2008 Legislative Session: Fourth Session, 38th Parliament
HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

official report of

Debates of the Legislative Assembly

(hansard)

Monday, November 24, 2008

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 35, Number 9

[ Page 13207 ]

MONDAY, NOVEMBER 24, 2008

The House met at 1:33 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Tributes

RAYMOND PERRAULT

Hon. S. Bond: This afternoon, on behalf of the Premier, I would like to read some comments that he wanted to share, both with the members of the Legislature and British Columbia.

We were all saddened to hear of Ray Perrault's passing. Senator Perrault has been a good friend and a colleague to many of us, and I know that the hearts of his many colleagues and friends are saddened at this time. We want to send our best wishes to his wife Barbara and the entire Perrault family at this time.

As a proud representative of British Columbia, Ray served as a Senator from 1973 to 2001, ensuring that our province's priorities were front and centre on the national stage. He served British Columbia and Canada throughout his life with integrity and honour, first as the leader of the British Columbia Liberal Party from 1959 to 1968 and then as Liberal Member of Parliament for Burnaby-Seymour from 1968 to 1972, before becoming a Senator.

We have lost a great British Columbian and a great Canadian. He will be deeply missed by the people of North Vancouver and, indeed, all the citizens of British Columbia and Canada.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Premier, I ask that you send all of the House's deepest condolences to the Perrault family and let them know that our thoughts and prayers are with them at this most difficult time.

[1335]

Hon. C. Hansen: I'd like to add to the comments of the Deputy Premier.

I had the pleasure of working as an assistant to Sen. Ray Perrault in the early 1980s for two years, and I learned a lot from Ray over those years. He is truly a great British Columbian and great Canadian.

I can remember the number of times that we'd go into communities all around this province and just the warmth that he took with him when he greeted people. So many new Canadians were welcomed to Canada by Senator Perrault.

There's a lot that I learned from him about how it is to be a great British Columbian. He has a great legacy and one that I know his family is very proud of.

Introductions by Members

G. Coons: I'd like the House to acknowledge a constituent and friend of mine, Evelyn von Almassy, who is from Haida Gwaii–Queen Charlotte Islands. She's a teacher. She's taught in Haida Gwaii for 18 years, and she's currently the president of the Queen Charlotte District Teachers Association. We had lunch today and discussed many issues. Please make her welcome.

J. Les: You'll recall that on Thursday a number of us made introductions and especially, a few of us, of grandchildren. I regret to inform you that this particular grandpa actually got it wrong, so I'm here today to set the record straight.

An Hon. Member: Somebody is watching.

J. Les: Somebody is watching. Yes, absolutely.

Interjection.

J. Les: I know. I'm not sure I'll ever live it down, but just to set the record straight, on May 30 our granddaughter Olivia Sarah Kelly was born. She's the daughter of my daughter Teresa and her husband Mike. And on September 13 Emily Kiera Les was born. She's the first-born for my son Allan and his wife Elena.

But the one thing that still does hold true…. We are the proud grandparents of 11 grandchildren. For anybody who wants to have a good time, have some grandchildren.

J. Horgan: The last time I stood and we were talking about grandchildren, I was uncertain, but I've had it confirmed that I am still not a grandparent. I want to share that with the House.

I also want to invite everyone to acknowledge a young student, Ravi Parmar, from Spencer Middle School in my community of Langford. Ravi has a profound interest in politics, and for some unknown reason, he seems to think this is a good place to learn something about it. I know you won't let me down, hon. Speaker, when question period starts. There will be some raucous behaviour for Ravi to enjoy.

A belated happy birthday to you, Ravi.

Also, I'd like to acknowledge my constituency assistant Shannon Russell, who's here today.

O. Ilich: My constituency assistant is also here today — Heidi Lyons. She's visiting here with her husband Kevin Lyons, and they're doing what good British Columbians are doing. They're touring the province and spending money and helping our economy. Would the House please make them feel welcome.

D. Routley: Could the House help me welcome two friends and constituents, Robert and Mary MacPhee, people who are devoted to community and to our province.
[ Page 13208 ]

Hon. J. McIntyre: I'm proud to say that we have a school visit today in the precincts. They're actually out in the halls as we speak and will be joining us in question period at about two o'clock. They are grade 11 students from Rockridge secondary in West Vancouver. It's a school that's sort of near and dear to me. In fact, my daughter was in the beginning year of that school, and both my son and daughter attended.

I'm delighted to have had a little conversation with them out in the hall. They're joined by their teachers Paula Waatainen, Greg Elliott and Lindsay Snell. I also just learned from Lindsay…. She happens to be the older sister of a very good friend of my daughter's — her brother. I just wanted to have the House join me in making them feel very welcome today.

Hon. M. de Jong: Flushing Meadows, Roland-Garros, Wimbledon — these are the hallowed grounds of tennis that have given us so many great sporting moments. But now we can add the Cowichan Bay lawn tennis club, because it was there this past summer that this Legislative Assembly, under the guidance of our captain, the Clerk, dispatched yet again the hordes from the press gallery in the 21st running of the Parliamentary Press Gallery–Legislative Assembly Tennis Tournament.

The record is intact. Let the Journals of this chamber record that the good guys persevered yet again.

[1340]

D. Hayer: We have some very special guests in the Legislature today. One is Mr. Dave Sandhar, who is a very hard-working community leader and business person in my community. He owns The Pantry Restaurant in the Guildford mall where I hold my regular coffee meetings. Joining him is his friend, Mr. Avtar Singh Kahlon, who is in the trucking business, as well as his uncle from India, Jaswinder Singh Nahal, who is a proud owner of one of the largest poultry and agriculture farms in Punjab, India.

I would like to thank Mr. Sandhar for bringing his guests over here. Would the House please make them very welcome.

Statements (Standing Order 25b)

university of the fraser valley

J. Les: I rise today to recognize the recent accomplishments of the University of the Fraser Valley, established by legislation in this chamber just this last May. Last month the University of the Fraser Valley installed its first chancellor, Dr. Brian Minter. It was a very special day for the entire Fraser Valley as we saw one of our own being given this distinction.

Dr. Minter has served our community and this province with distinction both nationally and internationally, and he's recognized as a foremost expert in gardening and as founder of one of British Columbia's foremost tourism destinations, Minter Gardens. He has also served previously as a chair of the board of the University College of the Fraser Valley, and I am proud to say that he has been a long-term neighbour and friend of mine. No finer individual could have been found, and Dr. Minter is an appropriate appointment to fulfil the role of chancellor of the University of the Fraser Valley.

Now, we are of course very proud of our new university and understand the impact and the important role that this institution will play in our region. But it should be noted that our university is also being recognized by the larger academic community as an institution that is in the top rankings in many categories, ranging from academics to career preparation, overall student satisfaction, quality of teaching and student faculty interaction.

In the most recent university report done by the Globe and Mail, the University of the Fraser Valley ranked as one of the province's best public universities. The University of the Fraser Valley scored higher than UBC, UVic and SFU in a number of categories. In fact, smaller class sizes, most satisfied students and the highest quality of education were some of the categories where the university held top spot in the province and nationwide.

We are delighted about our new university and view this as an opportunity to show not only ourselves but the entire world what we are capable of. We're off to a great start, and we will see a great future at the University of the Fraser Valley.

violence against filipinO women

R. Chouhan: Last month on October 26, I had the privilege to attend a political fashion show to stop violence against Filipino women at the centre of contemporary art in Vancouver. This was organized by the Philippine Women Centre of B.C. to share women's personal experiences with violence and vulnerability. The event was organized to engage the audience in the often veiled experiences of women on the margins and to engage in critical thinking that challenges widespread social constructs of Filipino women.

Filipinos are now the fourth-largest visible minority community in Canada and the third in B.C., and 70 percent of the people leaving the Philippines daily to work abroad are women. Nearly 100,000 Filipinos, mostly women, have come to Canada under the foreign domestic movement and the live-in caregiver program. Over the past several decades Filipinos have been subject to systemic racism and discrimination, harassment and senseless fatal attacks affecting the entire Filipino community.

I want to thank the organizers for giving me an opportunity to listen to the stories of these brave women and to admire their courage to unite the community to advance their rights for more equality and to achieve social jus-
[ Page 13209 ]
tice in Canada. It is important that we all raise our voices against the senseless violence against Filipino women.

[1345]

I'm sure all members in this House will agree with me to condemn all forms of violence against women and to congratulate the organizers for organizing a political fashion show to stop violence against Filipino women.

BUSINESSES IN BURNABY

H. Bloy: I rise today to spotlight the many businesses which are so vital to our economy. In these uncertain times of global economic crisis, I'm happy to celebrate and recognize just a few of the businesses in my community which contribute so much to our province's success. Many of them have chosen to join the Burnaby Board of Trade, an organization which facilitates business achievement through networking, education, advocacy and economic development.

It is the mission of the Burnaby Board of Trade to encourage and promote a sustainable business environment. Recently the Burnaby Board of Trade celebrated a few of its members. The Burnaby Board of Trade named Keith Beedie of the Beedie Group as business person of the year.

In addition to Mr. Beedie, I would also like to recognize other business leaders in Burnaby who contribute so much to Burnaby's success and welcoming atmosphere: Peter Legge, Canada Wide magazine; Kazuko Komatsu, Pacific Western Brewery; Phil Hochstein; Gordon Harris, UniverCity; and Dr. Michael Stevenson, Simon Fraser University. It is important that we continue to support local businesses and communities across the province by giving them our business and cutting taxes and red tape. Their success is B.C.'s success.

Now I'd like to introduce Burnaby's Board of Trade excellence award winners for 2008. Burnaby community spirit award, Brentwood Town Centre; Business Innovation Award, Day4 Energy; Entrepreneurial Spirit Award, MetroLeap Media Inc.; Environmental Sustainability Award, Encorp Pacific (Canada); Not-for-Profit Organization of the Year, L'Arche Greater Vancouver; Small Business of the Year Award, Simba's Grill; and Business of the Year Award, A.B.C. Recycling. I would like to salute all the businesses in Burnaby and all the businesses in our great province.

STUDENT ACTIONS FOR
PLASTIC BAG USE REDUCTION

N. Macdonald: I want to welcome the grades 1 to 5 classes of Nicholson Elementary School just south of Golden. They're watching this on the Hansard channel. This is the Legislative Assembly, and MLAs from across British Columbia meet here, including the Premier who you wrote to and whose letter you have received.

For MLAs, I will tell you that last spring, the grades 1, 2 and 3 class were studying sea animals and watched a video that included a sea turtle and dolphins struggling with plastic bags that were polluting the ocean. One of the students suggested writing the President, but the teacher, Miss Larwill, suggested other ideas.

They did a research project and found that plastic bags take a long time to decompose and that there are other ways to carry purchased goods. When approached, the Sobeys and Overwaitea managers and their employees in Golden were encouraging and offered special deals to customers of reusable grocery bags and asked students to make posters, which they did, and then the store displayed them prominently.

The students then talked to their parents about what they could do as a family. They asked me as their MLA to come to their class last spring and again this fall. I helped them with a letter to the Premier this October that they all signed, which took some time, and then sent.

I was asked to come here and tell lawmakers on their behalf the following things — they gave me a list: they want their oceans clean, they want a world that includes sea turtles and dolphins, and they want MLAs here to do something about the overuse of plastic bags so that that can happen. So we've been told.

I want to commend the grades 1, 2 and 3 class and now the grades 4 and 5 students for their work, and I ask members to join me in saluting students who are willing to work to make things better.

NATIONAL 4-H MONTH

V. Roddick: British Columbia produces more diverse agricultural products than the ROC, or rest of Canada. Supernaturally, therefore, we really are the best place on earth. November is National 4-H Month, so as we gallop towards Christmas, it's time to celebrate and capture the spirit of 4-H, our up-and-coming leaders in agriculture under the guidance of their new executive director, Linda Houghton.

Programs like "Fields for Your Future" build interest in agricultural careers among the high school students and provide nearly 3,000 British Columbia girls and boys the opportunity to discover the right agricultural career for them.

[1350]

The provincial agricultural plan, Growing a Healthy Future for B.C. Families, strongly supports youth in agriculture, and 4-H is an essential part of planning this bright future, because it teaches young people to successfully meet the challenges not only in their own lives but also in the lives of their communities. As the 4-H pledge states: "I pledge my head to clearer thinking, my heart to greater loyalty, my hands to a larger service and my health to better living for my club, my community, my country."
[ Page 13210 ]

Thank you, 4-H. It's impossible to imagine where our agricultural industry would be without it, because we all know we all still have to eat to live.

UNITED WAY OF TRAIL AND DISTRICT

K. Conroy: On Saturday, November 8, the Trail and District United Way celebrated 80 years of service at a sold-out gala, which I had the pleasure of attending. That's 80 years of building a better community through support to affiliated agencies that meet the guidelines of supporting the mental, physical and social well-being of individuals in the area.

Trail United Way has also developed a strong relationship with both corporations like Teck Cominco and the labour movement, relationships that have helped Trail to have incredibly successful fundraising drives. At the dinner, Richard Deane spoke on behalf of Teck and the fact that they and their employees have "proudly shared in the United Way's journey to build a better community for everyone since 1930."

The keynote speaker for the night was Ken Georgetti — president of the Canadian Labour Congress but, more importantly, a hometown boy. Ken spoke about the strong partnership that the labour movement has with the United Way, but he also spoke about some of the problems we are facing as a society.

"Helping others is the true measure of how civilized a society is, but charitable giving is also an indication of the values we hold as individuals and what kind of a society we are. That is why my greatest hope is that one day we will actually see a diminished role for the United Way in our communities and for other charitable organizations.

"And I say that not to minimize the great and important work you do in this community and across the country, but in these times when we are keenly feeling the damage done by an unfettered and unregulated global economy and an ideology that rewards greed rather than hard work, I am feeling disappointed that the need for the United Way, its important work, is going to be greater than ever.

"Imagine. Wouldn't it be just great to live where paying a decent living wage for workers is simply a given, where food banks and not industries have gone out of business, where there is good, affordable housing instead of people forced to live on our streets, and where there is help available when help is needed, instead of homeless shelters forced to turn away clients night after night?"

Well, I couldn't agree more with Ken, but until that day happens, I want to thank the dedicated volunteers who continue to ensure that the Trail and District United Way keeps on providing its much-needed support to the people of our region.

Oral Questions

GOVERNMENT ACTION
ON FOREST INDUSTRY

C. James: Forestry is one of our most important industries and a key economic driver. For the last three years, the members on this side of the House have been calling on government to wake up to the crisis and do something to support the industry. But as we know, government hasn't lifted a finger to help this industry.

Today in the quarterly report from the Finance Minister, he didn't mention the forest industry once. The Premier in his economic statement a month ago didn't mention the forest industry once.

My question is to the Finance Minister. What kind of message does that send, when you don't even make a single reference to the industry in your updates, and there's still no plan to help forest-dependent communities?

Hon. C. Hansen: On October 27 the Leader of the Opposition brought down an economic statement with economic measures that the opposition would propose for the coming three years. There was not one mention of the forest industry.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. C. Hansen: If you actually look at what the official opposition is proposing for their three-year budget, it is a recipe for billions of dollars of deficit in each year as we go forward.

[1355]

They have nothing in that three-year budget for forestry or for forest-dependent communities. They have nothing in that for health care, in spite of the fact that their Health critic is going around the province making big, grandiose announcements about increased spending. It was not reflected in their three-year budget.

I believe it's time that the Leader of the Opposition come clean with British Columbians and admit that her three-year budget that she revealed on October 27 is a recipe for significant deficits in British Columbia, like we saw in the 1990s.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

The Leader of the Opposition has a supplemental.

C. James: It's pretty clear why families and communities have been left behind by this Finance Minister, when he can't even get his facts straight and he doesn't understand that resource-based communities are forest-based communities.

May I remind the Finance Minister that the comments from his government to forest communities have been: "We're simply spectators. There's nothing we can do." For three years those communities have struggled. They have seen mills shut down. They have seen jobs lost.
[ Page 13211 ]

I listened to a teacher who told me about lockers being cleaned out in schools. Those families are having to leave, because this government has done nothing to help forest-dependent communities.

Now we heard the Finance Minister say that he needs federal help for the industry. We heard the Premier two days earlier say that he didn't believe in federal help. That wasn't a direction that we should go.

Can the Finance Minister explain why after three years the government still can't get its story straight and why forest communities are the ones who are suffering because of this government's neglect?

Hon. C. Hansen: And this is coming from a Leader of the Opposition that would like to see the softwood lumber agreement torn up — the only thing that is actually giving some stability to the forest sector in British Columbia.

This is coming from a Leader of the Opposition who isn't happy with the fact that there are thousands of forest workers employed in British Columbia today, because there are still in many parts of British Columbia many thousands of forest workers that are working in the harvesting sector today. She's not happy with the fact that they have jobs because that fibre can be exported to other parts of the world. She wants to see them all unemployed as a result of the measures that she would bring in.

In the legislation that we are going to be debating today is a measure that is going to make a difference with the industrial and light industrial firms in British Columbia by relief from the school property tax that they are paying. We've put in measures that are there to support families. We've put in measures to assist…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. C. Hansen: …with job retraining, with bridging to early retirement for older forest workers. Those are the measures that we're taking, and those are making a difference in the lives of British Columbians.

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

The Leader of the Opposition has a further supplemental.

C. James: The people of British Columbia are concerned. The people of British Columbia are concerned because the forest industry has been in crisis. For the last couple of years this government has done nothing. If this is how the government deals with financial crisis in the forest industry, we should all be afraid of the direction the government is going to take around the economic situation.

I've been to those communities. I've spent time in Mackenzie talking to the workers and their families — and Nanaimo and the Cowichan Valley. The list is too long to go through.

The Minister of Forests continues to say: "Things have turned a corner. Don't worry. Everything's fine." The Minister of Finance today said to families: "Don't worry; be happy. Everything's okay." Well, British Columbians are hurting, and all they're getting are television ads telling us that everything is fine.

Well, again to the Minister of Finance: when is he going to take his head out of the sand and do something to help families in British Columbia?

[1400]

Hon. C. Hansen: On October 22 the Premier brought down economic measures that are actually making a difference in the lives of British Columbia families.

Five days later we had economic measures that were being proposed by the Leader of the Opposition that actually, she purported, were supposed to be in response to the financial world challenges that British Columbia was not immune to but that had occurred over the period from September 15 to October 27.

What did we get from the Leader of the Opposition? We got a three-year spending plan based on what she hoped would be numbers, when she knew that the revenues to the province had been eroding significantly.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. C. Hansen: That kind of reckless commitment would actually result in billions of dollars of deficit. We saw that in the 1990s. British Columbia families don't want to pay for reckless NDP promises. That's why British Columbians trust this Premier and this government with the economy far more than anybody on that side of the House.

B. Simpson: Simply put, the reason this government does not have a plan for the forest sector is that two successive Ministers of Forests refused to admit there's actually even a crisis in that sector. That's the reality. The current Minister of Forests has actually stated that he sees signs of recovery all around him. He stood and said, "There will be no more mill closures or curtailments," a few days before another round of mill closures and curtailments occurred.

The minister goes around feeding communities pablum and tranquillizers when we need a plan. So my question is to the Minister of Finance. Yes or no? Is the forest sector
[ Page 13212 ]
in British Columbia in an unprecedented crisis that will be protracted? Yes or no?

Hon. P. Bell: I think that the member opposite should put aside the political partisanship in a time…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. P. Bell: …that's very challenging for the industry. I was looking through some of the opposition critic's comments. It really, I think, tells the tale of the NDP's position on forestry. In fact, in this very chamber on May 2 the opposition critic said: "In anything I read on pulp, it's not viable in B.C."

Here we're supposed to bend over backwards on reducing the cost of social rent, getting a better regulatory and labour climate and everything else for the pulp industry, and their own reports say it isn't viable long term. In Opinion 250 on the second of March, the opposition critic said that the pulp industry is dead. That's the vision of the NDP. We have a completely different vision, and I think it's time for the NDP to set aside the political rhetoric and start supporting an industry in a very challenging time.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Member has a supplemental.

B. Simpson: This is why we don't have a plan. They won't answer the question.

My first job as the critic for Forests was to go into the Minister of Forests' office in 2005 and say: "Let's put partisanship aside. Let's depoliticize the forest sector." I had the express permission of the Leader of the Opposition to ask, and I asked in this House — and it's on the public record — for an all-party committee to deal in advance of the crisis that was about to occur.

This government still doesn't admit there's a crisis. The Minister of Finance said today that there are thousands of jobs in the harvesting sector. Let me ask him a question then. His quarterly report shows that harvesting levels have plummeted and will remain low for some time to come. That puts generational logging companies at risk today. Will the Forests Minister admit today that logging contractors all over this province are at risk of losing their companies?

[1405]

Hon. P. Bell: I think it's important for the member opposite to recognize all the good work that has gone on in the industry, and there are some clear facts that identify that this industry actually is doing well in very challenging times. In fact, in the member's own back yard, the city of Quesnel, the mills are working flat out. People are harvesting; shifts are being maintained.

The results of the industry in terms of West Fraser, Tolko and Canfor…. I've toured those operations, and those mills are functioning when no other mills anywhere in the world are functioning.

In fact, I want to point out what I think is a very important statistic. If you go back ten years — and if memory serves me correct, that would have a nine in front of it, for the '90s…. Ten years ago, B.C. had 48 percent of the total lumber coming out of Canada into the United States. Today that number is 58 percent. Clearly, we are competing against all other jurisdictions. We're doing very well as an industry in very, very challenging times, and I think the member should recognize that.

GOVERNMENT ACTION on
vancouver island FOREST INDUSTRY

D. Routley: The minister's detachment from reality is paralleled only by his refusal to answer questions and his lack of a plan. Since this House last sat, in my constituency we have lost crucial pieces of any kind of industry comeback. Major contractors have failed. We've lost Hayes logging, Ted Leroy, Munns Lumber. For the information of the Finance Minister, those are harvesters. They're not working. Those jobs are gone.

We also witnessed the largest auction ever of logging equipment on Vancouver Island. We're losing the workers, we're losing the skill base, and we're losing the equipment and the infrastructure.

What plan do you have, Mr. Forests Minister? What plan can you offer my constituents? What plan do you have to keep those workers in that industry?

Hon. P. Bell: Clearly, this government, this ministry, has worked hard to create some stability in a very difficult, very challenging time. We've introduced a variety of new initiatives, including lump sum sales, in the last short period of time that are seeing people going out and working on the landscape, taking advantage of those new models and capturing full value from the landscape — something that we should be celebrating in this House.

You know, it's very easy to throw political rhetoric across the House to an industry that's not looking for that. They're not looking for that anymore because they're really looking for leadership. Leadership is something, I think, that has been set through the softwood lumber agreement.

Just as an example…. I want to actually refer to some comments made by the MLA for Columbia River–Revelstoke with regards to the softwood lumber agreement…

Interjections.
[ Page 13213 ]

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. P. Bell: …because there is an inconsistency in some of the comments from the opposition. The member for Columbia River–Revelstoke actually got it right. He said that this deal works for the Downie Street mill. Downie mill is a critically important part of the Revelstoke economy, and this deal protects the mill's employees. It's not my obligation to speak up for the mills in the area, flawed or not. This deal is a good resolution for them.

Mr. Speaker, what I would like to know is: does that member support the softwood lumber agreement, like his colleague?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

J. Horgan: On Vancouver Island we have experienced mill closures. We've experienced job loss, the largest auction of forest equipment in the world on Vancouver Island, bankruptcies of generations of logging firms on this island. And the minister across the way has no plan. He says things are going to turn around.

My question is a simple one to him. When they turn around, who's going to be there to turn on the lights? If we don't have contractors, we don't have workers and we don't have equipment, all we've got is real estate agents to sell the land that you gave to Western Forest Products. We don't want real estate development. We want a forest industry. What's the plan?

[1410]

Hon. P. Bell: I'm glad, actually, the member opposite asks about Western Forest Products, because that was one of the companies that joined me in a trip to China just ten days ago. In fact, Western Forest Products sold about 25 million board feet of lumber to a brand-new marketplace. That lumber is going to be produced in the Cowichan Bay mill. In fact, Duncan Kerr, the COO for Western Forest Products, phoned up the loggers the day that we were in China and said: "Boys, we're going back to work."

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

COMPENSATION FOR TREE FARM LICENCE
LAND REMOVALS ON VANCOUVER ISLAND

J. Horgan: I'm certain Duncan Kerr would have advised the minister while he was on the trip that on the government's watch, WFP has become a penny stock at the exchange in Toronto. That's a vibrant company on Vancouver Island reduced to a penny stock.

My question to the minister is this. If there's compensation due to contractors and workers in the Kootenays as a result of this misguided government's policy of deleting private lands from tree farm licences, why is there no similar compensation on Vancouver Island? When does Vancouver Island get to sit at the table with everybody else in this province?

Hon. P. Bell: The opposition complains that we aren't making any efforts to improve the operational ability of the forest industry to move forward. Yet at the same time, he maligns Western Forest Products in their attempts to maintain economic stability.

Clearly, there were decisions made by the previous minister. I support those decisions. They were the right ones. They were the right decisions in the Kootenays. If he doesn't like the decisions in the Kootenays, he should ask his colleagues about that.

GOVERNMENT SPENDING ON ADVERTISING

B. Ralston: On Thursday in question period I asked the Minister of Finance when he was going to cut the self-promotional government ads. Yet every night since then the ads continue to rush forth on the television stations, on the radio stations and in newspapers. Even today on the noon news, when families were being asked to tighten their belts, there were more government self-promotional ads.

Can the Minister of Finance advise what kind of message he thinks this sends to British Columbians in these troubled economic times?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. C. Hansen: British Columbians have a lot to be proud of today in spite of the global challenges that the economy is facing today. We know that British Columbia is going to weather this economic storm probably better than just about any jurisdiction anywhere.

It's because of the work that British Columbians have done, actually. It's because of the work that we as a government have done in building a solid fiscal framework. We've had surpluses which now create a buffer so that we don't have to cut into existing program spending we have today in order to meet the needs of British Columbians at a time when revenues are falling off.

But let's not lose sight of the fact that we are facing a climate change challenge. We as a government have shown leadership on climate change, which is being asked for by British Columbians. We're delivering to British Columbians the message about how they can take action in their personal lives to be part of the solution on climate change.
[ Page 13214 ]

Yes, that advertising costs money, but it's an important message that we know is resonating with British Columbians, because it's information that they are seeking.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

B. Ralston: On October 22 the Premier promised to rein in avoidable government spending. Yet the government continues to spend millions of dollars on self-promotional ads — clearly avoidable, wasteful government spending. When will this minister stand up and say those ads are going to stop?

[1415]

Hon. C. Hansen: In delivering on one of the ten points that the Premier announced on October 22, we are going ministry by ministry to look at where we can find those administrative savings, and that will be reflected in the budget that is tabled next February 17.

But let's talk about the other things the Premier announced on October 22: a 5 percent reduction in personal income taxes; the reduction of the small business tax in this year alone from 4.5 percent down to 2.5 percent. In that budget was support for the industrial and light industrial sectors. It brought certainty to British Columbians and stability to their families, and we on this side of the House are waiting to find out whether the opposition is going to support those measures that British Columbians are looking for, or are they going to vote against it.

R. Fleming: Today we've seen third-quarter tourism figures with year-to-date declines in six of eight B.C. regions. We've seen state double-digit decreases in U.S. visitors. We've seen declining international visitors to this province. The Minister of Finance has said on a couple of occasions now that his government wants to identify wasteful spending.

So again, shouldn't the easiest area for him to cut spending — the first place he goes to — be those feel-good ads that British Columbians are being bombarded with night after night? Why won't this minister stand up for things British Columbians actually care about — services that benefit them in their lives — and cut those ads?

Hon. C. Hansen: As I've been out and around the province quite a bit, actually, in the last number of weeks and months talking to British Columbians in the smallest of communities, medium-sized communities, even in the largest communities, what I find is that British Columbians are anxious to know what their government is doing, anxious to know how they can be part of the solutions to the crisis that's facing us in terms of climate change around the province. They're also anxious about the economy. They're anxious about their families' personal financial situation and what the future may bring.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. C. Hansen: There is lots of reason for optimism in British Columbia, because we will weather this economic challenge better than anywhere else.

But I can tell you what they're also worried about. They're worried about an official opposition that is suggesting to British Columbians that we should be running up billions of dollars of debt and transferring the challenges of today onto the backs of their children and grandchildren, as the NDP did in the 1990s.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Member has a supplemental.

R. Fleming: Well, British Columbians are anxious about the economy. The Finance Minister has that correct. But what they'd like to see is some thrift and prudence and a leadership that gets it from this government.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Member, just sit.

Members. Members.

Continue, Member.

R. Fleming: Instead, what does this government keep doing night after night? It blows millions and millions of taxpayers' dollars saturating the airwaves with government-friendly advertising. The public deserves an answer, so I'll ask the question again. To the Minister of Finance: has he ordered government's advertising budgets off limits as a place to make savings instead of cutting those funds so that we can protect services that matter to British Columbians, that they actually care about?

Hon. C. Hansen: This is actually quite interesting when I hear a member of the NDP opposition talking about thrift and prudence, because in the 1990s we never saw that government make a single one of its budget targets. We saw five separate debt reduction plans. They never met any one of them.

[1420]

This is a government that has put forward budget targets. We've exceeded them. We have been rewarded by consistent upgrades in the credit rating of British Columbia to the point today where British Columbia has a triple-A credit rating, the highest of any province.
[ Page 13215 ]

S. Simpson: In recent months we have seen thousands of ads, between the electronic and print media. This has been millions of dollars spent on a gratuitous self-promotion project for the Premier and a taxpayer-funded ad campaign for the B.C. Liberal Party. It's nothing more than that.

No taxpayers support this waste. They certainly don't support this waste of their money in tough economic times. There is no leadership in what this government is doing.

Will the government provide a full accounting of all the millions that you've spent in the last few months and end the advertising program now?

Hon. C. Hansen: Yes, we will provide a full accounting of all of the money spent on ads, because we're the first government that has ever done that.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. C. Hansen: The record year for the most money ever spent on advertising was actually in 1994-1995. And guess what. That was one of the years that the NDP drove us into deficit and spent way more money than they had in revenues.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

The member has a supplemental.

S. Simpson: I see that the minister says he'll talk about these numbers, but I'm sure that the minister doesn't have the courage to put those numbers on the table this week as to how much has been spent.

This minister talks about going around the province and talking to British Columbians. Well, we've been talking to British Columbians too. The minister might recall that, finally, some British Columbians in Vancouver-Fairview and Vancouver-Burrard actually got to judge this government, and we know what happened.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

S. Simpson: In 1999…. The Premier was quoted at that time, and he said, "There isn't one person in B.C. who woke up today and said: 'I want more propaganda.' How many people were left on waiting lists so we could have more propaganda?"

Well, today British Columbians are saying: "Enough propaganda from this government. Spend the money on the needs of British Columbians, not promoting your party."

Hon. C. Hansen: That's interesting, coming from a member of the caucus that's using taxpayers' dollars to advertise a visit by the Leader of the Opposition to Prince George as part of their so-called rural caucus. I think it underscores the hypocrisy we hear from these members.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Hon. C. Hansen: Let's talk about the needs of British Columbia families today. They are facing challenges. They're facing uncertainty. What we have done is delivered on economic measures that will actually meet the needs of British Columbia families — a 5 percent reduction in personal income tax, retroactive to last January 1; support for the small business community to make sure that they can manage through difficult economic times.

[1425]

These are the measures contained in the legislation before us, and I challenge the members of the opposition to join with us in supporting those measures and getting on in delivering those benefits to B.C. taxpayers.

[End of question period.]

C. Wyse: I seek leave to present petitions.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

Petitions

C. Wyse: I have three petitions. The first one is 850 petitions requesting something be done about helping the existing doctors in the greater area of Ashcroft.

The second petition, again from the same area — 381 petitions requesting assistance to attract replacements for the doctors after they announce that they are leaving Ashcroft.

The third petition is a request to the Ministry of Transportation to relocate the planned realignment of Highway 97 at the Cargyle Corner onto Crown land. The community requires the agricultural land, and therefore, all efforts to protect it should be made.

S. Fraser: Now, 1,400 more British Columbians have come forward demanding that the government protect wildlife and companion animals by bringing in safe antifreeze legislation.

N. Macdonald: I wish to present a petition of 1,164 more names registering opposition to the Jumbo Creek resort and real estate development proposed in
[ Page 13216 ]
the heart of the Purcell Mountains, 55 kilometres west of Invermere.

R. Fleming: I present 400 names on a petition regarding a proposed ambulance station on Carrick Street in my constituency. It calls upon elected officials, the B.C. Ambulance Service, the Vancouver Island Health Authority and B.C. Hydro, which is the landowner, to base emergency health services on sites that are appropriate, permanent and safe for responder call-out times.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: I call second reading of Bill 45.

Second Reading of Bills

ECONOMIC INCENTIVE AND STABILIZATION
STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 2008

Hon. C. Hansen: I move that Bill 45, Economic Incentive and Stabilization Statutes Amendment Act, 2008, be now read a second time.

This bill contains amendments to eight statutes and other provisions that will give effect to a number of the items outlined in the Premier's ten-point economic plan, which he announced on October 22, 2008, and in his subsequent announcements.

The income tax reductions in Bill 45 are an acceleration of the personal and small business income tax rate reductions announced in Budget 2008 as part of the revenue-neutral carbon tax plan.

[S. Hammell in the chair.]

First, the 3 percent personal income tax cut on the first $70,000 of income that was scheduled to take effect in 2009 is accelerated to the beginning of 2008. This is in addition to the 2 percent income tax reduction that was implemented on July 1. This full 5 percent reduction will be retroactive to January 1 of this year.

The acceleration of this tax cut will put $144 million back into the pockets of British Columbians. Because of the personal income tax cuts introduced by this government, British Columbians earning up to $111,000 a year pay the lowest personal income taxes in Canada.

The bill also accelerates the tax cut for small business. Effective December 1, 2008, the bill reduces the small business corporate income tax rate from 3.5 percent to 2.5 percent. This accelerates the Budget 2008 commitment to make this reduction by 2011.

[1430]

With this change, the small business corporate income tax rate will have been cut over 44 percent this year alone, providing an additional $146 million in tax savings for small business over the three years of the budget plan.

Bill 45 amends the Land Tax Deferment Act to establish a new property tax deferment program for homeowners facing financial hardship as a result of current economic conditions. The new deferment program will allow homeowners facing financial hardship who have at least 15 percent equity in their homes to defer their 2009 and 2010 property taxes.

Homeowners will not have to pay back the deferred taxes until the property is sold or transferred to a new owner, but they can repay the deferred amount earlier if they so choose. Simple interest will be charged at the prime lending rate. Other eligibility requirements are similar to those in the existing program, which benefits homeowners who are 55 years of age or older and eligible persons with disabilities.

We recognize that many British Columbians are currently facing economic and financial challenges and that many workers in critical industries such as forestry have been laid off or have lost their jobs. This bill contains measures that will soften the impact of the global economic slowdown on B.C. and help our province emerge stronger than ever. The financial hardship property tax deferment program will complement those measures by providing financial relief to homeowners in need while ensuring that local governments are not out of pocket.

Bill 45 also amends the School Act to introduce a provincial industrial property tax credit for the 2009 and subsequent taxation years. The credit reduces provincial school tax on major industrial and light industrial properties — that's the class 4 and class 5 properties — by 50 percent. Owners of these properties will receive the 50 percent credit on their property tax notices.

The tax credit is in addition to the property tax rate reduction for major industries provided in the 2008 budget which was phased in over two years. The new tax credit reduces costs for British Columbia's manufacturing, mining, forestry and other major and light industries by a further $50 million annually to help keep these crucial industries strong and competitive.

The Financial Institutions Act will also be amended to provide unlimited deposit insurance protection for depositors in B.C. credit unions. In addition, the amendments will enhance current regulatory powers that can be exercised by the Financial Institutions Commission and the Superintendent of Financial Institutions.

Credit unions in British Columbia are financially strong and are carefully regulated in all corners of the province. The increase to unlimited deposit insurance protection will ensure that British Columbians remain confident in the safety of their deposits and that credit unions remain competitive in attracting deposits.

With this change, we are matching the unlimited deposit insurance protection that is offered to depositors in credit unions in Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba. The enhanced regulatory powers of the Financial Institutions Commission will be similar to that of the federal regulators under the Bank Act of Canada.
[ Page 13217 ]

Finally, the legislative changes will allow the Financial Institutions Commission to delegate credit union supervision and administrative powers to the Superintendent of Financial Institutions, and the ability to delegate will enable quick and effective regulatory intervention in the event that it is required.

There are other provisions in the act which are going to be covered off by my colleague the Minister of Small Business and Revenue and also my colleague the Attorney General, and I know they will be speaking to those particular provisions later in the debate.

B. Ralston: I'm prepared to give way to the Minister of Small Business and Revenue should he choose to wish to speak at this time. That might enable the government to lay out the full text of the bill before the chamber, and then we can debate the bill in its entirety. If that's acceptable, without having given up my place to speak, I'm prepared to do that. I think the Minister of Small Business and Revenue is going to accept that.

[1435]

Hon. K. Krueger: One of the many things that this bill does is support the provincial government announcement to amend the property assessment roll for one year in response to the rapid downturn in the real estate market. These actions build on government's overall strategy to assure the province's continuing competitiveness in the face of a global economic slowdown.

The bill is based on the principles of certainty and fairness, and the amendments reinforce a market-based approach to the valuation of property. The bill proposes amendments that will modify the way property assessment is carried out under the Assessment Act for the 2009 taxation year.

The proposed amendment provides that the valuation of most properties for the 2009 property tax year will be determined by using the lesser of either a July 1, 2007, or a July 1, 2008, market value. For those properties valued by regulation, the proposed provisions will ensure that values are maintained at 2008 levels for the 2009 taxation year. Our government's actions will provide property owners with certainty and confidence in the assessment system while allowing the market to stabilize and assessments to reflect proper market values.

I hear words of high praise for B.C. Assessment throughout the community that watches the issue of assessments very carefully here and around the world. We're proud of their record, and they've collaborated very closely in forewarning us of the difficulties that the assessment system was facing with the rapid decline in market values in British Columbia as elsewhere.

Earlier this year B.C. Assessment told government that producing the 2009 assessment roll through the normal process would mean that well over one million British Columbia property holders would receive assessment notices with a higher value than their actual current market value. The way it is written, the Assessment Act requires 2009 property assessments to reflect market values as of July 1, 2008.

As July 1, 2008, was very near the peak of B.C.'s real estate market, using that valuation date would mean the 2009 assessed values for most properties would increase from their 2008 assessment. The reality, though, is that between July 1, 2007, and July 1, 2008, house sale prices provincewide rose by 11 percent on average. Strata residences rose provincewide by 8 percent on average. I'm told that the value of commercial properties, excluding office towers, rose by 21.6 percent on average.

To offer a breakdown of some particular examples, the median sale price for single-family properties from April 2007 to July 2008 rose provincially by an average of $40,000, or 9.5 percent. The median sale price for single-family properties from July 2008 through October 2008 fell by an average of $70,000, or 15 percent.

The median sale price for a residential strata property from April 2007 to July 2008 rose provincially by an average of $25,000, or 8 percent, but then the median sale price for strata properties from July 2008 through October 2008 fell by an average of $16,000, or 5 percent. There are about one million single-family residences and about 400,000 strata residences in British Columbia.

In consultation with B.C. Assessment's chief executive officer and board of directors, it became clear to government that allowing for the continued use of a July 1, 2007, valuation date in most cases would reflect assessed values much closer to today's market values.

For the 2009 assessment roll only, the following proposed changes will be implemented for all nine property classes in the province: for class 1, residential; class 5, light industry; class 6, business and other, and class 8, recreational property and non-profit organizations. Assessed values for these properties will be the lower of the assessed value at July 1, 2007, or July 1, 2008.

For class 2, utilities, where rates are regulated by the B.C. Assessment board of directors, there will be no change from last year's roll. For class 3, which is supportive housing, a new property class for supportive housing will be implemented as planned. Properties in this class are nominally valued by regulation — $1 for the land; $1 for the improvements.

For class 4, which is major industry, land used for major industrial purposes will be valued at the lower of the assessed value at July 1, 2007, or July 1, 2008. Major industrial buildings valued by regulation will be maintained at their 2008 assessment level.

[1440]

Designated port land values will not change from last year's roll. For class 7 managed forest land, the rates are regulated by the B.C. Assessment board of directors and will not change from last year's roll. For class 9 farmland,
[ Page 13218 ]
these lands are valued using regulated rates that do not change from year to year.

Through these proposed amendments, the 2009 values for property will produce a more accurate, fair and stable outcome for property owners during this highly volatile period for property valuations.

The bill will ensure that all other dates in the Assessment Act for purposes other than valuation remain unaffected. This will also ensure that B.C. Assessment has authority to make adjustments to the 2009 assessment roll to reflect changes in physical condition, permitted uses, new construction, new ownership, zoning and classification.

Regulation-making authority is provided to address transitional issues to ensure a smooth implementation of these provisions. Order-making authority is also provided for some categories of properties. This will allow for consideration of exceptional circumstances where an alternate value would be in the public interest and ensure fairness for property owners. These orders will only be made in consultation with the B.C. Assessment authority and will be made before March 31, 2009.

The right to appeal an assessment and the assessment appeal processes will remain unchanged for 2009. Any property owners not satisfied with their assessments have the right to file a complaint with the property assessment review panel and may further appeal to the Property Assessment Appeal Board.

There may be, for example, people who feel that their properties have dropped below their value even at July 1, 2007. Although we will be using the numbers from the 2008 roll in many cases and the appeal process was already open for those valuations for 2008 taxation, the appeal process will be open again for those values.

It is important to remember that taxing authorities in the province, including local governments, remain responsible for setting property tax rates based on their budget requirements. This will not be affected by the proposed provisions in this bill.

B.C. Assessment is a highly respected Crown corporation and is considered a world leader in the production of market-based assessments. Government is committed to maintaining the outstanding record of B.C. Assessment's process in delivering certainty, fairness and a market-based assessment roll with exemplary accuracy.

Finally, the provisions proposed in part 3 of this bill are consistent with our government's goals of providing customer service excellence, fair and efficient tax administration and competitive small business growth.

We are weathering a tremendous world economic storm in a ship that is riding fairly smoothly on troubled seas. This provision, as the others which the Minister of Finance spoke to, is designed to ensure that that smoothness continues, that British Columbians are reassured in all of these areas that government…. Hopefully, both sides of the House are watching closely and doing all that we can to ensure that British Columbians continue to thrive in the face of tough economic times worldwide.

B. Ralston: Well, it is nice to be here and to be able to respond to this particular bill. The Premier didn't want to be here, and the plan for this fall was not to recall the House. Certainly, we're only here by virtue of the extraordinary economic events that have taken place across the world in the last few months.

Certainly, the plan was not to call the House back, not to face the opposition in a question period and to completely avoid any public accountability here in this chamber for the actions of the government. So it is pleasant to be here, and I want to make a few comments about the package that has been put forward.

[1445]

Initially, as storm clouds gathered and I made some comments in the spring in the response to the budget, I remember government members opposite heckling me to even suggest that the economic cycle had not been repealed, that just as the world economy had gone up, it might come down, and that there were certainly, at that time, many indices which indicated a weakening, certainly, in the American housing market — the sub-prime mortgage problem — and spreading economic concern.

Obviously, the collapse of major investment banks in New York…. Lehman Brothers has probably been the most striking, where a major investment bank, globally known, which had been in existence since the 19th century, went out of business overnight.

The economic crisis and the ripples that have spread across the globe are being felt here in British Columbia. The Premier, I think somewhat reluctantly, felt obliged to demonstrate some form of action. Thus, we saw what the Premier called the ten-point plan.

One of the ten points — these are not particularly weighty points — was to recall the Legislature, which I think in the ordinary course of things could have been done without dignifying it as a point in a plan. But such were the slim pickings that the Premier and his staff had to cull together for this announcement that that was deemed to be a part of a plan.

There are some areas in this bill which the Leader of the Opposition has already indicated that this side of the House will be supporting. The tax cuts that are referred to, which are really acceleration in time of previously announced modest tax cuts to small business and personal income tax, will be supported by this side of the House. That's contrary to what the Minister of Finance….

Perhaps he was feigning ignorance, or perhaps the public affairs bureau hadn't informed him, but certainly that was what has been said for some time by the Leader of the Opposition and by members of this side of the House.

The plan that's translated into legislation here doesn't really have much in the way of substance. I certainly don't
[ Page 13219 ]
oppose the plan to increase credit union deposits — the deposit insurance — and make that unlimited. That's something that could have been done very easily, without the fanfare of a legislative session to do it. Certainly, that's relatively uncontroversial.

The plan also says that the Premier will be accelerating public infrastructure. So far we're over a month from the announcement, when the tablets of stone were delivered, and nothing in the way of an announcement has taken place — nothing.

The standard for considering public projects as P3s has been changed, I think in obvious recognition that if a project is designated for a P3 review, that delays the evaluation and planning process for a project by a considerable length of time. So that was jettisoned in order to — I think as a first step — at least begin to accelerate some of the much needed infrastructure projects around the province.

Again, a month has gone by. The Premier and the cabinet have the full array of the government bureaucracy — all the ministers, the council of ministers, the Treasury Board — advice, and not a single project has been announced. Not a single project has been announced.

Where is the sincerity, when it comes to recovery, in dealing with the economic crisis, when on that particular part of the plan there has been no movement?

Certainly, the Leader of the Opposition, in responding on October 27, set out some very specific goals: to build 2,400 housing units, and called on using the $250 million housing innovation fund as a place to start; to accelerate transit and green alternatives; to accelerate school seismic upgrades; to accelerate community projects, such as community centres, health clinics and other needed community infrastructure throughout the province.

There are lots of projects that municipalities have put forward, community groups have put forward and non-profits have put forward. At a time when the construction industry is slowing, at a time when construction costs are declining, at a time when construction workers are increasingly available, nothing has been done to advance this point that was announced on October 22.

[1450]

The other missing elements…. The Minister of Finance, earlier in question period, referred to the — and very erroneously…. I doubt that that was deliberate. But in the news release and the statement on October 27, it talked about — the Leader of the Opposition — revitalizing forestry and the rural economy, investing in silviculture and land-based renewal, investing in forest industry renewal and establishing a new rural economic development fund, and funds were set aside in the brief economic note that was provided as a backgrounder to that.

Surely the Minister of Finance knows that. He's just unwilling to give any credit, I suppose, where credit is due, despite the professions of non-partisan interest in advancing the interests of the forest industry that we just heard from the Minister of Forests.

The plan of the Leader of the Opposition talked about investing in education and skills training. Obviously one of the places that people will go during a downturn is they'll return to improve their education — whether in college, whether technical training, whether in university — and colleges, universities and other institutes need to have the assistance to prepare for that influx of students and get ready to assist people as they seek to take that opportunity to upgrade their skills and prepare for the next economic cycle. That wasn't included in the Premier's plan at all.

The other suggestions that were made by the Leader of the Opposition on October 27, which I think the Minister of Finance is beginning, somewhat belatedly, to awaken to…. Although, again, in the time that's passed, there have been no specific announcements about cutting of government waste. The suggestion was made by the Leader of the Opposition to cut government advertising.

I think everyone recognizes that the kind of advertising that's being undertaken by the government at this time is feel-good advertising. It's not essential. Certainly at a time of economic turmoil, it serves no purpose and could easily be cut. Thus far, no steps have been taken on that.

In the private sector, businesses will tell you that one of the first places they look as a matter of course is to put some restrictions on travel by members of the government or government employees. That hasn't been done.

To cut the budget or examine the budget and cut the use of consultants — those suggestions were made. No action taken. No announcements — nothing. The Premier did have, as one of his points: rein in avoidable government spending. I'm not sure whether we can conclude that all the government advertising is unavoidable government spending — that it's necessary; it's vital. Maybe politically the government deems it necessary or vital, but I don't think any British Columbian shares that point of view. So far, no action taken by the Minister of Finance or by the Premier in terms of cutting those areas of obvious government waste which would be relatively easy to do.

They had four weeks to come to even the most basic announcement, and nothing has been done. Whereas in business, people…. Families are looking at their budgets, deciding whether or not they can afford that vacation, deciding on what holiday plans they might make and cutting back on their expectations. Yet this government is completely silent on those kinds of basic economies that one would think such an extraordinary economic circumstance called for the government to do. That is regrettable.

Perhaps the government will move on these things as public pressure builds, as members of the opposition raise these topics, but I'm not sure. I think the Minister of Finance has stated that people somehow want to hear these ads. I've never heard anyone say that, but perhaps the minister listens to different voices. I'm not sure.

[1455]
[ Page 13220 ]

One section, though, of this very hastily constructed announcement that is particularly egregious in the flaws in it is the portion relating to assessments. What the Minister of Small Business and Revenue has attempted to provide here in the chamber is a justification for the changes that have been proposed.

It's significant that the Union of B.C. Municipalities, for example, which is the body that represents all municipalities in the province, has written a letter to the executive director of the property assessment services branch, making the following points about the announcement, and they are striking.

Coupled with an admission that the minister made to Don Cayo, who is a journalist with The Vancouver Sun, on November 15, 2008…. I'm quoting from the article. "He" — referring to the minister — "conceded the program had been announced before all the details were worked out, a decision he defended as an effort to get some good news out fast to help calm people's response to economic turmoil."

This is the way to make tax policy? To get it out in an emotional response without thinking through the legislation or even the announcement?

There's a very candid admission. I admire the minister for admitting that he didn't know what the heck he was doing. I think that's very refreshing, but it's certainly accurate. He didn't know what he was doing. They weren't aware of the implications of the legislation. They're working it out and making it up as they go along. That's how tax policy in this important area is being made by this government.

The property assessment branch, in their letter from the Union of B.C. Municipalities, confirms that the union, this body that represents all municipalities…. Of course, property tax revenue is the key source of revenue for municipalities throughout the province, so they are vitally concerned about property tax revenue and assessments. Property tax is based on the assessed value of property, so there's an integral link.

They're deeply concerned by it. It's a major source of revenue. They say that they weren't consulted. No one told them. It just came like a bolt out of the blue. I guess an order went out from the Premier's office. "We need to say something about this. Let's scramble something together." The minister confirms that. It was rushed out the door — that's what he said to Don Cayo, so we know that's the case — so fast and in such haste, such indecent haste, that the chief organization representing municipalities wasn't consulted at all.

What they say was: "President Hobson did receive a phone call from the Hon. Kevin Krueger" — I am reading from the letter — "the hon. Minister of Small Business and Revenue"— it says his name in this letter — "on November 1, just prior to the announcement being made." That was the consultation.

Deputy Speaker: Member.

B. Ralston: I'm aware of the rule. Thank you, Madam Speaker. I apologize.

Interjection.

B. Ralston: I was quoting from the letter. I inadvertently mentioned the member's name — would that I didn't have to mention it — and I apologize for that. So if I might proceed, Madam Speaker? Thank you.

That was the consultation received — a phone call immediately before the announcement, according to this letter. Now, there may have been….

Interjections.

B. Ralston: I hear members catcalling on the other side, but perhaps they'll stand up and put those comments on the record rather than leaving them as unrecorded heckles.

The other thing that the Union of B.C. Municipalities expressed was the concern that the whole principle of the assessment authority is designed on a market-based assessment of properties. Once you begin to move away, their concern is, from market-based assessment — this is a very reputable organization, widely regarded across the country and indeed across North America — and begin to intervene in the way this government has chosen to do, you encounter a number of problems and begin to skew the entire assessment system.

[1500]

What they say is in this letter. "Existing UBCM policy discourages moving away from market-based assessments." This is an excerpt from their general policies:

"On a provincewide basis, approximately 60 percent of local government's financial needs are met from property taxation. Such taxation must be based on an appropriate and independently established assessment system so that all properties carry their fair share of tax, and B.C.'s present assessment system generally meets this requirement. The determination of the amount and distribution of taxes must remain the responsibility of those elected to the local office. Other governments and their agencies must, through their grants-in-lieu of taxes, assume the same tax burden as the ordinary property tax payer."

They are concerned by this interference with the long-established principle of market-based assessments and at the consequences that will flow from that. Finally, they are also troubled by how they interpret that — and these are their words, not mine; their words, their understanding and their analysis of the government announcements that have been made — and I'm quoting from the letter:

"Many property owners do not make the distinction between assessment and property taxes and may draw a conclusion that property taxes have been capped. This tendency is likely to be exacerbated because of the choices the province has made in its communications materials."

What they are concerned about is that the public expression by the Premier and subsequent expressions by the minister responsible for this piece of legislation have, in the public mind, created confusion about the
[ Page 13221 ]
link between assessments and property taxes. By freezing assessments — this is what they're saying — people may be drawn to the conclusion that their property taxes are frozen as well. Their concern is — as the authority and the agencies, the municipalities that send out the property tax notice and collect the tax notice — that they will draw the public ire, the public anger, if property taxes are not capped in accordance with that misunderstanding, and they will be held responsible for that.

They are very, very concerned about that approach that the government has taken. I'm not sure. Perhaps the minister will, when we go through clause-by-clause debate, be able to explain this better than he's done thus far. But certainly we understand the predicament that he's in, as he admitted to Don Cayo, of basically making this up as he goes along.

But perhaps a further addition to the legislation or further understandings will be forthcoming from the minister that may endeavour to cut the confusion — hopefully not add to it, but one never knows. We'll see when we get to that stage of debate of the bill.

The other professed rationale by the minister in adopting this very unusual intervention in this independent authority is that it will reduce the number of appeals. They say in this letter — and this letter is dated November 17:

"While the stated intent of the freeze is to ward off unusually high appeal levels, it is uncertain that it will be completely successful. The freeze could create additional or more complex appeals in three specific areas: major industrial properties, which will not benefit from depreciation this year; changes in use, physical condition, etc., unless these are dealt with in a similar manner as properties that did not change during the year; and properties subject to valuations of the lesser of the July 1, 2007 and July 8, 2008 market values, for which both sets of values will need to be reviewed in order to determine if the lower value was used.

"Consequently, UBCM recommends that the communications plan noted above include consideration of how the mechanics of the freeze can be best communicated to B.C. property owners."

Again, one of the professed goals of this piece of legislation, this policy, this dramatic intervention in the assessment process is to reduce the number of appeals. The UBCM, who are very knowledgable — and indeed, their members would be affected by this — are much more doubtful. These particular amendments and this part of the package that was brought forward, I think, as a trailer to the points that the Premier announced on October 27 were announced in that most non-partisan of all forums, the B.C. Liberal convention at Whistler.

[1505]

One detects a certain requirement for the Premier perhaps to have something, as the jargon goes, announceable — in other words, something to say that would appear to further the weak ten points that were set out previously. That may explain, again, why this particular item was so rushed, so botched and so devoid of a rationale as we move forward. That perhaps may explain it. Those sections will be the subject of debate at committee stage, certainly.

The other comment that I want to make about the legislative package is that it is a weak response by the government. The Premier appears to have been caught by surprise by the sudden change in economic events. He, I think, would wish that he were not here having to call the Legislature back, but certainly this does give us an opportunity to examine this particular package in some detail.

But I think, in conclusion — if I may, Madam Speaker — there's a story that appears in the history of King Canute. King Canute was the king who asked that his throne be taken out to the seashore and commanded the tides not to come in. Nevertheless, despite the command of the king, the tides came in.

The Premier is very much in that tradition. I think he thought he could command that the economic tides not come in, that the economic cycle was repealed, that it was not necessary to have an economic plan for the future and was not necessary to prepare for the inevitable downturn, and yet the tide has come in.

So we are here, faced with a very weak response from this government. The people of British Columbia are certainly looking for more and deserve more. When you look around the world — whether it's President-elect Obama, whether it's the Chinese government or whether it's even the Prime Minister of Canada — much more imaginative, vigorous and detailed responses have taken place to what's going on economically than this government has put forward. It's really a testament to the fact that the cupboard is bare on the other side, even to the extent that the assessment provisions are basically made up as they go along.

With those comments at second reading, I will end my comments and take my place here.

M. Karagianis: I'm happy to take my place in this debate on Bill 45. I must say I'm somewhat surprised, in the face of what is clearly a continuing global economic crisis, that this House has not been called back sooner than this.

I find it wholly inadequate to think that we would deal with this crisis here in this province in five days of a sitting rather than a much longer session where we'd have the ability to really look at maybe some in-depth and substantial solutions to the crisis, because in fact the market still is very volatile.

I think you only have to listen to the news every day to see that every single day the marketplace is still reeling. It's up; it's down. We see all kinds of reports of what's happening globally. We see in the U.S. that there has been no stability despite millions of dollars of assurance by governments that there is a pledge to try and halt the continuing volatility of this.

I would have to say that, you know, having assurances here that in British Columbia we will somehow be pro-
[ Page 13222 ]
tected or immune to this…. I have to be very skeptical of that, because I don't believe that we at this point acknowledged the crisis in time.

[1510]

We have certainly at this point, I think, dealt out a kind of a weak-tea solution at the very best. I'm concerned that we're not properly prepared and we don't have the amount of information, insight or capacity here to deal with ongoing concerns with the marketplace and the repercussions it will have here.

I have to say that I'm skeptical about the government's reassurance that all is well here in the province and that we somehow will be the eye of the storm, where we will be protected from continuing global economic meltdowns that will have unforeseen impacts on this province.

However, looking at what the government has currently dealt out as kind of their first weak solution to the economic meltdown, I will say that the idea of some of the tax cuts here, as my colleague from Surrey-Whalley has clearly outlined and as the Leader of the Opposition has stated very publicly on numerous occasions…. We are in favour of this. Will it be enough to halt the impact on most people's lives in the coming months? I suspect not. Most of us will not see any kind of real return on our income tax until sometime in the spring.

In the meantime I know from families in my community, in my constituency, that the concerns are very real. They are immediate. They are happening to households now. They are combined with an ongoing number of economic pressures that have nothing to do even with the economic changes both globally and here in our own country but the ongoing concern for the cost of heating your homes and the cost of affording your homes and the cost of ferry fares and the cost of child care.

All of those things that families have been feeling anyway and that have been a growing concern outside of any kind of economic crisis that's going on, I think, have now been just magnified and exaggerated by the fact that people are seeing this volatility, this chaos in world markets as being something that may affect them, could affect them, is affecting them and certainly will continue to affect them into the future.

So certainly I support the concept of tax cuts, but I'm not sure that they deliver any immediate solutions to individuals in their lives. We'll see whether that first small step is going to be enough. I don't think it halts in any way the crisis that most people are feeling in their lives. You know, a few hundred dollars back on your taxes in March of next year certainly isn't going to offset those people who are seeing huge decrease and erosion in RSP funds that people are looking at as being imperative to their future capacity to retire. I know from personal experience — from my friends, my family, my constituents — that those are real concerns.

I would say that really for me, Bill 45 held some other very, I thought, curious and compelling components that had me much more concerned with looking for some more immediate answers.

First of all, I would like to talk about the property tax deferral program that the government has launched. As the member for Surrey-Whalley so clearly outlined, so much of this looks like it was cobbled together and, as one of my constituents said to me the other day, looks a bit half-baked on the surface.

I would have to say that the first thing I'd flag as being a real concern for me is this idea of tax deferment. I spent nine years in municipal government, so I'm no stranger to the idea of having seniors defer their taxes. That has been a plan that has worked really well, with very low interest rates charged to those seniors. I know some seniors who take advantage of that.

But I'm concerned here with this idea that we would have a tax deferral where you could actually defer your property taxes for the next couple of years even if you're not a senior, even if that's not…. This has opened a much bigger door to families using this as an opportunity to kind of stave off the costs of their property taxes.

I believe that the government has said that this is based on you having 15 percent equity in your property. So based on the other components of this plan, I would have to ask the government: is that 15 percent equity of your property based on the '07 assessment, the '08 assessment or the '09 assessment? Apparently we have a little bit of a buffet of choices here.

[1515]

When you're allowed to defer your property taxes based on a 15 percent equity, what year is that based on? We seem to be now manipulating assessments in this government here in British Columbia, so how are we to base that? For many people, that may be critical — when they had that 15 percent equity in their home and whether they still have that 15 percent equity in their home.

I will again say, relying on my experience at the municipal level, that allowing people to defer their taxes for several years…. What this does is compound the inevitable crunch at the other end, when the full impact of this comes in.

If you're currently paying $2,000 or $2,500 in property taxes, which is the average in my community right now, and you get to defer those for two years, then that means in year three, you owe three tax years' worth of property taxes. So how do you recoup that? How do you pay that at the end of the three years? Or do you simply let that accrue for the rest of the time you are paying property taxes in your community? No.

Families will be looking at a very serious impact at the end of three years, now having a property tax bill that's got three years stacked up onto it. So I'd like to know how the government actually believes that that's not causing more hardship to families. In fact, will this lead to more bankruptcies and foreclosures? Will this lead to the kind of inequity situations we've seen south of the border?
[ Page 13223 ]

I am very concerned that that is exactly the kind of buildup that is going to happen and may threaten families, certainly those who are living now from paycheque to paycheque, who are really feeling the crunch of affordability in their homes. I am very concerned about the impacts of that and will look forward to the government explaining that as we get to the committee stage of this.

The other piece of this package in Bill 45 around the tax deferment is, of course, the assessments and the fact that the government is now freezing assessments at some level, which appears to be a bit of a moving target and appears to have been since the day this was announced.

I think all of us have had a chance to read UBCM's information that was put out here and their concerns immediately on this. Again, I go back to my time at the municipal table to say that the whole issue of assessments here, I think, is going to be grossly misunderstood by the public and by homeowners as we move through and implement this bill.

I would certainly say that UBCM's concerns about how this was determined to be an economic stimulator, how this was determined to be something that would actually produce real results at the end, seems to be very questionable. UBCM was not consulted in this. I'll tell you right now, talking to the mayors and councillors in my community…. When I called them last week to talk about this, there was a growing sense of concern about the fact that the government is going to come in and manipulate assessment values and what the impacts are for those municipal councils.

I think all of us know that we saw a huge number of new mayors and councillors in the last election. There has been considerable change in many municipalities. For those municipal leaders who are now going to be moving very rapidly into a budgeting cycle, there are a whole number of questions that immediately come to mind and, I know, are a great concern to the mayors in my community.

Let's talk about how easily this has already misled property owners into believing that the government has had the capacity to freeze their property taxes, which is patently not true. The government is not freezing property taxes at the 2007 level. They're not doing anything of the sort.

In reality, the government is now adding chaos into the assessments for your property and adding, I believe, more strain and stress on to property owners. In reality, when assessments are set on all the properties in your community and you determine how you are going to set your taxation regime for the year, you do that on a mill rate that's based on the value of all properties in your municipality. If all the properties go up in value, it makes no difference. If they all go down, it makes no difference. The mill rate is set on all of the properties within your municipality.

[1520]

The fact that properties have gone up or down dramatically in the last couple of years is only a concern if your property is out of step with those around you. If all other properties have gone down and yours has gone up, you will pay more property taxes. If all property values have gone up or all have gone down, you will all pay the same relative amount for property taxes. So I think it's misleading for the government to let property owners think that in some way they're freezing property taxes, because they're not.

Frankly, I think municipalities would be very alarmed and are very alarmed by the fact that perhaps there is this misinterpretation and wrong impression out there among property tax payers that somehow municipalities are going to have to deal with the 2007 level of budget taxation.

I think the other thing that's added more chaos into this manipulation of the market is the fact that now the government, once they realized that they had not thought through this very well…. It was very poorly thought through, very poorly developed and very poorly written. The government has had to go back and say: "Well, now you can actually choose either the '07 or the '08, because we didn't think that through, and '07 may not be the optimal number to freeze this at."

What this does is add another layer of very, very serious concern for municipalities, because municipalities are about to go into a budget process where they have to determine what the mill rate is going to be and what property taxes are going to be, in the spring of this year. They have very specific dates upon which they have to report this out. They have public consultations with taxpayers.

Now it's up to property owners to get their assessments, which don't usually arrive until late in the spring, and then determine from their assessments: "Hmm, do I want the '07 level? Do I want the '08 level? Let me think. You know what? I might want to wait and see what my taxes are going to be before I decide which level I will take."

You can automatically see how that's a problem, because municipalities cannot set their mill rate and their tax rate unless they have assurance of what those assessments are going to be, and they don't have that.

In fact, when I've talked with mayors and councillors about this…. The fact that there's a multiple choice here adds a whole layer of complications that I don't think municipalities are going to be very impressed with. Frankly, it just goes to show how chaotic the government's plan is.

Then the other thing that I want to talk about here is: who will actually benefit by this really confusing formula of whether you pick the '07 or '08? Certainly, we know that major commercial buildings have changed their values at a different rate than private real estate property has.

Is there a disproportionate amount of benefit to business with this? Well, I say that there could very well be. If they choose the '07 rate, which is considerably less than what their property was worth in '08 or '09…. It
[ Page 13224 ]
is very possible, in today's real estate market, that their property could have gone up after '07, and those businesses will choose the lowest property assessment. Now we have municipalities who may in fact see millions of dollars of property tax revenue drained away from their coffers — another crisis for municipalities. At the end of the day, that means it's going to hit more taxpayers directly in the pocket.

Like everything else that goes on under this government, it's always about government finding ways to take more money out of your pocket while they're dangling a little sparkly thing over here, saying: "Watch this. It looks like we're going to give you a prize, but in fact we're taking more money out of your pocket while you're distracted." I see this being very much exactly part of that kind of plan.

I'm also concerned here, when I see cuts to school taxation values, whether or not at the end of the day that's going to follow its way right through into school districts and that loss of school revenue is not going to be offset in any way and school boards will be taking the hit on this.

If government is going to make the determination that they're going to give a bigger break to business or light industry in paying school taxes, then I would like to see some assurance that this is not going to cause further budget cuts and erosion of dollars into the education system, where it's needed.

[1525]

I would say that one of the things that concerns me about how we got into the economic crisis is the whole deregulation movement by big corporate America, by corporate Canada for many years. Let's remember that this is a current government, also, that said, when it got into government, that deregulation was one of its top priorities, and they have been busy deregulating.

Let's look at the fact that the global crisis has been caused by a massive amount of deregulation. As we move through and try and cobble together, as this is, a very poor response to the global climate right now, let's ensure that we are not falling into the trap of more deregulation, which will just magnify the current situation.

This is an opportunity right now for us to invest in our communities in a better way. I don't believe that tax breaks that put a few dollars in people's pockets next year are going to give us the same kind of solutions to the economic crisis as investing in real ways into our community, because what I hear over and over again in my constituency is that for people…. The biggest crisis they are concerned about right now is affordability.

People are already in all kinds of affordability pressures in their own households. Whether it's the cost of housing, whether it's the lack of affordable and accessible child care, whether it's the need for more transportation solutions so that people can get back and forth to work in an economic and affordable way, I hear over and over again the real shortcomings that people already feel in their own households and their own lives every single day.

Now we are moving into a time of economic uncertainty, because despite the government's claims to the contrary, I don't for one moment believe that the continuing volatility in the market is not going to affect us. I think that given the performance we've seen over all the good years — seven years of really good economic times here in British Columbia, huge booming times in the resource industry….

We saw a government that went through and eviscerated programs, that has continued, year after year, to top the charts for child poverty. We've seen a government that has seen exponential growth in homelessness. We saw that in good times here in this province. What can we expect as the money begins to drain away and we are hit with more economic tough times?

This is a government that likes to brag all the time about how good things have been under its watch. Yet this is happening under their watch, and I don't see anything here in the way of a brilliant plan of action to get us out of any future problems in this province. I don't see anything here in this five-day sitting that says: "We're going to do something about homelessness."

I don't see anything here that says: "Here's one way to invest in British Columbia. Let's raise the minimum wage in this province." There's a way to invest in real solutions for people in this province. There's a way to put real dollars back into people's pockets. I don't see anything here in this government's plan that gives us that.

I don't see anything in this plan that says: "We're going to find a way to make it more affordable for…."

Interjection.

Deputy Speaker: Member.

M. Karagianis: I don't see anything here in the government's plan that says that there is a way we're going to make post-secondary education more affordable.

I was out knocking on doors on the weekend and talking to people, and one of the things that came up was the number of people who are burdened with huge debt coming out of post-secondary education. That's a concern. That's a concern for those individuals who, on top of everything else that's going on, are still paying off huge, huge student debt. Is the government looking at ways to make that relief available to people? No, not a word about that.

I believe that it is a time when we could be investing in our communities in a more tangible way, investing in individuals in our communities. This government, once again, has completely missed the boat on this.

Because so many of our good years have been squandered away, it doesn't give me a great deal of confidence that the solutions we're going to see from this government are going to be any more tangible than this — a
[ Page 13225 ]
few tax breaks and a very confusing tax deferral system, manipulating assessments.

[1530]

I would say that when you watch what the government's priorities really are in the face of growing concern across this province and across this country with the economy…. What do we see the government doing? Well, we've already canvassed today in a little bit of our debate the fact that we are spending an enormous amount of money on government advertising to tell us how good things are.

It does not escape me that one of those predominant TV ads that runs has a whole list of projects, many of which are actually privatized projects, many of which are not B.C. investments into B.C. It's not the government putting that forward. It's privatized projects like the Abbotsford Hospital.

So while the government is spending and squandering a great deal of our money on government advertising at the expense of an increased minimum wage, at the expense of a good, effective child care system, at the expense of seniors health care, at the expense of homelessness, then I have to say that the government's priorities are skewed. If they want to start someplace, if they want to demonstrate that they are truly taking this economic crunch seriously, then they will start by getting rid of those obscene ads and the amount of money spent on that.

Let's talk about what the government's priorities have been over the past number of years. While we've been heading towards this crisis, we've seen just an astronomical amount of money spent on the convention centre in Vancouver. This could be the biggest white elephant that ever was built on the foreshore in Vancouver — the convention centre.

For the amount of money that has been squandered and overspent on that project, think about what kind of investment we could have made into solving homelessness, into putting together an affordable, effective child care system, into making post-secondary education affordable, into providing better seniors housing and seniors facilities and seniors care across this province. Think about that.

We've already seen where the government's priorities are. What did we see this summer? We saw big, fat salary increases, the biggest of all for the Premier's number one political adviser. So there we can see that despite a downturn in the economy, this government has certainly protected their own very nicely.

I think that the gold medal fiasco here, the Premier's personal vanity project, is a very, very specific and blatant symbol of where this government's priorities are. Again, what kind of money was spent on this gold medal program? And are those dollars that those workers would rather have seen put into child care, put into a minimum wage increase, put into some kind of affordable housing program?

You bet, Madam Speaker. Because, of course, we hear that every single day in our communities, and I'm sure the members opposite do as well. They will certainly not get up and admit it, but I am sure that they hear from their constituents just as we hear from ours.

So it seems to me that a government that delivered a budget here in the spring that gave hundreds of millions of dollars of subsidies to the oil and gas industry and banks…. Have we seen that rolled back? Nowhere in this bill do I see any of that rolled back, and it seems to me that that would be the first place.

If the government really wants to start rolling back some of their misspent priorities, then that's a good place to start — because the oil and gas subsidies of $327 million a year, plus a couple of hundred million dollars a year to the banks, could be money that was invested back into this province — rather than distracting us with deferred property taxes for three years. We could be taking some of that money and putting it back into British Columbia and investing in things that really matter to people in this province.

But it seems to me that the government continues to want to wear rose-coloured glasses on this, and I would say that if there are no alarm bells ringing right now by the economic meltdown in the U.S. that has affected companies like AIG, then once again, I think the government is not connecting all the dots. It seems to me that we are so immersed in these large privatized projects, many of which now appear to be falling apart….

[1535]

You only have to see what's happening in the real estate market to know that some of the same big partners that are privatizing aspects of government services here are also tied to projects that are shutting down. Why? Because of the economic downturn, because these companies can no longer get backing out of the U.S., because they can't get their liabilities insured through companies like AIG. And yet nowhere do I see any kind of discussion on that, on making sure that our taxpayers are protected from that.

We know, and we've canvassed this in many of our discussions at estimates, that ultimately the government says: "Well, if the 3Ps fail, we simply inherit them." Well, I'll tell you, if they fail midway, then you inherit all the liabilities — right?

So for the taxpayers of British Columbia…. While we're being told we're going to get a few tax dollars back in our pockets next spring, there may be a much bigger problem looming over our shoulders, and that will be some of the long-term effect of the crash of the U.S. economic structure. When companies like AIG go down, when big developers here and some of these big, huge, privatized projects can no longer get secure funding and they shut down, who will inherit that project — half-finished, maybe not even started, maybe in some state of building? Who will inherit the problem?
[ Page 13226 ]

We, as the taxpayers of British Columbia, will inherit those problems just like we're going to inherit the problems, any cost overruns, any financial shortfalls with the Olympics.

Let's talk about that. This economic downturn has already begun to erode major sponsors out of the Olympics. Will more fall by the wayside? I say yes. I say that the economic crunch has not completely hit us at this point. If we see more of those sponsors pull out, guess who's on the hook for this, because the Premier guaranteed it — the taxpayers of British Columbia. I'll bet we won't get any gold medals for stepping up to the plate and bearing that cost for the next generation and beyond.

We could have sat in this House for the last couple of months and had a real discussion on all of the implications of this. What are going to be the effects on the Olympics? What are going to be the effects on major privatized projects throughout this province? What are going to be the long-term effects on people's lives if this tax manipulation of the assessments doesn't work and we instead see people in foreclosures and bankruptcies? What is the long-term prognosis for any of this?

We have very little opportunity to explore that, because frankly, five days in this House is not enough time to deal with an economic crisis.

We will take these tax breaks, and we will support them, because a little crumb in the problem is better than nothing. But this is a government that has missed all the opportunities to do a better job of this, and I think they're going to continue to. And it's a shame. It is a darn shame that we haven't had a better chance to discuss this in its fullness here in this House.

S. Simpson: It's good to be back. It's good to be back in the Legislature and to have an opportunity to engage in the people's business. As we know, of course, we should have all been back here a long time ago. I think it was October 6 when we were projected to be back here, if we'd followed the calendar that was adopted by the government.

But the government and the Premier, as you'll know, hon. Speaker, told us that there was no business to do. As you might recall, part of the business that we didn't get to do was the ramming through of, I think, eight critical pieces of legislation in a couple of hours on our last day here, the last day of the spring session.

Of course, those pieces of legislation were rammed through by the government with no debate, with no respect for the democratic process, with no respect for the interests of British Columbians, with no respect for the voices of British Columbians to be heard on those issues — critical issues that the people of British Columbia expect us to be here doing our job on.

But the government chose, of course, to ram those through, because democracy is a faint concern to this government. They've never interested themselves in the democratic process. They'd much rather just ram things through. That's their way.

We, of course, know that we could have come back on October 6 and we could have had those bills. And there's other legislation here.

[1540]

Then, of course, as the Attorney General tells us time and time again, he's not able to get the Lobbyists Registration Act changes through his cabinet. They won't allow him to do that. So he can't bring forward that bill that would deal with the conduct of the likes of people like Mr. Kinsella and others, where allegations have been made and where, in fact, people aren't prepared to allow the process to go forward so that we know who's lobbying and who's not.

Of course, those changes won't happen because this government won't allow the Attorney General to bring a bill forward. If they'd allowed that, we could be talking about the Lobbyists Registration Act here too. But that's another matter.

In terms of this particular bill, Bill 45, the Economic Incentive and Stabilization Statutes Amendment Act, this is a piece of legislation that brings forward — or operationalizes, I guess, would be the best term — the speech made by the Premier back a while ago where he laid out his ten-point plan. Now, as we know, what brought that on was the very difficult economic situation that we now find affecting us globally.

In British Columbia, in Canada, we certainly are feeling the effects of that. It is a very difficult situation. It is a situation that is affecting people across this province. It's a situation that I know is significantly leading people to put their money back in their pockets, to choose not to spend money. It's a situation that's causing hardship for businesses both big and small. It's a situation that is affecting those who are most vulnerable in ways that I don't even think they totally understand or we totally understand. But one thing that we do know is that it isn't good; it won't be good.

Hon. Speaker, when I look at my constituency of Vancouver-Hastings and I look at the effects of this…. I've had the opportunity, when I go up and down Hastings Street, to talk to the small business owners in my community about the effects of this, and they're feeling those effects. Those folks tell me about the shopping that's not going on, the spending that isn't going on in their stores, about the dollars that aren't passing through the economy. They're not passing through the economy, of course, because people are scared. People aren't sure what the future holds for them. People aren't sure how they should respond to this.

In many cases, I have many constituents who work in pretty marginal jobs, and they don't have a lot of security in their jobs. They're very concerned about whether this paycheque quite literally is the last paycheque before layoff. They're concerned about whether they get to pay the rent,
[ Page 13227 ]
and as we all know, paying the rent in Vancouver is a pretty big ticket item if you're working on a low wage or, for that matter, on a modest wage but an adequate wage.

Paying rent in Vancouver is a pretty serious deal. I know in my constituency, which is one of the poorer constituencies in the province in terms of the demographic, people are getting one-bedroom apartments and paying a thousand dollars a month because that's what happens if you want to be there. They're getting basement suites that you and I wouldn't want to have anything to do with living in and paying $700 a month in those basement suites. That's because that's all there is. It doesn't take long when you're making $8 or $10 or $12 an hour for that to disappear pretty quickly.

So they're worried about their jobs. They're worried about where in the future the money comes from. They're worried about the whole question of housing and how we are dealing with the housing issue and the homelessness question. And we know the homelessness situation across this province. We know the homelessness situation in Vancouver. It's a significant issue in my constituency. There are lots of people in those doorways. There are lots of people finding places to sleep out of the rain. There is no doubt about that.

As things get tougher and tougher, they worry and the people who work with them — the advocates, the people who are trying to reflect their interests and speak and add their voices to support these people — are very worried that as times get tougher and tougher the concerns of folks like the most vulnerable, like the homeless, fall a little farther down the priority list. They're already too far down the priority list as it is. They're already too far down that list as it is.

[1545]

You know, we're all pretty excited about the Olympics coming in 2010, but we need to be clear. The priority of the Olympics is important, but the priority of things like poor kids, child poverty…. We know those child poverty records, as we hit another record year of child poverty in British Columbia. Those issues like child poverty, like homelessness, should be at least as big a priority for us as the Olympics. They should be at least as big a priority as giving a gold medal to a construction worker. That's not what is happening, though.

In my constituency it's not just the folks at that end of the scale. I have much, if not most, of the working port that's in Vancouver in my constituency. I talk to folks in longshore, people who work in that port, and they worry as well. They worry about exports and imports, and the effect it will have on the port as it starts to reduce hours and their opportunities to make a good living.

They certainly do make a good living, if they're working regularly there. But even those folks, who make pretty good paycheques, are starting to get concerned as well. We know, of course, what happens when that occurs. People put their money in their pocket. They don't spend. Then it comes right back to what we all talk about as the engine of the economy for us, which is small business. What happens is that money doesn't get spent in small businesses, because people put it in their pocket.

My daughter works in a store on Hastings Street that sells vintage clothes. She works some weekends there in that store. She tells me that she knows that in the last few weeks — the store was doing great — there are less sales. It's down, you know, a couple of hundred bucks a day, and a few hundred dollars a day is important in a small shop like that. But there are a few hundred dollars less sales than there might have been before. I think that's the sign of what's coming. Unfortunately, it looks — and it looks increasingly — like it gets worse before it gets better.

Increasingly when we hear about this economic crisis…. We're no longer talking this time. This time is somewhat different. It's not the cyclical ups and downs of the economy that we all come to expect — that go through the cycles, where we know there are a few good years, there are a few bad years, and there are some years in between. What we're hearing here is that this is something more fundamental. This is a more fundamental situation with a more fundamental change.

It's a situation where we need to really shift the way that we respond to this. We need to shift the way that we in British Columbia decide that we are going to react, and we need to react in two ways: one is in helping to fix a problem, but increasingly, also, we need to find the opportunity here and create opportunities. I know that that's part of what we're talking about. That was reflected in the Leader of the Opposition's comments when she made her statement to the people of British Columbia, and I'll talk about that a little bit more in a bit.

What we need to do is not just put greater regulation in place on what were previously essentially unfettered markets. It was a situation of deregulation. We saw the disaster that that was in the United States, where all of this comes from. Where it emanates from is in the United States. We saw that, and now in the United States across the political spectrum there, you're seeing, whether it be Republicans or Democrats…. They're all standing up saying that we allowed this system to get deregulated to a level that was unhealthy. We allowed this system to be deregulated to a level where the public interest was no longer served.

We're hearing that from the right and from the left. We now have what some would call the most remarkable thing, where you have what is a George Bush government in its dying days that's embracing the notion of starting to take ownership shares in investment houses and financial institutions in order to prop them up and in order to ensure that they move forward in the public interest.

[1550]

Here in British Columbia we saw in 2001, when the government came to power, one of the primary interests
[ Page 13228 ]
of the government…. There was a minister for deregulation. That minister of that day — I wasn't in this place at that time, but I remember reading the comments of that minister — would stand up every week or so and announce how many regulations had been set aside or had been quashed. There's no question that there are regulations…. Unnecessary regulations should be set aside. There's no reason to put regulations in place simply for the sake of regulation.

However, there are times when a regulatory regime makes sense. There are times when a regulatory regime is part of the public interest. The reality is that when we're talking about the protection of people's money, our taxpayers' money, when we're talking about the protection of their investments, when we're talking about the protection of their pensions and their retirement savings plans and their future, then there very much is a reason to regulate.

We in British Columbia, in Canada…. We fortunately have a banking system in Canada that has a pretty strong regulatory regime. We saw, as a result of that, that we have not faced some of the challenges that we've seen south of the border. However, we need to be diligent on that, and we need to make sure that we are protecting those interests long term. We need to be prepared to review and make sure that our system here in fact provides those protections and ensures the public interest.

When we talk about economic growth in British Columbia — this is a government that likes to talk about economic growth, and that's good; we all want to see growth and opportunity — particularly when we talk about economic growth that's based on the real things that we have to offer in B.C., which are largely our resources that belong to British Columbians, let us be assured that the public interest is what is always served first when we're dealing with those issues of growth and dealing with what's good for us.

As we move forward, we need to say: "How do we find opportunities in the challenges that we face?" There's a lot of discussion going on out there, a lot of discussion of people, of thinkers, of economic thinkers, about how we get at this. There's a lot of discussion around the new green economy, around sustainability, around different ways to approach economic opportunity in the future. This is all good discussion. It's all discussion that we should be having here. It's all discussion that this government, which at different times has told us that there is a green economy somewhere in the future….

But we have seen nothing, absolutely nothing, to show any demonstrable effort to actually make that happen. We're just not seeing it.

What we need to do is say: "How do we begin to see those things? How do we begin to find that future? How do we begin to find an economy that actually embraces and meets people's needs in the long run?"

The Leader of the Opposition outlined some of those ideas when she spoke to the people of British Columbia about the future. She talked about the need to put money back in people's pockets. She talked about the need to ensure that people had money to spend and how important that is for the economy. She also talked about the need for people to have money in their pockets.

That included talking about raising the minimum wage, something that has not occurred since this government came to power. We have a minimum wage at $8 an hour. We have almost 250,000 people in this province who work at less than minimum wage.

Let's be clear. When we talk about the more than 22 percent of kids who live in poverty in this province — the highest levels of poverty five years in a row in this country, even as prosperous as we are — half of those kids come from families where there's a paycheque, where people are working. That's a problem.

We tell them: "Go out. Get a job. Do right by your family. Do all those things that are right, and everything will be good." So they go out, and they do that.

Yet they don't make enough money to get out of poverty. That has to be a bigger priority. We have to make that a priority — at least as big a priority as the Olympics, at least as big a priority as a gold medal for construction workers.

We need to invest in education. Everybody will tell you that the future is all about education. If you want to build your future, you build on education. You build on opportunities for young people to go and find their dreams and make those dreams real. You build on opportunities for workers who are going to need to make those changes to that green economy — to that sustainable economy, to that new economy — for them to be able to make those transitions, to learn the new skills, to have those opportunities and to move forward.

[1555]

We need to find the resources to be able to support that. I know I heard the Minister of Finance today, in his statement this morning, say that there was no room for new programs. I respect the fact that money is tight, and I suspect it's a little bit tighter than he led us to believe this morning. That will show itself in time as we head to next year, I'm sure, but the reality is this: we need to talk not just about spending but about investment, and when we talk about investment, it has to be investment in people first and foremost.

We have to find the places and the ways to invest in education that create those opportunities and, hopefully, that create those opportunities without driving students into such a level of debt when they come out the other end of the educational system — when they get that degree, go out to start to earn those wages, build our future and be our leaders of tomorrow — and that they're not hamstrung with such incredible debt that they, in fact, struggle for many, many years before they start to see the opportunities that they want to see for themselves and for their families. We need to do more work on that.
[ Page 13229 ]

I spoke a little bit earlier about the housing issue and the homelessness issue. British Columbia, like Quebec, has historically been a province where housing has received support. It's a place, even when the federal government has stepped away, where housing has been important enough in British Columbia to be moved forward.

The problem with what the government has done…. We've seen some things built by this government — there's no doubt — but what we haven't seen is housing built or effective housing strategies that start to say that housing is a right, that people have a right to housing and that people have a right to have a place to live.

Yes, the market should be looking to take care of that. But when the market doesn't step up, the government has an obligation — particularly for those people who are in a circumstance and a position, mostly because of income, sometimes because of family size and mix, sometimes because of other challenges — that we will step up and find ways to begin to meet that challenge, working with the federal government, local governments, the non-profit sector, the development industry, the development community, to begin to solve those problems.

But first and foremost we need to be prepared to put some resources on the table. We need to talk about capitalizing that program and partnering with that, and we're not hearing that. That's not part of what we're hearing from this government.

We're not hearing about how we begin to meet the transit options that need to be addressed, how we build that infrastructure. I've heard the Minister of Finance earlier today. I've heard him in previous comments talking about infrastructure. I think he was speaking about it in question period today a little bit — talking about infrastructure.

Well, let's see some of that infrastructure. Let's see some of that infrastructure that actually begins to address the green agenda that the Premier likes to talk about. Not a 2.4-cent tax, but infrastructure that talks about making our municipal governments more energy efficient with their infrastructure, that talks about building transit that works for British Columbians and gives people real options to get out of their cars, that talks about building infrastructure that encourages more compact communities, that in the long run is good for British Columbia and is good for our local communities.

We don't hear that discussion from the government side, and we certainly don't hear it in this piece of legislation, in Bill 45. We don't hear it in Bill 45 at all. We don't hear about those things that are important in our communities, about supporting local governments on things like community centre development, on supporting health facilities.

All of these are things the government will tell us…. I've certainly heard the Minister of Finance enough times talking about all the money that's here, and yes, there is money to be spent. This government certainly has no problem spending money. All we've got to look at is the $450 million or $500 million — whatever it is now — overrun on the trade and convention centre, and we know this government has no trouble spending money.

[1600]

Well, we need to spend money in communities too. We need to spend money that comes back and works for those people in communities who are collecting a paycheque, who are having a tough time, and those people who are even more vulnerable than that. Those investments in the community — whether it be in housing, whether it be in community centres, whether it be in better transit — are all things that are good for us for the future. They're all things that will put us in a good place for the future.

But we're not seeing that investment here. We're not seeing that in Bill 45, and that's a problem. That's a significant problem.

The Leader of the Opposition has spoken about those things, as she has talked about the need to look at our forest-dependent communities and our rural communities and to recognize that in many ways those are the communities that will take the biggest hit. Those are the communities that will struggle the most.

As much as they might like a Spirit Square — and I'm sure they all would like to have a Spirit Square — they will be much more interested in a strategy that actually was thoughtful and made sense about how their communities survive, how their families get to stay where they are — they'd get to stay part of those communities; they'd get to have a future in those communities — and how they move forward.

But this document, this Bill 45, doesn't tell them any of that. It doesn't say anything about how that future comes forward.

Last, this doesn't talk about how you deal with the issue that we had a discussion about in question period today. I don't know if it's $10 million of government advertising or $20 million of government advertising. I guess we'll find out sometime down the road, in a few months. It would be good if the minister…. This government talks about transparency. If the Minister of Finance really wants to be transparent, the minister could table tomorrow a list of spending on advertising that we've seen — this barrage of advertising.

If the government had paid as much attention to local communities and as much attention to the concerns of British Columbians as it has to its self-promotion, we would be in a much better place. But we haven't seen that. We haven't seen that at all, and the ads will flow. I'm sure of that. My guess is that probably, somewhere about two days before that ad cycle ends, the government will announce that they're going to put an end to ads — probably about two days before the last cycle they've bought ends. We'll see. Time will tell. Maybe they won't do that at all.
[ Page 13230 ]

What did the government actually offer us in Bill 45? What did they offer us? Well, they offered us a modest acceleration of some personal and small business income tax breaks. It's an acceleration of a tax package that's already in place. It adds $140 million — something in that range, I believe — of additional benefits.

That's all good. That money, hopefully, will flow through. People will spend that money, and those small shops in my constituency of Vancouver-Hastings will have a little more money spent. Maybe there will be a couple of weekends because of that, where the shop that my daughter works in on weekends…. They'll actually spend the $800 or $1,000 of revenue for that shop that they usually get. Who knows? It's still pretty modest.

That's the tax package. That's there, and we'll support that.

There's a reduction in school taxes — a small reduction, a 50 percent reduction. We don't fully understand how that works. We'll get more information about that, I'm sure, as we move forward.

It would be great if the Minister of Education would rise in her place in this debate and take her opportunity to assure all of the school boards in this province that they will not lose one dime of revenue from this — that every dime they would have got will be guaranteed by the government. It would be good for that to happen. I hope that's what the government's intentions are, but it's not absolutely clear to me.

It would be great if the Education Minister or the Minister of Finance would stand up and tell all British Columbians that their kids' schools aren't going to pay for this package, that their kids' schools aren't going to be out of luck on this package.

[1605]

[S. Hawkins in the chair.]

The other thing, of course, that we have is what I would kindly call this half-baked property assessment freeze, and half-baked is the best word that I have for it. It's a plan that is misunderstood, and it's misunderstood because it was badly communicated.

It's a plan that takes the property assessment process and system in British Columbia, a very good system…. It's one that the Minister of Small Business and Revenue quite rightly said is a system that people around the world look at and say: "That's a property assessment system that makes sense, that works, that looks at market and market value and ensures that properties are appropriately valued, based on those other properties around them, based on the communities where they're located, based on a number of those things."

It's true. It is a very good system, and it is beyond me…. There is no rationale here for what we gain by putting this freeze in place.

Now, some folks…. I've certainly had people come into my office who said: "That's frozen. Does that mean my taxes go down? The property assessments are frozen. Do I pay less taxes?" And you have to tell them: "No, you don't pay less taxes, because the property assessments, of course, aren't about your taxes. They're there as part of the formula for your mill rate, but the bottom line is that local government needs money to provide the services they provide for you and me." That money will come out of the property tax base, and every one of those property owners will pay. So it does nothing there.

To add to the complication, we now have this situation where we get to choose, or it's the lower of two. I think that the Minister of Small Business and Revenue, in his comments across the aisle to an earlier speaker, said: "No, we just pick the lower of the two, from '07 or '08, as to which it will be in terms of the assessment."

Of course, this creates at least some complication for local governments, which are setting mill rates and now have to assume where they set these mill rates, based not on one year's assessments…. It would have been bad enough if we set them on one frozen year, but now it could be a little bit of this year and a little bit of that year, and somewhere in the middle you find a mill rate that allows you to in fact collect the kind of tax revenue that you need to deliver services — to fix the sewers, to make sure you've got police, to make sure you've got firefighters, to make sure everything is going forward.

So this bill is thin gruel at best. It is not a visionary bill. It is not a bill that provides confidence to British Columbians that this government is looking forward and looking after the public interest in dealing with this challenging economic time. It's not a bill that builds confidence. It's not a bill that people can look at and say: "I see a future here."

That's unfortunate. British Columbians wanted more. British Columbians deserve more. I look forward to our debate over the few days that we will be here, and then even more so, I really do look forward to the debate over the next few months, when British Columbians will get a chance to determine where this vision is in this province and who offers them a vision and who they want to embrace. I am confident that just as the people of Vancouver-Fairview and Vancouver-Burrard expressed their view on that, the people of British Columbia will as well.

J. Horgan: It's a delight to stand in my place today to speak to the substance and principles embedded in Bill 45.

I have to say at the outset, however, hon. Speaker, that although I am delighted to see you in the chair, I'm saddened that my colleague from Okanagan-Westside has moved down the aisle, so I won't have the benefit of his thoughtful and timely interjections as I carry on this afternoon. One of the big regrets of this session will be that the member for Okanagan-Westside is now about 80 feet away from me instead of eight, but that's the cross I bear, and I'm quite happy to carry on with my remarks nonetheless.
[ Page 13231 ]

It is a pleasure to be here, hon. Speaker, for more reasons than I care to mention today, but you're certainly well aware of them, more so than any other member in the House.

As we start to look at the situation our constituents find themselves in, no one, beyond my new colleagues from Fairview and Burrard…. I had the good fortune of travelling the province speaking not just to constituents in Malahat–Juan de Fuca but right across B.C. as a member of the all-party Finance Committee.

We embarked on our journey back in September with an update from the newly minted Minister of Finance. He came and brought us forecasts and projections from the first quarter and expectations for rosy days ahead.

[1610]

We all know in this place — or at least I'm hopeful that we all know — that sometime around the visit from the Minister of Finance to the committee, the world became a different place. Financial markets crashed. Personal savings for many of our constituents started to disappear, and a fright and a chill entered into the economy, which has led to a downturn in consumer confidence, which has led to a massive downturn in revenues. Certainly in our neighbour province of Alberta, revenues are down some $6 billion as a result of the wild swings in commodity prices, particularly oil and gas.

Today we heard from the Minister of Finance that we're off about $800 million in revenue, which is significant and perhaps a conservative estimate on his part. We'll have to see as the third quarterly report starts to manifest itself in the months ahead.

The challenge we have as legislators and people from different walks of life, different parts of the province, is that we tend to lose sight, when we come to this place, of what's really important to the people that elected us. Financial security is at the core of family. It's at the core of community; it's at the core of the province. When that financial security is shaken, we have an obligation to respond. We have an obligation to respond swiftly, decisively and with some impact.

I have to say that the mild stimulus package that was presented by the Premier back on October 22 comes nowhere near the mark, certainly for people in my community of Malahat–Juan de Fuca — particularly, as my colleague from Surrey-Whalley noted, as one of the ten points in the plan was to call back the Legislature.

Had the Premier stuck to his word and kept a fixed calendar, we would have been sitting for three weeks at the time he stood and used taxpayers' money, absconded Hansard Services and broadcast across the province his ten-point plan, one point of which was that we should be here talking about this.

Well, what happened? A month went by. Thirty days went by, and now here we are all bright and shiny in our places with, at least on this side, something to say. I'm hopeful that members on the government side will have the opportunity to speak on these matters.

I know my friend from Langara is well versed in these issues, and she's going to want to take her place as a private member and speak her mind on the state of the economy, on events current and those issues that face her future and the future of the people in her community. Also, my friend from Chilliwack will want to stand in his place — as a private member not shackled by the constraints of executive council — and speak about the important issues in British Columbia today and into the future.

We've had a number of elections. Of course, we had most recently municipal elections. We had the two glorious by-elections here in British Columbia. We had a federal election, and we had this guy named Obama elected in the United States.

I learned today that he's a smoker, hon. Speaker, and that just shattered me. It absolutely shattered me. I know it would you as well. I had all of these images…. I suppose that's the problem with cult of personality, isn't it, hon. Speaker? When you can concoct and construct whatever political animal you wish, one of the things you would delete from that animal is an addiction to nicotine. But apparently even Barack Obama is susceptible to the frailties of humanity and has a problem with cigarettes.

We're not without our flaws here in this place or even in President-elect status. So I don't think that our public expects a great deal from us, and it's tragic that — what was it? — 90 percent of politicians make it tough for the 10 percent that aren't paying any attention.

I'm not sure quite how that quote goes, but I know that members, as they listen riveted to what I have to say over the next 20 or 25 minutes, will also come to the conclusion that if the bar is set so profoundly low for us in this place, then maybe it is only fitting that we sit here for five days instead of for five weeks. Maybe it's only fitting that only one side of the House stand up and offer their opinions on the great challenges of our time.

We've had numerous debates, hon. Speaker, as you know, about climate change in British Columbia. The Minister of Finance made reference to that today in question period. It's a good thing because quite often I've heard the argument go that when the economy gets tough, when finances go sideways, the environment will take a back seat to the economy.

[1615]

I don't believe that we need to do that, and I'm fairly confident — certainly my friend from Hastings feels that way — that we have to find a way to balance the economy and the environment and social policy. They cannot carry forward in isolation.

Any three of those legs of the stool have to be in place, well grounded, so that we have a strong economy and vibrant social programs to protect those who most need our assistance in good times and in bad times. But we also have to have a plan, and we have to be all tugging
[ Page 13232 ]
in the same direction. We can't be some of us blowing and some of us sucking, and that seems to me to be the problem with our legislative construct here in British Columbia.

I don't want to disappoint my new colleague from Fairview. I'm sure she came here expecting something a little bit different than what she's found, where we stand in our place for our prescribed period of time and we pontificate about what we would like to see happen not just in our community but right across the province.

I think that's valuable, hon. Speaker, if our colleagues are paying attention. I know I see some attentiveness on the other side, and perhaps others are watching on television at home today, and they're saying to themselves: "What's the deal with this guy from Juan de Fuca? Why is he standing up and saying that maybe the bar is too low for us as elected representatives?"

Maybe the expectations of our public are so low that we're actually achieving a positive result by being here talking about a mild stimulus package that does nothing for the forest sector, does nothing for the north, does nothing for the Kootenays, does nothing for the regions that are genuinely struggling right now — genuinely struggling.

One of the advantages, as I said, of travelling with the Finance Committee is that I get the opportunity to have the hospitality of the various regions of B.C. I know that ministers of the Crown travel around and that some private members also have the good fortune of travelling around B.C. and hearing from people who don't get a chance to vote for you. I find that's quite an interesting exchange. When you're talking to citizens who don't have the opportunity to vote for you, then you can be more candid with them, and they can be more candid with you.

The witnesses that came to the committee talked about a number of things. One that struck me and is not referenced in the stimulus package or is not referenced in any way in Bill 45 is the importance of advanced education, skills training in British Columbia. We all talk a good talk on that. We all talk about the importance of education, the importance of training the next generation of workers, but it's just rhetoric. It's just rhetoric.

The Minister of Advanced Education stood in this place last spring and said that there have been no reductions to the grants to post-secondary institutions in British Columbia. Well, I was travelling around B.C. in September hearing from university presidents, faculty associations, students. Every single one of them stood up and said: "What we really need, committee, is the 2.6 percent reduction in our basic grant restored."

The first question I asked, hon. Speaker, as you can well imagine, is…. Well, there were no cuts. There were no cuts, because I heard the Minister of Advanced Education stand up day after day after day for two weeks and say that we were crazy on this side of the House. We didn't know what we were talking about. Everything was great. I can't wait to see the ads. Everything is going to be fine.

Apparently not. Not out in the hinterland, not out at the University of Northern British Columbia, not at the College of New Caledonia and not at Northern Lights. None of these institutions seemed to think that everything was great. None of these institutions were under the same delusions as the Minister of Advanced Education, who said everything was fine.

This is about setting the bar. If the public thinks we're doing nothing, then perhaps the Premier was prescient by saying: "Why not just cancel the fall session?" But now, apparently, it's one of his ten points. It's so fundamental that we come here and debate the stimulus package that it got No. 10 on the top ten. Top ten reasons to be here in the Legislature — well, there they were.

We're going to advance some tax cuts. We're going to create some sort of a break on assessments that is not clear to the minister responsible for revenue, but I think the quote was from him, the Minister of Small Business and Revenue — some good news out fast. Well, that's great. Set the bar as low as you can, people, and then no one will be disappointed.

I think that we all came here, and I know that the member for Vancouver-Fairview came here, with very high expectations. I can remember coming into this place in September of 2005, and we were all ready to go. When the Attorney General had great plans for the Lobbyists Registration Act and the member for Vancouver-Langara had great plans for reducing advertising costs in government, none of that happened.

The best of intentions. All honest, decent people coming here from our different communities trying to make the world a better place, and then we ran smack dab into the middle of a system that is dysfunctional and doesn't work.

[1620]

Hands up if this is making any sense to anybody else in this place today. I don't see a lot of hands. Oh, I see one — my friend from Golden. Thank goodness. Someone is listening to what I'm saying, because if you people were listening, you'd all shoot your hands up. This is a waste of your time.

The member for Vancouver-Langara is probably thinking: "What could I be doing today to make the world a better place?" Listening to the member from Juan de Fuca would probably not make the top ten, although I think I might get in the top 25 — maybe, maybe the top 25.

So if the bar is so low, when the government brings forward this piece of legislation, why didn't they say to the public…? Why weren't they honest and straightforward with the public and say: "You know, things are pretty bad. Have you looked at your bank account lately? Have you noticed that your investments have evaporated? Have you noticed that your pension plan is at risk? Have you noticed that even Stephen Harper, the lord of neoconservatism, is saying: 'Well, maybe we might have to run a deficit'"? The world is a different place, but yet not here in B.C. Liberal land. It's all good.
[ Page 13233 ]

Hon. L. Reid: The best place on earth.

J. Horgan: "The best place on earth." Thank you very much. The minister of state has reminded me that we live in the best place on earth because some advertising company has mandated that that's the case.

I used to like being in "Super, Natural British Columbia." I used to like being in "Beautiful British Columbia." Those were statements of fact — easily argued. If anyone ever came to my community, they'd certainly say it was a beautiful place. But the best place on earth….

I've mentioned this in debate before, because my sons brought it to my attention. I think my spouse raised them to be good, young fellows, and they think saying the best place on earth is boastful. I happen to agree with that. I kind of like Tahiti; it's kind of nice, and so is Fiji. I don't know if it's the best place on earth, but they're not bad places to visit, and neither is British Columbia.

To get back to the substance of Bill 45, which I knew you were going to remind me to do any moment, I have to say that we're in a profound transitional period. I've heard the Premier say this on numerous occasions, throne speech after throne speech, that something transformational is happening. You know what? I think something is actually happening right now. Something is happening right now, and it scares my constituents to death. Where are we going? Where's the leadership?

Why are the elected representatives in the Legislature of British Columbia quibbling over little things? Why are they quibbling over little things? Because it's the inconsistencies that bug people. They heard the then Leader of the Opposition, the member for Point Grey, say back in 1999: "When I look at how much money government spends on advertising, I think people are appalled by that. They don't want their money spent that way." Absolutely right, member for Point Grey. What are we doing today? Blanket advertising. Saturation advertising.

I raised an issue in question period the first day back. SkyTrain ads in Duncan, half-page ads in the Cowichan Valley, extolling the virtues of this government and the extension of SkyTrain to the airport.

Well, that's just great if you live in Richmond. That's just great if you're catching a flight into Vancouver, but if you live in the Cowichan Valley, what you would have liked to see is an advertisement saying: "Commuter rail is coming your way. We're going to invest in transportation alternatives so that you can reduce your carbon footprint, so that the world will be a better place because of your efforts and the efforts of the province of British Columbia." That would make sense in the Cowichan Valley.

I don't want to quibble with those who use and enjoy the SkyTrain in the Lower Mainland — good for them, good for them. But why in the world would the Minister of Finance sign off on an advertising plan that talks about something that's just rubbing the people of the Cowichan Valley's nose in it? We don't have transportation alternatives there, but we had to read in our local paper about how great things are in Vancouver where the Olympics are coming in a couple of years. That bugs people. That rubs them the wrong way. They're uncomfortable with that.

That, I think, speaks to all of us in the work that we do here. I don't think that it's useful and constructive for us to spend question period talking about…. We throw out a question to the minister about a particular course of action the government is pursuing, and the response back is: "In 1994, man oh man, there were 365 days in the year, and they were all dark." That doesn't help anybody.

It might make the Minister of Finance feel good. It might make the public affairs bureau people feel good that they found that killer quote from 1992 that's going to set the opposition on its ear. But do any of us feel any better as a result of that? I don't think so. I know the Attorney doesn't, and I know the Minister of Finance doesn't.

None of us benefit from this charade that we call the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia. Again, I apologize to my new colleague from Fairview who has to hear this from me for the first time, but some of the stuff that goes on in here is a profound waste of time.

[1625]

I'm thinking, as I look at this bill — the number of pages here are not extensive…. I'm hopeful we'll be able to get through this session without closure. We've only got the one bill. We should be able to get through this. We should be able to debate it fully without the government using the guillotine to push it through.

It will be an opportunity for all members to stand up — the member for Vancouver-Langara, and I'm very anxious to hear her comments on this bill; the member for Delta South and other members; the member from Richmond who is no longer in the executive council. I'm very anxious to hear what they have to say, before they leave this place, about their experiences here, about their contribution to public policy and debate in British Columbia over the past three and a half years. Some good days, some bad days, I'm thinking; some ups and some downs. That's fair enough.

But as we get to the end of this session of the Legislature, the 38th or 39th — I'm not sure which one it is; the Clerk could probably help me on that — is this what the public wants to hear?

Interjection.

J. Horgan: The 38th. Thank you, hon. Speaker.

Is this what the public wants to hear as the world financial markets melt down? Do they want to hear about some shell game with the assessment authority? Do they want to hear that their real estate values have plummeted, and the government solution to that is to say: "Well, you can pick one of two years and we're going to freeze it at that rate, but your taxes are probably going
[ Page 13234 ]
to go up anyway"? They don't say that. They just say: "We're going to move the shells around, and we're all going to be better as a result." I don't think so. I don't think so.

When I was travelling with the Finance Committee, we heard about infrastructure spending. If we heard it from one city, we heard it in another, and disparate groups, whether they be students or whether they be social activists, said: "What we need in our community is infrastructure."

The Minister of Finance touched upon that. The Premier spoke of an infrastructure program, but here we are, six weeks after the grand pronouncements in the middle of a by-election campaign — no infrastructure plan; nothing specific.

In my community, of course, the list is long, hon. Speaker, as you can well imagine. Nothing more important than the two school replacements, which I know the Minister of Education is working on with her staff in the capital branch — the Belmont replacement and the Cowichan high school replacement. Two schools built in the 1950s, housing more students than they were built for at that time. Their best-before date is well past, and it's time to replace those schools.

There are capable, thoughtful people working in the boards of education in the Cowichan Valley and in the Sooke district with plans — active plans that the government is listening to but not acting on.

So I implore the Minister of Education to look very closely as the infrastructure plans start to become more firm on the government side — that she look at the Belmont replacement and the Cowichan high school replacement as high priorities here on Vancouver Island.

The other issue that isn't touched upon in the stimulus package — the mild stimulus package — is the forest industry. I would be remiss if I didn't take the opportunity to condemn the Minister of Forests, and I know, again, I talk about useful time, time well spent. I think any time condemning the Minister of Forests is time well spent. I enjoyed very much the previous minister's time in the portfolio, but I didn't realize that I would have just as much fun with the new minister. That was a bit of a treat for me.

The comments that the new minister made when the Auditor General of British Columbia, a post that was filled by John Doyle after an exhaustive search by an all-party committee — unanimous appointment to the position of Auditor General…. He did a six-month review of a decision by the former Minister of Forests to remove private lands from a tree farm licence on Vancouver Island. Of course, forestry is vital to the economy of Vancouver Island. It has been for generations.

The Auditor General said that the government did not adequately consult the public, it did not seek sufficient compensation, and it ignored the public interest. Scathing — a scathing review of policy development on behalf of the B.C. Liberal Party. If that were not bad enough, the new Minister of Forests, not in the job three weeks, got up on his high horse and said: "We are offended by this report. We think it is totally inappropriate, and if Mr. Doyle thinks this is the way we do business in Canada, he's dead wrong."

[1630]

Intimidation, thuggery — that's what that is. The guy…. We hired him to do a job. He does the job, and rather than do the mature and responsible thing — thank the Auditor for his contribution and commit to amend the public policy to do a better job next time — instead we get a harangue from the Minister of Forests, not a month and a half on the job himself, condemning the work of the professional staff in the Auditor General's office — unbelievable, unbelievable.

The minister went on to say: "It is, in my view, unprofessional — lacking of integrity. He has not done his homework." These are pretty big shots, I'd say, for a new minister at an independent officer of the Legislature. I guess you've got to give him credit, hon. Speaker, for having the guts to speak his mind. But I think that it draws into question his character more than it does the Auditor General, quite frankly

Certainly people of my community — whether it be first nations, forest workers, environmentalists — when they look at the economy and the need for stimulus on Vancouver Island, the first thing they think of is forestry. The first thing they think of is forestry. Not so with this government.

In fact, the minister and his staff weren't able to convince the Premier to even mention it in his ten-point plan. You have a ten-point plan to stimulate the economy in British Columbia. It's based on tax breaks for those who have already been getting tax breaks, and no stimulus for industry — whether it be the forest sector, the mining sector, oil and gas. Thank goodness the revenues keep coming in so that the minister can meet some of his targets.

But the challenges we face are profound. And if they're so profound…. Those watching today, looking at this place would say: "Isn't there a crisis? I thought there was a crisis." I don't get a sense of crisis in here. I don't get a sense of crisis from the language in the legislation. I don't get a sense from the Minister of Forests or the Premier or the Minister of Finance, for that matter, that there is some effort, some bipartisan effort to come up with solutions, real solutions for the challenges that we face on Vancouver Island or the challenges that we face in British Columbia. More is the pity, hon. Speaker. More is the pity.

We freeze some assessments. We don't consult with the Union of B.C. Municipalities, who one would think would be the first place the government would have gone to. The Premier took advantage of the Union of B.C. Municipalities convention to announce a couple of initiatives back in September. But while he was there, he didn't take the opportunity to talk about revamping
[ Page 13235 ]
the assessment process in British Columbia, which is renowned internationally as one of the best independent assessment processes you can find anywhere.

In the inventory of tax breaks and concessions there's no mention of the carbon tax. Again, I find this strange, as a member of the Finance Committee. In every community we went to, we heard different views. And my colleagues the member from Mission, the Chair, and my friend from Prince George–Omineca will know this.

We agreed in committee that divisions on the carbon tax were so great between the two sides in this Legislature…. They were mirrored in the community. So rather than tussle amongst ourselves in committee, as we prepared recommendations, we agreed — bipartisan agreement — that we would reflect back to this Legislature what we had heard.

We had heard from some groups that the tax was valuable. We heard from other groups that it was an atrocity, and we heard from that middle group that maybe we should freeze the carbon tax at its current rate rather than increase the rates in June of next year and June of the following year. I think that's a reasonable course of action. Certainly the Vancouver Board of Trade thought that was a reasonable course of action.

If you were looking at a stimulus package for the economy, it strikes me that rather than proceed forward with a tax increase next June, as prescribed by the bill that was rammed through this place last May using closure, a prudent government, a thoughtful government, a responsive government, a government that was listening to its public would say: "Yeah, you know, we're confident that the carbon tax will achieve its objectives of reducing emissions, but we're going to freeze it at 2½ cents a litre until such time as the economy is in a better position to manage and carry the increases that we projected."

That would have been a reasonable thing to do. That would have been a part of a stimulus package that might have made some sense. We hear nothing of that from the Premier. We hear nothing of that from the Minister of Finance.

[1635]

So again, I have to come back to this notion of setting the bar low and how we should all be pleased that we've met that low bar, rather than saying to new generations of British Columbians, university students, students studying to learn new trades, the youth of our province: "You can aspire to be all you can be in our golden decade, as we look forward to the Olympics." Instead, we come back to this place and we say: "Ah, well, we said we'd come back. It's number ten on the list. Let's go to the Legislature, and some people in here will talk about the economy."

Those on this side of the House, the opposition members, will stand in their place and talk about what their constituents have been telling them. Government side — not so much, at least not today.

That's not to say that we won't hear from members, backbench members of the government, tomorrow and Wednesday and Thursday. But I'm not optimistic. I'm not optimistic. It seems to me that this is just a formality. This is just something that…. The Premier can now say: "Well, I cancelled the fall session, but we did come back for our vigorous economic stimulation package that I promised I would do." Point 10: come back to the Legislature.

Hon. Speaker, I know, as you look at your retirement from this place…. Wouldn't it have been great in this last fall sitting for you if something miraculous had happened, if something extraordinary had happened, if both sides of the House had said: "This is what the public wants from us. They want cooperation. They want a plan that's coherent, thoughtful and that meets the needs of British Columbians in each corner of this province, on the coasts, in the Interior, in the north and in the southeast?"

Wouldn't that have been fantastic? I think it would have been fantastic. I know I'm living in a dream when I think that we come here, 79 men and women with the best of intentions…. We come here, 79 men and women, from different parts of the province, wanting to make the world a better place. Little baby steps are better than no steps at all, but I'm afraid that this stimulus package doesn't come close to meeting that bar.

The interaction between the government side and the opposition side continues to be appalling to young people as they look at us on television or live in this place, and that's regrettable. It's truly regrettable. Because I know the pages from my old alma mater, Reynolds high school…. They're thinking: "My goodness, when do I get out of here?" They're looking at their watches. They're looking up at the sky. "What are these people talking about? Why doesn't any of it make any sense to us?"

Why are we not relevant to young people? Why are we not relevant to people on fixed incomes? Why are we not doing something about the housing crisis, addictions, homelessness?

The list is long. We all know it. We see it every day in our communities. But yet we come here immune to reality, in a bubble in our finery and our frou-frou with our best bib. We've got ties on and our best outfits, and we talk about irrelevancies, things that mean nothing to the people in our communities.

That's sad, hon. Speaker. I don't want to leave you with a hint of sadness, because I know that the two of us are, by and large, pretty optimistic people, and I know the Minister of Health is a pretty optimistic person. But you've got to think at the end of the day: what in the heck did we do? What did we accomplish today? What happened?

We did the pro forma thing. The minister stood. He gave a second reading speech prepared by capable people in his ministry. The critic stood and offered up our contribution to the debate, and then we moved on to other things, completely disconnected to the challenges and troubles in our communities.
[ Page 13236 ]

Where are the infrastructure programs? Where are the other stimulus mechanisms to kick-start the forest sector? I just don't understand how we can continue to see forest revenue drop through the floor and a Forests Minister stand in his place and say: "I went to China the other day, and they're just fantastic. Can't wait to buy our wood." Well, let's see the contracts.

The minister stood in this place today and said: "We're going to go back to work at the Cowichan Bay mill." I'm not hearing that from people in Cowichan Bay. We'll wait and see how that goes.

I regret that I've run out of time. I don't know how that happened. But thanks for the opportunity.

Deputy Speaker: I don't want to leave the impression that the pages aren't paying attention. They're enthusiastic. They serve us all well.

N. Macdonald: It's a pleasure, as always, to stand in this House and to speak to a bill — in this case, Bill 45.

Now, Bill 45 comes out of an initiative that was put forward by the B.C. Liberals and was first expressed by the Premier in a speech that he made to the province back almost a month ago. The description that I would have for the initiative, both with the speech and with this legislation, is to say that it's underwhelming, to say the at least.

[1640]

The context for the Premier's speech is interesting as well. He points to a crisis in the economy that has been felt at a world stage more intensely in recent time, but the fact of the matter is that economic difficulties have existed in this province for a period of well over a year — in particular in rural British Columbia, but I think in all communities at a certain level.

There are thousands and thousands — tens of thousands — of British Columbians who have faced economic crisis for the past seven years and likely beyond. But it certainly has been exacerbated in the past seven years.

It's worth taking a bit of time to just talk about the context for the Premier's speech, which laid out the basis that we now see in Bill 45. The Premier had been quite interested in avoiding the scrutiny of the Legislature, far more than in any other issue. He had described what goes on in the Legislature — or ministers responsible to him — as essentially busywork. He had done a tremendous amount of work to make sure that there would be nothing to discuss and that he would keep MLAs, who are elected to be here, out of the Legislature.

Then in the midst of a by-election, the Premier finds himself demanding the right to take over the six o'clock news broadcasts for all of the television and radio stations in British Columbia, to give him essentially an unfiltered propaganda piece.

Now, thankfully, and to the credit of most media outlets, most would refuse to do that. Some went along with it, but to the credit of most media stations, they refused to give the Premier unfiltered access to their six o'clock news broadcast.

Those that did allow him to make his speech unfiltered found that there was, as I say, a fairly underwhelming ten-point plan that the Premier put forward. He said that he was suddenly concerned about the economy and the state of the economy in British Columbia. Certainly from events in the world, there's good reason why everyone should be concerned about the direction that things are going. But really, we need to take a bit of time and talk about the speech that wasn't made by this Premier, in fact, more than a year before.

The NDP has been very clear about the devastating collapse of the forest industry and the impact that that has across rural British Columbia. We notice it the most, but of course there are implications for all communities in British Columbia. Forestry built this province to a large degree. The wealth generated in rural areas is represented in the wealth that you see in Vancouver. It's intensely disappointing that that has never been recognized by this government.

The fact of the matter is that there have been huge losses of jobs in rural British Columbia, and that did not start in October. That started years ago. Twenty thousand jobs have been lost — 12,000 in the past year — and that has devastated communities. There have been over 50 mills closed, and the fact of the matter is that when that happens, rural communities remain abandoned.

The Premier did not come up with a ten-point plan for the collapse of this critically important part of the rural economy. In fact, he seemed indifferent to what was happening to our communities.

I should just explain what happens when a mill goes down in a community. When a mill goes down, it is not only the investors who lose. It is not only the workers who lose. It is all of the contractors that depend upon that mill to earn their living. It is the suppliers. It is the fuel suppliers. There is a web of interconnected financial structures between these different companies.

So when a mill goes down, it takes down a whole series, a whole part, of a community and can critically cripple that community. As this happened across the province, the Premier was asked to do something. Essentially, the tactic for the B.C. Liberals was to treat it as spectators.

Well, that's something that never happened in the past. What previous governments have understood is that markets have cycles.

[1645]

Now this is, in more recent times, a particularly difficult cycle for forestry, but we need to remember that forestry was at the top of the game if you go back four or five years ago. Now there are hardly any houses being built in the United States, and that's difficult. That is going to be a long-term issue — something that we need to get our heads around and figure out, if we're going to make forestry strong again.
[ Page 13237 ]

But previous to that, there was unprecedented building of houses in the United States. That was a time when things were good, and still, jobs were being lost. Now you have a time of difficulty, and jobs are being lost at an unprecedented rate. The fact of the matter is that we look to government to provide leadership, to help communities find answers, to allow a just transition. But what's clear is that that didn't happen.

The Premier didn't come on the television and talk about any sort of meaningful plan for rural British Columbia. Before the last election I think they put together a media piece, the heartlands strategy, which is widely seen as the farce that it is. It wasn't a meaningful attempt. It was a public relations attempt. So the fact of the matter is that previous to October, we had an economic crisis that was going on in rural British Columbia, and that rural economic crisis was ignored.

Forestry is an industry that needs to be there for rural British Columbia. There were many changes that this government made that have exacerbated the problems that we see in forestry right now. They changed laws that made forest workers less safe. That's a fact. This government changed laws that broke the half-century-old social contract that existed between resource communities and the public lands that surrounded them. This B.C. Liberal government changed laws that allowed just transition for communities or efforts to retain jobs.

In Golden we had experience with the job protection commissioner and the work that that office did for Golden. This is back some time ago. What you saw is, up until very recently, a mill that was in place and that was productive and producing incredible amounts of money for not only the province but for those that lived and worked in Golden. That office the B.C. Liberals eliminated, and in its place there has been nothing.

So as community after community suffers during this downturn in forestry, there is no action from the government. They simply let it go. If there has been a more anti-rural government than this, I find it hard to believe. The Social Credit was rooted in rural B.C. and looked after their interests. The NDP has strong rural roots and looks after the interests. But the B.C. Liberals have proven again and again that that interest is not there.

The Premier did not come out with a ten-point plan for those that this economy has failed consistently for years. Over the past seven years homelessness has grown across this province for tens of thousands of people. Of our friends and neighbours, the economy has failed so profoundly that they cannot even find shelter — not even shelter in Canada. Now, that was an economic collapse for them, and they have experienced that for the past seven years. But has there been a time when the Premier expressed enough interest to go and put together a plan that would address that successfully in any meaningful way? There hasn't been.

Our economy has failed to adequately care for seniors all too often, and people who are speaking within their communities know that this is the case. Our economy has failed to provide for children. We have in British Columbia, again for the fifth straight year, the highest rate of child poverty in all the country. That has gone on for five years. B.C. Liberal policies caused that to happen. The Premier at no time has made it a priority to fix that.

So these are issues that raise questions about this legislation and about what sort of crisis it's meant to address and if it's going to be effective in addressing the crisis.

[1650]

How did the Premier spend the summer? Well, the first thing he did is he imposed a gas tax that would definitely make things harder on rural people. If there's a rural MLA in here that thinks that it was a popular thing in their area, I'd be surprised. It's not true. It is unpopular for all the right reasons.

They made it harder not only on rural people but on the poor. As we head into the winter, we're going to see more and more of that as it comes out and as we see the implications of that tax. The truth of the matter is that that carbon tax is going to continue to go up each and every year, and for rural B.C. that's something that's clearly unpopular.

An Hon. Member: What does your Finance critic say?

N. Macdonald: I see the member from Prince George has an idea about the carbon tax. I'm sure she'll be supporting it, and I'm sure that she'll have a great time telling the people in Prince George how great an idea it is.

Interjection.

N. Macdonald: Did you hear that consistently?

Interjection.

N. Macdonald: Okay, well, I look forward to the election when the minister from Prince George can stand up and talk about how popular the…

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Order, please. Order.

N. Macdonald: …carbon tax or the gas tax is in her area.

This summer the Premier also took a private jet to the Olympics.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Order, Members. Order.
[ Page 13238 ]

N. Macdonald: There on his private jet he had a chance to meet with Canaccord and other corporate executives and talk about the situation here. He was pleased to take that private jet as he flew across to the opening of the Olympics.

At the same time as he jetted off, he introduced a $100,000 raise for his assistants. Since then he's had to roll that back, with the reaction to that. It was on the day that the opening ceremonies were going to take place.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Order, order. Thank you, Members.

Continue.

N. Macdonald: So on the day of the opening of the Olympics, this was slid through. At the same time that the minimum wage has yet to be raised in seven years and despite a promise from this Premier that the minimum wage wouldn't be reduced…. Of course, most people remember that there was a $6 rate for young people that was put in by this government, despite a clear promise. So the priorities are clear.

Now, in October we have a by-election, and we have this speech and the subsequent legislation that's in place here. I guess it takes about a month to get it from the back of a napkin into a piece of legislation. Essentially, it talks about tax cuts — tax cuts that were talked about earlier and are going to be moved forward. It talks about infrastructure. This legislation talks about a number of things, including promises that were made at the Liberal convention.

Let's just look at a few of these. With the tax cut comes an industrial cut to the school tax. Now, the school tax, of course, goes into general revenues; it doesn't go directly to schools. You would assume that measures are going to be taken to keep that money in British Columbia and to make sure that it's invested in British Columbia.

So when we come to the part of the process where we're able to ask questions, that's one of the questions that we'll be asking about. What work was done to make sure that the savings that came from this cut…? What work has been done to make sure that there will be investment back into British Columbia?

We'll be looking at infrastructure, and we've yet to see a list on infrastructure. So there certainly is room to speak on behalf of people in Columbia River–Revelstoke and give some suggestions as to where infrastructure is needed. There's no question that provincewide there's a need for seismic upgrades. There's a need for that to move ahead. There had been a promise that 300 schools would be seismically upgraded. That's a promise, again, that has not been kept. It should be a priority. It's not. It should be.

[1655]

There are also discussions about transportation. Now, one of the areas that has clear need for upgrading is along the Trans-Canada. The section between the Alberta border and Kamloops is an area that, overall, needs a tremendous amount of work, and the Minister of Health, who represents part of that highway, would recognize the need.

This is something that is difficult. There are places along that section that have clearly been improved, and that's a wonderful thing. But there is a need for much more to be done. I realize that this is a challenge for any government, but it has to be improved.

In Golden, in Sicamous, in Salmon Arm, in Revelstoke, in Kamloops — people that represent the areas along the Trans-Canada know the tragedies that take place on that highway. They recognize the challenges in keeping it clear in the winter and properly maintaining it during the summer, and there needs to be more improvements there. If there is to be improvements and more infrastructure, that's an area that needs to be at the top of any list.

In terms of other areas that need road improvements, there's no question that between Radium and Fairmont is a section that has a road that simply does not meet the needs of the number of people that are using it, especially in the summer. So that's an area that if the Premier or the Minister of Finance are looking for areas to improve infrastructure, those are certainly areas that they should look at.

There is a need for announcements on the Revelstoke schools. I'm expecting that soon, but it has to happen very, very soon if we're going to be able to get the construction started. So those are areas that the minister can consider.

The other thing that people have mentioned to me is, of course, the Revelstoke ambulance station. We expect to see that started in the spring.

The other area that I would like to speak about and draw the Minister of Health's attention to is the Invermere hospital. The Invermere hospital has an emergency room that does not meet the needs of the community of 4,000. In the summer Invermere has a population very often ten times that number. They need the services that will, to begin with, meet the needs of a community of 4,000. But additionally, they need the services in place for the visitors that come there and depend upon services.

The emergency room at Invermere was at the top of the local list. It was at the top of the Interior Health Authority list, and what has changed very, very recently is the way that those projects are prioritized. So what you have now is that project has fallen deep into a provincial list. That's not only unfortunate; it's profoundly unfair. You have a need that has to be met. You have a commitment to work to fast-track capital projects, and this would certainly be one that you can move on quickly.

It was interesting looking at the ten-point plan that the Premier put forward. One of the things that struck me
[ Page 13239 ]
was the inconsistencies in a number of areas. With ferry charges and changes to the rates that people are being asked to pay on ferries, it just strikes me as completely inconsistent that for so many years we've had ministers stand here and say that they were powerless to change anything to do with B.C. Ferries.

You had ministers standing up and saying that they couldn't interfere as ferry rates increased, that they were helpless to do anything. It could not be done. You had the Premier and ministers standing up and saying that they couldn't interfere as ferry contracts went to Germany to build ferries there. You had ministers and the Premier saying that they couldn't interfere as the Minister of Transportation's roommate was appointed to a board and that that board immediately voted to raise the board's pay.

But now you have in a speech in October the changes to ferry rates. The rationale — questionable. Why two months? Why not three months? Why interfere now? Why not talk to the president of B.C. Ferries? Anyway, it relates, then, to a basic inconsistency and an ad hoc nature that you see throughout the bill.

[1700]

There was also a decision to call the Legislature back, and I think that's appropriate. The Legislature, of course, as many have said and as the public knows, should have been back here in October. It should have been sitting full days. This is a legislature that used to sit in the evenings. That's been changed. It's a legislature that's had the time for estimates reduced. That's a problem.

The last time I had an opportunity to speak — in May, when we were able to talk about bills — there were eight bills that I would like to have had the opportunity to speak of and to speak to on behalf of the people that I represent. There were eight bills that came to this House, and we were not given the opportunity to ask questions.

We were not given an opportunity to talk about what the people of our area had to say about really important bills — about the gas tax that the member from Prince George is so fond of; about TILMA, where there are still a number of questions. We have not even had an opportunity, with TILMA, to ask specific questions during what would normally have been a debate where the minister would have taken it line by line and given us information that people want.

We had Bill 42 pushed through, a bill that restricts advertising and impacts elections, which possibly will keep people from the polls. All of these things should have been explored fully and explained fully by the ministers responsible, and yet they were pushed through.

Now here we are, with a fall session all but gone, with four or five days to come back here and talk about issues that are of importance to the people of our area.

What you've seen over the past seven years is a Premier that took a period with low interest rates, which this government had nothing to do with…. You had high commodity prices. You had the biggest housing boom in U.S. history. You had Olympic building, and you had high transfer payments from Ottawa. Unfortunately for all of us, that cycle has turned viciously on us and will create real problems for real people.

The challenge for us as legislators is: how are we going to deal with those effectively? I would argue that this is, as I've said before, a pretty underwhelming piece of legislation and certainly not the leadership that people need in these times.

In tough times it's critically important, in my view, that we stand together, that we make sure that the solutions we find work not for just a small number of people but for everyone. Too often in the good times that were there — even in those times — we left people without the supports that they needed. The things that you would expect you should be able to handle in times of budget surplus were not handled.

There should have been no homelessness. That should have been dealt with. Now, it is a challenging problem, but it is a problem that begins with finding proper shelter for each and every individual in British Columbia. There's not a shortage of buildings, but there is the inability of large swaths of our population to find a place they could stay in. Once you have them stabilized, then you have the ability to put forward the programs that they may need or in some cases that they may not need.

In good times we failed to do that, and I think what a lot of people are telling me is: "What's going to happen in the bad times?" What happens when the amount of money that's available to government is not there? We haven't begun to see the problems that exist.

It's clear in this province that we need to deal effectively with child care. Child care is a huge problem. It comes up again and again.

I was at a meeting with people in Golden where they were talking about the barriers to women entering the workforce or becoming entrepreneurs. It came up again and again that it's child care. There is a lack of child care.

People are looking for government to help with that and to find the solutions. They simply have not come, even with the good times, when there were funds available. It was never a priority for this government. You shudder to think what it's going to turn out to be like now, when there's a shortage of money.

[1705]

Homelessness — is there any chance it's going to be dealt with? No. Is there any chance that you're going to have child care dealt with by this government? No. It simply won't happen.

For rural British Columbia, in the good business cycle we had courthouses closed. We had public education consistently underfunded, and that's a fact. You see that in the outcomes. You see 177 schools closed — and most rural, by the way. You see special education underfunded so that there are 10,000 classes that do not meet the minimum standards set out by this government.
[ Page 13240 ]

The minister knows the numbers for this year. Last year they were eventually made public. The minister will have the opportunity. She should really be letting us know: how badly has she failed children and teachers and parents this year? How many students are not in classes that meet the minimum standards?

In rural British Columbia you also saw recreation sites and trails — the funding for those gotten rid of. You had conservation officers that should have been in place fired or gotten rid of. You had probation officers gotten rid of. You have Environment staff cut. You have seniors abandoned and so many stories. And those were during the good times. You had children, as I said, left in poverty.

You have homeless, even in places like Revelstoke, where we never possibly would have dreamt that that would be an issue. They were there in Revelstoke, in a Revelstoke winter even. You had highway maintenance issues. These were times when there were opportunities to use the funds that were coming in to government.

With education, I think it's interesting that the class-size and composition issue has never been dealt with. In doing that, you have 10,000 classes full of students who do not have the opportunities that they should have. You have 10,000 classes where teachers are asked to just make do.

I think there's a telling point from some of the things that were said to the Finance Committee when they travelled around. In Prince George there was a presentation from the Prince George school district, and they said that many of the surpluses that this government enjoyed came on the backs of children. They came because there was not adequate funding put into the right place for students and for parents and for teachers.

With special education, there's no question that children have been let down. You don't have inclusion if you just put kids in a class. You need to support them. There's no question that that simply has not happened. That's a problem.

That's during times when commodity prices were high and interest rates were low. All of the factors that helped British Columbia and helped the coffers of the British Columbia government were in place, and these things were ignored.

There has been much talk over the last few days about the priorities for government, and there's no question that one that many people notice is the advertising. The amount of money that has gone into advertising is just incredible. The exact figures we will not know until after the election. This government has set it up so that they will report it out in June.

What we saw from the last election was the following. We saw massive amounts of advertising leading up to the 2005 election. And then afterwards we found out the amount of costs, and it was prohibitive.

I'd like to thank you. Again, it's good to see you in the chair, and I look forward to hearing more debate.

Deputy Speaker: Cowichan-Ladysmith.

D. Routley: Thank you, Madam Speaker. It is good to see you back in the chair and looking healthy and rested.

[1710]

I have the pleasure, I suppose, of rising to speak to Bill 45, to speak to a government that has run its affairs by slogan and by promise. Unfortunately, I represent a constituency and a province that are bearing the brunt of the failure to meet those promises and to live up to those slogans.

We've seen a government that had the arrogance to cancel a fall session at a time when so much of our province was in crisis. Our forest industry has been in crisis for years, and yet this government saw fit to cancel this session, after having brought closure to so many bills in the last session.

Now, as polls indicate that their political fortunes are on the wane, as British Columbians become tired of their presence in that chair, they call us back. They call us back to deal with a crisis that they created, a crisis in our communities that they created through failed forest policies and failed social policies.

They are only driven to disclosure of numbers after they are being forced by polls to do so. They are only forced and driven to deal with this crisis after the polls tell them they're in trouble, after by-elections are lost. That's what this government cares about: power. Simple, simple power.

They don't care about the homeless that have increased by 360 percent. They don't care about the tens of thousands of forestry jobs that were lost well before the end of the housing bubble in the United States and in Canada. They don't care about those children who live in poverty, the highest rate for six years running.

Even now we get an economic update that is stale-dated — a rosy, rosy picture of a crisis. We're told that we're not going to suffer a recession in Canada, and yet the federal government already acknowledges that we're in recession, while this government says that we are going to narrowly miss that recession in Canada. They are in defiance of fact, and they are in defiance of all those voices that have cried out for years for help, in our rural communities in particular.

[S. Hammell in the chair.]

What do they tell us? They say they'll be looking for administrative savings. Well, what about the tens of millions of dollars that are being spent on ads throughout this province boasting in an arrogant fashion that this, owing to them, is the best place on earth to live, work and play? "The best place on earth." The best place on earth, which has led child poverty figures in this country for five years — and now, its sixth year — with the highest levels of poverty in this country.
[ Page 13241 ]

For 17 straight years poverty levels decreased in this province, until this government came to power. This is a recent crisis? Child poverty, No. 1 for six years; homelessness, a 360 percent increase; forestry, 50-plus mills closed during an unprecedented housing boom in the United States of America and tens of thousands of jobs lost in that industry. The members on the other side don't care. They don't care that raw log exports that they encouraged have now resulted in the loss of those mills and the loss of those jobs.

They have no plan. They've admitted it themselves, that they are mere spectators on the sidelines of an industry that they deregulated. Those deregulations were pointed to by our B.C. coroner as being the causal elements in the deaths of workers in the forestry industry, as 46 workers in one year died after the deregulation of that industry, because there was an ideological rampage where whole industries and whole institutions were torn up. Bulldozers were driven through those industries and institutions, and nothing was put in place by this government to mitigate the damage.

There's an American commentator named Stephen Colbert who has a popular television program, and he has coined a phrase: "truthiness". Truthiness is truth as you make it. This government is an expert at truthiness, at making truths — the best place to live, work and play. Despite the loss of those family-supporting jobs, despite the decline of our rural economy, despite the increase in homelessness, despite the increase in child poverty, it's the best place. This is government by slogan.

[1715]

"Reconciliation" was another slogan. Reconciliation, yet conditions for our first nations continue to be deplorable, with little or no gain either in employment, in standards of living or in housing.

They make it up as they go. It's a rosy picture. The perfect example is in this bill, the property assessment freeze — this driven by polling. They had to have something to offer to their UBCM convention and their B.C. Liberal Party convention. The UBCM was not consulted on this property tax assessment freeze. It was rushed out the door in great haste, and the number one stakeholders affected weren't even consulted. That's another pattern of this government: a failure to consult, a failure to listen, a detachment that has resulted in every British Columbian knowing that the arrogance of the government knows no bounds.

The Assessment Authority is an independent body. It makes market-based assessments that affect people's lives. It affects their wealth. It affects their homes. This intervention by this government completely skews the entire system for no benefit. The UBCM points out that many of the residents of this province don't understand that this freeze doesn't affect their property taxes at all. It creates the confusion that people believe their taxes will be frozen. The municipalities are concerned that they will bear the brunt of the anger as people realize that that assessment freeze does nothing for them and that, in fact, the municipalities may be blamed if property taxes increase.

But the government doesn't care. They needed a rosy piece to offer to their convention, so they made it up. In fact, it was admitted to the columnist Don Cayo that this was made up as they went along, that no consultations were made. The other rationale offered for this now is that it would reduce the number of appeals. Well, in fact, the UBCM points out that the most likely result is that it will increase the number of appeals and make them that much more complex, now that the market functioning of their office has been affected.

Instead, the government doesn't listen. The government needed something that sounded good, so they offered it up: a rosy picture. Again, it's an arrogance, a detachment, a creation of truthiness. This is a weak response. This is a Premier who was caught off guard, a Premier who took his eye off the ball. He wishes he didn't have to be here, didn't have to face this scrutiny. Instead, he would like just to sit back and hide from the judgment of British Columbians. It's an arrogance that would allow this government….

Interjection.

Deputy Speaker: Member.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members.

D. Routley: This truthiness that the government creates: "The best place on earth to live, work and play…." I was pretty fond of "Beautiful British Columbia." That gave it to the province. "Best place on earth" claims it for us, claims it by them.

They have no right. This is a government that has presided over a 360 percent increase in homelessness. They experienced a made-in-North-America housing boom that they so unfortunately coupled with a made-in-B.C. poverty boom through policies that cut back on the very people who could least afford to pay for their party. But they didn't care.

It's an arrogance. It's a detachment. They're out of touch with the communities we represent. What did good times equal in this province? Did it equal equitable service? No. It equalled service cuts, cuts that equalled closure of small schools in rural communities, closure and downgrading of hospitals. That's what we got from this government. We got an increased debt. We have off-balance-sheet accounting, as their triple-P partnerships account for at least $50 billion in increased obligation.

[1720]

So our leader, the member from Beacon Hill, promotes a five-point plan that would reinvest in the people of
[ Page 13242 ]
British Columbia, would put more money in the pockets of middle-class and low-income British Columbians and small businesses, would build for the future by investing in education and skills training and would upgrade the potential of this province, would expedite critical community and green infrastructure projects, would target relief for businesses that provide those gains, would revitalize our forestry and rural economies.

That's what we offer to this province. We offer to get rid of government waste, their government waste, the spending on ads as they remind British Columbians that they brought this crisis to British Columbia. Again, it's truthiness. It's government on the back of an envelope, made up as you go.

The carbon tax, which even Jock Finlayson from the B.C. business sector pointed out they were not consulted upon…. There was no consultation. There's no consultation with first nations. There's no consultation with rural communities. There's no consultation with the people affected by their policies.

The property tax assessment freeze is a perfect example. How could a government make such a move without consulting municipalities? How could it possibly happen? It could only happen when the government is operating with sheer arrogance that would allow it to ignore the stakeholders it represents. But that has continued, hasn't it? That has continued, along with the arrogance of the phrase "the best place on earth to live, work and play."

It is in arrogant defiance of the truth, arrogant defiance of the homelessness rates of this province, of poverty levels that have increased under this government, the loss of the common wealth, the broken promise not to sell B.C. Rail.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members. Members.

D. Routley: The arrogance of selling B.C. Rail after promising….

Interjection.

Deputy Speaker: Member. Member.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members.

D. Routley: Rather than….

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Just a minute. Sit down, please.

Members on both sides. Members.

D. Routley: Rather than a housing plan that meets the needs of British Columbians, this government offers up temporary shelter beds, shelters instead of housing. A forestry crisis they answer by saying that they're spectators, that they can only stand on the sideline.

Ferry fares that have increased over 100 percent. When they're criticized about their ferry fare increases, the Transportation Minister answers those criticisms by saying: "Boo hoo." He said, "Boo hoo," when this member told him the story of a first nations elder who had to collect pop bottles and couldn't get enough for her fare back to her home on Kuper Island. Boo hoo was the arrogant answer of this government. Boo hoo was the arrogance of a government that is out of touch with its people.

It's a sales job, and it masks a sellout. They need their ads. They had an unprecedented U.S. housing boom, and yet we lost over 50 mills and tens of thousands of jobs. They had the Olympic building program, and yet we're not training our young people and are losing skilled trades. They had low interest rates, and yet our debt has increased. They had high commodity prices, and yet we lost our mills. They had high transfer payments, and yet here we are, watching this surplus dwindle.

What should have happened in this province? What should have happened is that homelessness should have been solved. What should have happened is that 5,000 long-term beds should have been built as the government promised, but instead.…

Interjection.

Deputy Speaker: Member.

Interjections.

[1725]

Deputy Speaker: Members, Members.

Member, sit down, please.

Minister.

Interjection.

Deputy Speaker: No, I'm looking at the Minister for Housing. It's just that I need to be able to see you clearly.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: True.

Member, carry on.

D. Routley: I'm sure any of the ministers or any of the members on the government side are free to stand up and have their comments registered in Hansard, have their comments on this bill recorded. So I hope they do.

What should have happened? We should have trained so many young people. A 1 percent increase in literacy
[ Page 13243 ]
in this province equals a $1.6 billion increase in GDP. That's what it would have offered us. Instead, we spend the least of any province on community-based literacy programs.

That's the reality. That's not the truthiness that this government puts forward in its ads. That's the truth. The truth is they failed. They failed to take advantage of good times and invest in the people, the infrastructure and the economy of British Columbia.

Now, at a moment of crisis, they flee. They flee from scrutiny. They cancel a fall session until the polls drive them into a five-day mini-session — inadequate to deal with the problems of British Columbia.

What should have happened? We should have child care in this province. Does this bill do anything to invest in child care? Nothing. Does this bill even mention forestry? No. Infrastructure projects that would have benefited rural economies should have been advanced. Does this bill do that? No.

What did happen in this province? What happened instead? We saw cuts to our schools. We saw cuts to courthouses. We saw cuts to education funding in the form of downloaded costs, and the Education Minister knows it's true.

Interjections.

D. Routley: She can bleat all she likes about the amount of money per student, but we know in our communities that we have had to cut programs, close schools, and we have lost….

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: No, Member. Sit down.

D. Routley: Again, the Education Minister's truthiness is more money per student than ever before in education. But you can download as many costs as you like.

[H. Bloy in the chair.]

I think the minister should be managing my daughter's allowance. The minute the Education Minister will step up and manage my daughter's allowance perhaps. She can say: "Well, Madeline, you used to get $15 a week in allowance. Now you can have $20. But you know what, Madeline? Now you have to pay the increase in your MSP premiums. Now you have to pay the increase in your mother's" — the teacher — "teaching salary. Now you have to pay for a new accounting system. Now you have to pay and pay and pay."

Downloaded costs equal cuts to funding, but the minister's truthiness doesn't allow that. So all of those school districts that have closed schools and cancelled programs under her watch should just listen. They should just listen more carefully to the ads, I suppose, because they must be wrong. They didn't have to close those schools. They didn't have to cut those positions. No, what that they had to do was listen to the minister and her truthiness.

Of course, what did happen? We had courthouses close. We had hospitals downgraded and closed. We had triple-P seniors care projects that have failed the people they serve. We had the broken promise of 5,000 long-term care beds.

We had a government take in federal housing dollars and divert them to cover assisted living rather than provide housing for the people of British Columbia.

[1730]

Interjections.

D. Routley: The government is excited. The government is excited when we talk about what they've done, aren't they? They're a little bit disturbed by the outcome of what they've done. Forestry crisis, seniors care crisis, child poverty on the march, homelessness growing, the failure to provide the 5,000 long-term beds they promised, the sale of B.C. Rail, 100 percent increases in coastal ferry rates — that's what they've delivered.

That's what they've delivered. They haven't delivered on their promise, because they're arrogant, and they never intended to. They never intended to, and they never intended to bring this House back for the fall when they brought closure to those bills and cancelled this fall session. Now they're driven back to provide this piece of inadequacy.

We would have provided a far more expansive program of relief to this province. We would have reinvested in the people of British Columbia — their education, their housing, their environment. But instead we get a bill that doesn't even mention the forest industry, that doesn't even mention homelessness and housing. How unfortunate. How unfortunate.

So even now, the update that the Finance Minister offers us, we all know, is stale-dated. Even now, we know that this arrogant claim of "the best place to live, work and play" is nothing but a boast. As they boast those things and fail to recognize in this bill that we lead the country in child poverty yet again, as we hear those boasts every night, ad after ad, tens of millions of dollars being spent, none of it accounted for in this update…. As that happens, we're reminded that we lead the country in child poverty.

That's the truth. That's not the government's truthiness. What are they offering as a housing program? They offer homelessness beds. What do they offer to a forest industry in crisis that has lost over 50 mills and tens of thousands of jobs? Not a word. Not a word. Not a word.

What do we offer to the people of British Columbia — rural communities impacted by their failed forest policies
[ Page 13244 ]
and their failed social policies? No plan. There's no plan here. There's no thought given to the people who have suffered for so many years. A made-in-North-America housing boom that the B.C. Liberal government coupled with a made-in-B.C. poverty boom. On and on it goes.

The good times have equalled cuts. What will the bad times offer us? The update didn't offer us anything. This bill offers us nothing. Instead we get government on the back of an envelope. We get sloganism. We get sloganism. Instead of 5,000 long-term care beds, we get broken promises.

The government came to my community and promised, when they brought their triple-P partnership of seniors care into our community, that none of the public facilities would be closed. Well, two days after the postings at that new private facility were closed, they announced the closure of the public facility, Cowichan Lodge. Another broken promise. Another broken promise.

While we support relief to the people of B.C., we want a more thoughtful approach. We want a more comprehensive approach. We want an approach that doesn't leave out those people who have been vulnerable, who have been left on the sidelines by this government.

[1735]

So as the rest of the country faces the reality more clearly, as the American government, the new U.S. President, faces the crisis in its wholeness, this government offers us the rosy picture. They say, "Canada will likely avoid a recession" — 1.1 percent growth — on the same day that the federal government acknowledges that we're in recession. A defiance of truth. A defiance of truth — another B.C. Liberal piece of truthiness, made up as they go.

Whatever they need. Change the rules of the game. Change the rules of the game in the middle of the game.

What should have happened in this province over the last five years is that we should have had a reinvestment in our education system. Instead we saw training, apprenticeships and that system demolished, torn apart. Now, I'm sure, we'll find out that things are even worse than even the stakeholders expect.

What happened? We had cuts to our schools. We had cuts to courthouses. We had cuts to hospitals. We had a forestry crisis during an unprecedented U.S. housing boom.

We have a seniors care crisis that leaves thousands of seniors without care, and what does the Health Minister do? He runs and hides. He runs and hides from the truth that he himself has dislocated so many British Columbian seniors after he broke his promise to provide 5,000 long-term beds.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members. Members.

Please continue, Member.

D. Routley: The Minister of Health seems rather irritated by having to face the truth of the.… The fact that he has let down the seniors of British Columbia. The fact that waiting lists have grown under his watch. The fact that he has closed hospitals at the expense of the health of British Columbia's communities. The fact that his health authorities are in chaos and disarray. That is…

Deputy Speaker: Please direct all your comments through the Chair.

D. Routley: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

…what this Health Minister has failed to do.

The Housing Minister offers up homeless shelters and homeless beds in place of a housing plan after this government cancelled Housing B.C. Yes, that is a loss that British Columbia has faced every day in our communities, but the government insists through its ads, through its own truthiness, that that's not the case — that it's still the best place to live, work and play.

Well, Mr. Speaker, I think you should come to Cowichan Valley and talk to some of the people who live homeless under the bridges and in the parks. They expected more from this government's reaction to this crisis. They expected more from this government's reaction to what it claimed was a boom, and yet that boom was built on the backs of British Columbians who had their services cut. That boom was built on the backs of those who lost their hospitals, who lost their senior care facilities, who lost their child care under this government. That's the reality. It's not truthiness; that's truth.

That's not government by slogan. That's the raw truth that British Columbians face every day. Every day they wake up and realize that their kids have a lower standard in their schools, that their classrooms are full of special needs students, in defiance of what the government promised through Bill 33. Is that provided for anywhere in this act? I don't think so.

The minimal steps that the government has taken will be supported, but British Columbians expect more. British Columbians expect more from their government. They expect more than just a back-of-an-envelope decision to freeze property tax assessments that does nothing for their property taxes, that does nothing but complicate the system. It is an intervention in a marketplace mechanism. That's the reality. The government has failed. The government has failed.

Why did the government not call us back for the fall session? Why? Was there nothing to do? Why did they bring closure on those bills at the end of the last session and only call us back now, now that polling tells them that their political skins are on the line?

[1740]

Because they don't care about British Columbians. Because they are arrogant enough to cancel the session
[ Page 13245 ]
and only respond with a half-boiled, half-baked plan at the last minute, at the very last minute.

That is the truth, and the truth hurts British Columbians as much as it hurts this government because we're the ones who live with that truth. We're the ones who live with the lack of housing. I don't know whether they're paying attention to who is coming through the doors of their constituency offices, but the people who come through mine are looking for housing, are looking for seniors care, are looking for child care. They're not looking for cuts. This government has provided cuts during good times. Now that we face bad times, what will we get from them? One can only wonder.

So we have only a few measures that will support British Columbians, but those few measures — as weak as they are — will get our support.

Deputy Speaker: Member for Okanagan-Westside, if I could remind the member to direct all comments through the Chair.

R. Thorpe: Thank you very much for that guidance. Guidance is always appreciated.

So we're in this House today, and we're debating Bill 45, Economic Incentive and Stabilization Statutes Amendment Act. All that we have heard is rhetoric of the nth degree. You know, when reality sets in, I don't know how they're going to rationalize it within their own being. I believe very strongly that they are going to vote in favour of this bill, because they do not have the courage not to put the tax reductions in the individuals' pockets that they represent.

Although, Mr. Speaker, as you know and as everyone in this House knows, they have done that 103 times. So 103 times the NDP have voted against putting more money in people's pockets in British Columbia. We have stood on the side of British Columbians because we believe that money is much more powerful in individual British Columbians' pockets and hands than in big government that they espouse. That's what we believe in.

This is also about giving British Columbians the opportunity to make sure that their money is safe. That is why one of the key elements of this bill is making sure that unlimited deposit insurance for deposits with credit unions in British Columbia…. People that deal with credit unions can feel comfortable that their money is safe in British Columbia. We stand for that. Apparently, they stand against that.

Also, you know, we hear the comments from the other side of the House. We hear about the rhetoric from the other side. They mock us moving forward and having a new pension opportunity for British Columbians that don't have one. They mock that. But you know what? They'll vote for it because they don't have the courage. They have the courage of cheap talk, but when it comes to potential votes, they will fold like deck chairs on the Titanic. That's what they'll do over there.

As I said earlier with respect to personal income taxes, this bill accelerates those personal income tax reductions which were to come in, in 2009. They are now being moved forward, and $144 million will be put in the pockets of British Columbians so that they can decide how to look after their family.

[1745]

As in the past, they voted against this 103 times, but I have the suspicion that they're going to vote for it this time. They're going to vote for it this time. British Columbians making $111,000 and less pay the lowest personal income tax of any jurisdiction in Canada — right here in British Columbia.

We hear the member from Cowichan get up and talk about forestry. We hear him talk about forestry, and yet he will not acknowledge the efforts that have been taking place in China and Western Forest Products in getting those orders. He just dismisses that. He dismisses the workers in his own riding. What kind of representation is that? It's shameful.

Interjection.

R. Thorpe: We know you don't know what it means. But anyhow, that's another issue.

Mr. Speaker, they talk about forest communities. And yet they are against us reducing the school taxes in those communities to benefit those mills, the pulp mills and the sawmills — $115 million over the next three years. They say they're against it, but they'll vote for it. They'll vote for it.

They say they're for small communities, they say they're for the forest sector, they say they're for the pulp sector, and then they stand up in this House and tell us the tax reductions for the school taxes are wrong. But yet they're going to vote for it. You know what? You just really never know what they're going to do from minute to minute, because they change their minds all of the time.

That's why British Columbians have no faith in them. They know what they did in 1972 to the province of British Columbia. They know what they did to British Columbia in 1991 through to 2001. British Columbians know that. They took us from number one to ten — just by those folks over there being on this side.

And yes, there will be an election on May 12 of next year, but British Columbians know that the leadership is on this side of the aisle for driving an economy forward. That's why British Columbia has led Canada in all job creation. That's why British Columbia has led Canada in regulatory reform. That's why British Columbia has led Canada in the introduction of BizPaL across the province of British Columbia.

British Columbia has shown the rest of Canada that with strong leadership, we can achieve the number one
[ Page 13246 ]
position. That's what we've done. And yet these folks over here are against that. I never could understand. I couldn't understand when I was in opposition, and I still can't understand why, today, they're happier when people aren't working. I don't get it. We're for jobs. Apparently they're against jobs. That's what we're for, and we're for them throughout British Columbia.

This bill has accelerated tax relief for small business. For small business, effective December 1, 2008, the tax rate will be 2½ percent. When we formed government the threshold for small business tax was $200,000, and the tax rate was 4½ percent. What we've done in those short few years is take the threshold up to $400,000 and accelerate the tax rate reductions to 2½ percent this December, putting millions and millions of dollars into the backbone of the province of British Columbia's small business.

Members over there laugh. You know, $146 million more into the coffers of small business in British Columbia who create about a million jobs in British Columbia….

It's important to small business that this bill goes through. I know we'll vote for it, because we're for small business. I know we'll vote for it, because we're for jobs in small business. I know that we'll support it, because we believe in small business and them having the right to make the decisions.

Now, these folks over here 103 times have voted against tax reductions. We voted for them. They voted against job creation. We voted for it. But this time, because it's only a few months to May, they're now going to vote for it. But people are going to see through that hypocrisy. They're going to see through that hypocrisy.

An Hon. Member: I don't think they'll vote for it.

[1750]

R. Thorpe: I think they will. I think they will.

One of the things that we heard as we travelled around the province of British Columbia had to do with respect to the PST and the commission that they get. Some members on that side ridicule that doubling the commission isn't very much.

Well, it's $1,200 for every filer in the province of British Columbia, and it's $60 million in the pockets of those filers throughout British Columbia so that they can make those decisions. That's important. That's what this side stands for. This side over here, the NDP, stands for big government and keeping their money away from them. We're for giving it back because we know that they can create more and more jobs.

We've seen unprecedented growth with respect to public infrastructure in the province of British Columbia, and earlier today I heard members on that side being critical of the new Canada line. I thought that was a side of the House that always tells British Columbians: "Well, you know, we're for public transit. We want to reduce greenhouse gases." Then they stand up in this House and slag the new Canada line in Vancouver. How can they be so hypocritical? How can they be so…?

Interjection.

R. Thorpe: Oh, they're the NDP. Thank you very much for reminding me of that.

I know some of the members over there say: "Well, there's not a plan on infrastructure." You know, when you're going to spend hundreds of millions of dollars, unlike that side, you actually don't do that on the back of a napkin. You actually do it in a thoughtful way. You also make sure that you talk to every region of the province of British Columbia. You talk to communities; you talk to individuals.

I can tell you that when that plan and details are released in the very near future, British Columbians are going to say, "That's why British Columbia is first; they're putting our communities and they're putting our infrastructure above all political things," because it's about growing British Columbia. It's about providing throughout British Columbia the infrastructure needed, and our government is going to do that.

I've heard some members over there. Sometimes I wonder if you can ever, ever please the NDP. I don't think you can. The Premier, showing leadership, talks about having heard about the coastal communities and the impact of ferry fees.

Interjections.

R. Thorpe: You know, I would think if there was one member in this House that would say thank you, it might be one of the members that's chirping over there right now. Ferry fees are going to be reduced by 33 percent — 33 percent for December and January. You know what, Mr. Speaker? They don't think that's good.

Now, there used to be somebody on that side of the House…. When he was on this side of the House he said: "We're on your side." They're on no one's side over there. The only side they're on is driving down the economy of British Columbia, losing jobs in British Columbia. It makes no sense. Some of the things that they get up and talk about make no sense.

They're not for tax cuts, but they're going to vote for tax cuts. They want people unemployed; they say they're for jobs. It doesn't work. You can't get an equal sign in between their statements and their logic.

Apparently the member wasn't here when I talked about tax reductions for forest industries and putting $115 million back into those by reducing 50 percent to school property taxes in those communities throughout British Columbia so that pulp mills and sawmills can have that money in their pockets.

I know they have to say: "Oh, there's a three-hour time difference between Victoria and Ottawa. I wonder what
[ Page 13247 ]
Jack wants us to do today. I wonder what Jack wants us to do today."

They talk about supporting the forest industry, but has any one of them taken on Jack Layton and said: "What about fairness for forest workers in British Columbia versus the auto workers in Ontario?" No, they don't have the courage to stand up to Jack Layton because he leads their party.

I know that there'll be some smirks and noise over there, but we're going to have…. A "New North" economic summit will be organized in January in Prince George where people can get together and focus on unique opportunities and challenges in the northern region that drive the economy and create jobs. There's also going to be a two-day economic summit in Vancouver in late January to look at ways of capitalizing as we move forward.

[1755]

You know, as we've done in the past working with British Columbians, we're committed to continuing to do that so that we can lead Canada in job creation, so that we can continue to maintain our fiscal health — because there's a difference.

There obviously is a difference between this side of the House and that side of the House. They have never understood the need for a strong economy — a strong economy that creates jobs, that makes healthy communities, that provides resources to fund education, health care, advanced education and for those truly in need.

They talk over there about caring about people. It wasn't that side that increased payments to those in need. It was this side. It wasn't that side that created shelters 24 hours a day. It was this side.

So, you know, we have a lot of rhetoric over there, a lot of rhetoric, but we don't have much result, and the facts certainly don't stand on their side. They stand on this side for delivering results to British Columbians.

Deputy Speaker: I would like to remind all members that to make comment in the House, you must be in your own seat. Please continue.

R. Thorpe: Education is a cornerstone for our children and grandchildren. I'm proud that my daughter is a teacher in British Columbia, and I'm proud that my grandson is a student in British Columbia. I'm proud that my wife — my wife — goes into schools and volunteers to help with literacy, because you know what? When we work together, we all have a responsibility to look after our children and our grandchildren. We are committed to doing that.

One of the greatest things that I've enjoyed in my 13 years in this House is StrongStart, a program known as StrongStart. It's a fantastic program, and I'm sure the member across the way is very proud of the StrongStart that he has in Powell River, which I had the pleasure of opening one. Now….

N. Simons: In Powell River? You were there?

R. Thorpe: I was there, and you weren't, Member. You were out of town, as usual. But, Mr. Speaker….

Deputy Speaker: Please direct your comments through the Chair.

R. Thorpe: I thought I was, Mr. Speaker. I thought I did; I'm sorry if I didn't. I thought I said: "Up through you, back down to Powell River."

But anyhow, StrongStarts are unbelievable resources brought to British Columbian children by my good friend and colleague. The Minister of Education has had the vision to deliver that need for our students throughout the province of British Columbia — 170 StrongStart schools now and going to be 400 throughout the province of British Columbia.

Then we hear the member from Cowichan talk about education funding. Well, we know he's an expert on education, but funding has increased each and every year since we have been the government to the highest on record per-pupil funding in the history of the province of British Columbia. That is a fact, Mr. Speaker.

Then we talk about health care. I can recall that when I came to this House, the budget for health care was $8.7 billion. Now — approaching $14.5 billion. That comes from a strong economy. It comes from a commitment to serving those that need it in their communities.

Yet, you know, it's actually discouraging to hear members on the other side mislead British Columbians by the fact that they stand up and say there have been cuts to health care. They know the truth, and, Mr. Speaker, you would think all members in here, being honourable, would speak the truth.

[1800]

But let me talk about capital investments. I believe the NDP promised Abbotsford a hospital for some ten years. Did they deliver? No, they did not. Who delivered? This Health Minister, this government, because of a strong economy.

Who's delivering the most expansive health care program in the history of the Okanagan? Announcement in Vernon and Kelowna — $425 million for new facilities in Kelowna and Vernon. It's unheard of. Strong economy. Financial resources invested back what British Columbians need: health care.

We've got the Gord and Leslie Diamond ambulatory care facility in Vancouver. We've got the new hospital in Shuswap. We've got 26 new beds in Eagle Ridge Hospital in Port Moody. We've got a new hospital going in Fort St. John. We've got an excess of $300 million investment in the Royal Jubilee Hospital here in Victoria.

You know, Mr. Speaker, there are those in our society that really need our assistance and are assisted in residential care facilities, new beds — over 5,600 throughout the province of British Columbia, including Revelstoke.
[ Page 13248 ]
I cannot believe it, but that member will not stand up in this House and tell people about the new investments in senior care in his community. I don't know why he wouldn't be proud of that. I don't know why.

We have worked extensively with British Columbians, and we can't say thanks to British Columbians enough for their commitment to the province, for working together with our government. It's only by all of us working together in every community in British Columbia….

I had the opportunity in the summer to travel with my colleague the Minister of Education through the south Okanagan and Similkameen area, and you know, just going to listen to folks in communities….

Interjections.

R. Thorpe: I know it's easy for the members on the other side to be against everything. They're always negative. They're always pessimistic, and they never want people to get ahead. I don't understand why they don't want to get ahead.

But the leader wants to burden small business in British Columbia with a $400 million new cost of doing business. That will break the back of small business in British Columbia. That will destroy the million jobs in the small business sector. But you know, that's not going to happen. That's not going to happen.

The other thing, the other point that they dodge and they weave, is their position on carbon tax. Yet we know from their own website that they're going to add a $1.5 billion tax burden on British Columbians.

Earlier today we heard the Finance critic in here giving a speech. I don't know if anyone saw the Globe and Mail today, but apparently in the Globe and Mail the Finance critic says: "Oh, no. We're going to keep the carbon tax now. You know the economic situation. We think we'll keep it now." So that's how they do it. Somebody asks them a question. They give an answer. That's how they make their policy — just like that, on the fly.

They were always against an initiative of ours to cut red tape, even when we said that we would not compromise the environment or health or safety. The NDP were adding over 4,000 regulations a year. If they had stayed in power, today we would have 404,000 regulations in the province of British Columbia. But British Columbians took a different road.

We believe in simplification and streamlining but not compromising the environment or safety or health. Working together with British Columbians, we have reduced red tape by 42.8 percent, or 164,000 regulations.

[1805]

I hear the rhetoric from the other side about the youth. Just look at the facts. Under the NDP…. Just so I don't get this wrong, let me pick this up and read it. "In 2000, youth unemployment was 17.4 percent." And who was the government? The NDP. But you know, it's better if people aren't working because then they can control their lives a little bit better. It has now fallen to 7.6 percent. It's about jobs and opportunities for young British Columbians. That's what this is about.

Mr. Speaker, this bill is about continuing the economic growth in British Columbia — stabilizing. Read the title of the bill: "Stabilization." You know, on this side of the House, we are going to work very, very hard with British Columbians and put every effort our government can into working with them to make sure the successes that they have achieved and that British Columbia has had accrued to it stays here. So we're going to reduce their taxes; we're going to reduce small business taxes.

I heard members making snickerings about B.C. Assessment and having to pay back stuff. You know what? It's unfortunate they made those comments because that shows they actually haven't read the bill. They don't understand the bill. This is actually about giving those British Columbians who choose the tax deferment program…. It's a tax deferment program which is the leadership tax deferment province in the whole country, right here again in British Columbia, so that folks do not have to pay back until they decide to sell their home.

Again, this side, we stand to work with those British Columbians. We stand to work with those seniors that have had their homes by the lakes for a long, long time and have seen the value go up and up and up. If they choose tax deferment, they receive an unbelievably low interest rate. Interest is calculated on the simple method, not a compound method, and they don't have to pay that money back to British Columbia until they decide to sell the home.

This bill gives other British Columbians who choose it the opportunity to defer their taxes for up to two years should they choose to do it. It's about this side of the House having confidence in British Columbians by putting more money in their pockets so that they can decide what they want to do with that money, to make choices for what they want to do with their property taxes, to give sawmills and pulp mills throughout British Columbia a 50 percent reduction in their school taxes. This is what this is about.

On this side of the House, we know that we have voted for tax reductions 103 times, and we're going to continue to vote for tax reductions, to vote for putting money in British Columbians' pockets. Whether they be individual workers or whether they be small business owners or small business workers, we're for putting the money in their pocket. The record…. And all the NDP members over there know that they voted 103 times against that. But now they've got themselves in a box. They've got themselves in a box. "Now, can we really vote against this with an election coming up?"

If you listen to those who have spoken so far, you'd have to believe they're going to, but the orders have come down, and they don't even have a free vote on that side of the House anymore. They'll be standing up in
[ Page 13249 ]
this House, and they'll be voting to put the tax reductions through.

I believe strongly they're entitled to their opinion. But why can't they be honest to British Columbians and say that they're going to vote for this? If they care about British Columbians, take that uncertainty out of the air today as the Finance critic did, but apparently he's the only one that said it so far today.

What? Did the rest of the people not get the talking notes? I don't know. But let's give British Columbians some confidence that they're going to have more money in their pockets at the end of the day. And why don't we all vote for it? We voted consistently for it. It's about time they've seen the light, and now they'll vote for it.

[1810]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank you very much for the opportunity to speak here. Our side stands for tax reduction, job creation, a strong economy, investing in health care and education, and helping those truly in need throughout the province of British Columbia.

We are committed to working on behalf of all British Columbians, and this side is going to keep working and working so the growth and success of British Columbia continues tomorrow, the next day, and into the future and past May 12, 2009, when this side returns again as the government of British Columbia.

N. Simons: You know, sometimes sitting in the House listening to members from the government side speak…. It's partly entertaining, but at the same time, it's rather disillusioning because of the debasing of the debate to such a level that almost makes it…. You need another half hour just to explain what he said, because the former minister and member for Okanagan-Westside continually repeats the issues around how many times we voted for or against anything.

What we're trying to debate here is what's been called the Economic Incentive and Stabilization Statutes Amendment Act, 2008. We're in second reading, and we're supposed to discuss the merits, the bill in general. I'm just concerned that this is….

All that the government side wants to talk about is how good they are and how they think they're good. They want to congratulate each other and slap each other on the back and say, "Aren't we doing a fine job?" — mumbling greedily or giddily to themselves.

Wait a minute. That sounds a little bit arrogant. As they've been doing throughout this debate, every time we mention the word arrogant, they click their glass. So obviously, they know that the message of arrogance in this government is getting close to the truth, and they're finding it a little bit discomforting to know that in fact British Columbians in general have found that this government is acting more and more arrogantly as they proceed.

Well, this is the time not to be arrogant. This is a time when you have to take stock of the situation in British Columbia and put your arrogance aside and actually think about what would be in the best interests of British Columbians. My concern — and I'm sure that members from the other side will agree — is that…. Here we are in 2008. We have had the benefit of some very favourable economic winds in the world. We have suddenly come to this point where the darkness and the cold come, and we have found ourselves without the necessary plans. We have not made the necessary plans.

We are starting what could be an economic recession, which has been acknowledged by some, in a position where our social programs and the infrastructure that supports vulnerable people in our province is at an all-time low.

How is it that we've come through what they claim to be a golden decade…? We've come through this golden decade only to arrive at a place where the instability in the world…. We're in a place where we're not even sure if there's solid, firm ground under our feet, and all they can do is say: "Oh, we've got a ten-point plan. Let's flash it on television and tell the people of British Columbia what we're going to do in order to address the worldwide economic downturn."

I might point out that I will for the second time, to correct the member from Okanagan-Westside, thank the Premier for reinstating the 6:20 ferry from Horseshoe Bay to Langdale and the 7:25 on Saturday. That, I might add, was part of that ten-point plan — the reinstatement of two ferry sailings that were cut by B.C. Ferries. I thank the Premier for intervening, for getting involved in the management of B.C. Ferries to say that the interest of the people comes before their interest. The interest of the people whom they serve is paramount.

[1815]

For the first time in the ten-point economic plan to address the woes of the economy, the reinstatement of two ferries was part of that. That was a signal to all of us that in fact, for the past seven years the government has failed to act on behalf of coastal communities, failed to get involved in B.C. Ferries, in the huge increases in fares, impacting not only residents but tourism and businesses.

They have finally acknowledged that they have a responsibility to the residents of coastal and island communities. What took them so long?

This is what I'm concerned about. We have a two-month reduction in the cost of sailing — a two-month reduction. Well, is that part of their economic projection — that we'll all be out of the woods in two months? I don't know, but I'll say this.

The people of the coastal communities still need to have attention paid to their concerns. Attention paid to their concerns includes not only attention to the ferry system and to the costs associated with living in coastal communities, which are a great generator of income for this province, but this government needs to pay attention to what people are saying across rural British Columbia in particular. That's the focus.
[ Page 13250 ]

This government has decided, in this time of economic difficulties, to have five days in this Legislature — five days — to address the issues that British Columbians are talking about — concerns over pensions, concerns over the future of their income. And really, most British Columbians are saying: how are we in this situation now? How is it possible that we are starting to deal with these issues so far behind the eight ball?

We've got the highest rate of child poverty in this country. This is not rhetoric. To correct the former Minister of Small Business and Revenue and deregulation and whatever else he was the Small Business Minister for, this is the situation that his government has put us in. We have poverty in British Columbia unlike anywhere else in the country, and here we are talking about a five-day session to talk about economic stimulus.

What happened? Why was nothing done about the poverty rate the first year we came out as the worst in the country? Then what about the second year we came out as the worst? And what about the third time?

Interjection.

N. Simons: There's a minister talking from the other side of the House who doesn't have the answers to this. In fact, most ministers on that side of the House do not have an answer to these questions.

How is it possible that homelessness…? There are people sleeping in the doorways of businesses in Sechelt. There are people living in communities in the woods outside Pender Harbour — youth, no less. There are people in the Powell River area who are couch-surfing, people who don't have shelter. Our emergency cold and wet weather shelters on the Sunshine Coast….

Well, this was not the situation five years ago, but this was the situation that came long before the current economic crisis. Was anything done about that then? No. We have the same problems that were neglected by government five years ago that are being neglected by government now, and the rhetoric that's coming from the government side is clearly an attempt to cloud the issue. The issue is the state of the province and the people's security in that province.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Mr. Speaker, I'm sure you recognize as well as everybody in this House that the number of children living in poverty is unacceptable. The number of people living on the streets in this province is unacceptable. We had a ten-point plan to address the economy. I think we needed to have a much longer session to be able to talk about a ten-point plan, perhaps to address the waiting lists for people with developmental disabilities.

The government doesn't even know how many people are waiting for services. They don't know how many people are waiting for services for social integration programs, for job-training programs, for programs to assist with day-to-day living, for residential care programs. This government doesn't know.

This government has not invested the time or energy into finding out. If they were to do so, what would happen? They would say, "Well, sorry. We have different priorities" — priorities that don't include people with developmental disabilities, programs that don't include children who are on waiting lists for early intervention programs.

I could explain that. Waiting lists for early intervention. Children who need intervention early in order to be able to catch up to other kids their age, whether it's speech and language assistance or what have you, are waiting for services.

This is something that anybody in that sector would say required the Legislative Assembly to come together to talk about a ten-point plan. There should be a ten-point plan for the people who are waiting on waiting lists, for the people who are concerned that their family life is in such dire straits that they have nowhere to turn. Government is not listening to them.

[1820]

As I said, I did thank the Premier for the reinstatement of the two ferry sailings and for the temporary reduction in fees. Those are both very welcome. I hope that they're for more than two months, because I think, otherwise, they'll be seen as more of a token as opposed to an actual commitment to the people of coastal British Columbia.

Now, the forest industry is another thing. We talk about going into difficult economic times, and we have thousands of people laid off from the forest industry. We have the concomitant result of families losing their income, families not being able to purchase things in their communities, other businesses having trouble making ends meet because of the effects of the policy in the forest industry.

It's not just me saying it, and it's not just this side of the House saying it. Everybody recognizes that, in fact, the government has let the forest industry down from the beginning. So there are a number of….

Interjection.

N. Simons: Yeah, I'm looking for signals. It's a steal or….

An Hon. Member: Deal or no deal.

N. Simons: No, no. Steal or bunt.

I would say that there are a number of priorities my constituents would like government to focus on, and I think that they're not necessarily all going to be addressed in one particular bill. The British Columbians that I speak to are saying to me that they're concerned about the future, not just for them but for their kids, for their families, for
[ Page 13251 ]
their businesses and for the social programs that look after their neighbours, that look after the people that live on reserve, that look after the people who live in poverty. Ultimately, their quality of life is affected by the way we can deal with vulnerable people in our communities.

We think about seniors. We think about the fact that in Powell River we do have a StrongStart, and I like the StrongStart. We also have half our hospital beds taken up by seniors who are unable to be moved into an extended care facility because we haven't built one. The government has said: "Yes, well, when you get 40 percent of the funding, we'll give you the rest."

We've had it for two years. We're still waiting for a facility so that the seniors who are being kept in acute care beds in the hospital can move into a place where their care will be better looked after, where the facilities are more appropriate for their particular needs, and that hasn't happened.

This is about quality of life. The government is expected to govern in order to make sure that people in our society are looked after. You know, seniors…. An example: children who are at risk for abuse or neglect.

When I hear of proudly talking about the deregulation that has occurred — 4,000 whatever; that could be a comma or a sentence — as it impacted on child welfare, yeah, there were deregulations. In fact, the Ministry for Children and Families won the deregulation sprint award. I don't know if it came with a gold medal at the time, but that ministry was given an award for deregulating faster than everyone else. You know what? That deregulation came in the form of less care in where you place a child. Absolutely.

If you look at the situation, you previously had foster….

Interjections.

N. Simons: Deregulation impacted on children in a most direct way in this province.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

N. Simons: I can tell you, I personally know how deregulation has affected children in this province. I know that the government has made some efforts to rectify some of the wrongs that they committed in their early days of overzealousness, but there's a long way to go, and it's not just in the deregulation area.

Regulations are usually put in place in order to make sure that checks and balances are dealt with and that the ultimate goal of legislation is appropriately met. When you do it willy-nilly, and you do it off the side of your desk, and you do it as part of a publicity campaign, you're bound to make errors. This government made too many errors — far too many errors — in the deregulation of our laws that protect our environment.

[1825]

We have numerous areas where people who are concerned about water quality are worried about the deregulation. People who are concerned about protecting the environment for fisheries are concerned about the deregulation. I think that they can crow about deregulation when it's not in the context of anything else. But when you look down and see where that deregulation has had an impact — you can look in the eyes of kids, and you can look at the forests, and you can look at the rivers — we know that that doesn't happen without an impact on our population and on our province.

So I would caution the members opposite about speaking so proudly on issues that perhaps they haven't understood the impact of. I'm happy to enlighten the former minister on the impacts of deregulation on social programs because I know people who have been directly impacted.

We talk about child poverty, and we talk about…. There should be a poverty-reduction plan in this province. I think that's a priority. That should be a ten-point one. We should maybe even spend five more days here in order to talk about how we are going to address poverty, because poverty doesn't just impact us now. It impacts us in the future, and everything we do now is going to have an impact on our quality of life later.

So when we find young children living in mouldy apartments in the basement suites in Surrey or wherever it is, and we find out that they don't have enough money to buy an electric space heater in order to just make it bearable, or we think that the holes…. They worry that they can't get the landlord to fix the holes in the floor because something is going to happen, and they'll be left homeless. These are threats facing young children in this province. These are threats that I've seen. I've seen families in this situation.

It's poverty. It's not a statistic. It's not a number. It's not a rate. It's a little child's tummy; it's a little child's pillow. Those are the things that are impacted by a government's action or inaction.

I would suggest that in order to meet the needs of the province of British Columbia, we're going to need more than a ten-point plan for economic revitalization. We're going to need a plan on how we are intending to use the wealth of this province to serve the most vulnerable.

N. Simons moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. R. Neufeld moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow morning.

The House adjourned at 6:28 p.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

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.

TV channel guide • Broadcast schedule

Copyright © 2008: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada

ISSN 1499-2175