THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 23, 2012
Budget Debate
M. Sather: Well, it’s my pleasure to rise in response to the budget for the upcoming fiscal year and projections into the future. We’ve heard a great deal from the Finance Minister and from the government about taking a cautious approach, financial approach, etc. Let’s take a look at what their record has actually been and see if the evidence supports the rhetoric. This government presided over six deficit budgets, including the biggest deficits in the history of this province. Their first budget was a whopping $3.4 billion in the red, followed by $2.5 billion, and then $1.2 billion. That was the first round of their huge deficits that they have run.
Yet the Finance Minister says that they got the province on the road to balanced budgets. I don’t think so. They were left with a balanced budget and quickly racked up huge deficits year after year. This year we see for the current fiscal year another big deficit — this time $2.5 billion. This particular deficit, though, has a bit of a twist in it.
Residents of British Columbia, of course, will remember very clearly the implementation of the HST — the intention to do that, and the problems with the $1.6 billion in upfront money that the government got to try to sell British Columbians on the HST.
Now, they may also know that the government, though, made an arrangement with the federal government to pay back that $1.6 billion over five years. For this year we actually owe $320 million on that HST debt. However, the government has chosen to put all of the $1.6 billion on this year’s books. Why would they be doing that, I wonder? It’s simply to avoid having to count
that debt on next year’s books and, therefore, to pretend — we have seen the pretence that this government has around their so-called balanced budgets — they’ll have a balanced budget next year, trying to delay some of the worst of the bad news until after the next election.
Of course, British Columbians have seen this gong show before, in the 2009 election when this government said they would have a deficit of $495 million maximum, not a penny more. Then they brought in a deficit of $1.8 billion — 3.8 times larger than they said they would do. That is the reason why British Columbians have so little faith in this government and their talk about
balanced budgets.
Then there’s the B.C. Hydro deferral accounts flimflam that British Columbians have been subjected to, the $2.2 billion the government has run up with their ill-advised private power purchases, scheduled to hit $5 billion in expenses that British Columbians are paying for in higher hydro rates. Instead of counting these every year, as the Auditor General told them
they should do, they’ve put them off into deferral accounts, again trying to put off the bad news.
In the coming fiscal year the Liberals will run up a deficit to the tune of $968 million, this while having legislation that supposedly outlaws deficit budgets. But there’s been a bunch of them, and they keep on coming.
Now the government says they’re going to have a balanced budget for 2013-14, just in time for the next election. The Finance Minister has a very peculiar notion of financial accountability. With the debt rolling up massively, he thinks they should be lauded for, as he put it, quote “outperforming our budget targets in nine out of ten years” — those ever-changing targets, Madam Speaker.
This is a government that a number of years ago railed about the so-called fudge-it budget of Glen Clark. What was that NDP deficit? It was about $300 million. The Liberals’ deficit after the 2009 election was six times bigger — six times. The decade of deceit is what we’ve seen from this government.
This government is now resorting to selling assets to pay the piper — like land belonging to school districts, health authorities and post-secondary institutions — and to try to convince British Columbians they won’t have a deficit next year. Some $7 million in sell-offs there.
Not only are they selling off assets, but they are milking ICBC once again. It’s $497 million this time, in addition to the $778 million they have already milked from ICBC just since 2009. That’s $1.3 billion taken from ICBC. Who is going to pay for that, Madam Speaker? Drivers in British Columbia are going to pay.
That is, of course, if they can get a driver’s licence, you know; if they’re able to get through the DriveABLE program that this government has set up.
Interjection.
M. Sather: The member says: “Oh, please.” I’ll tell you, if you’re a senior and you’re faced with a computer program or a touch screen and you aren’t used to having a computer at all, what kind of measurement is that of whether you can drive or not? It’s intimidating, and it’s unfair to seniors.
If they want to test the seniors, if they think they can’t drive — fair enough. Give them a road test. Give them a proper test. But no. It’s a totally unfair program that’s been foisted on seniors. Then if you fail, you get stuck without your car wherever you may be, which is a real problem in rural areas.
The minister says we incurred a temporary deficit. Well, that’s not very temporary. It’s three years and running. That’s this iteration of their run of deficits, and that’s not counting the ones that they started off with.
He says: “We made a commitment to balance the budget next year.” Well, he’s changed his tune about that about five times in the last year. Oh, first it was going to be a balanced budget. No, no. Then: “We can’t do it. You know, gas prices are down, etc., etc.” He’s flip-flopped back on forth on that one. Who could have any confidence in this Finance Minister or this government when it comes to keeping their promises on balanced budgets?
How about the debt? The Liberal debt went from $34 billion in 2001 to $53 billion, an average yearly increase of $1.9 billion. This doesn’t include the $82 billion in off-book debt. There are a lot of b’s out there when it comes to this government. The b’s are buzzing. They just roll off — $82 billion over their term in office.
This government, these folks, are the biggest spenders ever known in this province. They talk about, you know, how prudent and cautious they are. Wow. They’re not shovelling cash off the back of a truck; they’re shoveling it off the back of a supertanker. I mean, these guys know no end.
And now, in this budget, the government is spending another $20 billion, most of that borrowed. Add them up, Madam Speaker. That comes to 145 b’s. That’s b’s as in billions. They just keep rolling off the tongues of this so-called prudent government over there.
Let’s look at spending, because that’s how you get these multitudes of b’s, through spending. And man, has there been wasteful spending by this government: $780,000 on an HST pamphlet — never used, trashed, and I hope they recycled it at least; $50 million on the Boss Power uranium deal for failing to follow the law; $25 billion — $25 billion — in the 30-40 year private power purchases B.C. Hydro was forced to make at $120 a megawatt hour, when it’s only selling for half that in B.C. and about a quarter of that on the export market. Buy high; sell low. That’s the model of these prudent fiscal managers over there.
The minister says we’re in a new paradigm. He says the days of tolerating government overspending are over. Well, this must be a very, very new paradigm. He must have made it up about this week, I would say, because there’s no history of it with this government — none whatsoever. The minister said: “Some say we should simply spend more, tax more, and pass the bill on to the next generation.” Well, he ought to know, because that’s exactly what this government has been doing.
Let’s look at some of those taxes that they’ve inflicted upon British Columbians. MSP premiums — up 4 percent again. That’s four increases in just three years, for a total of a 24 percent increase. Those are costs that hit the average British Columbian hard. The Health Minister seems to think that the MSP increases weren’t in the budget at all, but what the Finance Minister
said, referring to a lift in MSP premiums, is: “They will increase by 4 percent beginning in 2013.”
Individuals are paying $366 more per year in MSP premiums since this Liberal government came to power, and families are paying $732 more a year.
How about ferry fares? Up, up, up. Tuition fees? Up, up, up. Long-term-care fees? Way up. Home care fees? Way up. Then, of course, there’s the HST. Taxpayers will be saddled with repayment of this fiasco this year and the next four years. So 11 months to bring it in, but mysteriously, it’s taking 19 months to get rid of it. Another legacy of debt left by this government.
This is the Finance Minister’s and the Premier’s most peculiar definition of fiscal prudence.
The Finance Minister talks about “our record of fiscal discipline.” I guess they figure we could have run up the deficit even more than we did, even more than the $145 billion. Maybe that’s just what they will do. “Our always prudent approach,” he says. It would be eminently laughable if it wasn’t for the hurt it’s causing British Columbians.
The Premier talked a lot about the families-first agenda. We didn’t see much of that in this budget. It kind of seems like the Finance Minister sort of muscled the Premier aside there a bit. But I can tell you, if you’re a farmer, like in my constituency, and you’re hoping to be able to continue on with the family farm and your parent dies, as happened to my constituent, the government then makes you go through, a process where your land shoots up to $4.5 million from $600,000 in assessment. Then you’re told: “You know what? You’re not eligible for the family farm exemption” — which is there to help family farms pass on the farm from the parent to children — “You’re not eligible.” Why? “Because your parent wasn’t on the farm when they died.” No — she was in hospital, actually. She was in care.
Interjection.
M. Sather: I beg your pardon? “Grow something” the member says. I’m not sure what he is talking about — grow something. We’re talking about an operating farm here. We’re talking about a farm that’s been in continuous production since 1951. But I don’t know what the member thinks is his idea of….
Interjections.
M. Sather: The member is completely unaware of the facts, but that’s not uncommon at all.
Interjections.
Deputy Speaker: Order, please. Member. Order.
M. Sather: It’s not uncommon at all.
An Hon. Member: Sorry.
M. Sather: Well, the member should be sorry. But nevertheless, let’s carry on.
So that’s one of the sad facts: that families first is certainly not for everybody. I’m not sure that it’s for anybody. Look at the Community Living B.C. fiasco, for example, and nowhere more was the mishandling of that or…. I didn’t call it mishandling, because it was intentional what was done to the Ridge Meadows Recycling Society in Maple Ridge, where those special needs workers were told: “You know what? You don’t have a real job, so we’re going to get you out there to have a real job.” They threatened — this government did — to cancel that program, to cancel it. Then the Premier made a visit over to our facility, and she said, “Well, actually, they are doing real jobs, and everything is cool” and: “These workers are safe. They won’t lose their jobs.” Well, that’s not quite the case, because what CLBC is saying — what this government is saying — is that: “Yeah, if you happen to be a worker there now you’re not going to lose your job. But if you want to get a job there, well, you know what? You’re going to be on a short leash. You’re going to be on a short leash, because we’re going to take you from there, and we’re going to put you into competitive employment.”
Well, Madam Speaker, the fact is that not all of those workers will be able to manage in competitive employment situations. They need the kind of supports they get there. But that’s not what’s happening behind the scenes. Families in my constituency and in the constituency next door, in Maple Ridge–Mission, are asking to meet with CLBC. They want to know what’s going on. They asked the last time this came around. They’re still waiting, and I don’t have a great deal of confidence in where the government is going.
I think that this government certainly doesn’t like non-profit organizations. They want to see that facility privatized. Never mind what happens to the special needs workers there. We look at education in this budget. The only money for education was $60 million for special education, and this is all, I think, related to what the government is trying to do in a ham-fisted way and in an unfair way with the Supreme Court ruling.
It said, you know, that they were wrong in telling the government they couldn’t bargain class size and composition, but overall, we’re looking at a .06 percent increase for education. Inflation in this province is 1.7 percent. So if you’re getting a .06 percent increase and a 1.7 percent inflation environment, that’s obviously a decrease. On top of that, school districts will have to pay for the aforementioned MSP increase, and that comes to a fairly large bill for them.
Post-secondary education — our universities, colleges and trades training programs — were hit with a $20 million cut this year and a $50 million cut next year.
Well, how about jobs? The Premier says that she’s all about jobs. They’re certainly advertising, spending another $15 million in advertising jobs, but advertising jobs and actually supporting jobs are a different matter. We need an educated workforce to deal with technological change and a looming skills shortage. Nothing in this budget on skills training and a 1 percent reduction in advanced education.
The Premier said the other day that she is in favour of private sector jobs. The inference being that she’s not in favour of public sector jobs. This is totally evident in her disdain for public sector workers. Why is the Premier against people working in the public sector? They clean our streets, take out our garbage, care for us in hospital, teach our kids and care for our aging parents. So when she claims that she’s all about jobs, apparently it’s only about jobs in the private sector. Everybody else beware.
Who is it that pays the biggest price for the Premier’s uncaring attitude towards jobs in British Columbia? Young workers. They’re the ones that are hit the hardest.
Let’s look at seniors. Very little for seniors in the budget, despite all of the talk before the budget which was spurred by the Ombudsperson’s scathing review of the treatment and mistreatment of seniors in this province. They have a home-renovation tax credit, but that’s not going to help low-income seniors. They would have been better served by improved home support services to allow them to remain in their homes longer.
The government will think about a seniors advocate. We have been saying for a long time that we need a seniors advocate, and they said in December they’re going to get around to maybe thinking about that, addressing that.
In health care we’re looking at more and more hallway medicine. We have seen the doctors up in arms at Royal Columbian Hospital about that state of affairs, and in other hospitals. Seniors are going to wait a year or more to get into long-term care from hospital, which is not only bad care, but it’s exceedingly expensive and wasteful.
How about the forest industry? Nothing in this budget to help forestry, which could really use some assistance from this government. We have seen a huge increase in raw log exports — logging trucks driving by the few remaining mills crying out for logs.
Exporting B.C. jobs is what this government has become proficient at — 37 percent fewer workers in forestry in B.C. than there were in 2001. The Minister of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations tried to say, in this House yesterday, that they’re doing a lot for forestry. Not so, Madam Speaker. Funding for forestry research has dropped from $38.8 million in 1997 to $2.5 million in 2010. The government has been charging as little as 25 cents per cubic metre on interior beetle-killed pine, bringing on a softwood lumber dispute from the U.S. totalling $500 million. Workers are moving to the oil patch in droves to find work, as forestry flounders under this government.
As Fred Bunnell, professor emeritus of forest services at UBC, put it, “The government has given up on forest stewardship” — given up. The government makes goals for protecting soils, fish and wildlife, riparian areas, water and visual quality, but then consciously does nothing to enforce these goals. Protecting our forests is red tape to them.
Harvesting in beetle-killed areas has reached cuts 10,000 hectares in size or larger. There’s no concern expressed for other forest values in allowing operations like this, and there’s little or no coordination of logging in beetle-killed areas. Companies just go out and start logging where they see fit. It’s very difficult for tourism operators to develop a business on the land base when no one is obliged to see to their concerns. You put in time and effort to develop trails, and then they’re clearcut without any kind of even a visual protection strip. Your business is pretty much toast.
Ranchers are also having problems with increased flooding due to clearcut logging of beetle-killed forests. Large clearcuts encourage cattle to wander further afield, making them more difficult to manage.
The Forest Practices Board said, “There’s a fundamental weakness in the system that allows one tenure holder to hold the power of decision over another tenure holder.” Even dead trees slow runoff by intercepting snowfall and providing shade. In beetle-killed forests you will also find some pines still alive and other species like spruce, fir and aspen. These living trees are removed along with the dead pine during the salvage operations, and their ecological values goes with them.
A Forest Practices Board report found that the beetle kill increased flood risk by 60 percent, increasing to 92 percent after salvage logging. This flooding is bringing more sediment even down to the Lower Fraser River, causing buildup along dykes, increasing flooding risk in those areas. All these problems and forestry gets short shrift in this budget.
What about other natural resources? Our forests generate $10 billion in economic activity a year. Tourism generates $13 billion per year and 129,000 jobs. Those would be jobs that you’d think the Premier was interested in. Tourism is barely mentioned in this budget. Their marketing budget is frozen. The government is putting little into these economic and jobs generators.
The Premier has put all her eggs in the liquefied natural gas basket. But China has got more reserves of shale gas than anybody else in the world, and pretty soon they will be pulling their own reserves out. So I don’t know if the project is going to be as successful as hoped.
Recreational trout fishing generates $240 million per year in this province. But 58 percent of the resource road–stream crossings pose a moderate to high risk of blocking fish. Some 77,000 streams need remediation in this province. How many is this government doing? Twenty-five a year. Total mismanagement.
Since this government came to power and up to 2009, funding for renewable resource management is down by half. There’ve been further large cuts since then, but the government doesn’t report these.
British Columbians and others are rightfully concerned about the lack of equality in our province. The income share of the top 1 percent of British Columbian earners has almost doubled in the last few decades. Such an uneven distribution in incomes has not been seen since the dark days of the Great Depression. Young workers now face lower wage earnings than did their parents.
The Finance Minister is not concerned about the imbalance between the most wealthy and the rest of British Columbians. He says that if British Columbians think our corporate tax structure is heavily skewed against them, then they must be advocates of life in Cuba. That’s how seriously our Finance Minister takes the concerns that British Columbians have about making ends meet. An uncaring Finance Minister combined with a reckless Premier is what we have in British Columbia today.
I want to take a short look at the Golden Ears Bridge in my constituency with regard to so-called fiscal prudence. This was one of the Finance Minister’s favourite projects back when he was Transportation Minister. Bilfinger Berger built the bridge, said by the government to be a $600 million deal, and the bridge came in at over a billion dollars, according to the lawyers that put the deal together. The bridge is already over $60 million in the red.
On February 8 it was announced that Bilfinger Berger Project had sold a 50 percent stake in the bridge for $45 million. Who did Bilfinger Berger Project sell to? Well, none other than Bilfinger Berger Global Infrastructure. What is Bilfinger Berger Global Infrastructure doing with their contrived profits? Well, tucking them away in Luxembourg, of course — a well-known tax haven.
This is one of the legacies of this government’s P3 public-private partnership misadventure. This is not by any means prudent fiscal management. This is clever fleecing of the taxpayers of this province over and over again.
You know, the Enbridge pipeline is a big topic of debate….
Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Member.
