2010 Legislative Session: Second Session, 39th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

official report of

Debates of the Legislative Assembly

(hansard)

Thursday, March 11, 2010

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 11, Number 7

CONTENTS

Page

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Tabling Documents

Office of the Auditor General, report No. 10, 2009-2010, Wireless Networking Security in Government: Phase 2

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

Kidney disease awareness

K. Conroy

Journée de la Francophonie

M. Dalton

Crisis line services and workers

L. Krog

Holly Elementary School playground

D. Hayer

Sources B.C. film on South Asian community and alcohol addiction

J. Brar

Kidney disease awareness

N. Letnick

Oral Questions

Royal Canadian Legion branch No. 127 rent subsidy

J. Horgan

Hon. B. Stewart

D. Routley

S. Simpson

LawLINE and access to legal aid

L. Krog

Hon. M. de Jong

Tax on private sale of vehicles and boats

B. Ralston

Hon. C. Hansen

M. Farnworth

Government support for tourism industry

S. Herbert

Hon. K. Krueger

Air quality tests in Prince George

R. Fleming

Hon. B. Penner

Gasification plant proposal and air quality in Kamloops

R. Fleming

Hon. B. Penner

Petitions

K. Conroy

B. Routley

Motions Without Notice

Committee of Supply to sit in two sections

Hon. M. de Jong

Orders of the Day

Budget Debate (continued)

Hon. J. Yap

M. Elmore

Hon. R. Hawes

K. Conroy

H. Bloy

J. Kwan

Hon. I. Black

A. Dix

Introduction and First Reading of Bills

Bill 3 — Supply Act (N o . 1), 2010

Hon. C. Hansen

[ Page 3401 ]

THURSDAY, MARCH 11, 2010

The House met at 1:35 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Mr. Speaker: I understand the Minister of Energy and Mines has somebody special to introduce.

Hon. B. Lekstrom: Today joining us in the gallery is a very good friend of mine and the love of my life. Will the House please join me in welcoming my wife, Vicki Lekstrom.

Hon. R. Hawes: Today in the gallery is Rob Thiessen. Rob runs the Hope for Freedom Society, which provides recovery houses for addictions and mental illness in the Tri-Cities area as well as a shelter and homeless outreach. He's doing tremendous work in the Tri-Cities and for the rest of the Fraser Valley. Could the House please make Rob very welcome.

D. Hayer: I have a number of guests in the House today. They are Narinder and Prem Dhir of Burnaby. Narinder was the winner of the Top 25 Canadian Immigrants of 2009 for Canada.

Also, there is Robin Dhir with his daughters from Burnaby, Naiha and Miya Dhir. Robin organized the first B.C. black-tie gala dinner for South Asians benefiting the B.C. Children's Hospital. Also, there's Lina and Ajay Sehgal of Burnaby, with their children Akhil, Rhea and Diya. Would the House please make them very welcome.

L. Reid: I have lovely guests in the gallery today. I have Debbie Gibson and Rosemary Boote, and I would like the House to please make them welcome.

S. Herbert: I would like to welcome to this House Lynne Van Meer, mother of Kate Van Meer-Mass, who is a staff member here with the opposition. Lynne is a youth and family worker with the Vancouver school board and a great mom, as I can attest, as I know her daughter. I would like to thank Lynne for being here. Please make her very welcome.

Hon. N. Yamamoto: I have a few introductions to do today. Aujourd'hui c'est la Journée de la Francophonie . We have some special guests joining us in the gallery that are here today here to celebrate B.C. Francophone Day. Sophie Aubugeau is a francophone immigrant and was our award recipient today for her contribution to British Columbia's economic, social and cultural development.

We also have members of the B.C. Consular Corps here with us today: Mr. Alexandre Garcia, Consul General of France; Mr. Walter Deplazes, Consul General of Switzerland; and Mr. Krzysztof Czapla, Consul General of Poland.

As well, we have Victoria city councillor Philippe Lucas and Paralympic athlete Carly Grigg, who hopes to represent Canada at the 2012 Paralympic Games in London. We also have Bertrand Dupain, the principal of L'Ecole Brodeur in Victoria, with his daughters Nami and Sola. Finally, we are joined by the presidents, executive directors of francophone organizations and members of our B.C. francophone community as well as federal and provincial government representatives. Will the House please join me in making them feel welcome.

I also have another group to introduce to the House. Penny Bees is a constituent of mine from North Vancouver–Lonsdale. With her, she's brought Helen Bees, Holly Reisner, Ivy Reisner, June Reisner, Ben Reisner, Alexander McCormick and Ryan McCormick. Would the House please make them feel welcome.

This is the final one. I'd like to ask the House to make Misha, Brian and Teah Wilson…. I worked with Misha in North Vancouver. Misha was responsible for the visitor information centre that was operating during the 2010 Olympic Games, and she's a staff member at the North Vancouver Chamber of Commerce. Her kids Brian and Teah are on spring break and they've joined us today in the House. Would the House please make them feel welcome.

D. Routley: I would like the House to help me welcome a friend, Bernie Jones. Bernie Jones is from the Chemainus Residents Association, and he is a retired city and urban planner. Bernie worked in the city of Denver and has extensive history in managing the development of that area.

He's a wonderful addition to our community in Chemainus, and I think people consider him to be one of those assets that comes as people retreat to B.C. to retire. We inherit such a wonderful human resource from all around the world, and Bernie is a sterling example of that. So welcome, Bernie.

[1340]

D. Horne: It's with great pleasure that I rise today and welcome a former member of this place, Richard Stewart, who is currently also the mayor of Coquitlam. He's here in the precinct today to represent Coquitlam and celebrate the Francophone Day.

I'd like to note that Coquitlam has the largest francophone population in western Canada. Perhaps a place in Manitoba might be slightly larger, but that's central Canada, as he pointed out earlier. I think it's wonderful that he's joined us here today, and I hope that everyone will make him welcome.

[ Page 3402 ]

M. Farnworth: It's appropriate that I follow my colleague from Coquitlam–Burke Mountain, because in the gallery today is the second group of students from Irvine Elementary, a French immersion school in my riding of Port Coquitlam. They are here to celebrate Francophone Day in British Columbia by touring the buildings and the precincts and by watching our proceedings. I would ask the House to make them most welcome — and bienvenue à Victoria .

Tabling Documents

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, I have the honour to present the Auditor General's report No. 10, 2009-2010, Wireless Networking Security in Government: Phase 2 .

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

KIDNEY DISEASE AWARENESS

K. Conroy: Today is World Kidney Day, and it's celebrated worldwide on the second Thursday of March. It is an opportunity to inform and educate people that kidney disease is common, harmful and treatable.

Kidney diseases affect around 600 million people worldwide, approximately one in ten people. These diseases are silent killers. The patients may have no symptoms until they reach kidney failure. It is then too late for treatment, and the only way to stay alive is lifetime dialysis or transplantation for the lucky few who manage to find a donor.

This year World Kidney Day focuses on diabetes, which is a leading cause of kidney diseases worldwide. Hypertension, obesity and pollution are also major causes of kidney damage.

I want to remind us all what amazing organs our kidneys are, organs the size of our fist whose main job is to remove toxins and excess water from our blood. However, kidneys also help to control our blood pressure, which is vital to everyone that works in this House, particularly during question period — on some days especially for you, hon. Speaker. They also produce red blood cells and keep our bones healthy.

Although it is obvious how troubling chronic kidney disease is, I want to share the very simple positive steps we can take to ensure that we all have healthy kidneys and reduce the risk of developing future kidney disease.

Keep fit and active, sometimes tough to do in this job but something we need to do. Keep regular control of your blood sugar level, having to say no to some of the delectable treats in the dining room. Monitor your blood pressure and reduce your salt intake. Eat healthy and keep your weight in check. Dominique and the chef are working hard to ensure that we all do that.

Quit smoking, needless to say. Limit your intake of over-the-counter drugs, and if you are concerned, get your kidney function checked. It's a simple urine and blood test and will ensure that you are all on the path to a healthy kidney.

I also want to thank the many health care professionals in this province who work every day with people who have kidney disease and their families. We are forever grateful for your support and commitment to the cause.

JOURNÉE DE LA FRANCOPHONIE

M. Dalton: Merci, Monsieur le Président. Je suis heureux d’annoncer que le 20 mars prochain est officiellement la Journée de la Francophonie 2010 en Colombie-Britannique.

Puisque la Chambre ne siégera pas la semaine prochaine, cet événement a été célébré par un déjeuner ici, aujourd’hui, dans la rotonde de l’édifice de l’Assemblée législative. Le thème de la journée est "l’immigration francophone."

La province a eu le plaisir de rendre hommage à deux immigrants francophones: Sophie Aubugeau, coordonnatrice de l’Agence francophone pour l’accueil des immigrants; et Pascal Courty, professeur adjoint à l’Université de Victoria. Ces deux participants au programme de candidats des provinces ont été honorés pour leur contribution au développement économique, social et culturel de la Colombie-Britannique.

Cet événement était organisé par ma collègue, le ministre d’État aux Affaires intergouvernementales, qui est aussi ministre responsable des affaires francophones.

[1345]

Environ la moitié des athlètes olympiques qui nous ont rendus fiers d’être canadiens étaient des francophones de toutes les régions du pays. Parmi les athlètes paralympiques, il y aura également des anglophones et des francophones qui représenteront notre pays.

L’Assemblée législative de la Colombie-Britannique est heureuse d’être membre de l’Assemblée parlementaire de la Francophonie, une association internationale pour les parlementaires francophones et francophiles.

[Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am pleased to announce the proclamation of March 20, 2010, as Francophone Day in British Columbia.

Since the House will not be sitting next week, this event was celebrated at lunch here today in the rotunda. The theme for Francophone Day is “francophone immigration.”

[ Page 3403 ]

The province had the pleasure to recognize two francophone immigrants: Sophie Aubugeau, coordinator, Connection Centre for Francophone Immigrants; and Pascal Courty, assistant professor, University of Victoria, participating in the provincial nominee program at lunch today, for their contribution to B.C.’s economic, social and cultural development.

The event was hosted by my colleague the Minister of State for Intergovernmental Relations, who is also responsible for francophone affairs.

Today’s proclamation of B.C. Francophone Day honours the hundreds of thousands of British Columbians who have embraced the French language.

In the past weeks about half of the Olympic athletes who made us proud to be Canadian were francophones from all parts of the country. The Paralympians will also include anglophones and francophones representing the country.

The Legislative Assembly of British Columbia is happy to be a member of the Assemblée parlementaire de la Francophonie, an international association of French-speaking parliamentarians.

Please join me in congratulating and thanking British Columbia’s French speakers for their contribution to our province and country. Thank you.]

[French text and translation provided by M. Dalton.]

CRISIS LINE SERVICES AND WORKERS

L. Krog: The third week of March is designated Crisis Line Awareness Week. Hundreds of volunteers across this province help people in dreadful situations. There are 20 crisis lines providing free, confidential service to anyone in British Columbia. This telephone-based service provides emotional support, information, referrals, crisis intervention and, importantly, suicide prevention to those British Columbians who find themselves in some pretty sad situations.

Crisis lines are handled by volunteers and staff, and they improve local communities' capacity and resiliency. Over 165,000 calls were handled through the 20 crisis lines in 2008 in British Columbia. Of those, 75,000 had a mental health or addictions component.

Hon. Speaker, 85 percent who call get an answer; 15 percent are missed because the crisis line worker is supporting someone else. What it tells us is that there are many British Columbians who need our help.

In Nanaimo the Central Vancouver Island Crisis Society, ably headed up by Elizabeth Newcombe, their executive director, provides these services and has just recently been awarded the contract to provide services on Vancouver Island.

For those of us in this chamber who do not begin to face the problems that many British Columbians face on a daily basis, I think it's important here in this chamber today that we honour those who work on the crisis lines across the province providing that valuable service.

HOLLY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PLAYGROUND

D. Hayer: A wonderful event happened in my riding last week when a new community playground at Holly Elementary School was opened. Holly Elementary is a very diverse and great school with exceptional staff and students from 47 different countries who speak more than 67 languages.

This exceptional playground in the Guildford area of Surrey-Tynehead is fully wheelchair-accessible and provides all children and their parents, regardless of their physical ability, with the opportunity to play.

What is also special about the playground is that it is a successful achievement of so many groups, including parents, local organizations and members of the community.

This exceptional playground cost almost $110,000. More than $50,000 in funding came through the provincial government and the Rick Hansen Foundation. Another $20,000 came from the Rotary Club of Surrey Guildford. Also involved were the Surrey school district; Surrey parks and recreation; Surrey Guildford Lions Club; from the private sector, Guildford Town Centre, RecTec Industries and Super Save Group of Companies.

So many people had a hand in bringing this wonderful playground into being. I have the opportunity to mention a few: Holly Elementary's principal, Mary Gibbons; Anita Taylor and the PAC from Holly Elementary; and the Holly Community School Society chair Jennifer Kain, vice-chair Laura Youngston, treasurer Laura Duvall and secretary Stella Molina; along with a large number of very important volunteers and directors.

I would also like to commend the Rotary Club of Surrey Guildford members and president Neall Lucente; along with the superintendent of schools, Mike McKay, trustee Shawn Wilson, and Liane Ricou and Pamela Pittman from Surrey school district; and Petra Barker of Ivanhoe Cambridge.

I ask the House to join with me, please, to welcome and thank everybody who was involved with working on this exceptional playground in Surrey.

SOURCES B.C. FILM ON SOUTH ASIAN

COMMUNITY AND ALCOHOL ADDICTION

J. Brar: When it comes to helping the people of British Columbia, there are countless non-profit organizations which are using innovations and creativity to address society's problems.

[1350]

About a week ago I was lucky enough to see firsthand the hard work of one of these non-profit organizations. This organization used to be called Peace Arch

[ Page 3404 ]

Community Services, but they have just recently changed the name, and it's known now as Sources B.C.

I have come across numerous organizations that strive to educate the public of British Columbia about healthy lifestyle, but Sources B.C. has gone above and beyond my expectations. Across the province families from all backgrounds can become victims to alcohol addiction. Sources B.C. takes a closer look at the South Asian community and their relationship with alcohol addiction.

Last week Sources B.C. showed this film to a group of South Asian women at the Fleetwood Community Centre. After the film, Fraser Health addiction counsellors joined us, and an open dialogue was encouraged. Interestingly, this group of women have asked to see the film again. This time they will also invite the men in their lives to see it and join the discussion with them. Both the members for Surrey-Newton and Fraser-Nicola are also invited to that film showing.

Sources B.C. has found a positive way to tackle the stigma and social problems that stem from alcohol addiction in the South Asian community. The film is powerful, and it provokes thoughtful and inclusive discussion, a creative approach to dealing with a challenging problem.

KIDNEY DISEASE AWARENESS

N. Letnick: Are your kidneys okay? We'll have this issue covered, both the left kidney and the right kidney, before we're done our two-minute statements.

This is the question we all need to ask ourselves today, on World Kidney Day, and throughout the month of March, Canada's National Kidney Month. The B.C. Renal Agency and the Kidney Foundation, B.C. branch, have partnered this year with the mission of bringing attention to the importance of kidneys to overall health and to reduce the frequency and impact of kidney disease and its associated health problems.

Chronic kidney disease is a lifelong condition. It is estimated that over 145,000 British Columbians have some degree of kidney disease, and many don't even know it. Right now in British Columbia there are 13,000 kidney care patients, with over 2,700 of those patients on life-saving dialysis and over 10,000 in the early stages of the disease. We know that if patients are diagnosed early, modify their behaviours and diets, and take appropriate medications, they can often postpone or even avoid dialysis.

This year the international focus of World Kidney Day is diabetes, with approximately 40 percent of diabetics developing kidney disease, making it the leading risk factor. Understanding the risk factors is important to reducing your chances of developing kidney disease.

Additional risk factors are high blood pressure or heart disease, having a family history of kidney disease or belonging to specific high-risk ethnic groups, which include people who are aboriginal, Pacific islanders, Asians or of African descent. If you are in the high-risk group of kidney disease, you should discuss it with your physician. He or she can order a simple test to measure your kidney function.

In B.C. our strategy to treat kidney disease earlier has reduced the annual dialysis rate from 16 percent to 5 percent, even though the number of people diagnosed with early-stage kidney disease has grown 30 percent since 2001. Our message is: help us keep the health care system sustainable. Have your kidneys checked.

Oral Questions

ROYAL CANADIAN LEGION

BRANCH No. 127 RENT SUBSIDY

J. Horgan: For 76 years the members of the Royal Canadian Legion, branch 127, have called the building at 521 Superior Street here in Victoria their home. Three weeks ago the minister's office for the Minister of Citizens' Services contacted the 115 veterans, with the average age of 87 years old, and advised them that they had to raise $26,000 for rent or find another place to be.

Conversations went back and forth. A final e-mail was received Tuesday from the deputy minister, and it reads as follows: "I regret that the ministry's budget can no longer sustain a rent subsidy for the legion. The current fiscal situation has led to some difficult choices in order to maintain and protect front-line services."

[1355]

Hon. Speaker, liberating Holland is a front-line service. Being a prisoner of war in Hong Kong is a front-line service. Will the minister do the right thing, stand in his place today and restore the rent subsidy for Legion 127 here in Victoria?

Hon. B. Stewart: First of all, I want to make certain that the members of branch 127 of the Royal Canadian Legion know that they will still call Superior Street home, and no one is moving. This government has a proud history of, you know, being proud of its veterans, celebrating their successes, and if there's any confusion on this, I apologize for the fact that this e-mail transaction took place without the proper meetings to make certain that the veterans knew exactly that they were going to be able to stay in that location.

[ Page 3405 ]

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

J. Horgan: Let's talk about that proud B.C. Liberal record. This is the second time in a decade that that government has tried to evict the members of Legion branch 127 — twice in a decade. Every Premier since Duff Pattullo has supported this initiative until the recent denizen of the chair across the way.

Again to the minister. You've known this for three weeks. It just fell on your desk. You've had two scrums today. It's a movable feast of incompetence. Stand today and say: "The subsidy will be restored." No bafflegab. "The subsidy will be restored." Say it now.

Hon. B. Stewart: Again I want to make it clear that no one at branch 127 is moving. The arrangements that they've enjoyed over the last 76 years will continue as they have. I personally am proud of the veterans and what they've done for this country. You know, we used to sit around the kitchen table talking about my father's service in the Second World War.

I can tell you how much we value their contribution, and I repeat again that no one is moving, and the arrangement will continue as it has for the past 76 years.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a further supplemental.

J. Horgan: There are members on both sides of this House whose parents fought and died in the Second World War. My challenge for the minister is a simple one. This government has a habit of hanging out public servants. We have the deputy minister to his minister two days ago saying: "Tough luck, so sad. Get out of the building. We're no longer continuing the subsidy."

It's very simple. Get to the point, Minister. Will you ensure that the subsidy remains in place, or are we going to have to have bake sales for 87-year-old veterans?

Hon. B. Stewart: I want to repeat to the member opposite that no one is moving and that the arrangement that stood for the last 76 years still stands. If you want to talk about….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. B. Stewart: I was made aware yesterday that there was a breakdown in communication. I was told originally that there had been an arrangement made and that we were in agreement, the Legion and ourselves. But I apologize for that confusion, and no one is moving.

D. Routley: That e-mail and this government often talk about tough choices — tough times and tough choices. Tough times were 1934. In a letter to then Premier Pattullo, we hear from the Legion: "We feel that particularly during these discouraging times, the government's policy of recognition of its employees' need for such facilities is an important factor in maintaining their morale and efficiency."

Those were tough times. The decision made by that e-mail was not tough; it was cowardly. This government and that minister should stand up and apologize. Why was that e-mail sent? Why? He should apologize to those members. Why was that e-mail sent? And why, for the second time in ten years, has this government come knocking on their door?

[1400]

Hon. B. Stewart: To the member opposite, I want to make it clear that I don't see why they're stuck to the script. The bottom line is that we've answered the question. There is no one moving.

Interjections.

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

Member has a supplemental.

D. Routley: This is the second time in ten years this government has demanded that those veterans move or pay. Only once it became public does the minister back-pedal. Only once it became public. If it hadn't become public, you can be quite sure that a different outcome would have come out of this.

Duff Pattullo in 1934 wrote back two days after that letter: "I find myself in sympathy with your representations, and I have made inquiry and find that there is no intention of depriving you of your quarters." That from Duff Pattullo.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

D. Routley: Every Premier and every government since 1934 has seen the value except this one, which has twice come knocking on their door and threatened them with eviction.

It's not good enough for the minister to simply back-pedal. He needs to guarantee those veterans — guarantee them — that this will never happen again. Will the minister stand in this House and guarantee those veterans that that is their premises?

Hon. B. Stewart: I want to make it clear, absolutely crystal-clear. No one is moving from Superior Street. I

[ Page 3406 ]

also want to make it clear that the fact is that the arrangements that have been in place for the last 76 years will continue. I apologize for the misunderstanding to the veterans that are distressed by this, but I want to make it clear that I've made arrangements to have a meeting personally with the president to discuss this further.

S. Simpson: On Tuesday 115 elderly veterans get told by this minister's deputy that they're out on the street. On Tuesday they get told they're out on the street. Then in this e-mail that they get told this, they also got told the minister is fully aware of this decision.

What happened between today and Tuesday, other than the embarrassment of the incompetence of this decision, and what is the minister doing? Is the $26,000 off the table completely? Is it back to exactly the same situation? Why on earth did this minister and the B.C. Liberal brain trust that's behind this create that kind of anxiety for our elderly veterans?

Hon. B. Stewart: I don't know where the members are going with this. They seem to be stuck with that same script. The reality is we've told you that no one is moving and that the fact is the arrangement that's been in place since Premier Duff Pattullo wrote to the Legion will stay in place.

[1405]

LAWLINE AND ACCESS TO LEGAL AID

L. Krog: Effective April 1, the B.C. Liberals are axing the B.C. LawLINE. It was created because of the many cuts to legal services by this government.

Whether it's an immigrant trying to escape a violent relationship, an illiterate facing bankruptcy or someone with a mental illness facing a predatory lender, the B.C. LawLINE was there to help.

My question to the Attorney General is very simple. What should the thousands of people who don't have access to basic legal aid do when the LawLINE is gone?

Hon. M. de Jong: No secret that the province is confronted by a $1.7 billion deficit.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Continue, Attorney.

Hon. M. de Jong: Better at asking questions than listening for answers.

That has obligated all of us to make some difficult decisions in terms of where we direct resources, and particularly for the Legal Services Society which, in addition to drawing on funding from a government that has lost billions of dollars in revenue, also relies upon interest payments from trust funds that are way down on account of lower interest rates.

These are challenging circumstances. It does require us to prioritize to ensure that scarce resources are being directed where they can do the most good. That's what we're doing, and that's what the Legal Services Society is doing.

Mr. Speaker: Member has a supplemental.

L. Krog: I give the Attorney General full credit for honesty and being straightforward in this House. It's very clear. If you're poor in British Columbia, you don't get any priority from this government.

Since 2001 a 31 percent cut to legal aid, and now the most vulnerable British Columbians, who have a small opportunity to get some legal advice, are seeing it cut.

Sixty-three advocates from across this province have written to every MLA demanding that the LawLINE be restored. My question to the Attorney General: if he won't listen to the opposition, will he listen to those front-line workers and send the message that everyone in British Columbia, even if you're poor, has a right to justice?

Hon. M. de Jong: It was precisely to ensure that services are available and were preserved in the most critical areas that the Legal Services Society made the changes that they announced a few months ago, which were about reducing overhead and directing those precious and scarce resources to the delivery of justice services to people.

There's always more work that can be done and that we want to do, but I think the Legal Services Society made the correct choice in reducing their overhead by altering their service delivery models and directing those scarce resources where they could do the most good helping people.

TAX ON PRIVATE SALE

OF VEHICLES AND BOATS

B. Ralston: On Wednesday, March 3, the Minister of Finance tried to convince us here in the Legislature and the public of British Columbia that the HST isn't a huge tax grab. Will he now admit that the government's plan, under the guise of the HST, includes a new and increased provincial tax on the private sale of cars and boats?

Hon. C. Hansen: The member is not correct. It is not a new tax. There has always been a 12 percent combined sales tax on the sale of used vehicles from car dealers and used car lots around the province, but there has also always been, over the last number of years, a 7 percent tax on the private sale of used vehicles.

[1410]

[ Page 3407 ]

That inequity has been flagged for us and the problems that it caused around curbers and the inappropriate sale of used cars by purportedly private individuals. As we announced in the budget speech and on budget day, we are continuing that tax, but it will be at a consistent 12 percent rate for all sales of used vehicles in British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

B. Ralston: It is odd indeed that the minister does mention tax equity. At the same time as the tax on the private sale of cars and boats is going up, the tax on luxury cars costing more than $57,000 is going down — less tax on the new Beamer, more tax on the used Chev. Is there any clearer illustration that the HST is gouging ordinary British Columbians?

Hon. C. Hansen: Clearly, this member has not travelled into northern British Columbia. Clearly, this member does not recognize that small business owners who need to get vehicles valued over $55,000 to undertake their business…. He calls that a luxury. I call that the backbone of the economy — small business owners in the province.

M. Farnworth: The Finance Minister can say whatever he wants. The bottom line is that people who choose to sell their vehicles or boats privately are paying more under this budget. It's a cash grab. So whether it drives like a cash grab, it's a cash grab. If it sails like a cash grab, it's a cash grab. If it backfires like a cash grab, it's a cash grab.

Will the Minister of Finance stop penalizing ordinary people who want to sell their vehicles or boats privately, and scuttle this cash grab?

Hon. C. Hansen: This is about establishing a level playing field. This is about establishing a practice that is followed by virtually every other province in Canada. This is about a practice that has been flagged even by the federal government as one that encourages a black market in the sale of vehicles. As the federal government noted a number of years ago, it is the provinces that need to address this, and we are addressing it.

We're ensuring that the buyers of used vehicles who buy from a private vendor are treated exactly the same as the buyers of vehicles who purchase from a car dealer or other avenues in British Columbia.

GOVERNMENT SUPPORT

FOR TOURISM INDUSTRY

S. Herbert: The Minister of Tourism recently stated that Calgary and every other jurisdiction that has ever hosted the Olympics say: "We didn't do enough on the post-Olympic opportunities." Then he proceeded to suggest that the B.C. Liberals wouldn't make that mistake. Yet just two days after the Olympics flame was put out, the B.C. Liberals cut tourism marketing by $6 million, a cut forcing organizations like Tourism Victoria to lay off key staff.

Can the minister tell me how cutting $6 million of the tourism marketing budget and forcing our province's marketers to lay off staff necessary for securing the post-games opportunities is good for tourism and for our economy?

Interjections.

[1415]

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. K. Krueger: At last he speaks. Four million….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Continue, Minister.

Hon. K. Krueger: So 4,399,964 British Columbians have been revelling in the greatest party on earth for the last month and a half, and 36 people didn't show up — 36 people. And they all sit over there. People who could not catch the Olympic spirit. People who spoke against every part of our plans for the Olympics. People who didn't show up at the Olympic events. People who've had nothing but criticism. People who wanted John Furlong fired and then stand up in the Legislature and praise him, as he deserves and as he deserved for all of those years.

Now this little guy is going to stand up in the Legislature and say: "What are you doing to capitalize on the tremendous opportunity presented by the Olympics?" Well, finally, finally, he's catching on.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Minister, just take your seat for a second.

The member has a supplemental.

S. Herbert: Now we know why the B.C. Liberals don't let this guy stand up so often. I'm sure he bought his own tickets. Oh, right. No, the taxpayers paid for his Olympic tickets.

So $6 million in marketing cuts for tourism. Marketing layoffs all across the province. Unless the B.C. Liberals stop the HST, 10,000 tourism jobs lost. If the B.C. Liberals and the minister think that's doing enough on the post-Olympic opportunities, then I'm sure that the tourism industry would tell him to stop right now. The B.C. Liberals have done enough damage to the tourism industry.

[ Page 3408 ]

Will the minister admit today that the B.C. Liberals are blowing this opportunity for B.C. and come out with a real plan for tourism marketing in this province?

Hon. K. Krueger: Mr. Speaker, 3.5 billion people watched the opening ceremonies of the Olympics. The ad campaign that we rolled out featuring B.C. celebrities had almost one billion impressions, an impression being the number of times that an individual watches the ad. All of this is rolling into a post-Olympics tourism plan that is the envy of the world.

We have been planning since before we won the Olympic bid to capitalize on the post-Olympic opportunities in tourism and across the board, and those people voted against every iota of spending for all of our plans, but they'll benefit from it. We're glad that 4.4 million British Columbians will be enriched by the fabulous success of the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Games.

They're not over, but even now, on the eve of the Paralympic Games, this guy stands up and tries to make a negative out of the Olympics. Imagine that.

[1420]

Mr. Speaker: I remind the minister to make all your comments through the Chair, please, not directed to anyone personally.

AIR QUALITY TESTS IN PRINCE GEORGE

R. Fleming: Last night in Prince George ministry officials apologized to the community for failing to retest dangerous levels of formaldehyde in the air around playgrounds and neighbourhoods 18 months ago. The same people who blew the whistle on the government's cuts to environmental monitoring and enforcement were hung out to dry and made to apologize for this minister's budget decisions.

My question is to him. Instead of making professional civil servants take the fall and take the blame before the community, will he stand in this House today and apologize to the people of Prince George for failing to rigorously monitor the air they breathe?

Hon. B. Penner: I think it's the members opposite that should apologize for fearmongering and for falsely, repeatedly saying that air monitoring has been reduced in Prince George. We canvassed this thoroughly yesterday, but I'm happy to do it again.

Since 2001 in British Columbia we have increased the number of monitoring stations and networks across the province. There used to be 65; today there are 75. In Prince George alone we added three additional monitoring stations.

We've added $550,000 in spending over the last five years for air quality planning and monitoring in the Prince George area. We're going to continue to work to improve air quality and work with people in the local community to achieve that goal.

Mr. Speaker: Member has a supplemental.

GASIFICATION PLANT PROPOSAL

AND AIR QUALITY IN KAMLOOPS

R. Fleming: Tonight in Kamloops there is an information meeting being organized by the chamber of commerce to discuss the creosote rail incinerator. This is the first time the public has ever been able to meet the proponent of this project, and it comes after the air permit has already been granted to this proponent. It comes after a $1.7 million subsidy has been given by this government for the project.

Kamloops….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

R. Fleming: Kamloops was deprived of an environmental assessment that this minister could have ordered. How is it that the minister has gotten this far on the approval of the project, when the mayor and council were unanimously opposed, when a hundred physicians at Royal Inland Hospital were opposed to this project, when scientists at TRU and from abroad have raised concerns about this project and when residents who live within a thousand metres of this plant are opposed to it?

My question for the minister is this. As Kamloops residents gather this very evening, is he prepared to listen and act, or is the deal done and his mind already closed?

Hon. B. Penner: The real question is: how does the NDP critic still get his facts so wrong? He says that funding has already flowed to this project from the provincial government. Not true. In fact, local MLAs have made it clear that the proponent has more work to do in consulting with the public before they're going to get any of that funding from the provincial government.

Further, yesterday I explained that it's ministry staff, who are professional experts, that make these decisions. Let me share with you, Members, what somebody else in Kamloops had to say about this matter just last month. He's a former NDP MLA that represented that area, a former NDP cabinet minister, and he wrote to the Kamloops Daily News on February 11…

Interjections.

Hon. B. Penner: Art Charbonneau.

…under the headline "Let's Debate Tie Plant Rationally." He had this advice for his former NDP

[ Page 3409 ]

colleagues: "Frightening people with dire warnings designed to appeal to emotions should not be part of a rational discussion. To cry out that the process isn't proven is simply not right."

Why don't you listen to Art Charbonneau?

[1425]

[End of question period.]

Petitions

K. Conroy: I'd like to present a petition from over 560 people in my constituency who are opposed to opening up the bull elk hunt from a limited-entry draw to an open season.

B. Routley: I have in my hand hundreds of petitions opposing the HST.

Hon. M. de Jong: I seek leave to move the motion that creates Committee A. This is in anticipation of the estimates beginning upon our return in a week. I've provided a copy of the motion to my friend the Opposition House Leader and, with leave, would move that motion now.

Leave granted.

Motions Without Notice

COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY

TO SIT IN TWO SECTIONS

Hon. M. de Jong:

[Be it resolved that this House hereby authorizes the Committee of Supply for this Session to sit in two sections designated

Section A and

Section B;

Section A to sit in such Committee Room as may be appointed from time to time, and

Section B to sit in the Chamber of the Assembly, subject to the following rules:

1. The Standing Orders applicable to the Committee of the Whole House shall be applicable in both Sections of the Committee of Supply save and except that in

Section A, a Minister may defer to a Deputy Minister to permit such Deputy to reply to a question put to the Minister.

2. All Estimates shall stand referred to

Section A, save and except those Estimates as shall be referred to

Section B on motion without notice by the Government House Leader, which motion shall be decided without amendment or debate and be governed by Practice Recommendation #6 relating to Consultation.

Section A shall consist of 20 Members, being 12 Members of the B.C. Liberal Party and 7 Members of the New Democratic Party and one Independent. In addition, the Deputy Chair of the Committee of the Whole, or his or her nominee, shall preside over the debates in

Section A. Substitution of Members will be permitted to

Section A with the consent of that Member’s Whip, where applicable, otherwise with the consent of the Member involved. For the second session of the Thirty-ninth Parliament, the Members of

Section A shall be as follows: the Minister whose Estimates are under consideration and Messrs. Dalton, Hogg, Les, Hayer, Horne, Lake, Lee, Letnick, and Ms. Cadieux, McIntyre, Thornthwaite, and Messrs. Bains, Chouhan, Farnworth, Fraser and Mmes. Corrigan, D. Black and Hammell and Ms. Huntington.

4. At fifteen minutes prior to the ordinary time fixed for adjournment of the House, the Chair of

Section A will report to the House. In the event such report includes the last vote in a particular ministerial Estimate, after such report has been made to the House, the Government shall have a maximum of eight minutes, and the Official Opposition a maximum of five minutes, and all other Members (cumulatively) a maximum of three minutes to summarize the Committee debate on a particular ministerial Estimate completed, such summaries to be in the following order:

(1) Other Members;

(2) Opposition; and

(3) Government.

Section B shall be composed of all Members of the House.

6. Divisions in

Section A will be signalled by the ringing of the division bells four times.

7. Divisions in

Section B will be signalled by the ringing of the division bells three times at which time proceedings in

Section A will be suspended until completion of the division in

Section B.

Section A is hereby authorized to consider Bills referred to Committee after second reading thereof and the Standing Orders applicable to Bills in Committee of the Whole shall be applicable to such Bills during consideration thereof in

Section A, and for all purposes

Section A shall be deemed to be a Committee of the Whole. Such referrals to

Section A shall be made upon motion without notice by the Minister responsible for the Bill, and such motion shall be decided without amendment or debate. Practice Recommendation #6 relating to Consultation shall be applicable to all such referrals.

9. Bills or Estimates previously referred to a designated Committee may at any stage be subsequently referred to another designated Committee on motion of the Government House Leader or Minister responsible for the Bill as hereinbefore provided by Rule Nos. 2 and 8.]

Motion approved.

Orders of the Day

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

Budget Debate

(continued)

Hon. J. Yap: It's an honour to have the opportunity to resume my comments on Budget 2010. In the time remaining for me I would like to canvass a few points and talk about a few highlights of this budget, Budget 2010, which I enthusiastically and strongly support and encourage all members to support.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

This is a budget, as I have said, that strikes the right balance between making the right investments in key areas — strategic investments, whether it's in health care or in education, support for families — and investing in our economic opportunities for the future. Whether it's in ensuring that we have the support for the emerging low-carbon, green economy to give British Columbia

[ Page 3410 ]

that opportunity to be the clean energy powerhouse of North America….

This budget, Budget 2010, has a deficit for the coming year that is reduced from the soon-to-end fiscal year. Budget 2010 forecasts a shortfall of $1.7 billion and lays out over the next three years how we will get to a balanced position by 2012-2013.

It's very important to this side of the House that we get back in a fiscally responsible way to a balanced budget because, as we all know — although members of the opposition like to overlook this or like to ignore this — any deficit that we incur is putting on our children and grandchildren future taxes and a tax burden that they will not benefit from in the coming years. So it's very important to us to get to a balanced budget, and this budget positions us over the next two, three years to get back to a balanced budget.

[1430]

There are a number of key initiatives in Budget 2010 that I'm particularly thankful for. As I had mentioned, this budget includes additional supports for families, whether it's the additional $26 million for child care for those lower- to middle-income families — that is exactly the kind of thing we need to do to support our families and support children; whether it's in education, as I had mentioned earlier. We spent some time. I talked about how we're spending record amounts as a province in education.

The innovative property tax deferral program for families with children — a great, innovative way to allow families that can use this, families that have a home with qualifying equity, to be able to defer property taxes so that they can use that equity to cover important expenses, whether it's education; whether it's to further develop their children, give them the opportunity to experience different aspects of learning.

It's important that we give families the choice to be able to do this, just as we have seniors who are also able to defer their property taxes. It's an innovative way to allow families to make the choice, if they choose to, to effectively use some of the equity in their home to defer their property taxes and to meet the needs that they feel they need to for the development for the future of their children.

One of the strategic initiatives of our government is to position British Columbia to take advantage of the emerging low-carbon economy, the clean economy of the future, whether it's our carbon tax initiative, which we introduced a couple of years ago — with the strong opposition of the members on the other side; apparently, now they support the carbon tax — or whether it's cap-and-trade, where we will have the opportunity to allow large emitters, those industrial emitters 10,000 megatonnes a year and above, to be part of a system where their emissions are tracked.

Those that are emitting 25,000 tonnes and over are to be part of a cap-and-trade system, which we are working on with our international partners through the Western Climate Initiative to introduce by 2012.

Between the carbon tax and the cap-and-trade system, it's very important that we put a price signal on carbon pollution so that we're able to incorporate it into our economic system, to allow us the opportunity to, over time, reduce our emissions.

Speaking of emissions, we are still the first jurisdiction to put in place aggressive greenhouse gas reduction targets. As you know, Madam Speaker, our goal is to reduce our carbon emissions by 33 percent by the year 2020, ten years from now, with a longer-term goal of reducing emissions by 80 percent by the year 2050. We have a very clear and a very aggressive climate action plan to help us get there. I've talked about a few of the elements of that plan, whether it's the carbon tax or the cap-and-trade system.

Another major initiative which I'm so proud of is our initiative to have British Columbia be the first jurisdiction to commit to and achieve carbon-neutrality by 2010, by this year, and we have a plan to get us there. We have a plan that's in place that will help B.C. be the first public sector, first province, first government, first jurisdiction that will be carbon-neutral.

We're making progress in climate action, and we'll continue to do that, whether it's through funding projects through the public sector energy conservation agreement to encourage members of the public sector to engage in projects to reduce their carbon footprint; whether it's the tracking, measuring and taking steps to reduce our emissions; whether it's the Pacific Carbon Trust, the Crown agency with a mandate to provide offsets for the province. These are initiatives that will help us get to our carbon emission goals.

[1435]

In

summary, as I have said a few times — and I'll say it again — this is a budget that will help British Columbia achieve a return to strong growth and prosperity in the coming years. It's a budget that will help British Columbia build on the great Olympic legacies which all of us, all British Columbians, in fact all Canadians, felt was the best possible coming together of our great nation, of our province. We can continue to build a stronger British Columbia, build on the Olympic legacies and create for our children and their children a prosperous and a wonderful future.

Budget 2010, which our Finance Minister and his staff have carefully put together, will allow us to get there, and for that, I thank him.

I would like, in my final moments, to have the opportunity to thank John Furlong, the CEO of VANOC, for his tremendous, exceptional performance with his team in helping British Columbia and Canada put on the fantastic Olympic Games, the 2010 Winter Olympic Games, which really has helped take British Columbia to the next level and to take our place as the Pacific gateway

[ Page 3411 ]

for North America — indeed, the world. Budget 2010 will help us get to that place, which is a prosperous place where all of us, working together, build a better British Columbia.

M. Elmore: I rise today to speak against this budget. But before I address directly the dire impact of this budget on my constituents and British Columbians, I'd like to acknowledge and thank the hard-working staff in my community office and in Victoria.

My constituency assistants — Kelly Read; Thomas Lou; Steven Klein; and Maita Santiago; along with my legislative assistant, Angela Giuliano — are doing a terrific job ensuring that we effectively represent and serve the interests of my constituents.

I'd also like to thank my family and my partner, Angelina Cantada, for their continued support. It's a great honour indeed for me to act on behalf of the wonderful people of Vancouver-Kensington.

Madam Speaker, Vancouver-Kensington is a vibrant riding with very active community groups composed of folks who care deeply about those around them. We've got the Dickens Community Group; the Mountain View Neighbourhood Association; and SHINE, the South Hill Initiative for Neighbourhood Engagement. They are really prime examples of how ordinary folks can come together to make positive differences.

We also see this in the many volunteers we have involved in our office. Through our Youth in Action group, we have students from John Oliver and Sir Charles Tupper Senior Secondary, the University of British Columbia and also SFU, Simon Fraser University, undertaking various initiatives to help improve people's lives.

We're also fortunate to work closely with Associate Professor Leonora Angeles at the UBC School of Community and Regional Planning. Professor Angeles and her graduate students are assisting us now with a community mapping exercise designed to build on the resources we already have in Vancouver-Kensington.

I'm also proud to say our community centres have excellent staff — the Kensington Community Centre and South Vancouver Neighbourhood House — and very popular programming.

As well, I know that Vancouver-Kensington has some of the best restaurants and cafés in town. I'm lucky to say that my community office is well situated gastronomically. We've got great access to cuisine from around the world. In a small radius around my office we choose among Filipino, Chinese, Afghan, Italian, Vietnamese, Indian and west coast restaurants any day of the week for lunch and also our coffee breaks.

As a member of the South Hill (Fraser Street) Business Improvement Association, my office is also involved in their events. They had their first annual Christmas street party, which was very successful. The hot chocolate that we served was very popular, although we ran second to the popularity for Mr. and Mrs. Santa Claus.

[1440]

Also, we're very pleased to participate in and support events organized by the Victoria Drive Business Improvement Association in their very successful lunar new year celebration and also supporting the Victoria Drive Business Improvement Association when they unveiled the new mural, the great community mural that they have at Victoria and 37th Avenue. Really a great collaboration with the city and local artists to really have a great artistic representation of the community, particularly in the Victoria area. It's a great addition to the community.

Through my attendance at many events across my riding and through my mobile office in community centres and also through my regular door-knocking in the neighbourhood, I've had the chance to speak and listen to my constituents about their varied concerns. Particularly through the South Hill Business Improvement Association and my conversations with small business owners, I hear from them about the challenges they face in the current economic environment.

This budget does not serve my constituents in Vancouver-Kensington or the small businesses or the people of B.C. I'm speaking against the budget on their behalf, and there are a number of reasons for this.

First of all, a big picture. This budget will have a negative impact upon these communities that I've mentioned, in particular a very negative impact in terms of service cuts and impacts to community organizations and, in particular, low-income British Columbians. We've seen with this budget the continued betrayal of the trust of British Columbians with the broken promise of the HST.

Previous to the election the government committed that they would not implement the harmonized sales tax, and yet we see the implementation of the HST — a betrayal of British Columbians' trust. As well, we have broken promises to protect education and health care and no real vision or plan for the economy to assist the small businesses in Vancouver-Kensington or the working families that we have in our neighbourhoods and in our communities.

The story pretty much of this government, summed up in this budget, is that we've seen…. When times are good, we saw taxes that were cut. When times are tough, such as now, it's services that are cut, with more and more people falling further and further behind. This has contributed to…. Now British Columbia has the distinction, for the sixth year in a row, of having the highest level of child poverty, which will continue under this budget and the priorities that are set.

We're seeing a tremendous negative impact on families. We're seeing rising homelessness and a growing gap between rich and poor. With the cuts to health

[ Page 3412 ]

care and cuts to shelter allowances for low-income individuals and families, it's the most vulnerable who are impacted.

Certainly, one of the most consistent complaints that I hear in my community office and especially from small businesses is the disappointment with the HST, the harmonized sales tax. The opposition to the harmonized sales tax — many reasons. One of the prime reasons is that, besides the promise before the election not to implement the HST…. That promise was broken.

In addition, the HST is a regressive sales tax, because it transfers $1.9 billion, estimated, from corporations to consumers. That average works out to about $430 per person in British Columbia.

The HST, as well as the broken election promise, the tax shift to consumers…. The other negative point about the HST is that the government has created it to be revenue-neutral, so we are not seeing any dollars from the HST going into public services, despite the government claiming that it will be funding health care. This is a regressive tax cut, a regressive tax shift.

[1445]

In terms of the increased cost to British Columbians, we are seeing that harmonizing the provincial sales tax and the goods and services tax will mean that B.C. consumers will be seeing more taxes every year — in the amount of $55 million more for school supplies, at least $82 million for basic telephone and cable service, $63 million more for magazines and newspapers, $8 million more on bicycles, $5 million for hybrid electric passenger vehicles, $11 million for conventional fuel-efficient vehicles and $23 million for energy-efficient appliances and building materials.

There will also be additional cost to food, as not all the basic groceries will be covered by the HST.

One of the main arguments that we hear in favour of the HST is that it will improve the tax competitiveness and improve the investment climate in British Columbia. There's a report from KPMG that Vancouver ranks ahead of 58 out of 59 cities in terms of manufacturing tax competitiveness and overall business tax competitiveness, and Canada ranks second, well ahead of the last place U.S., out of the ten countries compared in all the business tax categories.

Taken together, it's not a compelling argument that the HST will actually result in — or that we will see — more investment, because there aren't specific recommendations, specific regulations, to tie that tax shift to money being invested back in the economy.

So the HST — very unpopular. The message I've been telling my constituents and folks is that there is an opportunity to defeat the HST, and I encourage people to talk to their MLAs. We need just seven MLAs from the other side to listen to their constituents and to vote against the HST. That's the message that's going out. Stop the HST. It's possible.

As well, we see with this budget that we don't see a plan in terms of…. There's no post-Olympic strategy to revive the economy, and the HST falls far short of that. In fact, we see key cuts to services and some of our key economic drivers such as post-secondary education and training.

As well, with this budget we don't see…. There's need for investment in early child care. The government said in the budget that they've put out $26 million for subsidies. I'm hearing from the child care sector and early learning sector that there is great need for more spaces and expansion of spaces in the sector and also supporting quality wages, livable wages for early childhood educators in the sector. There's still much more that needs to be done.

There's an opportunity in terms of investing in early learning and child care, putting a significant investment in children in the early years. It's been shown to have a very positive impact in terms of a multiplier effect on the economy as well as a long-term investment for building our social capital and our youth for today, our workers for the future, in terms of having those long-term economic benefits.

We need — and we don't have it in this budget, but the need still remains — a universal, accessible and affordable early learning and child care plan in the province.

Concerns have also been raised to me about the announcement in the throne speech of the possibility of big-box child care coming into British Columbia. That's a concern in the child care sector.

It's been well documented and shown that big-box child care…. There have been fiascos in New Zealand and also Australia showing that it's not an effective model to deliver quality care for children. So there's a concern that that may be coming forward in the future, but I'll certainly be working with the child care sector to ensure that child care services in British Columbia are universal and of the highest quality and that we ensure that children have the opportunity to avail of quality services and that their parents can also be quite assured their children are being well looked after.

[1450]

As well, in terms of the arts community, arts leaders and community groups have told me that they've been disappointed by the budget. I'm also disappointed that the government has disregarded recommendations of the Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services. The recommendation was to restore funding to the 2008-2009 levels. That hasn't been done, and I think that the government isn't recognizing the benefits of a strong arts and culture sector.

There is a quote by one of the leaders in the arts community, Mr. Alibhai: "The economic, social, health and educational benefits…of investing in arts and culture…are well documented. Public funding for the arts is the research and development of cultural spending…."

[ Page 3413 ]

Government is unwilling to strengthen that foundation through this budget. That's an area, I think, for improvement, and also working closely with community groups and organizations to bring forward their concerns and to work with them in terms of showing support for the arts and culture in British Columbia.

On the issue of the environment as well. That's been raised with me. I have concerns in terms of the lack of support, the lack of a vigorous plan to support a clean and green economy and move towards that economy, an economy for the future. This budget shows that the government has a lack of commitment and a very weak commitment to that, as we can see in terms of….

We have $100 million for climate action and clean energy development, $35 million to revive the popular LiveSmart program, which is still a cut from the previous budget of LiveSmart, the very popular program that was brought in. In comparison, we see nearly a billion dollars in subsidies to the oil and gas sector. When we talk about developing a sustainable and clean and carbon-free-based economy for the future, this is not the proportion that's going to take us in that direction, so very disappointed about that.

It's also been brought to my attention about the impact of gaming grants cuts. It's having a big impact on community organizations.

I was contacted yesterday by an organization, the Fraser Valley youth services. The Fraser Valley youth services is the only organization in the Fraser Valley, which includes Abbotsford, Agassiz, Chilliwack and Mission — so east of Surrey. They provide a weekly drop-in for gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgendered and transsexual youth. They provide the only safe space for these youth east of Surrey. They partner with the pride committee at the University of the Fraser Valley.

That valuable resource is being cut. Their gaming grant has been cut, despite that they qualify under the category of youth at risk. So that's also very disappointing. There's a need, particularly outside of Metro Vancouver, to support services for gay, bisexual and transgendered youth. It's important to ensure that they have safe spaces and that they can get support. More has to be done to support these youth.

I was at a meeting two days ago with students, representatives from the Canadian Federation of Students. They're disappointed at another broken promise in the budget and a broken pre-election promise. Government promised students that student aid would not be cut. Yet we are seeing a 28 percent cut to student aid with a $31 million cut from the student support program funding.

I was quite surprised to learn…. The students told me that this year, 2010, students and their families will be paying more taxes into the provincial government than private corporations. Student tuition fees will contribute $1.1 billion, and corporations will be paying $800 million in corporate taxes.

[1455]

This really characterizes the tax shift that we've seen over the past number of years, highlighted by this budget as well, in terms of the shift from the HST, from tuition fees, from lower taxes for corporations — a shift from businesses onto consumers and individuals. Accompanying that is a cut to social services and, in particular, social services to support the most marginalized and the most vulnerable in our society.

In addition to the cuts to student aid, core funding to post-secondary institutions has been frozen, but students characterize this as a cut because of the increasing enrolment and more students needing to enter our post-secondary system. This is a shortsighted cut, the cut to student aid and the lack of support for post-secondary education, because students now more in the future will require…. It's estimated three-quarters of students will require a post-secondary education to work in our economy for the future.

These kinds of investments are important to develop our human capital, to remain competitive in the global market, to strengthen our economy. So more investments are needed in the early years for children, to ensure that they have a strong start, and also throughout their education system and into the post-secondary education system so as to ensure that young people, our youth, students and new workers have the skills they need to fully contribute to the economy and to create a sustainable economy so that British Columbia can move forward in the future.

I'm disappointed with this budget. It does nothing really to address the worst child poverty rate in Canada. Certainly, I wouldn't be surprised if we would have that title for another year running. We don't do enough to substantially start building a green economy, to decrease our reliance on carbon-based fuel. There needs to be more investment in the early years, in a comprehensive and universal child care system in British Columbia.

These certainly are not the priorities in the budget that serve my constituents or, I believe, serve the majority of constituents in British Columbia. I just want to conclude my remarks that I'm speaking against the budget.

Hon. R. Hawes: It's always a pleasure to stand in the House, and it's always a pleasure to stand in the House and speak about things like budgets when they are as good as this particular budget is, given today's times.

Before I speak about that, though, I just want to very briefly reiterate, as many have, about the Olympics and about how great the Olympics were for our province, and particularly the job done by VANOC and John Furlong. Everything about it has been outstanding.

I can't really, and I'm sure most can't, think of too many or any negative things that could be said about the way the Olympics have operated, the way VANOC conducted themselves or the way the security and the police operated. But there's one aspect that I find troubling, and I just want to touch on that or mention that.

[ Page 3414 ]

I was at a dinner about a week and a half ago or so where the keynote speaker was Deedee Corradini. Deedee Corradini was the former mayor of Salt Lake City. She was the mayor of Salt Lake City when the Olympics were run there. She's a very tenacious person.

When the Olympic program ended in Salt Lake City, she was contacted by the United States women's ski-jumping team. They showed her all of the things they had done to get into the Olympics in Salt Lake City and how to get into the world championships. The women's ski team wanted to be part of the world championships, which women were not allowed to take

part in.

[1500]

Deedee Corradini took that on and became a director of their organization and subsequently…. I believe she's now the president of the organization. She's travelling around talking about the fight they have had to get women into the Olympic program, and it is the IOC that has blocked the way. She has a short video she shows that shows the work that's been put in for years by these dedicated athletes, women athletes, who continually practise and jump in order to get into these international competitions and particularly the Olympics.

She also mentioned that the Canadian women's ski-jumping team is doing the same thing. These are very, very dedicated athletes who are being denied their opportunity to take their place — rightful place, I think — along with other athletes from around the world in an Olympic Games that is absolutely non-prejudiced against any race, religion or gender.

I find it quite disappointing that the IOC continued to say no. The hope now of these women is that the IOC is going to allow them to jump in Sochi. Their website is www.wsjusa.com. As she said, she'd welcome anyone going on that website and joining with them and others from Canada and around the world in putting their position forward to the IOC so that pressure can be mounted to allow women to jump in 2014. I really think that's the right thing to do, so I would encourage anybody to jump onto that program.

I just want to turn now to mining in British Columbia. That's the area for which I have responsibility. I do want to connect a few dots.

Mining in British Columbia produces a great deal of revenue, first off, to the government. That revenue is used, of course, to pay for health care, for education, for social services, to build roads, for all of the services that people want and expect from government.

There is several hundred million dollars that mining brings to British Columbia, and in talking to the mining industry, it is expected over the next few years that that revenue actually will more than double. I'll touch on that a little bit later. But the other thing that mining does….

If you go to communities in which mining is very predominant, places like the Elk Valley, in one of my colleagues' ridings or near it, families are given wonderful, wonderful incomes, but it provides a stable, solid life for families. It builds families. Mining in British Columbia, for those areas in which mining is conducted, is an extremely important part of the socioeconomic fabric of those communities and helps build communities.

Having said that, then I listen to some of the statements that are made in the Legislature here in the last few days by some of the members opposite who I don't think understand anything at all about mining or about energy or about, frankly, anything that provides income, jobs, etc., for British Columbians.

First and foremost, corporations and businesses are the ones who provide the jobs. They need to create income for themselves. If they don't make profit, they don't operate. For some reason, the members opposite have a real problem with any company that makes money. If you listen to them…. The statements actually have been going on here for quite some period of time, the attacks on corporations.

Interjection.

Hon. R. Hawes: It's really obvious when you read the comments they've made in Hansard , for most of the members opposite — including the member now that's spouting off over there, Madam Speaker — corporations are evil, among other things. The critic for Energy….

Interjection.

Deputy Speaker: Minister, please take your seat.

I would ask the member for Cowichan Valley to come to order.

Hon. R. Hawes: I don't blame the member for Cowichan Valley for speaking this way, because of his background, first, and the fact that sometimes the truth hurts. He's quite ignorant of the facts that are about to be laid out and have been laid out often by us. It is a chicken-and-egg, and he doesn't understand the chicken-and-egg argument.

In order to have the eggs, which is the revenue that flows to families and jobs, you've got to have somebody that lays those eggs. That's the corporations. They don't get that. Their idea is to kill the chicken so that we can spend the eggs. But soon we'll have no eggs, so what now happens? That's what happened in the '90s.

[1505]

The critic for Energy, the member for Juan de Fuca, said the other day…. He was speaking about the hydro line that we're running up Highway 37. It has a significant cost, but it has a massive return. It is an investment in our province to open up the northwest part of British Columbia that's going to allow mining, particularly, to take place in the northwest. Within mining….

[ Page 3415 ]

First, that's a very high-risk venture, and anything that reduces the costs reduces the risk. Right now in the northwest, because there are no power lines, you're going to have to run any major mine there with diesel power — very expensive, very prohibitive. The risk factor then becomes so great that a lot of potential mines don't open.

By electrifying Highway 37, we are going to see mines open. Red Chris is a very good example of that, which has now received its environmental approvals. It has its permits and is about to begin construction and will be in operation within the next few years. That's likely to be one of the biggest, if not the biggest, copper producer in British Columbia. It will be a major, major job creator and a major source of revenue for the provincial government and of great benefit, of course, to taxpayers in British Columbia.

There are other mines that are going to open in that area. But the member for Juan de Fuca claims that only two mines should ever be allowed in that area for some reason. He feels that there's only enough labour in the northeast part of British Columbia to supply labour to two mines, no more. He claims that we'll have to import workers from out of country.

Well, there are people all over British Columbia who would love to get employment in a mine or a mine operation or around a mine operation. It is, after all, the highest-paid heavy industry in British Columbia with an average salary of $112,000 a year, including benefits. There are many people from across British Columbia who have been working in the forest industry all their lives who would love to transition into jobs in mines.

To that member, the Energy critic — who is the spokesperson for the members opposite, for the NDP — their policy would be to restrict the number of mines. Of course, they don't like investment in British Columbia, and they don't like to see big corporations — their word — profit. They don't like that, and that's witnessed by almost every one of them in the speeches they make in the House over and over, talking about what they call subsidies to big corporations — as they say: big, evil corporations, especially if they have offices out of the country. Multinational corporations — that's even worse. I have a big problem with what that member says.

The other problem that we have — and it's a problem with getting mines going — is the negotiations that we have with the aboriginal community. We are trying hard to reconcile and to come to fair agreements with the aboriginal community.

We have embarked on what we call revenue-sharing — first time in this province. If a major new mine opens or there's a major expansion of a mine, we sit down with the aboriginal community. We will work out a revenue-sharing agreement where a portion of the revenue that the government would collect from that expansion or that new mine would be paid directly over to the aboriginal group in whose territory the mine would be opened.

This is a major step forward. Yet even with those negotiations, often they're protracted, and it slows things down. As we understand — on this side, anyway — when you're talking about investments, time is money. Red tape and bureaucracy and things like that that slow things down actually make other jurisdictions look more favourable. We don't want that to happen.

I'm going to get back to the folks on the other side in a minute. Unfortunately, the member for Nanaimo–North Cowichan…. I assume he's speaking, again, for the NDP because their leader doesn't often stand up and give any policy pronouncements. She leaves that to the individual members. The member for Nanaimo–North Cowichan articulated the NDP policy the other day when he said that the measure of adequate consultation — and that's with the aboriginal community — would be consent. That means basically a veto.

[1510]

Well, we are charged as a government with looking after the land for the benefit of all British Columbians, not just non-aboriginal and not just aboriginal but all British Columbians. That member would say that we should give one group over another a total veto. That's just not happening, but it's interesting that that seems to be the policy that's being espoused by the folks on that side.

The member for Skeena spoke the other day and said that there had been no new metal mines opened in British Columbia since we took office and was trying to trumpet how a mine had opened while they were in office in the '90s — which really, in his mind, meant that they were friends of mining when we are not. The fact is, of course, and I think he knows, that there were mines opened in British Columbia since we took office. Roca Mine, which is a molybdenum mine, is a very good example, and the member from Revelstoke would know that.

What I really want to touch on here now is that the biggest mining conference in the world was held this week — and it's still going on, actually — in Toronto. I went to that conference for a few days, to try to push British Columbia as the ideal location for investors to come to create new mines. There are over 20,000 investors and mining executives at that conference. It's the biggest conference in the world for mining.

What I heard at that conference was, first, huge optimism from the mining community, particularly about British Columbia. The mining community thinks that this is the best place right now in Canada to invest. They believe that around the world we're one of the best places to invest.

We should never rest on those laurels, because at the conference, as well, every country was represented, every province was represented. There was Albania, Australia,

[ Page 3416 ]

New Zealand, you name it. They were at that conference, and they were all trying to invite investment into their countries. Quebec and Ontario were trying to attract investment to their side of the country rather than to us.

The reasons that we look so good, the reasons that we shine to the mining community is, first, the flow-through tax credit, three-year, that we put in our budget this year — a big, big step forward for attracting mining investment. Of course, the members opposite would see that as just a sop to the rich and the wealthy or something — right? — but the fact is it helps create jobs and bring investment.

The second thing is that we are the second lowest, I think, in Canada for corporate tax rates and among the second lowest, I think, for personal tax rates, the lowest to $116,000 a year in Canada. That means a lot to the mining community. They're not going to get taxed out of existence.

Frankly, we've heard from the other side what their policy is. Their policy, and it has been articulated over and over, is to tax the rich and the corporations. "Let's raise taxes." That's their way of getting money. "And let's move as much as we can from the private sector and get it into government." That is, of course, the socialist way — right?

Highway 37 and the electrification of 37 and the fact that there is very, very significant mineralization along Highway 37 and the potential for a number of mines…. There could be four or five fairly major mines along Highway 37, employing literally thousands of people and bringing hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue to us as British Columbians.

Yes, the folks opposite don't like that, but that's actually what's going to pay for your grandma's hip operation, and it's going to help put a lot more kids into schools that are newer and better — all of the things that the folks opposite rail on every day and want to spend money on when we know that if they're in power, there is no money. This is the sort of thing that allows us to have the ability to provide what we think should be provided and what we all want.

The fourth one they talked about was the HST. The HST moves us out in the forefront from lots of other sectors, but particularly if it would be the absence of the HST. If the HST was not put in place, that would impose a massive cost on the mining industry that would not be there in Ontario or other provinces. That makes them look more attractive than us.

[1515]

I don't mind giving an example for the members opposite — who probably, to start with, have never written a paycheque. That's pretty clear. They don't understand what risk really means, but let me put it in these terms. If you want to open a major mine, you probably need a number of trucks. The big mining trucks cost $3 million to $4 million each. The PST alone on those trucks is about a quarter of a million dollars each. If you have to buy 20 of them, we're talking a significant slice of money.

Through HST, if you're able to reclaim that so that that money is taken off your startup costs, your risk clearly goes down, your capital risk for startup goes down, and it makes the investment look a lot more attractive. That's the whole game with mining. You have to make the risk look like it's sufficiently low for the returns that are likely to be there.

The other part of mining that's very difficult is that big mines are really rare. Everything has to be right, and that's why we don't have a huge number of big mines in British Columbia. But when everything is right, we will see the startup of some new mines.

The other one that they talked about and they were really happy with was one project, one assessment. The duplication of the environmental process between the British Columbia process and Canada is….

The folks on this side do not agree. In fact, there are lots of quotes from…. Even their leader takes a position on this one: "The government thinks we should forgo social, environmental concerns for economic ones." She's talking about us. "We saw that in the throne speech — more deregulation, less environmental protection." She's opposed to seeing us be able to do the environmental assessment, and she seems to be speaking in favour of the duplicate process — right? — a very expensive duplication, which actually is a job killer in this province.

I think because the opposition spends so much time talking about raising the minimum wage, they never talk about creating jobs that pay an average of $112,000 a year. I've not once heard you talk about how we get more of these high-paying jobs. You don't get it. But what we want is the high-paying jobs. Do you not understand or is it hard to understand that big corporations…?

Deputy Speaker: Minister, through the Chair, please.

Hon. R. Hawes: Through you, Madam Chair, I don't see how any of those folks on the other side who have never held the kinds of jobs, I don't think…. Or hardly any of them have held jobs that would put them in that category, but in mining there's a hope you can hold out to people that they can have extremely high-paying jobs.

We have a couple of choices. You can spend all of your time building an industry around poverty, or you can spend your time just building industry that stops

[ Page 3417 ]

poverty. We are on the side of ending poverty through industry, not building a poverty industry, and that's what you folks are doing. The continuing attacks that you are making on corporations and mining companies, particularly if you want a major mine…. They are big companies. Your continuing attacks tell them….

That's the biggest fear they have, and I can tell you that the one detriment, the one drawback, we've got in British Columbia is the fear, although we provide all of the assurances that the people in British Columbia are smart enough. They know enough never to put you folks back in office. They are still looking at what would happen if, God forbid, ever we saw the NDP again. That's the biggest detriment we have. I have to be blunt about it. They tell us very clearly.

I heard this over and over and over in Toronto from many mining companies. You know what they say? They like us on this side. They like the B.C. Liberal Party, but I hate to break the news. They said in very clear, unequivocal terms: "We do not like the NDP." That's what they said.

When you stand up in the House here and talk about all of the things that you would do, and you try to tell us how, for example, the HST will not work, you're not talking to the people who provide the jobs.

[1520]

All of the silly policies you talk about — green bonds and all of this nonsense — you're not talking to the people who actually drive the economy by making big investments. Investments, in your view, are investments the government would make, but the government does not make money.

Deputy Speaker: Minister. Minister.

Hon. R. Hawes: Through you, Madam Chair, through you.

The last thing I want to mention is Bill 300, a private member's bill being introduced in the federal legislature. Actually, it's being introduced by someone from the federal Liberal Party, a fellow named McKay from around Toronto, supported by the NDP, your bosses in Ontario. If you have a membership in the federal, you obviously…. If you have a membership here, you've got a membership there, etc. We all know that Jack Layton calls a lot of the tune for you folks over there. They are supporting Bill 300.

Bill 300, as you over there undoubtedly know, would say…. This is what it proposes to do: "We'll create in Canada sort of like an inspection agency." Any mining company from Canada with an office in Canada that's mining in another country anywhere in the world…. If a complaint comes, a civil rights complaint from anyone anywhere, a team will be sent in to do some investigation. There will be a massive inquiry around that company to find out if there's any veracity to the claim.

That means that people who are in positions of authority are subject to all kinds of accusations, false accusations. We as a country would send people around the world. In fact, what the mining companies are saying is: "We'll just move our head offices out of Canada."

Unfortunately, you folks over there don't quite understand because you never talk to these companies, so you voted in support of that private member's bill. It's gone through two readings. I'm really hopeful that common sense will prevail and it's going to get thrown out. The mining industry in Canada is on the edge of their seats. They're very upset about this, but you don't really understand that because, to you, they're big corporations, and who cares? That's where we have a problem.

What I wanted to do was to…. First you've got to connect the dots between the kind of revenue that the government sees; the kinds of jobs that get provided by the mining industry; the kind of really superior, great lifestyle that the families that are employed in mines….

The families around mines enjoy an extremely high quality of life, and that quality of life is created through the paycheques, the wonderful, steady paycheques they get from an industry that is actually — I know from having visited, and I doubt if many of you have visited — both from an environmental perspective and a social perspective, really doing the right things. They're absolutely excellent corporate citizens.

I'll give you an example. Teck Corporation, which actually donated all of the medals for the Olympic Games, has sponsored…. You name it. I don't care what community. I don't care what kind of social program you're trying to put together in the community. Teck, if they have a presence, is there to support it. They're an excellent corporate citizen. The people who work for them are treated first-class.

Yet you folks on that side would deny them…. Madam Speaker, through you, those folks would deny companies like Teck an opportunity to operate in many parts of this province. It's very clear from the statements you've made. Over and over, you get up in the House here, and you talk about the corporate handouts, you call them — right? We don't give cash to companies, but you make that inference.

The most misleading things that I've heard ever in this House have come during this sitting from that bunch that's sitting over there now. They mislead the British Columbia taxpayer over and over, talking about things like the damage, for example, they claim the HST will do.

There is tons of evidence out there that says that the HST actually will help build an economy. The major economists across the country have said this builds an economy. The major business entities in this province say this will help them create jobs. But why believe them? After all, they only make investments and write paycheques. What would they know?

[1525]

[ Page 3418 ]

It's kind of like: when you want to know about the food industry, do you ask Jimmy Pattison, or do you ask somebody who's packing the shelves? I think I know who you ask when you want to learn about the food industry, when you want to know how it operates and when you want to know how investments are made.

I have to ask those folks whose main push…. If it's not Mr. Layton in Ottawa you're working for, then obviously it's Mr. Sinclair and the B.C. labour federation. How many jobs…?

Interjections.

Hon. R. Hawes: Could I ask you this question? How many jobs did Jim Sinclair create anyway last month, last year, last decade? How many jobs did the B.C. labour federation create? How many?

We're here for the people who create jobs. We're here for the people who build the economy. I can tell you, as I said earlier — the chicken-and-egg argument — you don't have jobs unless you've got somebody who makes the investment. That's the chicken, for the members opposite. It's very interesting when they get all excited.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members.

Minister, take your seat, please.

Hon. R. Hawes: Sure.

Deputy Speaker: Minister.

Hon. R. Hawes: Our plan is to build industry and jobs. Your plan is to take big industry and make it small and eventually have it sort of disappear. You want to take a housing industry and turn it into a government-run agency so that we have all government housing.

We listen to you over and over talking about the benefits of the public sector supplying all services. Well, there's a place for partnerships between the private sector and government.

Could you perhaps mention how much money the government generated in the last year without taking it from someone else who earned it? The government makes no money. The government takes money from those who do earn it. That's the problem here. You don't get that connection.

[C. Trevena in the chair.]

What we need to do is nurture the ones who actually make the money, provide the jobs and write the paycheques. We need to nurture them, make sure that they grow, make sure that they feel protected. In turn, they supply jobs and better benefits, and they can afford to operate in a way that provides the workers, who are very valuable, with the kind of job just as the mining industry does.

The mining industry. We don't hear you talking about creating jobs in the mining industry. As I said, we hear you talking about: "Let's talk about minimum wage." I want to talk about making people in the province….

Interjections.

Hon. R. Hawes: There you go. You want to talk about minimum wage. You want to talk about poverty. You want to talk about building the industry around poverty. We just want to talk about ending poverty with industry. That's what we do on this side of the House.

The 1990s showed what you do. You build a huge industry around poverty, and then you want to protect it by keeping people poor through taxing those who create the jobs and the wealth. So the difference between us is pretty clear.

I believe there's a great future in mining in this province, and that future is going to be enhanced with the policies that we're putting in place, including HST. I would urge the folks on that side of the House to forgo their 1918 communist-type thinking, move into the 21st century and think very strongly about joining with us in supporting this budget.

Deputy Speaker: I'd like to remind all members to direct their remarks through the Chair, please.

K. Conroy: Following that diatribe, I'm going to try to bring it back to real people, to real issues in B.C.

After the presentation of the budget, I sat and digested what had been laid out prior to talking to my local media. In one of the interviews that happened that day — it was with one of the reporters we don't usually see eye to eye with too much — we talked about what had come in the budget.

I expressed my issues, and he listened, and he said: "So did anything good come for the people of this constituency?" I thought and thought, and I thought some more. There was this long pause, and he said: "It's okay. This time I agree with you. There was nothing for our constituency."

[1530]

That's what's happening to people in rural B.C. They got nothing in that budget. The things that were there are devastating to our constituency and to people in rural B.C. I still feel the same way. It's been nine years of this Liberal government, where we have been facing massive cuts. We've been facing cuts to our education system, to our health care, to the social service programs, cuts to student aid, cuts to the resource ministries, and the list goes on and on. They say they're not cuts. Well, when is a cut not a cut not a cut? That's the question. I really don't know where to start.

[ Page 3419 ]

It's wonderful. I'm going to start with health care in the West Kootenays, because that's the most pertinent issue right now.

Hon. K. Falcon: Was that a cut?

K. Conroy: It is definitely a cut. It is an incredible cut, and it's a cut to real people — real people in the West Kootenays. You think it's come to a head? You bet it has. It's great that the Minister of Health is here to listen to it, because he obviously isn't listening in the other parts of the province.

When you have a regional hospital and its services are continually being cut, that to me is cuts. We are snipping away at the very fabric of the services that that regional hospital should be providing.

I want to acknowledge the incredible people who work in our health care field in Kootenay West, the people that work in the West Kootenay–Boundary region of the health care services. From the support staff to the people that clean the hospitals, the people that work in the labs, the X-ray techs, those people that do all the therapies, the care aides, the nurses, the doctors…. There are so many, many people that work in our health care field in our area.

They're incredible people. They give every day. They give and they give in spite of the difficulties that they work under, in spite of the difficulties that the budget restraints cause. I just want to commend them and thank them for the commitment to their job and the work that they do.

Also to the volunteers, the incredible volunteers we have in our region. We have auxiliaries that are still working in communities where they don't even have hospitals anymore. Those auxiliaries continue to contribute thousands of dollars to health care in our region because they care about our region. They care about the health care, and they want to make sure that we get the services. They want to make sure we get those supports.

General financial support in our community. It's amazing what people will do. We needed a new pediatric and maternity wing in our regional hospital. There was no support forthcoming from the government, so the foundation turned to the community. They have raised over 90 percent of the thousands — millions of dollars, actually — needed to open up this new mat wing and the pediatric wing. It's going to open soon because of a community that's dedicated to health care, dedicated to ensuring that there is health care in our community.

What's frustrating is that community dollars should go to capital, should go to pieces of equipment, should go to fixing up special rooms like hospice rooms. But today in the B.C. Liberal world, community dollars are now being expected to fund operating rooms. That's what things have come to in this province.

Most know the situation. The doctors in my constituency are proposing to pay laid-off OR nurses so that they will not lose a fourth operating room, a room that the IHA and this government and this minister have declared is unfunded. It's an unfunded operating room, which is rather bizarre when there's been a doctor who says to me: "I've been operating in that unfunded operating room for over 12 years."

Suddenly it's unfunded. It's an odd word for people to use for an operating room. So okay, it's unfunded. They said: "Fine, it has to close." When the minister was challenged about this, he said: "No worries. You have great waiting lists in the West Kootenays. Quit your complaining. You're better than the national average."

Well, that's little comfort to the people on a wait-list, especially those waiting for orthopedic surgery, because those lists are long wait-lists. Those are the greatest wait-lists, and we have some of the highest in the province. So it isn't okay for the minister to selectively spout out numbers that work for his sound bites when we are talking about real people. We are talking about real patients who have been waiting for surgery over a year, waiting for surgery over two years.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Member, just one moment.

Ministers, if you could let the member finish her remarks and respond later. Thank you.

K. Conroy: Here's a fact for the minister. Over 600 people are on a wait-list in Kootenay-Boundary Hospital. Over 600 for just orthopedic surgery — just orthopedic surgery.

[1535]

There are more than a thousand on all of the wait-lists, but just orthopedic surgeons have over 600 people on a wait-list. That's appalling. That's more than Burnaby, Penticton, Victoria, and it's unfortunate that the minister has chosen not to listen. It is definitely bigger than Cranbrook.

That's another side of this very sad story, when the Interior Health Authority tells us: "Well, we now have a region that is the entire Kootenays. It's not just West Kootenay; it's not just East Kootenay. We have two hospitals in that area, Cranbrook and Trail. Cranbrook — they do just fine with just three operating rooms, so let's get equality in the region. Let's bring equality here, and Trail should only have three operating rooms too."

What's that called? That's like lowering equality to the lowest common denominator. Is that what equality means? Well, to the B.C. Liberals, equality means you get worse service, bigger wait-lists, and you move down the list.

You know, I'd actually like to quote the member for Kootenay East yesterday, who said he was supportive of health care restructuring: "…a comprehensive plan to…create a true regional system of acute care for people in

[ Page 3420 ]

my region." Well, here's the reality of that plan. There isn't enough service in Cranbrook. There's not enough service in the East Kootenays. In fact, patients from the East Kootenays are regularly referred over to the West Kootenays.

In fact, one orthopedic surgeon said to me — and this is just one surgeon — that 15 to 20 percent of his patients come from the East Kootenays, which makes me think that maybe there aren't enough OR rooms in the East Kootenays either. Maybe we should have our doc say: "Well, sorry, folks, we need to prioritize, and you folks from the East Kootenays will have to go to the bottom of the list. We'll serve the West Kootenays first."

Is that really an option? Is that what we should do? Should all people from the Kootenays suffer because of longer wait-lists because of this government's mismanagement of the health care budget? How about it, Madam Speaker? How about the member for Kootenay East stand up at the cabinet table and stand up for his constituents? Tell his colleagues at the table, particularly the Minister of Health, that it's time to start supporting health care in our region and not to see it eroded any further. That would be a good idea, I think.

It is an erosion. As we know, by delaying surgeries, by having wait-lists, what does it do? It jeopardizes people's health. It jeopardizes people's health in the East Kootenays. It jeopardizes people's health in the West Kootenays. Is that what we really want — putting further strain on our health care system, costing more dollars? Well, it's just shortsighted.

What's a real concern is… Is this the future of health care in our province, where doctors are so concerned about their patients' care, so concerned about losing the highly trained nurses from our area and even losing surgeons and anaesthesiologists that they need to pay out of their own pocket in order to ensure patients aren't on a two- to three-year wait-list?

What is even more frustrating is that the doctors and nurses tried. They tried to save money, and they succeeded. They succeeded in saving over $350,000 over a very short period of six months. Was this good enough? No. Even though they had been told that's what was needed to keep the operating room going, it wasn't enough.

Who's running this show? Who is ultimately accountable in that we can't even get accurate numbers for an operating room? One has to think that in the big picture here, what is the goal of this government? Who's taking care of the health care management? Who's taking care of the dollars?

You keep hearing about how we need flexibility and need to look at other ways of providing health care. Is that the code word for privatization? One only has to look across the border to see how that works. We don't want to go to the U.S., because we know what their numbers are like in the U.S. where 45 million people don't have health care coverage.

Annually, 40 million people die, on average, because they don't have health care coverage. The projected cost of an average family of four — the cost of health care — is $24,000 a year for their insurance, and that's insurance that doesn't even cover anything. Is that where we're going? And 30 percent of the costs of health care in the United States goes to cover CEO salaries and health insurance company profits.

Imagine what could be done with that health care in the States if that money was put back into the system. Imagine what can be done if we look at our system and say that this is not the direction our government needs to go. We don't need to go down that path, and we don't need a health insurance company and not a doctor telling us what kind of services we need. We don't need an administrator to be telling us whether your coverage covers you or not.

It's appalling that this is what we've come to in this day and age. You know, the government accuses us of fearmongering when we talk about the stats from the States. I say no, it is not fearmongering. It is a reality check for a government who has so mismanaged the financial state of this province and are so desperate to try to cover it up that they have to blame it on something. So why not health care?

[1540]

Why not threaten people with losing what has been near and dear to all of us? That's why we have the HST now — right?

It's interesting how this has evolved. I can think of a few more words like deceitful, shameful — shameful, to think people in this province are going to be tricked into thinking that HST is now for health care. Give me a break.

I mean, first we have an election promise of: "Oh, no HST in this province. No, never will be here." Then: "Well, we have a possible $400 million debt." Then: "Oops. Well, I guess, jeez, it's a bit more. Well, let's say a few billion dollars more, and maybe we do need the HST. But really, this is the first we've thought of it. We had no idea of this. We didn't talk about this at the election at all. It only came up after the election, suddenly, on the back of a napkin in a meeting over coffee with the federal government. And it will be revenue-neutral."

It now, suddenly, is not so revenue-neutral, because suddenly it's paying for health care. I mean, really, whoever came up with that concept, with that notion, should go back to their day job.

I talk to people in my constituency and try to find out. I went to people and said: "Okay, let's talk about the HST. Let's see. Like, is it a good idea?" What's going to happen with our province with this HST and to people in my region?

There were a few. One business owner said to me: "I think there could be some savings for my business." But then he added: "However, in the long run the addi-

[ Page 3421 ]

tional cost to my family will outweigh any benefits to my business."

Owners of restaurants have expressed many concerns. One said to me: "The majority of my staff are single moms. I'm really worried. I might have to start laying them off."

Another said: "It hasn't been easy starting up a new business just when the forest industry started to collapse in our area." But he has persevered, and now this is an additional weight on his shoulders. He isn't sure if he's going to be able to stay open.

A business that sells sports equipment — he was incensed by the additional taxes that would have to be borne by people trying to get healthy by enjoying sports, riding bikes. He said to me that it's going to hurt his business, but it's going to hurt ordinary people in our region that are active and trying to stay healthy by riding bikes, getting out in the outdoors.

One woman alone, just one woman, in a matter of days collected over a thousand signatures on a petition against the HST. She went door to door because she was so angry about this, how it was going to hurt her business.

These are real people. These are people who truly feel that they have not been listened to, that in fact they were not told the truth during the election. Suddenly there's this issue. It was just not there during the election, and they feel betrayed.

Issue after issue like this comes to the office, so many that…. You know, how can you keep up day after day saying, "It's going to be a good thing," when you get so many people telling you: "It's going to hurt me"?

The government says that the HST will stimulate the forest industry. Well, that's not what Interfor is telling the community or the laid-off sawmill workers. There is no suggestion at all that suddenly, with this big influx of HST savings, they'll reopen the Castlegar mill.

What is indeed disingenuous is to have a minister come to our community and blame the workers for the fact that the mill is not reopening. It reminds me of the stories my father used to tell me of the old days, when the companies blamed the unions for everything, that the working people were at blame. Meanwhile, they pocketed huge profits. Is that what we've come back to? Is that what it's come back to in this province? That's appalling, and it's something that we are speaking out against.

Another issue, of course, is the cuts to education. I'm not sure how someone day after day can sit in this House and say there are no cuts when it is so obvious that there are cuts. Education is not fully funded, and those cuts are now being laid on the backs of boards of education — that they're at fault because they have to close schools. They have to raise class sizes. They have to look at layoffs.

I have three different school districts in my constituency grappling with how they're going to manage their budget, talking about: "How are we going to deal with these cuts? How many schools are we going to have to close? How far are kindergarten kids going to have to travel on buses?"

These are real issues for these people. They're small communities. They're looking at: "We have to maintain class sizes. We have to support special needs. We've got rising costs of MSP, heat, electricity. Now we've got to manage carbon offsets." The amount of funding coming is not helping. Rural B.C. is being penalized because of the unique aspects of education in our province. We are being penalized for it.

[1545]

Many of our small community schools are the hubs of the communities. Many are where much more than just teaching our children takes place. Schools in rural B.C. have become meeting places of young parents, preschoolers and seniors, where food banks and computer labs are, where community services are offered and youth can go to hang out.

In other words, communities have gathered together to make the best use of these public buildings while ensuring much-needed services stay in the communities. Now these very services are at threat to cuts. So since when is a cut not a cut?

Communities are working together. They're trying to collaborate on initiatives to ensure services can stay in their communities. They are commended in showing leadership when there is so obviously a dearth of leadership in this government. One only has to look at the support to our future leaders to see what direction this government is moving.

A 27 percent cut to student aid — the very program that ensures young people in this province can access post-secondary education. This is another shortsighted decision. As most people know, if you invest in our children now, from preschool right through to post-secondary education, you are going to get so much more for your investment in the long term. But do the B.C. Liberals even bother to factor that in? Or is it just another way to make a cut and continue direct funds to the corporate tax cuts that the former member spoke so dearly loved about?

Last time I looked, I didn't really see the banks hurting, and yet they're still getting their tax cuts. The oil and gas companies — where do they need tax cuts? It's really a matter of priorities.

Let's look at some of those government priorities. An increase to the PAB budget. For those who don't know what that acronym stands for, it's the public affairs bureau. What would that important function be for the people of B.C.?

Well, it's to make sure they get the message of the government out to you, just to make sure you know that B.C. is the best place to live — unless you're a child living in poverty, a laid-off forestry worker or a person on a two-

[ Page 3422 ]

year wait-list for much-needed surgery. Or the ads, "You gotta be here" — millions spent telling us, people who already live here, that we've got to be here.

Then there are the many people who work in this department, all to make sure the media spin gets out, while cuts to other ministries are sending services in rural B.C. into a tailspin.

The Liberals have in fact tripled the advertising budgets when they specifically promised in their election platform last year a 76 percent reduction in government advertising. This makes a total of over $19 million in advertising costs. Imagine how many surgeries we could get at Kootenay Boundary Regional Hospital for $19 million or how many schools we could keep open or how many students we could support to get a post-secondary education. Just think. The possibilities are endless.

Think of the other cuts. This B.C. Liberal budget has brought in cuts to low-income citizens, including children and persons with disabilities, cuts of about $25 million over the next two years — cuts to medical equipment and supplies, cuts to nutritional supplements, cuts to dental services, to just name a few. We have to ask: why would the government be so mean-spirited to make cuts to people who are already at a disadvantage?

Remember that great goal — building the best system of support in Canada for persons with disabilities, those with special needs and children at risk? Just another B.C. Liberal broken promise.

The minister responsible for these cuts…. Well, it's interesting. His ministry — his minister's office, in fact — got a 33 percent increase.

Were there other increases in the budget? Surely there has to be some positive news. Well, let's look at one of the other ones — ministries like Environment, for instance, a ministry that will see cuts but where the minister's office got a 56 percent increase. Where there isn't enough money to hire sufficient conservation officers or to ensure air quality control in this province, the minister's office gets an increase.

The ministry in our area wants to open up limited-entry hunting to open season on bull elk, as the open season is less expensive to administer. Does it really matter that there isn't sufficient staffing in our region right now to deal with the issues? When thousands of hunters, residents and landowners have expressed concerns and asked that the ministry not move in this direction, will the ministry listen? And at what cost do decisions get made — at what cost to a herd of elk in our region that could be permanently harmed by an open-season hunt? When do cost issues become the only barometers, as opposed to the input of people and experts?

[1550]

That is a message throughout this budget. We have a deficit now. We have been hit by an unprecedented economic downturn. So they suddenly figured this out — something that most people have been talking about since the fall of 2008. And what did they do? What did the B.C. Liberals do when there wasn't an economic downturn? Did they plan for the future? Did they think ahead? No, their friends got more tax cuts, and ordinary people will now have to suffer.

That's what's so frustrating — the lack of fiscal management. The lack of planning has now put the entire province in a situation of financial mess, and what did we get? Well, let's talk about the Olympics and now the Paralympics.

I am the first to admit that I watched, with excitement and disappointment, the curling, skiing, hockey and most of the events when I could. I felt the nationalistic pride every time O Canada was played. I contributed to the fundraising efforts of the two Olympians in our area — Rossland Nordic skier George Grey and Kimberly Joines, who will be skiing next week at the Paralympics. Although not there in person, I was there in spirit.

However, I think it is fair and prudent to ask: at what cost? As amazing as this has been, what will it cost our province and our citizens? How will the people of Kootenay West benefit in the long term? When I talk to people around the constituency, I get the same response. Although people had similar feelings to mine, they are also asking: was it worth it? They see the cuts coming to our health care services, to our kids' education, to our social services and to the disadvantaged. We have to ask: was it worth it?

We are yet to get an answer on the real costs. With the ability to circumvent the freedom-of-information laws or their mandate to be the most open and accountable government — another broken promise — I'm not optimistic we will ever get a full accounting. But we will keep asking the questions and keep standing up for the people of B.C., who deserve the answers. For this reason, I will be voting against this budget.

H. Bloy: This is a real pleasure to stand in the House. This will be my 12th time responding to a budget. I've been proud to be part of a government that's been moving British Columbia forward.

First, I want to thank the citizens of Burnaby-Lougheed for electing me and sending me to Victoria to represent their views. I take seriously the views of all the citizens of Burnaby-Lougheed in the province of British Columbia. As an MLA, you work for everyone in the province.

I want to thank the hundreds of volunteers and friends who came out to support me in my bid for re-election. Many of these same volunteers and friends are the same people that are out volunteering in our communities every day, making British Columbia the best place on earth to live. These are the same people that work in our communities, that run businesses, that work in the non-profit sector — teachers, tradesworkers. I want to thank all the people for their dedication and support to help me represent the people of Burnaby-Lougheed.

[ Page 3423 ]

Most of all, I really want to thank my family, who have been with me for nine years as an elected official, plus — plus, plus — many years before that in supporting me: my wife, Anita, and my children Jeremy, Katie and Candice. I'm truly thankful for their support.

I'm happy to be standing to speak in support of the 2010 budget tabled by the Finance Minister last week, and 2010 has been an exciting year so far. To begin the new year with the Olympic torch making its way to the Lower Mainland…. Finally, on February 12 we kicked off what would later be known as one of the greatest Winter Olympics ever hosted. The games ended with excellent results for our Canadian athletes, and we won more medals than we ever had in the past. It was an opportunity that B.C. made the most of.

I just want to read from a letter here. It's from the Coaches Association of British Columbia. It's dated March 3.

"Dear Premier Campbell:

"On behalf of the Coaches Association of B.C., its board of directors and the thousands of volunteer coaches throughout the province, I would like to take this opportunity to thank you for the support that you continue to show towards amateur sport in this province.

"The budget that was tabled on March 2 is a clear indication that you and your government recognize the benefits that sport plays in the development of a healthy society. The recently concluded 2010 Winter Olympic Games are a testament to what sport can do to bring a country together, to inspire the youth across the country and to play an important role in creating an awareness throughout the world that B.C. truly is the best place on earth.

[1555]

"It is well recognized that these athletes from B.C. who performed so magnificently at the 2010 Winter Olympics would not be able to achieve these great accomplishments without the support of a dedicated, competent and well-trained cadre of coaches. These truly are the unsung heroes of the sport system, whose efforts generally go unnoticed but without whose commitment to their athletes we would not be able to develop these great Olympians.

"Thank you for your continued support."

It's signed by Gordon May, executive director. The letter is from the Coaches Association. Most of them — 99 percent — are all volunteers. They are the people that truly make our communities.

As we talk about the success from the Olympics, I've heard some criticism about the name Own the Podium. Well, I'm proud of that name. I believe that we strived. We owned the podium. If you play in sports and athletics, you play to win, and we won.

We won the gold medals. We won more gold medals than anyone else. We came in third on the medal count. But if you look at our fourth-place finishes, I believe it was 19 members that were off by less than a second. You can't even measure. Even