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)

Wednesday, November 26, 2008

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 36, Number 3

[ Page 13313 ]

WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 26, 2008

The House met at 1:33 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Prayers.

Introductions by Members

Mr. Speaker: I understand the Premier of British Columbia has a special introduction today.

Hon. G. Campbell: I'm pleased to report that, although last Thursday I got to introduce my first grandson to the House, today I can inform the House that now I have a second grandson. We're working hard, Mr. Speaker.

Owen Gordon Campbell was born last night to Geoffrey and Kristen Campbell, and I hope that we'll all welcome him into the world.

D. Routley: I know that all of the members are proud to be….

[1335]

Mr. Speaker: I'm just going to wait one second. I don't think the mikes are working for some reason.

[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, we are going to have to have complete silence because we are going to be without the mikes for a short period of time.

Continuing with introduction of guests, the member for Cowichan-Ladysmith.

This is going to go right into question period, this complete silence. [Laughter.]

D. Routley: I know that all of us are proud to be one of less than a thousand people who have had the privilege of representing their constituencies in this place, and it gives none of us any greater pleasure than when we are able to introduce our mothers in this place. So I would like to introduce my mother, Marianne Routley.

J. Les: I would like to introduce Gillian Dolding to the House this afternoon. Gillian is a new legislative assistant in the B.C. Liberal caucus. I would like all members to make her feel welcome today.

D. Chudnovsky: Oh, it's on. I don't have to use…. Actually, I wouldn't mind doing it without the mike. I could use my teacher voice, which has been in retirement for several years, and I'm sure I can manage.

Mr. Speaker, I have a number of introductions to make today, and I hope that you'll be patient with me. I'm going to introduce to the House a number of people here from an organization called CALM, the Community Advocates for Little Mountain, who are people who live in, have lived in and are neighbours of the Little Mountain social housing community — wonderful community.

[1340]

I'd like to introduce to you Linda Shuto, Kia Salomons, Tanisha Salomons, Lauren Gill and Catherine Hembling, who are all neighbours of Little Mountain social housing; Alana Zubot, who is a former tenant; Ingrid Steenhuisen, Susan Wagner, Julie Chang and Sammy Cheng, who are currently tenants at Little Mountain social housing; Tommy Thomson, who is a former tenant; Sandy Chang, who is a tenant caregiver; and David Viseborg, who is a neighbour and a filmmaker.

I'd also like to introduce the very best constituency assistant that's ever been minted, Kate Van Meer-Mass.

Tributes

IZAAK SMITH

Hon. S. Bond: Today I would like to issue a challenge to every Member of the Legislative Assembly. We have the opportunity today to actually do something that many of us might have thought about and hoped for in times past, but we can actually do it legally today. You get a chance today, with members of British Columbia, to vote and vote often. We are down to the six final dancers in the So You Think You Can Dance Canada competition, and we have a….

Interjections.

Hon. S. Bond: Well, I can only hope the rest of the day is as congenial as this part of it.

But, in fact, we are down to the six final dancers in this national competition. It's very exciting that one of those dancers is actually from British Columbia, and from our perspective — my colleagues from Prince George–Omineca and Prince George North — even more importantly, he's from Prince George. We're very proud of him.

His name is Izaak Smith. He is 19 years old. He studied with an incredible dance studio, Judy Russell's Enchaînement Dance Centre in Prince George. He's trained in hip hop, ballet, jazz and musical theatre.

We want him to be Canada's favourite dancer. So my colleagues challenge our colleagues across the floor to help us support a British Columbia dancer to become Canada's favourite dancer.

Introductions by Members

J. Nuraney: In the gallery today we have Ryan Shotton. He's my new legislative assistant who has joined us not
[ Page 13314 ]
too long ago, and I would like the House to please make him feel very welcome.

Hon. L. Reid: I would ask this House to please join me in welcoming a dear friend and colleague. Mr. Tim Braund is in the gallery today. He and I taught together many years ago. He continues to do outstanding work as a basketballer extraordinaire, and he is continuing to do some innovative work on behalf of us in this province. I would ask the House to please make him welcome.

Hon. B. Penner: I have the pleasure today to introduce someone I've introduced before but never as Mrs. Penner. Today we're joined by my wife Daris, who is seated in the gallery, and she is joined by a friend of hers, Hondo. As well, in the gallery is somebody else from Chilliwack, Kelsey Enns, who recently started working in my office as an administrative assistant. Would the House please make them all welcome.

Hon. M. Coell: I rise to welcome to the House a very unique and valuable member of the government communications team, Richard Chambers. Richard has spent the last almost 20 years in ministers' offices and communication offices on both sides of the House. He has also spent 17 years working for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.

He joined the team here in B.C. in 1991 and is retiring. He's worked in four ministers' offices since we became government — since 2001 — and he's been instrumental in developing a number of programs. The one that comes to my mind is the B.C. cross-government disability strategy, which is the best in Canada.

Richard has made an enormous contribution to both sides of this House. He has done extraordinary work and been an incredible professional. I hope that all of us can wish him a happy, long retirement with his wife Linda and his son Fraser in the hills of Tuscany. Would the House please make him welcome.

S. Hawkins: I would like to welcome to the Legislature today Sarah Richards. She's with the B.C. Cancer Foundation, and she's the manager for the new event that B.C. Cancer Foundation has launched, the Ride to Conquer Cancer.

I'd also like to welcome Ian Speckman, who has Maple Ridge Chrysler, and he's donated the official vehicle for the Ride to Conquer Cancer. Would the House please help me make them both welcome.

[1345]

C. Richmond: I would like to introduce one of our new legislative assistants. She's a delightful young lady, a graduate of UVic, and she's from Kamloops. Please welcome Stacie Dley.

Tributes

BETTY STEVENS

C. James: It's with great sadness that I inform the House that earlier this morning greater Victoria lost one of its finest citizens. Betty Stevens, a close friend to many in this assembly and a prominent person known and loved by people across this community, succumbed to health complications she had battled many times before.

Betty lived in considerable pain and disability for several years, but her condition never changed her outlook on life. Her optimism, her strength and her kindness to her friends and her family never wavered.

Health problems also never kept Betty from an incredibly busy life. She was always looking out for others. She raised thousands of dollars each year through her union, the United Food and Commercial Workers, to find a cure for leukemia. She organized baseball tournaments to raise money to help missing children, and during her life she tirelessly supported countless worthy causes and charities.

Most of all, Betty lovingly watched over everyone. As her health declined, she redoubled her efforts to mentor and support those she believed in, particularly women in leadership positions in public life and in labour. She will be forever honoured by those she helped.

Betty grew up in this town and was an incredibly proud Victorian. She was the daughter of a Canadian naval commander and a Danish mother, and she was also very proud of working for one of Canada's oldest companies, the Hudson's Bay. Her strong sense of compassion led her to discover a lifelong passion for social justice and charity work. Most of all, Betty's humour and gift of the gab made her an amazing person. It was impossible to say no to Betty. She'll be greatly missed by many people.

She's survived by her wonderful husband Richard and her two sisters and her brother. I would ask the House to please recognize Betty's extraordinary life and pass on condolences to her family.

Introduction and
First Reading of Bills

Restoring Credibility
to Universities Act, 2008

R. Fleming presented a bill intituled Restoring Credibility to Universities Act, 2008.

R. Fleming: I move first reading of Bill M225, Restoring Credibility to Universities Act.

Motion approved.
[ Page 13315 ]

R. Fleming: Only three years ago this government passed legislation enabling British Columbia to be home to a new World Trade University. This House was advised that such an entity was part of a United Nations program to establish "a global education partnership."

That legislation anticipated and assured this House that the private university would be offering "graduate programs in trade-related fields and development programs for working international executives." Indeed, the initiative was even part of the government's 2005 election platform and, again, that year's throne speech.

It has been made known in the public realm for some time now that, in fact, the United Nations has no affinity or relationship with anyone using the terms "World Trade University," and it turns out that the World Trade University isn't even a university and has no other campuses in other parts of the world.

This is clear and known to the government. It has been three years since the legislation was first introduced, and the legitimacy of this organization has only become more questionable. The World Trade University has never opened its doors. No programs have been started, no students accepted and no degrees granted. The Degree Quality Assessment Board was set to reject the curriculum proposal and deny them the right to offer degrees.

We've seen problems in recent years with overplaced confidence in post-secondary education as a profit centre. It has come at the expense of students and our province's reputation. When private colleges like Kingston and Lansbridge were shut down, dozens of students were robbed of thousands of dollars, and the international community took notice. Korea, China and India all warned their national students about attending schools in British Columbia, and it will take time to recover from that image.

That is why I'm introducing the Restoring Credibility to Universities Act, 2008. This act will repeal Bill Pr401 in 2005, the World Trade University Canada Establishment Act. It will send the right signal to the international community that B.C. is serious about protecting foreign students. It will help restore credibility that has been lost over the past several years. This is a first step in repairing the damage that has been done to British Columbia's education brand.

[1350]

I call on members of the House to support this repeal legislation, and I ask that this bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting after today.

Bill M225, Restoring Credibility to Universities Act, 2008, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Statements
(Standing Order 25b)

SURREY COMMUNITY ASSOCIATIONS
AND TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS

D. Hayer: I have many voluntary non-profit community organizations and societies in my riding that perform a great service to our community, such as those in Fraser Heights, led by dedicated board of directors of the Fraser Heights Community Association; in Guildford, led by Guildford Partners and Rob Harris, the president; in Tynehead, led by the dedicated board of directors; in Port Kells, led by president Darlene Boyer and her directors; and in Fleetwood, led by president Rick Hart and Fleetwood Community Association.

Volunteers do great work in my constituency. I would like to thank them for the dedication and the service they provide.

These organizations discuss many issues with me, including the transportation and traffic gridlock south of the Fraser River. They would like to see us moving forward with twinning of the Port Mann Bridge, building the South Fraser perimeter road, upgrading all interchanges and underpasses on Highway 1, eight-laning the freeway from Vancouver to Langley, and extending the SkyTrain into Guildford and down the Fraser Highway to 168th Street.

They want to see these projects completed as soon as possible. They're looking forward to the completion of transportation projects already underway, such as the four-laning of 176th Street, Pacific Highway, Fraser Highway, Highway 10, opening up the Golden Ears bridge and completion of the 156th Street underpass and streamlining the traffic flows that currently jam up Guildford and Fraser Heights when they get going on to Port Mann Bridge. They are looking forward to more transit buses and more SkyTrain extension throughout Surrey.

All these projects will be great for the commuters and great for Surrey residents, so our community and our business can prosper. I would like the House to join me in congratulating and thanking all the members of all those community organizations, who work so hard to thank our community, to work for them and to make sure our place is safer and the best place to live, work and do business in.

BILL MORRISON

R. Fleming: I rise today to pay tribute to a man who spent his working life shaping an industry vital to our city and this province. Bill Morrison spent most of his adult life building ships on Canada's west coast. He began his career on the Clyde in Scotland in the 1950s, and then he moved himself and his family to Canada and to the west coast in 1966 to work at what was once
[ Page 13316 ]
the world's third-largest shipyard, the Esquimalt docks and Yarrows Ltd.

Bill told me that he learned about solidarity as a young apprentice. One morning a manager who didn't like Bill suspended him for fetching tea for the older fellows. He said — and I won't try a Scottish accent: "Son, get your things and head out the gate. Don't come back for a month." He couldn't believe how unreasonable this treatment was, but before Bill could walk the mile to the gate, the security guard began waving his arms, yelling for him to go back to the shops. When Bill looked over his shoulder, he saw 800 shipyarders walking out behind him, and the suspension was indeed deemed unreasonable very quickly.

Arriving in Canada, Bill worked at HMC dockyard in the 1970s. He worked at Yarrows and Versatile Pacific Shipyards in the 1980s. Respected by his members, he served as president of Local 191 for 12 years before becoming business manager for the boilermakers in June 1993, a position he held for 15 distinguished years.

Bill is always confident in the skills of B.C. workers and an industry he believes is among the best in the world. He kept his organization strong, thanks to his strong management skills and tight Scottish pockets. He was able to hang on to staff in part by reminding his members he couldn't type.

Bill repaired and built hundreds of ships right here in Victoria, working with west coast companies. He and his members successfully competed with the world. Before his retirement, Bill helped ink contracts for the west coast as part of the federal government's DND and coastal refit program to bring hundreds of millions of dollars to this community and jobs for his members.

Will the House please join me in thanking Bill for his contributions and wish him well in retirement.

[1355]

The RIDE TO CONQUER CANCER

S. Hawkins: The B.C. Cancer Foundation has launched The Ride to Conquer Cancer. I want to thank all of my colleagues from both sides of the House and the Premier, who is the honorary chair of this ride, for throwing their support behind this event. I want to thank the member for Malahat–Juan de Fuca for helping to organize the show of support on the steps of the Legislature today. All the funds raised from The Ride to Conquer Cancer will benefit the B.C. Cancer Agency.

B.C. has the lowest incidence and mortality rates for cancer occurrence in Canada. We are the envy of the world because we have the best cancer outcomes. We've attracted the best and brightest people in cancer care to B.C. I feel especially grateful because I and others sitting here with me have benefited from the world-class treatment and research being conducted by them.

The Ride to Conquer Cancer is history-making. We will ride — we will cycle — for two days from Vancouver to Seattle next June 20 and 21, and believe me, if I can do it, anyone can. We're going to have a lot of support. It sounds like a lot, but it is meant to be that. The conquest of cancer is a monumental task, and it will take all of us working together to conquer cancer.

I ask everyone to join me and hundreds of others on The Ride to Conquer Cancer. All you need is some motivation, a bike and a helmet. Go to conquercancer.ca and register for the ride. I'm going to ride to give hope to others, so they, too, can have the same chance I did to survive cancer. I'm going to ride in memory of all those who bravely fought and aren't here with us today, and I'm going to ride because I believe one can make an impact and thousands can conquer cancer.

AYRE MANOR LODGE

J. Horgan: All of us in this chamber have stories of local volunteers driven to community involvement and cooperation, and I submit to members today a story from Sooke, in my constituency, that speaks to foresight, perseverance and commitment.

When people come up with a good idea, they usually don't wait 40 years to see it come to fruition, but in 1968 — when the member for Vancouver-Burrard was just not even a twinkle, I'm certain — a group of local residents bought some land in the heart of Sooke with the view of building supportive housing for seniors as the plan progressed and as money became available.

This past September, 40 years after the land was purchased, Ayre Manor was opened in the district of Sooke. Ayre Manor provides a campus-of-care model that offers independent housing, assisted living and complex care all in one location. The site provides 25 assisted living apartments and 32 residential care beds.

Of course, there's no shortage of agencies and individuals to acknowledge for the concept and eventual completion of this project. Government agencies like the Vancouver Island Health Authority, Independent Living B.C., the capital regional district, the district of Sooke and many, many other organizations and individuals made this campus of care possible.

But the most important players in the long process have been the compassionate and committed volunteers of the Sooke Elderly Citizens Housing Society, who over the course of four decades never lost sight of the importance of having a place where seniors in Sooke could spend their golden years at home in the community that they built, surrounded by familiar landscapes and friendly neighbours.

The completion of Ayre Manor is cause for local celebration, but it also serves as a symbol to other communities of the power of collective effort to achieve common objectives. I salute the citizens of Sooke, past
[ Page 13317 ]
and present, for their initiative and effort to expand health care services on the west coast of Vancouver Island.

As I look over at the Minister of Health, I say: next stop, a primary care facility to complement Ayre Manor.

AGA KHAN

J. Nuraney: On Tuesday some 25,000 Shia Ismaili Muslims opened their hearts and welcomed their spiritual leader, His Highness the Aga Khan, to Vancouver.

The visit of His Highness marked the celebration of his 50 years of leadership. It was the golden jubilee of the Imamat. His Highness is the 49th direct descendant of Prophet Muhammad — peace be upon him — through his daughter Fatima and son-in-law Imam Ali.

The Aga Khan has emphasized the view of Islam as a thinking spiritual faith, one that teaches compassion and tolerance and upholds the dignity of man, Allah's noblest creation. In the Shia tradition of Islam, it is the mandate of the imam of the time to safeguard the individual's right to personal intellectual search and to give practical expression to the ethical vision of society. The Islamic message inspires that.

[1400]

As part of the commemoration of His Highness the Aga Khan's golden jubilee, which began on the 11th of July, 2007, he has been paying official visits to some 35 countries, using these occasions to recognize the friendship and longstanding support of leaders of states, governments and other partners in the work of the Ismaili Imamat and to set the direction for the future, including the launching and laying of foundations for major initiatives and programs.

Our Premier had the opportunity to meet with His Highness, and my community really appreciates that gesture. The Shia Ismaili Muslim community of British Columbia takes great pride in offering homage and considered themselves fortunate to have participated in the celebration of the golden jubilee.

WOMEN'S BRANCH OF
CANADIAN LEGION

M. Karagianis: Victoria's Ex-Service Women's Branch 182 of the Royal Canadian Legion is one of only four women veterans branches in Canada. Fifteen women returning to civilian life after World War II decided to continue the comradeship and sense of belonging they had during the war. Denied membership in the Royal Canadian Legion, they were told they could join the ladies auxiliary. But the women persisted in their fight to be considered true veterans, and in 1945 they were granted their charter.

During World War II, more than 48,000 Canadian women and 500,000 British women volunteered or were called up to release men to fight. Some Canadian women stayed here, but others served on the front lines. One spent two years in the chemical warfare division in Europe. Another was a D-Day photographer. Some were nursing sisters in the field hospitals on the front lines. Others were cooks, orderlies or drivers, or they worked in codes and ciphers. My auntie Zoe was one of those, and bragged often about being a spy during the war.

The Ex-Service Women's Branch became a place to share memories and continue useful work in the community, raising fund for veterans and other useful causes. Always a part of Remembrance Day, they recently purchased two plaques in Langford honouring women veterans and nursing sisters in World War II.

Barbara Fosdick has been the president of the branch for five years. She was 17 when she joined the British Army working on anti-aircraft batteries during the Blitz. She served until 1946, then came to Canada in 1947 and married a Canadian veteran.

Over 63 years, the members have all but disappeared now, and sadly, the branch will close at the end of 2008. I ask the House to please help me in recognizing these amazing women.

Oral Questions

IMPLEMENTATION OF CHILD PROTECTION
REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS

C. James: It's been nine months since the Representative for Children and Youth made specific recommendations to protect vulnerable children with special needs, and today the representative released an update on the government's progress. Here's what she had to say. On wait-lists, no progress. On monitoring outcomes, no progress. On aboriginal children, limited progress. On support for families, limited progress.

My question is to the Minister of Children and Families. Why does he think it's acceptable that in the last nine months, he has made limited or no progress on steps to protect vulnerable children in this province?

Hon. T. Christensen: Well, every member in this House is concerned about children and youth across our province and, in particular, children and youth with special needs and their families, and we work hard to develop the supports that are going to help them with the challenges that they face.

I think it's important to reflect on the work that has been done since 2001. We've almost tripled the funding within MCFD to support children and youth with special needs. What that's allowed is for thousands more children across our province to receive services and their families to be supported. For children with autism, we've moved from only a few hundred children being
[ Page 13318 ]
supported to over 5,000 children and youth across our province receiving support, and increased funding there 12-fold.

We are responding to the needs that are identified for children and youth with special needs. We appreciate the work done by the Representative for Children and Youth. We take her report seriously. We will be looking very closely at this update and continuing to work to improve those services across our province.

[1405]

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has a supplemental.

C. James: Last February when these recommendations were made, we heard from the minister that he welcomed the recommendations. The piece that's missing from this government is action, and the children's representative made that very clear today.

There has been little or no progress from the government on these recommendations. We certainly found that the government has lots of money to be able to spend on advertising campaigns. They certainly found the money within that ministry to fix up their boardroom. But when it comes to vulnerable children, it's another story altogether.

You only need to take a look at the child poverty rates in this province to know that it's not a priority of this government. For the fifth year in a row British Columbia has the worst child poverty rate in this country.

So my question, again, is to the Minister for Children and Families. When will he stop brushing aside the representative's recommendations, start listening to the criticism and, most importantly, take action on behalf of these vulnerable children?

Hon. T. Christensen: When we became government, a family who suspected their child may have autism was waiting a year and a half for an assessment. That's now down to an average of five to seven months. Once the assessment is done, funding flows immediately to assist that child and that family. That's action. That's responding to the needs of British Columbians.

This is the first government in the history of this province to actually introduce universal screening for vision and dental and hearing for all babies born in this province. It's the type of action that helps us to identify, early on, the needs of children so that we're in a position to respond to those needs. It's the type of action that's necessary. It's the type of action that this government has followed through on and is committed to and will continue to meet the needs of those children.

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has a further supplemental.

C. James: There are a few pieces of this government's record that the minister left out. They cut the Ministry of Children and Families budget, eliminated front-line workers, eliminated the independent Children's Commission. It took a tragedy for this government to be forced to put back an independent children's representative — a tragedy in this province.

But we see what we always see from this government. Instead of learning from their mistakes, they brush aside the criticism and try and pretend that everything is fine. Well, it's not fine.

This minister said last February that he would take action. The representative's report is very clear — little or no progress made. So my question is to the Premier. What is it going to take before this government finally recognizes that vulnerable children need support and need action today from this government?

Hon. T. Christensen: You know, I know the one thing that children and families across our province don't need is the overinflated righteousness of the Leader of the Opposition.

This is a government that has…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. T. Christensen: …more funding committed to the support of children and youth with special needs and their families than ever before in the history of this province.

Every time one of those budgets has been put forward, every member of the House on that side — every member of that opposition — has voted against those budgets. Those members need to stand up and vote in favour of funding for children and youth with special needs. They need to get behind supporting those children and work forward and provide a plan to do that.

The Leader of the Opposition announces a billion dollars in spending at the end of October — not a cent there for children and families across our province. This is a government…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. T. Christensen: …that sets goals. We then work to meet those goals, and we invest in meeting the needs of children and families across our province.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

[1410]
[ Page 13319 ]

J. McGinn: It has been almost four years since the Premier said that he was going to provide the best support to special needs children anywhere in North America. But as report after report has shown, he has done just the opposite.

The representative is quite clear when she says: "Of particular concern is interruption of planned activities due to the transfer of children's services from CLBC to MCFD."

My question again is to the Minister of Children and Families. Why does he think it's okay to put improvements for vulnerable children on hold when he tries to patch up the botched reorganization of CLBC?

Hon. T. Christensen: In the spring, the Representative for Children and Youth released her monitoring report on services to children and youth with special needs. She identified, as we had already identified, that services across government for those children were fragmented.

One of the challenges that she pointed out was the division of services between CLBC and MCFD. We have acted on that, Mr. Speaker. We have made the determination that those services will all be delivered by MCFD.

But we have also recognized that you don't make those changes overnight, because that will disrupt families. We're going to take our time to do that effectively in a planned manner so that we can all be confident that children and youth across our province and their families, when they need assistance, know where they can get that service. They get that service in a timely manner, and they get a quality service. That's what our goal is. That's the goal we'll meet.

Mr. Speaker: Member has a supplemental.

SERVICES AND WAIT-LISTS
FOR SPECIAL NEEDS CHILDREN

J. McGinn: Now, these just aren't vague goals that we're talking about. These are real children, real families — people who are being neglected because of the government's refusal to act.

I hear from families frustrated, who are stuck on wait-lists. But the government won't listen to them, and they won't tell them how long those wait-lists are. How much longer do families have to wait before the minister will make those wait-list numbers public?

Hon. T. Christensen: It's interesting to note that when we have looked for data about children waiting, the reality historically has been that that data doesn't exist because for ten years the NDP didn't choose to try and collect any of it.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. T. Christensen: As we have increased and almost tripled the funding for children and youth with special needs and their families, as we have invested further dollars in the infant development program and the supported child development program, we have, as well, worked with child development centres and other service providers to begin to collect data over the last 24 months so that we can have a clear idea of what the service pressures are and add resources to ensure we're meeting the needs of those children regardless of where they are in the province.

N. Simons: It's one thing after another with this minister and with the ministry. There's been chaos since 2001 — reorganization after reorganization, tons of money thrown at botched reorganization — and they all know what I'm talking about. They all know.

The Ministry of Children and Families today…. First it's child poverty. We're looking at wait-lists that we can't…. We don't even have an idea how many children are waiting. Today we find out that although they make up 8 percent of the population of the province, aboriginal children make up 59 percent of children in care. That's not a record of success.

So back to the question: when will the people of British Columbia be told in an open and accountable way how many children are waiting for services? How many families have to wait for the services they need for their children to grow up healthy?

Hon. T. Christensen: I recognize that the members opposite think it's good sport to attack the ministry itself, as the member just has done.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. T. Christensen: The members can look at Hansard as well as any other member of the ministry or any other British Columbian. The reality is that we are working closely with delegated agencies across the province, with first nations across the province to try and reverse the longstanding trend of an increase in the percentage of children in care who are aboriginal.

[1415]

We would all love to be able to flip a switch and see that trend reverse. The reality is that it is extremely hard work, and it requires commitment and long-term commitment.

Over the last year we've seen for only the second time in Canada a delegated agency take on responsibility for adoption in Cowichan. That is a major step forward, something that has been accomplished by the Cowichan working together with this ministry.

In the last year we've seen the full delegation of child protection for Vancouver Aboriginal Child and Family
[ Page 13320 ]
Services, the largest urban aboriginal delegated agency in the country. Again, the work of aboriginal people together with this ministry.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

N. Simons: Well, if he's waiting to find a switch to flick, we can understand the inaction then, but this issue is severe. Children in this province are suffering. We know that they're living in higher rates of poverty than anywhere else in the country, and the answers that he's giving are just rhetoric.

What people in British Columbia want to know, what people who contact each and every one of my colleagues' offices want to know is: how is it that this ministry can continue to support reckless spending — reckless spending in areas that nobody's asked for spending — and yet at the same time leave children with special needs completely out in the cold?

When will the minister take action and address the wait-list needs for children with special needs?

Hon. T. Christensen: The funding to support children and youth with special needs has almost tripled from $53 million in 2001 to $155 million. The member is suggesting that's reckless spending.

Funding to support children and families with autism has increased from $3.4 million in 2001 to over $40 million. Funding to the supported child development program has increased from $37 million to $57 million, allowing a 50 percent increase in the number of children served by that program.

Those are all significant investments, they're important investments, and that's the work that this government has done.

CLASS SIZE AND COMPOSITION
IN EDUCATION SYSTEM

N. Macdonald: In 2005 this government provoked the most extensive disruption of schools in this province's history. Parents, classroom teachers and CUPE staff forced this government to finally acknowledge a class-size and composition crisis. The government promised solutions three years later, and still the core failures of this government's education policy remain.

Nanaimo's school district has gone from 3 percent oversized secondary classes in 2006 to 13 percent this year. There is a grade 6-7 split with 26 students, and nine have individual education plans — three times the legal limit. Across the province last year, there were 10,000 classes that did not meet the minimum legal standards — 10,000 classes.

How has the minister failed so dramatically on an issue of such incredible importance?

Hon. S. Bond: Well, one thing we know is that the best way to create classrooms in British Columbia is actually to consider every child that's going to be in the classroom, the teacher that's going to be in front of it, and actually allow parents, administrators and teachers to have a conversation about how best to create classes in this province.

That's what we're committed to on this side of the House…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. S. Bond: …and that's what's best for children.

Mr. Speaker: Member has a supplemental.

N. Macdonald: In the spring of 2006 this minister rose in the House, and she said that the government had met all commitments to all schools and that all schools would be within class-size limits established in law. If that were the case, there would not be 10,000 classes that do not meet the standard today. Then she moves around the province and talks about 95 percent of the classes meeting their objective.

[1420]

Well, that is as absurd a statement to an educator as the CEO of an airline talking about 95 percent of flights landing safely. It represents abject failure — 10,000 classes filled with students…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

N. Macdonald: …that do not have the opportunities that they deserve, because this minister and this government failed them; 10,000 teachers that need to put up with conditions that are not educationally sound, because this minister failed them.

The question is…. The minister has not solved this problem. It is getting worse. When is the minister going to meet the standards that she is supposed to and…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

N. Macdonald: …deal properly with this fundamentally important issue? When is that going to happen?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.
[ Page 13321 ]

Hon. S. Bond: In 2002 this government for the first time ever actually enshrined class-size limits in law.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Minister, just take your seat.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. S. Bond: One thing that is continually disappointing is the fact that the Education critic simply takes facts and ignores them. The reality of the situation in British Columbia today is that 95 percent of every class in British Columbia has 30 or fewer students. Those are the facts, and it's embarrassing, the kind of reckless comments that are made in this Legislature day after day without the benefit of actually paying attention to facts.

S. Herbert: I find it interesting that the minister said that it's in the law but that 95 percent of the time it is following the law. So can we all get away with breaking the law 5 percent of the time?

In Vancouver…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

S. Herbert: …about 1,400 classrooms exceed the standards set by this government for class-size and class composition limits. That means 42,000 students in overcrowded and undersupported classrooms in Vancouver alone, including King George Secondary in my constituency. That's almost 20 percent more kids than 2006. The situation was bad then, and it's worse now.

How can the minister possibly defend this abject failure to provide proper educational supports to our kids?

Hon. S. Bond: Well, recognizing that this is the new member's first question in the House…. We want to recognize that. Having said that, it is important, Mr. Speaker, that we look at the record of this side of the House in terms of providing supports to students in British Columbia. Let's be clear. We have the highest level of funding ever being provided to education in this province in the history of British Columbia.

In fact, one of the most difficult parts in the comments that have been made is the fact that we built a process that expects there to be consultation about how classes are created. In fact, in British Columbia today, trustees and administrators must sign off on the composition of classes. That has been done in every school district across the province. That's what the requirement is, and that has been met by every school district.

LITTLE MOUNTAIN DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
AND SOCIAL HOUSING

J. Kwan: Little Mountain is a 224-affordable-housing-unit community in Vancouver. This government has caused havoc to this successful community, with a massive redevelopment project. So 205 units sit empty today, and this is happening at a time when thousands of people in Metro Vancouver have no place called home.

[1425]

Today in the gallery we are joined by a number of people who have been personally impacted by these plans. They've travelled all the way to Victoria to be heard. Can the Minister of Housing inform this House why 205 units of affordable housing sit empty today when we have an unprecedented homelessness crisis in our province?

Hon. R. Coleman: First, I was actually hoping that the member was going to start out by thanking us for opening the new SRO in Vancouver for women fleeing abuse — it's now managed by the Portland Hotel Society in Vancouver — just a couple of days ago.

The reason I was hoping….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. R. Coleman: The reason I say that is because…. Let's talk about Little Mountain for a second. There are 224 units there that are very old housing. They have materials that are commonly used in old sites, such as asbestos, underground oil storage tanks, Freon in cooling equipment and appliances, and lead-based paint.

We made the decision that we could use this property by densifying it and actually building 224 new homes for the people who live there so that they can come back to a new home. We put in place a plan so that we could relocate them so that they have actually subsidized housing somewhere else. We paid for their moving costs out. We'll pay for their moving costs in. We're paying actually for cross-border transportation for their children to stay in the same schools while this is going on.

There are 19 families left that we're still working with at Little Mountain. But let's be clear about one other thing. Little Mountain, in its development, has an MOU with the city of Vancouver. Not only will 224 people get new homes, who live there today; it is actually going to help fund another 1,200 units of housing — 1,200 more units of housing for people with mental health and addictions who are homeless on the streets in the province of British Columbia and Vancouver.

That site is going to help pay for that and actually give all those people a brand-new home to come back to.
[ Page 13322 ]

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. The member has a supplemental.

J. Kwan: The government could have chosen a developer that would have phased out the project instead of having 200 units sitting empty while we have an unprecedented housing crisis in our city. The agreement between the city and the province says no construction will begin until the spring of 2010. The project is at least one year behind schedule. A redevelopment application has not even been made to the city of Vancouver. The market is not doing what this minister had hoped and is expected.

In fact, Holborn, the proposed developer, had just shut down its massive Ritz-Carlton development in downtown Vancouver. How long do the people of Vancouver who need housing today have to wait before they see that project actually realize the moneys that the government is supposedly hoping that is going to yield?

Hon. R. Coleman: This coming from a member whose leader has actually gone out and said: "For $250 million out of the housing endowment fund, we can produce 2,400 units of housing in a year and 1,200 for each of an extra.…"

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Minister. Minister.

Hon. R. Coleman: She's only two….

Mr. Speaker: Minister. Minister, just wait until we have some silence.

Members.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. R. Coleman: The Leader of the Opposition is only out by $2.4 billion on that.

[1430]

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. R. Coleman: It's rich coming from the member who wrote me in 2006 and begged me to buy the Carl Rooms, and we went out and bought 17 buildings in the city of Vancouver that today have been converted to supportive housing for people who are homeless and have addictions in the province of British Columbia.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

D. Chudnovsky: Under the minister's plan, the proceeds from condo sales at Little Mountain were supposed to fund other social housing projects, but the deal is stalled, and the developer is sitting with a big hole in the ground in downtown Vancouver that's surrounded by chain-link fence and padlocks. Those other projects will now have to wait and may never happen. That means real people have little hope of having their housing needs met. Meanwhile, 200 habitable units have been boarded up.

The province should be directly investing in social housing, regardless of the ups and downs of the real estate market. Will the Premier agree to the proposal put forward by the Leader of the Opposition and directly invest in social housing as part of his provincial infrastructure plan, or does he think that increased investment in social housing construction is bad for the province and bad for the people who desperately need housing?

Hon. R. Coleman: Let's continue with more good news. So we have 17 buildings bought in Vancouver. A total of 31 buildings bought across the province of British Columbia in places like Victoria and…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. R. Coleman: …in Kelowna and in Prince George and in Kamloops that have all been converted to housing for supports for people that were homeless with mental health and addiction issues.

There are over a thousand already under construction for new build and a bunch more coming on stream. There are MOUs with the city of Vancouver and Surrey and Kelowna and Victoria and Nanaimo and Campbell River and Prince George, who are giving us land to do more projects.

On top of that there are 2,500 people in the province of British Columbia today that have been connected, by our outreach workers, to housing with supports, who are no longer homeless on the streets in the province of British Columbia.

D. Chudnovsky: Today there are people in the gallery who have been displaced or who are watching habitable units being destroyed by this minister's decisions. The Little Mountain redevelopment project is seriously delayed. It could even be dead. Even by conservative estimates, the earliest construction will start in 2011.

Given this time line, it makes no sense at all for over 200 units of housing to be sitting, to be boarded up or to be demolished. Will the Premier today commit to reopen the 200 units of housing in Little Mountain that
[ Page 13323 ]
people in Vancouver desperately need? Will we have housing in Little Mountain, or won't we?

Hon. R. Coleman: I know the member opposite would rather have people living in buildings that have Freon issues and asbestos and lead paint and those issues rather than seeing an opportunity for that site…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. R. Coleman: …rather than have those people have the opportunity to be relocated. Their costs are paid. They each have an individualized housing plan worked out for them that they will be able to move back in after they work out. All their costs are being paid.

At the same time, let's be clear about something else. In the last two years alone, 7,000 families in B.C. with children have received rent assistance in the province of British Columbia — where they live. That represents almost….

[1435]

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Member, can you wrap it up?

Hon. R. Coleman: That represents almost 20,000 children who are living in households that are getting an average of $350 a month, and they're opposed to that program, and they would put those 7,000 families out on the street in the province of British Columbia.

[End of question period.]

Reports from Committees

R. Hawes: I have the honour to present the report of the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services for the fourth session of the 38th parliament representing the 2009 budget consultation process.

I move that the report be taken as read and received.

Motion approved.

R. Hawes: I ask leave of the House to suspend the rules to permit the moving of a motion to adopt the report.

Leave granted.

R. Hawes: I move that the report be adopted, and in doing so, I would like to make a few comments.

The Finance Committee heard from over 2,900 British Columbians, both in written form and in the 17 public hearings that we heard all across British Columbia. Based on the public's input, the committee has, in its report, made 68 recommendations concerning British Columbians' tax and spending priorities.

The committee report accurately reflects British Columbians' priorities for the next budget as they were throughout the consultation period. However, today we face a different global and provincial economic dynamic. The committee recognizes that it will be difficult for the provincial government to fund all of the spending priorities in this report, so we are recommending, and I'll quote from the report: "that the government should proceed with prudence when considering the new and expanded spending proposals proposed within the report and make decisions in the context of available fiscal room in the provincial budget."

I would like to thank Kate Ryan-Lloyd, the committee clerk; Josie Schofield, the research analyst; the research staff that worked on the report; as well as the Hansard staff that traveled with us.

I would also very much like to thank all of the committee members who worked diligently in producing this unanimous report.

Finally, I'd like to thank and recognize the 2,900 British Columbians that took time out to make their presentations in what we believe to be a valuable process.

B. Ralston: I'd like to join with the member who has just spoken in thanking the staff, the Clerk of Committees office and Hansard staff for helping us through the 17 different hearings throughout the province.

The report does reflect the views and opinions of British Columbians. There was certainly much discussion about the carbon tax, and it makes for very interesting reading, if members care to dip into the report.

So with that, I would join with the member in supporting the motion.

Motion approved.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: I call second reading of Bill 46, Vancouver Foundation Amendment Act, 2008.

Second Reading of Bills

Vancouver Foundation
Amendment Act, 2008

Hon. W. Oppal: I move that Bill 46, Vancouver Foundation Amendment Act, 2008, now be read a second time.
[ Page 13324 ]

The amendments have been requested by the Vancouver Foundation in order to allow it to continue to provide funding to the charitable organizations that rely on it despite the current market conditions. The foundation currently provides funding from the dollars that have appreciated on its total assets.

[1440]

Because the market conditions have resulted in no appreciation, the foundation wishes a one-time basis to create a reserve amount that will represent 7 percent of its total contributions as of December 31, 2008. That money will be used over a three-year period to allow the foundation to continue to support the charities that rely on it.

S. Simpson: I'm pleased to have the opportunity to rise and speak to Bill 46, the Vancouver Foundation Amendment Act. As the minister says, essentially what this act does is provide some support and some flexibility for the Vancouver Foundation in these challenging economic times, when we're seeing interest income off of their reserves and their accounts being hammered, just like everybody else's money is being hammered.

Clearly the Vancouver Foundation, which is a remarkable organization, certainly an organization that I know well in my work before coming to this place…. I had many opportunities to work with the Vancouver Foundation directly or to work with organizations that receive support from the Vancouver Foundation, organizations that did critical and excellent work in the community. Certainly that work would not have been realized and would not have occurred without the support of the foundation.

[K. Whittred in the chair.]

So I'm certainly supportive of this legislation in this unique time when the foundation does need some flexibility and some additional assistance in order for it to keep doing the good work that it does.

What we know is…. I think last year the foundation, as a community foundation, gave out more than $60 million to organizations in a variety of areas — cultural, environmental, social initiatives. I know it did work around community economic development. It did work in an array of areas around animal safety work as well. All of that money, or the vast majority of that money, which went throughout the province…. While it is the Vancouver Foundation, we know its support has gone around the province.

It's an organization that has quite a diverse array of funding initiatives. One of the interesting things about the Vancouver Foundation is the way that it puts its committees together of eminent community activists and others who provide assistance and insight and support to the foundation in making the selection of who those beneficiaries of these donations will be. It's very important work.

One of the things that we know about the foundation too — and I know I've had these discussions with people at the foundation — is that in the last number of years, they have often been put in the place — and it is regrettable — where they've had to, in fact, backstop what I would think should be government programs and government initiatives, that should be programs that are government funded and supported. But in too many of those instances, in fact, the Vancouver Foundation has ended up having to underwrite those services directly in order for them to occur.

I know that that's a struggle for the Vancouver Foundation. I know that they have no desire to be writing cheques for things that the government should be paying for. They have lots of other things that they should be and can be supporting, but unfortunately they've been put in that position.

I can think about organizations that deal with issues around child poverty, around child care issues, around affordable housing issues as simply three areas where the government should be having responsibility for this, but instead the Vancouver Foundation — and other foundations like it — certainly has been having to fill that gap. It's very challenging for them to do that, but they reluctantly have picked up that responsibility.

It is important, and it's particularly important as we get to challenging times, that we pass this legislation and give that flexibility to the Vancouver Foundation to do its work. As has been commented on before, we have seen over the last number of years, when we've had very high commodity prices and resource revenues flowing into the province and where there's been lots of money in the province, that in fact we have not seen the levels of support in critical areas like child poverty provided by the government.

Of course, there's a growing anxiety in this province as the times get tougher that if the government wasn't prepared to step up when times were good, what happens now that times aren't so good and the cupboard is not so full at the cabinet table?

[1445]

We'll get to see, but fortunately at least there will be a little bit of easing of the pressure by what we've seen here.

Increasingly, important work that the Vancouver Foundation does…. We've seen it most recently with the recent copy of a report that they produce called Vital Signs 2008 — the latest version. This is a report that's produced by the Vancouver Foundation, and I think it helps support their decisions about where their money will go. They look across a number of key areas. They talk to people who are involved in the community. They talk to British Columbians. They do analysis, and they look at what they see as critical areas.
[ Page 13325 ]

The most recent version of Vital Signs 2008 that came out is pretty telling in some ways. It's interesting there that it points into some areas and says that we're doing very well and gives very high grades in areas like our work on diversity, like our work on cultural issues, like the work that's being done in the development of community leadership throughout the metro Lower Mainland area. They point to the level of organizations that are thriving and community leaders at the grass-roots level who are engaging in their community, who are making things work in their community, who are making real contributions.

All of those get pretty good grades. We're told by the report Vital Signs, produced by the Vancouver Foundation, that we're doing very well there. I think the Vancouver Foundation can take some credit for some of that because they do a lot of work around capacity-building at the community level and helping to support those organizations to come along. However, there are areas where the Vital Signs report tells us something different.

Certainly when it talks about transportation and transit, a key issue identified in Vital Signs shows that some 61 percent of people in the Lower Mainland are frustrated by the lack of adequate transit systems in the Lower Mainland to meet their needs and allow them options to get out of their cars, and they're not satisfied.

The Vital Signs gives a failing mark on the situation right now around accessible and affordable child care. It clearly says we are not meeting the grade on accessible and affordable child care and that that's where resources have to go.

It says the same thing, in the Vancouver Foundation report, around affordable and low-cost housing and the need to put a greater emphasis on affordable and low-cost housing. That's an area where the Vancouver Foundation, with the support that they're going to be afforded by Bill 46, will be able to put additional revenue or resources into supporting the housing societies that are advocating for more housing or directly building housing.

They raise a very large concern about the growing gap between the rich and the poor in the Metro Vancouver area. That's not exclusive by any means to Metro Vancouver, but certainly it is a very, very compelling issue in Metro Vancouver — the growing gap between rich and poor. The Vancouver Foundation identifies that as a critical issue where we're not doing well enough.

I would observe that on issues of transit, on issues of child care, on issues of housing, on issues of that gap between the rich and the poor, it seems to me that responsibility for that ultimately comes back to this chamber and to those of us in this chamber. It comes back to decisions that we need to make here and, ultimately, decisions that the government needs to make and places where the government needs to place its priority.

Clearly, there are serious questions whether the priorities of the government have been well placed when it comes to those who are most vulnerable and when it comes to dealing with the sustainability of our environment by beginning to deal more effectively with how people live in communities and how they get around in communities.

All of those are the great challenges that the Vancouver Foundation faces. They could not do the work…. Hundreds and hundreds of community groups would fall by the wayside without the support that the foundation provides to them, and I am happy that Bill 46 has come forward. I am happy that Bill 46 is going to provide that break and ease the rules a little bit for a short period of time that will, hopefully, get the Vancouver Foundation through the challenges of this time and allow them to continue to do the good work that they do. I look forward to voting for this bill when it comes forward.

D. Thorne: I rise today to support this bill, which is a request that has come from the Vancouver Foundation to allow them to continue their good work in a time when economic security and, certainly, investment dollars are hard to come by — both equally, really.

[1450]

I understand the reason for this. I understand why they're requesting it and how many groups are dependent on this funding. However, I do feel some concern that we've reached a stage in this Legislature where we have to permit a foundation — which is an endowment foundation, essentially — to use money from people who have left it in their wills, specifically because they requested that only the interest be used and that this money go on into the future. I guess most of them would probably understand.

But I'm just going to speak briefly today. I would be remiss if I didn't stand up and say that I've become increasingly concerned over the years — the last five or six years, particularly — at the dependence on the government in using foundations and charitable organizations to provide services that I and many believe should be provided by the government through ministries — direct funding to charities and on different programs that have changed over the years and are now funded through groups like the Vancouver Foundation.

Perhaps if that hadn't been happening in an accelerated way, we would not find ourselves debating a bill like this today. Perhaps we would; I don't know that. But I think the situation is more serious because of the way this government has started to use foundations like the Victoria and the Vancouver Foundation.

My own work before politics was in community social services, and I have applied for and received many Vancouver Foundation grants. There was a time in my life where I was trying to get one particular group, which is still running in the Tri-Cities — the PoCoMo Youth Services Society — and which recently received a commendation and award from the Attorney General….
[ Page 13326 ]
I myself started that group in 1992 and depended very heavily on money in grants from groups like the Vancouver Foundation, United Way and Vancity and the other groups.

But Vancouver Foundation was the foremost group in helping get PoCoMo off the ground. I am sorry to say that it is still a group we depend on very heavily, because we still have not received any ongoing operating money for a group that would not be winning awards, I might say, from this government, from the Attorney General, were it not proving to be probably one of the best youth service agencies in British Columbia doing work with at-risk youth.

So I will support this bill. I wish the Vancouver Foundation many years of good work. When I retire, I hope maybe some day to be on the board of the Vancouver Foundation — when and if I ever retire. But I would like to say that I think we seriously need, in the near future, to look at how we are funding agencies in communities — if this is the best way, when we're making these groups so dependent on things like interest rates and the economy.

C. Trevena: People might question why the member for North Island is talking about the Vancouver Foundation. But like many MLAs, I get people coming into my constituency office — organizations who want to have some funding — asking where do they go for financial help and what programs the government is funding and how they can get assistance. I have to say: "Well, this government doesn't give core funding anymore. It doesn't support the services that you are providing. You're going to need to go to a foundation."

Campbell River has established a foundation. There are other foundations. But the Vancouver Foundation has been very generous and has given a lot in community building and a lot in capacity building, as has been mentioned in the past. It's troubling that we are in a situation where this foundation is going to be struggling.

[1455]

But I think what is more troubling, I find, is that the government has really abrogated its responsibility and allowed the responsibilities and the funding to come not just through the Vancouver Foundation and other foundations but to be made by the Vancouver Foundation.

My colleague from Vancouver-Hastings mentioned the foundation's report card, as it were, specifically on housing, on poverty and on child care. As the critic for Childcare, I can say categorically that there is a huge need for extensive core funding from the government to make sure that we have very high-quality child care across the province. Whatever the Vancouver Foundation can do, it's not enough to replicate what could be made by a commitment by a government to a policy on child care.

I have to say that I'm concerned that we're talking in this bill — Bill 46, the Vancouver Foundation Amendment Act — about 7 percent. This is quite a substantial amount which, as my colleague from Coquitlam-Maillardville mentioned, was moneys coming from people who have an endowment fund, moneys from people who have donated these saying that they want just the interest to be used. There is a very real concern that you are effectively breaking what the intent of a legacy is in this act. There is a serious concern about that.

But I think it's the fundamental principle, the fundamental philosophy, of how we fund our arts programs, our social programs and other services to our communities. Do we as a society believe that these are important for our society and therefore spend through the government and direct that funding through the government? That's what I believe. That's what we on this side of the House believe — that the government is responsible for these things.

Or is this a matter of, as that side of the House…? It's a matter of choice, a matter of individualism, and there is no concept that government has a responsibility to the society and therefore allows a foundation to have that responsibility.

Those, I think, are the concerns about this bill. With that, I will cede my place, because I know that many people want to talk about this very serious issue.

S. Herbert: I am pleased today to offer my support for this bill.

The Vancouver Foundation, as we all know, is Canada's largest community foundation, providing vital financial support to community programs and services since 1943. I find in my own community, in Vancouver-Burrard, that the Vancouver Foundation has supported such vital community organizations as the Vancouver Humane Society; the Dance Centre, where I used to work and used to write grants to the Vancouver Foundation; the 411 Seniors Centre; AIDS Vancouver; Out On Screen; A Loving Spoonful; and also organizations like the B.C. Coalition to Eliminate Abuse of Seniors, which has done some really crucial work in the West End.

I also think about the British Columbia Coalition of People with Disabilities, which is a provincial-wide, cross-disability advocacy organization. It's been a very important voice for people living with disabilities in my community. For example, they received a $50,000 grant to conduct a research project on health and support services in B.C. for people living with disabilities.

I think that in this really difficult economic time charities all across the province, all across Canada are facing real challenges in receiving funding. Non-profits are facing challenges in receiving support. In this time an organization like the Vancouver Foundation is crucial, and that's why this bill is important.

I think it's disappointing that they're going to have to draw down on capital, but it would be even more disappointing if they weren't able to provide the support to
[ Page 13327 ]
organizations that provide such crucial services — arts and culture, environment, social service agencies. It's especially troubling and especially difficult in this time, as a number of other organizations are not able to give out grants this year.

It's also difficult because the province slashed so much funding for programs like women's centres, day cares and environmental protection programs, which makes the work of the Vancouver Foundation all that more important, when the government should be providing a number of those services and has backed out of them. So I'm happy to be able to support this bill. I'm saddened that we've had to come to this place where it's necessary.

I'd like to thank the Vancouver Foundation board, the staff, on behalf of all the organizations and all British Columbians who have come to really rely and be revitalized, in some cases, and be really supported by the work of the Vancouver Foundation.

Thank you on behalf of my fellow British Columbians. I hope that we get through this so that you can get back to the way that you normally do business.

[1500]

Deputy Speaker: Seeing no more speakers, Attorney to conclude debate.

Hon. W. Oppal: I thank the members for their comments. I move second reading of Bill 46.

Motion approved.

Hon. W. Oppal: I move that Bill 46 be referred to the Committee of the Whole House to be considered at the next sitting after today.

Bill 46, Vancouver Foundation Amendment Act, 2008, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. G. Abbott: I move continued second reading debate of Bill 45, the Economic Incentive and Stabilization Statutes Amendment Act, 2008.

Economic Incentive and Stabilization
Statutes Amendment Act, 2008

(continued)

H. Lali: I rise to take my place in the debate on Bill 45. I just want to remind folks here in the House that the government actually put this bill forward in response to what is taking place across the world and how it's affecting here in British Columbia in terms of the financial crisis.

You know, here we are sitting towards the end of this session here in the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia, when we should have been sitting and discussing these sorts of things, actually, at the beginning of October when the session was originally supposed to have been held. But we saw that the government decided to just go hide out in the wilderness.

Actually, we saw the Finance Minister and the Premier and Liberal cabinet members who went around telling British Columbians that everything was going to be fine and somehow British Columbia was going to be immune to this financial crisis. We all remember the Asian flu that took place, starting with Japan and the Asia-Pacific, way back in the late 1990s and how we were going to be immune to this American flu that was taking place.

Here we have Bill 45, which is being presented here a couple of months after the session was actually supposed to have started. And then to try to bring it in at the last moment when the session is about to end, we see the government bringing this forward.

This just goes to show you that in terms of the economic impetus that is needed to keep industry, business and working families afloat, it doesn't measure up in terms of what is really needed. The reality of all of the situation is how out of touch this Liberal government, this Premier and this Finance Minister really are with the day-to-day lives and the day-to-day activities of British Columbians.

One only has to take a drive through British Columbia. If some of these cabinet ministers would actually get out of Victoria, get out into the hinterlands, take a look around and see what's happening with real folks and what some of their real trials and tribulations are, as we see the same old stuff coming out from the Liberal government….

So what you've got here with Bill 45 is just the status quo, and my constituents are saying, "Oh, no," to the status quo. It's just more of the same that is taking place with this government. They've run out of ideas. They've run out of ideas, this government. They are bankrupt of ideas in terms of how to protect the economy and protect jobs in British Columbia.

What we have seen under this Liberal government for seven and a half years — almost eight years now — especially in rural British Columbia, is the complete abandonment of the hoopla that the Premier said when he first got elected Premier — that he was going to look after the hinterlands.

[1505]

I guess he'd finally got outside of the Vancouver-Victoria-Whistler triangle and realized there was a British Columbia outside of the Lower Mainland and the lower Island. That's what he said at that time. "There's a hinterland." Lo and behold, there was a hinterland outside.

What we have seen in terms of the economy in this province is how this Liberal government, which has
[ Page 13328 ]
absolutely no understanding of rural British Columbia, has driven the economy of rural British Columbia into the ground. We've seen 60 sawmills and pulp mills which have been pulverized by this Liberal government and 30,000 permanent jobs that have been lost as a result of the mismanagement — the deliberate mismanagement — of the forestry file.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Now they're bringing in Bill 45, but there's nothing in it for rural B.C. When you look at Bill 45 and what it's supposed to do, there's absolutely nothing. They did not even have the gall to turn around and listen to the folks in British Columbia — the average folks all across British Columbia, especially in rural British Columbia — that they want this government to get rid of the carbon tax.

But they refused to do that. Bill 45 does not axe the tax. It is actually putting a heavier burden on people who live out in the cold parts of this province in the Deputy Premier's riding — sitting right over there across the way. Her constituents are telling her, but she's not listening. If she did and if all of the members…. The member from Kamloops who's sitting there — he's a minister now. He's not listening to his constituents.

It has not reflected the voices of the people of the Thompson and up in the Peace and the Prince George region. Their voices are not being represented by those members across the way, because they're telling them as much as they're telling us: "Get rid of the carbon tax."

When you look at Bill 45, there's nothing in it. Even the minister for the Kootenays, who is sitting there, is smiling away. He's not standing up here and demanding that the government put that in here, in Bill 45, and get rid of the carbon tax. No.

The minister from the Shuswap, who is sitting there — he hasn't stood up on behalf of his constituents either. He's failing to represent his constituents in the Shuswap and ask this government and lobby his fellow colleagues in cabinet to get rid of the carbon tax. Of course he's not.

We've got a cold winter coming up, and now these folks are having to pay extra for the heating fuel. All of those loggers and miners and farmers that that government likes to believe they represent and all of those folks who have to drive some of those heavy vehicles…. They're paying extra in terms of the consumption of their fuel to get back and forth to work and actually be able to drive their vehicles.

But Bill 45 doesn't reflect the wishes and the aspirations of average people living in rural British Columbia, living in communities in Princeton and Merritt, Logan Lake, Lillooet as well as Ashcroft and Cache Creek and all of those communities, because this government doesn't listen. They just don't listen to what people have to say.

In their arrogance, they bring in not only the carbon tax to punish average people in British Columbia, but at the same time — and you won't find that here in Bill 45 — the massive pay hikes that they're giving to all of those Liberal executives. What was it? The Premier's own deputy minister got a $102,000 raise. Hon. Speaker, a $102,000 raise. That's what they want to give.

Hon. Speaker, you know, here I am debating Bill 45.…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Keep to Bill 45, please, Member.

H. Lali: Speaking of Bill 45, I have my friend from Kamloops–North Thompson, and he's sitting there shouting across the way and says to speak the truth….

Mr. Speaker: Member, you know the rules of the House about referring to whether members are in and out of the House.

H. Lali: I'm sorry. He's sitting here in the House.

Mr. Speaker: Member, you do not reference whether members are in the House.

H. Lali: I withdraw. Thank you, hon. Speaker.

Hon. Speaker, I see my friend heckling me from across the way, and he's saying to me: "Tell the truth." That person wouldn't know the truth if it hit him in the face. That's the reality.

I hear my friend on the Kamloops NL radio all the time, always just making up facts, making up facts as he goes. He wouldn't know the truth if it hit him in the face.

[1510]

The fact is, in terms of Bill 45, I don't see my colleagues across the way on the Liberal benches standing up on behalf of average folks and asking this government to actually do something for average folks.

But when you look at the economic good times that we've enjoyed in the last few years and these record surpluses, this Premier and this cabinet refused to either put anything away for a rainy-day fund or to actually look at the health care crisis that they have created, especially in the inferior health authority region of this province in the Thompson-Nicola and the Cariboo.

The Minister of Health lives in the inferior health authority region. Even he doesn't stand up, when the government is bringing in Bill 45 and others, to make sure that the moneys will be put back into health care where those massive cuts took place five and a half years ago.

This government failed to put away during the good times, and now they're asking people across British Columbia, all the voters: "Oh, we've got this great ten-point plan." The ten-point plan, they're calling it. It's
[ Page 13329 ]
more like ten disappoints. That's what I would call it. But these folks….

Interjections.

H. Lali: See my colleagues, the Liberal colleagues across the way. Even they like that.

Interjection.

H. Lali: That's right.

But anyway, they're going around telling people…. When they have failed miserably to put away for a rainy-day fund during the good times, now when the bad times or the economic downturn is here, they're going back to the people of British Columbia and saying, "Trust us; we can do it again; trust us, for another four-year term, that we're going to fix health care," when they refused during record surpluses to put any additional moneys into health care to look after eliminating those lineups that are taking place.

And the long-promised 5,000 long-term care beds. If you look at Bill 45, there's no money in it from this government to make sure those 5,000 beds will be built. They like to boast. I don't know how many times they made that same announcement. The fact is the Minister of Health knows that they have eliminated almost 3,000 of those long-term care beds. And they want to build 5,000 more?

Where's this Liberal government's action to try to get rid of the deficit that they created to begin with? You won't find it in Bill 45. You'd be hard-pressed to even look at the fine print of Bill 45 and try to find it there, because it isn't there.

What we have is a lot of seniors who can't get access to long-term care beds in all of their communities.

Interjection.

H. Lali: Even in the Lower Mainland, I know my colleague from Surrey is saying. Even in the Lower Mainland, they failed. They failed people.

You know, one of the things is that when you look at my colleagues across the way, the Liberals across the way, they can't handle the truth. They get all upset because they can't handle the truth. But they'll go out there trying to mesmerize people and confuse people by making up facts, when the reality is that they have abandoned my constituents. They have abandoned the interests of rural British Columbia. They have abandoned the forest industry in this province.

When you look at the forest industry, they have driven it into the ground. Never have there been the kinds of job losses as with this government's lack of action and deliberate policy of actually eliminating jobs in rural B.C., especially in the forest industry. They can't protect jobs, and they know it, and now they're asking the people of British Columbia, "Trust us one more time; trust us one more time," when they have broken every single promise that they ever made since 2001 before coming into office. They'll say one thing before an election. Then coming after an election, they'll do completely the opposite, hon. Speaker. We'll see.

With the transportation network, they got billions and billions of dollars to pour into the Lower Mainland — building bridges and four-lane highways, the Sea to Sky Highway, and billions of dollars' worth of Olympics facilities and cost overruns. But when my constituents want a dangerous corner taken out on a piece of road or anything, they won't put any money there.

Hon. G. Abbott: I'm quite certain the member is going to be turning to some consideration of the Bill 45 debate here shortly. I know he may have been taking his place here unexpectedly, but nevertheless, I think at some point during his second reading comments, he should address the actual content of Bill 45.

[1515]

Tabling Documents

Mr. Speaker: Now that we have an actual break in the action, I failed to introduce the…. Hon. Members, I have the honour to present report No. 10 of the Auditor General 2008-2009, A Major Renovation: Trades Training in British Columbia.

Continue, Member.

Debate Continued

H. Lali: I was talking about Bill 45, and I was speaking about the kinds of things that British Columbians expect not just of this government, but any government. But it's not included in Bill 45 here.

This is supposed to be an economic recovery, a plan to actually shore up business and jobs in this province, and basically what we see is that there is no plan. It's just a plan in name, and it was nice to sort of turn around and call it ten points.

[K. Whittred in the chair]

By the way, point 10 — what was point 10? To call back the Legislature. Now, how is that going to actually have an impetus for the economy? Point 10. It's actually an economic point in the eyes of the Liberals to call back the Legislature.

Well, if they hadn't cancelled the Legislature to begin with, they wouldn't have to recall it again. That's the bottom line. If they really cared about the economy and protecting jobs in British Columbia and protecting British Columbia from the American flu, they would
[ Page 13330 ]
never have cancelled the session to begin with, which was supposed to start on October 3.

Here we are two months later with a puny little session that's left over at the tail end of what the session was supposed to be. That's their way of actually dealing with the real problems of British Columbians, and Bill 45 does not reflect the aspirations and the needs of all of those people that they've actually put out of work, especially in rural B.C.

Deputy Speaker: Member. Member, I would ask you to confine your remarks, please, to the content of Bill 45.

H. Lali: Again, getting back to Bill 45, as I was speaking of before the Minister of Health interjected on me earlier, there's nothing in it. That's the whole thing.

For the Liberals, the beauty of it is that they're going to do nothing, as they have done nothing for the forest industry. They watched as spectators, sat on the side, in the stands, waiting for all of these sawmills and pulp mills to go under, and then letting all of those friends of theirs in the big corporations in the forest industry walk away with the timber rights, pick up that timber and go somewhere else, eliminating jobs at the local level — 30,000 forestry jobs.

That is the biggest job loss in the forest industry in the history of this province, and these people across the way are responsible for that. But when you're looking for relief for the forest industry, there isn't even a single word in that whole press announcement, the so-called ten-point plan, or the backgrounder. Not a single word on the forest industry was mentioned.

In the announcement of the Premier about a month and a half back, when he said he was going to — point 10 — call back the Legislature…. What is this government doing? It's not reflected in Bill 45 in terms of helping those folks in the forest industry, in terms of actually putting forestry workers back to work, in terms of actually helping those forestry communities survive and thrive. Nothing.

They care so much about our number one industry in this province…. They care so much about it that they failed to mention anything — not even one word, nothing, nothing whatsoever — in their ten-point plan. That's how much they care about forestry. This is the depths to which this Liberal government has mismanaged the forestry file, and my constituents and constituents in every one of those Liberal members' constituencies….

They were looking for some action in Bill 45. They were hoping that the government would see the light, that they would actually come out to those constituencies and talk to those laid-off workers and all of those thousands of families that are suffering — thousands of those families who can't pay their mortgages; thousands of those families who can't afford to now send their kids to those extracurricular activities, to go play hockey in the hockey rink or send their kid to the ballet; those mortgages that are being forfeited, and those folks who can't make their car payments. It's those thousands of families.

[1520]

What do they care about those families? Well, Bill 45, which the government has brought forward, says that the Liberal government cares nothing about those families in rural British Columbia and those 30,000 workers who lost their jobs.

They want to come out here to Victoria and try to tout themselves as the people who are the stewards of the economy, when they have devastated the forest industry in this province. They're doing the same thing to tourism and to agriculture, which are hemorrhaging under the carbon tax that this government refuses to listen to the people of British Columbia on and take it back. They won't even do that.

That's what the people of British Columbia want them to do, and they won't do it. They won't listen to the people of British Columbia. They think they know better sitting in their ivory towers either in Vancouver or here in Victoria, British Columbia. They think they know better than the people of British Columbia.

Well, if they would just get out from their ivory towers and actually go out into the hinterlands, as the Premier likes to call it, and listen to the pains and the hurts of the people who live there at the local level, they would know that there should have been some meat put on that ten-point platform that they put on here. It does nothing. Bill 45 does nothing to help turn the economy in this province around.

You know, one of the things that the Premier is trying to do now is to say that we're going to step up infrastructure development in this province. They went through all the 3Ps, and now that they know that the financial crisis is going to hurt those private interests, the government says they're going to build projects. They're going to finance. During the downturn they said they were going to spend money to try to turn the economy around through public infrastructure projects.

Well, that same government, when they were in opposition — when this side of the House was in government — railed against every one of those projects that we were building when we turned the economy around in the mid-1990s.

These people sat there criticizing us for doing that at the time. Guess what. They're trying to do exactly the same thing that we did in the 1990s, and at that time, every one of those people, every one of them — the members from Shuswap and Kamloops and all of those members that were part of the opposition in the 1990s who still happen to be around here on the government side — railed against it.

They said that the government was increasing debt. Just what do they think is going to happen when they
[ Page 13331 ]
build the public infrastructure with public moneys? What is going to happen to the debt of this province? Maybe they want to talk about that and say that as part of their speeches on Bill 45, but you don't hear them say that. You don't hear them say that.

You know, the Premier made these comments at the UBCM that he had these major concerns. It's like writing policy on the back of an envelope. Every time the Premier happens to be in some café or he gets some bright idea, he takes a napkin, and he writes his idea on there. Then he gives it to his communications staff and says: "Make Bill 45 out of this. Make Bill 45, and I'm going to bring it into the House." That's what the Premier does.

He's got no platform, no policy. He does it on the back of an envelope or a napkin in a café, wherever he happens to be eating. It's ad hockery at its best. The Premier has never been able to put forward a comprehensive vision on behalf of the people of B.C., especially not on behalf of the people of rural B.C., and that's a real shame. It is a real, real shame.

Interjections.

H. Lali: You see the Deputy Premier sitting there heckling me. She says that she's going to send my speech out to the rest of the world. I welcome the Deputy Premier to do that, because it exposes the Liberals for all of the promises they have broken for the last seven years. I hope she does that.

I hope she does that, and I hope she spends a whole bunch of money from her communications budget and sends it out to my constituents in Yale-Lillooet, soon to be Fraser-Nicola, and tells them how this Liberal government has turned its back on my constituents, how they have abandoned the forest industry of the province of British Columbia and in Yale-Lillooet, how this Liberal government has abandoned health care in the inferior health authority region.

And the Minister of Health should not be sitting there so smug.

[1525]

Point of Order

Hon. G. Abbott: Just to take the opportunity again, the member seems to be going over some of the material that now three times he's been advised is out of order. Further, he apparently needs to be reminded once again not to make reference to who is or isn't in the House, Madam Speaker.

Interjection.

Hon. G. Abbott: And not so loud while you're up there.

Interjection.

Deputy Speaker: Member, I ask you to withdraw that last remark, please.

H. Lali: The minister is not smug, so I'll withdraw it. He's a good fellow. I like him. On a personal level we get along quite fine.

Interjection.

Deputy Speaker: Member.

H. Lali: I withdraw those comments.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you. Shall we continue, please?

H. Lali: Yes, we will, hon. Speaker. But I do invite the Minister of Health to come into my communities, talk to the seniors in my constituency and in the neighbouring constituencies and ask them what it is that this Liberal government has failed on in terms of delivering health care services. They'll be candid with him, as they are with me. They'll tell the minister, and just maybe he might listen. Just maybe he might listen and then actually stand up on their behalf to make sure that their needs are going to be looked after.

If he did that, we wouldn't get — what is it? — half a billion dollars in cost overruns on the Vancouver Convention Centre and counting. But no mention of that in Bill 45. There's no mention of that or the $560,000 for fancy, over-budget renovations at the MCFD head office — no, no — or those exorbitant, obscene pay hikes for Liberal executives.

The tens of millions of dollars that this government has spent on self-aggrandizing advertisement on radio, television, newspapers and magazines. If the Minister of Health wants me to repeat that, the word is "self-aggrandizing" — the megalomaniacal kind of atmosphere that these Liberals have come up with. That's what's happening.

Maybe the Minister of Health might stand up and say: "You know, in Bill 45 we're going to actually put something in there that's going to help people in rural British Columbia." But it doesn't. It's just more of the same, more of the do-nothing approach that this government has had in terms of rural British Columbia.

Then they have this punitive carbon tax, and they won't even get rid of that as people all across British Columbia have been telling them to. But in any case, this ten-point platform of the Liberal Premier, this so-called ten-point plan — point No. 10 being: let's recall the Legislature….

This Bill 45 actually is a total letdown for the people of rural British Columbia. It is a total letdown for the folks who are dependent on the forest industry for their jobs and the mills that have gone down.
[ Page 13332 ]

I just want to again point out to the colleagues across the way that maybe they might have a last-minute change of heart and bring in some amendments of their own for this bill to reflect what real British Columbians actually want and how they could actually help all those lower- and middle-income families.

I'll take my place and sit down, hon. Speaker, with those words. I want to thank you for the opportunity for allowing me to speak on Bill 45.

J. Les: I'm pleased to take my place in this debate. Actually, originally I hadn't intended to do that, but I couldn't resist, particularly as I have been listening for the last couple of days to the comments and remarks from the members opposite. Frankly, given the contribution in the last half-hour of the member for Yale-Lillooet, I can't help but say that if a rhetorical explosion could offset the current economic recession, we'd be in good shape. But unfortunately, it doesn't work that way.

What British Columbians expect from us in this House is a thoughtful response to the current economic situation, which not only this province but this country and, in fact, the world faces today. All of our constituents expect a thoughtful and clear-headed response to the situation that faces this province.

[1530]

I can't help but say how sorry I am at the empty and vacuous contributions — if I can call them contributions. Actually, that's dignifying their suggestions. I am embarrassed at the contributions that I've heard from the members opposite.

It started last week when the members opposite refused to suspend the rules so that we could immediately get on with debate on Bill 45. We suggested: let's carry on with this bill. They said nay. They wanted to go home early that day.

I thought that was particularly embarrassing. British Columbians responded favourably to the suggestions that had been put forward several weeks ago by the Premier. The opposition members opposite, when they had the opportunity to debate this bill, said: "No, we want to go home."

So we came back on Monday morning. Ever since, we've been listening to, frankly, trivia from the members opposite and very little constructive comment on the bill that's under discussion. We've had members refer to it as thin gruel. Well, I'm going to, in a few minutes, review some of that thin gruel and in fact underline once again how substantive some elements of this bill are.

But let's first of all remind ourselves that because of the steps that we have taken over the last seven years in governing this province, British Columbia is by all accounts far better positioned to ride out this economic downturn that we're experiencing on a global basis than pretty well any other jurisdiction in North America. We still have a balanced budget, and we are determined to maintain a balanced budget. The members opposite, of course, would love us to go back into deficit spending — a concept that they were so familiar with in the 1990s.

Interjections.

J. Les: The chirping starts immediately when I mention the track record that they put in place in the 1990s, but the facts of the matter are that because of the prudent steps that we have taken over the last seven years, we have a balanced budget today, and we will have a balanced budget next February.

We are not going to solve this economic crisis on the backs of our children and grandchildren. To the extent that we can in this province, we are going to fix this problem in a way that doesn't burden future generations. We are going to fix it by taking the responsible and appropriate steps today so that we can continue as one of the leading economies in Canada and in North America. We will definitely do that.

The NDP opposition love to denigrate Bill 45 and the suggestions that have been put forward in Bill 45 as "not good enough," I suppose would be one way to characterize it. There are a number of tax relief measures that I'll indicate and canvass more thoroughly in a few minutes. The NDP, I think, are fairly consistent. Actually, if it doesn't involve throwing around billions of dollars indiscriminately, they're not happy. Well, we're not going to do that.

[S. Hammell in the chair.]

We are going to take a measured set of responses here. We're going to ensure that the economic health of this province continues and that we can still be, and will be into the long-term future, a leader in Canada. Some of the suggestions that our Premier has made to assist not only British Columbia but our entire country to weather this economic storm have been, I think, very constructive. There's been discussion of late about opening up freer trade between the provinces within our country, opening up the Open Skies agreement so that we can have a more readily accessible flow of tourists into our province.

These are issues that our Premier has been championing very constructively. Some of those suggestions are being met with an open ear, I believe, in Ottawa. Although this is a pretty nasty economic circumstance that we're facing around the world, hopefully, as we move forward, it does give us the opportunity to better some of these things that should have been attended to a long time ago.

I say again that these are concerning times. We can engage in all sorts of rhetoric here in this House, but we need to stop and think about the people who we represent, each of us, in our constituencies. People today have not seen this kind of economic circumstance previously.

[1535]
[ Page 13333 ]

Some of us are old enough that we remember 1981 and 1982 and the kind of economic situation that confronted people then, with interest rates being in the order of 20, 21, 22 percent. This is a different kind of economic crisis, but I suspect that before it's done, it will exceed in urgency and magnitude the economic crisis that we went through in the early 1980s.

These are dire economic times. Every time you see commentary by President Bush or President-elect Obama or Prime Minister Harper or Prime Minister Gordon Brown of the United Kingdom, they are increasingly concerned. I think that's quite apparent in any newscast that you look at over time.

We need to pay attention here, and we in this House need to get on with passing Bill 45. It offers a constructive set of responses to these circumstances, and I'm really surprised to see the members opposite engaged in what is obviously a filibuster — interestingly, of a bill that I think they're going to vote in favour of. I'm not exactly sure what that's all about, other than wasting time on a bill that British Columbians want us to pass.

We are here to make sure that we move this forward quickly. This is….

Interjections.

J. Les: The members opposite, of course…. When you strike a sensitive chord, they immediately start to heckle and to chirp, but those are the facts.

This is a good bill. It's an effective response to the current circumstances. They're going to vote for the bill, but in the meantime, they're going to filibuster for I don't know how many more days. Well, that's not a very responsible approach. British Columbians expect better from every member in this House.

Let me review briefly the measures that are contained in Bill 45. I think that if people have been watching Hansard, they probably have lost sight of what the bill is actually all about, because we certainly didn't gain much insight from the member for Yale-Lillooet, for example.

I will start with the measure that will give unlimited deposit insurance to people who have accounts at credit unions. This was widely supported right across this province, and I expect that members opposite know that. People who do business with credit unions, people who have their savings with credit unions and, in fact, credit unions corporately roundly supported this particular measure — that people's savings within credit unions would be fully protected, an unlimited protection.

The member for Vancouver-Fairview, I'm sure, would be one of those people who would say: "Yes, that's a smart thing to do." I look forward to her remarks later on, perhaps suggesting that I'm right on that count.

Secondly, the Premier put forward the suggestion of something that's actively being worked on: a pension opportunity for those many British Columbians who have no pension provisions for the future beyond the federal pension. I think this is something that has engaged British Columbians. This is obviously something that has concerned a lot of people who have no significant pension provisions whatever for their retirement.

This is something that's still being worked on. It's a work-in-progress. It is not yet complete, but it is something that I think is absolutely important. We are, I think, desperately in need, not only in this province but in this country, of a structure that will give people additional monetary protection as they enter their retirement years.

Thirdly, Madam Speaker, you will recall that we had proposed, in the 2008-2009 budget, certain tax relief for personal income tax payers. Those tax relief measures have been brought forward, and instead of being effective on the first of January 2009 or the first of July 2008, all of those tax relief measures are going to be brought forward and are going to be effective as of January 1, 2008.

[1540]

In other words, on their 2008 tax returns in April of next year people are going to see some significant tax rebates as a result. In the meantime, as soon as this bill becomes effective, people can start enjoying a slightly lower provincial income tax on their monthly earnings.

I think that's a pretty significant measure that's being proposed by this bill. That alone is worth $144 million a year for British Columbians. And you know what?

Interjections.

J. Les: I hear members opposite chirping that that's not very much.

I know what their preferred approach is. I know what it is. Tax more; put the money in government hands, because government knows best, and government should spend money rather than people keeping the money themselves and spending it where they know best.

So $144 million a year additional is going to be left in the hands of British Columbia taxpayers. That is significant.

Fourthly, there's going to be a rebate for industrial property school taxes; 50 percent of all school property taxes will be rebated to light and heavy industries. Of course, I've heard NDP commentary that says: "Oh well, here goes another subsidy to industry."

This is specifically designed to allow industry to stay in business so that our constituents can keep their jobs. What is it about that that the NDP doesn't understand?

The member from Surrey–Panorama Ridge chirps away as if that's something he's never thought about before. But you know, our light and heavy industries across this province…

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Order. Members.
[ Page 13334 ]

J. Les: …especially in the north and especially in the forest industry, have been asking for especially this kind of tax relief to give them a chance to survive this current economic circumstance.

Interjections

J. Les: I don't mind if they want to heckle, Madam Speaker. It's okay.

Interjection.

Deputy Speaker: Member. Member.

J. Les: Those British Columbians who are going to be able to keep their jobs as a result of this tax relief being offered to their employers are going to be grateful that we have taken this measure in Bill 45. As well, there is further tax relief for the small business sector in this province, and their business income tax rate will be reduced to 2.5 percent from the current 3.5 percent, as effective on July 8, and a further reduction to 2.5 percent by 2011.

We lead the country in terms of taxation in this province, in that we lead the country in tax relief. British Columbians who earn up to $111,000 a year pay fewer income taxes than any Canadians anywhere else in this country. So the reduction in the small business income tax rate results in a further savings of $146 million over three years.

That makes it that much more likely that these small businesses will be able to stay in business and employ British Columbians. Small business owners know that they have a far better chance of surviving this economic situation that we're in today if government lets up and gives them tax relief. Small business owners that I know right across this province are people who are dedicated, people who are not lightly going to close their doors. With this extra leg up, they're going to be more likely able to ride the current crisis through.

The province, in Bill 45, proposes to double the commission that's paid for provincial sales tax and the hotel room occupancy tax, the commission that's paid to the hotels and the small businesses for collecting these taxes. That, again, is a very welcome gesture. It will, again, add about $60 million a year to the small business sector across this province. On an average business's bottom line, it results in about $1,200 additional.

[1545]

You know, each of these things by themselves are perhaps not huge contributions, but after a while this all starts to add up to some pretty serious money. I've talked about the $144 million in income tax relief to British Columbians, the $24 million in school property tax relief, the accelerated tax relief for small business — $146 million over three years. The commission on PST and HRT collections is $60 million over three years. You add all of these things up, and pretty soon, as I said, you're looking at pretty serious tax relief for British Columbians. That is on top of the 103 other measures of tax relief that we have put in place over the last seven years, which by the way, the opposition voted against every time. Every time we offered and tabled tax relief in this House, the opposition voted against it.

British Columbians should be clear. Whenever we offer British Columbians a leg up, whenever we offer British Columbians a chance to succeed, whenever we offer British Columbians tax relief, the member for Surrey–Panorama Ridge, the Leader of the Opposition and the entire NDP caucus vote against it every time.

I'm going to wind up my remarks. As I've said, it's not my intention to stand up here and filibuster the bill. I think this is important legislation. It needs to pass, it needs to pass quickly, and I'm disappointed that the NDP are filibustering a bill that ultimately they're going to vote in favour of.

J. McGinn: It's a great privilege to rise in the House today to give my very first speech as a new MLA for Vancouver-Fairview. I'd like to just first of all thank the residents of Vancouver-Fairview for putting their trust and support and faith in me to bring a very strong voice to this Legislature on their behalf. Thank you very much to Vancouver-Fairview.

I'd also like to thank the very hard working volunteers and staff that worked on my campaign to get me to where I am today. In particular, I'd like to pay tribute to my campaign manager Glen MacInnes. Glen was an amazing campaign manager, and I appreciated his support very much.

I'd also like to thank my parents, Joan and Brendon McGinn, who were here all the way from Charlottetown, P.E.I., for my swearing-in ceremony. I want to thank my parents for just raising me with good social values and values that help me realize when to stand up for what's right and what's wrong in our society, and I really thank them very much for doing that.

Just on a bit of a personal note — Madam Speaker, if you will let me just go on for a minute — it's with great pride that I do join other esteemed NDP politicians with roots in Prince Edward Island. I'd like to just mention a couple of them.

Angus MacInnis served as a Member of Parliament for Vancouver East from 1930 to 1956, with the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation. Mr. MacInnis was from Glenwilliam, P.E.I., in Kings County.

Now, everyone's going to know the next woman who I'm going to mention who has roots in Prince Edward Island and who had served in this Legislature for a great many years, and that's the very feisty, legendary, passionate, outspoken former member for Vancouver-Hastings, Joy MacPhail.
[ Page 13335 ]

Joy was born in Hamilton, Ontario, as most of us know, but her father still resides in Montague, Prince Edward Island. One of the things that most of us from P.E.I. — or from Atlantic Canada, certainly — are known for is having a very good sense of humour. I suspect that that's going to come in handy here in the Legislature.

An Hon. Member: No kidding. Good point.

J. McGinn: Yes.

So we've got MacInnis, we've got MacPhail, and now we've got McGinn. I certainly hope to live up to the greatness achieved by the other members from Prince Edward Island. We're a very rare but a feisty group, and we share a very deep belief in social and economic justice, and we're passionate to the core.

Madam Speaker, thank you for allowing me just a few moments of personal time. I do appreciate that. Thank you to the members of the House as well.

[1550]

I rise today to speak about the economic stabilization bill that we're discussing today. The Premier delivered his ten-point economic plan just a week prior to the by-elections in Vancouver-Fairview and Vancouver-Burrard as an attempt to sway voters and to skew the results of the by-elections. Well, the people of Burrard and Fairview sent the Premier a very strong message of what they thought of his plan when they sent Spencer and myself over to the Legislature.

When I was out on the doorsteps of my constituency, people were telling me that they feel that there is a polarized economy in British Columbia — one for the Premier, his friends and his insiders, and one for the rest of us — an economy that is struggling, that is having a harder time making ends meet. Now that we're six months away from an election, the economy is suddenly a priority for the Premier.

Well, we want an economy where everyone matters, an economy that helps people thrive and prosper, an economy that values the work of all workers, an economy that pays people a living wage.

The Premier's economic plan does nothing to address the greatest shame in our province, and that is the appalling designation we have of the highest child poverty rate in the country. This is absolutely shameful. We have failed the children of our province by failing their families. Most of the children who are growing up in poverty are being raised by a single-parent family. We all know that most of those single-parent families are led by women.

So what we're really talking about today is women's poverty, the fact that far too many women are trapped in low-pay jobs with very little, if any, security or benefits.

When we talk about child poverty, we have to look at the fact that the minimum wage has not risen since this government has taken power — over seven years since the minimum wage has been increased in this province. We have to talk about the fact that these parents are not getting the support that they need to get the job that they need, whether that's because of a lack of available training, child care or both. Indeed, there are still a number of significant barriers in place for women's full participation in the workplace.

I'm wondering how the government could let it get this bad in good times. I share the concern expressed by many in Fairview about what will happen to child poverty as their economy becomes more unstable.

Prior to joining this House I was employed as a banker for the province's largest credit union. I was working for Vancity's business banking team. I'm well aware of the importance of a strong and diverse economy and the importance that small businesses play in creating such an economy. I know how hard you have to work to create a successful business, a business that creates jobs and contributes to the economy. I'm also well aware of how those businesses depend on commitments made by government and how devastating it can be when those commitments by government are broken.

The businesses along Cambie Street corridor in my constituency know better than anyone about this devastation. The construction of the Canada line along Cambie Street has created havoc for the small business community. They've been assured by TransLink that there would be a bored tunnel and that the disruption would only last three to four months. We are all painfully aware, some more painfully aware than others, that this was not the case.

Instead, to save costs, TransLink went ahead with the cost-saving cut-and-cover method. This meant full excavation in front of storefronts which lasted a minimum of 11 months, and in many cases considerably more.

The question I ask today is: at whose cost were these savings borne? The impact to the small business community has been substantial. Over 50 small businesses along the corridor were either bankrupted or forced to relocate. Many of these businesses have been longstanding institutions in my community. They've had their dreams crushed because of careless and callous decisions made by TransLink and this government. This is clearly no way to show support for the small business community.

[1555]

The average business impacted by the Canada line saw a sales loss of approximately $112,000 in the first year of construction alone — $112,000. Now, we can very well determine that that number is substantially higher, because this survey was done well over a year ago. In fact, a Canadian Federation of Independent Business report poses the question: "Why were the concerns…about the impact of the construction on their livelihoods not taken more seriously during the initial review of the project, particularly after the construction method was changed from tunnelling to the more disruptive cut-and-cover?"
[ Page 13336 ]

All partners in this project have failed to make small business viability along the line an issue of major concern. I share the concerns expressed by the CFIB. Small businesses play a vital role in our economy and, in fact, are responsible for creating the majority of jobs in this province. Certainly they deserve our support.

Madam Speaker, in another vein, I just wanted to talk to you about how on the campaign I met a great deal of young families in Fairview. When I was out on their doorsteps, I happened to meet a young professional couple named Candace and David, and they told me about the challenges that they have in making ends meet.

They had a two-year-old son and were expecting another child on the way in just a few more months' time. They told me about their concerns and frustrations about trying to find child care that was safe and affordable. They felt they seemed to be paying more and getting less, whether it's increases in MSP fees, transit, hydro or carbon tax. All these additional expenses place additional burdens on families.

I also spoke to a number of students. They wanted to be able to graduate so that they could get jobs in their chosen careers — jobs that will contribute to this province and to the economy. They were frustrated by their growing student debts and are feeling trapped and snowed under. They wonder why they can get a cheaper interest rate for buying a car than they can on their student loan.

They wonder why the government of British Columbia has not taken action to help them, as other governments across this country have for students. They wonder why the Premier made no mention of support for post-secondary institutions in his ten-point plan. Like others in this province, they feel abandoned by this government.

Carole James believes in building for the future, and by investing in education and skills training, her plan includes training young people and providing supports so they don't get some of the highest debt loads in our country. Carole James proposes to cut the student loan interest rate by 50 percent, and students are excited by that plan.

The NDP's economic plan is balanced and fair. The NDP supports putting more money in the pockets of middle-income families and small business, and I support that. Our plan is about a British Columbia where everyone matters, where everyone can thrive and prosper, and where everyone can fulfil their dreams.

D. Chudnovsky: I'm pleased to be in a position this afternoon to respond in debate to Bill 45, and I think that it's worthwhile beginning my response with a discussion about the need for Bill 45.

I think it's really important, if we're to debate and understand that bill and understand its motivation, that we spend a little time asking ourselves the question: why is it that the Premier was moved to put forward his so-called ten-point plan for the economy and, as part of that, to bring forward this bill that's before us today? What's going on that the Premier would feel the need to respond in what is in fact quite an extraordinary way?

[1600]

It's not an extraordinary bill. It's less than an extraordinary bill. It's an extraordinary response. Of course, the reason for Bill 45 and the so-called ten points of the Premier is that we're facing an unprecedented financial crisis, an unprecedented economic crisis, and most observers will tell us that we haven't seen an economic crisis like the one we face at least since 1929, since the Great Depression.

We might ask ourselves: what's the assessment by observers, by economists, by people who look at the financial situation, by people who are looking at the crisis? You might ask yourself: what's their assessment of the cause? Of course, if we're going to have a reasonable response to this crisis, it would be useful to look at the cause or the causes of the crisis.

If you look at the assessments that have been made by economists across the world and across political lines, there's a consensus as to the reason for the current crisis which drove the government and the Premier to bring forward his so-called ten points and this legislation. The consensus is that the cause of the crisis was the belief, and the public policy that arose from that belief, that privatization and deregulation and greed are what we should base our economic policies on.

It's the case that in much of the western world for the last 25 or 30 years, except for some governments in some places, there's been this belief that deregulation and privatization and greed are the stuff of building a strong economy. Turns out it doesn't work. Turns out that the assessments that have been made by economists across international lines, and across political lines as well, say that the unprecedented crisis that we face is because people believed that deregulation, privatization and greed were good for the economy and therefore put forward public policy based on deregulation, privatization and greed.

We need to ask ourselves the question: if an uncritical belief in deregulation, privatization and greed was the cause of this crisis, shouldn't our government be having a good close look at their belief, reflected in policy that they've promulgated over the last seven years, that deregulation, privatization and greed are the stuff of good economic policy?

Interjections.

D. Chudnovsky: They should learn from that experience. They should learn from the judgment that's being put forward by economists across the political spectrum that it's the wrong kind of economic policy.

One would have hoped that in the ten points that the Premier put forward and in bill 45 that's before us
[ Page 13337 ]
today, there would be evidence that the government and the Premier were listening to the assessment that's been made by those across political lines around the world that deregulation turns out not to be so good. But this is a government that bases everything on deregulation — everything. They bray and they snort and they argue with pride about their seven-year flirtation with deregulation.

It's not just a flirtation. It was consummated. Their consummated relationship with deregulation — they brag about that. We see no self-criticism, so the lessons of those who have assessed this crisis seem to have fallen on deaf ears on the other side of the House. The same with privatization.

[1605]

Deregulation. It's the deregulation of many industries, where instead of regulation, we have this kind of self-assessment that industries are supposed to do it themselves — kind of the way the financial industry in the United States has been operating over the last seven years. Yet economists tell us that was a big mistake. That's what's caused this incredible crisis we're all going to suffer from. But this government doesn't seem to learn. They haven't taken that lesson.

Privatization of anything that moves and a lot of stuff that doesn't move was the mantra of this government for seven years. Not just the mantra. It has been reflected in public policy. That's been discredited over the last couple of months. It's been discredited by virtually every economist. Every economist who looks at what's happened says that privatization, deregulation and greed are the cause of the problems. But nowhere in what's been presented by this government, so far at least, is there an understanding that those are in fact the problems.

The trickle-down theories that underlie the enormous tax breaks to the wealthiest people in British Columbia over these seven years…. Nobody who's assessing the crisis that we now face believes in that anymore, but we don't see any evidence of that from this government at this point.

I begin my comments with a suggestion to those on the other side that they take a lesson from this enormous crisis that we all face together and learn from that crisis and learn from the economists across the political spectrum who say that their principles, the principles that underlie this government's policies — privatization, deregulation and greed — don't work. They land us up in a place where we don't want to be, which is where we're at now.

We could have expected, we should have expected, we do expect from this government that in the face of the international failure of privatization, deregulation and greed in the last number of weeks, they take note of that and that they look at alternate ways of making things better for people in British Columbia, which after all is the job that we have to do in this House.

As we look at where action could be taken and should be taken in Bill 45 and in other measures that are brought before this House, we might turn to the children of B.C. We had some discussion of that earlier in the day, but I think it's worthwhile mentioning that the latest report on child poverty shows that 21.9 percent of the children in British Columbia are poor, live in poverty.

Where is their poverty spoken to in Bill 45? Highest in the country, fifth straight year. I've sat in this House — and so has everybody else — and heard the excuses from the government side over and over. "Oh, that's last year." "Oh, that was last year." "That was the year before." Fifth straight year, highest child poverty in the country in British Columbia — 21.9 percent.

We should expect of this government — of any government, of our government, the government of British Columbia — that in a plan to deal with this extraordinary crisis we face, there should be something for those children. But it's not there.

It's 2008. We live in British Columbia — 181,000 children living in poverty, fifth straight year, worst in the country. That's more than the combined total populations of Nanaimo, Prince George and Cranbrook — 181,000 children living in poverty in British Columbia. In the midst of an economic crisis, where's the policy? Where's the legislation? Where's the piece of Bill 45 that speaks to the needs of those 181,000 children? It's not there.

[1610]

The last five years were good years in British Columbia. International economic factors, the high prices of commodities and the low interest rates contributed to the fact that those were, economically speaking, in terms of the gross economy, pretty good years.

Of course, the economy is not the end. It's the means to the end. We're not working to make the economy good. We're hoping that the economy will be good so that people can live better lives.

In those relatively good years, the last five years, British Columbia had the highest child poverty in the country year after year after year. What's going to happen in the years to come, which we all know are going to be more difficult?

This government presided over five years of the worst child poverty in the country, in years that were kind of good for the economy — high commodity prices, low interest rates. Nothing to do with this lot over here, but they were there, and the economy, relatively speaking, performed fairly well. And in those circumstances, we had five years of the worst child poverty in the country.

What's going to happen in the years to come? Where is that issue dealt with in the Premier's so-called ten-point plan? Where is that issue dealt with in the bill that's before us today?

Do you know, Madam Speaker, that British Columbia is the only province in the country — the only province in the country — where the child poverty rate was
[ Page 13338 ]
higher in 2006 than it was in 1997? Where's that spoken to in Bill 45? Where's that in the Premier's so-called ten-point plan?

Economic crisis, yes. Premier's so-called plan, yes. Bill 45, yes. We're looking for those elements that speak to the real needs of the people of British Columbia.

Now, the Leader of the Opposition brings forward a proposal in a plan that she put forward. She brings forward a proposal that actually will speak to the needs of the people of British Columbia. You know that we have between 10,000 and 15,000 homeless people in British Columbia — 2008. This is not Bangladesh. It's not Guatemala. It's British Columbia, 2008, and we have between 10,000 and 15,000 homeless people in British Columbia.

The Leader of the Opposition says that in the face of the economic crisis that we're entering and in the face of the suggestion by many, many economists that spending on infrastructure at a time like this is a good thing…. It will tend to prime the pump of the economy, at least to some extent. Even the Premier talks about infrastructure. It's pretty vague. We don't know what it is yet. He knows the word "infrastructure," so he put it in his plan.

The Leader of the Opposition says we need to have a massive building campaign in British Columbia to provide the possibility for those 10,000 or 15,000 people in British Columbia in 2008, who don't have anywhere to live, to have the opportunity for somewhere to live. Now, that's something the people of British Columbia will get behind.

Interjections.

D. Chudnovsky: I note, from the other side, more excuses for no houses for people who don't have anywhere to live. More excuses. That's all we've heard. Today they're inventing more excuses for not housing the homeless.

We know, from every study that's ever been done anywhere in the world, that it's cheaper to house the homeless than it is to spend the enormous amounts of money on police officers and on courts and on jails and on ambulances and on emergency room care and on acute care beds and on emergency shelters. We know — all the studies have been done — that's it's cheaper in the end.

It's the right thing to do. God knows, that should convince them. That's enough. That should convince them that people shouldn't be homeless in B.C. in 2008, but caring about people is a tough one for the folks on the other side, so I present to them another argument.

It's the right thing to do to provide homes for people who don't have homes. But that's not enough for that lot, so I present to them another argument — that in the end, it's cheaper. It's cheaper. We will save a billion dollars over five years if we provide homes for the homeless in B.C. and provide them with the supports they need to be successful. That's not….

Interjections.

D. Chudnovsky: Oh, more excuses from the other side. They will talk endlessly — oftentimes they don't have the intestinal fortitude to get up and say it — about all the reasons not to provide homes for the homeless people of B.C.

[1615]

What an opportunity. When everyone who looks at the crisis and looks at it seriously says to us that spending on infrastructure is an important way to deal with the crisis that we face and the Leader of the Opposition says, "Let's build houses for people who need houses," what do we get from the other side? We get excuses, and I say that's not good enough for the people of British Columbia.

A 364 percent increase in street-level homelessness in Vancouver since 2002. That's the period that this government has been in place — since 2002 a 364 percent increase. What do we get from them when we point that out? Excuses — excuses for not doing what needs to be done.

It is incredibly entertaining to hear the lack of substance that's coming from the other side. They don't have to have the guts to get up and speak to it. But even when they're sitting down and attempting to add to the….

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members, order. Members.

D. Chudnovsky: Madam Speaker, thank you for that.

We look forward to the members of the government side having the opportunity to stand in this House, stand in this place, and provide the excuses that they have for not moving on these incredibly important issues — child poverty, fifth year in a row, worst in Canada; homelessness, between 10,000 and 15,000 people homeless in British Columbia.

We look forward, because they have that opportunity for members of the government side to get up and explain their excuses for not moving forward.

Today in the House we talked about my neighbours, people who live at Little Mountain — 33rd and Main in Vancouver, wonderful people — being pushed out of their homes. At a time when there's a crisis of homelessness in B.C., those people being pushed out…. Wouldn't it be great if part of the government's plan in Bill 45…?

Deputy Speaker: Excuse me, Member.

D. Chudnovsky: Sure.

Hon. G. Abbott: I think we have provided…. The member could take his seat, I think. While appreciating
[ Page 13339 ]
that there is latitude at second reading around these things, I fear the member has completely lost touch with Bill 45 and should address his comments to it.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Minister.

D. Chudnovsky: Bill 45, Madam Speaker, would be a better bill, a significantly better bill, were the needs of the people — my neighbours at Little Mountain — taken into account. The opposition leader has put forward a plan for the building of homes for people who don't have homes.

At the very same time this government is pushing people out of homes that people could live in, there are 200 empty places. Wouldn't it be great if in Bill 45, as part of the infrastructure plan, there was a plan to re-tenant those places at Little Mountain so that 200 additional families could find an affordable place to live? But it's not there.

It's my job. I work for the people of Vancouver-Kensington. It's my job to tell that to this government. It's not there. There is no plan in that bill for housing the homeless, for making sure children shouldn't be poor in this province. It's my job to say that, and I'm going to say it.

I wanted to talk for a minute about the elements of this legislation that impose unilateral taxation changes onto the taxing structure of municipalities in this province. I guess my first response is: what else is new? What else is new? This government is unilaterally intruding into the areas of responsibility of municipalities, school boards, transportation authorities. What else is new?

[1620]

You know, I think we've become accustomed to that. We've become accustomed to the legislation, which is brought forward year after year and session after session in this House, in which this government takes away…. This is a government that's intent on centralization of power in the government, and really, we all know where it's really centralized. This is a government's attempt at centralization of power in the Premier's office.

That's what characterizes this government, and so we shouldn't be surprised that there is an element in this legislation which unilaterally intrudes on the responsibility of local municipalities when it comes to property taxes.

Interjection.

D. Chudnovsky: The foghorn seems to have been turned on, but there's no fog, and we'll continue to speak.

This legislation unilaterally intrudes. And it's not the people on this side of the House who you have to listen to about this unilateral intrusion into the responsibilities of local government. Just listen to local government. Just listen to the people from the Union of B.C. Municipalities, the UBCM. They've made it very clear, despite the foghorn on the other side, that they see this, correctly, as a unilateral intrusion into their jurisdiction.

You know, you should actually talk to folks. You should actually talk to folks about what you're going to do to them before you do it to them. It reminds me of the intrusion with respect to TransLink, where locally elected mayors and councillors who made the decisions with respect to transportation policy in the Lower Mainland were unilaterally stripped of their responsibility.

This is a government of unilateralism and of centralization, and the element in the legislation that's before us today that intrudes into the power and the responsibility of local governments when it comes to property taxation is yet another example of the way that this government is intent on intruding.

Well, what could we do if we were serious about wanting…? I note my colleague. He should hang around a little bit.

What should we be doing if we were serious about a bill that would begin to grapple with a very, very serious economic situation? I would put forward four or five areas of the economy where there could be tremendous improvement, and the people of B.C. would see their government dealing with the crisis appropriately.

Two I've already spoken of. One is child poverty. We need a child poverty plan that deals with the enormous embarrassment, the breathtaking embarrassment that British Columbia should have for five years in a row the worst child poverty in the country. That should be part of the economic plan.

Secondly, there should be, as part of the economic plan for dealing with the crisis, an infrastructure plan that includes a massive housing plan to deal with the 10,000 to 15,000 British Columbians — our neighbours, not some alien species from another planet — who have nowhere to live.

Thirdly, I think that we need an element of our economic plan that deals with education. I note that the President-elect in the United States sees as a central element of his plan improvements in education. We need an element of our economic plan that looks to class-size problems and class-composition problems, which this government finally woke up to a couple of years ago and has done virtually nothing about since then. That needs to be part of our economic plan.

[1625]

We need seismic upgrading of our schools, which is another element of infrastructure that needs to be dealt with. The empty promises of members opposite with respect to seismic upgrading have been pointed out over and over again. People and communities across the province, and certainly in mine, understand that the promises haven't been kept, and there are dozens and dozens of schools that need seismic upgrading so our children will be safe.
[ Page 13340 ]

Finally, child care. We need a program that speaks to the needs of the people of the province for a child care system that provides for the children of the province the kind of start that they need. That would be an economic plan that we could stand behind. That would be an economic plan that would deal with the real problems that the people of the province face.

That would be an economic plan that would be consistent with the critique of the mantra of greed and privatization and deregulation that this government seems intent on being the last government in the world to believe in. Everybody else understands that we've got to get away from privatization and deregulation and greed. They may be the last ones on earth to stand by the trickle-down theories which have been discredited over the last number of months. That would be an economic plan that would be worth supporting.

With that, I take my place.

R. Fleming: Thank you for allowing me to take my place in debate of this bill that's before us at second reading. I was very pleased to hear the Premier himself say a couple of days ago in this very place that he wants all parties to work together — to work together to address the economy, to address the anxieties that many British Columbians are feeling today as they look around the world at a very changed place from just a couple of months ago.

But I have to say that the Premier has a very funny way of showing his new-found support for all-party unity on these issues. Let's not forget — how can we forget? — that in September, the Premier cancelled the fall sitting of this Legislature. He only called it back to discuss his plan.

There has been no reaching across the aisle to talk to other parties in this Legislature or, indeed, to talk to economic organizations and opinion leaders in British Columbia before coming up with the ten-point plan that was announced on the airwaves of British Columbia in the month of October. It wasn't done.

It was astounding. I know that a number of members have spoken to it already, on the issue of the property tax assessment freeze. It's astounding to me that not even one mayor or member of the UBCM executive was consulted before that announcement was made. And you can bet that not one senior manager of the B.C. Assessment Authority itself was consulted on that part of the package, because they would have told the Premier to back off.

They would have told him, as members of the opposition have in this part of the debate, that that would have no impact. It wouldn't do anything for homeowners except to confuse them. It wouldn't do anything for municipalities and how they raise their tax revenue to run their programs and services.

I think that the point of that part of the economic plan was to give the illusion that something was being done, to give the illusion that homeowners would be gaining more security. In fact, the opposite may be happening. I'll get more into that in a moment.

Nobody would unreasonably say to any Premier, let alone this Premier, that he failed to predict the scope and scale of the elements of today's world economic downturn — the worst, some believe, since the 1930s. And that's not rhetoric. That is the commonly held belief between economists, not just on this continent but in many parts of the world.

Having said that, though, there were certainly warning signs on the horizon for British Columbia. Our forest industry, as has been commented, was already facing a steep decline. That is why it's so surprising that in this economic package forestry doesn't feature at all. That was there for this government to see. Housing prices were already levelling off well before October, well before the economic address by the Premier.

[1630]

Wages for middle-class families were stagnating. This is perhaps the most obvious canary in the coalmine for any economy. People were paying more and getting less for everything from hydro rates to ferry fares. Then, of course, serious social issues like homelessness and property crime were getting worse.

Those indicators were even according to the Premier's own progress board, which ranked B.C. ninth out of ten in Canada on our social condition. It was during prosperous years of growth that that widening inequality occurred in British Columbia. That certainly bodes very poorly for some of the measures we should be taking to help our economy now, as it faces different, more uncertain times.

But there were other things — knowledge that was available to the Premier prior to his economic address — one of them being gas prices that took hundreds of millions of dollars out of our economy in this year alone.

The government didn't take advantage of the growing economy and the budget surpluses it had, to deal with many of the mounting economic and social challenges that others have been speaking for as we debate Bill 45.

Instead, government blew much of its surplus on a number of key pet projects and cost overruns. We have, famously, the largest cost overrun of any infrastructure project in B.C. history: the trade and convention centre in Vancouver. That is a billion-dollar, bloated budget — double the original budget that was set by government.

Our constituents, the people of British Columbia, do expect focus from their government — rightly so. They want their leaders to deliver on what they expect is fundamental to the business that we do here. They understand the need for competitive taxes. They understand the need for fiscal responsibility.

British Columbians again and again speak out in opinion poll after opinion poll in favour of public health care and a strong education system. They spoke out on October 29 in opinion polls in two by-elections in
[ Page 13341 ]
Vancouver, in favour of health care and education. That message shouldn't be lost, but unfortunately, it's missing from the Premier's plan.

The global economic system we live in is more interrelated and entangled than ever before. It's connected by trade and consumption patterns. We live on the same commodity price markets as every other jurisdiction in the world. Our economy soars and is challenged by those indicators and those mechanisms.

What's interesting is that long before we were having this debate on this particular bill, there was a lot to talk about in B.C.'s economy. By the end of 2007, B.C. actually placed fourth among the ten provinces in Canada for growth. To hear this government, they would claim that they were leading the country, but it's not so, and in this year the problems are really going to sink in.

This year growth rates have been ratcheted down three times by this Finance Minister. They've been changed downward many more times than that by economists at most of the major banks. The chief economist at the Credit Union Central of B.C. is predicting almost no growth for this fiscal year.

The warning signs, the reduced estimates for economic activity, as I said, were already beginning. The collapse of the forestry sector and, I think, the failure to diversify the economy over the last eight years were what was driving the crash of B.C.'s export sector.

You know, if British Columbia was a country, we would have a very, very significant and serious trade deficit, one that has grown over the past several years as value-added products and sales of our goods abroad decline. Yet there's nothing in this economic bill that deals with those kinds of long-term, structural issues. It's not there.

Let's look at the property tax intervention. I said I would come back to that, and I want to deal with it a little bit now. The rationale for freezing rate assessments at the previous year's levels given by the Premier is that property values in British Columbia have, in his words, fluctuated widely since assessments were conducted last July.

[1635]

Now, leaving aside the fact that that is an incorrect judgment, in my view…. There is no wide fluctuation in property markets in British Columbia between that date and where we sit now. Leaving that aside, the thrust of this policy isn't that it doesn't sound good. It's that it won't work, and that's the test of any policy as to whether it's worth anything. Maybe that's the point. It's to sound good and worry less about whether it works.

The problem here is that municipalities set their tax rate according to a slide rule, if you like, a mill rate that goes up and down with the overall assessment of property collectively within their jurisdictional borders. The amount of money to be raised by any local government determines the rate per thousands of dollars each property owner will pay. That's not going to change because of this part of the economic package. But illusion is not the making of good public policy.

You know, in Victoria, just looking at my own area here and looking at the real estate market and property assessments, it's difficult to make the point that home prices have fluctuated widely since assessments were conducted on July 1, 2008.

The median price for October 2008, as an example, for single-family homes in this area is identical to what it was in October 2007, the year prior. It hasn't changed. The median price in June 2008, just prior to the July 1 assessment date for single-family homes in greater Victoria — and I'm including waterfronts in this calculation — was $538,000, which has dropped to only $495,000 for October 2008.

In the city of Victoria only — and these statistics from the real estate board exclude Victoria West — in June 2008 the median price was $478,000. In October 2008 the median price was $434,000. In other words, the average hopeful savings on assessed value based on that $43,000 drop in value on a mill rate — and I'll pick Saanich's, which is $5.8 per thousand in 2007…. Even if the property rate assessment freeze of this government was interpreted to be a property tax savings, which it is not, the most a typical homeowner could hope to save would be $200 a year.

But, as I said, that's not the mechanism that is put in place by this policy. Nothing happens. The municipality will simply take the assessments they get, set the property taxes that they need at the rate that equals that amount. That's how it will happen, and there will be no savings, not one penny, to homeowners because of this policy. So it's illusory. It's an illusory policy. That's not good enough.

We're here to debate real things that will make a real difference in people's lives, that will help them weather the storms of the economy that we see ahead of us. That's why I look at some of the very thoughtful things that have been suggested to our very own Legislature's Standing Committee on Finance from organizations like the B.C. Business Council, among others, who have suggested that a package like this have as its goal an outcome, progress towards building a more innovative and diversified economy.

You know, British Columbia, in comparison with other jurisdictions in North America and elsewhere in Europe, has failed by that measure to reach its full potential. We have not aggressively used tax policy and other policy instruments to stimulate innovation and commercialization and the growth of advanced technology industries.

I think British Columbia can learn a lot from that, and I think British Columbia should be debating those kinds of things right now, this November, in this pre-budget period where economic measures that will make a difference to create jobs for British Columbians should be examined.

[1640]
[ Page 13342 ]

There are some tax exemptions that Ontario has considered to help its high-tech industry and to help the production of patents and goods that they might manufacture to be stimulated. Why aren't we doing that here in British Columbia?

Instead, we're just across the board giving industries of any kind an untargeted tax benefit of 50 percent of the school taxes that they will pay. Well, it doesn't matter if the mill is running or shut down, in the example of the forest industry; that company will receive that tax cut.

That's worth $115 million in British Columbia. Now, that tax cut may not go to create one single job in B.C. In fact, it may go to dividends to shareholders who don't even live in this country or this province. That's a blind tax cut at a time when we need targeted tax cuts in our province to create jobs, because jobs have been leaving this province in the last month. In October B.C. posted the worst job loss record in the country.

Things are changing very quickly, and we're going to have to, as a province, fight for every job, because every job supports a family in British Columbia. This bill doesn't do that. That tone and policy thrust and difference and investment in people is not in this package.

If the Premier truly was sincere about all parties working together to come up with a rescue plan for our economy that will work for British Columbians, then maybe he can borrow some ideas that have been advanced elsewhere.

I've mentioned a couple already, but I think one of the missed opportunities in the legislation that we're talking about and his announcement prior was a failure to look at infrastructure programs that have both a social and environmental benefit — advancing those projects, some of which are on the books today, but also contemplating other infrastructure projects that government hasn't yet given support to.

Naturally — again, I apologize, because I want to speak to my constituents on this — I will look in my own backyard for worthy infrastructure projects that I think would have a very valuable and stimulative effect in our economy.

One of them is not far from this building. It's the Belleville international ferry terminal. For seven years that project has been giftwrapped to the government. There was a rezoning through city council. There was a consolidation of properties between what were formerly three or four owners to sole ownership by the province. It supports a million ferry passengers through four international carriers coming annually to this tourism economy, one of the most significant regional tourism economies in B.C.

We have studies that show we could double that annual visitor traffic to two million, and nothing has been done to build and redevelop that ferry terminal. That is something that absolutely should be done now. It was something that previous members, who no longer sit with government, in the last mandate of this party promised would be done by 2010, and there has been no progress at all in that direction.

I think that if we're talking about an economic stimulus package, certainly for the south Island, that is the kind of infrastructure exactly that we need, because it supports retail and service sector jobs and a tourism operator economy that Victoria desperately needs.

Another one is to look at the Victoria Airport Authority. When you look at the amount of U.S. and international overnight visitors in decline across B.C. in six out of eight regions — double digits in some cases — we know that we need to have a plan that's going to not simply passively accept that fewer people are going to come. We need to have gateways that will enable people to visit British Columbia, make it easier for them to get here.

I mentioned the ferries. I want to mention Victoria's international airport. For the cost of approximately $20 million, if we had senior government support to expand runway capacity, we could have direct flights from Europe into the south Island. That would be a fantastic thing. Think of the jobs and suppliers that that would employ. Think of the money that would come into our economy in that regard.

Those are the kind of specifics that are missing from this legislation and from what the Premier has hinted are his infrastructure ideas.

Then I would go to public transportation. The government has said a lot about wishing people to make lifestyle choices that reduce their so-called carbon footprint and the way they move around in their daily lives, to work and back to their homes. You'd think that would be matched by some programs that would actually enable people to do that easily, but it's not there.

[1645]

I don't know for how many years we have had an active commuter rail proposal before this government. The reaction has been, at best, to try and slow them down and study them, but there has never been a commitment and the leadership to do it.

The same goes for the bus system that we have now. It has been a victim of its own success, but the fact is that after eight years the service levels today in greater Victoria are less than they were in 1999, and we've got overcrowded conditions. Those are things that don't attract new riders. Those are things that deter the ones that are currently using that system.

Green infrastructure is critical. It moves people around to their jobs. It attracts employers. Foreign investors who may wish to open shop here look at the kinds of things their employees will enjoy — their quality of life, the way they will get to work.

To look at Vancouver, for example, and to see the ranking it got in a recent report as the worst bus system of any major city in Canada…. It's symptomatic of failure and neglect by this government, and nothing is being done in this economic plan.
[ Page 13343 ]

I want to speak about one huge missing gap in this economic bill and one that, I would like to think…. If there was any sincerity in the Premier's offer to work with other parties and other opinion leaders and other people in this province to shape what an economic rescue plan should look like — I would like to think that if that offer were sincere — higher education would feature very largely in that plan.

Instead, in this budget year alone we've seen a $50 million cut to our colleges and universities. Funds were withdrawn, programs cancelled, teachers laid off at the college and university level, while other jurisdictions — Alberta, others to the south of us and other provinces, like Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Ontario and Quebec — significantly increased the investment they're making in advanced education. It's unthinkable that B.C. decided 2008 was the year to slow down and cut investment in advanced education.

While we would like to see some money go to those institutions, we would also like to see opportunities for young people and workers needing retraining from industries like forestry and elsewhere, where job losses are occurring now, and it may yet get worse. We would like to see an opportunities package that would allow those people to go to school, to get skills and training to try and recession-proof themselves in their own lives and make a living here in the province of B.C. That's not in this bill.

The Leader of the Opposition outlined a plan that would have provided opportunity grants for people to study, to address the crisis of student debt loads that we have in British Columbia. We have the worst record in the country for student debt upon graduation.

The Millennium Scholarship Foundation of Canada in October of this year, the same month that the Premier made his economic address, said that B.C. had gone from first in the country in terms of its student aid program to worst. We have the distinction now of being the worst, as in the least generous, jurisdiction in all of Canada for supporting students of low- and middle-income backgrounds to go to school, afford school and complete school.

We should be talking about an economic package that invests in our people, in the social capital of this province, to make this a better place, to make people more confident that they're going to be able to make a living here, raise a family, send their kids to school and build a stronger province. Instead, none of that is in this package. It's unthinkable, but it's a fact.

While there are some very clever low- or even no-risk features of this bill, of the plan that the Premier outlined, including the security put on credit union deposits…. I have absolutely no problem with that. It has my 100 percent support. It comes at absolutely no cost to the province, I might add. There's absolutely, almost, no risk that depositors with credit unions, whether it's at $100,000 or $300,000, were ever at risk of losing any of that money. It looks great. It looks like something's being done, when in fact, nothing will change in that regard.

[1650]

What I've said today, and other members have ably said on this side of the House, is that we need more meat on the bone in an economic plan. We need an infrastructure plan that will put British Columbians to work, that will stimulate the economy. We need a plan that invests in our people, which is our greatest resource — it's the greatest resource any industrialized, advanced economy has — and that is not there.

With that, I will conclude my remarks and take my place, and I look forward to committee stage of this bill.

Deputy Speaker: Member for Coquitlam–Burke Mountain. I'm sorry, Member. Port Coquitlam–Burke Mountain.

M. Farnworth: Thank you, hon. Speaker. As those of us who live in the Tri-Cities know, there is a difference between Port Coquitlam and Coquitlam.

It's my pleasure to rise and take my place in this debate and also to inform the House at ten to five that I will be the designated speaker, so I have, I believe, two hours to speak, which would take us to ten to seven.

I know the Minister of Finance is delighted to hear those remarks. The former Minister of Finance is even more delighted to hear that. But I would also inform the Finance Minister that we should expect to vote this afternoon after six o'clock — just to let him know that we will be voting on second reading this afternoon before 6:30 today.

Before I get into the substance of Bill 45, I want to address a number of comments that have been made around Bill 45 by the government, some of the government members, particularly around some of the issues regarding the opposition and voting.

I think it's important to set the record straight to ensure that the people at home who are watching understand exactly how the parliamentary system works and how it takes place. I think, you know, if they just listen to some of the government members — I'm thinking of the comments from the member from Chilliwack-Kent, who earlier in the House, and the member from I think Okanagan-Westside — who repeatedly like to say that the opposition voted against 103 tax cuts, every single time.

Interjection.

M. Farnworth: I hear shame, and I hear shame.

I find that somewhat puzzling. You know, I thought, particularly, that some of those members have been here more than one term now and know how this place works and how our democracy works and that that the job of opposition — to oppose the budget. We vote against
[ Page 13344 ]
it. That is the role of the opposition. It is not to rubber-stamp the government's agenda.

So they are being somewhat disingenuous when they suggest that the opposition has opposed 103 tax cuts, because they know full well it's our job. It's no different than when some of those same members sat on this side of the House, they opposed every single tax cut that was made by the government of the day during the 1990s. They opposed….

Interjections.

M. Farnworth: Ah. The member for Chilliwack-Sumas. I remember. I hear the heckles from the member.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members.

M. Farnworth: I hear the cackling of the member for Chilliwack-Sumas, who asks me to name just one. And I will. When the small business tax rate was lowered in this province to, I believe, either the lowest or the second lowest in the entire country, he and his colleagues voted against that.

And while we're on the topic, I'd just like to remind them that while they're busy going on about that we voted against 103 tax cuts, there are much-needed transportation improvements.

[1655]

I know that the Minister of Transportation over there will know the success of the West Coast Express and how that is such a tremendously successful project that he wants to see more cars on it. He wasn't in the House at that time, but again, there are members on the government side who sat in opposition and voted against that. They voted against it.

But you know what? I'd like to remind them that I bear them no ill will for that. I do not criticize them for that, because that was their job in opposition to vote against it. So they know full well when they want to talk and say that the current opposition voted against every single one of their tax reductions, that is our job as opposition to oppose it, in the same way that the member from Chilliwack….

Interjections.

M. Farnworth: Oh, he says: "Negative, destructive people." Well, gee, that's very clever. Let's see. What does that remind me of? Lousy, incompetent, bullying, egotistical, reprehensible, arrogant, loutish.

I know it touches a nerve with some of the members over there to be reminded about when they sat on this side of the House and voted against things such as West Coast Express, when they voted against taking the small business tax rate down to the second lowest and the lowest in the country, but that's understandable. That is understandable.

They didn't like SkyTrain. They didn't like the Millennium line, as I recall. But again, we have a Minister of Transportation. He thinks SkyTrain's great. You know what? I do too. That's why I think that we need to see the Evergreen line built out to Coquitlam Centre. That's one of the things that in an accelerated infrastructure program I would expect to be at the top of the pile — Evergreen line out to Coquitlam Centre.

Interjections.

M. Farnworth: But I digress slightly, and I will get to that in a few more moments because, as I said, I am the designated speaker, and I have got a considerable amount of time. We've got a lot of ground to cover, so I want to take the opportunity…. I don't want to take the opportunity to do that.

Interjection.

M. Farnworth: My colleague says not to rush to that, and my colleague is a smart individual, and he is right. We should relish the opportunity.

We should relish the opportunity to remind the government of the respective roles of government in opposition and to reinstil in some of those members, who seem to have forgotten what those roles are, to refresh them so that they may be more enlightened and so that when they go out and talk to their constituents and a constituent says, "Well, is it true the NDP did this?" they can say: "Well, yes, they did, but you know what? It was their job. It is their job as opposition to oppose that, and when they sat in opposition, they also voted against those worthwhile projects."

I would remind the House….

R. Fleming: We don't need any fancy ads for that.

M. Farnworth: We don't need fancy ads, but I would like to remind them that I remember during my tenure as MLA for the Port Coquitlam riding — which took in a good chunk of Port Moody–Westwood — that we built some 22 new schools — 22 new schools. You know what? That was in one riding — not even in one district, but in one riding. Why was that? Because there was such incredible growth and economic activity that took place during those years in the '90s. Unbelievable economic growth that took place.

My riding in 1991 had 52,000 people in it — 52,000 people. In 1996 that had grown to 85,000 people. The economic activity that was generated was phenomenal, and infrastructure investment was a huge part of that. You know what that does? It creates jobs, which creates
[ Page 13345 ]
employment, which are all the things that the government members, when they sat on this side of the House, said: "Government doesn't create any jobs. Government shouldn't be doing this sort of thing."

Hon. M. Polak: It turned out to be true in your case.

[1700]

M. Farnworth: Ah, I hear the member say that it turns out to be true. Well, clearly she hasn't read the Premier's latest economic plan, because clearly he says that we need to have accelerated infrastructure investment. And why is that? Why is that? Because the current economic climate, has been brought about by…

J. Horgan: A reckless, out-of-control government. That's the problem.

M. Farnworth: …reckless, out-of-control, unregulated lending in the United States in a significant part in the real estate market. That is what has triggered it, and it is impacting on the rest of the world. It's resulting in a credit crunch at a time when people are already overextended on personal borrowing on credit cards, overextended on lines of credit, overextended in so many areas that they can't just go out and spend our way out. This is an economic crisis more profound than we have seen, probably since the Great Depression, and no one knows where it's going.

In the United States we have seen a $750 billion bailout of Wall Street and the financial institutions. And I hear some yawns from the other side. I know they don't like to hear it. But you know what? You're going to have to, because it's being told to you by every major economist in the United States, in Europe and in Canada.

You're seeing that government, which was once reviled by many on Wall Street, by many pundits that government had no place in the economy…. The first place they come running to is government, saying, "We need help. We need big cheques, and we need a big bailout," and that was the start of it. We see the Secretary of the Treasury and the Federal Reserve in the United States having to change, saying: "It's not working the way that we anticipated." They're coming up with an additional $800 billion.

We see the Big Three automakers. They're going: "We need a bailout too." All of a sudden the scions of deregulation — the people who said, "Under no circumstances; there is no place for government in the economy" — are saying: "Wait, we need help. We need a bailout, because if we don't get it, things are going to get even worse."

It's really quite interesting, watching this take place. In our own federal government we have seen — no one would disagree — perhaps one of the most fiscally conservative political party leaders in this country…. Again, the yawning from, I think, the member for Chilliwack-Sumas indicates a lack of truly understanding of what's taking place — that the ideological response is no longer working.

The strictly ideological response to this crisis doesn't work. It requires people to step back from their ideological positions and to look at how we address this, and it requires a new way of thinking. It requires a new way of looking at some of these problems — not just straightforward ideological statements that have sort of generated and sustained them for the last ten years in a commodity-driven economic boom, but rather, to re-examine some of the fundamental roles of government and how it does work in our economy and the impact and the effect that it does have.

[K. Whittred in the chair.]

Now we are seeing it. Now there is a recognition that — guess what — government spending does have an impact on jobs in terms of creating jobs and in terms of sustaining jobs — not just nationally, not just provincially but also on a regional economic basis.

[1705]

Now what we hear are messages coming from people as diverse across the political spectrum as George Bush to Gordon Brown, from the President of France to Stephen Harper…

J. Horgan: My mom.

M. Farnworth: …and, as the member for Malahat–Juan de Fuca says, his mother — that government has to be at the table, and they have to step up to the plate.

What concerns me when I hear this government and some of the rhetoric coming from it is that they somehow think our province is an island that is insulated from these events, and we are not. There is this view that somehow we can put forward a ten-point plan, and that will save us. It will not. It will take a lot more than that — not just money, but it will take governments working with other governments at the provincial and at the federal and at the local levels.

So that's the landscape in which we're operating. Yet for too long over the last number of months, all we've heard from this government has been a "don't worry; be happy" approach. "Everything is fine."

From when things started to fail on Wall Street to: "Well, it can't happen here in British Columbia. We're doing just fine." From the crisis in the forest industry, where the Forests Minister says, "I'm seeing good news just around the corner. We're not going to be impacted too much" to, "Guess what. There are real problems," to where the forest sector is saying: "You know what? If the auto industry gets a bailout, then we should be getting a bailout too."

From "We're still on course for a balanced budget, and we're going to see one over the next three years…."
[ Page 13346 ]
That's according to the quarterly reports released by the Minister of Finance. Yet those quarterly reports do not take into account the events of the last month. They don't take into account the way in which the rate at which things have fallen, and you cannot predict what is going to happen over the next three months. You cannot predict what is going to happen over the next year.

Your predictions of, I believe, 1.3 percent growth are contradicted by Helmut Pastrick, of the B.C. Credit Union Central, who projects much lower growth.

But the issue is that we have a government that seems to say that it's got a crystal ball and that it can predict what's going on out in front. They can't do that. The speed at which things have changed so dramatically in the last few months is going to continue. So the minister cannot guarantee that those numbers will be valid in February, nor can he guarantee after an election.

The government doesn't want to acknowledge that fact. They cannot predict three years out that there will not be a deficit in this province.

The government said that there's a crisis. They said that there's a crisis. The Premier said it more than a month ago now. Yet we could have been back in this House dealing with that issue at that time. We should have been here on October 6 to deal with government business.

Instead the government went into hibernation. The Premier has made some announcements, but nothing has happened. Nothing has taken place. There's been no infrastructure plan tabled here, just an announcement that we will accelerate infrastructure spending.

[1710]

There's been nothing, really, of concrete substance taking place. Instead of being here debating legislation…. We could have been doing two bills on the order paper, the wills and estates act and the insurance act, both of which will die if they're not passed by this session. I would argue that both those pieces of legislation are every bit as valid a point for an economic plan if we're going to count recalling the Legislature or reducing ferry fares for two months in November and December.

Those pieces of legislation would have addressed some very serious issues around insurance and people's homes, and at a time when people are concerned about their house, when they're concerned about their own financial well-being, you know, home is pretty well at the top of the list. Yet legislation that would deal with that isn't going to be addressed because, for some reason, it's not part of the Premier's ten-point economic plan.

We should have been here on the sixth of October. We weren't. The government said: there's nothing to do. So how did we get here? Well, we had a federal election, and during that campaign, things started to happen on Wall Street. It started to trigger the current financial crisis that we're in. The Prime Minister went on TV and made reassuring comments to the voters of Canada and gave the appearance of taking it seriously and trying to portray leadership.

Well, in British Columbia, we waited. Other Premiers started to take action. In Ontario, they dealt with it in the Legislature. In British Columbia, that wasn't the case. This government, which has an aversion to sitting in this chamber, chose to commandeer the press gallery, the Hansard press gallery just down the hallway in the basement, instead of dealing with that issue here in this chamber where an opposition would be able to respond at that time.

Unlike Ontario, the Premier laid out "a ten-point plan." One of those points is calling the Legislature back. Well, that's not really much of a point, so we really have a nine-point plan or, as the government likes to say, a ten-point plan. Then a week later, we have the Premier at convention, and he finds another four points. Well, what happened in that week? If the government was so seized of what's happening on the economy, what happened? Why, a week later, do we come up with four additional points?

All I can say is the Premier is clearly not Moses. When Moses came down with the Ten Commandments, there were the ten. It wasn't a week later that we're suddenly going to add another four. Just as Moses didn't get to the promised land, somehow I don't think this government is going to lead us to the promised land.

We got ten points. A week later we got four points. One of those ten points is to call the Legislature back, which we should have already been doing, so some could argue that it's actually a nine-point plan and a four-point plan, which equals a 13-point plan. Lucky number — maybe on May 12 next year it will prove to be an unlucky number for this government.

The Premier lays out the ten points, nine points, 14 points of light — whatever you want to call it — but still we don't come back into this House. Still we don't come back into this Legislature. The government goes into hibernation, and we just carry on, as things change globally.

What is the government's bill here? What are those points? Well, I want to go through some of them, because I think it's worthwhile examining them and looking at them and then knowing in some sort of in-depth way as to how they will work or how they will not work. One of the criticisms that people have is that this plan was written on the back of a napkin or written on the back of an envelope.

[1715]

Hon. M. Polak: You're the ones saying that.

M. Farnworth: I hear the member for Langley, across the way, saying that we're the only ones saying that. Well, actually, no. It's been reported in the paper, and members of the public say it too. Particularly when you read articles where one of the central components of this plan, the assessment freeze…. The minister who's responsible for it, by his own admission, was rushed so we could get out a piece of good news. What on earth? How on earth is that
[ Page 13347 ]
good public policy? We didn't think it through. We rushed it out because we wanted to get some good news out.

Well, if that's how public policy is made in British Columbia, I am convinced that the Premier is definitely not going to be Moses leading us to the promised land. It was rushed so the Premier would have something to say at the Liberal leadership convention.

Interjection.

M. Farnworth: Ah, yes. My colleague across the way says: "It's 94 percent." My question is: who were the 6 percent? Because you would expect, at a Liberal convention, that they would all be unanimous. I'm sure the instructions were given: "Find those 6 percent. Find those 6 percent."

Interjections.

M. Farnworth: Well, 100 percent, as I believe. But again, I digress, and it is….

Interjections.

M. Farnworth: Oh, gosh. Oh, gosh. Oh, gosh. I heard it. That's the third time I've heard it. I always know when the government is feeling sensitive. I always know when their argument lacks substance, because they always refer to that. They go: "The socialists." And I've heard it from the member for Chilliwack-Sumas. I've heard it from other members.

Interjections.

M. Farnworth: Oh God, here we go. Here we go. And what it means…. The same people who used to say the same things in the States…. We saw it in the election campaign, in John McCain — you know, the campaign when Obama made a comment about redistribution of wealth. All of a sudden, it's socialism.

At the same time, when Wall Street financial institutions are at Congress demanding and getting a $750 billion bailout and the government in the United States is taking over banks and taking financial equity positions in banks…. If that's not socialism, I don't know what is. I know one thing: those guys on that side of the House would have supported it.

Yet they still like to throw out the word as some sort of last defence of their arguments. It means that they've run out of all the substantive arguments.

Interjection.

M. Farnworth: The member wants me to tell him about Bulgaria, but that's for another day, and I can go on at length about that.

R. Thorpe: You can go on at length about most things.

M. Farnworth: And my colleague from Okanagan — Penticton, I believe….

Deputy Speaker: Member. Member, just to remind that we don't make reference to who is in the House or not in the House.

M. Farnworth: Actually, hon. Speaker, and I'm not challenging your position, but I would bring to your attention that the rule is actually that we don't make reference to a member's absence, but it is perfectly legitimate to reference members and comments that are made by members. It is not out of order to do that. It is out of order….

Hon. B. Penner: Are you lecturing her?

M. Farnworth: I'm just bringing a point to the Speaker's attention.

Deputy Speaker: Proceed, Member.

M. Farnworth: My colleague from Okanagan in Penticton says I can go on at length. Well, I just learned from him and some of his colleagues when they were on this side of the House and would go on at length to us when we were on that side of the House.

[1720]

It's a skill that I must thank him for — for being able to learn from him, so that when democracy takes, as it always does, its cyclical turns, I'm able as an opposition member to make forward an argument that goes to the fullness of time.

The issue is around the Premier's ten-point plan and how well it was thought up, how well it was thought through and what impact it will have on British Columbians. Now, if we go through it, there are a number of things that do make sense. For example, the unlimited deposit insurance for deposits at credit unions. There's nothing wrong with that idea. It doesn't, as has been said, cost this government one single penny.

What doesn't come out and what the government has failed to say is that this has not been an issue in this province or any province in this country. Our credit unions are 100 percent safe. There has not been a question of any financial instability in the credit union sector in British Columbia or anywhere else in the country.

So yes, it's great. There's nothing wrong with it, but there's also not a problem there. If the government is trying to indicate to people that there is a problem that needs to be addressed, there isn't one. But we support the measure because it will give comfort to some people, and so we don't have a problem with that.
[ Page 13348 ]

Another point in the plan is accelerated public infrastructure. One of the things I'm concerned about is that we need to have an accelerated infrastructure program.

Now is a time to be investing in communities, to be investing in transportation and transit, to be investing in homelessness, to be investing in seismic upgrading — to be investing in all those areas where government can have an impact on the economy in terms of jobs, in terms of economic spinoff, in terms of all those things that I said before the members on that side of the House were opposed to when they sat on this side of the House. As I said before, I just had to remind them that that is opposition's job.

One of the things that concern me in the comments that were made and in the comments about the plan about the accelerated infrastructure program is that there really hasn't been a mention of the need and the role of the federal government and the province's role to demand that the federal government participate.

I see in the Premier's ten-point plan, or 14-point plan, that he wants to have a conversation with the federal government about changing the age at which you have to confer to RRIFs. It's a great thing to do if we can do it, but the trouble is that the province has no ability to make that change. Yet it's important enough for the Premier to say that he wants to talk to Ottawa on the need to make that change.

Yet the same thing doesn't apply on the infrastructure provisions. There's no real recognition from this government that we need to have Ottawa at the table, that we want to hold Ottawa to its commitments. We want to hold Ottawa to ensure that every single penny that they're supposed to bring to the table — on the Evergreen line construction, for example — is there in place. Yet nowhere has that been stated. Nowhere has that commitment or that demand or that recognition of ensuring that Ottawa is here been put on the table by this government. That is something that is wrong and that needs to be corrected.

[1725]

We should be standing as one voice in this Legislature demanding that federal moneys for infrastructure come to British Columbia.

Interjection.

M. Farnworth: I hear applause from the members opposite, because they recognize…. Clearly they recognize the weakness in their existing plan, because nowhere do they mention in this plan that Ottawa needs to be at the table. So if my remarks here today have done nothing more than to get the government to recognize that Ottawa needs to be at the table, then my time here in this place today has been worthwhile.

I am really happy, on behalf of my constituents in Port Coquitlam, to be able to make sure that this government knows that for the Evergreen line to be built, we need Ottawa at the table. We need them to honour their commitments. And this government had better start up demanding that those commitments be met.

This government needs to stand up and learn from the 1990s that some of the most successful infrastructure programs in this country were done on a partnership.…

Interjections.

M. Farnworth: Ah, I hear laughter. I hear laughter from a member who clearly was not here in 1996, who clearly….

Interjection.

[H. Bloy in the chair.]

I will not comment about heckling from one's own seat. I will not comment on that, but I will remind that member that it was under those federal-provincial-municipal infrastructure partnership programs that we were able to build 22 new schools, many of which he is the beneficiary of; that we were able to build West Coast Express; that we were able to widen the Mary Hill Bypass; that we were able to do improvement works on the Lougheed Highway; that we were able to widen the No. 1; that we were able to put in place the Millennium line — all those things, which his government at that time voted against.

Yet that was some of the most effective investment in the economic infrastructure, in the community infrastructure, that this province has seen. Those are what need to take place again.

Those types of projects that seismically upgrade our schools, that put in place the transit systems that we need that will get people out of their vehicles — all those things. That's what needs to happen. That's why I'm disappointed that I have yet to hear a real, concrete plan and an assurance from this provincial government, the government across the way, that will make sure we have our federal moneys there.

J. Horgan: Didn't we lead the way in land use planning in the 1990s…?

M. Farnworth: Absolutely. My colleague from Malahat–Juan de Fuca, as always, hits the nail on the head. We led the way on issues such as land use planning that have paved the way for treaty settlements, that have paved the way for long-term economic development, that have paved the way for advances in tourism. All those things are a significant part of British Columbia's economy.

We need to make sure that we build on those, and we need to make sure that the plan that we have in place does that. So my concern about accelerated infrastructure, as I said, is that that recognition around Ottawa and the federal government, which is trumpeted so loudly
[ Page 13349 ]
in the area dealing with seniors and their pensions and changing the RIF from 69 to 71 and then going above that…. That recognition is there for that, but it's not there on the infrastructure. I think that that is a flaw, and it's one this government needs to change.

J. Horgan: Tinkering while Rome burns — that's what they're doing.

[1730]

M. Farnworth: Ah, speaking of tinkering while Rome burns, as my colleague from Malahat–Juan de Fuca says…. I have to thank him, because he does jog my memory to raise some key points. The fact that he comes from the Island is particularly pertinent, I think, around the next point that I am going to raise, and that is the 33 percent reduction in ferry fares for December and January.

Now, that is laudable. That is a noble gesture, if one can call it that, to the hundreds of thousands of British Columbians who rely on our coastal ferries.

But the idea that the restoration of the 6:20 ferry and, I think, the 7:05 ferry on the Sunshine Coast is going to insulate this province from the tidal wave of economic turmoil sweeping the globe is somehow a little ludicrous. It seems to me to speak more to political damage control than it does of any long-term economic insulation to the people of British Columbia, because the real question becomes that after January the fares go back up.

What is also fascinating about this particular point in the plan is that it was done without consultation with B.C. Ferries. They did not know that it was taking place. This from a government who likes to say, when asked about questions on ferries in general or in this House, that it is arm's length, that it is independent from us, that we have no control. "We cannot control the salaries of the board of directors. We will express our displeasure, but we won't tell them to roll back those high salary increases."

But lo and behold, when the people on the Sunshine Coast are complaining and somehow a global economic crisis is crashing down around us and ferries have become an issue: "We will restore the 6:20 ferry and the 7:05 sailing of the ferry, and we will freeze ferry rates for two months." They can do that.

J. Horgan: Bring back the sunshine breakfast. That's what I say.

M. Farnworth: Now, if they could only bring back the sunshine breakfast, then maybe you would have a point in a plan that really does contribute to the economic security and the well-being of British Columbians.

Hon. Speaker, I say that in jest, but it does make a serious point. That is that much in this government's ten-point or 14-point plan — whatever you want to call it — really is about optics and damage control and trying to rebuild the image of a government and a Premier who are perceived as arrogant and out of touch and not listening to the real issues of British Columbians.

The relief on ferry fares for those two months will be appreciated. The trouble is after it's over, we still go back to the same things as before — the issue of, again, lack of consultation, no communication with the ferry corporation, hastily done. That's not how public policy is supposed to be done. It's not how it should be done in British Columbia.

J. Horgan: Call back the Legislature. Point 10: bring back the Legislature.

M. Farnworth: Point 10. No, he gives me ideas. I am not complaining. Calling the House back was point 10. We should have been here. That is our job. That's what the public expects us to do.

[1735]

On the ferry fares, the government says it's a one-time $20 million investment. The trouble is that people are going to have to make up that cost after January. As we see a drop-off in travel, as we see a drop-off in visits from the United States and the rest of the world as people change travel plans and scale back on their travel plans, then the pressure is on the ferry corporation again. Are they going to be taking ferry routes off to meet the fiscal challenges? And will this government be saying: "Oh no, no, put them back on"? They can't answer those questions.

What this is designed to do is to get them past an election campaign in March and April and May. That's what this is designed to do — get them through the election campaign. Then, if the province is unfortunate enough to have them as government, they'll try and deal with the consequences.

After the 33 percent reduction in ferry fares for December and January, the next point on the Premier's plan is one that I find particularly interesting — point 9. "Rein in avoidable government spending." The province said it will "re-evaluate spending priorities and focus on scaling back unbudgeted increases."

Well, one of the things that I find really interesting about this particular section of the release is that the wording on here is extremely precise. Somehow — I may be cynical; I don't think so — I think in the Premier's office, they placed a great deal of attention on this particular piece in the plan. They didn't pay any attention to the assessment freeze, which was rushed in, by the minister's own admission, so we could get some good news out the door.

An Hon. Member: For the convention.

M. Farnworth: For the convention. But no, no. Read this one very carefully. "The province will re-evaluate
[ Page 13350 ]
spending priorities and focus on scaling back unbudgeted increases."

Well, one thing this was clearly designed to ignore and to make sure wasn't affected was the unbelievable government advertising campaign that has been going on ad nauseam, 24 hours a day, seven days a week, month after month, for the last god knows how long to continue for the next god knows how many months, if they get their way. The excuse from the minister is that it's budgeted for. It is budgeted for.

He knows that. And he knows that there's a huge difference between MLAs in their offices, in their constituency offices, and the millions and millions of dollars being spent by this government at a time when they know — and that's why the language in here is very, very interesting — that by the minister's own admission, no, we can't scale back. We cannot scale because those commitments have already been made.

Gee, unbudgeted increases. It's like in question period the other day, when asked: will people want to hear the news? Everywhere I go, I get people telling me they want to hear more information from governments. No, they don't want to hear the government telling them 24 hours a day, seven days a week that we live in "the best place on earth." They already know that. Anybody who lives in British Columbia knows we live in the best place on earth. We don't need advertising to tell us that.

Maybe in Alabama the advertising would be welcome. Come visit British Columbia, "the best place on earth." Maybe in Mississippi the advertising would be great. Come visit "the best place on earth."

[1740]

If I knew the best-place-on-earth phrase in German, I would say it, and if we were doing that in Germany, telling Germans to come visit "the best place on earth," I would say to spend the millions of dollars — if it would have an impact.

But no, they got it backwards. They think you've got to tell the people who live here that we live in the best place on earth. Could it be that they're doing that because they've done such a lousy job of being out of touch with British Columbians over the last number of years that they feel compelled to tell the people who live here that they live in the best place on earth? Is that the reason?

They have done such a terrible job on child poverty in this province that they have to tell people that we live in the best place on earth when they should be telling people in the United States, they should be telling people in Europe, they should be telling people in Japan and they should be telling people in China to come visit the best place on earth.

Which is why I say that this particular "rein in avoidable government spending…." There was a lot of time spent on the language around this particular phrase. It is indicative of this government and the approach that they have taken that when it comes to communications, no contract is too small. No number of contracts is too many. Do whatever it takes to make sure we get our message out.

A. Dix: Rain down, not rein in.

M. Farnworth: As my colleague from Vancouver-Kingsway just says, it is rain down, not rein in. That is so true. They spend their time on controlling spin. They spend their time on controlling the message and trying to ensure that British Columbians don't hear about the other things that are going on in this province — whether it's child poverty or whether it's millions of dollars in wasted government advertising.

They know it is. They know from their own supporters that they don't like it, yet they continue to do it. Their excuse is: "Well, we have to because we've already contracted to do it." That is not good management.

It is terrible management — that when there's a crisis on, there's no opportunity to take that money which is being wasted on advertising and move it to areas of the economy that do need attention. They already committed it months ago, when this government was saying: "Oh, we have a huge" — I think it was over $100 million — "line item in the budget."

I watched the member for Chilliwack-Sumas on Voice of B.C.. He was asked where it's going. Oh, he couldn't give an answer as to where it's going. But you know what? This government knew exactly where it was going. They knew exactly where it was going.

It was going to do a massive advertising campaign to shore them up in a run-up to an election, and again, it makes my point that much of what's in here is designed to insulate them and improve their position in running up to the provincial election. The ads will run; the money will flow.

As my colleague from Malahat–Juan de Fuca so aptly put it the other day — the best place on earth if you're an ad exec. And if you have a no-cut government contract, that's even better. A no-cut contract. I find that unbelievable. I'd like to know how many people working in the private sector have a no-cut contract. Not many, I will wager.

[1745]

But when it comes to doing spin or self-promotional, feel-good advertising, this government spares no public affairs person, spares no communications contract, spares no communications worker to ensure that every opportunity is taken to do self-promotional advertising.

I wish that the rest of the plan had had as much thought and attention paid to it as that very simple line of "rein in avoidable government spending." The province will re-evaluate spending priorities and focus on scaling back unbudgeted increases. I wonder; I wonder. I'm really looking forward to an explanation when we get to committee stage on exactly what that means — unbudgeted increases.
[ Page 13351 ]

As I said, we know it doesn't apply to government advertising. Does it apply to unbudgeted increases in the health care system? Will those be scaled back? Will the one-time block of funding of $120 million that went into the health care system earlier this year…? It was not budgeted for. Will that be scaled back? That's one-time funding.

So you're building into the budget a problem already. Does it apply to unanticipated increases, for example, in social assistance, in the courts and the judicial system? Does it apply there? People want to know, because it's pretty specific: "focus on scaling back unbudgeted increases."

Where are those areas? We have heard nothing from this government. They've had a month since this document or these commandments were brought forth, and there has been nothing. There has been nothing. What does this mean? We know it means advertising won't be touched, but what does it mean for individual ministries that deliver services to people? How will this edict, this commandment, impact on them? The people of British Columbia want to know, and they deserve to know.

We know that the Premier's bling program seems not to be part of the scaling back of unnecessary increases, because we've yet to hear that that will not continue. So we want to know where the government has been wasting its expenditures, cutting back on wasteful spending. Where have they been wasting money?

One would have expected that a government that prides itself so much on its fiscal expertise, its command of the fiscal agenda — not just managing the provincial finances but managing the provincial economy to insulate us from the tidal wave of economic crisis swirling around us that not even in Washington, D.C., are they able to tell what's going to happen and where they're going to go…. But somehow this government does seem to be able to say that they know.

Where is this wasted spending? Why are they wastefully spending? That's the question. Why are they wasting taxpayers' dollars, if now they're at a place where they have to rein it in and stop government waste? Please tell us. Why have you been wasting money during your time in office? Why have you been wasting money? That's the question that people ask when they hear this. "We're going to rein in." And why…?

So that's another of the points, the commandments, that have come down from the Premier and this government.

[1750]

Now, while I continue, I want to just remind…. I said that it was a ten-point plan — that we had the ten commandments initially — and then one of those points is nine, and then a week later there were four. As I said, clearly Moses didn't do that. But then again, this Premier is not Moses and clearly is not going to lead us to the promised land.

But I'm reminded that one of these commandments — the four points delivered at the convention — is kind of a repeat of one that was already announced in the first ten. That was "new infrastructure investments to support rural residents." Well, gee, I kind of thought that's like accelerated infrastructure — we need to invest in infrastructure — that was in the first ten-point plan.

So what happened? What happened that a week later…? Could it be that, as usual, this wasn't thought out very well, that it was rushed out to get some good news out — as the member for Kamloops–North Thompson likes to say?

I know that the member for Kamloops, who has considerable experience in this place, would not have made that same mistake. I know that with his expertise and his wisdom, he would have known. He would not have said: "Oh, we rushed it out so that we could get some good news out." I know that the former minister from Kamloops would not have made that mistake.

We're looking forward, actually, to being able to ask the current minister, the minister from Kamloops, some of these very important questions in committee stage, because they really do need answers. Is this how public policy is made in British Columbia?

Which brings me back to this — you know, the fourth point, on a week after the first ten-point plan was unveiled.

What happened? Could it be that no recognition, once again, was made of the Interior and the north and the Kootenays and the rural parts of British Columbia? Could it be that the feedback this government heard from communities, party members and people right across this province was: "Once again this government doesn't get it. They are out of touch, they have forgotten about rural British Columbia, they have forgotten about the interior of this province, and once again they failed to get the reality that most British Columbians have in this province"?

So a week later at a convention the Premier has to correct that omission and say: "Oh, guess what. Yeah, some infrastructure will go to rural communities. Why not?" If it had been well thought out, he'd have said it the first time around.

Interjections.

M. Farnworth: I know. I always like it when I hear the comments and the barbs fly back, because I know that my comments are having an impact.

An Hon. Member: A profound impact.

M. Farnworth: I don't know if it's profound. I don't know if it's profound, but I know that….

Interjection.

M. Farnworth: No, I never would do that, hon. Member. I could say something, but I won't. I'm in a really good mood.
[ Page 13352 ]

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Member.

M. Farnworth: You're welcome, hon. Speaker.

"New infrastructure investments to support rural residents. The province will increase funding previously earmarked for resource road maintenance and rehabilitation…. Work will be carried out in the next 18 months" to improve some key areas.

Well, guess what. We've had a crisis in rural British Columbia now for the last God knows how many years, and these are things this government should have been doing at a time when we were racking up some very large surpluses due to the global resource commodity boom that was coming out of rural British Columbia, and this government was failing to invest properly in those rural communities and those rural areas of British Columbia.

[1755]

This comes back again to not being the most…. Well, many parts of this statement, this whatever — the ten-point plan — were not well thought out and seem more designed to deal with electoral issues of this government than necessarily with economic issues of this government.

An Hon. Member: Are you done?

M. Farnworth: The member asked if I'm done. Unfortunately, not quite. There are a number of things I want to raise.

Perhaps one of the most interesting and…. One of the areas where the opposition has some considerable concern — which we will explore, I think, in some detail at committee stage — is around the issue of property tax and the freezing of assessments.

British Columbia can be justly proud of its Assessment Authority and the method by which we assess properties — commercial, residential, industrial — right across this province. In fact, it has been a model for other jurisdictions, in part because of — I stress this part — the lack of political interference in its operation.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

So we get extremely concerned when this respected institution, when this respected process that has been admired around the world and around North America, is subject not only to political interference, but is done in a very hasty and ill-thought-through manner, which we have seen and has been confirmed by the comments of the minister responsible.

That is shocking from a government that said that it would consult, that it would not be arbitrary, that it would listen. It once again demonstrates, by its arrogance and its contempt for the independence of institutions in this province, how that gets subjugated and subverted for its own political agenda and electoral agenda. We're talking about the Assessment Authority.

When we hear the minister saying…. I'll repeat it because I think it's worth repeating. I don't have $12 million in advertising budget, like the government does, to bombard people 24-7 with how great things are and how we live in the best place on earth, so I have to take my opportunity, I think, to repeat it a number of times, and I'm quite happy to do so.

Interjection.

M. Farnworth: I can't say it enough, as my colleague from Malahat–Juan de Fuca says. I cannot say it enough.

The idea that a minister of the Crown of British Columbia would publicly state that we are making a significant change to an independent assessment authority because we wanted to get some good news out the door is just mind-boggling. It is absolutely astounding that a minister of the Crown would think so little of his public policy responsibilities that he would push changes out the door because he wanted to get some good news out — over sound public policy.

It was confirmed when we appear and look on the orders of the day. On the order paper, he's already having to amend legislation that he tabled, because he rushed changes out the door because he wanted to get some good news. That is the state of governance in the province of British Columbia today, and it is shameful.

[1800]

When a government is more concerned about its own electoral agenda, when a government is concerned about its own image, when a government is concerned more about spin and communications than it is about good public policy, it is time to change that spin. It is time to change that agenda. It is time to change this government.

An Hon. Member: Tell us about Bolivia.

M. Farnworth: The member says: "Tell us about Bolivia." Well, I couldn't tell him about that. I've never been there. But I can tell him about the UBCM. I can tell him about the UBCM and their view on this government's action. And I know, before I make my comments, being somewhat occasionally prescient, that you know what?

Interjections.

M. Farnworth: Yes. No, no. I know exactly what I'm going to say.

Interjections.

M. Farnworth: No, I'm just trying to decide which one will say it first, because I once was Minister of Municipal Affairs, so I know about these issues, but you guys said you wouldn't do it. You said you wouldn't act
[ Page 13353 ]
unilaterally. You said you wouldn't treat local governments without consulting with them, and unfortunately, you broke that commitment once again with this part of the plan by freezing the assessment rates without consulting local government.

They failed to consult. They broke their promise. They did what they said they wouldn't do, and we have heard that on numerous times and numerous occasions from this government. Sure enough, let's go and see what UBCM had to say, because I think that's important, particularly when the minister….

You know what? What I find fascinating is that, once again, the member from Okanagan Penticton forgets. He is sometimes very selective in his thinking in that he has forgotten. He was in opposition and stood up and ranted and railed against the government of the day and said: "We Liberals would never do such a thing. If we were government, we would never, never make changes that impacted local government without consulting them." He forgets that. So I'm quite happy to remind him. I just find it interesting, that's all, because — hey — we're all human. We make mistakes.

But what is really interesting is when people who have sat on this side don't learn from mistakes, and when they become government, they do what they said they wouldn't do, and that was making changes that impacted on local governments without consultation. So a lot of this plan of the Premier's in Bill 45 is done without any consultation.

They certainly didn't consult with the opposition and say: "How about we come back the 20th of November as opposed to October 6?" That was not done with any consultation, and that's one of the points in this plan. They certainly did not consult with B.C. Ferries. They did not consult with B.C. Ferries about changing the rates, and they didn't consult with local government.

R. Thorpe: So you're voting yes, are you?

M. Farnworth: The member asks if I'm voting yes. Well, he will find out shortly. But I am doing my job as an opposition member.

[1805]

Hon. P. Bell: Filibuster.

M. Farnworth: Ah, the member says filibustering. No, I am taking my place in this debate to remind this government of its flaws, to remind this government of its failures, to remind this government of how things could be improved, to provide a positive….

Interjection.

M. Farnworth: Ah, the member says relevance. Well, I don't know what could be more relevant than helping this government avoid a mistake in future by saying that they were wrong in this bill not to consult with local government, and if they wanted to do something positive in the future that they would consult with local government before making changes that impact them.

I bring the House's attention to correspondence from the Union of British Columbia Municipalities, the executive director, property assessment services branch.

"On November 1, 2008, the Premier announced a one-year freeze on property assessment values in British Columbia. Since that time there have been follow-up announcements from the minister, the most notable stating property owners will retain their right to appeal their assessments, even at a July 1, 2007, level.

"UBCM was not consulted in advance of this announcement, although President Hobson did receive a phone call from the honourable…" — I cannot mention his name; he who must not be named or break the rules of this House — "on November 1, just prior to the announcement" — which is classic from this government. Classic.

"Oh, just to let you know, in two minutes we're making an announcement. It's going to impact on how you do government business and on how you operate and on how your whole entire membership bases its budget."

So much for "we will consult." So much for ensuring you're expanding the tent and bringing people in. No, this is more about optics.

What really drives it home have been the comments of the minister responsible, that this was rushed out to get good news out the door — you know, perhaps one of the most upfront comments that any government member has stated about this. You know what? If that's what it is, say so, and I guess he did. So I can't criticize him. I guess in some ways I can't criticize him that this wasn't about public policy. This was not about public policy. This was about image for the government and self-promotion.

Anyway, we are moving away from a market-based assessment, as UBCM says. There is political interference in a valuable institution, an independent institution that governs property assessment in the province of British Columbia. It's done, and it's done without consultation.

Hon. S. Bond: Just say no.

M. Farnworth: Well, the members want to…. They want to ask questions of us. You know, as I told them earlier, we're going to have a lot of questions. I believe that my colleague, the Finance critic from Surrey-Whalley, who I think is perhaps one of the ablest critics, thoughtful...

Interjections.

M. Farnworth: …on both sides of the House…

Interjections.

M. Farnworth: …will be thrilled.
[ Page 13354 ]

Interjections.

M. Farnworth: Ah, gosh. Again, you know, we're talking about issues. I hear the…. The member from Prince George asked about — I think Prince George–Mount Robson — the carbon tax.

[1810]

Well, I can tell the minister that in the Port Coquitlam–Burke Mountain riding the carbon tax is extremely unpopular. People do not like it. They don't want it, and I have said that publicly. I have said that in this House, and I will happily tell the minister that my constituents don't like it.

But having said that, I note the time, and I know that soon we will hear from the Minister of Finance and that we will have his view, because he has spoken. We will go and have a vote, and then we will go into committee stage tomorrow. And there are, as I've said, elements of this bill that I think are certainly supportable.

But there are other areas in the bill that, as I have said, I have some serious concerns about, particularly when we are facing, along with every other jurisdiction in this country and countries around the globe, a significant economic crisis. And part of the government's response is to have a section on this bill that has been developed, by the minister's own admission — and I can't repeat this enough — and was rushed out because "we wanted to get some good news out the door."

I know that there are members on that side of the House who share those concerns. I know there are members on that side of the House who believe in good public policy, who believe that good public policy should be thought out, that it should be well developed and that it should deal with the issues facing this province — whether it would be a Lobbyists Registration Act or any other.

You know, good public policy requires…. Not because we wanted to get some good news out. Anyway, tomorrow we will have lots of opportunity at committee stage to explore many of these issues, and it's been my pleasure over the last little while to bring forward some ideas and engage government members.

So with that, I will take my place and look forward to the vote that we will be having shortly.

Mr. Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, the Minister of Finance closes debate.

Hon. C. Hansen: It's been an interesting few days as we've debated this piece of legislation.

The reason this House was called together was a result of probably one of the most dramatic changes in the economy that the world has seen. Certainly, British Columbia has been affected profoundly by the events that have transpired, starting in the United States. In the space of a few weeks after the middle of September it became a global financial crisis.

As I indicated on Monday morning with the tabling of the first quarter report, we saw literally billions of dollars that disappeared from what we had projected as provincial government revenues as recently as the middle of September.

I think we also come together in this chamber at a time when British Columbians in every corner of this province are feeling, quite frankly, nervous. They're feeling uncertain about their future. They're uncertain about how this global financial crisis and the economic challenges that we're facing will affect their individual families.

[1815]

I've had the chance to travel around the province a fair amount since the middle of September, and I've talked to families in all corners of this province. There is still a sense of underlying confidence in British Columbia, but they're nervous about how they may be buffeted while we go through this particular financial and economic storm that the province is facing today.

I found that British Columbians recognize that because of the foundation we've built for the B.C. economy over the last seven or eight years, B.C. actually will weather this storm probably better than any other jurisdiction in North America.

You know, it's not often that I point to a quote from a member of the official opposition that I think actually has some profound wisdom in it, but I do want to share one with you, and this is the quote. "The degree to which government will be tested is the degree to which the government has prepared for the inevitable downturn." That actually was a quote in a recent article from the opposition Finance critic. I think the reason there's some wisdom in that is because that actually underscores exactly what this government has done over the last eight years.

At a time when British Columbia's families are anxious about whether or not the government programs are going to be there for them in the future, whether or not they're actually going to see financial support for the health care programs that we now have at record levels in British Columbia, whether the support's going to be there for the education programs that they count on for their children, whether or not the social safety net is going to be there through the programs that are offered by Community Living B.C. or through the Ministry of Children and Families….

Again, in the last number of years we've been able to build up funding for those essential social programs to record levels never before seen in British Columbia. It's because of the prudence we have built into the B.C. budget process that we know we are going to be able to weather this economic storm if we're careful and we make sure that we mind every penny carefully so that it can be focused on program delivery, getting rid of unnecessary administrative costs wherever we can but making sure we can focus those resources on delivering programs to British Columbians.
[ Page 13355 ]

I am confident that we can do that. We can deliver the programs that British Columbians count on, and we can do it without putting this province into deficit, because of the careful management of the budget. Over the last number of years we've had budget surpluses that have been in the range of…. Over $2 billion, in one case — but significant budget surpluses.

We were criticized during that period of time, often by members of the official opposition, that somehow we should be spending that money as fast as it came in. They had lots of great ideas as to how they could spend it. But actually what that did was exactly what the Finance critic had urged governments to do, and that was to prepare for the inevitable. That actually built a pretty healthy cushion for us.

I can tell members in this House that next year we're not going to see a significant budget surplus. We're not going to see a budget surplus of any significance this year, because it's important that those dollars get back into the economy to meet the needs of British Columbians.

But I think it's also something that we have to be very careful on in terms of whether it's our political party going into an election campaign or whether it's the NDP going into an election campaign. I think we have to be careful in ensuring that the promises we make to British Columbians are not false promises, that the promises we make to British Columbians are, in fact, affordable. We have to make sure that we mind the treasury carefully — not mine the treasury, but mind the treasury carefully.

I found it quite surprising when the Leader of the Opposition at the end of October came out with her three-year spending plan and her answer to the financial crisis that had whirled around the world in the six weeks prior to her giving her economic update. Yet she based her three-year spending plan on numbers that she knew were out of date. She based her spending plan on numbers that went back to the middle of September, from before that financial crisis started to hit the world and we started to feel the economic ramifications of that.

[1820]

Yet what we saw was a spending plan that basically exhausted virtually every single dollar that would have been available had the revenue projections from early September held. What I find surprising is that in that spending plan we didn't see any additional dollars for health care. We didn't see any additional dollars for the Ministry of Children and Families, and yet we still hear commitments being made by the NDP party to spend more money in those areas.

What I also find surprising is that they say that they can do this and have a balanced budget. There are a couple of things we have got to draw from that conclusion. First of all, the kinds of commitments that they're making to British Columbians are totally reckless — that we realize that there's a new announcement a day. In fact, even yesterday, I understand, on the front steps of the Legislature the Leader of the Opposition was promising another $80 million of spending. That wasn't in her spending plan. Talk about being off the cuff and talk about being reckless with the dollars of taxpayers of British Columbia.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members. It's hard to hear the Minister of Finance, please.

Hon. C. Hansen: I think some of the things that we've heard from the opposition over the last number of days as we've engaged in this debate on Bill 45 have actually been quite irresponsible. British Columbians in every corner of this province don't want to hear rhetoric. They don't want to hear easy promises that roll off the tongue, that aren't funded, that can't be paid for. They're false promises.

This opposition has a responsibility to British Columbians who are nervous about these economic times. They have an obligation to be honest with British Columbians. They have an obligation to cost all of their programs and not make flippant announcements to get the hopes up of British Columbians when they know they can't afford them.

As I said on Monday at the tabling of the second quarterly report, this is going to be a very difficult year for us to put the budget together. What British Columbians are looking for is for us to, first of all, make sure that we leave as much money in their pockets as we possibly can as they try to get through these difficult economic times. Bill 45 does that.

Bill 45 does that by a 5 percent reduction in personal income tax retroactive to last January 1. That's a measure that puts $144 million back in the economy — $144 million back in the pockets of British Columbians so that they can meet the needs of their families.

The other thing that British Columbians are looking for is to make sure that we support the job creators in this province. You know, over the last seven years, since 2001, we've had a net increase of about 420,000 jobs in British Columbia. We've seen unemployment rates come down to record lows, and they continue to stay at near-record lows.

What British Columbians are looking for in that budget for next year is support for the small business sector, as reflected in Bill 45 with a reduction of the small business tax rate. They're looking for support for the big employers, the industrial and light industrial sector, which is reflected in Bill 45 today.

They're also looking for leadership. They're looking for leadership from a government that says: "We can protect the important social programs. We can do that within our financial means. We're not going to run up a deficit and pass that burden on to our children and grandchildren." It is because of the strong leadership on this side of the House over the last seven and a half years that we are
[ Page 13356 ]
in a position that we can say with honesty to British Columbians: "We can deliver on that commitment."

[1825]

Bill 45 has been received by British Columbians with a big thumbs-up. As I've gone around the province and talked about the Premier's ten-point economic plan and the other economic measures, British Columbians have expressed good support for those measures. It speaks to exactly the kinds of things that they're nervous about today and that they want to see in terms of leadership from their provincial government.

So it is with great pleasure that I move second reading.

Second reading of Bill 45 approved unanimously on a division. [See Votes and Proceedings.]

[1830]

Hon. C. Hansen: I move that the bill be referred to the Committee of the Whole House to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 45, Economic Incentive and Stabilization Statutes Amendment Act, 2008, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Point of Privilege (Reservation of Right)

R. Thorpe: Mr. Speaker, I rise to reserve my right to raise a point of privilege.

Hon. M. de Jong moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

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

The House adjourned at 6:31 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