOUSING CO-OPERATIVE

R. Fleming: This Saturday, September 19, the Craigilea Housing Co-operative is about to celebrate its 25th anniversary. Craigilea is at the heart of Tillicum-Gorge, a neighbourhood that is one of the fastest-growing in my region, a neighbourhood that is challenged by the high housing costs in this region. Greater Victoria is second in Canada only to Vancouver in terms of its housing costs.

Over the course of two decades, Craigilea Housing Co-op has become a community built on friendship and pride of place. It has provided many, many families with a place to call home. This cheerful oasis of 22 housing units fills a need for families of all descriptions in my constituency. Today the youngest person at Craigilea is a four-year-old, and the eldest resident is about to celebrate her 90th birthday.

This unique housing complex was built on land that used to be part of the old Craigilea Farm. The farm had large orchards, and many of the trees are still standing and still productive. Apple, pear and plum trees on the property are one of the benefits that residents have in sharing in this property and in its harvest.

Cooperative housing is one of the many housing options and tenures that has proven to be viable and effective in providing affordable housing for families and for contributing to the mix of housing that's essential to the dynamism of our communities.

Livable communities and spaces don't happen by accident. It takes a lot of hard work, and for 25 years members of this cooperative have administered the business through participatory committees. They've maintained

[ Page 438 ]

the beautiful grounds at the housing and the buildings through things like biannual work parties and other assignments.

For 70 years Canadians have been building and living in housing co-ops, and it is one response to the high cost of housing in urban areas that is viable and unique and successful. Housing cooperatives like Craigilea are made up of all kinds of people from different occupational backgrounds, ethnicities, income levels and special needs. They represent something cherished in this country and this province, and I'd ask all members of this House to join me in recognizing and celebrating this anniversary.

[1350]

Oral Questions

FEDERAL FUNDING FOR

INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS

C. James: On October 22, 2008, the Premier took to the airwaves. He pledged to accelerate infrastructure spending. This is what he said: "A key determinant for this funding will be the speed in which we can get people working."

Well, pretty clearly, there isn't any speed in British Columbia. Eight other provinces have signed deals with Ottawa to receive infrastructure dollars, but this government has done nothing but stall.

My question is to the Minister of Community and Rural Development. B.C.'s families and communities were promised that jobs were on their way back in October. How is it acceptable in the midst of a recession that this government made the choice to stall on infrastructure spending just to cover up its budget deception?

Hon. S. Bond: I want to remind the Leader of the Opposition that this government was one of the first that actually stepped up to take infrastructure dollars in partnership with the federal government. What a great day…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. S. Bond: …to have this discussion, because just today…. To the Leader of the Opposition, we want to tell you about a new partnership that's been announced today. The federal government today has stood up and said they're going to help us fund the northwest transmission line, which will make a difference.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

The Leader of the Opposition has a supplemental.

C. James: It was October when this Premier told communities the jobs were coming. It was October that this Premier said that infrastructure dollars will be going out the door.

Let's take a look at the provinces who have signed on: Alberta, Ontario, Quebec, Manitoba, P.E.I., Newfoundland, Saskatchewan and New Brunswick. Who's missing from that list? British Columbia. All their communities are benefiting, but our province has not signed on for needed infrastructure projects for local governments.

Again, my question is to the minister. How does he explain holding back on infrastructure dollars during a spiralling economy, with no other reason than to try and protect what little is left of this Premier's credibility?

Hon. S. Bond: I actually think it's pretty rich from the Leader of the Opposition to be talking about collaboration with the federal government. We certainly know that during the decade of the NDP in this province…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. S. Bond: …there wasn't one single…

Mr. Speaker: Minister. Minister.

Hon. S. Bond: …collaborative process with the federal government. It was an embarrassment for British Columbia.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

The Leader of the Official Opposition has a further supplemental.

C. James: I'll tell this minister what's embarrassing. What's embarrassing is British Columbia is going to lose out on millions of infrastructure dollars, and local governments are going to suffer because of it. The federal money is on the table. The local governments have done their work. But the Premier's entire focus is to cover his budget deception instead of making sure those needed dollars get to local governments.

An entire construction season is going to be lost. The economy has gone from bad to worse, but there's been no action from this government. Jobs that could have been created, that could have been done by local governments, have been lost because this government has refused to come to the table.

[ Page 439 ]

Again, my question is for the minister. How do they explain denying municipalities vital infrastructure dollars, and will they admit today that they're more concerned about the political price of this government's broken pre-election promise than they are helping B.C.'s local governments today?

[1355]

Hon. S. Bond: We're delighted to talk about the track record. Let's look at what's happened since February. Since February in British Columbia we've announced agreed-to projects of $3.4 billion.

Mr. Speaker, we do understand the value of jobs in British Columbia. Let's look at what those $3.4 billion worth of projects have done. We expect that to result…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. S. Bond: …in 20,000 new jobs in this province.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

B. Ralston: Since the Premier announced in October 2008 he was going to move on the economy, the construction industry in this province has lost 35,000 jobs. When the federal money was announced in January, the Premier was in Ottawa and asked: "How do we partner up resources to make sure we maximize the benefits?"

We have the situation now where the federal money has been on the table since January. The municipalities are ready to go. Their projects are all up and signed and ready for construction to begin.

Will the minister confirm that the first priority of this government — indeed, the entire focus of the effort of this government — has been to cover up this government's pre-election deception and a claim that the budget deficit would only be $495 million maximum?

Hon. S. Bond: Well, since February alone — $3.4 billion worth of projects. Let's just have a look. I'm very surprised that the member for Surrey-Whalley….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Minister, just take your seat.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. S. Bond: I'm very surprised that the member for Surrey-Whalley isn't aware of some of the fantastic announcements that have already been made with the federal government.

Let's just look at some of the projects that have been announced. Oh, in Surrey-Whalley the Bridgeview sewer upgrades, for a total partnership of over $5 million. And we are delighted to be able to have reached a partnership agreement on the cycling pedestrian overpass and bicycle project — over $7 million in Surrey.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

The member has a supplemental.

B. Ralston: Well, the cameras were whirring and the announcements were being made before the election.

The question now is: is the money flowing? The municipalities have said it's not.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Continue, Member.

B. Ralston: The federal money is there. The municipalities are ready to go, and construction workers, those 35,000 unemployed construction workers, are waiting for jobs.

Will the minister confirm that none of this mattered to the Premier? The sole focus of the effort of this government has been to cover up, try to cover up, the government's pre-election budget deception.

Hon. S. Bond: Well, let's have a little more good news for Surrey. Let's look at the Kwantlen building envelope under the knowledge infrastructure program — $4.9 million.

[1400]

Let's talk about jobs. In fact, the agreed-to projects will actually create over 20,000 jobs in British Columbia. Let's look at where they might be. More than a thousand jobs in the Cariboo region of British Columbia. Almost 700 jobs in the Kootenays.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. S. Bond: We recognize the importance of these projects to people all across British Columbia. That's

[ Page 440 ]

why in the very short term, we're going to be making even more additional partnership announcements with the federal government.

S. Fraser: I don't think the Minister of Transportation quite has a grip on the situation. There are hundreds of millions of federal dollars waiting to help stimulate the economy. The whole construction season has passed us.

Thousands of workers and families were given false hope by this government. There were promises made to fast-track these projects, to create jobs, to stimulate the economy. Clearly the people of British Columbia were misled. All they got were stalls and uncertainty.

To the minister responsible, the Minister of Community and Rural Development. Let's see if he has a grip. Will he commit today to finally providing matching funds to help communities create jobs and complete desperately needed infrastructure projects? To the minister.

Hon. S. Bond: Of course we understand the importance. That's why since February we've worked with the federal government — $3.4 billion worth of projects.

In the member for Alberni–Pacific Rim's very own riding…. I'm certain he was excited about these announcements.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. S. Bond: Let's look at the China Creek water main replacement, phase 2 — $1.1 million in Port Alberni. What about the Highway 4 resurfacing project in Port Alberni — $3.1 million. Maybe it's time for the member opposite to stand up and tell us: is he for those projects or against them?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Member has a supplemental.

S. Fraser: I don't think the minister gets it. There's…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

S. Fraser: …over 300 million federal dollars that we're going to lose. The season is done. We've lost the stimulus for this whole season. Stimulus is supposed to happen now.

On Monday, when asked by the press, the minister responsible — the minister who has not yet stood up on this issue — said that some communities are going to be disappointed.

How is it that communities across the country got their infrastructure dollars and B.C.'s municipalities didn't? Will the minister confirm today to this House which communities are going to be disappointed, and which projects are off the table because of this government's ineptness and deception?

[1405]

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. S. Bond: I can assure the member opposite that we are going to, in the very short term, announce with our federal partners….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Continue, Minister.

Hon. S. Bond: I'm not sure how we can say one more time to the member opposite: "$3.4 billion in agreed-to projects." And let's just look at where those might be. Well, let's look at north Island — local road upgrades announced and done in February of 2009 to the total of $290,000. Let's look at, oh, the Cowichan Valley, the Kerry Village sewer system upgrades project, March 2009 — $400,000.

We're going to continue to work to make sure that there are projects right across the province of British Columbia. We've created the opportunity to do that. The members opposite have voted against those projects every single time we've brought them to this House.

D. Donaldson: Gail McDonald is heading the Kispiox valley community hall renovations project in my northern constituency. She says they've been waiting for months for an answer from this government on infrastructure grants. The federal funding is ready. Well, perhaps the Premier doesn't know that the northern part of the province experiences something called winter. The Kispiox Valley Community Association needs word on that grant money now so that they can get moving before bad weather sets in. They can't wait until the minister decides when or if it might be nice to announce.

Will the minister demonstrate that this government understands the realities faced by northern communities and announce today that the province's infrastructure grants are in place?

Hon. S. Bond: Well, what this side of the House does understand and what this Premier led across this country led to a decision today by the federal government to actually address one of the biggest concerns in that member's riding. That is the northwest transmission line — announced partnership today.

[ Page 441 ]

Just last week in my visits from Prince George to Prince Rupert, I can tell you that virtually every community talked to me about the importance of the northwest transmission line and thanked this government for their leadership.

Maybe it's time the member opposite stood up….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

The member has a supplemental.

D. Donaldson: The province said they want shovel-ready projects that create jobs for these infrastructure dollars. Well, here's a prime example, but now they're delaying. Don't they know that the ground freezes in the north and winter is coming? They should know about…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

D. Donaldson: …freezing because they're frozen into inaction on this infrastructure grant project. Again, will the minister show…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

D. Donaldson: …this government has rudimentary knowledge of northern communities and announce today…?

[1410]

Mr. Speaker: Member. Member, just take your seat for a second.

I cannot even hear him talk.

Continue, Member.

D. Donaldson: Again, will the minister show this government has at least rudimentary knowledge of the communities in the north and announce today that the province's infrastructure grants are in place?

Hon. S. Bond: Well, perhaps it's time for the member for Stikine to actually stand in this Legislature today and recognize the absolutely significant announcement of partnership that was made, which is the number one priority for his constituents.

The announcement today of the partnership with the federal government to do the northwest transmission line has the potential to make…. We look at investment potential of $15 billion. It's time for the member for Stikine to stand up and say whether he supports it or not.

M. Farnworth: In September the federal Finance Minister said: "Use it or lose it." In October the Premier said: "Shovel-ready projects on the ground." Since then local governments have been ready. The federal government's money has been on the table, and yet there's still no deal from this government with Ottawa.

All we've heard from this minister today is things about announcements. Well, announcements without dollars are worth squat.

My question to the minister is straightforward. When is this government going to get off its collective backside and put the needs of communities first over its own budget deceptions on the infrastructure program?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. S. Bond: In fact, our budget is pretty clear. In addition to our regular capital program….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Just take your seat.

Members.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. S. Bond: Our budget makes it clear that, in fact, in addition to our regular capital program, we're adding $3.4 billion for infrastructure. In fact, we've actually been using those dollars, particularly since February. I'm not sure where the member opposite was, because in fact I'm wondering how he feels about the Coast Meridian overpass cycling lanes worth $2 million announced in April of 2009.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

FUNDING FOR REPAIRS AT

JOHNSTON HEIGHTS SECONDARY SCHOOL

J. Brar: The problem with this government is that they say one thing before the election and another after the election. That's their problem.

For several years part of the roof as well as some skylights and windows of Johnston Heights Secondary School in Surrey-Fleetwood have been leaking. Before the election they were told they would get $3.5 million in funding to fix the leak. After the election this funding was cut, and the facility grants were eliminated as well, meaning the school has no ability at all to make the crucial repairs. This minister probably had this school on her list as well.

[1415]

[ Page 442 ]

My question is to the Minister of Education. Does she believe it is acceptable for children at this school to be learning in leaky classrooms?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: The annual facilities grant this year…. We knew that as of the end of the fiscal year, there was $98 million in annual facility grant reserves. In June of this year the message was given to school districts to go slow on their projects or use reserves.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: We've been very clear with all the school districts, and in fact we've worked with several of them already. We've been very clear that if there's any issue around student health or safety, we will work with them to address these issues. In fact, what has happened in the case of several school districts is that restricted capital reserves are being used, projects are going ahead and the schools are safe.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

J. Brar: This funding was approved, and the funding has been cancelled. This minister needs to understand that this is a serious matter for the people of Surrey, and it deserves a serious response as well. Kids and families have no interest in the excuses of this government.

The bottom line is this. The Johnston Heights Secondary School is leaking. It's leaking at this point in time, and the health of students is being put at risk.

My question is again to the Minister of Education. Will the minister stand up in this House today and commit to restore the funding for the repair of this leaky school?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: As I've said, we're working closely with school districts and addressing these needs. But I think what's more important to note is how this government has been able to protect…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: …preserve and maintain school funding. In fact, we've increased it this year again, year over year. Not only that, but this year we're investing $447 million in new schools, in upgrades of schools and in seismic upgrades. We are absolutely committed to our students.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: That is why we have not only maintained but increased funding for schools this year — once again.

MINING EXPLORATION PERMIT

IN FLATHEAD VALLEY AREA

R. Fleming: In five days a UN delegation will visit the Flathead Valley in British Columbia, the biosphere reserve on the Montana side of the valley. The United Nations has asked B.C. to jointly work with the United States and to report on cumulative impacts of mining and energy developments in the valley and to deliver that report to UNESCO by February 2010.

Hon. B. Lekstrom: In response to the member's question, what he's referring to is an exploration permit that was granted in 2008 to MAX Resource. This was granted and certainly falls in compliance with the land resource management plan that's in the area, which was developed by the people of the region.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. B. Lekstrom: There's a significant difference between an exploration permit and a mining permit, as some would have people in British Columbia believe. We actually are committed and welcoming the UNESCO delegation, as we have said in our letter to the federal government. We look forward to their visit and their findings in that region of the province.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

R. Fleming: There are sensitive international negotiations going on here about this world heritage site that is downstream from British Columbia and downstream from potential mining activities and energy development. I would ask the minister: does he think, on the eve of this international visit, that it makes sense to allow mining development in the middle of these discussions and talks with international organizations?

[1420]

Hon. B. Lekstrom: As I said, this is not a mining permit. This is an exploration permit, and I know that

[ Page 443 ]

the member has done his homework and knows the difference.

We actually invited — and worked with the federal government to welcome — the UNESCO delegation that's coming here. As I said earlier, we're looking forward to their visit and looking forward to their findings.

But as late as, I believe, 2005, it was people within the New Democratic Party that opposed the park designation in that area. So I'm a little surprised to hear the member asking this question.

We made a commitment to welcome the delegation from UNESCO. We actually participated in the invitation with the federal government. We're looking forward to their visit and looking forward to their report.

[End of question period.]

L. Krog: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

Introductions by Members

L. Krog: Joining us in the gallery today is a well-known defender of the civil liberties of British Columbians — a veritable legal David against the Goliaths. I'd ask the House to welcome Cameron Ward.

Orders of the Day

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

Budget Debate

(continued)

D. Hayer: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity to rise in the House today in support of the 2009 September budget update.

It is a time of economic crisis. Governments, like individuals, have to look at the amount of money coming in and the amount that must go out to provide essential protections. For individuals, one has to base his or her income on the need to put food on the table and keep a roof over the family's head. Individuals need to budget and need to be aware that the financial inputs must meet the financial outflows.

[H. Bloy in the chair.]

So too with the government that supplies the services and safety net that protect us all. Government has to base its financial outflows on the revenues flowing in. Like so many other governments, businesses and individuals over the past year, input revenues have been crashing in the province of British Columbia, just like around the world.

That is why in the past few days we have been hearing in this House that we need to be prudent, to be careful and to make sure that the greatest effort is taken to make sure that the demands of the expenses and revenues are equivalent, to make sure revenues are equal to the expenses so that expenses don't exceed the financial ability of the province to pay for the demands.

My constituents have long told me, and continue to tell me, that governments must contain and continue to provide the core funding for health care and for education. Those two services of government — our safety net and our children's safety net — are very important and must be maintained.

They are being maintained in this budget update. In fact, funding is being increased for both, and that is good news. Health care alone already consumes close to half the revenue that comes in for the government. Over the next two or three years that percentage of revenues will increase to half or more of the government revenues.

[1425]

In other words, in just a few short years this government will be spending more than 50 percent of every dollar of revenue on health care expenses alone. That doesn't leave a lot for other expenses the government has to pay for and the other services the government has to provide.

Even under these circumstances, education will not suffer. In fact, there's the funding allocated to expand education opportunities for our youngest children even under these difficult circumstances. Next year there will be voluntary full-time kindergarten for five-year-olds. That is good news for children, and it gives choices for the parents. It will also create savings for many parents of young children in that while the child is in school, day care costs will not be incurred.

What that and the fiscal assurance of health care protection mean is that this government is fully committed to the pledge to protect vital services while building for the future. The future is what we must concentrate on, because we need to have the strength and the courage to watch the spending to make sure the future of British Columbia is protected and to make sure British Columbians have enough funding available for the good health care system we have and the education we have.

Through this budget and three subsequent ones, we will ensure that spending incentives are in place to create a climate of economic recovery. This budget is a plan — a plan to return the province to balanced budgets, to return British Columbia to prosperity and strength.

As we all know, times are tough not only in British Columbia but across the nation and across the continent — in fact, across the world. We have seen our revenues plummet, but that loss of revenue is minor compared to what is happening in many other jurisdictions around the world. Alberta, for instance, is forecasting a deficit of almost $7 billion. Only a year ago they were expecting a

[ Page 444 ]

surplus of $8 billion. So that's almost $15 billion in loss of revenues for Alberta.

The federal government is expecting a deficit of almost $56 billion. California itself is looking at something like a deficit of more than $26 billion, and the U.S. is looking at, according to the July 23 estimate, a deficit of $1.7 trillion. It may be economically rough times here, but it is still better than virtually anywhere else around the world. That is thanks to past prudent budgets and financially minded government over the past number of years.

British Columbia has basked for at least the last half-dozen years in the glow of prosperity and soaring economies and job security. In just a year things have become difficult, but British Columbia will survive. British Columbia will recover, and British Columbia will return to its number one spot in the nation, perhaps in the world.

British Columbians are resilient. We believe in the future. We are willing to work hard to ensure that this province returns to prosperity, to the number one place in Canada. This province was created by the efforts and faith of pioneers and entrepreneurs and immigrants.

Mr. Speaker, when I go talk to many people around the world and also people in British Columbia and in Surrey, and when we talk to the Parliamentary Secretary for Multiculturalism, they always tell me that British Columbia is the best place in Canada to be in. This is the one place, regardless of where you were born or where you were raised, that you can succeed if you work hard.

These British Columbians, these immigrants — some of them new, some of them who have been here for hundreds of years — want a place where their dreams could come true, where hard work could reward them and their future generations with security and prosperity. We've become one of the best places on earth to live in.

They also want to make sure we continue to strengthen those pioneer spirits. They want to make sure, those pioneers who worked so hard…. They want to continue to strengthen their spirit to make sure that for those investors, those entrepreneurs and those immigrants who come here to make this place better, it is a good place for their families, a good place for them to do work and a good place for them to do business.

We, this government and all members of the House, owe it to those people to ensure that British Columbia lives up to their dream to keep British Columbia strong and the best place on earth to raise their families in. This is why we have created this budget and laid the framework for three more budgets — to ensure that those dreams of those immigrants and those British Columbians come true, while protecting the social infrastructure that is so necessary.

[1430]

That is why in this budget we are promoting new investment and growth in our economy. That is why we are committed to continuing British Columbia's investments in such job-creating projects as the new ten-lane Port Mann bridge and widening the freeway to eight lanes from Vancouver to Langley.

That is why we are committed to upgrading all the interchanges in Surrey and building the South Fraser perimeter road, while at the same time we have just completed 176th Street four-laning from Highway 1 to the U.S. border. Highway 10 has been four-laned from Scott Road to Cloverdale, and the Fraser Highway is being four-laned from the King George Highway to Langley.

We are doing all these things to improve traffic flows, both for the commuters and for commercial transportation, and to reduce the volume of pollution that is currently contaminating our air through the hours-long traffic jams on the Port Mann Bridge and throughout the corridor between the city of Vancouver and the Fraser Valley.

These projects, through the $14 billion stimulus plan to upgrade roads, bridges and transit routes such as SkyTrain into Guildford and down the Fraser Highway to 168th Street and to build new schools, the expansion of Simon Fraser University in Surrey, Kwantlen University and also the post-secondary institutions, health care facilities and other needed projects, will create over 88,000 jobs over the three years.

Since February of this year, $3.4 billion of infrastructure projects through the province has been announced. This budget update provides a capital investment of $7.4 billion over the next year, $7.7 billion in 2010 to 2011 and a further $6.5 billion from 2011 to 2012.

This is building British Columbia. This is creating jobs, creating prosperity, insurance and security for families today and well into the future. Those are things that make my constituents in Surrey happy. They want jobs, transportation improvements and quality of life in our communities to continue to improve as it has been going over the last six to eight years.

One of the best ways to ensure that quality of life improves is to make sure that there is excellent access to health care facilities. That is particularly what this government has been doing in Surrey. We are now building a fantastic addition to the Surrey Memorial Hospital — the Surrey Memorial Hospital critical care expansion.

The tower at Surrey Memorial Hospital is going to be great for Surrey. Many doctors, nurses and health care providers tell me that it's one of the best decisions the government has made to help Surrey out with their health care needs.

This is the largest expenditure in health care in the history of Fraser Health. Well over half a million dollars will be spent to build this new critical care tower at the Surrey Memorial Hospital. This project alone will create, over its construction phase, thousands of direct and indirect jobs. This new tower at the Surrey Memorial

[ Page 445 ]

Hospital will add 151 in-patient beds and will expand many services, including 48 children's, neonatal and central-care beds, specialized mental health units and geriatric units.

The projected cost of this new tower would have been $500 million to $600 million and will include a new emergency department that will be five times larger than the existing emergency department at Surrey Memorial Hospital. It will also include a separate children's ER — a separate children's emergency — and an enhanced minor treatment unit, specialized units for mental health.

The maternity department will have 13 new birthing beds, private rooms for moms and their families and the addition of academic space for new doctors and health care specialists to make sure that we continue to attract the best health care professionals to Surrey. This will be done in partnership with the UBC Medical School, SFU and Fraser Health.

The new tower will also have a new rooftop helipad in case of emergencies so the patients can be looked after quickly. This is just one more investment we are making in health care for Surrey. It will create over 3,760 jobs. That is prudent.

[1435]

All this comes on the heels of the 73 new in-patient beds we opened at Surrey Memorial Hospital in 2008. As well, there was a $10 million expansion of Surrey Memorial Hospital's kidney dialysis units, an increase in stations from 18 to 30. This is part of a $30 million upgrade initiative at Surrey Memorial that was begun in 2005 to build capacity, expand services and ease congestion at Surrey Memorial Hospital. The additional beds represent a 26 percent increase in the in-patient beds in Surrey, 490 of them since Fraser Health was created by our government.

For cancer services, this government has spent $12.5 million on renovation to the B.C. cancer centre in Surrey, vastly improving services to the cancer patients in our community.

We're building a new ambulatory out-patient day care hospital. Three floors are already complete, and you can drive by it, or you can go to the Internet website and you can see it. It is located on Fraser Highway and 140th Street. This tremendous new facility will be 188,000 square feet, worth $239 million, and it is creating 1,500 additional construction jobs. This four-storey new hospital will serve almost 450,000 patients per year but will have the capacity of serving 600,000 patients per year by 2020.

This new hospital will feature expanded day surgery and diagnostic services, including four operating rooms and ten procedural rooms. This will also include a primary care area for seniors, people living with a chronic disease or with HIV or AIDS. This facility will also decrease the wait-list, will make day surgery more accessible and will generally ease the patient load at Surrey Memorial Hospital.

Just a year ago this government opened the new Abbotsford Regional Hospital and Cancer Centre, which has also taken a great load off Fraser Valley residents and out of the Surrey Memorial Hospital, because many of the patients from the Fraser Valley used to come to Surrey Memorial Hospital for services. Now they can stay in their own communities and close to their families.

That hospital was promised many, many times but was never delivered. Our government actually promised it and delivered it. It's open; it's working. These wonderful, innovative and state-of-the-art campuses of health care add to the quality of life in Surrey and the quality of life for patients throughout British Columbia.

This budget speaks volumes of the investment we are making in health care throughout the province. This budget provides increased funding for the Ministry of Health to the tune of 18 percent over the next three years. The investment in health care will reach close to $15.7 billion by 2011-2012, compared to…. In 2001 it was only approximately $8 billion. We have doubled the health care spending under our government. That is good for British Columbia, that is good for all the patients, and that is good for our children and future generations.

The investment in security for our citizens' health care is unprecedented. We want to make sure we keep on investing in the security of citizens' health care, and our investments are unprecedented. It is significant just how significant a portion of the province's budget goes toward health care. It is something that my constituents remind me all the time when we are spending almost close to 50 percent of our dollars on health care.

Yes, there will be a small increase in MSP premiums at $3 per month for a single person and $6 per family, but this budget builds in protection for low-income British Columbians to ensure that those in greatest financial need are taken care of. In fact, some 180,000 residents will see their MSP premiums go down or completely eliminated.

For those people in need, this budget provides $420 million in additional funding over three years to meet the greatest demand in income assistance during this economic recovery because of the financial crisis around the world.

Nor have the individual taxpayers been overlooked. Through this budget, the base personal tax credit has been increased to $11,000, an increase of 17 percent, effective January 1, 2010. This means that a single person will save up to $72 a year and a family of two up to $147. In addition, it will eliminate personal income tax for almost 75,000 British Columbians. These tax credits are yet another move by this government to provide taxpayers with increased financial flexibility and to help stimulate our economy.

[1440]

That 17 percent increase is in addition to all the tax reduction our government has put in place since first

[ Page 446 ]

being elected in 2001. In fact, the first action of this government more than eight years ago was to give a dramatic 25 percent personal and provincial income tax cut. Therefore, by next January individual British Columbians earning up to $118,000 a year will pay the lowest provincial income taxes in Canada.

Also, there is other great news. Any British Columbian earning less than $19,000 per year will pay zero provincial income tax. Under the last government they had to pay taxes, but under our government anybody earning almost less than $19,000 per year pays zero provincial income tax.

There's more good news for seniors. Most will see the MSP premiums go down, and most low-income seniors and families will receive the taxpayer credit under the proposed HST. In fact, low-income individuals and families will receive an annual B.C. HST credit of $230 per individual for those with income up to $20,000 and $230 per family member for families with incomes up to $25,000.

These credits will be paid quarterly with a GST credit, and more than 1.1 million British Columbians will benefit from this. Combined with the recently introduced climate action credit, low-income British Columbians will be eligible for up to $340 a year in the provincial credits in addition to the GST credit. Then again, as I said, more than 1.1 million British Columbians will benefit from this announcement.

In addition, a decision by this government will ensure that there is no provincial sales tax placed on energy sources for home heating, and that includes oil, natural gas, propane and electricity. When I talk to my constituents, they're really happy about that announcement also.

I also want to note that this budget update contains a number of new investments in the social safety net that is so precious to all British Columbians. Among the new investments are $420 million over three years in income assistance, $80 million to battle against H1N1 swine flu and $151 million for full-day kindergarten, which begins next year and will be fully implemented by the fall of 2011.

I also want to emphasize that the full-day kindergarten program is optional for parents. This is an opportunity for the children that parents will have to decide upon, because some parents may believe that a child is not ready to attend full-time classes yet. In other words, this program will provide ability for the parents to choose what is the best for their needs and what is the best for the children's needs. It is an excellent program that we will also offer.

It will be great news for the parents because it will also offer day care savings for those parents if they choose to enrol their child in full-time kindergarten, while at the same time leaving an option open to those parents who feel their children are not yet ready for full-time school. This is another good reason why I support this budget update.

In my city of Surrey this government is investing more in supportive housing — another 108 units for people needing drug and alcohol treatment and rehabilitation and those who are at the risk of homelessness.

Also coming to my riding is a bicycle and pedestrian overpass on Highway 1 and 166th Street. Combined with a cycling path, this will allow even greater and more environmentally friendly and heavily travelled traffic between my community north and south of Highway 1, the highway most of the people coming into Vancouver from eastern Canada must travel through.

Government investment in this project for the city of Surrey, in my riding, is over $7 million. That will also create a lot of extra jobs and help my constituents. Many of the constituents go from Fraser Heights to Tynehead Park, and now they have to go over 160th Street. This way, they'll be able to travel over the new bicycle and pedestrian overpass that we will be constructing.

[1445]

This budget update isn't just about benefits to business. It isn't just about doom and gloom, as the opposition said. Yes, this will benefit businesses, and business will benefit from this budget. Those benefits will be translated into more investment, therefore more jobs and more economic stability. That is what stimulating the economy is all about: creating jobs, keeping people working. Yes, many British Columbians say: "Make sure your government is involved in creating jobs at a difficult time, and keep people working, and provide a sound financial footing for our future generations to come."

All these investments will help not just the current residents, but they will also help our future residents. British Columbia is, for so many, the realization of the dream to create opportunity, to build a family, to have stability and to have a future.

We all are here, and we have to make sure, as we're doing through this budget update…. The government understands that when the world is facing financial challenges during one of the most frightening economic periods in the world right now, we must take action to protect our future. We must take action to make sure that our economy stays strong in the long term, that investments don't move to Ontario or other places. We want to make sure that British Columbians are protected, that our health care is protected, that our education system is protected.

We are building a legacy for residents of today and residents of the future. This budget update, with its fiscal prudence, is setting the stage for the future, setting the stage for the return of the buoyant economic times that will soon come. This is a budget update that understands that sometimes we have to make tough decisions in tough times.

This is, probably, a very difficult situation around the world right now that is affecting British Columbia. We have to make some tough decision because of the economic crisis around the world that affected our economy and our revenues in the province.

[ Page 447 ]

This is a budget update that is protecting us from the worst by providing protection for the vital services of health care and education. This is a budget update that was needed. Regardless of what the critics and the opposition might say, I can assure you that their answers will make us much worse than we are today.

I support this budget, because this is a good budget update, a wise budget, a budget that is needed at this time and a budget and a plan that British Columbians will be appreciating. This is a budget that will be good for us in the long term and that will build on everything that we have done in the last eight years to make sure that our economy stays number one in Canada and to make sure our children don't have to go to Alberta or Ontario or other parts of the world to look for jobs.

This is a budget that is going to make sure that British Columbia's economy is the best economy when the financial crises around the world are fixed. As the economy is starting to look…. There's a light in the tunnel. We want to make sure our health care system is strong, our education is system is strong, that British Columbians have opportunities to invest in British Columbia, they have opportunities to make sure that they have jobs here, to make sure their children can be raised here.

This is the best place on earth to raise your family in. This is the best place on earth to do business in. This is the best place on the earth to retire in. And this is the best place on earth to make sure you move your business into to do business.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, thank you very much. I support this budget fully, and this is what is needed at this time.

M. Karagianis: Hon. Speaker, I'm happy to take my place here in the debate on the budget here of the province of British Columbia. I know we've heard, over the last few days, a considerable amount of discussion on the state of affairs here in the province. I think it's fair to say that this will go down in British Columbia as the summer of deception for British Columbians in the history books.

I would guess at this point that very few British Columbians are clear on what the true state of finances is in the province of British Columbia, despite the fact that there have been days and weeks and, in fact, months of discussion on what the economy — the global economy, the Canadian economy and the provincial economy — has dealt in the way of a real fiscal situation here in British Columbia. The reason that I think most British Columbians feel confused about this is because of the great amount of misinformation and misleading information that's occurred over the last number of months.

[1450]

I say again that I believe this will go down in the history books as the summer of deception. We went through an election here just over a hundred-and-some-odd days ago, in which the state of the fiscal situation in British Columbia was a key element. We had the B.C. Liberal party guarantee to the voters of British Columbia that the state of affairs was very clearly laid out, that they could go to the polls with a very clear choice in their minds about what it was they were going to vote for. The government was very clear. The B.C. Liberal members and candidates were very clear on what the state of the budget was leading up to the May election.

But in fact we have seen in the days since that that the true facts have unfolded and painted a completely different picture in British Columbia. So I guess it's not surprising that there is an air of cynicism out there among voters, among those who are paying attention to what's going on in this House, who are concerned about their future and what the impacts of decisions made by government will be on them.

It's probably no surprise that the Ipsos-Reid poll that was done recently showed that 72 percent of British Columbians believe that the B.C. Liberals intentionally misled the public about the province's finances during the election campaign. That comes from Paul Willcocks's column that was written just recently here in the Times Colonist . The reality is that 72 percent of those polled far exceeds the number of people who went and actually cast their vote in the last election.

What I see is this growing sense of cynicism here in British Columbia about trust for government officials, trust that the leaders of the province are actually telling the straight goods to voters and that they can rely on their leaders to be honest, to be reliable and to give them the true state of affairs. When 72 percent of the population feel so completely disenchanted by the actions of the leaders in this province, by their government, by now the ruling government, one more time here in British Columbia, then I think we truly have a sad state of affairs.

So I do not hesitate at all to say that this is not only the worst budget in the history of this province but the worst government in the history of this province. We have now far surpassed the kind of cynicism that the public has grown to expect from their politicians. We have now set the record here in British Columbia for deception and for distrust for the people of this province.

It's very clear from the record of this government over the past eight years that we have been leading to this point in time where 72 percent of the population now perceives and understands that they have been duped and that they no longer believe in the government. It's a huge blow to any government to know that 72 percent of the people do not believe in you. What is our government worth if 72 percent of the people no longer believe in the government?

We have had an eight-year legacy of this government that has led us to the worst budget in the province's history, to the worst level of child poverty in the history of

[ Page 448 ]

this province, to the worst homelessness in this province, to the highest record of unemployment most recently in the country and to the worst debt ever in the history of British Columbia.

I know it's commonplace now for us to talk in terms of billions as if it was pocket change. There was a time when people were pretty dazzled by millions, hundreds of millions being spent on programming. But now we have exceeded beyond that and made it commonplace that even billion-dollar, multi-billion-dollar debts are acceptable here in the province of British Columbia.

[1455]

I would say that the further disenfranchisement from voters that's occurred is that we've had a government declare going through an election that they did not want to leave a legacy of debt for future generations. In fact, we are now running the highest debt in the history of this province. We have a deficit that currently stands at close to $3 billion and is very likely to change, because first of all, as most British Columbians know — 72 percent for sure — you cannot trust the word of the government on the current fiscal situation.

We know that markets are still volatile. Anything can happen. We have a federal government that's posting multi-billion-dollar — hundreds of billions of dollars — debt. We have many other provinces that are posting astronomical debt, and we still have a government here that is insisting on downplaying and trying to minimize the kind of debt that we may see here in British Columbia.

I guess, as one pundit put it, it's probably better to be thought inept than deceitful, and I guess, at the end of the day, that's the choice the members on the other side of the House have made. They don't mind appearing to be completely inept on the budget. They would choose that rather than be seen as being deceivers.

I think that the message that's now gone out to British Columbians on the true state of affairs…. Their ability to rely on the word of the leaders of the governing party here in the province of British Columbia has been so completely destroyed that I'm uncertain in the future how we will ever repair that.

You know, we saw a record low turnout at the polls in this past election. I suspect that in the future we're going to see further erosion of the trust of the citizens of this province, in their ability to elect representatives that will be open, honest, direct and truthful with them. I think that this summer of deception is going to forever taint the landscape for elected officials, and I think that's really too bad.

I take enormous pride in the honour that's been bestowed on me by the voters in my community — to re-elect me to come to this place and stand up on their behalf. But how can I defend in any way the behaviour of the B.C. Liberals and now the governing party one more time for what appear to be, day after day, various layers of misinformation and of ineptitude?

I hear it every time I walk out of my house. I hear it when I meet with my constituents out in my community — a great, grave, deep concern about the state of affairs here in British Columbia and about the level of distrust that people have in the leadership currently running the province of British Columbia.

I think that cynicism is very well deserved. If we look at the behaviour of this government pre-election, where we saw candidates, members of the B.C. Liberal Party, stand up and talk about how they were going to protect services here….

We were going to have a minimal deficit of $495 million. We were going to protect health care. We were going to protect education. We were going to protect the futures of our children from enormous debt. So many of those things proved to be such catastrophic untruths that when you begin to list them off, it actually shakes you up just a little bit. It rattles, I think, most British Columbians to even conceive of the number of ways that this government has gone against its very promises.

We have seen enormous cuts to the health authorities. We have seen $430 million over the next three years cut from health authorities. It's resulted directly, in my constituency, in a reduction of the number of MRIs, and certainly in wait times for surgeries and for hip and knee replacements. Certainly for MRIs we've seen a direct repercussion on the health services available to my constituents.

We have seen in this budget — and I'll have a chance to ask more questions in estimates about this — the Children and Families budget cut by $8 million. We've seen a government declare that it will in the future reduce the number of children in care — despite the fact that we have the highest rate of child poverty in the country for the sixth year in a row, despite the fact that we have record unemployment, despite the fact that we know there will be record numbers of individuals seeking income assistance.

[1500]

All of those components go together to say that more children will be at risk. Yet we have a government that's declared: "We will cut funds to the Children and Families Ministry, and we will reduce the number of children that we care for over the next couple of years."

How they will make that determination of not taking in children I don't know. But it leads again to this impression that voters have and that citizens have of a callous government who will cut numbers out of their budget without any true realization or thought for the impacts on people out in communities.

We've seen a huge cut to the Ministry of Environment — a 20 percent cut from the previous budget. The ink was barely dry on the previous budget. That was in February, and yet we've seen huge cuts to that budget.

We have seen many of the green programs that were so touted by the government in previous budgets and

[ Page 449 ]

previous throne speeches as the great greening of British Columbia….We've seen all of those begin to disappear and be cut.

We've seen huge cuts to education. We've talked in this House, in this place, about the impacts of those cuts on actual communities, on their schools, on their ability to maintain, repair and upgrade their schools or repair leaky roofs and make sure that children are safe in British Columbia when they go to school. We've seen cuts there.

We have seen that student aid, student funding and student grants have been cut at a time when, with spiralling unemployment and great concerns about what the future economy will hold for young people, we should be ensuring that every single child in British Columbia has the very best possible educational opportunities. We have instead made it more difficult for students to go to school — and that at the end of a legacy of a government that has cut and cut into programs, increased tuition and made it more difficult for students to get an education. We're seeing further cuts here.

And of course, the infamous cuts to school sports programs, which we have discussed at great length here, at a time literally just a few months away from one of the biggest and most important sports events anywhere in the world — the Olympics. We are hosting those, and yet we are cutting our nose off to spite our face, because we are reducing the kind of funding to sports programs in schools that would allow future athletes a chance to discover their passion and begin to explore that.

You have to say to yourself: "What kind of government says one thing, does another and completely ignores the repercussions in between?" That would be a government that has plunged us into a summer of deception and has demonstrated the worst record of a government in the history of this province and obviously has selective hearing and selective vision in what they see in the way of the results of their actions on the people of British Columbia.

We have continued to see at a time when we need affordable housing, when we need to make sure that our families who are struggling with either recent unemployment, income assistance, perhaps working part-time jobs — certainly in a province where the government has refused categorically through good times or bad to raise the minimum wage…. We have seen the government continue to cut the kinds of programs and services that would support families.

In reading many of the opinion pieces that have come out recently, I think it's a no-brainer why 72 percent of the population has lost their faith in government. I suspect we are going to see more of that in the future.

The interesting concept here, which the government seems to have either bypassed or ignored, is that the kinds of investments in communities that are needed in economic rough times are the absolute antithesis of what the government is giving us. At a time when we need more opportunities for young people to get the education they want, education has become more difficult to get, more expensive, and the government's supports for that have begun to disappear.

[1505]

At a time when we want to celebrate sports and give every young person the opportunity to experience sports — perhaps find a passion, perhaps dream about the goal of going to the Olympics at some point — we have begun to undermine and undercut sports programs.

Throughout the education system, we are more and more reliant on the goodwill of parents taking up the slack and doing more volunteering. In fact, we've begun to cut the kinds of support systems that they need in the PACs across this province. I know how hard the PACs in my community work to try and augment the many cuts that the government has made over the last eight years, and now they have a bigger load to take on. They have more weight to carry and less resources with which to do it.

At a time when communities and citizens who are impacted by the economic downturn need more resources and more reliance on the health care system and health care that's there when and how they need it, we have cuts to the health authorities. We have a reduction in MRIs. And to add to the pain, we have a government that's now increasing MSP. At a time when people are finding it more difficult, the government is adding to their costs with MSP increases.

Then, of course, we have the HST, which has been debated long and hard in this House but much longer and harder out there around the kitchen tables across British Columbia. There is not a person I have spoken to in the last three months since this was announced who is not absolutely livid about the stealthy way in which this HST has been thrown at them just after an election — no opportunity to think about that and use that as part of their decision-making process during the election. Stealthily, we hear about it after the election.

Families are very, very disturbed as they begin to calculate all of the great number of responsibilities this government has begun to incrementally add to their lives. Frankly, many of the constituents I talk with are just making it through from payday to payday. They're working families. They're part of the great, new working poor that's been created under this government.

Part of the eight-year legacy of the B.C. Liberal government has been the term "the working poor," where we have working people in the province of British Columbia that are expending more than 60 percent of their income just on shelter, where we have families who are accessing food banks on a regular basis to make ends meet. That's the legacy of this government after eight years.

Now we are plunged into a harder time, where the government is going to begin to strip away more and

[ Page 450 ]

more resources and add more and more costs onto those working people out there. Frankly, people are fed up. They are fed up with the government constantly reaching into their pockets for more and more while delivering less and less.

The HST is a culmination of that. Not only is that going to adversely affect the working people across this province and in my constituency — many of whom are just making it, just getting by — but in fact we're seeing that it's affecting business, small business, right across my community.

The restaurant industry — they are all looking at this as a huge off-loading of taxation. Corporations get the break. The working people of this province will pay the price. Small business will pay the price. This is probably the most regressive kind of step you could possibly take in a poor economy.

I guess, at the end of the day, you have to say to yourself: "Well, who really gets hurt by these kinds of activities?" I will tell you that those who get hurt the most are the most vulnerable. It seems to me, as I look at the list of cuts — all of the cutbacks, all of the ways this government is taking money out of vital programs across this province — that the ones that are getting hurt the most are children, women, seniors and the most vulnerable.

What does it say about the kind of government we have, the kind of ideology that is at the root of this government's behaviour — that those who are most negatively affected by this summer of deceit, this budget deceit and the HST deceit that was perpetuated here after the election…? What does it say that those who are most affected are those least likely to stand up and speak out against this?

[1510]

Instead, we will have women and children, many single-parent families adversely affected by the HST. We will have seniors making really tough choices.

I've heard from many of those seniors because I have many seniors in my community who really just eke it out from payday to payday from their pension cheques, just barely eking it out. They look at the HST and all the other incremental cuts this government is making that are going to affect them, like longer wait times for health care and certainly greater taxation out of their pockets. They ask me: "Why is the government doing this to us? Why is the government impacting those of us that are most vulnerable in society? Why do we have to pay?"

I don't have an answer because it defies the imagination why a government would take such regressive steps that they would go after the most vulnerable in society first and harm them the most in a taxation plan and a budget plan that should be about protecting people in British Columbia but is not.

You know, recently the children's representative tabled a report. It was the story of a family who got caught up in the system here in British Columbia that is such a product of this B.C. Liberal government's ideology.

It was a young family who had moved here and had not enough money to find adequate housing. So they moved in with family members. Those family members were deemed to be perhaps dangerous to the young child that this family had. But they had few choices because they actually went to the Ministry of Housing and Social Development and were not given adequate funds for shelter.

The Ministry of Children and Families came to them and said: "As long as you're living in this dangerous place, your child is in jeopardy, and we're going to take the child away." The family said: "Our only sin is that we are poor. The only criterion you are holding against us is poverty."

One ministry would not talk to the other ministry and adequately protect and shelter this young family and their young child. So the government swooped in and took the child and placed the child in a series of foster homes.

You'll probably not be surprised to hear that along that journey through foster homes, this young baby was unfortunately harmed — irreparably harmed. This young family, whose only sin was that they were poor, was given back a child that they will spend the rest of their life caring for as a disabled child.

I think this story demonstrates more than anything else the failure of this government and of the B.C. Liberals — that a young family has had their life altered forever because their sin was that they were poor.

It would seem to me that as I look at the results of the kinds of cuts that this government is now undertaking on the backs of a number of cuts that took place when the government was first elected…. When the B.C. Liberals were first elected they went on a reign of cuts, a reign of terror, right through government and affected most significantly the ministry of which I am the critic, the Ministry of Children and Family Development.

The fact that we are standing here eight years later, and we have a family who was only guilty of being poor but was so completely mistreated by a government — by this government — that their lives are forever impacted and the life of their child is forever impacted….

[1515]

If this were the only story that had ever come out of this government's time in office, perhaps you would be more generous, but in fact it's not. When you can stand here in British Columbia and know that this government continues to cut vital programs that affect the most vulnerable people in this province demonstrates what I said at the beginning of my remarks — the worst government in the history of British Columbia.

If we are judged by how we treat the most vulnerable, and many societies are…. I'm sure all of us have looked at Third World countries and war-torn countries and thought: "How can they not care for their children

[ Page 451 ]

and the most vulnerable and instead embark on war and treachery?"

Yet here in a highly civilized, perhaps the most highly civilized, nation to live in…. Certainly, we experience an extraordinarily high level of standard of living. We live very comfortably here in Canada, except of course for our homeless and those living in poverty. The fact that we have a number of government policies and we have the kind of disconnect throughout government that would allow a family to be so completely let down by government only because they were poor…. It was the only sin of which they were guilty.

It's funny, you know, when we talk about poverty…. Mother Teresa said: "We think sometimes that poverty is only being hungry, naked and homeless. The poverty of being unwanted, unloved and uncared for is the greatest poverty." Here in British Columbia our most vulnerable people now experience the greatest poverty because we have a government that does not care.

We have a government that is bent on cutting programs that are vital to communities. They have all kinds of justifications. I've heard them in denial. I've heard all of that. I can hear the mumbling on the other side of the House.

The reality is that the history books will show that in this summer of deceit, we have achieved the very worst kind of record here in British Columbia — highest debt, worst child poverty, greatest homelessness — and that in a watch where our government is busy bragging about all of their great achievements.

We have achieved nothing. We have achieved the lowest common denominator because we do not care for the vulnerable in this society. The government — this government — has demonstrated that time and time again. Shame on us.

P. Pimm: I'm very honoured and humbled to be standing here again in front of the House to give this budget response. It's very interesting to listen to some of the stuff that's being said about the budget. From my standpoint, I think this budget is about as positive a budget as you could possibly have during these kinds of times.

Before I get into that, I'd just like to acknowledge a couple of people. I know I acknowledged all my support staff up in my constituency after I did my throne speech and acknowledged all the staff down here. You certainly can't acknowledge those folks enough.

But I definitely want to acknowledge my wife again. Everything that we're putting them through…. You have to have your family. You have to have that support. I just want to acknowledge her. She's not here today.

It's a big change in everybody's lives. It's a big change in my life. I look at it like back when I was in my pipelining days, when it was an opportunity to get to go back to camp. The only difference is the camp is a little nicer.

Anyhow, to my wife: certainly, we're going to get through this. We'll get through the changes. We'll figure it all out, and we'll all come out stronger on the other end — just like this budget is going to allow us to come out stronger on the other end as well.

[1520]

We're going through some tough times. The whole global economy is absolutely in the tank as we speak, and in Canada and this province we're no different. We're all in the same place. Let's talk about some of the shortfalls we've had. Just since the last six months, we've gone through shortfalls in personal and corporate income taxes. We're down in the range of $1.3 billion to $1.5 billion. That's a direct result of having folks not working, having businesses not working.

What we have to do is make that climate the best climate that we can make it, so we can get these folks back to work, so we can get these companies back to work. I think that's what we're going to be doing. This government is taking a position. We're going to take the strong positions to do the right things to get folks back to work in the long term and come out of this thing a lot stronger on the other side.

I know it's not going to be popular. A lot of the choices we're going to make are not going to be popular, but they're going to be the right choices, and that's what we have to do.

If we take a look at resource revenues, we're down in the neighbourhood of $2 billion to $3 billion. You know, you can say that fast, and it doesn't sound like a whole heck of a lot.

Take a look at the oil and gas revenues alone. I have to say that if anybody could have projected what's happening with the oil and gas industry and the revenues surrounding that, I'd take my hat off to them. I don't believe anybody could have known that in June of 2008 the oil and gas…. The price of natural gas was $9.30, and in July of '09 it was $2.05. That's unbelievable. Nobody could understand. Nobody could ever have dreamt that that would happen.

Now, put that in perspective. For every dollar that natural gas goes down, it's $300 million worth of revenue that's lost to this government. For every dollar it goes up, $300 million back on the table. It's not hard to do the math. It went down 7 bucks. Now, 7 bucks times 300 million — I can do that math. That's $2.1 billion, hon. Speaker — $2.1 billion.

For everybody that doesn't understand — and I do understand, because I'm a small business man — a billion is a thousand millions of dollars. You can say it fast, and it doesn't mean much. But when you say it slow, you might be able to get the message. It's a lot of money.

Let's take a look at our three-year plan. This fiscal plan, we're going to have a deficit, you know, but we could have made the tough choices. We could have said: "Oh, maybe we shouldn't have a deficit." That's

[ Page 452 ]

what a lot of people in this government might like to not do.

I mean, I wouldn't like to have a deficit. I don't run deficits in my own household, but you know what that would have meant — if we hadn't had a deficit, if we didn't want to run deficit government? We'd have completely gutted the province, and we're not about to do that. This government is not about to do that. We're about making the tough choices, but we're not going to completely gut the whole thing.

I take my hat off to our Finance Minister. I think he's done a very good thing. He's done what a businessman would do. He took a look. Every year we have a Finance Committee that goes around the province. They talk about budget presentations, and everybody gets their input into the presentations. For the last eight years, what's the number one thing that they've been coming back with? HST.

So every year we take a look at HST. The Finance Minister takes a look at it. Cabinet, caucus, everybody takes a look at it. The timing wasn't right. Timing wasn't right. Timing wasn't right. Well, guess what. This year the timing was right. We're facing the worst economic times we've faced in an awful long time, and this year the timing was right. To not take that $1.6 billion revenue to help shore up the budget would have been a horrible mistake.

[1525]

I think we did the right thing with HST. I'm going to talk a bit more about that a little later on, but it is the right thing to do, and it is what's going to make us come out of this thing a little bit stronger on the other side.

We promised that we were going to maintain the core services. We promised that in the election campaign. We went through the election campaign, and all of us said that core services were going to be there. So let's talk about health. Health, for one, is something that is going to be the most serious part of this government's budget for a long time to come. In 2001 health was about $8 billion or $9 billion. By 2011 it's going to be $15.7 billion. That's doubled in eight years.

I can tell you right now, standing here…. If I've got an expense in my business that's going to double in eight years, I'd better have a good, solid look at it. I think that's something we have to do.

Health is going to be an issue. It's going to be ongoing as an issue, and it's going to be one that we're going to have to look at. But when I hear people stand up and say that we're cutting health, it absolutely appals me. Some $2.4 billion — I think I expressed that earlier on the revenue shortfall — is what we're adding to health. So right off the nutshell, there's $5 billion that we're talking about.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that there are going to be issues. Health authorities — obviously they're going to have to make some decisions. They get their funding, and they're going to make some tough decisions. There's no question about it. It might mean that there might be a surgery that's postponed, or maybe somebody might have to travel another 15 or 20 miles to go to a different facility. Well, let me put that in perspective for you from the folks in the north.

My second-largest community is 7,000 folks — Fort Nelson. Fort Nelson has 7,000 people in it. And you want to know what? We talk about health. They understand the problems that we have with health. Half of the year they can't even deliver a baby in Fort Nelson. They have to pack up their families two weeks before it's time to have that baby and move them down to Fort St. John and get a hotel, hopefully. Maybe they have family.

They understand what toughness is about, and they understand how to fix it. So if there's a little bit of belt-tightening and a little bit of hardship that goes along with some of these decisions that we're going to make, that's the way it's going to have to be.

We can talk about education. The core funding has been maintained — $4.6 billion, $4.5 billion to $5 billion in education. The formulas have been maintained. We're putting out 8,500 bucks per student, per child — the highest amounts ever, and they're maintained. As far as I'm concerned, education is being looked after. Health and education are two mainstays we're looking after, and we're going to continue to look after those.

[C. Trevena in the chair.]

Post-secondary. We've got an increase — $93 million. I have to tell you, for us, post-secondary — that's amazing. Apprenticeships in the northern part of the province — that's what folks in the north look at as their post-secondary. They look at going into a trade. You know, they don't all get the chance and the opportunity to go to the universities — the UBCs and the UVics of the world or the Waterloos or whatever. They have to rely on the local colleges and the apprenticeship programs. We're very proud of the apprenticeship programs and what this government has been doing for the apprenticeship programs.

This year alone, the apprenticeship program is going to hit nearly 50,000 students. That's an awful lot of people to be putting into the post-secondary and the apprenticeship area, and we're proud of that fact.

[1530]

If you look at the full-day kindergarten…. There we go again — 2010, $44 million and another $107 million in 2011. I think it's awesome that we'd be looking at the full-day kindergarten. When we get a chance to have these young minds learning at a younger age, it helps the parents so that they can get off the child care, get the day care situation looked after a little bit. So it helps them in that respect.

[ Page 453 ]

But you know, young minds…. It's best to train minds before they're contaminated. When you get a little further along in life and you look at the drugs and the alcohol and the opposite sex that happens, these kids get challenged by that. You have to teach them early in life how to learn and develop. So I think that's very important. The younger we can get them moving, the better off all of society will be.

We talk about additional expenses. We've got income assistance — an additional $455 million in income assistance. Now, this government is telling you that they're going to look after people that are having problems out there. People that have lost their jobs — we're looking after you. We're going to help you get trained and get moving on into a different area. That's absolutely critical. So in these tough times, income assistance and helping out that folk — that's something that's absolutely mandatory.

You take a look at additional expenses. Again, we've got forest fires this year. Some $350 million this year in forest fires. I come from an area of the province where most people talk about global warming. You couldn't prove global warming to anybody in my area. They think that global warming isn't even possible. But we'll give all the experts the benefit of the doubt and say that global warming probably is there. Maybe we'll just give them the benefit of the doubt.

But $350 million in extra expenses for forest fires. We better hope that that's not going to be an ongoing expense, because that's going to drive up the budget, and we don't have those expenses in there again for next year. We have to hope that folks will start looking after themselves, watching themselves when it comes to their summer activities, and won't light that fire, as most of them are man-made in the first place.

We've got H1N1. Who could have known? I don't think anybody would have known that we were going to have a flu virus that's going to start knocking people off. Absolutely out of the question. But now we've got another $80 million expense. They just keep adding up.

Here's one that I really like. I'm going to tell you that I had some folks say to me: "You know, Pat, when you get down there, you're going to be a backbencher. You're probably not going to have much success." Well, I'm here to tell you that backbenchers can have some success.

I'm going to talk a little bit about the residential energy heating costs. When we originally talked about HST, it was eliminated from that process. Because of caucus and because of the minister, we now have that in our budget. But that's another cost, unfortunately. It's a rebate to our folks. We're not going to see the expense, and that's absolutely awesome. But it's another cost to government — 200 million bucks. These things all add up.

When we talked about reallocating…. Right in our process, when we did the election, we knew that there were going to be some major cuts. We knew that there was $1.9 billion that was going to have to be found in administration costs. That was no secret. That's been there the whole time — $1.9 billion. All of the ministries have gone out, and they found that.

It wasn't enough. So we either had to find some more or run a higher deficit. It's not really a trick. It's just the way it happens to be. So what'd we do? We found another $1.5 billion.

[1535]

I can tell you right now that there's not one MLA, there's not one minister, that wanted to find that extra revenue to cut out of the system. Not one. There's not one that wouldn't like to do as the opposition likes to do and fund everything that's out there. We'd all love to do that. How do we pay for it? It's absolutely impossible to pay for it, so that's why we can't do it.

Anyhow, as we went through the whole process, one of the things that we did look at and that we've kept in place is capital expenditures. This has been an ongoing commitment to keep B.C. working and to stimulate the economy. Hon. Speaker, $3.4 billion has already been put into capital expenditures across the province — $3.4 billion.

Now, I don't know about the rest of you folks, but $3.4 billion is still a lot of money in my neighbourhood. That's not the last of it. There's still another $20 billion to go in the next three years.

I think this government is looking after the future. We're getting everybody put into position where we're going to be in a stronger position when we get through this recession. B.C. has got one of the best tax regimes in place at the present time, and we've situated our businesses and our employees so that when we get through this, we are going to be stronger on the other side.

The infrastructure funding that we talk about is so important. It's important to every area of the province. It means that there's going to be transit projects. It means that we're going to be doing roads. We're going to be fixing roads. Whether it's in Vancouver or Fort St. John or Fort Nelson, we're going to be building and improving roads throughout the area. That's going to be ongoing.

Water and sewer projects. Schools. We're going to be building more schools in the next three years than we have in the last five.

Hospitals. Hospitals is one that I can certainly speak to. We're building a hospital in my community right now — $300 million. I have to tell you that there isn't one person in Fort St. John that isn't happy about having that hospital open. They're doing it now. We put the shovel in the ground this summer, and it's moving forward as we speak. They'll have a foundation in place by winter, and they'll be able to work all through the winter. It's going to be a project that's going to help our area stay strong throughout the winter.

Post-secondary facilities — same thing. Here's a good one: electrical generation and transmission and distribution projects. We heard that today, and that is

[ Page 454 ]

one of the best announcements that I've heard for an awful long time.

Let's talk a little bit about HST. I think HST is just fine, to be quite honest with you. It's a slight shift to the general public. That might be able to be said. We're trying to figure out just how much that is, and maybe you fellas have an idea. You can tell us how much it is. I think it's somewhere between $25 and $75 a month for most folks in the neighbourhood. That translates into somewhere between $300 and $1,000 a year, or something like that.

If you take seniors and low-income earners, they get a rebate — $230 per year. That pretty much covers most of the cost. For both of them — $460. For that single mother, she gets $230, and for every one of her children, another $230. She'll be able to look after herself.

Business and corporations. I must say that most of the businesses and corporations are all coming out in support of HST, because they know it is the single most important thing that we can do for business in this province.

[1540]

The restaurant industry. You know, there's a little bit of confusion in the restaurant industry. But I've got to tell you one thing about the restaurant industry. I can honestly stand here in front of you today and tell you that when I go in to buy a hamburger or buy a steak, I've never once asked the restaurant owner how much my GST or HST is going to be on my hamburger.

The other thing I can tell you is that for business in our area, we live in an Alberta-B.C. where…. We've got the cross-border issue going on all the time. This is going to be the single most important thing for that, to level out the playing field for our cross-border shoppers. Where our manufacturers and where our contractors used to have to pay the 7 percent PST tax, they're now not going to have to pay that, and that puts money back in their pockets.

I have one little thing I wanted to read. This comes right out of the Sun . I picked that out of the Sun the other day. It's from Maureen Bader, Canadian Taxpayers Federation. I think this was supposed to be a slam on HST, but honest to goodness, I think she was in our caucus room. When I read this…. Oh, goodness, look at that. "Cutting Personal Income Taxes Could Lessen the Sting on HST," it's entitled.

I want to tell you a little bit, and I'm going to read a couple of excerpts out of this for you. "Harmonization should only proceed if families pay less in total tax." Imagine that. "While harmonization may bring greater investment and more high-paying jobs to the province in the long run," she says…. High-paying jobs to the province in the long run. Well, I have to agree, and I think that's exactly what it's going to do.

It says that "in the short…the reality is that hard-pressed families will be paying more for many goods and services." Fair enough. Then she goes on to say: "The best option would be to cut personal income taxes." Well, I think we've cut personal income tax, and I'm going to show you just that in a couple of seconds here.

"Reducing the burden of income taxes for all British Columbians could best be achieved by increasing the basic personal income tax exemption." Imagine that. Increase the basic exemption. We did that. We went from $9,700 to $11,000. It's almost like she took a page right out of our manual.

She goes on to say: "Although the HST may have some positives in the long run…." It has a lot of positives in the long run, I might add. "The tax change, coupled with higher taxes for consumers makes it mandatory for government to cut other taxes." Again, exactly what we do.

So then it says: "This will get government out of our pockets and allow hard-working families to spend their income in a way that best serves their needs. Moreover, it should be the only way that British Columbians would accept the HST." Well now, I'd like to just show you that exactly what she is saying is exactly what this government has done over the last eight years.

For example, for a family member that makes $20,000, they pay $177 in tax in B.C., the lowest of all provinces. Alberta is $206; Quebec, $761; and Prince Edward Island, $1,091. Let's go to $80,000, the bracket that most of us…. It's reality. In my area a lot of folks do that — $80,000. In tax we pay $4,838. Alberta is $6,037. It's $10,000 in Quebec, and $9,100 in Prince Edward Island.

Guess what it was in 2001 for those that would like to have a little lesson in that: 8,895 bucks — $4,100 more in your pocket today than it was in 2001. I want to just add to that a little bit. That same $80,000 wage earner…. When you add in provincial income tax, property tax, sales tax, fuel tax, carbon tax, health care premiums, federal income tax…. Get this. Federal income tax is $11,231 for that $80,000 wage earner, and that's across the board. That's every province.

[1545]

Well, guess what it is in B.C. for that total number when you take in all of the taxes. It's $19,553 — again, the lowest in Canada. It's $19,885 in Alberta. That's the closest to us anywhere in the country. I've got to tell you that in 2001 that number was $25,452 — $6,000 more in the pocket of every British Columbian. I must say, I'm very proud of the fact that we've put $6,000 more in every pocket.

You talk about minimum wage. Well, that minimum-wage earner, yeah, they're still making minimum wage. But guess what. They paid $1,000 in taxes in 2001. Now they pay $177. So we put that money back in their pockets, the same thing as a raise.

I must say that there may be a little bit of HST that folks are going to have to pay. But I think now this province has put our tax position in such a good area and a good position that we can afford to pay a little bit of HST.

[ Page 455 ]

S. Fraser: Madam Speaker, I'd like to begin by congratulating you on your appointment. I wish you all the best and thank you for doing the good work that you do from the chair.

I'd also like to take a moment just to thank my constituency assistants, Brenda McLean and Patty Edwards. They do the good work that they do in our constituencies. It's much appreciated. They are the face of the MLA, in a lot of cases, and they do such a wide variety of tasks to try to help constituents and groups. My hats are off to them. We could not do this job without them. I'd like to acknowledge that. And here in the Legislature, Anne Paxton, my legislative assistant. I couldn't do this job without her, so I thank her for that too.

This is a response to the budget. I am always honoured to stand in this great place and do the people's work on behalf of the people of Alberni–Pacific Rim. My response to the budget is…. Well, I've got a number of responses. It's really bad. It's a really bad budget. It's deceiving. It's ghastly. I've heard that too. There have been many responses that I've heard — regressive, bamboozling. Did I say really bad? I think I did. So that would be a response.

It's funny. The Liberal budget has caused some reaction from the public, and those words have all been used to me as MLA. Those reactions really don't vary much in the public. The only variance we see is from the Liberal members. They have sipped the bathwater a bit much — guzzled the tub, I believe — because their responses to this budget are completely different than every other British Columbian that I've ever encountered since the budget has come forward.

It doesn't have to be from the left wing or the right wing or Liberals and New Democrats. There's a consistency here in the reaction that I have not seen before in this province. I have to hand it to the Liberals, to the Premier, to the Finance Minister. They have created a certain unity in the province around this budget, bringing together often very polarized and disparate groups and individuals around a certain theme of this budget — betrayal.

I attended a meeting with a local group in Qualicum Beach. Actually, it's not in my constituency, but they requested a meeting just a couple weeks ago. And 20 minutes into the meeting, they…. Probably a large amount of these people were not my supporters. However, they brought up the issue of: how does recall work? That's the sense of betrayal and outrage that citizens all over the province are displaying, like I say, from all across the political spectrum.

What we have seen from the Liberals that has caused so much outrage is not the fact that they're running either the largest or second-largest deficit in the history of the province. That's not what's causing the outrage. Of course, people are getting used to that. They've done that one before. No, the outrage from the people of the province is around feeling that they've been deceived to win an election. That's where the sense of betrayal is.

[1550]

The Liberal election plan that's reflected pre- and post-budget is pretty stark. Here's the plan. It's quite simple. The Liberals, before the election, claimed to British Columbians that because they were such great fiscal managers, B.C. was immune to the effects of the worldwide recession. How many times did we hear, "Not a penny more than $495 million in deficit," and that we would ride right through this recession because of these great managers?

So that's a commitment they made, a promise they made, pre-election. They produced budget numbers to verify that management myth. That was the $495 million deficit. "Not a penny more," I think, was used. These are the statements made pre-election. Then we're going to see the difference of this as we discuss the budget post-election.

The next thing that the Liberals did to win this election is they based those fantastical numbers, those mythical numbers for the deficit, on a number of myths.

Increased income tax revenue. Now, as we were leading the country in job losses pre-election and post, the Liberals based the budget on a large increase in income tax. Now, you don't have to be an economist to question that one.

Then they also based their fantastical budget numbers of only a $495 million deficit on increased sales tax revenue, while consumer confidence was plummeting because we were in a recession.

These are very clever tactics to win an election. Next they omitted the facts like B.C. being one of the worst-performing economies in the country or that the welfare caseloads and the pressures that those brought to bear on the budget were going through the roof. They didn't just omit those. They withheld that information before the election.

They also promised to protect health care and education — a very, very worthwhile promise to make, if there was any truth behind the promise.

Then, of course, they made a point of never mentioning the plans to rip out the heart of Tourism B.C., world-renowned Tourism B.C., a shot in the stomach of all tourism operators. They didn't mention that before the budget and before the election.

They never told the public about their plans to promote and increase on-line gambling from $120 a week to $10,000 a week, basically preying on people with gambling addictions.

The Liberals never mentioned cuts to libraries. No, they never mentioned massive increases in MSP payments. Last but not least, they never mentioned that basic vital public services and funding to essential non-profits in all of our communities will be ripped away with no consultation and no notice.

[ Page 456 ]

Now, that's an election strategy, brilliant strategy. The Liberals are getting good at it — promises like we won't sell B.C. Rail, or we will honour HEU contracts. We've got quite a litany of statements made, designed to be broken to win an election.

Then we get the budget, and it's 600 percent out over the original pre-election budget of $495 million deficit. So we're pushing…. Well, it's probably a $3.5 billion deficit, but they took some blood money for a planned HST, from the federal government, that brought it down to $2.8 billion. But that $2.8 billion represents a 600 percent mistake from pre-election to post-election.

Now, I've been a small business owner, and I know there are other members from both sides of the House who have probably done the same — and larger business operators, corporate owners, corporate elite, CEOs and that sort of thing. Anybody that blows a budget by 600 percent would be turfed out very, very quickly.

[1555]

I think there'd be a way of doing it without paying severance, too, to whatever individual or individuals actually misled their shareholders or company owners by that much.

This budget…. The outrage it has caused is consistent throughout the province. It spans political parties. It spans the spectrum of left wing and right wing, and it is an outrage. It is an election by deception. In this budget….

It's not an easy budget to actually read through, because we have so many community groups coming to us MLAs, at least from this side of the House — I'm sure the others too, but they might not admit it. However, they're coming, wondering: "Are we on the chopping block? We can't tell. Are we going to lose critical funding for our food banks or our parent advisory commissions or our palliative care facilities, our hospices or our animal recovery facilities or any number of non-profits that do the vital work in our communities that the government refuses to do and refuses to fund through core funding?"

As we go through the budget to try to give them answers of whether or not they're on the chopping block, we can't find it out. There's been an amalgamation of so many things in various ministries and a separation of other things in other ministries, making it a very, very difficult document to compare from previous budgets and to tell who's going to get what or who is going to get devastated by budget cuts. It's been very difficult to go through this.

But trickling out, of course, as the bad news flows through community groups and organizations, we're starting to learn just what that means. What we've seen initially…. Remember the mythical promise pre-election to protect health care. Just on Vancouver Island, what the Liberal promise to protect health care means is a reduction of 4,400 MRIs — just on Vancouver Island. That's the definition, a Liberal definition, of protecting health care.

I don't think anyone buys that. I don't think anybody sees that as protecting health care. I think that's part of the outrage with this budget. There was no mention pre-budget of cutting 4,400 MRIs on Vancouver Island. They're putting people and patients at risk. They're cancelling surgeries. This is not protecting health care on Vancouver Island, not dealing with the paramedics and giving them the fair and just contract to do the good work they do to save lives as part of our health care continuum. That is not a good faith action that reflects a pre-election promise of protecting health care.

Obstetrics at the Tofino hospital in my constituency has ceased to exist in the hospital. If a woman from Ahousaht is having a birth, she faces a 40-minute boat ride on a good day down to Tofino, and the hospital is no longer equipped to handle obstetrics. It's a two-hour, winding road highway to Highway 4, to the next hospital, which is in Port Alberni, which has lost other services. It's a domino effect.

There's no money in this budget. There's no mention in this budget of protecting those services, which was a promise made pre-election. The hospices on Vancouver Island are all wondering if they're going to get their money because they don't get any core funding from this government — even though their own strategy, the framework on end-of-life care that came out two years ago, said that hospice must be supported as an integral part of our health care system to provide quality end-of-life care.

Now these organizations are losing sleep because they don't know if they're going to get their meagre gaming grants. They have to fight for those every year, use up valuable energy that should be spent on helping people and families cope with death experiences that VIHA, the Vancouver Island Health Authority, isn't dealing with and neither is the Ministry of Health.

[1600]

When there are cuts, these are the worst kind of cuts that you can make. These valuable community groups provide the best bang for the buck, if you will, of any money spent by ministries, any ministries. You bring in community members. You get huge leverage with volunteerism on many of these groups, and their meagre funds are being slashed in a budget deception that defies logic.

I mentioned the PACs. These are the parent advisory commissions that do the good work in our communities and involve parents in the education process, which I think is so important to the health of our education system. Well, they just got an announcement without any warning — this is a week before the school year starts — that their budget is going to be cut in half.

Now, the DPAC in the Alberni Valley provides breakfasts for hundreds of students, and these are the types of

[ Page 457 ]

cuts that this government is making — devastating to children; devastating to people that are dying; devastating to the people that should be prevented from dying, through things like MRIs.

If any of this were talked about openly with the people of British Columbia pre-election, the Liberal government would never have won. The Liberal government basically made a mockery out of democracy through this budget process. Pre-election they say one thing. Post-election they say the complete opposite on almost every subject. That deceit has come back to haunt them these days. We've seen that in the polls. Unfortunately for the people of British Columbia, we may be stuck here for four years with a government that got in illegitimately by misleading the public to win an election.

I'll note the facility grants for our schools. It was also a shock to the education system. That was part of the "we will protect education" promise that was immediately broken post-election in this budget. The facility grants, as most of you know, have for 30 years, I think, been issued to school districts, to school boards, and rightly so. They provide the basic maintenance that's necessary to keep our schools safe and to keep our children healthy, and by extension, to provide quality education for our students.

Of course, the expectation from proper management of school districts, like school districts 69 and 70 in my constituency, is that these works will be done, contracted out in late spring — it's always what happens — as the school year is coming to an end, and then the stopwatch starts ticking as soon as school gets out and the kids get on their summer vacation or go get their summer jobs at a ghastly minimum wage from this government, but I digress.

So these contracts are let, and they're done during the summer months. Less than two weeks before the start of the school year, the school districts, the trustees that are tasked with juggling their insufficient budgets, were told that they're not getting that money. The work has been done. In district 70 I was at a school district meeting, the trustees meeting a couple of weeks ago, and they're outraged. They put forward a resolution that was unanimous to oppose these diabolical cuts to the basic needs of children in our educational system. They've spent all of that money — rightly so.

[1605]

All the schools in district 70 are old. All of them need work and annual maintenance. If they don't get it, we get the problems of leaking roofs. We get the problems of mould. This puts children at risk. And as far as I can tell from this confusing budget, this deceiving budget, these grants will no longer exist next year either. What about school maintenance? What will happen now? Our children will be put at risk. So while the trustees of various school districts — all of the school districts — across the province are wrestling with this deception and this betrayal, they get hit with a removal of the school sports grants. So the students are hit again.

How $130,000 can be pulled from the provincial budget that affects every school in the province is beyond belief. How the Liberals could make such a ghastly decision is beyond belief in this approach to the Olympics.

The true meaning of the Olympics: involving children in sports, learning leadership skills, teamwork, team spirit, learning about themselves, learning…. It's education. It's an integral part of our education system, and this government pulled it out. They spent $500,000 on a party to celebrate the Premier and the Olympics — but the Premier, mostly. They spent $500,000 in a one-day private party to celebrate a sporting event, and to do so they've removed the equivalent of three years of all the school sports money for the entire province, for all the schools in British Columbia.

When Liberal members stand up and actually start talking about how good their budget is…. They must have drunk the entire bathtub of water. It's beyond belief. The backbenchers and the ministers alike are getting hammered by their own constituents over this ghastly budget, the worst budget in the history of the province of British Columbia.

There's an organization in my constituency. That's Alberni–Pacific R