2009 Legislative Session: First Session, 39th 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)

Tuesday, September 15, 2009

Morning Sitting

Volume 2, Number 3

[ Page 371 ]

TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 15, 2009

The House met at 10:03 a.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Prayers.

Introduction and
First Reading of Bills

Bill 5 — Finance Statutes
Amendment Act, 2009

Hon. C. Hansen presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill intituled Finance Statutes Amendment Act, 2009.

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

Motion approved.

Hon. C. Hansen: I am pleased to introduce the Finance Statutes Amendment Act, 2009, which amends a number of Ministry of Finance statutes. The amendments will improve investor protection and ensure that the legislative framework in the financial services sector is consistent with the Trade, Investment and Labour Mobility Agreement between British Columbia and Alberta.

The Finance Statutes Amendment Act, 2009, makes a number of amendments that are related to TILMA. The amendments to the Business Corporations Act, Cooperative Association Act and Partnership Act will allow for regulations to bring corporate registration requirements more clearly into compliance with TILMA.

The Financial Institutions Act amendments will require insurers to obtain a business authorization when insuring a risk in British Columbia unless an exemption is available — for example, where the insurance is sold through a licensed agent — and this is consistent with the Alberta requirements.

[1005]

Amendments to the Mortgage Brokers Act will give the regulator new powers to take action against non-compliant mortgage brokers and will help harmonize enforcement measures with those in the Alberta legislation.

The bill also includes amendments to the Securities Act which will improve investor protection by providing a legislative framework to govern the Canadian Public Accountability Board's oversight of auditors who audit public companies and to permit the British Columbia Securities Commission to oversee the operations of the CPAB. The bill makes a few technical amendments to the Securities Act to ensure that there is sufficient regulation and rule-making authority to impose restrictions, requirement or suspensions on registrants who do not pay fees required under the legislation.

This bill also makes technical amendments to the Business Number Act to create the legislative authority required to enable the office of the comptroller general to use the business number system to verify the identity of a supplier and the accuracy of the supplier's payment information. This legislative authority is required under the current Income Tax Act and the Excise Tax Act of Canada.

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 5, Finance Statutes 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.

BILL 6 — INSURANCE
AMENDMENT ACT, 2009

Hon. C. Hansen presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill intituled Insurance Amendment Act, 2009.

Hon. C. Hansen: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. C. Hansen: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to reintroduce amendments to the Insurance Act that will clarify the act's provisions and enhance consumer protection.

The proposed amendments will protect consumers through the improved coverage, better access to documents and enhanced dispute resolution mechanisms. The amendments strengthen the language on fire coverage and will provide consumers with more consistency across insurers. At the same time, the amendments assist insurance providers by clarifying and standardizing requirements and increasing flexibility.

These changes are a result of a comprehensive review that included submissions from industry, consumers, the public and the legal community.

In reviewing and finalizing these amendments, we worked closely with Alberta to develop harmonized legislation. This standardized approach will allow the businesses to compete more efficiently in both jurisdictions and will ensure consistent consumer protection in both provinces.

These amendments were originally introduced in the spring of 2008 as Bill 40 at the time. Introducing the proposed changes last year gave stakeholders an opportunity to thoroughly scrutinize the legislation. I
[ Page 372 ]
am pleased to now report that there is overwhelming support for the direction we are taking.

A few omissions and technical errors have come to light through this process, and these are addressed in this bill. However, for the most part, the amendments are unchanged from those introduced in 2008.

Mr. Speaker, 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 6, Insurance 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.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: I call continued debate on the budget.

Budget Debate

(continued)

B. Simpson: Mr. Speaker, I will continue from where I left off yesterday.

Yesterday I was talking about the fact that there are other deficits that need to be realized, need to be embraced, need to be dealt with not only in our province but globally. I talked about the democratic deficit, which is where I want to go later on. I closed yesterday talking about the global environmental deficit and referencing the UN's millennium report.

I think it's critical that we find the mechanisms to have that discussion about how deep that deficit is — the fact that we are extinguishing the earth's resources, the fact that our ecosystems are being put under pressure and that we have had warnings for decades now that we need to address.

[1010]

If I could reference recent events, the loss of the salmon stock and our inability to actually describe what is happening with that salmon stock…. Yet you get pronouncements from DFO: "Don't worry; be happy. Next year's run will be just terrific." If you go back and look at last year's headlines, they were identical. It doesn't give us a lot of comfort that we're addressing that if we simply gloss over it with rhetorical statements and headlines.

[C. Trevena in the chair.]

The other thing that we're not really embracing is the impact of the mountain pine beetle epidemic and all of the forest health threats that are on our land base, including this year's fire season. What does that mean in terms of healthy forest ecosystems in this province? As the backbone of our province is still based on forest resources, if we don't have healthy forest ecosystems, we have nothing.

Therefore, we need to examine that. We need to make sure that there is sufficient investment in that. Again, that is independent of what is happening in the financial situation. It is a deficit that cannot accrue. It's a deficit and an ecosystem that must be addressed for the sake of present and future generations.

One of the things that the UN millennium project pointed out is that the reason we're having difficulty embracing the environmental deficit is…. It says that it requires major changes in the way we make and implement decisions. That's really what the point of my response to the budget is. It's: how do we make decisions differently? How do we address the various deficits that we have, and how do we address the democratic deficit by bringing people back into the discussions, by having faith in what happens in this chamber?

The other deficits that are occurring in our society are also deepening. The social deficit. We just had a poll out yesterday, or a survey done, of British Columbians and Canadian households, and in B.C. we have fully 60 percent of working households that say they are so cash-strapped that they are living from paycheque to paycheque.

That phenomenon started to occur before this global economic meltdown. People started to be living paycheque to paycheque as we had downward pressure on wages, downward pressure on benefits, downward pressure on hours.

How many in our workforce have been transferred from high-paying, benefited jobs to part-time jobs? How many of our households are under pressure because they've lost a second income as a result of the restructuring of the forest sector and the loss of those jobs?

The interesting statistic that came out of that is that for youth, in particular, 64 percent are living paycheque to paycheque, and for single-parent families — and that would be predominantly women — 72 percent of those households are living paycheque to paycheque.

We've had increasing rates of poverty, increasing rates of homelessness and increasing income assistance claims, and that was occurring before this financial meltdown. The financial meltdown only made it worse. If we do not address that social deficit, if we do not assist people where they are most vulnerable, then that has implications for the rest of our society. And where is that debate in this House?

What we get when we raise this issue in this House is the rhetoric of "The best place ever to live." We get the rhetoric of "Don't worry; be happy. We're building a couple of housing units" — etc. It's not addressing the issue, and the issue is: how will B.C. be competitive without the race to the bottom, without becoming a China or an India with respect to all of the things that we have fought so long and so hard for?
[ Page 373 ]

The health deficit is also accruing. Again, we need a public debate on health care that is public, not a false debate about public-private but about: how do we reinforce the public health care system so that it can sustain the double pressure of an aging population and a youth population that by all measures is less healthy and less fit than any other generation?

Rather than a false conversation — the Conversation on Health that disappeared as quickly as it was held and that was engineered towards a specific end — we need a real conversation about public health care. We know that Canadians and British Columbians want a public health care system, so let's embrace that, and let's figure out how we restructure the public health care system to deliver and to meet the demands that are accruing to it. Otherwise, that deficit will, in fact, burden us to the point that it won't be sustainable.

[1015]

The education deficit. Despite all of the generations of the public education system, we still have growing illiteracy. Why is that? And what is the debate that we have in this House about how you address illiteracy?

It's not rhetorical. It's not one of the five great goals, where you make a statement that we will be the most literate society and then think that you're done. It's not words, Madam Speaker. It's action that's required — a substantive debate. How do we address that?

As we're finding out, young men in particular, when they leave the education system — if they graduate…. Over 30 percent don't. Of the 70 percent that do, many barely graduate, but most of them don't pick up a book after grade 12. What does that say about the kind of society we have? What does that say about the future of literate, informed debate in our society?

We're saddling young people with enormous debt. We have one of the highest debt loads from tuition fees in the country. Our young people are coming out and joining the ranks of those who live paycheque to paycheque, even if they've got an education. That education deficit must be addressed.

The other deficit that needs to be spoken about is B.C.'s economic deficit. That's different than our financial deficit — the raw numbers of a balance sheet for the government, whether or not our revenue exceeds or is under our expenses. But in British Columbia, quite frankly, we have not taken our open resource-based economy and modernized it to the 21st century.

That's where I believe — and it's one of my biggest frustrations — the future potential is to address all of our deficits. It's to say: "Look, in British Columbia we're one of the few jurisdictions in the world that doesn't have to nationalize anything. We own the public resources; 94 percent of the Crown land base is held in trust for the public of British Columbia already."

We as the elected officials have an obligation to the public to manage that with responsibility and for present and future generations. Yet as we've seen in the forest sector, we've allowed the restructuring of that to the minimum returns to the people of British Columbia. We are collapsing that down to a few companies that have a dimension lumber mindset for the most part, which are trying to produce to a market that doesn't exist.

But the potential of our forests is huge. To move it into the true biomass economy, fossil fuel substitution, fossil fuel chemical substitution, energy…. All of those things are possible for us if we're willing to have a debate about what that looks like. How do we change the tenure system? How do we engage communities in that more? How do we engage first nations in that more?

The agriculture community is crying out for leadership and not the agriculture plan that was delivered by this government and abandoned almost the minute it was printed. What they want is a government and members of this assembly to work with them to figure out how we capitalize on the desire for healthy, homegrown food on their tables all year long.

And that is possible. The untapped potential of agriculture is enough to make all of us on this side that know and have met with these folks weep. The member for Saanich South, our Agriculture critic, and I visited a number of operating ranches and farms. We stood with organic market gardeners who talked to us about the fact that they cannot keep their market in goods and that they run out of product very quickly.

We have an untapped potential to grow our own, to get back into grains, to get back into a wider range of products and to make sure that we make that a viable agriculture industry. There's all kinds of job potential there.

Tourism and the arts. As we've seen over the last few months, tourism and the arts are getting gutted. Yet the reality is that the world is coming to British Columbia. They want meaningful tourism opportunities — adventure tourism, heritage tourism. All of those things would attract dollars to British Columbia, and yet we have removed Tourism B.C. We are slashing funding to the arts. It just simply does not make sense.

In my riding, Island Mountain Arts gets a mere $20,000 from this government in gaming funds annually. What the government doesn't seem to understand or won't articulate in this House is that is seed money to leverage money from all other kinds of sources. It gives them that base to be able to go and get dollars from other sources, to be able to run an entity in Wells that has become an economic driver.

[1020]

I was in Wells a couple of weekends ago and talked to the businesses there, and they're struggling. They're really having a hard time because tourism is down. They're not getting the kind of flow-through that they used to get, but they have one bright light.

That one bright light is the ArtsWells weekend that Island Mountain Arts hosts. It has grown year over
[ Page 374 ]
year. It was the largest ever this year, yet for the want of a $20,000 investment from a fund that is growing, the gaming fund, ArtsWells is being put at risk, Island Mountain Arts is being put at risk, the return on that investment will all be lost, and Wells becomes even more vulnerable.

It doesn't make sense to me that the government would actually do that. There has to be a different agenda. Tourism and the arts' potential is huge.

Then the biggest area for potential is a meaningful debate on energy, because the debate that we have going back and forth about IPPs, river licences and all of that stuff really undermines what the real debate should be, and that is: how do we maximize public power production for the public good?

How do we make British Columbia a world leader in alternate energy, household-based energy systems, community-based energy systems and then in some of the more macroenergy products so that we can actually be a world leader in energy production — not for a few shareholders in New York, not through water licences that can be flipped at will, but for the public good?

I believe that if we get into energy in the right way — if we make households energy self-sufficient, if we make them net generators, if we allow communities to establish community energy systems — we can do a number of things all in one fell swoop: (1) we use our natural resources appropriately for the public good; (2) we free up one of the biggest costs in a household, which is the energy cost, for more spending power in communities; and (3) we deliver directly to where the power is required.

Madam Speaker, again, I see I'm running out of time. The problem with getting your speech cut in half is that you just get started again.

All of this needs to be addressed in a different way. I think, really, what I want to say in response to the budget is that it is a budget that has shocked my community. It's a budget, I think, that if the government had run on it, we would have had a different result in Cariboo-Chilcotin for sure. It's a budget that has added to the democratic deficit, that will chase more people away from the polls.

So I challenge citizens to force us to be more deliberate and more honest. Don't run away, but hold us accountable between elections. I think we have an obligation in this House to address the democratic deficit. Our Finance critic has put something towards that with the independent budget officer. We have also said we need electoral finance reform.

We need to make legislative committees work. We should not have legislation come into this House that has not been fully debated by the public, that is fully consulted and that there are no surprises. We need to have an opportunity for every MLA in this House to have a meaningful role, whether they're backbenchers on the government side or opposition, because we were all sent here by our people to be involved in governance.

Now, the prayer this morning talked about hope, but you cannot have hope, you cannot build hope unless you have a government willing to embrace the realities, not run away from them. We must embrace all of those deficits we have — the environmental deficit, the social deficit, health and education deficits — and look at that for a long-term vision of British Columbia that quite frankly has been absent from that side for the last five years.

I don't understand where they want to take this province, and what they're saying to people today is that what they want to do is take us in the race to the bottom. Let's raise the bar, and let's go as a race to the top.

Deputy Speaker: Minister of State for Transportation and Infrastructure.

Hon. S. Bond: Minister of state — I just got a demotion. [Laughter.]

Well, thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I'm delighted to be able to stand in the House today and join other colleagues on both sides of the floor to respond to Budget 2009.

I want to begin, first of all, as all of my colleagues have done, by congratulating all members of this House for going through what is often a gruelling and very personal and emotional process of being elected to public office. Certainly, as a member of this Legislature now, this will be the beginning of the third term that I've been proud to represent constituents in the northern part of British Columbia. We recognize the significance of the role that has been entrusted to us.

[1025]

I think one of the things that are important today is that today actually is a very special day around the world. The United Nations has actually adopted September 15 as the International Day of Democracy, and I can't think of a better day to be standing in the Legislature representing the people who actually chose to have me serve them.

I do believe that we are here today because all of us believe in public service. It's certainly not about glory. It's not about a whole lot of other things. It's all about how we can best serve the people who chose us to sit in this place.

I still recognize that every time I take my place in this chamber — and I'm sure that other members, whether they're new or far more experienced members that have far more years than me in this place…. There is a sense of awe and a sense of responsibility that comes with being in this place.

One of the things that I feel most saddened by is when, so very often, we are relegated in this place to a level of conversation and debate that often is criticized and mocked by people who sit in this chamber and watch what happens.

I do want to say this. The most difficult part of sitting in a place like this is that it's easy to stand up and make
[ Page 375 ]
comments about the values or the choices that people who sit on the other side of the House from you might make, but I want to tell you today that despite all of the comments that we've heard to the contrary over the past number of weeks, I am extremely proud to stand on the government side of this House with a group of men and women who have incredible values.

They care about children in British Columbia. They care about seniors in British Columbia. Perhaps what differs is the choices we make about how we get to the place that protects services for seniors and for families and for children in this province. But Madam Speaker, make no mistake. Whether you sit on this side of the House or that side of the House, all of us share values that want to bring a better British Columbia for the children that we have, for the grandchildren that some of us hope to have.

In fact, that's why we're here in this place. While our views and our choices might differ, no one should impugn the character or the value of the people who choose to run for public office, because the vast majority of people who serve do it for absolutely the right reasons.

As I said, I want to congratulate each and every MLA on their election or their re-election. I know that the most important job we have, whether it be one such as yours, Madam Speaker, in the chair — and congratulations on your appointment to the chair — or whether it be a cabinet position, is actually that of being an elected Member of the Legislative Assembly.

Our most important job is to serve our constituents well. All of us work very hard to do that, and I know that in my case and in the case of the members of this House that have expressed similar circumstances, we don't get to do that without the support of incredible family and friends.

Today I want to say to my family, who have tolerated, in many cases, a life in public service that has spanned probably 16 or 17 years now, both at the municipal and now the provincial level…. I have an extraordinary partner in my husband of 30 years. In fact, we were able to celebrate, which I'm sure, from many people's perspective, is miraculous in and of itself….

I'm very proud of the fact that Bill and our children, Chris and Melissa, and their partners, Christina and Trevor, are the foundation on which we build our ability to do this job. I'm very grateful for a loving family that literally stands beside us day by day by day as we do the work that we do.

I also want to recognize the staff here in the precinct who make our job doable. They are always working hard to look after the needs of the people who work in this job. We appreciate them very, very much.

In particular, I want to recognize my own staff in Prince George, because as we work on the front lines in our constituencies, they're the people who help do that work to meet the needs of people every day while we're here in the Legislature.

I'm very grateful to Dustie Hall, Dorothy Titchener and Lindsay Gardner, who work in my constituency office, and also to the fantastic staff I have here in Victoria: Rob MacKay-Dunn, Matt Holme, Katelyn Orr and Emily Gremm. They work very hard every day to make sure that I'm in the right place and doing all of those things that are important. They do that with an enormous enthusiasm and just fabulous personalities, and I really appreciate that.

[1030]

I'm very pleased to be, I guess, the first MLA from a new riding called Prince George–Valemount. While I love the fact that I get to be the MLA for that riding, I do admit that I had a bit of trouble with the name change, because my previous riding was called Prince George–Mount Robson. I think in many ways it captured the absolutely beautiful riding that I get to represent. Mount Robson is obviously nestled in the riding in the valley, called the Robson Valley, that I am very privileged to represent. It's a geographically fabulous place.

It is also challenging. It's a fairly large urban-rural riding. I can't begin to tell you how proud I am of the fact that our constituents chose our team, actually, to be the representatives here in Victoria.

I had a fantastic team of people around me, which allowed us to run such a successful campaign during April and May, and I do want to recognize them today. They had energy and enthusiasm and excitement on days when it was sometimes hard to just get up and keep moving. They were always there for us. So I want to recognize Les Waldie, Charles Scott, Tom and Ken Newell, Monte Williams and literally hundreds of other volunteers who made a successful campaign possible.

One of the things that is so important in the work that we do is looking at how we increase and enhance the partnerships that we have. Whether that's with local organizations, with non-profits, with other elected officials, it's critical to our role as a successful MLA.

I am very pleased and privileged to work with a group of mayors in the riding that I represent, two of whom chose not to run again in this last municipal election. I want to say to former Mayor Colin Kinsley of Prince George and former Mayor Jeannette Townsend of Valemount…. I want to thank them for the partnerships that they created not only with me as their MLA but with other levels of government. They made a tremendous difference in our ability to be able to deliver economic and other benefits to the people of northern British Columbia. They did a tremendous service not just in the Robson Valley and Prince George but in fact across the province. I want to thank them for their work.

I currently have the pleasure of working with councils and mayors in a number of communities, but in particular, working closely with Mayor Rogers in Prince George, Mayor Frazier in McBride and Mayor Smith in Valemount and their councils. I look forward to, over the
[ Page 376 ]
next four years, working with them to make sure that we're continuing to see the kinds of benefits returned to northern British Columbia that all of our constituents expect.

The other part of our team in northern B.C. is actually at the federal level. We've had the opportunity to create unprecedented positive partnerships with the MPs that represent that part of northern British Columbia as well. We have Jay Hill from Prince George–Peace River, Dick Harris from Cariboo–Prince George and Cathy McLeod from Kamloops-Thompson-Cariboo. Working together with these levels of government and our first nations partners, we're actually able to bring benefits to the people of Prince George and the Robson Valley. They serve our constituents well.

It's evident that when we work in partnership with other levels of government, we're actually able to move the agenda forward in a way that's not combative. In fact, it's collaborative, and it makes an enormous difference.

As we look around the world, this year has seen unprecedented economic uncertainty, not just in British Columbia but in fact in Canada and indeed around the world. Jurisdictions around this world are facing extraordinary fiscal and economic challenges. They're pushing governments to new levels of expectation in terms of leadership and management and how we are going to help our particular jurisdictions emerge from what is unprecedented difficulty.

But one thing that I am very proud of…. I live in northern British Columbia. We have been faced with the same challenges and in many ways enhanced by the fact that we are a resource-dependent part of the province. Nowhere in the province is it more evident that we have and we are a resilient, hard-working people in British Columbia. If we take advantage of the opportunities that present themselves even in difficult economic circumstances, we can emerge even stronger than before.

Our government has a strategy to ensure that Prince George and the north and British Columbia will become stronger through this downturn in the economy. Some of our constituents and even some of us in this House may be asking what lies ahead. What would the economy of northern British Columbia look like when the economy rebounds?

Well, I can assure the members of this House that the future is bright in many sectors in northern British Columbia. Some of the very most exciting initiatives that we have in the province, in fact, are taking place in places like Prince George and in the Robson Valley.

[1035]

Let's look at McBride. The village of McBride has a slogan, and for me, it captures the heart of what the people in the Robson Valley think and feel. Their slogan is "Explore the opportunities." That slogan didn't change when things got difficult. In fact, they rely on it even more heavily now — explore the opportunities.

That's exactly what McBride offers. From snowmobiling opportunities, where literally every winter we see a large number of snowmobilers and sledders, including probably my colleague from Prince George–Mackenzie, actually come to McBride to help boost the economy of northern British Columbia…. We literally see families and sledders coming from Alberta that find McBride so busy in the wintertime that you can't actually find a hotel room on many weekends. Maybe we haven't stopped to think about exploring the opportunities.

In fact, we also look at some of the other things that McBride has to offer. We look at forestry. We look at agriculture. McBride is working hard now to look at how they can capitalize on the bioenergy mandate that this government has put in place. They are exploring the opportunities in very difficult circumstances.

It is rich in community spirit as well. Late last month McBride actually received $8,000 for a 2010 Olympic torch relay welcoming party. Imagine the plans that they had — even in these circumstances looking to the future with excitement and anticipation. Their welcoming party will include lining the route with ice sculptures made by local students, 2010 candles, local entertainment, hockey and figure-skating demonstrations and a children's art show.

Yes, the Olympics provide opportunities even in northern British Columbia. In McBride they intend to explore the opportunities and capitalize on every opportunity to celebrate.

In the village of Valemount, again, another $8,000 was provided for the Olympic torch relay. They've got their plan in place as well. They're going to have Métis dancers, live musical entertainment, fireworks, an art and heritage display and children's activities.

Valemount is another fantastic part of the constituency that I represent. I've worked with community leaders in Valemount since 2001, and one thing that impresses me is they have an amazing can-do attitude. Their slogan is "Mountains of opportunity." I'm hoping my colleagues sense a trend here in northern B.C. and in the Robson Valley. Even though these are difficult times in British Columbia, small communities and villages across this province continue to look for ways to turn economic uncertainty into opportunity.

Valemount's slogan is "Mountains of opportunity," and it couldn't be more true for that particular community. There are opportunities to invest and opportunities to play in Valemount.

I've made countless trips to the Robson Valley and, especially this summer, had the opportunity to participate in significant events.

The Dunster Ice Cream Social. While that may not sound like a lot to members of this Legislature, it is steeped in history and tradition. For decades people from all across northern B.C. have converged on a small community in Dunster to actually explore the amazing
[ Page 377 ]
baking that arrives in the Dunster Community Hall and are treated to an absolute banquet of ice cream. It's a fantastic opportunity to share in the culture and the history of a small community in my riding.

But we also have significant people who make and contribute to the province of British Columbia. Today I want to recognize a very special person. His name is Dr. Ray Markham, and I am so very proud to say that he is a current — this year — recipient of the Order of British Columbia.

Now, I have to tell you that very often we see a lot of recipients of the Order of British Columbia living in urban B.C. I can't begin to tell you how proud I am of Dr. Ray Markham and the amazing individual that he is. He is a career rural doctor who steadfastly and unwaveringly and intentionally serves the rural community, despite the many challenges faced by rural medical care givers.

He has found ways to make it work. He championed computerized medical records. He opens his clinic in the evening for working people. He spearheaded a proposal for a local rehabilitation centre.

[1040]

Northerners are traditionally under-represented, in my view, as recipients of the Order of British Columbia. There are outstanding British Columbians that live in every part of this province, and today I would like to recognize and congratulate Dr. Markham for his accomplishment. We're proud of him, and he's made a significant contribution to medicine in British Columbia.

As we stand in this House and debate Budget 2009, it's so important that we recognize that the world isn't changing; it's changed. Think about where we were just a year ago.

If you look at the United States today, people are looking back at that historic day when, in fact, the face of the United States' economy changed, probably forever. Day after day we've debated Budget 2009 and how the government has brought a budget to the floor in terms of September 2009 that reflects a difference from what it was in February.

Well, I'm not certain how one would be surprised by that. The world around us has changed dramatically. In fact, if we take just a moment to look at how other jurisdictions have had to adjust in terms of their budgets over the last number of months, it should be no surprise to anyone that British Columbia, in order to be a good, fiscally prudent manager, has to table a budget that looks different today than it did in February. The world is different today than it was in February.

British Columbia will have a larger deficit than we anticipated. But we are not the only government in Canada, first of all, that has a deficit and, second, that has a deficit that is larger than the one that was anticipated. In fact, other provinces have significantly higher deficits than British Columbia. Alberta is now projected to have a $6.9 billion deficit. Ontario is projecting an $18.5 billion deficit, and our own federal government is projecting a $56 billion deficit.

As recently as last Friday the federal government announced that they will be running deficits for five years — two more years than originally forecast. The deficit this year for the federal government will be $5 billion more than originally planned for. The deficit was projected to be $50.2 billion and is now $55.9 billion.

Let's look at Ontario. Their deficit moved up 31 percent from the previous projection to $18.5 billion, following dealings with the auto industry and declining revenues. And our next-door neighbour has a revised budget projection to $6.9 billion due to falling natural gas prices. Natural gas prices have plunged since the April budget, forcing the province to trim their assumption.

As we look at that, those are the circumstances that are facing all of the jurisdictions in the country — in fact, around the world.

It's an unfortunate thing that we stand in this Legislature today saying that deficits are a reality across the country and that British Columbia is no exception to that. I can assure you that this — coming from a government who made the very difficult decision to actually consider a deficit in the first place — is a government that has worked tirelessly and has an unprecedented economic record in Canada.

We have been a leader in job creation. We have seen continuous credit upgrades. We have had a prudent and an excellent track record of fiscal management. And yet today, Budget 2009, the September update, does forecast a significantly larger deficit than we saw in February.

The world has changed. The responsible and prudent thing to do is to create a budget that reflects those changes. More importantly, we must have a plan in place that will help British Columbia emerge from these difficult economic circumstances.

That's exactly what our budget plan does. We have a deficit. We will move that deficit to a balanced budget. We have a plan to do that, and British Columbians can count on this government to deliver once again, as we have year after year after year in the past. We have a plan. We are going to bring British Columbia through these economic circumstances stronger than it was before, and that's what Budget 2009 says to British Columbians today.

[1045]

One of the issues that's had the most degree of discussion in this House and outside of this House is the whole discussion about whether or not British Columbia should move to a harmonized sales tax. Once again, it's so easy to stand in this House and simply ignore the comments, the advice, the expertise of others who actually have provided advice about this set of circumstances.

I'm not an economist, but we've been told by those people who are experts in making sure that British Columbia will be as competitive as it possibly can be
[ Page 378 ]
that the single most important and effective thing that we can do is move to a harmonized sales tax.

One of the things that has actually been demonstrated by our fiscal track record is that when we put a plan in place, we manage incredibly well. That's been recognized by financial institutions. In fact, as we look, we have been a leader in Canada in terms of the fiscal management that we have used over the last eight years in our term as government. I can tell you that it is not easy to make a decision like that. In fact, a constituent of mine involved in economic development in our community described the move to the HST as absolutely the right economic policy and courageous politics.

I can assure you that every single member of this government took this decision very seriously. We recognize that while, yes, there will be an impact on some British Columbians, we know that over the longer term it is essentially and absolutely the right thing to do to provide the competitive advantage that British Columbia requires.

Let's look at the benefits of the HST. We've certainly heard a lot about the impacts, and we don't deny that there will be impacts. But we've also put programs in place to ensure that the most vulnerable British Columbians will be protected from the impact of the HST. Let's look at the benefits and why it matters.

I live in northern British Columbia, a resource-dependent part of this province. Let's look at the benefits. In fact, we know that those sectors that we rely on most to provide economic certainty and strength in this province will be benefactors. Let's look at the list: $880 million anticipated in advantages for the construction industry; $210 million for the transportation industry; $140 million in benefit for the manufacturing sector; $140 million for the forest sector.

We have sat in this House through question period after question period, debate after debate, having people say: "Let's just do something for the forest sector." In fact, that's exactly what we're going to do. What the harmonized sales tax allows to happen is that those sectors….

You know, it was interesting to hear comments about how big business is going to benefit. Well, I want you to know that these sectors are the bread-and-butter industries for people who live in northern British Columbia. In fact, what we need to do is provide that type of incentive. Why? Because what it means is that those dollars will be taken and reinvested in jobs — good, well-paying jobs in those sectors that are going to be the backbone and will continue to be the backbone of the economy in British Columbia.

Let me continue the list: $80 million of benefits for the mining, the oil and the gas industry. I can tell you that as recently as last week in a vision-setting meeting that we held with business leaders and economic leaders in Prince George…. I can assure you that every single one of these sectors was on the list of things that northern British Columbians recognize will provide for the strength of the economy in the future. They are supportive of the HST because they recognize that it will create jobs. It will strengthen our economy.

It's a very difficult decision to make, but it is the right decision to make. We have to look not just at the short term; we have to look over the long term. What is it that we can do to help British Columbia be restored to its economic place in this country? The HST is one of those things.

Let's look at what people are saying about the HST — not just what we as government members say. Let's look at what John Winter, president and CEO of the B.C. Chamber of Commerce, said. He said: "Harmonization of B.C.'s sales tax with the federal GST is one of the most important policy directions we can put in place today to position us for a strong recovery at the end of our current economic difficulties." He said that in July.

[1050]

What about this quote, not from a member of the government side of the House: "We think it is going to be very good for the provincial economy over the long term." Jock Finlayson, B.C. Business Council.

Another quote. "We've been calling for something like this for years." Rick Jeffery, president and CEO of the Coast Forest Products Association, in the Times Colonist.

We know that at times like these it requires strong leadership, good policy decisions and the ability to protect the most vulnerable, and that's precisely what we're doing. It's not simply about an HST. It's about creating a competitive tax environment in this province.

We simply have to look at the track record on that topic. This is a government that has introduced over a hundred new tax reduction measures, which means that if you look at income in British Columbia, anyone who earns under $118,000 a year pays the lowest personal income taxes in Canada. With the new threshold that we've created, we're going to see even more people in British Columbia, vulnerable families who members on the government side actually care about…. We're actually going to see more of them pay no income tax in British Columbia.

So it is a matter of looking at what is sound economic policy, finding ways to protect vulnerable families in this province and making decisions that are difficult during difficult economic times.

I'm sure the members of this House would understand why I want to speak for just a couple of moments about the education initiatives that we have in place. Delighted to be joined this morning by my colleague the Minister of Education.

One of the things that we have included in our budget is a focus on something we think is absolutely critical to the future of British Columbia, and that is making sure that our very earliest learners have the best possible opportunities that they can have in this province. We've
[ Page 379 ]
been asked why in the world you would actually see in a budget additional dollars to look at all-day kindergarten in the province of British Columbia. It's because we've looked at the impact that all-day kindergarten has the potential of having.

In fact, we do see significant resources in Budget 2009, because we believe that early learning is absolutely essential and that during difficult economic times like this it's still something we have to focus on. We know how important it is to invest in early learning in this province, and in fact, if you look at the benefits, we will see those for years ahead in the province of British Columbia.

So today, as I stand and speak in support of Budget 2009, I stand with a group of people on the government side of the House who are prepared to make difficult decisions in difficult economic circumstances, and I want to reflect on some of the comments that the member for Cariboo North made. His comment was this: "Now is the time not for words, but it's about action."

Well, the budget for 2009 is all about action. It is about making sure that British Columbia is well positioned as we begin to see the emergence out of this economic downturn. This is a government that has demonstrated by action through the last eight years that we know how to manage this economy, that we are prepared to make the tough decisions, and I stand in strong support of a budget that will position British Columbia to retain its leadership as an economic powerhouse in Canada.

M. Sather: I'd like to start off my comments on Budget Update 2009 by talking about a subject that, incredibly, wasn't mentioned in the budget at all, and that's the issue of salmon. We witnessed this summer a catastrophic collapse in the Fraser River sockeye run, and the lack of response on that issue has been absolutely incomprehensible.

Here we're looking at not only the most valuable fisheries resource we have…. Sockeye is one of my favourite foods, and I want to put in a plug while I'm at it for Bruce's market in Maple Ridge. It serves some of the greatest salmon you can get.

[1055]

It's hard to imagine how such devastation can occur and there be no response on this issue. There were supposed to be ten million sockeye returning to the Fraser River this year — ten million. A huge run was predicted to return, and less than two million came back — less than two million. That gives British Columbians great cause to be concerned.

Without salmon, what is British Columbia? Salmon is part of our very identity. It's our heritage. It's not only economically important to us, but it's culturally important. It's spiritually important. To see just a disappearance of that magnitude and nothing being said about it is greatly worrying, and a number of commentators have said as much. How can this happen?

We saw what happened with the great cod fishery on the east coast. It disappeared. It simply disappeared and virtually hasn't returned. There hasn't been any responsibility taken for that. Are we going to see the same thing on the west coast — the disappearance of this resource without a squawk, without a squeak, without any sort of taking responsibility for it? I hope not, Madam Speaker.

This return is the lowest since 1952. The runs that make up the Fraser River sockeye — the big ones — are part of the Quesnel Lake system in the Cariboo and the Chilko Lake system in the Chilcotin plateau, and those fish have been decimated.

So it's not a time for complacency at all. It's a time for action. To not make the choice to address this problem head-on is not only biologically dangerous, but it's spiritually bankrupt. Who are we as a people if we let our salmon die? We can't do that.

What is the cause? How did this happen? The Department of Fisheries and Oceans are pretty quick to say that fish farms have no role in the demise of the sockeye. Maybe it's some environmental conditions at sea, perhaps a lack of food, perhaps warming of the ocean. So how would it be that we aren't addressing one potential problem at least, that being fish farms?

There were 130 million smolts in the Fraser River in 2007. That's the year that these fish went to sea — the smolts or the juveniles that go to sea. So 130 million — that's plenty. From what I understand, there should have been around ten million returning. But when those fish got into the ocean, into the straits leading north between Vancouver Island and the mainland, they started to disappear from all accounts.

There's one exception, which is near where I live in Maple Ridge, and that's the Harrison River sockeye run, which also goes up the Fraser. They are very strong this year, whereas the other runs are not at all. Coincidence? I don't know. But that run goes out the Strait of Juan de Fuca, and they don't go by a whole lot of fish farms.

So we're looking for a response, we're looking for an expression of concern, and we're looking for an action plan. The federal minister has belatedly been on the scene in British Columbia, after a tremendous amount of pressure being brought to bear on her, to talk about the salmon. I don't know if that has to do with a genuine concern for the salmon or whether that has to do with the possibly impending federal election, but nonetheless….

[1100]

There also have been good sockeye runs in other areas of southwestern British Columbia, such as the Somass River on the west side of the Island. It does give some cause to wonder why the Fraser River sockeye, in large part, have been decimated this year, but there are exceptions.

[L. Reid in the chair.]
[ Page 380 ]

If we go back to 2005, we will all remember the five great goals for a golden decade that this government brought forward. At that time I kidded them a bit about its Maoist overtones. Nonetheless, I think Mao would have made it for a millennium, but we're westerners. We're only good for a decade.

Goal 4 was to have the best fisheries management in the world, bar none — in the world, bar none, Madam Speaker. That was one of the great goals of this government, and now where are they? What do they have to say on the most important issue the fishery has experienced since maybe forever? How can you have the best fisheries management, bar none, yet have nothing to say about the demise of the Fraser River sockeye? It's not good enough.

I'm calling on the government and the Minister of Environment to step up to the plate and tell us what the plan is to deal with the disaster. Unfortunately, it appears that the government has completely abandoned the fishery — completely abandoned it. And that's not good enough.

There was a court ruling recently that said that the federal government was responsible for the management of the fishery, including fish farms. Well, I understand why that suit was brought forward: because of the belief that the legislation is there federally under the Fisheries Act to deal with the problem. Nonetheless, I have to think that the government here in British Columbia was all too happy to see that responsibility devolved to the federal government.

You know, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans was once a very proud organization. It was an organization that did cutting-edge research in fisheries, but not anymore. They appear to be a political arm of the federal Conservative government.

I have to think that and I'm concerned that our government in British Columbia is okay with that, because we know, as I've said, that the DFO quickly wrote off the fish farms having any possible link to the demise of our sockeye. But it doesn't match up with the great goal. It doesn't match up at all.

Well, although our government didn't challenge the ruling, the fish farms did. Marine Harvest, the Norwegian-based fish farm, did. They said: "Wait a minute. You can't include us in that, because these are our fish. This is not part of the fishery. These are our fish."

These fish may be in an open-net pen, but they are benefiting from the oceans that belong to the public. They're not privatized completely, so therefore, that point brought by the fish farms was rejected by the courts.

[1105]

There are a lot of concerns about the way that fish farms conduct their business. The fish farms are using a drug called emamectin benzoate, or SLICE, the commercial name for it. Those applications are made without warning to the public — a drug that apparently the U.S. Food and Drug Administration bans. It bans food that's exposed to this neurotoxin, and this is what's being used liberally in the fish farms.

Perhaps equally worrying is the fact that Atlantic salmon eggs are being imported to fish farms here despite the infectious salmon anemia virus. That virus is in some of the places where the Norwegian fish farms, which also bring their operations here to British Columbia, operate. This could be potentially a bigger source of concern for our wild salmon, even, than the use of the pesticides themselves.

Also, the energetics, the energy balance, and the advisability of the methods of feeding fish is questionable in these fish farms. A lot of this fish food comes from fish that are harvested off the coast of South America. It takes more biomass to be harvested there than what they reap here, so it's an energy deficient system. They're actually losing energy, not counting all the energy costs of importing that material, that fish food, from Chile up to British Columbia.

Madam Speaker, the member for North Delta, MP Peter Julian and I had the privilege a couple of weeks ago of having a chat with Alexandra Morton at her home in Sointula. Members of this House, I'm sure, are familiar with who she is, an independent researcher on the biology of salmon along our coast. I can't think of a more courageous person, someone who has stood up as an independent person against incredible odds, because there's a whole array of experts — supposed experts, government-appointed, government-hired — who have tried to shoot her work down right, left and centre.

It's so bad that the bioassays she sends out to test some of the fish that she's sampling…. There's not a lab in Canada that will accept her material that she sends in, and the reason for that is that they say: "If we accept your material, we'll be blackmailed. We'll be blackballed from any business from other sources — from government sources, from private sources."

You know, she's fighting against all odds. I think what she's saying — in fact, I know what she's saying — bears a great deal more scrutiny, more attention by the government, by this government, before kissing goodbye to our salmon stocks.

One of the things that has come up in the dispute or the discussion around the disappearance of the sockeye in the Fraser is: "Well, what about the pink salmon? There's a good return of pink salmon this year. If it's a problem with fish farms, why aren't the pink salmon decimated? Why are they returning?" I know the fish farms are writing about that and saying that Alexandra Morton is out to lunch, etc, etc. But what Ms. Morton had said in 2007 about the pink salmon, which had been decimated in large measure in the Broughton Archipelago, was that the fishery was going to collapse if nothing was done.

[1110]

Well, there was a response from the fish farms, and they started using the pesticide, the chemical SLICE, in
[ Page 381 ]
February every year. That's February onwards for about six or eight weeks, and that's the time when the pink salmon juveniles are migrating.

It did have an effect in reducing the sea lice load on those pink salmon. I think this is considerable, at least circumstantial, evidence that the fish farms had something to do with the sea lice load on salmon, which they've repeatedly denied and which the DFO has denied as well and which this government is completely silent on, as far as I can tell. I'm still waiting. Maybe the minister will come to this House and tell us what he thinks about the demise of the sockeye salmon in the Fraser River.

One of the problems with a chemical solution is that biological creatures, fish being one of them, build up a tolerance to these chemicals, and they build up a tolerance to SLICE, the chemical that's being used on the fish farms. Also, there's always variability of tolerance in humans to disease or infection. It's the same thing in fish. Some fish are resistant to the drug, or they're just not feeding at the time. They don't take the drug in, and they accumulate the sea lice, which they very rapidly transmit in the wild, then, to their cohorts.

This resistance to these drugs is happening in the fish farms in Norway. That's been documented, so that solution won't work indefinitely. As Ms. Morton called it, it's "an escalating arms race." An escalating arms race is not a holistic way to deal with the problem at hand.

That treatment by SLICE, as I mentioned, lasts about six to eight weeks, but by June or July, when the sockeye smolts are beginning to run through the channels in the straits up the coast, it has worn off. The chemical has worn off, so by then the sockeye are subject to the load of sea lice. Ms. Morton did measure up to 28 sea lice on those juvenile salmon from this run as they were going by the Broughton Archipelago.

Well, I don't know why the government is so silent on this issue, but we do know this much: they have been huge supporters of the fish farm industry — huge supporters, huge donators from the other side. Supporters, donators. Does that interfere with this government's objectivity? One can only assume that it does.

In fact, this government has gone beyond being passive about the problem. They've been actively lobbying for eco-certification from the U.K.-based Marine Stewardship Council, which would say that the management of the fishery in this part of British Columbia is all up to snuff; it's great. Well, how can they be doing that when we've got a catastrophic collapse on our hands?

You know, this lobbying hasn't come cheap either. We're talking about tens or maybe hundreds of thousands of dollars being spent on this. That's the active involvement of the Ministry of Environment. That's shameful. I believe that the minister has a lot of explaining to do about their role in the demise of our fishery, but the silence has been deafening.

So what should be done, Madam Speaker? What should be done to address the issue? Well, you know, the fisheries closed this year. They closed the sockeye fishery for the Fraser for the commercial fishers, for the recreational, for first nations.

[1115]

But fish farms are untouched. Why? That's not right. They should be made to close those farms, at least on the main channel where those young sockeye are going up the river. That's the least that should be done. That would give us another measure of whether or not the fish farms are having an effect, unless they keep dousing with more and more SLICE, which is not a good thing in the long term.

Of course, beyond that the fish farms have to be in closed tanks, closed containment. Members will know that this side of the House has called for that and that the government has steadfastly refused it. So we can only hope that the response is going to improve, because the issue is huge and the people of British Columbia deserve to know what the government of this province feels about the situation and what they're going to do about it.

You know, you can't have as your goal the best fisheries management in the world and then stand silently by and watch the sockeye disappear around you and say nothing. It just isn't good enough. I'm sure the minister is going to come forward with maybe not a solution but at least an explanation of where this government stands on the demise of the Fraser River sockeye.

I want to move on now to another subject, which is about the medium that sockeye depend on, the medium that we all depend on, and that's water. Water, as has been said by many, is going to be a huge issue in this century. It's already a big issue — the availability of water for the many uses that are made of it.

It's going to be equal to or greater than — I think greater than — the decline of hydrocarbons, the oil and gas. It's a serious issue as well, and it's getting a lot of attention in certain parts of the province in particular. I didn't see anything in the budget specifically addressing this, although I do note that there is now a minister of state whose responsibilities include water allocation. That's the member for Boundary-Similkameen, and that's a good thing.

It's understandable that he's from that community, because the Okanagan is really suffering already from water shortages. The Okanagan has the highest usage of their water resource of any area in the country. It's a beautiful part of the province, and people like to live there, but it's a very arid part of the province. So it's hitting the Okanagan, but not just there. Also, in the Fraser Valley, where I live, the issue of water allocations and water use is becoming significant.

So far, we've been relatively fortunate in terms of drinking water in my community. A lot of the communities in the
[ Page 382 ]
Tri-Cities and up the Fraser Valley have water from the Coquitlam watershed, which has been a steady source. The Capilano watershed — not quite as good. They had a scare a few years ago with the water becoming non-potable, undrinkable, for a period of time.

We have various users and usages. We have, of course, residential use — drinking water, watering the lawn, all those kinds of things. We have commercial uses, and we have agricultural uses. The more that agriculture is developed, the larger those issues become. I know that is part of the issue in my part of the world, and I expect it is also in the Okanagan because of the expansion of the wine industry there.

[1120]

You know, the whole thing about water is only part…. It's sort of symptomatic of a bigger issue in my view, and that is our whole relationship to the environment, our whole relationship to our natural resources. We hear a lot about the word "sustainability." It's coming out of everyone's mouths these days. But what does it mean on the ground? How does it work in practice? Does it work in practice? Is what we're doing sustainable?

I don't think it is. I think one of the impairments to that sustainability is our religious beliefs. In our society we worship at the altar of the god of growth. That's the numero uno that we take as our reason to be, the gross domestic product, the gross provincial product.

It's a utilitarian measure. It certainly has validity in many respects and is useful, but that belief is archaic. It does not fit with the modern world and the challenges we face.

That's why we have been largely unsuccessful, in my opinion, in balancing our economic endeavours and our rates of consumption with the need to protect our environment. We are incapable, it seems to me, at this point of realizing that there is a contradiction of considerable proportions between producing more and more goods, often from further and further places, while at the same time having an environment that is livable, that is supportive of other species than our own.

One of the words I hear a lot nowadays in the debate is the word "mitigate." I see I'm running short on time. Mitigate is a dirty word to me. It's an expression, an admission, of failure. We've been unable to protect the environment. Therefore, let's look at what we can do to kind of make it the least bad possible.

That's not good enough. We have to do much better. There is a whole array of effects that stem from our lack of ability to be creative, to evolve in a creative way so that we actually can have real sustainability, so that we actually can protect our communities, protect our health, protect other species and have a place that is lower on crime. Community cohesiveness fails as environmental degradation increases.

Hon. N. Yamamoto: Thank you for this opportunity to respond to the September Budget Update. It's a privilege and honour to represent the riding of North Vancouver–Lonsdale. My riding is located on Vancouver's North Shore, and the North Shore will be a spectacular backdrop when the world comes to Vancouver for the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Games.

I just live a couple of short blocks from the SeaBus terminal and from Lonsdale Quay, and I love it that I can walk to almost anything in my community.

It's a densely populated urban area surrounded by water, mountains and wildlife. If you head uphill, you'll end up at one of three local mountains. If you head downhill, you'll end up at the ocean, and seven minutes to the east or west, you can be fishing in a local river.

[1125]

On Saturdays I have the privilege of running the local mountain trails with my friends, the North Shore Lemmings.

My riding is also home to Lions Gate Hospital. This is the fourth-busiest hospital in greater Vancouver, and it's one of only five neurosurgery centres in B.C. A year ago the emergency centre at Lions Gate Hospital underwent a $24 million renovation, and the new Jim Pattison Emergency Centre was made possible through contributions from Vancouver Coastal Health and the province and a $15 million fundraising campaign.

North Shore companies also generate over $10 billion of Asia-Pacific trade annually, and the North Shore trade area provides a critical connection to overseas markets for export products and handles over 35 percent of all cargo volumes going through the Port of Vancouver.

Our North Shore terminals generate about 12,300 direct and indirect jobs in B.C. And I'm pleased to report that in March of this year the federal government, the provincial government and various stakeholders announced an ambitious infrastructure transportation project along the north shore of Burrard Inlet.

In addition to the government of B.C. and the government of Canada, we have partners such as Port Metro Vancouver, TransLink, the city and the district of North Vancouver, some terminal operators, CN and CP, who have committed to invest over $225 million to bring these projects to fruition. This investment will be comprised of four major projects, which will enhance the rail and port operations and accommodate the anticipated growth in rail and road traffic.

There will be a lot of benefits. There will be reduced congestion. There will be increased employment on the North Shore. There will be reduced noise pollution, and the terminal facilities will be expanded. This will all increase the provincial and municipal tax revenues. There's also a parallel benefit to this. It will also help complete a significant section of the Spirit Trail, a multi-use waterfront corridor that will traverse the North Shore.

The film industry is also a key economic driver on the North Shore, and my riding is home to North Shore Studios. There are currently 5,000 local workers employed in the
[ Page 383 ]
film industry in North Vancouver, and in ten years we could easily double that.

Thanks to the recently announced commitment of funding for Capilano University's film centre, this could be a reality. This represents a $30.2 million commitment by the federal and provincial governments. This is another great example of the different levels of government working so well together to provide economic stimulus on the North Shore.

I'm actually delighted to report that we have a very collegial and constructive working relationship on the North Shore with all the elected officials. There's an infectious can-do spirit among our political representatives from my area that transcends political boundaries at each level of government, and I'm proud of that.

But having said all of that, what really makes the North Vancouver–Lonsdale riding special are the people. During this election campaign I was constantly reminded of the quality of the people of our community and how it was reflected in my campaign team. Like all of you here today, you wouldn't be here without the tireless commitment of all those volunteers that worked on your campaign.

I will just be able to thank a few of them, because there are far too many supporters to thank individually. I would like to thank my campaign steering team co-chairs, Mike Watson and Zack Bhatia, and my campaign team volunteers of course, some of whom showed up almost every day to work on the campaign.

I will also mention a few special people in my life. Fred has made my life very easy. He's my best friend, he's my partner, and when we have time, he's my personal trainer. We went through the campaign team together as a very strong unit.

My family was there as well, and they all helped in different, very meaningful ways — my sister, Donna; my brother, Brian; and my dad, Mas. My mom recently passed away from complications resulting from Alzheimer's, and it is my only regret that she wasn't able to share in this journey.

I also owe a special thanks to Katherine Whittred. Katherine was first elected in 1996, again in 2001 and then again in 2005. In her many years of public service she has been and continues to be a very strong advocate for seniors and social issues.

[1130]

In March 2006 Katherine introduced a motion in this Legislature to abolish the practice of discriminatory retirement. In May 2007 Bill 31 was passed, which amended the Human Rights Code to eliminate this discriminatory practice based on age. I will always be indebted to Katherine for her support and for her encouragement, and she has served our community with distinction.

I'm also grateful to Katherine for another reason. She showed great judgment in hiring Krista Bunskoek to run her constituency office. I think I've also shown good judgment when I followed her lead. I know I made the right decision to ask Krista to work alongside me as my constituency assistant. She, like her counterparts in B.C., is really an invaluable asset to our communities.

Partway through this campaign it was pointed out to me that if I were to be successfully elected, I would be the first Canadian of Japanese ancestry to be elected to the B.C. Legislature. People have been asking me why this took so long — for someone of Japanese ancestry to take on this responsibility. I couldn't come up with a good reason. I jokingly suggested that perhaps this was because this community is smarter and knows better. But it wasn't until my role as Minister of State for Intergovernmental Relations, where I participated in a joint B.C.-Alberta-Saskatchewan cabinet meeting, that it occurred to me.

It was there in Calgary that I met two ministers from other provinces who had politics in their blood. One had a father in politics. Another one had an uncle in politics. So they had it in their bloodlines. They had immediate family members who had held political office, so I guess you could say they're probably genetically predisposed to holding office.

But I didn't have this opportunity to be influenced this way. My father wasn't given the right to vote in Canada until he was 22, and that was in 1949. He was born in Canada. So was my mom, and so was my maternal grandmother, which makes me actually a third-generation Canadian, which in Japanese they call [Japanese was spoken]. Although my grandparents and my parents were Canadian citizens, they weren't given a right to vote until just a short 60 years ago.

After their internment during the war, it was all my father could do to complete his education, find work and start a family. But thanks to the courage and support of the CCF, which is the NDP's predecessor, Asian Canadians were finally given the right to vote in B.C.

It's no wonder why very few Canadians of Japanese ancestry ventured into politics. Holding public office wasn't in our nature. But perhaps that will change in the future.

My extended family also includes my friends at the North Vancouver Chamber of Commerce. I spent the last two and a half years there as president and general manager. Like most chambers in B.C., the North Vancouver Chamber is a member of the B.C. Chamber of Commerce. The B.C. Chamber of Commerce represents 33,000 businesses in B.C.

As a former chair of the B.C. Chamber of Commerce, I recall that harmonization of the provincial sales tax with the federal sales tax was first advocated in 1989. That was when Brian Mulroney was Prime Minister. In 2002 the formal policy was first adopted by the B.C. Chamber members. The 2002 resolution reads that — and this is the B.C. Chamber:

"…the provincial government recognize the unnecessary negative impact on business and the B.C. economy of dual sales tax
[ Page 384 ]
collection and therefore commit itself to moving quickly to reaching agreement with the federal government for the full harmonization of the SST and the GST, including the harmonization of the collection, the reporting and remission of the GST and SST in the related audits."

So why did the chamber pursue harmonization? It was to give B.C. a competitive edge with regards to exporting goods, saving nearly $2 billion in that area due to reduction in administration and operational costs.

John Winter, president and CEO of the B.C. Chamber of Commerce, said: "This measure saves businesses money and reduces government expenditures while providing protection for those on low incomes." He continues by adding: "In addition to these savings the consumer will also be a winner as business will pass the savings they make, such as the $150 million annually in compliance costs alone, onto the consumer in the form of lower prices."

[1135]

Jon Garson, senior vice-president of policy of the B.C. Chamber, has said:

"Removing the costs, approximately $2 billion per year, will enhance B.C.'s attractiveness as a place to invest and create jobs across a wide range of industry sectors, including those involved in manufacturing and exporting. Indeed, it should be recognized that 40 percent of the PST revenue collected under the current PST system is paid by business. This cost will disappear under HST."

Jock Finlayson, executive vice-president of policy of the B.C. Business Council, said that the HST will have a profound and positive impact on the economy. Gerry Martin, chair of the B.C. Progress Board and former chair of the B.C. Chamber of Commerce, said that harmonizing the PST with the federal GST would do more to stimulate investment in the province than the complete abolition of corporate income tax.

NDP assertions that the business community doesn't support the HST are simply not true. Businesses are saying that this progressive tax will increase productivity, attract investment to the province, create jobs, increase competitiveness and reduce business costs in B.C.

B.C. is the economic engine of this province, and when this engine runs well, it helps us pay for those quality services that we've come to expect in B.C. with quality health care and education. But right now the reality is that we need to do more with less to improve this economy, and that's why this budget update reassures me that we're on the right track to recovery.

The budget update is all about improving the economy and setting us up for recovery. Every sector in B.C. will benefit from a healthy economy. But you know, we can have the greatest plan on earth — it's all about execution — and we can spend a lot of time debating, and then we can finally decide to do something. But what we will do and what that key is, is our ability to deliver.

I am confident that this government has laid a powerful foundation for recovery. I'm confident that this province will lead the country in recovery. This government has made the tough choices, and we will deliver. This budget defines a realistic approach to difficult economic times, and difficult economic times require us to make some tough choices.

What we did was take action to ensure that jobs are created and investment continues in B.C. This budget does this by creating the most competitive tax regime in North America. We're committed to low personal and corporate income taxes, and we will eliminate the small business tax by 2012. So in total, this budget will provide over $400 million a year in income tax relief for individuals, families and small businesses when the small business tax is eliminated.

True to this government's form, after returning to surplus budgets, all surplus cash will be used to eliminate the debt. We've proven this in the past — that we can do this — and we can do it again in 2013.

Our deficit is a result of an unprecedented decline in government revenues, not reckless government spending. Contrary to our traditional approach, which is to avoid running a deficit, this plan is crucial to ensure that we maintain vital public services during the greatest economic crisis of our generation.

The world has changed, but whenever there is change, an opportunity is created. One of the greatest leaders of the last century said that a pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity; an optimist sees opportunity in every difficulty. We need to consider these words of Winston Churchill in these challenging times.

This government will without a doubt lead British Columbia out of a period of difficulty. This budget positions us to seize the opportunity for growth as we climb out of this recession because if you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem.

I have witnessed the patient and steadfast explanations for his decision-making in this House from our Minister of Finance, and I continue to be inspired by the integrity shown by him in the face of this economic challenge. It would have been much easier to take the path of least resistance. But as with our Premier, our Minister of Finance personifies true leadership by getting the job done while enduring scurrilous attacks from the opposition.

They both enjoy unyielding support and admiration from every member of this caucus for their leadership, vision and courage in the discharge of their duties to British Columbians. History will clearly demonstrate how fortunate we have been to have had these men in charge during these challenging times.

[1140]

My father said that he recalled very clearly the thing that he felt inside when we sang O Canada at the opening of my campaign office. He said: "At that particular moment, I suddenly felt I'm as Canadian as anyone else." My father was one of six children born in Vancouver, and his father was a fisherman and died suddenly in 1940 when my dad
[ Page 385 ]
was quite young. You know, my dad remembers buying stamps to support the Canadian troops when the Second World War started, and he was only 14 at the time.

He also recalls being brought into the principal's office at Kerrisdale high school and being told that he couldn't take cadet training anymore because of the war and because he wasn't Canadian enough. The federal government passed the War Measures Act in 1942. My dad, who was just 15 at the time, his mother and his younger siblings were rounded up and taken to Hastings Park, the PNE grounds, and put into animal stalls. My dad and his family were eventually moved to an internment camp at Lemon Creek in the Kootenays.

Unbelievably, my dad actually has some fond childhood memories. Unfortunately, the same couldn't be said of his mother and the adults who were forced from their homes with just what they could take in their suitcase. More than 20,000 Japanese Canadians had their property taken away.

When his family was released from the internment camps, my dad didn't have time to finish high school. The family home had been seized and sold for pennies on the dollar. My dad picked apples and gave all the money he earned to his mom. He applied for the Canadian army but wasn't accepted.

Because the internment didn't allow him to complete high school, he actually completed high school by correspondence and received his high school diploma when he was 30. He got married, started a family and then started university. He eventually earned his PhD when he was 40. I was seven at the time. Life was tough. He knew what he needed to do to set his family on the road to financial recovery.

You know, my parents made tough choices. My mom made all our clothes. We didn't go on any extravagant family trips. We camped all throughout B.C. I remember actually eating a lot of stew and rice. But you know what? We were happy.

It's strange, because my dad recently disclosed to me that he thought he'd neglected us when we grew up, because he spent so much time working and studying. But I can tell you we never felt neglected.

What I do recall is how my dad impressed upon us to try to get us involved in the larger community. Bitter memories of the internment and the subsequent misappropriation of property were never passed on to us. They told us stories — we knew what had happened — but no bitter memories. My father held a saying by Nelson Mandela close to his heart: "If you hold bitterness in your heart, it will destroy you."

My dad said, "We should always remember where we come from," and he also said: "But I hope that someday people will forget about being Indo-Canadian or German Canadian or Japanese Canadian. There's a time when we have to say that above all, we are Canadians." My mom died last year, just before seeing how far we've come.

I'd like to read a letter addressed to my father. It was actually given to me three weeks ago.

Dear Mr. Yamamoto,

Many years ago, my favourite playmate disappeared. There were few ways to communicate with neighbours — no telephones, no cars, etc. Our news came to us via the newspaper, radio or word of mouth. When we heard our neighbours had been sent to the Interior and all their possessions would be confiscated and sold, my mother busied herself.

The children were sent from door to door to ask people to visit our neighbours' homes immediately and carry away as many of their belongings as possible. We knew they would return some day. When they did, we were able to give them a few bits of their past. Many attics contained treasures, small pieces of furniture and, well, anything that women, children and old men could safely carry.

We were the proud returners of a special and very large tea set. It had been lovingly hidden in our attic. Our entire neighbourhood lived in fear that the authorities would notice an enormous lack of things in that house. But nothing happened. We agreed to never tell anyone who was involved.

Our sweet neighbours eventually worked their way back to a modicum of their previous way of life. They never failed to be kind and gentle with the people in their new neighbourhood and came to see us often.

There is truly no way to compensate people for things done to them, but I thought you might be interested in hearing how one community did its best.

Sincerely,

Lee Grills

[1145]

Lee handed me this letter on the day of the throne speech last month and asked that I give this letter to my father. I won't disclose the location of her childhood neighbourhood, so that we all might imagine that this show of compassion could come from any one of our communities in B.C. This is the spirit that defines us. This is the spirit that will see us through these tough economic times, and this is the spirit that I'm proud and honoured to represent.

H. Bains: It is always a pleasure to stand here in this House to make my comments, whether it is about the budget or some of the other important policy matters.

Before I start my speech, I want to congratulate the Minister of State for Intergovernmental Relations, who just finished speaking. I, like her, am a product of those struggles that the communities went through, which people before us went through, so that people like her, myself and many other visible minorities are standing in this House today.

It wasn't just the properties being confiscated. Many people actually died. I'd like to mention certain names in the Indo-Canadian community, people like Bhai Bagh Singh and Bhai Badan Singh, who were actually…. Their sacrifice was celebrated just a couple of days ago or last week. They were shot, trying to defend the Indo-Canadian community and having their right to vote, having their right to stay in this country, by those who didn't want to see that happen.

There were people in the trade union movement who
[ Page 386 ]
stood with us, with those communities, people like Harold Pritchett and other IWA executives who went to Ottawa, who came to Victoria here, trying to convince the politicians of the day that this country must be built on and is based on equality and tolerance. But no, they couldn't. That fight continued for a good 40 or 50 years before people of India, China and Japan were given the right to vote in 1947-1948.

Every time I get the opportunity to stand in this House, it reminds me of the echoes and the speeches that must have been made in this House, trying to keep people that look like me outside of this hall, outside of this country. My head bows, and I always applaud the efforts of those who didn't think of themselves or of their children trying to build property or gather wealth.

They could have done that, but they chose a bigger and higher cause instead and, as a result, didn't build big houses. They didn't build or gather much wealth, but they continued to fight until their dream came true in 1947-1948. As a result of their struggles, as a result of those people's sacrifice, we are a better society today.

Someone said that it's not the bad people or the activities of those who are bad people with bad intentions that bring the society down, but the inactivity of those who believe in love, who are good people, will bring the society down. So those people were from that group who decided that inactivity was not part of their agenda, and they stood up.

I want to thank the minister of state for making those remarks. It does remind us every now and then, and it does reflect back how far we have come, and I just want to thank all those folks.

[1150]

I want to thank many people that helped me to stand in this House today. My constituents of today were out there in force to vote for me. They were there to support me financially. They were there to door-knock with me. They were volunteering every day during the campaign and before that, and I want to thank them all.

But as a redistribution took place just prior to the election, I lost a good chunk from the north part of my constituency. I would say that a good 50 percent of my constituency was added onto the Surrey–Green Timbers riding, and I want to thank them because they supported me in the previous election. They were with me. They were rock-solid support, and I want to thank them for giving me the opportunity to work with them.

I don't regret very much. I do feel that that was my constituency. But you know what? The new MLA for those folks, the MLA from Green Timbers…. It means that they are in good hands and that they will be looked after. I'm sure she would serve them just as good as if not better than what I was able to do.

I want to talk today of many folks from within my family that helped me — my wife, Rajvinder and my son Kulpreet. Although my daughter was not here — she was in school in Europe — I know she was phoning every day, trying to figure out what was going on, and she felt bad that she wasn't here to help me out. My daughter-in-law Perveen and her entire family, the Basran family, were there.

You know what? Even my grandchild, my granddaughter Rihanna…. I think she's watching me today, as I promised her last time when she wasn't. She was sleeping the last time I spoke here, and I went home and found out. But she is watching today, and I just want to say that she was there cheering everyone up. She had just started talking, and she was calling everyone different names. I say that that was a pleasure to bring myself, to be kept on the ground, and that was great.

I just want to talk about the last eight years that this government has given us, the last four years that I was lucky enough to be here and listen to and watch the performance of this government. When I'm talking to my constituents out there, what they are telling me…. They describe the last eight years as a decade of deception. There's good reason for how they feel and why they feel that way, and I will explore some of these sentiments that they have brought to me.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

It's not so much about the policies of the government. It's how those policies are brought in that they're really angry about. We will be talking a little later on about the HST and the budget, the numbers that were given to us before the election and the numbers that we found out after the election, and how the promises were made to many people — actually, in writing — that the HST was not being planned to be brought in.

After the election the whole situation changed. In fact, we are being told now that this is the single best thing that could happen to boost the economy. If this was the single best thing to boost the economy, either the government was sleeping and they never considered this before, or somebody woke them up because they weren't paying attention.

If that was such an important thing to boost the economy, they knew eight or nine months going into the election, prior to the election, that the economy was going into the tank. They knew that, and they ought to have known, if they had any competency, to look at what other options are available to the government so that we can turn that trend upward. But no, they kept that to themselves.

There's no way that anybody could believe that they didn't know, that they weren't talking about HST before the election. If this was the single best thing, as the government and the minister have put, to turn the economy around, how could you do that? Either you're totally incompetent, or you're keeping it from the public.
[ Page 387 ]

I would say it was a bit of both in this situation. They decided not to tell the truth because they knew…. Once they started to talk to the people and people started to ask questions about the HST and its effect and who's going to pay and how much they're going to pay, they knew that they were toast. The taxpayers will not support this government. They knew that. The people must have told them that, but they chose to stay quiet. Don't tell; don't ask.

[1155]

Even in this House it has been admitted by both the Minister of Finance and the Premier that their deputies did talk to them about the downturn in the economy. But they didn't talk about HST. I mean, is that believable? Not for a moment, and no one out there believed them.

In the recent polls, when the question was asked — if they were betrayed by this government — by the Surrey Leader, 90 percent of the people felt that they were betrayed. These were not 90 percent NDP. I wish that they were, but they were not. They come from all walks and political stripes. None of them — even the Liberals, Socreds, Conservatives, NDP…. No one believed this government that they didn't know about the HST, that they didn't know about the numbers in the budget, that the budget will be only $495 million and not any more.

So Madam Speaker…. Mr. Speaker, thank you very much for coming and taking over. I have quite a bit more to say. Noting the time, I will reserve my time to finish my speech.

H. Bains moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. G. Abbott moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1:30 this afternoon.

The House adjourned at 11:57 a.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