2011 Legislative Session: Third 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, February 16, 2011

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 20, Number 5

CONTENTS

Page

Routine Business

Tributes

Olympic athletes and volunteers

Hon. C. Hansen

Introductions by Members

Statements

Organ donation

K. Conroy

Introduction and First Reading of Bills

Bill M201 — Recall and Initiative Amendment Act, 2011

D. Black

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

Wildlife conservation efforts in Comox Valley

D. McRae

Alex Cuba

D. Donaldson

Volunteer activities of Peter Maarsman

D. Hayer

Government action on domestic violence

K. Corrigan

Olympic Games events and legacy in Richmond

R. Howard

Cultural events in north coast area

G. Coons

Oral Questions

Payment of legal fees in B.C. Rail court case

D. Black

Hon. C. Hansen

Hon. R. Coleman

L. Krog

N. Macdonald

R. Fleming

S. Simpson

Election campaign finance reporting in Vancouver-Fraserview

K. Corrigan

Funding for criminal justice system

M. Mungall

Hon. R. Coleman

Hon. C. Hansen

S. Chandra Herbert

Surrey school district portable use and funding

J. Brar

Hon. M. MacDiarmid

H. Bains

Tabling Documents

Public Service Benefit Plan Act, 34th annual report, year ended March 31, 2010

Petitions

D. Thorne

J. Horgan

N. Macdonald

Tabling Documents

Guarantees and indemnities authorized and issued report, fiscal year ended March 31, 2010

Orders of the Day

Budget Debate (continued)

B. Ralston

Hon. K. Krueger

D. Donaldson

J. Les

L. Popham

Hon. P. Bell

H. Bains

Hon. S. Thomson

D. Routley

Hon. M. Polak

C. Trevena

Hon. R. Hawes

M. Sather

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 3 — Supply Act (No. 1), 2011

Hon. C. Hansen

B. Ralston

[ Page 6309 ]

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 16, 2011

The House met at 1:34 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

Tributes

OLYMPIC ATHLETES AND VOLUNTEERS

Hon. C. Hansen: I rise today to recognize that exactly one year ago today, February 16, 2010, Squamish resident Maëlle Ricker became the first British Columbia Olympian to win an Olympic medal on Canadian soil.

[1335]

I know everyone in this House is proud of the accomplishments of British Columbia's Olympians and Paralympians. I am pleased to inform the House that the government will formally recognize these special achievements. Seven proclamations will be made to declare commemorative days in the names of British Columbian athletes who won medals during the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games.

Athletes will be recognized on the one-year anniversary of their medal-winning performance. An eighth proclamation will honour the volunteers who made the Olympics and Paralympics such a great success.

Proclaiming days in honour of our Olympic medallists and volunteers is a small token of our appreciation that we can show for everything they have done. Our athletes have inspired a generation of youth to pursue their own dreams. Our famous blue-jacketed volunteers became the face of our nation.

We begin by proclaiming today, February 16, 2011, Maëlle Ricker Day, marking the one-year anniversary of her gold-medal victory in snowboard cross. I ask the House to join me in recognizing Maëlle and all British Columbia's Olympic and Paralympic medallists.

Introductions by Members

D. Black: I'd like to take this opportunity to introduce Cody Walker, who is here with us in the gallery today. Cody is a student at the University of Victoria and has come to work with the official opposition caucus through the University of Victoria's law co-op program. I'd like to ask everyone in the House to please make Cody welcome.

L. Reid: I have the pleasure today of introducing a brand-new British Columbian. He is three months old. His name is Joseph Gered MacDonald. His mom is Bree MacDonald, and she and I used to work together many years ago. I would ask the House to please make them welcome.

C. James: I'd like to make an announcement during introductions that has been a long time coming. I want to admit to this House first that I have been struggling with envy over the last six years as member after member stood up to announce their grandchildren. The member for Chilliwack announced enough grandchildren for the entire House in the Legislature over the last six years. So I stand very proudly today to announce the birth of my first grandchild.

On February 3 Charlie Deane Dunsmoor-Farley James was born, nine pounds ten ounces. He has a lot to live up to with that name. Someone told me it's too big for a campaign sign, so perhaps that will be good. He won't be going into politics. Evan and Bronwyn, his mom and dad, and big sister Hayden are doing wonderfully, and I continue to be a proud grandma.

Mr. Speaker: Not to be outdone and exercising Speaker privilege, on November 14, 2010, I was fortunate enough to have our third grandchild. Allison Elizabeth Barisoff was born in Penticton, the sister of my granddaughter Kayla.

Hon. I. Black: Joining us in the gallery today is the president and CEO of WorkSafe B.C. I know that all members in the House are very mindful of the work that the men and women who comprise that excellent organization do on a daily basis to help keep people in British Columbia safe and get them home from work safely. I ask all of the members of the House to make Dave Anderson feel most welcome.

M. Sather: Joining us in the gallery today are 46 grade 11 students from Westview Secondary School in Maple Ridge. They are here with their teacher Patrick Glover and four other adults. I got the opportunity to meet them earlier, and they enjoyed our fine precincts, as they all came over on a volunteer basis. They stepped up to the plate, and they're here to learn about democracy. Will the House please join me in welcoming them.

[1340]

B. Simpson: It would be an understatement to say that my life has changed somewhat since the last time I stood up in this House. Some of it's good, and some of it's sad.

The good part: I want to introduce two new staff members that have joined my team. Tracey Janes will be helping me with policy and research and Brian Kowalski with outreach, and they're a great complement to my hard-working staff back in Quesnel. I ask the House to please recognize them.

[ Page 6310 ]

On a more sombre note, I want to recognize the passing of my father, who loved this place. All of you were characters in his daily soap opera, as with my mom. Whenever they came here, they loved to meet all of the famous people in the hallways and speak to you as if they'd known you forever, and some of you experienced that.

My dad passed away from pancreatic cancer December 14. He passed away the way he wanted to. He maintained his dignity, and he did it with intestinal fortitude. I want to thank the staff at Kelowna General Hospital, who were incredible for the few days that he spent there, and especially the staff at the hospice house in Kelowna because they made it easy for all of us to say goodbye to him.

I want to thank all of you who sent condolences and to recognize my father today.

J. Horgan: I want to recognize in the gallery two individuals — one, Bernard von Schulmann, here from the capital region; and also, for aspiring leadership candidates on both sides of the House, his son Ben, who has taken out a membership in a party that I will not disclose. So keep your p's and q's on both sides of the House. Would you please welcome Ben von Schulmann, a newly activated partisan of indeterminate nature.

R. Austin: It gives me great pleasure to introduce a dear friend visiting from Kitimat. Rob Goffinet is a now recently retired teacher, after having spent 35 years in that wonderful profession. I'd like the House to join me in making him feel most welcome.

Statements

ORGAN DONATION

K. Conroy: I, too, wanted to take the opportunity to rise today, because it's actually the first time I've had the opportunity, since I donated a kidney last May, to thank all of you for all your warm wishes and support. It was really overwhelming. Both Ed and I survived. Ed survived remarkably well. I want to thank our friends and family for the support we had from them, as well as the B.C. Transplant Society, Canadian Blood Services and the team at VGH in Vancouver as well as the team at Toronto General.

I want to ask you all to take the time to sign up to be an organ donor. It's really easy. You can get on the website, transplant.bc.ca, and type in your CareCard number to find out if you are a donor. But if you're not, please register. It's a really easy thing to do. I'm testament to that. You don't have to wait until you're gone to pass on something as valuable as the gift of life, and you can do it through donating blood. So please, all take the time to do it, and thank you again for all of your warm wishes.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

Bill M201 — Recall and Initiative

Amendment Act, 2011

D. Black presented a bill intituled Recall and Initiative Amendment Act, 2011.

D. Black: Mr. Speaker, I move that a bill entitled Recall and Initiative Amendment Act, 2011, be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion approved.

D. Black: This bill amends the Recall and Initiative Act to require an initiative vote be held within six months of the initiative petition and draft bill being referred to the Chief Electoral Officer for an initiative vote. It addresses the concern that the time period between an expression of the will of the people being made through a successful initiative petition and the actual initiative vote is too long. It also addresses the concern that such a time delay may create uncertainty with respect to the province's economy.

Additionally, this bill allows an initiative vote to be held within nine months of referral if that referral occurred before the coming into force of this act. This means this amendment would allow British Columbians to have their say on the HST before the end of June.

The petition to scrap the HST was deemed to have been successful in August 2010, but under the current rules, a final decision cannot be made until September 2011. The people of B.C. have made it clear that this is too long, and they've made a compelling argument for an early vote.

Finally, after facing significant public backlash, every leadership candidate running to become Premier has committed to an early initiative vote. This bill establishes the framework and paves the way for just that.

I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting after today.

[1345]

Bill M201, Recall and Initiative Amendment Act, 2011, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

WILDLIFE CONSERVATION EFFORTS

IN COMOX VALLEY

D. McRae: When you travel north on the Old Island Highway between Courtenay and Campbell River, you

[ Page 6311 ]

pass by one of the most beautiful farms in British Columbia. Shelter Point Farms is owned by longtime Comox Valley farmers, the Evans family. On February 2 I had the pleasure of visiting their farm for a monumental announcement.

The farm has long been recognized for its tremendous value to migratory waterfowl and other wildlife. The land provides valuable feeding opportunities and resting sites for water birds as they travel between their northern breeding grounds and their southern wintering habitat.

The Evans family has always been a great steward of the land, but I'm pleased to say they've now partnered with Environment Canada, Ducks Unlimited and the Comox Valley regional district to ensure that the biological integrity of this valuable wildlife habitat is protected for future generations. Through their combined efforts, a conservation covenant is now on the farm, which will ensure the continued production of its traditional agricultural crops and at the same time protect its value as wildlife habitat.

Ducks Unlimited and the Comox Valley regional district also purchased 161 acres of woodland, wetland and river floodplain upstream of the Oyster River estuary. This area is teeming with birds, bears, deer and rich fish habitat. This land has now been named Bear Creek Nature Park and will provide recreation and public education opportunities for the residents. In particular, it will allow the volunteer-led Oyster River Enhancement Society to continue work restoring salmon stocks in the river.

Conservation of Bear Creek Nature Park and the Shelter Point Farm has secured almost 520 acres of wetland, agricultural and forested habitat through a combination of donation, acquisition and conservation covenant. I want to express my gratitude to the Evans family, Ducks Unlimited and the CVRD for having the vision to make this happen. They have preserved this priceless jewel for future generations of people and of wildlife.

ALEX CUBA

D. Donaldson: One reviewer has said: "A Cuban immigrant in the Canadian backwoods is the new and unconventional face of Latin music." Well, I'm not sure about describing Stikine or Smithers, in particular, as the Canadian backwoods, but Alex Cuba is definitely the new face of Latin music.

He won a Latin Grammy for best new artist in Las Vegas in November, and on Sunday night he was at the STAPLES Center in Los Angeles, nominated for a 2011 Grammy award in the best Latin pop album category. He didn't win — this time — but as a reporter put it, "He comes to the Grammys as a left-field nominee, an absolute outsider," while the other artists in the same category are all on music label giants like Warner and Sony.

Alex has his own indie label, Caracol Records — phone his home number in Smithers, and that's what you get on the answering machine — and recorded his Grammy-nominated album right here in Victoria at Joby Baker's Tillicum studio.

I last saw Alex perform on a cold winter night in mid-December in Smithers. It was magical — a small venue, a building renovated by volunteers run by the Bulkley Valley Museum Society. Alex also honed his skills at other arts group venues in small towns in B.C. like the Kispiox Valley and in Smithers, at music festivals.

That is why funding to arts groups in small communities is so important and why cutting it can rob the world of the skills and talents of those living in rural B.C., let alone the lost economic and social benefits to those of us living in small communities.

Alex is very dynamic on stage and delivers his powerful performances as part of a trio. It's his approach of doing more with less. Doing more with less — now, that has to be the rural, northern influence on his music.

So congratulations, Alex. An amazing artistic achievement from what some call the Canadian backwoods.

VOLUNTEER ACTIVITIES OF

PETER MAARSMAN

D. Hayer: I'm honoured to speak about the incredible value of volunteerism to our city of Surrey and the importance it has to our entire province. Throughout B.C. we have many not-for-profit organizations, such as the Rotary, the Lions, the Kinsmen and a host of other non-profit societies who do amazing work for the betterment of all of our citizens. Without their dedication and devotion to improve the life of all of us, British Columbia would not be the special and spectacular place that we all love.

[1350]

But none of those great organizations would operate without the willing support of the individual members and volunteers, because volunteering is all about the giving of time, work and money to help others.

One such individual in my city of Surrey is Peter Maarsman, helped greatly by his wife, Sally. Peter has lived all his life in Surrey, volunteered with many non-profit societies and spent all his effort to make our community a better place to live, work and do business in.

Peter is a governor and former president of the Surrey Board of Trade and former executive director of the Surrey Crime Prevention Society. Under his leadership, the Crime Prevention Society grew from just one employee and a handful of members to a thriving organization that has eight staff, hundreds of volunteers and hundreds of members.

He was also the president of the Green Timbers Heritage Society and through his efforts saw our government turn over a huge Green Timbers property to

[ Page 6312 ]

the city of Surrey for heritage and the community development project. Peter has also been named Surrey's Citizen of the Year.

I ask the House to join me in thanking this outstanding resident for all the hard work he has done to make our community and our province the best place in which to live, work and do business.

GOVERNMENT ACTION ON

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE

K. Corrigan: Between 2003 and 2008, 12 percent of all homicides in British Columbia were related to domestic violence. Domestic violence cases constitute the second-largest case type for Crown counsel after impaired driving. The impact of domestic violence on women is immeasurable, but even more immeasurable is the toll that it takes upon the children who experience it as victims or as witnesses.

I'd like to take a moment to honour the memory of Christian Lee, who had turned just six when he, his mother and his grandparents were stabbed to death by his father. This tragedy is made even greater by the fact that it may have been prevented by more coordination between the justice, victim support and police services systems.

Domestic violence not only puts children at risk of physical harm but also exposes them to the psychological trauma caused by witnessing violence. We need strong, direct action to protect children from domestic violence, but support for these children has been sadly lacking.

As the child and youth representative said in her report into the tragic loss of Christian Lee: "The child welfare, criminal justice and family justice systems must all work together to provide effective support for victims and especially for children in these dangerous and sometimes lethal situations. They are not working together now, and the need for change is urgent."

There simply hasn't been enough urgency in the response to this report and in the response to the instances of domestic violence that are reported in courthouses and police stations every day in communities all across this province. We need to do more on a policy level to prevent these tragedies. Beyond that, we must change the behaviour of individuals and of society to make it clear that we are united in our demand that domestic violence will not be tolerated and that we will not let children become the collateral damage of domestic violence.

Those of us who didn't know Christian have an added responsibility to not only remember him but also to continue to honour his memory through seeking positive change both within our institutions and within our society.

OLYMPIC GAMES EVENTS AND

LEGACY IN RICHMOND

R. Howard: This week marks the one-year anniversary for the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Games, where we all adopted the phrase: "Go, Canada, go!" The world came to British Columbia, and we gave them one of the most popular sports events of all time. Nowhere have the games left such a lasting legacy than in Richmond. Two projects in particular I had the pleasure of being involved with from start to finish, from inception to up and operating successfully: the Richmond Oval and the Canada Line.

The Richmond Oval stands as a monument to B.C. sports. With its majestic roof made from pine beetle wood, this breathtaking riverfront venue and its Spirit Square park offer Richmond a place to come together, to compete and get active. Whether it's the two Olympic-sized ice rinks, the indoor soccer fields, personal training or meeting and events spaces, at the Richmond Oval, there is something for everyone.

[1355]

Then there's the Canada Line. Now almost two years in operation, this rapid transit service has far exceeded ridership expectations. Its popularity was already growing when the Olympics arrived, and it soon became an integral part of getting visitors and residents to the pavilions and world-class sporting events.

It's been a year since the world came to British Columbia, a great opportunity to reflect on the legacy of the 2010 games, but it's also a chance to look to the future — a new year to move forward, carrying the spirit of those 17 days in 2010, sharing and renewing our common bonds, enjoying the diversity in our communities and the growth my riding now enjoys. The future has never looked brighter.

CULTURAL EVENTS IN NORTH COAST AREA

G. Coons: The north coast of British Columbia is renowned for its natural beauty, but the cultural diversity and beauty are equally impressive. Despite the economic difficulties this region is facing, cultural celebrations and collaborations are strong.

In January Prince Rupert saw its first-ever Sugar Shack Festival. For four days the Association des francophones et francophiles du Nord-Ouest hosted a film festival, brunch, live music and much more.

Last week Prince Rupert had the pleasure of hosting the 52nd All-Native Basketball Tournament. This annual event brings in thousands of players, spectators and vendors from First Nations communities throughout British Columbia. Prince Rupert was bustling with life and energy. The basketball skills were highly impressive, and the abundance of delicious fried bread, clam fritters and roe on kelp was remarkable.

[ Page 6313 ]

This weekend on Haida Gwaii the village of Queen Charlotte is hosting an agricultural strategy meeting to discuss food security, rising transportation costs and local food production and storage issues on the islands.

In the last week of February one of my favourite events, Hobiyee , is happening in Kincolith — a tremendous new year's celebration for the Nisga'a and many other First Nations. It begins on the full moon in the month of February with the coming of the vital oolichan. I have the honour of drumming with the Gitmaxmak'ay Nisga'a Dancers from Prince Rupert and look forward to partaking in the revelry in the village of Gingolx.

Today I've only highlighted a handful of the many cultural festivities and events that are happening in the region I represent. Despite the loss of employment and growing challenges of living in rural communities, the constituents in this region will not lose their identity or connections with each other and the land.

Oral Questions

PAYMENT OF LEGAL FEES

IN B.C. RAIL COURT CASE

D. Black: Yesterday's budget cut funds to Crown prosecutors by $6 million, the same amount of money the government spent to cover the defence costs of two Liberal insiders convicted of corruption in the B.C. Rail trial.

My question is to the Deputy Premier. Why did his government bend the rules to cover the defence costs of Dave Basi and Bob Virk?

Hon. C. Hansen: With regard to the budget for the Ministry of Attorney General, I can assure the Leader of the Opposition that the same amount reflected in this budget was reflected in the fiscal plan last year. There is not anticipated to be any change to the deployment of prosecutors within the ministry.

The balance of the question I will take on notice on behalf of the Attorney General.

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Official Opposition has a supplementary.

D. Black: The minister knows that the rules were broken. The government only covers defence costs in the event of an acquittal, but two Liberal insiders were given a last-minute sweetheart deal that cut short the B.C. Rail corruption trial.

So again to the Deputy Premier: why is there one set of rules for B.C. Liberals convicted of corruption and another set of rules for everyone else?

Hon. R. Coleman: This case was before the courts for seven years.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

[1400]

Hon. R. Coleman: It was thoroughly investigated by police. A mass amount of documentation was provided to the defence and to the court. A special prosecutor had conduct of the case and acted independently of government at all times. The results were that charges were laid and two individuals pleaded guilty to committing criminal breaches of trust.

Those individuals also pleaded guilty to wrongfully disclosing confidential information and providing assistance for which they received financial benefit. Regrettably, they put their personal gain ahead of the public interest.

In a statement of fact filed with the court at the conclusion of the case, the accused confirmed that they acted alone and were solely responsible for their criminal acts. The decision on the fate of the legal fees reimbursed by the government was made by the Deputy Minister of Finance and supported by the Deputy Attorney General, who issued a public statement setting out the circumstances. These two senior public servants acted on their own authority without any political direction, influence or approval. These issues have been extensively canvassed by the media and by the courts.

Mr. Speaker: Member has a further supplemental.

D. Black: It's clear that the minister will not answer my questions. Maybe they will answer the questions posed by someone who wants the job to be leader of the Liberal Party. Here's the question: "Why did the Crown offer the plea deal in the first place? Did they feel they needed to throw in the $6 million in order to get the accused to sign off?" That was a question from Christy Clark last October — a good question.

British Columbians want to know why they were fleeced out of $6 million. So to the Deputy Premier: would he now like to answer Ms. Clark's questions in the Legislature?

Hon. R. Coleman: As I said in my earlier answer, a special prosecutor had conduct of this case and acted independently of government at all times. I also told you that the decision on the fate of the legal fees reimbursed by the government was made by the Deputy Minister of Finance and supported by the Deputy Attorney General, who issued a public statement setting out the circumstances. Those two public servants acted on their authority without any political direction, influence or approval.

[ Page 6314 ]

L. Krog: Of course, now that Ms. Clark is running to be leader of the B.C. Liberals, she's running for cover on the B.C. Rail deal. The former Attorney General and B.C. leadership hopeful had to apologize when he tried to pin the blame for this repugnant deal on the special prosecutor in the criminal justice branch.

Here's another question from Christy Clark: "Did the former Attorney General sign off on the agreement or not?" Can the Deputy Premier answer that question?

Hon. R. Coleman: I will repeat for the member opposite that the decision on the fate of the legal fees which were reimbursed by the government was made by the Deputy Minister of Finance and supported by the Deputy Attorney General, who issued a public statement setting out the circumstances. These two senior public servants acted on their authority without any political direction, influence or approval.

Mr. Speaker: Member has a supplemental.

L. Krog: Look, here's what we know. Just as the B.C. Rail corruption trial was about to hear from the former Minister of Finance, the former Liberal Minister of Finance, a special deal was cooked up to end that trial. The former Attorney General said publicly that he signed off on the deal. That's what he told the public on October 18 last year. It was his final decision.

Again to the Deputy Premier: so if it was his decision to say…. The simple question is this: why on earth did the Attorney General cut that deal for B.C. Liberal insiders who were convicted of corruption?

Hon. R. Coleman: Again to the member opposite: the decision on the fate of the legal fees reimbursed by government was made by the Deputy Minister of Finance and supported by the Deputy Attorney General, who issued a public statement setting out the circumstances. Those two senior public servants acted on their own authority without any political direction, influence or approval.

[1405]

N. Macdonald: If you are a non-political civil servant convicted of a crime related to your job, you can count on one thing. The government will come after you hard for your defence costs. It will be your house, your assets. Everything is on the table. But if you happen to be a B.C. Liberal insider with a politically embarrassing story to tell, then things are completely different, aren't they?

Dave Basi put up his house as collateral for his defence costs. Why did the government not collect?

Hon. R. Coleman: As I said before, the decision on the fate of the legal fees reimbursed by government was made by the Deputy Minister of Finance and supported by the Deputy Attorney General, who issued a public statement setting out the circumstances.

The members opposite should know that the policies in which they were operating were policies that operated in the 1990s as well as during the term of this government. These two senior public servants acted on their own authority without political direction, as they should have, and without influence or approval.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

N. Macdonald: This is the point. This is not how it works. There was a conviction. Look at the contrast. Before anyone in this province can collect welfare, they have to sell almost all of their assets. A single mother who is desperate has to sell almost everything that they own before this government will help them at all. But if you are a B.C. Liberal insider, this government will bend over backwards to help you, to the tune of $6 million.

So the question is for this government. Why is there a special set of rules for B.C. Liberals convicted of corruption?

Hon. R. Coleman: I do find it offensive that the member opposite is impugning the reputation of some professional public servants in the province of British Columbia. But I will tell you, hon. Member, that the decision of the legal fees reimbursed by government….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Minister, just take your seat.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. R. Coleman: Knowing the public servants who would have made this decision, I think it is improper to impugn their reputations.

As I said, the decision on the fate of the legal fees reimbursed by government was made by the Deputy Minister of Finance and supported by the Deputy Attorney General, who issued a public statement setting out the circumstances. These two public servants acted on their own authority, which they have, without any political direction, influence or approval.

R. Fleming: The people of British Columbia want answers into this $6 million deal that shut down the case, because the deal stinks.

Let's look at it. It was an agreement that let one defendant walk. It let two plead guilty to corruption charges that carried sentences up to ten years in prison and put them under the mildest terms of house arrest. It let them keep their houses when government had a piece of paper saying: "Your legal bills are in exchange

[ Page 6315 ]

for it being repaid if you're found guilty." All of that was given away.

The question is to the Deputy Premier. Can he cite one precedent anywhere where taxpayers have paid for the legal fees of convicted criminals — in this case, B.C. Liberal political aides? One case?

Hon. R. Coleman: As I said, the decision on the fate of the legal fees was handled. I know the members opposite still want to see if they can impugn the reputation of dedicated public servants.

I have in my hand, which I'm glad to provide to the House after question period, the statement by the Deputy Attorney General, David Loukidelis, on the Basi-Virk matter, dated October 20, 2010.

[1410]

I will read one paragraph to the members opposite. Maybe they can go look and read this statement that was made by the Deputy Attorney General. This is what it says.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Continue, Minister.

Hon. R. Coleman: If I have time, I'm happy to read the entire thing into the record. But in the second-to-last paragraph, it states this: "No one outside the legal services branch, myself and the Deputy Minister of Finance had any knowledge of this or involvement. For clarity, neither the special prosecutor nor the Attorney General had any knowledge of the matter and any involvement in this."

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

R. Fleming: The question is why the B.C. Liberals, this government, violated longstanding indemnity policy for the province of British Columbia when they covered the legal fees for now convicted criminals who came from their own party, who were political insiders with this government. Why did they give away $6 million for the taxpayer when they could have forced the sale of the now convicted criminals' assets?

To the Deputy Premier again. Maybe he'll get on his feet. Will he end the cover-up today and do, at a minimum, what some of his leadership candidates are calling for and call for a public inquiry so that we can finally get to the truth of the matter in British Columbia?

Hon. R. Coleman: Deputy Attorney General of this province David Loukidelis served this House as Information and Privacy Commissioner with distinction over a number of years, and I believe his reputation is impeccable. He has written this letter on the 20th of October and outlined it.

To the members opposite I will repeat that the decision on the fate of the legal fees reimbursed by government was made by the Deputy Minister of Finance, supported by the Deputy Attorney General, who issued a public statement setting out these circumstances. I invite members to go and read the public statement if they wish.

It wouldn't hurt you to do that. These two public servants acted on their own authority without any political direction, influence or approval.

S. Simpson: The deputy ministers aren't in this House to answer for the conduct of this government. This House Leader is answering, and he should provide some answers. The House Leader has mentioned the comments of the Deputy Attorney General. Let's look at the comments of the Attorney General of the day.

On October 21 he told Christy Clark's radio show: "They told me about the decision, and I agreed with it. I agreed with it then, and I agree with it now." He went on, on January 7, to say this: "I was informed of the decision. I have never shirked from my responsibility. I think I held it this time to answer politically for it. I was the Attorney General."

Hon. Speaker, the Attorney General is not here. The House Leader is speaking for the government. Accept political responsibility. Tell us why you paid the $6 million to end that trial.

Hon. R. Coleman: The decision on the fate of the legal fees, as I told the member opposite already, was made by the Deputy Minister of Finance and supported by the Deputy Attorney General, who issued a public statement setting out those circumstances, which you are quite allowed to go look for.

I will reiterate that it was done under the same policy that existed when the NDP government was in existence in the 1990s. These two public servants acted on their own authority without any political influence or direction or approval.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

[1415]

S. Simpson: No government before this one has ever paid out $6 million to pay the legal fees of convicted criminals. This decision by the B.C. Liberal government is unprecedented, and it's outrageous, and it in fact impugns the public trust of these democratic institutions and of this place. That's the reality.

If this minister and this government have any concern beyond their political survival, any concern for the integrity of elected officials, you'll call a full public inquiry now. Get to the bottom of a political scandal and a lousy payout. Do it now.

[ Page 6316 ]

Hon. R. Coleman: I invite you to go look at the October 20 letter, which I'm actually happy to photocopy for every member opposite in the House, from the Deputy Attorney General, David Loukidelis. I can tell you that the two public servants acted on their own authority without political direction, influence or approval.

ELECTION CAMPAIGN FINANCE

REPORTING IN VANCOUVER-FRASERVIEW

K. Corrigan: A June 15, 2010, letter from Elections B.C. sent to the Vancouver-Fraserview MLA, his financial agent and the B.C. Liberal Party says the campaign's financial report "did not completely and accurately disclose the information required by the Election Act. Specifically, it appears that not all election expenses and contributions have been reported."

To the Deputy Premier: your government has known about this letter and the forensic audit that prompted it for eight months. Why has your government not taken any action in an effort to avoid embarrassing this government and degrading its integrity even further?

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Member, I'll rule the question out of order considering that it's dealing with a sitting member that is before a special prosecutor.

Do you have a different question, Member?

K. Corrigan: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I have a different question.

I want to talk about the period before the suit was filed in the courts. My question for the Deputy Premier is: in the time period before this was filed, why did the government not direct the member from…?

Mr. Speaker: Member. Member, I've ruled it out of order. It's dealing with a sitting member, and it's before a special prosecutor. Now, unless you have something new and a new line, we won't continue.

Continue, Member.

K. Corrigan: One final try. Does this government think that it is acceptable behaviour for anyone, let alone a member of their own government, to not file reports as required?

FUNDING FOR CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM

M. Mungall: Here's what's happening in B.C.'s judicial system today. An RCMP officer charged with dangerous and impaired driving in 2007 — well, that was thrown out in November 2010; two people charged with cocaine trafficking in Cranbrook, thrown out in May 2010; two other charges of impaired driving in Surrey, thrown out November 2010; another impaired driving charge in Prince Rupert, thrown out in October 2010 — all because of court delays, delays due to this government's underfunding of the judicial system.

After yesterday's budget, that underfunding continues. Is this the standard that the Minister of Finance plans to keep, or will he commit today to properly fund the criminal justice system, clear up the backlog and get B.C. courts working again?

[1420]

Hon. R. Coleman: The Attorney General is not with us today because he's at home expecting the birth of his first child, so I will take that question on notice.

Mr. Speaker: Does the member have a supplemental?

M. Mungall: I do, hon. Speaker. This is to the Minister of Finance. He, after all, does control the entire budget and presented it yesterday. Make no mistake. The justice system is being starved to death because of the decisions and the presentation that he put forward yesterday.

In his dismissal of an impaired-driving charge because of unacceptable delays in another case, a Provincial Court judge in Surrey said that the shortages are not due to the result of dramatic cuts but the result of attrition from the gradual budget reductions. Like I said, those gradual budget reductions…. We saw them again yesterday in the budget speech.

Will the Minister of Finance stand up to protect B.C. citizens, ensure people's right to a trial and commit to getting our justice system back on track?

Hon. C. Hansen: I know that the Attorney General would have a more fulsome response for the member, but I can reassure the member that the budget that we have set out for the Ministry of Attorney General for the three years of the fiscal plan starting April 1 is consistent with the same numbers that were tabled last year.

S. Chandra Herbert: The B.C. justice system is in crisis. Accused criminals are walking free because the B.C. Liberals have cut millions to courts, to prosecutions, to corrections. The Finance Minister's budget continues that. Accused crooks are getting let off scot-free, while their victims live with the crimes for the rest of their lives.

My question is for the Finance Minister and the Deputy Premier. When will the B.C. Liberals stop letting accused criminals get off scot-free and stand up for the justice system that we're sent here to protect?

Hon. C. Hansen: As I indicated, the budget for the Ministry of Attorney General is going to be maintained, as are virtually all of the ministries of government. They will be stabilized for the third year of the plan and consistent with the three-year plan as we had set out last

[ Page 6317 ]

year. The Ministry of Attorney General is involved with a review of the justice system to find out how the justice system can be improved to ensure that there is more timely access and to make sure that the appropriate efficiencies are found.

SURREY SCHOOL DISTRICT

PORTABLE USE AND FUNDING

J. Brar: Yesterday's budget was a huge disappointment for the people of Surrey, as there was no money to build new schools. The Surrey school district has grown by thousands of students since 2005. As a result, we have 292 portable classrooms in the Surrey school district this year.

My question to the Minister of Education: does this government ever plan to deal with the lack of school space in the Surrey school district? If so, when?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: Thank you for the question. Certainly, on the several trips I've made to the Surrey school district, I have been well aware of the rapid growth in Surrey. It's clearly a wonderful part of the province in which to live.

To be clear, we have invested in school space in Surrey — over $219 million in the last ten years. It's the most that we've invested in any school district. Since 2005 we've created over 3,000 new spaces in schools in Surrey, and there are more being prepared, even as we speak, for full-day kindergarten. We're working on it, but we do recognize and acknowledge that this is our fastest-growing school district.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

J. Brar: Mr. Speaker, the minister is trying to dodge my question, and the minister knows it very well. The reality is this. The Surrey school district did not get even a penny of new capital funding for the last six years. No money in 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010.

[1425]

My question, again to the Minister of Education: how many years will it take for this government to figure out that Surrey is a growing district and that we need more classrooms in the Surrey school district?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: I will remind the member opposite of one of those uncomfortable truths, which is that back in 1998 there were 363 portable classrooms in Surrey. Today there are approximately 250. The member opposite has actually been at the openings of schools that have happened in Surrey in the last number of years.

Clearly, we have work to do, but we have been building schools in Surrey. At the moment there is construction on 58 new classrooms in Surrey for full-day kindergarten and another 18 classrooms for elementary school. The work is ongoing. We are investing in Surrey.

H. Bains: The minister knows that this is a pathetic explanation to a very serious situation in Surrey. They need action, not the lip service from this minister that we've been getting for years now. Every new portable that is springing up in the Surrey school district costs over $100,000. That money comes out of the in-class learning of our students. Their education is compromised.

This is a direct result of this government, because our district is forced to take this money out of the classroom to pay for this government's failure to provide real classrooms for our children.

To the minister, again: will you commit today and ensure that not a single dollar will come out of the children's education in the classroom to pay for these portables?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: Certainly, people on both sides of the House feel very passionately about the education system. That is clear.

This member is unfortunately misinformed. As we have continued to work closely with the Surrey school district, we have acknowledged that the portables…. They were previously paying for portable classrooms out of their budget. We have given them a capital grant of $2 million toward their portable classrooms. We continue to have a good working relationship with the Surrey school district, which I greatly value.

[End of question period.]

Mr. Speaker: Minister of Community, Sport and Cultural Development. I thought you had a report.

Hon. S. Cadieux: Tomorrow.

Tabling Documents

Hon. M. McNeil: I'm pleased to rise in the House today to present the 34th annual report pursuant to the Public Service Benefit Plan Act, year ended March 31, 2010.

Petitions

D. Thorne: I'd like to present a petition from 407 residents of British Columbia asking that fee increases to residents of long-term residential care be stopped and that care remain equitable and affordable.

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

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

[ Page 6318 ]

J. Horgan: On September 19 Tribal Chief Liz Logan of the Treaty 8 Tribal Association, along with a number of other chiefs from the Peace country as well as the province of Alberta, attended the Legislature to declare their opposition to the Site C dam on the Peace River.

I was presented, on behalf of the Leader of the Opposition, a petition in a birchbark, which is the traditional vessel for removing information from one level of government to another. I ask to seek this as a petition signed by five First Nations opposing the Site C dam.

[1430]

N. Macdonald: I present a petition today signed by over 600 residents of Golden and area, calling for a moratorium on the private river diversion project on Ventego and Cupola creeks near Golden.

Tabling Documents

Hon. C. Hansen: I rise pursuant to the Financial Administration Act to table the guarantees and indemnities report.

Orders of the Day

Hon. R. Coleman: I call budget debate. For the members' information, the budget debate will continue this afternoon until 6 p.m., at which time we will move into second reading of Supply Act (No. 1).

Budget Debate

(continued)

B. Ralston: Perhaps if I might wait a moment until members head about their business.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

I'll continue. I want to make a few further remarks about the budget. They will be somewhat briefer than I have made in previous years, given that the content of this budget was close to nil. The Finance Minister set expectations very low. He basically promised very little, if not nothing, and I think that is one promise in this budget that he did deliver on — very little in the budget at all.

But there are some telltale signs of what I would regard as classic B.C. Liberal fiscal policy in action. I'm thinking in particular of the forecast allowances that are included in this budget and the contingency. Those are fairly arcane financial terms, but in the preface to the budget signed by the Deputy Minister of Finance, Mr. Whitmarsh, he explains what forecast allowances are.

I'm going to read from the statement at the beginning of the budget document signed by Mr. Whitmarsh: "Forecast allowances of $350 million are included in each of the fiscal years 2011-2012 through to 2013-14 to help achieve operating and debt level targets. These allowances are intended to help recognize uncertainty in revenue forecasts, commodity prices and global economic recovery generally."

So in perhaps less formal language, though a forecast allowance is there, it's added as part of the nominal expenditure to the bottom line as a cushion against certain unpredictable things that may happen. In particular, he does reference uncertainty in revenue forecasts, fluctuations in global commodity prices, and as a resource-driven economy in many respects as a province, our provincial revenue is subject to those kinds of fluctuations. Also, he refers to global economic recovery. So that figure is set out over the next three years.

[1435]

In addition, the budget also contains what are called contingencies, and that is for, again, a different kind of unforeseen expense that may arise during the course of the budget year. In this budget there's a provision for $600 million in this budget year, $450 million in each of the two subsequent years of the three-year fiscal plan. Adding that up for this year, you have $600 million in contingency and a $350 million forecast allowance. That's $950 million, just $50 million short of a billion, obviously.

By anyone's standards, it's a lot of money. The Finance Minister has explained that as, in addition to the words of the deputy minister, wanting to guard against unforeseen fluctuations in the global economy, resource prices, revenue forecasts being off.

That's put in the budget there, as the Finance Minister said, to provide what he has described as flexibility so that the incoming Liberal leader, the new leader, would have the opportunity to spend as he or she saw fit according to the personal agenda that they are developing now or may reveal after they win the Liberal Party leadership convention.

So this all seems, I suppose, somewhat reasonable — particularly, I suppose, if you're a B.C. Liberal. The new leader is going to be given an opportunity to have a stack of cash to dispense, perhaps in a pre-election flurry, perhaps over the course of the next year or two as we look at the now scheduled election in 2013.

But I view this new-found affection for forecast allowances with some skepticism. When I look back at the budget which was tabled back on February 17, 2009…. This was, of course, prior to the last election, and the government had a very different political agenda.

This budget is driven by a political agenda to give the incoming leader a stack of cash to spend as he or she sees fit. The budget back then had a different political agenda. It was designed to get through an election, and it was designed in the economic circumstances in which we found ourselves then to minimize, to absolutely minimize, the deficit. Notoriously — and I think this

[ Page 6319 ]

will be one of the outgoing Premier's epitaphs — he predicted, he guaranteed, a $495 million deficit maximum. He stressed that. I'm quoting him. He made that comment on a radio station — $495 million maximum.

Of course, we know that that wasn't accurate, and the Public Accounts Committee has confirmed that. That budget has now passed through all the phases of approval and spending and came out at just short of $1.8 billion as a deficit — strikingly off, perhaps by design. Certainly, it's the firm view of many people I talked to over the last 18 months or so that that was deliberately so. But in any event, that was what was promised then.

But did the government feel the obligation to have this cushion in the biggest economic downturn in the last 60 years? Wouldn't it be responsible as financial managers to put a forecast allowance into the February 2009 budget when you were in that kind of financial turmoil? Certainly, a bit different from now as we begin to recover from the recession, although there are some troubling signs in parts of the economy, particularly the unemployment numbers.

But wouldn't it have made sense? If what Mr. Whitmarsh says on behalf of the Finance Minister in February 2011 is valid, wouldn't it be even more valid in February 2009? You'd need a forecast allowance for those uncertainty-in-revenue forecasts. February 2009, I think most people would agree, was more uncertain than revenue forecasts are today.

Fluctuations in commodity prices. Certainly, we're always vulnerable to that, but there was a very sharp downturn in GDP, the world economy, the Canadian economy and, of course, the British Columbia economy. The reference to the global economic recovery — again, very prudent. It would have been very prudent to have a forecast allowance.

[1440]

But the political agenda back at that time didn't dictate it, because what the Finance Minister's job was, was to shorten up, to reduce, to make it as plausible as he could and as small a deficit as possible. So there was no need for forecast allowances back then.

In fact, here's what the former Deputy Minister of Finance and secretary to Treasury Board said in the same statement that he wrote at the front of the February 17, 2009, budget: "Unlike recent years, there are no forecast allowances included in the fiscal plan, and government will be managing risks to the fiscal plan through expenditure management and use of the contingency vote."

Never mind the downturn. Never mind the economic uncertainty. Never mind the prudent practice that the B.C. Liberals urged beginning back in 2001 of forecast allowances and in the fiscal review that was done after the 2001 election. The report there called for forecast allowances equal to 4.5 percent of the total budget. Not 1 percent, not a half percent. Zero percent in the middle of the biggest economic downturn.

Clearly, by juxtaposing those two uses of the forecast allowance now and when the incoming leader needs a stack or a whack of cash to spend on a spending spree when he or she comes to power — and back in 2009, in a downturn when you wanted to reduce the size of the deficit and you didn't need it…. A very cynical, deliberate, calculated manipulation of the fiscal process — not with the best interests of the citizens of British Columbia in mind, not with an eye to good fiscal management, but with an eye to the main chance of the B.C. Liberals. That's what that was all about in doing that.

Yes, while the deputy minister there said: "Well, we're going to use the contingency vote to manage these uncertainties…." Again, very difficult economic times. So was the contingency allocated more than it is this budgetary cycle? One would expect that in 2009 — you have no forecast allowance, and you're managing only through contingencies — you'd set aside more money, certainly more money than you would in 2011. Wouldn't that seem reasonable?

I'm sure most people who thought about it would expect that the risks on the downside to contingencies were greater in 2009 than they are in 2011. But when you examine the two budgets, the amount of contingency set aside in this budgetary cycle, in this fiscal year, is $200 million more than it was in 2009 — $200 million more — once again demonstrating the cynical nature of the budgetary process.

For the B.C. Liberals it's not about fiscal probity. It's not about good management. It's about the main political chance of manipulating the fiscal process in order to give them the maximum political benefit, and that's a very, very clear demonstration of that.

There's no other rational explanation for it. So $600 million in contingencies in this year and $400 million in the 2009 budget, again because the Finance Minister wanted to reduce the deficit, and a contingency counts against the deficit and would have added to it. So you keep it as small as you can, get rid of the forecast allowance and reduce your deficit as much as you can.

Never mind on the revenue side where revenue was overstated in a number of departments, a number of revenue streams, in 2009. That's a separate issue but equally part of the same effort to come up with the fictional $495 million maximum.

So this budget sets aside that amount of money, $950 million in discretionary spending, unallocated discretionary spending. The combination of those two will be used by the incoming B.C. Liberal leader and Premier to spend according to their own personal agenda.

[1445]

An Hon. Member: Slush fund.

B. Ralston: Well, some may call it a slush fund. I don't think the Finance Minister has used that term,

[ Page 6320 ]

but I expect there might be some people who may choose to characterize it in that way. Certainly, I'll leave that to other people to decide.

The government also, in the same spirit of trying, attempting to rebuild trust…. One can regard this manipulation of the fiscal process that I just spoke of as a further demonstration of why people don't and shouldn't and won't trust B.C. Liberal budgets ever again in the future, in my view. Certainly, they shouldn't trust this one, given what the motivation is in setting aside this money.

The government also likes to talk about…. We've heard in the Finance Minister's budget speech him heading back, I suppose, hand in hand with the Premier as they look back to those halcyon days in 2001 when they first came into power, and they began to repeat some of the political myths that they have lived by over the last ten years. Some of those are captured in the budget speech, and indeed, some of those are reflected in the budget.

Let's look at medical services premiums. What has happened over the ten years that the B.C. Liberals have been in power…. If you look at the budget, medical services premiums are projected to year-end this fiscal year to be $1.798 billion — roughly $1.8 billion — and in the budget for the coming year projected to be $1.945 billion. So that's close to $2 billion, a major funding source for the government.

British Columbians will be paying more, 70 percent more, in this fiscal year than they did in 2002, and medical services premium fees will continue increasing next year as well. They increased 6 percent on January 1, and they will increase again next January 1. According to the budget document, a two-income family of four earning $60,000 would pay $1,452 a year in medical services premiums.

That is a substantial burden on families. Like many of the changes that the B.C. Liberals have brought in, they prefer — rather than graduated income tax, in the sense that it recognizes income equality and attempts to compensate through the tax system for it — user fees that fall across the board on everyone with a few exemptions at the very bottom of the income scale.

A two-income family of four earning $60,000…. That would be solidly within or very close to the median income in the province, and I think one would not regard those people as particularly rich or anything above average income. So that's a pretty representative figure — $1,452 in MSP premiums a year.

This decision that the B.C. Liberals have undertaken is unique in Canada. If you look at page 88, table A2 — it's an interprovincial comparison of tax rates — there's a line item: "Health care premiums a month, individually and family." If you look across at the comparison to any other province, there's a figure for British Columbia, but from Alberta, Saskatchewan and straight across to Newfoundland, there is no other province that charges these fees. It's a uniquely B.C. Liberal fiscal solution — a user fee on individual families rather than using the tax system in a fairer way.

Certainly, the B.C. Liberals like to trumpet the fact, and we've heard it in the budget speech, about reductions in personal income tax. But you have to offset that against what the reality is in terms of things like the medical services premiums, which are unique to British Columbia according to page 88, table A2, and are rising all the time.

[1450]

Much has been spoken of yesterday and today about the $6 million in legal fees that was forgiven by representatives of the government. It would seem that there's an offsetting reduction in Crown prosecutorial services. I don't think that's deliberate. That's simply an illustrative contrast. B.C. Liberals chose to forgive $6 million in legal fees to two convicted B.C. Liberal political assistants who worked here in this building prior to their arrest — to forgive them that money.

Yet when it comes to the prosecution service, which is facing extreme challenges…. One thinks of the complicated nature of prosecutions in contemporary criminal law, whether they are drug conspiracy trials, whether they are the complicated gang prosecutions requiring volumes and volumes — I suppose now disclosed on disk — thousands and thousands of pages of disclosure requiring complicated legal judgments, vast legal experience and a work ethic and determination to see those kinds of prosecutions through faced by very experienced defence counsel.

These are the kinds of prosecutions that the public is demanding. The police are gathering the evidence and concluding cases and presenting them to the prosecution services expecting that they will go forward to trial. Yet when we see this kind of budgetary reduction, one wonders about the commitment of the B.C. Liberals to the prosecution service of the province, notwithstanding some of the political rhetoric that we hear from time to time on that side of the House and from individual ministers.

The document or the reference that I'm looking at is on page 49. The voted appropriation for the prosecution services is on page 49 of the Estimates document. The voted appropriation last year, $112.6 million. The estimates include the number $106,856,000, hence the close to $6 million reduction that was spoken of.

This is documented, notwithstanding the contrary view perhaps expressed by the Minister of Finance a little bit earlier here. This is documented. This is in the hard-copy document in the estimates. That's what government runs on, and indeed, we'll be speaking about interim supply. This is the document that will guide the operations of government in this service as well as the rest of government when the interim supply bill is passed. So it is reality, and that speaks to the lack of commitment and to the misplaced priorities.

[ Page 6321 ]

If, as B.C. Liberal leadership candidates say, we've lost our way — that people don't trust us; that we really, since the HST debacle, have to rebuild the confidence and the trust of people in British Columbia — this is no clearer illustration that there's a very, very high mountain to climb, maybe even higher than some of the highest peaks in the world — the Mount Everest, I suppose, of credibility. This government has a long, long hike, a long, long way to go.

I don't want to speak at too great a length, but the minister, in his remarks in his budget speech, reverted back to some of the political rhetoric that we've heard too many times in this chamber and, I suppose, outside. It's been, I suppose, the rallying cry, the leitmotif, of the B.C. Liberals. One of them is that under the NDP it's alleged that British Columbia became a have-not province. What the reference is here….

[1455]

Interjection.

B. Ralston: Just wait for it, Minister. Just wait for it.

What exactly it is…. They're talking about equalization payments. Equalization payments are a fiscal agreement, an arrangement between the federal government and the provinces. There's a formula by which for certain indices the federal government pays money to equalize fiscal opportunity throughout the federation. Indeed, it's one of the features of the constitution. So the minister referred to that in his budget speech and repeated the myth that's there as well.

I'm going to continue as the designated speaker just slightly longer. I'm verging on a conclusion, but I do want to make this point here.

The NDP, as government, received a single equalization transfer, in the 1999-2000 fiscal year, of $125 million. In contrast, the B.C. Liberals have received five such payments, a total of $2.4 billion during their time in office: $158 million in 2001-2002, $543 million in 2002-2003, $979 million in 2004-2005, $590 million in 2005-2006 and $459 million in 2006-2007.

So have-not province — $125 million for the New Democrats, one single payment; B.C. Liberals, $2.4 billion — yet we've heard this myth reiterated by the Finance Minister again in his budget speech. One columnist called this a version of the creation myth of the B.C. Liberals. It's clearly fictional. No shred of evidence supports it. So $125 million to $2.4 billion. If any government made British Columbia a have-not province, as they wish, it's that government over there. They took $2.4 billion in equalization payments. So that's one myth.

Interjections.

B. Ralston: They laugh and guffaw because they don't know any better. I mean, really, they don't. They don't understand this issue; they just recite the cliché. They're undeterred by the facts, as they are in so many other matters, particularly fiscal matters. The myth is more important than reality, the fiction more important than fact, the fantasy more important than what is really happening in the fiscal life of the province.

I want to conclude on this. Regrettably, I have to bring this up, since the Finance Minister revived this old fiction as well. The Premier, on his way out the door, seems to want to waft back in a nostalgic way to the kind of political rhetoric that served him well, perhaps, in 2001 but that everyone recognizes was just political opportunism of the time and had no basis in reality.

When the NDP government was defeated and the Liberals came to power, they had a problem in the fiscal reality of the province in that the deficit, or surplus, that was left actually turned out to be the biggest surplus in the history of the province to that time, in the last fiscal year of the B.C. New Democrats in government — $1.198 billion.

Faced with this problem, with the reality of a surplus, the biggest surplus in the history of the province, they set out to manufacture this so-called fiscal structural deficit. This is revived again as a technique by the Finance Minister.

[1500]

Rather than acknowledge there was a surplus, what they did is they projected a deficit three years forward, created a notional budget three years out, reduced revenue and increased expenditure and came up with a structural deficit of close to $5 billion. Complete, utter rubbish — a fantasy. But it served their political interests.

Rather than be repentant or even slightly apologetic as he heads for the exit, the Premier seems insistent on repeating this myth. Maybe he actually believes it. I don't know. It doesn't really matter, because it's simply not the case. It served the political ends of the government back in those heady days of 2001, but the political reality is elsewhere.

I want to end on that note of caution. When one examines…. We heard from the member for West Vancouver–Capilano an attempt, perhaps a little bit more sophisticated and less crude than many of his colleagues, to fashion the same sort of argument but with an equal lack of success.

When one compares the economic growth record of the NDP government over its decade, growth was at 3 percent on average; for B.C. Liberals over their ten years and the tenure of this Premier, it's close to 2.4 percent. Clearly, on those kinds of basic economic indices, the economic record of the government is not something that's really worth being very proud of. It's a mediocre record at best, but that won't stop, perhaps, the next speaker from wanting to trumpet it.

In conclusion, if you really want to have a good look at the reality of the record, economic and fiscal and social,

[ Page 6322 ]

of the B.C. Liberals, look at the Progress Board report, the most recent report. Middling results.

Paul Willcocks wrote a piece for many of the newspapers around the province. He looks at the Progress Board, which is a board created by the B.C. Liberals, and he gives a tip of the hat to them for that. But by their own measures on income growth, on many of the economic…. On exports per capita, I think he said that this province was ninth out of ten provinces. No change over the ten years.

So on key economic indices, the record is mediocre, and I commend that to B.C. Liberals who want to examine the reality of the B.C. economic record. In preferring fantasy, they seem much closer to Mr. Vander Zalm than perhaps they'd really care to admit.

With that, I conclude my remarks. I expect we'll be back to debate the real budget, because the real budget is somewhere under one of those balls somewhere. The sleight of hand goes on, and we'll be back to debate another budget another day. But for now those are my remarks.

Hon. K. Krueger: That was an entertaining bit of NDP revisionism there. I well remember the sad and dismal decade of the '90s, when British Columbia's biggest and by far most valuable export was our young people, who went to Alberta and places further away because there were no opportunities here.

Thank goodness my children didn't have to do that, because we were elected with our current Premier. We were able to follow through on our principles, establish a very sound fiscal plan that still earns us a triple-A credit rating every year from people who certainly don't buy the kind of NDP revisionism that we just heard.

This is a very unique week, as we all know. We're saying goodbye to two leaders, one on each side of the House. Apparently, that hasn't happened in at least a hundred years in this place. It is a sad occasion, certainly for this side of the House, and when I say that, I refer to sadness about both leaders.

[1505]

During the Minister of Finance's budget speech, I was struck by the accomplishments of this Premier — the things that he has delivered for my children and for all the children of British Columbia and for their children.

I have seven grandchildren now. It was wonderful to hear the former Leader of the Opposition announce her first grandchild today. They bring so much joy to your life, and they make you realize how important the things we do here are to the success of successive generations. Because of the accomplishments of our Premier, who is retiring, and the team that he built — our team — British Columbia is a leader in Canada again, a leader in North America and, in many ways, a leader in the world.

Our tax-cutting principles have workers in British Columbia paying the lowest income tax in Canada up to $119,000 each in income, and Canada seeing British Columbia as the lowest-taxed jurisdiction in the G7. Our initiatives to bust red tape have resulted in a 42 percent reduction in the red tape that was ensnaring job creators and therefore preventing jobs in British Columbia.

Our Premier's leadership on interprovincial trade and employment issues has broken down the barriers across the country. On that and many other issues he is seen as a pan-Canadian leader.

Our government's initiatives, led by the Premier, on First Nations relations have led to a genuine new relationship, have led to modern-day treaties, terrific successes, many economic development agreements, much progress in improving the lives of First Nations and their communities.

This Premier's leadership and our government's hard work and leadership on opening up Asia-Pacific markets are paying off huge dividends for British Columbia. For the first time late last year exports of our lumber to Asia exceeded exports of our lumber to the United States, and it's looking like they may forever now. We have a huge market there. The Chinese people really like dealing with us. There's a tremendously healthy relationship between them and their vast market and this government.

That wasn't the case before we were government. In fact, British Columbia was at odds with its neighbours to the south, to the north, to the east. Pretty much, a fight was picked with anyone that the former NDP Premiers thought might make them look like populists — even with Ottawa. That was a very unhealthy situation that's totally changed.

Our Premier has built tremendous friendships and relationships with Prime Ministers of both stripes, with other Premiers, with the government of the states around us and, indeed, with the American government itself. There was a farewell tribute to him from Bill Clinton that was played on video at the Vancouver Board of Trade's farewell luncheon for him recently.

Whether it's forestry, mining, energy or transportation, this province is showing leadership that is remarkable to people all around North America and all around the world. There's no greater example of that than this province's success and, to be upfront about it, this government's success and our Premier's success in partnering with VANOC and all the other partners to stage the most successful Winter Olympics in history.

Our Premier retires leaving gigantic shoes to fill, and we're very grateful for everything that he's done for all British Columbians, including those on the other side of the House and their families. All of this was accomplished during our decade thus far of being government in British Columbia, even though our decade began with the nightmare of 9/11 and the economic repercussions of that all around the world and certainly across Canada, impacting British Columbia as well.

[ Page 6323 ]

Our first decade in government is ending with the last several years in a gigantic global recession — the worst we've ever seen in our lifetimes, most of us. One of our members actually remembers the great depression of the 1930s, but most of us didn't experience that.

In spite of all those difficulties — 9/11 at the beginning and a worldwide recession at the end — we have managed to deliver massive improvements in infrastructure — health infrastructure, transportation infrastructure, education infrastructure. The debt that is incurred to build that type of infrastructure is no different than the debt people incur on their homes when they buy them or build them, their businesses when they buy them or build them.

[1510]

It is not unhealthy debt as long as the borrower — in this case, the province — can afford it, and we can afford it. We've seen tremendous increases in revenues over the years that the B.C. Liberals have been government and this Premier has been our Premier. Without them, we would never have been able to afford the levels that we're spending on health care, education, social services. I'll talk more about those things shortly, but the difference that those investments have made is phenomenal.

Everyone talks about the Canada Line. People from around the world talk about it. We were able to pay for that. Some of it is borrowed money. But we were hoping for — and I think the target was — 100,000 riders within three years. We hit that within three months, and during the Olympics we learned that we could actually carry 200,000 riders on the Canada Line. It's going to be there forever. Right from the airport, walk out of the terminal straight onto the Canada Line.

It's a beautiful piece of infrastructure, and of course, infrastructure has been built all over the province. The Kicking Horse Canyon bridge — an absolute marvel. Sea-to-Sky Highway — fantastic improvements there. Improvements all around the province.

The universities. We're so proud of Thompson Rivers University in Kamloops. It has changed the nature of our community. We're a university town now, tremendously diversified, and people feel really good about that. We have 1,400 international students right now studying at Thompson Rivers University. They bring in huge economic activity for us.

I was looking back at the last budget of the NDP government of the 1990s, and I see that they budgeted $8.269 billion for health care. We're going to be way over double that at the end of this three-year rolling budget that we've brought out — way over double.

Yet the former critic for the opposition is perpetually criticizing our government, as if we do not spend enough money on health care. We'd like to spend more, and we continually do spend more. The total budget for the NDP's last year when they were government in the sad decade of the '90s, the year 2000 to 2001, was $22.3 billion.

By the end of this budget cycle we will be spending almost that amount, $18.5 billion, on health care alone. That could not have been done by the New Democratic Party or their government, because they weren't able to grow the economy. They shrank the economy.

You can't afford those levels of health care…. British Columbia could not deliver those health care services with that track record. We're doing well over double the best that the NDP ever did funding health care. They shrank the economy, and we've proven that in tough economic times, we can grow the economy very substantially. They shrank the economy in excellent economic times.

We believe, on this side of the House, in British Columbians. We believe in their energy, their creativity, their intelligence, their decision-making abilities, their goodness, and we let them thrive by keeping their earnings in their own pockets, in their own bank accounts, and making spending decisions that turn out to be smart spending decisions.

The people who see what the British Columbian consumers want, create new businesses, create new jobs. That's how it works, and we always thought it would. That was our theory. We put it into practice, and it works — largest income tax cut in British Columbia's history on our first day in office and many subsequently.

The NDP actually shrank British Columbians' disposable income during their decade. In a whole decade there was no advance on British Columbians' average disposable income. The numbers are in the budget speech. We have grown it even in these very, very tough times. Our principles are solid, and on them we've based a fiscal plan that has been proven to work, continues to work.

We've pursued that plan with faithfulness and good stewardship under the leadership of our Premier, who is retiring. But the team is strong, and the team continues. When people say that they don't see enough new in the throne speech, in the budget, it's a wonder to me why they would want any different results.

We had a president of the Kamloops Blazers hockey team in Kamloops, where I live. We're tremendously proud of our hockey team, and we won two Memorial Cups back to back. After that he said that it was time for a new direction, and he fired the general manager and the coach. The Blazers haven't won a Memorial Cup since.

[1515]

Why would anyone ever choose to change this winning formula and pursue what we had in the '90s, marching backward into the '90s? Not very likely, I wouldn't think. We're a team that stays together, and frankly, I was really saddened by what happened to the former Leader of the Opposition, the brutal way that she was treated, the awful events of late 2010. We took no joy in that. That was an awful thing to see.

Our team stays together and never stops working. We have MLAs who care about British Columbians as

[ Page 6324 ]

individuals, and that is very well demonstrated in the Ministry of Social Development — many, many unique and wonderful programs.

A program where our civil servants go out and meet homeless people, befriend them, learn why they're homeless, help them find homes, and add the services that help them ladder into much happier lives.

Community Living B.C. — a marvellous organization dealing with the most vulnerable adults in British Columbia. Our employment programs that help people move….

Interjection.

Deputy Speaker: Excuse me, Member.

Interjection.

Deputy Speaker: Exactly, and you're also inappropriate.

Hon. K. Krueger: Perhaps he's looking for a fight, as he was with one of his colleagues when they were going through that terrible time of beating up on their leader. It'd behoove him to listen — listen and learn.

Our employment programs are successfully bringing people off of the welfare rolls and into full employment. They start at an average wage of $14.30 an hour. We're tremendously proud of those. There's much innovation in the Ministry of Social Development, including the new integrated case management system that's being carefully implemented with the guidance and assistance and constant feedback of our employees.

There is tremendous personalization of our service to the people who need it, the most vulnerable citizens in British Columbia. I went to visit the Downtown Eastside offices of the ministry first, in getting to know the staff, and I thought that there might be a morale problem there. It was quite the opposite. Those people have some of the highest satisfaction scores in government because they're tremendously proud of these programs they're delivering and the very personalized way that they deliver them.

I wanted to talk for a moment about the homelessness intervention project that I mentioned earlier. Over 3,809 people have been housed since this project was launched, and the majority remain stably housed. It's a unique program that considers each person compassionately as an individual and connects them with the services that they need the most. The project takes the housing-first approach, but housing is just one part of the solution. We are also making sure that people have the skills and resources to remain in housing and to lead healthier, more independent lives.

Recent community highlights. In Victoria there are currently 806 formerly homeless people who have been housed as of January; Kelowna, 247; Vancouver, 2,082; Surrey, 374; Prince George, 298. The homelessness intervention program was nominated for a 2010 Premier's Award in the category of organizational excellence and partnership — and rightfully so.

Interjection.

Hon. K. Krueger: Madam Speaker, I think it would absolutely shock the people of Powell River–Sunshine Coast if they could see the behaviour of their member in this House right now and very often. And he wants to be a leader. He thinks he could be Premier.

I'd like to talk a little bit more about Community Living B.C. Their operating budget in 2011-12, which includes operating contributions for the province, is set at $701 million. That includes revenues — an increase of $8.9 million over 2010-11 beyond what it receives from the province — such as interest income. Total provincial contributions increased by $13 million for 2011-12.

There are actually 13,291 British Columbians receiving support from CLBC through a network of 3,200 contracted service providers. The government committed $23.2 million over three years to Community Living B.C. For the personalized supports initiative, which provides support to adults diagnosed with fetal alcohol spectrum disorder or pervasive development disorder, otherwise known as autism.

[1520]

We are leaders again in delivering these programs. We are the first jurisdiction in Canada to offer targeted supports to adults with FASD, who face significant challenges in daily living. I was at the opening of Yew House in Vancouver last week, a brand-new group home — absolutely beautiful — a public-private partnership, which the folks on the other side of this House tend to deride. The five young adults who will be living happy lives in that home think public-private partnerships are great. The private partner paid the entire cost of the capital so that our money for CLBC can be spent on providing the services.

Interjection.

Hon. K. Krueger: Once again, the member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast heckles that. He ought to tour Yew House. He would be ashamed of himself, I think.

The employment programs that I discussed earlier are one of our top priorities as government, assisting as many unemployed British Columbians as possible to get back to work as quickly as possible. In 2011-12 we will be investing $341.2 million in these employment services. The province will not receive any federal stimulus funding in 2011-12, although they have been very generous and helpful partners. We're tremendously proud of our relationship with them. It's tremendously productive for

[ Page 6325 ]

British Columbians, including for these most vulnerable people.

Over 26,000 clients receive services through the provincially funded employment programs each year. Since 2001 these programs have been successful in placing more than 73,000 British Columbians in jobs. In 2010 the average wage paid to people placed into a job directly through the B.C. employment program was $14.30 an hour.

We inherited employment and training programs from the federal government two years ago. They arrived with more than 300 contracts delivered from 223 separate locations. So for two years we've consulted on developing a new employment centre model that delivers all employment and training programs under one roof.

It's our goal and our intention that no one will be left behind as we move toward a new one-stop shopping model. When it's fully operational by spring of next year, unemployed British Columbians, including minorities and immigrants, entering an employment centre will have access to a full range of employment services regardless of where they live.

I mentioned the integrated case management system. Again, this is a very forward-thinking decision. This project is going to enable much smoother service delivery across ministries to our clients.

Income assistance, its programs and the way they work have changed a whole lot since 2001. The number of people dependent on income assistance has dropped by nearly 70,000 clients. That was the situation in 2010 — 70,000 fewer clients than when we became government. At the same time, hundreds of thousands of new jobs have been created, and our employment programs are making sure that people are placed in those.

In 1995, under the previous NDP government, 9.7 percent of the population was on income assistance — almost one in ten people, 9.7 percent. There had been some improvement. By 2000 it was 6.2 percent. Today it is 3.9 percent of the population on income assistance in this deep worldwide recession — 3.9 percent, less than half the NDP's rate in 1995 and a 37 percent drop since the year 2000.

So we're pretty pleased with those results. Those are just some examples of our results, as you know, Madam Speaker.

The Conference Board of Canada repeatedly rates British Columbia the best health care deliverer by results measurement in Canada.

We have, as the Finance Minister mentioned, the lowest cancer and heart death rates. When I was in opposition in the sad '90s, people would come into my constituency office in tears because their loved ones were diagnosed with cancer and couldn't get in for treatment. Their loved ones would be diagnosed needing heart surgery and couldn't get in for surgery. Now I constantly hear from people — who have had very, very serious health issues — that they don't feel there's any way they could have been treated better than our health care system treats them.

Our education system famously is delivering some of the best results in the world.

[1525]

You contrast all of that with the terrible condition of British Columbia, its economy and its services in the NDP years. There was not a single seniors extended care or intermediate care bed built in the entire Thompson health region — not one bed. We've built brand-new facilities up and down the valleys, and people love them. They constantly tell me how great they are.

The NDP had a leader of a different stripe, the Leader of the Opposition who recently resigned, very different from the people of the '90s. She was trying to bring about change, and then the wolves pulled her down. They were clamouring for a new leader that they would elect by one member, one vote.

Our party has just completely walked away from that system because we think a leader should be elected to a party the same way a Premier is elected in British Columbia. That's by 85 constituencies, each of whom gets to send an equal representative down to government. It's a progressive change. It's the opposite of what the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant was agitating for and, apparently, has pulled off.

During that black time, the current leader of the NDP, the current Leader of the Opposition, said this: "Some of these people, I think, live in a parallel universe." That's the member for New Westminster, on December 3, 2010, talking about the people on those benches, about half of them at least. She said, "Some of these people, I think, live in a parallel universe," and that's what they want to take British Columbia back to, marching backwards into the '90s. I think it was shameful the way that leader was treated. I feel really badly for her.

Now from the dark decade of the '90s they have two former chiefs of staff and two former cabinet ministers. They call them their A-team. Well, they only call three of them their A-team. That is just bizarre to most people. They are the same people with the same approaches and the same words as in the 1990s, the same theories. I feel certain, and I think most people do, that they would deliver the same results.

There was also a quote, the same day, the same radio show, from the member for Port Coquitlam. He said: "What's important is recognizing what the goal is. That's winning an election in 2013." But why would anyone want to win an election with the same people, the same ideas and the same attitudes and words that delivered the sad results of the '90s? Winning is not a good thing if that's going to be the result for British Columbia. What could the NDP possibly do differently for British Columbia than what they did before? How sadly their

[ Page 6326 ]

performance and results stack up to what this Premier and this government have delivered.

We continue with this budget to build on our good work and the good work of British Columbians. We will keep British Columbia a world leader. We are emerging from a deficit situation faster than we thought we could, and it's because of discipline, hard work and a team that never quits working, a team that sticks together, a team of people that really, genuinely cares about British Columbians and shows it every day in our words, our actions and our results.

[H. Bloy in the chair.]

I want to pay tribute to both outgoing leaders and especially, of course, our own — a Premier whose shoes will be very hard to fill, a Premier who leaves a tremendous legacy. The people are talking about it all around the province in voices of sadness, because nobody can replace a man like that. We wish him all the very best in his private life. He said recently he got to babysit for the first time. He's experiencing some of those joys with grandkids. The former Leader of the Opposition will as well. We wish her Godspeed. We wish him Godspeed.

I thank you — Mr. Speaker, welcome to the chair — for this opportunity to address the House. Clearly, I support the budget. I think it is an excellent budget. I am tremendously proud of our progress in the finances of British Columbia.

D. Donaldson: Thank you for this opportunity to speak to the budget. That's what I'll be doing, unlike the member that preceded me. I'll be using most of my time to address the budget, as we're supposed to be doing in this chamber — the budget that was presented yesterday.

This budget is a disappointment, and let me explain why. The budget has been typified by the Minister of Finance and others on the other side of this Legislature as a placeholder or a status quo budget. That's a disservice, hon. Speaker. It's a disservice to the people both rurally and in urban centres who are struggling economically.

[1530]

It demonstrates that this government is out of touch with the people in the province. People are struggling. They can't wait months for a new budget to be introduced by a new leader on that side of the Legislature. They need action now to address the issues. There are very serious issues in people's lives. This is a $41 billion budget we're talking about. It's serious business, and people are struggling.

Yet we have the Minister of Finance quoted in the newspaper yesterday, telling reporters that this budget could be passed into law. So this is the budget we're talking about. It could be the budget that people in this province have to live with, and it's a disappointment.

Today in this initial response to the budget — in the limited amount of time that we both agreed on, on both sides of the Legislature, to discuss this budget in — I'm going to shine some light on decisions that this government has made. That's what we need to talk about — decisions they've made that have negative impacts on our ability to generate revenues as well as provide services.

Let's take a look at one such decision. Now, it wasn't too long ago that a fair-minded person would look at all the evidence and take the conclusion that a decision was made to implement the HST before the last election. Regardless of whether that was the case or not, another decision was made by the entire caucus two months later, including all the five leadership candidates on that side, to pass the HST — to put it before the Legislature and pass it, to support it without any consultation.

So regardless of what you think the merits of the HST might be, over 700,000 people in the province signed the initiative in opposition to it. Now we have that successful initiative campaign and now, in this budget year, a referendum.

What's the cost of that referendum in this year's budget? Because of their decision not to be forthright and their determination to implement the HST before any consultation, it's going to cost in this budget year $29½ million — all because of their decision not to be forthright. So there's $29½ million. Keep that number in your head.

There's another choice this government made. They made a decision to spend $6 million to pay the legal costs of two Liberal insiders at the centre of the B.C. Rail trial. Where else could that money have been spent? Well, it just so happens that when the budget was announced yesterday, funding for Crown prosecutors was cut by $6 million — $6 million in a payout to Liberal insiders, a $6 million cut.

Interjections.

D. Donaldson: "Money in, money out," as one of my colleagues says.

Now that means fewer cases will be brought to trial and will contribute to longer delays in those cases that are chosen to go ahead. I can tell you that there are very many frustrations in small communities in B.C. concerned about crime, especially drug dealers.

The RCMP will do their best to collect the evidence, but whether Crown prosecutors will be able to proceed with the case is hampered by cutbacks announced yesterday. That's a disgrace, and that $6 million could have been spent elsewhere. It was spent bailing out former aides to this Liberal regime — a very sad state of affairs.

So there's $29½ million and $6 million. We're up to $35½ million that could have been spent elsewhere

[ Page 6327 ]

in this budget and that's been poorly decided upon by this government.

I'm going to talk about areas where that money could have been spent to generate more revenues for the province in ministries that deal with natural resource issues. That's not just me pointing this out.

I have a quote here from the president and CEO of the Mining Association of B.C. He presented before the Select Standing Committee on Finance in the fall. He said: "We do feel that you're at risk of cutting off your nose to spite your face by making these kinds of cuts to the very ministries that are there to help the economy grow."

He went on to say: "It's for the government to figure out, but we have recognized now that really, frankly, the cuts have gone too far." That's from someone in the know — the president and CEO, Pierre Gratton, of the Mining Association of B.C.

[1535]

Now, who else is in the know? Well, let's look at the former minister of the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources. In October what did he say? He said that the biggest challenge for the resource ministries right now is money.

"The fundamental problem facing the natural resource ministries is they're underfunded. We work the heck out of them"— the employees, that is — "and we don't have enough funds within the ministries to get the permits out the door, to develop the policy to deal with stakeholders, to do the work that actually leads to the majority of the revenue that comes in to government." That's the former cabinet minister on that side of the floor.

How did this budget address these very real concerns from the industry, concerns from within the cabinet on that side? Well, let's take a look at the new ministry that was announced by the Premier in his last days before resigning, the Ministry of Natural Resource Operations.

Oh, and by the way, I should remind those present in the House today of what the former Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources actually had to say about this reorganization around the Ministry of Natural Resource Operations. He said that it came with no consultation among cabinet and caucus. "It's my understanding that the process has been continuing for eight months. They've been working on this without the involvement of elected people" — without the involvement of elected people.

Well, here we are with the Ministry of Natural Resource Operations. What happened in yesterday's budget? Well, under that ministry there's something called provincial operations. It deals with things like the analysis, administration and stewardship of items like Crown-owned subsurface resources and water use regulation — cut by more than $3 million.

How about regional operations budget line? It deals with things like research, protection, monitoring, reporting related to forests, range, water, soil, biodiversity, species at risk, fish and mining resources — cut by more than $5 million, here in the ministry where staff are already stretched so thin, as the former Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources pointed out.

What was needed was an increase, not a cut. I agree with the president of the Mining Association of B.C. That is cutting off your nose to spite your face.

Another area where spending money will increase the ability to generate future revenues is First Nations consultation.

Interjection.

Deputy Speaker: Member.

Please continue.

D. Donaldson: I'll give you a very current example of First Nations consultation. This is over the northern transmission line and the Gitanyow First Nation. Over 40 percent of that line will traverse the territories of the Gitanyow First Nation. The decision is imminent. Next week we expect the provincial Minister of Environment and the federal Minister of the Environment to announce their decisions on the northern transmission line.

But unnecessary delays could occur because of bungling by this government, and part of that can be blamed on a lack of adequate resources to the last two ministries I've mentioned. For example, we have a letter here from the Gitanyow First Nation to the president and CEO of B.C. Hydro, dated February 3.

It says: "We" — meaning the Gitanyow First Nation — "are in complete disagreement with the B.C. environmental assessment office conclusion that the Crown has satisfactorily discharged its duty to consult and accommodate Gitanyow aboriginal title and rights in connection with the proposed project."

Interjection.

D. Donaldson: I hear some noise coming from the other side, from the Minister of Social Development. He previously was referencing a colleague of mine about his behaviour, and I think if anybody has something to be ashamed of, it's the minister who's chirping up right now, when he had to apologize publicly for making inappropriate comments about guns and having people in sights. He had to publicly apologize. That's shameful behaviour, and he's the one who needs to correct his behaviour and be ashamed of what he's done.

Going back to the Gitanyow First Nation — and I'm using this as an example to talk about the budget document — they spent seven years and four court cases to come up with an agreement with the government on a joint land use plan.

[1540]

[ Page 6328 ]

It was a compromise, but the hereditary chiefs agreed on it, and negotiators from the Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation agreed. That was in mid-September. The EAO, the environmental assessment office, refused to take this joint land use plan into consideration in making its recommendations about the northern transmission line.

Here's a letter that the Gitanyow wrote to the Minister of Environment and the Minister of Forests, Mines and Lands on January 21, where they said: "The EAO is not prepared to incorporate the joint land use plan recommendations into their report." In fact, they are asking both ministers to suspend any kind of decision on the northern transmission line until they can have a meeting, and if they can't do that, then to put off the decision until a meeting can be arranged.

They've not got any response to this letter, and that was January 21 — no response from the Minister of Environment; no response from the Minister of Forests, Mines and Lands. This could lead to unnecessary delays in the northern transmission line approval process.

So what was the response from this government yesterday in the budget to a very, very important topic around development in this province and revenue generation? A million fewer dollars in the negotiations and implementation

section of the Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation — a million fewer dollars. So $800,000 less in the strategic initiatives

section of that same ministry that deals with supporting and enhancing the new relationship — can you imagine that? — and a decrease in the environmental assessment office budget under the Ministry of Environment.

How on earth are we going to move ahead with that kind of approach by this government? Again, it's cutting off your nose to spite your face.

The list goes on about bad decisions in this budget. A $21 million cut in the forest stewardship resources item in the Ministry of Forests responsible for things like silviculture investments, forest health and forest inventory. What kind of commitment is that to the future? What kind of commitment is that to the future revenues that drive this province?

The Ministry of Agriculture — cuts to the Agricultural Land Commission budget when the Attorney General's office has said that they already don't have the tools to fulfil their mandate around the agricultural land reserve. We have many competing interests around the agricultural land reserve. I know members on both sides consistently are getting serious concerns expressed to them in their offices about that. We need better support in the Agricultural Land Commission to deal with competing land uses.

There's been an overall decrease in the Ministry of Agriculture budget. That's just not a sector you can start up overnight. It takes years to build a successful farm, and again, a 25 percent cut in 2009 in this ministry's budget — absolutely no support for farmers and farms in this province.

The Ministry of Energy — over a $4 million cut to electricity and alternative energy, alternative energy development advancing the leading energy technologies. This is the responsibility of that

section of that budget, and they were cut $4 million. I thought alternative energy was a priority of this government, a priority to generate revenues and their priority around climate action. That's a heck of a funny way to show your support for one of your priorities — cutting support by $4 million.

Most disturbing, though, is the $34 million cut in student aid and a failure to invest in training and colleges. How are we supposed to ensure that the people of this province, the young people, are the ones who benefit most from the development that occurs in their own backyards?

I'll give you an example, a shameful example. We in the northwest are on the cusp of a development boom that could generate revenues for the entire province. Dease Lake in the middle of that boom has lost their campus that provides training opportunities to the youth and to the people in that area. They cannot get operational funds from the ministry of advanced education to provide training opportunities for people to take advantage of the mining opportunities that will occur in that area, and the minister of advanced education has known that since April. That is a shameful record.

[1545]

These decisions that I've talked about have prevented the government from investing in these areas that I've mentioned. They're cutting off their nose to spite their face.

Instead of choosing to spend the money, they chose to hide the fact that they were going to implement the HST, a $29½ million decision; they spent $6 million on the legal costs of convicted criminals; and this is the most shocking part, they have put away an unallocated amount of money in this budget — a record unallocated amount, $600 million — in a contingency fund, which is $150 million more than predicted, and $350 million in a forecast allowance. Almost a billion dollars not tied to any ministry, not tied to any program and not tied to any service.

What for? Why did they put away $950 million in unallocated revenues? Well, to quote the Minister of Finance in yesterday's paper: "We have tried to maintain as much flexibility as possible to allow the new Premier and executive council at that time to set a new course and new directions." So this government is holding back almost a billion dollars for whatever the new Premier wants to support as pet projects.

Meanwhile, what's happening in the different ridings and constituencies in this province? Well, I can tell you. Seniors are wondering how to pay for increased care

[ Page 6329 ]

costs. Residential care facilities are struggling with staff shortages. Seniors in rural areas like mine are forced to travel five hours to access driving test services.

Rural elementary schools are shutting down. Librarians were cut. School completion rates for aboriginal students are 49 percent, 30 points lower than non-aboriginals. And we still rank the worst in the country when it comes to child poverty.

You know, when I think back on setting aside $950 million that could have been spent on those kinds of issues, those kinds of concerns, those kinds of services, I think of Bill Nannings, who just last month I visited in the Wrinch Memorial Hospital in Hazelton.

He waited seven days with a collapsed lung and the prospect of rapid deterioration in a hospital bed in Hazelton waiting for a bed to become available so that he could see a thoracic specialist at St. Paul's in Vancouver. He was on a wait-list called a bed list, with a collapsed lung, while this government decided to set aside almost a billion dollars so that a new Premier could have flexibility.

Those are bad decisions — not the kinds of decisions people in B.C. support, not the kinds I can support. It shows that this government is out of touch with the everyday lives of people in this province, and that is very sad.

J. Les: It's a delight to rise this afternoon after having listened to the comments of my friend opposite, to which I listened carefully. Actually, over the last several years he and I have travelled around the province a fair bit as members of the legislative Finance Committee, and we've had a great time doing that, I must say.

There are many things, I suspect, on which we do not agree, but we've had a lot of fun meeting various people around the province and visiting various communities. I think our relationship has certainly been a good one. However, we find ourselves…. However, it is the same as saying "but…."

By the way, I heard several references already to the outgoing Leader of the Opposition and the outgoing Premier and the commendable work that they have done on behalf of British Columbians.

[1550]

Forgive me if I add one more person to the list of people who I think should be commended. Over the last 2½ to three years we have undergone some of the most challenging financial circumstances in a generation, and we have been served, I believe, incredibly well by our Minister of Finance.

Interjection.

J. Les: No, there is no rumour at all that he is retiring or not running. I hope he stays around for many years to come.

But I think it is worth noting that he has been that steady hand on the tiller through that last 2½ years as the entire world, almost, has gone through these excruciatingly difficult financial circumstances, which we have weathered here in British Columbia not without difficulty but, in many respects, in much better form than most other jurisdictions, including those in Canada and the United States. I think that does bear underlining.

I'm not going to take too much time this afternoon, because I know that I have colleagues who wish to address some remarks as well. Let's just look at the facts that are laid out in the budget. Let's look at the facts as we find them around the province of British Columbia today, as we are starting now to come out of this economic downturn.

We find, for example, that in 2010 we actually created an additional 45,200 jobs in the province of British Columbia. Where other jurisdictions are still seeing their unemployment rates going up and, in some cases — the United States, for example — approaching 10 percent unemployment, we've had a 2 percent increase in employed people in British Columbia. That is part of the story that we've been telling since 2001. We have 360,000 more jobs in British Columbia today than we did ten years ago.

We on this side of the House tend to talk an awful lot about jobs, because a job is really a pretty important part of a strong and cohesive social policy. Without a job, lots of people, frankly, don't have too many prospects. So it's important to keep focused on making sure that the economic climate continues to produce good, strong, family-supporting jobs in the province of British Columbia.

Speaking of family-supporting jobs, it's also worthwhile, I think, to point out that the average hourly wage in British Columbia last year went up to $23.12 an hour. That too was up 2.3 percent over the year previous.

Interjection.

J. Les: My friend opposite says thanks to the unions for that. However that may be, it is nonetheless an average increase of 2.3 percent by wage earners in British Columbia in this last year, as we were coming out of that economic recession. That too, I think, is indicative of the strength of the economic recovery that's starting to take hold in the province of British Columbia.

On top of that, another important measurement that we have out there is consumer confidence. Confident consumers are consumers that have a job and consumers that spend and support businesses in their communities. Consumers in British Columbia are the second most confident in all of Canada, which I think is a pretty outstanding fact to keep in mind as well.

On top of that, we are a government…. I must point this out again because I think British Columbians need

[ Page 6330 ]

to understand what differentiates members on the government side from members on the opposition side, and it is simply this: we believe in low taxes and restrained spending.

Now, members opposite, in a variety of forums, make it very clear that they wish to see increased taxation and more spending. The member for Stikine, who was on his feet just before me, made it very clear that we're not spending enough. The member for Vancouver-Kingsway, who is running to be the leader of the New Democratic Party, has made it very clear that we need more taxation.

[1555]

I think it's important that British Columbians keep that in mind — that we have been very busy on behalf of British Columbians, lowering taxation since 2001. The average British Columbian has seen their income tax drop by some 37 percent, which I'm sure they very much appreciate. Our philosophy is that a hard-earned dollar is better in the pocket of the taxpayer than in the pocket of government.

Today in British Columbia hard-working taxpayers pay the lowest taxes on the first $118,000 of income compared to any other Canadian. That is a fact that is starting to become pretty well noticed and is going to make our economy more competitive in comparison to all of the other Canadian provinces, the United States and many of the other G7, G8 or G20 countries — however many Gs there are today. We are in a very good, competitive position to thrive and to grow this economy in the future.

When we look at how well our province is doing, of course we also have to look at exports. We are a province that does a lot of exporting — forest products, minerals. Last year B.C. exports increased by 15 percent over 2009 — again, a pretty good indicator of the fact that we're coming out of the recession and that British Columbia is participating fully in that economic recovery, to the extent that it's going on, on a global basis.

I must say, as well, that our efforts over the preceding years to make sure that we're fully able to take advantage of that economic growth that's going on in China, in Korea, in India, is really starting to show some benefits.

If we had maintained our traditional strong and almost exclusive linkages with the American economy, our economic performance today wouldn't be doing as well as it is. But the fact is that we have those strong and growing economic bridges in place with Asia. I think we are well positioned to participate in that economic growth that's been going on in that part of the world.

Forestry product exports, for example, have grown 21 percent in the year past to $8.6 billion. Members in this House, I'm sure, are fully aware of the mills that are opening up across the province, almost entirely due to the phenomenal increases in the amount of lumber that we are now selling into China, which is a direct result of initiatives undertaken by our government.

There is, I think, no doubt that as we go forward, there is going to be an insatiable demand, almost, in China and other Asian countries for B.C. lumber. Again, that competitive environment that we've established and that strong focus on the Pacific Rim economies is really starting to come into its own.

It's interesting to focus on export markets and those kinds of things, but a major percentage of our economy is small business — mom-and-pop operations, perhaps people with five or ten employees. We have a great many of those around the province, and they too have benefited from the taxation policies of our government.

Next year we will have a small business tax rate of zero in the province of British Columbia. We will out-compete the rest of the country in terms of our small business tax. I know that small business owners and operators across the province are very appreciative of the fact that for them, as well, we have set up a great, competitive environment where they can keep their dollars in their pockets, grow their businesses and provide more jobs for other British Columbians.

Now, there's another very important debate going on across the province. I do want to touch on that briefly, and that has to do with the HST. There is no question that this budget that was presented yesterday is premised on the HST, as implemented, going forward.

[1600]

With every fibre in my body, I sincerely hope that it does remain in place going forward. It is, quite simply, the best economic policy for our province.

Now, there's been a great deal of debate. A lot of it is politically inspired. Very little of it has been economically inspired. It's probably futile, but it would be interesting if the members opposite would drop the political rhetoric and actually focus on what the economic facts are.

I do not believe for a minute that members of the New Democratic Party actually have an ideological disagreement with the harmonized sales tax. I don't think so. It is simply convenient politically for them to oppose the implementation of the HST. I think we need to recognize that and put that on the record, because that's the way it is.

There are other Labour governments, socialist governments, NDP governments around the world that are quite happily carrying on with a value-added tax or an HST. No problem at all. As a matter of fact, the NDP government in the province of Nova Scotia recently increased their harmonized sales tax from 13 percent to 15 percent. I didn't hear Jack Layton comment about that. I didn't hear the opposition Finance critic comment about that.

I guess it's okay if the NDP government in Nova Scotia does that, but if we're talking about implementing

[ Page 6331 ]

an HST, the lowest HST in all of Canada, right here in British Columbia, well, that's politically inconvenient, I guess, for the members opposite. Therefore, they're bound to oppose it.

Later this year British Columbians will actually be asked in a referendum whether or not to carry on with the HST or to return to the provincial sales tax. It's actually an extremely important question for British Columbians. It is not a political question for them. It is an economic question and a fiscal policy question. It's all about: how will our economy do best? Under which tax regime will we have more jobs? Under which tax system will we have more investment in the province of British Columbia?

Those are the questions that I hope and expect British Columbians will be asking themselves. When they do and when they look at the evidence and they listen to the experts — not to me, not to the members opposite…. When they listen to people who don't have an axe to grind, they will have to come to the conclusion, I feel very strongly, that the HST, as inept as the implementation was, is actually the best way forward.

This is not a flippant exercise that we will be going through later on this year. This is going to be a serious moment, where British Columbians are going to play, individually and collectively, a very large role in shaping our economic future. It's something that I think completely transcends the usual partisan political debate that goes on in here. I would hope that we can bring that discussion to an economic and financial discussion, rather than playing political games with the economic future of this province.

I think our children and our grandchildren deserve a lot better than having a question like that decided on who is going to best obtain a little political advantage in the short term out of this exercise.

I'm not going to carry on too much longer. Obviously, I strongly support this budget. It sets the correct tone for the times. We would all like to tax even less. We would all like to have more to spend, but we have come through some extremely difficult times. With this budget in place, I think we are going to be well situated to take advantage of the growing world markets.

We're going to be able to take advantage of bringing more jobs to British Columbia, to give ourselves the broadest economic base possible, with all of the resources we have, with all of the human resources as well, and being able to take advantage of all of the new education opportunities, particularly in the post-secondary sector, that we have made available over the last number of years.

[1605]

I think we are looking at a very bright future here in the province of British Columbia. There is never a state of perfection. There are always more challenges. Of that there is no question, but with the circumstances that we've had to deal with and where we're at today, not only here in the province of British Columbia but across Canada and around the world, this truly is a beacon of light that I think a lot of others envy.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I thank you.

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

Deputy Speaker: Proceed.

Introductions by Members

J. Brar: We have a very special guest today visiting us here in Victoria. We have Sa