2014 Legislative Session: Second Session, 40th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

official report of

Debates of the Legislative Assembly

(hansard)

Wednesday, February 26, 2014

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 6, Number

ISSN 0709-1281 (Print)

ISSN 1499-2175 (Online)

CONTENTS

Page

Routine Business

Tributes

Rick Hansen Foundation

Michelle Stilwell

Introductions by Members

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

Bill 12 — Natural Gas Development Statutes Amendment Act, 2014

Hon. R. Coleman

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

Pink Shirt Day and prevention of cyberbullying

J. Thornthwaite

John Gaiptman

R. Fleming

Caring Place services in Maple Ridge area

M. Dalton

International science fair participation by Kiri Daust

D. Donaldson

Recognition of work of Dr. Erich Vogt

R. Lee

Wounded Warriors run for awareness of post-traumatic stress disorder

L. Popham

Oral Questions

Government approach to teachers' collective bargaining

A. Dix

Hon. C. Clark

R. Fleming

Hon. P. Fassbender

Fee increases and comments by Premier on budget

M. Farnworth

Hon. C. Clark

M. Elmore

Government debt and comments by Premier on budget

C. James

Hon. C. Clark

Deetken Group role in reporting on job creation in natural gas sector

J. Horgan

Hon. M. de Jong

Orders of the Day

Budget Debate (continued)

J. Kwan

L. Throness

R. Austin

S. Gibson

A. Weaver

Hon. T. Lake

B. Routley

M. Dalton

C. Trevena

Hon. N. Yamamoto

S. Simpson

[ Page 1613 ]

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 2014

The House met at 1:33 p.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

Tributes

RICK HANSEN FOUNDATION

Michelle Stilwell: It's an honour for me today to acknowledge one of my inspirations in life and a real difference-maker for many people across British Columbia and the rest of the world: Rick Hansen.

[1335]

Introductions by Members

L. Popham: I would like to welcome and introduce six amazing people who are part of a team called the Wounded Warriors. They have just completed a run down Vancouver Island while raising awareness for post-traumatic stress disorder. In the House today we have Al Kobayashi, Dan Bodden, Steve Kobayashi, Stephan Deschamps, Channing Knull and Gerry Boivin. Today in a two-minute statement I'll be telling a little bit more about their story, but for now, please make them welcome.

S. Hamilton: I'd like to take this opportunity today to introduce two people in the gallery that are here to see us. First of all, my constituency assistant, Kim Kendall, who works very hard on behalf of my constituents, along with my other constituency assistant, Debbie Ward. They help keep my life in order.

Secondly, a gentleman who first arrived in British Columbia in 1996 after coming from Ottawa who, when he was in Ottawa, started Canadian Guide Dogs for the Blind. After arriving here, along with his wife Linda, he began the organization B.C. Guide Dogs and since 1996 have graduated over 104 guide dog teams. They've run some 300 dogs through their program as well as graduating some 28 autism dogs.

This is an organization that my wife and I are very proud to support and have been part of for quite a number of years now. I would like the House to make welcome Mr. Bill Thornton, president of British Columbia Guide Dogs.

A. Weaver: Today I would like to introduce a young student. Her name is Tessa Owens, from St. Michaels University School in my riding. She's the type of innovative student who, as one of the Vancouver Island reps of the Defend Our Future group, recently was in Antarctica touring the continent and attended the Rio+20. She and her fellow colleagues are the students and youth of today who give me hope that we will have a better future tomorrow. I'd like the House to please acknowledge her attendance here today.

G. Hogg: It is somehow appropriate on this day, Pink Shirt Day, that we recognize the gentleman who is sitting at home wearing his pink shirt and watching us. He is a survivor of Woodlands and an avid fan of all of the work that takes place in this Legislature. So please join me in saying hello and sending our best wishes to Phil Traynor.

C. James: I have a constituent who is visiting me in the House today who has served this province for over 20 years as a civil servant for all of the people of British Columbia. He volunteers. He's very active in our community. Would the House please welcome Peter Holland to the Legislature.

D. Barnett: I'm very honoured and privileged to have two young ladies here today who are both my constituency assistants, one in 100 Mile and one in Williams Lake. Would the House welcome with me today Bonnie Gavin and Bev Harris.

As always, from the Cariboo-Chilcotin, you know we had Carey Price. I'd also like to welcome Rick Hansen here today, who is from my constituency and the city of Williams Lake.

J. Shin: I have the pleasure today of introducing to the House two Vancouver Island residents. Mr. Chong Tong Lee is the past president of the Korean Society of Manitoba and now is an active member in the Korea Veterans Association of Canada. Mr. Benjamin Myung Jung Kim is the president of the Korean Marine Corps Veterans Association and the past president of the Korean Veterans Association in its eastern chapter.

My grandparents on both my mom and dad's side passed away a decade ago, and little did I know that I would now have the pleasure of having such an enthusiastic, quite literally, army of adopted grandfathers in the Korean community who have been incredibly supportive.

[1340]

Both Mr. Lee and Mr. Kim are influential leaders, long serving now over 1,000 residents of Korean descent living

[ Page 1614 ]

and studying in Victoria and Vancouver Island. I ask the House to please give them their warm welcome.

B. Routley: I had the privilege today of touring the Legislature with Janelle and Ellazora Hardy, and thank you, Speaker, for taking a few moments out of your busy

schedule to say hello. It was very interesting to meet this mother and daughter, because Janelle's mother was an MLA in the Yukon and also an MP representing the Yukon.

She had some interesting stories to tell about her and her sister being in the mall. I know this doesn't happen here in British Columbia, I'm sure. But they were in the mall, and somebody was spreading lies and rumours about her mother in the mall. Her sister went up and confronted them and said: "This is totally unacceptable, especially to say that about my mom."

I guess that showed me the family side and what families might have to put up with sometimes when we're engaged in politics. She passed on her best wishes to all of those that are legislators and their families, so thank you. Please join me in welcoming them to the Legislature.

S. Chandra Herbert: Well, it gave me great pleasure today to meet two heroes, and I know they're heroes probably for most of us, if not all of us, in this chamber. Of course, Rick Hansen — I got so flustered I spilled coffee on myself, because I remember meeting him as a very young man. And then, of course, out front with the ceremony for Pink Shirt Day, meeting Travis Price, who was one of the originators of Pink Shirt Day, standing up for another student in his school out in Nova Scotia.

Just to say to the Speaker, maybe for next year for Pink Shirt Day…. I would name it Pink Suit Day. I will get a pink suit if the Speaker would wear a pink gown or pink robe.

Thank you, hon. Speaker, and thank you, everybody, for a great ceremony out there today.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

BILL 12 — NATURAL GAS DEVELOPMENT

STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 2014

Hon. R. Coleman presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Natural Gas Development Statutes Amendment Act, 2014.

Hon. R. Coleman: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. R. Coleman: I'm pleased to introduce the Natural Gas Development Statutes Amendment Act. Bill 12 amends the Oil and Gas Activities Act, the Petroleum and Natural Gas Act and the Strata Property Act.

The Oil and Gas Activities Act changes will modernize British Columbia's regulatory framework and clarify land owners' rights. Amendments to the Petroleum and Natural Gas Act will modernize the administration of natural gas and oil subsurface rights. Bill 12 also will introduce minor changes to the Strata Property Act, amendments to help strata owners carry out their responsibilities.

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

Bill 12, Natural Gas Development Statutes Amendment Act, 2014, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

PINK SHIRT DAY AND

PREVENTION OF CYBERBULLYING

J. Thornthwaite: Today is Pink Shirt Day in British Columbia. Today we stand up against bullying at schools, in the workplace, at home and on line. Today we declare that intolerance has no place in our society.

Pink Shirt Day began in 2009, when David Shepherd and Travis Price organized a protest at their Nova Scotia high school in support of a student who was bullied for wearing a pink shirt. A day after the bullying, Price, Shepherd and 50 other students showed up to the school wearing pink shirts. After that the bullies were never heard of again.

Bullying is not a new phenomenon, but bullies now have new tools with which to harass. Cyberbullying is an increasing concern, particularly for youth. One study estimates that more than half of teens and adolescents have been bullied on line, and one in three has been the target of cyberthreats.

[1345]

The problem is made worse thanks to the increased access young people have to new technology, particularly smartphone apps like Snapchat. Cell phones are now the most common medium for cyberbullying. Most youth, whether they're a bully or a victim, believe bullying on line is easier to get away with than bullying in person. But awareness is growing, and students are taking action. Delete Day is a student-led initiative where trained peers help students delete inappropriate on-line content.

Bullying is no longer restricted to the halls of the school or to the hours of the school day. It happens 24 hours, often under the false assumption that when you're on line, you're anonymous. The best way to fight it is to raise awareness and get parents and educators involved.

[ Page 1615 ]

I ask the House to join me in encouraging all British Columbians to help us to promote safe schools, positive learning environments and increased on-line protection for our children.

JOHN GAIPTMAN

R. Fleming: I'd like to take an opportunity this afternoon to recognize somebody who many members of this House know quite well, Mr. John Gaiptman, on the occasion of his retirement as superintendent of the greater Victoria school district. I know that many of John's friends, family and colleagues are excited about the things that John may get up to in retirement.

There are an awful lot of people in my community who are sad to be losing a great leader in education who has given so much to his community with his experience, skills and the enthusiasm he brought to his job.

John began his teaching career in 1978. He held various positions within the province of B.C. He began with the greater Victoria school district in 1993 as principal of Lambrick Park Secondary. He came up to the board office in 1998, first as a district principal and then assistant superintendent. He has been superintendent since 2002.

John has achieved many positive things at school district 61 during very extremely trying times. I think the districtwide results speak for themselves over his ten-plus years as superintendent. We now do have higher graduation rates. We have improved aboriginal education and better outcomes on courses that are provincially measured under John's leadership.

I think beneath the data is a real sense, spoken by many elected officials and administrative colleagues and employees in the district, of the profoundly positive impact that John had on the learning culture in his district. He was the kind of superintendent who was always in the schools, in the culture, so to speak, speaking directly with students.

It's hard to single out just a few of his many accomplishments, but I think certainly one that parents and educators and thousands of past students will remember and credit John with is around the area of music. When he became superintendent, the strings program was threatened, and the choices offered in education were made more difficult by funding situations. John has presided over a renaissance of programs for students from all social backgrounds to learn and experience the joys of playing an instrument. I know that John is out attending music concerts almost every night.

We don't know what he's going to get up to, but I ask the House to congratulate John on the wonders of his career and wish him well in his next chapters.

CARING PLACE SERVICES

IN MAPLE RIDGE AREA

M. Dalton: It's an honour today to speak about the Salvation Army Caring Place, a vital organization that supports families and individuals in my community. In 1990 Sally Ann opened Mountain View Community Church and nearly immediately started to focus on human social development in Maple Ridge. These efforts led to the launching of the Caring Place in 2003. With limited funding and a whole lot of community spirit, dedicated volunteers and supporters have worked tirelessly to make the Caring Place the great place that it is today.

The Caring Place serves upwards of 10,000 meals each month and provides 25 emergency shelter beds, 15 cold weather beds and another 14 beds in transitional housing.

The Caring Place runs a variety of programs, including client advocacy, Sonia's Cradle, for babies and toddlers, and meals and catering under the talented direction of Tim Sarsfield. Last year a nurse practitioner clinic was initiated with Fraser Health to give marginalized people a better opportunity to receive a continuum of care. In addition, the Caring Place reaches out to kids by organizing a summer camp program, back-to-school program and a school lunch bag program.

Thank you to director Darrell Pilgrim, shelter manager Mike Emery, corps officer captains Orest and Tracy Goyak. Thanks, also, to Connie McGonigal, Steph Wagner, Shirley Berggren and the many, many others who work or volunteer or give help and hope to the needy in Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadows.

[1350]

Just this last weekend over 100 walkers raised over $13,000 in the Coldest Night of the Year campaign to support the Caring Place and the Salvation Army. The Caring Place is a testimony of how a community can rally together and tangibly demonstrate God's love for all.

INTERNATIONAL SCIENCE FAIR

PARTICIPATION BY KIRI DAUST

D. Donaldson: On the heels of the Winter Olympics, where many members of this Legislature highlighted their constituents' achievements, I have news of another high-level international performance by a resident of Stikine.

It was based on an outdoor event and eventually led to a top finish at an international competition attended by 24 countries. Sixteen-year-old Telkwa resident Kiri Daust represented Canada at the Taiwan International Science Fair in January in Taipei.

As far as the outdoor event that led him to this world stage, it was walking in the woods with his family. Daust began noticing rust on the leaves of the highbush cranberry — berries that his family gathered to make jelly. His natural curiosity kicked in, no doubt assisted by the fact

[ Page 1616 ]

that both his parents are scientists.

He set about identifying the rust by sending pictures to plant disease experts, then designed and carried out experiments in the field to determine the effect it was having on the highbush cranberry. He found that berries of infected plants had significantly less sugar and, by going through historical records, found a pattern that linked the rust to wetter summers.

This is important, as climate change modelling due to greenhouse gas emissions predicts wetter summers for the northwest, and the low-sugar berries could have a negative impact on birds and other animals that depend on them.

Kiri took his project to regional and national science fairs and earned his place at the Taiwan International Science Fair this year, where he took second place in a category that included plant diseases and microbiology. Along the way, his research was published in the peer-reviewed scientific journal the Canadian Field-Naturalist .

This is all from a young man who hasn't yet completed biology 11. But it doesn't stop there. The mainly home-schooled Daust also plays violin with the Prince George Symphony Orchestra.

Congratulations, Kiri, and also to the other Canadian representative at the international fair, Andrew Schulz, from Fraser Lake in my colleague's constituency of Nechako. It shows how much talent there is, in all disciplines, in northern rural communities if just provided the opportunity.

RECOGNITION OF WORK

OF DR. ERICH VOGT

R. Lee: I rise today to pay tribute to the life and contributions of a great man who had boundless charisma and fierce determination: Dr. Erich Vogt.

Dr. Vogt was a gifted Canadian scientist and also well known for his distinctive ability to lead and to create. Dr. Vogt's fingerprints are all over the top scientific institutions of British Columbia as a founder of TRIUMF, Canada's national laboratory for particle and nuclear physics at the University of British Columbia; the B.C. Innovation Council; and even Science World.

Through the '70s he served as president of the Canadian Association of Physicists, chairman of the TRIUMF board of management and founding chairman of the Science Council of British Columbia, and he served on about two dozen international physics advisory committees. He also reigned as TRIUMF's laboratory director from 1984 until his retirement in 1994.

Among his many awards and decorations, Dr. Vogt received the Canadian Centennial Medal in 1967, the Royal Society of Canada in 1970 and was appointed as an officer of the Order of Canada in 1976 and of the Order of B.C. in 2006.

In 2011 the TRIUMF consortium universities founded the CAP-TRIUMF Vogt Medal for contributions to subatomic physics in recognition of Vogt's contribution to the institutions of physics.

Dr. Vogt lived in Vancouver. He is survived by his five children and his 16 grandchildren. His eternal optimism in the face of daunting challenges uplifted all in his presence until the very end, and he will be sorely missed. A public memorial service to celebrate Dr. Vogt's life will be held on March 8 at UBC campus. I ask the Speaker to send condolences to his family on behalf of this House.

WOUNDED WARRIORS RUN FOR AWARENESS

OF POST-TRAUMATIC STRESS DISORDER

L. Popham: Last week the Wounded Warriors ran from Port Hardy to Victoria to help to raise awareness around the mental health challenges faced by people experiencing post-traumatic stress disorder. They're part of Wounded Warriors Canada, a non-profit that is helping members of the Canadian Forces who have been wounded or injured in service to our country.

[1355]

They wrapped it up Friday at the end of a run in excess of 600 kilometres and six full days. The team visited Legion branches all the way down the length of Vancouver Island. Their motto? "Not all wounds are visible. Honour the fallen. Help the living." It's a message for all of us.

Retired Lt. Col. Chris Linford, a Victoria resident and national ambassador for Wounded Warriors Canada, helped with this run. He has suffered from PTSD for 20 years, after a 1994 mission in Rwanda during that nation's genocide, as detailed in his book Warrior Rising .

He said: "I was a strong, fit soldier, a nursing officer, ready and trained. I tell you, of the 200 of us sent to Rwanda, 200 returned injured with PTSD. I spent the next ten years hiding it from everyone because of the stigma. The stigma is powerful. It totally controls you, and PTSD controls you."

Many people in our communities are dealing with PTSD. Too many of these people will succumb to the need to numb the anxiety or the pain of memories, turning to substances which will ultimately only worsen their condition.

As many as one in ten Canadians are affected by anxiety disorders like PTSD. That number is higher for our Canadian Armed Forces personnel and our first responders, like firefighters, paramedics and police officers.

My heartfelt congratulations goes out to the B.C. Wounded Warriors team. You have made us all proud by raising much-needed awareness around PTSD.

[ Page 1617 ]

Oral Questions

GOVERNMENT APPROACH TO

TEACHERS' COLLECTIVE BARGAINING

A. Dix: The Premier's determination to score political points at the expense of public education has been perhaps the central feature of her career at the cabinet table. We remember Bill 28, found to be unconstitutionally illegal in the courts. Then the Premier, after Bill 28, said she accepted the ruling — in word, apparently, but not in deed, as she introduced virtually the same legislation.

Then her government set out to try and provoke a school strike to keep children out of school. Then they were found again to have acted illegally, before the courts. Now here we are again. The same position, the same rules on class size and composition are what the government is seeking to impose. When will the Premier stop scheming and start putting children first?

Hon. C. Clark: Our government has worked diligently and with sincerity to make sure that we get to an agreement. If you look at the history of how this unfolded over the last several years, the government went out and imposed a cooling-off period and appointed a mediator who was respected by all parties and held in esteem all across the province. That mediator, as a result of those actions, helped us to get to an agreement that we all wanted.

We are now going back to the bargaining table. We'll be back again next week. I do believe we can get to an agreement. We want an agreement, and we know — all of us, whatever side we sit on at the bargaining table — that if we want to put kids first, we need to make sure that they have stability and that their classrooms are free from labour disruption.

Madame Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition on a supplemental.

A. Dix: Well, you wait a year to get an answer around here, and you get that.

The Premier knows what the evidence presented by her government before the courts was. I know what it was. It was that they, for political purposes, sought to provoke a strike.

[1400]

There are repeated rulings of the court. They waste the time of the province. They waste the time of parents and teachers and school children with their inveterate scheming on these questions. Year after year they ignore rulings of the court. They don't care about it, and now they're playing the same games again.

Why doesn't the Premier respect rulings of the court with respect to class size and composition?

Hon. C. Clark: I draw the member's attention to the reality. First of all, the government worked diligently to make sure that we got to a settlement, and we did. Second, the government made a significant investment in the learning improvement fund, $210 million, which resulted in 500 new teachers, 400 new learning-assistant supports, 7,500 hours added for other learning-assistance teachers — a significant investment intended solely to improve the learning environment for children.

That is what the government wants. It's what teachers want. It's what parents want. That's why we're working so hard to get to a settlement, because we know that nothing will benefit kids more than labour stability in their schools.

Madame Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition on a supplemental.

A. Dix: Hon. Speaker, 1,734 classes in the Vancouver school district, in the Premier's old riding — outside the government's own rules on class size and composition; 1,700 classes in the Minister of Education's riding; 654 in school district 23, the Premier's new riding. They don't even respect their own rules with respect to these questions around class size and composition. The people who have lost out after 12 years of the Premier's scheming on this question….

Let's be clear. Her own point person on this testified to that scheming in court. So let's not say…. The judge ruled as to point of fact that the government was conspiring to keep kids out of school — as a point of fact, not a judgment; a point of fact — in her decision. Now we have the same legislation, the same position.

Why doesn't the Premier do something for those public school children who are being denied what they should get, even under the Premier's own rules in schools today?

Hon. C. Clark: Well, again, I'm happy to have the opportunity to draw the member's attention to some important facts in this Legislature.

The number of students graduating in British Columbia over the last 12 years has increased by 15 percent. The number of aboriginal students graduating has increased by 103 percent. The number of ESL students graduating has increased by 62 percent. The number of special needs students graduating has increased by 166 percent.

Now, none of those facts are represented by the selective use of facts that the member likes to present in the House. But we get to those great outcomes for kids because we are focused every day on trying to put the interests of students at the centre of all of our decisions.

When we ordered a cooling-off period so that we could reach a settlement, the Leader of the Opposition opposed it. When we appointed a mediator, the Leader of the Opposition opposed it. When we got to a settlement, the Leader of the Opposition said he didn't really

[ Page 1618 ]

like it that much.

[1405]

Well, you don't get to a settlement by being constantly negative and selectively using facts. You get to a settlement by working hard, by putting students at the centre of your decisions and never wavering in your determination to get there, and that's how we got there.

R. Fleming: Everyone in British Columbia today — parents, teachers and students — can see that the Premier's comments are a farce. They know that this government isn't interested in bargaining. This is a government that was capable of plotting and scheming to provoke a strike, and that was proven in court. Even after losing in the Supreme Court for a second time, they're still continuing with this strategy. At every opportunity over the past 29 days, the minister and this Premier have been escalating tensions that are counterproductive to good negotiations — negotiations that finally must put kids first.

It's clear now that this government will not bargain in good faith until every legal option has been exhausted.

Madame Speaker: Pose your question.

R. Fleming: So will they at least do what Judge Harris urged today? Will they

schedule and conclude as soon as possible to get out of the courts and get back to the place where this crisis of their own making can be resolved? And that is the bargaining table.

Hon. C. Clark: Well, another question from the opposition that flies in the face of all available facts. He talks about getting back to the bargaining table. We are at the bargaining table with the teachers. And it is our sincere purpose in being at that bargaining table to get to an agreement with the BCTF, just as we have with a third of the public service in British Columbia before the expiration of their contracts.

We have reached those agreements with the hard-working men and women of our public service here in British Columbia through hard bargaining and good faith. We intend to do the same with the B.C. Teachers Federation.

R. Fleming: There's no stay on the facts. The facts have been determined by the B.C. Supreme Court. They are still the facts, and those facts are that the B.C. Liberals squandered their chance to negotiate better learning conditions for our children in favour of trying to provoke a full-scale strike and shut down every school in British Columbia.

The B.C. Liberals were pursuing a strategy that would create chaos in the lives of children and their families so they could sway public opinion. That's how low this government can go. And the losers were our children.

So I would ask the Education Minister, since it's clear that this government will not bargain in good faith until they are forced to: will they at least expedite the appeal so we can get the focus back in the education sector to where it should be — on our children?

Hon. P. Fassbender: To the member opposite, when we talk about facts…. The Premier has clearly stated that we stayed at the table, we continued to negotiate, we invoked a cooling-off period, we brought in a skilled mediator, and we came to a negotiated settlement.

[1410]

I would challenge the member for Victoria–Swan Lake to remember his comments. And would he stand up in this House and send a message to the BCTF, which he said: "500,000 kids on the curb" and "leave their parents' lives disrupted because of dysfunction in the classrooms"? That is not our position. We want to negotiate. We're at the table. We'll continue to negotiate to keep the children in schools, to keep their parents focused on their future. That is our goal.

FEE INCREASES AND COMMENTS

BY PREMIER ON BUDGET

M. Farnworth: The Premier recently said about her budget: "We said we weren't going to increase taxes. We didn't increase taxes." But over the next three years the budget contains a total of $4.4 billion in tax, fee and rate increases. So how on earth can the Premier say, "We didn't increase taxes," when an additional $4.4 billion is being hoovered out of the pockets of hard-working British Columbians?

Hon. C. Clark: Well, I don't know if the member got a chance to read through the budget documents, but if he did, he would see that in British Columbia, for a single individual earning $80,000, we have the lowest taxes of any province in Canada. For a two-income family of four at $90,000, we have the third lowest. For a two-income family of four at $60,000, we have the third lowest. For a senior couple with a $30,000 income, we have the second-lowest taxes.

We are very proud of our record on taxes here in British Columbia. We know that's one of the ways we've been able to grow our economy. It's one of the ways we've been able to make sure we continue to attract investment. And it's very much how we've been able to differentiate ourselves from members of the opposition.

We want to put British Columbians to work at high-wage jobs in a growing economy that depends on our resource sector. That's what we stand for on this side of the House. We know where we stand. We'll look forward to finding out where the opposition stands.

M. Farnworth: That's the problem. We know where

[ Page 1619 ]

the Finance Minister stands. We don't know where the Premier stands. She stands in this House and wants to quote from the finance documents, yet when she's out in Kelowna, she says: "No, we didn't raise taxes. No, we're not taking any more money out of the pockets of taxpayers in British Columbia." It's one thing outside this House, another thing inside this House.

But let's set the record straight — not selectively but with the facts. They're as follows: in this year's budget, over the next three years, a total of $2 billion from Hydro hikes, $650 million from MSP hikes, $145 million from ICBC hikes, $160 million from ferry fare hikes and $180 million from tuition hikes. That's not even counting the whacking $1.2 billion in increases that are specifically labelled as taxes in the Premier's own budget.

In light of the evidence tabled by her Finance Minister, can the Premier please explain why she continues to mislead British Columbians outside this House that they've not raised taxes and they've not taken fees and that there's not $4.4 billion more coming out of the pockets of hard-working British Columbians?

[1415]

Hon. C. Clark: If challenged with the question about who in this House cares about making sure that the pocketbooks of British Columbians are growing rather than shrinking, I think it's fairly obvious who stands for that. It's the government that's the member of the exclusive club we call the Triple-A Credit Rating Club.

It's the side of this House that's proud to say we presented one of perhaps two balanced budgets in this country and one of few in North America. It's the group of us in this House that's proud to say we are constraining the growth in government spending at one of the slowest rates anywhere in Canada so that we can keep taxes low for every British Columbian.

Do we care about people's pocketbooks? Absolutely, we do. That's why we're controlling taxes. That's why we're controlling the growth in government spending. That's why we're maintaining our triple-A credit rating. That is why we are balancing our budget, and that is why every single day we are focused on grasping the opportunity to grow our economy — to say yes to economic development, to say yes to our resource communities, to say yes to rural communities, to say yes to putting people in this province, from every corner of this province, to work.

M. Elmore: How about another exclusive club that B.C. is a member of — the highest child poverty rate in Canada?

The fact is that this Premier's budget contains $4.4 billion in higher taxes, fees and rate increases. That's $4.4 billion coming out of the pockets of people across the province and making life less affordable for British Columbians. Yet the Premier is still telling media that she didn't raise taxes at all.

To the Premier, does she deny that her budget is built on $4.4 billion in new dollars that will come straight from the pockets of people in this province?

Hon. C. Clark: These are difficult economic times. There's no question about it. And the economy has remained sluggish. There is no question about it. But the Conference Board of Canada predicts that British Columbia will lead the country in economic growth next year. Projections, across this country, are that British Columbia is gaining steam in growing its economy because of the work that we're doing.

Despite the fact that it's been tough fiscal times, we have found money for an early childhood tax credit. We have found money, which the NDP would have taken away, to make sure that parents can invest in their children's future education. We've put that money aside. We put that money aside, over the objections of the opposition, because we know it is important to invest in young people and their education if they want to be able to compete in the world.

The difference between the government and the opposition, though, very clearly, is this. While they stand up every day and they say they want a poverty plan, we over here say we have a jobs plan.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members. Members, this is your time.

Hon. C. Clark: We know this — that the best way to lift children out of poverty is to make sure that their parents are working at high-paying, secure jobs. That is what we work toward every single day.

M. Elmore: The reality is that B.C. has the worst child poverty in the country and the worst private sector job record in this country.

[1420]

B.C. families are being fleeced to the amount of $4.4 billion in taxes, fees and rate increases, which is a heavy burden on our families in British Columbia. Over the next three years an average family will pay nearly $900 more in just hydro rate hikes and increases in medical premiums. The Premier denies she's raising taxes, but each month British Columbians will receive a hydro bill that tells a different story.

To the Premier, will she admit that this government's hidden taxes are going to make life less affordable across the province?

Hon. C. Clark: A million people in British Columbia pay reduced MSP premiums; 800,000 of them pay no MSP premiums whatsoever. That's in an effort to make it a little bit easier for those who are struggling as families to try and get by. We need to make sure that we are ad-

[ Page 1620 ]

dressing those issues for people who are struggling, absolutely, but we also need a long-term plan.

We need a plan to make sure that British Columbians can go to jobs that are secure and high-paying, that will offer them the promise of lifting them and their children out of poverty forever. The only way to do that is to plan for economic growth. The only way to do that is to say yes to our resource economy. The only way to do that is to say yes to economic development projects. The only way to do that is to work hard to attract investment.

GOVERNMENT DEBT AND COMMENTS

BY PREMIER ON BUDGET

C. James: Just four days ago the Premier said her budget wasn't created by "raising taxes, borrowing or stealing." But in fact, the Premier did raise taxes — $4.4 billion in taxes over the next three years. The Premier did borrow. Provincial debt will shoot up by another $7 billion. That's on top of the billions of dollars of increase to the debt already during her time as Premier.

My question is to the Premier. If she's so proud of this budget, why are we hearing one message inside this Legislature and another message outside the Legislature?

Hon. C. Clark: Well, it is a little interesting to hear the opposition talk about how important it is that we look after our debt and deficit in British Columbia. It may be the very first time that I have heard a member of the opposition express such a sentiment.

If she is indeed so interested in making sure that we reduce our deficit or that we continue to eliminate our deficit, that we continue to work hard to eliminate our debt, that we work toward paying off our debt so that our children don't inherit the burden of our decisions when we're gone, I would ask her to think about: perhaps she's on the wrong side of the House, because it's on this side that we care about those issues.

DEETKEN GROUP ROLE IN REPORTING ON

JOB CREATION IN NATURAL GAS SECTOR

J. Horgan: Just so we can get away from some of the fabrications, let's take a look at some of the things that were said prior to the election. Before the election the government released information on job creation statistics in the liquefied natural gas sector. They characterized this information as independent. Two companies we know of, Grant Thornton and Ernst and Young, put their name to those documents.

[1425]

Freedom-of-information requests have revealed that a third company was involved, Deetken Enterprises, who have conveniently, since 2007, received $3.4 million in payments from the province of British Columbia — leading up to the last election alone, $961,000 in payments.

I want to just read into the record that one of the bits of advice that Deetken Group gave to Ernst and Young and the minister's representatives in the Ministry of Finance was: "We should remove all reference to 'proponent' information, and this should be described as data provided by the province and its advisers developed from industry benchmarks and other sources."

My question the Minister of Finance is this. Did we pay almost $1 million to have a private company aggregate someone else's information and then scrub it clean? Is that what we paid $1 million for?

Hon. M. de Jong: Well, as a former colleague used to say, move over and make some room on the grassy knoll.

I hope the member and members opposite aren't shocked to know that in preparing material for budgets, we seek advice from reputable outside firms — in this case three extremely reputable international accounting firms whom we provide information to and ask for analysis.

We then take this extraordinary step. We actually publish the report that they give to us so that everyone can read it. We lay it out there for the public and for the opposition to analyze. If the member is shocked by the statement he reads that officials — professional public servants — made clear and wanted to make clear that the information being provided to those firms was not from an individual proponent but from government.... I'm sorry that offends him, but it is entirely consistent with the facts and the professionalism of a public service that has served this province very well.

[End of question period.]

Introductions by Members

M. Mungall: It's on a very rare occasion that I look up into the gallery and see somebody from my riding. I did that just now in the middle of question period, and I see one of Nelson's own fantastic, amazing city workers working with CUPE 378. I don't even remember her last name. I've always known her by her first name — Karen. May the House please make her welcome.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: Madame Speaker, continued debate on the budget.

Madame Speaker: Vancouver–Mount Pleasant continues.

Budget Debate

(continued)

J. Kwan: Just to carry on the debate that I started on Monday before we adjourned, we were talking about truths and information that the government had tabled

[ Page 1621 ]

through their budget. In response, I was talking about a broken promise — in fact, a series of broken promises.

I talked about the Premier's slogan on her campaign bus, the "Debt-free B.C." slogan. We suspected during the campaign, but we now know from Budget 2014, that that is simply untrue. The Premier, far from delivering a debt-free British Columbia, had actually increased the debt for British Columbia at a faster rate than any other Premier in the history of British Columbia.

[1430]

Now I want to go to a second point, which, really, my colleagues laid out in the question period just now. We know that the Premier was recently in Kelowna, and she claimed that she had not increased taxes in Budget 2014 for British Columbians.

Well, looking at Budget 2014, maybe if the Premier actually read the document from her own budget, she would know that what she claims is simply not true. Budget 2014 will see your hydro rates increase by 20 percent by the end of the three years, costing an average of $215 per year. All said, in the three years in which the government projects — in that period — with a 20 percent rate increase, that's $2 billion out of the back pockets of British Columbians.

Now, the Premier will say that is not a tax increase. I think I just heard her say just now in this House during question period that the tax increases, the fee increases, are in fact being managed. Rather than saying that there are no increases in taxes, she's now saying that it's being managed. I think that's what the Premier just said. But that wasn't the case when she was up in Kelowna and she claimed that there were no tax increases.

The truth is, of course, that aside from the hydro rates, if you look at the MSP premiums, you also see that that's going up as well. That's another $400 more over the next three years for taxpayers. That is another tax increase for British Columbians. When you account for that amount, that's another $2.3 billion out of the back pockets of British Columbians.

That's not the total list. There's also the ICBC rate increase. There are also many, many other hidden taxes, which are, of course, disguised in the form of fee hikes.

[D. Horne in the chair.]

Ferries is another one. I know that my colleagues have been raising this issue inside this House and outside this House. That, the truth is, is another tax increase.

Knowing the facts of what we know now, how is it that the Premier can continue to say with a straight face that she has not increased taxes for British Columbians? It is a mystery to me, and the truth is that she cannot do that. She was caught in question period today by my colleagues who raised these issues directly to her. She was caught, and she actually, instead of saying no tax increases, switched the wording ever so subtly to say that she's now managing the tax increases. That is the truth of the pattern of behaviour of this Premier.

Now, I heard the Premier say just moments ago on the question that was raised by my colleague the MLA for Vancouver-Kensington on British Columbia having the highest child poverty rate year after year after year. The Premier responded by saying her plan in reducing the child poverty rate is her jobs plan.

Let's just take a moment to review this government's jobs plan to see how they have done. The Premier, we know, spent millions of taxpayers' hard-earned dollars making false claims about her failed jobs plan. You've heard it. We've heard it in ads — using taxpayers' money for advertisements to claim that the Premier's jobs plan is number one in job creation. We heard it ad nauseam.

The truth is this that B.C.'s labour market "performed poorly last year compared to other provinces." This is actually a direct quote from the government's own budget document, and the budget document continues to say employment in B.C. actually stalled in 2013. The reality is that B.C. is dead last in private sector job growth, and we have the highest unemployment rate in western Canada. That is the truth, and those are the facts that cannot be disputed.

[1435]

B.C. actually lost over 21,000 full-time jobs since this Legislature last sat. In January 2014, B.C. lost over 8,500 private sector jobs. Even the government itself is projecting that unemployment will continue to increase over the next two years.

Because the Premier failed in the jobs plan, in the last 2½ years over 12,000 British Columbians left British Columbia to look for work elsewhere. That is the Premier's record.

So I have to ask the Premier this: how's it going with that jobs plan? How's it going, anyway? How is it contributing to reducing the child poverty rate? It is not. It has failed British Columbians, and that's the truth of it.

One would think that an honest person would actually admit that and look at the statistics honestly and look for a way to address these issues in a way that would actually help British Columbians and not make matters worse. We don't have that situation here, because the Premier refuses to see the truth. That is what's going on right now in British Columbia.

Deputy Speaker: I caution the member and remind her, on temperance.

J. Kwan: The Premier, of course, doesn't stop there on that issue.

On a number of different issues, we now know that on the LNG plans, the plans that the government has promised…. She promised that British Columbians would start collecting LNG revenues by 2017. How might you think that would actually materialize? What are the gov-

[ Page 1622 ]

ernment's prospects on the LNG promise?

Now, you'll recall that the Premier's commitment is "three LNG lines up and running by 2020 and the first one by 2015." If this was true, then where are the jobs and revenue projections in Budget 2014? I actually don't see it there. In the Liberals' three-year plan, B.C.'s unemployment rate is going to increase, and there's no revenue from LNG. That's the truth.

With no projected revenues from LNG for Budget 2014, the Premier appears to be blaming the investors for not coming up with the LNG plans fast enough. This is what she said out in the media: "We're depending on the private sector to make those decisions. We can't control that" Then she goes on to say: "We make our best guesses about when the first money will flow into the so-called prosperity fund."

Well, the framework for the LNG tax regime was supposed to be completed by the end of 2013. Now we know we'll be lucky if we see it in the fall of 2014. Without the tax regime, how can investors possibly formulate their plans and invest in British Columbia — not to mention building or completing their first plan by 2015? The truth is that the Premier only has herself to blame, when it is her government that has failed to meet any of the deadlines for the LNG promise.

So that's the government's economic record to date: failed jobs plan, higher unemployment rates, increase in debt, increase in fees, and the LNG promise is further away, as you look down the road, because of this Premier and this government's own doing.

In the meantime, when you look at the other important factors in evaluating how British Columbia is doing…. You look at other factors like education, like the issue of poverty, our quality of life here in British Columbia. Let me just touch on a couple of these issues.

We were talking about the education situation. Now, I have to speak to this, and I can attest to this, because I was here in this House back in 2001 and in 2002. In fact, it was this very Premier who was Deputy Premier then — who was the Minister of Education — who brought forward an unconstitutional piece of legislation that was struck down in the courts.

Back in January of 2002 the Premier, who was then the Education Minister, led the B.C. government to attack school children with Bill 28, the legislation that removed the rights of teachers to bargain for smaller classes with more student supports.

[1440]

Now in the meantime, as the Premier — the then Education Minister — did this, she claimed that this was going to bring more flexibility, a more responsive and better-managed system for the students, to meet their needs. She claimed that the students' needs would win out over mathematical formulas, "where decisions are made by all the education partners in the system" and "where meeting students' needs is the absolute number one priority." That's a quote from the then Minister of Education, the now Premier.

We now know, 12 years later, that the Premier all along had a different plan in place. In 2011 the Supreme Court ruled that the Premier's legislation was unconstitutional. The B.C. Liberal government, of course, at that time did not appeal the ruling. They did not appeal the ruling.

Then the Premier said this: "We need to go back and make sure that we address the issues that the court raised, and we will absolutely do that. You know, I think whenever you bring in legislation that ten years later turns out not to have worked, you have to take responsibility for that absolutely. Every time, you want to get it right, and that time we didn't get it right." That was the Premier, and she was quoted on April 14, 2011.

Now, moving forward, after the Premier admitted that she didn't get it right, she then, of course, began to lay the groundwork to introduce yet another bill that was virtually identical to the one that was struck down by the Supreme Court and that was ruled to be unconstitutional. She brought forward Bill 22, the education legislation that was virtually identical, which was just deemed by the courts to be unconstitutional.

Then, by doing that, the Premier claims: "This week our government introduced an Education Improvement Act aimed to keep teachers in class by suspending job action, setting a cooling-off period and appointing a mediator, in an attempt to break new ground with the union." That's what she said publicly. That's what she's saying now publicly.

Of course, what we know, though, from the courts, which we recently just found out, is that this is simply not true. The courts actually had a different ruling. The courts actually found that the government was conspiring to provoke a full-blown strike for political expedience at the expense of whom? Students. For what? Political gain for the government.

Now, you might ask: what does this have to do with Budget 2014? Well, I'll tell you exactly what it has to do with Budget 2014. If the government actually followed the court decision, the decision from the judge, the government's so-called contingency moneys embedded in the budget, the so-called surplus, the so-called balanced budget, would have had a big fat hole punched right through it. That is the truth of it.

If the government, if this Premier, actually put students first and, instead of political expediency, invested that money into the students' education, the government would not be sitting here today claiming that they have a surplus or a contingency fee or a balanced budget. That's what it has to do with Budget 2014.

Why is this relevant and important today? That action shows exactly the pattern of behaviour of this very Premier, dating back to 2002 when she first brought in an unconstitutional education bill to strip classrooms of supports and to reduce the number of teachers that are

[ Page 1623 ]

required to support the students for better learning environments.

She began that work more than ten years ago, and she's continuing on that work. Today in Budget 2014 in choosing to not invest money in the education system, she has made a political statement that, once again, she will put political expediency and political gain ahead of the children in British Columbia. That is what's going on right now, today, with Budget 2014.

Now, I know that some members may not want to hear this, and they might think it's nonsense. But if a person wants to be truthful about the evidence that's before them, they will be able to see that what I'm saying is exactly what is happening right now under this government and their direction.

[1445]

I want to bring up another issue, because I know that time is fast running out in my allotted time to speak to the budget. I do want to bring up this issue that's close and near and dear to my heart.

For so many years now, for 23 years, I have participated in the February 14 memorial march in our community. For the people of Vancouver–Mount Pleasant, this is an important event. I was there for the first year that it started, and every year after that I have tried to attend. Only in the years when the Legislature was sitting, when February 14 happened to fall on a sitting day, have I missed the memorial march.

This year I attended, and hundreds of people showed up. It was a clear, beautiful day. Before the march started, we heard testimonies from family members who really poured out their grief and the hurt that they continue to experience at the loss of the women who went missing and were murdered in our communities.

Now, at the time they appointed their former Minister of Justice, the Attorney General Wally Oppal, to head the inquiry for the missing and murdered women, the government said they cared deeply about this issue and that they were going to find ways to stop this tragedy — this "tragedy of epic proportions," as Wally Oppal had described it — from ever happening again.

From that inquiry, Wally Oppal made 63 recommendations. That was 14 months ago. Over a year ago 63 recommendations were tabled before this government.

There were two urgent recommendations for this government to act upon. One of them is a shuttle bus on the Highway of Tears. Now, that's Highway 16, and why do people call it the Highway of Tears? That is the very highway where very many women are put at risk every single time because there is no public transport. They have to hitch a ride to go get groceries, to run errands, to get from one town to another. Every time they do that, they put their lives at risk.

That was one of the highest-priority items that Wally Oppal had put forward in his inquiry. I would have thought that after 14 months of the inquiry being tabled, I would find a mention in Budget 2014 to actually fund that recommendation. After all, it is in the throne speech that this very Premier claims that she wants to ensure that B.C. is violence-free.

I challenge the Premier to get up and to acknowledge that when she does not provide for safe public transportation in an area where people cannot get from one place to another, she is creating a violence-free British Columbia — that she's not putting women at risk. I challenge the Premier to not acknowledge that every time a woman along the stretch of Highway 16, the Highway of Tears, has to hitch a ride, they're not putting their lives at risk.

It's not as though that's an impossible task to do. It is absolutely achievable, if the government has the political will to do it. We heard, through two volumes of the report — a report called Forsaken from Wally Oppal…. In it he found evidence of fact, of wrongdoing, from the institutions that failed the women and their families in the investigation, from the police on down.

One of his top priorities in calling on the government to act is to recognize the injuries that have been done to the victims and the families — calling on the government to establish a compensation fund. So 14 months ago that was Wally Oppal's recommendation.

Today do you see in Budget 2014 a compensation fund for the victims of the missing and murdered women? Not one mention of it.

[1450]

If you saw the faces of the children and the grandchildren that were in that memorial march on February 14, if you saw their faces, you would know how wrong that is. All these years and so much pain and so much grief, and their struggle to continue on. The government could have done the right thing in this budget, and they didn't. I find that unconscionable. I do. I think it's despicable, and I don't mind saying it.

Some people say I wear my heart on my sleeve. So be it, because if that was your child or any child that you know, you will know that this action from the government is not acceptable.

The Missing and Murdered Women's Coalition met with the Attorney General. After six months requesting for a meeting, they finally got a meeting on November 25.

They put forward five priorities for the Attorney General to act on: calling on action on the Highway of Tears, for the shuttle bus for safe transportation; calling for compensation for the victims' families; calling for mental health and addiction services for and by aboriginal people, for women in the community and their children. They called for the government to appoint Bev Jacobs as the champion to get the 63 recommendations implemented over time. The government, to date, the Minister of Justice, to date, the Attorney General, to date, has not provided a response to the coalition on their five priorities.

There's one other priority that's easy to do and doesn't

[ Page 1624 ]

even necessarily cost a whole lot of money, and that is to make police sensitivity training mandatory — easily done. Wally Oppal, in his inquiry, found that the police had absolutely failed the women that went missing and were murdered.

Why couldn't the government act on that? Why couldn't the government take these recommendations seriously and fund these recommendations in Budget 2014 with a timeline so that we can truly put an end to this tragedy, so that we can truly find a way out of the cycle of violence that is there and the potential risks that women face today?

Violence-free B.C. means action now. It doesn't mean that you can bring in some computer system that will somehow make a difference. It's about preventative actions as well. If the government had taken their own commissioner seriously, they would have put a budget and a timeline in Budget 2014 to implement these recommendations.

Now, there's much more to talk about, and I see that the green light is on. I haven't even gotten to Housing, which is my critic area, or CLBC, which is my other critic area, but I know that I'm now running out of time. What I will do, of course, is carry on this discussion with the ministers during estimates, and I'll look forward to that.

L. Throness: It's a pleasure to speak to the budget today and to turn the attitude of this chamber in a more positive direction as we talk about a very positive story. It's a happy story. It's a great story. It's a story of a provincial budget, a balanced budget that was tabled last week in this House.

I want to begin, first of all, by thanking some important people. First of all, the people of my riding, the people of the great riding of Chilliwack-Hope who have sent me here. It's a tremendous honour and a privilege to serve them, and I'm working as hard as I can to do so.

I also want to thank my staff. I've opened two offices. I've opened a constituency office in Chilliwack on Vedder Road, and I've opened a satellite constituency office in the city of Hope. I would certainly invite all of my constituents to visit there at any time. I wouldn't be able to operate my offices without the help of my constituency assistants, those being Sheila Denis and Gabrielle Loosdrecht. They work tirelessly on behalf of my constituents, and I want to thank them.

I also want to thank a few people, special people: my father, Harald, who has been a tremendous example and a guiding light for me, and I believe he's watching today; Susan Mathies, who helped me to get here, who worked so hard for me; and Harvey Schroeder, who was a former Speaker of this House and a Minister of Agriculture. He gave me my start in politics and has been a friend and a mentor ever since.

It's always an honour to speak on behalf of my constituents, who voted overwhelmingly last May for responsible economic management — and that is to say, balanced budgets.

[1455]

Over the last week I've been listening to the opposition in this place call for more spending. I thought it would be an interesting thing to look back and to put these remarks in context by thinking about the size of our modern governments.

Our own provincial government is really spending an immense amount of money. This year they're spending $45 billion. It never ceases to amaze me how the expansion of technology and of automation has allowed a flood of goods and services to be poured out in our economy — only a portion of which makes its way back to the provincial treasury in taxes.

Allow me to give you some idea of the sheer size of government. I went to the Legislative Library, and I did some inquiries. I found out that 100 years ago B.C.'s budget was $13.7 million, just under $14 million. After you adjust for inflation, that turns out to be about $700 per person in B.C. What is today's budget? What is the equivalent amount per person in last week's budget? It's $9,725 per person.

In 1914 there were about 2,000 public servants. I know that because I went through the books and I counted them. They're individually listed in the estimates of 100 years ago. But what is it today? Today the province pays the wages and salaries of 386,000 people in this province — an enormous increase in the size of government.

Let me give you another illustration from my own experience. Years ago I worked on Parliament Hill, and I would make access-to-information requests. I made a request for all of the grants and contributions in one department federally — in one department, only of the grants and contributions, not of program spending. And they said: "Yes, we'll give that to you, but it will cost you $11,000 to print, because the list is 48,000 pages long." That's the grants and contributions from one federal department, not the program spending at all — 48,000 pages long.

Just for fun I went on the web, and I counted all of the boards and commissions and agencies and departments and other agencies of the federal government. I counted 341. I did the same thing for the province of B.C. Of course, the provincial scale is an order of magnitude smaller, but the principle is the same. We're living in an age of unparalleled size and extent of government. I could only count about 65 bodies with the province; there may be more.

When you add, to our federal and provincial governments, our municipal governments…. And there are 161 of those. You add our regional district governments. There are 29 of those. Remember that every one of those governments has its own boundaries, its own budget, its own tax base, its own paid officials, its own set of programs and services, its own set of plans, bylaws, regula-

[ Page 1625 ]

tions and enforcement.

I don't think our citizens really understand or know just how big our government, collectively, really is. I don't even know if it's possible for one person to understand how much $45 billion is, yet the NDP call for more. They call for more and more spending.

Maybe the moral of the story is that we as citizens can be very grateful at the immense riches of a country that enables our provincial government alone to spend this enormous amount of money while still leaving money in the pockets of our beleaguered taxpayers — so much so that we're a have province in Canada. We make a pretty good living here in B.C.

Now, some would say that our governments are too big, that the tax bite is too large. I would be one of those who would prefer lower taxes. And in this regard, British Columbians have reason to congratulate themselves. As the Premier was saying during question period, an individual who's making $80,000 will pay the lowest rates in Canada when all taxes are included.

When you take a senior couple who are making $30,000 a year together, they're paying the second-lowest tax burden in the entire country. Of course there are always going to be disputes about levels of taxation. But these levels are set on a macro scale by the voters of B.C.

B.C. voters could certainly find politicians who would call for lower services and lower taxes. But where are they? They're not here in this chamber. They rarely appear as candidates for elections, and there are none elected that I know of today. Why is that? It's because their message wouldn't be very popular. You will see calls for greater efficiency, greater restraint in spending.

I would certainly stand on the side of smaller government philosophically, but I've always said that people who call for low taxes…. We all love tax cuts. I want tax cuts. We all love tax cuts, but when people who call for tax cuts also start to begin to call for service cuts as well, then I will sit up and take notice.

Most people who want tax cuts oppose service cuts when it comes to them. When you really sit down and say, "What are you willing to take in the way of reductions?" the list gets shorter and shorter.

[1500]

On a larger scale, this sentiment is echoed by the electorate. That's the reason why we have the size of government we have today. They're set by the demand of the electorate.

When you combine these great forces — the great power of our economy to produce abundant revenues, the desire of the public for more and better and bigger programs, tempered by those who want to restrain growth in government and in taxes and in spending — the convergence of these three great vectors produces a budget like we have today.

The budget before us is a great budget. It's a stellar budget. It's a budget I could be proud of, a budget that every oneof my constituents can support. A balanced budget was our first and greatest promise, and in this budget we have kept it.

It's not just an estimate. It's not just a guess. The numbers are all in from the past. We actually did balance this budget last year, and it makes the one we tabled last week all the more credible. We've done it once. We can do it again, and we are determined to do so.

Now, what did the NDP say about the budget last year? I want to bring it to mind, because without doubt the NDP are proud of their record. They're proud to have their record brought up in public again. So let me talk about it a bit.

The government's budget was presented last in February 2013. It took two months for the NDP to come up with a critique. When the NDP Finance critic finally got around to it in April, he said that it was a sham budget, that it was deliberately structured to hide a $790 million deficit — an attempt to deceive voters prior to the election.

Well, we know, of course, that this was all just talk. We know that perhaps it was an attempt by the NDP to frighten voters prior to the election instead.

The idea that you can't spend more than you earn is a simple rule of common sense. It's a rule that the NDP has been protesting over the past week in question period. At one and the same time, they're saying: "Why don't you spend more?" Then they say: "Why don't you tax less?" When you add those two together, what is it a recipe for? It is a recipe for budget deficits.

True to form, that is exactly what the NDP ran on last May. If you can believe it, the most attractive thing the NDP could think of, the best plan that they could think of for our economy was to propose multiple years of budget deficits. They were perfectly open about it. Their platform included at least three successive budget deficits totalling over $2 billion. Happily, the voters rejected this idea.

But we live in strange times — a strange time in terms of economics — when this kind of thinking seems to be acceptable. We seem to live in an era when governments around the world have separated revenues from spending, as if you can spend without an income to support that spending. I'm speaking in particular of the United States today, which is spending vastly more than it takes in.

Here are a couple of facts about the American condition. This year the American deficit will amount to $514 billion. That's $514 billion in additional debt in one year. When you add up all of the past deficits, that amount adds up to $17.3 trillion, a debt-to-GDP ratio of some 73 percent. That's a massive burden on their economy but also a threat and a risk to the whole world's economy.

In addition to this, the Federal Reserve is doing what they call quantitative easing, which, in another way of speaking, is just printing money and injecting it into the economy at the rate of $85 billion a month. It has never

[ Page 1626 ]

been done before. Who knows what's going to happen when it finally tapers off and stops? It is a scary thing.

Well, during the by-election two years ago and again during the last election, I warned voters in my riding about these kinds of financial practices in the States. Politicians may wish to disconnect revenue from spending, but the markets don't do that.

I want to quote Bill Clinton, who warned about it in 2012. He said that as the U.S. economy recovers, demand for money will increase, and so its price, expressed in terms of interest rates, will rise too. This is what he said: "Interest rates will go through the roof, the cost of financing the deficit will be staggering, and the private sector will be screaming for affordable credit." Rising interest rates could slow the American economy once again.

There was an American economist who said: "If it can't go on forever, it won't." At some point spending unsupported by revenues has to stop. I do think that there will come a day of reckoning in the States. I hope it never does, but I think it's going to come.

When it comes, it could have a huge impact on B.C., and we need to be ready. If a smart province, hypothetically, wanted to be ready for a problem like that, what would a smart province do?

[1505]

I would say it would do three things. First, it would balance its budget. Next, it would diversify its trading partners so that it's not so dependent on one economy. Third, it would generate new streams of income to accelerate the paydown of provincial debt. Happily, these three things are the main thrusts of B.C.'s economic policy. I want to talk about each in turn.

First, we've balanced our budget. I want to compare our budget, our economic situation, with some other governments in Canada. Quebec, for example, will have a $2.5 billion deficit this year but a public debt which comes out to a whopping 54 percent of GDP.

What about Ontario, Canada's largest province and supposedly the economic engine for the country? Ontario's latest budget from last year posted an $11.7 billion deficit. Its debt-to-GDP ratio is 37 percent.

But B.C., by contrast, is in an enviable position, a fantastic position. We are the only province, aside from Saskatchewan, which has a balanced budget. We're not only balancing it, we're projecting a surplus for the next three years totalling $840 million. Not only that, we are building in a cushion, a contingency factor of another $750 million. That's $1.5 billion of caution, of prudence, that is built into this budget.

When all is said and done, our debt-to-GDP ratio is just 18 percent, roughly half of what other governments' are in this country and a quarter of the American debt load. This is a world-class achievement. This is nothing to be sneezed at.

The second thing we've done is to diversify our trading partners so that we are not so dependent on the United States and so that if their economy sneezes, we don't immediately catch a cold. That's exactly what we've been doing and what we will continue to do. In 2001, for example, 70 percent of all B.C.'s exports went to the States. Last year it was 47 percent. Our exports to China in 2001 were just 2 percent. Now they're 20 percent.

Our Premier is leading the way in drumming up new business for B.C. Last fall she went to China, and she led a trade mission to China and India for two solid weeks. She brought 350 people with her, including 150 companies. She came back with 60 partnerships and business deals.

This is a bold and visionary Premier who leads the way, who gets the job done. I'm proud to be part of a government that is aggressively protecting British Columbians by diversifying our economy and insulating us from the threats and risks that are posed by debts and deficits around the world.

Thirdly, if we wanted to be economically secure, we would want to create streams of income in order to enable and accelerate the paydown of our provincial debt. Why would we want to do that? We need to accelerate our revenue streams because we are now paying, every year, over a billion dollars in interest on our provincial debt. That's not only a drag on the economy, it takes priority over other things that we would love to do.

I took the liberty of counting all of the interest payments that all the provinces and the federal government are making on their debts. The amount turns out to be $55 billion a year spent in interest on debt in this country.

Can you imagine what this country could do with $55 billion a year? We could build all the infrastructure we want. We could give all the tax cuts we could desire. We could have any social program that we want. But we don't have those options now because so much of our GDP has to go to pay the debt. Payment of debt needs to be a priority for us, and it is.

How is our government proposing to accelerate that paydown? Of course, we have our idea of liquefied natural gas, to begin a brand-new industry in B.C.'s north. Here, I want to offer a short update and a

summary of the state of play of this industry right now.

Currently there are 12 companies and consortiums of companies which have expressed interest in building LNG plants in B.C. The National Energy Board has granted seven export licences and is considering five more right now. And there are very recent encouraging signs.

Last October when the Prime Minister went to Malaysia, the Prime Minister of Malaysia, the head of Petronas — the energy giant — promised to invest $36 billion in B.C.

In that regard, in the Globe and Mail there was a news report today, and I want to quote from that report.

[ Page 1627 ]

Petronas has "just finalized a further 25 percent equity participation from an Indian party and an established Asian LNG buyer…. In diversifying the ownership structure, state-owned Petronas will strengthen its chances of turning the $36 billion project into reality." And we hope it becomes a reality.

[1510]

Last November a company called CNOOC from China signed an agreement with our government to assess the feasibility of building an LNG plant north of Prince Rupert.

In mid-January, just a month ago, Chevron led a contract to the Fluor Corporation from Texas — up to $5 billion to build its LNG plant in Prince Rupert.

A day later there was another report — in January — from the Globe about a company called Woodside in Australia, one of the premier LNG companies in the world, which signed a contract with the province of B.C. to assess the feasibility of building another LNG plant.

We're hoping that at least one final decision will come through this year, perhaps in the third or fourth quarter of this year. If only three of the 12 plants end up being built, it will result in a revenue stream of about $100 billion over 20 years, which will take care of all of our debts and then some.

Now, for some strange reason, the opposition has criticized the government for its emphasis on LNG, which suggests to me that if they had won the election last May, they wouldn't have bothered. They wouldn't have tried. They wouldn't have seized the opportunities to secure these gigantic investments in B.C. for the benefit of our people and our children. But there is absolutely no reason for us not to chase this investment and every reason for us to do so. That is simply because there is no risk to the taxpayer in doing that.

We have not spent billions in the hopes of attracting LNG. In this budget we've allotted just $29 million over three years to invest in the proposals. Should the number of LNG plants be fewer than we had hoped, there will be no loss to British Columbia. B.C. only has the prospect of gain in this area. Therefore, we have every reason and, I would argue, every responsibility to work as hard as we can to capture this investment, for us and for our children, to secure our province's financial future.

Money is already being spent by the private sector. Every company that has reached an agreement with B.C. is spending multi millions in non-refundable deposits, and I understand that up to a billion dollars has already been spent by these 12 companies in B.C.'s north in order to pursue their bids.

The north is booming as a result, and that's why in the town of Kitimat house prices went up by 26 percent last year alone. Why? Because it's driven by hope. It's driven by the very real expenditure of funds in that area. And it's not only driving real estate. It's creating jobs. It's creating investment. It's increasing tax revenue to the province, which helps to sustain the social programs that we all value.

And so we are doing these three great things. We are balancing our budget to secure our financial position. We are diversifying our trading partners to reduce our reliance on our great friend to the south. And we're seeking to create a new stream of revenue in LNG to accelerate the paydown of our provincial debt.

This is an admirable plan. It's comprehensive. It has all the bases covered. And all British Columbians as well as global investors can feel secure and confident that our financial prospects rest in capable hands. We don't think only of the next election. We're looking far down the road, far into the future, setting a course to continue to keep B.C. as the envy of all the provinces of Canada.

With all this economic talk, this budget does not forget those who need help the most. This year we're going to spend nearly $18 billion on health care. We are putting $2.5 billion more into health care over the next three years. We're putting $243 million into maintaining services for people with developmental disabilities. We're putting more into policing, into children and youth with special needs. We're putting more into legal aid. For young families, we're doing things that will be of special interest. We're helping new homebuyers with some extra relief from the property purchase tax.

The early childhood tax benefit will start next year. It'll give 180,000 families with kids under six years old help to the tune of $55 a month. That's important. This is in addition to the B.C. training and education savings grant that's ongoing — $1,200 for every child born after the beginning of 2007.

I could go on. The budget is chock full of good things. We're building bridges, transit lines, highways, hospitals, schools and universities. We've allotted $1.3 billion for children and families in this budget, almost $2 billion for post-secondary education, $5.4 billion for K-to-12 education.

This is a plan of practicality and compassion, of responsibility and vision. We're moving forward with confidence to secure the economic and social prosperity of this province, and that is why I will be voting in favour of this budget.

[1515]

R. Austin: It gives me great privilege to stand and rise and speak to Budget 2014 on behalf of the people of Skeena. I'd like to also begin by saying a few thanks. Of course, I'd like to begin by thanking the voters of Skeena for once again giving me their confidence in being here for the third time and getting re-elected. I came here in 2005 with a lot of enthusiasm, and I am still here with a lot of enthusiasm to do the work on the good part of the people of Skeena.

I would also like to thank some personal people — of course, my family for continuing to support me in doing

[ Page 1628 ]

this work — and in particular to thank my son. When I was first running in 2005 he was a 14-year-old, who I must say reluctantly came beside me occasionally, door-knocking as a 14-year-old, wondering what it was that his father was embarking upon.

In this last election, as a 22-year-old with a degree under his belt, he came back for a month, took time away from his life to run my campaign in Terrace and brought a young man, a friend of his from the University of Victoria, Paul Shand, who also took time out from his life to come and work literally full-time on my campaign. I think I'd like to especially acknowledge the two of them.

I'd also, of course, like to thank my staff. In Kitimat, Roberta Walker has now been with me for almost nine years, since first getting elected, and I really thank her for her dedication to the people of Kitimat. In Terrace I'd like to take this opportunity to thank Denis Gagne, who first came to my office, originally, as a student from UNBC doing a practicum placement and then turned his practicum placement into a full-time job and has been with me now for six years. Thank you very much to all of those people.

I'd like to begin by speaking to Budget 2014 and going to, I think, what has been the discussion back and forth on both sides of this House, with the emphasis of the government saying it is a balanced budget and being so proud of reducing the debt to the point where there is a balanced budget, they say, on the operational side. Of course, they don't want to talk too much about the long-term debt that is being increased.

I thought it was an interesting campaign strategy during the last election to actually run around the province with a big bus and have on that bus "Debt-free B.C." written on it, having a Premier go and speak that message while at the same time being the Premier. I think it's true to say that all of the Premier's in the history of British Columbia have never spent so little time increasing the debt at such a high speed as they have done.

In fact, this budget here acknowledges that it won't so much be a debt-free B.C. any time soon as, of course, the long-term debt of this province is rising by $7.1 billion — a debt which, at the end of the day, has to be paid for by the citizens of this province.

It is interesting that a lot of time is spent talking about reducing debt while at the same time actually expanding the debt. But of course, you hear from the other side that those are strategic investments, because, of course, we need to build hospitals and we need to build schools. I would agree with that. But here's the thing.

Interjection.

R. Austin: It is good to hear that the Health Minister is in favour of building hospitals. By the way, while I've got the Health Minister's eye here, I'm hoping that Mills Memorial Hospital is at the top of the list in northwestern B.C.

This is not a laughing matter. I think it's true to say that both sides of this House recognize the huge potential of economic activity in the northwest of B.C. I think I'm right in saying that Mills Memorial Hospital was built in 1956-57, around the time I was born. Definitely in need of not just an upgrade. They've upgraded it many, many times before, to the point where the kind of money that's being put in upgrading it…. I think they've now decided it's sort of good money after bad.

Finally, I think the business case is being made and hopefully during this term, with this Health Minister, we will see a yes to actually having a new hospital in Terrace. That's certainly something that we would like to see.

My point again, going back to the difference between long-term debt and operational debt, is this. You can build lots of hospitals. You can build lots of schools. But you also have to have the dollars in place to actually run the programs. We can build a nice, flashy hospital — they did that in Kitimat a few years ago — but the real trick in running the government is to ensure that you have the doctors, the specialists, all of the nurses, etc.

[1520]

To constantly go on about how we are having an operationally balanced budget…. You have to still take care of having programs in place.

I think the challenge over the next year, while we see this budget unfold into reality, is going to be to understand what it's going to do. Right now we see it as a number, a data figure. But in fact, over the next year we have to see, for example, how the government will be able to spend 2.6 as an increase in health care, the largest part of our budget, when you think that, historically, over the last few years it has gone up by, I believe, at least 6 percent — 4 to 6 percent.

Of course, our population is not getting any younger, so there is going to be a huge demand on all kinds of health care services. At the same time, the government is saying: "We're going to turn this cost curve down." It will have a price. It'll have a huge cost on people who need to access our health care services.

I also want to mention, of course, the other big expenditure of any government, and that is education. I was listening to my colleague from Chilliwack-Hope describing his historical analysis of looking at public expenditure over the last 100 years in British Columbia. He talked about the fact that we now spend a much larger percentage of GDP as a government than we did 100 years ago.

I could sense — coming from him, and I may be wrong — that he almost not resented it but thought that was a bad thing. I'm here to say I think it's a fabulous thing. You know what? The fact that we spend more today, in real terms, on our citizens than we did 100 years ago shows that in spite of this House changing from left to right, we are at least constantly moving in the right direction.

All of these moneys are spent on things that I value —

[ Page 1629 ]

health care, education, social services, helping those who are going through hard times. I think that that rise to the point where…. We now have a society where the values of British Columbians are such that even if there is a government that is to the right of centre, there is still huge pressure to constantly spend money on the betterment of the citizens of this province. That's something that the government has to deal with for the next four years.

I just want to state that I do not look at taxation in terms of it being a bad thing. I look at taxation as a way in which we are able to buy things together as a society, things that I hold of great value to myself and I think things that most British Columbians value. I think the hon. member for Chilliwack-Hope, while bringing up historical data, demonstrates that in spite of the fact that we had — what is it? — 40 years of Socred governments and now 12 years of B.C. Liberal governments, there is a constant drive to create a better life and a quality of life for the citizens of this province, and I'm thankful for that.

Certainly, in my role as opposition on this side of the House, I will be continuing to drive that agenda, because I think it's in the best interests of British Columbians to make sure that we take care of the essential qualities of their life. In fact, that's one of the reasons why I chose to come into public life. Why I choose to do it at this level is because the things that matter the most to people are things like health care and education. Those are the things that are closest to what matters to a person's life, to our children, to our seniors. Those are the things that really matter.

I sometimes watch some of the events that take place in our parliament in Ottawa. While I admire all those folks who go into public life there, personally, for the people who live in Kitimat, the Nass Valley and Terrace, I'm sure that they're more concerned with having opportunity to find a job, having opportunity to get skills training than they are worrying about foreign affairs and those things, which I think, for the most part, are far away from the reality of people's lives.

I want to go on and talk about this debate that we've been going back and forth about — there being no new taxes. Any time a government is seeking revenue from its citizens in order to purchase something on their behalf, it is, in a sense, a tax. We've seen in this budget that there's going to be a large increase in hydro rates — over 20 percent.

Interjection.

[1525]

R. Austin: Yes, yes, and I just want to make this point that it's not enough for the Premier to run around and say there are no tax increases. There are tax increases, as I've just mentioned, in hydro and other things, and that's not a bad thing because that is how we pay for these things. But it's not right to go around the province and claim that we're not actually taking increases.

I'd like to make this point. Over the nine years that I've been sitting in this Legislature, there has been a dramatic shift in the way that this government finances itself. I believe that the best way for a government to finance those things that the citizens want is to do it in a progressive manner to ensure that those who make the most of their good fortune in our society are those who contribute the most.

What disturbs me about the increase in taxes all coming from fees or Crown corporations is this. I have seen a shift over the last nine years where the taxes are now burdened onto those who have the least income, because most of these increases are flat taxes. They're not progressive taxes. I have a fundamental problem with that.

I think that when you go and charge a person who has a meagre income an increase of 20 percent on their hydro rates as opposed to somebody who has a much higher income, that's a problem.

I think that if we are seeking new sources of revenue in our province, we should not be doing it by just raising MSP premiums and hydro rates and ICBC, because those are things that nobody can get away from. In fact, in terms of hydro, there are more hydro ratepayers than there are taxpayers, because as we all know, there's a large percentage of people who do not pay income tax in this province, but there are very few who live off-grid.

When you're increasing hydro by over 20 percent over three years, you're actually going after the people who can least afford to be adding those extra dollars to government revenue,

whereas if that was actually done through a progressive tax system and taking it more on the income tax side, then at least those of us who could afford to pay more would pay more. I think that would be a fairer society. I think that would also…. Well, it would certainly help all of those who live on low incomes.

The other trend I've seen in the nine years I've been here is a trend that has increased the inequality between those who have and those who have not. In

part it's because of this ability of government to constantly be extracting dollars from what they would regard as hidden taxes and to make sure that they're flat. I think that it's a very wrong policy.

I also, having mentioned ICBC and B.C. Hydro rates and MSP premiums, want to mention for a moment ferry rates. You might think that, seeing as I live in Terrace and I have an office in Kitimat and I also represent the Nass, perhaps ferry rates would not be of primary concern to me, but they are, and here's the reason why. I have seen over the last nine years a deliberate attempt by this government to not address and deal with the ferry rate increase.

I originally came from the United Kingdom. I watched this happen in Britain, where the answer when people were not getting onto the trains — it was run by British Rail — was simply to raise the fares and lower the ser-

[ Page 1630 ]

vice to the point where the system essentially went bankrupt and had to be privatized. At that point, the fares then went to the point where only those who were quite wealthy could actually go on British Rail, or those who were forced to use it because they had to get to work.

What I see happening here in B.C. Ferries is exactly that same model. It is now reaching the point where people cannot afford to use the ferries. Why does that affect those of us who live in the northwest? Because about a third of our economy is based on those that live in ferry-dependent communities. So it is very shortsighted for there to be a continual effort to make these ferry rate increases reach the point where people simply cannot afford to use them. It's going to be damaging our economy, and it's certainly not going to be helping us.

Also, for those of us who live in the northwest, we do want to see an increase in tourism. It isn't simply about LNG and other resource industries. We do actually want to see people come up to the northwest and enjoy what is probably one of the most beautiful parts of the province. They aren't likely to come when you look at the ferry fare increase between Port Hardy and Prince Rupert and recognize that bringing a car on board is now literally unaffordable. That's why I wanted to spend just a little time speaking about ferry rates.

[1530]

I also want to go back for a moment and speak about B.C. Hydro. B.C. Hydro is the reason why the government can sit here today and claim to have a balanced budget. What they have done is simply to go to B.C. Hydro, a company which…. The Auditor General, an independent officer of the Legislature, stated very clearly in a report last year that if it was a private company, it would have gone bankrupt quite some time ago because it has been saddled with so much debt that it couldn't make ends meet.

Of course, it's not a private company. It's backstopped by the ratepayers, by the citizens of British Columbia. And what this government has done here — just looking at the change in the budget from after the election to now — is to go back to B.C. Hydro and say: "We want an extra couple of hundred million dollars in order to balance our budget."

Really, what is happening is that the ratepayers of B.C. Hydro, just about all the citizens of B.C., are once again borrowing money to make a fake dividend payment to the government in order for them to be able to say: "I've got a balanced budget."

While I'm on the subject of B.C. Hydro, I also want to say this. If you go and look at the amount of contracts that have been signed by this government — not by the current minister but under the previous ones — for private power contracts, the amount of money that is being paid for that electricity makes absolutely no sense.

I understand that you want to begin by having some form of subsidies for renewables, but honestly, we are now paying $80, $90 a megawatt for 25, 30 years at least, signed on the dotted line, when the spot price is half that. We are actually buying electricity at very high prices and selling it off cheaply. It makes absolutely no sense, and it's part of the reason why B.C. Hydro is in the trouble that it's in.

I'd like to get to a few other of the tax changes that have happened in this budget. I see that the government has made a small enhancement to the first-time-homebuyers program.

Now, I would imagine that for the majority of people living in the province, especially those living in the Lower Mainland, that would be of huge benefit, because the cost of housing is so difficult to get in on the property ladder. But for those of us who live in the northwest, where our house prices are still relatively modest, the point at which that comes in bears no relevance to it. While I think it's a good thing overall, it certainly is not something that benefits citizens in Skeena.

I'd also like to mention one of the things that the government mentioned in their throne speech just about 2½ weeks ago and then see how this followed through in the budget. One of the commitments made in the throne speech was to try and deal with the violence that's happening within families and within homes, particularly against women.

That's something that, unfortunately, happens a great deal in the northwest of B.C. It's in part because we have had a huge economic decline over the last 15 years. That has put a lot of stress on families. It also, I think, speaks to the fact that we have a lot of remote communities in my riding, places where people don't have access to services if they're trying to flee violence in the home.

I can say I applauded the fact that the government made a reference to this as one of their five main points in the throne speech — that they were going to try and seek to create a violence-free B.C. Unfortunately, the following week when the budget was announced, there wasn't the necessary resources put in to help that become a reality.

In one particular instance it is very important in my riding, because the Highway of Tears runs right through the Skeena riding. This is a road that, historically, does not have a lot of transportation on it, and a lot of people have been encouraged over the past years to hitchhike on it.

Of course, as we all know, many women, mainly of aboriginal origin, have died on this road. We still to this day do not see anything in this budget to address that, even though former Attorney General Wally Oppal wrote a very critical report.

[1535]

It had some great recommendations in it, one of which was to ensure that the government provide some kind of public transportation along the corridor of Highway 16 from Prince Rupert to Prince George in order to ensure that women in particular but other people have access to

[ Page 1631 ]

transportation. I think this is something that we're going to continue to push the government on.

My next comment comes to something that is very dear to the heart of all of us who have lived in the northwest. As I've already alluded to, we had an economic crisis, really, as a result of the forest industry shutting down its pulp mills and its sawmills over the last 12 years. In fact, that was the major industry 15 years ago. Aside from a small sawmill that has come back to operate in Terrace, no wood now, other than that, is cut anywhere in northwestern B.C. We've lost all that manufacturing capacity.

Now what happens is that our trees, which still grow faster in the northwest, thanks to our rain and our climate, are now mostly shipped straight to China out of Prince Rupert as raw log exports, rather than creating jobs. One of the things that's most important, as my region tries to recover from that, is to take new opportunities as they come and get access to skills and upgrading. And here is where I have a very serious problem with this budget.

Again in the throne speech the government mentioned as one of their big priorities…. And as we all know, the government continually speaks to the liquefied natural gas proponents as one of the great hopes. We certainly — those of us who live in Kitimat — hope that at least one of those will come to fruition. But we lost a lot of population as a result of the forestry sector going downhill. People went to Alberta. People went to other parts of British Columbia. There simply wasn't the amount of work in northwest B.C.

Now what's happening…. As there's a resurgence and uptick in the economy, what we see at the moment is planeloads of people coming in from outside the region to work on the big projects that are currently taking place. The big projects that are currently taking place are the Rio Tinto Alcan smelter rebuild; pre-work being done, particularly on one LNG site, between Chevron and Apache; and of course, the northwest transmission line. Those are the three large projects that at the moment are driving a resurgence in the Terrace and Kitimat economy.

What people are seeing is workers coming from outside as a result of the fact there isn't enough skilled labour in our area. Now, we also have the highest unemployment rate anywhere in British Columbia still. We see workers coming from outside the region and a large pool of talent living locally who are not able to access these jobs. What do we see here? A government that says on the one hand that we're going to see a commitment to a ten-year skills-training plan in the throne speech but, in the budget that comes out a week later, a cut in the ministry for post-secondary education.

Once again, what we see here is nice words — and throne speeches generally have lots of nice words — but the action to follow it doesn't give any of us who live in the northwest the confidence that we're going to actually not repeat what we're seeing today — which is that if we get a final investment decision on any of these large proponents, any of these large plants, what we're going to see in the years to come is more planeloads of people coming from outside the region while there are still people left unemployed and struggling in my communities.

Now, I love the fact that we are going to be able to generate employment for British Columbians. That's a great thing. All of us here want to have employment for British Columbians. But as the representative for Skeena, I want to make sure that the jobs actually come first to the people who live in the local communities and then go to those who live in other parts of British Columbia. Then, if we can't find enough jobs for those people, then look to other Canadians — certainly, long before we bring in more foreign temporary workers.

It is absolutely critical that we see this government understand that we are not going to have these proponents come in and make these decisions if they don't have access to skilled workers. In fact, earlier today I was meeting with one of the proponents. I've met with just about all of them, some of them several times.

[1540]

The proponents who I was meeting with earlier today were stating they had put together a large liquefied natural gas plant in Australia. That plant went over by $4 billion from the time it was started till the time it was finished. They actually alluded to another plant that they didn't build. Listen to this. This plant went over by $25 billion.

When you ask them what the reason was, why these large capital projects went over, they stated: "Well, in the case of what happened in Australia, there simply wasn't enough skilled labour to do this. We had to bring in people from all over the world, and it became extremely expensive."

That was one of the drivers that drove these projects to the point where this company…. And it's a very large company — so large it's one of the top 15 companies in the FTSE index, on the London stock exchange. They pointed out that Australia has now actually become completely uneconomic for any new LNG facilities because of the lack of skilled labour — just one of the reasons.

Yet here we are with a government that is running around saying this is going to be the saviour for all of our problems while, at the same time, not willing to make the investments to train people and to give them the skills necessary to go and apply for these jobs if and when we get to a final investment decision.

That is, I think, one of the most critical things that, certainly, I and other members on this side of the House will be pushing for. I believe people on that side will be hearing an awful lot of it from the companies. They don't want to embark upon a big capital project and make a big decision like this — these are multi-billion-dollar capital projects — without some kind of commitment from this

[ Page 1632 ]

government to actually put in place the training that's needed so British Columbians are going to be there and, hopefully, have first dibs at getting these jobs.

I would also mention that we saw changes in the last ten years to the Industry Training Authority which have really been painful. Sometimes you have candid conversations with members on the other side, and in some of those candid conversations you can be self-critical. Sometimes people recognize that things are done in politics for ideological reasons and they aren't necessarily the best public policy. I think that happens on both sides of the House.

If you go and look at the changes made to the Industry Training Authority, what we witness now as a result of those changes cannot be described as anything close to successful. We have seen the ability of apprentices to successfully complete an apprenticeship go down drastically in this province.

I know that the government loves to compare us with Alberta on some things, but they probably wouldn't want to compare us with Alberta on this particular figure because, of course, in Alberta they have continued to run a model of training their apprentices that has led to a much higher success rate for apprentices. In this province I think it's somewhere around 33 percent of those who are able to enter an apprenticeship actually have an opportunity to succeed. I think that needs to change in order to help people, first of all, access apprenticeships and, then, succeed at it.

I mention this because, again, it is very pertinent to constituents who live in my constituency. We have a large First Nations population, a lot of young men who have not found success in the school system. But I think people who perhaps are not most adept at sitting and listening to a teacher teach in the traditional way would find themselves readily able and willing and would enjoy the kind of training that comes from apprenticeship training.

It's much more hands-on and much more tactile. It's the way that a lot of aboriginal people learn things. Traditionally, they learnt by watching other people do things. I think if we were to see this training apprenticeship scheme changed and there were some upgrading to allow young people who perhaps did not succeed in school to actually, then, get the training needed so they could access apprenticeship programs, we could see a real resurgence of the number of aboriginal people who are taking advantage of these economic opportunities that now are in front of us in the riding of Skeena. I hope that happens.

[1545]

I'd like to just quickly mention…. This was my previous critic portfolio, and it's something that's very dear to my heart. One of the things that this government did not mention in this budget — because it's, I guess, still sort of hovering above it and would completely outstrip the contingency fund — is this fact that this government even today has continued….

I see my time is up. Don't worry. I will have lots more to say as the session continues.

S. Gibson: I just want to say thanks, for the record, right now at the start to my constituents of the Abbotsford-Mission riding, probably this province's most beautiful riding. In fact, if you don't believe that, we have a film studio, and many of the films that are watched by folks here in this House and all over the province and the world are filmed right in the community. Just watch the credits at the end, and when it says "filmed in the Abbotsford-Mission riding," you can come and tell me about that.

I also want to just acknowledge the support of my family, my wife, Joy, in particular. She was a teacher for many years in our province, teaching hundreds of little kids in first grade and did a good job, too. I also want to acknowledge the great constituency staff that I have in the Abbotsford-Mission riding — Jean Dykshoorn Hooge and also Mark Duyns, two great people to support me and work very hard with constituents and for the Abbotsford-Mission riding.

It's good to be here. It's good to be here on a couple of levels. As someone who taught business for many years, I understand the importance of the free-enterprise system. The kids that I taught, the students that I taught, their aspiration, for many of them, was to go into business. This is what we encourage right here in this House. We want people to go out and move north, move up to the areas that need development and go out and start a business. That's very exciting.

Like some of you here in this House, I've also owned my own business as well. I had a manufacturing company in Abbotsford. We had 13 employees, and we all know how tough it is to meet a payroll sometimes. We know that challenge. There were a couple of occasions where it came close that we didn't have enough money to pay ourselves when we were starting out the business, but we still had to meet the payroll of our employees. So I kind of had that recollection about that.

Another thing, a dimension to my comments and remarks today in support of this budget, is the fact that I have served half my life on a municipal council. That's a long time. We have to have a balanced budget. Local government — you're required to have a balanced budget, so we knew what frugality was. We knew what it meant to cut when we needed to, to ensure that the taxpayers were well served. That was an important part of it.

I guess my attitude to our government and the great work that's being done by our Premier and our Minister of Finance is the fact that we're stewards here. All the money that we have belongs not to us but to the taxpayers. We're stewards. We look at that — all of us, as the government members. We say: "You know what? We're stewards." It's a sacred trust that we have, and it's not

[ Page 1633 ]

our money.

I also want to share just a little bit as an anecdote, as a story, with my background in business. A salesperson who overpromises and underdelivers. What do we think of a salesperson like that? We don't like them. We don't like a salesperson that overpromises and underdelivers. They're held in low esteem by their colleagues, by their supervisor, but most of all, salespeople that overpromise and underdeliver are held in low regard by their customers.

In the same way, a government that overpromises and underdelivers, ultimately, is held in low esteem not only by the taxpayers today but subsequent generations — our kids, our grandkids. They're going to regret that, and we're going to regret that right now. That's the kind of thing we're looking at. We're stewards, and we don't want to be people that overpromise and underdeliver.

All across the land you can find that. In fact, it's interesting. If you look around the world, a lot of governments are doing that. They're saying: "We're going to give you everything you ask for." The problem is they can't afford it — overpromising and underdelivering.

We have a mandate here now, as government members and government, to manage the economy very, very carefully so the taxpayers will say: "We trust those people to look after the money that we are giving to them." Balancing the budget is at the heart of fiscal responsibility. And all around the world….

I was very encouraged by the member for Chilliwack-Hope who spoke earlier — some good research he did. I want to acknowledge that work that he did. I thought that was very good, as I watched him speak a moment ago here in the Legislature.

[1550]

It's all about stewardship, and it's also about leadership as well. Our Premier, our Minister of Finance — right on task, right on target. We're excited about that. We get behind them. We say: "You know what? They're going in the right direction." There's kind of a vortex following along, and we feel great about that. I'm proud to be a part of that government. So we're leading in the country.

Interesting thing. When I teach my first class of students, and you'll wonder why I'm going here again, I ask them this question — entrepreneurship: "Would you rather be successful or look successful?" I asked them that question, and you could see them thinking: "What does he want? What's the question for?"

You see, in our society we tend to reward the superficial. We say: "Okay. If that person has a very nice home on the hill, they must be successful." We don't know that their mortgage is weighing them down. They can barely afford the payments. Or if somebody drives by in a Ferrari, we think they're wealthy. But it may be leased. Maybe they borrowed it from a friend, right? We don't know. In our society we tend to reward the superficial. We like to look successful.

With our government, that's not our point. We don't want to so much look successful; we want to be successful with the taxpayers' dollars. We want to be good stewards. We want to be successful. That's the passion that I have, and that's why I'm so excited about the work being done by our Premier and our Minister of Finance.

If you walk around some towns in California…. I have relatives in the San Diego area. If you walk through a town called Stockton and you walk through a town called Vallejo, which is close to where our relatives live, or you walk through San Bernardino, California, it looks pretty good. There are palm trees there. There're lots of nice Mexican restaurants to eat in. But what's the problem with those towns? They're all bankrupt. They look successful, but they aren't successful.

Back to our government. We believe in doing the right thing for the taxpayers — not just look successful on the surface but be successful. It is so powerful. It changes your attitude to government. I'm so thrilled to be part of a government that has the right attitude.

My riding of Abbotsford-Mission — great work ethic. I'm Irish. My background's Irish, so I'm kind of out of the picture, in a way. We had folks that came in many years ago — the Dutch people, the Mennonite people. They populated the area. They built farms up, and now we have South Asian people coming in. What's the common denominator in my riding? A good work ethic. I know the member for Abbotsford South here is acknowledging that great work ethic in Abbotsford.

Our government has that commitment to work ethic. If people want to work hard, we'll reward you on that. That's a great principle that we have. We're committed to that. We're committed to working with our Premier and our Minister of Finance.

We're the only province with a really positive fiscal outlook for the next three years — a balanced budget, next three years. How cool is that? Why wouldn't everybody be in favour of that?

The Conference Board of Canada. We all value that organization here in the House. They're non-partisan. They're independent. What do they say about us? Next year we're going to rock. We are going to be the most exciting province in terms of economic growth in Canada. That's just coming up next year. That stability is so important to our success.

Now, the tax rate. We hear a lot of comments about taxes. We don't even like to really discuss taxes because it's always such a negative thing to the taxpayers. But we also know that if we don't tax properly and thoroughly in a balanced way, we won't have the revenue to do all the great things in social services, in education, in post-secondary and for all the folks that need a little extra hand along the way. That's important.

We have lower taxes in many segments here. For example, B.C. has the lowest personal income tax under $121,000, right across the land. That's pretty powerful.

[ Page 1634 ]

That's a good message, and people like to talk about that. Personal income taxes for most taxpayers have been reduced by 37 percent or more since 2001, and many low-income folks in our province don't pay any income tax at all. That's sensitivity. That's caring.

There's big-time sensitivity and caring with our government. Don't believe it when sometimes you hear the opposite. There's a lot of caring, a lot of warmth in here.

Interjections.

S. Gibson: Right on. Yes.

Reducing small business tax by 40 percent by 2018 — that's appealing. That's attractive. Small business is the powerful force that fuels the growth in our economy. Lowering our corporate income tax rate by 10 percent by 2018. That's the commitment of our Premier. That's the commitment of our Minister of Finance.

[1555]

Triple-A credit rating. How many of you know anybody that pays a lot of money when they go and borrow money? They go to the bank to start a business, and they pay a lot over prime. That person has a low credit rating. I know a guy in Abbotsford. He's paying a lot of money. He's a good guy, but he's getting started in business, so he's paying a lot over prime. I think he's paying 4 over prime — not the best. He wants to get into business.

The better you get in terms of acknowledgment by the bank, the lower your interest rate goes. We know that. Some of you here are borrowing money at prime plus one or maybe prime plus 1½. That's great.

But our triple-A rating is huge for us. Because the magnitude of the dollars…. When we go out and borrow dollars, when our Minister of Finance goes out with his officials and we need some money for some important capital investments, that triple-A credit rating is fantastic for us. We're one of the tops in the country. It reduces the servicing of our debt.

For example, let me read this. It's interesting. Compared to other provinces, such as Ontario, with only a double-A-minus rating…. I'd hate to have that on my report card. If I got a double-A-minus rating on my report card, I'd be disappointed. I'd be sad. I want a triple-A rating on my report card. We would be spending an additional $2 billion a year servicing our debt, money that we could use in servicing programs, doing all kinds of good things for the taxpayers in health, in social services — all kinds of good things.

By lowering the government's borrowing costs, we've got the freedom to make significant investments in all kinds of wonderful projects around our province. Great things we're doing sometimes get criticism: "Well, the government's not doing anything important." That's not true at all.

Taxpayer-supported capital spending on schools, hospitals over the next three years is expected to total $11 billion. It's $1.5 billion to replace or renovate schools, $2.3 billion for post-secondary institutions — and you have seen the list; very good investments there — $2.6 billion on health care infrastructure, $2.4 billion on transportation — money being spent in the right way. Of course, those folks are going to work. There are all kinds of exciting things going on in those areas.

Diversifying the economy — we heard earlier about that. Growing markets in China. In 2001 just 3 percent of our exports went to China, and Japan was our largest customer. Today the situation is completely turned around. China is now our largest market in Asia, with 18.4 percent of total exports. British Columbia exports to China have risen over 600 percent in the last ten years — very exciting. I'm going to China myself in a few weeks, looking forward to visiting that country for the first time on behalf of Abbotsford Chamber of Commerce. So I'm looking forward to that.

India, a great economy for us — a lo