2009 Legislative Session: Fifth 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, March 4, 2009

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 39, Number 5

[ Page 14193 ]

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 4, 2009

The House met at 1:36 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Prayers.

Introductions by Members

Hon. R. Cantelon: I would like to introduce Vincent Erenst, managing director, and Ian Roberts, communication director, of Marine Harvest Canada, who are visiting today from Campbell River.

Marine Harvest Canada's aquaculture farms, hatcheries and processing plants employ more than 500 people, making them one of the biggest private sector employers on north Vancouver Island. I ask you all to please give them a warm welcome.

C. Trevena: I would like to echo the Minister of Agriculture's introduction of Mr. Erenst and Mr. Roberts, both from Marine Harvest. I think the House recognizes the importance of the employment in the north Island. Members of the opposition had a very productive meeting this morning with Vincent Erenst, Ian Roberts and Clare Backman, the environmental director of Marine Harvest, on ways we can cooperate and consult in the future. I hope the House will indeed make them very welcome.

R. Thorpe: In the gallery today is a lady from West Kelowna who has worked tirelessly on my behalf, on behalf of British Columbians. I would like to thank Marion Ashby very much and ask the House to please welcome her to the House today.

N. Macdonald: Joining us in the House today, I have four guests from the Kootenays. Chief Wilfred Teneese is from the Akisqnuk First Nation, which is near Invermere. I also have Rob Gravelle, who is a councillor with the Tobacco Plains band near Grasmere. I also have Councillor Sandra Luke, who is from the Yakan Nukiy First Nation near Creston; and also Troy Sebastian from the Ktunaxa Nation near Cranbrook. Please join me in making them welcome.

Hon. J. van Dongen: I am pleased to introduce to the House today my constituency assistant Sherri Wacker. She has worked with me for 12 years to serve the constituents of Abbotsford-Clayburn, and I appreciate the job she does and the support she gives me as an MLA. I ask the House to please make her welcome.

M. Karagianis: Today in the gallery we have a repeat visit from two young men who have a keen interest in what goes on here in the House. They visited us before for question period. They watch us keenly on Hansard afterward. I'd like the House to give a special welcome to Mark Bridges and Kody Bell.

J. Nuraney: In the gallery today we have Lisa Thompson and Jim Lacamell, both from Burnaby. I would like the House to please join me in offering them a very warm welcome.

[1340]

D. Thorne: Today I have the pleasure of introducing Coun. Barrie Lynch to the House. I spent many years with Councillor Lynch on Coquitlam council. He is here in the precinct today with the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, which is holding meetings here all week. I'd like us to make him and the FCM very welcome.

D. Hayer: In the House today we have one very special guest, my constituency assistant Manuel Santos, who does a great job. He makes sure that all the work is looked after for my constituents when I'm here. Would the House please make him very welcome.

D. Routley: Could the House help me welcome Pedro Banman. Pedro is a young man from the Cowichan Valley who is one of the organizers of a youth group called You the Youth. They held a forum recently where they petitioned…. The admission to their forum was one idea for the betterment of the Cowichan Valley, and they got a basketful of ideas. He's a great vision of the future. Help me welcome the future to the House.

Hon. G. Abbott: By a remarkable coincidence, in Speaker's gallery today are not only my hard-working constituency assistants Roxena Goodine and Holly Cowan here to join us, but immediately behind them and beside them are members of the 2009 legislative internship program.

While they join us every day to watch democracy in action, the one addition we have today is the remarkable academic leader and mentor of the program, Dr. Paddy Smith. Paddy is an old friend, going back as far as the University of Victoria — back in the mid-1970s. It's wonderful to see him again, and I note that he is still wearing the same red running shoes that he was wearing in 1976. Please make him welcome.

S. Hammell: There are 37 grade 11 students from Queen Elizabeth Secondary School in the precinct. Accompanying them are their teacher Alyssa Hogan and three parents. Would the House please make them welcome.

C. Evans: It would appear that the way to get your family to visit you here in the Legislature is to tell them
[ Page 14194 ]
you're going to quit. As a consequence, I have another family member, my cousin Todd Darling, in the gallery. He's from the old country. He's from the United States, so he's afraid of question period. He thinks that's bulletproof glass.

At any rate, Todd is a film-maker, and the last film that he made was about a guy named George Bush, and he's touring around. Here's the sad news. He is here with his camera, and he thinks he's taking pictures of us. I have a request of all members. If you meet this gentleman in the hallway with a camera and he asks you about me, you tell him only the nice stuff. Will you please make him welcome.

Hon. G. Campbell: I know this is highly unusual, but I can guarantee the member that we all only know nice stuff about him.

Introduction and
First Reading of Bills

Police (Misconduct, Complaints,
Investigations, Discipline and
Proceedings) Amendment Act, 2009

Hon. J. van Dongen presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Police (Misconduct, Complaints, Investigations, Discipline and Proceedings) Amendment Act, 2009.

Hon. J. van Dongen: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. J. van Dongen: I am pleased to introduce the Police (Misconduct, Complaints, Investigations, Discipline and Proceedings) Amendment Act, 2009.

[1345]

In February 2007 Judge Josiah Wood presented his report, setting out his findings regarding the police complaint process. Judge Wood provided 91 recommendations and drafting suggestions to assist government in improving the police complaint process. The legislation includes, among other things, the following changes.

Investigation of complaints by police departments will now be subject to contemporaneous, or real-time, oversight and monitoring by the commissioner, and where necessary, the commissioner will direct that there be further investigation.

Police officers, whether witnesses or those who are the subject of the complaint, must cooperate fully with the investigations.

Police officers who retire or resign will no longer be able to avoid the consequences of discipline proceedings.

Even without a complaint the commissioner can order investigations, if it is in the public interest to do so.

In closing, this legislation fulfils our commitment to implement the recommendations of the Wood report and overhaul the police complaint process to enhance the role and powers of the Police Complaint Commissioner and make the police fully accountable to the public that they serve and protect.

I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for the second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 6, Police (Misconduct, Complaints, Investigations, Discipline and Proceedings) Amendment Act, 2009, 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.

Police (Police Complaint
Commissioner) Amendment Act, 2009

Hon. J. van Dongen presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Police (Police Complaint Commissioner) Amendment Act, 2009.

Hon. J. van Dongen: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. J. van Dongen: I am pleased to introduce Bill 7, Police (Police Complaint Commissioner) Amendment Act, 2009. The bill speaks to the appointment of the Police Complaint Commissioner. The commissioner is an independent office of the Legislative Assembly. The bill changes the legislative framework for appointment to be similar to legislation for other officers of the Legislature. The Auditor General Act and the Representative for Children and Youth Act are used as recent models.

This bill provides for direct appointment of the commissioner by resolution of the Legislative Assembly instead of by order of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. The amendments change the appointment term from one six-year term to a five-year term with the ability to reappoint for one term of up to five years. New provisions for the appointment of an acting Police Complaint Commissioner are also included in this bill.

I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 7, Police (Police Complaint Commissioner) Amendment Act, 2009, 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.
[ Page 14195 ]

Statements
(Standing Order 25b)

TERRACE AND HOCKEYVILLE COMPETITION

J. Rustad: As you know, we have the occasional friendly rivalry between communities in northern B.C. A lot of this stems from the tremendous pride residents take with their communities. A lot of that pride is tied to local hockey teams, whether it's minor hockey players who go to the NHL, cities competing in junior hockey ranks or the famous battles of senior men's teams like the Prince George Mohawks and the Quesnel Kangaroos. Hockey and the teamwork that is required to succeed is hard-wired into the northern spirit.

There comes a time when we need to put aside the rivalries and work together to achieve a common goal. That's why I'm urging all MLAs to get the message out: vote Terrace for Hockeyville 2009. Terrace is competing against four other Canadian cities, and a city in British Columbia has never won the coveted title, which comes with a prize of $100,000 for arena upgrades and, of course, an NHL pre-season game.

In support of Terrace's bid, Aaron Margerison wrote about his first hockey game ever. At the end of his story, he said: "Soon the game was done, and I loved that I was allowed to go. On my way home I said to my mom that I'd like to buy her a present, and that was my first hockey game." We all remember our first game.

We have about eight hours to pull together and get the vote out to make Terrace Hockeyville. Surely this is one election we can all get behind. So everybody, go to cbc.ca/hockeyville to vote, and remember to vote early and vote often.

[1350]

SOUTH ASIAN FAMILY ASSOCIATION
AND INTERNATIONAL WOMEN'S DAY

S. Hammell: I have the good fortune of representing the constituents of Surrey–Green Timbers, and I am privileged to talk to you today about a wonderful organization that serves a large part of our community.

This organization, the South Asian Family Association or SAFA, has a mission to highlight the South Asian community and culture. By creating mediums for cross-cultural understanding and education, they are strengthening the positive and vibrant South Asian image. SAFA is preparing for their first annual International Women's Day celebration at the award-winning SFU Surrey campus.

The event will celebrate the economic, political and social achievements of women. It's a free public event on International Women's Day, Sunday, March 8. There will be a marketplace, live entertainment and a closed workshop from the We Can Stop Violence Against Women coalition. There will be keynote speakers and panellists discussing empowerment and education, financial health and lifestyles. Sen. Mobina Jaffer and former BCTF president Jinny Simms are two of the women participating in this global celebration.

As I know members know, the first International Women's Day took place March 8, 1911. Clara Zetkin, leader of the women's office for the Social Democratic Party in Germany, tabled the idea of an international women's day. She proposed that every year in every country there should be a celebration on the same day to press for improvements for women.

While we certainly have a long way to go — there is much more to be done — we have come a long way. The United Nations International Women's Day 2009 has the theme of "Women and men united to end violence against women and girls." I would like the House to applaud the work of SAFA.

COMMUNITY SPIRIT IN NORTHERN B.C.

D. MacKay: Today I'd like to talk about northern trust and just remind people just how big this province of British Columbia is.

Highway 37 starts off Highway 16 west of Smithers. When you're travelling on Highway 37, you drive up to a place called Meziadin Junction, where the highway splits in two. You can travel from there down to Stewart and hit tidewater, or you can turn right and travel up Highway 37 North.

As you travel up Highway 37 North, you travel through some big communities. The first community is called Bell 2, which is a restaurant where the helicopter skiing is done from. Then you travel through Iskut, which is an Indian reserve. Then you get to Dease Lake. While you're in Dease Lake, if you want to take a side trip you can travel for two and a half hours down to Telegraph Creek and drive through the Stikine grand canyon. It's absolutely spectacular.

When you leave Dease Lake and drive north, the first place you come to is Good Hope, which is another small native reserve. But the driving time between Dease Lake and Atlin is actually eight hours, and this is where I would like to spend a moment and educate the people on the Lower Mainland how big this province is.

Eight hours' driving from Dease Lake to Atlin, and during our last federal election, the advance poll for the people in Atlin was at Dease Lake, so a 16 hours' round trip if you wanted to vote early. I'm hoping we don't make the same mistake, and I've actually contacted the provincial body responsible for that to encourage them not to allow that to happen.

I want to talk about northern trust now. On one of my return trips from Atlin, I stopped at Bell 2 on the way home. I was having a coffee, and I was talking to the young lady that was waiting on the tables. There was
[ Page 14196 ]
another couple sitting at a table next to me. They overheard me say I was from Smithers. They didn't know who I was, and I'd never met them before. They came up to me and said: "We heard you were going to Smithers. Would you mind taking our bank deposit and leaving it at the bank for us?"

They didn't know who I was. They gave me a bag with their bank deposit in it. I drove for 250 kilometres, turned left at Highway 16 and drove back to Smithers. They drove to Terrace. Never met them before in my life.

Can you imagine doing that in Vancouver or Victoria?

Mr. Speaker: Member for West Kootenay–Boundary.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Continue, Member.

K. Conroy: He did guarantee that he deposited it.

[1355]

NAPOLEON GOMEZ

K. Conroy: Today I want to talk to the House about a true hero, a man who has done so much for working people that he is considered a hero by thousands of people. I am talking about Napoleon Gomez, the president of the National Union of Mine and Metal Workers or Los Mineros, as it is known in Mexico.

In 2006 Napoleon led a series of strikes at mines owned by Grupo Mexico after an explosion at one of Grupo's mines killed 65 miners. The Mexican government removed Napoleon as president of Los Mineros. At the time, the Oxford-trained economist was demanding an investigation into the deaths of the workers in the coalmine explosion. Teachers, bus drivers, airline workers and farmers all marched to protest against the government interference in union activities.

Napoleon and his family faced threats to their lives and, with the support of the United Steelworkers, fled to the United States and then to Vancouver, where they now live in an undisclosed location. Napoleon says that in spite of the threats to his life, he continues to represent workers of Los Mineros and recently negotiated a 9 percent wage increase for one of the unions he represents.

In December the Mexican government revived charges against Napoleon. He stands accused of fraud, criminal association and other offences committed against members of Los Mineros. Actually, these very same charges have already been dismissed numerous times in every level of Mexican court in which they were filed. There is even an audit by an independent Swiss accounting firm that concluded the charges were absolutely false. The right-wing anti-union Mexican government still continues to try to have him extradited to face the trumped-up charges.

I'd like to quote Steve Hunt, western Canadian director from the Steelworkers. "I think he's a hero. His only crime is standing up for the people he represents and the families and the communities that have been devastated by some of these events." And I agree.

Napoleon is a man who deserves to live without threats to his life or to his family, to continue his work on behalf of working people, and I hope that this Legislature joins me in urging the Canadian government not to extradite him to Mexico.

MISSION MULTICULTURAL FESTIVAL

R. Hawes: Last Saturday Mission celebrated its fourth annual multicultural festival, thanks to Mission Community Services and thousands of hours of volunteer labour. This annual festival celebrates the ethnic and cultural diversity that helps make our country and our province the best place on earth.

Following a parade of national flags headed up by the Canadian flag, there was a wonderful program of dance and music from various cultures. Food from Japan, Korea, India, Mexico, the Ukraine, Italy and Greece was all served in abundance. Arts and cultural displays provided a glimpse into the various cultures that make up my community. The day is all about understanding our differences and building on the strengths within our diversity and understanding that while we are different, we are similar in many, many ways.

Even through the warmth of mutual acceptance that permeates this whole festival, I don't think anyone there forgot that the dark veil of prejudice still exists in our country, and although we have come a long way, we still have a long way to go. It's festivals and celebrations like this that help part those veils, and for this, we owe a debt of gratitude to all of the participants.

I was reminded that in Mission we have a lot to be proud of. In November we once again elected James Atebe as our mayor. Many in this House would know James as one of the friendliest and most outgoing mayors in British Columbia. But we didn't elect him because he's from Kenya or because he's a man. We elected him because he's the best person for the job, and that is how I think it should be.

KERSLEY MUSICAL THEATRE

B. Simpson: When my wife isn't singing about sleeping alone, she's a tart — a strawberry tart, to be precise. My daughter is a very silly girl who, when she's not wiping her nose on other people's sleeves, literally throws herself at an egotistical, chauvinistic Frenchman who takes great pride in his magnificent thighs. And my son has taken to wearing only black clothes and moving furniture around in the dark or in the fog.
[ Page 14197 ]

Yes, once again it's time for the magic of KMT, Kersley Musical Theatre. This year this ever-expanding group of thespians is presenting their breathtaking version of Beauty and the Beast.

This year's production is even bigger and more magical than ever. There are over 120 people in the cast, ranging in age from barely six months old to north of 70. There are over 300 costumes made by many of the dedicated parents and supporters of KMT. Some 20 crew members and a five-piece band professionally manage this enormous cast through each scene, making sure they're wearing the right costumes, singing the right songs and working with the right props, staging and lighting. It's hard to describe how truly awe-inspiring and professional this production is.

[1400]

Once again, KMT is providing an opportunity for people to escape the winter doldrums and enjoy a sensory vacation. And once again, Director Janice Butler, Producer Cathy Heinzelman and Assistant Director Dorine Lamarche have used the months of rehearsals and preparations to engage the cast, crew and supporters of this production in a personal and community journey of learning and growth.

Each member of the cast, crew and band has had to make personal sacrifices to give audiences this sensory treat. So I ask the members of this Legislature to recognize these sacrifices and the important role KMT plays in making our Cariboo communities strong and vibrant places in which to live and play.

Oral Questions

BUDGET PROVISIONS FOR
PARTNERSHIPS B.C.

B. Ralston: In this year's budget the Premier said the government would "rein in avoidable government spending" and "reduce administrative and personnel costs." But Partnerships B.C., the government agency responsible for privatizing public assets, will actually get a boost in its operating budget — salaries and benefits up 7.3 percent, administrative costs up 4.1 percent, corporate relations budget up 11.5 percent.

Now we have learned that Partnerships B.C. is taking part in a five-day junket to Ixtapa, Mexico, for the construction industry, and a senior official will be lecturing there on "Best P3 Practices in Transportation."

My question is to the Premier. How does he explain the salary hikes and benefits for Partnerships B.C. while his budget made devastating cuts to education, health care, forestry and public safety?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. C. Hansen: The member is clearly wrong, because if he would actually read the budget, he would know that in this budget we have an additional $4.8 billion over the next three years for health care. He will know that the budget for post-secondary education has increased by $288 million. He will also find that the budget for the Ministry of Education is at an all-time record high, in spite of the fact that we continue to see declining enrolment in K-to-12.

The record of Partnerships B.C. speaks for itself. If you look at project after project after project, we have seen hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayers' money that has been saved because of innovation, because of risk transfer.

Partnerships B.C. has a great track record, and it's great to hear that other jurisdictions want to learn from their experience.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

B. Ralston: That agency does have a track record of a culture of extravagance and excess.

In his budget speech last month the Finance Minister said the government will be moving now to reduce all types of discretionary spending across the public sector. Indeed, public employees are being asked to consider whether or not they wish to take unpaid leave. But this Minister of Finance supported pay hikes to senior staff at Partnerships B.C., the same people that are lounging this week at an exclusive resort in Ixtapa, Mexico.

To the Minister of Finance: will he agree to roll back the pay hikes for those senior officials at Partnerships B.C.?

Hon. C. Hansen: I think the work that has been done by Partnerships B.C. over the last number of years has saved taxpayers in British Columbia literally hundreds of millions of dollars. I get it that the NDP are more driven by the ideological approach that's being imposed on them by some of their public sector unions, but I challenge the opposition and the opposition Finance critic to actually look at the record in terms of the P3 project at Abbotsford Hospital — saved the taxpayers tens of millions of dollars.

[1405]

That was a project that the NDP promised and didn't deliver. That's a project that we promised. We delivered, and we did it through a P3 that saved the taxpayers millions of dollars. And that is true of just about every single one of the P3 projects that Partnerships B.C. has driven in this province.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a further supplemental.

B. Ralston: Well, the Minister of Finance likes to repeat the fiction about the Abbotsford Hospital. What the Auditor General said is that….
[ Page 14198 ]

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

B. Ralston: What the Auditor General….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Just take your seat for a second.

Members.

Continue, Member.

B. Ralston: What the Auditor General actually said in his report is that we would know in 35 years whether or not that project saved any money. That's what the Auditor General said. The minister has his own version of it. That's what the Auditor General said.

It's clear that the management team in Partnerships B.C. will get pay hikes — the same people who are lounging down there in the Mexican sun, who lined their pockets after yet another failed P3 project just a week ago.

How many more pay hikes for Partnerships B.C. executives vacationing in Mexico? How will that help the economy that we're experiencing right now? Will he admit his promise to protect the fundamentals and cut waste was another broken promise?

Hon. C. Hansen: Partnerships B.C. has, over the last number of years, developed a worldwide reputation for excellence. They are being sought after by provinces across Canada to help other jurisdictions learn how to save taxpayers' money through P3 models. They are being sought by jurisdictions around the world. They are being sought as speakers at conferences, and I think that's to their credit.

This member talks about the Abbotsford Hospital and the 35 years, and I can tell you that the track record they had when they were in government and the promise that they made to build the Abbotsford Hospital and then failed to deliver…. They would still be planning that hospital 35 years from now. We've built it, it's serving patients, and we're proud of it.

G. Gentner: Can the Premier explain why — while he's cutting services for kids, cutting services for seniors, cutting services to combat crime — his budget gives pay hikes to Partnerships B.C. management, the same people that are currently lounging at poolside in Ixtapa, Mexico, as we speak right now, this afternoon?

Can the Premier explain why any executive would be in Mexico deep-sea fishing, sipping umbrella drinks on the beach, taking Mexican cooking classes when he or she should be right here in B.C. right now helping average British Columbians and families struggle with today's recession?

Hon. C. Hansen: The member is full of hyperbole, but he is not full of facts, because quite frankly, he does not know what he's talking about. There is one person from Partnerships B.C. that is going to speak at a conference. All of the expenses are being paid for by the conference organizer.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

The member has a supplemental.

[1410]

G. Gentner: The vice-president is currently making a salary of $215,000 per annum and climbing.

You know, Partnerships B.C. went to Mexico to work, apparently, and they are probably right about now, at two o'clock — give or take a time change — this afternoon presenting their business session on their appropriate name, "Here for a Good Time, Not a Long Time." I'm quoting the convention program. That is what Partnerships B.C. is all about. It's not only an insult to the hard-working people in British Columbia but to the Legislature and all the other ministers who are currently having to cut their budgets.

Again to the Premier: can he explain to the House why suntanning in Mexico is more important than addressing the economy right now here in British Columbia?

Hon. C. Hansen: Actually, I would ask that member to apologize to a hard-working public servant who has earned an international reputation, who is being sought after as a speaker. The conference organizers are prepared to pay for that individual to travel to speak at that conference. The record of Partnerships B.C. stands for itself.

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Member.

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Minister, just take your seat for a second.

Member. Take the time to listen to the question and listen to the answer, please.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. C. Hansen: We have the Canada line, which is a P3 model — $92 million in savings. That has actually been confirmed by the Auditor General.

We've got the Gordon and Leslie Diamond Centre. It's the academic ambulatory care centre at VGH that is serving patients from all across the province. That was a $17 million savings because it was a P3.

The Abbotsford Hospital I mentioned earlier is a savings of $39 million, confirmed by the Auditor General.
[ Page 14199 ]
The Sea to Sky Highway has $131 million worth of additional benefits to the taxpayers because we did it as a P3.

CHILD CARE SPACES IN WHISTLER AREA

C. Trevena: On Monday the Minister of State for Childcare was unable to offer any assurances to families in Whistler who need child care spaces. Last Friday Spring Creek closed its doors, with 22 spaces for three-to-five-year-olds gone, and 20 spaces for infants and toddlers have also gone. We hear that in May the Teddy Bear Daycare is closing its doors, so losing another 16 spaces.

The latter is closing because of the Olympics and the former because they simply can't get the staff. The wait-list is closed at the only other child care centre in town, the Whistler Children's Centre, and there are 96 families waiting for child care there.

I'd like to ask the Minister of State for Childcare: what's she going to do about this?

Hon. L. Reid: I can tell the members that we continue to work with both of those centres, and certainly some of them have some credentialing issues — no question. Oftentimes the training is undertaken in jurisdictions outside of British Columbia, but our staff and the early childhood education registry are fast-tracking those applications as they come forward.

We are working with the centres in terms of providing additional space, and indeed, we have a centre today that has space. We have a centre today that has some additional staff. We're going to do our very best to pull those together to continue to deliver child care services.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

C. Trevena: It's very interesting that the minister says that she is working with these centres. She was working with them last summer when we first started asking these questions — last spring. Since then we've got two gone and about 46 spaces gone. I'm a bit concerned about how the working is going to continue.

The minister really seems to fail to recognize the crisis. There is nothing in Whistler. There is almost nothing in Pemberton. In Squamish, yes, they got a new centre. In 2007 they were able to open their doors, but they didn't get the funding to create the spaces. So they have a centre there with 20 spaces, eight of which can't be opened because they can't get the staff to hire them.

[1415]

So I would like for the minister to actually understand the reality and explain to the people of Whistler how they are going to ensure that those 96 families, those people — plus the other 40 or so who have extra children who can't find space — are going to find child care in the next two months.

Hon. L. Reid: We continue to provide subsidies for 25,000 to 27,000 children each month to attend child care. We continue to open child care spaces across British Columbia — 6,000 new spaces. We, in fact, have doubled the number of child care spaces that we subsidize from 45,000 to 90,000.

Are we making progress in child care as we go forward? Absolutely, we are. Will we continue to work with the centres in Whistler? Yes. Is Whistler a unique situation? Yes. One of the individuals has absolutely indicated that enrolment is actually going down in one of those centres because those children are not attending today because they're enrolled in ski programs. So there are unique facets to this discussion that I would be happy to brief the member opposite on.

CLOSING OF COWICHAN LODGE

D. Routley: On January 27 John Plecas had his prostate surgery cancelled at Cowichan District Hospital. Since then, and after that time, he carried on in severe pain, one of many people who had their surgeries cancelled. The cancellation occurred because of a lack of bed space. One of the causes of that bed shortage was the closure of Cowichan Lodge. Several seniors now occupy beds awaiting placement. Why did this minister break his promise to close Cowichan Lodge?

Hon. G. Abbott: We've debated this extensively in this House before. I'm glad to remind the member that Cowichan Lodge was an outdated facility that did not meet the contemporary standards for residential care. It is unfortunate that the member doesn't appreciate the fine facility that has opened nearby at Sunridge Place. It is a wonderful facility by all accounts.

I think the Vancouver Island Health Authority made the right decision in terms of Cowichan Lodge. What we see at Cowichan and Duncan is both qualitatively and quantitatively a far better life for our seniors as a consequence of the investment of literally hundreds of millions of dollars in new seniors' facilities and far better lives for those that enjoy those facilities.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

D. Routley: The minister is just wrong. Cowichan Lodge is a good facility. Cowichan Lodge was an excellent facility. None of the staff, none of the families served made these complaints. This is an excuse for a closure that has caused 109 cancelled surgeries alone in the last year alone. The chief of surgery at Cowichan Hospital resigned over this lack of resources and cancelled surgeries. We've lost three anaesthetists. Two specialists
[ Page 14200 ]
recruited refused to come once they realized the cancellation rate at Cowichan Hospital.

This minister hides behind that excuse. Our community knows that he's wrong.

Will the minister reopen those beds at Cowichan Lodge and relieve the pressure at Cowichan Hospital? Why should John Plecas and all the other people served by that hospital pay for his broken promise?

Hon. G. Abbott: There's no broken promise except possibly on that side of the House. We promised an incremental 5,000 residential care and assisted-living beds and we've now delivered over 5,800 residential care and assisted-living beds.

To be clear, we will not be…. VIHA will not be revisiting the issue of the closure of Cowichan Lodge. Further to the member, Mr. Speaker…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

[1420]

Hon. G. Abbott: …while surgeries may on rare occasions be delayed, it is very rare that that occurs.

We always are disappointed when surgeries are delayed, but we perform across British Columbia literally hundreds of thousands of surgeries every year. Surgery on time is the rule. Delays are very much the exception, whether it's at Cowichan or any other hospital in this province.

The member is misconstruing the facts to try to make their ideological point once again.

ECONOMIC BENEFITs of OLYMPIC GAMES

H. Bains: The Premier was reluctant to admit B.C. would slide into recession, and then he was also reluctant to admit that B.C. would have to operate with a budget deficit.

However, even after admitting we would not avoid the pain of the global recession, he held fast to the fantasy that the recession would not impact the Olympics. Does he still maintain that B.C. will get the full economic benefit of the 2010 games as was anticipated earlier?

Hon. C. Hansen: The 12 economists that constitute our Economic Forecast Council were all unanimous in forecasting that British Columbia is going to lead Canada in economic growth in 2010. Without exception, they all indicated that it was because of the Olympics — one of the key reasons why B.C. was going to see such strong economic growth.

The Olympics, according to a study done by RBC a few years back, should generate in excess of $10 billion of economic activity. We're talking about literally thousands and thousands of jobs in British Columbia. Quite frankly, there is not a jurisdiction in the world that wouldn't give their eye teeth to be hosting the Olympics in February of 2010.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

H. Bains: Everyone is tightening their belt because of the world recession. Everyone is being hit by the economic slide. This minister continues to say that those numbers will help. My question to the minister is this. Has he decided to update those numbers, or is he maintaining that those numbers will be delivered?

Hon. C. Hansen: I get it that the NDP don't like the fact that the Olympics are coming, and they don't like the fact that they're actually the makings of one of the biggest success stories in this province. I get the fact that their leader, the Leader of the Opposition, did not support the Olympics from the outset. I get that.

But the vast majority of British Columbians are pretty excited about the Olympics. They're excited about the fact that 250,000 visitors are coming to B.C. They're excited about the fact that there are about 8,000 athletes coming to B.C. And they're excited about the fact that there are going to be 10,000 to 12,000 journalists from around the world who are going to come to witness what a great place British Columbia is to live, visit, invest in and raise a family.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

TRANSFER OF LYTTON LUMBER
FOREST LICENCE

H. Lali: Will the Minister of Forests please tell this House why he signed off on the transfer of Lytton Lumber's forest licence to Aspen Planers of Merritt? Also, will the minister please explain to the 60 unemployed workers and their families in Lytton — mostly first nations — why he agreed to transfer their forest licence and their jobs out of the community?

Hon. P. Bell: There's a straightforward process when it comes to licence decisions. I'm to review if there are any undue constraints with regards to competition in the area. There was consultation done with first nations, and I approved the transfer.

[1425]

Mr. Speaker: Member has a supplemental.

H. Lali: The minister must be dreaming, because there were no consultations that were done with the
[ Page 14201 ]
Lytton First Nation. I've got letters here to prove that the Lytton First Nation was not consulted.

Lytton Lumber was not only the most significant employer in town, but it was the only game in town. But thanks to this government's failed forest policies, Lytton Lumber went under just like dozens of other outfits across small towns in British Columbia. Without talking to the Lytton First Nation and the village council in Lytton or the 60 families who have lost all of their paycheques, this Liberal minister has killed any hopes of restoring jobs in the community of Lytton.

To the Minister of Forests: what can he possibly say at this time to the families of the unemployed workers in Lytton? How can the minister possibly justify killing their hopes and dreams by exporting their jobs out of the community?

Hon. P. Bell: The member is simply wrong. It's quite interesting that we heard from the previous questioner the acknowledgment of the challenges globally right now in the economy. Our forest industry is one of the successes.

In fact, I just saw today on one of the clips from the local media a $100 million sawmill opening in Adams Lake in the middle of April. Significant investments across this province. Licence decisions are made on a routine basis. This decision was put in front of me, the appropriate consultation was done, and I approved the licence transfer.

JUMBO GLACIER RESORT

N. Macdonald: The highly contentious Jumbo Glacier resort was scheduled to undergo another environmental assessment this upcoming October. Over Christmas the existing environmental assessment was extended for an additional five-year period.

As has become customary with this government, that extension was given despite the fact that the regional district of East Kootenay and the regional district of Central Kootenay specifically requested some time to make a presentation. That was denied. Why was the opportunity for local government input denied?

Hon. B. Bennett: I think we all know in this House that the NDP don't support the tourism industry. That's become quite clear over the past four years. They don't support….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Just take your seat for a second, Minister.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. B. Bennett: In 2004 when this government announced that we were going to actually double the amount of money given to Tourism B.C. to market this beautiful province to the rest of the world, the Leader of the Opposition said: "We don't support that." She said: "In fact, if we're elected, we will roll that back, and we will not double the funding going to Tourism B.C. to market tourism out of this province."

They obviously don't support the tourism industry. But you know, Mr. Speaker, there was a time when the other side of the House did actually recognize that tourism was an important industry for this province. Let me just read you what they used to say: "I hope that you will be able…."

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. B. Bennett: This is a quotation.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Continue, Minister.

Hon. B. Bennett: "I hope that you will be able to proceed on this project and that one day we may see this international venture realized." Premier Harcourt, February 24, 1993.

Interjections.

Hon. B. Bennett: Let me read one more.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you, Minister.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

The member has a supplemental.

N. Macdonald: The question was directed to the Minister of Environment for a reason. The last time I asked a question to this minister, he told me about the airport. There was no connection at all, and there's no connection here as well.

The question is clear. It is about the environmental assessment process. The regional district of Central Kootenay asked if they could participate in that process. That was denied, as has happened every time when the local voice wants to have a say in an issue that is clearly important — of fundamental importance.

[1430]

Andy Shadrack, who is the director, has written to the Ombudsman and said the following: "In relation to that resort, there are changes." There is the Glacier-Howser river diversion project, which will take five rivers and put them in 16 kilometres of tunnels that never return
[ Page 14202 ]
the water to the watershed. There's a 90-kilometre-long transmission line to Invermere, and that's very close to this proposed resort. There is also a government-financed grizzly study, which has markedly different findings than the original study. Both of those are two reasons why this environmental assessment should have been looked at.

One thing that has not changed is that 90 percent of the local people have opposition to the Jumbo Glacier resort, and that's the fundamental issue. What I want is a clear commitment that this project will only go ahead with the support of people in the Columbia Valley.

Mr. Speaker: Pose the question, Member.

N. Macdonald: I ask the Premier: will he give the assurance today that this project only proceeds with the support of the people in the Columbia Valley? Otherwise, no.

Hon. B. Bennett: Probably only the NDP would think that 18 years of process is not long enough to process a project. Only the NDP would think that. They want to have more committee meetings. They want to have more letters. They want to have more consultations. They want to spend more time before we decide this project.

However, there was a time….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Minister, just take your seat for a second.

Members.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. B. Bennett: Now, who was it that said: "Well-designed, self-contained and…"?

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Member.

Hon. B. Bennett: Who was it? Who was it?

Mr. Speaker: Wrap it up, Minister.

Hon. B. Bennett: Who said this: "Well-designed…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. B. Bennett: "…self-contained and environmentally sustainable"? I'm not sure if they got that. I'm not sure they heard that.

"Environmentally sustainable destination resorts such as is being proposed here could provide considerable capacity in meeting these outdoor activities, using a very limited land base." Premier Clark, 1996.

[End of question period.]

M. Sather: I seek leave to present a petition.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

Petitions

M. Sather: I have a petition here from 588 residents calling on the government to save the Albion Ferry.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: I call Committee of Supply — for the information of members, ongoing discussion on the supplementary estimates, Finance.

[1435]

Committee of Supply

supplementary estimates:
other appropriations

(continued)

The House in Committee of Supply; K. Whittred in the chair.

The committee met at 2:37 p.m.

On Vote 45(S): contingencies (all ministries) and new programs, $125,000,000 (continued).

B. Ralston: Following on what the minister said yesterday — that he anticipated that if the funds came to bring the $125 million into the budget, the expenditure of those funds "would flow out to organizations that are outside of the provincial government reporting entity." He said that that list was not fixed.

I have some colleagues who wish to direct some questions to the minister about potential uses of those contingency funds, and I'll turn it over to my colleague at this point.

C. Evans: I would like to start by asking: am I correct that the risk management branch and government security office is a division of the Ministry of Finance?

Hon. C. Hansen: Yes.

C. Evans: I would like to then canvass a study of that branch of the Ministry of Finance, with regard to ascertaining whether some of the $125 million may be going to rectify risks that have been identified by the ministry.
[ Page 14203 ]
But I don't want to behave like question period, and I want it to be a collaborative process. I would like to ask that these three copies of the report be taken to those three gentlemen right over there so that we're all working from exactly the same words.

Let the record show that I am passing to the minister and the minister's staff the risk identification survey for the Creston Valley Wildlife Management Authority. I do not know whether the minister or his staff are in possession of the same report. I don't wish to play any gotcha games here. I'm sharing what I have with them in case it's not in the binders that they have in this room.

My first question on that subject is: is the report of the risk identification survey for the Creston Wildlife Management Authority by the risk management branch and government security office a document with which he or his staff are conversant?

Hon. C. Hansen: I'm not familiar with it.

C. Evans: That was my expectation. I tried to ask the question to include the staff, in order that we might ascertain whether or not they were conversant with the report.

[1440]

However, for the enlightenment of all folks here and the minister, I'll just explain a little bit. This is not my report, of course. It is produced by the Ministry of Finance. The risk management branch is sometimes asked by the minister or by cabinet or by government generally to identify risk when it is believed that the assets of the Crown or the activities of the Crown or some way that we organize the workings of the Crown might create physical risk, environmental risk or financial risk to the Crown.

The report that the minister is now holding, conducted by the staff of the risk management branch, identifies a high…. Section 1.2, for the minister's keeping up here. The purpose of this risk identification was to "identify high-level strategic risks as well as operational risks arising out of the day-to-day operations of the Creston Valley wildlife management area."

Now, how does this fit into the estimates of the day? I submit that this report identifies physical risk, environmental risk and liability to the Crown of an immediate nature. In fact, the language in the paper identified its immediate nature. It is my belief that the $125 million, which the critic and the minister have been canvassing for two days here…. It identified that the $125 million which may accrue to the minister's office, should it arise, is available for projects as yet unidentified by the minister.

I wish to canvass the possibility that this report of the minister's own ministry identifies that there are critical issues in need of mitigation prior to an election or next month or next fiscal year. Not to do so leaves the Crown, this room, that ministry — all of us — at risk of liability.

Also identified in the report is not only liability but international condemnation. I bring your attention to section 3.3. The Creston Valley wildlife management area — so that we understand — resulted from the Columbia River treaty, which Canada and the United States signed in the 1960s and resulted in dams on both sides of the border from Libby to Mica, flooding hundreds of thousands of acres of wetland used by swans and ducks and geese and international migratory fowl.

Because of previous treaties that say Mexico, the United States and Canada are all responsible for migratory fowl, the Creston Valley wildlife management area was created by the federal and provincial governments in order to — with pumps and dikes — create a substitute feeding and nesting area so that we weren't embarrassed by international treaty.

Section 3.3 suggests that the area has earned three international designations — I can explain them later; I don't want to waste your time — Ramsar, IBA and Impara. "Loss of these designations would result in embarrassment to British Columbia and also to Canada and could result in the loss of revenue from donations and fees. Maintenance of these designations without a strategy supported by the government will be difficult, if not impossible, to maintain."

It goes on to suggest that in order to not be embarrassed internationally, we need to develop a plan, and the plan itself might create a new risk. Section 3.4: "It should be noted that a push for appropriate funds as a result of a plan may create a new risk. The cost of managing the area may exceed government's commitment to the area." Certainly we have to resolve that.

Now we come to the physical risk — the possibility of being sued with the spring freshet which, as you know, hon. Chair, will happen before we meet here again. Section 4.1: "The dikes and control structures in the area have not been properly maintained." This is the ministry's own words. This is their risk management division. "Failure of the inner dikes will negatively impact the operations of the authority and will likely result in the loss of wildlife habitat. Failure of the outer dikes will negatively impact neighbouring farms and will likely result in a liability claim against the government."

[1445]

It goes on to suggest that the pumps are inadequate and injury to trespassers will likely result in a liability claim against the government and against the Wildlife Management Authority. There are no backups for these pumps and no redundancy and capacity during freshet. There is no preventative maintenance program in place for the pumps.

The recommendation is that the authority should survey the dikes and then develop a repair strategy. Repairs should be prioritized based on risk of failure.

I bring it up because we have right now $125 mil-
[ Page 14204 ]
lion which may be available to the Ministry of Finance. We're not going to meet again before spring freshet, and the risk management branch identifies that there's no backup system for the pumps. That part of the Creston Valley…. I mean, everybody lives in the Fraser Valley. The minister over here understands that. That part of the valley is defended with dikes which are the responsibility of the Crown.

It gets worse, in terms of physical liability to the citizens. It says there are a number of unused and unmaintained barns and the like. "A number of these structures are in extremely dangerous condition, and these structures create an attractive nuisance which could easily cause injuries and result in liability claims."

The viewing tower is in a dangerous condition, and it recommends that the viewing tower should be closed to the public — I presume before we meet again, hon. Chair — and secured until such time as it can be made safe or else torn down.

It goes on to talk about enforcement, because it's 6,000 hectares. It's a jewel. It's huge, and there's nobody there to keep trespassers from being injured or doing damage. It says there are not enough employees to ensure that the Wildlife Act is enforced.

In other words, we have an act…. This room passed an act, and we've got nobody out there to enforce it. "Lack of enforcement results in a number of risks, including dumping, vandalism and unauthorized and inappropriate use of the lands within the area. In addition to the risk that the authority will not meet its mandate, these exposures could result in significant costs to the province" — increasing the amount of money we have to spend.

There's a recommendation to ensure that there's enough trained and qualified staff in place to carry out the enforcement activities. In terms of habitat maintenance, listen to this: "To properly maintain the ponds" — that's where the ducks and geese nest and feed — "the ponds need to be drawn down and maintained on a frequency of two ponds per year. The wildlife management area has not done a single pond in five years. Lack of maintenance will result in a loss of this important waterfowl habitat. Continued loss of habitat will likely result in the loss of international designations that that area has earned."

This province and this room stand at risk, as a result, of huge embarrassment. International Ramsar designation means that the whole world looks at us and says: "This is important. You are good people." The risk says we're going to lose it.

The recommendation is: "Immediately restore the required habitat maintenance schedule." That's seven words. Blank. Fix it immediately. That would mean today.

There's an employer's liability too — section 4.6 for the minister. This is kind of important. It says that we have employees out there who may sue us. Risk management — not the member for Nelson-Creston, not the people that work there. The Ministry of Finance says that we have employees that are inadequately covered and might sue us.

"The Creston Valley Wildlife Act specifies that the employees may be appointed under the Public Service Act. They have not been appointed and have not received pay, benefits or pensions comparable to what they would have received had they been employed by any other act of the Crown entity. There is a distinct risk that an employee may bring action against the authority" — that's us — "to recover any amounts they may have received if they had been employed under the act by a similar entity."

So here's the recommendation, hon. Chair, through you to the minister or to us: "Obtain a legal opinion to determine the authority's exposure to an employee's liability claim arising out of this situation. If the likelihood of a successful claim is moderate to high, consideration should be given to entering into settlement discussions with the impacted employees."

[1450]

I hope that I have successfully made a case that the risk management department of the Ministry of Finance has identified liability risk, employee contractual relationship risk, flooding risk, wildlife risk and international political risk to our reputation from the literal falling apart of the wildlife management area.

I want to make this clear and put it on the record. I blame nobody. This slow decline has been going on since the federal government withdrew financing in the 1980s, but never before, until this day, did we have a report by a ministry of the Crown identifying that we are at risk.

You know how it works, hon. Chair. When a public document identifies risk, we then have to deal with the risk, or we're liable. It isn't like we didn't know. It's like we just got told.

Is it possible that some of the $125 million which may accrue to the ministry could be applied precisely to deal with this risk during this fiscal year?

The Chair: Before I recognize you, Minister, I just want to mention that I have been listening to this very carefully, and I do seek some comment from the minister about the relevancy of this to the vote.

Hon. C. Hansen: It is with the greatest of respect to the member that…. I acknowledge that this is an important report. I think, actually, that it's a great testament to some of the excellent public servants that we have in the risk management branch for what appears to be a very thorough look at these activities. That report was just finished, actually, a few weeks ago, and it is now in the hands of the Ministry of Environment to do their follow-up on. But it is not relevant to the debate that we're having on the floor at this time.

C. Evans: Might I ask: if any of the liabilities identified in the report were to take place in this fiscal year, would the cost of the liability then fall back to the Creston
[ Page 14205 ]
Valley wildlife management area, which the report itself says is broke?

Hon. C. Hansen: Nothing is anticipated.

C. Evans: I would agree that nothing is anticipated. That's how we got to this place. We kind of let it fall down because we didn't anticipate it. Am I not correct that once we identify risk, we are then responsible to mitigate it or that that's a legal acknowledgment of responsibility?

Hon. C. Hansen: That is exactly why the risk management branch undertook a report like this. This is information that would not be available otherwise. Now that those risks have been identified, they're before the Ministry of Environment, which is looking at them. But it is not relevant to this debate that we are having this afternoon.

The Chair: Member, just if you would be cautioned by my previous remarks and perhaps move on to some questioning more relevant to the vote.

C. Evans: I really appreciate your previous remarks and the minister's remarks, and I very much appreciate that they did the report. I think it's wonderful work, and I agree with everybody. It's just that if the Ministry of Finance says that there's risk and we don't deal with it here….

If it's inappropriate here, my question is: if somebody gets hurt or the dikes are breached, is the Creston Valley wildlife management area responsible because we didn't deal with it in this room on this day?

Hon. C. Hansen: There are other statutory provisions for emergency measures. Therefore, the points he is making are not relevant to the debate. They're important points. I don't want to diminish them. There are other opportunities in the legislative calendar for this issue to be canvassed thoroughly, but this is not the opportunity.

C. Evans: I don't really wish to argue with the minister, because I wish to work with him in a collaborative fashion to resolve this question. I'm hoping this might be my last.

I get it that both you and the minister would like me to leave this subject, which is dear to my heart and — I'm sure the minister would understand — dear to the people who live there and actually to generations of people who put this management area for wildfowl in place.

I think that the physical plant has been identified to be at risk prior to the legislative opportunities in future for this building to deal with it, and I think the Crown is at risk. But way more than that, I think the wildlife management area and its board are at risk.

[1455]

The report identifies that one member of the board is actually at liability and is not covered by the indemnity of the Crown or the federal government. So I think we've got to deal with it.

To move on, would the minister be willing to meet with the manager of the wildlife area, the MLA and the Minister of Environment at some point during the next three weeks, while we are here, to see if we can put together a next-step or a short-term mitigation-of-liability plan?

Hon. C. Hansen: I do hope we'll get back to the issue that's at hand. But in response to the member, he should direct that inquiry and that request for a meeting to the Minister of Environment.

C. Evans: I will, and I appreciate the answer.

I will change the question a little bit. If I approached the Minister of Environment and the Minister of Environment is willing to grant a meeting and the manager of the Creston Valley wildlife area is willing to come during the next three weeks, will the Minister of Finance be available to attend the meeting?

Hon. C. Hansen: This is an area where the Minister of Environment is clearly the lead minister on an issue like this. I'm sure that my colleague would welcome a request from the member.

C. Evans: I obviously don't understand. When the risk management branch of the Ministry of Finance writes a report, doesn't the report go to the Minister of Finance?

G. Gentner: I'll probably be very brief here. I've been on a fishing expedition for some time, asking various questions on where the money is going.

I've been to the Community Development Minister and, of course, the Minister of Transportation on various projects. I know there are some grants that are to be, hopefully, awarded somewhere by the government, and perhaps the minister can share them with me relative to my community in North Delta.

Delta has applied through various forums and means to various ministries for funding and specifically in my community of North Delta for completion for a shovel-ready project for operation of the Sungod aquatic centre. Can the minister enlarge upon that or share with me whether or not his ministry will be granting money towards such a project?

Hon. C. Hansen: That subject was thoroughly canvassed with the Minister of Community Development.

G. Gentner: Therefore, I would imagine that the answer is no. There's no money coming forward from the Ministry of Finance.
[ Page 14206 ]

Hon. C. Hansen: I would recommend to the member that he go back and read the Hansard from yesterday afternoon, when his colleague from Surrey-Whalley asked me about this fund. I indicated that no decisions have been made with regard to how dollars from this $125 million would be allocated, and no decisions will be made until we are certain that the revenues are going to materialize. He may want to go back and review that conversation that his colleague and I had yesterday afternoon.

G. Gentner: Just so I have this correct. This is referring to all projects, whether it be in Surrey or Delta? There have been no decisions on any projects relative to Delta. Is that correct?

Hon. C. Hansen: He's actually directing the question to the wrong minister. What this is, is an allocation to a contingency, and it will only be utilized once we are confident that the revenue side will materialize. I know he had an opportunity to canvass this question with the Minister of Community Development.

B. Ralston: I think what the member was referring to was the minister's comments of yesterday. I'm reading from his remarks of yesterday: "…we will, first of all, do the work that needs to be done to confirm that revenues will materialize, and then we will decide to try and look at what the appropriate priorities for it should be."

My understanding of what the minister said and the advice I have given to colleagues is that in the event that the revenue does materialize, the ministry would be devising priorities to spend that revenue on appropriate priorities. Given that there are — and the minister has given some idea of what those priorities might be — certainly organizations outside the government reporting entity….

[1500]

I think what the member before and this member just moments ago have been trying to do is make suggestions to the minister as to what those spending priorities might be, understanding that the revenue may not materialize. I understand the caution of the Chair, but I don't see that the debate needs to be cut off in that sense.

I do have a question for the minister. There have been a series of government announcements about infrastructure. One of the programs is a $2 billion program on infrastructure, of which there will be a billion dollars in federal funding, and rolling out over three years is a plan to spend a billion dollars in infrastructure in the province.

Again, understanding that the government revenues may not materialize to fund this contingency, does the minister see infrastructure projects as one possible avenue for what he's called appropriate priorities, should the revenue materialize?

Hon. C. Hansen: That's a possibility. As you know, we have sought appropriate projects that could make a difference in creating jobs for British Columbians in the short term. That is certainly a priority for this government.

B. Ralston: Beyond simply the bald statement that the minister has just made, what is the process by which appropriate priorities would be determined? Again, understanding that revenue may not materialize and that these would be contingency spending plans, if I could put it that way, what would be the process that would be gone through in order to determine those priorities?

Hon. C. Hansen: I think, as I indicated yesterday afternoon, our first priority would be to identify those organizations that may be hoping for and expecting grant allocations in the coming two years that we may be able to flow from this fiscal year and thereby relieve some of the pressures that may otherwise be on our fiscal plan for the next two years which, as the member knows, is going to be extremely tight for us.

When it comes to infrastructure spending working with municipalities, there is a process for that today. It's the Building Canada fund. We have been actively soliciting applications from municipalities and other regional governments, and that is in process.

In terms of these year-end dollars — the $125 million — that would not be going to fund Building Canada dollars because the Building Canada dollars that we require to match the federal program, as was announced last year or the year before, are already built into the operating budgets. We will be able to flow those dollars without having to impact on these additional contingency dollars.

S. Herbert: The other day the minister mentioned the B.C. Arts Council and some possibility that these funds might find their way there. I wondered if the minister might explain in greater detail what he was thinking at that time.

Hon. C. Hansen: I think what I was referring to were the additional dollars that were in other parts, not in this vote but actually in the vote of the Minister of Tourism, Culture and the Arts, which were the additional moneys that would flow as a result of this broader supplemental estimate — but not part of this specific vote.

There are, certainly, arts organizations that may be able to benefit from these year-end dollars if, in fact, they materialize, but I would not want to speculate at this point. As I said yesterday, I want to be very careful not to give any organizations any false expectations that they may be able to expect grants or other dollars to flow until such time as we're 100 percent confident that the revenues are there.

S. Herbert: Would these dollars be potentially…? I understand the concern that you don't want to count
[ Page 14207 ]
the chickens before they're hatched, because who knows, these days? Would these potentially be available for capital infrastructure for arts and culture organizations?

[1505]

Hon. C. Hansen: Again, I wouldn't want to give any false expectations to anyone, but in terms of dollars that would flow to an organization outside of the provincial government's financial reporting entity, whether or not those organizations used it as grants or as capital…. Again, it depends what would be put forward, but there certainly would be nothing that would restrict the use of a contingency appropriation for capital purposes.

B. Ralston: Can the minister advise, then: what would be the mechanism for public notification, or at least notification through the government accounting procedure, so that members of the Legislature might know whether this revenue has arrived? When would the government propose to reveal…? If there were additional revenue, by what manner would the government reveal its plans for what the minister has called appropriate priorities to spend this contingency money?

Hon. C. Hansen: The formal process whereby the assembly is advised of what available revenues were there at year-end and what expenditures were made against the revenues in the fiscal year would be public accounts.

B. Ralston: The full public accounts are not reported until the end of June. Given what the minister has said about the possibility — and, again, I stress the possibility — of grants to organize the funds that might "flow to organizations that are outside of the provincial government reporting entity," I'm wondering what the mechanism is by which organizations might find that those funds were available and that they might make a request or make an application for that funding.

Hon. C. Hansen: Throughout the year the government receives many, many requests from outside organizations. Most of them, as the member would know, we cannot respond to favourably just because of limited dollars. As we come down to year-end and we can identify additional resources that may be available, we would try to review some of those requests that have come in during the year. We would be notifying those organizations appropriately before the end of fiscal year.

B. Ralston: The organizations that the ministry is already aware of would be notified prior to the end of this fiscal year, then. Is that what I understood him to say?

Hon. C. Hansen: Correct.

B. Ralston: And if the ministry is not aware of an organization, how might organizations — without beginning a deluge — enter into that process? What would be the mechanism for an organization to do that?

Hon. C. Hansen: In most cases these would be requests that would have come in through ministers' offices and things that they think would be worthy but did not have budget room to fund. I know that there is a very, very long list of organizations and opportunities that have not been funded because of funds not being available.

B. Ralston: I'm sure the minister won't want it to be taken to be said that that's restricted to ministers, so will the minister confirm that individual members of the Legislature, should they be approached by organizations who have made those kinds of requests, could forward that to the minister or to the appropriate ministry?

Hon. C. Hansen: Certainly, if the member was aware of such a circumstance, he could direct that information to me. But I would also just want to caution him that even if all of the revenues materialized, there is a very long list of organizations that would love to be able to have the benefit of it. So I would caution the member not to go out and solicit new opportunities, because it is going to be a very limited pot from which those resources can be drawn.

[1510]

B. Ralston: Again, speaking hypothetically, should the revenue materialize and should the minister be considering these applications or requests from ministries or from individuals, when would he expect those decisions to be made and to become public?

Hon. C. Hansen: As we can confirm that revenues are in fact materializing in a way that we are confident of, then decisions will be made basically throughout the month of March.

B. Ralston: Looking on the reverse side, if the revenue doesn't materialize, when will the minister be certain of that and do the reverse — in other words, advise groups that there's no money available for requests?

Hon. C. Hansen: This is not a list of projects where people are waiting for yeses or noes. If the groups or outside bodies that may be able to benefit from that haven't heard by the end of the day on March 31, they can take it that there were not additional dollars available. We will only be committing additional dollars as we can confirm revenues.

J. Horgan: I'm pleased to rise and participate in the discussion with the minister today about a potential $125
[ Page 14208 ]
million. I'm wondering if the minister could clarify for members of the House what criteria would be in play.

The member has talked about a list of projects or organizations who have come to government over the fiscal year seeking assistance. Where do you start? If these groups or organizations have not received funding…. It's March 4. Some of those groups will have fallen away. They will have found funding elsewhere. So what criteria will the government use to apportion this revenue?

Hon. C. Hansen: Contingencies by their nature are dealt with on basically a file-by-file basis. We do have programs across government. I mentioned earlier the Building Canada Fund where local governments and municipalities can apply for funding under that for one-third federal, one-third provincial. There are very specific criteria, and local governments can apply on the basis of those criteria.

That's just one example. Across government there are numerous programs that have specific criteria. The very nature of contingency is that it is there. Each proposal is evaluated basically on its merits, and it's not part of broad criteria, as would be the case in something like a Building Canada Fund.

J. Horgan: In my constituency of Malahat–Juan de Fuca there's a project, the restoration of the Kinsol Trestle. The member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head and I were very pleased to announce a $1.5 million contribution from the Vancouver Island trust fund.

I visited the trestle with the previous Minister of Tourism, the member for Richmond Centre. She also spoke in favour of the heritage aspects of this trestle and the importance of linking the south side of the bridge with the north side of the bridge crossing the Koksilah River.

The community needs about a million dollars, maybe a million and a half dollars, to proceed with restoration of this historic trestle and complete the Trans Canada Trail on Vancouver Island. I know it has the full support of the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head, whose ministry name now is confusing to me, so I won't recite it. I know it certainly had the support of the member for Richmond Centre when she was the Minister of Tourism, and I know the member for East Kootenay, also an avid supporter of heritage, would lend his voice and support to the Kinsol Trestle project.

I don't believe that it is on anyone's desk right now. I know the Minister of Transportation, or the ministry, has about a million and a half dollars, almost $2 million, to put toward the restoration project. So we're very, very close. Government ministries are coming from different points with cash for this initiative.

I would suggest that if there is revenue lying around, this project would be an ideal candidate. But it doesn't, as I've been listening to the minister, fit any of the criteria that he has suggested. I'm wondering how I could amend that position and get it at the top of the pile. Does the minister have any advice for me and my constituents?

[1515]

Hon. C. Hansen: First of all, just to correct the member, there is not cash lying around, and there will not be cash lying around. We have a very, very long list of demands that are against whatever cash funds may come available, and that we're not sure of.

In terms of the Kinsol Trestle, I'm pleased that the Island Coastal Economic Trust was able to provide funding. That is a result of the $50 million that the province of British Columbia transferred to the trust when the trust was established by this government. It's something that I know residents of Vancouver Island and the Sunshine Coast have been very appreciative of — to give them that opportunity.

There's also, as I understand it, about $1.6 million that has been allocated directly from the province of British Columbia, as a result of the good work done by the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head and her advocacy on behalf of that. I think, out of the LocalMotion fund, there was also a significant contribution in the $1 million to $2 million range that went into the Kinsol trail.

There are programs that exist in ministries that can help fund programs such as this. I encourage the member to do as all members in this House do, and that's to look at how best we can assist community organizations to tap into those various funds.

J. Horgan: I certainly am always pleased to be at events with the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head because she always brings a chequebook, or at least most of the time. She's often there when the federal government is bringing their chequebook and the provincial dollars are conspicuous by their absence.

But in this instance, the minister is quite right. For the past three years I have been working with government ministers across the board — the Minister of Transportation, the Minister of Tourism and the Minister of, previously, Small Business. I apologize to the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head. I can't remember the name of the ministry, and she might forget it, too, because it's been changing over the past couple of weeks.

Government is invested in this project, Minister. I appreciate that this is potential revenue we're talking about, but the expectation of members — certainly on this side of the House, and I would expect on the other side of the House — is if we come across $125 million in revenue, as the minister is hopeful we will, that projects that we have already dedicated resources toward would rise to the top of the list.
[ Page 14209 ]

My question with respect to…. The Kinsol project, which, as I say, the member for Richmond Centre, the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head and the Minister of Transportation have all devoted some energy toward, is a worthwhile undertaking. Certainly, I would be pleased to see the minister arrive with the cheque to put this project over the top, should he come across $125 million in revenue. My opportunity today to advance that initiative is in these estimates.

Again, could the minister commit to my constituents that, should we come across the $125 million that we're discussing today, the Kinsol Trestle, based on the interventions by other ministries, the moneys that have been found to get us very close to realizing the project will be elevated and perhaps receive some of this funding?

Hon. C. Hansen: The first stage in this is for government to ask the House for the authority for this appropriation. Should that authority be granted, the next stage is for the Ministry of Finance to finalize its revenue projections for year-end, and only if we can identify that additional dollars should be available that fit within that appropriation will any decisions be made with regard to how the dollars should be allocated.

M. Sather: I'm pleased to address the issue with regard to my community and some of the needs that we have. Hopefully, the minister — through whatever process, as nebulous as it may be at the moment — will be able to help because the need is there.

Our arts council has virtually no funding. What they do get mostly comes from the local government. We're really struggling, too, because we have a viable festival society — or we did have, in Maple Ridge — and they do some of the jazz and blues festivals, the Caribbean festival and a number of others that are very successful, but it's being disbanded due to a lack of funds. That's really going to affect the cultural activities of Maple Ridge and reduce the viability of our community.

[1520]

Those are the kinds of dollars that would be really well spent, and we're hopeful that if the minister does come upon these moneys, some of that will be spent in Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows. A mobile stage was going to be part of the expanding festival society in Maple Ridge but now is very much in doubt.

A couple of other things I'd like to mention. Dance groups are a big thing in Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadows. We have several very successful dance groups, and it would be helpful for them as well because there's a lack of affordable venues. We do have a theatre, but it's really not affordable for a lot of the small groups — well, not just small groups but for the younger kids.

Pitt Meadows needs a facility, a community centre that can provide affordable space for dance groups and small dance theatres. Our arts centre itself does have needs for maintenance and upgrades.

I guess, from what I've heard so far…. Obviously, there's not a question as to how much money could be coming to our community — is not the case…. It would not be forthcoming. I'm trying to understand, and I'd just like to ask the minister a little bit more, too, about how they…? Should this contingency come to fruition, how the government…? What is the time frame? I'm sorry. I apologize to the minister because I wasn't able to make the beginning of the debate, if the minister has already explained some of this.

I understand that no decisions will be made before the end of the fiscal year, but what is the time frame after that? Would there be any time in the next fiscal year? How long will communities have to wait to find out if the money does come through?

Hon. C. Hansen: This has been thoroughly canvassed. This is an appropriation for a contingency for this fiscal year. Therefore — assuming the House approves this and assuming that the revenues can be confirmed — decisions will be made prior to the end of March with regard to how any expenditures will flow from this appropriation.

I can tell the member that with regard to Arts Council funding in the coming fiscal year, in '08-09, Arts Council funding is up by $800,000 next year from what was in this current fiscal year. That's in addition to Arts Council funding that's in this current budget. I know the minister responsible just last week or the week before announced $6.2 million worth of grants that were recommended by the Arts Council.

In addition to that, there was actually, as part of a previous vote, as part of these supplemental estimates, another $7 million that was going into arts funding in the province. So I would recommend that the member make his case to the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and the Arts.

M. Sather: Well, that's certainly hopeful — the money that is going to be forthcoming. I am sure that a good chunk of that is going to come to Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows because we do have a very active arts council, have had for many years, and they make very good use of any money that they receive.

I do want to ask the minister one more question, though, with regard to the process, and this is where I'm struggling a little bit with it. Everything I've heard from the minister indicates that he really can't tell us very much because it won't be really known until, I guess, sometime between now and the end of March, which isn't very long, because he said it all has to be spent in this fiscal.
[ Page 14210 ]

But how can we, as a body at large here, make an informed decision as to whether or not we should support the request when we virtually have hardly any information on which to go?

Hon. C. Hansen: This is actually consistent with the way that the main estimates are presented. I think if the member wants to look at the main estimates that were tabled on budget day, he will see that for the coming year, we actually have built into that budget a contingency. It's to allow government for appropriation for measures that may not fit into other budgets.

[1525]

So that's what this is before us today. It's in that same vein, and this is basically to allow for appropriation that will only actually have expenditures against it should we be able to confirm that the revenues are there to support it.

As I said at the outset of this debate yesterday afternoon, this is not a year that I think we should end the fiscal year with a great big surplus. Given the state of the economy, we want to make sure that the maximum numbers of dollars are put back into the economy. We don't want to make commitments by government for expenditures that would be over and above what our revenues are because that would put us into deficit, and we've made it quite clear that we will not end this fiscal year in deficit.

But we do want to be able to plan it with as small a surplus as possible so that the maximum amount of money can flow into the economy, and this is the vehicle by which we can do that.

G. Coons: I just have a couple of questions about a few concerns in my riding, Minister. I've just been dealing with a bridge in Ocean Falls. The Premier and the Minister of Transportation, I think, have received concerns about this. It's a provincially maintained bridge in Ocean Falls, and it just went down last June. It's a vital component into the community. There is concern from the regional district, the local economic development commission and the citizens there.

There's a proposal coming up with the CCRD, the Central Coast regional district, at their next meeting with their concerns about how Ocean Falls has been a contributor to the central coast for the past century, continues to be and is vital. There's a government-owned bridge that collapsed. It's causing considerable disruption in the community, and it's deemed to be a vital link in the community.

I just wanted to get this on record that there is a concern. The Premier has been notified, and the Minister of Transportation knows about it, I'm sure. I'm just wondering how funds could be distributed or if there is a way that Ocean Falls can access some of the funding we're talking about.

Hon. C. Hansen: I think if the community has made representation to the Ministry of Transportation, that would be the appropriate avenue.

G. Coons: I'll ensure that the minister himself gets some documentation so that he realizes and we all realize the importance of it.

One other project. I received communications from the Minister of Education about Sir Alexander Mackenzie School in Bella Coola. They had some water damage. The gym floor buckled up, and they've had people looking at it. She assured that the ministry is committed to providing the school district with the necessary support to deal with the issue.

It's the only gym in the whole Bella Coola region, the whole valley, that can support the community. It's a vital link to what happens in the community as far as sports and other entertainment and plays and cultural events. Again, I just wanted to get it on the record. I will pass on to the minister any documentation that I have.

But again, I want to ask the minister the best way of getting this on his plate for the infrastructure funding.

Hon. C. Hansen: I think if the member has brought this to the attention of the Ministry of Education, that is the appropriate route.

Vote 45(S): contingencies (all ministries) and new programs, $125,000,000 — approved.

Hon. C. Hansen: I move that the committee rise and report resolution.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 3:30 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

The Committee of Supply reported resolution.

Mr. Speaker: When shall the report be considered?

Hon. C. Hansen: Forthwith. Mr. Speaker, I move that the reports of the resolution from the Committee of Supply on February 23, 24, 25, 26, March 2, March 3 and March 4, 2009, be now received, taken as read and agreed to.

Motion approved.

Hon. C. Hansen: I move that there be granted from and out of the consolidated revenue fund the sum of $622 million. This sum is in addition to that authorized
[ Page 14211 ]
to be paid under section 1 of the Supply Act, 2008-2009, and is granted to Her Majesty towards defraying the charges and expenses of the public service of the province for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2009.

Motion approved.

Hon. C. Hansen: I also move that there be granted from and out of the consolidated revenue fund the sum of $180 million. This sum is in addition to that authorized to be paid under section 2 of the Supply Act, 2008-2009, and is granted to Her Majesty towards defraying the capital expenses, loans, investments and other financing requirements of the province for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2009.

Motion approved.

Introduction and
First Reading of Bills

SUPPLY ACT, 2008-2009
(SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES)

Hon. C. Hansen presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Supply Act, 2008-2009 (Supplementary Estimates).

Hon. C. Hansen: This Supply Act formally introduces and requests approval of the estimates as have been presented to the Committee of Supply.

I move first reading.

Motion approved.

Hon. M. de Jong: I wonder if we might recess for ten minutes to let the bill be distributed.

Mr. Speaker: The House stands in recess until 3:45 p.m.

The House recessed from 3:34 p.m. to 3:43 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Hon. C. Hansen: Consistent with the Budget Transparency and Accountability Act, this supply bill is introduced to provide additional funds for the operation of government programs for the 2008-2009 fiscal year, as outlined in the supplemental estimates tabled earlier.

In accordance with the established practice of this House, the government seeks to move this bill through all stages this day.

Mr. Speaker: In keeping with the practice of this House, the bill will be permitted to advance through all stages in one sitting.

Bill 3, Supply Act, 2008-2009 (Supplementary Estimates), introduced, read a first time and ordered to proceed to second reading forthwith.

Second Reading of Bills

Supply Act, 2008-2009
(Supplementary Estimates)

Hon. C. Hansen: I move that Bill 3 be now read a second time.

Motion approved.

Hon. C. Hansen: I move that the bill be now referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

Bill 3, Supply Act, 2008-2009 (Supplementary Estimates), read a second time and ordered to proceed to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

[1545]

Committee of the Whole House

Supply Act, 2008-2009
(Supplementary Estimates)

The House in Committee of the Whole on Bill 3; S. Hammell in the chair.

The committee met at 3:46 p.m.

B. Ralston: I just wanted to confirm the advice I received from the Clerk that no stages of this bill are debatable.

The Chair: That is correct.

Sections 1 to 3 inclusive approved.

Schedules 1 and 2 approved.

Preamble approved.

Title approved.

Hon. C. Hansen: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 3:47 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.
[ Page 14212 ]

Report and
Third Reading of Bills

Supply Act, 2008-2009
(Supplementary Estimates)

Bill 3, Supply Act, 2008-2009 (Supplementary Estimates), reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Introduction and
First Reading of Bills

Supply Act (No. 1), 2009

Hon. C. Hansen presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Supply Act (No. 1), 2009.

Hon. C. Hansen: Mr. Speaker, I move that Bill 5 be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. C. Hansen: This supply bill is being introduced to provide interim supply for the continuation of government programs until the government's estimates for the 2009-2010 fiscal year have been debated and voted upon in this assembly.

Interim supply is being requested for government-voted operating expenses for the initial five months of the '09-10 fiscal year, based on the '09-10 estimates that are currently before the House. Bill 5 also seeks supply for two-thirds of the '09-10 voted disbursements in those estimates for capital expenditures, loans, investments and other requirements and all of the 2009-10 disbursements for revenues collected for and transferred to other entities.

I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 5, Supply Act (No. 1), 2009, 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.

Ministerial Accountability
Bases Act, 2008-2009

Hon. M. de Jong presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Ministerial Accountability Bases Act, 2008-2009.

Hon. M. de Jong: I move that Bill 4 be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion approved.

[1550]

Hon. M. de Jong: Mr. Speaker, the Ministerial Accountability Bases Act, 2008-2009, provides for increases in the amount of operating expenses for the Ministries of Community Development; Advanced Education and Labour Market Development; Finance; Forests and Range; Housing and Social Development; Health Services; Labour and Citizens' Services; Public Safety and Solicitor General; Tourism, Culture and the Arts; Transportation and Infrastructure; and for contingencies, all ministries and new programs, for purposes of ministerial accountability under the Balanced Budget and Ministerial Accountability Act.

The additional amounts for the Ministers of Community Development; Advanced Education and Labour Market Development; Finance; Housing and Social Development; Health Services; Labour and Citizens' Services; Tourism, Culture and the Arts; and Transportation and Infrastructure were included in the supplementary estimates, estimates that have just been debated and passed in this Legislature.

The additional amounts for the Minister of Forests and Range and the Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General are to account for statutory costs related to forest fire fighting under the Wildfire Act and flood costs and disaster relief under the Emergency Program Act respectively.

I move that Bill 4 be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 4, Ministerial Accountability Bases Act, 2008-2009, 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.

Hon. M. de Jong: I call second reading of Bill 2.

Second Reading of Bills

Budget Measures
Implementation Act, 2009

Hon. C. Hansen: I move that Bill 2, the Budget Measures Implementation Act, 2009, be read a second time now.

Bill 2 is divided into two parts. The first part deals with non-tax budget measures. The second implements the tax changes included in the budget.

Part 1 of Bill 2 provides for the ongoing operation of the B.C. Timber Sales account during this current downturn in the forest industry. B.C. Timber Sales establishes market prices for Crown timber and provides competitive opportunities for timber harvesting.

Over the past ten years B.C. Timber Sales has provided almost $1 billion in income to the general fund. However, timber markets have declined during the
[ Page 14213 ]
recent downturn in the forest industry, and B.C. Timber Sales is experiencing cash flow problems. As B.C. Timber Sales needs to continue in its market pricing mandate, it is necessary to return to the account some of its previous earnings in order for it to be able to continue operations.

[S. Hammell in the chair.]

Bill 2 amends the Financial Administration Act to reflect a change in how capital funding for schools, post-secondary institutions, health facilities and other major capital projects is appropriated from the consolidated revenue fund. Previously, capital funding was issued as prepaid capital advances, a type of financing transaction that was capitalized on the consolidated revenue fund balance sheet.

The amounts being appropriated were not part of an individual vote nor any ministers' accountabilities under the Balanced Budget and Ministerial Accountability Act. Due to the inclusion of schools, post-secondary institutions and health facilities in the government reporting entity, capitalization of this funding is no longer necessary or appropriate. Therefore, beginning in the 2009-10 estimates, capital funding is being made a separate vote within other appropriations in order to provide greater transparency and enable accountability for this expense through the provisions of the Balanced Budget and Ministerial Accountability Act.

The provisions in the Financial Administration Act have been simplified, the Minister of Finance given statutory authority to supplement the appropriation in the capital funding vote in order to be able to deal with the changing situations where additional capital funding is required to meet project needs.

Bill 2 re-establishes an exemption for government ministries from fees charged by the Land Title and Survey Authority through amendments to the Land Act and the Land Title Act.

The Land Title and Survey Authority is an independent agency that provides land registry and survey services to British Columbians. The authority funds its appropriation from a fee revenue, a portion of which flows back to government. The Land Title and Survey Authority has been very successful in its first years of operation, setting and meeting high standards for quality service and gaining the respect of users across the province.

When the authority was first created, ministries were exempted from paying land title fees, and then the exemption was phased out in subsequent years. However, accounting for the fees paid by government to the authority and then flowed back to government under the revenue-sharing agreement with the authority is cumbersome and expensive.

[1555]

The exemption is being reinstated to streamline practices and simplify accounting for transactions between government and the authority. It will also result in cost savings for ministries during the current restraint period. This will not result in any increase in land title fees or in any additional cost to the public.

Bill 2 also includes a number of housekeeping measures that are required for ongoing administration of various statutes. These include amendments to the Balanced Budget and Ministerial Accountability Act to reflect the windup of the former Ministry of Small Business and Revenue, and transfers to the Minister of Finance the revenue targets previously held by the Minister of Small Business and Revenue.

Secondly, the Budget Transparency and Accountability Act is amended to mandate continuation of the Accounting Policy Advisory Committee beyond its current expiry date of March 31, 2009.

The Special Accounts Appropriation and Control Act is amended to allow private donations to the BC150 cultural fund and to enable accounting for the children's education fund according to generally accepted accounting principles.

Finally, the Land Tax Deferment Act, to make the reimbursement to municipalities for deferred property taxes a statutory appropriation, clarifying the legislation for administrative purposes.

Part 2 of Bill 2 amends six tax statutes to implement some of the revenue measures announced in Budget 2009. Bill 2 amends the Income Tax Act to implement the government's plan to reduce the corporate income tax rate from 11 percent to 10.5 percent effective January 1, 2010, and to 10 percent effective January 1, 2011. At 10 percent British Columbia will have the lowest provincial corporate income tax rate in Canada.

Other amendments to the Income Tax Act will encourage continued investment in British Columbia, investment which has positioned us to weather the current downturn and take full advantage of the coming recovery. To this end, the extension of the B.C. mining flow-through share tax credit will continue to encourage individuals to invest in British Columbia's mining and mineral companies.

Removal of the expiry dates for the film tax credits will provide greater certainty for film and related companies wishing to locate, expand, invest and create jobs in British Columbia. The extension of eligibility for the Film Incentive B.C. tax credit, or the domestic credit, to Canadian-controlled companies will make it easier for B.C.-based companies to raise needed capital outside the province and to continue to grow.

The Income Tax Act is also amended to reduce the dividend tax credit to 3.4 percent from 4.2 percent for ordinary dividends in 2010. This change is made to reflect the 1 percentage point reduction in the small business corporate income tax rate that was announced in October and made effective retroactive to December 1, 2008.

The final amendment to the Income Tax Act ensures that earnings from registered disability savings plans do
[ Page 14214 ]
not disqualify British Columbians from eligibility for the B.C. sales tax credit, which is provided for those with low incomes.

Amendments to the corporation capital tax clarify the tax base for taxpayers in response to accounting changes introduced in 2006. Amendments to the International Financial Activity Act simplify and clarify administration of the act. In the year ahead we will review the international financial activity program, which provides incentives to international businesses to enhance the attractiveness of British Columbia to investors.

Bill 2 also amends the Motor Fuel Tax Act to include hydrogen in the definition of fuel. This will allow hydrogen to be prescribed as an alternative motor fuel and benefit from the exemption provided to other environmentally friendly fuels.

The Social Service Tax Act is amended to simplify, clarify and expand the exemptions for prescription drugs and vaccines. With these amendments, the exemptions will be based on the nature and classification of the drugs rather than on a requirement that they be purchased for a specific purpose with a doctor's prescription. This will ensure that all such drugs benefit from the exemption and will align British Columbia's exemption with similar exemptions in most other provinces.

[1600]

Changes to the regulation-making powers under the Social Service Act will allow for a minor expansion of the existing exemption for production machinery and equipment. The exemption will now apply to materials such as sheet metal when used to repair, maintain, modify or assemble exempt machinery and equipment.

Prior to this amendment, the exemption was primarily restricted to premanufactured parts. The expansion of the exemption will continue to enhance the competitiveness of the manufacturing, mining, forestry and oil and gas sectors, which are so critical to British Columbians throughout the province.

Finally, amendments to the Tobacco Tax Act will increase the tax rate from 17.9 cents per cigarette to the Alberta tax rate of 18.5 cents. Our provincial tobacco strategy to encourage British Columbians to stop smoking, which is a strategy that is multi-faceted, is working. British Columbia currently has the lowest percentage of smokers in the country, at 15 percent.

However, even at this rate, one in every six deaths in British Columbia continues to be smoking-related. Price is an important component of our tobacco strategy, particularly with our youth. With this tax increase, we can and will do even better.

These are difficult economic times, but with these measures, together with the initiatives announced by the Premier last October and the balance of the Budget 2009 initiatives, we will ensure that British Columbians continue to be well positioned to take full advantage of the coming economic recovery.

B. Ralston: This bill includes the technical amendments that would implement the tax measures included with the budget and also has a series of non-tax budget measures which I wish to comment upon. Given the legislative timetable, it may come to pass that there is not the time afforded for committee stage debate of this bill. One can't be sure. Certainly if the government proceeds in one way, it may, and if it proceeds in another, it may not.

I propose to make some specific comments on individual sections that may not be able to be made in the committee stage. Ordinarily, the assistance of the opportunity to question the minister and receive the advice from his officials through him is a method by which some of the meaning of statute might be clarified, but I'm not sure that will be available.

Dealing first with the non-tax budget measures, there are some significant changes that will be, I suppose, of interest to comptrollers general and accountants but may have a significant impact upon individual ministries and their estimates. Prepaid capital advances from ministries to a government organization will now be taken to be grants, and the Minister of Finance may make grants directly from the treasury. Formerly, those prepaid capital advances were included in the estimates of each ministry, as I understand it.

I'm looking at the former section 56.1. "The appropriate minister may make from the consolidated revenue fund a prepaid capital advance to an institution for its capital expenditures." Section 5 of the bill replaces section 56.1, and this becomes retroactive on the date of royal assent, should the bill pass, making it retroactive to April 1, 1998.

The effect of this is that only the Minister of Finance may make a grant to a government organization for its capital expenditure, rather than coming through the appropriate ministries. It seems to me that that may lose the clarity that comes with individual prepaid capital advances in individual ministries and is not a step that seems a step forward but rather a step backward. It may be administratively more convenient to have it administered centrally by the Ministry of Finance, but it would seem to me that the result of that consolidation is a loss in clarity and transparency.

[1605]

The minister mentions that the Land Title and Survey Authority will no longer receive fees from the government. The Land Title and Survey Authority is an independent authority, in some measure, that provides services to other public sector agencies as well as the private sector.

The minister…. If I understood his explanation in the speech that he just made, it was merely to correct the accounting in the sense that there were entries showing receipts to the Land Title and Survey Authority from government. Then there was a corresponding stream of
[ Page 14215 ]
revenue back to government. To eliminate this necessity of paying the fees would simplify accounting. I'm not sure that I understood it entirely, but he just said it moments ago, and I haven't had a chance to review his written remarks.

It seems to me that if the authority is indeed independent, exempting government from paying its fees is a rather contradictory message in the sense that it provides a special position and preferred position for the government as opposed to all others who deal with it. That may not be desirable, although should the matter proceed to committee stage, I'd be interested in hearing more detail about why this accounting change is deemed to be necessary. It does seem to me, at least at first reading or first glance, to detract from the independence of the authority.

The minister mentioned B.C. Timber Sales and changes to that, and I expect other colleagues will deal with that in a more fulsome way later in the debate. Similarly in section 6, the reference to a prepaid capital advance is removed from the Hospital District Act, and that follows the changes that are made in sections 4 and 5 of the same act.

The Land Tax Deferment Act is amended in one of the other non-tax budget measures. Section 8 allows the government to make a payment that reimburses a municipality for an amount deferred by this directly from the consolidated revenue fund, rather than require a specific appropriation for it. This amendment is apparently made retroactive to 1974.

Again, these appear to be accounting changes, but the rationale that's offered at this stage is relatively thin. I'm not sure that I can support it, given the lack of a fuller explanation.

The administration of the Land Tax Deferment Act used to fall under the authority of the Ministry of Small Business and Revenue. It has now become part of the Ministry of Finance. It would appear that there is a specific amount provided for this program in the current year's estimates. So it's not clear what that amount is or what the purpose of the amendment is from the brief explanation that's been provided here. I look forward to a fuller explanation later in the process of this legislation passing through the House.

The minister also speaks of some changes that will allow the government to put money into the BC150 cultural fund. That's necessitated by the fact that the income anticipated by the B.C. arts and culture endowment special account is, given the economic turn of events, substantially less than the government had expected.

Last year the special account paid out $8.3 million. This year it is only expected to pay out $3.35 million. That's presumably because of lower returns on the principal. This amendment authorizes the minister to add money into that account.

[1610]

The other account that is dealt with is the so-called children's education fund special account that invests $1,000 at each child's birth after January 1, 2007, and makes a promise that the child, upon reaching the age of majority, will be able to draw on that fund in the specified amount. Apparently, the government now estimates that that $1,000 investment will grow to $2,200 when it becomes available for the first student in 18 years. Apparently, it would seem that the anticipated revenue from this fund has fallen short of what's expected, and this will give this authority to do that.

In the budget-related tax measures, the minister speaks of the corporation capital tax and the reduction of that. Of course this will be welcome news to profitable corporations, but those corporations who are unprofitable, given that tax is not paid upon losses, will not really benefit by it.

I think many corporations, whether they're in the resource sector…. Certainly my colleague from Cariboo North enumerated a number of executives in the forest industry who have decried the impact of the carbon tax upon their bottom lines, particularly at a time when their operations are not profitable. Indeed, some of them are sustaining huge losses, such that they may be driven out of business. The carbon tax is the primary concern, because that's a tax that is required to be paid regardless of whether or not the company is profitable.

As I've said, in their case many of them are not profitable. I believe it was John Allan, who was referenced by the member for Cariboo North, who said it's as much as $20 million in carbon tax coming out of a sector that cannot sustain that kind of impact at this time. It's making it increasingly difficult for those firms to stay in business and to continue employing workers and for those workers to support their families in forest communities and towns all across the province.

The flow-through share tax credit is amended and extended to the end of 2009. I believe the estimate that the materials give is that there'll be a cost to the province of $16 million in the year just past.

Section 20 "excludes amounts received from a registered disability savings plan…from the computation of adjusted income for the purposes of determining the amount of the sales tax credit." This allows people who receive an income from a registered disability savings plan to still get the tax credit.

The registered disability savings plan is an innovation that many disability groups have advocated for a number of years, and they were finally successful in persuading the federal government to implement just such a plan in their 2007 budget. It enables parents to save for the long-term financial security of a person with a severe disability. That's obviously a method by which parents who would seek to care for an adult child can have some vehicle for which savings can compound tax-free and enable them to make provisions for their adult child
[ Page 14216 ]
to have the flow of income to live independently when the parents are no longer able to care for them, either through age or death themselves.

The other measures in the budget that I want to address are the film tax credits. Those are in a successful program instituted, as members will be aware, by a previous government. I think that was a government in the 1990s. That was a labour-based tax credit.

[1615]

It's good to see that this program is working well and is being extended. It has succeeded in making the British Columbia film industry the successful enterprise it has become in a very competitive environment, whether it's other Canadian provinces or even the home of the North American movie industry in California. It sometimes looks somewhat enviously at the kind of productions, the capable crews and post-production facilities that are found in British Columbia and seeks to emulate them, if not reduce the business that flows here in open competition.

The International Financial Activity Act changes. I'm interested to hear the minister say that the ministry is undertaking a review of all of that. It's not clear — although I have met with the CEO and the chair of the board of the agency that's governed by this act — that it's as effective as it could be, and I'd be interested to hear the terms of reference of such a review that's being launched.

This act initially was put forward in the 1980s by the then Social Credit government and really hasn't ever, I think, under any government lived up to the potential that was stated for it at the outset. The federal government did create some incentives for international maritime activity to locate in both Montreal and Vancouver. There was some activity in the 1990s — indeed, there's a major firm, Teekay Shipping, which is located in Vancouver — in response to those tax incentives.

Certainly the International Financial Centre, I think, would welcome a review and seek ways to become more effective within the legislative framework that it has to offer the public.

I suppose concern would be expressed by many outside of downtown Vancouver that while the activity is welcome, it generally tends to focus on Vancouver. I know Burnaby has made some efforts to reap the benefits of that. I know my city of Surrey has also expressed an interest in that. Beyond that, even in regional centres such as Kelowna, Kamloops and Prince George, I think there's an interest that this kind of activity might benefit their centres economically. But I don't think that hope has been realized.

The final changes that are mentioned that I want to touch on are those to the Social Service Tax Act. It's obviously a major revenue producer for the province — over $5 billion in revenue annually — and these kinds of clarifications are important for the smooth functioning of the act and the manner in which that tax is gathered from the citizens.

The final comment I have would be on the Tobacco Tax Act. The minister referenced the decline in the number of adult smokers to the lowest percentage of adult smokers of any province in Canada. I think that's a record that all of us here, perhaps with the exception of those who like to smoke…. I think many smokers even recognize that it's a habit they would rather not have but are unfortunately unable to quit.

I think that's a record that speaks well for the future of our health system. Of course, it was again an achievement that has been in motion for a long time, whether it's more recently under this government or certainly under the previous government where there was a very aggressive campaign of anti-tobacco and anti-smoking ads targeting, in particular, young people. It began to break down some of the ethos that surrounds smoking as it's perceived by young people at some points.

That seems to have been successful in the longer run in reducing the number of young people who are drawn to smoking and preventing them from continuing into their adulthood as smokers, with all the health implications that has for not only their personal health but population health as a whole.

[1620]

Those are the comments that I have to make on the measures that are in this budget. A budget is, of course, a confidence issue. The budget that's been put before the House is not a budget that this side of the House will be supporting, and we will not be supporting the legislation that seeks to implement it.

That's part of a well-known parliamentary tradition, because the budget is the principal endeavour of a government. It's a confidence measure, and this side of the House certainly does not have confidence in the budget that's been presented to the people of British Columbia. This bill seeks to implement, with tax measures and non-tax budget measures, that budget.

So with those comments, I conclude my remarks.

Hon. C. Hansen: With that, I move second reading of Bill 2.

Motion approved.

Hon. C. Hansen: I move that Bill 2 be referred to Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 2, Budget Measures Implementation Act, 2009, 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. M. Coell: I would move debate on the budget.
[ Page 14217 ]

Budget Debate

(continued)

J. Yap: It's my honour to rise and participate in the debate on the budget — Budget 2009 — to carry on second reading debate on behalf of my constituents from the riding of Richmond-Steveston. I appreciate this opportunity that my constituents have given to me to be a member of this House and to participate in the important debates. This debate is an important one, and I'm honoured to have this opportunity.

I want to thank the Minister of Finance for bringing forward Budget 2009, which I believe is right for the times. This budget is one that I believe strongly in and support and would be speaking in favour of this budget and voting for this budget when that opportunity arises.

But first of all, I would like to go back, if I may, to some of the comments from the last time that we in this House participated in second reading debate. The last speaker from the opposition, the member for Vancouver-Kensington, made a dissertation and a few points which I believe — so that we have some balance — I need to address so that those who are watching and following these proceedings will have benefit of some balance in the debate.

The member for Vancouver-Kensington, perhaps not unexpectedly, talked at length about K-to-12 education or public education and made a number of references to cuts in the funding for our K-to-12 school system when, in fact, the opposite is true.

[1625]

I just want to put on the record that Budget 2009 provides the highest level of per-pupil funding at $8,242 per pupil — all right? This is at a time when the enrolment in our public school system has been systematically declining in the last seven years.

It's important that we get this out there that despite declining enrolment in the order of 50,000 to 60,000 students, we have increased funding to our public education system, not decreased. We've increased funding, and as I said, we have, with Budget 2009, the highest level of per-pupil funding — $8,242 per pupil.

The member for Vancouver-Kensington also talked about affordable housing and homelessness and made a number of points about the lack of support for homelessness. Well, the member did not mention that we have in fact increased our investment in shelters to assist those who are experiencing difficulties and homelessness. We have invested in over 45 buildings, single-room-occupancy buildings, to help those who need to have some stabilization in their situation, in their housing. We have put supports in to help these folks get access to the support they need so that they can rebuild their lives. But of course, the member for Vancouver-Kensington neglected to mention those significant investments that Budget 2009 will continue.

I have to say that the member from Kensington did make a point which resonated with me. He talked about how the economy should serve the people. He made a point that it's about people, and it's important that we, if I may, quoting him directly…. He said that the economy serves the population. It's great to see that the member for Vancouver-Kensington realized, as I'm sure his colleagues in the opposition benches said, that we have to have a strong economy so that the people of our province can be well served. No government has done more to strengthen our economy than our government in the last eight years.

Our B.C. Liberal government has taken measures to ensure that we have the best possible opportunity to attract investment and to create jobs, and we've seen that in the last eight years. Since 2001, when we were given the privilege of forming government, taking over at a time when, quite frankly, British Columbia was at the bottom of the list after ten years of NDP government, when we went from one of the strongest economies to virtually last place — a time during the '90s when the rest of the world was doing well and economies were expanding….

In the 1990s we saw investment and jobs leave British Columbia. We saw our economy go from one of the strongest in Canada to one of the weakest. We saw our triple-A credit rating get downgraded a number of times. We saw our debt increase substantially during the 1990s due to the reckless fiscal practices of the NDP government during the 1990s.

Members from the opposition, I know, would like British Columbians to not think about the 1990s. They talk about how all that is ancient history. Well, actually, it's very relevant history, because we can look at what the members of the NDP today may say or purport to support. But what really is an indication of what will happen should they ever be given the privilege of forming government is what they've done in the past.

During the 1990s the NDP in government, as an example, ran eight consecutive operating deficits. We've heard past speakers talk about how deficits on an operating basis is really not the way to go.

[1630]

I mean, it's like in a household. In a household, using a credit card to pay for groceries, to pay for normal living expenses, is just not sustainable.

What did the NDP government in the 1990s do? Well, they used a credit card on an ongoing basis through the 1990s: 1991, a $2.3 billion deficit; 1992, a $1.5 billion deficit; 1993, a $900 million deficit — straight through the 1990s, running eight consecutive deficits and, through the process, stifling investment, stifling job creation.

We all remember the days when people had to leave British Columbia because the opportunities were not in our province. People, sadly, had to move away to find opportunities, and investment in our great province during the 1990s was stifled and went everywhere but British Columbia.
[ Page 14218 ]

In 2001 our government, the B.C. Liberal government, was given the privilege to form government and took a number of measures to turn things around, to turn our economy around on behalf of the people of British Columbia. Immediately after forming government, we instituted an immediate personal income tax cut to send a signal that in British Columbia we were going to provide for a competitive environment for people to come here, to invest, to be able to create jobs, to keep what they earn and to be able to stimulate the economy.

That was just the beginning. Over the last eight years we have seen over 100 income tax cuts that now serve, with Budget 2009, to make our tax regime one of the most competitive in North America. In fact, those who are earning up to $116,000 per year — taxpayers in that income category, up to $116,000 a year — pay the lowest provincial income tax anywhere in Canada. That is something we should be proud of — that we have a tax regime that is competitive and that will encourage people to invest and will give them the opportunity to choose what they want to do with their dollars.

We've also seen, as I mentioned, over 100 tax cuts. We've seen tax cuts not just to personal income tax. We got rid of the investment-killing capital tax which the NDP had brought in, we've reduced small business income tax to one of the most competitive in the country, and we've reduced corporate income taxes — all to position British Columbia to be a place to come and do business, to create jobs, to invest in. That's what we've done.

Budget 2009 will strike the right mix of tax reductions and also ensure that key programs that British Columbians need and rely on are maintained. This is a budget that will provide the kind of stability and confidence that British Columbians need during these economic times.

A few words about these economic times. As has been said, we are in the midst of an economic slowdown. There's no doubt about that. It's a worldwide economic slowdown. After years of expansion we now see that even in British Columbia, with all of our competitive advantages, we're not immune and we're experiencing this economic slowdown.

But B.C. is well positioned. Our province is well positioned to weather this economic slowdown. What are some of the competitive advantages here in British Columbia? Well, first and foremost, we have over the past number of years, thanks to our government, been able to restore confidence in the fiscal management of our province.

[1635]

We've seen the operating debt cut in half so that now, as we need to generate a temporary operating deficit over the next two years, we have the strong fiscal capacity to do so. After two years, by the third year, we will balance the budget, and that is a commitment that British Columbians can take comfort in and can rely on. Our government has shown that when we make financial commitments, we keep them.

We said we would balance the budget. We balanced the budget. We said we would get our economy going again, and we did that. With this budget, after two years of temporary deficits we will see a return to a balanced budget.

Now, I know that members of the opposition are feeling a little sensitive about this issue. They actually seem to be a bit conflicted. You know, until recently the members of the opposition were talking about the need for us to have fiscal prudence and to balance our budget.

In fact, the Leader of the Opposition — this is a quote on CKNW — said as recently as September of 2008: "I have been very clear that it's important that we have balanced budgets, a competitive tax environment, that we continue to give breaks to low- and middle-income families so they can manage, and we will also have our platform, as I said, fully costed." So the members of the opposition clearly believe, and their leader believes, in a balanced budget.

October of 2008. This is another quote from the Leader of the Opposition. "In fact, if you look at the government's own numbers and take a look at their forecast surplus, I've managed to balance the budget" — that's a direct quote — "put in my priorities, which are making sure that middle-class British Columbians get a break, small business gets a break, students get the help they need — all done in a very conservative-spending way." This is a direct quote.

Here's another one. October 28, '08: "You know, I believe in balanced budgets." That's another direct quote from the Leader of the Opposition.

Clearly, in spite of what we may hear from the opposition, their leader and members of the opposition believe in balanced budgets, and this is what we will deliver. With this budget, we forecast two years of temporary deficits — approximately $750 million over two years — and in the third year we will return to a balanced budget.

Budget 2009 will provide for a major infrastructure investment in capital, and that's very important. This is a time when we need to have investment in capital projects to create jobs, to reassure communities that we're making the required investments, and Budget 2009 will deliver just that — $14 billion in capital infrastructure, whether it's in highways or bridges or hospitals or schools or universities.

[K. Whittred in the chair.]

All across the province of British Columbia we will see investments in capital that are needed and that will generate up to 88,000 jobs — good jobs — for the people of British Columbia.

[1640]
[ Page 14219 ]

Whether it is the investment in the much-needed Port Mann bridge — which, quite frankly, we're not sure whether the NDP support or don't support — or whether it is investment in hospitals like the northern cancer centre in Prince George or whether it is in the needed transportation project, the South Fraser perimeter road…. These are projects that provide the necessary infrastructure and that will help create jobs that are precisely needed at this point in time.

B.C. has other advantages. I mentioned that we're well positioned as a province to weather these economic times. Of course, we are Canada's only Pacific province. Our government has been placing increasing emphasis on building trade relations across the Pacific with the Asia-Pacific region, whether it's in China or Korea or Japan. We have a natural advantage through generations of immigration — many relationships and networks to build on — to see the opportunity for trade to increase, and we are seeing that increase.

We have as another competitive advantage the fact that our government is willing to look at opportunities to increase investment and trade, not only outside of Canada but within Canada. The Trade, Investment and Labour Mobility Agreement will be another great opportunity for British Columbians to build our economy. TILMA, as it's being implemented, will lead to a major increase in economic opportunities, again, at a time when our economy can use the kind of economic boost that freer movement of people and economic opportunities will provide.

TILMA will provide just that, an economic zone with the province of Alberta that will be the second-largest economy in Canada. But we know that the NDP are against TILMA. They are against economic opportunity for British Columbians.

Most of all, we have, in about 350 days, the 2010 games, which are just an amazing opportunity and economic stimulus that we as British Columbians have. Over the next 11 months, we will see the buildup towards the 2010 Winter Olympic and Paralympic Games, which will provide the kind of economic stimulus that other jurisdictions can only dream about. It's certainly fortuitous that we have this opportunity that's right here for us to take advantage of.

Between now and February of 2010, we will see approximately $3 million to $5 million a day being invested in British Columbia's economy thanks to the winter games. We know what the 2010 games will provide, and it's worth recapping them, because quite frankly, it's easy to forget just what a privilege it is to be able to host the 2010 games.

Not only will there be 8,000 athletes, coaches and team members who will come to British Columbia, to Vancouver-Whistler, to the Lower Mainland to participate in the games, but we will also have 10,000 members of the international media coming here to report on the winter games, to report back to their home countries about what an amazing place British Columbia is — not just the games themselves, but this amazing place, the best place on earth, called British Columbia. They will be broadcasting and reporting back to a worldwide audience of about three billion people.

[1645]

This is just an amazing opportunity for us to showcase and to celebrate what we have here in British Columbia. Unfortunately, the members of the opposition just cannot get away from their negative approach to the Olympic and Paralympic Games. For some reason, they are just not able to do that.

That's very unfortunate, because we will welcome the world in the next 11 months. The world will see just what a great place we have here in British Columbia. And 250,000 people, tourists, will come and visit and spend time getting to know British Columbia, enjoy the games, discover what we have to offer in British Columbia.

The spinoff benefits from that will be felt for years to come. In fact, this will add over $6 billion in economic benefit to the province of British Columbia, just at a time when we need this kind of economic stimulus. I know I'm optimistic, and I know members of my caucus, members of this House, who are optimistic. We wish sometimes that the members of the opposition would not be so negative about this great opportunity that we have with the 2010 games that will be such a great opportunity for British Columbia.

This is a budget, Budget 2009, that will ensure that British Columbia gets through this economic slowdown and will position us for the turnaround, when it comes. We're taking a fiscally prudent approach, ensuring that needed programs are protected — programs like health care, education and social services.

This is a budget that will ensure that we curtail discretionary expenses. That's exactly what this budget will do. Ministries have been asked to look at their discretionary expenditures and to make reductions, to trim expenses, so that we can put those savings to the areas that are important — areas like health care. Health care will see $4.8 billion in additional funding over the next three years. That's an increase, and yet we hear from members of the opposition about cuts to health care.

In fact, our health care budget has risen to $17.5 billion. It has been increased every single year, and yet all we hear from members of the opposition is: "Cuts to health care." I'm not sure how annual increases to our health care budget somehow translate into cuts, but that's the line of the members of the opposition. This budget ensures that we will continue to have a great health care system that will serve the needs of British Columbians.

I mentioned that we will continue to invest in the education of British Columbians. K-to-12 public education will be getting an increase. I mentioned how, even with declining enrolment, we're continuing to make the investments in our education system.
[ Page 14220 ]

We're continuing to invest, to put funding to our social programs to ensure that those most in need will get the supports that they require.

This is a budget that will, as I said, provide stability for British Columbians and ensure that we can have confidence. We know that we're still seeing, almost on a daily basis, news of how there's still volatility in the markets. British Columbians have seen their RRSP values change in the last year, and people are concerned.

[1650]

That's why we've taken proactive steps, including the measures announced by the Premier in October. This budget will build on those commitments to build confidence for British Columbians to feel that we are in the best possible position to get through 2009.

We've heard members of the opposition talk about how somehow this budget is too optimistic. Well, our record speaks for itself. We have a panel of economic advisers who provide a forecast on economic activity and growth. We take an average, and we use that as the basis for our planning and for our budgeting.

We all remember what happened in the 1990s, specifically in '96-97 when the NDP government got itself re-elected on a commitment to balance the budget. Then it turned out that it was a fudge-it budget. The members of the opposition can try to walk away from that history, but British Columbians will always remember that. We will keep reminding British Columbians that we will not have a fudge-it budget ever again from the NDP.

Our budget is a budget with credibility and is based on the best possible input from economic advisers who are independent and who are giving us their best forecasts about where the economy is and where it will be over the next year.

[S. Hammell in the chair.]

I'm optimistic that over the next year we will continue to see challenges, but thanks to the kind of fiscal management our government has brought to our province, thanks to the coming 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Games, thanks to the fact that people can see that this is…. In spite of all of the challenges, British Columbia is a great place to come visit, settle in, invest in, do business in. This budget, Budget 2009, will build on that, and I am honoured — it's my privilege — to support this budget.

M. Sather: It was interesting to hear the member for Richmond-Steveston talking a lot of, quite frankly, nonsense. This government has…. He was talking about debt. He was talking about balancing the budget as though the opposition should be able to say whether the budget can be balanced or not — when they can't say. All last fall we heard that the government had no clue about the economic conditions that were facing British Columbians. It was them, Madam Speaker, and their….

Like I say, in the government they've got the machinery of government behind them saying that B.C. is a deficit-free zone. Well, we know very well that that's not true, and I predict that the deficit that this government is projecting is going to be exceeded considerably by the time it's done, by the time we find out the truth about it. It will be down the road, after the election. Because as we hear more and more and over and over from this government….

We went through this supplementary budget exercise — supplementary estimates. It's something that will be illegal in a few weeks, but this government brought it forward. What for? For a slush fund for the upcoming election.

There's not a lot of credibility at all with this government. Despite the obvious problems that we have in British Columbia, the members on the other side — the member for Richmond-Steveston and many others — seem to be continuing to…. They are putting forward this fiction about British Columbia being the best place to withstand the recession. That's absolutely not true.

[1655]

British Columbia is going to be one of the worst places to withstand the recession, unfortunately, and the reasons for that are very clear. They're very clear. The members opposite should know this, but they're trying to keep the truth of the economic situation of this province from the people of British Columbia. That's what they're trying to do.

The forest industry, before this government drove it into the ground, used to be the number one economic generator in this province. It no longer is. We are having mill after mill after mill close, worker upon worker — thousands of workers — being put out of work. That's a major problem in terms of recovery of our province from the recession. We do not have a viable forest industry any more.

The other thing, and this should be self-evident, but the government members, in their wisdom, don't seem to be able to get it…. The reason that we have the economic disaster we're facing throughout North America and throughout the world is because of the collapse of the housing bubble. It was the mismanagement and the deregulation of the banking system, of the stock market, that allowed unconscionable amounts of debt to be accumulated by the citizens of both of our countries.

Of all the provinces in Canada, British Columbia depended on the housing bubble more than anyone, and that bust of that bubble is going to affect us more than any other province. Already, we are quickly becoming the economic basket case of the west of Canada; so quickly have we descended from the period of high revenues into a real serious problem.

But this government will try, now and up to the election and during the election period, to keep the facts from the people of British Columbia and to promulgate
[ Page 14221 ]
this myth that they are the best managers of the economy. You can't be a good manager of the economy when you keep the truth from the people of British Columbia, and that's what this government is trying to do.

Now, this government talks, and the last speaker did, about the tax breaks that they have brought in. The kind of tax breaks that this government brought in have favoured corporations and the most wealthy — by far. If you look, for example, at the tax breaks that they brought in when they came into government…. Let's just have a look at that.

If you look at the total amount of money that's out there to be benefited from by the tax break and you compare two groups of people: those people that are making $250,000 a year or more — which was about, at the time, 5 percent of the population of British Columbia; and the people that are making $30,000 a year or less in British Columbia, which was 48 percent of this province….

The numbers of people that were making $250,000 a year or more are actually 0.5 percent. So you've got 0.5 percent of the people on one hand. You've got 48 percent of the people on the other hand. You look at that pot of money that was up for grabs there. The group that were making $250,000 or more got six times the amount of money that 48 percent of British Columbians got.

That's why their friends are so fond of their tax breaks. Because they favour those that are wealthy already, and they absolutely do not favour average British Columbians.

That 48 percent has now gone up to 54 percent of British Columbian taxpayers who are making less than $30,000 a year. So it's really clear where this government is taking the economy. It's to increase the gap between the haves and the have-nots. That's where they're going, and it's not to the benefit of most British Columbians.

[1700]

This government also talked about debt and debt increasing when the NDP was in government. Well, this crew over here has spent absolutely like drunken sailors. A tremendous amount of debt has been incurred by this government.

Oh no, it's not called debt, because when you privatize it, like this government has done, it's all off-book. It's called contractual obligations — just another name for debt.

It doesn't matter to the taxpayer whether they're dipping into their taxes paid to pay for debt or having to pay directly out of their wallet for user fee payments. That's what this government has incurred, is incurring and continues to incur.

I think they said $14 billion. I think it's actually $7 billion in new, but that's over $60 billion in debt, in so-called contractual obligations, that the people of British Columbia will have to pay for. They have to pay for it because of the privatization schemes that this government is so fond of running.

If we look at those privatization deals — and the Minister of Transportation is particularly fond of them — we know they cost more, and that they're going to cost the people of British Columbia more. Financing through these deals is more expensive than it would cost if it were done by the government directly.

Then there are all the fees that we have to pay for the pleasure of having our resources privatized. Risk transfer — that's a good one. We have to pay these folks for the so-called risk transfer that they take on. And haven't we seen how well that worked? First it was the Olympic village that collapsed. Now it's the Port Mann bridge financing that collapsed. So much for risk transfer.

It only works for them, for the private companies, when they can take that money out of the pockets of British Columbians. But when there's a problem, do they take on the risk? No, they don't. They can't because most of them are fly-by-night companies anyway.

You look at the Golden Ears bridge, and the people behind it, Bilfinger Berger and CH2M — big, multinational corporations. But they're not on the hook if there are any problems with the bridge. Oh no. They formed a company to build the bridge, but this company is already in the process of dismantling. They won't be around if there are any problems. They're just like the builders of leaky condos.

Nobody's there to take responsibility, and there is no responsibility. But this government is quite happy with that. They're quite happy to make deals with, as the Minister of Transportation said the other day…. "Our supporters," he called them. He's quite happy to make deals with "our supporters."

The fiction that they spin over these privatization deals is incredible. The Minister of Transportation says: "Show me one of these projects that hasn't been a success." Well, I guess he hasn't been around the Port Mann bridge financing or what happened with the Olympic village. He says they're all on time and on budget. Complete fiction.

He says that about the Golden Ears bridge. Not true at all. That bridge was supposed to have been built in 2007. It's two years behind the time that it was supposed to be completed. It was announced as a $600 million project. It's now over a billion dollars and counting — double the cost that this government said it was going to be. So it's neither on time nor on budget. That never stops the Minister of Transportation from repeating all these fallacies.

Accountability is something that is totally lacking from this government. There was hope that the Premier was going to come clean on the Olympic budget, on the Olympic overspending.

[1705]

He said not too long ago: "We're going to lay it all out there for the people of British Columbia — all the costs — and we'll let the people of British Columbia decide what is Olympic spending and what isn't." Well, he hasn't done that, and it doesn't look like he's going to.
[ Page 14222 ]

Part of accountability is letting the people of British Columbia know what's going on with government, but this government is very good at hiding what's going on. There are some real concerns, as well, with the protection of the private information of British Columbians.

Recently, as a result of the enhanced driver's licence project that this government has undertaken, which involves radio frequency identification chips in your driver's licence…. Look for that, folks. You'll be getting one of those sooner or later. That information became released to the U.S. Customs and Border services; 520 British Columbians' information was inadvertently given away. Have those people ever been notified by this government? I sure hope so.

Then we have our wireless networks. We had the report recently about the fact that that's not secure — at the same time as the government is cutting 20 percent of the chief information officer's budget, the person who is to protect our privacy. But where is the concern about that from this government?

Where's the citizens' access to their health records? It was promoted last year in the throne speech. We don't see it. There's a total lack of accountability from this government.

Outsourcing, contracting-out, privatization — call it what you will — is the stock-in-trade of this government. We don't see any mention of it in particular, but one of the things that the government has talked about briefly is the British Columbia International Financial Centre. It's not something that most British Columbians, I think, are aware of, but here's a little read from their webpage.

They talk about international financial business, or IFBs. It says: "The activities are international in nature, meaning one side of the transaction is conducted with, for or on behalf of a non-resident." They go on to say: "By locating an IFB in British Columbia, a company can gain the advantage of outsourcing functions to a nearshore or a North American location with a competitive tax structure without incurring the associated risks or unexpected costs of an offshore location."

Well, there you go — a tax haven. That's the thing that this government is promoting once again for their friends. They go on to say: "British Columbia offers companies doing international business a unique tax incentive. Income derived from many, if not all, of a corporation's international financially based activities may be eligible for a full refund of corporate income taxes paid to the province."

Oh well. We know the government likes giving away all kinds of goodies to folks like this, so I guess that if you can do business offshore, you can get all your corporate taxes forgiven. That is not what British Columbians expect from their government, but that's the kind of results they get.

People in the United States understand what outsourcing has done to them, and there's been a full-scale backlash against it. We're getting to understand that in Canada, particularly in British Columbia, with this government, which is a champion of outsourcing and privatization.

[1710]

Let's look at education for a minute. There was an interesting statement from the member for Richmond-Steveston. He talked about per-pupil funding being $8,242. Well, maybe he ought to talk to Maple Ridge school district. This is what Don Woytowich, the secretary-treasurer for our school district, said: "…while the per-pupil allotment of $5,851 remains unchanged." So our students are getting $5,851. I don't know where the number was that…. Maybe that's what they get in Richmond — I don't know — but certainly not in Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows. He went on to say: "That's perhaps the most difficult issue for us. That base amount never moves, but our base costs are always increasing."

That's what we talk about when we say there are cuts to education, because it's a de facto cut. If your funding stays the same and your costs increase, you're in a worse financial position, so it's in effect a cut. That's what the secretary-treasurer of school district 42 said, and he's absolutely right.

At the same time, this government can't find anything in their hearts for the poorest-paid workers in British Columbia — those that are living on the minimum wage. They say: "Oh, it would hurt workers." They don't care about workers — not in the least. They're concerned only about profits, not about workers. I think it's really shameful that this government will not increase the minimum wage to help those that are going to have to deal with the worst aspects of the recession — or depression, if it may come to that, unfortunately.

No improvement in working standards either under this government. Employment standards were slashed. A third of staff cut. Office closures. You get a self-help kit if you've got a problem with employment standards — excluded unions, truck drivers, oil and gas workers, farmworkers. This government doesn't care about the average British Columbian at all — the people that go out every day to do their jobs. They're not concerned about them.

Then there have been spending cuts. Certainly there have. Government said: "Where spending can be reasonably avoided, it will be." Well, that's not what this government did when they decided to spend tens of millions of taxpayers' dollars on their partisan advertising campaign. The Premier said: "Well, eventually we'll get around to cutting that discretionary spending." Yeah, he only did that when he brought in the gag law earlier this winter.

But they didn't hesitate to give the folks working for them, their deputy ministers, incredible wage increases — but not for average British Columbians, not for the people that are going out there doing their jobs every day.
[ Page 14223 ]

If we look at crime, the crime situation in my community is escalating. We had a death in a gangland…. We actually had two shootings. One, fortunately, didn't result in a fatality; the other one did. Despite that, 106 full-time prosecutor positions were cut by this government. What are they thinking? A 6 percent cut for that ministry overall. No new money for police officers.

The Premier says that we're going to deploy officers from one place to the other, and everyone's asking: "What effect is that going to have?" I mean, how many officers are they going to take from your community? How many officers are they going to take from my community? We want some answers from the government on that.

If we look at Children and Families, 112 full-time positions were cut, which appears like it's going to be social workers, front-line workers. This is going to do very little to help to keep kids out of getting into gangs. We need those front-line workers to support children and their families, to keep them safe, to keep them from falling into connections with gangs. It's a very destructive cycle, and we need the government to be full square behind that.

A $24 million cut from the disabilities budget. That's a good signal for budding athletes for the Paralympic Games, when they see their budget cut. The government talks a good line about the Olympics, but where's the proof in the pudding? It's not there.

[1715]

Cuts to kindergarten. All-day kindergarten for five-year-olds was slashed, and one of the factors they cite is "the need to develop appropriate space." Well, they ought to come around to Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows, school district 42, and talk to them about the spaces that we have in our schools, because we do have space in some of those schools, and that could be used.

What about those classrooms? The Minister of Education is doing nothing, either, to help our school district deal with the problem. It may be somewhat unique to some communities, but we have schools that are not full on one side of our community. On the other side, they're overfull. Yet the funding formula does not allow the school district to build the new schools we need. The minister has done nothing and intends to do nothing. She's not said that she's going to do nothing. We've been waiting for her to do something to address this problem, and it's not happening.

Environment was also hit. Every department, interestingly, except the water stewardship part of the Ministry of Environment, which of course would be the part of government that has to do with the independent power producers, the run-of-the-river folks. They're the only ones getting any money from the Ministry of Environment that are not getting a cut, but we know the relationship between this government and that industry.

They talk like these are small hydro, but we know they're not at all. If you look at the projects that are happening in Bute Inlet or in the Klinaklini River, they're huge — the size of Site C, if it were built, or bigger. They're not at all small projects, and yet this government has no interest — in fact, they have a strong disinterest — in there being any meaningful environmental oversight about these projects. It's shameful.

The environmental assessment process. I looked at what happened in the Upper Pitt, in my back yard, where there was planned a project up there — eight of them, actually. You know, the government biologists — employees, such of them that are left — don't get to go out and do any of the assessment, don't get to look at what's actually going on in the field. They just have to accept what the consultants for the proponents say.

This tremendous proliferation of independent power projects is going to be one of the things that British Columbians are going to dislike the most about the history, the legacy of this government, when they discover — and they are discovering it — that these projects de facto cut them off from much of the land in this province that belongs to them.

You only have to go to some of these projects, as I've done. You'll drive up to the project, and there's a guard there. They tell you, you know: "What is your business?" Can you go and have a look at what's happening up on this Crown land that belongs to the people of British Columbia? Maybe yes; maybe no.

Even though that land may be leased today, the site of those projects where the generators are can be and — if it hasn't been already — I'm sure, in many cases, will be purchased by the developer of those projects. All that Crown land — fishing lands, hunting lands, outdoor recreation, hiking — will be off-limits unless you have the say-so of the private power project.

The people of British Columbia are starting to understand what this government is doing. They're taking away the legacy of this province, the natural legacy. They're putting it at risk for the people of British Columbia who actually own those assets, and that indeed is a very, very worrisome thing.

[1720]

This government is keen, I noticed, on one piece of legislation — federal legislation, actually — around the Navigable Waters Act. Again, it's pretty clear that the interest of this government in that legislation has to do with the so-called run-of the-river projects, the independent power producers that this government is so keen on promoting to the detriment of the good of most British Columbians.

It's also going to cost us more. The contracts that they have with B.C. Hydro are costly. It's something that British Columbians — I know in my community — are becoming very aware of, and it has them concerned.

Seniors. There's a huge problem in this budget with nothing in there to build more residential care. The
[ Page 14224 ]
Minister of Health goes on about how they in fact met their obligation, when he knows it was an obligation to build long-term care beds, not assisted living. That's the obligation they made. That's what we need — long-term care beds. Yeah, back in 2006 made that obligation, and he keeps repeating the fallacy in this House that they've, in fact, met this obligation.

It's just a travesty that…. A member from Cowichan — Duncan-Ladysmith — earlier today in question period was talking about what has happened with senior homes in his community and how they're being shut down for no good reason. The same thing happened in Maple Ridge. The government came in through the Fraser Health Authority and said to the Golden Ears Retirement Centre, as it was then called…. This was a facility with a very stellar record. It had an excellent reputation in the community. It was run by a seniors non-profit group. It was very solid.

But what did this government say to them? "Oh, you know, your bathroom's a little too small. This is wrong. That's wrong. You have to do a renovation." At that time — this is the same story we hear over and over — the non-profit said: "All right. Okay. We'll go to the bank, see if we can get a loan and do that."

At that time, they had 52 beds funded by Fraser Health, and the government said, "Oh, by the way, we want you to enlarge the facility at the same time to" — I think it was about — "70 beds." So they go to the bank. The non-profit goes to the bank and asks for the money. The bank says: "Sure, you're good citizens, long record in the community. Your collateral, of course, is the funding that you get from the government. As long as that's there, it's no problem."

Thank you. My pleasure to speak to the budget.

R. Hawes: Wow. I'm sort of overwhelmed by this last speaker's half an hour of utter and complete depression. I mean, I'm hoping that as he makes his way back later to his office, a piece of the sky doesn't fall and hit him on the head.

You know, the sky is apparently falling everywhere except, actually, for most British Columbians, who do realize we are actually living in the best place on earth. We are the best positioned to see our way through this worldwide recession and come out of it faster than any other jurisdiction in Canada, for sure, and likely in North America.

Interjection.

R. Hawes: I think that member had his half an hour, and perhaps since we listened to him, it would be a courtesy if he wanted to listen to what others have to say.

He did mention…. I'm not going to spend a lot of time talking about what that member said. I started taking notes, and I thought partway through: "What's the point? None of it makes any sense."

But I would like to say to that member and to other members opposite, when you talk about taxes…. You shouldn't talk about money that's given to high-income earners or, you know, not enough given. Taxes are money taken from people. Taxes are money the government takes away from people's earnings. It's not something we give.

[1725]

The government doesn't earn money. It is through the people's work and through entrepreneurs out there. That's where wealth and money is generated, and then the government takes it.

They talk about giveaway. There's no giveaway to anyone. The bottom line is we have the lowest tax jurisdiction up to, I think, now $116,000 a year — in Canada. Wage earners earning up to $116,000 will pay less tax in British Columbia than anywhere else in Canada.

Frankly, that's a record to be pretty proud of, and it's got nothing to do with not giving to the poor and giving too much to the wealthy. This is everybody. In fact, if you're earning $15,000 or less, you pay no taxes here. I think that's a pretty good record, and I think it's pretty good support for those who are low-income earners.

Let's also talk about just a couple more things that that member mentioned. He talked about this budget having a slush fund through the supplementary estimates. What we've heard through the supplementary estimates is that there's going to be some program spending throughout British Columbia that's going to supply jobs to British Columbians. That's the target here.

There are capital projects. We have said repeatedly we want projects that are ready to get off the shelf and get going right away. That's in every corner of British Columbia. That's in every riding in British Columbia. I'm assuming, then, that this member is sending a signal across to the government saying: "I don't want you to spend any money in my riding. I don't think my riding of Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows should get any money, because it's a slush fund."

What it is, is a way to put people to work in a tough period in our economy. That's one of the tools that we are using. Thankfully, because of prudent government and wise use of taxpayer money over the past eight years, we have been able to do this.

He mentioned how P3s — and he used the words…. I think he said fly-by-night companies. I'll tell you what. That member would have difficulty saying that outside in the hallway if he was going to reference any of those companies that are now doing work in British Columbia — good work for British Columbians.

However, I do want to mention the last project where I live that I know was built in a conventional way, and it was built under the NDP in the 1990s — Heritage Park high school. Heritage Park high school was designed, and the design work was put out for tender — straight conventional built under the public system, as these members extol.
[ Page 14225 ]

When that high school was built or shortly thereafter — within six months — a massive leak under the theatre part of the school started. The school board rightly went to the builder, who said: "It's not my fault; it's the designer." The designer said: "It's not my fault; it's the city inspector."

Around and around it went until the school board paid for it. Well, in a P3 model, unlike what this member seems to think but doesn't seem to know anything about, the P3 partner is responsible for maintenance. In fact, his payment is contingent on him performing things like the maintenance, the upkeep. That all goes with the contract. So the risk of all of that passes, and in the conventional system the government actually assumes it all.

Unfortunately, these members don't seem to understand that. This member talked about the IFC, the International Financial Centre — something that most jurisdictions in Canada would give their eye teeth for. There are three in Canada, and other jurisdictions in Canada would love to have what we have in the International Financial Centre.

He seems to think that this is about Canadian businesses somehow getting into the IFC and then doing business somewhere else and not paying taxes. This is about attracting foreign capital that otherwise would not be here — attracting foreign capital to our province, a concept unfamiliar to these folks.

In fact, if you think about what happened in the 1990s when a corporate capital tax was put in place by the NDP government, which said: "If you come here and have capital in your company, if you have a worth of over…." I can't remember what it started at. It was $2 billion perhaps. You would have to start paying taxes whether you made money or not.

[1730]

I know, and I'm sure most people remember — you will remember, Madam Speaker — that in the 1990s there was a huge amount of investment coming into this province from Hong Kong. But when the corporate capital tax was put in place by the Glen Clark government, immediately that money dried up. The investment stopped because capital does not have friends. Capital doesn't owe anything to anyone. It flows where the best return will come.

Those who understand that are able to attract it. Unfortunately, that crew over here through the 1990s had absolutely no knowledge of how capital markets work, how the investment part of the business cycle works. So it left, and with it went the jobs. Where did they go? Calgary. We built one industry in British Columbia in the 1990s, and that was the moving business. MacCosham's van lines made a fortune. That's it. We had a lot of people employed here driving moving vans to Calgary.

They've come back. They've come back because they know that under this government, we actually have built a future for our kids, for anyone who wants to make a living in this province, unlike the way it was in the 1990s.

I do want to speak about forestry just for a second. These members opposite keep saying that somehow this government drove forestry into the ground. They don't want to talk about housing. You know, when you're a stranger to fact, when you want to get up and say anything that you want to say….

I suppose next they'll say we were the ones who called down to the United States and asked them to stop building houses. That's where our lumber was going — right? They're not building houses in the United States. Where's the lumber going to get sold?

We actually, through the Forests Minister and through our work in offshore, in Asia particularly, are building markets that are actually going to replace those U.S. markets, which maybe won't come back for quite a while. We are working on it.

We're working hard with the forestry industry, and if you were to go and speak with the forestry investors, the people who actually invest money in the companies that run forestry in this province…. If you were to ask them which government they prefer, I guarantee you it will not be the NDP.

Interjection.

Deputy Speaker: Order.

Member. Member.

R. Hawes: I suppose that….

Interjection.

Deputy Speaker: Member. Member, sit down.

R. Hawes: You know, Madam Speaker, when they heckle, it means they are listening, which is probably a good thing. Maybe they'll learn something.

I want to go back just a few months. Back in the fall the Select Standing Committee on Finance travelled the province and asked British Columbians: what would you like to see in the budget? Now, that was before the global meltdown, and we heard all kinds of things that people wanted.

In fact, the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services made a number of recommendations that reflected what the people said, based on what was the economy of the day. But the overriding statement made in the report that the select standing committee — which, by the way, is a committee of both sides of the Legislature…. When that came forward, in a unanimous way, it did say that we urge the government not to overspend and go into deficit.

The government worked very diligently to do that. In fact, I know that the members on Treasury Board met,
[ Page 14226 ]
meeting after meeting after meeting, looking for ways to ensure that we stayed in surplus. I know that there was $1.9 billion cut in administrative costs through travel and all kinds of other administrative costs that would have kept us in balance and in a surplus position.

[1735]

These members talk over and over about how the government somehow didn't know what others knew. The fact is that the leading economists in North America were caught by surprise by the speed at which the economy changed. The change was overwhelming and, frankly, not known to the government, the opposition, the federal government or the United States government. It was not possible to project the depth and speed of this recession, of this change, the meltdown.

However, recognizing what happened, this government did put forward a piece of legislation that would allow us to go into deficit for two years. These members opposite spoke against that, speaker after speaker, saying that it couldn't be done, etc. But they voted in favour of it. Unanimously, they voted in favour of it. Now they sit and say they are somehow opposed to that which they voted for just a scant couple of weeks ago. I have difficulty understanding their shifting positions.

Then I came to the conclusion…. You know, I thought about how they shift positions, and it was an epiphany to me. They aren't really shifting positions, because they never had a position to start with. Where they stand is not rooted in anything.

They stand up here, and here's my projection. Speaker after speaker is going to get up, and they're going to speak about how terrible this government has been — point after point about what they think about our budget. Not one will have the temerity to speak about what an NDP government would do if, God forbid, they were ever elected, because they don't know.

What we do know is that they keep talking about, "We're going to get rid of the carbon tax, but we're not going to get rid of the income tax cut that goes with it." That's at least a $2 billion shot. That's a $2 billion deficit right there.

If you look at all of the things that they've said that need to be done and that they would do, you are talking about a deficit that is in the billions and billions of dollars that our children and grandchildren will be saddled with, a debt hole they will never crawl out of, which is exactly what was happening to us in the 1990s.

In 2001, when we formed government, we had a structural deficit, which, by the way, one of the members opposite was up talking about. "There is no such thing as a structural deficit." Perhaps he should talk to some of the economists that work in our country.

However, we inherited a structural deficit of $4.7 billion. The members opposite at the time, Joy MacPhail and the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant, in the House from 2001 to 2005, spoke over and over about how it's not possible for us to balance the budget in three years, which is what we put through in our legislation.

It couldn't be done. The media said we couldn't do it. But within three years we achieved balance in the budget. We did exactly what we said we were going to do because we began with a plan.

So the deficit that we now talk about, which is….

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members. Members.

Members, it's actually quite difficult to hear. Noise is coming from both sides of the House.

R. Hawes: The deficit that we are projecting for next year and the year after — less than $500 million next year, reducing to less than $300 million the year after and to a surplus position the year after that — is a plan that's set out that we will work diligently to achieve, and I am absolutely confident that we will achieve it.

Now, the members opposite pooh-pooh that with their great financial expertise. I have searched through to find someone on that side of the House that has any background of any kind, and I can't find it. There's no financial strength there, so when they make these comments about how it can't be done, I have no idea what they base that on.

But I did hear and I do hear and I will hear, for the rest of the time that we do budget debate, from members opposite a lot of supposition about where things are going to go, none of it based on anything that's factual. I'm really proud that in this budget we're going to invest $1.3 billion across B.C. to replace, renovate or expand K-to-12 schools. That's in this budget.

[1740]

[K. Whittred in the chair.]

Oh, and I did want to mention school district 42. The fact that they say that funding hasn't changed, that funding has remained the same, while the per-pupil funding has risen dramatically. It has never been so high. The bottom line here is that when the student population falls dramatically and you get the same money, it means….

At what stage do you say: "Gee, you were at — pick a number — 5,000 students. Now you're at 3,000. Then you get to 2,000, but you always get the same money"? At what stage do you say: "Gosh. You know, we have really increased your spending"? That's what's happening here.

Student populations across B.C. have fallen dramatically. I think we're probably over 50,000 now in the last six or seven years. I hear the ads from the B.C. Teachers Federation: "Oh, they've closed all these schools." They were empty schools — 50,000 fewer students. Think about how many students that would be per school.
[ Page 14227 ]
Then you wonder: we should keep them open? The taxpayers should pay for empty schools?

This member talked about how in Maple Ridge there are schools on one side that are half-empty and this sort of thing. Well, when you have several half-empty schools, isn't it better for the taxpayer to combine some schools and have them as full schools? You can actually offer full programs then, which you can't do when you have half-full schools.

I mean, I think parents understand that. They get it. Nobody wants their school closed, but at the same time, what's best for students and what's best for the taxpayer and for the system is to have schools that are full enough to offer full programs.

There will be $1.7 billion invested over the next three years in post-secondary facilities. I think that's a tremendous step forward, and I do know that the people who are running our post-secondary institutions are extremely pleased with that, particularly when we're in a time of very, very tight financial and fiscal restraint. To see that kind of investment, I know, was a pleasant surprise to those in the post-secondary industry.

We are going to spend $2.5 billion in capital spending in the health sector over the next three years. We are going to be building new hospitals, expanding hospitals and expanding opportunities for folks to get into health care facilities faster. We understand that there are lineups. We're working hard and diligently to eliminate those lineups and those problems.

This is not an overnight fix, and it's not easy. Although these members would have everyone think it's an easy fix, it is not an easy fix, and it's not just about adding dollars.

By the way, if you were to look at the amount of investment that we're making in operating health care in this province, the dramatic increase…. I think that when we took office, it was something like $8.5 billion. Within three years we're going to be at over $17 billion, from $8 billion when we took office — a doubling over what will then be 11 years. I think that's a pretty dramatic….

Yet they talk about cuts. You know, the NDP are quite famous for their math, and that would be NDP math — $8 billion to $17 billion. Whoa, what a cut.

We're going to spend $2.3 billion on transportation infrastructure on the north side of the river where I live, where the member for Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows has his riding. The Pitt River Bridge is being rebuilt. I'm guessing he's opposed to it. He voted against the budget that put the money in place. I'm guessing he's opposed to it. I'm guessing he's opposed to….

Well, I'll tell you what. He stood up, and he spoke for half an hour and never spoke in favour of one initiative — not one initiative — that this government is bringing forward, including the infrastructure program spending that's going into his own riding.

Does anyone wonder why I get calls from the mayor of Pitt Meadows asking if I would be their MLA because they apparently don't have one? That's what he told me. He's asked me many times, and so has the council: "Will you come and act for us in Pitt Meadows, because the Pitt Meadows MLA, who is with the NDP, doesn't seem to want to represent us — in fact, has on more than one occasion attacked us by writing letters to the Ministry of Environment, for example, trying to have us stopped from doing the things that as a council we wish to do."

Interjection.

R. Hawes: It's interesting. This member says that I don't have the courage to run in…. He says that I'm not going to run in Maple Ridge–Mission. Well, I don't happen to live there. The riding redistribution has put me into Abbotsford-Mission, which is where I happen to live.

[1745]

Of all of the members opposite, I do have to say that probably the rudest member on that side, with kind of the most cutting, meanest comments is the member for Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows. It's time to….

Interjections.

R. Hawes: They all want to be called the meanest. Isn't that incredible? Isn't that a record? Isn't that a record that they should be proud of? Shouldn't they be proud that as they speak, we listen, but when someone on this side speaks, they want to make nasty comments?

I do want to mention about the spate of violence. Our Solicitor General and the Attorney General recently returned from Ottawa, understanding what we need from Ottawa to help combat the current gang situation. The members opposite want to say how they have failed, and I'm still waiting to hear the Leader of the Opposition say: "I could go to Ottawa and speak to Stephen Harper, the Prime Minister, because we're on good terms, you see. You know, like in the election, I was so kind to him."

Our Premier was absolutely neutral through the…. He understands, in a very, very statesmanlike way, that we need to be friends with Ottawa, regardless of who forms government. The British Columbia government needs Canada and a great relationship with Canada, and we have one.

However, the Leader of the Opposition is rolling all across the province with her boss, Jack Layton — right? Now, she would deign to think she could go to Ottawa and speak with the…. I don't think she's got his phone number, and if she phoned, I doubt if he would answer the phone.

Bottom line here is that if there's going to be some success in dealing with Ottawa, it's going to be with our Solicitor General and our Attorney General working cooperatively, hand in hand with our counterparts in Ottawa, and the relationship is strong enough that I
[ Page 14228 ]
know this will bear results. It may not be tomorrow, but the results are going to be there. I'm very confident of that, and I think that when one looks at the money that has come….

The Kicking Horse Canyon partnership, the Canada line partnership, the Gateway project, and it goes on and on.

An Hon. Member: The Evergreen line.

R. Hawes: The Evergreen line — just announced. The government of Canada and the government of British Columbia both understand that through this tough economic time, we've got to pull together and work hard together. We have a union that is working in this country between this province and our counterparts in Ottawa. We've worked very, very hard from the Premier, through our cabinet, through every member on this side of the House.

We have worked with our counterparts in Ottawa to make sure that relationship is not only a good relationship but that it's strengthened and nourished. Unfortunately, on that side of the House they don't quite do business that way. Does anyone remember Nanoose Bay? Does anyone remember the NDP government of the 1990s threatening Canada, which cost us, right now, $150 million? The bottom line is that Canada just said, "We'll expropriate," and as British Columbians, we got nothing — nothing.

The bottom line here is that working hand in glove with Ottawa, we are going to make progress, and we are making progress. I think the most important thing that we can talk about here is how this budget and this government, through the prudence that we brought forward, are actually steering us to a much brighter future.

The last time I spoke in the House here, I had said that these fellows on the other side, these men and women on the other side, are all so depressed that it would seem to me that counselling is required. I was actually prepared to give them counselling. I was going to give them my office hours, and free of charge, I would have offered them counselling.

[1750]

In fact, I, along with a couple of my colleagues, have worked out a 12-step program to get them off socialism, but so far, they haven't. But I can tell you that they do need a 12-step program. They are addicted to socialism. You know, every jurisdiction that I can think of has realized that that brand of socialism economically leads to collapse. It did in the '90s, and frankly, it would here again.

I'm going to go back to the infrastructure program that we're looking at. We have set forward a $14 billion infrastructure program that will touch every single corner of British Columbia. The plan is that it will create 88,000 jobs. Is this a time that we need job creation? I think it is, but we have a plan to deal with it.

Not one member on that side of the House has risen to their feet to say: "Here's our plan. This is what we will do. If you just trust us, here's how deep the deficit would be. Here's where we'll spend your money."

Oh, I forgot. They don't seem to realize that the money that gets spent here belongs to the taxpayers. But it does, and we know that. That's why we're making sure that the deficit is as low as possible. We are making it extremely tough on the government to adhere to what's in legislation, so we will have to be extremely careful, extremely prudent, as we move forward, to make sure that we adhere to the law. And we will. We will not leave a legacy of debt for our grandchildren and their grandchildren and their grandchildren that will go forward for generations if these folks ever come back.

They talk all the time about the cost of the Olympics, but what they don't say is that they have put into their wild figures things like the cost of the Canada line. They speak of it as though it's being built for a two-week period, that there is no incremental value at the end of the Olympics.

The same with the Sea to Sky Highway, where 38 people were killed. It was the biggest number of deaths on any stretch of highway over a short period of time anywhere in British Columbia. They don't seem to care about those people that died. They just say, "It's all about the Olympics," and somehow they wouldn't have fixed that piece of highway.

Well, we care, and we are doing these things because it is the right thing to do. The right thing to do is to advance a budget that actually steers us through this tough time with the least amount of problem — and that's what we're doing — and gets us out on the other side as fast as possible with the least amount of deficit.

It is extremely difficult to climb out of a big debt hole — extremely difficult — and these folks created one for us in the 1990s. I remember the pain of trying to get through that in 2001, 2002, 2003. British Columbians felt that pain, as we had to take some steps that, frankly, we wished we didn't have to take. But it was forced upon us by that bunch being in power through the 1990s.

Woe betide us in British Columbia if we are ever foolish enough to put them back in power and in charge of our money and our children's and our grandchildren's futures. That would be a travesty. That's why I support this budget and all that this current government is doing to make sure that British Columbians have the bright future they deserve.

G. Gentner: Yes, it is indeed a cheery day, because we're going to get very close to May 12. Every day that we inch closer to that, it's going to get better and better for British Columbians, because British Columbians will have before them a new alternative.

The member for Maple Ridge–Mission said: "What would we do?" Well, we will be creating a government
[ Page 14229 ]
that will create a sustainable province. This is what's not seen in this budget. We believe in equity for all. We would create decency for seniors, a proper health care system that not only deals with Pharmacare issues for seniors, but we'd certainly look at putting a proper future for our children in the province of British Columbia.

[1755]

We envision a green British Columbia, a sustainable province. We believe in jobs for all British Columbians, good-paying jobs for British Columbians. We believe in a budget that would train young British Columbians to work for our future in British Columbia.

We believe that we would create megaprojects that would not only create jobs but that would be financed by the province of British Columbia. We believe in megaprojects and all projects that would be operated by British Columbia, not by foreign cartels, or that would be maintained by British Columbians for British Columbians and, above all, managed by British Columbians. This is what the government does not like to hear, and you certainly don't see that in this budget.

Above all, our infrastructure will be owned by British Columbia. That is what the next budget will see when we step forward as government — a true investment indeed for our province and for the future.

The member for Maple Ridge–Mission made mention of the deficits. Let me remind the House that in the last ten years we have seen six deficits from this government — six. That's the legacy.

I'm not going to be able to support this budget. I cannot support this budget, because I don't have confidence in the government. The flip-flopping continues to go year by year, supplementals included. The government will say one thing. The Progress Board will say something, and the government goes somewhere else. Its numbers are all wrong.

We just recently heard that projections on revenue relative to that of the Olympics are going to fall short, and now the province is backtracking and wondering what it's going to do. Of course, it does the creative bookkeeping, as you know, hon. Speaker. Some projects really aren't Olympic projects. They move it off the line.

We are in difficult times. These are extremely difficult times. When you look south, you see what happens sometimes south of the line. When they sneeze, there are earthquakes here. The point of the matter is that we're in a very serious situation. We've got to work together, but we're not going to be able to work together if this government is in denial of where we're going. And it's a deep-seated recession — deep-seated indeed.

I do want to talk at great length about my community, that of North Delta. North Delta is the greatest community on earth. It is a great, great community. I like my community of North Delta, because unlike many opposite who are looking forward to developing their farmland…. With regards to encouraging development and real estate deals, they look forward to taking the rest of the Fraser Valley and paving it with concrete and asphalt.

That's not the vision in my community. We want to protect our foodstuffs, and we want to protect that livelihood. We want to make sure that when we believe in asset-building, that fundamental asset of preserving our food base is there for our kids and for our future. That's part of our vision.

I don't see anything in this budget relative to that and to protection of agricultural land and agricultural foodstuffs and the production of food in this budget. It's been totally ignored, and frankly, I'm quite shocked that the Minister of Agriculture isn't standing up and trying to defend, at the cabinet table, why there's been a slash-and-burn budget regarding the protection of food in this province.

We're in a real bad way in this province and in the world when it comes down to the food — production of food, good organic food. Again, it's very unfortunate that it's not embedded in this budget.

You can rest assured that a budget after May 12 will certainly look at protecting our food, our production of food and, above all, saving and protecting the best agricultural land in the province of British Columbia in perpetuity.

My community is primarily made of families. It is, indeed, probably the backbone, in many ways, of what British Columbia is. We have quite a cultural diversity invested in my community. It's fantastic. We have a community that has invested money primarily in infrastructure, recreational facilities for children. When it comes down to playing fields…. You name it. If it's families first, I'm proud to say that's what North Delta is.

[1800]

Hard-working people. It takes, for most of them, two to work to pay off mortgages, etc. They're hard-working people. When they come home, they spend quality time, as much as they can, with their families.

This is something where I think this budget has fallen short. I was hopeful this would be the family-based budget, but I don't see that stimulus. I don't see that money, that commitment to communities. We saw something in the supplementary from the Community Development Minister — the so-called election budget — some little grant money being thrown here and there but nothing substantial that's going to build a foundation for families to feel confident in their future. And without confidence, you cannot support a budget.

Of course, the grassroots in my community may be suburban, but it also has respect for one another. It certainly looks out for one another. We need those support systems, and I don't see it in this budget.

We need a health care system. In North Delta we don't have a hospital. We don't have that luxury. For many years we've tried to convince governments in the past.
[ Page 14230 ]
I was former president of something called the North Delta public hospital society. We've been lobbying governments for some time, and we'll continue to lobby.

This view of overcapacity to tertiary hospitals is the way to go, but there is a need for primary acute care, for small satellite hospitals. They've been proven very successful, and I believe that we're going to reach overcapacity at Surrey Memorial Hospital, and we're going to need another hospital. We are going to need another hospital south of the Fraser River. I'm going to be fighting. I'll be fighting very hard to make sure that that will happen and will become a reality.

When we talk about the promises…. We hear over and over again about how there's going to be an expansion at the Surrey Memorial Hospital. One of the most recent ones, I think, was that in 2014 we're going to see a new tower. These are the promises that sort of pop up year after year, election after election. But they've been wilful promises that have never really come to fruition, and we are suffering.

In the Fraser Health district — and particularly in my area, Surrey–North Delta — we have the fewest number of acute care beds per capita than anywhere else in Canada. This is the fastest-growing area in this country, and this government has turned its back, once again, on Surrey and North Delta. There's no provision for that. There's no plan for, no execution of, proper acute care health south of the Fraser, primarily in Surrey and North Delta.

We find more and more that the government will do the band-aid solutions, but for my family and for my friends and families, they are certainly waiting at the end of a stick, trying to figure out whether they're going to have a carrot-approach election or a stick approach after the election. It's not working.

I've been here in the House — we've come back this spring — and I've been asking various ministers and ministries about the so-called goody bag that's running around the capital projects. I've yet to receive an answer on what they are.

There have been many applications that have come forward. Namely, from my municipality, they've asked this government…. It's a shovel-ready project called Sungod Recreation Centre, a $5 million project that will boost recreation capacities in my community. As a former chair of the Delta Parks and Rec Commission…. This is what our community is built on.

Putting money into these types of investments is a huge asset not only for municipalities but for the future of our children, to keep them occupied and busy. But this government has fallen short, or maybe they're going to wait for the opportune time when there's going to be a ribbon cutting and a photo op. But so far there's been no commitment, no commitment at all, to my municipality.

Another one is, of course, that we have the sewage interceptor line that's going to…. We have a major problem in the floodplain — a movement of sewage to a trunk line. It's a shovel-ready. The municipality is putting money into it as we speak. They're asking for a cost-share agreement from the province, and they've not received any indication that that's going to be coming forward.

Another project the municipality has been asking the province to deal with — not in this budget — is money for an archive. In my municipality…. We probably have one of the largest and first municipalities on the floodplain, the river — way back in 1861 and many documents that could be in peril.

[1805]

The municipality has, out of respect, asked for some moneys from the province to help build it. After all, many great British Columbians have come from Delta, and one was a Premier. His name was John Oliver. We have to preserve those records. Again, after great appeals from my community, it has been denied.

Education is another major issue. It's a major issue in a family-based community. We still have a system that's based on funding per capita, and yet there are anomalies here. We have part of my municipality where there's a decreasing student population base, whereas on my side, North Delta, there's an increasing student population base. So the money isn't there to maintain and operate those schools, and a lot of the downloading is on to my parent advisory committees.

My parent advisory committees…. I spend much time with them, because this is the pulse of the community, and they tell me they can't find any more money. Times are tough. Yes, they have their fundraising, their different events, but they can't find the money for proper equipment — equipment for schools, gymnasiums, for extra curriculum.

This is what builds communities — making sure kids are busy and active, whether it's organized sports or unorganized sports. We have to provide those types of systems to build a better British Columbia so that children do not get involved with the wrong peer group, and we know what the wrong peer group is.

Every day, day after day, in the Lower Mainland, we see more and more shootings. We should be investing in our children and in those support systems. But in this budget, this government has turned a blind eye once again to the fundamental asset we have, and that's our kids and families. That's what my community is all about. So I can't support this budget.

Advanced education. There are different debates on what should happen with advanced education. In my community, we co-share a catchment area with Surrey. Relative to that, of course, is the new and, hopefully, continuously improving Simon Fraser University, which I totally support, and Kwantlen University College.

We have this advanced education infrastructure ready to go, ready to be built, and we see nothing but denial
[ Page 14231 ]
here. We are already at overcapacity at Simon Fraser University.

I cannot support this budget, because we need a new medical school in this province. We believe in preventative health. We need preventative health. Yes, we need the traditional medical systems to be built, but right there at Simon Fraser University, right here in our community, we should be building. We should be building for nursing systems that could be sought out, perhaps at Kwantlen College.

Innovation, thinking — it's not seen in this budget. We do have some schools that could possibly be closed in South Delta. There's an opportunity in those schools to put in some nursing programs, practical nursing programs. We could be innovative, but we're not — not according to this budget. It is a shame because we have this potential. We have a great potential here.

Crime. Well, it's in the news every day. If it's not the number one issue of the day, it certainly is the following day. We're going to go through a major debate on regionalization of policing, and this is a debate that we know has been going on for some time. We've yet to see the leadership from this government — leadership that will certainly look at the support systems for police and, at the same time, make sure we continue with community policing.

Whatever happened to the beat cop? The beat cop is still an entity that, in my community, is very important. In my community in North Delta no call is too small. There's identification with the police officer with that of the children's school, and they work hand in hand. When you're involved in bullying at school, you can have those outreach systems there.

In my community we put a lot of money into policing, but it's very important that we take that system and share some views with the rest of the province. I don't see that in this budget. I don't see money for such things as Parent Watch, Block Watch, all those influential and important ingredients that build a community. It's always: "Download onto the little municipality." But we've got to show leadership, and it's not in this budget. We've got to provide and help families to help one another, and it certainly isn't in this budget.

[1810]

As far as I'm concerned, families have been ignored for far too long. We can go with all the rhetoric we want in this House, but by golly, without family I don't think you have anything.

We need more money for protective witness programs. You know, kids are afraid. The victims…. I've had kids in my office worried about bullying and being beat up. We looked at trying to implement a protective witness program, and there are very few support systems there. We've got to take initiatives as a province and as communities in partnerships in order to protect witnesses who feel intimidated and will not come forward.

Above all, we also need support systems for police. It means we have to put money towards civilian support systems so that the police can get out there on the beat. We've got to be innovative, and we've got to be creative. For the police officer…. Many times they get a bad rap, and they also get a bad rap once in a while from politicians.

But when you really study some of the suicide levels, what's happening with the policing…. They really are overextended sometimes, and they need our support. Family breaks down from within the police, and I think we've really got to focus our attention on helping policing in this province. I believe that this budget certainly doesn't address that at all.

Relative to economic opportunities, we've got to be frugal with our money. We've got to shape our priorities based on how they are going to build our communities — on projects. We can be whimsical and create all the megaprojects we want, but we've got to have a system that fixes and maintains our current infrastructure. We've got to work with communities and municipalities to do that.

Now is the opportunity to go ahead and fix the potholes. Now is the opportunity to put money in your community centres. Now is the opportunity to put money into social infrastructure that this government broke. That is how you build communities. That's an investment, and that's how you maintain people with jobs, good-paying jobs. Now is the time, and it certainly is not addressed in this budget.

You know, we saw for many years the hospital closures and, of course, reduction of long-term care facilities. Now is the time to fix it. Now is the time to put money into long-term care workers. It's not a matter of just building; it's also a matter of operating and maintaining. Again, this government falls short, very short.

I mentioned it before. There is a fear, and the fear is that we are moving from a recession to the "d" word. It's getting scary out there, and we need a strategy that will look at creating jobs, maintaining jobs and maintaining our infrastructure.

When times are bad, and we've all been there…. You know, a startup home. I can speak for families on this. We've all been there. You may not have money, but you can still do some elbow grease. You can still paint up a place. You can still maintain that roof before dry rot sets in. Those are the types of strategies we should be employing right now — distributing our financing, our money, for projects that make sense, not based on whimsical ideas produced by the Ministry of Transportation.

It all sounds fine and good. To build an infrastructure is one thing, but to maintain it is something else. We've heard the rhetoric over and over again about the need for buses. We know. We know with at least 500 new buses implemented, we will create a surplus and then a demand. To take people off roads and cars and put them
[ Page 14232 ]
in buses…. A good bus system is essential in creating a good community.

In our communities we can build all the freeways we want, but I hear the story often enough in my community, the Lower Mainland — an hour and a half every day to go to work, an hour and a half to come back from work. You put your hours in, you come home, and how much quality time do you have with your family? That quality time is what defines a community. So the infrastructure we build has got to work, and the future isn't always the automobile.

I feel this government's failed. It has failed to address that in this budget.

[1815]

I want to talk about the Alex Fraser Bridge. In my community, basically, it started in 1984, finished in 1986 before Expo, and within three or four years, it was gridlock. Supposed to be the answer. In North Delta we had a grid system that was going north and south. With the course of the Alex Fraser Bridge, that opened up new corridors going east and west, and our community was not prepared or built for it.

Thus we have today…. We call it a rat run. It's a rat run. Traffic runs like water. It follows its natural course according to gravity, and everybody's scampering along to find their way to the Alex Fraser Bridge. You know, that's created a lot of stress on our neighbourhoods, neighbourhoods that put up with a lot of traffic.

Traffic is an issue, most politicians will tell you, that's a no-win situation. You can create all the traffic calming you want, but you're going to impact some people. Traffic is based on convenience, and by building that convenience, you also inflict hardship on others who have got to compromise, based on that traffic calming.

There's been no money for North Delta to address all this traffic coming east and west. It's no fault of anybody. It's really the situation at hand. We've got the largest and fastest-growing community in Canada — called Surrey — as our neighbour, a good neighbour, and consequently, we are seeing gridlock. But the transportation plan, as well, has been sought out in south Delta, and south Delta, too, is now seeing the impacts.

Which brings me to the South Fraser perimeter road. This was a concept conceived many years ago — 20, 30 years ago, in fact, way back in the late 70s. I was on the heritage commission. We saw the original drawings where it was going to impact the Burns Bog area. That's how long it's been mixed around, been happening.

It was a concept that was basically, I think, envisioned sort of like that boyhood mentality when car was king and Tonka trucks were played with in the sandbox. Bigger was better. Sort of like the Popular Mechanics visions where eight-cylinder cars with their big long fins and leopard-skin upholstery ran the day.

We saw what happened recently with the closure of the Pattullo Bridge, the 80,000 vehicles that had to find their way elsewhere. Boy, was my community impacted.

It brings to mind the toll evaders that will be avoiding the Port Mann Bridge. We've had it. We've seen the CEO of the Gateway program. He has announced and made it very clear that with the South Fraser perimeter road we're going to see a diversion of traffic from Deltaport, no longer through the tunnel — Deas Island Tunnel or George Massey. Trucks and cars will find themselves going eastward towards the Alex Fraser Bridge.

Contrarily, we're going to see the same thing from the east side, traffic coming westbound to the Alex Fraser Bridge. We're going to have the largest pinch point, congestion, in the province right in my community called North Delta because of the South Fraser perimeter road.

We have today lineup after lineup down Nordel, down 72nd Avenue and down 64th — people trying to get to work. Now all this convergence of traffic is going to find its way in my community, and it is going to be gridlock like we have never seen before.

The problem is that there's no comprehensive transportation plan in this budget. There was never an origin and destination study done on where trucks and traffic was going to go. It's been hodgepodge planning from the beginning.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

It's been a strategy of developing farmland. We're going to lose 245-plus acres of the most valuable farmland in the province of British Columbia for the South Fraser perimeter road. We're going to see not only that but the impacts of Burns Bog.

Yes, Burns Bog — purchased and negotiated 5,000 acres. But we could have had 5,500 acres. I was at the negotiating table for the corporation of Delta. We had a deal ready to go. At the last minute somebody flew out of Toronto, bought the other 500 acres, and the government let it go. It was probably one of the first exercises of Partnerships B.C.

[1820]

We could have had all of Burns Bog, but instead, there was a backroom deal that made sure that we couldn't get it all. Consequently, what we now have is a proposal to develop an interchange at 72nd Avenue and Highway 91 that will give off-ramp service to the Burns Bog sections, now privately owned. This government has been in negotiations for several years to do exactly that: a backroom deal to gain access into Burns Bog and create more gridlock on Highway 91.

The South Fraser perimeter road was earmarked at $600 million originally. Then suddenly, it jumped up to $800 million, and now it's up to $1.173 billion and climbing. According to the budget, over $250 million is for land acquisition, and we're not even halfway there yet for the final purchase of all the land.
[ Page 14233 ]

I hear it every day in my community from residents who are impacted, residents who've lived all their lives on the river, who are now going to be expropriated. Liz Aberdeen. I hear it from Alec. He was negotiating in good faith, thinking that he would at least be able to move his house upland, from the bottom of the river up. There he was negotiating. Now he's told he's going to have to lose all of it, because this government didn't do its proper diligence. It never planned.

I have Kevin Logan. He is a consulting guy that's running around working for the appraisers, who says one thing, apparently, and delivers something else.

Bob and Margaret. These are people who lived all their lives…. They were promised the ability to subdivide their lots, but now they're told that Gateway wants it all — the reason being that they didn't do the geotech. There's slippage on that river, and the province now is going to be on the hook for purchasing more land than it ever thought.

Had it done its due diligence, it would have had a comprehensive transportation plan. It would have looked at short sea shipping — from Deltaport to Surrey docks to Port Mann — taking trucks off the road, but this government has the mentality of rubber on the road. It doesn't look at the comprehensive plan, the ability of railways, the ability of moving intermodals into the Interior and creating diversification. We're certainly looking at….

Another resident, Lilia. She was another one that thought she could live in peace. She's losing her properties. It goes on and on.

We're losing a very important neighbourhood, Annieville, built on a fishing tradition. Sunbury is going to be gone. These communities are going to be wiped out for a freeway that is not going to solve our problems. It's not; we know it.

It's going to create more congestion, more traffic and more hardship, and my people will not be able to go to work. It's not going to take them an hour and a half to get to work. It's going to take them two hours to get to work. The communities will break down. Families will break down. When you have all this traffic running through your neighbourhoods, hon. Speaker, you certainly know what it does to property values.

We are in dire need of a budget that will look after communities. This is a budget that refuses to do so. I believe that Delta has been treated like a doormat where people have wiped their feet. This government in particular has been wiping its feet so long in my community that's just going to be a run-down neighbourhood and communities. I think it's really a shame that this government didn't look at innovative means and protection of our communities.

I can certainly go into many other issues, but I'm raising this because this is probably one of the most essential issues before us as a community, and it certainly wasn't addressed in this budget.

G. Gentner moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. T. Christensen moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

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

The House adjourned at 6:25 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 © 2009: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada

ISSN 1499-2175