Watch or read New Democrat finance spokesperson Carole James’ response to Budget 2015:

“I’m pleased to rise to continue my response to B.C. Budget 2015. I want to start off talking a little bit about what budgets are. Budgets really are a reflection of the character of the government that produces them. This budget is no different. A budget tells us about government’s priorities. It tells us about their choices. It gives us an idea of how the government views the world, what’s important to the government and, just as critical, what is not important.

I heard the Finance Minister yesterday state in his budget response: “Governing is always about choices.” That was the Finance Minister’s quote.

I’d like to start by looking at Budget 2015 and what it tells British Columbians. What choices, using the Finance Minister’s own words, were made by the B.C. Liberals in this budget?

I’d like to start with the fact that this budget tells British Columbians that even though they’re stretched to the limit, even though they’re already paying more in fees and rate hikes, with Budget 2015, they’re actually going to have to pay even more.

And why is that? It’s because the B.C. Liberals actually did make a choice in this budget, despite the Finance Minister’s words about tightening our belts. Last week I heard him talk about the fact that he was proud of being known as Dr. No, that whenever anybody came forward to ask for additional supports or additional services, he’s very proud about the fact that he says no, that he has that reputation.

In fact, in one part of this budget Dr. No, the Finance Minister, didn’t actually say no. The Finance Minister and all of the B.C. Liberals on that side decided in this budget that they’d give a tax break to B.C.’s highest-income earners, the top 2 percent in our province. That was a choice. That was a choice, a line item of over $200 million that is going directly to the top 2 percent of income earners.

What do middle-class families get? What do the people who I see in my community every single day get? They get more pressure. They get more costs. But don’t worry. There’s a break for those at the very top. They’ll get a break, but not the rest of British Columbians.

Now, I’ve heard the Finance Minister say — and I think we heard it again today — that it’s not actually a tax break. It’s just keeping a promise. Keeping a promise? I have to tell you that that is unbelievable to hear from this government across the other side.

All we need to say to the public is HST, LNG, a doctor for everyone, Debt-free B.C.. That is just a very short list of a long list of promises that have not been kept by this government. But oh, don’t worry. “When it comes to the top 2 percent of income earners, we’re going to make sure that that promise is kept. We’re going to make sure we’re following through on that, never mind all those other people in British Columbia who are struggling and having a hard time.”

I also heard the Finance Minister, in the last few days, say that he was just letting the tax increase expire — that that’s all this was. It was just expiring. He wasn’t deciding anything, like it almost just happened by itself. I’d like people to take a look at the budget speech by the Finance Minister, because in fact, there’s an entire section in that budget speech that’s called “Tax Credit Extension.”

They certainly did choose to extend a number of tax measures. They certainly could have chosen the tax measure of keeping the increase on high-income earners. It was a choice to give a tax break and to use over $230 million of taxpayer dollars.

How does that tell families that times are tough? What does that say to the person I met on the weekend who works in my local supermarket whose husband passed away? She had to go back to work. She has lost her house because they didn’t have a pension. He had a heart attack and died.

She’s in her 60s, and she’s had to go back to work as a clerk at the supermarket. She works long hours, and because we have a 24-hour supermarket, she actually sometimes has to go to work at midnight and doesn’t finish until 7:00 a. m. — in her 60s. What does this budget say to her about this government’s choices? What does this budget say to her and her family?

It says that the B.C. Liberals say: “You don’t matter. But don’t worry. Those people earning the most — they matter. We found money for them.”

I also think this budget, coming back to the choices that it makes and what it says about a government, points out that this government seems to have an inability to see reality, an inability to handle the truth about what’s going on in British Columbia.

Over the time I have this afternoon I want to speak a little more to those points. I want to speak to the reality for hard-working families in our province. I want to talk a little bit about missed opportunity.

I want to start off, as I said, with this government’s inability to handle the truth or to see reality. We all know that this Premier made a risky bet — a bet on LNG, all the time, every moment of every day. For the last number of years, that’s what we’ve been hearing from this Premier, and it’s not panning out the way this Premier had told all of us.

I’d like to read a few of those quotes, because I think it’s really helpful for the public to actually go through the chronology of what this Premier said about LNG. I want to start off with February 2012, where the Premier said that B.C. would see: “At least one LNG on line by 2015 and at least three in operation by 2020.”

Continuing on to February 2013. The province committed to a prosperity fund. How many people remember that prosperity fund? It was in their throne speech. We talked a week ago about throne speeches having nothing in them. Well, in 2013 the Premier loaded up that throne speech. Loaded it up with LNG and loaded it up with commitments to a prosperity fund that would: “Exceed $100 billion over the next 30 years.” It could eliminate the provincial debt, the provincial sales tax.

The Premier, in a press release coming out of that throne speech, said: “B.C. can create tens of thousands of jobs…and generate $1 trillion in economic activity over the next 30 years.” As you can see as we go through each of the throne speeches and each of the years of the Premier, the promises got bigger and bigger and bigger.

A government fact sheet at that same time said: “Now, the economic impact of five new LNG plants before the end of the decade is going to be significant for British Columbians.” So I think we started off with one. Then there going to be three. I think now we’re up to five LNG plants.

Then we move ahead to May, and we went into an election campaign. The B.C. Liberals, and we hear them talk about this quite often, made a number of commitments to the people of British Columbia. During that campaign LNG was the answer for absolutely everything. A quote from the Premier, “Our goal is Debt-free B.C., and we intend to reach our goal 15 years from today” which was April 15.

LNG, at that point, was going to pay off the debt. It was going to balance the budget. It was going to pay for health care. It was going to reduce poverty. The B.C. Liberals even claimed that they would introduce legislation on the prosperity fund to pay off the debt for B.C. Hydro, B.C. Ferries and the Port Mann Bridge. So let’s see. We’re now up to hydro, we’re now up to ferries, we’re now up to MSP. We have no provincial sales tax. We’re debt-free. It’s extraordinary, absolutely extraordinary.

And then continuing on. May 2014. A quote from the Premier: “We do know what we can do today, and that is make sure that as a government we look at every decision we make through the lens of whether or not it fits with our purpose in creating an LNG industry in British Columbia. This is our central preoccupation.”  We’re going to give it absolute laser focus.”

In fact, after the Premier made that comment, every minister in government got a letter of expectation. I support those letters of expectation. I think it’s a good approach. It was started by a previous Premier who felt that there needed to be more accountability, and I think the letters of expectation are actually a positive direction to give an opportunity for the government to have a central focus, to be able to ensure that all the ministers are looking at their ministries.

But when it came to LNG, the issue that was raised with me — and at the time I was the critic for Children and Families — was that even the letter of expectation for the Minister of Children and Families stated that they needed to look at how they could show their focus in their ministry, with their resources, to support LNG.

Well, I’m sorry, but having seen the kinds of struggles that children in care are going through, having seen the struggles of youth with mental health challenges, having seen the struggles for children who are aging out of care and can’t get support, I would suggest that the better approach would have been to focus on the Ministry of Children and Families and getting that in line instead of LNG.

We saw that across government, whether it was the Health Minister, whether…. You name it; the letter of expectation talked about LNG. If you listened to the Premier, it all sounded great. It all sounded like it was going to be so easy, except for one problem: it wasn’t. It wasn’t easy because governing isn’t easy. Governing is hard, and it’s not a fairy tale. You have to get your priorities straight. The Premier’s risky bet, all LNG all the time, wasn’t working out the way she told British Columbians.

I have to say — and this comes back to the government’s difficulty in handling the truth and in handling the reality of British Columbia — it wasn’t until the October 2014 throne speech that the Premier and the Liberal government actually had to acknowledge what everyone else in this province had been saying and had been seeing all along. In that throne speech, the LNG promises from the Premier…. I’ll give a quote. Remember she talked about laser focus? Now LNG was “a chance, not a windfall,” not going to solve everything that was going on. Now LNG was a chance.

In the February throne speech of this year LNG was simply an opportunity. In fact, it’s hardly mentioned.

Now, all of this would be laughable if it hadn’t had an impact on our province, if it hadn’t had an impact on all of those other industries that have been trying to get the government’s attention. I take a look at all of the missed opportunities that were there for jobs, that were there for expansion, that were there for economic growth in British Columbia.

Other industries spent time talking to us. I’m sure they raised it with the government and with the ministers about the fact that they couldn’t get any attention for their industry. Unless you talked about LNG, there wasn’t an opportunity for the government to pay any attention to your industry.

In fact, I even heard industries joke about trying to put LNG in their name somewhere, because maybe if they changed the name or threw it into some agenda that they were bringing forward, maybe the government would pay attention. Maybe they’d be able to get a callback from someone in the minister’s office. Maybe somebody would recognize what they were contributing to British Columbia. But that didn’t happen. That didn’t happen because the Premier put all her eggs in one basket instead of recognizing the importance of all industries in British Columbia.

I have to say that now it’s very interesting to hear the Premier and the Finance Minister, just in the last few days, start adjusting their message on the economy. All of a sudden, diversity in our economy is actually a wonderful thing. Diversification helps us weather the global economic challenges so we don’t have to deal with single commodity fluctuating prices, as we see with oil. Well, I’d like to say, on behalf of all of us, a huge thank-you to all of those industries who’ve continued to survive and thrive in British Columbia despite this government’s singular obsession.

While the Premier was busy putting all her eggs in one basket, other industries were continuing to work hard. They were doing what they do every single day in British Columbia. They were contributing to our economy. They were providing jobs for British Columbians. They were looking to expand opportunities despite a lack of support and a lack of focus by this government.

We know that British Columbia’s future doesn’t rely solely on the success or failure of any one industry. Our success in our province relies on every British Columbian working in a diverse, dynamic economy across many industries in every corner of our province.

Focusing solely on one industry to the exclusion of others meant wasted opportunity. It meant lost potential for families, for workers, for jobs and for economic growth — lost potential for people and our province.

I’d like to take the next little while to just take a look at a few industries that do contribute to our province and to take a look at how they fared under the B.C. Liberals over the last number of years.

I’m going to start with an industry that certainly, I think, most people would see as the backbone of our economy, an industry that really did help build our province, that continues to help build our province and that will continue to build our province in the future. That’s the industry of forestry. There are many of us from forest communities on this side of the House who continue to support forestry despite the government’s direction.

Our forests represent a quarter-trillion-dollar asset that is owned by the people of British Columbia. I want to start off with that, because I think it’s a fact that’s often forgotten on the other side of the House — that those trees and that industry and those forests belong to the people of British Columbia. It’s an asset that is here for all of us.

We’re one of those very, very fortunate jurisdictions that have natural resources like forestry. And yet what we’ve seen under the B.C. Liberals is that we get less and less revenue and less and less jobs from every tree that we cut. Wood exports have increased since 2009, but what have most of those been? Raw logs — taking our natural resource and sending it out of British Columbia.

Exports of value-added wood products are still far behind what they were even in 2000. We’ve seen half the companies in the value-added sector go out of business since 2002. We’ve seen employment in the forest sector fall by 40 percent. Sales of value-added have fallen by 60 percent.

The president of the Independent Wood Processors Association, Russ Cameron, says that his members have suffered “because of the inattention of the Liberal government.” Back again to what happens when you put all your eggs in one basket, forget about the very industries that built this province and that are continuing to sustain us and don’t give them the kind of attention and support that they need.

Small and medium businesses in other parts of the forest sector are also struggling. We’ve seen silviculture contracts and contractors getting paid half of what they were in the year 2000. Many of them aren’t even making enough money to be able to stay in business.

We certainly know when it comes to investments that this government has not invested in silviculture. They haven’t looked at how to support a sustainable forest industry through replanting, through research and development.

Silviculture has also provided a great number of jobs for our young people as they’re going to school, in university and college, perhaps looking for further education. Again, those opportunities are taken away with the lack of support and lack of investment in this very critical industry in British Columbia.

How do we compare if we take a look at forestry and take a look at other provinces in maximizing value from our B.C. natural resource? It’s an important statistic to take a look at. As I said, that resource belongs to all of us in British Columbia. What are we getting from it? What value are we getting from it?

Well, for every tree we cut, B.C. gets just one-quarter of the number of jobs that they do in Ontario and one-third the number of jobs that they get from a tree in Quebec. B.C.’s wood and paper manufacturing industries make just one-fifth of the sales revenue from every tree we cut compared to Ontario and one-third the sales revenue compared to Quebec.

What does that statistic mean on the ground and in communities? It means we’ve lost jobs. It means people. It means impact — economic impact — on communities.

B.C. lost 206 forestry mills between 2001 and 2013. Think of the impact that that’s had on communities, on families who used to have jobs in those communities, who — many of them — moved to those communities, who love their work and who don’t have opportunities.

We’ve lost 21,000 wood and paper manufacturing jobs. That’s 40 percent of all jobs in that sector — gone. Job losses across the forestry sector in all areas of forestry since 2001 — 25,000 jobs lost, a 30 percent loss.

Now, I raise these statistics because of the lost opportunity. I raise these statistics because of our support for this industry and our desire to see the industry thrive, to see people with futures.

I’ve sat down with those loggers who’ve talked about the fact that their children will never have an opportunity to work in this field. They don’t see a future for their kids. Often they don’t see a future for the kids in their community because of the mill closure or the job loss. That’s what’s been lost with the lack of support for diversification by this government.

I want to touch now on manufacturing and exports. Again, if you take a look at economic growth, if you take a look at opportunities for economic growth in our province, often manufacturing and exports is a good place to look at statistics to see how we compare with the rest of the country. Well, the statistics aren’t great in this area either.

We are actually one of the weakest-performing provinces in Canada when it comes to export intensity. British Columbia exports just under $19,000 worth of goods and services per capita. That’s behind almost every other province, except Nova Scotia, P.E.I. and Quebec. We’re at the bottom when it comes to exports.

In 2013 we imported $21.8 billion more in goods and services than we exported. That’s a deficit worth 8.7 percent of our provincial GDP. Even a small investment in manufacturing, a small investment in export markets would see a huge boost and increase to economic growth in British Columbia.

Instead, we’ve seen investment in manufacturing actually decreasing by 3 percent in our province. It’s an interesting statistic to take a look at — business sector investment overall — because it really is a key indicator that speaks to the economic strength of our province and certainly speaks, as well, to improvements in productivity.

If you’re not seeing that kind of private sector business investment, then there’s a worry. There’s a worry about what kind of upgrading and what kind of productivity we’re going to have as a province. It certainly is a concern when it comes to the manufacturing sector, because you need that kind of business investment in order to have a thriving manufacturing sector.

In 2013, B.C. ranked fifth for investment in non-residential structures, machinery and equipment as a percentage of our GDP. Even with the Premier’s sole focus…. I found this interesting. Even with the Premier’s area of LNG that she claimed she had laser focus on, even in that area the government left out the manufacturing sector.

The B.C. chapter of the Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters said last year that there was nothing in the provincial budget to encourage manufacturing to flourish around LNG projects and that the province needed to adjust from pursuing short-term economic gain from resource exploration towards investing in and creating sustainable manufacturing clusters.

I would have expected, given this — given the state of exports, given the state of the manufacturing sector in British Columbia — that when I took a look at the Premier’s job plan that she tabled a couple of years ago, there certainly would have been something in there around supporting our manufacturing industry. Well, in fact, manufacturing wasn’t even in the jobs plan until the update that happened this past September. It wasn’t even there, completely missed.

So there wasn’t support for forestry, other than shipping our raw resources out, losing those jobs and not supporting families, and no support for manufacturing and exports.

Let’s take a look at mining. This budget in fact acknowledges the lack of support for mining by this government after cutting staff all across the dirt ministries, the resource-based sectors, since 2001. Just to take a look at what those numbers look like, we saw a 27 percent cut — that’s over 1,900 FTEs — in the resource sector ministries.

We finally see in this budget that the government has added back $6 million to the Ministry of Energy and Mines. Well, we’re certainly glad to see those resources go in. Given the Mount Polley disaster, it’s even more critical for this industry, for communities and for workers, to have better support, better checks and balances, more boots on the ground. We’ll be watching very closely to see where those resources go — whether they actually go into providing that kind of support.

I have to say, given this government’s continued direction and belief that they need to cut regulations and cut red tape, we can hope that they’ve seen how important those kinds of protections and regulations are — important for workers, important for the community but also important for the mining industry. Something like Mount Polley sets back any kind of approvals and any kind of support for mining projects going forward. That’s not good for mining; it’s not good for British Columbia. That’s a real concern for the industry and for communities, as well as for workers.

I also have to say that mining is actually another one of those examples of the failed promises of this government. The jobs plan in 2011 promised eight new mines by 2015 and the expansion of at least nine mines.

Well, here we are. We’re in 2015. We have seen three new mines open. We’ve seen two old brownfield mines restart. We’ve also seen five mines closed. It’s nowhere near the promise and commitment that this government made. It certainly doesn’t look to me like there was a focus on mining in this province — again, one of those industries that helped build British Columbia, that provides resources to all of us, that provides jobs in communities. But not now — not without the support, not without a focus by this government.

Let’s take a look at another sector: energy. This is another sector that really is full of possibilities. I think many of us…. I’m sure it’s not simply those of us on this side of the House. I’m sure other MLAs, as well, have had the opportunity to talk to sectors involved in everything from geothermal to tidal, to wind, to solar, to retrofits, to conservation. There’re so many opportunities in the energy sector to provide options for British Columbia, to open up possibilities, to provide new industries, to be able to do our part for climate change, to be able to provide expansion.

With all of those possibilities in front of them, what did the government decide to do? Well, in fact, similar to what we saw with LNG, the government decided to put all their eggs in one basket, Site C, without any kind of thorough business case and a comparison with the other options that were out there.

There was a federal joint review panel. It reported that the power provided by Site C right now isn’t needed. That report went on to point out that there was a failure by this government to explore alternative energy sources and that the Site C project should be reviewed by the B.C. Utilities Commission.

That’s pretty sensible; that’s pretty straightforward. A huge project, billions of taxpayer dollars going into a project, shouldn’t go ahead without some kind of independent review, some kind of comparison. What would the costs be for other sectors in the energy field? What would the comparison be? What would the rates be for taxpayers? What would the costs be to taxpayers? What’s the long-term debt that we’re looking at? Because the Site C power isn’t needed for a number of years, as pointed out by the joint review panel, it was the perfect time. It was the ideal time to, in fact, explore and compare alternative energy sources.

Here’s an example. If this government really cared about diversification — if they were serious and they weren’t just now saying what they think they have to say because, oh dear, their singular focus didn’t work; “It’s not turning out the way we expected” — they wouldn’t put aside the opportunity to do this comparison. They wouldn’t put aside the opportunity to look and say: “What opportunities do we have with hydro, and what opportunities do we have for geothermal, for tidal, for solar, for retrofit of buildings?”

We all know, when it comes to power, that conservation is also a huge opportunity. It’s a huge opportunity for doing our part for climate change, for saving taxpayer dollars, saving families money. But it’s also a huge opportunity for jobs and job creation. There are buildings all over this province that could be retrofitted to save energy and to provide good-paying jobs for people in communities across B.C.

We haven’t seen that. We haven’t seen the government do that. Once again, it was a sector that they turned their back on. They said they had a direction, and they didn’t want to hear anything else.

What about agriculture? There are, again, so many opportunities in this sector of our economy. Just like energy, we’ve got a chance to expand. We’ve got a huge chance to diversify in this sector. We’ve got a chance to diversify and create new jobs. We’ve got a chance to be able to do our part for climate change. So how did the government decide to respond to that opportunity? Well, we spent the last year taking apart a well-respected and well-recognized piece of legislation that protected our agricultural land.

This government decided that they’d weaken protection. They’d weaken provincial oversight. They’d allow non-agricultural land use to take place where previously agricultural use was the priority.

Here we have a next generation of young farmers. I spent a lot of time over the last number of years, when I’ve travelled around the province, talking to people who are working in the area of agriculture. It has not been an easy field for people to work in. Families have talked about the fact that their kids have gone off to do other things because of the struggle that they’ve had in maintaining the family farm, in trying to provide that support.

In the last number of years we’ve actually seen a shift. We’ve seen a shift as people start talking about 100-mile diets. We’ve seen a shift as people start talking about wanting to get back to the land. We’ve seen a whole new young generation of farmers come forward, a young generation of people who really want to get into the industry. It’s exciting to see that there is that next generation stepping up to the plate.

What is this government’s response to them? They decide to shrink the land that’s available and drive land costs up as a direction to take when we finally see this next generation stepping up. Another industry, in my view, of missed opportunity.

We on this side of the Legislature aren’t waiting for those opportunities to pass us by in British Columbia. That’s why the member for Saanich South activated the standing committee on agriculture. If the government doesn’t do it, if they don’t believe in diversification, then we will. We’ll take the action.

I expect you’ll see some very interesting things coming forward from that committee and the public consultation that they are doing around the province. I’m sure the members will share all the information that’s there with the other side, or they could actually join the committee and come along. I’m sure we’d be open to that. I’m sure if they had conversations with that committee, they’d be keen to include government members from that side of the House on the agricultural committee.

Let’s take a look at high tech. This really is a success story in our province. I talked earlier about thanking industries, despite the government’s inattention, that have continued to grow and thrive, that have continued to contribute to our economic growth, that have provided jobs for British Columbia. This is one sector that really has shone in our province, that really has possibilities ahead.

What excites me is the possibilities that could be there if they actually got a little bit of leadership and a little bit of attention and support by government. We’ve seen the high-tech industry in British Columbia grow in the last 20 years from $4 billion to $23 billion. It’s extraordinary.

I certainly see it right here in Victoria in my own community. Right now we have approximately 9,000 companies and 84,000 employees working in the high-tech sector. It’s a great sector. It’s an exciting sector. A lot of young people are connected to this sector. And it’s a green sector. Again, when we talk about supporting our existing industries and also looking at how we transition to the new economy and providing support for the new industries, high-tech is one of those.

Let’s take a look at the components that are needed to grow this industry, because things don’t happen by themselves. There are various components that have to occur to keep various industries going. I talked, on forestry, about the need to get more value from each log, from each tree that we cut. That’s a critical component, a critical opportunity that is missed in British Columbia. Well, in high-tech there are a number of components to do with education and to do with investment that are tools that are needed to continue to expand this industry.

Let’s take a look at a few of those statistics. B.C. has 25 percent fewer undergraduate degrees per-capita than Ontario and Quebec — fewer people with those degrees, fewer people going into the sector. B.C. has half the number of engineers as the Canadian average, and B.C. has less than 1/5 of the PhDs as leading OECD countries. We also trail in all science and technology graduate degrees — again, a critical area that needs to be encouraged if we’re going to continue to grow our high-tech sector.

If we look at the range of indicators to developing skills and knowledge needed for this industry to grow, B.C. lags behind. What about research and development? It’s a critical indicator for this industry. Without research and development, the industry is going to fail. Well, again, on this indicator we fall behind. B.C.’s level of R and D as a percentage of GDP remains 40 percent lower than Ontario and Quebec. On tax credits B.C. is significantly lower than Ontario and Quebec.

I mentioned what’s possible. I think my frustration and the reason that I’m taking the time to talk about these industries is that we have so much potential, and I see it right here in my backyard. People only need to take a look at the tech industry in Victoria to see the kind of economic growth, to see the kind of spinoff jobs that are occurring, to see the kind of excitement that’s going on in the life of our community.

Victoria is a community that doesn’t have a very diversified economy. Many people, and most of the folks that I know, have had to have their spouses or their kids move away to other places to be able to get jobs. Those of us who’ve lived in Victoria most of our lives have worked hard to try and look at that diversification and what opportunities are there.

We’ve had some great success with the shipbuilding industry — despite the government’s direction to send ferry building across to Europe — to actually get a contract and get that industry going and support the basis that was already there. High-tech is like that as well. I can see the life that it’s bringing to our community.

Missed opportunities. With a government and a Premier who decided that she had one singular focus, as we talked about, one direction to go, we missed so much in British Columbia over these years. Industries deserve better than they got. They deserve better than a government that really turned away from them for a singular, risky bet that didn’t turn out the way the Premier had told all of us.

Now when I hear the Finance Minister and the Premier talk about diversification, I hate to say it, but I think it’s another one of those examples with this government where they say one thing and they do just the other. If they really had cared about diversification, we would have seen support for forestry. We would have seen support for agriculture. We would have seen support for high-tech. Not just lip service, not just words when now their bet isn’t turning out, but real concrete support for those industries that continue to contribute to British Columbia.

What’s our most important asset in our province? It’s our people. I want to take a little bit of time to talk about how families are managing, how people have fared in this budget, how they’ve done under the B.C. Liberals over the last 14 years.

It’s interesting, if you take a look, because democracies across the world are recognizing that a strong and growing middle class really is the foundation of a strong and growing economy, that they aren’t two separate things. You can’t say that we’ll deal with the issues for people and families when we’ve got the economy going. In fact, they are intricately tied. If you don’t deal with support for families, if you don’t provide support for equality, you are not going to see your economy grow. You are not going to see that kind of support there.

People are recognizing across the globe that growing inequality, where those at the top do very well and everybody else falls behind, is actually bad not only for those individuals and those families but bad for the economy.

There’s a quote from a recent speech that the Bank of England governor, Mark Carney — people will remember him from Canada, obviously — gave before Christmas. The quote is: “Prosperity requires not just investment in economic capital but investments in social capital.” I believe that if you ignore that fundamental truth, if you ignore the truth that it’s important to make sure that you’re addressing both the social and the economic side of your ledger, the result you see is the British Columbia that we see now after 14 years of the B.C. Liberals.

Let’s look at a few of those facts for British Columbians. It’s interesting to go back to the Liberals’ election in 2001, because the then Premier, Gordon Campbell, set some targets that he wanted to be measured and to be tracked. He took the Progress Board, and he said that they were going to set some targets and that that’s what their government was going to be measured on. That was going to show success for British Columbia.

In that Progress Board in 2001 the Premier at the time said that B.C. was going to be first or second in the country when it came to economic growth. The Premier also said that B.C. was going to be first or second in standard of living, and he also said that we would be first or second in jobs and the numbers of people who are gainfully employed.

Well, it’s interesting to look and see how that turned out. After 14 years of the B.C. Liberals are families better off? How do we measure up when you take a look at these indicators? I think it’s an interesting side note that, actually, the Premier, the existing Premier, got rid of the Progress Board. The Progress Board doesn’t actually exist anymore.

Their last report came out in 2010. We actually went back and looked at the stats. We took their indicators and their measures — we didn’t change the measures from the Premier’s Progress Board — and we looked at those indicators for today’s families after 14 years of the government being in power.

It’s very interesting to take a look. On the first key indicator, which was economic growth…. You remember, again, that the benchmark that was set by the former Premier was to be first or second when it came to economic growth. In fact, in 2013, which are the last numbers that are available, B.C. was in sixth place in real GDP growth per capita. That’s a long way from first and second. It’s a long way from being proud of the kind of economic growth that we have in British Columbia.

Again, that’s a direct result of not looking at the existing sectors and where things are booming and providing support for that so that you can weather the economic storms, so that you can provide the kind of levelling that is so needed in our economy.

There’s no question that we are a small, open economy here in British Columbia. There’s no question that we in fact have ridden the wave of commodity prices and markets over the last number of years. But that’s not a good long-term strategy for managing an economy.

We can ride the wave, and when things are going well, spend; and when things aren’t, everybody struggles. But that’s not any way…. It’s certainly not any way, I think, most of us would manage our household budgets. When things are good, spend, spend, spend; and when they’re not, too bad. You go without food. You give up your house. That doesn’t make any sense.

We need to look at long-term economic stability. I think what this indicator and what the lack of support for all of those many, many industries that have worked so hard have shown is that this government hasn’t provided that kind of support. They haven’t looked long term. They haven’t looked at how they could provide that levelling in a kind of economy that we have here in British Columbia.

Now, what about standard of living? This is an interesting one, because I hear on the other side often, from the government, that we’ve seen no change since the 1990s. Third place, and that’s using the government’s measure — which, I want to point out, is a measure of real after-tax disposable income and which doesn’t take into account the cost of living, doesn’t take into account housing affordability, doesn’t take into account income inequality.

If you add all those in, we know it will be certainly worse than third place. I’ll talk a little bit about all those measures as I go on. But again, on a measure where we’re supposed to, in British Columbia, be one of the leaders, you didn’t see the kind of focus, you didn’t see the kind of support that I think we would have all expected.

What about jobs? Again, this was a measure that the previous Premier was using back in 2001, when he had his Progress Board indicators. He talked about being first or second in British Columbia. The current Premier had her jobs plan that came out to great fanfare. It was going to solve all of the challenges that we face in British Columbia.

B.C. is in seventh place for the percentage of people who are gainfully employed, also known as the employment rate. We have the lowest employment rate west of the Maritimes here in British Columbia. Since the Premier was sworn in in 2011, 38,500 people have given up looking for work — not a record I think anybody should be proud of.

Since the 2008 recession B.C. has seen one of the weakest job recoveries across Canada. We’ve seen 50,000 jobs in three years and four months since the job plan came in. Unbelievable. The impact of that is felt in community after community after community, because although we talk about statistics, these are people. These are families. These are individuals who want to work full-time, who want to have a family-supporting job, who are doing everything right in their lives and who just aren’t seeing any kind of support coming forward.

I would think a jobs plan that has been launched and that launches us into seventh place when it comes to job growth would get a pretty big failure. You think it would be revamped. Most people, I would think, if they took a look at something and said, “Wow, we put all this time and energy, we put all of our resources, we put all of our support into this jobs plan. This is what’s going to get us the jobs in British Columbia….” They take a look after three years, and we’re seventh when it comes to jobs growth.

I understand focus. It’s important to focus, but it’s also important to recognize when you’ve made a mess of it and when what you’ve done isn’t working — to throw it away and start again, to say perhaps we need to do something different. Perhaps we need to focus on actually providing jobs and maybe looking at all of those other industries that we talked about that we haven’t been paying attention to.

Maybe that would help. Maybe if we did that, those industries that have kept chugging along despite the government…. Those industries have kept contributing despite the government. Maybe we need to provide some support to them. Maybe we need to make sure that we’re looking at all of British Columbia. Maybe we really need to actually act on diversification instead of just talking about it when it’s now convenient and the one big bet has gone down the toilet. I think that’s going to be critical.

Now I want to look at families themselves and one of the indicators that directly impacts families, and that of course is household income.

We saw a recent study, StatsCan data, that showed that between 2006 and 2012, B.C. experienced the worst income growth of any province in Canada. In fact, not only did we have the worst growth, we actually saw income fall in British Columbia. It fell by 2.4 percent. It’s actually even bleaker in some of our major cities. In Metro Vancouver employment incomes fell 3 percent. Here in Victoria income fell by 4.8 percent, and in Abbotsford, 5.1 percent.

I want to read a quote when the article came out with the statistics, because I hear from the government that they brush statistics off. “Oh, this doesn’t matter. It came from this group, or we don’t use those kinds of measures.” Well, when these statistics came out, there was a quote from Jock Finlayson, the VP of the Business Council of British Columbia. He said this of the analysis, that it “offers an important new perspective, particularly since it provides regional comparisons and it looks at median, the midway point of all incomes, rather than average employment incomes,” because average employment incomes are skewed upward due to a number of high income earners.

He went on to say:”Income data released over several years suggests that our economy isn’t providing enough high-paying jobs, that there are relatively more low-paying jobs over time within the broader labour market and that policy-makers need to pay attention to the problem of significant numbers of unemployed people whose job-related earnings make it hard to support a household.” That’s the B.C. Business Council recognizing that this is something we need to pay attention to here in British Columbia.

We have the highest level of wealth inequality in Canada right here in our province, the highest level of market income inequality — what people can actually earn from employment in the country.

Why should we pay attention to this indicator? Well, as I talked about earlier, the importance of a strong middle class is the foundation of a strong economy. You can’t ignore the inequality when it comes to wages and when it comes to poverty in a province and expect that you’re going to see your economy continue to grow.

This is being recognized across the world. There have been a number of reports, and I want to just read a few quotes from those reports that have understood the need to pay attention to this issue, unlike what we’ve seen on the other side.

The OECD published a report in late 2014. The report was titled Growth and Inequality: A Close Relationship? It was an interesting report to read. It stated that the evidence shows that inequality undermines economic growth — so again, back to the importance of paying attention to the issue of the people in your province and not simply the economy, as though the people can be separated out from any kind of strategy that you put together for the economy.

The report says: “Growing income inequalities can undermine the foundation of market economies. They can lead to inequalities of opportunity. This smothers social mobility and weakens incentives to invest in knowledge. The result is a misallocation of skills and even waste, through more unemployment, ultimately undermining efficiency and growth.”

There was also a report done in this past year by TD Economics. Their report was entitled The Case for Leaning Against Income Inequality in Canada. That report showed that rising inequality can hinder investment in human capital and curtail productivity, resulting in slower economic growth. Again, I just want to quote from this report, because I think the government often, as I said earlier, likes to write off statistics, likes to write off reports that have been done.

I think it’s important to recognize that there are a wide range of economists and economic groups across this country, as well as social and progressive groups, who have taken a look at the issue of the economy and inequality and have recognized how important it is to address it.

I quote from the report. “The ultimate result is slower economic growth because individuals fail to reach their full potential. Worse still, slow economic growth environments can further foster rising inequality by reducing public support” for policies that support addressing inequality “due to greater competition for the limited income gains provided by the economy.”

But the good news in this report is that “policies aimed at reducing income inequality need not dampen economic growth. Indeed, a 2014 report from the IMF argued that equality-enhancing actions can actually improve economic performance in the long run.”

Finally, in this area, I just want to quote Standard and Poor’s. They did a report, as well, on income inequality, and that report stated that income inequality is dampening U.S. economic growth. “Higher levels of income inequality increase political pressures.” They discourage trade, discourage investment and discourage hiring. “Extreme income inequality is a drag on long-run economic growth.”

I think if we take a look at all of the challenges facing people in British Columbia…. I talked about the median income. I talked about the difficulty families are having. We see that growing gap here in British Columbia. This is not something that has not impacted our province. In fact, it’s a reality in British Columbia.

It’s also getting tougher for young people to get ahead. There was a study done taking a look at Vancouver and ranking it last among the ten metropolitan cities when it comes to median incomes for those between the ages of 25 and 35. Those are individuals who have a bachelor’s degree or greater — so people who have gone to post-secondary education, people who are trying to better themselves, who are looking for those opportunities. And yet they’re in last place when it comes to opportunities to increase their incomes.

At the other end of the spectrum it’s not simply young people and people starting to get into the workplace. A Royal Bank of Canada poll showed that across Canada, British Columbians are the most worried out of any province in our country about their retirement security.

A report from Vancity showed that three out of four Vancouverites under the age of 45 won’t be able to retire. They don’t have any money to save for retirement; 75 percent of them can’t contribute to an RRSP. It’s not a matter of educating them to tell them about how important it is to save for your retirement. In fact they have no money to save for their retirement. They are just getting by, paycheque to paycheque, month to month with all of the increased costs and all of the increased pressures that they are facing.

British Columbians also have the highest level of consumer, mortgage and personal debt in the country. Forty-seven percent of British Columbians live paycheque to paycheque. Again, this is the reality.

I talked about the situation where this government doesn’t seem to want to see the truth or doesn’t seem to want to see the reality for families. These are not facts plucked from the air. These are statistics that are pointing out what all of us in this Legislature need to pay attention to, which is that the families and the middle income are squeezed in this province. They’re struggling to get by. They’re having a difficult time.

If we don’t address it, we will not see the kind of economic growth that we need to in British Columbia. We will not see the kind of success that our province should have as a province when it comes to economic growth. I think that’s something that, as I said, needs to be paid attention to, not simply by this side of the House but, in fact, by all of us, in our communities, who see those families every single day.

I want to take a look for a moment as well at the situation for B.C.’s most vulnerable, because I think that’s critical for us to pay attention to.

I want to say a huge appreciation for finally ending the clawback — we saw that in this budget — for single parents. I think it was a long-overdue move, and I want to express my appreciation to those families who came forward, because it’s not an easy thing to do. To share your personal story, to have to go in front of the media when you’re just trying to manage day to day is not an easy thing to do.

I can tell you, having talked to some of those, mainly, moms, but also some of the dads who contributed their resources towards their children…. I also know the huge impact that this is going to have for those families. Those spouses who are contributing towards helping their children with new clothes, basic school supplies, supporting them at Christmas time. Those children now are going to receive the money that was theirs in the first place and was being clawed back. I certainly think that that’s a positive move, and I was pleased to see it in this budget, Budget 2015.

Does that address the issue of the most vulnerable in British Columbia? No. In fact, B.C.’s child poverty rate, as we all know, under the B.C. Liberals has remained consistently higher than the Canadian average — first or second across this country, with the most children living in poverty. One out of five children in our province lives in poverty.

We can argue about the measures. I’ve heard the arguments on the other side. I’ve heard the government say: “Oh, it’s the wrong measurement. We shouldn’t be using the low-income measure after tax, or we should be using the low-income measure before tax.” Well, it doesn’t matter what measure you use. You could use the before-tax or after-tax measure. It still points out that we have too many children living in poverty in this province, and we need to address it in British Columbia.

That’s almost 170,000 children who are struggling each and every day, whose families are struggling to provide for them, who are having to access food banks, who are having to access breakfast programs and community programs that volunteers are putting on. I’m grateful. I’m incredibly grateful in our community for all the people who provide that support, who are there to provide that support. But it shouldn’t be that way in British Columbia. We shouldn’t have families having to line up at food banks to be able to feed their kids in a province like ours. Yet that’s the situation that we see after 14 years of the B.C. Liberals being in power.

What about the general population? Well, 19.4 percent of British Columbians live below the poverty line. That’s, again, higher than the Canadian average. I think another statistic that often gets ignored is that over half the children living in poverty have one or more parents employed. These are not all children of parents who are on income assistance. These are parents who are working but who aren’t able to make ends meet, often working part-time jobs, often working low-wage jobs, often working two and three jobs and juggling it because they certainly couldn’t afford child care to be able to manage on the kinds of salaries that they’re making. We all know that inequality isn’t good for those families and certainly isn’t good for our economy.

There’s a quote from another report, a report done by the Commission on Inclusive Prosperity, that says: “History tells us that societies succeed when the fruits of growth are broadly shared. Indeed, no society has ever succeeded without a large, prospering middle class that embraced the idea of progress.” And: “Nations need to ensure both that economic growth takes place and that it is broadly shared.”

In the decades following the Second World War, hundreds of millions of people across developed countries were able to work. They were able to gain economic security through higher salaries and through a series of benefits. Households saw that hard work and careful planning was going to deliver security for themselves and opportunity for their children year after year.

That’s what I see with families every single day. I see that families are working hard. They are trying to better themselves. They are looking for opportunities for their children. But they’re finding it tougher and tougher than it was even just a generation ago.

There’s huge concern, because people are struggling. Stagnant wages, as I talked about. Slow economic growth. Slow job growth, lagging behind other provinces. Huge insecurity. People aren’t sure whether their job is going to be there. They aren’t sure whether they’re going to have to work two jobs to be able to manage. That gives huge increased pressures.

Given that reality, as I’ve talked about — given the reality of industries that have been ignored, given the reality of dropping median incomes, given the reality of a shrinking middle class — what did this government decide to address in this budget? What did the government decide in Budget 2015 was going to be their priorities?

Those British Columbians that I’ve just talked about who are working hard, who want to make sure that their kids get the best start in life, who are often also looking after their parents and trying to provide that kind of support — they’re worried about their own retirement and wondering if they’ll ever be able to retire because they have no money to put aside. Those families don’t expect government to do it all.

Those families understand that they have to take personal responsibility, and they are. They’re doing everything they can. They’re doing everything right. But they certainly don’t expect their government to make it tougher for them, yet that is the reality in this budget. The choice made by the B.C. Liberals in this budget is to make life tougher for middle-income families with increased fees and costs. In this budget those people that we’ve talked about, that are struggling every day to get by, will now pay more and get less service.

Why did they do all of that? The B.C. Liberals in this budget did that because they needed to give a break to B.C.’s highest income earners. The top 2 percent of income earners get a break while your family ends up paying more.

Now, I’ve heard the Finance Minister stand up and talk about tightening our belts. He’s said, as I said earlier, that it’s been his job to say no. Well, the government did say no. They said no to average families. They said no to economic opportunity for everyone, and they said yes to the top 2 percent of income earners. Well, that is simply wrong — simply wrong.

What are families going to face specifically in this budget? Let’s look at the costs that people have been faced with since 2001 under the B.C. Liberals. I think it’s important for people to recognize that after 14 years there is a record for this government, a record of increased costs and pressures that families have been facing.

Let’s start with B.C. Hydro rates. Since 2001 they’ve increased 74 percent. What’s happening over the next five years? The rates are going to go up another 28 percent. That’s a bill every month that families are going to receive where their rates go up at a time when they’re struggling.

What about medical service premiums? They’ve increased 92 percent under the B.C. Liberals. Again, they’re expected to continue to increase by 4 percent for each year ahead. Then you add into this the unfairness of the medical service premium system itself. Whether your family makes $40,000 or whether you make $500,000, you actually pay the same amount. There’s nothing in the budget to address that unfairness and that inequality that is built into the MSP budget.

We’re going to continue on that issue, to push to get the government to recognize that families are struggling, that they’re facing unfairness, and that it has to be addressed. I know that other members in the House will join us, including the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head, to fight on this issue. I think it will take all of us to get government to recognize that when they stand up and say that income tax is lower for British Columbians, they’re not including MSP premiums; they’re not including hydro rates; they’re not including the cost of tuition; they’re not including ICBC rates — more than eaten up by all of those fees and services.

What about ICBC? ICBC has seen a 41 percent increase under the B.C. Liberals.

What about ferry fares? For those of us who live on Vancouver Island, that’s basic transportation. We’ve seen a 63 percent increase on major routes and a 100 percent increase on minor routes. The impact of that goes much further than simply families. It impacts the entire economy of British Columbia.

In fact, there was a very well done report, an independent report done, sent to the Union of B.C. Municipalities for the government to review, and it was scoffed at by the other side. The Liberals said it didn’t matter. They didn’t want to hear it. Well, it’s the reality for people on Vancouver Island. It’s a challenge that people are facing that is caused by the government increasing the fees.

What about tuition for post-secondary education? More than doubled under this government. That’s something that directly impacts opportunity. We all know the importance of post-secondary credentials, whether it’s college or university, whether it’s a trade, whether it’s getting a certificate. Most jobs today require that you take that time to be able to get those credentials. And what’s this government done? They’ve made it more difficult for people to be able to access opportunity.

Even on PharmaCare, deductibles rose under this government by $200. Seniors were hit with a $75 deductible, and seniors were hit, when it came to long-term-care rates since 2001, by a 93 percent increase.

I talked about those families who are trying to help their kids go to university or college — give them a good start in life, put some money aside to be able to make sure that they can get there — and are also looking after their parents and are having to face a 93 percent increase when it comes to long-term-care rates.

Of course, the government couldn’t leave it alone. They had to add another fee this year when they looked at parks. We now see new user fees in 41 of B.C.’s parks. And I haven’t even touched on child care fees and costs for education.

I can tell you that families who have their kids go to school now know that they’re having to fork out more and more and more for basics. You’ve seen school supply lists that now include a package of paper for the photocopy machine — that that’s a requirement as a school supply for kids to have to bring to school. That’s a fee. That’s an additional cost that families are having to pay.

We know that families are paying more. We know the reality. But are they getting more services? Are they getting more supports for all those extra costs? No. The reality is that families really are paying more and getting less. That is the reality in British Columbia.

Our schools have more and more overcrowded classrooms. Teachers and support staff are completely stretched. As I said, parents and students are expected to pay more and more for basics. We’ve seen a loss of counsellors and teacher-librarians, music teachers.

What about our hospitals? I heard the Finance Minister earlier today say that people are paying MSP for all of that quality health care that they’re getting out there. Well, let’s remember that our emergency rooms are bursting at the seams. We had a story in the last little while of an individual that spent three weeks in a closet. This isn’t hours in a hallway while you wait for a bed. These are individuals who are being put there as a way of dealing with health care.

We’ve seen the challenges with mental health and youth mental health. The Select Standing Committee on Children and Youth has been travelling around and hearing about the pressures that families are facing to get support for their young people struggling with mental health and addictions. Services are inadequate.

Seniors are languishing in hospital beds because there aren’t any long-term-care beds available for them. Not good quality care. And while the dedicated staff in long-term-care homes and the hospitals try to do everything they can, we know that long-term care is stretched and that they’re struggling to try and provide support.

What about child care? Well, all those families who are trying to get back to work, who are looking at opportunities to try and make ends meet, are then stuck trying to even find child care, never mind afford it.

When you’re looking at paying $700, $800, $900 — in some cases in the Lower Mainland for infant-toddler, $1,200 — a month for quality child care, that’s out of the reach of most families and doesn’t provide support to those children.

Cuts to post-secondary education. This budget saw, once again, a cut to the post-secondary education budget. I talked earlier about the importance of opportunity for young people. That opportunity won’t be there if we continue to cut the budget for our colleges and our universities.

The government talks about skills shortage. They talk about trades training. They talk about how important that is. As they’ve done in other areas, they say one thing and do the opposite. How can you stand up and say that you believe in the importance of opportunities for trades and training and going to post-secondary education and then cut the budget for post-secondary education?

How can you say to children and to parents: “We’re going to provide the best education possible but, by the way, we’re also expecting the budgets to be cut by $29 million and another $25 million next year”? It’s typical of what we see with this government. They say one thing, and we see just the opposite when it comes to the reality.

I know these are only a few of the areas that I could raise, and I don’t raise these issues to talk about simply the challenges in British Columbia. I raise these issues because they are missed opportunities for a province as extraordinary as ours.

I am a proud British Columbian. I’ve lived here since I was five years old. I’ve raised my kids in this province. My grandkids are now being raised in this province. I know that we have all the ingredients we need in British Columbia to be a leader. We live in an extraordinary diverse place, with citizens from all parts of the globe here in British Columbia.

We have huge entrepreneurial spirit. We have world-class institutions of higher learning. We have public education and public health care. We certainly have an unparalleled natural environment. We are extraordinarily blessed with our location, as a province. We’re a gateway to the Pacific. We have natural resources in British Columbia. We have a high-quality labour force.

There are few places on earth that have our advantages. There are few places on earth that have advantages that, sadly — and we see it again with this budget — have been ignored or neglected or squandered by the B.C. Liberals.

Governments must lead — not by letting everything ride on pie-in-the-sky promises, not by ignoring other industries, certainly not by letting inequality grow, and not by nickeling-and-diming hard-working families. Government has to lead by providing opportunities for every British Columbian. Yes, that includes the opportunity of LNG but not at the expense of every other industry in British Columbia, not at the expense of our natural environment or our clean air or clean water, not at the expense of the true partnership that needs to be built with First Nations.

It means remembering that our province’s future rests with our people. It rests with the small business owner in Surrey who’s working 80 hours a week to try and grow her business. It rests with the student at UNBC who’s putting in late nights and long days, working hard to try and get his advanced education degree. It rests with the forest worker on Vancouver Island who gets up before dawn to do a dangerous and demanding job. It rests with the child care worker in downtown Vancouver who does the same to care for our children.

British Columbia’s future rests with the entrepreneur in Kamloops who’s willing to take a risk on a new idea. Our future rests with teachers and social workers and nurses and bus drivers and public servants who support us in our communities each and every day. It rests with the senior citizen in Victoria who, after a lifetime of working, is volunteering her time to give back.

These are the people that our future rests with. A government that cared, a government in touch with average families, would have focused their attention and resources on supporting our people and our diverse industries in every corner of British Columbia.

A government that was in touch, a government that saw reality, would have focused on the tools that were necessary to address inequality, and they would have opened up opportunity for the middle class in British Columbia in this budget. That would have meant not charging for adult basic education and ESL, which is in fact closing the door on opportunity. That would have included a poverty reduction plan in this budget, to actually start addressing the inequality that we’ve seen. That would have included investments in education and training, not cuts in a budget, not making it tougher for people.

As I get to the close, I want us to imagine. Imagine a province where we had a government that actually believed in the people of British Columbia.

As I said earlier, we’re so fortunate to all benefit from a creative, industrious, innovative citizenry. Just imagine what our citizens could accomplish with some support. Just imagine what they could achieve if they weren’t struggling paycheque to paycheque. Just imagine what they could do if they had a little bit of support to try and find child care or a care home for their parent. Imagine a government of British Columbia that actually worked with the people of this province, with the industries of British Columbia.

As I said at the very start, a budget is a reflection of the character of a government. It shows us what a government sees as important and what they see as not. This budget makes it perfectly clear. For the B.C. Liberals, hard-working British Columbians don’t count. But, boy, that top 2 percent of income earners — they matter. They certainly found $230 million to be able to give them a break. Well, those aren’t our priorities. I’ll be proud to stand and vote against this budget and the missed opportunities that it presents for British Columbia.”