2009 Legislative Session: First Session, 39th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

official report of

Debates of the

Legislative Assembly

(hansard)

Tuesday, September 15, 2009

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 2, Number 4

CONTENTS

Page

Routine Business

Tributes

Terrace and Hockeyville event

Hon. G. Campbell

Introductions by Members

Tributes

Roger St. John

Hon. B. Penner

Introductions by Members

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

Joy Langan

C. James

International Day of Democracy

R. Lee

Surrey Christmas Bureau

S. Hammell

Childhood cancer

L. Reid

Ridge Meadows youth diversion program

M. Sather

Fleetwood Community Association

D. Hayer

Oral Questions

Funding for athletes and school sports

C. James

Hon. I. Chong

K. Corrigan

M. Farnworth

Funding for public health programs

J. Brar

Hon. I. Chong

H. Lali

A. Dix

S. Simpson

J. Kwan

N. Macdonald

Tabling Documents

Prebudget consultation paper

Guarantees and indemnities authorized and issued, fiscal year ended March 31, 2009

Orders of the Day

Budget Debate (continued)

H. Bains

Hon. M. Stilwell

R. Fleming

Hon. B. Lekstrom

D. Thorne

Hon. I. Chong

G. Coons

Hon. M. Polak

R. Austin

[ Page 389 ]

TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 15, 2009

The House met at 1:33 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Tributes

TERRACE AND HOCKEYVILLE EVENT

Hon. G. Campbell: Hon. Speaker, before I introduce two guests, I would just like to report to the House on the exceptional day that I had yesterday in Terrace where they were inaugurated as Canada's 2009 Hockeyville.

I don't see if the member is here, but I can tell you it was amazing to see the spirit of the community. It truly is a community of winners. This is a result of a huge volunteer effort. All British Columbia was made proud, and I think one of the great things was that Vancouver started the season with a 2-1 win over the Islanders. So it was a very good day, and congratulations to Terrace. I think the House should send them all congratulations for the great job that they did.

Introductions by Members

Hon. G. Campbell: I also rise to introduce Stuart McLaughlin, the president of Grouse Mountain and Whistler Water, and Steve Paccagnan, the president of Kicking Horse Mountain Resort in Golden — two great resorts in our province that the world is going to know as they arrive to view 2010. They're going to see some of our great resort activities that we have in this province, and these two people are true leaders in the resort industry in British Columbia. I hope the Legislature will make them welcome.

[1335]

L. Popham: It is my pleasure to introduce two very special friends of mine in the House today. I have visiting Heather Gropp — she was my campaign manager — and Kim Matten, who was my voter outreach specialist. I want to thank them so much, and I'd like you all to make them feel welcome.

I couldn't have done it without you.

Hon. M. de Jong: Visiting us today from the state of New Mexico are the Clerk of the House of Representatives, Mr. Stephen Arias, and his wife, Victoria. It's their first visit to Victoria, their first opportunity to watch this question period and this House in action. I know they will do so with interest and take whatever lessons we are able to offer back home to New Mexico with them. I hope the whole House will please make Stephen and Victoria welcome.

J. Brar: I am pleased to introduce and welcome four special guests, and they are Tejbir Singh Kang, one of the leading developers and a respected community member in Victoria; Kirpal Singh Mangat, visiting from Chandigarh — he's a retired senior executive engineer with the government of Punjab; his wife, Mrs. Surinder Kaur Mangat; and his son Hardip Singh Mangat, a young businessman from Victoria. I would like to ask the House to please make them feel welcome.

H. Bloy: It's my pleasure today to introduce representatives of the best university in Canada — Simon Fraser University. With us in the House today, we have Dr. Michael Stevenson, president; Pat Hibbitts, vice-president of finance; the executive director of the Surrey campus, Joanne Curry; and an old friend of ours, Wilf Hurd, government relations officer. Would the House please make them welcome.

M. Sather: It gives me great pleasure to welcome the former member for Cariboo South, now Cariboo-Chilcotin, Charlie Wyse, here on the floor with us. I know that Charlie will carry on with his irrepressible nature in whatever endeavour he chooses. Will the House please welcome him.

J. van Dongen: We have a large number of executives from the Canadian Society of Association Executives visiting us today, led by Jack Davidson, the chairman. I want to express, on behalf of all members of the House, our appreciation for the wonderful barbecue luncheon that they served in the rose garden at the Empress.

Today is Association Day in British Columbia, so it's particularly fitting that they're here to join us, and I ask all of the House to please make them very welcome.

N. Macdonald: I just want to join in welcoming Steve Paccagnan to the House. Kicking Horse Mountain Resort — one of the biggest employers in Golden and one of the premiere mountain resorts in British Columbia and in Canada. Just want to make him welcome.

Hon. I. Black: It's a pleasure to ask the House to make welcome an old friend of this House, the former member for Coquitlam-Maillardville, the mayor of Coquitlam and — more importantly — the man whose wife teaches my children. Richard Stewart is in the House, and I'd ask the House to make an old friend feel most welcome.

Hon. K. Krueger: I'd like the House to welcome a constituent of mine, Brenda Dley. Brenda is an avid and skilled quilter, a former school teacher in Kamloops who taught at both David Thompson and Stuart Wood Elementary schools. Brenda is the mother of one of our caucus's wonderful young staff members — that's Stacie Dley — and is married to Dev Dley, former WHL commissioner and,

[ Page 390 ]

before that, a famous plaintiff counsel in Kamloops and now a Supreme Court judge. Would the House please make my constituent Brenda Dley very welcome.

Tributes

ROGER ST. JOHN

Hon. B. Penner: It is with very deep regret that I advise members of the Legislature of the untimely and sudden passing this morning of retired Col. Roger St. John. Roger served our country very well in a distinguished and dignified way, representing the Canadian Armed Forces overseas, participating in various peacekeeping missions on behalf of our country and in 1994 came to become the base commander of CFB Chilliwack and served until its closure in 1997.

[1340]

Roger remained actively involved in our community in Chilliwack, active in community service, including being a past president of the Rotary Club of Chilliwack. He cared passionately about his community but even more so for his family, particularly his daughters Michelle and Danielle and, most importantly, his wife, Joy.

Mr. Speaker, I ask that you pass on our regrets to his family at your convenience.

Introductions by Members

Hon. P. Bell: It's a real pleasure for me today to introduce a number of guests, some constituents of mine from the riding of Prince George–Mackenzie. Joining us in the gallery are Brian and Denise Magrath. They're joined by their kids Alexis and Christopher.

Now, I will say that Brian is particularly known for his ability to drive golf balls an extremely long way, and they invariably land in the fairway. It's just that sometimes it's his fairway, and sometimes it's another one.

Would the House please make the Magrath family very welcome.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

JOY LANGAN

C. James: Today, on International Day of Democracy, I rise to recognize a woman who took

part in democracy in every way possible. Last week I attended her memorial service with hundreds of people who packed a hall in Burnaby to salute Joy Langan, who lost her battle with breast cancer on July 30.

Speaker after speaker shared powerful stories of a woman that so many described as a living legend. As a politician, an influential activist, a union leader and a powerful mentor, Joy was an agent of positive change in many different ways. Whether it was her relentless work supporting people who needed to be heard, her ability to inspire and mobilize or her sheer conviction on the issues, Joy never settled for average.

Now, those people who knew Joy know that her physical stature was an endearing contrast to the giant she was as an activist and a leader, but those who knew Joy knew that she never let her size get in the way of a good fight. One of my favourite stories of Joy was from a Communications, Energy and Paperworkers strike in 1999. In an effort to block the truck from leaving a picketed plant, the 4-foot-10-inch Joy decided famously to lay underneath its wheels, only to be promptly arrested, thrown in the back of a paddy wagon and, with great joy to Joy, driven away.

That's the kind of flair that Joy had. Those are the kinds of stories that make her unforgettable. Whether it was her work as a Member of Parliament or numerous achievements on behalf of the labour movement, Joy committed herself to the causes of justice and fairness.

Our province is a better place because of Joy Langan. Her passion to build a stronger, more inclusive society, her struggles and successes have built an enduring legacy. I'd ask the House to please join me in remembering Joy Langan as we celebrate a life well lived.

INTERNATIONAL DAY OF DEMOCRACY

R. Lee: Today is the United Nations International Day of Democracy. It's a time to reflect on how fortunate we are to live in a country with a long and strong commitment to participatory democracy and human rights.

It's also a time for us to remember the many millions of people in other countries whose governments do not respect the fundamental rights and freedoms we hold so dear. Specifically for us as parliamentarians, it's a time to remember the hundreds of democratic leaders in these countries who still suffer arbitrary arrest, lack of due process, detention, torture and even murder. All of these threats have been noted by the Inter-Parliamentary Union of the human rights committee.

The United Nations does a lot of great work to support democracies abroad. The United Nations development program alone provides about $1.4 billion each year to support democratic processes. I am proud to say that many British Columbians are involved in these efforts to help other countries reach the level of freedom and democracy which we already enjoy here.

Their commitments to the promotion of democracy deserve our highest praise and remind us that we must never take democracy for granted. That is why I am pleased that Elections B.C. is reaching out to students across B.C., inviting them to create YouTube videos about democracy and to encourage youth participation.

I am also pleased that the province has proclaimed September 15 as Democracy Day in British Columbia.

[1345]

[ Page 391 ]

SURREY CHRISTMAS BUREAU

S. Hammell: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to remind you and the members of the House that there are only 100 sleeps until Christmas. Now, while a lot of people are not thinking about Christmas in September, off in a corner are a group of Santa's elves working around the clock preparing toys and figuring out this year's naughty and nice list.

In Surrey there are over 80 volunteers gearing up for the holidays at the Surrey Christmas Bureau. For the past 39 years the Christmas Bureau has helped families celebrate the holidays by providing low-income and special needs families with food certificates and toy hampers. Last year over 1,600 families and 4,500 children were able to celebrate the spirit of Christmas thanks to the Surrey Christmas Bureau.

Konch Bakshi, executive director of the Surrey Christmas Bureau, told me a touching story about a mom who battled cancer over the Christmas holidays and was in and out of hospital undergoing chemotherapy treatments. She had no energy, and she couldn't afford to give her children the Christmas they deserved. There was no tree, no presents and no Christmas dinner, but days before Christmas day there was a knock on her door. It was a volunteer from the Christmas Bureau who had a Christmas hamper for her and her family. From the tears and hugs, you knew the joy and spirit of Christmas had just been delivered.

As our economic instability lingers, more families will then be turning to the Christmas Bureau for help. This holiday season the Surrey Christmas Bureau is already hoping for a miracle. They are reaching out to the community to find donated warehouse space in Surrey between 8,000 and 10,000 square feet. The Christmas Bureau needs a home to make Christmas wishes come true. They deliver more food and gifts, and they deliver the feeling of Christmas.

CHILDHOOD CANCER

L. Reid: Imagine the horror of hearing for the first time that your child has cancer. In fact, that is the diagnosis shared with approximately 150 British Columbia families each year, and each year 20 to 30 children will die.

September is pediatric cancer awareness month. This effort to raise awareness of childhood cancers and to fund research and treatment is a cause that is very important to me. Perhaps the cure for cancer does lie with a child.

Dominic and Gloria Cuccione lost their beautiful and talented son Michael. He fought Hodgkin's lymphoma twice and beat it each time before ultimately passing away at the age of 16 due to respiratory complications.

Kathie and Tore Hatlen also experienced the debilitating loss of their first-born child, a sweet little girl named Hannah Dale. Hannah was diagnosed at the age of four with a terminal brain tumour and passed away at the age of five.

To watch a child struggle with cancer is heartbreaking. To see a child die from cancer stays with you forever. I am passionate about pediatric cancer awareness month. Michael and Hannah both left us far too soon, but their memories are kept alive by their families, who are dedicated to raising funds for a cure.

Please look to the Michael Cuccione Foundation at childhoodcancerresearch.org and to hannahsheroes.com. The Cuccione and Hatlen families are today funding cancer research at B.C. Children's Hospital. As Michael Cuccione often said: "One person can only do so much, but together we can make a difference."

RIDGE MEADOWS

YOUTH DIVERSION PROGRAM

M. Sather: The Ridge Meadows youth diversion program assists offenders between the ages of 12 and 17 to take responsibility for their actions, encouraging them to change course and begin leading successful lives.

This program has been around for nearly 15 years and is one of the original programs of its kind in British Columbia, providing a resource and foundation for similar initiatives across the province. To date it has received over 1,700 referrals from the RCMP and Crown counsel.

With a response time of less than 72 hours upon receipt of referral, offending youth are guided through the stages of realization, responsibility and accountability. Very quickly youth are taught the impact of their actions on their victims, the community, their family and themselves. Timely intervention between the young offender's action and understanding the consequences of that action has been very useful in reducing recidivism.

[1350]

A community accountability panel comprised of rotating volunteers meets with the young offender to provide extrajudicial guidance, directing them to drug and alcohol detoxification and counselling, employment opportunities, family counselling, education and housing. In addition, volunteer mentorship, family group conferencing, a personal achievement program and the real program have all led to the Ridge Meadows youth diversion program's high success rate.

The program enjoys wide support in Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadows. The services provided by Ridge Meadows youth diversion empower youth by addressing the underlying circumstances leading to the offending behaviour. In these days of increasing gang violence in our province, we are fortunate to have programs like the Ridge Meadows youth diversion program to help youth find their way out of the revolving door of crime.

This valuable program is in desperate need of funding and will close its doors in October unless government assistance is forthcoming.

[ Page 392 ]

FLEETWOOD COMMUNITY AssociATION

D. Hayer: Like my friend across the way, I also attended the 11th annual Fleetwood Festival on Saturday, just as I have attended every year since I was first elected in 2001. This wonderful celebration of family and community was put on by the Fleetwood Community Association and attracted thousands of residents from throughout the area.

Until boundaries were realigned for the May 12 election, all the Fleetwood area was part of my Surrey-Tynehead riding. Northeast Fleetwood is still part of my riding. I have assured everyone in Fleetwood that should they need any assistance or have concerns, they are still more than welcome to come to me for any help.

I also want to commend the Fleetwood Community Association led by the president, Rick Hart; the vice-president, Joanne Anderson; treasurer Joanne Perrier; secretary Joy Hart; director Carol Adams, and Deb Hughes who, along with dozens of volunteers and city staff, do outstanding work in the community fair to help people of all ages and all ethnic backgrounds.

But the Fleetwood community does a lot more than just organize an annual festival. Under the guidance of Mildred Davies, interim chair of the Fleetwood-Surrey planning committee, and assisted by secretary Gay Calestagne, treasurer Bonnie Wright and many other volunteers, they also work on many other events, including the Surrey seniors dinner every three months for the Fleetwood seniors. This is organized by the Fleetwood seniors planning committee, and they host a dinner every year. These wonderful social gatherings bring together seniors from Fleetwood, Guildford, Port Kells, Fraser Heights, Tynehead, Cloverdale, Newton and Whalley.

I ask all the members in the House to join me in congratulating members, executive and directors of the Fleetwood Community Association, the Fleetwood seniors planning committee and all the volunteers and sponsors for this year's festival, as well as for all the community work they do throughout the year.

Oral Questions

FUNDING FOR ATHLETES

AND SCHOOL SPORTS

C. James: This past February VANOC held the 2010 Olympic countdown party. Two days before the party VANOC asked the government to pay for the event. Just a week later the government sent written confirmation that it was providing half a million dollars to VANOC for the party. Now here we are six months later. The government has turned around and announced cuts to schools, to sports and to kids' programs.

My question is to the Minister of Healthy Living and Sport. Why was the Liberal government so quick to find the funds for the VANOC party, and yet it can't find the money for kids' sports?

Hon. I. Chong: It's pretty obvious that the Leader of the Opposition is still opposed to the Olympics to this very day.

Sport is important to this government. We are living in very challenging economic times. Our government has made decisions, difficult decisions, and we know that those are also difficult for a number of sports organizations.

It would be nice to do more, but in spite of these difficult times, we are still spending $38 million to support sports throughout the province. So $38 million to support sports organizations. That means there will still be sports. There'll be games. There'll be tournaments. There'll be championships. These will be delivered throughout the province, and our young athletes will have an opportunity to compete to do their very personal best.

[1355]

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

C. James: In these difficult economic times, the Liberal government found $500,000 — half a million dollars — to subsidize an Olympic party instead of providing funding for kids' sports. That's the choice that this government made. That's the choice that this government made.

The people of British Columbia want a legacy for children from the Olympics. They expect that the resources will be there to support children who see themselves as future athletes in the Olympics. They want a legacy of success for our young athletes and our children, and this government is doing just the opposite.

So again to the minister: how can she justify paying for an Olympic party when B.C. kids are losing opportunities for success?

Hon. I. Chong: I cannot believe that still to this very day, the opposition leader is opposing the Olympics — this very day. If it was up to the NDP, it wouldn't even be happening. We wouldn't even have the Olympics if it was up to the NDP, because they have voted against every….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. I. Chong: Every opportunity that they have had to support the Olympics, they have not. It's shown time and time again.

Let me talk about the legacy that the opposition is talking about. The legacy also includes sports infrastructure — $600 million in sports infrastructure. These

[ Page 393 ]

are where our young athletes are able to train, to develop, to go on to other levels of competition — whether they be other provincial competitions, other national or certainly international.

I wonder if the leader has been to the Richmond oval lately and seen the kind of training that is going on there.

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

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

The Leader of the Opposition has a further supplemental.

C. James: I'd suggest the minister spend a little bit of time at a school basketball game or a soccer game or a Little League game in the summer to see where the money that this government is cutting goes, to provide support for those children.

The choice this government made is very clear. This minister and the rest of this government feel that it's right to spend $500,000 on a private party, to subsidize the VANOC party, rather than spending money supporting children and sports. These are cuts that strike at the heart of what the Olympics is about.

Again, to the minister. Half a million dollars on an Olympic party to showcase the Premier. Over a million dollars for three ministers' offices and $130,000 in cuts for programs for kids. I'd like to ask this minister: how many ministers is it going to take before this government gets its priorities right?

Hon. I. Chong: In case the opposition leader wasn't aware, in the last fiscal the 2010 countdown actually ran a surplus that was available to them. Well, the additional dollars allow them to continue to invest in our youth, continue to invest in sports. But again, I have to say….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. I. Chong: I have met with the B.C. School Sports association representatives, and our ministry has offered to work with them to find savings, because we are all in difficult, challenging financial times. But I want to be clear. The opposition is suggesting that sports in schools are at an end, and that is not the case. That is absolutely false.

Sports will continue in our schools, because we have a sports sector that works with our youth in our schools to allow them to compete and do the very west they can.

[1400]

K. Corrigan: Well, the Minister of Healthy Living and Sport asked if we'd been out to the Richmond oval lately, and I know that none of us were invited to the party at the Richmond oval on that day, and nobody that we know was there.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Member. Member, just take your seat.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Continue, Member.

K. Corrigan: Mr. Speaker, $500,000 spent to shine the Olympic spotlight on the Premier and his friends while B.C.'s kids get hit with more cuts and fewer ser-vices — that's this government's priorities, and that's this government's record.

Again to the minister: how can she explain cutting $130,000 of funding for young athletes while spending half a million dollars on an invitation-only party to showcase the Premier?

Hon. I. Chong: I'd like to ask that member how she can explain to her constituents why she continues to oppose the Olympics.

The Olympics…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. I. Chong: …are providing jobs right now. The Olympics are providing jobs when we need them. If the members opposite were to consider what that can do to build the spirit and pride in our communities, what the Olympics are doing today and will do in the future when we have three billion pairs of eyes looking at our wonderful province, where we see investments in infrastructure that has been built for our young athletes where they are now training because they want to be able to deliver a gold medal at a first Canada Olympics in their own host province….

Mr. Speaker: Member has a supplemental.

K. Corrigan: Well, I certainly don't oppose amateur sport or sport at all. One of the most proud moments of my life was when I represented the province of British Columbia at the Canada Winter Games in 1972, and I was very proud to have won a bronze medal.

This government's actions say it all. They cut the very programs our kids need to succeed in sports and to live

[ Page 394 ]

a healthy lifestyle. But they have no issues with forcing taxpayers to subsidize a private Olympic party.

Again to the minister: will she admit it was wrong to waste taxpayer dollars on the Premier's Olympic party, and will the minister commit today to reinstate that much-needed funding?

Hon. I. Chong: I want to be perfectly clear. Sports, games, championships, tournaments — they're all continuing in British Columbia schools this year. They have not been eliminated. For the NDP to suggest that they have been eliminated is just irresponsible.

M. Farnworth: VANOC needs $500,000 — one minister, one cheque, done right away. B.C. school sports need ministers to speak up for kids' sports across this province, and we have three ministers, and they failed to speak up for school sports across this province.

But, you know, all it would take is one Premier — that Premier — to stand up and admit that his ministers failed, that his government has been inept on this issue, and to restore that funding.

[1405]

So will the Premier have the courage to stand up and restore the funding to B.C. school sports across the province today?

Hon. I. Chong: As I've said, $38 million is being invested for sports this year, and you know, a part of that also includes hundreds of thousands of dollars that we have provided to KidSport, a program that helps with registration fees for low-income families.

FUNDING FOR PUBLIC HEALTH PROGRAMS

J. Brar: This minister has also cut 42 percent of funding to the population and public health branch of the Ministry of Healthy Living and Sport. This branch oversees programs key to protecting the public of British Columbia from illness and keeping the people out of hospitals.

My question is very simple. How can the minister justify to the people of British Columbia these massive 42 percent funding cuts to protecting public health?

Hon. I. Chong: Public safety and public health are a high priority for this government, which is one of the reasons why we have protected those critical services for public health and population health. As this chamber should know, when we tabled our budget in February of this year, all ministries were to look for savings in areas of administration, of office and business and of travel. That's what we've done.

Mr. Speaker: Member has a supplemental.

J. Brar: Mr. Speaker, 42 percent cuts to this very important ministry is a high priority for this minister. That's shame to the minister for standing up in this House and saying that. In recent weeks we have seen this government not being upfront about funding cuts with agencies that are delivering key programs to the people of British Columbia. This was fully on display yesterday. Today again, the minister is not giving us the straight answers.

My question is very simple again. Will the minister finally disclose the list of specific programs and community agencies that will receive less or no funding to deliver programs that keep the people of British Columbia healthy and protect them from being sick?

Hon. I. Chong: Well, in case the member has missed it, this province has been noted for its leadership in healthy living and healthy lifestyles. We have the healthiest population. I'm proud to say that we have the healthiest population. British Columbians are the healthiest in all of Canada.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

H. Lali: The only thing that this government has shown leadership in is making massive cuts to services all across British Columbia. Susan Roline, who is the mayor of Merritt, has been voicing her concerns that the Liberal government's cuts may actually put drinking water at risk, particularly in small and rural communities like Merritt.

Will the minister please come clean and tell this House how the Liberal government's reckless cutbacks will impact public health?

Hon. I. Chong: I'm surprised that that member would spread irresponsible information such as that when this province has very strong drinking water regulations and protections. It was our government…. I recall, as a previous minister, that we provided an $80 million program, a community water improvement program that provided for safer drinking water protection.

[1410]

Those were additional dollars, where this government funded those projects to the tune of two-thirds of those projects. And you know what the NDP did? They voted against it.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

The member has a supplemental.

H. Lali: I cannot believe that the minister would stand up in this House and disparage the reputation of one of the finest mayors in the province of British Columbia.

[ Page 395 ]

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

H. Lali: Mayors across British Columbia and regional district reps and the people of British Columbia cannot afford to learn about this Liberal government's reckless cutbacks that compromise the health and the safety of the people. They want answers — not ambiguity, not denials, not stonewalling.

Again, my question is to the Minister of Healthy Living and Sport. Will the minister table in this House which programs that protect the public's health and safety are being cut back by this Liberal government? Will the minister stand up and do that today and make the commitment to table those cuts that she's going to make in terms of the safety of the people of British Columbia?

Hon. I. Chong: Certainly, the safety of the population of British Columbia is important, which is one of the reasons why we have programs to protect drinking water, which is why we have programs that have helped communities throughout the province to upgrade their systems, to improve their systems.

I recall having gone to a community where they had been on a boil-water advisory for 20 years. It was our government, our program that provided them with a new system that would allow them to take off boil-water advisories.

A. Dix: The Minister of Healthy Living said that the government put its thinking cap on after February and that they were looking for cuts. They were looking for cuts, and what'd they do? They doubled the size of the minister's office. They got two ministers and twice as much money, half a million dollars more. They increased — get this — executive and support services by 5 percent, and they cut programs to protect the population and public health by 42.9 percent.

It's a simple question for the minister. You know, it's the most basic question you can ask. What does the 42.9 percent count for? What did they cut in her budget?

Hon. I. Chong: As I've indicated, the savings that we have found throughout our ministries, throughout government have been in the area of discretionary spending, have been in public service travel, have been in business and office expenses. We have made those decisions because we are in difficult and challenging financial times.

We want to protect our core services — our health care services, our education budget, our vital social services. We're doing that. The NDP would not.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

A. Dix: In this House yesterday the minister tried to pass off a 30 percent cut in programming as good news for amateur sport in British Columbia. That's what she tried to do. So can she explain — it's a simple question, because she might have been informed about what the budget was on budget day, at least — what the 42.9 percent cut in that critical part of her ministry amounts to?

She knows, I guess, because the other minister is sitting beside her, that they doubled the number of dollars for ministers, that they doubled the number of dollars for staff in their offices, that they increased executive and administration by 5 percent. Can she just tell us…? It's a simple question, the most simple a minister can get. She's cutting spending on the protection of public health by 42 percent. What is she doing?

Hon. I. Chong: Well, I've advised that member that what we've done is found administrative savings throughout our ministry, throughout our government. So my question to that member….

[1415]

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Minister, just take your seat.

Members.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. I. Chong: Faced with these challenging economic times, we have ensured our protection of health care and education and vital social services. We've found savings in administration.

My question to the member opposite is this. They were going to ask for another $1.2 billion of cuts. Where were they going to make those cuts?

S. Simpson: If the Premier wanted to save on some unnecessary expenditures, maybe he could start with the money that he's wasting on this minister's office and the minister of state.

Mr. Speaker, a 42.9 percent cut. Simple question. Name the expenditures that you saved this money on. What did the minister cut?

Hon. I. Chong: I've stated for the members opposite a number of times that what this ministry and what the entire government have done is found savings administratively — business and office expenses, contract services…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. I. Chong: …in discretionary spending and certainly in public servant travel. We've made sure that the dollars needed to protect our health care budget, our

[ Page 396 ]

education budget, our vital social services are protected, and they are. In fact, they're getting increases.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

S. Simpson: We're talking about $20 million in cuts. Is the minister trying to tell us that there's $20 million of administration and fat in her ministry that she cut, or is the minister finally going to tell us what that $20 million cut entailed? What was cut? What were the real programs and real services that this minister cut?

Hon. I. Chong: For that member to suggest that direct services, vital services to protect health and the public safety of the population of British Columbia…. It's irresponsible. We have ensured the protection of our health care services, our education budget, our vital social services — savings that we have made in this ministry and across government. We have been very clear about that.

We've been saying that administrative savings have been found. Discretionary spending has also had to make reductions as well as business and office expenses. We will continue to have fiscal prudence going forward so that we can come out of this recession stronger — stronger than before.

J. Kwan: A 42 percent cut in the minister's office. That amounts to $20 million. If she's saying that it's just administrative and that it doesn't impact health care, then let the public be the judge. Tell British Columbians what exactly was cut in her ministry that amounts to $20 million — line by line, account by account.

Hon. I. Chong: As I've indicated, in our ministry we have looked for savings. Those savings have been in administration. I know the members don't want to hear that. They've also been in our discretionary spending.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Take your seat.

Members.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. I. Chong: They've also been in our discretionary spending. We've also decreased public servant travel. We've also decreased office and business expenditures as well as contract services, which allows us to maintain the vital services that protect public safety.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

[1420]

J. Kwan: It's incredible — $20 million in discretionary funding. Is that what she's trying to tell British Columbians, or is it the case that she actually doesn't know? Will she come clean and tell British Columbians exactly where the cuts are coming from line by line, account by account, today?

Hon. I. Chong: Again, I wonder what the NDP were planning to cut when they announced $1.2 billion in further reductions that they have indicated. Where are they suggesting that those cuts be made?

We have committed to ensuring that our vital health services are protected. In case they've missed it, a further $80 million has been put aside, as well, to deal with a major issue that could be occurring this fall — the H1N1.

N. Macdonald: The minister is talking about a 42.9 percent cut to a line item, and this is what the line item is for: health promotion, health protection, disease prevention, health assessment, disease surveillance. These are not insignificant.

The minister is standing up and telling us that 42.9 percent of her budget went towards discretionary and administrative payments. It is unbelievable. The minister needs to stand up and tell us where those cuts are made. Or does she not know?

Hon. I. Chong: Our ministry works with the provincial health officer and other health professionals who ensure that the population and public health is protected, ensuring that the programs and services delivered through this ministry provide for those very important outcomes of healthier lifestyles.

For the members opposite to suggest…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. I. Chong: … that the population and public health is at risk is absolutely irresponsible.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

N. Macdonald: We have a minister here who has had almost half of her budget cut, and she can either not answer the question, or she doesn't care. It is a simple question to stand up and name one of the cuts, even one of the cuts that this minister has made. What are they?

It's 42.9 percent of the budget. It's gone. Tell the people of British Columbia what you cut.

Hon. I. Chong: This ministry provides an important program dealing with immunization for young children.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Continue, Minister.

[ Page 397 ]

Hon. I. Chong: We work with non-profit organizations to deliver healthier outcomes. We have reduced our childhood obesity rates. We are reducing tobacco use in this province. Population and public health is very important to this ministry, and we will continue to work with those partners to deliver the best, healthiest outcomes in all of Canada.

[End of question period.]

Tabling Documents

Hon. C. Hansen: I rise to table two documents…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. C. Hansen: …in accordance with legislation I have responsibility for. One, pursuant to the Budget Transparency and Accountability Act, is the prebudget consultation paper. The other, in accordance with the Financial Administration Act,

section 72(8), is the consolidated revenue fund guarantees and indemnities authorized and issued for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2009.

[1425]

Hon. B. Lekstrom: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

Introductions by Members

Hon. B. Lekstrom: Joining us today in the gallery are two gentlemen from the Canadian Renewable Fuels Association. I would like the House to help me welcome Gordon Quaiattini, who is the president, as well as Doug Hooper, who is the new chairman.

Orders of the Day

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

Mr. Speaker: Members, we want to get on with the budget debate. Member for Surrey-Newton has the floor.

Budget Debate

(continued)

H. Bains: It's my honour to continue with my response to the budget.

As I was saying before the break, the people of this province have given up on this government because they believe they've been betrayed by this government. They feel that they were given wrong information, false information, before the election, and after the election they found out the truth. They believe that this government actually kept that truth from them.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

Madam Speaker, I and all of you probably have heard from this government, and we've seen them all around…. What we have heard over and over again is that our economy is in the tank. We know its effects. The factories are closing. Sawmills are closing. There are job losses. People are losing their pensions. School budgets are cut. Health care budgets are cut.

All of that was promised by this government — that they will not cut those services before the election. We all know that is all for real. People are losing their jobs. There are foreclosures. People are having a tough time making payments, a tough time making their rent payments.

But there's one other issue that is probably more important than that, which we are all facing right now. The integrity of this government is in the tank also. When that happens, it has a long-lasting effect on our democracy and democratic values that we care about. People start to lose trust in elected officials. That's exactly what this government is doing for the last eight years. They have lost the trust of people of the province.

People have felt that they have been lied to too many times in the last eight years. Madam Speaker, you know that in 2001 — and this is what people are telling us when we're walking the street, when we are meeting them in meeting halls — the Premier made a promise that he would not rip up the collective agreement of the hospital employee workers. But that was before the election.

What happened after the election was quite the opposite. One of the first things this government did was rip up that collective agreement, throwing thousands of those hard-working people who provided very important services in our hospitals and health care services on the street.

[1430]

Many of them happened to be women, immigrant families. They were thrown out on the streets so that this Premier and this government can bring in their multinational friends to take benefits and profits out of our health care.

They gave them contracts to run those services at the expense of those working people, who were actually at the lower end of the wage scale. How do you justify that? Someone on that side has to have some heart. Obviously, they didn't. No one stood up from that side — that this is the wrong thing to do. No one.

Interjection.

[ Page 398 ]

H. Bains: Except one. I must correct myself. And I do applaud that minister. He happened to be minister today. Good job. One person had the heart to stand up to this government and this Premier — that that was the wrong thing to do.

That's what the priorities of this government are all about. Do anything to help their multinational friends and multi-millionaires, at the expense of the working people. That's what took place during the HEU.

They knew that they were breaking the law, or they ought to have known that they were breaking the law. It — the union, HEU — took this government to the Supreme Court of Canada, and the Supreme Court of Canada had to come in and tell this government that they broke the law of this province. This is how bad this government has been. They don't care if they have to break their own laws, as long as their friends are happy.

Then they told this province that they will not sell B.C. Rail. People still remember that. What happened after the election? That's exactly what they did. They sold B.C. Rail, but then they tried to tell people…. They didn't even have the guts to stand up and say that they were breaking their promise. They had to tell them that no, it's not a sale. It's 999 years of lease. No spine. You have no spine whatsoever to stand up.

Deputy Speaker: Member, I would caution you to use language that is parliamentary.

H. Bains: Thank you very much. I will.

Madam Speaker, they didn't stop there. Now we fast-forward to this election. This government, this Premier, this minister promised to the people of this province — knowing full well that the economy is eroding fast — that the maximum budget deficit would be $495 million. They were told that those numbers are not realistic.

When the opposition brought that issue up, the minister stood up, and the other minister stood up right behind him. The Premier stood up — that the NDP is fearmongering.

The renowned economist Helmut Pastrick came out and said that those numbers are not real numbers, and he predicted that the real number would be close to more than $1.5 billion to $2 billion.

Everyone knew that the budget deficit would be much, much higher — four, five or six times higher than what this government was leading people to believe — except this government and this minister. Right till the time of the election, the Premier continued to say $495 million maximum. Soon after the election, they started to turn around and said: "Yes, it is going to be higher than $495 million."

[1435]

The budget that we saw presented before us? A $2.8 billion deficit — over five times the numbers they were giving us before the election. The numbers that the opposition and all the economists were telling the government are more realistic…. Had they not brought in the HST money from the federal government, the budget deficit would have been close to $3.5 billion or $3.6 billion. That's the history of this government

I see these members on the other side applaud this Premier. My question to them is…. Yes, people should be applauding their leaders. They should be applauding their colleagues. But should they be applauding the leader whose popularity right now is less than his shoe size because the people think he didn't tell the truth before the election? They are applauding that leader? What does that say about all of these folks sitting on the other side?

This time not even one minister, one backbencher stood up and challenged the Premier: "We should come clean with the electorate. We should tell the truth to the electorate. We need to come clean. We need to come up with the real numbers. We need to follow what the economists and everyone else are saying to us."

I think the foundation of democracy, as we all know, is being upfront, transparent with your electorate. That's what the foundations of democracy were built on, but not for this government. When you do that, you are eroding what they have done in the last eight years. You are actually on the way to erode democratic values that we care for, that people fought for and gave their lives for.

Yes, on one hand, we have an economic situation. The economy is in the tank. But when the government's integrity is in the tank, I think that leaves a long-lasting effect on our coming generations. When they stop trusting their elected officials, they stop believing in democracy.

Madam Speaker, they need to look in the mirror, each one of them, and think of what they are doing. What kind of legacy are we leaving for our children and their children when we are talking about improving our democratic values, when we're talking about making changes and making society better through democratic means? It's being eroded by the actions of one person and the rest of them following that one person that happens to be the Premier.

You're all guilty by simply not standing up, by simply not standing up and saying….

Deputy Speaker: Member.

H. Bains: Through the Chair, Madam Speaker.

Deputy Speaker: I would ask you to withdraw.

H. Bains: I withdraw, Madam Speaker.

I'm sure, on their side of the House, their offices must have received the e-mails, telephone calls, letters and phone calls about the direction this government is going.

[ Page 399 ]

On HST, people don't like the tax itself, but they're more angry about how it was brought in. They were promised that they had no plans to bring in HST. The restaurant industry asked that very, very specific question during the election: "Other provinces are bringing in HST. Is your government considering bringing in HST?"

This government, through the Premier's office, advised them they had no plan of bringing in HST. But after the election we were told that this was the single best thing that they could do to boost the economy. If this was such a great idea to boost the economy, then why didn't they stand up before the election and lay it out for the public to question them and ask questions about how it is going to affect them, who's going to pay and how much? And why didn't they tell the truth? Why didn't they tell the truth?

[1440]

The restaurant industry. Right now the president of that association feels that he has been betrayed, that the industry has been betrayed by this government.

Madam Speaker, no wonder my constituents, and I'm sure your constituents — 85 percent of the people — do not believe the story that is being told by this government. They do not believe that this government didn't know that the budget would be $495 million maximum deficit. They do not believe that they had no plan to bring in the HST. They believe that they won this election through falsehood, and they feel misled and betrayed.

That's not a very good example that we are setting for coming generations. No wonder such a low turnout in the last election. We're not helping. We're not helping by not being upfront with the electorate. We're not helping them to come and vote and participate in a democratic system by not being honest with them or open with them about what we intend to do as a government.

Many of them are labelling the last eight years as a decade of deception, and rightfully so. Decade of deception — that's not something that I take joy in saying, but that's what it is out there. Everyone you talk to — 85 percent of the people — feels that those eight years have been nothing but deception.

So what do we do? I guess there are folks out there…. The grass-roots support is building. There are rallies being held in all communities in this province trying to bring it to this government's attention that what they're doing is wrong. I think if the HST….

They're asking this question. I'm sure each one of you has heard this, on both sides of the House. The people are asking this question. If the HST is such a great idea, why don't you put it for a referendum? Let people decide. Convince them that this is the greatest idea that you've ever come across. Let people decide.

But you know what? No one on that side has the courage to take that task and ask that question, because they know the answer. They know that the public is very, very angry with them. They know the answer they're going to get is a resounding no to this HST.

Then they brought in a number of different people here, and they paraded them through this hall. Who stood behind this Premier and said how wonderful this HST is for them?

Well, one of those groups was the CEOs of the forest industry. Let me talk about that group, because I have background in the forest industry, and I remember the promises that they made in order to get changes made to the Forest Act by this government.

They asked this government in 2003 to deregulate the forest industry, to give them everything that they needed so that they had a free hand to do whatever they wanted to do with the logs that belonged to you, me and the public out there — whether they would process them, sell them or not harvest them at all. They needed that kind of free hand.

They wanted to have that social contract that existed in that industry since the 1950s, where the public logs were given to this industry, and they would then in return process those logs through their own mills in those communities to create jobs for those communities in this province. It was a win-win situation. But that industry didn't want anything to do with it. They got everything from this government, but the promise they made in return was that they would invest about a billion dollars in the industry to create more jobs.

[1445]

Not a single job was created. They got everything, but not a single job was created. Instead, they went across the line and started spending money over there. Now they're shipping raw logs across the line at the expense of our communities and our forestry workers.

The same industry now is saying: "We're so happy that we're going to benefit to the tune of $140 million through this deal." So their credibility with the public and the forest industry workers and their communities is zero — just like this government.

Madam Speaker, I have received many e-mails in my constituency about this HST, and I'll read you one. This one is from John Cohen. This person is saying that bestowing the HST now is tantamount to giving a man dying of thirst sour wine. That's what John Cohen is saying.

Here's another one — Annie Hewitt. "What else is he lying to us about? We need to unite and fight this tax. Rallies, demonstrations, letters…."

Deputy Speaker: Member. Member, language must be parliamentary. I ask you to withdraw.

H. Bains: I withdraw, Madam Speaker. This is the e-mail that I'm reading verbatim that I received. I withdraw.

You get the flavour. These are the kinds of e-mails we're getting in our offices, and I'm sure they're getting them there as well.

[ Page 400 ]

Hon. M. Stilwell: It's a pleasure to stand this afternoon and speak in support of the September 2009 budget update. As every British Columbian knows, our province is not immune from the economic challenges facing every part of the world. As a small, open economy that depends on international trade for much of its revenue, jobs and prosperity, our province continues to face the day-to-day impacts of reduced commodity prices, ever-increasing competition abroad and soft markets on virtually every front.

However, as I said when I had the opportunity to rise to speak to the throne speech, I did not get elected so I could come to Victoria to be afraid of the future.

All around us we are seeing and hearing of more positive changes in the world's economy. While these positive changes do not signal a wholesale change in our economic fortunes, together they look and feel like the start of an economic turnaround, and while better days are still some way off, they will come. By some early measures, they are already on their way.

Nevertheless, the past year has left much of our provincial economy reeling, and the economic downturn has seen a responding decline in revenues to the government. Taken together, all of these issues point to the need for strong fiscal management now more than ever.

You see, it's critical with so much change still upon us that we find the right balance between our strong belief in balanced budgets and the short-term need for provincial deficits that will allow us to meet our core commitments to health care, education and social services for those most in need. The key is finding a balance, and I believe my colleague the hon. Minister of Finance has found just such a balance in his budget update.

The key is to know how much is enough before it becomes too much. How much debt can British Columbians afford? And how do we ensure that we don't go past that fundamental tipping point and put the future generations into jeopardy with more debt than can be reasonably managed?

Equally important, as government, we need to follow the example being shown today and every day by British Columbia's families. We must do what every family is doing today. We have to separate the absolute necessities from those things that are important but not critical. We need to separate the things that are necessary for today from things we can do without until this important economic corner is turned. I believe the Minister of Finance has done just that by taking a measured and responsible approach to where we are going to spend our scarce resources and where we need to hold, reduce or eliminate spending.

The fact is, the easiest thing in the world for a politician to do is spend money, particularly other people's money and, more importantly perhaps, money we don't have. It's also easy as politicians to fall prey to the special interests with sharp elbows who want to get at the precious taxpayer dollars as they push others aside and who have no real regard for cost and what that does to future debt and deficits.

[1450]

Madam Speaker, we cannot let that happen, particularly these days when getting ten cents out of a nickel should be the order of the day for all of us on both sides of the House. After all, we all know there is one taxpayer, and we spend money on their behalf — their money. It's imperative that we are doing it with a real understanding of how hard families work to make that money in the first place.

The budget update is a sound, realistic and forward-thinking response to our current economic conditions. It limits spending. It limits deficits. It keeps more money in people's pockets. It continues to commit us as a province to three fundamental outcomes: maintaining vital services during tough times, stimulating the economy, saving and creating jobs and encouraging investment by making our province even more competitive.

This new budget increases funding for health services by 18 percent over three years. That means that by 2012, B.C.'s health budget will be some $15.7 billion. That's more than $4 million a day, or nearly $170,000 per hour. This increase in health funding is, in itself, the kind of proof positive that our government has its fiscal priorities in the right place.

In addition, the budget update provides $420 million to meet the needs of greater demand for income assistance due to the recession. It's another example of making sure government is there for British Columbians when its help is needed by the most vulnerable in our province.

While getting through those tough times is our primary focus, we have not lost sight of the future. After all, part of government's work is to work with British Columbians to map out the kind of province we want to be in the years ahead. That's why our commitment to delivering full-day kindergarten starting in September 2010 is important. We all know that giving a child an early start on a good education can make a world of difference, not just to the child but to the communities that will ultimately benefit from their talents and expertise in the years to come.

That commitment to the future is also a big part of my own ministry. This year the Ministry of Advanced Education and Labour Market Development is receiving record levels of funding against the background of a tough economy. We are committed to helping British Columbians get the skills and education they want and need to participate fully in the economy.

By 2012, B.C.'s annual commitment to post-secondary education will exceed $4.7 billion. In addition, the new budget update includes increased training tax credits for businesses that take on apprentices. In fact, today

[ Page 401 ]

employers can claim up to $4,000 annually — double the previous amount for eligible apprentices.

At this important time, when government infrastructure projects can go a long way to stimulating the economy, British Columbia is in partnership, working with other levels of government right across the province. Since February of this year 480 projects worth $3.4 billion have been announced, and the projects announced to date are creating more than 21,000 direct jobs over three years.

At the same time we know it's essential for British Columbia to remain competitive in a shrinking and more competitive world. We're working to build the most competitive business tax system in Canada, because we know that businesses that are competitive can create more jobs. That's why over the past eight years this government has reduced taxes more than 120 times — tax reductions that benefit people and businesses alike right across British Columbia.

For instance, in 2008 our small business tax rate was reduced by 44 percent, and our government intends to take small business corporate income tax to zero by 2012. We've been reducing general corporate income tax rates, as well, with an eye to making sure that B.C. business and B.C. workers are competitive at home and abroad and that we can continue to grow jobs in this province.

On the personal income tax front, the personal income tax credit will increase in 2010 from $9,373 to $11,000. Today anyone earning up to $118,000 in B.C. pays the lowest provincial personal income tax in the country. Equally important, since 2001 personal tax rates have been reduced by 37 percent for most British Columbians, and 325,000 people with lower incomes no longer pay any B.C. income tax.

I started my comments by stressing the importance of finding a balance — a balance between core services and those things we'd like to have but cannot afford until better economic times; a balance between making immediate decisions for today and the importance of keeping the future at the front of our mind; and balancing the long-term importance of balanced budgets with the need, when times are tight, to accept limited deficits that can see us through tough but temporary times.

[1455]

As we all know, deficits are easy to get into but tough to get out of. In 2001 this government needed nerves of steel to make the tough but necessary decisions to put us on the road to economic prosperity. It wasn't easy, but it was done, and it worked.

Now we want to make sure we have the self-discipline as a province not to trap ourselves into living off our credit cards or lines of credit, as it were. Spending tomorrow's money today is easy. Paying it back is the hard part. However, the Minister of Finance has put a strong and balanced plan in place. He recognizes the need for temporary deficits but not the kind of ongoing structural deficits that will mire taxpayers into greater and greater debt, with no sign of relief.

Like most British Columbians, I appreciate having governments that spend within our means, and like most British Columbians, I know that the necessity of temporary deficits, as much as we may dislike it, is a reality, a necessity. But it doesn't and shouldn't become a way of life or a way of running government.

I'm grateful that the Minister of Finance has brought forward a responsible approach to these tough times. I commend his commitment to the most important priorities of British Columbians, and I applaud his respect for taxpayers and what we can afford as individuals, businesses and families.

The turnaround seems to have begun. Nevertheless, there's plenty of work still to do. This budget recognizes this fact. This budget has its feet planted firmly on the ground but has a keen eye on the future. This is a commonsense budget, and as a taxpayer and as a mother and as an MLA, I'm looking forward to supporting it.

R. Fleming: Thank you, Madam Speaker, for the opportunity to respond to the Budget 2009 from the government this afternoon.

Before I begin, though, I want to thank a few people in my constituency and my community, especially the ones that work on behalf of me every day, while I'm here in particular. I think first, though, I would like to thank the electors from my constituency of Victoria–Swan Lake. They've placed their confidence and trust in me to represent them here during the lifetime of this parliament, and I'm very pleased to be working on their behalf.

I think that all of us on both sides of the House were disappointed with the low voter turnout in the provincial election on May 12. I hope that all members in this House did take some valuable experiences away from the campaign as well as a commitment for all of us to try and change that number. That is a trend we most definitely as legislators want to reverse in the interests of democracy.

Even though the turnout was much lower than any of us would hope for, I have to say that the conversations I had as a candidate knocking on people's doors, working in the community, attending events…. The ideas I came away with in that campaign to bring to this place to improve public services, to make health care work better, to fight for communities and keep jobs and create jobs and embrace the new economy, all of those kinds of things…. I was amazingly impressed at the depth and the scope of ideas that my constituents conveyed to me.

I think that all of us as legislators should look at this opportunity in this parliament to try and strengthen this institution and allow as much opportunity as possible for good ideas to come from wherever they may

[ Page 402 ]

come — from whatever part of the province, from whatever political perspective or ideology — to make government work better.

I should first and foremost thank my senior constituency assistant, Marni Offman, who hopefully isn't watching this speech today but serving my constituents — as I'm sure she is, because the phone never stops ringing in that place. She has worked hard for many years on my behalf. She continues to do so. I have an incredible amount of debt to repay her for all of the help she has provided me as an MLA, and she keeps doing her job.

I also must thank Alice Ross, who is my part-time constituency assistant. She does an incredible amount of work, and effective work, for people who come into my constituency office, who inquire on a daily basis. She has worked for me for a number of years too.

[1500]

I hope both of them will keep working for me. I don't think the job will get any easier, but I need them to be able to do it, as all of us value our constituency assistants as really the heart of the community office and one of the primary functions that make government accessible to our citizens. So thank you to both of them.

In the Legislature here I want to thank Brian Kowalski, who is my legislative assistant, and I want to thank Tracey Janes, who is my research assistant.

There are 85 legislators in this place, who represent very distinct parts of a regionally diverse province. But one of the things we have in common, no matter where we're from, is that communities work and succeed basically on the same basis.

As MLAs try and help their constituents to get help, to get the assistance they need to solve problems of things that get in their way — some challenges they have in life — I think MLAs gain a unique understanding and appreciation for community associations, for civic leaders in our community, for volunteers of all kinds who are providing services and filling needs for kids and parents, for families, for the elderly in our community, for our poorest citizens, for our most vulnerable. Those organizations, those leaders, those people who volunteer their time ensure that our citizens get the help they need.

Our communities are served by dedicated people in the arts, the cultural sector, multicultural societies, sports teams, local conservation and environmental organizations and a host of other activities that together make our province a unique place, make our constituencies and communities distinct and a desirable place to live within.

That is why — I will return to this point later — one of my strongest objections to this budget is that it forgets these ingredients that make up successful communities. It pulls funding, without warning, of even the smallest gaming grants or contracted services to the very organizations that make up civil society in British Columbia. Those kinds of shortsighted cuts are going to have long-term, real and devastating repercussions. Quite a change from the February budget, I might add.

These organizations had no idea. Some of them had written three-year agreements with this government to continue providing services to British Columbia, to continue filling needs within our society, and this budget pulls that away.

People are struggling to make ends meet. We know that. We hear from those people in our communities every day. They need a government that's here for them. They need a government that is helping young people as well as displaced workers get the retraining opportunities that they need. They need a government that values and places emphasis on having successful kids from the very earliest age by investing in things like quality child care services and nutrition programs.

My constituents, no different from any other members in this place, want public safety. They want a justice system that's effective. They don't want cuts to our court system, Crown prosecutors and policing services in our communities. They don't believe, even in these extraordinary economic times, that there is any justification for doing that, especially when the government promised the exact opposite.

People in British Columbia want a government that's on their side to fight for and create jobs. You know, when I hear of workers facing plant closures, pooling their savings together, taking risks to help their communities survive, to keep food on the table for their families, I would expect the government to be a player at that table, to be a very interested and engaged party. All too often, in every corner of this province, workers facing that situation and companies facing those situations are let down.

[1505]

I think it's fair to say that a number of people in leading industries in British Columbia are pretty shocked in the hundred days since the election has passed. Talk to tourism leaders in this day and age.

They will tell you that they cannot understand, for the life of them, why this government would take an independent Crown organization, an international award-winning marketing service provided by that Crown organization — successful, thriving tourism industry even in these difficult times — and the tens of thousands of small businesses and the hundreds of thousands of jobs that depend on the success of that marketing and tourism coordinated effort, and blow it up so the minister can put himself in as the new CEO and sweep away the experienced people, get rid of the board of directors of Tourism B.C.

Nobody knows the real answer as to why that was done, but there is definitely a consensus out there that that was one of the dumbest things this government could have done in the high season of the summer.

People don't understand why the government chose a recession, in which some of the defining features are

[ Page 403 ]

sagging consumer confidence and low sales activity across a variety of purchasing points in the economy, as the time to implement and dramatically increase sales taxes. There is definitely going to be an effect on consumption, and this is not the time to gamble with that.

Let's look at one sector where there has been a tremendous falling off of economic activity, and that would be the residential construction sector. At this point this year, compared to this exact month last fiscal year, new units of housing starts in my community alone in the metro Victoria area are down by 75 percent.

That's an incredible statistic. What it means is that thousands of people who were employed last year — skilled people, apprentices, contractors — who had work, who had money circulating in the economy have downed tools. They're on unemployment insurance. That's why B.C. has the highest growth rate of new EI applicants month over month for the last six months.

That's not a statistic to be proud of, and it's one that — incredibly — this government, in the middle of an election, ordered B.C. Statistics not to release. Talk about political interference. Imagine that.

That was glossed over in the sleepy days of summer, but what we now know is that welfare caseload statistics showed an incredible increase, in percentage terms, of families who now were on social assistance, which are routinely released by B.C. Statistics.

This is not a political agency. This is an information outlet. The long reach of the partisan political wing of government suppressed the release of that information because it was inconvenient to the Premier's message that everything was fine, that the deficit was $495 million maximum and all the other stuff that came up during the election. That happened.

People in British Columbia are angry that the government has shown them no respect and gave them no indication during the election and for many months after that they were about to trigger a fundamental shift — a regressive shift in the way taxes are collected, from whom they are collected and what services they will pay for in British Columbia. Nobody was given the courtesy of that.

That is a major policy issue that very definitely deserves full and considered debate. And you know what? It deserves the full airing in an election campaign, because if you can't convince British Columbians that this is "the single best thing we can do for our economy," which the Premier has said repeatedly, then you don't have a mandate to bring it in.

He decided not to get a mandate for that policy change. He didn't talk about it, not once during the election, but now it strains all credibility for him to suggest that none of this was underway, that this hadn't been under active consideration. One of his own former caucus members has admitted as much — that they were talking about the HST in Liberal caucus meetings before the election.

We've heard from senior executive members of this government, including the Premier himself, that no, that wasn't the case. "We arrived at this sometime in late June."

That's the hallmark of this budget. The HST betrayal is the hallmark of this budget. If there is anything for the ages in this budget, that's what it will be remembered for, and that's about it — probably with a significant footnote, because it will cost families every month.

[1510]

They will be reminded of this — that it also was a budget that put in place an escalating, cumulative increase of 18 percent to the MSP premiums they pay every month. That's money out of families — in the numbers that the Finance Ministry wouldn't share but which have been analyzed independently — that dwarves the paltry tax cuts through lifting the income exemption for the first $11,000 of earnings. Completely outweighs it. This is a tax increase budget that this government is hiding.

The appalling thing, too, is that British Columbians have learned since the election…. This is something the government never campaigned on, and I would respect them if they had campaigned on it. If they had gone out to the voters and said, "You know, after the election, for those of you on wait-lists for hips or knees or other surgical procedures, you can expect to wait 30 percent longer because we're going to cut budgets that fund those kinds of surgeries," I would respect them having said that and having a debate on whether it was necessary or not.

But they didn't. Quite the contrary. They made assurances over and over again. The Premier and his former Health Minister said that health care funding would be protected, that health authorities were being funded adequately, that plans and wait-lists for those kinds of diagnostic and elective surgeries would not increase. That commitment was made, and barely 90 days after the election that commitment was broken by this budget that we're being asked to consider.

Now, this is a unique budget in many other ways. I don't want to shortchange it. It's not often that you get two budgets within the same fiscal year, one in February and one in September. It's not often that the second budget has a deficit figure six times larger than the original figure tabled in this very place. The budget that wasn't debated, remember, in February — tabled but never debated.

Now we're debating the real one, and it's a sixfold increase on the original deficit projections. These are discrepancies from the B.C. Liberals like night and day, like before the election and after the election.

Perhaps there's a third category there because, as we've learned from the Finance Minister and the Premier, there was also a secret shroud called during the election. Both of them, after denying it, have now admitted that they were fully briefed and made aware by senior deputy

[ Page 404 ]

ministers of this government — both to the Premier's office and the Finance Minister's office — during the election. Their story changed, and that's another element of this budget that British Columbians have a real hard problem with.

We'll remember that the way this government depicted the economy and revenue projections before the election was quite different than how it's being portrayed now in September of 2009. Remember back in February, even as all the signs in the world economy were obvious to everybody, even as Lehman Bros. became a household word in our vocabularies…. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The U.S. financial sector melting down. Every continent being affected by dramatically revised downward growth projections.

Even with all of that background, we had this Premier, this Finance Minister, this government saying: "B.C. is immune to the global recession. We're immune, and that's why instead of an Alberta-sized deficit of $5 billion, B.C.'s will be only $495 million maximum, or it might be lower." Don't forget that the Premier did give himself some wiggle room to be lower during the election.

That was the mantra before and during the campaign. Anytime our economy showed signs to the contrary, anytime the news media showed families out of work and people suffering, anytime the forest industry reported statistics like — gee, I don't know — 25,000 fewer families getting a paycheque from the forest sector in one single year just before this budget was tabled in February — the fictitious budget…. Every time that was said, the government ignored these precipitous warning signs. Every time we had a new statistic out about B.C.'s trade deficit, which is now $40 billion per annum, they ignored it.

[1515]

The reality was that all during the lead-up time to the February budget, B.C. led Canada in a number of statistics. One of them was the worst loss rate of full-time jobs in the economy over the previous 12 months. The other statistic that the government ignored completely in any discussion or briefing around the budget was that at that time, B.C. was the second-worst-performing economy in the country.

What did they say today, when they conveniently pushed all of this aside just a few short months ago? Well, as the throne speech says, to quote it…. This is government speaking, of course. "We were brutally deceived by the economy. This inanimate object deceived us." That's what has caused all this, according to the government.

We've gone from February — when B.C. was the exception and was going to weather the global recession that was touching everybody else in the world — to being brutally deceived, to suddenly being in the midst of the worst recession in three decades. Turns out we aren't recession-proof, now the Premier concedes.

Well, it wasn't the economy that brutally deceived us. It was the governing party that brutally deceived us in the election campaign, even as their ministers and Premier were being advised during the campaign that revenues were sliding off the map. That's where the brutal deception lies.

You know, I like some of the new Liberal talking points that are coming out. There are a couple of them. The first one I want to speak to is that the opposition now is somehow complicit in government budget deception because, after all, we based our costed election platform using the same numbers produced and verified by the Ministry of Finance.

We used those numbers to show and illustrate our different spending priorities and different commitments to British Columbians. So wow, I guess we should plead guilty. I guess we are as gullible as the rest of the British Columbia voters out there for believing numbers that were actually published by this government. Plead guilty to that. We're all guilty of assuming that the Finance Minister actually meant it, that his word meant something when he said that the deficit would be $495 million — that he was serious.

That's an incredible talking point. It was a fundamental tenet of the story that has been knitted together by this government to explain this betrayal.

The other one that I really like was helpfully coughed up by the member from Parksville when he suggested that government couldn't have deceived British Columbians on the HST. He said this: "We couldn't have been planning the HST all along because it's been communicated so badly by us."

That's what he said. That was his explanation for why the government would flip-flop on the HST, make guarantees to the restaurant and hospitality industry in surveys and election commitments during the campaign. They suggested that that industry and others could take to the bank why they would flip-flop on that. The member from Parksville is basically saying: "We weren't dishonest. We've just been incredibly incompetent on the HST." That's the substance of his comment.

When the Premier made the admission a couple of weeks ago that dropped a lot of jaws around B.C…. He admitted for the first time that during the election, he was briefed, that he was aware that hundreds of millions of dollars of revenue had disappeared.

But I think the questions are important to keep asking — of when the Premier and the Finance Minister precisely knew what information about the true state of British Columbia's finances, when the conversations with Ottawa around moving towards the harmonized sales tax were precisely entered into by this government.

[1520]

You know, it really doesn't matter for the government. British Columbians — 75 percent of them or more — don't believe the story that's been concocted. But it's

[ Page 405 ]

important. All of us should feel that it is important for government to come clean on this point and others if the institution that we represent is going to have integrity.

I said at the beginning of my remarks that we're all concerned about declining voter turnout. Well, if you want to drive voter turnout down, keep acting like this. This is why people are cynical about politics. They are cynical about politics when governments treat them this way — with disrespect and contempt — and act as if they're stupid and they can't figure it out.

Well, they have figured it out now. They formed a very solid opinion of the Premier and this government and their conduct, and they're mad.

Let's go back to some of the warning signs the Finance Minister had available to him well before the election. Remember that Helmut Pastrick, B.C. credit union's chief economist for the Central Credit Union and one of the forecasters in the Economic Forecast Council, began to warn this minister that he was hopelessly wrong on the deficit. At that time he said: "You're at least off by a magnitude of threefold." It's since been verified as sixfold.

The Finance Minister ignored him — actually attacked him in the media, attacked him professionally. But we ask questions in this place. Mr. Pastrick was asking decent questions as well — and others. We asked questions in this place on February 17. We asked the minister how his budget could be based on assumptions around personal income tax revenues going up when at the same time we had just lost 68,000 full-time positions in British Columbia, when our workforce had suffered that kind of drop in the employment numbers. Who was going to pay those enhanced income tax revenues? The minister didn't answer.

I also asked the minister if he had a second budget, if he had a September budget, a September surprise. He mocked the suggestion at the time, but we asked: "Do you have a second plan here, given the revenue vulnerability, to come back post-election to this House and introduce a budget that will worsen the quality of health care, that will pull money away from education, that will make cuts to things like student loan budgets?"

I heard the Minister of Advanced Education not mention that once in her remarks most recently. "Are you going to come back to this House…?" I don't even think we could imagine this point, but now that we're in it…. "Are you going to come back with a budget that pulls out hundreds of millions of dollars of gaming grants from every conceivable charitable and non-profit organization that is the social fabric of this province, and the services they provide? Are you going to do that?"

That's basically what we asked the minister way back in February. If he was wrong and if the economists who were saying his revenue projections were built on sand, what was he going to do? And they mocked the suggestion. They mocked it.

But what are we doing here this very afternoon? We're debating the budget that we knew was going to come. We're living through the September surprise that this government has pulled on B.C. taxpayers and B.C. citizens. There's going to be an incredible price for that — a political price for the government certainly, but a social and human price in all of our communities.

We asked the minister, because there were a number of suggestions that revenues were falling away in British Columbia the very moment and prior to the tabling of that budget in February, if he would seek an update on the status of those revenues following our questions.

We now know that he got several updates during the writ period and during the election campaign and that that admission actually came after he told this House the first week we were back that he had no communications whatsoever with Finance officials. Indeed, he actually said that it would be inappropriate for him to do that. Then the very next week he said: "Oh, wait a minute. I did have those conversations on at least several occasions." This is how the story keeps changing, and this is why British Columbians keep digging for the truth on this.

But he knew his February numbers were built on sand, and he had 90 days to hold it together, to get through the election, to keep the budget fiction together. Now the minister says, or said — the story has changed — that he wasn't aware of all the sorts of things that undermined his budget today. But the warning signs were there on the revenue. I've mentioned one example. On all counts that were raised in this House in February, they've since been proven true.

[1525]

On February 18 the opposition asked the minister why he expected sales tax revenues to go up in his budget at the very same time that sales figures and retail confidence were tanking.

Interjection.

R. Fleming: Well, I think I answered that to the hon. member. He said: "Why did we use those numbers?"

Interjections.

R. Fleming: Right, right.

It's our fault for believing government numbers that are printed on…. You know what? To follow their logic, anything printed by Queen's Printer should not be believed. That's what they're saying. That's incredible. Wow.

Madam Speaker, we asked why sales tax revenues were scheduled to increase in that February budget when retail confidence was tanking. On February 24 we informed the minister — he should have been informed already — that there had been an increase of 50,000

[ Page 406 ]

unemployment claims. That was a 33 percent rise on the year prior. On this basis, his revenue forecasts were unsupportable on the income tax side.

Now we hear that the Economic Forecast Council, which met in January — they took the midpoint at that time — was not convened in March. It's interesting that they weren't, because they most certainly would have recommended — as Helmut Pastrick did publicly — an adjustment to that deficit figure. They would have recommended that right on the eve of the election.

But they were not allowed to convene a meeting. The Forecast Council wasn't allowed to meet and revise its estimates. It's amazing.

Now, let's not forget….

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Member.

R. Fleming: Sorry. Time flies when you're having fun and being heckled by the governing side. But I do thank you for the time this afternoon, Madam Speaker, to take my place in this debate.

Hon. B. Lekstrom: It is truly a privilege to stand in this House to give my response to the budget that was presented before the members in this Legislative Assembly.

I too, like the members before me, would like to start off with recognizing and thanking a number of people. I want to start by thanking the people of Peace River South, who put their trust in me to serve them as their member of this Legislative Assembly, and for that, I am grateful and humbled.

I want to thank my campaign team, who worked tirelessly, as they do for each and every one of us during campaigns. They give of their time, they give up their family time, and they put in a great deal of effort to work and believe in what we as MLAs have to offer. I want to say a special thank-you to my campaign team and a special thank-you to my friend and campaign manager, Mr. Paul Gevatkoff, who has done tremendous work for me over the years.

I want to thank a gentleman in my constituency office back in Dawson Creek, Mr. Jim Noble. I've had the honour of working with Jim for, gosh, the better part of 15 years, since I began working with the city of Dawson Creek as an elected official. Jim served there in the capacity of clerk and then later as the chief administrative officer. In 2001, when I was elected after he had retired from the city, he came and joined me there. I want to say a heartfelt thank-you to him for the work that he does on my behalf.

A special thank-you to my family — to my wife, Vicki, and our daughters Lindsey and Taiya.

[C. Trevena in the chair.]

For the 15 years since I've been involved in political life from the municipal level and then on to the provincial level, they have been my largest supporters and without hesitation have supported me in my endeavours. I can tell you that it is not without sacrifice on every person's

part in a family.

I know I can speak for all of us in this House that there are days when we're sitting here that you're missing a family member's birthday or an anniversary or a special occasion, and there's that wrenching feeling in your stomach. But I can tell you that what makes it better is that you know they want you here doing the work that you were asked to do. So for that, I give my heartfelt thanks to my family.

I want to speak about the budget that's before us today, which we are debating in this Legislature, and really reflect on some numbers as I go through this.

[1530]

I want to talk about the overall budget seen in February, which produced a $39.3 billion budget on expenditures that we were going to spend to deliver the services that British Columbians want and enjoy.

Since that time we've seen significant change, but the budget that we are debating today, the September update and the new budget, is not $39.3 billion in expenses but rather $40.133 billion — an increase in expenditures. What we're debating here, I think it's fair to say — I don't want to put words in the mouth of the opposition; I've been told I shouldn't do that — is not a cut in the budget. Really, an allocation of that funding would be a better way to put it.

In comparison I can look back from '01-02. I grabbed my budget books. I keep my documents; I catch heck for that once in a while. In 2003-2004 our budget in British Columbia was $27.8 billion. Today, in 2009-10, we're debating a budget that is over $40 billion. That's a significant increase in these times that we're facing. But also with that increase comes increased services and increased challenges.

When we look at where we're headed, our 2011-2012 budget — because we roll three-year fiscal plans — is going to be $41.76 billion.

The point I'm trying to drive at here when I speak about the budget numbers is that we talk about the February budget, and we talk about the significant change in the September budget, but the most significant change that I think the public should be aware of is that there is an increase in the overall expenditures of government to deliver the services that each and every one of you want and deserve as British Columbians. I think that's extremely important.

Health care is another issue we hear a great deal about. I'm not here to tell you that our government or the previous government or future governments will have all the answers to resolve those issues.

I think this is an issue that far exceeds not just the province of British Columbia or the country of Canada but truly the entire world. We are growing at a pace with

[ Page 407 ]

the technological advancements that allow us to provide health care and services to individuals that even a short ten years ago wasn't possible — to give them the quality of life and carry on to enjoy their children and grandchildren. With that comes challenges, financial pressures, and without exception, each and every day the health care continues to grow with its challenges, as does the budget continue to grow and the demands on that budget.

A good example of this is…. I'll use the 2003-2004 time frame again. The budget for health care was $10.209 billion. Today the budget we're standing here debating in the September update is $14.156 billion, a significant increase and an increase that should be recognized. Not to say that that increase has solved all of the problems, but it isn't proper when I hear people talking about health cuts, cuts to the health care budget. Nothing is less factual that I could ever imagine.

So do we want to debate how that money is spent? I think that's fair comment. I think that's the job of opposition if they have criticism or challenges that they want to bring forward to government, or even ideas. But don't go out, anybody — whether you're a member of the opposition or a member that supports the party or somebody that just wants to speak about health care — and say that the health care budget's been cut. It's not right, it's not proper, and it's something that certainly I have a great deal of disrespect for — for anyone that would do that.

The September '09 update that we're talking about is $14.156 billion in expenditures, as I said, for health care. We talk about the increase in our three-year fiscal plan. There's an 18 percent increase in the health care budget over the next three years. It's an 18 percent increase. We aren't supposed to use props, so I encourage people to look at the budget if they would like.

Again I encourage you, with all due respect, that if the issue is where the money's being allocated, bring ideas forward. It's easy to oppose. It's far harder to bring options forward as to how those challenges can be met. I've yet to hear those.

Education as well. We have 50,000 fewer students in our schools today than we did in 2001. Now, that's nobody's fault. You can't point the finger at a changing society. Families are having fewer and fewer children for the reasons of their choice.

We have over $5 billion in our Education K-to-12 budget today — something we should be proud of. It's the highest per-pupil funding in our history and something that again, although we talk about funding, doesn't mean that our system is not facing challenges. It is.

It did during the time I went to school in K-to-12, which was a number of years ago.

[1535]

Interjection.

Hon. B. Lekstrom: Many years ago, as one of my colleagues would remind me.

I do remember families taking part, my mom and dad taking part. When I came home from school, they opened our school books and sat with us when they could, but they, too, led busy lives in order to provide a quality of life for me and my brother to enjoy.

I think if I could encourage families that have children in schools to do one thing, it's to try and find a few minutes each and every day — and if you can't do it each and every day, at least sometime during the week. Sit down with your child and talk to them about the school work they're doing. Find out what's on their agenda. Take an interest in what takes place. Believe me, it will make all the difference in the world to that child's life, and I think it would be a huge benefit to the family as a whole.

Our social services we hear a great deal about as well. I believe there is room for opposition. That's why we live in a democratic society. We're really celebrating democracy here today on Democracy Day. But there's a goal that we have to work together. Opposition has a role to play. It doesn't mean to oppose every single thing that the government does.

I've now served this government since 2001. I've watched, for eight consecutive budgets, and the opposition has opposed every budget. I'm surprised by that — every budget. So to hear that this one is somewhat different…. I have to tell you, as a member of the government and a member from this side of the House, that I'm not surprised at what I hear. I don't disrespect the opposition for their view. What I do ask is that they deal with the facts.

I want to talk about the Advanced Education budget as well. Our September budget shows an Advanced Education budget of over $2.1 billion in our document. Again, in comparison to '03-04 it was about $1.9 billion. Some people say that's not a great, huge increase, but it's $200 million. I don't consider that an insignificant amount of money.

One of the main issues that we deal with is people asking: what happened between February and this budget?

Interjection.

Hon. B. Lekstrom: And I hear my colleague from the opposite side saying that a lot of people are asking it. I'm going to encourage her to listen to these numbers, because she hasn't read the budget. It's clear.

Personal income taxes have gone down $881 million. That's a significant portion. Corporate income taxes are down $120 million. This is from February to the presentation of the September budget. Our social service tax revenue is down $240 million, and forestry revenue is down $222 million.

On one of the issues that I work closely with, the natural gas industry, natural gas royalties are down $492

[ Page 408 ]

million. I don't think anybody could have envisioned $2, $2.40, $2.80 gas — not in February, not a year ago — so the projected revenues have declined significantly. Since February's budget the projected revenues over our three-year fiscal plan have declined $3.9 billion. That's the issue we face today.

Nobody — government, the opposition, the public of British Columbia — can change what took place yesterday, let alone six months ago, but we can together build for the future. It's my hope, and I believe — and I honestly believe this — that it's the hope of all of us in this chamber, whether you're government or opposition, that we'll find a way to work together for the betterment of British Columbia and not — and I repeat — not carry on as we have in the past.

I don't think anybody, if they looked inside themselves and asked themselves the legitimate question of if they're proud of what takes place in question period…. If they came to the answer "yes," I can't imagine that person actually having any self-esteem inside themselves.

What we need here, I think, is the ability to carry forward. Our debt-to-GDP still is lower than it was when we took office, and it remains lower. The trend will go down once it peaks out at 18.1 percent, and 18.1 percent of debt-to-GDP is not a bad ratio.

We've maintained and actually improved on our credit rating since we took office in 2001 significantly. We now have a triple-A credit rating that is saving the taxpayers millions upon millions of dollars in debt repayment funding that we can then turn around and invest in our social programs; in our schools; in our education system, whether it be advanced education or K-to-12; in our health system. We're going to continue on that.

When I hear people talk about…. There seems to be some surprise that there were cuts made in this budget. Yes, there were. This was a difficult budget. It's not unlike any of the other budgets that I've been involved in. From '01 to '05 there were some significant challenges. There was the turnaround that I think we needed and that I think we achieved.

[1540]

Whether you're dealing with expenditures that are higher than revenue or revenue that exceeds your expenditures, the decisions that you have to make as government are difficult. In good years when you have surplus, there's pressure. People want you to spend those on new programs — new programs, on and on and on.

We made a decision to try and find the balance between implementation of new programs or enhancing existing programs on the operational side and paying down our debt. We found that balance.

Had we taken all of the revenue…. It was asked in this House. It would be unfair not to say that it was. We were asked to spend that money. "Don't hoard those surpluses. Spend the money." If we had, and if we had implemented programs with the surpluses that were available at the time, we would be facing even stiffer challenges today. So I'm proud of the fact that we paid down our debt, put forward a prudent budget even in the good times and actually have built a better quality of life for British Columbians.

I do want to touch on my ministry. I have had the honour now to serve in two different ministries, first as Minister of Community Development and now as Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources. For that I am extremely proud and thankful to be given this honour. This ministry runs a $70 million budget this year. It is the ministry that deals with the resource sector, from the mining and oil and gas sectors and from the electricity sectors, and it has significant opportunity for us.

I want to speak about the oil and gas sector for just a brief moment — an industry that revolves around the northeast part of this province, an area that I've grown up in. All of my life I've lived in Dawson Creek, and it's an incredible community.

This oil and gas industry in British Columbia — I do hear the opposition talk about it, and I'm going to address some of those myths that I've heard here as well — is the single-largest revenue generator from our resource industry in British Columbia. For that we should be thankful. For that we can thank the oil and gas industry for supplying revenue to help us with health care, to help us with social programs, to help us with roads, to help us with education, because without the billions of dollars we would be discussing a completely different budget here today.

We have to be competitive. I do hear some — not all — members of the opposition talk about these royalty incentive programs. How do you find money for a royalty incentive program when you have to make difficult choices? With all due respect, this isn't found money. A royalty incentive program works differently than, obviously, many of the opposition think.

We have just put forward a $50 million addition to the infrastructure royalty credit program for the oil and gas industry. That is not $50 million that flows from government. It is actually foregone revenue, once a wellhead is brought on or a new well is drilled, whether a new road is built or new pipelines are installed. So not one dollar leaves the provincial treasury in order to achieve these new impacts under stimulus packages or under royalty incentive programs. I want to make that very clear.

I've had numerous calls. Most people in my riding will either pick up the phone and call me, stop by my house or visit while we're downtown shopping. It's interesting that you get both sides. You get people asking that question, and it's a legitimate question: "How did you find that money?"

When you explain to them that this is not money that's going out the door…. This is foregone royalty revenue that we wouldn't have realized one cent of if we hadn't

[ Page 409 ]

been able to put these incentives forward and seen these new wells drilled so that we can actually carry on and deliver the services. So that has made us a very competitive jurisdiction.

As I stand here as the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, I'm going to tell everybody in this room and all of British Columbia that I am going to work as hard as I can to ensure that British Columbia is not one of the most competitive jurisdictions in North America but the most competitive jurisdiction in North America.

The positive return that we see from these royalty incentive programs is 2.5 to 1. For every $1 we invest and we put forward in these royalty incentive programs, the people of British Columbia see a return of $2.50. That's a pretty sound investment on behalf of British Columbians, and we're going to continue down that road.

Not only do we have a producing industry but a processing industry as well. Spectra Energy is the single largest taxpayer in the province of British Columbia. Many people don't realize that.

[1545]

We sometimes focus on oil and gas, and we talk about the major players in the production side and the people who go out and drill, but I do want to pay recognition to an industry and a company that has been around for a long, long time in British Columbia and has helped our economy greatly. That's Spectra Energy. I want to say thank you for the work that they do and for the jobs that they provide. These are good-paying jobs that allow families the quality of life they rightfully deserve.

I want to talk briefly on the mining industry. We've worked hard to bring the mining industry back in British Columbia, and we've accomplished it. We have a great deal of work still to do. We've extended the mining flow-through share credit to December 31, 2010. We've lowered corporate capital tax. We've eliminated the tax on machinery and equipment.

And what we've seen is a 1,100 percent — and that's right; 1,100 percent — increase in mineral exploration expenditures, up from $29 million in 2001 to $360 million last year. That's a positive sign. There's lots of room to improve, but let me tell you, that is very, very positive for British Columbia.

These, as well, are well-paying jobs. They provide economic opportunity for the men and women that go to work each and every day in this industry to provide what we use in our day-to-day lives. I would challenge any member of this House or this province to go through one day without utilizing something that's produced in the mining industry. I don't think we could do it. Sometimes we take far too much for granted, and we don't pay attention sometimes. I say that of myself as well, so this is not a slight against anybody else.

I want to speak about electricity, and I want to speak about B.C. Hydro and British Columbia Transmission Corporation. We made a commitment that we were going to be electricity self-sufficient in our province once again by 2016, and we will meet that goal.

Today we import roughly 12 percent of our electricity needs into British Columbia, either from Alberta or south of the border. This is not clean, renewable energy we're importing. This is something that wouldn't fit into those categories. Much of it may come from a coal-fired power industry with older technology. So we made a commitment, and we have the ability, with the diversity of opportunity we have with electricity generation in this province, to be electricity self-sufficient, as I said.

B.C. Hydro is our crown jewel. I've heard a great deal of discussion for eight years over B.C. Hydro, saying: "We heard you're going to sell it." I've heard the opposition stand in this chamber and talk about that.

I'm going to tell the people of British Columbia what I've told them for eight years and what, once again, I'm going to stand here and reiterate. We actually enshrined public ownership of B.C. Hydro into legislation in this Legislature, and it is going to remain.

We have a clean and renewable electricity industry that has an incredible future in British Columbia. We have the opportunity through wind and geothermal, through solar and tidal, as the technology advances, through biomass to produce electricity for ourselves in so many different ways — not only ourselves but to help others.

People have said: "Oh, you're talking about export of electricity." I don't think this will come as a surprise to those who have studied or followed the electricity markets in British Columbia. We've traded power for 30 years in British Columbia, and it's worked very well. On average, what it's meant is about $100 million back to the ratepayers and the taxpayers of this province, which has helped us maintain our competitive advantage when it comes to electricity pricing.

We, on average, have between the second- and fourth-lowest rates for electricity in North America. That is not going to change. We're going to continue that competitive advantage. We're going to grow the industry, and we are going to deal with that in a positive manner that will see new industry come on; clean, renewable electricity brought onto the grid. And we're going to develop and work with an industry that we think has the potential to be one of the brightest stars in British Columbia as the future moves forward.

Actually, in saying that…. We have others that have said that B.C. Hydro's not allowed to produce power anymore. Again, nothing could be further from the truth. We actually see B.C. Hydro investing $3.4 billion in infrastructure over the next two years. I'll say that again: $3.4 billion — with a "b." That's a lot of money.

It's increasing capacity. We have just recently entered into a purchase agreement for one-third of the Waneta dam, which for the ratepayers is a very positive move when you look at what it costs to produce power today

[ Page 410 ]

versus what it cost when we built the W.A.C. Bennett dam. It costs more.

Now, I do hear people say that we're going to enter this policy of buying high and selling low. I guess that's a good sound clip, but it doesn't make a lot of sense to me. I know that the people that say it can't believe that, so they're saying it for political reasons, which is unfortunate.

[1550]

The reality is that as we produce power today, whether it be from wind, whether it be from solar, whether it be new hydroelectric projects, it costs more to produce power today than it did, as I said, 30 years ago. It costs more to buy a car today than it did years ago. Everything costs more, virtually, today than it did, whether it be labour.

I do want to reiterate that as we move forward in this global economy that we're in, the electricity market in British Columbia and our opportunity to produce clean, renewable electricity is one of the brightest spots that we have. We always, as British Columbians, demand the highest standards of everyone. I'm here today to tell you I'm very proud of the standards, the environmental regulations, that we've put in place.

We're not selling rivers, first of all. You hear that again. We ran a campaign based on this, and I think people were quite clear that they agree. There is no selling of rivers. You can't sell a river in British Columbia. So once again, I was a little disturbed at much of the rhetoric that was spewed during the campaign, and even post- and pre-campaign, on that.

I've had the opportunity to visit some run-of-the-river projects, and I encourage everybody who wants to speak on them to go and visit. I think you'll be pleasantly surprised. I think that what you'll see is an environmental footprint that is minimal for the benefit that each and every one of us enjoys each and every day. I don't think there are many people in this province that want to live by candlelight anymore, but those that do, I'm sure, do it today. There's nothing wrong with that.

I'm going to close on the electricity side with this — to tell you that we have not benefited to the full extent that British Columbians can with the generation of electricity. As the minister responsible for that file, I'm going to turn this resource into a benefit for all British Columbians. People will see the benefit in their rates. They will see it in the services that we deliver.

On that one, I'll close with one simple fact. Ladies and gentlemen, B.C. Hydro is not for sale and will not be for sale, ever, under our government.

I want to speak briefly about my riding. We've invested in Peace River South alone over $250 million in our road infrastructure. Now, many people that I know when I go home will say: "Well, that's nice, Blair, but we need more." I'm here to tell you that we do need more.

Like each and every one of the members in this Legislature, I'm sure there are road improvements that you can use. Many times we don't ask for pavement, like many of you have in some of the larger centres. We just ask for some good gravel, some good dust suppression, and we get that. We're moving ahead, and we have a great deal of work still to do.

We have partnered and spent millions of dollars in partnership with our communities through the many programs that we have. For that, I know from the meetings I have with the mayors and councils, they're thankful. We've developed the new Rotary Manor, which is a long-term care facility in Dawson Creek which will replace the Pouce Coupe Care Home, which is an aging facility in Pouce Coupe. This new 71-bed facility replaces the 54-bed facility in Pouce Coupe.

We have a new Northview assisted-living facility on the same site. We have 16 seniors supportive housing units at the Southview site, which is on the same site as the Rotary Manor. It is the aging in place that we all, I believe, support in this chamber. It's something that I encourage people, if they have the opportunity to visit Dawson Creek, to take a few minutes to go visit. This is truly a model for the rest of the province and something I'm very proud of.

We continue to work with Chetwynd and Tumbler Ridge. Chetwynd has just seen the announcement of a seniors housing project out there, and I'm presently working with Tumbler Ridge on this as well.

Our Fair Share revenues — a revenue agreement and a memorandum of understanding that we have with the local communities and the regional district to help offset some of the impacts of the oil and gas development on our communities — continue to grow. I know that they're thankful for that as well.

The one thing that we should try and focus on, as I come to a conclusion on this, is that the opposition opposes, and I understand that. In my understanding of politics, though, I don't believe that opposition means that you have to oppose every single thing that the government does. I do believe over the eight years….

I think as we look at this and the people of British Columbia hear these debates as they sit at home and look, that if they were to watch question period, I'm certain that they would believe that there wouldn't be a single person from this side of the House that would leave the chamber and speak to somebody from the opposition, when in fact there are friendships developed. There are friendships developed from both sides of this House.

But it is difficult to accept. I stand here and tell you that, for me, to hear somebody talk about and question the integrity of our Finance Minister and our Premier and say "government," of which I'm a proud part of — this government — and then walk out the door and want to be friends…. It's a difficult situation.

[1555]

There are ways to deal with differences. It's called respect. I think we all can learn a little bit from that and carry forward. This budget is a difficult budget. As I said,

[ Page 411 ]

every budget is a difficult budget. There were difficult choices made.

Do I wish I could stand here and say that I've not only maintained spending in every single program that government has delivered, but I've increased it and that everything will be fine and you'll all have everything you want? I can't say that. That wouldn't be responsible. But I do encourage the opposition, in their deliberations on this budget and as we go through the estimates process…. As you have questions, bring ideas forward as well. I'm always encouraged by that. I say that to my constituents, who I represent.

In closing, I think we have to look forward. Far too often we look backwards in politics, and it doesn't help. A negative attitude will breed negative results every time. A positive attitude will breed positive results. I think all of us want to build a better, brighter future for British Columbians.

I'll close with this thought. In British Columbia on our worst day we have it better than 90 percent of the world will ever enjoy on their best day.

D. Thorne: Today I am pleased to address this House on behalf of the constituents of Coquitlam-Maillardville, who have elected me to a second term. I am humbled by the many volunteers who stepped up to help with my campaign. It's tempting to name them all. They certainly deserve the credit for my victory, but I'll just say a public and sincere thank-you to all of my campaign workers today.

Campaigns are hard work. The candidate's family often bears the brunt of the long hours and high stress. I especially want to thank my husband, Neil, who has put up with me and my assorted careers for more than 42 years. He has always been a tremendous help to me, and this campaign was no exception.

Also working hard on my campaign were my sons, Jay and Lee; their partners, Tina and Sylwia; and my brother John Thorne. As always, I am deeply in their debt. I often wonder if the real reason they work so hard for me is that they just can't imagine what they would do with mom if she wasn't re-elected.

I would like to congratulate, as well, the other 84 MLAs on their successful election campaigns, and my congratulations to the Speaker and to his deputies, including yourself, Madam Speaker.

Of course, my participation in this House would not be possible without the hard work of Joy and Laura in my Coquitlam constituency office and the talents of our wonderful staff in Victoria. I'd also like to say hello and thank you to my past caucus colleagues who are no longer in the Legislature with us.

I represent one of the most diverse ridings in this province, where residents speak an astonishing 52 different languages. We have a large Asian population, with people of Chinese, Taiwanese, Vietnamese and Korean descent.

As well, the Tri-Cities — which encompass Belcarra and Anmore, as well as Port Coquitlam, Port Moody and of course Coquitlam — is a popular destination for government-sponsored refugees. Recently a large number of Bhutanese refugees made the Tri-Cities their new home. I'm proud to say that our community has given them a warm welcome.

My riding includes what is known as central Coquitlam, along with the historic communi