2011 Legislative Session: Fourth Session, 39th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

official report of

Debates of the Legislative Assembly

(hansard)

Thursday, February 23, 2012

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 30, Number

ISSN 0709-1281 (Print)

ISSN 1499-2175 (Online)

CONTENTS

Page

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

Aboriginal education enhancement agreement for north Island

C. Trevena

Chambers of commerce

D. Hayer

Health impacts of poverty

J. Brar

Heritage run-of-the-river energy project

B. Bennett

British Columbia Women's Institute

K. Conroy

Heart health for women

M. Stilwell

Oral Questions

Health care fees for seniors

K. Conroy

Hon. M. de Jong

M. Farnworth

Sale of government land in Surrey and B.C.

S. Hammell

Hon. K. Falcon

H. Bains

Government sale of Provincial Capital Commission assets and Vancouver Island properties

R. Fleming

Hon. K. Falcon

Budget provisions for children and families

C. Trevena

Hon. M. McNeil

Government action on child poverty

C. James

Hon. K. Falcon

Orders of the Day

Budget Debate (continued)

Hon. D. McRae

L. Krog

Hon. M. MacDiarmid

G. Coons

J. Les

V. Huntington

M. Stilwell

S. Fraser

R. Howard

[ Page 9401 ]

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 23, 2012

The House met at 1:33 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

C. James: I have four constituents who are visiting us in the gallery today: Annette Kirk, Carol Christianson, Pauline Burton and Mary Elford. Would the House please make them all very welcome.

Hon. M. Polak: It's always a pleasure for members of this House when we're in these long periods of being away from our families when some of them can come to visit us. Today we are joined in the House by my daughter Miriam Polak whom I am fond of referring to as the best thing that ever happened to me, and her friend Spencer Kennedy. Would the House please make them very welcome.

J. Horgan: Being a capital regional MLA, my family always says: "When are you leaving town?" rather than "When are you coming home?" But I digress.

I want to ask the House to join me in welcoming my friend Patrick Henry, the president of the school teachers association. Patrick has been teaching middle school for 23 years in B.C., most recently in the Sooke school district. He's here today to watch the proceedings and to see if we have learned anything over the past number of years about how to comport ourselves and pass appropriate laws. Would the House please make him very welcome.

P. Pimm: I don't often get the chance to introduce folks from my area, so I'm very proud to introduce two teachers that we have in the audience today. One is from school district 81, and one is from school district 60 in Fort St. John. We've got Rihanna Johnson. She's a science — chemistry — teacher from Fort Nelson Secondary. She grew up appreciating education and learning by example what a good teacher is. Rihanna's hope is that she herself is the same example to the students she works with and, one day, her own children.

Also, Donna Bulmer. Donna is a teacher from Peace River North in Fort St. John, and for the majority of her 25 years in the profession Donna taught students in intermediate grades. For the past few years Donna has been a teacher-librarian at Robert Ogilvie. Donna lives wither her partner, Bill Jenn, who is a very old and dear friend of mine. Would the House please help me welcome them.

[1335]

N. Macdonald: It's my pleasure to introduce two teacher activists here from Columbia River–Revelstoke: Jennifer Wolney, president of our Revelstoke Teachers Association; and Robyn Oliver, our professional development chair from Rocky Mountain school district, based at David Thompson Secondary School in Invermere. Will the House join me in making them welcome.

M. Dalton: Today in the House we have Susan Croll. She's a dedicated teacher from school district 42, Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows, and is also the vice-president for the Maple Ridge Teachers Association. I've known Susan for a number of years when I was teaching in the school district, and I'm just pleased that we were able to get together and have discussions. So would the House please make her feel welcome.

M. Sather: I want to join my colleague on the other side of the House in welcoming Susan Croll. Susan and I had a great discussion today. She's a support teacher and teacher-librarian, now ably assisting the Maple Ridge Teachers Association. Would the House please join me in welcoming her.

L. Reid: We're joined in the gallery today by Shauna Litke. She's a fourth-year metallurgical engineering student from the University of British Columbia. I have known this young woman since she was born. I could not be more proud of her accomplishments. Please join me in welcoming her.

B. Ralston: My son Daniel Ralston, is visiting in Victoria at the Archives, working on a paper that he's completing for a history course at UBC, so I'd ask you to make him welcome.

Hon. S. Thomson: I'd like to make an introduction. We jumped the gun a little bit yesterday with my colleague from Kelowna–Lake Country in introducing Alice Rees and Susan Bauhart from the Central Okanagan Teachers Association. They are in the gallery today, and I'd like the House to make them welcome. I look forward to meeting with them later this afternoon.

D. Routley: I'd like to have the House help me welcome two teachers, Derek DeGear and Justin Green. They're with the Nanaimo District Teachers Association. Yesterday the member for Nanaimo and I met with them and were both impressed by the fact that everything they brought to us in terms of information, they related back to the children that they teach. It's a very positive experience to hear them relate all of their concerns back to the conditions for those children.

R. Hawes: Today marks the last day here in the Legislature for Chris Tupper, who is a ministerial assistant now working in the Justice Ministry. Chris has served many, many of us here on this side of the House in dif-

[ Page 9402 ]

ferent ministries for a number of years. He is extremely capable. He's going to be missed greatly, and we all want to just wish Chris good luck in his new venture in private enterprise.

J. Rustad: On behalf of my colleagues from my neighbouring ridings and myself, the member for Prince George–Mackenzie and the member for Prince George–Valemount, I'd like to introduce to the House Marleen Morris and Greg Halseth. Marleen is the associate director and Greg is the director of the community development institute. The CDI has over eight years of experience working with northern communities to help them through the process of community and economic transformation and revitalization. Through that period of time they've gained a lot of respect and trust as advisers, and I'd like the House to please make them welcome.

J. Thornthwaite: I've just got late word that I've got a couple of my constituents also in the House — Allison Andersen and her daughter Nicole. Maybe we could give them a nice, warm welcome.

Mr. Speaker: For those of you who want to keep statistics, yesterday we had 27 introductions involving 94 guests. I think that it must be a record.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

ABORIGINAL EDUCATION ENHANCEMENT

AGREEMENT FOR NORTH ISLAND

C. Trevena: There's going to be a big celebration in Fort Rupert tomorrow. Young people from all the First Nations schools will be there, along with youth from Port Hardy Secondary School and North Island Secondary School. There's going to be a canoe welcome, dancing and feasting. The big house will be given over to teachers, students, administrators and the community.

[1340]

The reason? The signing of the second aboriginal education enhancement agreement between First Nations in the north Island, school district 85 and the Minister of Education. The first agreement, based on trust and collaboration, was signed in 2005 and has been intended to improve the education system for everyone. It was founded on three goals.

Firstly, a sense of belonging and of respect. This was rooted in traditions and values of the First Nations communities and the students. Secondly, academic achievement and individual success. This meant every student is able to work on his or her own goals. Thirdly, there is aboriginal content at all grade levels and in all subjects. That is essential in making education relevant for the students. It makes the whole plan work because it links back to the traditions and the values and helps the academic achievement and the individual success.

The first agreement was seen truly as an achievement where students' strengths were developed and their skills honed. Now it's time to grow. The new agreement has a fourth goal, one that may be harder to measure but will strengthen the foundation and the way it works.

That goal is, in consultation with the school system, that all participants will work more closely with communities and with families. Aboriginal First Nations and Métis students make up almost 40 percent of the school population in the north Island. Education is the great equalizer. A strong public system which recognizes and respects everyone is fundamental. It will help these children and young people as they grow. It will help their communities, and it will help the whole of our society.

CHAMBERS OF COMMERCE

D. Hayer: This week British Columbians are taking

part in numerous events to celebrate Chamber of Commerce Week across the province. Chamber of Commerce Week 2012 kicked off on Monday here in Victoria with a proclamation that asserts the province's recognition of the important role that chambers of commerce and boards of trade play in building a competitive and sustainable economy that ensures opportunity for all.

The network of chambers of commerce across B.C. plays an important role in promoting trade and commerce and improving the economic and social welfare of the province. This week celebrates and promotes these important institutions. Chambers represent more than 30,000 businesses across B.C., all shapes and sizes, and provide an entire spectrum of opinions to the B.C. business community as well as to our government.

The chambers' success in stimulating local economies, promoting local business and engaging in important advocacy is all thanks to creative and extremely dedicated representatives who go the extra mile. They listen to their business communities' needs, and they relay those concerns and ideas to our government. Through benefit programs, services and education, chambers of commerce are there to support B.C. businesses so they can reach their full potential.

As a former president of the Surrey Board of Trade, I know firsthand the important work that chambers do for their communities. I encourage all members in the House to contact their local chamber to thank them for helping to build strong communities around the province.

In closing, I would like to thank all the staff, volunteers, board members and executives of the Surrey Board of Trade, the Cloverdale District Chamber of Commerce, the South Surrey and White Rock Chamber of Commerce, the Vancouver Board of Trade, the B.C. Chamber of Commerce and all other chambers across

[ Page 9403 ]

B.C. for their tremendous promotion of trade and commerce.

HEALTH IMPACTS OF POVERTY

J. Brar: Poverty is costing our health care. Imagine for a moment that you are sick and unable to afford life-saving prescriptions, a healthy diet and housing that meets your basic needs. What would happen to you and your family? People that are sick and living in poverty face these unimaginable struggles every day.

During the welfare challenge I went to Surrey Memorial Hospital to meet with some health care workers. They shared stories about the struggle of the poor who visit the hospital. One of the stories they shared with me is a married man in his 30s with young children. He came to the hospital because he had difficulty breathing and was diagnosed with a severe case of pneumonia.

After the initial treatment he was given a prescription to be filled when he left the hospital. The medication was extremely costly, and the young man was unable to afford it. After a couple of days he returned to the hospital with much more serious health conditions. He was put on life support, and sadly, he passed away after a few days.

[1345]

Another worker told me how it is almost impossible to find wheelchair- or mobility-friendly housing in Surrey for patients on low incomes. Patients with these needs end up staying in hospital for longer periods of time due to lack of housing available that would support their mobility issues.

Each of these stories has a message for all of us. We cannot afford not to take actions to address the growing gap between the rich and the poor. We must start addressing inequality with a pragmatic approach, with clear targets and timelines. That is the path the people of B.C. would want us to pursue.

HERITAGE RUN-OF-THE-RIVER

ENERGY PROJECT

B. Bennett: This week is Heritage Week, and the theme this year is "Energy in B.C." Today I'm going to tell a true story of one of B.C.'s pioneer families and one of the province's first independent power projects. McDonald Ranch and Lumber is a four-generation family business located in Grasmere just above the Montana border. John A. McDonald of Nova Scotia, a carpenter, moved up to Fernie from Nanaimo to help build Fernie after the terrible fire of 1906.

In 1923 John bought a farm at Grasmere, which he and his family worked to supply the region with apples, potatoes, beef, Christmas trees, lumber and railroad ties. In 1928, with the Grasmere Valley lit only by kerosene lanterns, Jack McDonald fed the water from Rainbow Creek through a small pelton wheel to power his small sawmill and grain grinder. This IPP powered the ranch, the sawmill and the McDonald homes for 30 years from 1928 until 1958.

Following in his father's footsteps, Jack's son Doug, who I know and who's now 91, and his brother Andy constructed a concrete weir on Phillips Creek in the early 1980s. They installed a 600-kilowatt generator and 2,000 feet of used 16-inch steel gas pipe. They built 10,000 feet of wood-pole distribution lines and installed the necessary substations.

The government of the day warned Doug that the project would cost millions to construct and design, but with innovation and pioneer spirit, Doug McDonald built his Phillips Creek IPP for $90,000 and completed the circle of family history.

McHydro, as the family calls it, was one of B.C.'s first small private hydroelectric projects to tie into the B.C. Hydro grid. Now, today, Doug's and Andy's sons and their own children light their houses, run the ranch and the sawmill, and sell into the grid, all using the hydro power from Phillips Creek.

On behalf of all of us here in this assembly, help me to celebrate the entrepreneurial pioneer McDonald family of Grasmere, British Columbia, and this great story of heritage energy in B.C.

BRITISH COLUMBIA WOMEN'S INSTITUTE

K. Conroy: This week is also Women's Institute Week and will be celebrated across Canada. The organization is summed up in the words "Women interested, informed and involved in building a better tomorrow." Here in B.C. the Women's Institute started over a hundred years ago in 1909 as a means to provide support to rural women who were new not only to Canada and B.C. but to rural life as well.

Most women were isolated, and the monthly meetings provided a social outlet, access to home and farm skills plus a means to discuss how their communities could be improved. The women worked to get services such as schools, halls, local libraries, travelling health nurses and dentists. They were instrumental in the establishment of public health units provincewide.

They started the first buy-B.C. campaign in the 1930s; successfully lobbied for changes to the Dower Act, rewritten in 1947 so a husband needed his wife's consent to sell the family home; and were instrumental in naming the Pacific dogwood as a provincial flower.

Although society today reaps the benefits of the hard work of the early pioneers, the Women's Institute does not rest on its laurels. Communities throughout B.C. benefit from the ongoing work of the members, and they continue to support B.C. Children's Hospital and the Queen Alexandra Centre here in Victoria.

[ Page 9404 ]

Throughout their history members have lobbied politicians of all levels regarding issues of concern. Resolutions from the Women's Institute have included returning the 1 percent property transfer tax to communities to help construct low-income housing and to reassess the needs of those who live on disability pensions or social assistance.

Today the resolutions include: no Site C dam on the Peace, the risk to B.C. of offshore oil and gas drilling, and protecting our B.C. water supply for our children and grandchildren.

The Edgewood branch in my constituency has been operating since 1926. Some of their members contacted me with their recent concerns, and I wanted to share with the House their years of service. Rachel Eckert has been a member for over 40 years; Penelope Penner, 44 years; and Rosalee Nesbitt has been a member of the Women's Institute for 63 years.

I ask the House to join me in thanking these women and all the women of the Women's Institute for their years of commitment to our communities and the province.

[1350]

HEART HEALTH FOR WOMEN

M. Stilwell: There's a certain TV commercial making the rounds right now. You may have seen it. It features a deep male voice professing his love for women, all women. It's the voice of Death, and he's stalking indiscriminately. It's an unsettling image made more so by the statistic it describes. Heart disease is the number one killer of women.

The ad is part of the Make Death Wait campaign by the Heart and Stroke Foundation. It's design is simple: to promote heart health and preventive measures.

In 2008, 30 percent of all female deaths in Canada were caused by heart disease. Each year more women die from heart disease and stroke than from all forms of cancer combined. These are statistics we can change.

February is Heart Month, a national campaign to rally Canadians to combat heart disease. All month volunteers from the Heart and Stroke Foundation have been canvassing door to door across the nation, promoting awareness and raising funds for critical life-saving research and educational programs.

It's through education and changing habits that we will begin to address these startling statistics. Research policy that makes sure women are included in heart studies will also help. Over the last 40 years heart disease rates have steadily declined, but there is still so much more to do. Heart disease takes a Canadian life every seven seconds.

I encourage all members to educate themselves and speak to their loved ones. Knowledge is part of the cure, and it can help us make death wait.

Oral Questions

HEALTH CARE FEES FOR SENIORS

K. Conroy: Mr. Hubbard is an 88-year-old veteran from Penticton who had colon cancer. After surgery he required a colostomy bag. He is legally blind and lives independently, but he couldn't change the bag by himself, so he was placed in residential care for three months.

Upon discharge he was handed a bill for $2,200. This was the first time he'd been told he would be charged, and if he didn't pay up, well, a collection agency would be after him.

He was living on a fixed income and had no ability to pay this bill, but he was never offered any help. He had to take out a loan to pay for health care, a loan he is still paying off today. Is this part of the minister's plan for seniors: pay up, or the collection agency will be after you?

Hon. M. de Jong: I am peripherally aware of this specific case. I'll be cautious, though, about discussing the details of the specific case, though I'm happy to discuss it with the member following question period today.

What I can tell the member is this. My understanding is that these events took place prior to 2010, when policies around convalescence care and contributions to convalescence care were formalized, and that generally speaking, what would happen is this.

When a patient is discharged from an acute care facility, generally speaking, we hope they go home. In some cases that's not possible, and that sounds like it was the case in the instance the member has related to the House today.

In those circumstances where a patient requires additional personal care — bathing, eating — they are today — and were in a different way, I believe, in 2009 — asked to contribute to that care. Today the rate is $29, but it is subject to the patient being able to pay. There is a financial test.

The health authority hasn't received any information, I'm told, from the patient involved. I am happy to receive it from the member and to investigate further.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

K. Conroy: Mr. Hubbard also just contacted me because he is really concerned with what's happening with seniors in this province. He said he never wanted to see another senior have to take out a loan to pay for health care. He also feels, as I do, that it's really time for this government to look at what's happening to seniors and look at their priorities.

Now the Ombudsperson in her report has highlighted the abysmal state of seniors care in this province. In her report the Ombudsman says that in the last three years situations like this, where seniors were forced to pay fees on top of their usual living costs, can quickly cause ser-

[ Page 9405 ]

ious hardship. This is what happened to Mr. Hubbard.

[1355]

Will the minister stand up today for seniors and ensure that another senior never has to take out a loan to pay for health care?

Hon. M. de Jong: I want to disabuse members of the House of any confusion. Any individual receiving health care services in British Columbia receives them pursuant to our publicly funded health care system and is not asked to contribute to the cost of that care.

Now, with respect to some of the personal care needs, I should remind the member that contributions to the cost of respite care, palliative care and in-hospital care not relating to health care date back to 1999. Before the member stands and castigates with what I would suggest are close to false pretences, I would suggest that she familiarize herself with both the policies and the origins of those policies.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

M. Farnworth: Mr. Hubbard's case shows the state of seniors care in the province of British Columbia. Those are issues, and I'm sorry the member for Langley doesn't like it, but that's a fact. The Ombudsperson tabled a report two weeks ago dealing with the state of seniors care in British Columbia after 11 years of this government being in power.

In that report were 176 recommendations. One of those recommendations that the Ombudsperson raised was around the issue of fees and the fact that seniors are still being charged fees, and they're not being made aware of remedies to that — that seniors who are experiencing financial hardship can find out if they can apply for a fee reduction. That did not happen in this case, and it's happening in too many other cases. It's an issue that the Ombudsperson said could be corrected.

My question to the minister is this. He can stand in this House today and make a commitment to implement the recommendations of that report and, specifically, the recommendation dealing with the notification of seniors that they may be eligible to have fees waived. Will he stand in this House and do that today?

Hon. M. de Jong: Well, to the member who usually — I will be somewhat complimentary — is at least apprised of the news as it occurs…. If he reads the seniors action plan, he will know that the government has done precisely that in terms of committing to move forward and implementing the broad range of recommendations that relate to communicating, ensuring people understand what the regulations are, in some cases bridging the gaps that exist between regulations — as there inevitably will be — where someone falls through the cracks and is unfairly left behind.

Creating a seniors advocate so that there is someone in place to assist those seniors, not just with respect to their relationship with the state but in circumstances where seniors find themselves in difficulty in a private contractual relationship is, I think, the appropriate thing to do. That is what we have committed to do, and we're getting on with the work.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

M. Farnworth: The only thing the government is committed to do….

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Member.

M. Farnworth: The member from Kamloops I think demonstrates why an election can't come soon enough in this province.

[1400]

The Minister of Health says that they're moving forward on a seniors advocate, for example. The only thing they've announced is a delay — six months to review things. That's not taking action today.

But who has taken action? The Minister of Finance was quite happy to take action yesterday at a board of trade meeting where he stood up and asked for applause because he said that the Ministry of Health budget was going to be underspent this coming year.

I think the Minister of Finance just showed where his priorities are.

Interjections.

M. Farnworth: The question is really quite simple. When the Minister of Finance is bragging about how he's going to underspend the health care budget at the same time as seniors like Mr. Hubbard are demanding and needing improvements in seniors care in this province, why is it that the Finance Minister's need for applause takes precedence over the health care needs of seniors in the province of British Columbia?

Hon. M. de Jong: I know that the hon. member is a former Minister of Health and is unfamiliar with the notion of bringing something in on budget. That is clearly a novel concept, not just for the hon. member but for all of his colleagues.

But our responsibility as ministers, as members of this House, extends beyond, in my view, the single department that we may have responsibility for. If we are going to protect the public services that British Columbians expect in this province today and in the future, we are

[ Page 9406 ]

going to need to bring some fiscal discipline to all areas of government, including health care.

I'm sorry if it offends the member and his colleagues that we are spending an additional $1.55 billion in health care over the next three years. They undoubtedly have a figure that they believe is most appropriate. What I can't figure out is why they are so afraid to share that figure with British Columbians.

SALE OF GOVERNMENT LAND IN

SURREY AND B.C.

S. Hammell: The 15-acre property at 152nd and Highway 10 identified by the Minister of Finance in his fire sale of public assets is in the centre of Surrey. It was originally purchased in 1999 for $5.8 million by the provincial government and the greater Vancouver regional health district. It is strategically located between four of the five town centres and is in an area of dramatic growth.

Will the Minister of Finance admit that selling this land as part of a public assets fire sale is designed to save the Liberals' political hide and amounts to nothing more than selling the house to pay for some bills?

Hon. K. Falcon: I want to thank the House Leader for setting up that wonderful question.

The member well knows that when that property was acquired, the idea was that it would be, hopefully, made available for future expansion of Surrey Memorial Hospital which, unfortunately, the NDP never undertook in the ten years that they had the opportunity.

As the health authority, working with the government, was looking for where to make that potential hospital expansion, they landed, I believe correctly, on expanding it at the current site. So today you can go and visit. I encourage the member to do so and to witness the $600 million new tower rising out of the ground.

[1405]

In fact, what was interesting is that as we were making that great announcement with the Minister of Health, I could only note that the member was there jostling around trying to get into the photo, though they opposed every step of the way the direction we were moving in.

But that land is now being surplused because it's not being used. It's a five-minute drive from the hospital, and it's surplus land. What is more important is not only can we generate some important revenues, meaning that we don't have to go to taxpayers to borrow more money, but it will also generate economic development and create hundreds of new jobs on that property.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

S. Hammell: We can talk about how long it took, how many times the shovels were promised to be put in the ground, but in the end they were put in the ground on public land that was surplus, that had been bought before.

Instead of trimming the budget in the Premier's office, instead of trimming the budget of the government's $26 million political spin department, instead of trimming down the $15 million upcoming propaganda campaign…. In the long term the public benefit of holding land like this is obvious. The cost of land, as we well know, will go nothing but up and will be astronomical in the future.

Will the minister release to the public the list of all the properties proposed for this public asset fire sale?

Hon. K. Falcon: We witness here the NDP apparently horrified at the very prospect of government selling surplus, non-strategic real estate. But then I had a thought. I recalled that the member opposite…

Interjection.

Hon. K. Falcon: Oh, you'll like this part.

…served in the cabinet of a government that sold the Oakalla lands in 1997.

Interjections.

Hon. K. Falcon: No, it gets worse.

They sold the Oakalla lands for about $45 million to private developers, and that horrifying sellout to developers resulted in $120 million of development on those very lands.

That was probably the right decision in the '90s, even though, amazingly, they made it. We're making similar decisions right now.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

H. Bains: The minister talked about excess land. It's located in a city, Surrey, which is one of the fastest-growing cities in Canada. This land is a part of an important future of that city. Actually, it is in their official community plan. So selling this land is a short-sighted sell-off to meet the political objectives of this Liberal government and no more. It is like selling your mother's jewelry to buy groceries today.

My question is to the minister again. He refused to give that list. How many other properties in Surrey and elsewhere in B.C. are on the chopping block as a public fire sale so that they can pay for their failed economic policies?

Hon. K. Falcon: Well, this is a very good example where the NDP have already set up their rota of questions, and now they're stuck in this rut, having to ask

[ Page 9407 ]

questions knowing that the answers are not going to be very favourable.

But let me humour the member opposite. Apparently, a 15-acre piece of raw land is a Crown jewel now. It is apparently of such incredible strategic value that our selling it is incredibly different from the selling of the Oakalla lands that took place under the NDP government.

[1410]

I'm having difficulty understanding the difference, except the Oakalla lands were probably ten times larger. That certainly comes to mind.

But look, the fact of the matter is…. I know that the members opposite can become very attached to things without remembering what they actually did while they were in government, but I would remind the member opposite that in the normal course of events government is selling assets every year. It happened under their government; it happens under our government.

What we are doing in fact, strategically, is making sure that we coordinate that across government and make sure we maximize value for the taxpayer on surplus non-strategic assets, so that we don't have to go to taxpayers for more money or borrow more money.

GOVERNMENT SALE OF PROVINCIAL

CAPITAL COMMISSION ASSETS AND

VANCOUVER ISLAND PROPERTIES

R. Fleming: What's different…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, Members.

Just take your seat for a second, Member.

Continue, Member.

R. Fleming: …about land sale disposals today is that two days ago the B.C. Liberals tabled a budget with key assumptions that were built upon aggressive disposal of land to give the illusion of black ink in the budget when there is only red.

In the last 24 hours three board members of the Provincial Capital Commission quit, including the chair of the capital regional district, because of political interference to dump public assets by this government. These three commissioners have left the Provincial Capital Commission because they have seen the for-sale list in closed meetings, closed session meetings, and they found it to be reckless and irresponsible.

So will the Minister of Finance here this afternoon release the list of properties in the provincial capital area, and will he confirm if they include property in the Inner Harbour, including the Belleville international ferry terminal?

Hon. K. Falcon: I was advised that Councillor Young, who serves on the PCC, did resign. Now, the member left out a little bit, of course. He said he agrees with the idea of selling properties in the Inner Harbour that could create economic development activity. But he — I think appropriately — decided out of an abundance of caution that as a councillor who may make future zoning decisions, it was appropriate that he not put himself into what could be seen as a potential conflict — unlikely, but very honourable indeed.

But I'm not aware of the other two members that the member opposite refers to. The media advised that there were a couple of others. I wasn't aware of that. But I'm not entirely sure why they have such a strong attachment to the parking lot, for example, across the street. I can tell you that even when we sell it, part of the requirement will include an underground parkade. So the member opposite does not have to worry. He still will be able to park. The difference is there will be a significant commercial development that will create hundreds of new jobs and generate revenues that are important for the province of British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

R. Fleming: What is different here today, and so desperate about the budget that was tabled two days ago, is that the province is abandoning what the Provincial Capital Commission used to do, which is that they managed land of strategic interest to maximize public value.

In the past when there were surplus properties, like parking lots, to be disposed of, the province rezoned it, they enhanced its value for taxpayers, they partnered with private developers, and they used the proceeds to leverage things — like the revitalization of the St. Ann's Academy or to acquire the rapid transit corridor down Highway 1. That's what they did with it. They didn't do it to pad their budget to give the illusion of a false surplus where there isn't one in an election year.

Property decisions in B.C. used to be made with a 30- or 50-year time horizon, not a one-year time horizon through to a desperate election year in 2013.

[1415]

Having propped up their budget on the sale of land across British Columbia and here in the capital region, I want to ask the minister this so that we can understand what is being abandoned. Will the Minister of Finance…? Let's see his plan. Will he release the list of properties on Vancouver Island so the public can view them to see what the government's real fire sale agenda here is on Vancouver Island?

Hon. K. Falcon: Well, the member knows not what he speaks, because actually, if he looked at the budget, he would understand that, in fact, this so-called fire sale…. Apparently, it's a very slow burn fire sale, because we're taking the next 12 months to make sure that as we do this, we do maximize value.

[ Page 9408 ]

We're taking the time to make sure we do exactly what the member talks about, and maximize its value.

Now, I know that the member opposite may be a little bit light on private sector experience prior to coming to this House, but I can tell him, as someone that has been in the investment….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. K. Falcon: I appear to have touched a nerve on many of the members opposite. I appear to have touched a nerve on so many of them — very many of them.

I'll just let the member know that actually when you're trying to maximize value, the one thing you don't do is you don't lay out your entire portfolio and say, "Here it all is, folks; have a look at it," and start doing your bidding against each other and cooperating with each other to drive down value.

We're maximizing value on this side of the House. We're taking the time to do it right.

BUDGET PROVISIONS FOR

CHILDREN AND FAMILIES

C. Trevena: B.C.'s Representative for Children and Youth had some very choice words about the Liberal budget: "grim," "callous," "a deliberate choice to leave families behind."

I'd like to ask the Minister of Children and Families about her choices. How can she explain a rise in her minister's office budget of 11 percent while every other line item is frozen or cut?

Hon. M. McNeil: I had the experience of having dinner with the Representative for Children and Youth on Tuesday night after the budget. We had a long discussion, which we often do about different issues. We actually have the same goal, and that is to ensure that children and youth in this province are supported the best they can.

What the representative did share with me is that she has seen our draft strategic and operational plan, a three-year plan. She's delighted with where we're heading. She thinks it's one of the best plans she has seen. Her concern was that we would actually be able to fund some of the initiatives that we're doing.

What I did assure her very clearly was that the deputy minister and I are both very confident, with the budget that we have, that we'll be able to deliver the services to children and youth in this province within the budget we have.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

C. Trevena: If this minister shares the goals of the Children and Youth Representative, how can she support this budget? It's a question of priorities, and children are clearly not one of them.

We have the Premier saying she's all about families first, but the children's representative has called this budget — no matter how many dinners she has with the minister — "a U-turn from the families-first agenda." The Premier's real priorities: $15 million for political advertising, boosterism and political advisers.

To the minister, how can she stand by quietly as this Premier shows her true priorities and turns her back on vulnerable children in B.C.?

Hon. M. McNeil: It's interesting. When you have a chance to chat with the Representative for Children and Youth about her concerns, we realized that the two of us have very much in common. We do care about the children and youth. We do….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Continue, Minister.

[1420]

Hon. M. McNeil: In fact, that's actually not what was said. Yesterday morning when she spoke with the Select Standing Committee on Children and Youth, she was actually very, very complimentary. She was very complimentary of the Ministry of Children and Families. The strategic and operational plan that we have for the next three years — she says it's the best plan she has seen. I take that very….

Interjections.

Hon. M. McNeil: What I did assure her on Tuesday night, when we had our discussion, was that my deputy minister and I are very confident that we can, within the budget that we have in front, continue to do the great work that we do for children and youth in this province and that she will continue to have a role in helping guide us.

GOVERNMENT ACTION ON CHILD POVERTY

C. James: I heard the minister say "the great work" that this government does. Well, let's take a look at the facts. It is truly shameful that B.C. has had the highest rate of child poverty, the worst rate of child poverty in Canada for eight years straight. How is that doing a good job for children? And now the B.C. Liberal budget ensures that we will stay there.

Adrienne Montani from First Call said: "It's a false economy to ignore the costs of undermining children's healthy development through maintaining a high poverty rate and withholding needed support."

[ Page 9409 ]

The Liberals have their priorities wrong. This should not be a political issue. Liberals in Ontario, Conservatives in Newfoundland and Labrador, and New Democrats in Manitoba have all moved on a child poverty plan, but British Columbia is one of two provinces without any plan to deal with poverty.

To the Minister of Children and Families, why didn't she do something to protect vulnerable children and families in this province?

Hon. K. Falcon: Well, on this side of the House we believe the best anti-poverty program is a job. It may be why, today — when there's so much global uncertainty, when you have high record rates of unemployment around the world — in British Columbia, we have the highest level of employment we've ever had.

Put aside for a moment the extra $444 million we're adding to the Social Development Ministry. But let's also recognize the $365 million investment in all-day kindergarten, one of the things that every expert says is the best thing we could do. We will continue to invest in children and services right across the province of British Columbia.

[End of question period.]

Orders of the Day

Hon. R. Coleman: I call continued debate on the budget.

Budget Debate

(continued)

Hon. D. McRae: I am pleased to stand and finish up my speech in response to the budget. I was having so much enjoyment speaking before. I have some bad news for the members opposite. I thoroughly enjoyed my first

section entitled — working title by the way, for all — "Does the opposition know what it's like to live outside of British Columbia?" That was well received by the members opposite, I was glad to say.

I'm afraid the bad news is I'm going to have to skip part of my speech entitled "How the opposition insists on crushing consumer confidence in British Columbia," and I will move right on to "Giving families a break."

[L. Reid in the chair.]

You know, it's important to know that people run for political office for many reasons. One of the reasons that I chose to stand for provincial political office in 2009 was watching how the B.C. Liberal government had an ability to actually grow the economy and at the same time lower taxes and invest in vital services across the province.

[1425]

As a high school teacher, I was really pleased to make note of…. In 2001, I was paying X amount of taxes. In 2009, when I left, I was actually paying $3,000 a year less in taxes because of the B.C. Liberal government and the tax cuts they provided not just to teachers but to all residents of British Columbia.

No matter what the opposition wishes to portray in the media or on this House floor, the reality is that British Columbians are the second-lowest-taxed population in all of Canada. I'm just going to use some examples. I'm not much of an accountant, but I went on line and used a little bit of a budget tax calculator the other day. Let's assume I was still teaching today. If I was teaching in the Comox Valley, I'd be making approximately $83,000 a year. Now, after-tax dollars in British Columbia? That means I'd take home about $63,444, which is pretty substantial, living in a small town. Always like to make more, but it's pretty good.

Now, if I was making that same wage in the province of Ontario, I don't make $63,000 take-home. I'd be making about $62,000 take-home, about $1,300 a year less. But you know, there are worse places to live when it comes to taxation.

It is a little bit better in Ontario than it is in Saskatchewan. A Saskatchewan resident making $83,000 a year will take home about $60,200 — not so good on the math, but about $3,200 less. Not that I want to blame Saskatchewan for having high taxation. If they feel bad in Saskatchewan, they can look farther east and look at, say, the province of Quebec, where if you were making $83,000 a year, you would take home in the end about $57,000 or year, or $6,000 less take-home pay by living in one province to another. So there is some real advantage.

Furthermore, I wanted to compliment the Finance Minister. I'm one of the handful of MLAs, I think, in the House who has very young children and one of the very few of the handful of MLAs who actually still buys diapers on a regular basis for their children. But there are elements in this budget which are important for families, and they're important for communities like the Comox Valley, and I can't compliment the Finance Minister more for stepping up and making things good for families in British Columbia.

One of the first issues I wanted to talk about was the B.C. first-time-homeowners grant. It's in existence till March 31, 2013. If you're going to buy a brand-new home in British Columbia over $200,000, you are eligible for a $10,000 rebate. Now, if you're not sure what the word "rebate" means, that's a cheque in the mail. That is dollars coming right to your pocket, and these are homes that are new.

That means they need a new drywaller, a new plumber, a roofer and all the building materials to make sure that they can actually be constructed. So this is not only good for families to move into a new home; it's also good for the homebuilders across this province and especially in

[ Page 9410 ]

the Comox Valley.

Now, as well, there is the B.C. seniors home-renovation tax credit. It was treated, I would think, with disdain by the members opposite, but the reality is that this is really, really positive. It is worth up to $1,000 a year and allows for, basically, reducing some structural challenges in a home of a senior. They can do things that will allow them to stay in their home longer and have a better quality of life. We all know that moving at any stage of your life, whether you're 22 or 62 or 92, is not an easy time.

So if we can allow individuals, especially in the senior stage of their life, to stay in their home a little longer and not bear some extra costs, this is, I think, a really positive step.

With the B.C. seniors home-renovation tax credit, it allows individuals to make investments in things like handrails, ramps to get into your house if you have some stairs or something as important as a walk-in bathtub. This is something that I think will allow seniors to have a better quality of life. Seniors in the Comox Valley benefit and across British Columbia.

The other one which I thought was actually very, very appropriate for the Comox Valley…. I think a lot of people will not understand this — maybe the member from Esquimalt will — the expansion of the homeowner grant to low-income veterans under 65. Now, this is really important. In the Comox Valley, like I said earlier in my speech, we're blessed. We have the CFB Comox. We have a large retirement community for forces members who come, whether they were in the air force in the Comox Valley or they served in the army or the navy, and they often come to the Comox Valley and retire.

Now if you're under the age of 65 and qualify for the low-income veterans homeowner grant, you have the opportunity to save some extra dollars. It's our way as a province to say thank you to the veterans for stepping up and assisting the residents not just of British Columbia or Canada but the world for serving your nation and serving the world to make it a better place. So I'd like to say a special thank-you to the Minister of Finance for that.

[1430]

Lastly, the children's fitness and arts credit. You can claim up to $500 in eligible expenses. Just in my world alone — and I do say I have two children; I introduced them earlier — there are elements here that we participate in. For example, my daughter has played soccer in the past. This is important. That could be anywhere from $40 to $80. Not a huge amount, but you know what? Every little bit counts. She's a big fan of musical theatre. She's in musical theatre right now. I think she's an unbelievable actress, but I blame her mother for that.

My youngest daughter, Chloe, is involved in diaper gym. Again, not a huge expense. It's a $40 or $50 class, but every little bit helps. One thing I'm really proud of: my daughter Gracie is in ballet and has been in ballet since she was, I think, four years old. It's a class that she goes to every week.

Again, these are things that can be actually claimed against for parents as they put their children in these extracurricular activities. When you're a family, every little bit helps. So I'd like to say thank you, again, to the Finance Minister for making sure that families both in the Comox Valley and across British Columbia are well looked after.

One of the things I was also talking about is that our Premier is showing great leadership. I mentioned this just as we were tidying up at the lunch hour break. Instead of closing borders like we have seen in traditional history in British Columbia or Canada or the world — closing our borders and becoming protectionist — we're going on the offensive. That's why I want to take a few minutes talking about the B.C. job plan.

Now, there are eight key sectors. I want to make sure that the members opposite remember them because they are really important to British Columbia.

Forestry. Forestry is so important for British Columbia. You go out into the rotunda, you look up under the ceiling, and you see four primary sector industries that are in there, and what's one of them that is so well represented? Forestry.

Traditionally we have looked to the States to sell our market. Now, that's been a great market for us in the past — 300 million people, one of the wealthiest middle classes or total numbers and size in the world. We've done very well by the U.S. We will continue to want to sell to the Americans.

I'd like to thank and also congratulate both the past Minister of Forests but also the Minister of Jobs, Tourism and Innovation. There are opportunities in the world that I think people are envious that we have. For example, in 2007 we sold about $100 million worth of lumber to China. Well, in 2011 we increased it by a little bit. We got it up to — what was it? Oh, $1.1 billion of investment.

If you are a logger in Gold River or a logging truck driver in the Peace River, these are opportunities that allow you to stay in your communities in rural British Columbia. They allow you to make investments, buy groceries, buy an ATV, perhaps, have a quality of life and reinvest those dollars in our rural communities, which are so important. They are bringing new dollars into this province every single day.

There are other opportunities, like mining, liquid natural gas, technology, clean tech, green economy. One that I think the Comox Valley always liked talking about is tourism. I always talk about tourism, because when you think about agritourism in the Comox Valley, we have some great opportunities, whether it is out there visiting something like Coastal Black Estate Winery or Shelter Point whiskey distillery.

I actually was down at a place the other day in Qualicum, in my colleague from Parksville-Qualicum's area, at Little Qualicum Cheeseworks. Not only do they make an amazing quality cheese, they also have a pet-

[ Page 9411 ]

ting zoo. They also make wine, blueberry wines. In the summertime they have 500 individuals a day stopping by there.

I'd like to say thank you to the Finance Minister for coming through with this budget. I look forward to growth in British Columbia. Families will thrive because of this budget.

L. Krog: I never rise in this chamber that I'm not conscious of the honour and privilege that's conferred on each and every one of us by the voters of our respective constituencies that give us this opportunity to speak in this House.

Indeed, hon. Speaker, I have to note that I haven't been here steadily, but it was 20 years ago that both you and I would have stood and addressed the first throne speech and, subsequently, the first budget speech. Time has passed, but the rhetoric certainly has not changed, from what I can see, having listened to the Minister of Agriculture, the member from Comox, and the usual praising of the government's budget, all the good things that are in it and how wonderful it all is.

But before I lapse into anything that might be counted as sarcasm in this chamber — because it's not my style to be that way, of course — I do want to acknowledge the member for Kootenay East, who acknowledged that we are in Heritage Week. Last night I had the privilege to attend the Nanaimo Heritage Summit. That is an annual gathering of many of the organizations and groups in our community that work hard to preserve the heritage of the great city of Nanaimo and its environs.

[1435]

As I have often reminded the members in this House, Nanaimo is third-oldest city in the province of British Columbia, with a wonderful heritage and a fascinating history. And as I am always wont to do in this chamber, I like to ask for things when I know the cabinet and government are listening carefully to every word I say.

One of the groups that spoke last night and brought us up to date on their many activities was the Friends of the Morden Mine society. They are working vigorously to preserve the Morden mine tipple, which is actually in the constituency of my good friend and colleague the member for Nanaimo–North Cowichan.

The Morden mine tipple is one of two left in North America — two, hon. Speaker. It is in a state of incredible disrepair. It is a unique aspect of British Columbia's history. What the Morden mine society is attempting to do is to secure the support of government to take the necessary steps to preserve it and to enhance what is already a provincial park — a provincial park donated by the very successful son of a miner in that community some years ago. That led to the creation of the park.

I know that the Minister of Environment is listening carefully, and I know that several other ministers are listening carefully. This would be a great opportunity for this government to demonstrate some real concern and to celebrate Heritage Week in the way it should be celebrated, by recognizing this unique aspect of our history.

Quite literally, based on engineers and experts' reports, in a few years the Morden mine site and the tipple which is so important for it…. This tipple will be gone. It will collapse. It is facing the wear and tear of time. And it would make a great memorial to the miners and workers of this province who literally built my community, who were responsible for the generation of great wealth. It was coal shipped from Nanaimo that powered much of the British Empire and much of that which constituted our great friends to the south in America, in California.

Hon. Speaker, that is my plea as I begin my response to the throne speech today to this government. If you want to make a priority in terms of preserving British Columbia's heritage, you have a unique opportunity. There are many things that could be done, and I could speak about many other aspects, but it is because of the pressing nature of the timing of this request that I raise this today. In a few years at that site the tipple will collapse, and it will be gone forever. British Columbia will have lost an opportunity to preserve a piece of heritage that is just as worthy, in my submission, as any other aspect of this province's history.

Having said that, with respect to the budget, in the words of the song of youth: "Is that all there is, my friend?" What it says to me is that this is a government that has, quite clearly, fulfilled its mandate as best it could, and it's time to go. We are way past the best-before date of the Liberal government in British Columbia.

We have seen, instead of a government that was even prepared to present a throne speech in this chamber, the conventional way of exciting British Columbians, hopefully, about limning something progressive and something worthwhile…. Instead we got a bit of a radio announcement, the favourite safe haven of the Premier, followed up by a budget speech. And what has the budget got to say, hon. Speaker? At a time when we recognize growing inequality in our society, when all the statistics are there for everyone to see, did we see some supports for those who are truly poor and vulnerable amongst us? No, we didn't.

Now, I'm past the child-rearing stage. My wife and I are at the stage that many of the members of this chamber are at. It's about grandparenting now. I'm sure my daughter and son-in-law will be somewhat excited by the prospect of a $25 benefit, for a $500 arts and sports tuition bonus for them, if they can afford to spend that amount of money. But let's be realistic.

[1440]

I use this as a prime example. If we are in such difficult circumstances — and if one listened to the Minister of Finance, you'd think we were only a couple days away from being Italy or Greece, one of the P.I.G.S. as they're referred to — I have to ask this question from a common-

[ Page 9412 ]

sense perspective: what is it going to cost to implement this program, this tiny example of a government attempting to buy votes? What's it going to cost in terms of the necessary paperwork and the application and the proof and the supervision and the rejection of the application and the appeal of the application and all of the things that go with this kind of focused benefit to people?

Moreover, more importantly, $500 to many — indeed, statistically, perhaps, even the majority — of the families in my community…. That $500 expenditure on what they'd love to spend on their children is simply not there. If, like my daughter and son-in-law, you have three children, the prospect of spending $1,500 annually? Not likely to happen. Not likely to happen.

So in this budget, I suggest with great respect, instead of attempting to buy votes with this program — and this is simply one example — it may have been better to focus on assisting those quite directly who really need the money, not those who feel comfortable enough or indeed are comfortable enough to pay out $500 for those kinds of things.

It's not that I'm against sport or anything of that nature, but if we are in this difficult fiscal circumstance, if things are so bad, there are many British Columbians who could have used that money. It could have been better spent. What it says is that this government's priorities are about winning an election instead of doing what's right by the people of British Columbia.

The housing bonus. Now, I understand how important that is. Indeed, my community is suffering greatly right now because of the lack of construction. Nanaimo is a community that has traditionally survived well since the demise of the coal and the destruction of the forest industry in the last decade, that has survived on growth and housing and construction. So this will be a benefit. But again, it's for a year. It expires around the time of the next election.

Now, it ill behooves me, because I value those people in my community who work in construction, and work hard in it, and all of those contractors who've managed to survive the last couple of years…. I value them. But when the program is only good for a year, you have to ask yourself: is this really about helping the B.C. economy, or is it about helping the B.C. Liberals get another term in office?

On balance, I have to say that I tend to think most British Columbians will see it for exactly what it is — an election gimmick; an attempt to buy favour from the construction industry that has been hit so hard by the government's implementation of the HST, that has been hit so hard by the deceit of a government that chose not to tell the electorate about the implementation of the HST, got elected, turned around and implemented it at no small cost to the economy of British Columbia and — in fairness, as the Bible says, "As you sow, shall you also reap" — at no small political price to be paid by this government that saw, notwithstanding the money it spent to fight it, notwithstanding all the propaganda they produced, the people of British Columbia rise up with a voice that I haven't heard in my time, and that I'm not aware of historically, and basically tell this government they didn't believe them, didn't like being told things that weren't true.

They told the government in a referendum clear as a bell: "You know what? In British Columbia henceforth, you're not going to be able to win an election on false pretences anymore," which is why I'm so proud of our leader, who's made it very clear that when it comes to the next election, what we will propose will be set out clearly, and British Columbians can judge us fair and square, if we're elected government, four years after that election.

Interjection.

L. Krog: I see my friend the member for Chilliwack is speaking again. Well, I'm always delighted to hear his voice. But it's my turn today. It's my turn.

[1445]

I want to talk a little bit about what the government is proposing to do to save its budgetary skin, so to speak, and that's the disposition of Crown assets. Now, I'm old enough to remember when Pearl Buck was actually a fairly well-read author. The book that basically won her the Nobel Prize for Literature was called The Good Earth . The main character in it is a Chinese farmer called Wang Lung — a peasant, actually — who understood the importance of land, who understood that a person…. Speaking in the language of the time in the book, a man without land was nothing. When you're selling your land, you know things are tough.

John Galsworthy, The Man of Property. How did you achieve success in England? You became the owner of land. Land meant you were somebody. Land was status. Land sustained you. Land provided you an income.

What have we got this government doing? Have they mismanaged things so badly — because that's what this is telling me — in the last 11 years that when you've got a prime piece of Surrey real estate that's now worth roughly four times what the government paid for it back in the '90s, that is in the centre of probably the fastest-growing community in the country…? Are things so bad that this government's going to have to sell it?

What happens in a couple of years, when the Surrey school board says: "We need a school site there"? What happens when some branch of government says: "We need to have offices in Surrey"? What happens if it becomes a necessity to build another hospital of some kind or a health care facility, a university, a college or any public building, any public use?

Do the members opposite, the government, really think they're going to create some new raw land in Surrey? Do they think they're going to pull it out of a hat like a rabbit at a magician's show? Do they honestly think

[ Page 9413 ]

that's going to happen? No. This government is bent on disposing of a Crown asset that has obvious and necessary public use.

So I come back to it. This government, in essence, inherited this land from a previous administration. Instead of securing it for the use of future generations, instead of it being an inheritance passed on as a legacy, this government wants to dispose of it, wants to sell it off in order to cover its budgetary problems.

Is that good public policy? Does it make sense? We know that the real estate market is down, generally. We hear the Minister of Finance make little shots over here about New Democrats not having the business experience. Well, as I recall, the Minister of Finance's vast business experience appeared to be running the Total Recall campaign for a little while and a tiny bit of consultancy.

Speaking as someone who's actually met a payroll for a number of years now, I just have to say to him that I think it's a basic of economics that if you are going to sell, you sell when the market is high. If it's really sensible to sell, you sell when the market is high. If we are to believe the Minister of Finance, who's gone on at great length about how terrible the world economy is and how tough things are and on and on, then this may be, from a logical perspective, not the time to sell.

If this government is bent on disposing of Crown assets, then maybe they should wait just a little while, till the market turns around. That might be a logical thing to do. But logic is not what's driving things. I come back to my point. What is driving this government is trying to salvage a political party that is in deep trouble, that is indeed seeing some of its own prominent supporters drift over to the provincial Conservatives, that has seen its support wither away.

I've said, as John Diefenbaker often quoted, that polls are for dogs. I understand that, but you can't ignore polls entirely. Sometimes you have to pay a little bit of attention to them.

[1450]

The polling would indicate that the Premier serving out Gordon Campbell's term actually hasn't reversed the rather steep decline that was occurring before the Premier left office for greener pastures and the joys of the great city of London — to be High Commissioner to the Court of St. James, no less — before he got that reward from a Conservative government for implementing a Conservative policy under the guise of a Liberal Party.

That is Dave Barrett's great line: "The great thing about being a Liberal? You don't have to be one all the time."

So the Premier has got his reward — the former Premier, I should say. The present Premier — well, she certainly got her reward too, by becoming leader of the B.C. Liberals.

She's got to try and guide this clunky ship of state through some fairly tough waters. One gets the distinct feeling there are not a lot of people bailing. They're a bit tired of bailing. There's a number who are getting ready to jump ship; indeed, a couple already have. We've seen them go fairly quickly, moving on to other experiences that might be somewhat more joyous than being members in this chamber.

Indeed, I see a couple of them now over there who I suspect may not wish to stay on, on the leaky vessel. This is not exactly the Good Ship Lollipop . There's not a lot of sugar left in the old boat now.

Interjection.

L. Krog: She's headed for tough times, and I will just look with interest as I hear the member for Chilliwack talking about dreaming on.

I must say to you directly, hon. Member, through the Speaker of course: it may be a dream over here, but it's really a nightmare over there.

So as we see the withering away of the power of the great B.C. Liberal Party, the inheritor of the power of Social Credit; as we see them flogging off Crown assets in a way that would make W.A.C. Bennett turn in his grave; as we see a ferry corporation deeply in debt, not able to deliver the service it once did; as we see a ferry corporation that has raised rates to such a ridiculous point that you're actually seeing a reduction in ridership for the first time in the history of the B.C. ferry fleet….

We are seeing that great engine of economic development, B.C. Hydro, staggering under a weight of debt created because this government insisted on rewarding its friends with a bunch of private power contracts. So you buy high, and you sell low. Now, there's business wisdom from the other side.

I wonder if the Minister of Finance wants to accept some responsibility for this marvelous British Columbia Liberal–born, B.C.-made policy that has seen B.C. Hydro reduced to a shell of its former self, now debt-burdened for decades, with contracts that the taxpayers will have to pay for.

What we see is a province that is in every way diminished. And it's not me. The member for Surrey-Whalley so wisely, yesterday, reported to this House a few of the remarks from the B.C. Progress Board.

Now, that wasn't an NDP-appointed progress board. That wasn't a non-partisan progress board. That was a board of able people, I might say, appointed by this government.

What did they have to say? In numerous categories there is no question: we are worse off today in British Columbia than we were 11 years ago when this government took office.

Child poverty is worse. We've got the teachers out on strike. We have a growing gap between the rich and the poor. We see the major Crown of the province, B.C. Hydro, in trouble. We see the absolute lifeline to Vancouver Island in trouble — B.C. Ferries.

[ Page 9414 ]

A political party polling lower than it has polled throughout its term. A government so desperate that it can't come up with a convincing plan in its own budget. A Premier who prefers to be on radio talking about things, instead of in this chamber. A government that in every way has quite literally run out of gas.

Interjection.

L. Krog: Now, the member for Kamloops, the minister over there, says: where's your budget? I am so delighted to respond to that remark.

[1455]

If this government is so anxious to hear an NDP budget, let them step aside now. We'll take over. We'll settle things in British Columbia. Then they can have the privilege and honour to sit on this side of the House, asking the questions.

I think British Columbians are asking themselves a very fundamental question, and will be in the next election, when they look at this budget: "Am I better off today than I was 12 years ago?" That'll be the question in the spring. That'll be the question.

You know, I heard the Minister of Agriculture go on at great length at how thrilled he was to be paying $3,000 a year less taxes than he was 11 years ago. I don't suppose the minister actually understands that there's a relationship between taxation and services. Now, the minister is in a bracket where he doesn't have to worry about the paltry things like groceries or meeting the rent that many British Columbians face on a daily basis. So perhaps he's thrilled with that.

Perhaps he doesn't have an aging parent who is on a wait-list to get into a facility. Perhaps he doesn't have to worry about whether or not he can afford the rising price of gasoline with the carbon tax. Perhaps he doesn't have to worry about those kinds of expenses, but hundreds of thousands of British Columbians do on a daily basis. They know the answer to the question I've been asking. They are not better off today. They will not be better off in the spring as a result of this budget.

The only way they're going to be better off is if they send this government packing. That, I suspect, is what's going to happen if we're lucky.

I want to talk a little bit about the budget in a very direct way. Now, these paragons of virtue on the other side, these people who pride themselves on managing the economy so well, these people who were happy to take credit when things were going well and resource prices were up and the revenue was flowing in…. These people now step back and say: "Oh, it's not our fault. It's not our fault. It's the P.I.G.S. It's Portugal, Italy, Greece, Spain. It's the world economy. It's Lehman Brothers. It has nothing to do with us." All of a sudden they have discovered, much to our surprise and chagrin, that we're all part of a world economy.

Suddenly they're taking no responsibility for the state of British Columbia's economy. So I have to ask: which is it? If you're going to take credit for the good times, don't you have to take responsibility for the bad times? Are you only here when it's warm and sunny? I mean, talk about a fair-weather friend. The government of British Columbia is only pleased to accept credit and stand in the photo ops when things are going well. But when things get a little tough, well, it's somebody else's responsibility. "It's the P.I.G.S. It's the world economy, but it has nothing to do with us."

This may be, if the government would actually admit it, the opportunity to truly turn British Columbia politics around. This would be that opportunity.

This would be a time for an honest government to step back and say: "You know what? Within the context of globalization, within the context of a world economy, within the context of an economy that may or may not need our resources from time to time, we don't have as much control as we'd like to pretend." But they're not going to say that, because that would be an admission and that would bring the level of debate in this House, as indeed it would in the Parliament of Canada, to a level that most people aren't prepared to go to.

Interjection.

L. Krog: My friend is asking for a bigger deficit. The only deficit in British Columbia today is a deficit when it comes to being honest with the people of British Columbia. That is a deficit borne by this government.

So we've had, of 12 budgets under this government, seven — count them, seven — deficits. Seven deficits. If this were a real corporate entity, if you had a CEO, if you had a board of directors that had managed to take the company into seven years of losses out of 12, you know what you would do with them? You'd fire them. You'd fire each and every one of them. And you know what? I wouldn't give them any severance either.

We don't want to talk about severance, because we've seen the severance packages paid out under this government. The former Deputy Minister to the Premier — now there was a sweetheart deal and a nice good-bye.

[1500]

With the member from Prince Rupert nearby, I hesitate to bring up B.C. Ferries and the fact that Mr. Hahn can happily golf his way into paradise on one of the fattest public pensions I've ever seen anywhere in this country's history. This government's idea of fiscal management is to have run us into debt, increase the public debt, all at the same time they've managed to exacerbate the gap between the rich and the poor, to place the Crown corporations in serious trouble, and at the end of it they can't even deliver a justice system that actually functions.

Now, I've said it many times. Long before public health care, long before public education, you understood that

[ Page 9415 ]

government had a pretty fundamental role in administering a justice system. What have we got today in British Columbia? We have a justice system that by every measure is in crisis. We have a 25 percent increase in the number of cases before the courts as we speak, in a year — 25 percent, a little over 2,500 cases that face the potential of being dismissed. A 25 percent increase in one year.

We're the only province in Canada to have fewer Provincial Court judges today than it had in 2005. We have a government that has been in power for 11 years and is now announcing a review, my goodness, as if this was just like a little thing in the night that crept in to the cabinet chamber and popped up its little head and said: "We have a crisis."

British Columbians, every person working in the justice system, have been saying for ages that there's a crisis in the justice system in British Columbia. The government's response, as we see potential sexual predators and drunk drivers and drug dealers walk free, is to announce a review.

Well, I am in one sense — wait for it, Members — actually pleased the government has in some small way acknowledged the crisis in the justice system, because there are thousands of British Columbians who have been victims of crime, who are looking at this government and saying: "Why is it that the person I'm satisfied assaulted me or stole my property or drove drunk on my highway, who may have injured or killed me…? Why is it that these people get to walk free?"

They get to walk free because this government has deliberately chosen not to give priority to a justice system, which is a fundamental role of government.

As I start to conclude my remarks, I can say this.

Interjection.

L. Krog: I know the member for Chilliwack wants me to speak more, but the rules of the House don't allow it. I know he hangs on my every word.

As I conclude my remarks, judgment day, as they say, will come in the spring of 2013. All I can say is — the Attorney General has often pointed out that I'm a member of the bar; on many occasions she has pointed that out — that I just hope this government has a really good lawyer, because they are in really big trouble.

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: It is indeed a pleasure to rise to speak in favour today of Budget 2012. This, as the majority of members have said so far, is a prudent budget that controls government spending while still making necessary investments. Our budget will be balanced by next year, 2013-2014.

This budget provides increases in funding for health care, justice and social development as well as education. The programs that we all value so much are maintained, and we continue to provide financial and other supports for those most vulnerable in our province. This budget demonstrates clearly our belief that the way to economic growth is through lower taxation, in contrast to the opposition, who believe it is through government spending.

[1505]

I paid attention to the initial response from the opposition, and this is what I heard. I heard more money for post-secondary education, more money for forestry, more money for seniors, more money for skills training, more money for child poverty and more money for economic development.

In fact, my esteemed colleague, the member for West Vancouver–Capilano, did a bit of economic analysis. He is a man who does have some credibility, being a former economist with, I believe, the Royal Bank. The member for West Vancouver–Capilano has done some math and conservatively estimates the promises made by the opposition to add about $6 billion to the budget we see before us today.

He took some time to figure out how you could get this. You could certainly go $6 billion into further deficit. That would be one solution. But another thing he did is…. I think he got out his calculator. I think it went beyond a pencil. He said a way that you could come to arrive at this extra $6 billion for all of these promises — this conservative estimate — would be to increase all taxes in the province by 80 percent. So all taxes increased by 80 percent. That was the suggestion.

That is certainly not our intent. We do not believe that that would do anything for the people of British Columbia. To make it clear, increasing taxes to such a dire degree, or really increasing taxes at all, would make our province look like a very inhospitable place for investment and for future development.

Before I speak in any more detail about the budget, I would like to take a moment to speak personally and to actually thank my husband, Robert; my family; and my friends for the support and love they give me each and every day.

I know that all of us feel this way about our work. It's certainly for me a great honour and a privilege to have been elected to serve the people of Vancouver-Fairview and to also serve as the Minister of Labour, Citizens' Services and Open Government. It is a wonderful job, and I love it, but it can be demanding. I'm very grateful to my friends and family for all the ways they provide me with support.

I also want to take a moment to thank my fantastic, talented constituency assistants — Chantal, Adrian and Aaron — who I know are busy right now, as they always are every day. They do their best to help the people of Vancouver-Fairview in any way that they can, and they do it with kindness and respect.

Equally talented and much appreciated by me are the people with whom I work here in the office in Victoria — Yvette, Val, Graham and Joel. I'd also like to thank the

[ Page 9416 ]

many dedicated public servants who work in the ministry under the leadership of Deputy Minister Kim Henderson.

I think all of us who work here are aware that there are many unsung heroes in the public service of British Columbia. They are not thanked enough. They are really underappreciated. I want to say now how impressed I am with them and how much I appreciate and respect them and their work.

Turning back to the budget and just some highlights. The province this year forecasts a deficit of $968 million but, for the following two years, surpluses of $154 million in 2013-14 and $250 million the year thereafter. Budget 2012 projects modest economic growth over the next three years. We will continue increasing spending by an annual average of about 2 percent while continuing to protect health and education funding.

We've spoken of this before: this is a prudent budget, and it's the right budget for the times.

The Ministry of Health budget has been talked about before. It will increase by $1.5 billion over the three-year fiscal plan so that it will be nearly $17.3 billion in 2014-15.

We are continuing to achieve key health outcomes. While we keep doing that and continue to lead the country, our government will be working to reduce the rate of growth in health spending through an ongoing focus on identifying additional best practices for delivering care and finding administrative savings. Total spending now in health is 42 percent of all government spending.

There are new tax measures in this budget that benefit seniors, families and businesses in British Columbia. These include the B.C. first-time new-home buyers bonus of up to $10,000. Also included are the B.C. seniors home-renovation tax credit, which is going to make a difference to seniors by providing them with up to a thousand dollars, and also the children's fitness credit and the children's art credit, making a difference to seniors, children and families around the province.

[1510]

Our corporate income taxes now are among the lowest in the country. Combined with federal tax reductions, the corporate income tax in British Columbia is also one of the lowest in all of the G7 nations. Business owners certainly understand the importance of government balancing its budget.

Keeping the taxes at the levels they are at, keeping them low — importantly, this is a measure that helps us to keep the welcome mat out for British Columbia, to make people know that this is a hospitable place, that we welcome investment. That is what is helping to grow our economy today and will continue to in the future.

The small business corporate tax will be maintained at 2.5 percent, and this will be revisited when our financial situation has improved. There is room in the fiscal plan for a potential temporary 1 point increase in the general corporate income tax to 11 percent, effective April 1, 2014. But this decision will be re-evaluated in next year's budget.

Total capital spending in the next three years will be $19.2 billion, and the taxpayer-supported portion of this is $10.7 billion.

This budget supports the very important B.C. jobs plan in many ways. One of these is that effective April 1 we will be eliminating the provincial jet fuel tax for international flights. Removing the tax will save airlines thousands of dollars a day on long-haul Asia flights. Each daily international flight added to our airports creates 150 to 200 new jobs at the airport, not to mention spinoff jobs and other economic benefits.

Importantly, we're also extending property tax relief for ports, which are vital to our transportation infrastructure. We will introduce legislation to make the existing cap on municipal tax rates permanent. This cap was introduced in 2004 to help make our ports more competitive and spur new investment that would generate new jobs. In 2007 we extended it out to 2018, and we saw investments of more than $1 billion in terminal expansions, which generated hundreds of new jobs. Now we're making the rate cap permanent because it's working. We'll continue to compensate affected local governments.

Madam Speaker, I mentioned different ways we're giving seniors and families with children a break. The home-renovation sector is going to benefit from the B.C. seniors home-renovation tax credit. This will provide a 10 percent refund, up to $1,000 a year, on expenditures made to help seniors stay in their home longer — things like ramps, grab bars or whatever might be helpful to them. This will be available to seniors or family members sharing their homes, regardless of whether they rent or own.

This budget provides adjustment to the homeowner grant, including creating a new supplement for low-income veterans under the age of 65 and extending eligibility for homeowners who have moved into a residential facility but haven't yet sold their home.

In this budget there is investment in ministries that have growing caseload pressures. Budget 2012 is committed — we remain committed — to funding critical social services and reallocating contingency funds to the Ministries of Justice and Social Development, where caseloads continue to rise. Over the next three years $237 million will go to the Ministry of Justice, and this, importantly, includes $66 million a year to pay for 168 police officers hired as part of the government's guns and gangs strategy.

Income assistance will receive an additional $294 million over three years to address a growing demand for disability benefits and also to respond to the relatively high numbers of single employable people who are now receiving assistance. We're taking the same approach with Community Living. B.C. Budget 2012 includes the $40 million previously announced to strengthen supports for individuals with developmental disabilities while also moving forward with the changes recom-

[ Page 9417 ]

mended by an internal audit and a rigorous review.

The previous speaker mentioned the surplus assets that the province is going to be preparing to sell over the next while. Madam Speaker, this is not a new process to government. This is something that has happened with our government previously and with other governments in years past.

What we are going to be doing is looking at selling less than 2 percent of our overall property holdings. We're looking at assets that do not have strategic value, that are not part of government's strategic plan and, in some cases, are actually costing taxpayers money rather than generating economic benefit.

[1515]

By selling some of these properties, we're confident that we're going to be able to spur economic activity throughout the province, while at the same time generating needed revenue. We expect that the sale of these surplus assets can raise more than $700 million over the next three years.

Now, many previous speakers have spoken about personal income tax in the province, and I think we feel the need to set the record straight on income taxes in British Columbia. B.C. families generally have one of the lowest overall tax burdens in Canada, and that takes into account income taxes, consumption taxes, property taxes, health care premiums and payroll taxes.

B.C. currently has the lowest provincial personal income taxes in Canada for individuals earning up to $120,000 a year. Provincial personal income taxes have been reduced by up to about 37 percent for most taxpayers, and even more than that in some cases, since 2001. Today there are an additional 325,000 people in this province who no longer pay any personal income tax at all.

Just a few examples of how this actually impacts on individuals and families. Compared with 2001, today an individual earning $20,000 a year is paying $723 less each year in income tax. If we look at a senior couple whose income together is $40,000 a year, each year they're paying $828 less than they did in 2001. If we look at a family of four whose combined income is $70,000 a year, it's over $2,000 less income tax for them each and every year than it would have been under the taxation in 2001. And an individual can earn at least $19,000 before they pay any income tax at all.

These low income taxes for people — for families, for single people — are making a difference every day all around the province, and that certainly includes my riding of Vancouver-Fairview.

Madam Speaker, I've already mentioned how proud I am to represent this wonderful riding. In my almost three years as their representative I've met with hundreds of constituents, from the very small to some of the senior members of the riding. I've met with teachers and students, small business owners and health care professionals as well as representatives of the many amazing not-for-profit associations in my riding.

I had opportunities to visit many of the schools, but there are a couple of events that really stand out for me. In November I attended a Remembrance Day ceremony at L'Ecole Bilingue. This was put on entirely by the elementary students at the school, and it was an incredibly touching and moving ceremony. In December I attended a Hanukkah concert at Talmud Torah Elementary School, a very special invitation that featured music, dance and hundreds of talented students. It was an amazing show. Not only was it colourful and fun, but it also was highly educational for me and, I imagine, for others who were there.

In visiting schools, I've met many teachers, principals, vice-principals and educational assistants, and they are all doing a stellar job. One of the highlights, for me, of these visits is when the staff members tell me how much they love their work. They know what a difference they're making in the lives of students every day, and they love what they're doing.

Of course, it is great to have time with students of all ages to see and hear what they're learning and to listen to their questions and comments about things they've learned in school, wondering about my job and what I do. It's always inspiring to visit one of our schools, and it always makes me feel just incredibly positive about the future of this great province when I walk out of any of those schools.

Of the constituents I have met with in Vancouver-Fairview — some of the residents as well as some of the business owners — what they have in common is how great they find Vancouver-Fairview as a place to work, live and play.

I've mentioned that Vancouver-Fairview is the home of many incredible not-for-profit associations. I have had opportunities to visit with some of them in my office and some of them where they work. I'm speaking about the budget today, and it is an important budget. It's a fiscally prudent budget and the right budget for this time. But when I think about these not-for-profit associations in Vancouver-Fairview and around our province, it reminds me that no matter what our budget is, no government can do everything, nor should they try.

[1520]

Whether we are speaking about the provincial, federal or municipal governments, no government can do everything. We can't take it all on, and one thing I've certainly learned over and over as an MLA is that we do some of our best work when we work with partners, and these not-for-profits are just fantastic partners.

Looking at some spending highlights from the budget with particular reference to Vancouver, we've made substantial investments since 2001 on health care capital right around this province — over $7 billion — and we are continuing to make investments to protect and enhance our province's health care.

[ Page 9418 ]

The budget provides a $1.5 billion increase to the Ministry of Health budget over the three-year fiscal plan. That will bring it, as I mentioned before, to $17.3 billion in 2014-15. This budget underscores the importance of investment in capital for health care facilities, and there is $2.3 billion in the next year alone.

Here are some examples of how these investments are making a difference in Vancouver-Fairview. Just a couple of months ago I attended the official opening of the Heartwood Centre for Women at the B.C. Women's Hospital. Heartwood is a leading-edge residential substance treatment program, and it's the only program of its kind in the province. It focuses on helping women with significant substance dependence, mental health concerns and primary health care needs. It will provide — in fact, it already is providing — 24-7 service, has a 30-bed capacity for in-patients, and it allows women to stay for up to 90 days.

The province will invest more than $2 million annually to support this great facility. Research has shown that women with substance use issues have more issues with education, employment and income — more difficulties — than their male counterparts. As many as two-thirds of women with substance use problems have concurrent mental health issues such as depression or post-traumatic stress disorder. This facility is a great step forward in addressing these challenges, and I am proud that our government is supporting women in their recovery and making communities healthier throughout the province.

One more example from Fairview. Last September saw the opening of a $60 million world-class health care research centre in my riding. I was delighted to be there, having been there for the groundbreaking just a couple of years earlier. This is the Robert H.N. Ho research centre. It's located near the Vancouver General Hospital. It houses health professionals looking for treatments and cures for prostate cancer, ovarian cancer, and bone and joint mobility problems. The centre is also focusing on early detection and disease prevention. There are about 150 staff working there, and there are 40 new positions within the Centre for Hip Health and Mobility.

I had a chance to speak with some of the people who moved to this facility from other places that they were working, and they really describe it as being like night and day. This is a beautiful building with lots of natural light. Many of them were working in fairly dark and dingy old labs before. They actually feel that their creativity is enhanced and that they're more productive in this new workplace. This is a joint partnership between the provincial and federal governments, Vancouver Coastal Health and the UBC Faculty of Medicine. The total provincial contribution is $22.5 million.

Now, we've talked about this before, but I would like to say again and remind the House that we have some of the best cancer outcomes in the nation right here in B.C. Our survival rates for breast and ovarian cancers are the highest in Canada. This success is directly related to the collaboration between researchers and doctors in this province. This facility continues this trend and will ensure that our survival rates and outcomes remain the best. This is a spectacular facility, and I certainly want to, once again, thank Mr. Robert H.N. Ho for his extraordinary generosity. Another great partnership, but it would not have been possible without his substantial contribution.

There are a few other recent projects — $8 million for renovations and acquisition of two positron emission tomography, PET, CT scanners at the Vancouver cancer centre. At the opening of one of these — again, I was present — we heard from a patient who totally brought us all into understanding what a difference this PET scanner had made for her.

It had made a difference. She was a woman with lymphoma, and because of this technology, she was able to avoid radiation treatment, which in the past would have automatically been given to her. So her treatment was less difficult with less potential side effects. She was enormously appreciative and really helped us all to understand how important this kind of technology is.

[1525]

There has been another $15 million investment in a radiopharmaceutical lab and cyclotron, again at the Vancouver cancer centre.

Now, with education, just briefly, on October 31, as part of a $353 million capital spending plan, a new elementary school in Vancouver was announced. Just outside of Vancouver-Fairview, this elementary school will be built in the International Village neighbourhood.

In the area of justice we are aware that this budget is allocating an additional $237 million over three years to our justice system with important capital spending commitments, including in Vancouver an investment in the law courts to refurbish plumbing, electrical, ventilation and other building systems. There is also money allocated to correctional centres in the Lower Mainland to support modernizing safety and security equipment.

Additionally, in October of 2011 we announced nine new Provincial Court judges to address caseload pressures on British Columbia courts and improve access to the justice system. Four of these new judges will be appointed to the greater Vancouver and Fraser Valley regions.

Earlier in the House today one of the members opposite talked about the budget, and this is what he said. He said that unionized workers were the heart and soul of the province. I really have to take a moment to say how much I object to this.

When I think about the people in my riding, some of them are unionized workers and certainly an important part of my constituents. But there are small business owners, who very clearly are not unionized workers. There are seniors who are not workers — not unionized workers. There are many people who are left out of

[ Page 9419 ]

this — in fact, I would submit, the majority of British Columbians.

I think many of us will feel that we are the heart and soul of the province and that we all share that. I found that to be such a regrettable comment and such an us-versus-them kind of remark to make. I really wanted to say that I see all of my constituents as being part of the heart and soul of this great province.

I truly do believe that this is a budget, with its fiscal prudence, that is the right budget for the people of this province, all of whom have a stake in it and all of whom make contributions in different kinds of ways.

I've already spoken about how important partnerships are. I was delighted this week to have some time to meet with the Hon. Tony Clement, who is president of the federal Treasury Board. He's also the minister who is responsible for the federal government's open government initiatives.

We spoke about how we could work together on our open data and open information initiatives and how, by working together, we could serve our citizens better. I look forward to continuing discussions with him and with other partners. I've certainly already spoken with municipal leaders, as well, right in the city of Vancouver as well as in Williams Lake and Quesnel and North Vancouver. In fact, pretty much anywhere anybody will talk to me about open government, I'm out there talking about it.

It's a relatively new addition to our ministry and, I think, a really exciting area with extraordinary potential. There's potential for us definitely to serve British Columbians, which I think all of us want to do on both sides of the House. There's potential for innovation, and there's potential for really deep and meaningful engagement with the people we all serve.

We're starting to do this in Canada, and I really am proud to say that here in British Columbia, of all the provinces, we are leading, in no small part through the leadership from our Premier. Our goal, while we do things differently, is to be more responsive to citizens, more transparent and to engage with them in new and different ways. We want British Columbians to truly feel that government is their government in a way that many do not feel today.

We're working in three main areas: open information, open data and citizen engagement. We've opened up government information so that freedom-of-information requests are available to the public and things like ministers' travel expenses are proactively available. We're looking at more ways that we can open up more government information so that people will see what is happening in government, have a better understanding of it and, again, feel that it is their government.

[1530]

Last summer we launched an open data website, Data B.C. There are now over 2,600 data sets, with more coming on line every week. These are available in a very usable format, machine-readable, and there is an open licence so people can take this data and use it in the ways they wish to.

On the citizen engagement side, I am proud to say that we are leading the way. We are committed to openness and transparency and to engaging. We're looking at ways to do things differently and certainly learning from other jurisdictions along the way.

We want to hear directly from British Columbians, and we want them to know not only that we're listening but that there are real opportunities for them to interact with government and that they can have a voice in some of the policies that are actually going to be developed that will impact on their lives. We recognize that it's not good enough for us to simply listen. We have to demonstrate that we are taking feedback from citizens into account when we make decisions that affect their lives.

[D. Black in the chair.]

One of the engagement strategies that is already underway is the B.C. education plan. The bcedplan.ca is an interactive website where literally thousands of British Columbians have already visited and left their thoughts. We have had people from all over the province participate on this website and leave very thoughtful contributions.

We've heard from teachers in the Peace River region, students in Victoria, parents in the Fraser Valley, interested citizens in the Kootenays — people from literally every corner of this province — and we certainly hope to hear from more people as the weeks go by. We will report back on what we've heard on the site by posting summaries of themes, and these ideas are going to be informing the discussions at the Ministry of Education.

Just last month, in January, the Minister of Finance launched a new website that invited British Columbians to balance the budget for 2013-14, and people found various different ways to balance that budget, in some cases — in many cases, in fact — by increasing tobacco taxes, interestingly.

[ Page 9420 ]

People were able to find their way to a balanced budget, see some of the difficulties that could happen along the way and some of the challenges, and then they were able to send their comments along to the Finance Minister, their solutions and their comments. This website was informative for people about the budget, but it did give them the chance to actually participate and forward information to the minister.

Madam Speaker, I need to draw to a close now, but I want to say that we are absolutely committed to further developments in this area. This is a priority for government. And I want to conclude by saying that we are opening government up and engaging in more deep and meaningful ways with British Columbians so that we can better serve them and work with them.

I also want to say how fortunate I feel to live in this province, how fortunate we all are. I think we have an incredibly bright future here in British Columbia. It's wonderful to live here in one of the most beautiful places on earth. We've come forward with a prudent budget that is good for British Columbia, and again, I am pleased to have had this opportunity to speak strongly in favour of Budget 2012.

G. Coons: It's a great honour and privilege to be here representing the constituents of North Coast and being able to talk to the budget. I do have to agree with the minister that British Columbia is a beautiful province, and I have to admit that I think that the North Coast is one of the most pristine, beautiful areas, ridings, within the province.

I do have to comment on a few things that the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Labour have brought out. It seems that the government members are stuck in a rut on what the opposition is going to do when we get to be government. They're asking about a budget; they're asking about plans. Well, you'll find that out in about a year and a half from now, when this side of the House is on the other side.

[1535]

This government seems very distracted with that — disorganized, out of gas. I dare say that I believe that this government has failed to do their job and their due diligence on behalf of British Columbians because they are so distracted, with no focus, no vision and no plans for British Columbia. It's highlighted with the Premier sitting there asking the opposition questions during question period like she's practising to be Leader of the Opposition. I think that's what she's doing.

Now, on that, I represent the North Coast. It's diverse, unique, challenging, the best riding, and there are many issues. Today there's an announcement with the federal government at the port talking about some economic development coming into the region. Ridley and the grain and the port are working well, and we're moving along. But some of the issues that my constituents have concerns with were not brought up in this budget.

The minister has talked about reducing taxes versus taxation, and we need that discussion in British Columbia. We need a discussion on fair taxation. It seems that the taxation or the lack of taxation or the taxation policies of the government seem to benefit the few. We see that in this budget.

Some of the comments from this budget…. We heard them today: grim, harsh, lack of compassion, callous. Those are just some of the words thrown out describing this budget that was presented last Tuesday. Callous. What is callous? Showing no concern that other people are or might be hurt or upset.

When we look at this and realize where these words came from…. Well, the sharpest attacks and angriest words came from Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond, the B.C. Representative for Children and Youth. She was highly critical, calling this budget callous. She says it's fine to have a harsh economic strategy, but at least soften it out by some compassionate approach toward people who are suffering through a deep recession.

She said she would like to have seen supports for vulnerable children and families in areas such as education and income assistance. She refers to the budget as grim — there's very little in there for struggling families — and predicts the long-term effects will be significantly harsh. Pretty strong language directed at a government whose main priority is supposedly families first.

I can envision the Premier and the Finance Minister as they're putting this together. Yeah, yeah, families first. Families can be first in line at the soup kitchen, first in line at the food bank, first in line struggling for affordable housing, first in line struggling to get the services that this budget is denying.

She talked about the priorities of this government. She said the most vulnerable citizens of British Columbia have been sort of told their interests will be put on hold while another set of interests is addressed, and I think that's a choice that will have a long-term cost for British Columbia.

It comes down to priorities, and I believe that's the difference between this side of the House and that side of the House — priorities. British Columbians recognize, I believe, that this budget did not meet the priorities of the majority of British Columbians. I do agree with our respected children's advocate, and I believe for a long time the priorities of this B.C. Liberal government have been on the wrong track — a similar track that led to the B.C. Rail corruption scandal.

They were also on the wrong track with that one, deceiving taxpayers and getting caught, leaving British Columbians, the taxpayers, paying $6 million to cover the legal fees of two Liberal staffers who admitted taking bribes. My colleague before mentioned a sinking ship. Well, a runaway train. People are hanging on the caboose, and a few are falling off.

[ Page 9421 ]

It's about priorities. I think that's what we have to get down to in this discussion, and as Turpel-Lafond says: "We are turning British Columbia into a society that is deeply divided." That's our fear. We see the increasing gap between the rich and the poor. Now, again, those aren't my words, so I can see that the rhetoric is down a bit because these are words not coming from the opposition.

[1540]

Also, Mario Canseco from Angus Reid, his input on the budget: "Just because of the Liberals' low poll numbers, they had to design a budget to try to win elections." I guess there are a couple of by-elections coming up and the 2013 election, so that's his take on it. It was an election budget, you know, based on their own agenda, and scrambling for themselves and over themselves. That's the view of the Angus Reid pollster.

Hamish Telford, from the University of the Fraser Valley, a political scientist, adds to the commentary. Basically, he says the Premier has backed up their families-first rhetoric with very little substance in the budget — just highlighting the failure of this Premier to put together her first budget.

She had an opportunity. The Premier had a great opportunity to take the lead, to show the leadership that the majority of B.C. Liberal members thought she had — not the majority of B.C. MLAs; the Liberal MLAs, I guess. And she failed, along with a few other failures, whether it was having an early election — oh yeah, that sort of fell aside; or riot TV — that sort of fell aside; or the HST — well, that's still hanging around.

Again, this budget and the Premier's families-first budget is basically a missed opportunity, a missed opportunity for British Columbians and for the Premier. It's unfortunate. She was convinced to bring this forward, I guess, I don't know by whom.

Most British Columbians expect modest budgets in difficult economic times, but again, it's all about priorities. When we start looking at priorities that work for British Columbians, it seems that the budget before us is not working, and it won't work.

If we look at some previous B.C. Liberal priorities that cost plenty…. The sell-off of B.C. Rail — they promised to not sell it, and then they did. There was the follow-up raid on the Legislature — somewhat embarrassing, I guess. Then there's a court case and on and on. I don't think that it's over yet.

The $6 million payout to the insider friends who pleaded guilty — that's just one messed-up priority that fell by the wayside. There are the $600 million for a roof at B.C. Place Stadium, recently the $30 million payout for Boss Power after this government apparently broke the law over mining permits, and of course, the HST calamity.

I think, with this budget…. And I'm going to get into some of the aspects of the budget that one would question. There's a $15 million ad campaign to sell the Premier and her so-called jobs plan. Is that a priority at this time for British Columbians? Well, I think if you asked most British Columbians or the people I represent, I don't think this would be a priority. I think that that money could be better spent listening to people who are on the front lines. Obviously, this government did not. And I believe that most taxpayers would agree that this is not a priority for them.

I see a similar reaction here with B.C. Ferries and their ad contract at Rogers stadium. You remember, you watched the Canucks and you got the big JumboTron, and "B.C. Ferries" flashing off that and "B.C. Ferries" on the boards. I don't think that was a priority, either, for B.C. Ferries or for this government to allow B.C. Ferries to do that. And then they don't even declare the contract they have. They said: "It wasn't signed; it was a verbal one." Well, that's hard to believe. I think the minister responsible said he was going to be looking into this. So we look forward to that.

As British Columbians are told to tighten their belts — I read that in a few papers there, "a bit of belt-tightening" — it seems that the Premier hasn't taken that advice for her own office. While the government and the people that work for the government have been careful about the optics of a ballooning Premier's office budget, there's no denying that job growth in this Premier's B.C. is mainly in her own office.

[1545]

There has been some decrease in the overall budget, but the Premier's own budget did increase by 9.5 percent. You sort of have to scratch your head when British Columbians are told, "Tighten the belt; tough times," but the Premier's office goes up 9.5 percent. And that's because she's stacked up her office with highly paid friends and insiders, surrounding herself with some highly paid advisers.

There are at least 18 political advisers and staffers, two who earn $195,000 or better and another four over $120,000. That seems to be the job action in action — more hiring in the Premier's office. So you've got to take that with a grain of salt.

This budget should not be about or for the B.C. Liberals. This budget should not be for the opposition. It should not be for the friends and insiders of whatever party, whoever they may be, and it definitely should not be about another photo op for the media. It should be, as any budget should be, about the people of British Columbia. I believe this budget fails in that capacity in so, so many ways.

My constituents on the north coast, whether it's Haida Gwaii or Prince Rupert, Port Ed; or down the coast — Lax Kw'alaams, Metlakatla, Hartley Bay, Kitkatla; whether it's Klemtu, Bella Bella, Bella Coola, Rivers Inlet — the Great Bear rain forest basically — had visions that we would see a budget that worked for those that needed it and presented a clear path for B.C. when it's clearly needed. But not so. And as others have called this, you know,

[ Page 9422 ]

a short-sighted, callous Budget 2012….

On CBC Daybreak North , talking to northerners, mostly Prince George…. I think they did that show in Prince George. What were they expecting and hoping for? They were looking for an investment in seniors and health care. They were looking for affordable, adequate housing. They wanted initiatives to fix the broken social safety net that's been weaved by the B.C. Liberal government for ten or 11 years. They were looking for something in the budget for jobs training.

These were topping the list as priorities of the people in the north, from this government in this budget. But basically, I could say that I saw nothing from the budget for northerners to grasp on to.

What we did see were a few token spending announcements — basically, nothing to write home about and barely worth a mention. Now, there was a lot of to-do and fanfare when the Finance Minister brought forward the tax credits, the two new ones for parents — for parents that can already afford to dish out the upfront fees for the fitness and art credit.

On Tuesday the minister stood up, and the mantra was that a family with three children can claim up to $1,500 a year — $500 in eligible expenses each. But he fails to mention the math behind that — that at its maximum, this new tax credit will provide up to $50 per child and only if the parents spend over a thousand dollars. So you spend a thousand dollars, and you get back $50.

Okay, so a thousand dollars…. The soccer — okay, maybe a hundred or two. So you get back some chump change or something for that. But again, it's not quite a real deal, not a deal for those families struggling with poverty issues, as they will likely get nothing, as they can't afford to lay out the upfront costs for any sports or arts fees.

If you take it a bit further, at $50 for a $1,000 spent on fees, then you might assume that to get your $500 rebate, you have to spend close to $10,000 on fees. Now, I'm not saying that these figures are exact, but you start looking at that, and you can see that to get the maximum tax credit of $500, you need to enrol your kid in a pretty skookum type of program.

[1550]

Again, when we look at that, I don't think that's what the Finance Minister said — making life a little easier for families. And the Finance Minister has the gall to tell Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond that the two new tax credits should alleviate the harsh criticism of his family budget, for the people that can afford it. But that's what we learned to expect from this government.

Another ace in the hole, or a rabbit in his hat, is the seniors home-renovation tax credit — up to $1,000 a year. But it seems to have the same play as the children's tax credit. You know, only the rich can sort of wheel and deal with that.

Now, we look at the latest reaction. This is not coming from me. The latest reaction to the seniors renovation tax credit is quite interesting. Art Kube of the Council of Senior Citizens Organizations of B.C. says: "The tax credit is a 'disappointment' because seniors would have to spend $10,000 on renovations to receive the full allowance." So you would have to spend $10,000 to get your $1,000 — right? "It means no furnace, no new refrigerator. Thousands of seniors don't have that kind of money," he said.

I can see the Minister of Justice here. The manager for the Prince George Council of Seniors says: "A new tax credit…for seniors home renovation will not benefit low-income seniors." The minister's there, having a few words here, so maybe she should talk to Lola Dawn Fennell, because she doesn't see this tax credit benefiting all seniors. So if you aren't benefiting all seniors, who are you benefiting? You're benefiting the ones that can afford it, the ones that can afford the $10,000 for types of renovations.

Now, the province is also excluding standard appliances from the eligibility, as well as general home maintenance, including roof and window repairs, flooring and painting. Services like home care and housekeeping are also excluded.

So when seniors see this…. Yes, when I sat here in the House and heard about these tax credits, I went: "Okay, yeah. Might be good. I'd have to know a bit of the details. I'd need to find out from a few of the stakeholders." And we're finding out. Fennell, from the Prince George Council of Seniors, says "she would have preferred to see home care funding to allow seniors to stay in their homes longer" — so another disappointment from this government.

Again, two attempts to smokescreen British Columbians by this government — a bit of juggling, misleading struggling families with children and seniors on this smoke-and-mirrors budget. What seniors heard and what families heard was silence on issues that are important to them.

Another jewel offered up for those with bulging wallets was the tax credit for new secondary homes outside the greater Vancouver and capital regional districts. So you could have somebody with a fair amount of money — like, let's just say, the David Hahns of the world, the ex-million-dollar man who's taking home $300,000 a year on pension.

Let me just repeat that — $300,000 a year on pension, because of this government's policies. Now he can buy a vacation condo somewhere up the hill at Whistler, and he gets to pocket an extra $10,000 due to this budget, while families and seniors are left scratching their heads. You start to see what's working here. There seems to be a real disconnect between the one side of the House and this side of the House.

Another interesting concept in this budget was the selli