Michael Sather

The Liberal’s 2010 budget is nothing if not controversial and yesterday Michael rose in the House to draw attention to some of it’s many flaws.

The Hansard is up!

The speech is split between two records as Michael was the last speaker in the morning

Enjoy!

010 Legislative Session: Second Session, 39th Parliament
HANSARD
________________________________________

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.
The printed version remains the official version.

________________________________________
Official Report of
DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY
(Hansard)
________________________________________
TUESDAY, MARCH 9, 2010
Morning Sitting
Volume 11, Number 3

M. Sather: It’s my pleasure to rise today to address Budget 2010. You know, it’s a budget that doesn’t provide much in the way of direction to the people of British Columbia. It seems like the primary plank in the government’s budget is the HST, and that’s a pretty shaky foundation on which to launch into the new decade.

It’s been interesting to listen to the members opposite over the last period of time in the debate about the budget. One of the themes that keeps coming up and that the Liberals talk about is: “The difference between us, the Liberals, and them, the NDP, is that the NDP wants to raise taxes, but we don’t.” This a common theme, and you can see the nods of agreement from the members opposite. This is a firm belief that they have, as fictitious as it is.

Interjection.

M. Sather: It certainly is fictitious. The member thinks that it is not, but over the period of time that I have to discuss this budget, I certainly want to address that.

Of course, as I’ve mentioned, the first thing that they came in with after being re-elected was a tax on the taxpayers of British Columbia, a tax shift that will take the burden — if you want to call it that — off business and put it onto the taxpayers. Then the government wonders: “Why do so many taxpayers oppose this tax? As much as we deign to tell them how good it is for them, they don’t like it.”

They don’t like it, because they’re not stupid. They get it. They get that the tax is being transferred onto their backs. They’re not at all happy about that, and one can clearly understand why they wouldn’t be.

Now, the government has gone to some length, I suppose you could say, to try to convince us that the HST is going to result in business reinvesting in British Columbia and creating jobs. The member for Surrey-Whalley very ably demonstrated and elucidated the fact that, hey, that hasn’t happened in the past. Why would we have confidence that it’s going to happen now? It didn’t happen during the commodity and consumer prices spending boom. Businesses didn’t reinvest in British Columbia.
[1150]

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]
[ Page 3287 ]

You know, the member called it faith-based. This is a faith-based approach that this government is taking and trying to convince the people of British Columbia to go along and to join them in their faith.

Let’s look at some of the other taxes that this government is piling on to the people of British Columbia. Let’s look at B.C. Hydro rates. A 9 percent hike this year, 7 percent last year, 7 percent the year before last, 6 percent next year, 12 percent the year after that and another 6 percent the year after that — 47 percent increases. So 47 percent is what the people of British Columbia are going to be paying for B.C. Hydro tax rates, which is simply a tax by another name.

That’s what this government excels in. They excel in the shell game of pretending that all of these…. B.C. Hydro, of course, is at the behest of this government. We know that. They’re always playing this shell game of pretending that they’re not increasing the taxes, pretending that they’re not increasing the burden on the taxpayers of British Columbia, but doing just that.

In fact, this year they’re taking a whopping $254 million from B.C. Hydro, and who’s going to pay? The taxpayers know they’re going to pay. They see their bills going up. Of course, again, they’re not foolish. They’re not stupid. They understand what’s going on.

However, noting the hour, I will reserve my place in the debate and move adjournment at this time.

M. Sather moved adjournment of debate.
Motion approved.
Hon. G. Abbott moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1:30 this afternoon.

The House adjourned at 11:53 a.m.

2010 Legislative Session: Second Session, 39th Parliament
HANSARD

---

---

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

---

TUESDAY, MARCH 9, 2010

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 11, Number 4

Budget Debate

(continued)

M. Sather: I’m pleased to continue with my discussion of the taxing ways of this government. I mentioned B.C. Hydro rates previously. Let’s look at ICBC — a $778 million whack hidden in the service plan. Remember, this is under the Premier who said he was against hiddenness. He was against hiddenness when he was in opposition, but this is hiddenness personified. There it was — another tax, by any other name, that’s going to hurt the taxpayers of British Columbia.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

The members of my constituency, Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows, could use some of that money that the government is hiving off of ICBC. We’ve heard about the Evergreen line over and over again, but how many promises is that? There’s a lot of need in our community, and we see instead the government taking their money. Our drivers, our commuters see the government taking away their money.

Now, the government says: “Well, we have to do this to establish a level playing field for the private sector.” Why? ICBC is doing a good job. If they can produce cheaper car insurance rates for the people of B.C., why not let them? But no, instead this government is determined to favour the private sector, not the taxpayers of this province.

Then there are the tax-free holidays for big business that we’ve seen this government introduce over the last several years, the $227 million to big banks. Well, the average taxpayer looks at that and says: “Hmm, I think those big banks are doing just fine. They don’t, in fact, need another tax break from this government, another giveaway.” Tax holidays for oil and gas — more than $1 billion over the next three years.

Then the government has the audacity to say that they’re concerned about the tax burden on big businesses that municipalities are supposedly imposing. Instead of saying to those companies, like Catalyst Paper and the rest, “Why don’t you be good corporate citizens and pay your taxes?” they go after the municipalities to try to gouge them for more. In fact, the now Minister of Housing and Social Development accused municipalities of dining out on business taxes. That’s really unfair, and it shows the depths that this government will go to.

Now let’s look at the spending side that this government indulges in: $62 billion in off-book spending — debt incurred that the people of British Columbia will have to pay one way or the other. It’s mostly through the P3s that this government is so fond of.

[1430]

Even then, if you look at it, the taxpayer has to pick up the tab, like we’re doing at the Golden Ears Bridge, like
[  ]
we’re all doing as taxpayers. The ridership hasn’t developed yet to be able to pay for the costs that we have to pay to the constructor, to the provider. That’s $500,000 a month — it started off. In January of this year it went up to $1.5 million a month. That’s a threefold increase, and it’s going to jump to $3 million a month in June of this year. That’s, again, money that we have to pick up as taxpayers to pay for this government’s big-spending ways.

The Port Mann bridge construction started off as a P3, public-private partnership. It was rescued by the public, supposedly, and now it’s classified as a self-supporting Crown corporation. Again, so-called off-book debt — spending in large measure that the taxpayers of British Columbia will have to pay extra money for every time they go over that bridge.

Members on this side, the member for Burnaby North and many others, think that this government is paying off debt, but in fact they’re creating massive debt. They’re paying off a tiny bit of debt while creating a whole lot of debt — $5 billion in increased debt just since September of last year. Imagine it: in just a period of six months a 12 percent increase in the debt to this province. Just imagine what they can do in a whole year.

The people of this province have to be concerned. This government is the biggest tax-and-spend government that ever existed in the province of British Columbia. That’s what they are, pure and clear, but they actually accuse us of that. It’s rather peculiar. This government has put the taxpayers of this province in the big hurt locker, and the hurt is going to go on and on and on.

Let’s look at carbon credits. You know, carbon credits and carbon trading are something that may hold promise — I hope they do, in fact — for us dealing with climate change and global warming. The Finance Minister says there’s huge potential in carbon trading, but it has to be done right. It has to be done right.

Right now a lot of people in British Columbia don’t have much faith in carbon trading. If it is done wrong, it’s going to reduce that faith even further. What I see happening in my community of Maple Ridge, what I see happening in Mission, is not right.

There is a company, Ecosystem Restoration Associates, that goes to municipalities like mine and to, like, Mission municipalities, and says: “We’ll plant some little trees in your forests.” Then, in the process, they go ahead and cut down native trees like red alder — 50-year-old trees, fall them, leave them in the forest to rot, to release their greenhouse gases.

These are perfectly intact forests. These are not forests that need “restoration.” Then they sell this as a carbon credit. It’s really atrocious.

They say that part of the game is eradicating invasive species. One of the main invasive species in our area in the Lower Mainland is the Himalayan blackberry. I’ve gone to the sites in Maple Ridge. I’ve gone to the North Alouette River. I’ve gone to Silver Creek in Mission. There’s blackberry all around these sites, untouched.

What I’m told is that, for example, the district of Mission is using this project as part of the way they’re going to meet the climate action charter, which says that municipalities have to become carbon neutral by 2012 in order to get the rebate for the carbon tax. Now, I don’t know if Maple Ridge is doing the same thing, but I expect they are.

It’s incumbent upon the Environment Minister and the Premier to go to those municipalities and say: “If this is the way you’re going about getting carbon credits, you do not get that rebate.” You do not get it, because it’s a sham.

[1435]

It’s a sham, and it’s a shame because, as I said, carbon trading could have a positive future — and, hopefully, does have — but not if this is the way it’s going to be done — certainly not.

I have to say something, and I am going to say something, about advanced education. Student aid was cut by over 27 percent from the pre-election budget to this budget — 27 percent. British Columbia is dead last in Canada in the amount of non-repayable student financial aid that we provide — 60 percent less than the national average. Student debt in this province is out of control. Students need more support. [Applause.] Thank you.

To quote what a student wrote, she said: “At a time when personal debt threatens the fundamentals of our economy, getting a post-secondary education in the province of B.C. has become a debt sentence.” If the government wants to do something for the economy, they should put that money back into funding for our students. That would be a big help.

Let’s look at the environment and forestry for a bit. The budget speech talks about the forest sector, yet we see a 16 percent cut since the February ’09 budget and 22 percent since the so-called green budget of two years ago. You will remember the golden goals, the great goals of the decade, as the Premier laid them out in 2005 — and apparently he’s still fond of those: “to lead the world in sustainable environmental management.”

Well, right now we’re seeing a drop in the budget from $409 million last year for fighting forest fires to $52 million this year, and the Environment Minister is saying: “You know, it’s dry out there. We’ve got a potential problem on our hands with regard to forest fires.” Indeed we do. The ranchers of this province are abundantly aware of that, and they’ve made their concerns, yet the budget has dropped phenomenally for fighting forest fires.

There are a number of issues to be concerned about with this budget. Let’s talk a little bit about health care. You know, the Liberals go on — every year we hear the same thing — about how health care is unsustainable. But if the Minister of Health wants to do something to help the health care system, why doesn’t he go to Ottawa and talk to the Prime Minister about the stranglehold of big pharma on patents? Drugs, medications, are costing
[  ]
huge amounts to our health care system, so what does this government do? They remove the therapeutics initiative program.

Now, that was a program to save money. It’s a program whereby if there was a generic drug, which is always cheaper than the brand-name drug, and it’s going to do the same job, you should use it. But the minister — under pressure, actually, from the pharmaceutical industry, interestingly enough — revealed last December: “We’re no longer utilizing the therapeutics initiative.” That’s shameful.

That’s where the waste comes in with this government. That’s where the rhetoric does not match with the actions. All this talk about making health care more sustainable, yet when it comes to big industry like the pharmaceutical industry, we see the province, the taxpayers, the seniors — everyone, all of us depending on health care — being put in the back seat to the needs of this government or the desires of this government to make things difficult for everyone.

[1440]

I just wanted to say a little bit about the rhetoric we hear from the government side about the recession. I mean, it’s been a laughable ride that we’ve undertaken since the government discovered, albeit belatedly, that there was a recession. At that time, members will recall that the government was bragging that, well, you know, B.C. is recession-proof. There might be a recession happening but not here. Not here — we’re recession-proof.

Then when that argument started to kind of wane a bit, when it obviously…. They were completely out of touch on the economy. Then they said that B.C. would be the best place to weather the recession. I remember the Minister of Tourism talking about that and others.

Interjection.

M. Sather: There he is. There he is responding wholeheartedly to those statements. Yet what happened? Well, Stats Canada figures for January of this year show that B.C. lost 4,200 jobs, while most other provinces saw a jump in full-time jobs. We’ve been suffering big-time since the recession hit, and it’s unfortunate that the government is still trying to weave this web of deception. In fact, we lost 70,000 full-time jobs in British Columbia between January of last year and January of this year.

Now the ministers, the members opposite are trumpeting that British Columbia is going to lead Canada out of the recession. Well, why should they believe anything that this government says around the recession? They had it totally wrong going into the recession. They had it totally wrong during the recession. Why should this depend on believing them now that we’re going to lead Canada coming out of the recession? I hope they’re right. I hope we are going to lead Canada coming out of the recession, but the believability factor is very low in terms of this government.

B.C.’s economy shrank 0.3 percent in 2008, more than any other province except Ontario — so not a stellar record at all. Yet the government will have the people of British Columbia believe that they, in fact, are the experts on the economy, but it’s not working out for British Columbians, and that’s a concern. That’s a concern for all of us.

I did want to bring up, if I have a few more minutes, a theme that I talked about last week in this House, having to do with green energy. The government likes to talk about green energy a lot. It’s highlighted in this budget. In fact, apparently we will be seeing a clean energy act.

One of the things I talked about was the run-of-the-river projects vis-à-vis green energy and the cost that that, again, is incurring for the people of British Columbia. The member for Maple Ridge–Mission is quoted as saying: “There are no guaranteed rates, and each agreement B.C. Hydro signs with an independent power producer has to be in the interests of ratepayers.” Well, that’s not true. In fact, there is….

I see, Madam Speaker, that a member would like to make an introduction.

Deputy Speaker: Member, thank you for yielding the floor.

J. Brar: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

J. Brar: Visiting us today is a group of students and teachers from the Fraser Valley Christian High School located in my constituency, Surrey-Fleetwood. There are 32 grade 11 students and four adults. They’re led by their teacher Miss Belinda Morsink. They’re here to watch the budget debate and learn what we do in this Legislature. I would ask members from both sides of this House to make them feel welcome.

[1445]

Debate Continued

M. Sather: When a power purchase agreement is reached between B.C. Hydro and a run-of-the-river power producer, the price is set. As far as the sustainability, or being in the public interest, the B.C. Utilities Commission made very clear, before they were chastised by this government, that the government’s long-term acquisition plan was simply not in the public interest. I say “the government,” because we know that B.C. Hydro acts in the interests of the government.

B.C. taxpayers are committed to over $20 billion already to pay for run-of-the-river power. More profligate spending by this government, more massive debt incurred on the backs of the taxpayers of British Columbia.
[  ]
It goes on and on — however, not if you listen to the group called the B.C. Citizens for Green Energy, who are a front group for the B.C. Liberal Party.

They say that run-of-the-river power for export — now we’re out in the open, we’re out of the closet about this being for British Columbia anymore, and us being short of power and how we need it — will pay off the debt and even get rid of what they said is the PST. That’s wonderful. Wow. All of that stuff is going to happen because of the $20 billion of debt that has been incurred, spending that’s been incurred, that the taxpayers will have to pay for. It’s simply not believable. It’s not believable at all.

A few words on bioenergy. That’s a big subject these days, and the Minister of Forests has talked about it. Bioenergy, in general, from what is called dedicated land is less sustainable than bioenergy from wastes or residues. Using dedicated land means that land cannot be as easily used for other purposes — for example, agriculture, forestry, carbon sequestration, wetlands and natural areas. This can reduce supplies in other areas and result in either shortages or create a demand for other land to meet those needs, leading to higher prices for food or forest products and compromised ecosystems. That’s from the Pembina Institute.

The issue here with bioenergy from forestry — one of the issues, anyway — is how long it will take to restore the carbon which is lost through harvest and what effect it will have on other ecosystem services such as oxygen production, carbon sequestration, water purification, pollination, soil formation and nutrient recycling — which is a very important factor.

Now, the Minister of Forests, I know, is big on the plan in the northwest. In my colleague’s area they’re talking with First Nations about becoming more involved in producing wood pellets for export to Alberta or wherever they intend to use those. That may have some beneficial effect, but we have to be most careful about how that work is done.

In conclusion, I’d like to say that the people of British Columbia were looking for more in this budget. They were looking for something that would give them some confidence that jobs are going to be forthcoming, because that’s one of the biggest concerns. We know that there are fears. The government has openly talked about the fears, too, of possibly a double-dip recession being triggered by factors in the United States.

[1450]

My constituents and other British Columbians, I know, are concerned about jobs, and yet they didn’t see anything in this budget that would give them faith that their jobs are going to be secured, that their kids’ jobs are going to be secured. Certainly, the salvation for job production in British Columbia is not going to be the HST, yet that seems to be the primary motivation that the government is putting forth.

On the other hand, they’ve talked about the forest sector, revitalization of the forest sector, but the forest sector and that ministry have been whacked big-time, so the actions of the government and of the minister make it hard not to believe that there’s an abandonment of forestry, in fact. That’s certainly bad news in many formerly, at least, forestry-dependent communities that don’t have a lot of other options.

Every time I drive down the Lougheed Highway in Maple Ridge — because we have forestry manufacturing in Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows as well — I look at those smaller mills and secondary remanufacturing facilities and hope that they’re still going. So far, it seems to me that a number of them are, and we keep our fingers crossed.

Of course, the Hammond Cedar mill, which once was the biggest in the world, now is dwindling faster and faster — hopefully, not closing. It’s an Interfor mill, and the workers don’t have the confidence that Interfor is reinvesting strongly in British Columbia. We see them investing more south of the border, moving mills, moving operations, so there’s a lot of concern out there.

What we’re going to be seeing, I guess, at some point before too long, is the introduction of some legislation around the HST. We can have a full debate about it then. There will be many people out on the doorsteps talking about that very issue, and it’s going to result in some interesting times this spring.