2011 Legislative Session: Fourth Session, 39th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

official report of

Debates of the Legislative Assembly

(hansard)

Monday, February 27, 2012

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 30, Number

ISSN 0709-1281 (Print)

ISSN 1499-2175 (Online)

CONTENTS

Page

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

B.C. Winter Games in Vernon

E. Foster

100 th anniversary of B.C. Forest Service

B. Routley

Nowruz celebrations

R. Sultan

Support for refugees

J. Brar

Sowchea Elementary School road safety campaign

J. Rustad

Port Haney neighbourhood change project

M. Sather

Oral Questions

Government action on delays in court proceedings

A. Dix

Hon. S. Bond

L. Krog

Seniors care case in Burnaby Hospital and government action on seniors care

R. Chouhan

Hon. M. de Jong

Call for seniors advocate

K. Conroy

Hon. M. de Jong

Forest industry jobs and log export policy

D. Routley

Hon. S. Thomson

Forest practices and ranching industry water issues

L. Popham

Hon. S. Thomson

Consultation with First Nations on sale of government land

S. Fraser

Hon. M. Polak

Orders of the Day

Budget Debate (continued)

R. Howard

L. Popham

P. Pimm

D. Donaldson

Hon. I. Chong

G. Gentner

M. Dalton

H. Lali

Hon. S. Cadieux

[ Page 9457 ]

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 2012

The House met at 1:34 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

C. James: I have a special guest in the gallery with me today. It's a rare visit to Victoria. He's here for meetings in Victoria and Vancouver, and I had the pleasure of having breakfast with him this morning. I'd like to introduce the Chief of the Burns Lake band, the love of my life and my husband, Albert Gerow. Please make him welcome.

Hon. S. Thomson: I've got some very important introductions to make this afternoon. As you may know, today is the 100th anniversary of the B.C. Forest Service, and we have a number of very distinguished guests with us here today to help celebrate that 100th anniversary for the Forest Service. It was in this chamber exactly 100 years ago today that the Forest Act came into force and established the B.C. Forest Service.

[1335]

I'm very pleased to be able to introduce two former Ministers of Forests that are here: the Hon. Claude Richmond — and also, I note, still head of the Kamloops Rube Band — and Dave Zirnhelt, a former Minister of Forests as well. Thank you very much for joining us today.

Also in the gallery we have a number of former deputy ministers — Mike Apsey, who is here with his wife, Sharon. Al MacPherson, Bob Flitton and Bob Plecas have joined us — former Deputy Ministers of Forests. A former chief forester for the province for many years, Larry Pedersen, is with us as well.

Additionally, we have a large number of current Forest Service staff that are joining us as well. I won't introduce them all but just, I think, on behalf of all of us recognize the very important work and contribution that they all make and have made to the Forest Service in British Columbia and thank them.

On behalf of both sides of the House, thank you very much.

M. Farnworth: On this side of the House I, too, would like to welcome a former colleague, the former member for Cariboo South, who, as our colleague the minister said, was a former Forests Minister. As someone who worked with Dave for many, many years, I can tell you that he always could see the forest for the trees. So would the House please make him most welcome.

D. Horne: It's with great pleasure that I introduce 31 interns from the state of Washington, representing both the House and the Senate. They are accompanied by Samantha Barrera, the House civic education coordinator, as well as Korbie Jorgensen Haley, who is the representative of the Senate.

This will be the eighth year that our two legislative internship programs have participated in educational exchanges, and our legislative interns went to Olympia earlier in February. I will say that I spoke to the group earlier today and spoke about some of the issues on how our Legislature operates. One of the things I didn't mention was question period, so I'll leave it up to them to decide the validity of it.

I know, Mr. Speaker, that you spoke to them as well. I hope everyone will make them welcome.

M. Mungall: I would like to make a couple of introductions. The first one is to a dear friend to all of us on this side of the House. Susan Zirnhelt is joining us in the Legislature today, and all of the members on this side of the NDP benches would like to offer her a tremendous thank you for putting up with an MLA for so many years but also for caring for that MLA. We greatly appreciate all of the effort and care and love that she put into that.

I'd also like to offer a special welcome to the 31 interns who are here today from Washington State. I enjoyed my time with them this morning very much. They had many inquisitive questions, including: "What do you do when you're not in the House?"

Thank you very much for being here today. Thank you for your wonderful questions, and enjoy question period.

Hon. M. de Jong: Members of the House will know that Genome B.C., a non-profit research organization, has carved quite a reputation for itself as a sponsor of major research projects in areas of human health, forestry, fisheries, agriculture, bioenergy, mining and the environment.

I will have the pleasure to meet with their representatives, and I think all members are invited to meet with them later this evening. In the gallery today we have Ms. Suzanne Gill, who is from Genome B.C.'s staff, and the following researchers: Dr. Jennifer Gardy, Dr. Richard Hamelin and Dr. Helen Gurney-Smith. I hope all members will make these leading-edge researchers and Genome B.C. feel welcome in the precincts today.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

B.C. WINTER GAMES IN VERNON

E. Foster: Today I'm particularly proud to be the representative for Vernon-Monashee. On Thursday night I attended as the Premier opened the 2012 games, and last night I had the honour and privilege to be part of the closing ceremonies of the B.C. Winter Games in Vernon.

[ Page 9458 ]

[1340]

The games were comprised of 15 different sports, 160 officials, 292 coaches, 1,145 athletes and some 2,000 volunteers. The games were a massive undertaking for a community the size of Vernon.

Not all winter sports are team sports, but to host the Winter Games you need a team — a very strong team. So a special thank-you to the city of Vernon, the district of Coldstream, the regional district of the North Okanagan and school district 22 for their partnership. I want to thank the games corporate partners, including Jazz air, Global B.C., Black Press and the Vernon Morning Star , as well as the many businesses and companies within the community that took part.

I want to recognize British Columbia's stellar young winter athletes, who are of course the main attraction. I was incredibly proud of our young athletes from the Thompson-Okanagan, who finished second in medal standings with 80. Now, 80 medals is an impressive number, one to take pride in. But I am especially proud of another number. Games president Akbal Mund and his team of over 2,000 volunteers made these games possible and a huge success.

By volunteering and attending as many events as they could, the people of North Okanagan embraced their role as hosts and ambassadors with pride and enthusiasm. I share the enthusiasm. I share their pride. It was a great weekend for Vernon and all the athletes who competed, and I was so incredibly proud to take part, and to take

part in the closing ceremonies.

Congratulations to the Winter Games team from greater Vernon. As the chairman of the winter games society mentioned to me just before the closing, it was without a doubt the best Winter Games that have ever been on.

100 th ANNIVERSARY OF

B.C. FOREST SERVICE

B. Routley: Today we join with the B.C. Forest Service in celebrating 100 years of amazing service to British Columbians. In 1912 the B.C. government was working from three major precepts governing the B.C. timber industry: public ownership of the forest land; the timber resources shall be used to build up a home industry; the major revenues shall be collected when the timber is cut.

So 100 years ago, in 1912, William R. Ross, Minister of Lands, introduced second reading of the Forest Act with the following: "As we glance down the vista of the years to come — and turning from that vision of the future — we call to the world to witness that we legislate today not only for ourselves and for the needs of this day and this generation but also, and no less, for our children's children and for all posterity, that we may hand down to them their vast heritage of forest wealth, unexhausted and unimpaired."

If Minister William R. Ross, who said those words, could be transported through time, forward a hundred years until today, I would have to say to him: "If you go out in the woods today, you're in for a big surprise. In some pine beetle regions of B.C. you can't see much of the forest for lack of trees. Our B.C. Forest Service that you set up has morphed into a new kind of permitting agency.

"We do have hope left for our B.C. Forest Service for the next 100 years, and if we can listen and learn from the wonderful vision that you so eloquently laid before us 100 years ago and recommit ourselves to those values, we will all be better for it."

NOWRUZ CELEBRATIONS

R. Sultan: I am pleased to pay tribute to an upcoming festival celebrated by at least 300 million people around the world: Nowruz, or new day, the Persian New Year. Thought to have been founded in ancient times by Zoroaster himself, it is celebrated by Iranians as the first day of spring, a commemoration of life and the rebirth of the land. In the weeks leading up Nowruz, Iranians all over the world decorate their homes with haft sin , a traditional table setting symbolizing good health and prosperity.

While historians may debate the true age of the festival, what isn't debatable is its importance to the Persian community, about 70,000 of whom call British Columbia their home, many of them in my riding. Helping keep their traditions alive is, for example, the Canadian Iranian Foundation, led by my friend Nassreen Filsoof.

[1345]

The festival has become a yearly highlight on the North Shore, with feasts, dancing and the lighting of bonfires on Ambleside beach, over which the bravest are expected to jump.

Nowruz gives all British Columbians an opportunity to acknowledge the Persian community, its culture marked by pride, sophistication, education, entrepreneurial endeavour and 6,000 years of history. As flowers peep through the soil and winter comes to an end, we say to all our Iranian friends: "Happy New Year. Nowruz Mobarak ."

SUPPORT FOR REFUGEES

J. Brar: Imagine a single mother running to escape civil war with a baby in her arms, and two other children, ages three and four, running with her. They are in fear and don't know where they are going. They find their way to Canada, a country where they hope to have a future.

[ Page 9459 ]

from refugee camps with help from the United Nations.

There are many privately sponsored refugees in Surrey coming from war-torn countries. The sponsoring agent is responsible for providing living expenses and support for one year. In many cases this is not happening, as there are no clear accountability rules established for the sponsoring agent.

I met a young refugee who was 25 years old and who was sponsored by someone known to his brother. After arriving here in Canada, he never met his sponsor. He had applied for jobs but couldn't find one, and he has no income.

These refugees cannot apply for welfare for one year. Our compassion to open the door to these refugees fleeing from conflict areas is right, but leaving them in desperate situations once they arrive here is wrong. We need to do a better job.

SOWCHEA ELEMENTARY SCHOOL

ROAD SAFETY CAMPAIGN

J. Rustad: We all know that there's no greater gift than a child, but last November a group of compassionate children showed that they can give a great gift also. Students in a grade 6-7 class in Sowchea Elementary School in Fort St. James came together for a cause after their friend Nolan Alexis lost his life in a car accident as he ran across Highway 27 in the dark.

Even though he went to a different school, Nolan's friends at Sowchea Elementary were deeply affected by the tragedy. They decided to respond with a positive message and started the Be Seen Be Safe project. The goal was to hand every single child in Fort St. James, Necoslie, Tl'azt'en and Yekooche a reflective bracelet so that they would always be seen by drivers in the dark.

The grades 6 and 7 students ventured into completely new territory. They had to recruit RCMP officers to support their campaign, convince community service agencies of their cause and organize promotional events. The students raised enough money for 2,000 reflective bracelets. They visited schools in the area to give out the bracelets and delivered important information about how to stay safe on the walk home from school.

Not surprisingly, the efforts of this inspiring grade 6-7 class were rewarded with an incredible response from the community. Not only did their classmates join the traffic safety efforts, but soon people in the entire community, young and old, were wearing the bracelets. With the efforts of just one young, determined group of kids, many communities are able to remember their good friend Nolan Alexis and make sure that a similar tragedy does not repeat itself.

Please join me in congratulating the students and staff of Sowchea Elementary for such a great initiative.

PORT HANEY

NEIGHBOURHOOD CHANGE PROJECT

M. Sather: Like every community, Maple Ridge has its hot spots and troubled areas. One of these locations is Port Haney, an area south of the town core that is frequented by prostitutes, drug dealers and people living on the streets. The area is also known for its historical landmarks, such as the Haney Wharf on the Fraser River, and the old Haney House, where founder Thomas Haney and his family lived. There are many low-income families living in this area, trying to get by in these tough times, hoping to feel safe in their neighbourhood.

[1350]

In 2010 the Port Haney neighbourhood change initiative was born out of a community conversation of concerned citizens. With funding from the district of Maple Ridge, it is growing a number of solutions for the area. Co-chairs Chris Iversen and Yvonne Desabrais are focused on looking for ways that all Port Haney residents can live together positively.

The group serves to unite the work of the RCMP, bylaws, parks and recreation, the business improvement association, the Salvation Army Caring Place, businesses, residents and others in an effort to improve safety and well-being in the area. The Port Haney neighbourhood change initiative's vision is that of a connected, tight-knit neighbourhood with ongoing open communication and everyone living together peacefully and respectfully.

They are an action-oriented, all-hands-on-deck type of group and have special cleanup days where everyone gets involved. One solution they implemented was to provide better lighting to improve the safety of the area. While they do not tolerate negative behaviours, there is no intention to remove anyone.

As Yvonne Desabrais often says, everyone has a place setting at the table of life. With ongoing support from the community at large and financial support from the district of Maple Ridge, this important initiative will help to bring Port Haney to its full, vibrant potential.

Oral Questions

GOVERNMENT ACTION ON

DELAYS IN COURT PROCEEDINGS

A. Dix: My question is to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General. Recently we've seen — over the last year, really — a dramatic increase in the number of stays of proceedings in our court system. Over the weekend

[ Page 9460 ]

we learned of yet another case. Charges of aggravated assault were stayed in Duncan due to a 19-month delay. The individual involved was accused of sucker-punching, then beating a defenceless man as he lay on the ground. In her judgment Supreme Court Justice Miriam Gropper said that there's a point in time at which the court will no longer tolerate delay based on the plea of inadequate resources.

My question to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General is simple. What action is the government taking now? Not a review, but what action are they doing now to address this growing crisis in our justice system of increasing stays of proceedings?

Hon. S. Bond: As we have said numerous times in this Legislature, anytime there is a stay of proceedings is a concern for us, but we've also said that it's important to look at the context in which that decision is made.

In fact, crime has fallen by 26 percent in British Columbia since 2001. We continue to see the number of cases that actually end up in courtrooms across the province drop as well. Despite all of those statistics, this government has added in the last two years 23 new judges to the system. So fewer cases, lower crime rate, more sheriffs, more judges, and we still have backlogs and stays. We're going to ask some questions about that.

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

A. Dix: Well, as the minister will know — and I'm sure this is of concern to her as well — that's cold comfort for the victims of crime who go through this sort of process. I think it's cold comfort. The reality is that the B.C. Crown Counsel Association says that there are 2,500 current cases delayed by 18 months or more. They've also identified 5,000 cases delayed between a year and 18 months, and since we're talking about a review of six months, a lot of the those cases will be put into the red zone as well.

So I guess the question to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General is this. What action is being taken now? The minister talks about statistics. The reality is that her own report says, her own audit shows that the number of sitting hours by Provincial Court justices decreased by 3,500 over the last number of years. The question to the Minister of Justice is: what action is being taken now? Because these stays are happening now, what action is being taken now to address this question in the justice system?

[1355]

Hon. S. Bond: In fact, in British Columbia today we spend over a billion dollars in the justice system. At the same time, we continue to see the crime rate drop.

The members opposite might actually want to look at the context of how we are seeing the challenges in the justice system. There's been no change in the length of cases, for example. They have stayed relatively stable over time. And what has this government done? In fact, what we've done is appoint 23 new judges, and every time you add a judge in British Columbia, the cost to taxpayers can be up to $1.4 million per judge when you build in all of the supports necessary.

I think the taxpayers expect us to ask questions beyond simply: "Let's just put more money in. Let's just throw money at the problem and assume we can fix it." We're actually going to ask some tough questions and try to get to the bottom of the systemic issues in the justice system in British Columbia.

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

A. Dix: Well, in fairness, the Minister of Justice and Attorney General was not in this position during all this time. The reality of the last number of years is that as a matter of course the government wasn't filling vacancies. The result and the consequence is what we see today — average 16-month delays in Surrey and Chilliwack, 14-month delays in Vancouver and Port Coquitlam.

That is the reality of what's happening here in British Columbia. So this management of the system…. The minister says: "Well, we should ask questions." Why didn't they ask questions five years ago and four years ago and three years ago, before we got into these wait times?

My question to the minister is simple. It seems to me that we have a short-term crisis at the very least in our justice system that will lead to stays of proceedings. So we need action — presumably now. I'd like to ask the minister: what action is being taken now to address what is obviously a growing crisis in the justice system that is affecting victims and families and everyone working in the system?

Hon. S. Bond: Again, when we look at judicial stays in British Columbia, they account for1/10 of 1 percent. Now, every single one of those judicial stays is a concern to this government. In fact, that's why we continue to add judicial resources. We continue to add additional sheriffs. We continue to add court administrators. In fact, the recent budget saw over the next three years more than 200 million additional dollars.

The member opposite's answer to every question might be: "Let's just throw more money." As a matter of fact, I think the last time we checked, the rolling total was at about $6 billion of taxpayers' money. Where is the budget of the member opposite? How many millions of dollars does he want to just throw at the problem without really getting to the heart of the issues in the justice system?

L. Krog: We may not know whether the accused was guilty, but we certainly know that the victim was victim-

[ Page 9461 ]

ized in this case. Madam Justice Gropper states: "I also accept that the judicial case manager could not and would not provide earlier dates due to the lack of judicial and court resources. It is generally acknowledged the complement of Provincial Court judges was down by 16 to 17 judges in 2010 and 2011 and that there was a general reduction in court staff." She goes on to say: "I am satisfied that the limits of the institutional resources are the reason for the delay."

To the Minister of Justice, when is she going to stop this flood of serious cases being thrown out because of B.C. Liberal decisions to deliberately under-resource our criminal courts?

Hon. S. Bond: Just a brief reminder to the member opposite. Let me just quote: "A backlog of 20,000 court cases…." The member opposite can groan. The fact of the matter is: "A backlog of 20,000 court cases has some accused criminals walking free and Crown prosecutors planning to revolt." That was in 1998. And I have a list of quotes.

[1400]

It is time that we actually stop thinking that we could spend our way out of changes to the justice system and simply just say, "You know what? Taxpayers in British Columbia, let's just add more and more and more money," when the crime rate is going down and the number of cases is dropping.

In fact — and the member opposite knows well — it's time we talked about reforming a system that is badly in need of reform. That's the work that is underway. And you know what? I would love to have the members opposite stand up and offer some constructive and collaborative opinions about what we could do other than just pour more money into the system. We actually need to reform the system.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

L. Krog: I would like to think that the Minister of Justice and Attorney General would actually like to take some responsibility for the mess that exists today. Another review, another study, many months go by, and more and more serious criminal matters are being thrown out due to delays — all under the watch of the B.C. Liberals in the last 11 years.

The Provincial Court report from September 2011, called Justice Delayed , states that there are more than 2,500 current cases delayed by more than 18 months. Another 5,000 are delayed between a year and 18 months. So the question is simple: what is being done today to stop these potential 7,500 cases from being tossed?

This needs urgent attention. It's not about another study. What is the minister going to do today to stop the immediate crisis that the B.C. Liberals have caused in our justice system so that more defenceless individuals who lie in the streets won't have to turn to a court system that didn't give them any justice?

Hon. S. Bond: Let's remember that judicial stays in British Columbia account for 1/10 of 1 percent. Does every one of those matter? Of course they do. But British Columbia is not alone. In fact, recently many of us heard the report that was provided by economist Don Drummond. In that report about Ontario's challenges…. And, boy, the good thing is that in British Columbia we are in a far better position economically, because of the foundation that's been set by this government, than they are in Ontario.

Here's what Don Drummond said about the justice system in Ontario. The report says: "The justice sector will need to transform its service delivery and find efficiencies, while ensuring public confidence."

For far too long the answer has been: "Let's just call on taxpayers to put more money into the system. Let's not ask the tough questions about crime rates going down and the number of cases dropping. Let's just throw more money at it." We are going to continue to add resources where appropriate and when possible. That's exactly what our budget did, but we're also going to have a dialogue about how to change a system that's in need of change.

SENIORS CARE CASE IN

BURNABY HOSPITAL AND GOVERNMENT

ACTION ON SENIORS CARE

R. Chouhan: Dorothy Asher is an 84-year-old who recently suffered a stroke. She was treated at Burnaby Hospital and then told she must wait to be placed in residential care. On January 2 at midnight Ms. Asher was moved out into the hallway, and that's where she would spend the next 11 nights — hardly a dignified treatment for one of our seniors.

The Ombudsman's report showed that the Liberal government has failed seniors in the province. When will they start treating our seniors with the respect they deserve? And why was a frail senior stuck for 11 days in a hospital hallway?

Hon. M. de Jong: I actually had occasion to visit Burnaby Hospital just several weeks prior to the time that the member is referring to. I had an opportunity to see the work being undertaken by the dedicated professionals there. There is no question that particularly in the winter at hospitals across British Columbia there are pressures. Flu season arrives; more people attend.

[1405]

I won't speak to the specifics of the case the member has referred to, but I will say this: the government has done a tremendous amount in working with health authorities and community partners to provide thousands of additional beds and more options for seniors in need

[ Page 9462 ]

of care.

Mr. Speaker, 11 years ago the average wait for someone discharged from a hospital was about a year. It's now down to three months, and we're hoping to drive it even further. So we're working hard. We're working with our partners, and the seniors action plan is our commitment to continue to work hard in that direction.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

R. Chouhan: The situation at Burnaby Hospital is not only bad during the winter months. This is ongoing. People have to wait for hours and hours there.

Ms. Asher was in hospital for more than three months. The Ombudsperson recommended that assessments be complete within two weeks. Instead of being properly assessed for long-term care, she bounced between two different hospitals, including being stuck in the hallway for 11 nights. Dorothy Asher is just one of the latest victims of this government's failure.

Why are seniors continuing to pay the price for the Liberal government's mismanagement of health care in British Columbia?

Hon. M. de Jong: Well, I wish the member, in endeavouring to make his point, would at least acknowledge the unprecedented levels of investment that have taken place in health care facilities in his own backyard — in Fraser Health.

I mean, must I go through the list? Whether it's a new hospital and cancer treatment centre that the member's party promised the people of the central and eastern Fraser Valley for ten years and never delivered on and that's now built and operating; whether it's the Jim Pattison outpatient centre in Surrey that is providing a quality and level of services unprecedented — heretofore unknown — in British Columbia or elsewhere in Canada…. Or the single largest investment in a health care facility in the history of the province — it's Surrey Memorial Hospital.

The total number of residential care beds has increased by over 1,500. We're doing a good job, and we're going to do more.

CALL FOR SENIORS ADVOCATE

K. Conroy: And in spite of all of that, Dorothy Asher spent 11 days in the hallway and 3½ months in a hospital waiting to get into residential care. That's just wrong. That's totally unacceptable.

The only reason she got out of the hallway and got into residential care is because of her family. Her family were strong advocates for her.

What about the seniors who don't have strong advocates? How long are they going to have to wait in hospital at $1,200 a night as opposed to $200? How long are they going to have to wait in a hallway — 11 days? How many days?

What we need in this province is a seniors advocate. There's a bill on the order paper. We don't have to wait for months, perhaps years, before the minister's plan brings in an advocate. We could have it now. So when will the minister…?

How about some cooperation? Let's get the minister to stand up today and say yes, he'll cooperate with the opposition, and let's get the seniors advocate in now.

Hon. M. de Jong: I get the member's enthusiasm for the legislative mechanism that she has tabled in the chamber. But what I said a couple of weeks ago I will repeat for the member's benefit.

[1410]

There are times when, despite what we do, seniors will find themselves in difficulty, and the government has concluded and agrees that a seniors advocate is an appropriate step to take. Sometimes that difficulty involves the senior's relationship with the state, a health authority or a government body, but sometimes it does not.

We only have to look down the street to the 90-year-old-plus gentleman, the veteran who got into trouble, who had a deposit unfairly withheld. We believe the seniors advocate should have the authority and the jurisdiction to look into those matters as well, so we are going to consult with the very people who have an interest in this matter. We are going to take their views into account, and we are going to craft a seniors advocate who can provide a service to all seniors in British Columbia when they need it.

FOREST INDUSTRY JOBS

AND LOG EXPORT POLICY

D. Routley: We know that Liberal forest policies are costing millworkers their jobs; 35,000 jobs have been lost from the industry under this government. Now we're seeing that forest policies are also costing the companies money.

Coastland Wood mill in my constituency invested $600,000 to improve their log-peeling capabilities, to take half a second off per log. They needed to improve that efficiency when dealing with second-tier logs because high-value logs are being shipped offshore. More than 40 percent of all logs cut on the coast were exported last year. Businesses are doing what they can to create jobs, but they're being hamstrung by failed B.C. Liberal forest policies.

What is the minister going to do to ensure that those B.C. logs stay in B.C. to create and sustain B.C. jobs?

Hon. S. Thomson: In terms of the log export policy, I know we would all like to work towards making sure that as much as possible of domestic logs and as much as

[ Page 9463 ]

possible activity takes place here in our mills in British Columbia.

But let's be clear. The log export policy, the balanced policy that we have — less than 10 percent of the total harvest here in British Columbia — is a policy that is creating jobs here in British Columbia. It's one that's essential to ensure that uneconomic stands are harvested and that we continue to have a full level of economic activity.

It is a policy that is creating jobs here in British Columbia, one that is supporting forest-dependent communities across this province. It's one that we'll continue to work on to ensure that the surplus test that's in place, which is applied to ensure that when the mills need those domestic logs, they go to those mills…. That surplus test is there. We will continue to administer the balanced policy we have here in British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

D. Routley: Well, that's just not working for B.C. workers or B.C. companies. The minister told the House last May that there was a review underway to see if the quote balance was right around raw log exports. As near as I can figure, that's the third review. After the last two reviews raw log exports actually increased. Hans De Visser from Coastland — he's the manager — said he'd add another shift if he could get the wood. He says if things don't change, he'll be run out of business.

That's the B.C. Liberal no-jobs plan in action. Companies like Coastland can't afford another review if it means more raw logs are going to be exported.

Will the minister finally commit to ensuring that leading B.C. companies like Coastland can get access to B.C. logs?

Hon. S. Thomson: Let's be clear. What the policy currently provides for ensures that in this market uneconomic stands are harvested. That is creating logs for both the export market and for the domestic market. That's the balance that's in place. Harvest levels are up. Forest product exports are up $9.95 billion. Lumber exports are up 7.3 million cubic metres — over $1 billion in sales. That's the equivalent of 18 mills. That's the equivalent of 9,000 jobs here in British Columbia. That's what's keeping people employed.

[1415]

It's ensuring that we have the balance to ensure that those uneconomic stands are harvested to ensure that we get the full range of harvesting activity. It's the policy that's creating jobs for loggers, for truckers here in this province. It's one that we will continue to administer. And as I said, less than 10 percent of the total harvest in British Columbia is log exports.

FOREST PRACTICES AND

RANCHING INDUSTRY WATER ISSUES

L. Popham: Last Tuesday I raised the issue of how mismanagement of a resource in Twinflower Creek watershed is impacting ranchers in the Big Creek area. Randy Saugstad, whose ranch I was talking about, was watching question period with other ranchers facing the same issue. They were so happy that their issue had made it into the Legislature, and they were hoping for some answers. Imagine how horrified they were when instead the Premier rose and delivered a cheap political attack, sidestepping a serious issue that is threatening their livelihood.

My question is to the Minister of Forests and Lands: will he do what the Premier wouldn't do and cut the showboating and the phony answers and work with the ranchers in the Big Creek area to ensure that their needs are being met?

Hon. S. Thomson: Just to be clear to the member opposite — and thank you for the question — that's exactly what we are doing. We are working with the ranchers in that area, addressing the impact of harvesting practices there. It's had a Forest Practices Board review.

The Forest Practices Board review confirmed that the harvesting activities were not causing the impact. There is a whole range of issues in that area, including overall drought conditions and things. Our staff — the staff in the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations — are working with the ranchers to ensure they get the water supplies that they need.

I've had the chance to have a conversation with the rancher that the member opposite references, and we will continue to work with them in that area to address the concerns that they are bringing forward.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

L. Popham: Let me read from the letter Randy sent to the Premier following her performance in question period last week: "If our hundred-year-old ranch is worthless to your government, would you please send a letter stating that? We would rather quit now instead of hanging here with no water and suffering a slow death." This case has been subject to two Forest Practices Board reports, with recommendations that were ignored. Nothing has been done.

Again, to the minister. These ranchers are looking for the Liberals to take action and protect their access to water. I have their phone numbers right here. Will he call them today and help them find a way to move forward?

Hon. S. Thomson: As I said to the member opposite in response to the first question, we are working with the ranchers in that area, addressing those concerns. We're

[ Page 9464 ]

working with the beetle action coalition in that area to address those issues.

As I've said, I have had a conversation with the rancher. I'm prepared to have another conversation with him if that would help, and I'm quite prepared to continue the dialogue. We had a very informed discussion when I had the opportunity to talk to him. I will continue to do that.

As I said, our staff in the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations are continuing to work with the ranchers in that area. We recognize the importance of the ranching and cattle industry to British Columbia, and we'll continue to work with ranches in that area to make sure they have a viable future in that region.

CONSULTATION WITH FIRST NATIONS

ON SALE OF GOVERNMENT LAND

S. Fraser: So 100 properties, $706 million — a massive Liberal sell-off of public land. Clearly, the Liberal government put about as much thought into this scheme as they usually do. This shortsighted fire sale of valuable properties triggers obligations in terms of First Nations negotiations or their right of first refusal.

To the Minister of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation: what lands are available, and when did you plan to tell First Nations about it?

[1420]

Hon. M. Polak: I'm sure the member well knows the obligations to consult that we have as the Crown when we are disposing of Crown assets. We take those very seriously. As the Finance Minister has outlined, there will be quite a comprehensive process to identify which properties, which lands. I want to assure the member that Crown real estate assets that have been offered for treaty are not a part of this asset sale.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

S. Fraser: The minister might want to read up on case law which says repeatedly that the onus is on the Crown to consult with First Nations, even if there's no specific land claim filed. So this is not good enough. Esquimalt First Nation lawyer Gary Yabsley said: "The proposal is for the province to divest itself of hundreds of millions of dollars worth of land. That's a significant value in land to which First Nations will invariably say they have an interest."

Again, to the Minister of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation: what consultation took place with First Nations before this government announced a $706 million budget plan to liquidate public property?

Hon. M. Polak: I'll repeat for the member. He well knows that we as a Crown have a duty to consult with respect to the disposition of Crown assets. We take that responsibility very seriously. Once the properties have been identified, then of course we will engage in the appropriate consultation. But I would suggest to the member that it's quite illogical to suggest that we could consult on specific lands when we don't know what they might be yet.

I can only assume that it's a result of the member being disappointed that they can't take credit….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. M. Polak: What the member is really upset about is that at the end of the day, we have such an improved relationship with First Nations that we now have treaties finalized with seven First Nations. We have more than 70 First Nations in forest consultation and revenue-sharing agreements. We have mining revenue-sharing agreements. We have First Nations finally taking

part in the economy of British Columbia, and that's what the member objects to.

[End of question period.]

J. Horgan: I seek unanimous consent to move Bill M203, Representative for Seniors Act, in the name of the member for Kootenay West.

Leave not granted.

Orders of the Day

Hon. R. Coleman: We will continue the budget debate this afternoon.

Budget Debate

(continued)

R. Howard: It's my pleasure to continue my response to the budget. I had the pleasure of rising last Thursday late afternoon and let up early because of time, so I'm pleased to continue today.

[1425]

I spoke Thursday. Just to briefly recap where I was, I talked about the world context that we find ourselves in where there are some significant economic problems all around the world. I highlighted B.C.'s very strong financial position as illustrated or demonstrated by our debt-to-GDP, which is about 18 percent, and when we compare that to where Canada is, at roughly double that; where the States are, at roughly double Canada, up at 72 percent; and of course with the worst of all stories — at least those that have surfaced today — Greece up at 150 percent.

[ Page 9465 ]

I spoke briefly about our Finance Committee tour and the listening exercise we went through in the fall of 2011 that served as feedback to the Finance Minister in preparation for his budget.

I talked briefly about the local context where we have a population that is basically feeling taxes are as high as they like them. They don't want to pay more taxes. We have demand for services that is increasing, and we have other challenges, such as infrastructure that is aging, which must be replaced. So we have lots of pressures on budget, and we have a population that is tired of paying high taxes. I spoke just briefly about one of the things that impacts my riding — and, as a result, the whole province — which is the elimination of the fuel tax.

[D. Black in the chair.]

I talked about contrasting actions of government and those actions that the opposition put forward, because I think it's always good for the voters in British Columbia to understand what the differences are between government and the NDP opposition.

I think I left off with a confirmation that the Budget 2012 reconfirms our government's commitment to balance the budget by '13-14, and I spoke to the confidence that that gives investors and job creators in this province. I also drew back to the parallel of why I was rather proud of this budget, because it reminded me of my budget. It reminded me of all of our budgets. It reminded me of budgets of a typical British Columbian family, and that is really that when there are downward pressures on income or incomes are reduced, we must manage our expenses accordingly.

Where I left off, and I'll pick up again, is in offering some contrasts between different things that this government has done to get us where we are — in a rather stable financial position and a safe harbour for investors when compared to other economies in the world.

The first thing that I'll talk about is budget targets. There is lots of discussion, and I hear it on a fairly regular basis in the House, where the opposition makes claims that they are more prudent fiscal managers, more responsible fiscal managers than the government. I find that gets me a little upset when you look at history. We talk about budget targets, and we look at what this government has done. We've met nine out of ten targets.

Nobody is happy that we missed the one, but when we put that in the context of the rest of the world, I don't know if there was a jurisdiction almost anywhere on the planet that actually met their budget targets because of the worldwide financial turmoil caused by what's happening in the States, in Greece, in France and in many other jurisdictions around the world.

What did the NDP opposition do when they were in power for ten years in the '90s? They hit two out of ten. So they missed eight, hit two, and we hit nine. So I want to highlight to British Columbia taxpayers the record of this government as compared to the NDP opposition.

We look at debt management plans. We find that the NDP opposition didn't hit a single debt management plan out of the five that they put forward in the '90s.

Interjections.

R. Howard: Those are the numbers, my friends. Read 'em and weep.

[1430]

I want to come back to…. We do hear lots of noise about who's right on this issue as to which government was or is the best fiscal manager for our economy. I turn to our credit ratings and look at the bond-rating agencies that are independent, arm's-length, non-emotional viewers of the province's record.

I've done some research and looked at the history of the province's credit rating dating back to the '90s. In the '90s we find the language replete with stuff like in May of '93: CBRS, which is the Canadian Bond Rating Service, changes outlook from stable to negative. That was in May of '93.

April of '95, Moody's downgrades British Columbia's foreign currency rating. November of '96, CBRS revises B.C.'s outlook rating to AA negative from AA stable. May 1997, S&P downgrades rating. April '98, CBRS downgrades B.C.'s rating. May 1998, DBRS revises the outlook from stable to negative. September '98, CBRS revises to a negative from stable. January 1999, S&P revises to negative from stable.

The story is pretty clear. So I start looking at what happened in the decade of this government, and I find dramatically different language. November 2004, S&P upgrades British Columbia. March 2005, DBRS upgrades British Columbia. March 2005, Moody's upgrades British Columbia. April 2006, S&P upgrades British Columbia. October 2006, Moody's upgrades British Columbia.

The story goes on, and it is a story that keeps improving for the decade of 2001 to 2011. Why is that important? Well, it's extremely important because the credit rating impacts our province's ability to borrow money. In a typical year the province might spend about $6 billion on capital projects, so borrowing about $6 billion to build roads, bridges, hospitals and schools.

A single downgrade from a triple-A to an AA-plus might cost us five basis points, and on $6 billion, that's about $3 million annually. So over the normal ten-year life of government financing, that single downgrade could cost us about $30 million that would be better spent on programs and services for British Columbians. So it's a pretty stark story, it's a pretty dramatic story, and it's a great success story for our government. I'm very proud of that.

We go to some other issues and try and contrast some differences. The one I have was just recently on the floor

[ Page 9466 ]

of this House, beginning of this week. The member for Chilliwack brought forward a motion to support the net zero initiative the government is asking unions contracted by the province to live under. So especially in consideration of the difficulties and the negotiations that are happening now with government and the BCTF, I thought that that is probably one of the more pressing issues facing government today.

We brought that onto the floor of this House for debate, and the NDP opposition would not touch it. They would not debate that issue, arguably one of the most important issues facing us today. So we have on this side a government that deals with difficult issues, makes the difficult decisions and forges forward.

During the last week of debate we've also heard both, I think, the Premier and the Health Minister challenge the opposition to bring forward their budget, and the Leader of the Official Opposition at one point said that they had a costed budget. Our own government's costing of that indicates that it would add cost pressures to the provincial treasury, somewhere in excess of $6 billion. So again, on this side, a difficult year, difficult times.

[1435]

We brought a budget forward to meet those times, and the opposition once again are silent on the issue, not willing to bring forward their plan for the province of British Columbia.

I tie back in to a story that I remember from the 2009 campaign, and that had to do with the corporate capital tax. The opposition at that time had a budget that had a line item in it — last page of the platform, as I recall — called CCT, which I would take would mean a corporate capital tax. So I will tell, just briefly, my own corporate capital tax story, where I witnessed firsthand 65 jobs walk out of my office, never to exist.

We were going to build a seniors home in my community. We had secured the location. We were working with investors that happened to be offshore. We brought our advisory teams together — the lawyers, the accountants and the tax lawyers — and we all sat in a room and were going through this deal that, as I say, would have created somewhere between 60 and 65 jobs in my community.

When we got to the corporate capital tax explanation that existed at the time courtesy of the opposition when they were in power, we stumbled. We couldn't explain adequately to our potential investor just exactly what the corporate capital tax was. He just didn't get the concept that government was going to take back a little bit of his capital. Whether he made any money or not, the government was going to take back a little bit of his capital every year. So the meeting digressed very quickly, he ended up leaving the room, and 65 jobs left with him. That was a sad day in British Columbia.

The Fraser Institute has a calculator that they call the Tax Freedom Day calculator. Right now it indicates that British Columbians work till, plus or minus, June 6 before they have finished paying all their taxes. So the average British Columbian works almost the first six months of this year, of any year, to pay fees, levies, charges to the government, and at that point they start working for themselves.

It got me wondering: if June 6, 2011, is the current Tax Freedom Day, what did it look like back in 1999? I went back and had a look, and the Tax Freedom Day in 1999, after ten years of government by the opposition, was July 5. So over the course of a decade we've managed to march that back by a month, which is a very remarkable thing.

There are a whole bunch of other contrasts that I would like to make, but I see I'm running out of time. So I would really leave us with this, and that is that a decade of strong fiscal management by this government — represented, again, by Budget 2012; difficult decisions in difficult times — has created a very remarkable opportunity for British Columbia moving forward. We see that in terms of the success we're having in Asia, making connections in Asia, diversifying our economy and selling our exports in Asia.

I'm very, very pleased with this prudent budget. It maintains B.C. as a safe harbour for investment, both local and international. I would think that the future for British Columbia is very bright, and I encourage all British Columbians to show their support for this budget.

L. Popham: It's a pleasure to rise in the House today to take my 30 minutes to discuss the budget that was presented by this government.

I sit on this side of the House, and I listen to the words coming from the other side, and mostly what I hear is, blah, blah, blah. That's because I don't know what these phrases you're using mean on the ground. I don't understand what they mean on the ground, because when I'm talking to people face to face, none of what you're saying is reflected back at me. None of it is….

Deputy Speaker: Through the Chair, please. To remind the member: through the Chair.

L. Popham: Sorry. Thank you.

None of it's reflected back at me. The stories I'm hearing…. None of it reflects that we're moving forward, that we're fiscally responsible. There are people that are suffering daily in British Columbia.

[1440]

There are people that are suffering because of the budget, and there are people that are suffering because of bad policy. When you combine the two of those things, after 11 years there are long-term, serious problems in this province.

I represent Agriculture in my critic role, so I'm going to take my time to talk about some of the things that are actually happening on the ground. Through the last

[ Page 9467 ]

two question periods I have presented a serious, serious case, and what I have gotten back is — first of all — political bantering from the Premier, which was absolutely embarrassing.

Then today I've asked a minister to make contact with these ranchers that have been trying to make contact with this government for two years, and the minister stood up and said that he has made contact. That's not the story that I got on the ground and on the phone five minutes before question period. I don't know what that answer means, either. It's absolutely worthless words coming from that side of the House.

Just so that I've got your attention…. I know I've got your attention….

Deputy Speaker: Member, through the Chair. Please remember to speak through the Chair.

L. Popham: Sorry.

Through the Chair: I've got the attention of the government side of the House. I'm going to take this time to lay out exactly what these ranchers are saying.

I'm going to start with the first rancher who has corresponded with the Premier and with me. Like I said, I talked to him five minutes before the question period started, so I know that there has been no conversation since the Premier stood up last week in such an embarrassing way. To this day I have been the one speaking with this rancher.

"Dear Hon. Christy Clark:

"My name is Randy Saugstad, and I'm a cattle rancher in Big Creek, west of Williams Lake.

"As a result…."

Deputy Speaker: Member.

L. Popham: Yes?

Deputy Speaker: We don't refer to members of the House by their given name.

L. Popham: Even if it's in a…?

Deputy Speaker: Yes, at any time. Thank you.

L. Popham: Okay. All right.

"Dear Premier:

"My name is Randy Saugstad, and I'm a cattle rancher in Big Creek, west of Williams Lake.

"As a result of logging upstream of my ranch, I have had two issues with water for 21 of 22 years I have been here. The last two years, as a result of Tolko logging cutting permit 65x, I've had severe problems. This last summer one-third of my place was under water for 2½ months, and now, for the second winter in a row, we have had no water with which to water our 150 head of cattle.

"Last winter we had enough snow for the cows to lick and survive on, although this was not very satisfactory when it starts to thaw and the meltwater starts getting polluted with manure and urine. The cows can't survive it, and the baby cows do not have enough antibodies, and they get sick, sometimes to the point of death.

"This winter we have no snow, so I'm forced to haul water to my cows. I have had to cut down trees to get water from a lake where I take 1,500 gallons of water a day.

"I have spent countless hours in the last two years trying to get some resolution to this problem that is a result of FRPA and the licences for stewardship plans not addressing other values. The Forest Practices Board has written two reports on my issue, and both times the government has ignored their recommendations.

"I don't know if you can appreciate how disappointed I was on Tuesday when you ignored the member for Saanich South's questions in the Legislature and went on to a completely different issue. That was a culmination of two years of my effort, all to end in nothing.

"My request for you is: if our 100-year-old ranch is worthless to your government, would you please send me a letter stating that? We would rather quit now, instead of hanging here with no water and suffering a slow death from the existing and planned logging that is coming at us.

"Sincerely,

"Randy Saugstad."

That's the story that I've heard. And it's not just Randy. I have been getting letter after letter after letter from ranchers in the Cariboo talking about the same issues. The problem is that the logging that's being done in that area is impacting other areas. It's impacting tourism. It's impacting trapping. It's impacting agriculture.

There are a lot of other values that are represented there in our province that we apparently believe strongly in. Yet for some reason forestry overrides everything else, and then we see some very bad results happening, and these are long-term results.

Interjection.

L. Popham: The member across the way is talking about jobs. He said: "It's about jobs."

Is agriculture not considered a job in this province? Because it seems to me that is the whole problem. That's the bottom line. There is no value on agriculture in this province by the B.C. Liberal government. You can see that because we are the province with the least support of agriculture of any province in Canada, and it continues to drop.

Why is that? We like to have agriculture in the province, but we don't like to support it, and we don't consider it important in our economy.

[1445]

I've had many letters come in to me. I can tell you that there's a list of ranches in that area. I'm going to read the ranchers' names — I have a list of names and the ranch names — because I think it's important that this goes on the record, that these people are trying to contact the government to explain a very serious issue.

We have Scott and Carol McCullough of Sky Ranch; Walt and Elsie Mychaluk from Bell Ranch; Gord and Diana Puhallo of Twilight Ranch; Bob Russell, Anvil Mountain Ranch; Eric and Debbie Davies, Teepee Heart Guest Ranch; Drew and Audrey Burke of Vetan Ranch;

[ Page 9468 ]

and Randy Saugstad of Saugstad Ranch. These are just a few of the people that have contacted me with very serious issues. Their livelihood is at stake and has been at stake ever since this started to happen to them.

Here's an interesting e-mail that I got from Sky Ranch:

"Forest Practices Board says if you log 30 percent of a watershed you have a water problem. So far, 70 percent of the watershed has been logged. We have domestic and irrigation water licences. So far the problems we had are: no water, flooding, erosion, sediment problems, the creek changed channels, an irrigation ditch we can't control the water on because of a logging road channelling water into it.

"The logging that we have objected to here amounts to less than $40,000 revenue to government. If our ranch could have had survived it, it would pay the government over $600,000 in property tax, range fees, water licences by the time new trees are ready to harvest again. We think British Columbia's forests should be managed by the British Columbia Forest Service."

That is from Scott and Carol McCullough of Sky Ranch.

Is anybody listening to Scott and Carol? So $40,000 was retrieved from the pine beetle logging. They could have offered $600,000 in property tax. As far as revenue and looking at the situation through economic eyes, I think this government has actually failed.

I've got another letter, from Teepee Heart Ranch. They contacted me last week.

"We bought the Teepee Heart Ranch two years ago and have everything to lose. We rely on the forest for our guest ranch business. If they keep cutting trees in Big Creek, we will have nowhere to take our guests on rides without riding through clearcuts — not exactly a wilderness tourist attraction. We recently flew over these areas where we would ride around on our ranch, and it was devastating to see. You have permission to use our ranch for your debate, and I can be contacted right now."

So if anybody on the other side is concerned about Teepee Ranch, they are able to be contacted right now.

I've got letter after letter after letter. Now, after Randy sent his letter last week to the Premier, the Premier's office responded with this letter:

"Thank you for your e-mail regarding logging operations and water supply issues that you have been experiencing on your ranch in Big Creek near Williams Lake. We appreciate the time that you have taken to share some details of your current situation with us, and we are sorry to hear of the challenges that you have faced in your ranching operation.

"Your correspondence has been forwarded to the Minister of Lands and Forests. The Minister of Lands and Forests will respond to your e-mail and address your specific concerns directly. You will be hearing from the minister in this regard at the earliest opportunity."

When is the earliest opportunity? At what point does the minister think this is an emergency? There is no water — 1,500 gallons a day trucked in for 150 head of cattle. I thought the government actually valued the cattle industry in this province. I think that the cattle industry feels that they are worthy of being valued, because the amount of money they bring into British Columbia is pretty big.

As far as agriculture being an economic driver, I think the government should have a meeting with the cattle association because they'll tell you how valuable they are. In fact, we need them in this province. They're looking at international markets because that's apparently part of the B.C. Liberal jobs plan, but that's what you have to do when the domestic market has all but been abandoned.

[1450]

That's what the B.C. Liberals have done with agriculture. They have abandoned the domestic market here at home, so our ranchers go out and they have to market their products internationally. Actually, that makes them a lot more vulnerable. I'd say: build your domestic market first. Once we're stable, then you look overseas. But you guys are.... The government is doing it….

Deputy Speaker: Through the Chair, please.

L. Popham: Thank you.

The government is doing it in the opposite way. It's disappointing, because we are going to lose an industry that has been fighting for the last 11 years to survive. The concerns fall on deaf ears every single time.

It's not just the ranchers that are speaking out on this issue, and I've been trying to bring the attention to the government. It has also been brought to the attention of West Coast Environmental Law. In fact, they know Randy Saugstad's story very well.

West Coast Environmental Law believes there is going to be much more conflict in the province with regards to the pine beetle recovery program. There is going to be much more conflict because, as it stands now, that recovery project takes precedence over any other values in the area. So it's not just going to be in the Cariboo, but it's going to be in other areas.

A quote that I got from someone who works with West Coast Law says: "My hope is that the forestry planning in the province will recognize this conflict with agriculture and ranchers and begin to reflect the importance of acknowledging downstream effects of harvesting of the beetle-kill wood. "

Two Forest Practices Board reports have put forward recommendations. One is for a hydrological study before any other logging were to proceed. I'm not sure why we didn't get a commitment to do just that. Why were we not given the commitment that a hydrological study would go forward when we are depending on all hands on deck as far as jobs go in this province? We know it's tough times.

We should value all jobs in the province, and the agriculture industry has been there for so long. It seems like something that you would fall back on, as something that's guaranteed, because luckily, all the farmers haven't walked away. They're still trying. We've got hundred-year-old ranches that are now grappling with the fact that they don't have water to survive. So one of the things that ranchers have brought forward is that maybe we should look at something like an agricultural water reserve. I think that's actually critically important.

The jobs plan, the budget — everything that is put forward never actually gives much weight to agriculture. It's

[ Page 9469 ]

not really a hot topic with the government. They sort of give it a pat on the head like it's a pet of the province. You know: "We'd like to have it, but we'd like to have it over there." So the budget goes down, down, down. As far as an agricultural water reserve idea goes, I think it's quite important, because….

Interjection.

L. Popham: Now the member across the way is trying to converse with me, and that's fair. The member usually tries to converse with me when I talk about agriculture, and he'll get excited when we talk about gas and oil exploration, which is in his area.

That brings up a pretty good point. When we are talking about the future of gas and oil exploration — and we all know that fracking takes a lot of water — what's going to take precedence? Is it going to be fracking, or is it going to be agriculture?

That is something that we need to have a dispute resolution process mechanism in place, because this is a conversation that we are going to have more and more of. As climate change happens, as our water situations change, it's always going to be agriculture against — what? In the eyes of this government, agriculture is dead last every time, so it's pretty predictable what will happen if this government stays in power.

Now, the Forest Practices Board reports are pretty interesting. There have been two reports done on Randy's ranch. Through the exploration of these reports, you can't say that the logging of the pine beetle wood is specifically and the only cause of the water problems, but it's in the mix. I think they are concluding that there is climate change, there are weather patterns, and there is salvage harvesting. That's the mix of things.

[1455]

But one of the things we can change is the way that we're salvaging the pine beetle wood. If it's going to have a detrimental effect on other industries and other values in that area, that's something that we have to look at. How many reports does the government need? We know they are a fan of reviewing things. How many reviews are there? Are there 40, 50? It's endless. If you have a question, let's review.

We've got studies to back it up. We can probably conclude, looking at the studies that were already done, and follow recommendations, especially from the Forest Practices Board. The Forest Practices Board is there to make recommendations to government. So if you are not actually following recommendations, I'm not really sure what the point of the Forest Practices Board is. You just want them to continue to make reports to ignore, I gather.

I'm going to read you some quotes from the Forest Practices Board.

Deputy Speaker: Member, please. I've had to remind you several times. Would you please not talk about "you" or "you guys," and make your remarks through the Chair. Thank you.

L. Popham: Thank you. I apologize.

The Forest Practices Board really does acknowledge that there are different values acting at the same time. The decision-maker or the gatekeeper should not only be concerned with the bigger question of the total footprint of the land but also of the effect one tenure holder may have on another.

As the mountain pine beetle salvage program has unfolded, there are frequently issues where the enormity of the salvage effort is affecting the lives and livelihoods of other users of the public lands. I think those are quite strong words. If we can't take that….

The Minister of Forests and Lands sort of indicated that there has been an ongoing conversation with the ranching community around this issue. It is being addressed, and there are some solutions that are being looked at. As far as I understand, the ranchers weren't even invited to a meeting up in Williams Lake when the minister was there. So they don't feel that they are actually being listened to. In fact, when I spoke with the rancher just minutes before question period, there had been no response. So they feel quite slighted, and they feel that they don't matter.

It would not be surprising if they did walk away from the industry — 150 head of cattle right now, just one ranch. That's pretty good. If we put that into our domestic market, if we put that into government procurement, government purchasing, that's a lot of meat that would go into our B.C. food supply. That's what agriculture is all about, actually. It's about food. When we talk about it….

We hear a lot from the government side of the House. They want to know what our plan is. Well, as far as I'm concerned, if you haven't figured out a lot of our plan, then the government has not been listening. The government has not been listening. So I can tell you what part of our plan is, and that's that we want to grow B.C. We want to grow B.C., which means we actually support agriculture. We support agriculture. We have got plans to do so.

Interjections.

L. Popham: They're getting upset, which is always a good sign. The government is getting upset.

We want to grow B.C., we want to feed B.C., and we want to buy B.C. That's what our plan is — anything to do with farming and agriculture, supporting ranchers, making sure that farming is viable, protecting our agricultural land reserve, protecting our water supply for ranchers and making sure that we have some sort of dispute resolution mechanism in place so that when farmers actually have to fight to farm in this province, there is a place to do it. So that's part of it right there.

[ Page 9470 ]

We also, in our plan, would fund extension service programs properly and not gut them as the government has done. The government has decided that extension services, even though every stakeholder group in the province values them and depended on them…. You can look at agrologists. You could look at everything that has been cut from the Ministry of Agriculture.

[1500]

The government doesn't believe that that is a detriment. The government thinks that they are being fiscally responsible, when actually the government is being absolutely irresponsible in long-term thinking — absolutely irresponsible.

If the government were to go out, as I've been going out, and talk to every stakeholder group…. That's what you have to do. Agriculture is varied. You have to talk to every stakeholder group, and every single one talks about the value of extension services. That's an investment in the future of agriculture.

The government side of the House…. We had an organic extension officer. It was worth about $100,000. The government decided that that wasn't worth investing in, so that program was dropped last year.

Our plan. An NDP government would fund an organic extension officer, which would actually strengthen conventional extension officers as well. Washington State has seven organic extension officers, because Washington seems to value agriculture much more than the government of B.C.

[D. Horne in the chair.]

A $100,000 commitment to a sector of agriculture that is actually growing, is strong and is what consumers want is a very smart investment in the future. I know there's one thing that the government can't do, and that's argue that they believe in agriculture more than we do, because we do. We believe in agriculture more. That's why there's an agricultural land reserve. That's why we had funded a commission to take care of that.

The government underfunded the commission so much that it couldn't even do the job it was given to do. A little bit of funding came back for that last year. That is in the budget, and I'm glad to see that.

But when you have a deficit…. Agriculture is something that you have to tend. If you don't fund it properly, if you don't have the right policies in place, what happens is that it basically starts to lack nutrients, just like a crop. As the years go on, you can't produce as much, because the deficit starts to show in what you're harvesting. That's what we see with agriculture in B.C.

The farmers and the consumers are trying to do their best, but they're working against a government that doesn't believe in agriculture, doesn't fund agriculture, brings in policies that harm agriculture. So when I hear any talk in the budget that was presented about how the B.C. Liberals are making agriculture stronger, it makes me laugh. It really does.

You can see, with the letters that come in…. I think the ranching community has been pretty patient over the last decade — pretty patient. You know, they've tried to be innovative, but every decision that this government makes…. It's like they're falling behind. That's the same in a lot of sectors in agriculture. So it's not very hard to see why the government is losing critical support where they think they may have it — because nobody believes that this government supports agriculture anymore.

The Twinflower Creek watershed is not the only watershed that we're going to be hearing about over the next little while. There's a situation that's happening in the Bridge Lake area. That's another group of ranchers that are very upset with the pace that the government is dealing with them. We'll be hearing more from them. I'm going to be getting a lot of e-mails from them, as I've requested.

It's not very hard to get good information from the people of B.C. You just have to listen and ask them for e-mails on their stories. If you take the time and you actually care about their issues, they will send you e-mails and you can understand a situation pretty fast.

[1505]

I haven't even heard from the Minister of Agriculture on this issue. I believe the minister thinks it's a forestry issue only. But it's hard for me to understand why a Minister of Agriculture wouldn't stand up and fight for the ranchers of British Columbia who are having such problems.

I believe that it's a shared responsibility between the Minister of Forests and Lands and the Minister of Agriculture. But instead of trying to solve the problem with the information that I'm bringing to the government, the Premier stands up and has an incredible display of arrogance in this House, and the Minister of Forests and the Minister of Agriculture remain seated.

Then today the Minister of Forests and Lands gave me an answer that I don't think the ranchers are going to be very happy with. They were again gathered in their living rooms waiting for an answer. They thought that maybe this week would be the week that their issue was taken seriously. So I really hope that the Minister of Forests and Lands went back to his office and is making the calls that need to be made.

As far as the budget goes and my response to the budget, as I said, it has been a lot of empty words. There's been a lot of political rhetoric from the other side of the House. Sometimes I believe that the other side of the House thinks that the chamber, where we should have a lot of respect — respectful debate — is a campaign office. So the announcements that come after a budget speech are empty words. Like I said, on the ground in the Cariboo they're pretty meaningless words, because these are the real-life stories.

[ Page 9471 ]

So that's my response to the budget. I have to go back to my office to make the calls to the ranchers who I've talked about today, because I have a relationship with them. I have a working relationship with them as the Agriculture critic, just as the Minister of Agriculture should have, and the Minister of Forests and Lands.

I would suggest to the Minister of Forests and Lands and to the Minister of Agriculture that they get to know this file, because it's like a canary in a coal mine. This situation that's happening in the Cariboo is only going to be happening more and more over the years.

We are going to see water conflicts with agriculture and every other industry in B.C. As far as I'm concerned, if we don't get this straightened out now — this is where we can start to straighten it out — this conversation's never going to end and we won't have agriculture anymore in this province.

Deputy Speaker: I thank the member and recognize the member for Peace River North.

P. Pimm: Well, thank you, hon. Speaker. Good to see you in the chair. You're looking great over there.

It gives me great pleasure to rise and take my place in the 2012 budget response and have a little fun with some of this stuff.

First of all, I'd like to start by saying what an honour it has been serving the people of Peace River North. I say that sincerely. I believe it, and I want them to know that that's the truth as well. It's a privilege to represent everybody in Victoria and bring their wishes from up north and bring them into this Legislature.

I want to acknowledge the people that have given up the most in their life for me. That's my wife, and that's my family. Just to let people know, if anybody is watching this on TV, we leave home on Sunday night, around anywhere between three and four in the afternoon. I get back home at around lunchtime on Friday, have my constit meetings, and I get home Friday night about suppertime, and I'm back on the plane again Sunday afternoon.

So to those people that give up so much for us to be down here doing the job, I want to say thank you and certainly apologize for not giving them the time that they need to have from myself. I also want to thank my constituent assistants, Gayle Clark and Jennifer Wilkinson, because they do a great job.

All the issues that we talked about in here today — whether it be DriveABLE, whether it be the ranching people that have issues…. Certainly, the member opposite knows that I come from the largest area of agriculture in the province, bar none. So when she thinks that I don't know anything about agriculture, she's wrong. I know lots about agriculture, and I certainly work with the folks up there on lots of issues.

[1510]

I want to thank Kellie O'Brien, Lyndsey Easton and Tom Hancock. They do research down here and my communications and keep me organized. I certainly want to recognize those folks. We often forget to recognize these people, and they do such a great job for us.

Interjection.

P. Pimm: But back to the member for Saanich South. She mentions this. She wants to go on the record, so I want to get her on the record as a little heckling, because I like to have a nice, healthy little heckle back and forth.

One of the things that I hear in my region from the cattlemen…. Certainly, everybody has different problems in different areas of the province. I certainly understand the gentleman she's talking about and has talked about in here before. Certainly, he's got an issue, and we care about that. Hopefully, we can get his issues resolved. I'm not saying we can, but hopefully we can.

But I'd like to know where the member stands on the biggest issue I hear about from the cattlemen, and that's predator control. Where do you stand on that one? That's the biggest issue that we have. The wolves out there are taking….

Interjection.

P. Pimm: For the cattlemen, it is, absolutely. The amount of animals that the cattlemen give up every year is costing each one of those folks anywhere from $20,000 to $30,000, $40,000 a year.

L. Popham: What are you doing about it?

P. Pimm: That's what I'd like to ask you. Where do you stand on culling? Where does the member for Saanich South stand on culling some of the wolves so we can get the cattlemen looked after? I'd like to get her response on that.

But anyhow, we'll just leave that one alone for now. I'm going to actually talk about the budget. I'm not going to waste all my time here just talking about some of the other issues.

I believe this is a prudent budget. It controls government spending but still allows us to make necessary investments that are required. The budget is going to be balanced in 2013-2014, just as our legislation says, and I think that's great news. That's what I want to see. That's what most of the chambers around the province have told us they want to see, and I certainly believe that's what we should be doing.

We believe, on this side of the House, that the way to economic growth is through lower taxation. That's something that we've done very consistently over the last ten years — in fact, longer than that. In government, if you don't have the resources to spend a whole bunch of

[ Page 9472 ]

extra money, then it's not the time to spend a whole bunch of extra money. You've got to get your house in order. It's no different than a normal household where you can't keep spending on the Visa card until you have no more room left and then no way to pay it off. So we've got to get that in order.

I refer to this budget as a good, old-fashioned Social Credit budget. That's what I see on this budget. I think we must be pretty close on our budget numbers, actually, because I see that the NDP would like us to raise the budget by about — I don't know — $6 billion to $8 billion more in spending each year probably. And I see that the Conservative member out there wants us to reduce it by about $6 billion a year. So I think we're right in the middle. I think we've hit it right on the mark. So that's something that I think we should be proud of.

It's a good, responsible budget, and it's going to bring us back in line by the time frame that we said we'd be back in line by. We're forecasting $968 million this year, of a deficit in 2012-13, and surpluses of $154 million in 2013-14. Once you get back on track and you start getting everything back under control for yourselves, that's when you can start looking at some more programs. You can start spending a little more money, because you actually have the money. Your Visa card is paid off, and all of a sudden you can go out and buy that new vehicle again. So you've got to think of it the same way as if you are working on your own household.

Each year thereafter, after 2013 and $250 million in 2014, I think we're going to be in pretty good shape. The budget shows modest growth over the next three years. We're going to keep our spending to 2 percent a year, while continuing to protect health care and education. We all know that we have to protect health care and education. There's no question about that, but we also have to make sure that they stay sustainable at the same time.

Our school districts are going to receive $4.7 billion a year for the next three years, and government is going to invest an additional $165 million to establish the fund to deal directly with issues of class composition and size. I think that's critical. We have to be able to look at the whole education picture and keep moving forward in a good direction.

[1515]

The Ministry of Health budget is going to increase $1.5 billion over the next three years, or $500 million a year, and they'll be going up to about $17.3 billion in 2014-2015. The opposition tells us that $500 million a year is nowhere near what we need to have in Health. You know, at some point in time we have to make sure that we do get our curve adjusted slightly, so that we can get things under control.

Let's talk a little bit about some of the tax measures in this budget. We've got a few new tax measures that benefit seniors, families and businesses in B.C. They include the B.C. first-time new homebuyers bonus of $10,000. I wish that was there when I was buying my first new home. That would have been a nice little partial down payment, and I would have been very interested in having it.

B.C. seniors home-renovation tax credit, up to $1,000, and a children's fitness credit and children's arts credit, about $500 each child. Those are all things that are going to help the economy and certainly help the home renovators to do some of the retrofits to some of the seniors' homes. Certainly, I'm sure that it's all stuff that can be utilized in a good fashion.

Continuing on with the tax stuff, our corporate income taxes are among the lowest in the country. That's been a substantial decrease over the last few years. We're sitting at 10 percent, something that we should be very proud of.

It's the corporations and the small business owners that provide the jobs that we need to keep our economy moving, and we have to make sure they can be in a competitive market. That's very important.

The small business tax rate is going to be staying at 2.5 percent. Small businesses have acknowledged that, yes, we were going to go down to zero, but they've acknowledged that 2.5 percent in the interim will be fine, something they can live with. The chambers have all told us across the province that that's certainly something that they can live with, within those guidelines, as well. So we're quite comfortable with that.

Personal income taxes. This is a point that I think needs to be brought home to all of the folks out there. When you start talking about families, we generally have one of the lowest overall tax burdens in Canada. The only place that's a little bit lower than us is Alberta, on certain different occasions.

When you include the income taxes, consumption taxes, property taxes, health care premiums and payroll taxes, British Columbia is right there. We're one of the lowest in Canada, and that's where we want to be for our residents — absolutely right there.

B.C. currently has the lowest provincial income tax, up to individuals earning $120,000 a year. Again, that's a great stat that I'm extremely happy with. I think it's a stat that most folks, if they knew that….

Some of the people that go back and forth in my region, from Alberta to B.C. — do the work in B.C., go back to Alberta…. If it was a better-known fact that they'd actually pay less income tax if they registered in B.C., I think we'd start seeing them do that. It's certainly something that we should be looking a little harder at.

Since 2001 the tax structure has been reduced substantially. An individual earning $50,000 a year is paying $1,435 a year less in income taxes alone. That family of four that makes $70,000 a year — $2,158 a year less in income taxes.

We have done a good job on bringing income taxes in line for the province. We couldn't say that in 2001. We were, like, sixth, seventh, eighth in Canada. Now we're number one. We're the lowest in Canada in those de-

[ Page 9473 ]

partments.

We're going to do some capital spending in this budget. You know, you have to maintain some capital. You have to keep your economy moving. We're not going to do as much as we have over the past couple of years, but we're certainly going to continue it — $19.2 billion; $2.7 billion is newly provided through this budget in 2012.

The main thing we have to remember is that you have to remember your debt-to-GDP. If you keep your debt-to-GDP in a proper ratio, your economy will continue to move, and you'll situate yourself in a good fashion.

Our debt-to-GDP is going to be about 18.2 percent. If you look at Canada as a whole, they're about 35 percent. United States — they're about 66 percent debt-to-GDP. Then you can go look at Greece and some of the countries over there that have mismanaged to the point that they're at 166 percent debt-to-GDP.

[1520]

You know, I think it's a good thing that in 2001 we were actually able to take the government back, or we'd probably be looking like that in B.C.

Let's talk a little bit about supporting the B.C. jobs plan. I have to say that I spent lots of time travelling around the province this summer in different roles. One was my role as Parliamentary Secretary for Natural Gas.

I had the opportunity to do a report to the minister, looking at new gas markets, all the time keeping our greenhouse gas agenda in sight. It was lots of fun, and I learned a lot of stuff. I thought I knew quite a bit about the oil and gas industry, being involved in it for most of my life, but I learned a lot of different things as well.

One of the areas I was to look at was accelerating the use of electrification in the natural gas sector. By doing that you would actually reduce your greenhouse gas emissions — something that makes a lot of sense.

When you look at the electrification of the natural gas sector, there are three areas that come to mind really quickly. One is what you call the Montney gas sector. That's the area from south and east Dawson Creek to north and west of Fort St. John. That area is not too hard to electrify because B.C. Hydro already has a grid in that area. They have a power grid that they can tie onto, and they can add power into that grid.

Right now B.C. Hydro is working with the producers, and they are bringing more power into the grid as we speak. They're making contracts. That will be done over two phases. By 2015 there will be enough power in the Montney area to look after all electrification issues in the Montney.

The other area is the Horn River. I don't know if all of you know where that is, but it is north of Fort Nelson. It is about 200 miles of transmission line that you'd have to build from the Williston dam into the Horn River, at a cost of about $2 billion.

There becomes a point in time when you have to weigh some of your costs and some of the environmental issues against where you are going to end up. When you get to the point of the Horn River, it makes absolutely no sense to run a transmission line to the Horn River — not in my estimation, anyhow. I think it makes great sense to look at the oil and gas industry. Look to what you have a great supply of, and we have a great supply of natural gas.

In the Horn River alone — marketable gas, now, I'm going to talk about — we have 78 trillion cubic feet of natural gas that has been identified. Just to put that in a small perspective so that folks can understand what it means, right now the province of British Columbia produces one TCF a year — three billion a day, one TCF a year. Horn River alone — 78 trillion cubic feet of natural gas in a reserve. We produce one TCF a year now. I think you know where that goes.

We have to get out in front of that curve. We have to electrify that. That will be a way we can reduce our greenhouse gas emissions in that area. There's even a novel thought that goes with it. What if we take the gas that we electrify that with and then turn around and sequester it? We could actually probably make the argument that we'd have the first-ever natural gas–powered generation that could be produced as a green project. Natural gas is the cleanest-burning fossil fuel, and we have some great opportunities in front of us.

The other area of electrification, of course, is in the Kitimat and Prince Rupert area of the province. By the time we get mines and LNG plants on board, we're going to need more power in that area.

Again, we will be able to produce some through the hydro, and I think we're going to have to look to other areas to produce some of the others. That's going to mean more jobs. We're going to have run-of-the-river projects. We can utilize natural gas for electrification. To me, these things are win-wins for the province. When we have an abundance of natural gas, we should be utilizing it. Certainly, I would make a case for that.

The other area we wanted to look at was the acceleration of natural gas in the transportation sector. I think you have to know that the biggest greenhouse gas emitter in British Columbia is the transportation sector.

[1525]

About 35 to 40 percent of all the greenhouse gas emitted in the province comes right out of the transportation sector. If we can convert one 18-wheeler from gasoline or diesel to natural gas, it's equivalent to taking 300 vehicles off the road. That's where we can make a huge dent in our greenhouse gases. That's an area that we need to focus on.

We're looking already at electric vehicles. If we add natural gas vehicles to that, then we start reducing our greenhouse gas emissions. I think that's something we really need to look at and focus on.

The other area was to look at the Northern Rockies regional municipality and the jobs and service centre opportunities. The Northern Rockies has the Horn River gas play, as I talked about earlier — 78 TCF. There's also

[ Page 9474 ]

the Liard basin and the Cordova basin. These are going to be two more world-class natural gas plays that have not even started to be developed yet.

There are some out there that say both of these gas plays could be every bit as large as the Horn River Basin. We have an opportunity in front of us that we have never seen before, ever. These are world-class gas plays. You hear people talk in the States about the Marcellus and some of the gas plays over on the west coast, and the Haynesville. These are the same magnitude. We have something to be very proud of in British Columbia, especially in northeastern British Columbia, where we found this amazing find — certainly, something that I think we have some great opportunities around.

Fort Nelson, if they produce just 30 to 40 percent of the Horn River Basin alone — I'm not talking about the Liard or the Cordova — they could have up to 14,000 jobs created in the Fort Nelson area alone. Now, that's something that you have to pay attention to.

When you talk about the Kitimat LNG projects, for every dollar spent on an LNG project in Kitimat, you have $10 spent on upstream projects in the Fort Nelson, the Fort St. John, the Dawson Creek and Hudson's Hope area of the province. That equates to a huge, huge economic advantage for our province.

Do you know what? This budget certainly puts us in great stead to make that all happen. This budget supports the investment, this budget supports the LNG projects, and you won't have an LNG project if you don't have the gas right out of the North Peace and the Northern Rockies of this province. Certainly, I think we've done a pretty good job of getting ourselves to that point.

The other thing that I'd like to talk a little bit about is the rural caucus. We travelled the province this summer in rural caucus. In rural B.C. we've got lots of problems. There's no question about it. We're not going to fix them all tomorrow. You can't fix them all overnight. It's too big a place, too big a province.

I live in a constituency that takes 15 hours to drive from one end to the other. I've got some members here that it takes 15 minutes to drive across their riding. It's a little different. We have a huge province. We're not going to fix all the problems. We're not going to be able to get a DriveABLE in every community. We're not going to be able to do all the things that…. It would be wonderful if we could, but we're just not going to be able to do it. We have to be realistic and reasonable about it and fix what we can, keep poking away. We understand that in rural B.C. We've done it all our lives, and we understand how you get through it.

There are going to be problems. Rural health care is a huge problem. We'll keep poking away. It's up to people like myself, MLAs from all the different rural areas. Get out there and do your work. Look after your constituents, get their issues in front of the ministers, and keep plugging away at it. That's what you have to do.

We've got other issues, like I said earlier — predator control, invasive plants. These are issues that you just got to keep plugging away at. We're making some headway.

High-speed Internet. We're starting to move high-speed Internet all through the province, and we're going to continue until we get there.

Of course, what happens in my area? I'm the last in the province. I'm way up there. I'm the last guy out on the end of the totem pole, way up in the North Pole almost, so you're always the last to get the stuff up to you. We still have to work in our area on high-speed Internet, and you know what? We will. We keep plugging away. We'll keep moving.

[1530]

Industry issues. We identified, when we were travelling the province, that permits were a huge issue for us in the province. And what did we do, this government? We put $24 million into attacking the backlog of permits that are out there. That's going to be huge. That'll help streamline and get the permits out, help get the jobs moving — very important stuff.

The one thing that I just have to talk a little bit about is the carbon tax — what the minister did in this budget in regards to carbon tax, in reviewing the carbon tax. Again, I had the honour of travelling the province with the Finance Committee this summer.

It gets back to the old adage that I started out with. Certainly, I didn't spend much time at home, and I apologize again to the folks that didn't get a chance to see that much of me this summer. But I think it was all worthwhile in some of the endeavours that we did.

The Finance Committee. One of the things that we really recognized in all of the province…. When people were presenting to us over and over again, one of the common themes was the carbon tax. So our committee came up with five recommendations around the carbon tax. The first one was to cap the carbon tax at a rate of July 2, 2012.

I just want to back up for one second on that note. British Columbia has done a fantastic job on our greenhouse gas agenda, and we've led the world in our carbon pricing and carbon agenda. So I think we are in a great position right now. We can say yes, we're doing a good job. We can sit back. We can watch a little bit and let some of the others catch up to us. And as we move forward in time, as others start catching up, then we can move it forward a little bit more. I think that's a great position for us to be in.

The other messages that we gave from the Finance Committee were:

"Address the inequity of B.C. cement producers arising from imported cement not being subject to carbon tax. Review the impact of carbon tax on…business sectors and develop a strategy to keep B.C. businesses competitive with other jurisdictions. Consider immediate carbon tax exclusions for agriculture, including the greenhouse sector and public institutions. Stop further expenditures on…cap-and-trade until the province has sufficient trading

[ Page 9475 ]

partners to trade with."

Those are pretty big recommendations. But we heard it all around the province, so it was incumbent upon the Finance Committee to come up with some recommendations, to bring forward some of those kinds of recommendations. And our side, this side, is the one that brought these motions forward. Those are recommendations from this side. I have to say that.

What did the Finance Minister do? He took our number one recommendation. We're implementing the last in a series of scheduled rate increases to the revenue-neutral B.C. carbon tax. So there's one right off the top.

Over the next year the government will undertake a comprehensive review of the carbon tax, both positive and negative, examine the tax's impact on British Columbians. The review will cover all aspects of the carbon tax, including revenue neutrality, and will consider the impact, the competitiveness of B.C. businesses and in particular B.C. food producers.

What a novel thought — that we should keep our industries competitive and keep our competitiveness in this marketplace. It's something that we must do and fits in perfectly with our jobs plan. The more competitive we keep our businesses, the more jobs we're going to have and the quicker we'll get back to our balanced budgets.

What else did we find in this budget? I'll just go back to some of the highlights. Effective April 1 we're going to eliminate the provincial jet fuel tax on international flights. Again, the Finance Committee recommended that as well. And lo and behold, the minister recognized and initiated that as well.

We're also extending some training tax credits, which encourages employers and workers to get involved in the apprenticeship programs. I can tell you that I do own a small electrical instrumentation company. We employ about 20 people, and out of those 20 people, we have, on average, six or seven apprentices all the time.

[1535]

I could talk to you about it in real terms. I don't have to tell you something about how somebody told me this. I can tell you that I know that these programs work. They're beneficial to the kids, they're beneficial to the companies, and they're something that we need to continue on.

We've done a good job in the trades sector. I think we're going to see more and more as time goes on. We're going to have to have more and more specialized people, and in all areas of the province. Certainly, the trades are going to be an area to get us into that area in a substantial way.

The budget also provides adjustments to the homeowner grant, including creating a new supplement for low-income veterans under the age of 65 and extending eligibility to homeowners who've moved into a residential facility but haven't yet sold their home — so some more relief on that front as well.

The budget remains committed to funding critical social services and reallocating contingency funds to the Ministry of Justice and the Ministry of Social Development, where caseloads continue to rise. So $237 million over the next three years to the Ministry of Justice. That's $66 million a year to pay for 168 police officers hired as part of the government's guns and gang strategy. It's certainly a program that we need to keep in place, and great to see that that's being looked after.

New judges into the system, new sheriffs being hired, as we heard earlier in question period today. Certainly, that whole justice system does have to have a relook. There's no doubt about that in my mind. The one part about the whole thing, when I look into a justice system, is that you can go and have five, six, seven court appearances before you get a trial. It just does not make sense to me. So I'm just happy that we're taking a good look at that whole system, and thank goodness we are.

Income assistance. Another $294 million over three years to address the growing demand for disability benefits and people on EI.

Community Living B.C. We went through that. Again, the government has looked at it and said that we're going to continue to put that $40 million a year into Community Living — certainly, a great spot for it. I went out and had an opportunity to look at all of my community living homes in my area.

What is this? This is the spring. I guess I toured that earlier this year, in January, and had an opportunity to see all of those group houses. They do such great work. There's no doubt about it. To get this funding, to keep them whole, is a fantastic thing, and certainly, I'm glad that we did that.

I'm sure I must be getting close to wrap-up time. I think what I'll do is wrap up with talking a little bit about the surplus assets. Surplus assets — it's great for getting rid of them.

D. Donaldson: I'm very pleased to take my place in response to the budget that was brought down by this government last week. I'd like to take my time to focus on what the budget means to the constituents of Stikine, people in the north, people in rural areas and the province in general.

I'm going to talk in my comments about how the budget shows a lack of credibility on the part of the government. It furthers the lack of trust that has been building in the general public over the last ten years of this government and contains no vision laid out. Those are the themes I will focus on, and as I go through my response, those are the themes that will come out.

This government's credibility is in tatters with budgets generally, and this budget continues along that theme. Let's look at why it is in tatters.

The HST. First of all, it was said by this government that they would not bring in the HST before the last elec-

[ Page 9476 ]

tion. Then, mere weeks afterwards, they brought in the HST, and now what we see in this budget is one more year that the residents of B.C. will be paying the HST, the working people of this province paying the HST. The HST took a mere nine months to bring in, and now we're talking about 16 months, under this budget, to eliminate it.

The $495 million. That was the projected deficit by this government in 2009, and it turned into a $3 billion deficit. Again, we're talking about credibility.

[1540]

B.C. Hydro — the dividend in B.C. Hydro. The Auditor General himself has said that an illusion of profitability was created where none existed from the deferral accounts. That illusion was put into revenue and put into the provincial budget — so again, lack of credibility.

Finally, another example. There's a myriad of examples, but I'll finish with this one of fiscal mismanagement — $400 million over budget on the Vancouver Convention Centre.

So you can see why the credibility of this government was in tatters with previous budgets, and now we'll talk about specifically this budget. This year the Finance Minister used the word "prudence" in describing the government's approach. Prudent and prudence were mentioned numerous times in the budget speech and in the budget document itself.

Prudent is defined as "careful in managing resources so as to provide for the future." Careful in managing resources so as to provide for the future. Well, this budget that was presented was the seventh year of deficits in 12 years of B.C. Liberal rule. In fact, they had to break their own legislation in order to avoid contradicting their own legislation on deficits. So seven deficits in 12 years now, $7 billion added to the provincial debt.

We're talking about a definition of prudence that defies the definition. So $66.4 billion will be the debt by the end of this budget document cycle, 2014-15. That's a 30 percent increase from 2011-12. So again, we're talking about a lack of credibility when it comes to the definition of prudence.

This does not include the off-the-books obligations that this government has racked up — off-the-books, contractual obligations. The office of the comptroller general has said that in this budget cycle that will go from $53 billion to $80 billion. Now, how is that prudence? How is that prudence?

Yet the Minister of Finance knew these numbers. We have to assume he knew these numbers. He's a reasonably smart fellow. He knew these numbers, yet he still kept using the "prudent" messaging numerous times in his speech, numerous times in the budget document.

That, to me and to others, signifies a definite credibility gap — saying one thing and doing another. This "saying one thing and doing another" theme is throughout the budget document, and it leads to a number of contradictions. I'll outline a few of them here.

Skills training. If you're looking at the definition of prudence in providing for the future, skills training is one area you would concentrate on in providing for the future. We have a looming skills shortage, yet this budget does nothing in a significant manner to address skills training.

The college system, for instance. Northwest Community College. I'm Deputy Chair of the Select Standing Committee on Finance, and Northwest Community College gave a very good presentation in Smithers about how their trades-training budget was cut by 4 percent last year.

Now, in this budget we see that the industry trade association, which is the association that funds trades training in the college system, is getting a $9 million cut. All northern colleges, as a matter of fact, are facing a million-dollar-plus deficit for this year. What we saw in previous years with Northwest Community College specifically was a 74 percent cut in annual capital allowance, and we haven't seen a restoration of that in this budget.

I have to tell you a story about what an annual capital allowance can mean. There's a story about Bill Gates. He was able, when he was a youngster, to go to a high school and then a college in Seattle that actually had one of the first working computers available in the public education system. So you can see where he cut his teeth and became the person he became — a financial leader, an innovator, a leader in many aspects of the information revolution that we've seen in the last 30 years.

[1545]

If those public education facilities had not had the capital means to provide a person like Bill Gates with the newest of the new facilities, then I would seriously doubt that he would have become the person that he is. I relate that to the case of Northwest Community College and other northern colleges that are unable, under this government and under this budget, to provide the capital facilities, the new equipment that will potentially lead to other Bill Gateses in other areas of the industry and in other areas of the economy.

Northwest Community College has an award-winning School of Exploration and Mining. They have not been able to secure core funding for that school. We know that the northwest is going to be the epicentre for the mining boom that potentially can occur in the province. Yet core funding for a fundamental program that has employment at its source for people of the northwest is unable, under this budget, to acquire that funding.

Dease Lake is another small community facing high unemployment and really, really close to many of the major projects that could come to fruition. They haven't been able to get the kind of post-secondary training that's required so that local people can have the best chance for local jobs in the mining sector. That's definitely what should happen.

What we've seen with the Ministry of Advanced

[ Page 9477 ]

Education….

Interjection.

D. Donaldson: I hear some noise coming from the other side, specifically from the member for Kamloops–South Thompson, who used to be involved in a leadership role as the Minister of State for Mining.

It's really unfortunate, because the other day I was questioning the Minister of Energy and Mines about his role. He is the minister of mines, energy, oil and gas, gambling, housing, liquor distribution….

You'd think that if the Premier had enough confidence in a backbencher, she might promote somebody like the member for Kamloops–South Thompson to at least take a little bit of a role in the current minister's big portfolio. But I guess you have to assume that if a minister has that kind of portfolio — Mines, Energy, oil and gas, gambling, Housing, liquor distribution…. I suppose it must mean that the Premier has no confidence in the backbenchers in her caucus to take any role in the kind of province that we have for the future here.

The Ministry of Advanced Education decreased by 1 percent in their budget. That might not seem like a lot, but inflation, according to the budget document, was 2.4 percent in 2011, and what we're seeing, according to the budget document, is an average of 2 percent inflation over the next three years. If you multiply that, we're looking at a 6 percent to 7 percent cut in the Ministry of Advanced Education's budget.

Again, a college like Northwest Community College…. Colleges in general in the north are an efficient and economical way of providing training. Northwest Community College serves 27 First Nations communities. Under this government, there's been an abysmal record of servicing First Nations communities and the First Nations population when it comes to education and advanced education. If we don't do that better, we'll be faced with the situation like my colleague is facing in Peace River North, where we have a fly-in, fly-out labour force.

Even the people in Fort Nelson, where we visited as the Select Standing Committee on Finance, are looking at ways to recover from that fly-in, fly-out and at means to stop the fly-in, fly-out kinds of aspects of the labour force. Three hundred people, twice a week, fly in and out of that community.

If we don't do the kind of skills training that's not addressed in this budget in the northwest, then we'll see the fly-in, fly-out labour force, the looming skill shortage that's not addressed by this budget. Nothing substantive in this budget to address the skills issue. So there's a contradiction regarding prudence when it comes to providing for the future.

Another contradiction in this budget is in forestry — again, providing for the future. The words "forests" and "forestry" were not mentioned once in the budget speech — not mentioned once — yet forestry built many of the communities in the north and in rural areas and across this province in the Interior.

[1550]

I know that the village of Hazelton and the Hazeltons in general at one point were 41 percent dependent on the forest industry. Now there's not one mill left in the Hazelton area. That deserves more than no mentions of forestry or forests in the budget speech. This is a sustainable sector, a sustainable industry, and one that's very important to our rural areas.

The Auditor General's report, released just a couple weeks ago, pointed out that 1.1 million hectares are in need of reforestation in the province. What do we have existing right now in the last five years under this B.C. Liberal government? We have 8,730 hectares being replanted. As the independent Auditor General pointed out, reforestation is not keeping up with the growing inventory of land needing restocking, and he concluded that there's no real plan around forest management. I'll quote from parts of his report.

The Auditor General said that the ministry lacks clearly defined timber objectives, without which it cannot ensure that management practices are effective. Existing management practices are insufficient to offset the trend of timber supply and declining biodiversity in some areas. Monitoring of timber results is insufficient to measure whether existing timber objectives are being met.

The Auditor General concluded in some recommendations…. His recommendations include developing a stewardship plan with clearly defined objectives, creating a reforestation program that is sufficient to meet those objectives and implementing performance measures to demonstrate progress — developing a stewardship plan. In other words, the government, in his opinion — the independent Auditor General — has no real plan around forestry.

What do we see in this budget? A $20 million cut to the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations over the next two years in silviculture inventory and reforestation work — exactly the areas that the Auditor General was describing.

This budget document talks about Crown harvest volumes of 65 million cubic metres in order to meet the projections of revenue described in the document. Well, how can one have any confidence in those numbers when the Auditor General points out that the government has little handle on inventory work in the first place? It's no wonder that in Burns Lake this government is unable to describe to the people living there whether there's enough timber supply to attract a mill back into the area after the disaster that happened just last month.

In fact, according to a news release today, the focus is on tourism now for Burns Lake, according to the Minister of Jobs, Tourism and Innovation. So they've gone from looking at a disaster, a mill burning down….

[ Page 9478 ]

A company is wanting to reinvest, saying: "How much wood is there?" The First Nations there is wanting to reinvest, saying: "How much wood is there?" This government is unable to tell them how much wood is there and is now trying to divert attention to tourism, because it seems like — with that announcement today, this government's own news release — they've given up on trying to attract a mill back to Burns Lake.

When you look at that $20 million cut in the next two years to the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations, how can that be providing for the future, as the word "prudent" describes?

Another area of contradiction in this budget is when it comes to children. If you're talking about providing for the future, then children should be a top priority. B.C. does have the highest child poverty rate in Canada. That's according to the Representative for Children and Youth, Ms. Turpel-Lafond. She described the budget as grim, callous and a U-turn from the Premier's family-first agenda.

The Ministry of Children and Family Development in this budget document has the same budget for 2012-13, '13-14 and '14-15 — for the next three years a flatline budget. I've described already that with the inflation rate predicted at least 2 percent over those three years, they're losing ground in that ministry — losing ground.

[1555]

Why is that important? Well, one example I can give you is very applicable to my constituents in Stikine. More than 50 percent of children in care in this province are aboriginals, First Nations descent — more than 50 percent — even though the overall population in the province of First Nations people is less than 5 percent.

So when you have those kinds of numbers across many communities in the north and you see the Ministry of Children and Family Development losing ground, then you can understand why the independent Representative for Children and Youth described this budget as grim, callous and a U-turn from the Premier's family-first agenda.

There are some contradictions in the budget that don't typify the definition of prudent — the deficits year after year, seven years out of 12; the racking up of an incredible amount of debt — $7 billion in this coming budget alone; and the lack of focus on skills training, the lack of focus on forestry and on children.

Let's talk now about the revenue-generating ministries. If we want to talk about providing for the future that the definition of prudence has in it, then let's talk about revenue-generating ministries — ministries such as Agriculture, Tourism, Energy and Mines, and Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations. All of these budgets have decreased or flatlined, and again, with inflation, they're losing ground.

But as the member for Kootenay East put it recently, these are the revenue-generating ministries, and they don't have the resources to get the work done, to get permits out the door. The Mining Association of B.C.'s former president, Pierre Gratton, said: "In these ministries the cuts have gone too far. They're hurting the ability of the province to generate revenues."

When I look at this budget document specifically from a mining perspective, we see a reference to backlogged permits. There is supposed to be $12 million booked for this coming budget year to help address those backlogged permits. I couldn't find it in the budget document, and I'll be questioning both the ministers who are responsible — the one that holds about six portfolios and the other, the Minister of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations — around where that $12 million should be appearing in the budget.

This minister and the Minister of Finance talked about targets for backlogs, and the targets are going to be talked about in August. We'll be keeping a close eye on that to make sure these targets are met, because we know this government is not good with numbers, and they haven't been good with the meaning of words. So when they talk about targets for the permits, we're going to be keeping a close eye on that, and specifically notice-of-work permits when it comes to the mining sector.

Now, there can be different types of notice-of-work permits in the mining sector. In the budget speech the Finance Minister talked in one sentence about mineral exploration permits and, in another sentence following, notices of work for mining. So he's mixing up a few of the

definitions around notice of work. We have to keep a close eye on that and be careful with words.

There are notice-of-work permits in mineral explorat