2011 Legislative Session: Fourth 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)

Tuesday, February 28, 2012

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 30, Number

ISSN 0709-1281 (Print)

ISSN 1499-2175 (Online)

CONTENTS

Page

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Tributes

Jim Green

A. Dix

Hon. C. Clark

Introductions by Members

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

Bill 22 — Education Improvement Act

Hon. G. Abbott

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

Jim Green

J. Kwan

Bob Baziuk and Steveston Harbour

J. Yap

Naz Rayani

C. James

Columbia Basin fish and wildlife compensation program

B. Bennett

Prevention of homophobic and transphobic bullying in schools

S. Chandra Herbert

Greenwood

J. Slater

Oral Questions

Business plan for sale of government assets

A. Dix

Hon. C. Clark

Role of lobbyists in sale of government assets

B. Ralston

Hon. C. Clark

Business plan for sale of government assets

B. Ralston

Hon. C. Clark

Costs to B.C. of federal anti-crime legislation

K. Corrigan

Hon. S. Bond

Prevention of homophobic and transphobic bullying in schools

S. Chandra Herbert

Hon. C. Clark

Government response to ferry system review

G. Coons

Hon. B. Lekstrom

Electricity rates and B.C. Hydro revenues to government

J. Horgan

Hon. R. Coleman

Orders of the Day

Budget Debate (continued)

C. Hansen

B. Routley

G. Hogg

D. Routley

D. Hayer

K. Corrigan

Hon. S. Thomson

K. Conroy

D. Barnett

[ Page 9519 ]

TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 28, 2012

The House met at 1:36 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

C. James: I have a number of guests who are here in the gallery with us — an extraordinary Victorian and British Columbian who is here with family and friends. I'll speak a little more about him later. I'd like the House to please welcome Naz Rayani, Yasmine Rayani, Laurel Rayani, Aniqa Rayani, Rasool Rayani, Bill Davis, Nizar Hirji, Ibrahim Inayatali and Julie Holder. Would the House please make these guests very welcome.

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: I'd like the House to welcome today Val McKnight. She's the administrative assistant in the Ministry of Labour, Citizens' Services and Open Government. She is wonderful to work with, and I'd like you all to make her very welcome.

J. Horgan: Joining us is in the gallery today are an old friend and a new friend. The old friend is Monica Ghosh, who worked here with the NDP caucus in the 1990s.

I'm sorry to out you like that, Monica, but there you go.

Joining her is a new friend who travelled with myself, the member for Vancouver-Kingsway, the member for Port Moody–Coquitlam — pardon me; I'm getting Port Moody on our side a bit early — the member for Port Coquitlam and the member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast. That would be the irrepressible Dana Larson.

Would the House please make them very, very welcome.

J. McIntyre: I'd also like to ask the House to make my guest feel welcome today. Her name is Lisa Cottrell from Campbell River, who was my guest for lunch today, and we were busy catching up.

We met in a fairly unusual fashion. She was graduating from UVic, honours political science, in the spring of 2009. She bravely stepped forward to be my candidate aide in the 2009 election, so we spent a very hectic four weeks together sort of joined at the hip.

I was delighted to hear from her recently. She's moving down from Campbell River to Victoria and has just recently accepted a job in marketing and promotion with Island Savings Credit Union. I'd like the House to make her feel welcome today and wish her every success as she enters a new

chapter of her life.

R. Chouhan: Today in the gallery we have Susan Epp, who is the business manager of the Compensation Employees Union, and Sandra Wright, president of the Compensation Employees Union, watching the House proceedings. Please join me to welcome them.

B. Bennett: I'd like the House to help me make welcome the mother of Garreth, the mother of Halie, the wife of Dean, my friend and constituency assistant Jennifer Osmar, who's in the House here today.

Tributes

JIM GREEN

A. Dix: I know I speak for all members of the House. The Premier made a very, very nice statement this morning in recognizing the passing of Jim Green, who was a dear, dear friend of many of us and a mentor to many of us — myself, the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant and many other people.

Just two days ago friends of Jim, all of us, got together to celebrate his life. He spoke at that event with the kind of power and grace and humour…. There were a lot of us in the room, and I think, as he usually was, Jim was the coolest person in the room.

He contributed in so many ways. The specific achievements at Woodward's and in Crab Park, his work on Insite and so many other things say what he was, which was a great person in Vancouver, someone who loved Vancouver, loved British Columbia. He came to our country, as many other people have, and contributed so much.

[1340]

I know that members of the House will join me in saying that you couldn't put Jim in a box. He had extraordinary ideas. He was fearless, and I think everybody in British Columbia, people in Vancouver of all political stripes, admired him greatly.

I just wanted to, on behalf of members of the opposition side — I know all members of the House — join with the Premier in her generous comments earlier in saying that we already miss Jim. We already miss his contribution, and we hope we can be worthy of it and advance it further as we continue on.

Hon. C. Clark: Thanks to the member for his comments about Jim Green. He did indeed make a very real difference in our province. I have said this before in this chamber. Very few people get to leave this life with the certain knowledge that they have made an outsized difference in the world. Jim Green was certainly one of those people. He was tenacious, he was fearless, and he did not care about criticism. He stood tall for the things that he believed in, and he believed in them very deeply.

Jim was someone who I think we can all identify with, despite our political views, on this front. He stood up for the underdog. He stood up for people who often didn't have anybody to speak for them at all. So today, the day

[ Page 9520 ]

before Anti-Bullying Day in British Columbia, a day when we urge people to stand up for underdogs wherever they may be, is a perfect opportunity to reflect on the example that Jim Green set for us all.

He made an outsized contribution to this province, and in particular, he made an outsized contribution to the city of Vancouver in changing the urban landscape, but in also changing the emotional landscape for people and helping us all better understand the circumstances and the conditions in which so many people very sadly live in Vancouver, and helping us find a place in our hearts where we could find common cause with them.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of our side of the House, I'd like to join with the Leader of the Opposition and the members opposite, and say: "Goodbye, Jim. Thank you and God bless."

Introductions by Members

Hon. D. McRae: During the remembrance to Jim Green, I have noticed that 30 grade 10 students from Mark R. Isfeld high school have come into the chamber today. They're led by their teacher Stephanie Finlay, and I'd like the House to please make them welcome.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

BILL 22 — EDUCATION IMPROVEMENT ACT

Hon. G. Abbott presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill intituled Education Improvement Act.

Hon. G. Abbott: Mr. Speaker, I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. G. Abbott: I'm pleased to introduce the Education Improvement Act. This act suspends the B.C. Teachers Federation strike action and sets a cooling-off period so that students can receive the support they need to succeed and parents can once again know how their children are progressing at school.

This act also appoints a mediator to facilitate bargaining with the goal of reaching a mediated settlement within the net zero mandate.

Further, the act includes a number of significant initiatives that will benefit teachers and students. First, it implements a $165 million learning improvement fund to provide more support and resources in the classroom. Second, it returns class size and related matters to the scope of bargaining. Third, it provides for more effective consultations between teachers and administrators on class organization matters. Fourth, it provides for additional compensation for teachers when a class size exceeds 30 students.

Together, these initiatives serve as government's response to last year's B.C. Supreme Court decision on Bills 27 and 28. The Education Improvement Act sets the stage for a responsible conclusion to the current dispute, provides certainty to students and their parents, and incorporates several initiatives that will benefit teachers.

[1345]

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

Bill 22, Education Improvement Act, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

JIM GREEN

J. Kwan: Two decades ago I was a timid young university graduate, and I met a fellow named Jim Green for the first time. Over the years I've learned that the man once dubbed as the mayor of the Downtown Eastside was a strong trade unionist, an anthropologist, a relentless advocate, a lover of the arts and culture, and a champion of social, environmental and economic justice. He dared to dream the impossible and worked relentlessly to bring life to those dreams.

The brilliance of Jim Green is exhibited in not only the physical structures of the many award-winning social housing projects in our community or world-renowned program such as the BladeRunners. It is experienced every day by the thousands of people whose lives he touched. He developed housing for the homeless. He gave voice to the voiceless. He engaged the disenfranchised. He brought educational opportunities to the poorest neighbourhood in Canada. He drank and played pool with old-timers. He opened countless doors for young people. He inspired and challenged us to step up and dare to make a difference.

He offered advice and provided guidance and encouragement. He did all of that and so much more in the typical Jim Green fashion — rough and tough, but always with heart and love. In so doing, he nurtured and directly influenced countless people's lives, mine included.

This past weekend at the Cultch in East Vancouver, Jim Green was honoured with Vancouver's Freedom of the City award. He was given the honour roll of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities. Jim once said: "Vancouver can be the caring capital of Canada." He showed it by bringing the beauty of opera to Vancouver's Downtown Eastside.

[ Page 9521 ]

The sun has set for this brilliant star in our midst. When you visit Vancouver, please take a look around the city and beyond. When you see a touch of Jim Green's heart and soul, say a small thank-you to this visionary and his family, and renew your commitment to realize the dream of making Vancouver the caring capital of Canada.

BOB BAZIUK AND STEVESTON HARBOUR

J. Yap: It is with great pride today that I recognize Bob Baziuk, general manager of the Steveston Harbour Authority. Bob Baziuk, who I've had the pleasure of knowing and working with for the past seven years, recently won the 2011 Small Craft Harbours Prix d'Excellence award in the individual commitment category earlier this month.

This national award recognizes his tremendous commitment and dedication to the ongoing success of Steveston harbour and his contribution to the community. As general manager Bob has the not so small responsibility of managing Canada's largest small craft harbour. For those unfamiliar with Steveston harbour, it has a combined footprint of over 17.5 hectares over two sites — the Paramount and the Gulf of Georgia sites.

The harbour is a bustling hub with a mixture of industrial and commercial activity. Steveston Harbour Authority is also an important member of the Steveston community. Through Bob's involvement with various community fundraisers and charities, the harbour makes a positive impact in the local community.

If you are planning to visit Steveston, I encourage you to consider supporting local fishermen. Visit the sales float

section of Steveston harbour's website for an up-to-date list of fresh seafood being sold from boats on the dock. While you visit, drop in and perhaps come and see us. We can perhaps take a tour with award-winning Bob Baziuk of the Steveston Harbour Authority.

Mr. Speaker, Members of the House, please join me in congratulating Steveston's award winner, Bob Baziuk.

[1350]

NAZ RAYANI

C. James: I rise today, as I said in my introductions, to speak about an extraordinary Victorian, British Columbian and Canadian. Naz Rayani is a champion of community advocacy and cross-cultural understanding. He is a distinguished community leader and a man who knows all about giving back. Anyone who meets Naz instantly feels his warmth of spirit and generous nature. In recognition of his inspiring record of service, last week he was presented with the Leadership Victoria Lifetime Achievement Award.

His story really is an inspiration. Mr. Rayani earned his pharmacy degree in Scotland and opened his first pharmacy in his homeland of Kenya in 1972. He then immigrated to Canada two years later to live and work in a more politically stable environment. Today he operates Peoples Pharmacy locations all across Victoria. Even two life-threatening strokes haven't dampened his enthusiasm or his desire to make a difference, and I know it certainly hasn't slowed him down.

His passion to improve living conditions in developing countries runs deep. Sixteen years ago he brought the World Partnership Walk to Victoria. The walk raises awareness about global poverty and raises funds to support international development initiatives run by Aga Khan Foundation, Canada. In 2010 Mr. Rayani was personally responsible for raising $60,000 of the walk's total of $250,000 that year. Naz is a devout Ismaili Muslim and has worked tirelessly to break down barriers among people of different faiths. In 2006 he was named a member of the Order of Canada.

Naz's exceptional contribution to our community shows how one person can truly make a difference. He offers the next generation of community leaders a little advice when he says: "Never be afraid to say yes, even though it looks like it might be a mammoth task or an incredible task, because there always is a silver lining."

I ask the members of the House to please join me in congratulating Naz for his lifetime achievement awards and thank him for all he has given to all of us.

Thank you, Naz.

COLUMBIA BASIN FISH AND WILDLIFE

COMPENSATION PROGRAM

B. Bennett: In October a friend of mine, Dave White from the Canal Flats Wilderness Club and a former president of the B.C. Wildlife Federation, sent me an e-mail saying that B.C. Hydro had laid off all of their staff in their Columbia Basin fish and wildlife compensation program. B.C. Hydro's announcement sent shockwaves through the Kootenay conservation community, where fish and wildlife is a predominant shared cultural value. Nobody should ever mess with our fish and wildlife in the Kootenays.

Since 1988 B.C. Hydro has invested more than $100 million in fish and wildlife and associated habitats in three regional fish and wildlife compensation programs that they have in the province. The three programs are delivered through a joint partnership between B.C. Hydro, the province, and Fisheries and Oceans Canada.

The announcement in the fall was that a new model for delivery of this program in the Columbia would be adopted by B.C. Hydro. There would be one staff member, and proponent-driven projects would be awarded dollars through an administrator. The theory was that delivering the program through contractors would allow more money to flow to projects versus administrative tasks. The problem with the theory was that the corpora-

[ Page 9522 ]

tion had neglected to talk to anybody in the region and ask them what they thought. The people of the region just don't take that kindly to those kinds of surprises.

So here we are five months later, and I am happy to report that due to the commitment made to this file by the Ministers of Energy, of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations, and of Environment, a comprehensive series of community engagement meetings have been set up — they have already started — by B.C. Hydro across the whole region. Empty seats for the public and First Nations on the Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Compensation Steering Committee will soon be filled. The steering committee will be provided an opportunity to work directly with the provincial policy committee, which is something they previously didn't have.

The two remaining gaps are, one, to create some kind of independent oversight for the next year as this new delivery model is being created from the ashes of the old one, and secondly, to ensure that the corporate memory and the expertise of the six dismissed employees are not lost to the program. If these two elements are adopted, it is my view that we'll end up with a strengthened fish and wildlife compensation program in the Columbia, and that would be a very good thing.

[1355]

PREVENTION OF HOMOPHOBIC AND

TRANSPHOBIC BULLYING IN SCHOOLS

S. Chandra Herbert: Today I joined with the Vancouver District Students Council, an organization that represents 58,000 students in Vancouver and was supported by student councils and gay-straight alliances in the Kootenays, Coquitlam, Burnaby, Sooke, Prince Rupert, Kamloops, Prince George, Surrey and Ladysmith. The list goes on.

I joined with them because they wanted me to bring youth voice — their voice — to this House, a voice that calls very strongly for explicit policy in our schools to ensure that gay, lesbian, bi and trans students are protected. They're calling for this because two-thirds of those students feel unsafe in our schools. They're calling for this because 25 percent of those students face physical violence in their schools for being who they are. They're calling for this because those students, 70 percent of them, are more likely to commit suicide than the general public in the schools.

They're calling for action because 75 percent of our school districts do not have explicit policy to ensure those students are protected in their schools.

These are the voices of youth, voices that are not often heard in this House, voices that need to be listened to because they're in our schools today.

Bullying hurts us all. Bullying puts us into submission. Bullying makes us observers. Bullying makes us bullies. Bullying hurts every student, and this kind of bullying goes beyond just hurting lesbian, gay, bi and trans youth to affect the entire school community.

They're calling for policy because for too long they've been ignored. For too long they've not been listened to as they've cried out for help. For too long their problems have been minimized, and they've been told it's just a local issue.

Well, this is a provincial issue. We all need to pay attention to this, just as we did for racism. We all need to take explicit action to ensure that they are protected. They want this House to listen, and I hope this House will.

GREENWOOD

J. Slater: If you want the best-tasting municipal tap water in the world, then you will want to go to Greenwood. It's located on Highway 3 in the Boundary region of the southern Interior. Greenwood just recently won the top municipal water prize on February 25 at the 22nd annual Berkeley Springs International Water Tasting in West Virginia.

Greenwood has the title of being Canada's smallest city, a thriving community until the downturn of the copper market which forced closure of the B.C. Copper Co. smelter in 1918. People left in droves, boarded up their businesses, and by 1940 there were only 200 people remaining. It looked like Greenwood would become a ghost town and, in fact, the area as well.

During World War II a new group of citizens changed Greenwood's fate. The Japanese Canadians were required to abandon their coastal lifestyles, and Greenwood became the first internment camp for 1,200 people of Japanese descent. With the same undaunted spirit of the miners before them, Greenwood's newest citizens transformed the town into a once again bustling community where culture, education and sports became an important part of everyday life.

Today, with a population of 676, Greenwood is once again going through a period of change. Drawing on the strength of past years, the city is evolving into a historic tourism destination. Greenwood boasts some the best-preserved heritage buildings in British Columbia. So I encourage you today to take a step back in time and spend an hour or a day in Greenwood's colourful downtown and nearby historic residences. And don't forget to drink the water.

Oral Questions

BUSINESS PLAN FOR

SALE OF GOVERNMENT ASSETS

A. Dix: Page 51 of Budget 2012 says that the government has a plan to sell over 100 properties and assets as "surplus" for a net gain of $700 million over the fiscal plan. Will the Premier provide a complete list of the assets the government plans to sell and the business case for sell-

[ Page 9523 ]

ing them at this time?

Hon. C. Clark: I think the Minister of Finance was abundantly clear on that point, which is that in the process of disposing of assets we don't want to compromise our best interests, the best interests of taxpayers, by making sure we get the best deal possible.

[1400]

I want to say this. I am very disappointed in the Leader of the Opposition today. Today we have teachers around British Columbia threatening to withdraw services to children. We have job action that's dragged on for months and parents that don't know how well their children are doing because they've been denied the opportunity to see their report cards. This is a pressing issue in British Columbia.

I wasn't here yesterday, but I understand the opposition avoided asking questions about it, and now I suspect that the Leader of the Opposition intends to avoid asking questions about it again. This is the place for that debate to happen, and with this withdrawal upon us, I'd urge the Leader of the Opposition to step up. The government is being entirely reasonable in this debate. It is time for the opposition to stand up and be responsible and place the issues on the floor of this Legislature, where they belong.

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

A. Dix: I suspect if the Premier, as she says, was being entirely reasonable, her actions and that of her government wouldn't have been found to be illegal by the B.C. Supreme Court.

But you know, the issue of the tabling of the budget and the fact that the government can only claim a surplus in the year they're claiming a surplus because they are going on a fire sale of assets is, I think, a significant question in this House. The Minister of Finance said that the value of these assets would be $708 million — not $707 million, not $709 million, but $708 million.

I think people would like to know what the assets were. In fact, I can say that one of the people who I think would be very interested to know what the assets were would be the Minister of Aboriginal Relations, who, in spite of the specific estimate by the Minister of Finance, said yesterday that it would be quite illogical to suggest that we could consult on specific lands when we don't know what they might be yet.

So what is it? Why shouldn't the people of British Columbia know what lands the Premier is trying to sell out to get through one more election? Why shouldn't the people of British Columbia know this, and why doesn't the Minister of Aboriginal Relations know what's going on in the cabinet?

Hon. C. Clark: All assets that are disposed of will be disposed of in a way that respects our obligations to First Nations — absolutely. But here's the Leader of the Opposition in the Legislature on a day where teachers are threatening to withdraw services to children across British Columbia. Here we sit, the Premier and the Leader of the Opposition, and he is asking questions about a bill that was presented a week ago in the Legislature.

Now, we are going to have ample time to discuss the budget. We are going to have a budget debate. We have had a number of question periods between today and then on the budget. Today, on a day when teachers — the teachers union — are threatening to withdraw services to children in British Columbia, he refuses to get up and engage on the issue. He refuses to get up and talk about his position on this issue. These issues matter to families, and this debate needs to happen in this Legislature.

The Leader of the Opposition needs to stop hiding. He needs to come clean. He needs to stands up in this Legislature and say that he is going to be responsible, just like the government has been, with respect to this dispute.

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

A. Dix: You know, hon. Speaker, I think the record will show that the provincial budget…. The Premier appears surprised that she might be asked about the provincial budget, but there you go. She appears surprised. In fact, of course, this is my first opportunity to ask her questions about the provincial budget. We can all draw our own conclusions from that, but that is the reality of that.

[1405]

Would the Premier tell this House…? I think people in British Columbia, whose future is being sold out for the Liberals' present, would like to know what the list of assets is. Is it true, as the Minister of Finance says, that we have a specific number on the assets? We know it's going to be $475 million in a year — a sellout of assets in a year where they're promising a $154 million surplus. Is that the case?

Or is what the Minister of Aboriginal Relations says true, which is that they really don't know what assets they're going to sell at all, but they are going to sell them until they get to that point so they can make a political point in an election campaign? This is a significant question on the budget. Why don't we know it? Why not tell the people of British Columbia, the families of British Columbia, the truth?

Tell them what you're going to sell right now in the Legislature. Table that information so we can have a real debate about the budget.

Hon. C. Clark: The member talks about the future. There is no more important future that we should be discussing today than the future of students in British Columbia, because there is no greater gift that a parent can give their child than a great education. There is

[ Page 9524 ]

nothing more important that any government can do than ensure that we have the best possible public education system available for every single child in British Columbia.

When the member gets up and talks about the future, it's a little rich. It's a little rich to hear him talk about the future of the budget when he won't even stand up on a day when teachers are threatening to withdraw service all across British Columbia and dare to have the debate about that.

He won't even stand up here on this day of all days, when this dispute is coming to a head, when that withdrawal is about to happen, when children could find themselves out on the streets or home or in daycare but certainly not in school. On a day when this threat hangs over our public education system, this member doesn't have the backbone to stand up and talk about it in this Legislature. This is where this debate needs to happen, and he should have the temerity today to stand up and put these issues on the table when he has the chance.

ROLE OF LOBBYISTS IN

SALE OF GOVERNMENT ASSETS

B. Ralston: Budget 2012 refers to what the B.C. Liberal government calls a targeted review of its major asset base. Will the Premier identify here today those lobbyists who have targeted public lands and assets for their private gain?

Hon. C. Clark: I have already spoken to the question of which assets will be sold. The Minister of Finance spoke to that very clearly in the budget presentation that he did, including in the budget lockup, and I spoke to that in the answer to the Leader of the Opposition's first question.

I do think it's important for the opposition today to address the issues that matter the most to British Columbians, and that's the education of their children. We have an obligation here in this House to be making sure that our public education system is continuing to work and is continuing to serve children.

If the opposition refuses to debate that, refuses to put it on the floor of this chamber, refuses to ask questions about it, I'd ask this. What does it say about the priority they put on public education in this province if they refuse to even discuss it?

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

BUSINESS PLAN FOR

SALE OF GOVERNMENT ASSETS

B. Ralston: Well, the rules of the House will ensure that there will be ample debate of the bill that the Education Minister just tabled. But let me return to the budget. After all, it has only been one week since the budget was tabled here, and this is the first opportunity to ask the Premier some questions about it.

The asset recovery that's spoken of — $475 million in the second year of the fiscal plan and $231 million in the following year. Will the Premier confirm that those numbers are simply made up to plug a hole in the fiscal plan?

[1410]

Hon. C. Clark: Well, the member says the legislation on the teachers' withdrawal of service is going to be debated in this House and therefore there's no need to discuss it today. Well, the budget estimates are going to be up line by line on Thursday in this chamber. The member will have ample opportunity to ask those questions.

I mean, here's the thing. These members get up and ask question after question, and they avoid the central issues to British Columbia families. They avoided them yesterday, and they're avoiding them today. You cannot continue to dodge these questions. They are important questions, not just the questions that will be in the legislation. Where does the member stand on net zero? Where does the member stand on many of the other big issues that have been out there with respect to…?

Mr. Speaker: Premier, you can refer to the bill itself, but you cannot refer to the contents of the bill. Continue.

Hon. C. Clark: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The issue of net zero has been something the government has been talking about for months.

Mr. Speaker: Premier, you can refer to the bill itself, but you can't refer to the contents. The contents of the bill have "zero" in it.

Hon. C. Clark: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will not.

I do hope, though, that the members opposite will take an opportunity to discuss and debate the issues of today, the issues that are crucial to parents in British Columbia. Our public education system is under threat of closing down as a result of job action by the union. I think it's important we debate this today in the Legislature. Apparently the members opposite don't attach an equivalent importance to that.

I'll tell you this. The member can get up and ask questions that he can happily get up and ask on Thursday, but parents in British Columbia are watching this Legislature, and they want to know where every single member in this stands on the issue of a work stoppage in our schools.

COSTS TO B.C. OF

FEDERAL ANTI-CRIME LEGISLATION

K. Corrigan: Usually, when you ask questions in ques-

[ Page 9525 ]

tion period, you do get them screened ahead of time, but normally you don't have to get them screened by the Premier of the province before you ask the questions.

So asking about $700 million worth of assets is not appropriate. Is justice an appropriate question to ask about today?

Interjection.

K. Corrigan: I'll try. The minister….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Continue, Member.

Interjection.

K. Corrigan: It's disappointing. You're right.

The minister responsible for justice has known for years that the Harper government plans to bring in legislation that will have a serious impact on provincial finances. As far back as September the minister said: "I can tell you it's a pretty massive bill, and we have staff in both of my ministries going through the bill as we speak to look for implications."

Months later, and nothing from the minister. A report released today by the independent Parliamentary Budget Officer of Canada said the part of Bill C-10 that restricts conditional sentencing alone is going to cost the provinces and territories roughly $140 million a year.

To the Minister of Justice: how much will federal crime legislation cost the province, what is your plan to prepare for the impact, and what are you going to do to ensure that the federal government compensates B.C. for the costs?

Hon. S. Bond: What the members on this side of the House have said very clearly is that in fact, as a government, we actually believe that safe communities for families are pretty critical. In fact, members of this side of the House actually went to Ottawa and lobbied for tougher laws to get tough on people who take advantage of young people in British Columbia. You bet we support that. It would be interesting to see how the member opposite feels.

We also support taking a really strong stand against human trafficking in British Columbia. Perhaps the member of the opposition could step up and tell us how she feels about that part of the bill.

[1415]

We've been very clear about this, and unlike the members opposite, we're not prepared to just float numbers around, to talk about a secret budget where they're unprepared to back up the details. We're actually going to take the time to make sure that when we put a number forward, we can justify it, quantify it. But I can assure you that we've made it clear. We support the content of Bill C-10 for safer communities in British Columbia.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

The member has a supplemental.

K. Corrigan: Well, the member said that…. You've been in Ottawa lobbying for this bill, but you've done absolutely nothing about costing the bill or protecting the people of British Columbia. You've been studying it for months, and yet there's absolutely nothing in this year's budget that shows there has been any preparation for the financial impact to our already overburdened justice system. Clearly, this government doesn't have the jam to tell the Harper government to pay for their own legislation.

Again to the minister responsible for education: will you stand today in the House and tell British Columbians exactly how much the federal crime legislation will cost the province and what your plan is to deal with the impact?

Hon. S. Bond: Well, I think it's fairly ironic that the member opposite is standing up and talking about jam. When the question came to her community about whether we should add additional corrections capacity, the only answer we got from the member opposite was: "Not in my backyard."

Obviously, the member opposite missed the opportunity that we took in the Okanagan recently to announce a brand-new corrections facility that will help us deal with the capacity issues. Not only was that well received; in fact, it actually will create hundreds of jobs. That's what this government is going to do to deal with some of those issues.

PREVENTION OF HOMOPHOBIC AND

TRANSPHOBIC BULLYING IN SCHOOLS

S. Chandra Herbert: Today the Vancouver District Students Council and gay-straight alliances from all across B.C. joined forces to call on the Premier to finally put action behind her words on the eve of Pink Shirt Day, Anti-Bullying Day. As members in this House know, two-thirds of lesbian, gay, bi and trans youth feel unsafe in our schools. They know that 25 percent are physically assaulted in the schools for being who they are.

My question is to the Premier. She says that the vulnerable need to be looked out for. Will she finally bring in policy to protect lesbian, gay, bi and trans youth explicitly in our school systems?

Hon. C. Clark: When I as a broadcaster led a team that brought Pink Shirt Day here to British Columbia from

[ Page 9526 ]

Nova Scotia, I did it because I was, like the member opposite, profoundly concerned that so many children in our school system and adults in workplaces feel the long-term deep impacts of bullying for a lifetime. In the course of doing my radio show I spoke to many people who felt it, who lived with it, who could never recover from it.

It is a terrible thing for anyone to experience bullying. I am deeply committed to making sure we address this issue. It was part of our throne speech that the Lieutenant-Governor delivered in this House in the fall. I reiterated my commitment to that recently. We will be taking action on this issue. There are very few issues about which I am more passionate than this one.

I promise the member this. We will work with him to make sure that we bring in the best legislation, the best policy, the best methods we possibly can for addressing this issue in workplaces, in schools and in homes for all people across British Columbia.

[1420]

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

S. Chandra Herbert: I appreciate the Premier's concern, but it's a concern that she has been expressing since she was Minister of Education, when she brought in a policy that contained zero recommendations to help gay, lesbian, bi and trans students, despite the fact that in the report it said that was one of the top issues. Students have graduated — they've gone through elementary school; they've gone through high school — in the time that this government has sat on its hands.

Today I heard from David, a grade 9 student from Richmond, speaking about attempting suicide because he has been constantly bullied for being gay.

Now, 75 percent of our school districts have zero policy to explicitly protect lesbian, gay, bi and trans youth. In January last year, the Premier claimed that homophobic bullying and addressing it would be a top priority. She would get her Education Minister to get right on it. Well, when I did a freedom-of-information request for all the work that was done last year, what did I get? Four blank pages. That's it. That's the sum total of this government's work on this issue.

So my question is to the Premier. When will she stop just expressing concern, and when will she — now that she's Premier and has been Premier for over a year — actually do something about it? Our kids are counting on us.

Hon. C. Clark: Mr. Speaker, we will be taking action on this, as I promised, in this our second session of the Legislature since I've been Premier. We will be doing that this session.

I take it that the member, despite his cynicism about my intentions, would like to be a part of that. I'd be happy if he would be. Bullying is an issue that unites us all. He can tell stories about people who have been bullied. So can I.

I can tell you stories about grieving mothers whose children have jumped off bridges because they were called gay and were bullied and persecuted at school relentlessly.

I can tell you stories of little girls who went to school from the time they were in kindergarten till the time they were in grade 10, who had words written on their gym strip, who had their clothes thrown in the garbage, who had no one to eat lunch with every single day.

I can tell you a lot of stories about that, and I'm sure everybody in this chamber could tell a similar story. I have literally met hundreds of people who have existed and who have been through some of the worst experiences you can imagine.

There are very few issues, as I said, about which I am more passionate. We are working very hard on addressing this issue, and I tell the member this, as I did in the throne speech and as I did earlier last month. We are going to deal with it, and we are going to deal with it in this session of the Legislature.

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO

FERRY SYSTEM REVIEW

G. Coons: According to the latest quarterly report released last Friday, B.C. Ferries has seen another multi-million-dollar loss — $23 million — and a record-breaking drop in ridership in the last three months.

About three months ago the Transportation Minister was still using a review by the commissioner as an excuse not to fix the problems at B.C. Ferries, problems that have been obvious for years. Since the review was finished and placed on his desk, the minister has taken no action.

The minister claims to be a get-on-with-it kind of guy once reviews are completed. Why won't the Transportation Minister get on with it and act on the findings of the ferries report?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: I think the member would concur that the report that the commissioner has put together — after discussing with close to 2,000 British Columbians the issues facing B.C. Ferries — is probably one of the best, if not the best, reports we've seen on B.C. Ferries in our province.

These are obviously challenging times not only for B.C. Ferries but for ferry corporations around the world. With the concerns that we heard loud and clear from the public of British Columbia, the users of our ferry system, we brought in a bill during the last session of the Legislature to actually cap future rates at 4.15 percent.

[1425]

We took the next further step after the commissioner wrote to me, requesting the opportunity to go out and do an in-depth study of what was working in Ferries, what needed some refinement and what we could do to ensure

[ Page 9527 ]

a long-term, sustainable, affordable system for British Columbians and visitors alike. We agreed with that. I wholeheartedly supported him.

We're going through the study right now. We're about one month into it. I hope to have some recommendations coming from that very soon, but on such a serious issue I'm not going to rush to judgment. I'm going to take the report, I'm going to do the work that's necessary, and certainly in due order we will come forward with recommendations. They're going to ensure the affordability and sustainability of the world-class ferry system we have today in British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

G. Coons: It's a different story with a proposed review at B.C. Transit. He says: "I'm not one to drag it on and on. Let's get on with it. I'll take it to my cabinet colleagues, and we'll move forward." It seems the minister is a real action figure when it comes to a review of B.C. Transit but the invisible man when it comes to B.C. Ferries.

Three months, another massive drop in ridership, a $23 million loss, no strategic plan, wasteful advertising spending, threats of significant cuts in service, skyrocketing fares, outrageous executive compensation, ballooning debt. The minister said he was looking at the review. Now he says he's looking at it again. Perhaps the minister is just using the review as a booster seat to see over the letters of complaint on his desk from frustrated British Columbians.

Will the minister quit stalling? Will he get on with it and tell us what he plans to do to fix the mess that this Liberal government created with our ferries?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: I'd like to say that, obviously, the member has missed his calling.

You should be a comedian, Member, when you choose to grow up.

But the issue here is one that is in all of our best interests to make sure that as we go through this report, we don't jump to a hasty conclusion, to say we're going to do X or Y. We want to make sure that we do the proper things.

He talks about fare increases, and I want to make sure the public are well aware of this. Obviously, we share the concern with the public. The fares have increased substantially not over the last five years, not over the last ten years, but over the last 20 years.

You had ten years in government when these fares went up. They ranged anywhere on increases from 70.8 percent, 27.3 percent, 100 percent. So we share the concern on an affordable, sustainable system. We're going to ensure that we find the proper solution to this. But what I can tell you, Member, is that the answer is not just more money. This is about engaging the public, making sure that we look at service levels.

We have utilization rates on some of our routes that are 21 percent. We have times when ferries sail with more crew than passengers. I ask you: is that a sustainable system, Member? In my mind it's not.

We're going to find the proper approach, we're going to find the solution, and we're going to make sure that we take the world-class ferry system we have in British Columbia today and ensure its long-term sustainability and affordability for all British Columbians.

ELECTRICITY RATES AND

B.C. HYDRO REVENUES TO GOVERNMENT

J. Horgan: Hon. Speaker, it's little wonder the Premier doesn't want to talk about the budget, but I'm going to have to bring her back to that point, if that's all right with you and certainly if it's acceptable to her.

My question is about B.C. Hydro. We've heard about the disaster at B.C. Ferries. B.C. Hydro has been creating deferral accounts to get profitability where none really exists. Last year's budget drew $596 million from an unprofitable company. This year we're booking $591 million for that purpose. My question is to the Premier. How high must rates go to pay for this boondoggle, or how many deferral accounts will she create?

Hon. R. Coleman: The only people who'd advocate for more costs for families with regards to B.C. Hydro in this bloody chamber are the people across there, because they actually want to go with the union rate of 9.2 percent, to raise it on top of the people of British Columbia. They actually don't want to go look at the business plan and recognize that we're reorganizing Hydro. It's going to be more efficient.

The deferral accounts are there so that we can do long-term capital planning to fix the things that you never built in the 1990s, hon. Member, and improve a system, modernize it so that it's there for the next number of generations of British Columbians.

[1430]

[End of question period.]

Orders of the Day

Hon. R. Coleman: I call continuation of the budget debate.

Budget Debate

(continued)

Mr. Speaker: Member for Vancouver-Quilchena, do you just want to wait a few seconds?

Continue, Member.

C. Hansen: In continuing my remarks from this mor-

[ Page 9528 ]

ning, I know I only have a very few minutes left. I want to spend that time to talk about an issue that I think there's been a lot of misunderstanding, misinformation, floated around by some of our esteemed members of the journalism community but also from members of the opposition. I think it's created some confusion with the general public.

[D. Horne in the chair.]

That is the issue around the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia, how it is structured, how the relationship exists between the province of British Columbia and the Insurance Corporation, and how the Insurance Corporation actually structures two very distinct parts of the insurance product that it offers to the public.

About ten years ago, when we as a government went through the process of core review, we did seriously look at the question of whether or not there should be continued public ownership of auto insurance providers in British Columbia and, if the government continues to own the Insurance Corporation, should there in fact be a monopoly only to government as the provider.

What came out of that process was really a division of the two insurance offerings for automobile insurance: one is the basic insurance, which covers everything, including the injury to persons and the liability claims, and the other is what we often refer to as the additional insurance or the collision insurance — for example, the optional coverage that a motorist can get over and above the basic insurance that every motorist in British Columbia is required to have.

They are actually structured in two very distinct ways. Under the basic insurance that every motorist in British Columbia has to have today, there is continuing a government monopoly in providing that service through the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia.

In order to change rates, whether up or down, the Insurance Corporation actually has to go to the B.C. Utilities Commission and make their case, based on the cost of providing that service, what the claims trends are, what the issues around the disability insurance are, to make sure that claims can be paid out in the years — and, in fact, in the decades — to come in the future.

ICBC is required to have a reserve amount that they have to hold in order to make sure that they can meet those future claims. This is something called the minimum capital test, which is a term that's used in the insurance industry — I think globally, but certainly throughout North America — which actually prescribes how much of that reserve the insurance company has to have.

ICBC meets all of those minimum capital test requirements. If there is a surplus or a profit that comes from the provision of basic insurance coverage, that stays in ICBC. It is there for the benefit of ratepayers, who buy their basic insurance coverage. That has actually been able to dampen what otherwise would have been increases in some years. In fact, we haven't seen an increase in the basic insurance rates for many years now until this year, so we've actually been successful at keeping those down.

On the optional coverage side, it's actually quite a different structure. On the optional insurance, every motorist in British Columbia has the option of buying that coverage from the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia, or they can go out to a private provider. They can go to a private insurance company that provides exactly the same coverage, and they can customize that however they want. So they can get their basic from ICBC and their optional from another company, if they want.

[1435]

Now, the rules under which ICBC has to operate is that they have to run that optional insurance program on a level playing field with the private providers. So they can set the rates according to their projected costs. They still have to have the minimum capital test requirements being met, and they do meet those. In fact, they exceed those. But if there is a profit generated from that in the private sector companies, then that actually would result in dividends. For example, it would go back to shareholders. They might be pension funds; they might be private investors that own shares in those private insurance companies.

In the case of ICBC, if they wind up with a profit from their optional insurance coverage, it too should go to the shareholders. Now, who are the shareholders for ICBC? It's the entire 4.5 million British Columbians.

In fact, in ICBC over the last number of years…. The rates on optional coverage have come down significantly over the last five years, and that's to the benefit of motorists. Even then, if there's a motorist who thinks the ICBC rates are too high for that optional coverage, they can go out to the private provider and look at what rates can be offered there.

When there is a profit that comes from that optional line of coverage, it should actually flow back to the benefit of the shareholders, who are the taxpayers of British Columbia. So I am just saying that when you hear from some of the pundits in discussion, including from members of the opposition, when they say that money from optional coverage should somehow be channelled into basic coverage, I don't think that actually stands the test of looking at what is fair and what is appropriate and how the individual citizens of British Columbia should benefit.

Yes, we do from time to time see the profits from ICBC's optional coverage flow into general revenue of the province. Those dollars are then available to pay for the education programs, the health care programs and all of the other services that all 4.5 million British Columbians depend on being provided from this government and through this budget that is before us today.

This is a budget that I think is right for the times. This

[ Page 9529 ]

is a budget that reflects a solid foundation in the economy that has been built over the last ten years. It reflects the fact that we have a triple-A credit rating. It reflects the fact that we have an economy that is leading the Canadian average. It is a budget that is very conservative and prudent in how allocations are made, and it is also very conservative and prudent in the revenue projections that are set out in the budget. But I think that is absolutely right for the times.

We are living in volatile times internationally. I don't think anybody has a crystal ball to anticipate exactly what the future might hold in terms of the economy, but I think one of the things that is certain is that in British Columbia we have a solid base to our economy.

We will fare better than the rest of the world because of the strong basics that we built for the economy. I think this budget reflects exactly what is needed at this time, and it has my wholehearted support and my congratulations to the Finance Minister.

B. Routley: It is indeed great to once again have this opportunity to speak up on behalf of the wonderful people of the Cowichan Valley. This budget will not be dealing with some of the most important concerns of our citizens in our communities in the Cowichan Valley, and that's not really a surprise. The government has made choices over the years, some dating back to the beginning of their term.

Here are just a few of the concerns that will not be addressed in this budget. Seniors want options to their senior care. They want them clearly spelled out and publicly available to seniors and their families. You know, this was one of the many issues that the Ombudsman's office laid out very well — by the way: three volumes, 143 findings and 176 recommendations.

[1440]

I want to add that I believe the Ombudsman did outstanding and helpful work for the seniors of British Columbia, and I also want to thank the Ombudsman's office for the special report and recommendations on the Cowichan Lodge. Those Cowichan Lodge issues come about…. For those people who don't live in the Cowichan Valley, Cowichan Lodge was a senior care facility much loved in the community. Many volunteer hours went into building the facility, tending the gardens, volunteering to help seniors to have an enjoyable end-of-year experience in the senior care facility and to provide them with quality care in that home — make it a home-like experience with gardens, etc.

This senior care facility, while it was promised not to be closed…. Shortly after the new contracted-out facility had been built, VIHA — I would suggest through the help of this government — moved to close down the Cowichan Lodge. It was really traumatic for families in the Cowichan Valley. I would say that it was detrimental to the health of many seniors. In fact, the studies after the closure of the lodge show that a higher number of seniors actually passed away in that period subsequent to the announcement of the closure of Cowichan Lodge than would normally would be expected if you took the same time frame over a number of previous years.

So the Cowichan Lodge Ombudsman's report shows that this government's fiscal plans have included what I would call pain and heartbreak for far too many seniors and their families. Our seniors, the care workers and the communities were very hurt by the actions of this government and this government's creation, VIHA. This report outlines exactly what happened, and I would call it seniors abuse. But this report will bring some level of accountability. It does bring some level of justice and, hopefully, prevention.

I would add that the Cowichan Valley is absolutely behind the fact that we do not ever want to see another Cowichan Lodge mismanagement ever allowed in any community in British Columbia ever again. Again, I want to close off this part by thanking the entire Ombudsman's office for their diligence and hard work on behalf of the citizens in the communities in the Cowichan Valley.

Sadly, far too many heartbreaking stories of B.C. seniors having trouble getting adequate care are laid out in the Ombudsman's report. One of the points made in the report was that seniors need to have continuity and consistency of care. Part of that is clearly a budgeting issue and a policy issue that the government has responsibility for. But unfortunately, as a result of this government's actions in the past in contracting out, this government was responsible for laying off and terminating more than 8,000 quality senior care workers in British Columbia. As a result of their contracting-out efforts, that's still happening, and it's happening once again in the Cowichan Valley.

In January of this year I received a news release that the Acacia lodge in Shawnigan Lake…. All of the workers and the seniors in that senior care facility have been served notice that the lodge intends to contract out all of the jobs of the Shawnigan Lake seniors residential facility, putting more than 30 directly employed care aides, recreation aides, even licensed practical nurses — if you can imagine anybody laying off licensed practical nurses or suggesting that they can contract out their jobs — the dietary and kitchen and laundry staff….

They're all being threatened with being put out of work as early as the end of March. The workers representatives say that this move to contract out comes as a complete surprise. It's devastating news not only to the staff but to the facility's 35 residents, many with complex care needs.

[1445]

Some of these have the highest level of needs in terms of senior care. Again, back to the Ombudsman's report, it was very clear that continuity of care does affect the seniors in their care facilities. It is tragic, once again, to see this government's actions resulting in seniors being

[ Page 9530 ]

hurt in our community.

The other seniors issue that's alive in the Cowichan Valley is DriveABLE. This budget has nothing in it to help seniors in the Cowichan Valley who are upset about the lack of access to this DriveABLE program. There's nothing in it that will allow seniors to take a real driving test in their own community, which is clearly what I've heard from many seniors. That's what they want. They prefer to have a driving test in their own community.

At least, at a minimum, seniors would want the opportunity to do some testing out of the computer. I heard a lot of stress from seniors about their concerns with the DriveABLE program and the fact that it's a computer test that has nothing to do with driving; it's a comprehension test. It does come down to a budgetary choice as to whether or not this government will do something to allow seniors access in their communities to these kinds of helps that would reduce stress amongst seniors.

I really am frustrated to sit in my office, and day after day, all too often, it's another senior coming through the door with health care issues or DriveABLE issues or even access to the hospital kinds of issues — people in long waiting lists trying to get the help that they need.

At the end of the day, this cognitive test, as I understand the science…. I've done some reading on cognitive tests because of all of the people through the door. Apparently, a cognitive test is not something that you should be able to…. For example, if you go and play with the computer and then test the next day, in theory you should have forgotten the cognitive testing. If you've got cognitive problems, you're not going to be able to practise and somehow get more skilful, particularly if it's a different kind of cognitive test. You're not going to be able to trick the test, so to speak.

I do think that we need to do something right away to help seniors in British Columbia, and it's just not happening.

Another issue in the Cowichan Valley that I want to talk about…. It's a small business owner. I had Dixie Simpson come into my office. I'm still perplexed that this government that often says things about small business or big business, that they somehow care about business…. Yet they would take an action against Dixie Simpson, a small business there in the Cowichan Valley, that is really quite startling and really quite alarming.

What Dixie did was she applied due diligence principles. She went out and got a business licence. I'd like to just take a moment to read from her own letter, the letter that she sent to the Minister of Finance. She said that she "researched the possibility of putting one of these fish spas…." They're a fish spa, where these Garra rufa , or doctor fish, nibble away at dead skin. They are actually found to be helpful in places like the United Kingdom. They have them in Ireland. They have them in Scotland. They have them in London. They have them in Japan. They have them in facilities all over the world.

She goes on to say that in February of 2010 she was told by Health Canada — so she approached the federal authorities at that time — that no prohibiting regulations existed in either federal or provincial regulations. Now, that's what she was told when she was asking about starting this business. These fish were allowed in the country. They were sold by aquariums in Canada.

[1450]

She said she also read the regulations for both sectors to see if there was anything documented, and there was nothing indicating that using these live-fish spa treatments was in any way regulated in British Columbia or federally. Imagine her shock and horror to be in business for over a year, to start to have a huge clientele, people flying in from the United States, from other provinces…. People coming from all over the world were thrilled to find out that this facility existed, particularly if you've got psoriasis or other skin diseases that are often really helped. There's all kinds of scientific evidence that shows that it really helps to have this.

Without any due process, because she was involved…. If you can imagine, Mr. Speaker, here she was being nominated by the chamber of commerce in the Cowichan Valley for the Black Tie Award. She's nominated, so some local media talked to her, and she did a piece on CHEK 6 TV.

Apparently, that was what drew the ire and the heat, if you like. Suddenly, there was a call from VIHA. Somebody higher up in VIHA had been watching, and they phoned and said: "You must shut down right away." This is a phone call. Imagine getting this. "I'm from VIHA, and I'm here to tell you that you have to shut down right away this business that you've invested tens of thousands of dollars in. You must shut down immediately" — without any site visit or whatever — "and you could even possibly face jail time if you don't."

She was told later…. Finally, they said: "Oh well, maybe we should come down and have a look." She said: "Well, you haven't even come down and looked at the facility." So they came down and had a look at the facility. Then they said that these little tiny fish…. They're actually quite amazing; they're spectacular. Apparently their mouths, according to VIHA, were some kind of dangerous tool. That was the

interpretation. No science, no research — just a phone call. Somebody higher up in VIHA had nothing better to do that afternoon than close a business in the Cowichan Valley. No consultation, no coming down to have a talk to the business.

It was really terrifying for this small business owner and upsetting, to say the least, that this could happen when she had done her due diligence, had the business licence on the wall from the Duncan city hall, had paid her taxes to the provincial government and to the federal government. And without any kind of due diligence whatsoever she was just put out of work.

Now these facilities…. When I heard this story…. Of course, you have to be concerned. VIHA is saying that

[ Page 9531 ]

there are real health issues involved here. You want to believe that they're going to do some kind of due diligence and look into this.

You can go and look these fish up on the Internet. Just type it in, and what do you come up with? Well, you find out that the health protection agency in the United Kingdom…. I found an

article where a spokesman for the agency said that it did not expect to be enforcing any kind of ban in the U.K. and believed the risk of catching an infection from the fish foot spa to be very small. It was looking at publishing public guidelines.

A lot of it got started…. They were only looking at guidelines years after having these facilities in place because people were ringing the alarm bells, like VIHA, saying: "There's this terrible thing, and they've got this dangerous mouth." No science whatsoever, again, behind this. They've been in place for hundreds of years in Turkey and I don't know how many decades in Japan and in other countries.

We've done everything that we can to appeal for common sense in this particular case, and it is sad that here we're talking about a budget in the province of British Columbia. And this government seems to swoop in.

I've heard these ministers and the Liberals talk about regulation. What a terrible thing regulation is. Well, boy, there's a regulation nightmare if you ever heard one.

[1455]

If you were the person involved and you spent all that money and did the research, did your due diligence, and then people are making things up as they go along…. No accountability — nobody is paying her back for the tens of thousands that she put out starting that business, and it's really unacceptable. I think Dixie Simpson is owed an apology and some real due diligence. Somebody needs to look into this and show….

Why is it okay in Quebec? As I understand, these fish spas are allowed in another province in Canada. I'm told that they're now available in Manitoba as well.

Anyway, moving on. This budget specifically announced that the end of the HST wouldn't be happening until April 1. You know, there's an April Fool's joke for you — April 1, 2013. It's just so complicated. It's been around since 1948, but this is just so complicated. They just can't figure it out any quicker than that. It just happens to be long enough to wring some more money out of the good people of British Columbia, to make British Columbians pay for that government's mistakes, at the end of the day, and bringing in the HST without proper consultation.

At the end of the day, it was clearly a very undemocratic process. Finally, people did have the right to vote on it, and when that happened, we know the results. It was tossed out. But does this government care? The people of British Columbia file into the polling booth, and they expect a little action.

I've done literally hundreds of votes over my career representing forest workers. We voted on all kinds of stuff. Boy, if I ever told them, "You know what? A year and a half from now in April maybe we'll get around to it…." I would have been run out of town on a rail if I tried something like that. Anyway, it's really sad that this government intends to….

Man, they just can't resist a temptation to stick it to B.C. families and to transfer a couple of billion dollars to their rich friends and insiders. Once again they plan to pick the pockets of British Columbians and make them pay for this government's lack of transparency to the B.C. public in the 2009 election when they said nothing about bringing in the HST.

Now the best they can do is to say they'll get around to it on April 1, 2013. Yet we hear these statements about how very much they care about families. You know, they care so much about families, and yet they want to keep the money from families and give a gift of $2 billion to their big business and corporate friends.

And they have talked about how: "Oh well, maybe we should do something about the big corporations. Maybe we should have a plan to take a little bit back, maybe a little bit back, but you know, we don't want to rush into these things." It's okay to rush into hanging on to the money of ordinary British Columbians — but no plan to deal with the fact that….

They brag about being the lowest in the G7 countries. You know, you could be in the middle of the pack and still be okay, I would think. But no, no, they brag about being the lowest, and where has it got them at the end of the day?

I want to stop and camp on that a little bit. Let's talk about what has actually happened. They say that it's all going to trickle down if you invest in these big corporations, but here's the fiscal reality. "The fiscal plan also includes a temporary one-point increase in the general corporate tax rate for large businesses to 11 percent, effective April 2014."

The Finance Minister went on to say: "I believe we can balance the budget without the increase, and it will only be triggered if the fiscal situation worsens." So they got their corporate backup plan. If selling off properties…. Surely, if they sell off enough of British Columbia….

[1500]

I don't know how hard that is, to develop a plan to take the rich resources of British Columbia and…. "Let's sell them off" — a wonderful idea. What kind of plan…? How can anybody in government honestly believe that they're balancing the budget — both on the backs of British Columbians who are hanging on with the HST and by selling off the assets of British Columbians? It is really quite scandalous. But they go on.

I want to look at how this flood of investment was going to come back. That was the promise. It was the promise way back in 2001. The government was saying that it's all going to trickle down. Just wait; there's going to be so

[ Page 9532 ]

much investment. It's just going to be wonderful.

For example, here are some facts on the forest industry and investment in B.C. The volume of capital invested in B.C. in British Columbia's forest industry has fallen dramatically under the watch of the current Liberal government. According to Statistics Canada, the CANSIM data recently made available publicly free of charge, on an end-of-year gross stock basis, real investment in machinery and equipment in B.C.'s forest and logging sector was reduced from over $4.6 billion in 2001 to under $3 billion in 2011. That's a 28 percent reduction or fall of over 2.8 percent per year.

[D. Black in the chair.]

In wood manufacturing the decline was even worse. The minister of log exports should be hearing this, because this is really serious — that in wood manufacturing the decline is even worse. From $4.6 billion in 2001, the gross stock of machinery and equipment fell to less than $3.1 billion, a 33.6 percent decline, or almost 3.4 percent per year. In pulp and paper it was even more dramatic, from $10.7 billion in 2001 to just $2.9 billion, a drop of 72.8 percent. There are the facts, hon. Speaker, about what's happening at the end of the day when you look at how this B.C. government has performed.

Let's take a quick look at the final B.C. progress report. This is really fascinating reading. It was trumpeted by the B.C. Liberals. They were going to benchmark, so they were going to keep an eye on things. They were going to show what a wonderful job they were doing taking care of British Columbia. Oh yeah, they were just going to be so good at it. It was going to be wonderful. They would be able to report on it annually, and they'd have statistics to prove how they could back up all of the things that they stand up and say in this House.

The B.C. economy that former Premier Gordon Campbell inherited from the NDP in 2001 compared much better to the other provinces than the one he turned over to the current Liberal Premier. The final report of the B.C. Progress Board, a group of business leaders handpicked by Gordon Campbell just over a decade ago to measure and report on the benefits of the Liberal big business–friendly policy, has found that the economy has slipped backwards during the Liberals.

Wow, it slipped backwards. Over the Liberal years the strength of B.C.'s economy slipped from fourth amongst the provinces to fifth. Personal income fell from third to fourth, and the job market dropped from fifth to seventh. That is what's been happening. The Liberal budget continues to hurt working families and the middle class. Real change would have included recognition that working families and the middle class are struggling right now through difficult times. There are all kinds of reports about the need for consumers to get out of the consumer debt hole that they're in.

Consumer debt is a real problem not only in British Columbia but in North America. In order for manufacturing and worldwide trade to actually be productive and to benefit, there have to be consumers with disposable income to buy those products.

[1505]

It's interesting. All of the work that's been done by multinational corporations and big business to crush the life out of the manufacturing sector in North America, actually throughout the United States and Canada, all of the manufacturing jobs rushing off to other nations…. At the end of the day, the result has been that we've got fewer and fewer middle class with a disposable income to actually pay for the products that will create growth.

As a result, we've seen a somewhat stalled economy. Certainly, in the United States it's been an absolute disaster, with all of the fiscal manoeuvrings that went on down there. We still have the problem here in Canada, and a lot of it is the fact that we have so many consumers that have a large debt burden.

Now we've got this government promoting its jobs plan. It's almost laughable when you think that they laid off 35,000…. They watched while 35,000 forest industry workers lost their jobs. In fact, they paved the way. They made it easier to eliminate jobs. Then in 2002 this Liberal government laid off 11,700 workers. Black Thursday, the workers called it. That was back when they were against jobs, particularly public sector jobs.

It's really ironic that here at the beginning of their term they did their best to axe and eliminate jobs, and now, presto chango, they've got a jobs program, and they're spending $15 million putting ads on TV. "There are going to be jobs for all; it's going to be wonderful" — after they stood back and watched 35,000 forest workers' jobs lost, the 11,700 workers….

We had 8,000 health care workers, some very caring people that were absolutely devastated by the actions of this government. Now, as the health care and the needs of seniors becomes even more of a crisis, the province of British Columbia is going to have more and more difficulty in attracting the kinds of workers that we need to do those jobs, because those workers have been so disrespected and abused in the province of British Columbia.

We're asked to just forget about all of that. That was quite messy, but really, we want to move on and do something else. I do want to lighten up a little bit and maybe close out with one small happy thing that has apparently come out of the HST fiasco.

I hear that the HST salesman, the number one salesman, the Stickman…. I heard from a somewhat reliable source that the HST Stickman has apparently been sent off to a clothes peg factory. Some of them protested the change. There were some muffled noises about how they really liked the money and the Starbucks coffee cards on their last gig. However, it has all ended well with the Stickman. Yes, they'll soon be hanging out with someone else's dirty laundry.

[ Page 9533 ]

G. Hogg: I'm always intrigued and amazed and sometimes perplexed at how we all have different vantage points by which we see budgets and theories — perceptions from different vantage points — and come to different conclusions with the same bit of data.

I'm also recognizing today, when we have all remembered Jim Green…. I can remember some of the things that he and I talked about. I remember him telling me that if we still believed everything that we saw or if things were the way they appeared, we'd still believe that the world was flat, and we'd still believe that the sun rises in the east and sets in the west and that the sun goes around the earth.

[1510]

"These appearances would not have been challenged," Jim used to often say. They have, and we now know that things are not always as they appear. We learn from science. We learn from empiricism. We challenge our assumptions, we challenge what we see, and we find new proofs that disprove our old truths. Jim was so good at doing that and reminding us of that.

We've also learned that if we were rational beings, if rationality was as it is commonly understood, we would come to thoughtful, rational agreement on matters. Jim pushed us to explore issues from different vantage points than those which are commonly held, the commonly held vantage points.

Budgets and economics are about people's behaviour, about vantage points and about assumptions. Economics traditionally conceptualizes a world populated by calculating, unemotional maximizers that have been dubbed homo economicus . The standard economic framework ignores or rules out virtually all the behaviour studied by cognitive and social psychologists.

The standard economic model of human behaviour includes at least three unrealistic traits: unbounded rationality, which we know does not exist for us; unbounded willpower, and certainly many of us are examples that willpower is not unbounded; and unbounded selfishness — all of which behavioural economics tends to modify. I am sure that we would all agree that we tend to be far more altruistic as a human race than economics would suggest.

Departures from rationality emerge both in our judgments and our choices. The ways which we judge diverge from rationality in many extensive ways, including overconfidence, optimism and extrapolation.

Behavioural economics has come to the forefront over the past number of years. In 2002 Daniel Kahneman won the Nobel Prize in Economics by saying that actually people are not all of those things that we've assumed and that we actually have other motivations than just self-serving and maximizing. Sometimes things are done for vengeance. Sometimes things are done out of a lack of caring. Certainly, that was accepted in the academic community.

Then in 2008 Greenspan went before a Congress committee and said that all of the theories that he had of economics and that he'd utilized for the past close to 40 years didn't work, that things were different than he'd assumed. And we started to realize that the assumptions we make around economics and our theories about maximizing and about self-interest are, in fact, not what drives us.

So the context has started to change, and certainly, the context by which we see things dictates what, in fact, we see. There's a famous study funded by The Washington Post where in Washington, D.C., in the subway they had Joshua Bell, perhaps the world's greatest violinist, playing his violin there early in the morning, a million-dollar violin, playing as people were rushing to the subway.

I think over the course of an hour he gathered about $32, which I think included $20 from a woman who had seen him perform at one of the symphony centres a few years before that and felt so badly for him that she gave him $20. But it was the context, and it was the context by which he was seen which dictated that things were different. I sometimes wonder about the context that we see ourselves in and what kind of credibility we give to each other based on those contexts.

The context that we have today and that our budget is presented in is one…. If we look, certainly, at the international impact of it, we recognize that there are crises that have been well publicized — crises in Italy, in Greece, in the United States and more recently in Ontario. Certainly, the Drummond report has been very active in its statements of that.

In fact, as I was looking at the Drummond report, I think they made two references to some of the things that have been done in British Columbia in terms of both health promotion and looking at issues in social innovation. I think we as a province should be proud of the fact that they are looking to British Columbia for some of the actions they think they should take.

[1515]

It's been said a number of times that we should never let a good crisis go to waste. So what, in fact, are the things that we could and should be doing and looking at?

Certainly, the budget that has come before us has been well talked about by many people in terms of what the important things are that we need to learn, how we can get economic stability, how we ensure that the foundations are set.

The crisis that we're in the context of…. I think there are two or three other things that are approaching us.

Firstly, we have new technologies that we never had before — certainly, information technologies that tell us about the past and what things have happened in the past. We've got new ways of sharing and of understanding each other — crowdsourcing and many of the systems that we look at, whether they be Facebook or Twitter, and ways of connecting that we've never had before.

And innocentive.com is a process used by many of

[ Page 9534 ]

the big corporations — Procter and Gamble, Hewlett-Packard — where they actually, in looking at issues and trying to solve them and they're unable to solve them, post all of their information on those. A Harvard study said about 30 percent of these intractable, unsolvable problems were actually solved — probably by somebody sitting at home in their pyjamas, drinking a beer, looking at it and seeing it from a different perspective. Often people who are experts in the field get narrower and narrower in focus and don't see things from the other vantage points.

I believe it was SARS. There were two leading research facilities looking at how we break the SARS conundrum. They finally decided: "We'll put this out. We'll put all of the information we have out on the web. We'll go public with all of it." I think it was within about three days that it was solved, as people looked at it and came at it from different vantage points and different ways of looking at it.

Procter and Gamble, I think, has probably more PhDs than Harvard, Stanford and Princeton combined, yet they couldn't find a solution to these things. So I think sometimes we get too focused on looking at that as well. Certainly, SARS and some of the models like Ashoka and Changemakers give us new technologies, new ways to look at the challenges that we have. And really, budgets are about challenges.

The other significant one that we have in the western world is that of aging and, therefore, the demands that are being placed on social services, on health and the challenges that come through that. Historically, if we look at the provision of social programs, certainly since the late 1700s, and the notion of the puritanical approaches that were brought to us, social programs have been provided by faith-based organizations, by philanthropists and by governments.

The ability of governments and, to a large degree, faith-based organizations, is now very much diminished. While we've always developed our social capital through that method, our physical capital has been developed through the marketplace and through businesses.

We know that about 85 percent of the support provided for elderly seniors is provided by friends, neighbours and relatives, the volunteers that exist and care for each other. If the primary premise of our society is how we look after each other and how we care for each other, then certainly we have many people who provide that framework.

The World Health Organization not long ago told us that the elderly seniors who are isolated and alone can have a life expectancy of seven years less than those who have a lot of social contacts. That's equivalent to smoking. So in terms of the challenges we've looked at with smoking, certainly we have to be able to look at that as an important way for addressing….

The economic crisis, technology, aging — all of those things have pushed us and our budgets and budgets around the western democracies in new ways. It's been said that necessity becomes the mother of invention. Certainly, innovation is the challenge that faces us as we look at these significant challenges.

Some of our most difficult and intractable problems I think seem that way not because they are, but because we look at them from different vantage points. We often look at them from inside. Certainly, the experiences of Procter and Gamble and others have proven that. What do vantage points tell us? How do we look at them?

There's a famous story that's been told by a number of different sales organizations about two people that are sent out to a country in Africa as shoe salesmen. One sends a letter back to head office saying: "There's no market here; nobody wears shoes." The other one sends back: "It's the biggest market I've ever seen; nobody has shoes."

[1520]

What are the vantage points that we take? How are we able to interpret the things that we look at? What are our explanatory styles in terms of the optimism that we have in terms of that?

One of my favourite stories that I used to use when I was doing a lot of counselling was about Loren Eiseley, who has written a short story called "The Star Thrower." He has an old gentleman walking along a beach in Mexico. Somebody who's watching him from a distance, in the sunset and the darkness, sees this elderly man bend over and appear to be throwing things.

This gentleman gets up closer to this older gentleman, and he sees that with each wave coming in there are thousands of starfish that are thrown up on the beach. The gentleman picks up and throws another one out, and the man says: "What are you doing? It's not making any difference at all." The old gentleman picks up and throws another one out beyond the cresting of the wave, where it wouldn't be washed in, and said: "It made a difference to that one." Certainly, as we look at the challenges that we have and the ways that we look at them, we want to make sure that we do make a difference.

Albert Einstein and Werner Heisenberg, two of the greatest physicists of our and probably of all time, were sitting and chatting away. I think it was in about 1931. As I see it — it's probably not exactly how it happened — I imagine that they were in puffy chairs, each sipping a brandy, and Werner Heisenberg said to Albert Einstein: "Well, you know, whether it's protons or people, you just have to watch the patterns. After the patterns come, then the theories will evolve. The theories are there. It's out of watching that we find the theories."

And Einstein said: "Oh, Werner, you silly banana. That's not at all how it works. You've got to know that the theory you have dictates what you see." I think that's, again, the vantage point. The theories that we hold dictate, in fact, what we see and how we can start to do things differently.

There are a number of things which other jurisdictions are looking at doing differently and a number of things

[ Page 9535 ]

which we have had the opportunity to look at differently, because we have so many creative and positive people in this province. I had the privilege of spending some time with Charlie Leadbeater, an innovator who's been around the world. In fact, I believe he was just meeting with the superintendents in British Columbia about a week ago. He has been a consultant in over 150 countries. I had the chance to spend a couple of days with him, and he talked about these vantage points.

He said that in England they were looking at end-of-life care. Where do people want to die? They went out and did a statistically valid survey of where people wanted to die, and he said 85 percent of the people wanted to die at home. So the pollsters were making a presentation to his board, all sitting around, explaining it to them.

There was a young person there who said: "Yeah, but how many of those people were dying?" The pollster in his nice, rational, empirical approach said: "Well, whatever percentage of the population are dying would have been represented in this, because it's a statistically valid survey." He looked at him and said: "Yeah, but I want to know how many were dying." Actually, he convinced the board to have them go back and poll people that were dying.

When they did that, they came back and said that 90 percent of people wanted to die in the hospital — second iteration. He said, "That doesn't make a lot of sense," so they went and interviewed them, and they found that they wanted to die in the hospital because they did not want to be a burden to their families. Often as we make public policy from different vantage points, I think that unless we ask the first and second and third questions around that, we're probably making decisions which are inconsistent with the expectations that we have and the outcomes that we want.

He also told a story about a single mother and four children and her mother living together. Over the period of about 15 years — this is in England — this family was in crisis a lot of the time. The state had spent £750,000 with that family over the period of some 15 years, and after 15 years they were exactly where they were at the beginning of it.

I think the social workers were getting up from their vantage point and saying: "We've got to keep this family together. We've got to protect them. We've got to make sure that it doesn't become out of crisis." And the family was getting up every day, saying: "How the heck can we get out of these circumstances? How can we find a job? How can we get out of these intolerable circumstances that we're in?"

As governments, I think, we tend to develop policy for people, not with them. So how do we start looking at that? What they started to do was they spent £25,000 in the first year, and they took a co-creation model of policy development — to develop policy with them. They went to the family and said, "What are the things that you want? How can we support you? How can we help you?" rather than having the state's model around that. They spent £25,000 in the first year and haven't heard of the family since.

[1525]

There are lots of examples of those types of things happening. Christian Bason, out of Denmark, has talked about the ways that they've looked at taking the amount of money that they have and providing better services.

I think the opportunities that we have with this budget are to look at how we can have better services — services that are not in the traditional industrial model and not in the hierarchical model but services that are more community-based, more sensitive and more sensitized and that have a positive service experience so it's not just what the outcomes are but what the service experience is of the public engaged in that.

He gave the example of an employment agency in Copenhagen, a state-run employment agency. They use video cameras. He said: "We set up our video cameras across the street from the employment agency. The agency opened at 8:30. They set their cameras up at 7:30 in the morning." He said it was raining for the three days that they did that.

You can see in the videos the people lining up at about eight o'clock, starting to line up, hoping to get employment. You see the employees coming to work, opening up, turning on the lights, having coffee, nice and warm, and all of the people lined up outside. He said: "When we showed that to the public servants, they were aghast. Their vantage point didn't see that." They said, "There's no reason why we can't open the doors and let them in," and they started doing that.

How can we have a better experience for the people of our province? He told another story about home care. In the home care model it came to light to him, he said: "When I was visiting with an elderly woman, living by her house, in her home, on the support services the state was providing, she said to me, 'You know, I don't feel this is really my home till nine o'clock at night when the care aide goes home.'"

So they started looking at it. They did an analysis, and they found that 50 percent of the people that were being provided services didn't really need the services, 35 percent of the people needed to have assistance in terms of being able to cook and to clean and to do those physical tasks, and about 15 percent needed the accelerated kinds of service they had.

They actually readjusted the services that they were providing. They developed a program called Live Your Life in Your Life, and through that process they were able to develop a whole new model of service delivery at less cost and provide greater services. I think the crisis we have provides us with more opportunities to look at those.

He also gave the example of the developmentally disabled. They had a recycling facility, which we've heard

[ Page 9536 ]

lots about in our province, for the developmentally disabled. They were thinking of closing it down because people didn't seem to want to go to it. So they gave little video cameras to all of the developmentally disabled who were there and asked them to film those things which were important to them, those things they cared about.

I remember him telling the story of one woman. All of her videos were of lunchtime and were in the garden. So they said: "Why don't we readjust what we're doing? Why don't we allow this woman to work in the garden?" And they did. They did that in terms of developing an individualized model for each one of the people in terms of things they wanted, the things they liked, and they provided that for each one of them. They now have a waiting list of about 300 to get into it. It's about being able to shift the service delivery model so it's more focused on, sensitized to and involved with the people that they care for.

Peter Shergold, out of Australia, has talked about different models for addressing how we can look at services to families. They developed a program called Family by Family. In that program, they take families with similar demographics, an at-risk family and a family that's flourishing — similar demographics, everything as similar as they can. They match them so that they're not providing a hierarchical model, but they're providing a mentorship.

Working with that model, they're finding that they can provide services to a hundred families whose children might be taken into care for the cost of taking one child into care — a whole different address, a whole different model, of how we look at and address things.

They recently had PricewaterhouseCoopers look at the costs of the services being provided. They were particularly interested in looking at the non-profits and the service providers and comparing the quality of their services to the quality that the state provides. They found, with rare exceptions, that the services being provided by the non-profits were equal to and, in many cases, better than those services provided by the state.

[1530]

They looked at and compared the costs, and they found that the non-profits, those provided outside of the state, would be able to provide services at 30 percent less than what the state was providing — equal to if not better services than that.

One, I guess, could argue that they were subsidizing the state at up to 30 percent of the cost. But what they've done is look at that and seen that as an opportunity to actually relook at how their funding model works. They're looking at trying to fund that gap of 30 percent with a recognition that the services they provide through that process will be more effective and more responsive to the kinds of needs that the people of Australia have.

So the vantage point that we take, the context it is provided in, the questions we ask all seem to dictate what the outcomes will be. I think of the number of times I've made assumptions about things and programs and people. I'm worried about the way that I sometimes perceive the world and look at it.

Science has opened up successive vantage points for us from which we can see ourselves. The questions that we ask often determine the answers we receive. How we do what we do becomes ever so important. Experts seem not to be the answer to all of the things we want to look at.

In British Columbia we are now looking at more effective models of social innovation, and I think this budget reinforces the need for us to look at things from different perspectives. We are involved with Ashoka Changemakers. Ashoka is an international organization that has, for about two decades, been looking at how we challenge, how we look at and how we solve some of our most intractable problems.

They're currently being used by the…. In Canada the only one going on now is, I think, funded by the McConnell Foundation and the Paul Martin foundation, where they're looking at how they can improve educational performance for First Nations on reserve. They're having what they call a collabetition. This is open sourcing. It was done in 2010 at the G20 summit in Seoul through a collabetition. Through an Ashoka Changemakers model, they leveraged about $1.5 billion into developing countries for impoverished children in developing countries.

We are in the process of setting that up in British Columbia to look at how we can tie our communities together. How can we look at the resources? How can we look at what's working in Fort St. John versus what's working in Fernie? How can we tie together on a platform the models that are there?

The Ashoka Changemakers have run something like 250 of these Changemakers models across the world. They did one in Minnesota a few years ago, where they had 30,000 people participate in looking at recreation and recreational opportunities. I am hopeful that we will be able to have those types of numbers in British Columbia and that we'll be able to provide a different set of options.

Basically, the way the model is designed to work is that Ashoka and their experts and their Changemakers will go into communities and will engage communities and perhaps the non-profits or social service providers in communities. They'll help them convene meetings. They'll have them pick a champion who may be representative, and then they will start to look at and communicate with each other. Then the Ashoka experts will come in. As people start to post what they're doing, the experts from around the world will wade in. They have about 8,000 people that look at and participate and assist and support communities.

Again, looking at what we have in terms of budgetary challenges, it provides a number of opportunities which a number of people are looking at as a real opportunity to look at the way we provide service delivery. Research is pretty clear that the more we're able to provide service delivery at a community-based level with community-

[ Page 9537 ]

based input and decision-making, the outcomes we have for the people we're dealing with are much, much better.

The Ashoka Changemakers give us that opportunity to look at and to see things differently. The way we do things in the process becomes equally as important. There is interesting work being done in terms of how we develop policy.

[1535]

If policy is developed in models that allow for respectful engagement with the people that are going to be impacted by the policy and if the co-production of that policy is in place, people feel more empowered. People feel more engaged with the process. They feel better about the world they live in.

The outcomes of these processes and the things we look for…. I think, firstly, they must be efficient. We want to ensure that we are not being wasteful in the delivery of that, and that is certainly a lens we have to put on as we move forward in these challenging times. We want them to be effective. We want to ensure that the programs that come out of them do have the outcomes we want.

Certainly, one of the challenges we've always had in the delivery of social programs, and to some degree in health programs and environmental programs, is not being able to measure outcomes, not being able to quantify them. Often we look at appendix A of our contracts that we have…. We buy time. We buy so many hours of service rather than looking at and shifting to outcomes.

Looking at the notion of the service experience, what is the experience that somebody has? If we are able to push out drivers' licences at a hundred a day and say that our outcome is good…. Unless we've got those people having a good experience, then I think we have a challenge with that as well.

The fourth value I would place on that is that of democracy, of transparency, of ensuring that there is a sense of engagement that is reflected in that.

The notion of a social impact bond is one that I think particularly offers opportunity to our government, to any governments. I know the federal government is looking at that at this point in time. At one point I was hoping British Columbia might be the first to do that, but it has now been done in England. The model of a social impact bond is: how do we look at outcomes and what costs the state will incur? How do we enter into a contract? Governments are traditionally bad at anticipating risk. The marketplace is really good at anticipating risk.

What they did in England to respond to this is…. They found that with young offenders of a particular profile, about 65 percent of them were reoffending within the first year of being released from jail, and 80 percent were reoffending after two years of being released. So they have entered into an agreement whereby if you can keep the young offender from offending in the first year, you'll get a 7 percent return on your money. If you can keep them from reoffending for two years, you get a 14 percent return on your money.

The modeling in England suggests that will still save the taxpayers of England about 8 percent on money. The way they do that is they have a contract issued. They issue the contact and say: "If you can keep these out for a good two years, you get 14 percent on your money." But the government doesn't issue any money. They take that contract and go to the money markets. They say: "Do you want to invest in this?" If they choose to invest in it, they raise enough money to do that. That money is to run the program, and then the state pays for it at the end of it.

A simpler model is probably looking at type 2 diabetes. We know that type 2 diabetics, on average, go back to the hospital three times a year. We have got the metrics in terms of what has happened in the past. If we take a large enough sample, we know we can be pretty accurate. You take a hundred type 2 diabetics, and we ask for a contract. If they cost us $5 million for the past five years, we ask government to provide us with a contract to provide it for the next five years for 2 percent. We take that contract and go to the money markets.

We've been talking to Vancity Savings. They said: "We can raise you $100 million in that process." You use that to deliver the service. Government pays at the end of the five years. So the risk is taking the move to the marketplace.

If I want to invest in type 2 diabetics or autism, I can go and do that. We have got a proposal to change some of the models so that we can have not just the non-profit model and the corporate model but a model in-between.

I think we should also be changing the venture capital act so that if I want to invest in a social program, I should get a 30 percent flow-through tax credit just as if I wanted to invest in a mine. I think it is time we leveraged the opportunities that exist there so that it can provide us with social programs which can make a difference in the province.

D. Routley: I rise to speak in opposition to the budget — no surprise to the members opposite. But I'd like to share with the House the reasons for which I am standing opposed to this budget, and share particularly with my constituents those reasons.

Before I do that, I'd like to start, as many members do, by thanking my family. My lovely partner, Leanne, is always a support for me. She has her own very busy life working full-time with two children.

[1540]

She's a competitive Highland dancer and a Highland dance teacher. She teaches my stepdaughter Brookelyn, who is eight and is also becoming an accomplished little dancer. Leanne works for her family's business, a realty business, and she's incredibly busy and burdened by her own demands and yet still finds the time to provide unbelievable support to me. I thank her dearly for that and love her very much.

[ Page 9538 ]

Every once in a while I get to return the favour and support the Highland dancing events. I'll emcee and introduce the dances and pretend that I know a little bit about them. I'm always really proud.

I know that everyone here, when you see someone you love doing something that they love…. It brings a particular joy to your heart to see that in a person's eyes, how much they love what they do. Leanne very much loves dancing, and it's very nice to see her pursue that.

The kids. Brookelyn, as I said, is a dancer, a little eight-year-old dancer. She doesn't like practising, so every once in a while I can convince her to practise if she teaches me. So my sword dance is a little bit better than it was when I started. I love seeing her rewarded when she performs and people really appreciate it. She doesn't like the competition as much as she does the performances — the theme dances that they do, which is more up on stage and less…. I think there is less practice involved and more reward from a clapping audience. I think that's what Brookelyn likes about it.

Matthew is a little ten-year-old hockey star who leads his team with over 50 goals in less than 40 games. He's an amazing little guy who takes all of that very seriously. So our biggest task is to temper down the seriousness of the whole thing and remind him that it's really for fun and to teach him the lessons of teamwork, sportsmanship and good citizenship.

My daughter Madeline loves photography, and she's pursuing that hobby. I was a stay-at-home dad with Madeline. Just seeing her become a young woman is the most unbelievably proud experience I can think of ever being privileged with.

So I thank them all for their love and support, and I support them right back. They just bring absolute joy to my life.

The constituents of Nanaimo–North Cowichan. Nanaimo–North Cowichan is a unique constituency. It's semi-urban. That means I've got the south end of Nanaimo, which is very dense and has a number of income issues, poverty issues. It also is the home of Vancouver Island University. The campus is actually just on the other side of the street from my constituency. Many of the people who work there and attend there are my constituents.

The constituency has six First Nations, 13 separate communities, two school districts, six local governments and seven ferry terminals. It's very diverse. The constituency as a whole has double the average number of seniors than the average constituency in the province, and uniquely, certain communities have double the number of children in the household, according to the average. Like many other constituencies, I'm sure the demands on people's lives are as varied as the people themselves.

Those are the people that I think of when I come to this place. When I come to serve them in the Legislature, debating legislation, commenting as I am here on a budget, making statements in the House about their lives and our communities, they are the ones that I think of. They get put first — the constituents of Nanaimo–North Cowichan.

I think that spirit should guide us all when we come here. Our constituents, specifically, that we represent and generally those in the province are owed our loyalty and devotion. They are owed that, and unfortunately, there have been repeated and numerous examples of this House failing that trust.

[1545]

We can go back through the time of the B.C. Liberals and find so many examples of that trust being failed, and this budget, I will argue, is another example of an inadequate response to that huge responsibility to put people and the public interest first.

The budget is the foundation stone, the foundation document, for the government. It is the ultimate statement of principles and priorities, of the beliefs that the government holds in terms of how the communities and lives in this province ought to be helped through legislation and through actions that the government can take. So if you consider that it is in fact a value statement, then unfortunately, this one is weak.

This budget is in fact a faux conservative budget. It masquerades as being conservative but fails. If it truly were a conservative budget, it wouldn't be raising taxes. It wouldn't be raising MSP premiums, the most regressive taxes of all because a family making $30,000 pays the same MSP premium as a family making $300,000 per year. Certainly, it wouldn't be doing that. It wouldn't be raising the debt as this budget does. I'll talk about all those issues in more detail as I progress through this budget address.

Having failed to meet the test of being a truly conservative budget, you would ask yourself, Madam Speaker: "Is this budget a progressive budget?" Well, there again it fails. It fails to meet the test of being progressive in its values from that perspective.

It fails to address seniors care, even though we just heard from the Ombudsperson with an absolutely outstanding, more-than-600-page series of reports on seniors care in this province and the failings of the government to adequately meet the standards that we all would expect for seniors. It fails to address that. A progressive budget would certainly address that human issue.

This budget cuts higher education. Certainly, a prudent and progressive budget would invest in higher education. A prudent budget would realize that addressing the economic challenges of the future would require an increased investment in higher education, particularly when we understand that 80 percent of the jobs created in the next five years will require higher education. Particularly when our labour force needs to increase its competitiveness, we see, instead, a cut.

A progressive budget would also invest in higher education to expand the opportunities, the liberties and the

[ Page 9539 ]

abilities of citizens of British Columbia. After all, they are the ones that we have come to address.

A progressive budget would also not abandon the environment. This budget will make a $1 million cut over the next three years to the Environment Ministry.

That qualifies this budget as not progressive. So it's not conservative, and it's not progressive. We have a growing debt. We have increased taxes. We have a failure to meet the human and community needs of the province. I mean, how bad could it be? I'm not quite sure.

Really, it's a stand-pat budget, because those principles and values define the B.C. Liberal approach to governance of the past 11 years under the previous Premier, Gordon Campbell, and now continued under the current Premier, a Premier who promised change. This budget fails to deliver that change. This is a stand-pat budget.

This is a can't-do budget. This budget says to the province: "We can't do it." It says: "We haven't got a vision for the future." It says that all of the problems that the government, the B.C. Liberals, has had 11 years to address…. Be it the crisis in our judicial system, be it the growing poverty — having now been eight years, the basement dwellers, having the highest poverty levels in the country…. It fails to address those.

[1550]

It fails to address the continued circumstance where we see the decline of our forest industry. This year the revenue from forestry will dip below the cost of running the ministry. So the core industry that built this province, the foundation stone of our economy, now is a money-loser for the B.C. government. That is a shameful, shameful state of affairs that should never have been allowed to occur.

I would argue that it was allowed to occur by the same lack of priority that this budget represents and that previous Liberal budgets have represented, the failure to align themselves and their policies with the priorities and principles and values of British Columbians. The people of the province do not endorse policies that see 40 percent of the logs from the coast of B.C. and Vancouver Island being exported overseas.

It's not just any 40 percent. These are the best logs. What we're left with, our manufacturers in this province, is substandard fibre and a lack of fibre. This budget does nothing to address that. In fact, it doesn't even mention it. This is an absolute failure. This would be judged by people from across the spectrum politically as a failure. This is something that is hard to believe when we….

I recently participated in a forestry tour where I and several colleagues from the opposition, including the critic, visited several mills. One of them was a Coastland mill in Nanaimo. The Coastland mill is a mill that peels logs to create veneer that is used to make the layers of plywood.

You know, I worked in a sawmill from 1978 to 1980 in the veneer plant. They peeled logs, but the logs were, like, a metre across the base. The veneer peeled off in long ribbons that were chopped. We would, by hand, pick up the corners and flip them up so that a cushion of air would be captured under the veneer sheet and then slide it onto a pile — all by hand.

Now, with the advancements of technology, Coastland is the fastest log-peeling mill in North America. You might find one as fast if you travel to the state of Georgia in the United States. But they are industry leaders. They hold patents on their equipment. No longer are there grunts, like myself, flipping up veneers and piling them by hand. This line runs at almost 50 kilometres per hour, with suction being used to pick up the veneers and place them exactly in the piles and shipping lots required.

It's an unbelievably efficient operation. They have invested in jobs in my community, and I thank them for it. They spent $600,000 recently to shave half a second off the time it takes to peel a log. Why? Not just in the interest of increasing profit but to deal with the fact that all the best logs are being exported. So many of the logs they are left with are crooked, sort of like the forest policies of this province. They spent that money in order to maximize the veneer that they could take off crooked logs.

One of the stones they've turned over to make themselves profitable enough just to stay in business is that they lease part of their yard as a log sort for TimberWest for exporting the straight logs to their competitors in China. Now, not to demonize these workers in China. Fine, it's a worthy practice for B.C. to supply those mills, as we can.

But when mills in British Columbia are closing, when we see 35,000 forestry jobs lost under the watch of this government, when we see a budget that does nothing to address that, when we see a company like Coastland that is a world leader in technology and efficiency barely able to survive, there's a problem — a real problem.

[1555]

The manager of the mill, Hans De Visser, told the forestry tour I was with that doing nothing will have inevitable outcomes. They will be run out of business. There are just no two ways about it. On the other hand, if they are granted log policies from the government of British Columbia that allow them consistent access to quality fibre, they are prepared to invest in another line currently operating too, increasing their capacity by over 50 percent.

So what will it be? We're at a moment of choice that, frankly, is betrayed by this budget, a choice moment where Coastland decides whether they make that investment and ramp up their efficiency and their production and continue to be leaders. Or do they simply just run it out because they don't have the policies they need to support those jobs?

That's an important issue for me when I look at my constituency and the people I represent — dozens and dozens of direct jobs and dozens and dozens more that

[ Page 9540 ]

are supported by that operation indirectly. They're all at stake, and if they're lost, they'll be lost for good. No one will come and rebuild it. No one will come and build another Coastland.

It seems to me that when we view the budget as an expression of values, principles and priorities, this budget fails my constituents. This budget fails to address important issues that they grapple with every day. Fiscal prudence shouldn't be just another phrase, not just a concept to be pandered to in order to buy votes, not something to in fact be used as an instrument to impose an agenda of harm on certain groups and benefits to others.

This fiscal prudence that we all seek should be something that is real, that is observed. Fiscal prudence isn't represented here when we see this failure to invest in the future, this failure to address present-day problems, and at the same time, the history of a government that has spent tax dollars, public funds, so unwisely — $600 million for a convertible roof over a stadium.

I'm a huge sports fan. I love football. It is nice to have soccer played in that stadium. I love sports. But you know what? I would be betraying those constituents that I am entrusted to represent, in terms of their priorities, if I were to say, "You know what? That $600 million for that roof is just fine," when we cannot guarantee that South Wellington Elementary in my constituency can remain open; we cannot ensure that the seniors in Lodge on 4th assisted living facility, a private facility in my constituency, are properly cared for; and we cannot ensure that the forest industry in the communities I represent is reformed and supported.

The priorities of the government are wrong. When we talk about this budget being a failure, we hear a chirping from the other side: "Oh yeah, let's spend money, spend money." In fact, that's coming from the crew who went half a billion dollars over budget on a convention centre. This is coming from the crew who told us that the previous budget would have a deficit of $495 million, not a penny more — maximum. Dozens of times they said it in the House. Dozens of times they said it in the communities and in the media.

These projections represented in this budget ask us to trust. They ask us to believe that in fact the government is capable of making these projections and sticking to them. I would suggest that those constituents of mine in Nanaimo–North Cowichan would find that a difficult leap of faith given the history of B.C. Liberal promises and projections.

They've got a little bonus piece in there. They've got a little wi