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)

Wednesday, February 22, 2012

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 29, Number

ISSN 0709-1281 (Print)

ISSN 1499-2175 (Online)

CONTENTS

Page

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

CPR training in schools

R. Hawes

TOOB service club

V. Huntington

YMCA-YWCA Strong Kids campaign

K. Krueger

Construction worker safety at Toba Inlet project

G. Gentner

Richmond Family Week breakfast event and healthy eating promotion

J. Yap

Anti-violence initiative by aboriginal men

K. Corrigan

Oral Questions

Budget provisions for education and skills training

A. Dix

Hon. N. Yamamoto

M. Mungall

Increases to Medical Services Plan premiums

B. Ralston

Hon. M. de Jong

Budget provisions for health care funding

M. Farnworth

Hon. M. de Jong

Privatization of liquor distribution

D. Donaldson

Hon. R. Coleman

Role of Patrick Kinsella in liquor distribution privatization

S. Simpson

Hon. R. Coleman

M. Karagianis

Orders of the Day

Budget Debate (continued)

B. Ralston

R. Sultan

N. Macdonald

J. Yap

C. Trevena

J. Rustad

Statements

Withdrawal of comments

S. Simpson

Budget Debate (continued)

M. Sather

[ Page 9339 ]

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 22, 2012

The House met at 1:34 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

Introductions by Members

Hon. M. de Jong: In the gallery today, Mr. Jeff Dunton is the president of the Abbotsford District Teachers Association. Doug Smuland is the vice-president. They are accompanied by a former president of the Abbotsford District Teachers Association, Mr. Rick Guenther, who I believe is in pursuit of other offices as well.

I know that every member of the House will want to make all three of those gentlemen feel welcome in the chamber today.

[1335]

J. Horgan: Joining us in the gallery today are a group of young adults from the PATHWAY Project in my constituency in Langford. The PATHWAY Project is a 16-week employment training exercise that provides meaningful teaching and learning skills to young people in my community. Joining us today are Brandi Baerg, Chahala Boyce, Coulson Feltham, Terrence Guignard, Tyler Hounsome, Taylor LeBus, Rachel Maher, Sabrina Rocco and Lauren Stokoe, and leading the pack are Jennifer Harrison and Randy Waldie, the two facilitators. Would the House please make them very, very welcome.

Hon. G. Abbott: I had the opportunity this morning to meet with a delegation of teachers. They include Lynda Bennett, who is the president of the North Okanagan–Shuswap Teachers Association; Brenda O'Dell, who is the vice-president of the North Okanagan–Shuswap Teachers Association; Rick Guenther, who has already been introduced, from the Abbotsford Teachers Association and a member at large of the B.C. Teachers Federation executive; and Bruce Cummings, who is president of the Vernon Teachers Association and also a candidate for the B.C. Teachers Council. I'd ask the House to make them all very welcome.

K. Corrigan: It is my great pleasure to introduce Richard Storch, who is the president of the Burnaby Teachers Association. Richard graduated from SFU in 1994 and has taught in Burnaby ever since. He has served two years as vice-president of the BTA, and this is his second year as president. He has been a resident of Burnaby almost his entire life, has attended public school in Burnaby and can attest to the fact that Burnaby is a great place to live, work and play. I hope that you will all make Richard very welcome.

Hon. S. Cadieux: I had the opportunity this morning to meet with two gentlemen from the Coast Mental Health Foundation. Darrell Burnham and Buzz Knott are here. They're meeting with a number of members to discuss Coast Mental Health's strategic plan and opportunities to work with government in future in delivering programs for people with mental illness. I hope the House will help me make them welcome.

L. Popham: I would like to introduce Sean Hayes to the House. He's the president of the Saanich Teachers Association. He has been teaching since 2000 and is on leave from Claremont Secondary School, where he teaches science. This is in Cordova Bay, in Saanich South. Sean has two daughters attending Lochside Elementary School in grades 1 and 2. Please make Sean welcome.

R. Hawes: I have, actually, a fairly lengthy introduction. I'll start with Sandra Clarke, who's the executive director of the ACT Foundation, whose aim is to make mandatory CPR free for every student in Canada. Along with Sandra is Jennifer Boissonneault, the operations manager for the ACT Foundation.

They came to our caucus this morning with a number of other people who are supporting this move to get CPR in schools, including Bronwyn Barter, who is president of the Ambulance Paramedics of British Columbia; Dave Deines, the first provincial vice-president; and B.J. Chute, director of public education for the B.C. Ambulance Paramedics.

Cris Worthington is in the gallery…. Pardon me, my list is too long here. Kevin Luchies is the principal of Lambrick Park Secondary School. Bryan Neal is a teacher-instructor for CPR at Lambrick public school. Today in the Rattenbury Room there are students who are teaching MLAs, staff and press, if they want to come, on the techniques of CPR, and talking about the values of CPR.

[1340]

Those students from Lambrick School are Priya Bains, Niamh Williams, Cassy Ransford, Daniel Charles, Chantelle Emslie, Hayley Thomson and Akela Broughman. They are all here in the gallery. They will all be downstairs in the Rattenbury Room following question period waiting for you to come and learn this life-saving technique. That's the first part of the introduction. If we could make all of them welcome.

Secondly, and I think very importantly, this program has actually saved lives in British Columbia. In 2010 on the way back from the Olympics, there was a woman who had a cardiac arrest on the bus coming home from an Olympic event. That is Sandra Giffin. She was sitting beside her husband, Cris Worthington, who had had first-

[ Page 9340 ]

aid training and CPR in the past. CPR was administered. Her life was saved by her husband and by an 18-year-old student on the bus who had taken CPR in school.

More importantly — well, not more importantly, but just as importantly — in the gallery is Levi Hildebrand from North Vancouver who, while running in North Vancouver on a training thing — actually, to be a fireman — suffered a cardiac arrest and went down. Happily, just out for a jog on the dike were two young girls. That would be Candace Bateson and Cassie Leonhardt, who both had taken CPR in school and saved the life of Levi. Levi is in the gallery today as a survivor — 19 years old — and his two heroes who saved him. I think they are life-saving heroes, and they deserve…. [Applause.]

Mr. Speaker: Just to remind members, two-minute statements follow introductions.

C. Trevena: I'm very pleased to introduce in the gallery today Neil and Elaine Thompson, the president and vice-president of Campbell River District Teachers Association in school district 72, from Campbell River. Steve Stanley and Nick Moore from the Comox Valley are also here, as is Mireille Earle, who is with school district 93, the francophone school district. I hope the House will make them all very welcome.

Hon. M. McNeil: In the House today are three Vancouver school teachers: Debbie Pawluk, president of the Vancouver Secondary Teachers; Sylvia Metzner, first vice-president, Vancouver Secondary Teachers; and Chris Harris, president, Vancouver Elementary Teachers. I look forward to our meeting this afternoon, and I would like the House to join me in making them feel welcome.

K. Corrigan: I have another introduction to make. In the precinct today is Gordie Larkin, a very close friend and neighbour. And I'm going to mention again that he's a director of B.C. Ferries, even though he doesn't like me doing that. I hope everybody will make Gordie Larkin very welcome.

E. Foster: It gives me great pleasure today to introduce two members of my constituency. These two young ladies have spent the last year as ambassadors for the Vernon area, travelling around the province representing us at many community events, all the while maintaining an A average in their graduation year in high school. They just completed their first semester at Okanagan College, and in April they are both leaving for a three-month training program and then off to do outreach work with children in underdeveloped countries.

I would ask the House to welcome two outstanding young British Columbians: Queen Silver Star 51, Aksana Skrinnikoff, and Princess Silver Star 51, Kaitlyn Chirkoff.

G. Coons: I have two guests in the crowd today, two teachers: Marc Hedges, local president of the Central Coast Teachers Association in Bella Coola; and Joanna Larson, local president of the Prince Rupert District Teachers Union and member of the BCTF executive committee. They're here visiting with their MLA regarding the many issues and concerns that are important to teachers. Please make them welcome.

[1345]

Hon. D. McRae: I have two sets of introductions today, if I may. First of all, I'd like to introduce Ken Friessen, who is a chicken farmer and cattle rancher, and his father John Friessen, who is, amongst other things, the PNE ag advisory committee chair. We also have Robert Lepp, who owns Lepp Farm Market, and Peter Schouten, who owns Heppell's Potato Corp. They're joining us in the House today. Will the House please make them feel welcome.

I'd also like to have the House recognize two people that I know from the Comox Valley. We have CVTA president Steven Stanley, who is in the House today. Thank you to the member for North Island for introducing him from the Comox Valley. Steve and I were colleagues at G.P. Vanier many years ago, and he was a very, very strong teacher. I appreciate his insight. We also have Nick Moore joining him, who teaches at my daughter's school, Ecole Puntledge Park. Would the House make them both feel welcome.

N. Simons: In the House today I'm hoping my colleagues on both sides will welcome Louise Herle, the new president of the Sunshine Coast Teachers Association. She's taught for 20 years. She taught music and French in every age group you can imagine. I just want to say that I had the opportunity to witness her teaching, and I have seen the eyes of children light up and become inspired in aboriginal education. I just think her dedication to her profession is something that we can all thank and appreciate.

Also with us is Rob Millard, a longtime resident of West Vancouver. He's been a teacher in the district for over 25 years, has served on the College of Teachers and is currently the president of the West Van Teachers Association, school district 45. I hope the House will add to their welcome as well.

J. Kwan: I'd like to join the Minister of Children and Family Development in welcoming the Vancouver teach-

[ Page 9341 ]

Last but not least, I'd like to welcome Chris Harris. He's the president of the Vancouver Elementary School Teachers Association, a kindergarten-to-grade-3 teacher for 14 years in Vancouver. Of course, VESTA last week joined with other partners in hosting an important forum around education and poverty as to how it impacts the students. We had the opportunity to hear from front-line workers who are teachers in our school system on how that is working in the school system. I would like the House to please make welcome these three special guests.

J. Rustad: Today I have the pleasure of introducing a constituent, Kathryn Warren from Burns Lake. She is the president of the district teachers union and has, from what I understand, 20 years experience in teaching. We had a very productive discussion earlier this morning. Accompanying Kathryn is her mother Avril Warren, a retired teacher from Saanich. Would the House please make them welcome.

H. Lali: I have two guests sitting up in the gallery behind you, hon. Speaker. One of them is Jason Karpuk. He is the president of the Kamloops-Thompson teachers union. Accompanying him is Susie Corbet. She's the first vice-president of the Kamloops-Thompson teachers union. They were here meeting with MLAs from both sides of the House and met with me last evening, along with three other teachers, presidents from my constituency, talking about educational issues that are important to not only the students that they teach but also the public in general. I would like the House to please join me in welcoming Susie and Jason to our House.

L. Reid: The three Richmond MLAs today had the pleasure of lunching with our representatives from the Richmond Teachers Association. Al Klassen is here, our president, and Jerry Fast, vice-president. I ask the House to please make them very welcome.

[1350]

Mr. Speaker, on your behalf, it's a pleasure to introduce Debbie Passarell, second vice-president of the Okanagan-Skaha Teachers Union, and Ron Rachinski, South Okanagan–Similkameen teachers association president. Would the House please make them welcome.

B. Simpson: I would also like to add to the list of teachers and delegates from the various teachers associations that are here. Two teachers from Quesnel are here today: Teri Mooring, an elementary teacher, currently the president of the Quesnel District Teachers Association and on the BCT executive as a member-at-large; and Rick Cash, an elementary teacher who is vice-president of the Quesnel District Teachers Association.

I would like to formally thank Rick. Rick was my election planning committee chair for 2005 and 2009, and I haven't had a chance to formally thank him for that high-paying function that he did for me. I think I still owe him the beer. So I'd ask the House to please make him feel welcome.

Also in the House today are two people who try desperately to make me look good at home while I'm down here. I said desperately, Mr. Speaker. Adam Schann has been with me since he was 18. He's now the ripe old age of 25. Adam takes care of our community outreach work and communications work. Then, new to my staff, Heather Lloyd has just joined us, working on constituency and casework and doing a brilliant job. I ask the House to please make them feel welcome as well.

K. Krueger: There are two special guests in the gallery today representing my beloved constituent Renee Renkema, who retired a year ago from a long career of teaching and is now fighting a desperate battle with cancer. I want to acknowledge her and them for representing her. Also, Hoberly Hove is my Kamloops–South Thompson Constituency Association president. He was a student teacher of mine in Dawson Creek when I was in grade 8, and we've been friends ever since. He was designated Canada's principal of the year several years ago.

They have represented him, and they represent my darling wife, Debbie. She and I celebrate our 37th wedding anniversary today. In keeping with our family-friendly theme, we spent Valentine's Day apart. We're spending our anniversary apart, but we're here doing the people's business. I just want to thank them for being here.

Harry has upstaged me, as usual, and introduced Susie Corbet and Jason Karpuk already. I want the House to make them very welcome and thank them for representing the teachers of school district 73.

B. Routley: It's indeed a joy today to join with so many other MLAs in acknowledging the great service that our teachers do throughout British Columbia. Today we have with us Erika Blume. She's the president of the Lake Cowichan Teachers Association and vice-president of the Cowichan Valley Teachers Federation. This is Erika's first time in the Legislature, and she's eager, I know, to observe the provincial government in action. So please join me in welcoming Erika.

Hon. S. Thomson: I have a couple of guests I'd like to recognize here, who I'm looking forward to meeting with later this afternoon: Al Skucas and Léon Lebrun from the Trails B.C. organization. They do great work in promoting trails in British Columbia, and I'd like the House to

[ Page 9342 ]

make them welcome.

I know my colleague from Kelowna–Lake Country is going to introduce our teacher representatives.

D. Donaldson: I have the pleasure to introduce two residents of my constituency who are in the gallery today. Karin Bachman from Smithers has been a teacher for the past 21 years at Lake Kathlyn Elementary School, and she's currently the president of the Bulkley Valley Teachers Union and represents teachers in Smithers and Houston.

Also, Asa Berg from Atlin. Just for members' benefit, if you were to drive from here to Atlin, you'd be driving 2,400 kilometres. You'd have to drive into the Yukon and then back down into B.C. to get there. So I welcome Asa here. She's probably the farthest-afield person who has been in the gallery in this session. She is president of the Stikine Teachers Association. She's worked as a teacher for over 20 years in B.C. and originally worked as a teacher in Finland. They were updating me on the current talks with government and the importance of negotiating a collective agreement.

Would the House please make them welcome.

[1355]

J. van Dongen: I'm pleased to have two introductions today. The first is Arthur Enns, who is the CEO of Menno Home and Menno Hospital and who provides wonderful services to seniors in Abbotsford in partnership with the Fraser Health Authority. I ask the House to please make him very welcome.

My second introduction is actually an announcement of my first grandson. I'm not quite as prolific as my father was. His name is Troy Peter. He is born to my son Peter and to Clarice — 8 pounds 9 ounces, born in Nanaimo Hospital. He's a new constituent of the member for Parksville-Qualicum, and he's a little brother to big sister four-year-old Janel. I ask the House to please make him very welcome.

N. Letnick: My only regret is that the member for Chilliwack wasn't here to hear the introduction from the member from Abbotsford, with the grandchildren. We'll get that soon enough.

On behalf of the MLAs from the central Okanagan, I'd like to thank Alice Rees, president of the Central Okanagan Teachers Association, and Susan Bauhart, the first vice-president, for their great work — them and all the teachers in our area — and make them feel welcome.

M. Coell: I have a guest from Saltspring Island here in the Legislature today. Jack Braak has been a teacher for 25 years on Saltspring. He is presently the local association president of the Gulf Islands Teachers Association. Would the House please make him welcome.

Hon. P. Bell: Last but never least, I'd just like to, on behalf of my….

Interjections.

Hon. P. Bell: Heckled by my own side today.

On behalf of my colleague the Minister of Justice and Attorney General and myself, I'd like to thank a local Prince George teacher, Matt Pearce, who came and met with us yesterday. We had a very constructive discussion. I know for a fact that Matt is absolutely a committed teacher and a wonderful coach. I'd like to thank him for being here to talk to us.

Mr. Speaker: Member for Juan de Fuca, you can't resist.

J. Horgan: I know it may seem inconceivable, but there may be someone in this precinct today who was not introduced, and I offer you my warmest introduction on behalf of all members here.

Mr. Speaker: I can't believe there was anybody that wasn't introduced. I think we set a record today.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

CPR TRAINING IN SCHOOLS

Mr. Speaker: Member for Abbotsford-Mission.

R. Hawes: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'll try to stay within two minutes.

I'll give you two scenes here. The first scene: the family dinner. Dad has a heart attack. He falls on the floor in cardiac arrest, and 911 is called. The family panics. Within nine minutes the paramedics arrive. They revive Dad, but unfortunately, permanent brain damage has occurred.

The second scene: Dad has a cardiac arrest. He falls on the floor, and 911 is called. But the daughter, having taken CPR training in school, immediately begins CPR on Dad. Nine minutes later the paramedics arrive. They revive Dad — full recovery, no brain damage.

Brain cells start to die within four or five minutes without oxygen. CPR actually keeps the blood moving and keeps some oxygen going until the paramedics arrive. It gives a chance at life. B.C. paramedics all too often see accident scenes or whatever, where there is someone with a cardiac arrest and everybody stands around. They call it the stare of life. They're wondering: "You know, somebody should do something." But they don't know what, and so the victim actually either dies or has some kind of permanent damage.

The ACT Foundation is a national charity dedicated to having every high school student in Canada receive

[ Page 9343 ]

free CPR training. To date, 1.8 million students have received training, 4,000 teachers have been trained as CPR instructors, and 40,000 mannequins have been provided across the country at no cost to government.

[1400]

Today four provinces in Canada have CPR as mandatory and part of their curriculum. Sadly, British Columbia is not one of them. Here CPR training is done in schools on a voluntary basis, and when teachers and administrators move, often the programs will stop. They stop and start. It's not effective, giving that kind of education to kids with a voluntary program.

So let's all get behind the movement to have CPR declared as a mandatory part of the curriculum in all schools in British Columbia. Let's give families a chance to keep their loved ones whole.

TOOB SERVICE CLUB

V. Huntington: I will need your indulgence as I use unparliamentary language to introduce yet another unique Delta organization to this House. A group fondly known as TOOB, or more properly the Tsawwassen Order of Old Bastards, is a venerable Delta service club with origins in Tsawwassen's Rose and Crown Pub.

In 1984 Wally Hill and his friends decided to get together for the purpose of ensuring that no one in the Tsawwassen, Ladner or Point Roberts area went without groceries to put together a Christmas dinner. Garage sales and book sales enabled TOOB to deliver 25 well-packed grocery hampers that very first Christmas.

In 2001 TOOB gathered with other service groups and by 2011 was helping to assemble and deliver 610 hampers to needy individuals and families.

TOOB continued to grow and in their own words are "proud to act as a conduit of goodness" as they sell smoky sauerkraut and their internationally famous curly fries at our local events. They raise funds that provide care for those in need of developmental, emotional, medical, physical and addiction services in Delta. And 100 percent of TOOB's donations, profits and gaming grants are directed to the charitable works.

Unfortunately, at least from my personal perspective, the Tsawwassen Order of Old Bastards is not yet fully gender- or age-integrated, the membership having been startled by my overture to become an Old Bitch. And TOOB prefers one to be 35 before qualifying as an Old Bastard.

Nonetheless, TOOB is beloved by all Deltans — old and young, men and women alike. I hope members will join me in thanking TOOB's president — known, by the way as AB, or Arch Bastard — for their wonderful commitment to a better, more caring community.

Mr. Speaker: There were only about five withdrawals that you would have to make there.

YMCA-YWCA STRONG KIDS CAMPAIGN

K. Krueger: Thanks to the member opposite for widening the definition of parliamentary language just in advance of this remark.

This month, YM and YWCAs across B.C. are giving kids a chance to be active through the Strong Kids campaign. With fundraisers, special events and even toonie donations, money is being raised to help underprivileged youth experience programs put on by the Y. Programs let kids play together and interact in a fun, active setting, developing their social and life skills, preparing for a bright future.

My staff somewhat rudely suggested that if instead of being raised on a homestead I had engaged in team sports when a kid, I'd probably get along better with the members opposite. Seriously, I would have liked all the opposition folks to be stronger kids.

The Strong Kids campaign gives youth a sense of belonging and friendship without turning to the streets.

I was joking about that, by the way.

Many children across Canada aren't fortunate enough to play organized sports or participate in a group recreation because of the cost. This program gives them a chance to take part. It encourages health, recreation and physical activity. It lets every kid be a kid. And on a strictly non-partisan note, yesterday's budget will help with this as well.

This week at the Kamloops YMCA anyone can drop by to throw toonies into the pool and watch lifeguards dive for them, with all the money going to the Strong Kids campaign. Our own Minister of Environment, the member for Kamloops–North Thompson, is attending six boot camps at the Kamloops Y to raise money for this great program. Thankfully, he won't be diving in his Speedo. I'm telegraphing him my encouragement and my hope, at his advanced age, that he can meet the fitness goal.

One of the YM and YWCA's slogans is: "Just too young to be old." I ask the House to join me in supporting the Strong Kids campaign so that no one need grow up without the joy of childhood.

CONSTRUCTION WORKER SAFETY

AT TOBA INLET PROJECT

G. Gentner: I rise today in memory of Samuel Joseph Fitzpatrick, who died three years ago today. At a young age he and his brother hired on as rock scalers for the Sea to Sky Highway upgrade.

[1405]

Rock scalers clear loose debris and secure anchors. They rappel down rock faces with manual power tools. They read rock formations, set blasting charges sometimes, hanging on rock, tightening retainer bolts, applying shotcrete. It's all very dangerous work.

[ Page 9344 ]

While working with a hand drill, Sammy, at the age of 24, was struck and killed by a large boulder that rolled down the hill at the Toba Inlet run-of-the-river project. His mother writes: "Sam was my oldest son. He was very courageous and daring, very kind and funny. He was a hard worker, he was honest, and he was growing into a fine young man. His loss is a huge void in all our lives."

The day before, a similar incident had occurred at the job. In WorkSafe B.C. hearings his father stated that his sons didn't want to work that day on the site, as they felt it wasn't safe. His mother said Sam and Arlen, being young workers and anxious to please, went ahead and complied with the work order.

WorkSafe B.C. reports: "The employer was reckless and grossly negligent with respect to obvious hazards. It is clear that simple enforcement and basic supervision would have prevented the fatality which occurred." Last July Kiewit was fined $250,000 for seven violations. While the family grieves and attempts to move on, the company is now appealing the decision.

I pay homage to the Sam Fitzpatricks who have helped build this province and to a death three years ago today, mourned by those who painfully wait once again on a decision that will never bring Sammy home.

RICHMOND FAMILY WEEK BREAKFAST

EVENT AND HEALTHY EATING PROMOTION

J. Yap: It's been said that the family that eats together stays together. Last Sunday morning I attended a special breakfast at the Thompson Community Centre in Richmond, which brought families together to do just that. Organized by Touchstone Family Association, this event drew about 300 people from across Richmond, including children, parents and grandparents. It was a great kickoff to Family Week.

Breakfast was prepared and served by the good members of Richmond Fire-Rescue, who generously donated their time, along with Touchstone's youth volunteers. The keynote speaker, Ms. Mijune Pak, a noted foodie and blogger, talked about the importance of the simple act of families eating together and her own experiences eating together with her family. She also promoted healthy eating. More details can be found in her blog, www.followmefoodie.com.

Over the week the campaign will encourage Richmond families to learn about healthy cooking, shopping for food wisely and different ways to enjoy eating in the city together. It will teach people to feed the body in order to feed the mind through a series of engaging events, like cooking classes taught by top chefs and open group meals at popular community and shopping centres in Richmond.

Our Premier and government's focus is on supporting families. Events such as Richmond's Eating Together are entirely aligned with this goal, which helps strengthen neighbourhoods, communities and, ultimately, our province. I invite all members to join me in thanking executive director Michael McCoy and his team, especially event chair Kelina Kwan, for this successful event and all the good work Touchstone does day in and day out in supporting families in my community, Richmond, and throughout the province of British Columbia.

ANTI-VIOLENCE INITIATIVE

BY ABORIGINAL MEN

K. Corrigan: Last week the member from Vancouver–Mount Pleasant and I were honoured to attend the gathering of aboriginal men standing up against violence towards aboriginal women and children. It was a call to action for aboriginal brothers, uncles, grandfathers and sons to come together to build a provincewide campaign to end violence against aboriginal women and children.

I would like to congratulate all who were involved in this very successful and powerful event, including Paul Lacerte of the B.C. Association of Aboriginal Friendship Centres. I also appreciate the invitation and would like to thank everyone for the warm welcome to my colleague and to me and the other women who were privileged to attend the event.

Paul and others pointed out that violence towards women and children was not in their culture and that it was always historically their responsibility to protect them.

No one could be more eloquent than the words of the speakers and attendees themselves, including Chief Bobby Joseph, elder and retired executive director of the B.C. Indian Residential School Survivors Society, who acknowledged the courage of attendees and said that with regard to violence against aboriginal women and children: "Either you are involved, and you shouldn't be; or you are complicit, and you shouldn't be; or you are in denial, and you shouldn't be." He said that despite the links of violence to colonialism, to residential schools and to broken government bureaucracies, the violence has to stop, and it has to stop today.

[1410]

While Chief Joseph was speaking about violence in aboriginal communities, the message was a universal one, and the leadership shown by this gathering of men was a fine example to all communities of the potential, as Chief Joseph said, "to re-empower ourselves so that we can re-empower our women."

Oral Questions

BUDGET PROVISIONS FOR

EDUCATION AND SKILLS TRAINING

A. Dix: The government's own labour market outlook says that B.C. is on track for a shortage of 61,500 workers

[ Page 9345 ]

over the decade. The Premier herself said that her jobs plan was "built on the foundation of great skills training."

The reality is that the Liberal government delivered a budget that singled out advanced education and skills training for harsh treatment. Funding for apprenticeship training — slashed. Trades training — cut. Colleges and universities — cut. Nothing to help young people with affordability. It's the budgetary equivalent of the Premier tweeting "no tax cuts" in the morning and jacking up MSP premiums in the afternoon.

Will the minister agree with me that the priority of skills training was abandoned by the government in this budget? Will she take action at the cabinet table to see that the situation is rectified?

Hon. N. Yamamoto: Yesterday I listened with a great deal of pride to our Minister of Finance deliver Budget 2012. I felt a great deal of pride because I'm part of a team that delivered — actually, outperformed — nine of the last ten budgets, Mr. Speaker. The only budget we actually fell short of…. Well, the rest of the world did as well.

Years of conservative, prudent, sound fiscal management — something that the members opposite know nothing about, by the way — has allowed us to take advantage of investing in post-secondary education during challenging fiscal times. We have made the largest investment in post-secondary education in the history of British Columbia.

As our Minister of Finance said yesterday, the days of government overspending are over. There's a new paradigm. We have a world-class post-secondary education system in British Columbia. This side of the House is proud of that.

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

A. Dix: It may be now easier to imagine how skills training was so badly treated at the cabinet table. I mean, the minister is not speaking out for the very programs that our society needs to build the economy of the future. This is the reality.

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Member.

A. Dix: You know….

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Just take your seat for a second.

Members.

Continue, Member.

A. Dix: It's not just me that's saying it. It's the business community that's saying it, labour groups are saying it, and young people are saying it.

Just last week a report from the Canadian Chamber of Commerce concluded that the growing shortage of highly skilled labour is becoming desperate, threatening our ability to keep up in a global knowledge-based economy. Yet the Minister of Finance singled out the minister's ministry for particularly harsh cuts. It simply makes no economic sense to go down this line, especially when the government says that its jobs plan is based on skills training.

I ask the minister to explain why her ministry was cut so dramatically compared to even other ministries in the budget and what plans she has to talk to the Minister of Finance about rectifying the situation.

[1415]

Hon. N. Yamamoto: Let me remind the member opposite: Budget 2012 continues with record investments in post-secondary education. This year we invested $10,000 per full-time student. Next year we're continuing to do that. We're investing nearly $1.9 billion. That's just in annual operating costs, with a year-over-year increase of $9 million. That's a huge number — $1.9 billion. That's over $5 million a day, each and every day, which the taxpayers of British Columbia invest in post-secondary education.

Budget 2012 also includes an increase of nearly $400,000 to improve StudentAid B.C. We do have a world-class, top-quality post-secondary education system in British Columbia, and it's about time the members opposite started recognizing that.

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

A. Dix: Well, the minister was listening to the budget speech where the Minister of Finance himself singled out post-secondary education for particularly harsh treatment. He said that was necessary, in spite of the skills shortage the province is facing.

We have a government and a Minister of Finance that offers $15 million for advertising to promote the jobs plan. Now, the minister will know, because she has it on her desk, that she has a proposal to create a northern technical institute. It would cost less than that to create 2,000 training spaces.

The minister is Minister of Advanced Education. Let me ask her. Does she think the priority is advertising, or does she think the priority is training spaces? Which will she advocate for at the cabinet table?

Hon. N. Yamamoto: Let's be clear about Budget 2012 and the years out. We are actually expecting some savings from our post-secondary system. We want to realize administrative savings, in very much the same way that the health care sector did as well, through their shared

[ Page 9346 ]

services model, because we want to make sure that we maximize the value of the huge investment that taxpayers already make in our post-secondary system.

I think we have a great system. I will continue to be proud of the system, and I think it's an opportunity right now for us to thank the taxpayers of British Columbia for the huge investment that they make.

M. Mungall: Well, the Prince George mayor, Shari Green, had this to say in anticipation of yesterday's budget: "Certainly, from my perspective I hope they're looking at advanced education funding." The mayor of Prince George was hoping that funding would go up because she knows how a shortage of skilled workers impacts the resource industries in her communities.

Can the Minister of Advanced Education explain to Mayor Green why the Liberals have slashed investment in post-secondary education, despite the fact that 80 percent of jobs in the next five years are going to require some level of post-secondary education?

Hon. N. Yamamoto: Let's see what we've done for students lately. The College of New Caledonia — a new trades expansion of the Quesnel facility, a $5 million investment. At the College of New Caledonia — again, a $10 million investment in the new trades and technology centre at the Brink building. At UNBC — a $5 million investment in a waste-wood gasification plant. I can go on and on. I have a list of the investments that this government has made.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

M. Mungall: The minister can go on and on about various photo opportunities for her Premier. They talk about photo opportunities for her Premier, but on this side of the House we're talking about funding for post-secondary education to get students into seats.

[1420]

She, like the rest of the Liberals, knows that there will be major projects in the north that require skilled workers. Colleges train the people for those jobs, but this is where things are at in the north right now: College of New Caledonia is looking at a deficit this year; Northern Lights College in the same situation. And at Northwest Community College they're handing out pink slips. That's what they're doing, and it's all before they even saw this government's budget on post-secondary education.

How can the minister stand in this House today and say that there is no problem, that students in our economy won't be affected by the Liberals' continued failure to invest in our future?

Hon. N. Yamamoto: I'd like to draw the member opposite's attention to the investments that we've made in her riding. In Nelson-Creston we've made over $10 million of investments in capital projects: a $2 million investment in the Castlegar aviation centre, a $1.5 million in the Kootenay School of the Arts, a $3.45 million investment in student residences at Nelson.

Let me ask the members opposite…. All I'm hearing are these grandiose promises. They haven't respected taxpayers. We have indicated in our Budget 2012 exactly how we're going to balance the budget. We're waiting for the members opposite to figure out exactly how they're going to pay for all these promises.

INCREASES TO

MEDICAL SERVICES PLAN PREMIUMS

B. Ralston: The day before the budget was released the Premier chose to use Twitter to communicate what was in store for British Columbians. Her tweet promised: "We will not raise taxes." What member of the government across the way will admit the obvious proposition that a 4 percent increase in medical service premiums is a tax increase?

Hon. M. de Jong: First of all, I should congratulate the member for posing a question relating to an announcement that was made in Budget 2009.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Continue, Minister.

Hon. M. de Jong: Good for the member in that respect.

So $2.60. That is the additional amount that we are asking an individual British Columbian, starting in 2013, to contribute, to assist us in expanding spending on health care by $1.5 billion. If the member is opposed to increasing spending on health care by $1.5 billion, he should say so. If the member is opposed to the $1.2 billion in additional capital spending that will take place over the course of the fiscal plan, he should say so.

The member should stand up and come clean with British Columbians about all of these promises and how they're going to pay for them. We're proud of our record on health care spending, and we're proud of the budget that was tabled in this House yesterday.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

B. Ralston: Well, the minister can make light of what is in fact a tax increase. Let's look at the totality of the taxes that have been increased and fees upon British Columbians, on ordinary working and middle-class families.

[1425]

In addition to medical service premiums, skyrocketing Hydro rates, ICBC increases, tuition fees. And of course, who can forget that the HST is still in place for yet an-

[ Page 9347 ]

other year? So wherever families turn, they face a Liberal government intent on picking their pocket — a 6 percent increase in medical service premiums…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

B. Ralston: …in each of the last three years, and now another 4 percent.

My question is to the minister. What did he say around the cabinet table to protect B.C. families from yet another medical service premium increase?

Hon. M. de Jong: I said this: "It is good, and I am proud of the fact that 800,000 British Columbians pay no medical service premiums." I said: "It is good, and I am proud of the fact that an additional 200,000 British Columbians pay reduced medical service premiums."

And I said one other thing: "Wouldn't it be interesting and fascinating if the opposition, having gathered together just a few short months ago and crafted a document they saw as a blueprint for the future of the fiscal situation in British Columbia…? Wouldn't it be odd, wouldn't it be strange, wouldn't it be uncharacteristic if the author of that document had the courage to table it in this House today?"

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Just take your seat, Member.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

BUDGET PROVISIONS FOR

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

M. Farnworth: It would be really great if they had the courage of their convictions to call an election today.

Last year the current Minister of Education, the former Health Minister, said during their leadership debate: "With the shifting demographic to an older population, it is entirely unrealistic and unreasonable to tie it" — that is, health care spending — "to GDP, as has been suggested in this campaign."

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Continue, Member.

M. Farnworth: Well, many health care professionals would say that the budget that was tabled yesterday was crazy, because it flies in the face of the experience of every Health Minister over the last decade and beyond when it comes to health care.

The question for the minister is: what services, what programs are going to be cut by the tabling of this unrealistic health care budget?

[1430]

Hon. M. de Jong: A budget that is in excess of $16 billion, an increase over the course of the fiscal plan that is $1.55 billion…. I'll say it slowly for the member: billion dollars. I expect in the days ahead we are going to hear about people from the opposition side talking about cuts to health care spending.

Mr. Speaker, $1.5 billion in additional spending, increases to all of the health authorities — recognizing, by the way, that they face pressures: increased costs for services, increased costs for products, inflation, an aging demographic. No doubt.

I want to say this clearly. I want to say this so that members make no mistake. We do not measure success on this side of the House purely by how much money you throw at a problem. We measure success based on outcomes, and the national bodies that measure outcomes say that British Columbia is leading the way. In terms of life expectancy and all of the areas that matter most, we lead the way, and we will continue to lead the way in delivering health care services to British Columbians.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

M. Farnworth: Well, had the Minister of Health maybe talked with his two colleagues just to the other side of him, they may have got a different story, because what this budget doesn't do is recognize the challenges that seniors face when it comes to getting proper care, whether it's home care or the services they need. The Ombudsperson's report on seniors care says just that, and there's no recognition in this budget for the concerns of seniors.

This budget will lead to more hallway medicine, more Tim Hortons care, and if the minister has the courage of his convictions, then he will table in this House exactly which services will be impacted by this budget. Tell the people of Chilliwack which hallways are going to be clogged in their hospital. Tell the people of Port Moody which hallways are going to be clogged at Eagle Ridge. Have the courage of your convictions to table what services are going to be impacted by this budget, because 2.8 percent is going to result in less health care for the people of the province of British Columbia.

Hon. M. de Jong: Well, let's explore the notion of courage and integrity. I have heard, just a few moments ago, members of the opposition advocating for significant increases in budgets to the Ministry of Advanced Education. I have heard, in the past, admonishments

[ Page 9348 ]

from members of the opposition for increases in budgets to other ministries — Environment, Agriculture — and I expect, over the course of the next number of weeks, to continue to hear that.

Now, we have increased the budget. The Finance Minister announced increases to the budget, to the Health Ministry, of $1.55 billion. Do you know where that money is coming from? It's coming from other public services. So if the member and the opposition want to be taken seriously — if they want to be taken seriously in this debate, in this discussion — they should reveal in the document they prepared that they have hidden away somewhere where that money is going to come from.

The member wants more money in health care. Which of the ministries is he going to take it from, or is he going to take it from British Columbians? Is he going to take it from British Columbians? They can answer all of those questions by tabling the document that we all wait for with bated breath.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

I want to remind members that we're almost through question period, and we've had four questions. So would people keep the questions down and the answers down.

PRIVATIZATION OF

LIQUOR DISTRIBUTION

D. Donaldson: Yesterday this B.C. Liberal government announced they intend to sell off several valuable assets in order to pay for their own economic mismanagement. This includes selling off two liquor distribution warehouses and the distribution business itself.

[1435]

To the Minister of Energy, petroleum resources, gambling, housing, mining and liquor distribution: will he table today the business case showing that it makes any sense to sell the silverware today to pay for the groceries tomorrow? Specific economic benefits, tangible results — the business case that led to this sell-off decision.

Hon. R. Coleman: An analysis was done on the amount of liquor that was actually in the system that could be gleaned out of inventory relative to the moving of the distribution and warehousing system in British Columbia to a different model. At the same time we looked at our real estate assets that would no longer be needed and the cost it would be if we wanted to modernize to a new modern warehouse at a significant dollar level.

As we went through that discussion, it was decided that we would go to the market with an RFP, a request for proposals, to see what the private sector might come in with — a recommendation with regards to improving our opportunities and gleaning some money for taxpayers in British Columbia — all the time knowing that this would be done with successorship so that members of the B.C. Government Employees Union would have to be engaged because they would be part of the successorship in the proposal if it goes forward.

ROLE OF PATRICK KINSELLA IN

LIQUOR DISTRIBUTION PRIVATIZATION

S. Simpson: Patrick Kinsella and his lobbying firm met with this minister and his colleagues on January 4 and 6 of this year on behalf of their client, Exel Logistics. They discussed the awarding of a contract for the privatization of warehousing and distribution of liquor.

What role did Mr. Kinsella play in yesterday's decision to privatize these services, and why did those meetings occur before this was announced to the public?

Hon. R. Coleman: I wasn't in the country on January 6 of this year.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

S. Simpson: I'm sure that the minister was in the country on January 4. Maybe he'd like to tell us if he participated in that meeting. The reality is this. The lobbyist registry is clear. The subject matter was privatization and outsourcing. The intended outcome was awarding of a contract, and the details were to develop a new liquor distribution system for the province of B.C.

The minister has offered up no business case for this decision. Mr. Kinsella is the ultimate B.C. Liberal backroom boy. He was involved in this months before the decision was made. We've seen this movie before with Mr. Kinsella and B.C. Rail.

What assurances can the minister give this House that Mr. Kinsella and his company that he's working on behalf of don't have the inside track on this deal?

Hon. R. Coleman: I know it's the habit of the opposition to besmirch the name and reputation of individuals from outside this House inside this House. If he wants to carry on that, he can go outside and make accusations with regard to an individual. I'm not biting on that bait, hon. Member.

We're going to have an RFP process. There will be a fairness process to watch, to match the RFP process as it comes through. And just for the member opposite, he should know…. I would suspect, and I'm pretty sure about this, that if you go do your research, you'll find that the BCGEU has met with proponents about distribution and privatization in British Columbia a lot more times than I have, hon. Member.

M. Karagianis: Well, given the history of Mr. Kinsella

[ Page 9349 ]

and this government and the inside information on contracts, I would like to ask the minister how many times he met with Mr. Kinsella. In fact, were there any other proponents that put forward offers on the contracts for this distribution? Or did Exel have the inside track right from the beginning, even before the contract has been tendered?

Hon. R. Coleman: I've had the liquor file on and off over the last 11 years. During that period of time there's been a variety, a number of proponents that have come and talked to us about not just distribution but also retail stores, whether they should be sold — brought us different models that they saw worked in other jurisdictions. That's always been an ongoing dialogue.

[1440]

Nobody has the inside track on this. It would go out to a request for proposals. That would be assessed by a person who would make sure that the fairness of the proposals and the bids would be met. At that point in time government will make a decision about the distribution system with regards to liquor.

I don't know what the members are so worried about. Ask yourself the question. If you can get to a wholesale price for the entire industry by doing this, if you can bring down the price to the consumer, if you can increase the service to British Columbians, if you can save money for the taxpayer and if you can actually put money in the pockets of British Columbians so that they can reduce the cost of health care and education, it's worth taking a look at.

[End of question period.]

D. Barnett: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

Introductions by Members

D. Barnett: I would like to introduce a longtime constituent of mine who was born and raised in 100 Mile House in the Cariboo. He's a logger, he's a rancher, and he's now a councillor for the district of 100 Mile House. I would ask the House to welcome Bill Hadden.

Orders of the Day

Hon. R. Coleman: Mr. Speaker, we will continue the budget debate for the balance of today.

B. Ralston: Mr. Speaker, perhaps we should wait until members get a chance to leave the chamber. I'd like to think they would want to stay for my speech, but I suspect they may not all wish to.

Mr. Speaker: Members, if you could get off to your other business so we can have a little bit of quiet in the House.

Continue, Member.

Budget Debate

(continued)

B. Ralston: I've been provided with an assurance by the Minister of Health that he's going to be watching in his office, so that makes me feel a little bit more assured here continuing my speech.

I want to begin where I left off yesterday and look at the purpose of the budgetary process. Really, the budget is the foundation document of any government. It's the most important statement of their principles and their values and the direction in which they hope to take the province. That's the device by which a lot of the political will of the government is expressed, the choices they make and the directions they choose to head.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

In the budget that was tabled yesterday, the government spoke somewhat of its record over the last ten or 11 years. I think the suggestion was that the budgetary process and the budgets over the last 11 years had produced some results, but I think what would be helpful in assessing that suggestion in the budget would be to begin by looking at the last report — the final report — of the Progress Board.

You'll remember the Progress Board. For those who don't, let me briefly explain to you what it was. It was a policy review group established by the Liberal government when they came to power. Premier Campbell set it up, and the appointees to the Progress Board were chosen by the government.

So this is not a non-partisan think tank. This is not outside government. It certainly had a policy review and policy assessment function and reported to the government and to the public regularly on a number of topics. So it's useful, when we come to consider the Liberal record over the last 11 years, to look at the final report of the Progress Board, particularly when it comes to economic matters.

[1445]

The Liberals would have you believe that they have done an absolutely superlative job on economic matters, but the Progress Board, their own handpicked and appointed group, really doesn't support that at all. In fact, the progress they've made is in some cases rather in the reverse. In other words, British Columbia has fallen back relative to other provinces.

Let's have a look. For example, this is taken from the Progress Board report — the 11th and final benchmark report. B.C. ranked in the category called the economy — that's real GDP per capita — in the year 2000, fourth,

[ Page 9350 ]

and in the year 2010, fifth. So a key economic measure in a report put together by the B.C. Liberal government on their own progress — or, in this case, lack of progress — shows that on a key measure, real GDP per capita, they fell backwards.

That's not progress. That's regress in the B.C. Liberal world, something that they absolutely and utterly refuse to acknowledge. In fact, that's probably the reason why this was the 11th and final report of the Progress Board. The new Premier no longer really wants the inconvenience, I suppose, or the political damage or just the sheer reality of having the Progress Board chart the backwards steps of this government.

On personal income in 2000, British Columbia ranked in Canada third and in the year 2010, in personal income, ranked fourth. On jobs, in the year 2000 British Columbia ranked fifth in Canada and in the year 2010, according again to the Progress Board, ranked seventh. So backwards in economy, personal income and jobs.

Environmental quality in 2000, first; in 2010, environmental quality, first. Can't do any better than first, I suppose, so we stayed the same there as a province.

On health outcomes. That's particularly apposite just given the rather — I don't know; how shall we describe them? — entertaining answers of the Minister of Health. Health outcomes in 2000, according to the Progress Board — not according to me, not according to some NDP source; this is the handpicked, B.C. Liberal–appointed Progress Board — first. So started from a very high base back in 2000, and that has been maintained in the year 2010 — still first. Those are obviously long-term trends, but I'm sure every British Columbian appreciates that ranking.

On social condition. Social condition is an amalgam of a number of factors. Let me just read them, because this is, again, the choice of the Progress Board, the B.C. Liberal–appointed Progress Board. The indicator is actually an amalgam of five indicators: the LICO — that's the low-income cutoff; low birth weight; property crime; income assistance recipients; and long-term unemployment. These are some of the most intractable of our social problems, and no one, I think, would dispute that.

In the year 2000 we were, regrettably, ninth. But after ten years of B.C. Liberal rule, according to the Progress Board, we're still ninth. So the triumphant calls, the self-congratulatory rhetoric that we hear across the way really isn't supported by their own handpicked organization. Gone backwards in the economy, in personal income and jobs and made no progress in social conditions at all.

I think when you come to assess some of the rhetoric that was used, some of the language that was used yesterday by the Finance Minister in his budget, we ought to at least reflect on that and place it in some kind of a context.

[1450]

I want to deal at this point with a few specific aspects of the budget, since I've had a chance to review it in more detail over the course of last evening and this morning. It's a bit rushed, but that's the life of a legislator that we lead here, and I want to make some comments about that.

On page 51, under the rather grandiose title of "Release of Surplus Corporate Assets for Economic Generation," there's some explanation of what the Minister of Finance talked about in his budget, and that is the sale of what are called surplus assets.

It's significant, when you look at the budget document itself, that no revenue is booked in this fiscal year, the fiscal year of the budget — that is 2012-2013 — but only in the following two years. There's $475 million booked, anticipated, in 2013-2014 — the budget that would be tabled in February 2013 right before the election — and $231 million in 2014-2015.

I'm sure conveniently, but not entirely accidentally, the revenue that's anticipated from asset sales, so-called, will take place in the budget year right before the next election — if in fact it's called on

schedule and not called earlier or not postponed. For the sake of this argument, I'm assuming it will be called in May of 2013.

Now, the government in this brief note claims to have reviewed and identified over 100 properties and assets. There's a suggestion by the very title that these are surplus to government need. They're just a frozen economic asset that's waiting to be unlocked, and this will have some beneficial economic effects.

I want to talk about, just as an illustration of the shortsightedness of this policy, a property that I'm fairly familiar with in the heart of the city of Surrey, the second-biggest city in the province and the fastest-growing major city in the province. It's a property at the corner of Highway 10 and 152nd. It's near the geographic centre of the city of Surrey. That corner, the northwest corner, was originally scheduled to be developed as a shopping centre. That ran into some legal difficulties. There was a challenge at the public hearing, economic conditions shifted, and the shopping centre was never built.

By the suggestion that it was going to be a shopping centre, one gets a sense that the property market, certainly, and people in Surrey view it as a central location within the city and desirable for that fact itself. Of course, traffic volumes along 152nd Avenue, north and south, and Highway 10, east and west, are considerable. So it's ideally located close to central traffic routes, central bus routes and central public transit routes as well.

When it was purchased by the Ministry of Health — I believe Penny Priddy was the Minister of Health when it was purchased — it was envisaged as the site of the future hospital in the city of Surrey, not immediately but in the long term. The reason that was chosen was, of course, for its attributes of centrality and the fact that it was closer to the growing centre of population not only in South Surrey but particularly in Cloverdale, east of that part of Surrey.

[1455]

[ Page 9351 ]

At the time it was purchased — and I'm familiar with that part of Surrey — the number of dwellings around it, the number of houses was pretty sparse. Since then, over the last 15 years, there is a substantial new, smaller shopping centre on one part of that corner. There's commercial development in the area. There's substantial growth in an office park immediately to the south, and there are a number of condominium developments, all within a half-mile.

So the population in that area has increased dramatically. Anyone who knows anything about real estate…. Or just common sense would dictate, given all that development in the immediate vicinity of this vacant piece of land, that it has dramatically increased its value.

In fact, the then government in 2005 clearly had it in mind still as a site for a hospital. In the third week of the 2005 election campaign the B.C. Liberals were in some trouble in Surrey, I think it was perceived. In fact, they were right. A number of New Democrat members were elected in that election. There was much public outcry, I think, and concern about the operation of Surrey Memorial Hospital. The member then for Surrey-Panorama, now for Surrey-Fleetwood, had been elected in a by-election in 2004 and raised the issue of Surrey Memorial repeatedly in the Legislature, so there was a public sensitivity in Surrey to this issue.

In the third week of the election campaign the then Premier, Mr. Campbell, headed out to that piece of vacant property and proclaimed that the citizens of Surrey should be assured that a new hospital would be built on that particular site. All they had to do was, of course, vote for him, and that would take place.

Now, what's the expression of François Villon? Où sont les neiges d'antan? Where are the snows of yesteryear? All those promises seemed to have just faded away, completely forgotten. Nothing ever came to pass on that site, but it's still held by the provincial government.

Now we hear from the Minister of Finance that this site is somehow surplus to government needs. The visionary and provident decision taken by a government many years ago to acquire the property in advance of development when the cost was substantially lower is now going to be the subject of a cash windfall if it's sold by the government. But the more important result of that decision will be that public land is no longer available at this ideal site for future public purposes.

Now, the government may choose — and this is the argument they're making — not to build a hospital there in the next five or ten years. Fair enough. There's been an expansion of Surrey Memorial. Overdue considerably — many years — but nonetheless, there has been capital expansion in the hospital site in the northern part of Surrey.

But it seems to me that a more forward-looking government would want to at least keep this piece of property in its inventory — perhaps even work with the city of Surrey to use it, if not now, down the road for some significant public purpose.

Any planner who has planned school sites in new developments or hospital sites or indeed acquiring public land for public purposes after the fact, in the sense of after major development has already taken place, fully understands the difficulty in getting neighbourhood consent for that and fully understands the dramatic increase in costs. That would be public money if it were to be acquired again — or a similar site in a similar location.

So this decision is not a wise one and really speaks to a very shortsighted view of the use of public land and the provident decision that was made so many years ago.

[1500]

The public…. Although I don't think the public reaction has yet begun, because this only just started. One will recall that some school districts were trying to divest themselves of public land, and there was some public reaction against that — again, being of the view that selling off public assets in that way was shortsighted.

The other concern that one has to have is: what is the present zoning of this land? It's likely institutional. It may not even have ever been zoned for a hospital. Typically though, one would want, if it's going to be sold for highrise development…. I doubt that it would be highrise, but it might very well be condominium development. Per acre it would be very, very rich.

One would like to see a government that wanted to get a good return, the best return, take it through a rezoning process and have the benefits of the increase in land value as a result of rezoning come to the government as the seller of it rather than go to a developer who purchased it and then took it to the rezoning and got the benefit of the increased value of land by virtue of the rezoning.

It's not at all clear that that's the proposal. And given the rather short timeline that the government has put on this fire-sale disposal of assets for its own short-term financial purposes, one doubts that that more considered, measured and thoughtful approach will be taken. One would hope and would expect that a more considered and serious analysis of this property would take place — and of all the other properties.

Now, it's not to say that there are no properties that are surplus to government needs and that the decision shouldn't be taken. I think of, for example, in the city of Burnaby. There was a high school on Kingsway where the very step that I'm suggesting was taking place.

It's no coincidence that Burnaby is considered — was nominated and decided by Maclean's magazine — the best-run municipality in the country, and it's for decisions like the one I'm about to describe that that is the case. They took the land, rezoned it to highrise residential, reaped the benefit of that increase in value and then sold it to a developer who developed a series of highrise apartments on that site. So the public treasury benefited rather than a private developer.

That's a decision that you can make, but this govern-

[ Page 9352 ]

ment, in its business practice, has shown a reluctance to safeguard the public treasury over the private interests of others. Again, that's another alternative that doesn't seem to be part of the analysis, given the short-term nature of this proposal.

One wonders. If you're a purchaser and you know…. The government has already announced and has in its budget, as I said, some line items. They're probably, admittedly, largely speculative as to what can be sold, but they have some line items in their budget.

Have you strengthened your bargaining position as a seller by telling prospective buyers: "We have to sell this. Our political necks are on the line. We need this money for the budget. We have to balance it next year. Please come and buy it. We need the money"?

Has that strengthened your bargaining position as a government, or has it weakened your bargaining position as a government? I would say that it has weakened the strength of the government's bargaining position when it comes to selling those particular assets. It's not a wise course of action at all.

It doesn't seem to be, despite having been in power 11 years, that there's an ongoing and orderly consideration of this process. And one could well understand that government, given its land holdings — there are legitimate reasons for disposing of property — would have an ongoing program where there wouldn't be this sudden rush to inventory properties and get them out the door, as this appears to be. But that doesn't seem to be the case.

[1505]

Certainly, this seems to be heralded, at least by the minister. Again, these are early days. My ability to probe into this initiative has been limited by the very brief period of time I've had to examine it, but it doesn't seem to be the case that there's been that kind of thought to have gone into this process. It seems to have started from ground zero a relatively brief time ago.

Now, the other area that I want to comment on, in terms of asset sales, is the sale of the Liquor Distribution Branch warehouses and distribution network. In this year's budget, on page 16, it says very clearly that the Liquor Distribution Branch is in the budget as a revenue line item. That's revenue — $906 million for the coming year and a similar amount each successive year, although I think it declines slightly.

Now, some of that may be subject to an anticipation of a decreased volume of sales, or some of it may be a result of the proposal to sell the wholesale network. It's not clear.

Clearly, when you have an asset that's giving you $906 million a year in revenue…. We heard the minister repeatedly yesterday talk about the necessity to be…. I think his word was "prudent." He repeated that a number of times and some other typical self-descriptions along that line. Wouldn't it be prudent to have a good and careful analysis of something that generates that amount of revenue — if, by the process of dismembering, taking apart what seems to be an integrated operation, you would dramatically reduce public revenue?

However much one might think that, ideologically, it's better that this should be delivered by the private sector, that they're automatically more efficient, there are a number of mortgage holders in the United States — in fact, millions — who would tell you otherwise.

Let's just assume that you set aside your ideological predispositions for a moment. As a prudent manager of the treasury, wouldn't it be wise to have a business plan and some analysis that you would release in order to convince people of the wisdom of your decision at the time that you announce it?

Now, the opposition asked in question period. Frankly, the minister responsible claimed that some analysis had been done, but his answer was — how shall I say? — a little unfocused and a little unclear, not terribly helpful in shedding much light on that analysis.

In fact, I understand that back in the era of the core review…. I wasn't in this House back then, but after the B.C. Liberals won the election in 2001, they embarked on a program of ambitious review of most of government, and they did look at the Liquor Distribution Branch, particularly on the wholesale side. They came to a decision that, in part because of its revenue-generating capacities, they would not dispose of that. They would not send it to the private sector.

In fact, they may have even made the same decision about the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia. However much their ideological predispositions were telling them that it ought to be sold, sent to the private sector, it again provided a reliable, long-term revenue stream for government that they decided ultimately not to tamper with.

So I'm curious — and many, I'm sure, members of the public are curious: what has been the trigger? What has been the motivating factor to make this decision to sell off this asset at this time? It's something that we don't have any answers for just yet.

[1510]

Now, understandably, there are those in the private sector who would certainly dearly like to acquire that asset. Right now in British Columbia, as I understand the structure, the wholesale side is a monopoly. That gives it more economic value, as a monopoly, than it would be if there were a competing series of warehouse systems throughout the province that were competing with each other to supply all the retail stores.

So is it intended that that monopoly will continue? What would be the regulatory mechanism that would make sure that that was done fairly? Or would it simply be turned over to a private operator to operate it in accordance with market principles, one who would set prices that may disadvantage more rural retail locations? Not all the retail locations are owned publicly. What would be the impact of that on the public retail distri-

[ Page 9353 ]

bution network? What would be the impact on sales, on prices, on convenience, on the jobs of those people who are employed there?

In Alberta — again, from what I understand — the government chose the opposite route of selling the retail outlets, letting that go private yet retaining control of the distribution system, the wholesale side, which is a completely different mix from the one that's proposed here.

At this early stage all I'm really doing is raising a series of questions about this decision. I think it's fair to ask — in fact, given the profession of prudence that we've heard repeatedly from the Finance Minister — that he or the minister responsible for the agency answer these questions. But particularly for the Minister of Finance, the line item — $906 million in the budget that we're discussing: how is that going to be affected? How is that good for the long-term fiscal health of the province?

Whatever you think about the management quality, or whatever you think about the debate about public or private control, it's a revenue source, a substantial one, and it should be looked at. So I really question the decision in that way.

This may be a bit rash on my part, but I look forward to some answers. Frequently in these kinds of matters, full answers are not forthcoming. Sometimes, if this goes into an RFP process — that is, a request for proposals — the government may claim that some of this information is proprietary and should only be available to qualified bidders and that the public doesn't really have the right to know about the ins and outs and the intricacies of the operation because that would impinge upon or damage the request-for-proposals process. I hope that's not the case. I hope that there are some answers forthcoming and that there is a justification given for this decision.

I get the sense from the minister, though, that the decision has already been taken, unlike what appeared to happen in the 2002, 2003, 2004 period, where it was open to the government to recognize that perhaps they had made a mistake. They didn't want to damage a source of revenue, and they reversed themselves.

Anyway, I look forward to that public debate. I hope the minister will provide some answers. I'm not overly optimistic. I probably will put in my request for freedom of information, and I expect an answer in about 18 months to two years. That's usually how long it takes in anything politically sensitive with this government. That's no way to proceed — of course, everyone recognizes that — but that's been the track record of this government on those kinds of proposals.

That area of the budget that is described as asset sales is, I think, an area fraught with real difficulty for the public of British Columbia and seems to be guided entirely by the political timing that the minister feels pressure on.

[1515]

That is the prospect of two by-elections which are going to be called very shortly. The one in Port Moody has to be called by the beginning of April at the latest, I believe. I expect that that is a consideration, unfortunately, in these announcements — a wish to perhaps give a nod to a certain side of the political spectrum where there's a political challenge felt, rather than being guided by the long-term fiscal interests of the province, the long-term revenue source that that represents.

I'd like to move on to another

section of the budget, the general economic outlook. In any budget, one wants to look at the fiscal environment not only within British Columbia but within Canada for comparables and just the general situation of the province globally — whether it's in British Columbia, outside British Columbia or in the United States; whether it's what's happening in Europe or what's happening, indeed, across the way in the Asia-Pacific countries. I want to look a little bit at those. But before I do that, I want to also just look at what risks there are to the fiscal outlook that the government has spoken of.

The absence of a couple of these details, I think, is important in just evaluating the assumptions that the minister has made and the conclusions that he has drawn in casting his budget. One area that really isn't dealt with in the budget and is significant is the impact of a couple of changes in major federal programs. The opposition has touched upon this in question period. Particularly, I'm thinking of Bill C-10, which is the so-called omnibus crime bill of the federal government.

Now, I'm not proposing to enter into the debate launched, unfortunately, by Mr. Toews — you're either on the side of the child pornographers or you're not. I think all of that is a little unfortunate in creating political division in the country when none ought to exist in this kind of a debate. What I'm interested in is the fiscal impact of the crime bill upon provincial budgets. The impact — and I'll talk a little bit about what the Parliamentary Budget Officer has said about it — will be considerable.

The omnibus crime bill, contrary to the experience in the United States, where their prison costs have just soared out of control…. I'm thinking of states like Texas, for example, where the impact of mandatory minimum sentences gives judges no discretion and leaves the discretion largely to the prosecutors. But if you are convicted or plead guilty, you're off to jail for a set period. The judge has no discretion to send you to a term of imprisonment or not, or to a term of imprisonment shorter than the mandatory minimum.

What that means is that prison populations inevitably increase. And most mandatory minimums fall within what's called provincial jurisdiction, where a sentence of — I'm not sure whether it's a law or by convention, but it's certainly longstanding — two years less a day, or anything less than that, is served in a provincial institution, and of two years or more is served in a federal institution. The mandatory minimums often are in the range of six months or a year. They will create more provincial pris-

[ Page 9354 ]

oners and, therefore, the need to find a place and pay for a place to imprison them.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer, who's an independent officer of the federal legislature, the federal parliament, has begun to do some analysis on that. The federal government, as I understand it, was very unwilling to provide a lot of detail, and so he has really been delayed in his ability to complete that analysis.

[1520]

One analysis that he did complete was an analysis of the impact of abolishing what is called the two-for-one rule, whereby a prisoner who spent time in pretrial custody — that is, in jail prior to your trial, guilty plea or sentence — was given credit for two days for every one day spent in pretrial custody.

There's a long history to that, but generally, it was thought that pretrial custody, because there are no rehabilitation services and you're simply awaiting trial, was considered more difficult and onerous to serve. Therefore, that was accommodated or reflected in sentences by the judge at the time of sentencing by reflecting in the sentence two days' custody served for each day actually served.

Now, that was abolished by the federal parliament. There was, of course, some public debate about that, and people felt that that was not "real time." He did a calculation of what the cost of that would be, and the impact of that simple two-for-one policy he attempted to calculate was dramatic — that one measure alone.

It's not broken out in the report as to what the impact would be on an individual province, but it's clearly going to have a financial impact on the operation of the provincial justice system. So what we on this side have been asking for, and our very able critic from Burnaby–Deer Lake, the critic for Solicitor General — now part of the new, consolidated Ministry of Justice — has been asking, is for the calculation. What is the future impact on the provincial budget of this federal measure?

There is no negotiated compensation. The federal parliament hasn't said: "Well, we think this is a political priority. We are going to do this. We understand that this will have increased costs for the provincial governments. Therefore, we're going to transfer so many tax points, or we're going to create a prison transfer program, or anything like that."

They have simply left it to the provinces to find the money within their own budgets. So if you're a Finance minister, you're budgeting not only for this year and thinking perhaps not only to the 2013 election, but you're being prudent, as I know the minister professes to be, you would be looking at that question. You would have some answers, and doubtlessly, since it is very current and topical, you would have placed it before the House as part of your provincial budget, as a supplementary document, so that the public could begin to get a sense of those costs.

Has this minister done that? Is that analysis available? It may have been done within the ministry. I don't know. It certainly hasn't been provided publicly. I suppose one could submit a freedom-of-information request, and in 18 months to two years, one might get an answer.

The other area that has a major impact, and this is the subject of very recent….

Interjection.

B. Ralston: You let me worry about the applause, Minister. Don't worry. I know these topics are probably not of any interest to you, being a member of the cabinet. You probably have no input into them anyway.

Deputy Speaker: Members, through the Chair.

B. Ralston: Fiscal prudence seems to be just an expression rather than something that the minister wants to pay attention to.

The other issue that is a major financial fiscal concern for the provincial government in the long run is the impact of the changes announced at the Minister of Finance meeting in December, in Victoria — and the Parliamentary Budget Officer has also looked at that — renewing the Canada Health Transfer and the implications for federal-provincial-territorial fiscal sustainability.

[1525]

Really, what his conclusion is, and we have seen the first impact of that…. The Canada Health Transfer is a relatively complicated formula involving transfer of tax points and some cash. There was a deal reached between the provinces and the federal government in 2006, when Mr. Martin was the Prime Minister, to forward a certain amount of money annually at a relatively generous, I think most would agree, rate of increase each year to help the provinces pay for the growing cost of health care.

What the federal minister did is not really renegotiated but simply dictated what the terms of a renewed agreement are going to be. It's actually not an agreement. It's simply a federal proposal that is going to be enacted with or without the consent of the provinces.

The long-term impact of that is going to be to transfer many of the fiscal burdens — just as Mr. Martin did in the 1990s in his relationship between the provinces and the federal government — and transfer a lot of the federal fiscal problems onto the provinces. So the federal responsibility for health care over the life of the agreement and beyond will trend downward, because the federal government will provide less and less in the way of financial support to the provinces, and the provinces will be forced to pick up more and more of the health bill.

Again, big implications for the provincial budget not mentioned by the minister in his remarks. And really, other than a brief mention by the Premier suddenly realizing that switching to a per-capita formulation would disadvantage British Columbia and create, beginning

[ Page 9355 ]

next fiscal year, $250 million less in federal transfers for that purpose, there's been little analysis or public discussion by the government of the implications of that.

These are serious matters. These are major issues in federal-provincial fiscal relations. The government has not dealt with that at all.

The other thing that I want to look at is that the government has, in its budget, touted the shift in the destination of exports. I think, in particular, we've heard that lumber sales to China are up dramatically. I think that while it's going up, doubtlessly the members opposite will want to claim credit, and to be fair, they have done some work in travelling to China and persuading some Chinese businesses to buy more British Columbia lumber.

But the assumptions seem to be that this trend line is only going to go up. It's not going to go down. Yet in a recent article, published last week in the Globe and Mail, what the

article points out is that in China "it can be expected that the housing market will continue to face headwinds during the first half of 2012 unless the Chinese government steps in to ease the country's monetary policy" — Mr. Ekström, a Seattle-based consultant, Wood Resources International.

Indeed, monthly sales have increased in recent years. Annual sales reached a record in 2011, but if you look at the bad news — recent monthly sales, September 2011, $104 million; October, $89 million; November, $82 million; December, $67 million — the final months of 2011 showed significant declines.

[1530]

That's not the entire premise on which the budget is built, but certainly, if you look at the economic history of China, it's a country that's capable — although, certainly in the last decade, the trend has been steadily upwards — of sudden and very dramatic reverses in its economy. Given that it's a command economy and a centrally led economy, the capacity is there to change direction very abruptly and very sharply.

While obviously everyone welcomes, I'm sure — we welcome, certainly — increased sales to China, we also, I think, should not be so naive as to think that those sales could not trend downward at some point in the future. Some of the assumptions that are contained in the budget — certainly in the minister's budget speech — are ones that I think should be approached with a measure of caution.

I also want to touch briefly on the price of natural gas. There are some assumptions that are made in the budget. An increase of a dollar per unit of natural gas yields, I believe, $350 million to $400 million in the provincial budget. Natural gas has been a really important source of government revenue, and not only just of the lease sales. Those are amortized, at the direction of the Auditor General, over a number of years, nine years. We're taking in 1/9 of the price at a time over the nine-year period.

The sale of natural gas has been an important source of revenue, but I think everyone recognizes that the shale gas revolution, the revolution in technology which has led to the technique known as hydrological fracturing — or fracking, as it's called — is spreading not only in the United States but throughout the world. The technological advantage leading to greater production has led to more supply, and obviously, basic economics would dictate that the price would go down.

The longer-term trend seems to be that the price, certainly in North America, will go down and even may have an impact on electricity prices, because sometimes in the United States, particularly in east coast utilities, natural gas is used to power generators that generate electricity.

There's an assumption in the budget of rising natural gas prices over the next two years. I know it's something that's also in the Alberta budget. But it is very difficult to predict natural gas prices.

They used to move lockstep with oil prices. They've basically decoupled, I think the expression is, so that there's no longer an obvious relationship between natural gas prices and oil prices, and therefore, it's increasingly more difficult to predict. If that's a challenge to the budget, a caution, I think that's one certainly worth mentioning. It doesn't seem to have entered into the calculations that are on display in this budget.

One can think of a certain commodity trader in Calgary a number of years ago at Amaranth traders who lost $600 million or $700 million, betting against the price of natural gas. Even the most skilled players in the market can fail to predict accurately the price trajectory of natural gas, so it's certainly worth bearing in mind that caution.

Aside from those cautions about the budget, I also want to set the budget discussion in a broader economic context, as I said earlier. I want to talk about the economic context of the budget in some more detail.

[1535]

The Ministry of Finance also tables an economic review and outlook with the budget and talks about its projections of real GDP growth, gross domestic product growth, and looks to, through the Forecast Council…. It's a body set up by the Ministry of Finance where a number of private sector economists meet regularly and offer their predictions for GDP growth over the medium and longer term. I think it's fair to say that the minister again claims a prudent calculation or assumption about economic growth in this calendar year and next calendar year.

The assumption is 1.8 percent growth, as opposed to what the private sector consensus seems to be of 2.4 percent. That may be prudent and, if it's overly prudent, may enable the minister to meet his targets quite a bit more easily. But the assumption is based on a look at the American economy, which is still deleveraging from the 2008-2009 crash. The general economic wisdom about deleveraging in a financial crisis is that recovery takes

[ Page 9356 ]

longer.

There's an economist named Reinhart who has written a book, an extensive analysis of the recovery from economic financial crises of the type that we saw at least originating in the United States and spreading globally. Generally, they take a much longer time to recover from, and in some senses, some parts of the American economy may never recover.

The B.C. Business Council, in its look at the economic outlook, notes as a bright spot that corporate profits in the United States are very high — the highest in 60 years, relative to GDP. They offer that as a positive

interpretation, as a foundation for business investment. Perhaps more bleakly, where an increased share of profits goes to capital and to the high-earning people at the top of the income scale, it will increase and continue to increase the income of those people at the top while the income of other wage earners stagnates, and their share of the profit falls. It produces the effect in the United States — we see it here as well, and we see it particularly starkly in British Columbia — of a growing inequality of income that is a trend. It has its echoes here, certainly.

The government has, I think rather unsuccessfully, talked about a jobs plan, a very skimpy document with no real targets. It doesn't mention manufacturing, arts and culture — generally, a pretty lacklustre effort thrown together, I suppose, for some short-term political advantage. But what that document doesn't recognize, I think, is this real challenge that faces not only the American economy but the economy here in British Columbia.

I give an illustration of that and just why we on this side are continually stressing the importance of training and education as a way to seek an advantage and opportunities in the global economy. I'll give an illustration which I thought was a particularly graphic one. A recent

article in the New York Times talked about a dialogue between President Obama and Mr. Steve Jobs, the founder of Apple, who recently, unfortunately, died. This was a conversation that took place about a year before he died.

Mr. Obama's question to Mr. Jobs was: "When are those Apple jobs that have gone outside the United States going to come back to the United States?" It's a legitimate question, given that although there are, I think, 28,000 Apple employees in the United States, there's probably an army of about 750,000 contractors and other employees who assemble the products and put them together.

Mr. Jobs's answer to the American President was: "They're never coming back." The reason is one that really is, I think, the challenge that faces not only the American economy but the British Columbia economy: the challenge of creating good jobs here in North America.

[1540]

The reason for that, the example that was given…. The Apple iPhone, which many people are familiar, has taken off, and its sales are widespread around the globe. It's assembled in Guandong province in China, largely by a company called Foxconn, a Taiwanese company which has a manufacturing facility in Guandong province. Most of their workers reside in dormitories, and there's a couple of hundred thousand on site.

Mr. Jobs had identified a problem with the iPhone in that when it was placed in your pocket, the screen which was on the front of the iPhone would get scratches. He was very unhappy with that. Given his, I think, celebrated intuitive feel for the view of the consumer and the user — and that is part of the success of Apple — he didn't want that.

A company executive left the meeting, flew overnight to Shenzhen, just across the border from Hong Kong. The Foxconn operation, according to this story, that very evening called 11,000 workers in on a night shift to begin the process of converting the production to deal with replacing those screens with glass screens. Within six weeks they had completely re-engineered the production process, and those new, improved iPhones were being churned out.

It's that — and Mr. Jobs spoke of this to the American President — flexibility, the dedication, the willingness to work long hours. Most of these workers…. Foxconn is the subject of much attack — legitimately so. There have been a series of suicides in their dormitory facilities. They work 12-hour shifts. If the company wants to order another 3,000 workers, they can do it. But not only is it the relatively low wages at which they are paid, it is their dedication and the ability of the production process to turn literally on a dime at that kind of request and still produce a very high quality, meeting all the specifications of a very exacting customer like Apple.

If you look at that story, it is illustrative of the challenge that faces the United States and Canada of how to create good-paying jobs here in this jurisdiction that will sustain us in the future. The competition is real and very dramatic. I can think of no starker illustration of that than that particular story.

It is important, therefore, that when we speak of global challenges we are paying attention to the need to educate our citizens in a way that will enable them to provide the kinds of skills to the production process, to other industries, that will enable them to retain and hold the jobs of the future. In fact, in the United States the flight of manufacturing continues. Certainly, Ontario is experiencing that same thing and to some lesser degree here in British Columbia, although our wealth has historically been based on resources and not on manufacturing.

So those are the global challenges that we face and that we have to look at when we consider what we're going to do in terms of preparing our citizens for the challenges that are ahead.

I want to return now to look a little bit further at the global context. I want to talk now a little bit about Europe. I know the Finance Minister is fond of pointing out the problems that Greece is experiencing. Of course,

[ Page 9357 ]

the eurozone is an amalgam of strong and weaker economies, and the German economy is doing very, very well. Europe does constitute 20 percent of the world economy.

[1545]

Although we're less conscious of it here in British Columbia, given our geographic position, it's important to acknowledge that it may have an impact. Christine Lagarde, who is the new head of the International Monetary Fund, pointed out in an outlook at Davos, where she spoke on January 28, that she expects that the great deleveraging will continue and that there will be further fiscal consolidation.

She points out that the United States and Japan are running higher deficits and debts than the eurozone taken as a whole. Perhaps that's the perspective of a French citizen, but she is now head of the IMF and brings that useful caution — although debt in Japan is generally owed internally rather than externally. That economic context is an important one.

I know the Finance Minister made a trip to Europe, which he's talked about rather repeatedly. I disagree with some of the nuances he gleaned from that trip. He seems to ignore the strength of Germany, although he did spend some time in Frankfurt. Greece undoubtedly has some problems, but it's a very small part of the whole eurozone. I think, however difficult the process has been there, the problems are being resolved, largely due to accepting a package that's being led by Chancellor Merkel and the President of France.

I'm not as pessimistic about that and its impact globally as maybe some others are. As an example, it is, I suppose, a dramatic one, but it's not one that I think is particularly helpful here in British Columbia.

The other part of the budget that I want to discuss…. The minister talks about…. Again, some of the comment around the budget was achieving efficiencies in service delivery.

On page 52 of the budget there is some discussion of innovative program delivery. A mention is made of the shared services program in the Ministry of Health. The suggestion is made that that was a success, although I think that's disputed.

No one disputes there should be and are other ways of delivering service that might improve efficiencies, but the minister seems to think, after 11 years in government, that there are still dramatic strides that could be taken and will be taken in the course of a single fiscal year. Although we'll definitely see, that seems to be rather unlikely. I think what people will do is simply hunker down, manage as best they can and wait for the following fiscal year.

Certainly, the role of innovation in government services is an important one. There are genuine steps that could be taken and should be taken, and I don't want to dismiss that prospect entirely. In a paper published by the Mowat Centre for Policy Innovation — a school of public policy and governance, University of Toronto — called Shifting Gears: Paths to Fiscal Sustainability in Canada , they give some examples, particularly in health, where there might be savings made.

The example that I choose is one that we may adopt here at some point: prescriptions in Sweden. Currently 42 percent of all prescriptions in Sweden are transferred from the doctor to the pharmacy electronically by Sjunet, the Swedish ICT network for health care, by using web-based prescribing.

The use of e-prescriptions has resulted in lower rates of user error, stronger security and privacy as well as time savings for health care provider organizations. In 2005, five years after the beginning of planning and development, there is already a net benefit of approximately $27 million. That's referenced in a European Commission document. That's what takes place.

[1550]

In British Columbia if you get a prescription, the physician typically scrawls it out on a piece of paper in legible, or sometimes illegible, handwriting. You take it personally to the pharmacy, and the prescription is filled. There's an example, given that we already have a very developed PharmaNet program where it's provincewide, contains the entire population. Anyone who's had a prescription is contained there. It's been developed at some considerable expense. That would seem to be, perhaps, a useful increment to that program.

I use this example just to illustrate that I don't dismiss entirely the idea that innovations in service delivery can be made and should be made and that there are potential cost savings there. But those are things that have to be worked at over the long term, and not simply by exhortation and diktat at the cabinet level. It's difficult to see that those savings would necessarily result in the time that's allotted. As I say, I do want to express some skepticism about being able to achieve those particular targets, particularly in that frame of mind.

I want to now turn to another area of what the government would call innovative service delivery — I'm not as convinced of that — and that is what are called P3s. Government offered those as an alternate method for delivering service and saving the government money. Again, I'm not convinced.

In fact, there has been a dramatic increase, just over the last fiscal year, of what are called contractual obligations. In the 2009-2010 Public Accounts , on page 75, in footnote 25 to the consolidated financial statements for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2010, the total amount was $53.041 billion — so $53.041 billion on page 75. In the subsequent year — that's one year later — the same Public Accounts , same document, note 25, contingencies and contractual obligations for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2011, the total is now $80.171 billion. So the increase over the course of a single calendar year is from $53.041 billion to $80.171 billion. By anyone's calculation,

[ Page 9358 ]

that's a very dramatic increase, obviously.

What are the implications for the long-term fiscal position of the province? There are some commentators — the OECD, for example. The OECD countries' publication says that one of the disadvantages of that $80 billion number, to take that example, is that when a government decides to retrench, when it wants to reduce expenditure, it's prohibited from reducing the expenditure that goes to pay those contracts. They are often 30- or 35-year contracts. There's an annual payment that consisted of a blended payment for capital and interest, and the government doesn't have any discretion in reducing those payments.

Just as the province in its public accounts speaks of an interest bite — in other words, the amount of interest you have to pay each year because you borrowed money…. It's not expressed as a measure, as a percentage of the budget, but there is a similar lump of payments that have to be paid that the government has no choice but to pay. If you broke the contract, which is hypothetical, of course, you'd still have to provide the service. You'd have to pay for the contract and go back and provide the service. Practically speaking, you're locked into that contract.

[1555]

Those contracts, contractual obligations, since the borrowing is done by third parties and not by the government itself, are not calculated in the debt-to-GDP ratio.

While there has been some focus in the discussion of this budget about the increase in the debt owed by the province, there has been relatively little, if any, attention paid to the dramatic increase in contractual obligations, which has increased up to $80 billion. That poses, again, a long-term fiscal challenge to the province. I suppose it's positive in the sense that the province has been able to build and complete certain projects, but it is locked into a process and a series of payments that it has no discretion over.

The analysis from other Auditors General across the country is that often the payments, those blended payments of capital and operating money where there is no ability to separate them out, may well be much higher than the government would have been able to obtain had it borrowed on its own account, given that, generally, governments have better credit ratings than most private agencies.

A particular illustration of that was when the Port Mann project wanted to go to market and borrow privately to finance the building of the new Port Mann bridge. The credit markets were such in 2009 that the government had to step in and essentially provide the bulk of the borrowed capital in order to make the project work.

This P3 process is something that deserves scrutiny and has long-term implications that I think are really brushed aside and unexamined by the present Finance Minister and the previous ones, and certainly merit more consideration.

I want to now turn to a little bit of a look at what is sometimes called the productivity debate. Again, this focuses on some of the assumptions that the Finance Minister has made in his budget about the ability to innovate in service delivery, and it relates to the issue of productivity.

Don Drummond, who recently completed a report for the Ontario government, was previously the bank economist for the TD Bank. He spoke in a recent paper which he called Confessions of a Serial Productivity Researcher , and he has been focused on the issue of productivity for some time.

Productivity doesn't mean simply…. There is a reluctance to discuss it publicly. I think Jean Chrétien told his cabinet not to discuss it because he thought the people would think it meant just that everyone should work harder. That's an exhortation that we sometimes hear from our leader, for example, but productivity involves more ingredients than simply working harder.

That's really important, because if you have an aging population and a declining workforce, getting more productivity, greater economic results from the workforce, becomes increasingly important.

I had the pleasure to attend a recent forum. I think the Minister of Jobs, Tourism and Innovation spoke first thing in the morning. Unfortunately, I got there a little late, and I missed his speech, but I did manage to stay the rest of the day.

Interjection.

B. Ralston: Well, I heard contrary reviews. I didn't want to bring that up, but now that you've mentioned it, I will. They were people who were heading out. They weren't standing up to applaud.

There was a speaker, Mr. Côté, who's the founding partner of what's called SECOR consulting, and he talked about the productivity debate as well. The focus of the conference was on innovation, both in the public sector and the private sector. That's relevant to what the Minister of Finance is talking about in terms of innovation in terms of service delivery.

[1600]

Mr. Côté said that productivity really consists of the way in which capital and labour are combined to produce an economic result. It's not just a question of the application of labour. He has studied it, and his conclusions were not, I think, terribly welcomed by what was a largely business audience.

His conclusion was that there's a 30 percent productivity gap between Canadian business and those in the United States. His conclusion was that Canadian business — and he described it as "fat" — generally competes in cozy markets, regional markets, and there's less investment in information technology. He identified the prob-

[ Page 9359 ]

lem as being in senior management, and he said: "The big gap is not on the shop floor." I'm quoting him exactly.

I simply say that to report what he said, but I think it is significant. Mr. Drummond says this as well. And Mr. Carney, as the governor of the Bank of Canada, has said that a lot of what were regarded as impediments to productivity — for example, tax rates — have changed in recent years. Some of the other innovations that people have looked for or requested have already taken place.

[D. Black in the chair.]

Really, the challenge for Canadian business and for Canadian governments is the challenge of real leadership at the top — particularly in business, in management — in making those productivity advances in a way that hasn't taken place so far.

Canadian productivity is low. Productivity here in British Columbia, even within the Canadian context, is lower still. It's a challenge to business leadership here in the province and to what is done in government, in terms of innovative applications of those principles, to increase productivity here in British Columbia.

Mr. Drummond says that the conventional view was that public policy was the culprit, but he no longer believes that. There's been a series of changes that he spoke of. Really, he says now, the focus has to be on "private sector business behaviour." And Mr. Drummond asked: "Why has not the Canadian business sector been more competitive, more entrepreneurial, more productive? One must look into this residual in the production function and try to determine what is going on."

He gives the example of the 2003-2007 period when "retained earnings and a sharply appreciating Canadian dollar only produced modest real increases in Canadian investment in machinery and equipment and almost no changes in nominal value. Why did corporations just sit on their profits over this period? Did they not realize this was a golden opportunity to ramp up their productivity to better withstand global competition? Why, instead, did they leave so much of their earnings in corporate bank deposits?"

So the debate in the Legislature, and the frame of reference of the minister, is: "Well, if these impediments to investment are simply swept away, that investment will result in a more productive use of capital. And obviously, all the benefits that come from that in terms of growth and jobs will follow."

Mr. Drummond doesn't agree. Mr. Côté doesn't agree, and suggests that even when the objective conditions for investment may have shifted, there is something that needs to be done further to encourage business leadership to make those investments and to increase the productivity of Canadian business.

I don't have an obvious answer to that. But it does, then, lead into the debate that if you're incenting innovation, there are programs at the federal level, which are reflected in the provincial budget, that have an impact on innovation.

[1605]

The most obvious program was the subject of a report by the federal government called the Jenkins report, which looked at research and development, particularly what's called the SR&ED program. That program is a $3.5 billion national program that is a tax-credit program for investment in research and development by business.

We heard a presentation — from Mr. Gupta, who is president of MITACS and also a professor of computer science at the University of British Columbia — that in some ways Canada is first in expenditure on research and development, yet the results are far down the OECD scale. The government has embarked upon a study of that program and has made a number of suggestions.

It's relevant provincially because if you receive a SR&ED grant, there's a provincial top-up of 10 percent. You don't have to make a separate application for the provincial program. You simply are granted…. Any qualifying business is given an extra 10 percent. It's about a hundred-million-dollar expenditure in the B.C. provincial budget.

There are some proposals to change that. I expect that in the federal budget that's going to be announced in March, the federal government will clearly indicate its direction. But the indication seems to be that they're going to adopt some or most of that particular report.

What it will switch to is making the calculation for access to that SR&ED grant a little bit more rigorous in terms of its research-and-development outcomes. There's been criticism of the SR&ED program in the sense that it's become so complicated to access that people have been forced to hire consultants, typically people who've worked for the Canada Revenue Agency. They sometimes do it on a contingency basis, in the sense that they will charge a percentage of the tax credit that you get back in cash, and they have to be paid.

So there's a sense that the process by which these grants work is inefficient. It's not achieving the desired result, it's not adding to the productivity of Canadian business, it's not increasing research and development in the country, and it's not increasing research and development here.

Some of the important industries here, such as the technology sector, have some dispute with whether or not the grant should be entirely a labour credit. In clean technology, for example, there's obviously considerable capital investment that's required at the research stage simply to approve the wisdom of a process or its efficacy. There's some dispute there, and that may be something that's modified.

But if one is looking for and doing a review in government of programs that have an impact on the bottom line, have an impact on the productivity here and the economy,

[ Page 9360 ]

have an impact on knowledge industries, this is an area that should be focused on. Really, I can't think of anything that I've heard coming out of this government on this topic at all, notwithstanding its importance.

I do want to make a few…. I'm not sure how much time remains for me. Perhaps the Clerk…. I have a few minutes more, I think, relatively speaking.

Interjection.

B. Ralston: I'm told that it's a little bit longer than that. I know the members opposite are….

Another dramatic example missing from the budget was any mention of…. I think this was probably most dramatically expressed by Ms. Turpel-Lafond, the independent officer of this Legislature, who acts in a completely non-partisan role. She commented on this budget. She described it as "callous" and "a U-turn from the Premier's families-first agenda." I further quote her: "It's fine to have a harsh economic agenda, but at least soften it out by some compassionate approach toward people who are suffering through a deep recession."

[1610]

The budget was significant for its complete absence of any mention of the impact of the recession, the downturn, on B.C. families and particularly on children. Since she speaks with some considerable authority about the impact of government programs on children, I think it would be wise for the government to listen carefully to that advice.

I know that Ms. Turpel-Lafond has called upon the Premier to meet with her and devise a strategy in a collaborative way to better lift children who need that assistance out of poverty, to enrich the lives of children in our province. Sadly, in this budget not even the glimmer of a suggestion that that was a priority for the government, and I think the comments of Ms. Turpel-Lafond are unfortunately pretty accurate when it comes to describing the impact of this budget.

On this side of the House we've introduced a private member's bill. My colleague from Vancouver-Hastings has introduced a private member's bill that would begin to set this Legislature in the direction of thinking about the elements that would be part of a poverty reduction plan.

Surely, the goal of government has to be not only to solve or begin to solve the problems of business or the economy, but also to lift those people who require assistance. That's a traditional role of government, I think, even by Burkean conservative standards: to lift those who need assistance and help them with creating better lives for themselves and particularly for their children. So nothing in this budget to deal with that, and that's regrettable indeed.

The other comment I wanted to add before I begin my final peroration here…. I wanted to also quote Sharon Matthews, who is the president of the Canadian Bar Association's B.C. branch. She said in response to the budget: "I know the government will say, 'Oh well, we understand that there are some problems in the justice system. Of course, we've been in control for 11 years.'" Not really accepting full responsibility — that seems to be the usual standard, unfortunately, for the government.

An Hon. Member: Closing courthouses.

B. Ralston: Closing a number of courthouses — absolutely.

My colleague the Leader of the Opposition was out in Chilliwack, where an important case of impaired driving alleged in the jurisdiction of Chilliwack went to trial. There was a conviction, but there was also an application brought under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The judge decided that the person's right to a trial in a reasonable period of time under the Charter had been breached, and that conviction, conditionally entered, was stayed. In other words, the charge, although there was a conviction, was dropped because of the long, long delay in bringing that….

I know that the citizens of Chilliwack are frankly outraged about that. They are beside themselves with a justice system that would see someone out on the highway, driving in a dangerous manner, intoxicated by alcohol, a risk to public safety and to others, not facing any criminal consequence because the criminal justice system took so long in getting that person to trial. I know that members in this Legislature will be unanimous in their denunciation of the situation that gave rise to that.

That's the situation that Sharon Matthews, who's the president of the Canadian Bar Association, was addressing when she commented on the budget. She said: "For the justice system, it's a status quo budget." I'm quoting, and I further quote her: "Unfortunately, the status quo in the justice system right now is a crisis. Without immediate injection of resources, that crisis is going to be maintained and grow, so it's disappointing."

That's, again, not a partisan person — the president of the Canadian Bar Association's B.C. branch. I don't know the woman. I don't think I've ever met her. She may have presented to the government Finance Committee, but I don't know her personally. And that's a very stark criticism of this government's record in the justice system.

[1615]

I think the government really doesn't want to address that. They've got a review; something's coming. But as Ms. Matthews points out, there's an immediate crisis, and nothing is being done to address that. So this budget really fails in a number of areas, and that is one further one.

Finally, as I draw to conclusion, I want to talk a little bit about the process that we're about to embark upon, which is the budgetary process itself. The control of sup-

[ Page 9361 ]

ply — that is, the ability of the parliament to vote on government appropriations and control the expenditure of government — is the hardest-fought victory of the parliamentary system throughout its history over many centuries.

Unfortunately, when the Globe and Mail recently commented on this as it applies to the federal parliament, individual MLAs have relatively little control, if any, and input into that debate on supply, which is really the primary reason, the main historic reason why parliaments were created and was their main purpose — controlling the supply, the money that goes to the Crown to spend in the coming year.

Back in 1999 Mr. Enns did a study called Credibility, Transparency and Accountability: Improving the B.C. Budget Proc