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)

Monday, March 8, 2010

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 11, Number 2

CONTENTS

Page

Routine Business

Statements

Expression of thanks to members

K. Corrigan

Introductions by Members

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

International Women's Day

L. Reid

K. Corrigan

Social workers

G. Hogg

B.C. Winter Games in Terrace

R. Austin

Digital media industry in B.C.

R. Lee

Fraser River Discovery Centre boat-building exhibit

D. Black

Oral Questions

Mintz report on harmonized sales tax

C. James

Hon. C. Hansen

B. Ralston

N. Macdonald

S. Herbert

Impact of harmonized sales tax on restaurant and tourism industries

S. Herbert

Hon. C. Hansen

Funding for supports to disabled and low-income people

S. Simpson

Hon. R. Coleman

Medical supplements for disability benefits recipients

N. Simons

Hon. R. Coleman

A. Dix

Orders of the Day

Budget Debate (continued)

Hon. G. Abbott

C. Trevena

Hon. R. Coleman

S. Herbert

R. Lee

M. Mungall

M. Dalton

J. Horgan

Hon. B. Stewart

B. Simpson

[ Page 3227 ]

MONDAY, MARCH 8, 2010

The House met at 1:34 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Statements

eXPRESSION OF THANKS TO MEMBERS

K. Corrigan: I wanted to pay homage today to a wonderful wife, friend, mother, teacher and grandmother by the name of Marguerite Henry. She died last Thursday, my mother. I also wanted to thank all the members of the House on both sides who have been so kind, passed on so many words of kindness, e-mails, hugs, and I would particularly like to thank the Liberal caucus for the lovely flower arrangement that I received on Friday. So thank you all for your support.

[1335]

Introductions by Members

Hon. M. Polak: On this, the start of Social Work Week in British Columbia, we are joined by Nicole Bressner, Livleen Sanghara, Cindy Nikolic, Christine Stark and Ryan Laughey from the Ministry of Children and Family Development.

These five individuals, whom I had the pleasure of having lunch with this afternoon, represent the thousands of social and front-line workers who are a vital part of our public service. Without exception, Nicole, Livleen, Cindy, Christine and Ryan, like so many social workers I have had the privilege to meet, are truly passionate about helping children, youth and families achieve their full potential. They work tirelessly to that end. Would the House please make them welcome.

D. Hayer: We have one very special guest in the House today. She is one of my hardest-working volunteers, she's my friend, and she always volunteers when we need any help. She's my wife, Isabelle Hayer, who is visiting the House. Would the House please make her very welcome.

L. Reid: I'd like to welcome to this chamber a dear friend, Grace MacIver, and her daughter Cate, who has just turned eight. I'd like the House to please make them welcome.

Hon. K. Falcon: Today in the precincts…. I don't believe they've made it into the gallery yet, but we have a group of students visiting from Southridge School in my riding in Surrey. They are joined by their social studies teacher Mr. Dale Kurylyk. I believe there are about 65 or 66 students and a couple of parents. I would ask the House to please make them welcome.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

INTERNATIONAL WOMEN'S DAY

L. Reid: It is always a privilege to stand in this chamber and never more so than on International Women's Day. It is a privilege to recognize the gifts, the skills and the determination of amazing women. It is an awe-inspiring opportunity and journey that I believe began with Nellie McClung.

Other glorious woman who have made incredible contributions include Iona Campagnolo, first chancellor of UNBC and former Lieutenant-Governor of British Columbia; the late Dr. Myrne Nevison, professor emeritus from UBC, who guided generations of counselling psychology students and continues her work in terms of her chair being available to all students who would apply at the University of British Columbia.

Women physicians who have changed lives include Dr. Margaret Clarke and Dr. Christine Loock. Amazing teachers Janet Powell, Mauri Clemons-Braund, Sharon Chen, Leena Reeves, Marlene Yurichuk, Bosso Gill — magical educational leaders all.

Women in finance Kristi Miller, Elizabeth Cull, Carole Taylor. Business leader Aimee Chan, whose company is assisting in Haiti today. Our Governor General Michaëlle Jean is today visiting Haiti.

Leaders in public policy Sheila Wynn and Cynthia Morton. Leaders in public life Dianne St. Jacques and Chief Kim Baird of the Tsawwassen First Nation. Our first female Speaker, Nancy Hodges in 1950, followed by Joan Sawicki in 1992 and Gretchen Mann Brewin in 1998.

Brilliant author Margaret Atwood. World-renowned musicians Sarah McLachlan, Diana Krall and Anne Murray. Amazing Olympians Clara Hughes, Joannie Rochette, Elizabeth Manley, Maëlle Ricker, our gold medal women's hockey team and countless others. And frankly, countless Paralympians yet to come.

Mary Gordon, Canada's first woman Ashoka fellow. Canadian senators Pamela Wallin and Nancy Greene.

These women have touched my life. I applaud them, and I applaud moms the world over, since our moms often taught us to fly.

K. Corrigan: I, too, rise in recognition of International Women's Day. Globally, women and men are celebrating the achievements of women past, present and future. The proposal that there should be an annual women's day to press for their demands came from a social democrat named Clara Zetkin at a 1911 international conference of working women — a gathering of unions, socialist parties, working women's clubs and a very few female parliamentarians.

In celebrating International Women's Day, we are acknowledging that unions, social democrats and female

[ Page 3228 ]

parliamentarians were and, I submit, continue to be leaders around the world in the fight for women's equality — as are all the organizations and individuals in this province and around the world who continue to advocate and work for the rights of women.

[1340]

In 1911 women were fighting for the vote. We have the vote. Women were fighting for the right to hold public office. We have that right but do not hold office in anywhere close to equal numbers with men. Women were fighting to end discrimination, and

whereas we now have the right to be free from discrimination enshrined in our Charter, there is still discrimination here and around the world.

It's not just for women in Canada that we celebrate this day but to show our solidarity with women all over the world. Across the world women continue to be the victims of domestic violence and sexual assault, make less money than men, and often do not have access to affordable child care and access to public education in many countries. But we work for a world where these inequalities will not exist, and we will get there together.

As the song says: "As we go marching, marching, we bring the greater days. The rising of the women means the rising of the race. No more the drudge and idler, ten that toil where one reposes, but a sharing of life's glories, bread and roses, bread and roses."

SOCIAL WORKERS

G. Hogg: March is Social Work Month in Canada, and this is Social Work Week in British Columbia. This week we recognize and celebrate the extraordinary dedication and ongoing commitment of social work professionals throughout our province. They truly do make a positive difference in the quality of life for so many, and we must remember that they make those differences 24 hours a day, 365 days a year.

They travel late at night through snowstorms north of Fort St. John to pick up an abandoned baby. They work with aboriginal leaders to provide sensitive conjoint leadership models for service delivery. They counsel and assist families to deal with the challenges of Alzheimer's disease, and they do so much more in every facet of lives across this province.

Social workers utilize the very best of social service practices in the provision of a myriad of important services across this province. People are making changes in their lives every day. As they do, they move to improve the quality of their lives, and social workers are there helping them to do that. Social workers make a significant difference, and I ask this House to recognize and to thank them.

B.C. WINTER GAMES IN TERRACE

R. Austin: Over the last four days my home community of Terrace has hosted the 2010 B.C. Winter Games. Over 1,100 athletes from all over the province competed in 16 different sports. Over $1.6 million was injected into the Terrace economy. Not only were our hotels, motels and restaurants all busy, but we even had jets, albeit charter flights, bringing hundreds of attendees to our city.

I should note that in the recent Olympics, 12 of Canada's athletes competed at B.C. sports events, and three of those 12 won medals. It has taken over two years of planning for these games, with the city and school district being the lead local proponents. It was a logistical challenge. The athletes were fed over the four days at Northwest Community College, where they had to bring in a semi refrigeration truck to augment their fridges.

The opening ceremony on Thursday evening was a joyful celebration emceed by Jay Janower of Global TV and enhanced by local rock band Replay. As well, the Sophia Palahicky dance group entertained, along with 11-year-old singing sensation Maggy Ottenbreit.

I would like to recognize the contributions of many who were responsible for the success of these wonderful games. First, the numerous director volunteers led by local president Peter Weeber, who also happens to be our fire chief; the city of Terrace led by Mayor Dave Pernarowski; Northwest Community College under the leadership of president Stephanie Forsyth; Global TV for their continued support of amateur sport; the district of Kitimat for sharing their sporting venues; and last but by no means least, the 1,850 volunteers who gave their time and energy.

Thanks also to Kelly Mann and his team at the B.C. Games Society for their work in promoting amateur sport and creating the Olympians of the future. I hope all members will join me in congratulating those involved in this incredible event.

DIGITAL MEDIA INDUSTRY IN B.C.

R. Lee: The universe looks very complicated, but as the great Chinese philosopher Laozi LI Er had theorized, it came from the supreme ultimate where the yin and yang were derived.

It is not a surprise that the state of matter and information contents can be represented as a series of zeroes and ones. With the advent of the digital computer, featuring binary arithmetic, came the digital era starting in 1941.

[1345]

Over the last 70 years science and technology have developed in leaps and bounds. In B.C. today digital media and the wireless industry is one of the fastest-growing sectors in our economy. According to DigiBC, an association representing this sector, these 1,300 companies in B.C. employ 22,000 people and generate $3 billion a year in revenue.

[ Page 3229 ]

interactive marketing and e-learning sectors are an important part of our high-tech industry now.

In Burnaby we have many industrial leaders, including Electronic Arts, Canpages, Nokia, Darim, Snaptech Marketing Group, PVE400 as well as education institutes such as BCIT and SFU School of Engineering Science.

Last week I had the opportunity to meet many of the experts, business leaders and investors who participated in the digital media event showcasing the B.C. digital technologies under the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games hosting program. I would like to recognize all the organizers — including Glenn Entis, Ginger Grant, Par Singh and Olivier Vincent — for making the VX conversions so successful.

FRASER RIVER DISCOVERY CENTRE

BOAT-BUILDING EXHIBIT

D. Black: This spring and summer people living in or visiting New Westminster can take

part in an amazing opportunity at the Fraser River Discovery Centre. At the build-a-boat exhibit, visitors can learn about the important history of boat-building on the Fraser River. Robert Buller from Douglas College has been working with the centre to build a replica of the wooden boats used for fishing on the Fraser in the 1880s.

Thanks to the work of Robert, the volunteer builders and the amazing staff at the Fraser River Discovery Centre, visitors can actually pitch in to help build the boat, which will be launched on the Fraser in early summer.

I had a chance to visit the exhibit, and I can tell you that it gives you a unique opportunity to learn about and celebrate the multicultural heritage of the industry and to see and touch tools used by builders from that time.

The exhibit profiles aboriginal peoples who have been building boats and fishing in the area for hundreds and hundreds of years, who were joined by immigrants from all over the world. The discovery centre exhibit profiles three boat-building families from different backgrounds — the Davis family, the Keeshis and the Tara family. Their boats were so well designed that patterns have not changed much over the last 100 years.

Fortunately, the Fraser River Discovery Centre obtained original plans for the project, but work catching fish using these boats was not easy. Boats had no motors, so fishers had to put out their gill-nets and reel them in every 15 minutes and then row back upstream against the current. Boat owners also worked hard to keep their boats well maintained to avoid breakdown and rotting from the sun, fungi, barnacles and mussels.

Visiting the build-a-boat exhibit is a great way to gain a strong appreciation for the history of the industry and the vital impact it's made in New Westminster and across B.C. It's an opportunity for folks to give a hand building a boat.

Oral Questions

MINTZ REPORT ON

HARMONIZED SALES TAX

C. James: Today the government released a report on the HST paid for by B.C. taxpayers, which is one more attempt by the B.C. Liberals to convince the public that the HST is good for them.

My question is to the Finance Minister. Why did he wait until ten months after the election to issue a report on the HST?

Hon. C. Hansen: We said right from the outset, when we made our announcement last July…. We pointed out that all of the leading economists in Canada were saying that the elimination of the provincial sales tax and the shift to the HST is the single biggest thing that the province of British Columbia can do to stimulate the economy and create jobs.

Dr. Jack Mintz is the former head of the C.D. Howe Institute. He is now the Palmer chair at the University of Calgary. He is one of Canada's leading economists. He's one of Canada's leading public policy analysts.

[1350]

This report that will be released today actually shows that over the coming decade, the shift to the HST will result in a net increase in investment in British Columbia of $11.4 billion.

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

C. James: We all know why this government didn't do a study on the HST. It's because the B.C. Liberals refused to come clean with the voters on the real state of the economy in British Columbia. Then they brought in the HST to try and cover it up. Well, they're now desperately trying to convince the public that the HST is good for them.

This government's story on the HST changes every day. Before the election they were against the HST. After the election it was the best thing that could be done for the economy. Next they said it would actually pay for health care. Today the B.C. Liberals released a report on the HST…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

C. James: …authored by someone they knew would put in a favourable report, to try and convince the public that it was going to create jobs.

Well, my question is to the Finance Minister. Will he admit that this report released after they announced the

[ Page 3230 ]

HST is just one more attempt by this government at political damage control?

Hon. C. Hansen: I was delighted to have a supplemental, because that gives me a chance to tell the rest of the story. Because what I didn't get a chance to point out….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. C. Hansen: What I didn't get a chance to point out before I ran out of time in my early answer is that Dr. Jack Mintz, in his study, also shows that this would mean a net increase of jobs in every part of British Columbia in every industry, to the tune of 113,000 net new jobs over the next decade.

The only story on HST that seems to be changing is what the official opposition's position is on the HST. The Leader of the Opposition and the Finance critic said that if they were ever elected as government, they would keep it. The Energy critic said last month that they would get rid of it and instead would jack up a whole bunch of other taxes. So maybe the Leader of the Opposition can now fill us in on what is the real position of the NDP on HST.

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

C. James: The government's story keeps changing, and by the way, the author's story keeps changing as well. The author of this study in 2008 wrote that the HST will cost Ontario nearly 38,000 jobs. That's actually the story of Jack Mintz. Then in a 2009 report commissioned by the Ontario government, which supported the HST, he changed his story. He now says that it will create jobs.

So how can British Columbians have any faith in this report? How can they have any faith in anything this government says about the HST when it's clear they'll do anything to convince the public about this tax?

Hon. C. Hansen: Actually, Dr. Mintz was asked about some of his previous reports by a reporter in Vancouver today. What he pointed out is that he originally had recommended to Ontario that they adopt their own value-added tax.

Interjections.

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

Continue, Minister.

Hon. C. Hansen: As Dr. Mintz pointed out to the reporters this morning…. He said that the new flexibility that the federal government was showing this year was the fundamental reason why he feels it is now appropriate for Ontario and British Columbia to look favourably on the HST model.

[1355]

Rather than sitting there giggling, I would suggest that the members of the opposition actually read Dr. Mintz's report, because it's pretty obvious that they haven't read it.

B. Ralston: The Mintz report that the minister is talking about offers dubious assumptions to make very exaggerated claims about job creation, and it completely dismisses in a single paragraph concerns about rising consumer prices under the HST.

Consumers around the province are bracing for the impact on their pocketbooks should the HST legislation come into effect. How much did the minister have to pay to get a report that supports his political argument for the HST?

Hon. C. Hansen: When the member actually makes those kinds of assertions, it's pretty obvious that either he is wilfully ignoring facts or that he is not apprised of them, because when he talks about the significant impact on consumers, he can't support that. Actually, if he refers to the tables that we have in the budget today, he will actually see that the net impact on consumers in low- and middle-income families in British Columbia is, in many cases, positive as a result of the HST tax credit and the reductions of income tax.

Even for those in upper-income brackets — which, again, we set out in the budget documents — he will know that the impact is minor and certainly not the significant impact that he is fearmongering with seniors and others around the province.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

B. Ralston: Well, I can see that I'm not going to get an answer to my question as to how much this report cost. The report in Ontario, which was ten pages in length, cost $9,000. So I'll look forward to that answer from the minister at some future time, perhaps.

Can the minister just simply…? Why doesn't he just simply admit that this is nothing more than an attempt to sell a deeply unpopular tax to an unconvinced public?

Hon. C. Hansen: I think that the member should look at the various organizations that are supporting it. The Institute of Chartered Accountants of British Columbia — 100 percent in support of harmonized sales tax. The Certified General Accountants of British Columbia — 100 percent in support of harmonized sales tax. The B.C. Chamber of Commerce has been advocating to

[ Page 3231 ]

this province to take on the harmonized sales tax going back to when the NDP was in government in British Columbia.

There is list after list after list of organizations and associations, including the Law Society, that are 100 percent in support because it is good economic policy. It is good public policy. That is why 130 countries around the world have adopted a value-added tax system, and that is why now all but three provinces in Canada will have eliminated the archaic provincial sales tax, which is a drag on our economy and a drag on job creation.

N. Macdonald: The minister forgot in his list of supporters for the HST to include the 11 percent of British Columbians who agree, after eight months of government propaganda, with the government's HST proposal.

There is no public support, and there is no public support because the public intuitively knows that this misrepresentation by the B.C. Liberals takes us in the wrong direction. We can look back at other faith-based sorts of initiatives by this government, such as the PST exemptions.

In 2001 the government put their faith in the PST exemptions of $110 million per year for the forestry sector, saying that it would create jobs. There was no study done before it; there is no study done since. The PST exemption, like the HST, was put forward as something that would create jobs, and since 2001 we have lost over 30,000 family-supporting jobs.

[1400]

So how can the Finance Minister stand in this House and prepare to betray British Columbians with the imposition of the HST when he can offer absolutely no credible evidence that it will have any positive effect at all?

Hon. C. Hansen: With the work that Jack Mintz has done…. I understand why the members don't like it, because it's good public policy. It's good analysis. This is one more piece of research, one additional opinion by a leading economist, in terms of why HST makes sense.

I am interested that this member, as the former forestry critic, would not have talked to some of the employers in his own constituency. For example, Downie lumber, one of the big employers in his constituency, is supporting HST because it will create jobs for his constituents.

Two other employers in his constituency — Tembec and International Paper — are supportive of HST because it will allow them to create more jobs and put more investment into his constituency, which will make sure that those workers who were laid off in the forest sector will be able to get back to work and that those who are working will have more job security than they otherwise would.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

N. Macdonald: I'll give an accurate description of exactly what Downie said on this topic. Downie said that there were benefits for the company but, compared to the cost to Revelstoke Mountain Resort and other businesses in Revelstoke, that it was something that they thought would not be good for Revelstoke.

You have your 195 public affairs bureau people. You can go and look that up. It's the Revelstoke Times Review . Have a look at that.

It is a fact that you have initiative after initiative that this government lays out as job creators and that time after time they fizzle and they pop. They burst. In forestry there are 30,000 jobs that have been lost.

The question to this minister is clear. This is a gun for hire that has produced a report that is exactly what the government wants. It is eight months after this initiative was put forward. How can the government proceed with an initiative that over 80 percent of British Columbians, after eight months, reject and that this government ran on the promise of not introducing? How can the government proceed with that sort of record?

Hon. C. Hansen: Dr. Jack Mintz is actually one of Canada's leading economists. He is widely regarded as one of the top public policy analysts in Canada. I think, given the aspersions that that member just cast, he owes Dr. Mintz an apology. But I'll put our job creation record in this province over the last eight and a half years up against any government in Canada, including the NDP government of the 1990s.

I can tell….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Continue, Minister.

Hon. C. Hansen: I don't know of very many unemployed forest workers that can afford to go skiing at Kicking Horse. What this study shows is that there will be a net increase of 113,000 jobs in British Columbia. Those are going to be workers with paycheques who will be able to go and afford to take their families out for dinner on a Saturday night or afford to be able to take their kids skiing in British Columbia. It's only through that kind of job creation and support for the economy that we can ensure that there is a dynamic and successful service sector in British Columbia as well.

[1405]

S. Herbert: This government hasn't done its homework on the HST. But the tourism and the restaurant associations have, and they will be devastated by this tax. The tourism sector says that they will lose up to 10,000 jobs, the restaurant sector another 10,000 jobs — numbers that prove that today's report is nothing but an attempt to spin the HST to a public that just doesn't buy it.

[ Page 3232 ]

To the Finance Minister: did this report's terms of reference include the HST's impact on the tourism and restaurant sectors?

Hon. C. Hansen: Dr. Mintz looked at all sectors, and what it demonstrated is that there would be a net increase of 113,000 jobs in British Columbia.

I think it's the hon. member opposite who actually should do some homework. I urge him to read Dr. Mintz's report. I urge him to read the writings of other economists that have talked about the advantages of value-added taxes. The reason why over 130 countries around the world have adopted it and got rid of the archaic provincial sales tax system is because it does attract investment. It does create jobs.

We were elected with a mandate to strengthen the economy, create jobs in British Columbia, and that's exactly what we're doing.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

IMPACT OF HARMONIZED SALES TAX

ON RESTAURANT

AND TOURISM INDUSTRIES

S. Herbert: The B.C. Liberals have no credibility on the HST. They said they were against it. They said they wouldn't do it. They told the Canadian Restaurant and Foodservices Association that, no, they actually wouldn't do it, because it was bad for consumers. Oh, but that was pre-election. Somehow things change once you already get your votes and get in the door as government.

The Minister of Tourism was recently on the radio — today actually, I believe. He said that actually restaurants thought, generally, that the HST was a positive move. Well, according to the Canadian Restaurant and Foodservices Association, 10,000 jobs lost. According to the B.C. Restaurant and Foodservices Association, 10,000 jobs lost.

Maybe the Minister of Tourism can let this House know when 10,000 job losses are a positive move.

Hon. C. Hansen: I suggest that the member actually look at the study that was done by the restaurant association. Actually, what it will show is that a job loss happened in 1991 because of a recession that the country was going into at that time. This is actually the time that we make this kind of shift — as we're coming out of recession, as global investors are looking for investment opportunities that will result in job opportunities for British Columbians.

I think when it comes to credibility, that member should talk to his colleagues. There is not much credibility from a party that's saying on one day that they would keep the HST and on the other day saying they would eliminate it, would jack up $5 billion worth of taxes in other sectors. I think it's the official opposition that needs to come clean with the B.C. public.

FUNDING FOR SupportS TO

DISABLED AND LOW-INCOME PEOPLE

S. Simpson: Last Thursday, late in the afternoon, the Minister of Housing and Social Development rolled out an announcement of over $26 million in cuts to some of our most vulnerable citizens, including persons with disabilities and the homeless. The minister had the gall to allow the heading on this to be "Province Protects Services for Low-Income Clients." Cuts to nutrition, medical services, supplies and equipment, dental services, shelter allowances, contraceptive services and funeral services — all part of 50 pages of regulatory cuts.

Could the minister tell us why the most vulnerable in this province have to pay for the incompetence of him and his government?

Hon. R. Coleman: You know, when you're facing a $1.7 billion deficit and you need to go look at your programs, you do that. Last summer we went and looked at a number of things. The member opposite is couching it one way, and I'll explain it to the member opposite.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Continue, Minister.

[1410]

Hon. R. Coleman: For instance, on the dental side for persons with disabilities, they actually asked us for more flexibility on the dental stuff. They said, "You know what? It's $700 a year," and $700 a year, in cases where they felt that sometimes that expense would be higher, was unfair to them. They asked if it could be blended over two years — it would be $1,400 over two years — so if they had a higher expense in one year, that could be handled. That actually saves us — administrative savings.

We decided in the case of bottled water that bottled water…. Our tap water in British Columbia is perfectly drinkable for anyone, and the fact of the matter is that by not providing bottled water, we're saving money. We are protecting the essential services by doing this, because there are pressures on the welfare rolls. Every single dollar that is saved gets reinvested into our ability to be there for people on social assistance at the time that they need it.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

S. Simpson: Well, I don't know who "they" are that the minister talks to, but it wasn't people with disabilities. It wasn't their advocates. It wasn't the homeless who said: "Cut our services." We can be assured of that.

[ Page 3233 ]

What might be more telling is that on the eighth of March, the minister is quoted in the Globe and Mail as saying: "We felt these were, frankly, add-ons that weren't necessary to healthy living of folks on social assistance." That was the minister on the eighth.

Nutrition; medical services, supplies and equipment; dental services; shelter allowances; contraception; funeral services. And the list just continues to grow. Hon. Speaker, for everybody else in this society, those kinds of services are essential. For everybody else, those are important. Why does the minister think those are frills for the poor and the disabled?

Hon. R. Coleman: Anybody that's on social assistance in the province of British Columbia receives Medical Services Plan. They receive non-deductible access to Pharmacare. People that are on low income get premium assistance. None of that is changing for these folks.

A lot of the services that were duplicated in this ministry were already provided either by community service groups or through the Ministry of Health because of the MSP and the issues that are already supplied. We went and looked at this. We felt this was the best way to do these things. It was a tough decision.

I know you guys don't like making tough decisions. I get that. I know you'd rather not have the $2 billion extra that's being invested in health care over the next three years. I know you'd rather not have the extra money that's invested in education, but I'll tell you what, hon. Member. This is the only government that's ever raised social assistance numbers in the province in the last 16 years, the only one that's ever raised shelter allowance dollars in the province of British Columbia in the last 15 years. In this country, there is no better place as far as the services, and by putting….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Continue, Minister.

Hon. R. Coleman: You know, by actually making sure your system is streamlined and making sure that services go to the people that need it the most, you're being prudent, you're being fiscally responsible, and you are protecting the services for your most vulnerable citizens.

medical SUPPLEMENTS FOR

DISABILITY BENEFITS RECIPIENTS

N. Simons: A part of the announcements last week was that people receiving nutritional supplements would have to meet higher criteria in order to receive those.

It's not about making tough decisions. It's about making the bad decisions that this government is doing. Mr. Speaker, these are people with disabilities who are suffering from nutritional deficits, who require assistance in order to meet those deficits — people who are malnourished, people who have lost the use of a vital organ, people who are in desperate straits and who this government has decided to turn their backs on.

How can the minister justify economically or morally the decision to cut these benefits to people with these needs?

[1415]

Hon. R. Coleman: If the member opposite would just read the information that was provided last Thursday, he'll find that if any person has two of the issues relative to malnutrition or weight loss or whatever, they're still eligible for the $205 a month for nutritional supplements.

It was the advice we received that there should be some measure with regard to what it was that was actually being funded. Therefore, all that does actually is make it clear what it is that people could be paid for, for the issues that they need.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

N. Simons: Well, judging from the reaction from even that side, they obviously don't buy this explanation.

The minister mentioned the problem in his answer. You require two of the following symptoms in order to be eligible for nutritional supplements. Well, tell that to a constituent who has written to all of us, who had his bowel removed but doesn't suffer from malnutrition, doesn't suffer from severe weight loss, doesn't suffer from severe muscle loss. Yet he needs those vitamins. He needs those supplements in order to stay healthy.

The benefits of this program keep people from the acute health care system. So if this government is devoid of any ethical reasons for supporting people with disabilities, there's an economic reason as well. Will this government reconsider its ill-advised decision to cut nutritional benefits to people with disabilities?

Hon. R. Coleman: I think that on balance, the member, if he reads the information, will find that we have been pretty prudent in our discussion in taking the people's concerns into account, as we made these changes, to protect the absolute vital services for people on social services in the province — who, by the way, do get MSP and Pharmacare and other services from government and will continue to do so.

A. Dix: These are the very programs that allow people to take care of their own health. I mean, how can it be justified? Who told the minister? What group, what individual told the minister that people with disabilities shouldn't have access to orthotics? Who or what group told the minister that people with disabilities should not

[ Page 3234 ]

have glucometers to deal with their type 2 diabetes? Not covered by Pharmacare, by the way.

Who told the minister that people with severe health issues do not need food? What report? What group told the minister to proceed with these plans, which will only increase health care costs in the acute care sector?

Hon. R. Coleman: Most of what you just described is covered under MSP or through Pharmacare.

Interjections.

Hon. R. Coleman: Well, we'll get to that.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Continue, Minister.

Members.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. R. Coleman: Through to the nutrition issue, the member knows, if he would read the information, that any person who has malnutrition and weight loss…. Those two alone would actually allow them to get a $205-a-month supplement.

We work with our client base. We try and work with them in such a way that we can protect the vital services for people on social assistance. In tough economic times the budget has gone up for this ministry so it can do that, both in housing and in social services that will still be there for the people that are the most vulnerable in the province of British Columbia.

[End of question period.]

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: I call budget debate.

[1420]

Budget Debate

(continued)

Hon. G. Abbott: I am pleased to again rejoin the debate on the budget. I had the opportunity last Thursday just prior to adjournment of debate to begin my discussion of the issues in and around the budget, and I am pleased to have this opportunity to proceed here again.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

What I'd like to do today, and I guess this will be the general theme today, is answer a question that has puzzled mankind for centuries — that is, do I really need to spend thousands of dollars on airfare in order to have a conversion on the road to Damascus? This is an important question, of course, and the answer to that question will be definitively a no. There are plenty of examples — and we've seen a number of them in this House — of conversions. Certainly, there's a convert right across the way from Juan de Fuca, who would be among those who have enjoyed conversions on important issues.

I remember the 2005 election, and all of my NDP friends and opponents with their slogans about "health care, not Olympics." Somewhere between 2005 and 2010 there was a remarkable conversion, as the New Democrats became ardent supporters of not only the Olympics but Mr. Furlong and all of the team that were putting the Olympics on. That hadn't always been the case. It's true. Even the member for Juan de Fuca, I'm sure, at times nursed some doubts about the Olympics and probably expressed them as well. But remarkably, he was able to convert into a great supporter of the Olympics as he stands here even today.

There are many other examples as well. British Columbians will remember with great clarity the 2009 provincial election campaign wherein the New Democrats spent millions of dollars attempting to convince British Columbians that the carbon tax was a really, really bad idea that would bring an end to life on earth as we knew it, as a consequence of its imposition. Then of course, since the 2009 campaign there has been a remarkable conversion among New Democrats with respect to the carbon tax, and we should welcome that. It's a huge step in the right direction.

Today — and we've just recently seen it again in question period — the NDP are firmly and irrevocably, I am sure, opposed to the harmonized sales tax, and that's interesting. I think it does reflect the politics of expediency on the part of the New Democrats. The HST, as they observed in question period today, is just marginally more popular than a skunk at a picnic, and as a consequence it's great politics for New Democrats to oppose the HST. Is it good economic policy? No, it certainly is not that, but arguably, it's good politics, at least in the short term, for New Democrats to oppose the harmonized sales tax.

The NDP strategy, I think, is pretty straightforward. I would describe it as a two-part strategy. The first part of the strategy is to let B.C. Liberals get beaten like last Christmas's pinata over the HST issue. [Applause.]

I'm appreciative of the applause from across the way, Madam Chair.

The second part — and I'm sure they will applaud even more fulsomely for this — of the strategy, post our being beaten like last Christmas's pinata, is to march triumphantly through the gates of victory in forming the government in 2013. That, I think, would be the second part of the NDP strategy re the HST.

[1425]

What will follow then? What will follow the 2013 election in this NDP fantasy? Well, I think predictably, we'll

[ Page 3235 ]

see a great deal of gesticulation. We'll see equivocation, probably some prevarication, I'm suspecting, but we'll also see a conversion. We will see a conversion as surely as night follows day. We will see a conversion on the road to Damascus with respect to the HST. The NDP will decide that after all, the HST is a really good idea and that they're going to keep it. There is no question about that.

Following that conversion, we will see a very angry column by Michael Smyth condemning the NDP for their flip-flop, and that will be widely circulated among members of the House. We will see their former anti-HST bedfellow, Bill Vander Zalm, come out roundly condemning the NDP for their flip-flop with respect to the HST. Again, to reiterate just how wise William Shakespeare was in what he said, hell hath no fury like an ex-politician spurned, and that will be the case with Mr. Vander Zalm. He will mount a provincial crusade against the NDP and against the HST.

Well, that will all be fascinating, I'm sure, but one really shouldn't, as I've just done, encourage the NDP in such fantasies. If inflammatory rhetoric, personalized attacks and vitriol were a substitute for vision and direction, surely the NDP would have won the elections of 2005 and 2009. But they did not, notwithstanding what I thought was, particularly in the 2009 campaign, a remarkably bitter, vitriolic and very personalized attempt at convincing the electorate to vote for them. But they did not provide any vision or direction, nor did they win a victory in 2009 — certainly fell far short of that.

I'd say that while opposition to the HST may make some sense in terms of the short-term politics of this, I do think the NDP sell themselves short. They can read that most of the economists in Canada are supportive of the harmonized sales tax, and I think they are not building much of a launching pad for their next shot at government in 2013 by taking the remarkably negative and narrow line, as they have with respect to the harmonized sales tax.

Economists, just like politicians, come from a range of ideological perspectives. But on the HST, the harmonized sales tax or value-added tax as it's often referred to, there is a remarkable and in fact astonishing degree of unanimity with respect to the HST and in support of the HST. The politicians, I would submit, including the NDP, should as a consequence sit up and take notice of that remarkable unanimity among the economists in relation to the harmonized sales tax.

I can't recall the last time that we saw the right-wing Fraser Institute, the left-wing Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives and the centre-of-the-road Conference Board of Canada…. I can't recall a time when all three of those quite different ideologically or diverse ideologically organizations were of one mind with respect to a public policy. But interestingly or remarkably, they are of one mind with respect to harmonized sales tax.

[1430]

They are that, notwithstanding the attempts by the B.C. New Democrats to demonize this whole process. Just to provide examples of the point, with respect to the Fraser Institute, I would submit to the attention of members an

article of July 28, 2009, in the Vancouver Sun , an

article submitted by the Fraser Institute entitled "Harmonizing Sales Taxes is Smart Thinking." The

article says, among other things:

"It will make B.C. businesses more competitive, encourage investment and provide significant and lasting economic benefits to the province."

Further in the

article it notes — and they certainly were accurate on this, given some of the comments we heard even just in the last hour:

"Unfortunately, British Columbians will likely be exposed to many faulty objections and misconceptions regarding the HST over the coming weeks and months by those seeking to derail this reform."

It goes on to say:

"The tax shift argument ignores the fact that the provincial sales tax is currently embedded in the price of many of the goods and services that are currently exempt from the PST…. Some business inputs — goods and services — are currently taxed. Consumers pay higher prices, even if the final good or service is not taxed. In fact" — and this makes reference to an

article by Professor Smart — "it found that consumer prices in the harmonizing provinces fell after the 1997 reforms, which somewhat offset the imposition of the sales tax. In addition, the tax shift argument fails to recognize that the burden of all taxes ultimately falls on people — consumers, workers or owners — in the form of higher prices, lower wages or reduced rates of return on investments."

So that's the Fraser Institute.

The second

article that I would invite members to have a look at is from the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, a left-leaning think tank, as it's referred to. They produced in December of 2009 a document of about 17 pages entitled, remarkably, Not a Tax Grab After All: A Second Look at Ontario's HST . This is a document which members should read with interest. Particularly, New Democrat members of the House should read this with interest, because it looks at a number of the questions which were raised by New Democrats earlier in question period.

I'll note, for example, some of the points that are made in this — that the net combined effect of all these changes is very close to neutral, and in fact, it is Ontario families with the lowest incomes that will be better off by $119, on average, while the richest families will be worse off by $324 annually, or approximately 0.2 percent of family income. So all of that, I think, points out, again, that those on the left side of the spectrum also appreciate that the harmonized sales tax will be a positive thing for the economy of British Columbia.

Finally, in terms of documents which members may wish to access, there is a document by the Conference Board of Canada which is entitled Harmonize Consumption Taxes to Improve Economic Efficiency . This is, I think, a very good and very readable article. It builds on some of the academic work which has been

[ Page 3236 ]

done with respect to the impact of value-added taxes like the harmonized sales tax versus retail sales taxes like our provincial sales tax. I'll just quote briefly from the Conference Board of Canada:

"The benefits of adopting harmonized value-added tax in lieu of a retail sales tax are manifold. Harmonization of all remaining sales taxes into a single VAT system would improve economic efficiency across the Canadian economy.

[1435]

"It would simplify tax administration, minimize the potential for tax evasion, eliminate distortions caused by the absence of a sales tax rebate on business inputs, promote increased domestic investment by Canadian firms, reduce compliance costs for business and increase the competitiveness of Canadian exports."

I think all of those things are things which members of this House ought to be thinking about as we form our conclusions about the harmonized sales tax, because it is important to have a dynamic economy. If we don't have a dynamic economy, we will not be able to sustain all of the very important government services which we provide.

So again, as British Columbia and Ontario become the fifth and sixth jurisdictions in this nation to embrace harmonized sales tax, you ask the question: "Well, why? Why should we do that?"

Well, it ensures that British Columbia products remain competitive nationally. Again, I know that some members on the opposition side have minimized this important element, but they shouldn't. If British Columbia's manufacturers face a 7 percent penalty relative to Ontario manufacturers, it could have a devastating impact on British Columbia's manufacturers, so it's absolutely critical that we have a harmonized sales tax to match that of Ontario, that of Quebec and other manufacturers in Canada.

It would also make B.C. products more competitive internationally. That's, again, a huge issue, especially when one considers that some 130 jurisdictions internationally now have adopted value-added taxes versus the retail sales taxes. So to be competitive internationally, we need to have that harmonized sales tax to assist those who are producing jobs in British Columbia.

Why would we care whether we are competitive nationally or internationally? Well, jobs is a good start. The Finance Minister mentioned earlier, in question period, that the likely consequence of the HST would be more jobs for British Columbians. That's hugely important. It also means more investment in British Columbia. That's hugely important. Taxes, services…. All of those things are why we need to have a harmonized sales tax in British Columbia.

Again, I know that the members opposite are often seduced by the siren song of short-term political expediency, and it may be no different in this case, but that's unfortunate. I think the harmonized sales tax will be something that will assist in the economic expansion and diversification of our great province. That is hugely important.

We are at, I think, a crossroads in terms of building an economy that is more inclusive of First Nations, that is more inclusive of new Canadians, more inclusive of those who have often been marginalized in our society. I think we have a great opportunity in the decade ahead to build a very powerful province.

Today as one looks across the world — and of course, we've just had the great opportunity of hosting the world here for the 2010 Olympics and Paralympic Games — you see that British Columbia is, in fact, the envy of the world. We're the envy of the world for our remarkable resources, for the wonderful quality of water that we enjoy, the fabulous landscapes that are a part of our province and that make us such a wonderful destination for tourism, and the remarkable contributions that British Columbians have made to science and research.

In many, many ways our great province is the envy of the world, and I believe that with the harmonized sales tax, we are going to continue to build on that opportunity we have to make the 21st century British Columbia's century.

C. Trevena: I take my place here to respond to the government's budget, and I don't think it's going to surprise anyone that I'm not in support of it. I find it, in fact, a frightening reflection of the government's approach, an approach built on regressive taxation, on subsidies for industries and on undermining the public social framework, which has taken years to build.

[1440]

Further, in my response to the throne speech, I spoke about the need for a different vision and a lens which can be used to ensure we're working towards a truly sustainable future, not just one based on words but built on a solid foundation. This budget fails that test miserably.

But first, I'd like to talk about one of the general premises which I find deeply troubling. In my response to the throne speech, I talked about the neoconservative philosophy which has been the foundation for the last nine years of B.C. Liberal governance.

That philosophy, essentially, is one which denigrates the concept of society and boosts the role of the individual. It undermines public provision of services and replaces them with a private provision of those services. It's a philosophy which I first lived through with Margaret Thatcher's brutal conservatism in the U.K. in the 1980s. At that time she likened the public purse, the government's expenditures, to that of an individual running a household. The good housekeeper would always balance her books so that no more money was spent than was earned.

This is a simile beloved of the New Right. In fact, in an earlier debate in this House, one of the members of the government side was applauded for repeating the adage that if you didn't earn it, you didn't deserve it.

[ Page 3237 ]

What is so worrying is that these household homilies are being taken as the basis for running a government. It's not that simple. A government is not running a household. It's running a province with millions of people, a complex social and physical infrastructure, businesses large and small, and trade both foreign and domestic. It's integrated with other provincial, territorial and federal governments and has working relations with foreign governments.

Governing B.C. is not simple household economics. A government's role is to invest in its people — to provide services for people, to provide infrastructure for people and to recognize that some people are not able to make it on their own and will need government assistance. And at a time when we're still uncertain about our economic future, when we're still talking about recession, the need for public investment is even greater.

This budget's underlying principle that "balancing the budget is more than just a financial imperative; it is a social imperative as well" is, frankly, repugnant. It's not a government's job to be the canny housewife. It's a government's job to look after the people who live in its jurisdiction. It's a government's role in our western society to ensure that everyone has access to safe and affordable housing, to public education and post-secondary education, and to guarantee that everyone has access to public health care. Let me emphasize those last few words for members opposite: public health care.

It's a government's role to make sure the infrastructure is in place so that people can live and businesses can operate — public transit, the roads, the ferries, the low-cost public hydro and clean water. Social imperatives are sorely lacking in this budget.

We've had a number of question periods about education even before the budget. In my own constituency, school district 85 is looking at closing three schools. This is in addition to the three it closed last year and a fourth it closed a couple of years earlier.

The chair of the school district recently wrote to the Minister of Education, and I'd like to quote from that letter: "Closing one-third of our elementary schools in one year, the year we should all be celebrating the Olympic Games in our province, is not only distasteful to us, it is wrong and damaging to the education of children and the life of communities. As partners in education with us, we sincerely hope that you, too, will be appalled."

Sadly, I don't think the minister is appalled. She and her predecessors refuse to acknowledge that the funding formula on which the education budget is based simply does not work. It undermines all education but particularly impacts rural school districts where student numbers are small.

So I return to the philosophy of this government. I don't think it actually wants public education to work. If you undermine the public system enough, then parents who can will turn away from it and go to the private sector. It is part of the neoconservative approach that is part of the Liberal government's strategy.

[1445]

The government has started talking about new ways of delivering education. It has stated clearly that the private sector will be involved in the delivery of preschool. But public dollars should be spent on public education.

The government says that everything is going to be okay because of their plan to introduce all-day kindergarten into half of our public schools this year. School district 72, the largest district in my constituency, decided not to go ahead with all-day kindergarten this year because they didn't want to leave half the parents not able to send their children to kindergarten if they wanted to. For them, it is an issue of social equity. It was simply not right that the school district had to pick and choose about which children would be the lucky ones and benefit.

I'm sure the Minister of Education has read the joint letter signed by that district, by its trustees, DPACs and unions, which berated the ministry for its sweeping changes, lack of consultation and downloading of costs. I'd like to quote from that letter: "The moneys have failed to keep pace with the burdens that school districts are experiencing. New requirements for which we are being inadequately funded include Medical Service premium increases, carbon neutrality offset regulations, teacher pension plan increases and full-day kindergarten implementation."

As I say, school district 72 decided not to go ahead with full-day kindergarten because of the principle of equity.

This is a government which, in its tax-cutting mania, has established a scenario in which there is more money raised through post-secondary student fees than is raised through corporate taxation.

Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland opened this last weekend and is appropriate, perhaps. "My," Alice might exclaim at the weird world of B.C. in which corporations get a better deal than students who are supposed to be the future of our province. "A looking-glass world indeed that has been created here."

A couple of years ago the light — I hope fluorescent — came on in the Premier's office. Climate change was the most important issue we as a province had to deal with. There it was in the budget then: carbon tax, climate action secretariat, action on change.

Well, it's two years later, and climate change is still the most important issue we have to deal with. This is our social and our moral imperative — not balancing the books like the canny housekeeper. We have to act on climate change to shift our economy so we move away from the carbon economy. We also have the opportunity as we work our way out of this recession to change the way our economy and our communities evolve.

What do we see in this budget? Well, after being publicly excoriated, the government reinstated the LiveSmart

[ Page 3238 ]

program but with just over half as much money for three years that it previously had for one year. We see environmental stewardship, water stewardship and compliance — all areas needed to ensure that our Crown lands are looked after for future generations of all species — are cut by almost a fifth. We see parks funding cut 13 percent.

But go tell Alice that subsidies to the oil and gas sector are going to be more than $1 billion — $1 billion. This government's looking-glass world is clouding over with emissions. So much for climate change. So much for the future of our province and the future of our planet. Be a B.C. Liberal, keep on subsidizing oil and gas, and remind people there is no money for the development of environmental alternatives or for social alternatives, for welfare increases, for benefits for people on welfare or for the minimum wage to go up.

The environment is important. People get it. They know that climate change is an issue, and they know that what's happening in our back yards, in the Crown lands that form so much of my constituency, is not good. People see no reassurances here in this budget that the large corporations who are trying to industrialize our rivers, like Plutonic Power, who want to dam 17 — that is 17 — rivers in Bute Inlet, will have any oversight.

Who is going to pay for this desecration of the natural heritage of the people of this province: we, the people of B.C., through hydro rates that are going to go up and up and up to ensure that the corporate friends of the government make a profit. This is for power that probably we don't need, but we don't know whether we need it or not because the government has not had any studies done to see if this massive destruction of our natural environment is even remotely justifiable.

[1450]

Likewise in forests — a 41 percent cut in compliance and enforcement in the Ministry of Forests. These are the people who look after our Crown lands and make sure that the U.S.- and central-Canada-based forest companies that now run our forests without providing local manufacturing jobs are not overcutting and are not leaving valuable wood to go to waste, nor are they cutting on riverbanks or in protected habitat. Likewise, resource management, the branch responsible for sustainability — cut by almost 27 percent. So much for the sustainability of our land base.

The impacts are undeniable. Large and small, these sorts of cuts give no security or hope for many people who are dependent on our forests for their living, whether the loggers, the millworkers who still aren't working in Campbell River or others. The impacts of cuts mean people aren't on the ground to do the job, and that means they're leaving the communities in which they work. For small communities, that hurts. Port Hardy is smarting because parks and conservation officers are moving to Port McNeill. It's a small distance on the map but a large impact for the community.

We also have to remember when we're talking about cuts to these sections and ministries that these ministries are responsible for our commons, for our lands and our waters. These should not be simply commodities but need to be treated with respect and as a trust for the future of all species, for the future of us and for our children. This is a real problem with this budget. People have decried its lack of vision, but there is also a lack of responsibility.

We should all have reached the understanding that in making economic decisions we should not just be looking at the economic bottom line, but we must also include the social and environmental costs and outcomes in our thinking. In the desperation that this government has to eradicate the deficit to balance the budget and implement the privatized, deregulated agenda in which it so fervently believes, the social and environmental implications of these decisions have been ignored.

Using the sustainability lens that I told the House about in my response to the throne speech, let's see how this budget matches up. Ecosystem protection — fails. Resource conservation? It fails. Biodiversity? It offers no protection. Resilience for our communities? It offers nothing for our rural communities. Protection of the commons? As I say, it's a sell-off and a sellout. Food security? There are cuts in the Minister of Agriculture's budget and no recognition of the importance of local food production.

Social equity is only there if you can afford it. Full-cost economics are ignored. The precautionary principle is again ignored. Adaptive management is deemed as cuts. And democracy and due process? Well, the government again ignored the bipartisan Finance Committee and its recommendation on spending priorities, and the government also forgot to tell voters that, if elected last May, it would bring in the HST this year. Both of these alone undermine people's trust in democracy and in due process.

The HST, the harmonized sales tax, may be a defining moment in the abuse of electoral accountability. We still await the bill which will enable the government to bring in this regressive flat tax, but what can only be described as spin has increased.

A recap. The B.C. Liberals go into the election saying we wouldn't be having such a tax. The B.C. Liberals get elected, and a couple of months down the road the B.C. Liberals suddenly say we'll be having the HST and claim loudly that this is the single most important thing that could revive our economy.

Then in this budget, the B.C. Liberals abruptly change directions, and now we're told that we desperately need the HST to pay for health care. All the moneys raised from this tax would be directed to health care.

So let me get this straight. We're encouraging people to spend — to eat out at restaurants, buy bicycles, get a haircut — on items that will have the HST applied so

[ Page 3239 ]

that our public health care can remain healthy. The government's spin doctors are going in so many different directions that there's a risk they're going to crash into each other.

[1455]

It isn't good enough that we are the only province that relies on people paying a flat fee for our health care. Oh yes, we have fees for public health care in B.C. — our MSP premiums, which are going up again. Other provinces managed to build the cost for health care into a progressive tax system, which means the more you earn, the more you pay. Now we are turning to a new flat consumption tax to further help fund health care. That means if people don't spend, if they don't consume like the good consumers we are all supposed to be under the present economic models, the holes will appear in the health care budget.

In my constituency of North Island we're already seeing the impacts of cuts to health care. Not even the big-picture costly items — the delays and cancellations of MRIs — but cuts very close to home: the closure of emergency rooms in hospitals in the real north Island, the cancelled endoscopies because Campbell River Hospital was too efficient in doing too many of them, the loss of Vancouver Island Health Authority crisis lines.

I cannot stand here and respond to the budget without recognizing the closure of these local services. In Port Hardy and Campbell River the volunteer lines devoted to serving our rural communities will be lost to be replaced by a centralized service. Volunteers have committed years to those lines, but the system which works so well for our communities did not fit in the big-picture priorities of a centralized south Island–based health authority.

We've now seen nine years of B.C. Liberal budgets, nine years for a heartless government to pick apart our social fabric, leaving people truly vulnerable. Nine years to take apart the public lands, water and resources — our lands, water and resources — and sell them off. It doesn't have to be this way.

We can have a vibrant province with our lands and waters in trust for future generations. We can have strong local economies using the resources that made us a rich province but using them wisely, so they, too, will sustain future generations. We can have a strong public education system from kindergarten through to post-secondary, helping our youth be prepared for new ways of dealing with our social, our economic, our environmental demands, and we can expand our accessible public health care.

It means changing the way we do things, and changing the way we do things is never easy. But we have to have the courage to start, to find new ways of dealing with the problems which work for our people, for our communities and for our ecosystems. That should be our true economic imperative and our true social imperative.

Hon. R. Coleman: I'm pleased to rise to speak to the budget today. The last I spoke in this House was on the throne speech, just prior to the Winter Olympics, and I think I'd like to spend a couple minutes on that — as to what the Olympics means to me and to my constituency and to British Columbians and the future of our economy.

Quite frankly, you know, I think that what I want to talk about is this. As the minister responsible for the Liquor Distribution Branch, which included the liquor stores and liquor licensing, back last year when the Olympics were coming to British Columbia, we had to make a decision about the maturity of our province and our nation.

The maturity was around whether we could somehow create some licences that would allow for the large international event to come in such a way that we'd be able to welcome Holland House and the house that Germany put together and that Sochi, Russia, and Molson's Canada house did, in a licensing regime that didn't exist.

We had to actually change our licensing regime to invite the world. The big challenge is when you add 10,000 liquor seats, for lack of a technical term, in a city the size of Vancouver and then a number more up in Whistler, you want to know that people could maturely enjoy an international event and actually show maturity around the use of alcohol, because in actual fact, we hadn't seen that in previous events, like with the Stanley Park riots and issues we've had with the Celebration of Light in Vancouver.

[1500]

I was very, very pleased and impressed not only with how people were able to handle the celebration in a responsible manner, but being down there on several nights and finding just how incredibly the people of our province and our country came together, but even more so how much fun it was just to talk to a Slovakian or a Czech or a Russian or a Finn or a Swede or someone from Switzerland. These folks had a great time too. They really enjoyed being in Canada, and to a person I met they told me they wanted to come back.

As we went into the Olympics I also witnessed what I thought, on television, was one of the most despicable things I'd seen in a long time. That was a group of people deciding to protest the Olympics, to deny people the enjoyment, the privilege and the joy of carrying the torch in the final days of the Torch Relay. What bothered me the most, though, was that they did it near the cenotaph. They actually turned their backs and cut off the opportunity for veterans of this province and this country to enjoy the Torch Relay and the Olympics.

Now, they can't be very bright people. If they were, they would know that the very reason they get to protest is because they and their comrades have put their lives on the line for peace so that in this country you can have the freedom of speech and the freedom of association that exist in this great country of ours.

[ Page 3240 ]

You know, we got past that. We got past that, and then we saw some people take advantage of the poor in a tent city in Vancouver and refuse access to people with social services to come in and identify who was legitimately homeless, who needed supports for mental health and addictions — the services we were prepared to offer. Once that access was allowed, guess what. We found homes and places for people to go. But the same people, the activists, that decide to use the poor in this particular case as a shill rather than legitimately put together services don't do it.

We got past that, too, to the opening ceremonies. At the opening ceremonies of the Olympics, quite frankly, we witnessed something absolutely remarkable. From there on, as each individual event built on the momentum of the friendship and the peace and the cooperation of countries from all over the world and with 3.5 billion people watching it on television, you couldn't help but be actually excited about that and to enjoy it and be pleased about your country and your province and the job that was done by VANOC and the thousands of volunteers and the people who put it together.

Then we came back to the House the day before the budget. We celebrated. We celebrated the Olympics in this House. Both leaders spoke. People applauded; people clapped. People on the opposition side, who never actually supported the Olympics once and had an epiphany as the event took place, applauded.

Then something happened in this House which was absolutely, for me as a patriot and a Canadian, fantastically wonderful and at the same time the saddest moment I've spent in this House in almost 14 years. You see, Madam Speaker, we broke out in our national anthem in this House. Members on both sides of the House stood to sing our national anthem.

When you sing our national anthem, you celebrate your country, you celebrate your patriotism and you celebrate the people who are over there in Afghanistan or other parts of the world in peacekeeping or military missions on behalf of you so you can sing that openly in your country. You celebrate the fact that you have a free country, freedom of religion and all these sorts of freedoms.

Madam Speaker, I will never say the name or the riding of the individual, but I can tell you that at the same time that event was taking place in this House, one member of this Legislature didn't stand for Canada's national anthem.

[1505]

I was ashamed, I was offended, and I thought it was wrong. I still do. The individual finally stood in the last couple of bars of the national anthem, I'm sure from pressure from the members around him.

To that member and to those folks who know that now, I'm telling you that we have a right to celebrate our country. We should stand and be proud of our national anthem. We should not, as people in public office, demean the history of this country that allows us to have those remarkable freedoms and the ability to, quite frankly, have an event like the Olympics take place in peace and harmony and the spirit of cooperation like it did in this country and in British Columbia just a week or ten days ago.

Budget 2010 deals with fiscal priorities. It's a budget that has to recognize a number of things all at one time. It first of all has to recognize that the world has changed economically in a heartbeat, so fast that no one could have possibly predicted it. It was a remarkable thing to watch. It was a remarkable thing to deal with.

It was a remarkable thing to talk to people who you knew were some of the smartest people in business and didn't actually see this coming. They were caught. It cost them money, it cost them investments, and they actually had to re-establish themselves or their business by being fiscally prudent and responsible so that they could survive to protect the jobs of the very people that they employ.

Well, government is no different. Government had to adjust and adjust fast and make tough decisions. As you do that, you come through a period of time where you find the savings that might allow you to not be like so many other jurisdictions around the world — and in this country, quite frankly — that have decided: "We can just add another $2 billion or $3 billion or $4 billion of deficit. We don't really have to get fiscally responsible. We don't have to review our programs and our costs, because the public knows that we're in a recession, and they'll just accept that."

That would be irresponsible, totally irresponsible, because at that point you're actually turning your back on the future of what's right for the people, the citizens of your province and your country. So what you better do is find ways to, frankly, do things smarter, do things better, be competitive and be able to attract investments so that when things are over, as this recession comes out, you are the one economy that's best positioned to be successful in the future.

So what do you do? You actually, first of all, set some priorities. What would those strategic investments and priorities be? There's not a member of this House that wouldn't tell you that health care is pretty important to their constituents. There's not a member of this House that wouldn't say to you: "You know, there are things like hips and knees and heart surgery, and there are things like insulin for diabetics and drugs that are needed for people with epilepsy and other diseases. We should be there for those folks in our health care system."

If you're going to do that with an aging population, you first of all have to prudently decide you're going to be fiscally responsible and, secondly, decide where your strategic investments in health care will go.

I applaud the Ministry of Health in this government. I applaud it on a couple of levels. First of all, for the fact

[ Page 3241 ]

that it actually said to health authorities and people involved in the Ministry of Health across government last year: "You will actually balance your budget. You will operate within the envelope of money that you've been provided, because it's not going to be a case of just uncontrolled spending because you think somebody's going to come along and make up for the fact that you're not going to actually focus your priorities on the most important things you need to invest in and maybe make some adjustments on some others."

They brought that under control. As they did, we also know — given, as I said, the demographics and other issues we face within government and health care — that we as government, while being very prudent and tight on our deficits, still managed to make a commitment over three years of $2 billion more of investment into health care.

[1510]

That investment is there for the aging population that we know is coming. It is there for our children. It is there to make sure that the capital investments in the new Surrey hospital, the hospital in Abbotsford and the other hospitals throughout the Interior and Kelowna and Fort St. John have the operating dollars to operate those new facilities in the future. It's also there to make sure we invest in the new technologies that can actually make health care more efficient and do a job for us there.

The budget also hits another priority, that being education — and education on both ends of the spectrum, which is absolutely critical to a successful society both economically and fiscally and, frankly, for the health of their citizens.

We're investing in all-day kindergarten. We're actually investing in early childhood education. We're investing in post-secondary education. Those budgets were protected, and they were also added to. The reason? We believe an education is probably the best health care plan you could give anybody.

It also is, in addition to that, probably the best job creation plan you can give anybody. In actual fact, if you give people education and opportunity and training, they can move on with their lives and make the decisions they want to make in order to be successful.

We had some other strategic investments we needed to make in Children and Families, which is for the more vulnerable children in our province. The Minister of Children and Families has actually gotten pretty innovative. She's streamlined some programs, reinvested the money in a way that's good for the children of British Columbia for the best outcomes.

She's received an increase in her budget because she now knows where she'll need the services for children. Those services for children will be there because the investment is made strategically by this government.

Then there's housing and social services. During the Olympics one of the most interesting exercises I went through…. While others might have been doing other types of media, I was dealing with the international media, who were asking me about what we were doing in housing in British Columbia. What about your homeless issues?

It was interesting that each time I spoke to somebody, no matter what country or city they were from, when I explained to them what their own situation back home was and how we had wraparound services, how we took care of people with mental illness and addictions, how we had programs for people for low-income housing and how it all worked….

I was proud to actually talk to any reporter from anywhere and tell them about the 7,000 people that were previously homeless three years ago, who have been housed in British Columbia today.

I was proud to tell them about our intervention strategy where we put together a team of people in Victoria and Vancouver and Surrey and Kelowna and Prince George and said: "Go get severely addicted and mentally ill people that can't be housed in traditional housing, connect them with supports in places like the Burnaby Centre for Mental Health and Addictions, and let's transition these folks into a level of care that meets their needs."

We said: "We'll give you a goal — a hundred a month for 18 months." Eighteen months is still nine months away, but we've done 2,100 of those folks, as well, because of that type of intervention.

They said: "What about your social housing?" I said: "Well, what do you do where you come from?" Some said: "We build projects, and they're not so successful." Others said: "We don't do anything." Others said: "We don't really have a program." Another said: "We built things, and now we're tearing it down. It didn't work out because we built places where everybody of a certain income lived, and we didn't integrate into our communities, and we actually created what we refer to" — they refer to — "now as slums."

I said: "Well, it's unfortunate, but you can learn from us. Go back and think about a rent assistance program, where people who are in low income, whose only barrier to affordability is their rent…. See if you could give them a cheque quietly every month to offset their rent wherever they live, integrated into a community."

We've done that in B.C. We have almost 9,000 families on that program and 15,700 seniors on it as well — households. We didn't have to build the housing, which would have been a remarkable cost to government in a debt service to affect our debt-to-GDP. We wouldn't have got as good outcomes as we're getting anyway.

We're getting remarkable outcomes for those folks who now have the affordability factor and can live in the community where they want their children to grow up, without having the stresses of saying: "You're going to go on some waiting list and wait and wait and wait and wait until you get a home."

[ Page 3242 ]

That's changed so many lives. When you do that, you actually get a chance to have a dialogue with people about shelters, about short-term shelters and long-term shelters, how you transition to transitional housing, and you continue to build new housing across the province.

[1515]

The interesting thing about even a global event like the Olympics is that there's always this sort of centralized thinking of where an issue is — that is, the city of Vancouver versus maybe the Lower Mainland or the Fraser Valley or other communities across a jurisdiction.

So you start to explain that you need adaptable programs, opportunities for people to make choices about their addiction and mental health issues and places that they can go. They don't all have to be centralized in one location, because oftentimes you're not going to get the results you're looking for. When you do that, you actually get some interesting responses both internationally and nationally.

There's one thing for sure. The issue that people who wanted to stop the torchbearer from going past the cenotaph where veterans were waiting, where they wanted to highlight housing as the issue during the Olympics, did not happen. I believe I know why. Because we had a very good story to tell — one that's remarkable, one that's been cooperative and collaborative with communities and one that has housed more people than anytime in the history of any province or jurisdiction in this country and possibly in North America.

So as you move past those things, those particular priorities for a budget, you have one more, and it's a very important one — that is, public safety. Now, there are two things I want to say about public safety here. I used to be the Solicitor General. I love the term "integration in policing."

Let's go to the Olympics for a second before I talk about public safety, because I've got to talk about this.

I've always maintained that the police officers of this province and this country, all together, want to accomplish the same thing, and that is to keep our community safe. I always believed you could have integrated units of different members from different police forces, whether it be homicide or major investigation or whatever, integrated into a team of people across a jurisdiction with success.

So I walked out of an event at GM Place one night, which was actually called Canada Hockey Place, but it's hard for us that are used to calling it anything else. It is GM Place. I saw this. I saw a guy from the Ontario Provincial Police, the Toronto metropolitan police force, one from Ottawa, one from either Lethbridge or Medicine Hat in Alberta and some RCMP officers. I saw Vancouver police department guys. I saw guys from Vancouver Island. And what were they all doing? Working together.

I've got to tell you. The hats have got to go off to our Solicitor General of the day today and the team of people he had at ISU, as he made sure that the integration took place and that everybody was protected during the Olympics.

What wasn't the story at the 2010 Olympics? There was no story about people feeling unsafe, because the imminent domain, which was managed by the Vancouver police department down on Robson Square with the cooperation of police officers…. Even on the nights we thought they needed more help, they came from the Fraser Valley. They came from other areas, the ISU, which coordinated international security, and the military.

What we found was we just put on an Olympics that didn't even have a blip about people feeling afraid or scared. That credit goes to our minister, and it goes to our police forces. It goes to Bud Mercer, who led that team, and all the people that worked with him so that we could have a safe Olympics. They did one heck of a job on behalf of Canadians.

Of course, I digressed, Madam Speaker, but that is not unusual for me. On public safety itself, you also have to decide that you need to invest in that. So this budget actually does that. It actually gives additional resources to public safety in B.C.

So now you look at this whole package. You've got police officers and their technology and their supports. You've got municipal forces who pay some and some who get support from the province and federal. Then you have your provincial police force. Then you have the services of the emergency response teams that we have and all of those guys that need to be supported financially and morally by government.

Add them in now to your health, your education of your children and your grandchildren, the housing of the homeless and those people with mental health and addictions, and being there for the most vulnerable citizens of our province, and making sure our streets and our province are safe with public safety. You can go do the math, Members, but when you do, you're going to find this. There is not a whole lot of money left over for other services.

[1520]

When you as a government set your priorities, you have to make adjustments to your spending in order to make sure that you can focus your resources to absolutely be sure that those vital public services are taken care of — whether it be transition houses or programs for abuse, whether it be all of those things that are caught in that package of resources needed to run a province.

Those are the services that many of our citizens probably, in many cases, take for granted. But when we explain to them how prudent we have to be to make sure there's not duplication of contracts, that there's not any waste of money because we need that money to be reinvested in those public services, they get that too.

[ Page 3243 ]

So as we do a budget, it's not as simple as…. You will hear, both in debates and question period here, where people will say: "Man, you know, you could have just put another billion in." Another billion is another billion in debt. Keep adding it up, and you get to the point where your interest costs are actually outstripping the cost of a number of ministries. That's bad government. That's what we saw in the 1990s. So bad that we had at the time…. In 2001 our interest payments on our debt were bigger than the budgets of 12 ministries.

Now, if you're fiscally prudent and you are protecting these services, which you've done, what do you do? You're in a worldwide recession. A smart business person actually looks at how they can make use of adversity when it comes to an economy. A smart government should do the same thing. A smart government should look at what it wants its province to look like in two, three, five and ten years from now.

I know what I want it to look like. I want it to be a province that attracts the most future investment of any jurisdiction in North America. I want it to be a province that attracts more jobs than any jurisdiction in North America. I want it to be a province where everybody says: "Those guys got it. They did it right."

So when we're at the Olympics, you get a chance to talk to somebody — whether from Boston or somewhere else in the U.S. or people internationally, like from Australia or Europe. You start explaining your tax regime and your personal income tax being the lowest of anybody in Canada. You explain to them how the income tax system works and how much better it is. You talk to someone from Finland sometime and find out what their personal income tax is. It's about 60-some percent.

Then you say: "On a business tax, we're going to zero for small business tax within a couple of years, so we'll be down there." That's competitive to attract investment. We'll have the lowest corporate tax of anybody in the country, at 10 percent, as a result of the budget changes that are being made here.

Then you say to them: "We made one other thing." I said to one guy that was talking to me at an event…. He said: "I was reading your paper before I came here. There's a bit of controversy over your HST. That's a value-added tax — right?" I said: "Yeah, your country has it."

He says: "What took you guys so long? It's the smartest thing you could ever do for an economy — to actually have a tax that is the same as 130 other countries." You're actually on a competitive global platform — one that recognizes the inputs of the costs coming into the tax, so it's not being paid time and time and time again.

You should go look at an analysis sometime about how many times PST was actually put on some things before you paid it at the till. You'd be shocked.

What you should remember, though, is that these are tough decisions that have to be made — whether it's to reduce corporate taxes or to actually believe in changes to do with personal income tax. When you make these decisions, you have to be able to stay the course, because you actually believe in what can happen.

Just a little bit of revision, a little bit of history. I was fortunate enough to be here for five years in opposition to see what it's like from the other side of the House. It's a lot better in government, by the way.

[1525]

I remember the big decision we made in 2001. We came into our first cabinet meeting and made the decision to reduce personal income taxes in B.C. by 25 percent when we had a structural deficit. Man, you should have heard the wailing coming from the socialists. "Oh, this is the worst thing you could possibly do." "You'll never be able to afford health care." "It will destroy the economy." "Nobody is going to be okay here." "How could you possibly, at a time like this, cut personal income taxes?"

Guess what happened. The economy improved. We believed it would. We believed that if you empowered the economy, and empowered it in such a way, you would see the jobs.

We don't want to go back to the day when a former government decided to put a tax on machinery and equipment so that if you wanted to buy equipment for your mill, you got taxed on it because you're going to put in new equipment to build efficiencies to create more jobs in B.C.

We don't want to go back to an era where your capital was taxed with a corporate capital tax. If you invested in a business, your capital was taxed year over year. Can you imagine that? Can you imagine the thinking of: "Let's create jobs in our province. Let's try to attract multi-billion dollars of investment into B.C., and when we do that, we'll tax it"?

Do you know what happens with capital when that happens? It leaves. You either create the environment to protect your significant public services, or you don't. We've done that.

[C. Trevena in the chair.]

You protect your taxation regime because it's important for the future and efficiencies of a province — its future, looking out generations. Don't look a year ahead, Members.

The decisions made in 2001 with taxation for business and small business and corporate taxes and getting rid of the corporate capital tax are all reaping benefits today, and the decisions in this budget will reap the benefits in the future. They're all going to reap benefits while we protect those vital public services — the services that are important to our citizens who understand the difficult times we face.

I believe we need to — and that's why I'm pleased to support this budget in the most vehement way — get

[ Page 3244 ]

back to balanced budgets as soon as possible. I believe that the prudence is built into this plan, because I've been part of the budget-making process at various levels of government now for nine years.

I can tell you this, Madam Speaker. This is a very good job done by a very good group of people — Finance, Treasury Board, members of cabinet and caucus. We built a budget to actually recognize what is needed for the future of British Columbia. We should be proud to support this budget. We should be proud of our country, coming out of the Olympics, and should always be proud.

Let's not, any of us, turn our backs on the fact that this nation was built on good government, reasoned debate. It was also built on the fact that people had a belief and confidence in how to do things right. This budget does things right.

S. Herbert: First, I want to send a special thank-you home to my partner, Romi Chandra, who puts up with my being away a lot. I think it's always important that we acknowledge our families and my wider extended family who, as well, helps me in being able to do this work, which can pose challenges, but I think they're wonderful challenges to have to face. What could be better than standing up for your community and for your constituents and working day in, day out to make your neighbourhood and our province a better place?

Something happens when I go out on the street and talk to constituents. I talk about what should happen for our province. Before the budget I did some work. "What would you like to see in the budget?" I asked my constituents that in a number of venues. I think it's important that we actually listen, ask and respond to the needs and desires of the people we represent.

I was disturbed, I must say, by some of the responses I got. I understand where they come from, but what I heard was: "Well, what does it matter? They won't listen to me anyway." "What does it matter? Nobody cares what I think." I understand where that comes from, because for too long that seems to be how this government has operated.

[1530]

I firmly believe that it is up to us to write our future. It's up to us to set the course for our province's growth and for our province's well-being. That's all of us, not just the people in this room. In fact, I think the people outside of this room are the most important people to determine what happens inside of this place.

Now, if we're going to write what happens next, there are two stories, I think, that can be written. One is a story of exclusion — division, destruction, us and them, mistrust of the people, government and the mighty versus the rest of us. Or there's the story of inclusion — connection, creativity, trusting the people that elected us, working with them in an honest and clear way, listening to them, reasoning and building that way forward. Inclusion.

A budget is about priorities. It says where we want to go. I've been clear from the start with my constituents. My starting point is that we need to have a green, creative economy that benefits us all, not just the few.

Another principle of mine is that I don't believe that you need…. I don't think it's good policy to make it harder for the middle class in a recession. I don't think that helps us get forward either.

I believe that in a budget we need to have a long-term plan, not short-term gimmicks. It needs to be an inclusive future that brings us together, that excites the public, and it needs to be about public participation. We see it every day in our communities — volunteers trying to do their best for their communities.

As a government, I believe we need to reach out, because people want to help. They want to be part of the government, because it is their government after all. That's the us and us vision.

It's not: "The government over there — they're bad. But me, myself, I'm perfect." No, it's all of us. I think that goes out to the people.

I talked to some constituents. "Ah, they're all crooks." When I say: "Well, do you think your neighbour's a crook?" "Well, no." "Are you a crook?" "Well, no." "How come they somehow miraculously all become crooks the minute they come over to Victoria?" "Well, I guess you're right," is the response.

Okay, but where does that come from? I think that's because for too long, we haven't trusted the public. We haven't trusted them. Instead, government has tried to play games and to fool people into believing things and fool them into accepting what government dishes out.

It's no surprise that I believe this government, the B.C. Liberals, have chosen that first story — that of exclusion, division and destruction. It's a vision that doesn't support public trust. It's a vision of hoping that you get into power and then, when you're in power, doing all the dirty stuff in the first year, first two years, as we're seeing right now, and then, just before the election, returning some money, giving a little bit back and hoping that that's enough to confuse the issue.

That's one way of doing government. I don't think that's the right way of doing government. I think you need to include the public in these decisions.

Now, we've got an issue here. We're in a recession. We've got the highest child poverty rate in the country, six years running. But that's not just because of the recession. In fact, that was there when the good times were around as well. We've got a low birthrate in our province, an aging population. When you look forward into the future, which we need to do, that's going to pose real challenges for our society and for our economy, but real opportunities as well.

[ Page 3245 ]

We're going to need to open our arms even wider to the wider world, bringing in immigrants to our province, as we've done since time immemorial. That will keep us competitive.

Educated citizens — that's another challenge. The citizens that are here need to be more educated than ever before — more skilled, more creative. If we're going to have fewer people here doing more, we need to make sure that they're more skilled.

We face an issue of climate change. When I talked about the recession, we should also remember that the recession includes our glaciers. The glaciers are receding too. It's a funny rhetorical trick, but it's something we need to recognize — that you can't talk about the economy without talking about the environment, without talking about our social issues.

We've seen seafood — something I enjoy eating — that is threatened with destruction, disappearance, as we've seen with our salmon. Issues of peak oil, water shortages, some of the worst wildfires we've seen in years. We've got record personal debt levels in our province.

[1535]

I'm laying this out because I think it's important for us to recognize where we are so that we know where we can go to. Facing all of those challenges — and those are just some of the challenges we face; we have others — what do you do? Do you divide? Do you exclude? Do you pit neighbour against neighbour? Or do you provide a more inclusive vision, where you tell the truth as it is to all of us, lay out the facts on the table and work through the issues with the public so that we can grow our province together?

But what do West Enders tell me? What do my constituents tell me? Well, they tell me that it's getting harder for them. They tell me that their living costs are going up and it's more difficult to stay in our community.

Fees increasing. I speak of Hydro. We recently heard discussion of a possible 29 percent fee hike. That could be up to $28 more every month for a constituent. We've heard the discussion about ICBC. If you're a driver — and I know the vast majority of my constituents are not — it could make it more difficult for your rates.

Of course, the HST. My constituents raise the HST just about every day that I'm out there, one way or another, and the cost for them and their families, the costs on their jobs. We've got some of the best restaurants — I would say in the world — in the West End, but some of those restaurant owners tell me they're not sure that they're going to make it through the next year. High rent. The addition of the HST. Small profit margin. Either they're going to be laying off staff or going into debt.

Tourism industry. We rely very much in the West End, our businesses, on tourists. Incredible, incredible place to visit, but again, the tourism industry tells me that the HST will very negatively impact their competitive position. Again, my constituents worry about jobs.

Then, of course, they raise the MSP. They say: "You know, I've moved in from another province. I don't really get this MSP thing. We don't have it in our provinces." But we've got it here, that's for sure, and it'll be going up another $7 a month.

They take transit. All the transit fares are going up. Or the vast majority are renters. Rents keep shooting up, and that's another issue that I've been working on for a while. That's for another time, not in response to the budget — although I'll leave it that I believe the Residential Tenancy Act needs to be changed now, reformed to make it more fair.

Now, as I said, most of my folks aren't drivers, so the carbon tax is not a big, big issue for them, yet they wonder why it keeps going up when our transit system, TransLink, is starved for resources, and why we're standing pat when all the climate science says that we need to be moving forward with transit — mass transit increases.

Then I talk to folks living on disability. They feel that they're ignored, forgotten, that they're not valued as people. Their life situation is getting harder and harder. Earlier today we heard discussion about the various cuts that are being made to services that support folks living on disability, whether that's nutritional support or whether that's other support — with dental, for example.

When you add up the rent costs and add up food costs, if you can, and add up costs for prescription medication if they need that and if they have to pay for it and then add in the cuts, most people wonder…. They say: "Well, there's nothing left to cut in social assistance. There's nothing left to cut in disability." I thought they had already made all those cuts when the B.C. Liberals first got into power. But in fact we've seen…. Well, no, I guess there was more to cut, because they've made it even harder for those living with disabilities. It's the most vulnerable, hit even worse than they were before.

My constituents, of course, raise cuts to education and their concern about their children. Now, I mention this because I mentioned earlier about the need to have the most educated population ever, the best-educated youth and children. They wonder how that squares with what we're seeing here.

[1540]

They also raise the large cuts we've seen and continue to see in environmental protection — cuts which the government said it wouldn't make, because it was going to be a world leader in sustainable environmental management during the last election. That's what they said then, but of course today it's a different story, as just about everything they've said in the election has now changed. Division, destruction. Destruction of the public trust. That's what this budget really illustrates here.

One thing that constituents also want me to do, and that I take very seriously, is they want me to put ideas

[ Page 3246 ]

forward as well. What do I think we need to do to help us out of this jam — to help us out of this jam with the environment, to help us out of these problems we face in the economy and to help us with our mass of social problems that we have in many of our communities?

First, as a basis, I think government needs to tell it to us straight, tell us what's actually happening. Before the election they could have told the real numbers, I guess I would say — since I know there are some words that I know I'm not able to say in this House — about the budget, about the situation we're facing, instead of promising $495 million maximum for a deficit, when of course, we've seen it approaching more like $3 billion. That would have been a start.

Government could tell the truth about the HST. Running in the election, I remember that the B.C. Liberals said, "Oh no, it's actually bad for consumers. We don't want to do it. It's not the right thing for our province," when of course, right after the election, they did just the opposite.

I think a principle for a way forward is trust. Tell it to the people straight. Work with people to make the right decision for the province. Government of the people by the people. It seems like a pretty simple principle but one that I think needs to be stated, because very obviously it has not seeped into the collective consciousness of this place.

We also need to recognize that with the recession there's also environmental recession, and with the social programs we seem to be receding from our commitment to supporting those with the least and the vulnerable.

Now, where do we go in terms of the economy? I think creativity is the way of the future, the way of today. Economies all over the world understand that if you have creative people, if you support creativity in your province and your state and your government, you're going to do better. Cuts to the B.C. Arts Council, 50 percent; cuts to gaming, 50 percent — for our creators, for the research and development teams and the arts and culture industry of B.C. That's not on. That doesn't make sense. So I think we need to reinvest in arts and culture in a big way.

Other provinces have done this and seen huge boosts just for the economy, but also because art is about expressing stories. It's about getting to know each other better, as I've said before, and that helps us blossom as communities. That helps build the ecology of our civil society.

Tourism. Well, we've seen more cuts in tourism. We've seen cuts to marketing funding, the loss of the industry-led Tourism B.C. Well, I think there's a basic answer to that for the future of tourism. We need to go back to the performance-based funding model of Tourism B.C., industry-led, get the politics out of tourism so that we're not seeing more and more marketing campaigns of "best place on earth" with fewer and fewer resources actually going to real marketing of our province and more and more going into political marketing of our province, as this government's so good at.

Film. I think we need to support our domestic-owned film industry. These are British Columbian producers. These are British Columbian companies that have their head offices here. We always talk about wanting to attract head offices to B.C., yet here in film, with our domestic producers, we're actually losing head offices to other provinces. They are no longer competitive because of what this government has done in domestic film industry support. They've actually made it worse than it was before. Those are good jobs. Those are creative jobs. That's good for the economy and good for our society.

Transit. It will be no surprise to you that I support public transit. As a cyclist and SkyTrain rider and bus rider, it's the way I get around. We saw at the Olympics that people would actually ride the bus, would actually get on the SkyTrain, would actually take the SeaBus, if it was convenient. We had a massive expansion in transit just for that brief window. We got a taste of what could be.

[1545]

Well, I think we need to take some of that carbon tax revenue and put it into transit. That would be a green solution, and that would be good for the economy. That would be good for all of us. It fulfils all those principles I spoke about: about inclusion, about a green economy that benefits all of us, not just the few.

Now, this is a good one. This is one that's supported by boards of trade, chambers of commerce and others. How about we end homelessness in B.C.? The savings are huge. It's not just lives, although we need to refer to and recognize that, but it's money in health care, legal, policing and the social costs.

Yes, there's an upfront cost, but it's a huge win in the long term, which is, of course, what we should be thinking about. It saves you money. If you don't care about the morality of people sleeping on the streets, the least you should do, I guess, is care about the economics, which also makes sense. But in fact, we've seen the opposite, of course, with homelessness increasing in Vancouver nearly 400 percent since this government took office.

Another good idea supported by the board of trade: child care. I saw a brief mention of this in the budget. We need to…. And I think it's fitting on International Women's Day that we talk about child care. So many of the women in my constituency tell me that it's difficult for them to be able to continue their work world because they can't find child care. There are a number of dads that I've talked to, as well, who have the same issue. They just cannot get their kids into child care when they need to. That's a huge drain on our productivity and a challenge when we need every worker that we can get.

Research and development. We don't do enough of it in this province. Our corporate sector doesn't, and

[ Page 3247 ]

government doesn't, and we lose largely because of it. As I was speaking earlier about creativity, it's about the brains. It's what's in your head. Research and development is the place to go, I think, for the future. That's all about the knowledge base and education that I've been referring to for some time.

I think another area that we need to go is that if we're going to be truthful and honest with our public, with the people that we represent, we need to talk about our connection to the earth, to the environment. For too long, we've gone on with this belief that we can somehow be divorced from it.

Now, in the West End we've got massive, concrete highrises, and people go: "Oh, I don't know if I can live there. It's so urban." But in a minute or two you can be right there at the beach checking out the starfish. You can be right there in the forest checking and seeing the eagles, getting that connection to the environment. I think we need to be stronger as a government in making sure that those connections are obvious all the way through the chain.

I spoke earlier about child poverty. I was disappointed that there was no poverty reduction plan in this budget, because if we're going to truly be ready for the age of our population, our youth need to be strong. They need to be educated. They need to be productive citizens, creative citizens. When you're dealing with just trying to get enough food into your belly, it's pretty difficult to be as engaged as you need to be at a young age. We need a poverty reduction plan.

In my community we saw a funding cut for inner-city schools, for the Lord Roberts and Lord Roberts Annex, and to talk to some of the parents…. They were distraught, and they were distraught because they knew what impact this would have on their kids and on their classrooms.

I talked to students in my constituency who want to be nurses. They're actually in the nursing program, but we've seen cuts — cuts to student aid, massive cuts — again and again and again. We want our kids to be educated, but we won't help them do that. In fact, the help we give them is increased tuition fees, again and again and again. Some help.

[1550]

We talk often about challenges we face in nursing, getting enough nurses. Well, we actually cut a program that supported attracting more nurses, and with the debt load that nurses come out of our schools with…. I talk to them, and they say: "You know, other provinces and states are much more aggressive in trying to get us to move there than we are here." In fact, in some cases, they feel there's actually a disincentive to stay here and practise their trade, practise their skills.

You've heard me speak about what my principles are, about the belief for inclusion and about the belief that we need to work together, trust the public, speak with them, reason with them and provide more opportunities for public participation in the democratic process. I think I've laid out some of the reasons why this government has done the opposite and why their policies and their beliefs seem to be ones of division, exclusion.

The gap between rich and poor has only grown wider and wider under this government. Those with the least have grown as well, and the middle class is feeling squeezed. If we're going to end this recession, build a bright future, we can't do it on the backs of the vulnerable, and we shouldn't be making it harder for the middle class to be able to get out of their own personal debt loads.

The pattern that we seem to be seeing with this government is that we're paying more and we're getting less, and that the telling of truth is a rarity.

If we want to ignite the passion that we saw just a week ago in our province around the great works that we can achieve as a people and as a province, it starts with being upfront. It starts with the government reaching out and asking for participation, asking for the help and asking for the understanding of the population. It doesn't come from misrepresentation, changing the story and trying to confuse the public.

Those are my thoughts on Budget 2010 today. I will have more, I'm sure, and will hear them in my constituency. But I will also be continuing in my work and reaching out to listen to my constituents to hear from them what they think I can do better as their representative, what they think the opposition can do better as an opposition and also, most importantly for them, what they believe this government needs to do better as a government.

R. Lee: Thank you, Madam Speaker, for the opportunity for me to stand in this Legislature today to respond to Budget 2010.

First of all, I would like to acknowledge the support I get from my constituency assistants in Burnaby North: Robert Begin, Nancy Chan and Winney Xin; my assistants in Victoria, Brittany Auvinen, Jordan Grimsrud, Justin Molander and Ryan Pineo. I understand that my former communications officer, Jeff Melland, is now working in Korea. I wish him the best.

Modern convenience in transportation and communication provides opportunity for increasing mobility, be it people or capital. People will move to places to live and work, for personal and/or economic reasons. The world is competing for talents as well as business growth. I believe that the province of British Columbia is becoming more and more attractive to the world's citizens.

Just last month an estimated 3.5 billion people around the world saw how beautiful our province is and how competitive our business environment has become. Owning the gold podium of the Winter Olympics can only increase our attractiveness.

[ Page 3248 ]

Over the years, with fiscal discipline, tax reductions for individuals and business and reducing barriers to investment, our economy has been growing. Our record of this has been proven, and we are without a doubt the most well-suited to manage our economy. We have made over 100 tax reductions — in fact, around 120 since 2001 — leaving more money in people's pockets and restoring B.C.'s economic competitiveness.

[1555]

In every single budget we have delivered as a government, we have been able to deliver tax cuts. This is essential in allowing our economy to prosper. By giving British Columbians more money, we allow the economy to grow. The NDP, on the other hand…. Their 2009 platform called for more than $1 billion in new taxes. At times the NDP have said they would raise taxes and run large deficits rather than accept $1.6 billion in transition payment for the HST, although it's hard to understand just where the opposition stands on the HST. At times they oppose it, and at other times they admit that this is the right thing to do.

At a time like this, it's not the answer to helping our families and businesses. People need to know that this government's confidence and economic leadership will actually bring us out on top. By providing small businesses with tax reductions, we are protecting the province's largest sector of business.

Small business is very important; it's so important to local economies and the whole province. This sector is responsible for the employment of more than one million British Columbians. We have cut the small business tax rate from 4.5 percent to 2.5 percent, a 44 percent reduction. By April 1, 2012, the small business tax rate will be zero — nothing, zero.

The general provincial corporate income tax will be reduced, as well, to 10 percent by January 1, 2011, which is next year — a 40 percent reduction since 2001. Personal taxes have also been substantially cut, leaving individuals and families with more money each and every year. Since 2001 provincial income taxes have decreased by at least 37 percent.

I would like to say a few words about the Asia-Pacific. One of the province's many advantages on the world economic stage is our position within the Asia-Pacific trade markets. Asia-Pacific nations are proving to be some of the global economic drivers and are looking for foreign investment opportunities. Implementation of the Asia-Pacific trade and investment division under the Ministry of Economic Development is focused on increasing trade and investment and establishing trade and investment offices in six key Asian markets, including Bangalore, Beijing, Guangzhou, Shanghai, Seoul and Tokyo.

To further our optimism and outlook in the Asia-Pacific trade market, we are encouraged that the implementation of the HST

actually will also increase the amount of foreign investment in this province. It's going to be imperative that we do everything we can to make the most of our current situation.

Next to our largest trading partner, the U.S., Asia-Pacific markets are accountable for a huge percentage of the province's investment and trade, and we have worked hard to attract business from across the Pacific. We are a very culturally diverse and accommodating province. In fact, more than 22 percent of our population is of Asian descent, and this number is growing every year. Because of this fact, we are able to attract more business than most other North American west coast ports.

Together with the federal government, we have invested heavily to build up the port at Prince Rupert. This port plays a very important and large role in our ability to attract foreign trade, as it takes about two days off of the time it takes to bring goods into North America for redistribution.

[1600]

We just had the Winter Olympics, and we have heard that the Olympics will also attract business to come to this area. As evidence of that, we also have heard in recent days the announcement that Air China will be adding three new daily flights from Beijing to YVR, increasing the total number to ten. That will also bring new opportunities for business to the L