Hansard — Monday, April 16, 2007 a.m.

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

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY


CONTENTS

	Routine Proceedings
		Page


Tributes		6677
	Vancouver Canucks
	Hon. G. Hogg

Private Members' Statements		6677
	A Home for Learning
	S. Hawkins
	D. Chudnovsky
	Rural economic development
	D. Routley
	B. Lekstrom
	Food matters
	J. Rustad
	C. Evans
	The value of the ALR
	G. Gentner
	V. Roddick

Motions on Notice		6686
	Competitive tax system for B.C. (Motion 34)
	J. Yap
	B. Ralston
	B. Bennett
	G. Coons
	J. Rustad
	L. Krog
	R. Hawes
	D. Thorne
	D. Hayer

Hon. G. Hogg: I want to extend the congratulations and best wishes of this House to the Vancouver Canucks — yee-haw! Last night's overtime win over Dallas gives them a 2-1 lead in the Stanley Cup playoffs.

Hon. G. Hogg: Nothing lucky about it. And their first victory in that marathon four-overtime period last Wednesday reminds some of us of some of the sessions in this House that have been equally like a marathon.

British Columbians' love of hockey and of the Canucks has a wonderful ability to galvanize and focus the interests of our entire province. I'm sure we all join in wishing them the best of luck for tomorrow evening in Dallas. Then they return home to Vancouver, hopefully to finish the series.

The Canucks have had an exceptional year — one matched, perhaps, only by the exceptional commitment they have shown to the community. Their support for projects like Canuck Place and the Raise-a-Reader program is a testament to the team's contribution not just to sport in B.C. but also to the strength of our communities.

Our congratulations to Dave Nonis, to Alain Vigneault and to the entire team on this full season. We look forward to continuing to cheer them on straight through to the Stanley Cup as they continue to galvanize the interest, focus and support of our province.

S. Hawkins: I want to talk a little bit this morning about the new Okanagan College, which officially opened less than two years ago. I want to say it's done a lot in the past year to bring opportunities for training and education closer to home for residents in my riding.

As a consequence of their 2007-2008 operating budget, Okanagan College is significantly expanding programs like their health care program. In fact, in the coming year its home support resident care aide programs and practical nursing programs and human service programs will expand by 50 percent.

The growth in the trades programming is remarkable. Okanagan College is the second-largest trades training institute in the province, and it is fast-growing. In 2005-2006 it trained 912 apprentices, in 2006-07 it trained approximately 1,500, and in the coming year it will train more than 2,100 apprentices. In the past year, I'm proud to say, it opened a new trades training facility within Central Okanagan and others in South Okanagan, North Okanagan and the Shuswap-Revelstoke area. The college has also opened a new campus in downtown Kelowna to house its applied business technology programs.

One of the programs I want to highlight this morning, one of the programs the college has launched, is called A Home for Learning. It has raised more than $200,000 for scholarships and bursaries to students. With our booming economy in the Okanagan Valley and Kelowna being one of the fastest-growing cities in Canada, a unique partnership is formed to help train more skilled tradespeople for the Okanagan's construction industry.

Okanagan College, the village of Kettle Valley and Delnor Custom Homes have teamed up to help Okanagan College's residential construction trades students to get real-life experience, earning credit towards their carpentry apprenticeship. The students leave the classroom in order to construct a single-family home in Kettle Valley, which was recently named Canada's best community development.

Once the home is built, it is sold, and the proceeds go back into Okanagan College's residential construction trades program. As I said, it has raised $200,000 for scholarships. Since 2005 these scholarships and bursaries have been created for future students in the program, and the newest equipment has been purchased to ensure that students receive the best training and education, leading them towards a prosperous and rewarding career.

I'm happy to say that I was invited to the first ribbon-cutting of the first home that was built in Kettle Valley. Had I not recently purchased my own, I think I would have been tempted to purchase that one. The tradesmanship was just immaculate, and I heard some of the young students who worked on the home very proudly stand up and say how valuable that experience was. It's great to see.

It sort of reminded me about my nursing experience where I actually got to test-drive my skills on patients before I actually got out and practised in the real world. So it's great to see that these kinds of skills and programs are being implemented to help students that are in training but can see how what they're learning actually has application in the community.

They have just now built two immaculate homes in Kettle Valley, and earlier this year the man behind the creation of this program was recognized by the Canadian Home Builders Association. His name is Randy Werger.

He is the associate dean of trades and apprenticeship of Okanagan College. He won an award of honour in the non-builder category for his excellent work in furthering the education goals of the Canadian Home Builders Association and his students. Randy has been at Okanagan College for 16 years, and he is a tireless advocate for his students and for Central Okanagan.

A prime example of his advocacy was that he was not able to attend the awards ceremony to claim his well-deserved prize. He was supposed to be in Quebec City in late February this year to get his prize, but he was actually over in Europe with the Central Okanagan Economic Development Commission on a mission to attract skilled immigrants in the valley to help us with our needs to build.

The Home for Learning partnership has been so successful that it has expanded beyond the city of Kelowna. Projects are currently underway in Summerland, in Revelstoke and in Salmon Arm so that those students, as well, get to benefit. A Home for Learning is a prime example of what can happen when the community and the industry work together to support trades training. Over 20 companies and organizations are supporters of the program, with more wanting to be a part of A Home for Learning as the projects get underway. I think they see what's happening, and they get excited about how the students are excited about the program. They feel that they would like to contribute and be a part of that success as well. Success builds success, if you know what I mean.

By providing the best possible training for students on the worksite, not only does the construction industry benefit by having well-trained tradespeople, but the Okanagan Valley and our economy benefit by having more skilled tradespeople being able to build homes for those wanting to move to Kelowna to raise their families, start their own small business or enjoy their retirement in our beautiful valley.

A Home for Learning has recently been recognized several times by the Canadian Home Builders Association, and I was at the awards ceremony. The project received the gold and silver Tommie Awards, which are awarded for home building excellence by the Canadian Home Builders Association, Kelowna chapter.

In addition, A Home for Learning has won the CHBA B.C. chapter's gold Georgie Award as the best public-private partnership in the province.

I would like to ask the House to help me thank all those involved with A Home for Learning — the Okanagan College construction trades program, the village of Kettle Valley and Delnor Custom Homes. I would especially like to thank Randy Werger once again. It's because of our dedicated teachers and people who really put in effort and thought and think outside the box in how we are going to train students so that they actually get what they're doing…. I think it takes special people to do that. He put that effort into this program in addition to his responsibilities as associate dean of trades and apprenticeship and his volunteer work with the Canadian Home Builders Association.

In closing, I would like to encourage similar groups to partner together in comparable initiatives to help provide the training necessary for students to excel in the building trades, help us create that vibrant industry and help us construct the homes and businesses of tomorrow.

D. Chudnovsky: Thank you to the member opposite for her presentation. I certainly want, on my own behalf and on behalf of the folks on this side, to congratulate all of those folks at Okanagan College and all the colleges who are doing such a fine job with students around the province.

The member reminds us of something very, very important when she speaks as she did so eloquently about the importance of learning close to home. I think we would want to explore that question, issue and principle in some depth. Learning close to home is an important positive aspect in the education system.

Neighbourhood schools. In the case of the member opposite, she spoke about a community college. The community college concept in British Columbia has a lot of elements to it, and one of the elements is to provide courses and programs close to where students live — close to their communities — so that they can better access those programs and those services.

Neighbourhood schools at the elementary and secondary levels close to home are also an important principle. We know from all of the research that's been done and from our experience in education that the availability of schools close to home is something that provides a positive and welcome part of a student's educational experience.

We know, for instance, that when a school is close to home, when it's the centre of a community, when it provides a kind of focal point for students and their parents and other community members, that strengthens community and the ability of communities to deal not only with the educational challenges they face but with all the kinds of social and cultural and political realities that are there for communities to deal with.

We also know that when a student is able to access a school in their own community, a neighbourhood school or a community school, that enriches the experience of that student in the school. How does it do that? Well, for one thing, the student gets to walk to school. I don't know about you, Madam Speaker, but I walked to school when I was young, and that social experience of experiencing the community….

D. Chudnovsky: There may be others opposite who walked to school too — uphill in both directions, right? Uphill towards school and uphill back home. That's the way it was for me.

To be serious for a second, that experience of engaging my community, my neighbourhood, was an important one.

It was also important because I was able — and so are thousands and thousands of students across the

province — to stay a little late at school; to participate in the extracurricular activities; to engage teachers, principals and other workers at the school in a way that wasn't the case during the classroom day. Those neighbourhood schools are incredibly valuable, and that's why it's very upsetting that 135 or 140 of them have closed their doors over the last number of years.

The member opposite talked about the expanding programs at Okanagan College, and I think that to the extent that those programs are expanding and serving the needs and desires of students in those communities, that's terrific. It's unfortunate that in the education system as a whole, programs have not been expanding at all. They've been reduced dramatically over the last number of years, and it's something that we need to be particularly concerned about.

Because it's been brought to my attention by constituents only today, this weekend and at the end of last week, I'd mention particularly the kind of close-to-home programs for students with special needs that are slated to be reduced substantially and dramatically in my community — in Vancouver. The parents of those students with special needs are very, very concerned about having the kinds of programs close to home that their children need and desire and deserve.

We need to make sure that as we look at this principle that the member opposite correctly reminded us of — education close to home — it's available to all of those students who need and deserve those programs.

I would comment on the issue of apprenticeship that the member opposite brought forward. There is some controversy and some difference with the perspective that she brought to us on behalf of many of the skilled workers and tradespeople in this province whose assessment of the apprenticeship reality in B.C. differs quite dramatically from the member opposite.

S. Hawkins: An interesting perspective. Let me just say that our government recognizes we need skilled workers in our modern competitive economy. That's why government has embarked on the largest post-secondary and apprentice expansion in 40 years. That's why we're creating 2,500 new graduate spaces and 7,000 more apprenticeship spaces by 2010. It's why we're expanding the number of industry training organizations in partnership with the Industry Training Authority in the private sector.

Over $1 billion has been invested in capital improvements and post-secondary education since 2001. Another $800 million has been allocated to further expand our universities, colleges and institutes. The 25,000 new post-secondary spaces are well underway. So it's interesting hearing the members opposite complain, complain, complain. There has been a lot of progress done.

The member speaks about 140 schools closed. Madam Speaker, the highest amount of K-to-12 budget in the history of this province with a declining enrolment in this province…. So per-student funding is the highest it's ever been in this province.

Each school board makes that decision whether they can afford to keep schools open, empty. I think we've got to start thinking about what's really happening out there, and it's school boards making the decision, declining enrolment and highest per-pupil funding. Those school boards have difficult decisions to make, and we know that.

Getting back to Okanagan College. I thank the member for his comments regarding engaging the community, because that is what Okanagan College is actually doing. By engaging the business community, the building community and the skilled trades community, we've been able to give students the kind of skills they need that will help them in their real life.

Okanagan College continues to exceed its goals in terms of providing new spaces and seats for students. In '06-07 the college will have produced more than 110 percent of its funded student capacity, and it just keeps on building on its success since its first year of operation. I'm proud to have them in my riding, and I'm proud to brag about them.

D. Routley: I rise today to speak about economic development in rural communities. Of course, whenever we talk about economic development in rural communities, we're really talking about an inextricable link to resource industries because all of our province — let alone those rural communities — is dependent on our renewable resources like our fish and particularly our trees.

Before I go any further I'd like to remind the members that as we speak, there's a truckload of raw logs leaving the Cowichan Valley, and it's passing by closed mill sites. It's passing by workers who have been displaced, and it's leaving our communities. Along with it, it takes the jobs, the future and the security of the economy of the Cowichan Valley.

Repeatedly, our pulp mill reminds us that it's close to closure for lack of fibre. Dozens of mills on the coast have closed for lack of fibre. Mill shutdowns are a common occurrence, but even more common are floats of logs — thousands of them — headed south or shiploads headed to Asia while our mills sit dormant.

Another truckload is now leaving the Cowichan Valley and, along with it, our jobs and our future. In between those two truckloads, I reminded you that we are dependent on those resources.

In 2000, total raw log exports from this province equalled less than 2.4 million cubic metres. In 2006 that was greater than five million cubic metres.

To resource-dependent communities, the meaning of raw log exports is that we export our ability to support small business. We export our ability to have continuous family presence in communities, as young people are dislodged for lack of opportunity.

Madam Speaker, it means everything to us. It means that our communities shrink, our schools close and our services are downgraded. The fallout of raw

log exports is not only economically a disaster, but personally it's a true tragedy. The Youbou Timberless Society followed the plight of closed millworkers, and the percentage of those millworkers who suffered family breakdown, suicide and other tragedies grew and grew and grew — and along with it, a tale of human tragedy that has failed to be addressed by this government.

Again, as we speak, another truckload is leaving the Cowichan Valley, because more than 200 truckloads of raw logs leave the Cowichan Valley every day, seven days a week. I speak to my 19-year-old daughter and her friends, and I ask them: "Do you any of you believe this is sustainable? Do any of you believe that more than 200 truckloads of logs are growing out there every day, seven days a week?"

None of them believe it, and everyone in our communities knows that it is damaging and destroying the fabric of coastal communities. But we are being ignored by this government. It has taken no steps to reduce the export of raw logs. We are suffering these downgraded conditions, and….

I'll stop, Madam Speaker, and remind again that another truckload of raw logs is leaving the Cowichan Valley and driving past displaced loggers, displaced sawmillers and a fractured community.

This government downgraded forest practices to the point where, when I go out into the private lands of the Cowichan Valley and see the logging practices, there are stacks and stacks of logs rotting while our mills are closing for lack of fibre as a direct result of Liberal policies around stumpage that allow companies to take only the cream of the forest and leave the rest behind to rot — while our mills close for lack of fibre, while our pulp mills threaten to close for lack of fibre.

Those downgraded forest practices have led to clogged streams, dammed bridges, massive flooding, huge personal loss, and a downgraded and reduced environment. This is the result of policies from a government that would stand, leaning on hybrid cars, and paint itself green and claim environmentalism as a priority when for years they have allowed the decimation of the lands of Vancouver Island and British Columbia.

It spreads much further than that. The salvage loggers are not allowed in. The salvage loggers sit dormant while the logs they would salvage sit rotting. No matter what the intent of revitalization was, its failures are exemplified throughout B.C. but particularly in coastal communities where logs stand rotting, mills stand closed and lives are decimated.

Another truckload of raw logs is leaving the Cowichan Valley as we speak. As those trucks leave, they pass the Lake Cowichan Community Forest Co-operative, which cannot gain tenure to fibre. They pass the salvage loggers sitting dormant, but perhaps most dramatically, they pass our first nations elders who cannot even get to the land to get a carving log, who wait two years for a carving log while mills shut down, while communities decline and truckload after truckload of raw logs is exported without benefit to the community.

All of this is the legacy of Gordon Campbell — excuse me — the Premier of British….

D. Routley: All of this is the result of the Premier's and B.C. Liberal forest policies and the absence of action from a Forests Minister who has vacated the playing field. Now we in resource communities are left alone, and we watch our future exported.

B. Lekstrom: Welcome to the members after our Easter break, and I want to thank the member for Cowichan-Ladysmith for his remarks this morning on rural development. I'm going to address a number of them, but I'm going to broaden it out because I think rural development is not just about some of the challenges in forestry.

We hear about the raw log exports. There are challenges out there, but there is the surplus test. There are a number of factors that come into this. There are issues that many of the logs, whether it's in the 1990s or today…. If they weren't being cut and utilized, we would have our fallers in the bush not working. We would have our trucking industry at a standstill. So along with some of the downside that the member from the opposite side sees, I think there's the upside as well. It's finding that balance to allow us to move ahead and allow rural development to take its course in our province.

I'm sure that maybe it came out wrong, but I'm certain the member isn't against hybrid cars with the comment that I've seen. I think that's one step towards benefiting the environment.

Rural development in our province is vitally important, whether it's in the agriculture sector, forestry, oil and gas, tourism, mining and whether it's our small business or large business sector. It is the vital link that drives our economic well-being.

Rural development is not solely dependent on rural B.C. I had the opportunity to be the mayor of Dawson Creek and work on that council along with our regional district through the UBCM, as well, and the NCMA. You learn a great deal. We're codependent on each other — whether you're the city of Vancouver, the community of Taylor in northeastern British Columbia or Chetwynd or out in the northwest in Terrace or Burns Lake.

The issue of rural development is about working together. People have to ask: what is it? Well, it's a number of things. It's not just about bringing a new industry to your community or bringing that Wal-Mart or the large box store. It's about quality of life, and we can't forget that.

The people who live in our rural communities out there that help drive the economic well-being of our province through the resource extraction in this province live there and choose a lifestyle that isn't that of a big city. They don't do it because they oppose big-city

lifestyle; they do it because that's what they want for themselves and their family.

We have to work together, and we have to recognize that if we're going to grow and prosper as a province and create opportunities for ourselves and our children and grandchildren, we have to learn that it isn't us versus them. It isn't rural versus urban. We have to find that linkage, and there is a rural-urban issue. It's been there since I was a young boy in my area and, I think, right across this province.

I think a big part of what we have to do is communicate with one another. We have to make sure that people understand that the ports in Vancouver are a vital link to our resource sector. The people in Vancouver have to understand that the economic well-being of the city of Vancouver is dependent on the resource extraction that takes place in rural British Columbia. Together we build a better province. It isn't one against the other. It isn't one or the other. It's all of us together.

There are a number of programs out there for smaller communities. I think it's important to make sure that through the work of our communities, through our community associations and the Union of British Columbia Municipalities, all of our communities are aware — whether it be Towns for Tomorrow, access to funding for smaller communities, our Spirit Squares, LocalMotion funding that just went out or a vast array of others.

Rural development is all-inclusive. It's about stabilizing our existing business community. It's about utilizing our resources in the best possible way we can.

As the member opposite had said, he's talking about raw log exports. It isn't a new phenomenon. I don't think it is something, probably, that will come to an immediate end and not one log will leave this province. There is a surplus test. When I hear people say that there's no access to fibre, that's misleading. There's access to fibre. It comes down to the bottom line as to: what will I pay for that fibre?

I don't think it's fair to stand in this Legislature and talk about: "Some mills can't have access at all to fibre." There's a surplus test. Certainly, the issue…. If we couldn't improve on what we do in this province, none of us should be sitting in this room. But we can.

We can't do it by banging heads. I think it's by working together. Regardless of what political party you're from, I don't think there's any difference in what our wishes are, and that's to make this the best province in the best country in the world.

I do want to say that rural development is one of the most important things I've worked on in the last 15 years of my life, whether it be in local politics or provincial politics. The recognition that we have to do this together is something we can all learn from.

I'm going to close. This isn't about the big city versus rural British Columbia. This is about rural British Columbia and urban British Columbia coming together to make sure that we benefit all British Columbians, whether they be young or old, in the development of this great province that we have.

Deputy Speaker: Member, before you begin, the guidelines around this moment in time in terms of the Legislature are not to bring forward partisan attacks or partisan replies or context to your comments. So I would encourage you to keep your remarks non-partisan.

D. Routley: I appreciate the remarks from the member, but apparently the member hasn't been listening to the communities of the coast. The communities are clear in their opposition to raw log exports. The communities of the coast understand well the implications of this to them and their children.

The Premier isn't listening. The Forests Minister apparently isn't listening. By the way, Madam Speaker, during the remarks by the member….

Deputy Speaker: Member, may I remind you that this point in time is not to make criticisms of a partisan nature.

D. Routley: During the remarks of the previous speaker, three more trucks of raw logs left the Cowichan Valley. The member spoke about the surplus test. The surplus test is being applied in an environment of a monopoly where so few companies control the access to fibre that they have created basically a cartel. The blockage restrictions are never used, because the independent sawmillers are told, and they know, that they will never get wood if they attempt to block these exports. Regardless of the intent, the effect is failure. Regardless of the intent of policy, what we see is the abject failure to deliver benefit to communities, and we are suffering.

Yes, we are codependent with the lower mainland. Maybe this approach will spin and stir a latte in a cappuccino bar on the lower mainland, but in the small communities of the Island and the coast dependent on these resources, they can see clearly through any amount of spin that their quality of life is directly connected to the good management and good stewardship of these resources, which they are not seeing.

They are not seeing benefit. Loggers are framing houses while the housing market is declining. The veil that the housing market has provided will slip, and we will see that there will be a decimation. The kind of economic development and diversification that the previous member spoke of will not be possible if it is not underpinned by healthy resource industries.

Regardless of intent, regardless of reason, the result is failure. B.C. Liberal….

Deputy Speaker: Member, sit down, please. Member, this point in time is to share ideas and to have a debate that is non-partisan.

D. Routley: Public policy in British Columbia as it applies to forestry and raw log exports is ruining the communities of the coast. Public policy is….

Deputy Speaker: Member, sit down. Member, your role is not to react to the Chair. My job is to make sure this chamber runs as the members have decided. The members have decided that this point in time is non-partisan.

D. Routley: Referring to public policy historically in this province can hardly be seen, I believe, as a partisan attack on either side. Public policy has failed the communities of British Columbia, particularly the rural, resource-dependent communities which are paying the price for failed government policy.

J. Rustad: Today I want to rise to talk about something that I believe is quite important, and that is that food matters. It matters because we can't live without it. It matters because it's the cornerstone that helped to develop our country, and it matters because we truly are what we eat.

Throughout time, society's approach to food has changed dramatically. Thousands of years ago humans were hunters and gatherers who spent virtually all of their time seeking food and shelter. Today many people, if not most people, take food for granted.

I believe that herein lies a problem and a challenge. Because food is taken for granted, there is a disconnect between where food comes from and the consumers. People don't think or worry about their food supply.

The reality is that food matters. It's the single most basic and important ingredient to life next to air and the water that we drink. To use the phrase that the member for Delta South says on a regular basis, we all need to eat to live.

Where did this disconnect come from? Many thousands of years ago someone became tired of spending all of their time roving the landscape looking for food. They came up with a very novel idea and decided that rather than looking for food, perhaps food could be cultivated and grown locally. Thus the innovation of agriculture was born. The concept may be simple, but this single achievement would become the foundation of many societies.

As agriculture expanded, more and more people could stop wandering around the landscape and instead settle down beside their food supply. Permanent dwellings were created, and the basic concepts of trade developed. For the first time in history people found that they could have some spare time to do things other than hunting and gathering.

Using the basic concept of agriculture, great civilizations were founded. Local food production supported population growth, and the spare time that people now had was put to use developing other skills. Great cities were built, and culture was developed.

Even the concepts of democracy were created, in part, due to the advancements of agriculture. But over the years less importance was put on agriculture. The abundance of food changed the way people thought. Trade started to replace the immediate need for local production by allowing people to swap various goods for the food they needed for survival.

Some civilizations flourished by becoming major trading centres. Their ability to trade goods generated wealth. This lure brought more and more people into the cities and away from the hard work of agriculture. Even today you can see these trends, especially in places like China, but there is a unique weakness in societies that are dependent solely upon trade. War, famine, pestilence or other catastrophes could interrupt the food supply, and if this interruption went on long enough, entire civilizations could collapse and disappear.

History has proven that the basic principles of life have not changed. They're as relevant today as they've ever been. You still need to eat to live.

It can be amusing to consider how people's attitudes towards their food sources have changed over the years. At one time if you owned a little piece of land, you'd use this land to help produce the food you needed to survive. If you were fortunate enough to generate some wealth, people could consider spending some of their wealth to try and free up their time by undertaking other tasks and hiring people to work on their land. If you were really wealthy enough, you could purchase anything you needed, and therefore you wouldn't need to produce the basics of life from the land. Thus, the concepts of gardens and landscaping were developed. It was a sign of wealth if you could afford to plant grass, trees and flowers rather than food.

Strangely enough, this concept is now the norm in society. Everywhere you look in our cities, you see grass, trees, shrubs and flowers — wherever you don't find concrete and asphalt, that is. It would be very strange indeed to see someone use their front yards to produce vegetables. Yet because of these changes, people have lost their sense of where their food comes from.

If you wanted roast lamb, for example, you simply went to the supermarket, picked up the product and cooked your meal. For the majority, it certainly doesn't matter that the lamb came from New Zealand and that large amounts of energy were used and pollution was created in order to get the product onto the table. The same is true for beef that comes from Brazil and for vegetables that come from Mexico or California. How about grapes from Chile or wine from Australia and Italy?

The values of agriculture, local production and consumption of local goods have become foreign concepts.

Some might say: "What does it matter? As long as I can have my hamburgers and fries and order my pizza, what does it matter where my food comes from?" What do you think would happen if suddenly the food production that we've come to depend on was no longer available? What would happen if there was a supply chain disruption or worse?

British Columbia is blessed with a great variety of climates and vast areas that can be used for food production. From the rich soils of the lower mainland to the grain and canola crops of the Peace country, B.C. has great potential to meet some of our local demands for agriculture products. How can we connect our potential with the local demand? For example, it's often rare to go to a supermarket and find B.C. beef. Somehow we either aren't producing enough local food to meet consumption, or we aren't competitive enough on prices for local markets, or perhaps a bit of both.

Should this be a concern? I believe it should be, for three reasons. First, locally grown products have the potential to be more nutritious than products imported from around the world. If anybody has grown tomatoes in their back yard and compared the taste to those found in the grocery store, you'll understand what I mean by more nutritious. Second, local products can often be brought to market in a far more environmentally friendly manner. Finally, if we can meet more of our local demand for agriculture products, we can help support a very important component of our economy.

What's the solution for reconnecting the consumer with the producer? I believe we need to see more emphasis on things like farmers' markets and fall fairs. If we can get more people participating in these opportunities, we can expose more people to the benefits of locally grown products.

D. Hayer: We have in the House today my very good friend and a special supporter of mine, Alex Peter, who moved to British Columbia, Canada, from South Africa. Visiting with him today are his wife's aunt Mrs. Grace Timmerman and her husband Gert Timmerman, who's a diplomat from the Netherlands. Would the House please make them very welcome.

C. Evans: Thank you to the previous speaker for his comments on the subject of agriculture. I agree with almost everything he said, and I'll try to be absolutely non-partisan in my criticism of anything here, for the benefit of the Speaker.

It is absolutely true that British Columbia is gifted with the soils and climate with which we might be bountiful in the production of food. As members know, British Columbia has more microclimates, more different soil types than all the other provinces in Canada combined. That gives us a specific niche and opportunity in terms of agriculture to produce commodities that run from ginseng on the high desert, to the fruit and wine industry, to the vegetable industry in the lower mainland, to grains in the north.

We ought to be increasing production and farm-gate value every single year exponentially as climate change and moisture reduction in the south increase our opportunity to compete. That isn't necessarily true, and it's not for partisan reasons. It isn't true because in the past 30 years post-GATT, since the introduction of food to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade internationally, Canada reduced support for agriculture faster than any other country in the world except Australia, and British Columbia faster than any other province in the country.

We went from meeting the national average in support for agriculture through Social Credit, New Democrat and now Liberal times to being reduced to the lowest level as a percentage of the provincial government's support for agriculture in Canada and to the second-lowest in Canada as a dollar support for agriculture as a percentage of farm-gate sales. That means that through three different governments in this building we have reduced, since the 1970s, our support for agriculture to the point where to place on the consumer the charge to buy food, while government has essentially walked away from this sector of the economy, is a little bit hypocritical.

It would be hypocritical if New Democrats were saying it, because we are part of that process. I am somewhat ashamed of what the province with the best protection of farmland in Canada has done, over 30 years of withdrawal, to the actual production of food. I would argue that at our present level, the agricultural land reserve itself becomes a bit of a cruel joke on the farm community. We are saying, essentially, "We have zoned your land for the production of food," and we withdraw support for that very activity.

Post-GATT there are wonderful things that other provinces do — look across the country — to support agriculture to evolve with the times. Just in Alberta the support that is given to farmers where wildlife has damaged crops — that we don't participate in — or the support across Canada to assist farmers to comply with environmental regulations — that we don't participate in — or the level of our crop insurance payments or the number of agronomists out on the land, the closure of agricultural research stations….

I would argue that the member is bang on in his love of food, food production and farming. But we in this building on both sides of the House have no business standing up and saying how good we are and how much we believe, because the proof of the pudding is in the budget. And every single year that budget appears to be reduced to the point where we are now a humiliation in Canada.

I have a suggestion to make to both sides of the House. We want to fix this. We want to reverse the clock, to go back to times where British Columbia stood proud in support of agriculture. Let's have an all-party committee go out there and talk to farmers about what it is that we're doing with their industry. Let's come in here together, no partisanship whatsoever, and say we will now change. We will hold up our heads. We'll at least go to the Canadian average of support for farming. Or else I really don't get people standing up here all the time — Prince George–Omineca, Delta South or whatever — and saying, "We support farming," while we in fact withdraw supports on the ground.

Deputy Speaker: One second, Member. I would like to clarify, just so that we understand the parameters of the debate. The debate does not include at this point in time personal attacks on individuals or groups in the House. However, healthy differences of opinion are to be had. If in that sense the debates are partisan, so be it, but there should be no attacks on individuals or groups. Those are the standing rules.

I want to thank the member for Nelson-Creston for his comments. Healthy debate in this chamber is always a good thing from my perspective. I need to point out a couple of things, though. There was a suggestion that Agriculture budgets have gone down. In fact, over just this year the Agriculture budget went up by $51 million, which was a huge increase in terms of that.

In any case, the member suggested that perhaps the way to solve this problem about the disconnect and local production is around government interference rather than trying to encourage the consumer. I do believe that the best solution is really to reconnect the consumer with where his products come from, and that's through things like farmers' markets and fall fairs.

It could lead, actually, to healthier lifestyles through the consumption of more nutritious foods. It could also lead to a broader selection of local foods and more production in local areas. It could certainly mean the potential for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions by eliminating some of the need for imported foods.

Madam Speaker, you might ask: how can we encourage more people to use farmers' markets? I believe the answer starts in raising the level of awareness. Perhaps there should be an effort towards encouraging municipalities to create local food councils. These groups could advise municipal governments in actions that can help encourage local consumption of local products and also help to raise the level of awareness of how important the issue is. Another way this could be achieved is through our local schools. ActNow B.C. is actively promoting healthier food in our schools, and this is a natural link towards promotion and consumption of local products.

There are also many other things that could be considered on a local level. One other approach could actually be to work in conjunction with local efforts in the creation of a provincial food charter. A food charter could set principles and guidelines that help with the encouragement of local production and local consumption in the province. B.C. is dependent upon trade, and this should never be forgotten. I don't believe a food charter should ever suggest that we move away from our dependency on trade, but it could help to encourage measures to improve our local production.

At the end of the day, production of local foods and the promotion of local consumption can help to confirm that B.C. is the best place to live, work and play. It can help us meet our coming health care challenges by encouraging people to eat their five fruits and vegetables every day. Finally, it can help our province in reducing some of its dependency on fossil fuels used in transporting agriculture products to market.

As the member for Delta South says, we do all need to eat to live. I look forward to continuing work towards trying to improve the connection between the local consumers and where their food comes from.

G. Gentner: On April 17, 1973, and after several amendments, the B.C. NDP government passed the Land Commission Act. The bill was more than a simple shift in policy, because it was indeed the beginning of a new era. How we manage and maintain the agricultural land reserve will not only show what we are as a society but how this province holds the importance of local produce and how genuine our obligation truly is in the fight against climate change.

I'm speaking up for the retention of the ALR, knowing that many governments will permit the removal of hundreds of acres within the Fraser delta — in the next couple of years perhaps. I want to be on record while little time still permits.

The focus of the Land Commission Act is one of the first significant legislative initiatives undertaken by the NDP government. The act brought to a halt the subdivision of agricultural land in the province, and it did receive a storm of criticism. The ALR has become entrenched within the province's political culture. No major political party has dared to repeal it or abolish the Agricultural Land Commission. Although some of its powers have been weakened over the years, it seems unconscionable that any provincial public official would support any doctrine that would lead to the desecration of some of British Columbia's most valuable agricultural land.

Let's talk about the ALR history and its purpose in light of the 21st century. During the postwar years rapid housing and industrial expansion in British Columbia communities prompted concern about the loss of valuable farmland. About 4,000 to 6,000 hectares of arable B.C. soil were lost yearly prior to 1972 to non-farming purposes.

With the opening of Highway 99, freeways opened up the Fraser Valley, and concern emerged over the effects of urban sprawl and the depletion of prime agricultural land in the province. Losses were occurring in the fertile valley bottoms in the Fraser Basin, adjacent to the province's urban centres — areas whose soil and climate may be the best suited for intensive cultivation.

Meanwhile, Hawaii's 1961 land use law created a commission charged with regulating how rural and agricultural land could be used. Under California's 1966 Williamson law, farmers limited development on their properties and gave development rights to the state.

In early 1962 the lower mainland regional planning board came up with a comprehensive plan to designate 50 percent of the usable land in the lower Fraser Valley for long-term agricultural purposes. The plan was approved by the provincial cabinet then. However, the plan lost all credibility and integrity when the Socred government of the day expropriated over 4,000 acres of prime land in Delta for the development of the Roberts Bank superport in 1967.

By 1973 an estimated 20 percent of agricultural land in the lower Fraser Valley, the most productive land in the province, had been lost to residential and urban development, and a further 3,000 acres are being eaten up every year. In addition, thousands of acres were being taken away from agricultural production and were subdivided and converted into hobby farms or country estates or were held for speculative purposes.

To think that in the early 1970s a renaissance emerged in British Columbia. The loss of farmland, combined with forecasts of massive population growth in the lower mainland, fuelled concerns that unless something was done, urban growth would engulf the remaining farmlands with suburbia.

Only 5 percent of the province's land mass is arable, and less than 1 percent possesses a productivity rating of class 1. Thus, as the population grew and as prime agricultural land was lost or taken out of production, the province imported ever-increasing quantities of food from other jurisdictions. Foreign food supply at a reasonable price was tentative. Alarm that there were potential consequences of B.C. having insufficient agricultural land to meet its own food requirements became a hot political issue.

On August 30, 1972, the NDP won provincial government, and the notion of farmland protection sent alarm bells throughout the real estate development community and agriculture communities. Many farmers were outraged because they saw their land as their pension fund, and they wanted to be able to sell their properties to urban developers.

Panic ensued. Municipal governments were besieged. We had a frenzy of rezoning applications by landowners hoping to make changes before the legislation went through.

Reaction to the bill was fierce. More than 2,000 people rallied outside the Legislature, and farmers were urged not to plant their crops, in protest. Then-Premier Dave Barrett called for calm, telling reporters that the province was at a crossroads in an attempt to save farmlands.

The bill eventually passed. It was a time when political leaders put human subsistence and environmental endurance ahead of greed, ahead of private interest, ahead of any excuse or single-minded stakeholder.

Fast-forward to today, and it's clear that leadership back then was action and vision rolled into one. I implore everyone in this House to continue to live that vision and continue to take action to save farmland.

The architects of the ALR were ahead of their time. Saving farmland is simply long-term thinking. It's time to think about our future, refuse recklessness and excessiveness, and live the precautionary principle every day of our lives — if not for yourself or your neighbour, in the name of those young citizens that must confront our cesspit.

V. Roddick: It's great that everybody's in the House talking about agriculture today. Without a doubt, preservation of agricultural land through the agricultural land reserve serves a most compelling interest. Agriculture is truly a sustainable natural resource. The scarcity of productive farmland and its proximity to urban areas like the Fraser Valley and the Okanagan is why B.C. created the ALR. But it must be noted that to remain A-for-agriculture-LR and not just a land reserve, we must acknowledge our farmers and ranchers. They are the backbone of our province and our country. Without their commitment and productivity our entire society as we know it today would disappear.

That is why this government is committed to increasing public awareness of the importance of our agricultural industry and the protection of farmland. Our strong economy is placing incredible pressures on the ALR. The growth of our population, especially in the Fraser Valley and the Okanagan, plus the necessity for the movement of goods and services are just two enormous challenges facing our province. I think the ALC has done an exceptional job withstanding these pressures, whereas under the previous government the amount of land removed from the ALR between 1997 and 2000 was well over 39,000 acres — which is twice as much as under the current government of today, and in the last year virtually a wash.

The Smart Growth B.C. report notes that B.C., through the ALR, protects farmland more vigorously than any North American jurisdiction. I am confident that the legislation provides an effective and sound governance framework for protecting farmland as well as the administration of the ALR and its decisions.

However, we're always looking for improvement. Last year Minister Bell met with the author of the Suzuki Foundation report to discuss it and its ideas. He then asked the ALC to examine the report, to determine if there were areas that could be improved. One of the many, many presentations heard by the ag plan

committee was from the GVRD's agriculture committee which gave a major presentation that, amongst other things, focused on the protection of the agriculture land base and the need for local governments to have policies that protect farmland and its farmers and ranchers.

This government agrees that farmland is invaluable in more ways than one. Today, like all real estate, prices are escalating by leaps and bounds. The agriculture committee has heard this all around the province. It's a huge issue that we are dealing with. Just like the first-time homebuyers of today, how can young farmers get into the business? It's a complex and worrying issue that has to be faced and worked through.

In Delta South the issue with the Tsawwassen First Nation treaty is, obviously, a challenge. As a society we cannot give them more land without helping them build capacity. Every hamlet, town and city has been built on farmland or potential farmland. Why must Tsawwassen First Nation be treated any differently? They need assets and the ability to go to the bank, just like the rest of us, to set up businesses and provide jobs for their people.

With my background, I obviously would prefer not to lose these lands, but it's just like all the new roads and highways. Ladner and Tsawwassen were forever changed when the tunnel went in, in 1959.

What is needed in the whole Fraser Valley is leadership and the ability to work together and plan for the future. How are the people, the businesses and subsequent movement of goods and services going to coexist with our farmers and ranchers? We need to think outside the box — especially in the Delta area, where more and more land is accreting every year.

Farmers and their land allow us to live in a really special lifestyle. Let me give you some amazing statistics. In 1945, 25 percent of our take-home pay was spent on food. Today that figure is 9 percent, thanks to modern agricultural methods and technology.

G. Gentner: I talked previously about the collapse of the original plan to save lower mainland farmland in the 1960s, when 4,000 acres were expropriated for port development. Similar actions to 40 years ago seen today will kill the ALR. There's no question.

The member opposite talks about development and the retention of the ALR, but there's no discussion on the implications of Gateway and the consequences of port development, which will remove British Columbia's very best farmland — acres lost to the South Fraser perimeter road, acres lost to the B.C. Rail expansion.

I give the member opposite kudos for her trademark jingle on the importance of producing good food that is safe, local and fresh, because you still have to eat in order to live. We all recognize that. Yes, we all have to eat to live, but if food production is not sustainable, if transportation of food is impractical, if exploitation of the land by development destroys our food supply, if we continue to erode what is left of our most productive agrarian land base in this province of scarce farmland, then we are the locusts eating the planet. My friends, if we take the member for Delta South's logic further, the locusts, like ourselves, also must eat to live.

The parasitical nature of our growth ethic will destroy us. That is not to say that there's no need for development. But to continue the trashing and obliteration of our most valuable commodity called farmland — a biosphere of air, land and water — and to destroy our virtual lifeline is contemptuous not only to ourselves, our habitat and ecology but to all our children and grandchildren and, consequently, our future and survival as a species and civilization itself.

We are becoming the freeloaders who want to spend nature and devour farmland in order to accommodate its avaricious indulgence of commodities and capital found through the elixir of global trade. What is the legacy of destroying the agricultural land reserve? It is paving hundreds and hundreds of acres in the name of prosperity, a prosperity that will help necessitate over 325 new coal-fired plants in China in the name of our greed and consumption.

Yes, a locust must eat in order to live. Mr. Speaker, it must eat in order to live, and the locust is among us.

Hon. C. Richmond: I call Motion 34 in the hands of the member for Richmond-Steveston.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, unanimous consent of the House is required to proceed with Motion 34 without disturbing the priorities of the motions preceding it on the order paper.

I believe it supports what we in this House are called to do, and that is to make it possible for British Columbians to seek out opportunities and to realize their dreams for themselves, for their families and for their communities. This can only happen when we have an economic climate which fosters confidence, which encourages risk-taking so that people invest in businesses. Businesses hire people, and people work hard in jobs which are fulfilling and help build our province.

We have made great progress in B.C. these past six years, thanks to the hard work of British Columbians and the visionary and transformative policies of our B.C. Liberal government. Our province has turned

around from being a have-not province to being one of the strongest economies in Canada.

We lead the nation in job creation. We have the lowest unemployment rate ever, 3.9 percent in the month of March. B.C. is once again a destination of choice for Canadians who are moving here or moving back, and for new immigrants and investors. B.C.'s fiscal house is in order. Tax revenues are up. We have an operating budget surplus, and B.C. has regained its triple-A international credit rating.

The 1990s were basically a lost decade for B.C. While the rest of Canada and indeed North America thrived, our economy declined. It's no coincidence that we today enjoy a strong economy along with a competitive tax climate. It really is economics 101. High taxes discourage people and businesses. High taxes stifle growth. High taxes are a drag on the economy.

Under the NDP, B.C. had the highest top-marginal personal income tax rate in Canada and one of the highest in North America at 54.2 percent. Under the NDP $2 billion worth of new taxes on personal and corporate income was imposed.

Under the NDP the corporate capital tax was imposed. This was a punitive tax on capital, a tax which basically symbolized the NDP's anti-business and anti-economy bias and which remained in place only until 2002 when our government abolished it.

I understand that the NDP will dispute and despair when our side, government members of this House, continually remind them of their failed economic policies. But I think it's important that we keep doing so, for we owe it to all British Columbians to ensure that we never go back to the failed economic policies of the NDP.

As do all British Columbians, I recall how just days after forming government one of the historic first actions of our new B.C. Liberal government in 2001 was to institute an immediate personal income tax cut of 25 percent. The general corporate income tax rate was also cut to 13.5 percent from 16.5 percent. British Columbians could finally see the light, and it was the sunshine of a new economic renaissance for our province.

This tax cut was a major election campaign commitment to provide needed tax relief for the people of B.C., and our government has followed through. Building on the initial personal income tax cut, since 2001 we have continued to reduce the tax burden on British Columbians.

We have reduced or eliminated provincial personal income tax for about 730,000 British Columbians earning up to $26,000 a year. With this year's budget we have further introduced a 10-percent personal income tax cut for individuals on the first $100,000 of earnings so that we have in B.C. today the lowest personal income taxes in Canada for those earning up to $108,000 a year.

Unlike the NDP, we believe in encouraging business to invest, to thrive and to create jobs through expanding their business, so our government has continued to reduce corporate taxes. In 2005 the general corporate income tax was further reduced to 12 percent.

We all know that the small business sector is the key economic driver for our province, creating the most jobs and touching the most people and communities in our province. Therefore, I am so pleased that small business in B.C. today pays the lowest income taxes compared to any other province except Alberta.

Much more has been done by our government to reduce other taxes. Whether it's in reducing taxes paid by first-time homebuyers, in deferring property taxes for house-rich-but-lower-income seniors, in reducing taxes paid on certain business equipment or in tax credits to encourage strategic economic sectors like film and mining exploration, our B.C. Liberal government continues to lead the way in making B.C. tax competitive.

This improved tax competitiveness is, I believe, one of the key reasons for B.C.'s economic turnaround, for our strong economy today. I am proud of what has been accomplished in tax reduction by our government, and I believe we should, as a legislature, recognize how important it is that we continue to be a tax-competitive jurisdiction here in British Columbia.

I ask all members to support this motion and look forward to their views as we debate this motion today.

B. Ralston: Well, the previous member headed over to the cupboard and pulled out the usual threadbare rhetoric that we've been hearing for the last few years. The premise of the motion is that the competitive tax environment creates a vibrant and sustainable economy.

Now, a tax regime is obviously one element in an economy, but it's far from the only element that's to be considered. When you look at other aspects of successful economies, the tax regime is only one part of it. You have to look at education and training levels; an efficient legal and regulatory system; and public infrastructure such as police, fire, health, transportation.

Indeed, while the taxes may be very low in some Third World countries, theft, bribery and total corruption of the public service mean that even if taxes are collected, nothing results. The consequences are really drastic.

For the members opposite to suggest that somehow by reducing income tax in the manner that's been done and that this in itself has explained economic growth is to ignore global economic trends that have taken place over the last several years. Commodity prices are at record-high levels. It's well-known that this is a resource-based economy even now, notwithstanding some efforts to diversify the economy. So when you look at resource revenue when it's at an all-time high, naturally the government's balance sheet reflects some of that resource revenue.

The member opposite talks about reduction of corporate tax and in particular mentions the corporate capital tax. The corporate capital tax still exists on financial institutions over a certain size, and even this government hasn't seen fit to remove the corporate capital tax on financial institutions. So the very premise of his argument in that sector is simply not accurate.

When we look at other indices of thriving economies, there are of course a number of theorists and practical people who have looked at the hallmarks of a successful economy. One of those theorists is Richard Florida, who talks about the flight of the creative class and the new global competition for talent. Successful countries in the global economy will be determined as to whether or not they can attract knowledge workers and innovators who constitute the driving force, particularly in an innovative and creative economy. Those are scientists, engineers, managers, professionals and artists. He claims: "Wherever talent goes, innovation, creativity and economic growth are sure to follow."

Interestingly enough, when you look around the world, some of the countries with relatively high tax regimes, such as Finland, rate at the top of the global creativity index. Indeed, in many other indices of competitiveness, they are near the top in economic competitiveness when considered against countries across the world.

The World Economic Forum, which is a Geneva-based private organization with a business focus, releases what's called the Global Competitiveness Report. On its index of growth competitiveness, the Nordic countries such as Finland are significantly more competitive than the low-tax Anglo-American countries. Consistent with the claim, the World Economic Forum concluded: "There is no evidence that relatively high tax rates are preventing these countries from competing effectively in world markets or from delivering to their respective populations some of the highest standards of living in the world."

The assumption of the members opposite is that reducing taxes in the way that's been done…. Of course we have to consider our relationship with other provinces and with our closest economic competitor, the United States, but that in itself does not guarantee economic success and a number of other hallmarks of the modern competitive economy.

Particularly when you look at economic innovation, percentages of GDP spent on research and development, network readiness, broadband subscribers, labour participation by females, higher rates of household savings and national net savings, countries like Finland on occasion on all those indices are higher than the United States or indeed Canada.

The prescription for economic success that the members opposite have devised is very, very narrowly focused. In the long run, when markets ebb and flow, as they do, commodity prices go up and down. It's not that long ago, Calgary in 1988, when the price of oil fell to $8 a barrel. The effects upon Alberta companies were devastating.

The price of copper. The competitiveness commissioner Mr. Phillips had some dealings with some of the copper mines here in British Columbia at a certain point in the '90s when the price was 68 cents American per pound. All those cycles in commodity prices come and go.

So the challenge for creating an effective competitive economy is to focus not merely on the tax regime, which has to be competitive, but on all the other elements that go into making a modern, vibrant, dynamic economy where research and development, innovation in areas such as nanotechnology, biotechnology, photovoltaic technology…. Those kinds of leading-edge technologies are the areas where you need the creative class. You need to attract the people to an environment of tolerance and creativity in a way that mere tax regime alone will not address.

I'm sure that this will take place in the debate, but I urge the subsequent speakers to reject what appears to be a simple cause-and-effect relationship which doesn't exist in the real world of the economy.

B. Bennett: I'm going to boil the motion down to something simpler. I'm just going to ask the question: do tax cuts work? Then I'll do my best to provide an answer to that in the five minutes I have.

I want to borrow from a local financial adviser who writes a column up in Salmon Arm. He wrote a column back in February of 2002 that I thought was quite appropriate for this particular debate. This man's name — I want to get it right here — is Ron Adams. Again, he's a local financial adviser.

This is what Ron said in 2002: "I was having lunch at PJs with one of my favourite clients last week, and the conversation turned to the government's recent round of tax cuts." His friend said: "I'm opposed to those tax cuts" — this was a retired college instructor — "because they benefit the rich. The rich get much more money back than ordinary taxpayers like you and I and that's not fair."

Ron said: "But the rich pay more in the first place, so it stands to reason they'd get more money back." Ron could tell his friend was unimpressed by this meagre argument. He said that even college instructors are a prisoner of the myth that the rich somehow get a free ride in Canada, and nothing could be further from the truth.

That is Ron's story. I want to make it clear that the personal income tax cuts that this government has made since 2001 actually benefit people at the low end of the income scale. We have the lowest income taxes in the country on the first $108,000 of income, so in fact the most vulnerable people in this province have received considerable benefit from our tax cuts.

Janice MacKinnon, who is a former NDP finance minister in Saskatchewan, wrote in the Globe and Mail: "When I was Saskatchewan Finance Minister" — she could probably say it better than me — "between 1993 and 1997, the NDP government cut various corporate taxes based on models done by the Finance department that showed the specific tax cut would lead to more jobs and more government revenue. In every case the model proved to be accurate."

MacKinnon went on to say: "The sad irony is that in many cases raising tax rates is not only bad public policy, it will often not even bring in any new money."

In other words, raising taxes to create more government revenue tends to have the opposite impact on the economy. Investment, jobs and people leave a high-tax jurisdiction, thereby reducing overall economic production and tax revenues. That is, of course, what happened to B.C. under the NDP governments in the 1990s as people, jobs and investment flowed from our high-tax jurisdiction, and B.C. went from number one in Canada in 1991 to dead last by the year 2000.

In total, the government has made over 40 tax cuts since 2001, including the 35-percent reduction of personal income tax that so many people on the other side seem to hate, but which no one seems to send back. I would say, for those members who do not believe that tax cuts work, that they can send their tax cut back to the Ministry of Finance, government of B.C., in Victoria, British Columbia.

G. Coons: It's a great opportunity to talk about the motion on the floor. I'd like to bring it from another perspective, coming from a rural community. I see quite a few MLAs from rural communities are here. The concern that I have with a motion like this in a competitive tax climate in the province is: who is it going to benefit? There's mounting evidence that average British Columbians are far from benefiting from the high commodity prices, low interest rates and the billions of dollars of competitive tax cuts this government has already funnelled into wealthy British Columbians and corporations.

If we look at the definition of "competitive," it involves beating others or making attractive. As we look at the gap between the rich and the poor in this province, the concept of beating down somebody is seen in the competitive tax structure that this government seems to see as benefiting all British Columbians.

We've seen from Stats Canada that 23.9 percent of B.C. children were in households living below the federal agency's low-income cutoff. This province, for the second straight year, leads in child poverty. That's a shame.

Most people in rural British Columbia do not see competitive tax cuts as benefiting them. We understand, and we support, small business tax cuts encouraging the heart and soul of rural communities. We're strong believers in this, but when you look at the last election, the Premier of the province indicated that the tax cuts would pay for themselves. Basically, they would be for low- and middle-income earners. Instead, they went to the rich.

As the member for East Kootenay indicated, people do have concerns about competitive tax structures benefiting the rich and about the wealthy getting all the breaks.

In fact, I see that the Liberal tax cuts have compounded the problem in B.C. They've cut programs that help people get ahead. They have increased user fees and continue to tax the people that can least afford it, whether it's the billions of dollars that they raised to claw back their tax cuts that they have done over the previous years….

Education and training are key to improving prospects, but this government has made it more difficult for students in post-secondary. Competitive corporate tax gifts do not help post-secondary students.

If we look at recent releases from the Institute of Chartered Accountants of British Columbia, they document the failure of this government to provide development in three key regions of the province: the Cariboo, the Kootenay and the north coast.

High unemployment rates. This government echoes the employment rate, and on the north coast it's double what it is in the rest of the province. We are not seeing competitive tax cuts benefit us in the rural areas. It's time for this government to look at the entire B.C. economy and realize that rural B.C. is the economic driver of this province and that it provides 70 to 75 percent of our economic capital.

Recently in the Hope Standard newspaper, the latest census stats indicate rural areas suffer as urban B.C. booms. That's why I have a major concern with competitive tax structures and how they're going to affect rural communities and widen the gap between the rich and the poor.

Again, it was noted at the B.C. Liberal convention of this past year. There was a major contradiction in the Premier's speech, as indicated. "Health care costs are growing at two to three times the rate of our ability to pay — two to three times. Our population is rapidly aging. The older we get, the longer we live, the higher our health care goes, even with healthy lives. Within this mandate we will provide even greater tax relief for B.C.'s families in British Columbia."

There's a real contradiction there. According to our Premier, health care costs are growing faster than our ability to pay, but we can afford competitive tax cuts for the rich and famous in the province.

The Premier made $143 million per year in corporate tax cuts after the last election. Didn't bother to mention it. This time at least he's given advance warning that he values competitive tax cuts ahead of health care and services for seniors.

According to the World Economic Forum, the more we have cut taxes, the less competitive we have become. Since 2006 we are now 16th place in the competitiveness sweepstakes, down from 13th last year and fifth in 1999. And this is before the federal government kicked in corporate tax cuts at an unprecedented level. These corporate taxes have been cut virtually every year since, and each year we've become less competitive.

Finland. If we look at where we're going, nine countries ahead of us have higher taxes, and the Nordic countries, which collect half of their GDP in taxes every year, wiped us out. Michael Porter of the Harvard Business School, who led studies on Canadian competitiveness, blames our lack of competitiveness on business — for its inherent weakness, persistent aversion to risk, and refusal to upgrade technology and modernize business managements. Ordinary Canadians are paying for Canadian corporate incompetence through their ever-increasing share of competitive tax cuts.

In conclusion, the latest polls indicate, through Environics Research, that British Columbians indicate that we must increase taxes on the wealthy. Some 70 percent of Canadians say that, and 74 percent of British Columbians. And 82 percent of Canadians say we must close tax loopholes, 81 percent of those in B.C.

L. Krog: Joining us in the gallery today are 12 ESL students from Malaspina International High School, and accompanying them is their teacher David Butler. I would ask the House to please make them welcome.

J. Rustad: I am very happy to rise today to support Motion 34. It's interesting. I want to just reflect a little bit on some of the comments that have been made by some of the members opposite here.

The member for Surrey-Whalley basically implied that tax cuts don't work in providing an economic stimulus. That's a very interesting argument to make, considering that when you increase the amount of revenue that taxpayers have in their pockets, they have the ability to spend. They have the ability to do things in the economy that they wouldn't normally have been able to do, and that generates economic activity. I mean, this is basic economics.

Throughout the 1990s the amount of personal, disposable income shrank from about $20,500 to a low of about $18,700. So that meant people in this province actually had less money to create economic activity. I just can't understand the argument as to why putting more money in people's pockets is not healthy for the economy.

The member for North Coast has suggested that tax cuts don't help rural B.C. Well, let's go back and look at the 1990s, when we had high tax rates in this province. In my riding we had over 16-percent unemployment. It's now down around 5 percent. He argues that putting more money in people's pockets is not a good thing, particularly for rural B.C. Is the member really standing up to argue that it would be better if we taxed rural B.C. at a higher rate? Is that what the member is suggesting?

Quite frankly, in my riding, which I consider to be mostly a rural riding, they are thanking me. They're coming up and thanking me for putting more money in their pockets, allowing them more freedom and allowing them better options. We recognize that it's important that taxpayers have their dollars and that they are capable of spending their dollars in the ways they deem appropriate.

I want to go back and talk about this whole idea that tax cuts don't work. Throughout the 1990s and into the early 2000s the revenue that we received as a province from taxation was almost stagnant. It grew at maybe 1 or 2 percent a year. It was almost flatlined.

When we brought in the 25-percent tax reduction in 2001, we saw revenue drop off, of course, because we put those dollars into people's pockets. But what we saw was a remarkable explosion of tax revenue, and it grew at a phenomenal rate and continued to grow. As a matter of fact, the Auditor General, if I remember correctly, in a Public Accounts meeting we were at, actually said: "Yeah, you know what? We have seen a significant increase in tax revenues, and some of that can certainly be linked to the tax cut."

We've seen that revenue go up, and economists agree with us. They have clearly stated that by getting our economic house in shape, we have been able to increase revenues. Actually, the thought there was also that we've been cutting services in this province. How

can you be saying that we're cutting services when the provincial budget has been increasing and is now over $36 billion?

That's not cutting. That's actually expanding the services that we offer. Look at the highest level of services for education. We've got the highest level of services for health in terms of overall spending, and they somehow seem to think that those services have been cut.

There's no question that we are facing some challenges in this province. I tell you that when we went out in 2001 and asked what the challenges were, the challenges were that we need to be able to create jobs and we need employment opportunities.

In 2005 and since then, when we go out and talk to the people around the province, they're saying that the biggest challenge we're facing is that we need to be able to find labour. We need to be able to be competitive to meet those challenges. We need to be able to attract people from net immigration into our province, to be able to meet the needs of growth in our province.

Right now we're expecting over the next ten to 12 years that about a million jobs are going to be generated in this province. We're only going to graduate between 600,000 and 650,000 people in terms of the students that are in the system. How are we going to be able to attract those additional people? One of the ways you do that is try to make sure that people can build a solid future in this province and that people have an opportunity to provide for their families. You do that by being competitive in taxes, by setting the right environment and by making sure that B.C. is the best place to live, to work and to play.

L. Krog: Sometimes, in the rhetoric of the debate around the motion, we forget what the motion was all about, and that was simply that the House recognize the importance of creating a competitive tax climate in order to create a vibrant and sustainable economy.

If economies were just about taxes, we'd simply eliminate taxation and we'd be the centre of all the investment around the planet. [Applause.]

I hear some of the members on the opposite side clapping for that, and I do hope they'll put that out as part of their electoral platform the next provincial election and see how the voters of British Columbia respond to that interesting proposition, which I made in jest only.

If you really believe in putting more money in people's pockets, then I would suggest to the members opposite that they consider supporting an increased minimum wage. That would really put money into the pockets of ordinary British Columbians and enable them to make decisions about what they wish to do with that modest increase to minimum wage so that they could face the continually rising costs that this government has imposed on them — whether it's through increased fees and licences or driving up the costs of goods and services across the province.

The fact is that taxation is an important factor in the economy. There is no question about that, and no one is going to dispute it. As the member who moved the motion said, it's one of the keys, but it's not the only one. It's not the only factor.

The fact is that economies grow and prosper because of resource prices, because of the kind of climate that people live in. And I mean literally climate. This is a nice play to live. We get to golf here in January. You don't get to golf very much in Inuvik in the winter. People like social order. People like to see the issues of housing, homelessness and poverty dealt with. That creates a climate, as well, which stimulates a vibrant economy.

The fact is that taxation is only one factor. The reality is that if you look at the small business tax rate in the province of New Brunswick, on the first $475,000 the small business tax rate is 1 percent. Now, why is it that the province of New Brunswick isn't leading the economies of Canada, then? Why isn't it?

Small business is the economic driver of the province — every province of this country. Why isn't New Brunswick leading the way? I would suggest to the members opposite that there might be a couple of other factors, other than simple taxation. If you look at the province of Ontario, it's 5.5 percent. In B.C. it's 4.5 percent. In Alberta it's 3 percent.

I would suggest to the members opposite that one of the most important things that drives the economy, coupled with decent economic policy and taxation, is the whole quality of life. It's a little more intangible, and sometimes you can't use statistics to explain it exactly. I'm reminded of Churchill's line about statistics, of course. There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics.

The fact is that we enjoy something here in British Columbia because of our unique environment, because of the quality of our education system, because of the kind of security we guarantee our citizens. If the members opposite continually think that mere taxation is going to solve all of our problems, then they are sadly mistaken, and time is going to prove them wrong.

I ask the members opposite but one simple thing. As they take constant credit for the state of the economy today, when the economy turns down — as it inevitably will — then I ask them to likewise take the responsibility for that and stand up and trumpet just as loudly their apologies and their sense of responsibility for what happens to British Columbia's economy.

R. Hawes: It's kind of an interesting debate. It is breaking down pretty much on philosophical lines, which is what one would expect. I found it really interesting.

I'll read off a few names: Retail Council of British Columbia, B.C. Chamber of Commerce, B.C. Real Estate Association, Canadian Taxpayers Federation,

Canadian Federation of Independent Business. All of them represent people who make investments in small business. All of them say that tax cuts actually benefit their businesses and help them to grow.

The only people who say that tax cuts don't work and aren't the right thing for small business and to make the economy grow are the members opposite, a small collection of socialists who just don't happen to think the same way as those who try to make the economy grow and who understand what free enterprise is all about. They don't think the same way.

We've gone through a lot of stuff about what tax cuts do or what the opposition says they don't do. I think that maybe on a broader term this is a philosophical argument about what free enterprise stands for — which is actually less government, less taxes — versus the socialist approach, which is bigger government, higher taxes.

In other words, what we as B.C. Liberals believe is that you the taxpayer make better decisions with your money than we would make with your money.

We should always remember that the government doesn't create any money. The government gets all its money from taxation. That's where we get our money from. We take it from people; we don't create it. We don't create wealth here at all. We spend people's money, so we believe that we should actually allow people to make their own decisions with their own money by leaving it in their pockets. That means we should perhaps have less government.

We all know there should be some essential services. They should be covered, but the government shouldn't be Big Brother to everyone and make everyone completely reliant on government to spend their money and make the right choices for them because somehow they're not capable of making their choices. That seems to be the socialist belief.

The socialist belief appears to be, "We want to take your money" — and the more, the better — "and then we will make all of the spending decisions for you. We will tax you higher and higher," as they did in the 1990s. The members opposite say: "Oh, quit harking back to the past." But if you forget the past and the mistakes of the past, obviously you're going to repeat them.

They would like the taxpayers of British Columbia to forget all about the 1990s. They would like to get back to the tax-and-spend era. "Let's raise taxes. Let's take money from the people who actually produce wealth to spend it on our pet projects, whatever they happen to be. Let's forget about financial stability or sustainability." This government has not worked this way.

Deputy Speaker: Members. Would all members please allow the member standing to have the floor so we can have decorum in the House. Thank you, Members.

R. Hawes: I love it when they heckle. That just says they're listening, and I think that's a good sign.

The members opposite like to say that taxes aren't everything, but I want to read a quote. Now, we work hard all our lives as taxpayers in this province. We assemble some wealth, hopefully, and at the end of the day, we hope to have something to leave behind for our kids. These people opposite….

Here's a quote from May 31, 2004 — the Leader of the Opposition: "We're the only country in the western world that doesn't have an inheritance tax, and I think the people of Canada will support that tax." They are not only after your money while you're working, they're after your money when you're dead.

We as a B.C. Liberal government believe that we want to leave the money in your pocket. Unlike them, the economy destroyers, we are economy builders. I am very proud to have been a part of the government, elected in 2001, that said that we were going to cut taxes and did so immediately with a massive tax cut.

Even though it took two years to turn around the destroyed economy that they left, we have turned it around in spades. We now are the best-performing economy you can find in the western world, I believe, and we're looking for bigger things, better things. The Olympics, etc., are on the horizon, and people will have the money left in their pockets to enjoy things like the Olympics.

I'm very pleased to stand up and support this motion, and I'm sure that the members opposite, deep in their hearts, are going to really feel they must support this motion and probably by the end of the day would really love to take out a membership in the B.C. Liberal Party because they know this is the right way to go.

D. Thorne: I just have to recover from that last comment for just a second. I hope it isn't part of my five minutes.

I'm going to take a slightly different tack today. I want to actually speak in favour of tax deductions, and I'm going to speak more or less from a personal level today — that of a small business owner and operator for the last 40 years.

I am in favour of the 1-percent decrease in small business taxes that is being advocated by the members on this side of the House. I hope that in the fullness of time the members on the other side of the House will see how this is a very good move, as we know that small business across the country is the generator of most jobs — not big business, not multinationals and corporations. In fact, when we concentrate on the big business side of the equation, we often do that to the detriment of small business — the mom-and-pop operations, so to speak, and smaller businesses.

My husband and I owned, over the last 40 years, three Big O Tire stores — mom-and-pop operations, but we did usually have a small staff in those stores. As we

didn't ever pay minimum wage to our staff, we were always very clear that we wanted to pay them a living wage. And we hoped that we would be able to get a living wage out of the business, which didn't always happen. I can tell you that.

Our staff was always well looked after. Because of that, the tax rates and the other miscellaneous charges that governments charged to us were very, very important — because we weren't relying on paying minimum wage. I'm happy to say that with hard work and lots of self-denial and excellent staff over the years, our efforts did pay off, and ultimately we were able to sell three very successful businesses.

Moving on. I'm out of the personal level, although my own personal experience, of course, colours everything that I know and believe about small business. In British Columbia we have not had a decrease in our small business tax rate since the previous government decreased it, in 2000, down to 4.5, which brought British Columbia to the lowest small business tax rate in Canada.

Since then we have slipped to fourth. With Manitoba moving in and moving to a 1-percent total tax in 2009, we are now looking like we're tied for fifth place — with Saskatchewan, I believe — for the tax rate in Canada. I think this should be embarrassing to a rich province with a surplus like British Columbia. It almost feels as if we are letting the corporate sector, big business, ride on the back of small business in British Columbia, creating what I feel is the opposite of a level playing field.

I feel for the small businesses in this province that are struggling to compete against the big-box stores, the multinationals. In my own experience, I would use Wal-Mart as an example. For the small, independent tire store in British Columbia, with its two or three employees, across the country, struggling against Wal-Mart, which is getting every tax break and every consideration of the current government, it's a very big struggle and one that I think is patently unfair.

I think that rather than creating economic activity, ultimately this will kill economic activity. We're going to see it in the future. We are not seeing it today, as was pointed out. We're not seeing small business struggling, because they're still struggling along. But I believe that we will see that in the years to come, and I think it'll be a very, very sad state of affairs, one that we could remedy now by cutting the taxes 1 percent or even more.

Follow the example of Manitoba, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. Get it down to 1 percent. What would be wrong with that?

Looking at it from another angle — when we talk about raising the minimum wage, which is only a humane, sensible economic thing to do — to use small business again as the whipping boy…. "Oh, we can't raise the minimum wage. That'll kill small business." Well, it wouldn't kill small business if they had a proper tax rate. It wouldn't kill small business at all. They'd be very happy.

As a previous entrepreneur for most of my life, I would be mortified, embarrassed, if I had to pay my employees the minimum wage. While I go home to a lovely dinner, my employees are struggling to put food on the table for their children. How embarrassing. What a horrible position to put the small business entrepreneur in.

How can this government even be part of that? I'd like to think that it's because they just haven't thought about it yet. They haven't thought about small business because they've been so busy concentrating on their friends in big business and the multinationals, and they are going to start very soon.

Now that we are talking about minimum wage, they are going to start to think about small business and how much they have done for this province and how they and their employees are struggling. Most of the minimum-wage workers, I suspect, do work in small and medium-sized business. I hope that the corporations that are getting the tax breaks are paying their employees more than minimum wage, but not having had the time or the access to their payroll numbers, I don't know that.

Perhaps they are getting the tax breaks, and their owners, their boards of directors and their shareholders are getting all of the benefits of those tax deductions and those reductions in charges and regulations. Perhaps the staff isn't getting it at all. How do we know that? Does anybody know that? I welcome any comments after this morning if somebody on the other side of the House can fill me in and tell me that those tax breaks and those special considerations from this government are going to the employees and not to the shareholders only.

I think I have made my point pretty clear. I think that small business is the economic generator of the province — of the country, really. I think we have fallen behind in British Columbia. I think we are concentrating too much on big corporations and multinationals that may or may not be thinking of their staff when they get the breaks. But I think — and I'm very hopeful — that this government is now going to turn its attention to small business. It is going to look at the rest of Canada and how they are moving ahead to protect, enhance and create economic activity in the small business sector.

I am still hopeful that we are going to see action from this government around the minimum wage at the same time that we see small business improvements. It will make a sector of this province very happy. It will certainly make the employees who are struggling to pay their bills, to pay their health costs every month, to pay what could be higher health costs, to pay for fees in schools so their children can have music and hockey…. I think they will be very happy, and they will make this government very, very happy by the pleasure they will feel by being able to feed their children.

D. Hayer: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I see there are still a few minutes left.

I know the last speaker failed to explain to this House how, under the NDP, they took the big business and turned it into small business and turned the small business into no business at all.

I just want to say that I speak in favour of this motion from my colleague from Richmond-Steveston. I am pleased to support this motion because a competitive tax climate created by this government has greatly benefited my constituents in Surrey-Tynehead and the entire city of Surrey.

For one thing, our local businesses are thriving, and that means more people have jobs. That means more people have increased incomes. More families have more money and enjoy the prosperity that is created by a competitive tax climate.

We have more resources for our teachers, and we have given them an increase. We have more resources for government employees, as we have done. We have more money for health care, for education, for social programs, for our seniors, for transportation improvements and for other services our government has provided.

The fact of this prosperity speaks for itself. The unemployment rate for the lower mainland was 3.8 percent last month. That is the lowest ever. That means that we have an unemployment rate of lower than 4 percent. That means that everybody who wants to work has a job and has an income and that who wants to participate in our job situation….

This is because the powerful economy that drives our province is working. It's firing on all cylinders. One of the most encouraging statistics is that the percentage of people in Surrey of working age who had received provincial income assistance before has decreased with the B.C. Liberal government.

D. Hayer: Okay, Mr. Speaker. Since I have run out of time, I will have a chance to speak more later on.

Hansard Services publishes transcripts both in print and on the Internet.
Chamber debates are broadcast on television and webcast on the Internet.
Question Period podcasts are available on the Internet.