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)

Thursday, September 17, 2009

Morning Sitting

Volume 2, Number 6

[ Page 479 ]

THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 17, 2009

The House met at 10:02 a.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Prayers.

Introduction and
First Reading of Bills

Bill 7 — POLICE (MISCONDUCT,
COMPLAINTS, INVESTIGATIONS,
DISCIPLINE AND PROCEEDINGS)
AMENDMENT ACT, 2009

Hon. K. Heed presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill intituled Police (Misconduct, Complaints, Investigations, Discipline and Proceedings) Amendment Act, 2009.

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

Motion approved.

Hon. K. Heed: I am pleased to introduce the Police (Misconduct, Complaints, Investigations, Discipline and Proceedings) Amendment Act. The introduction of this bill fulfils one of the legislative commitments outlined in the throne speech. As you recall, a bill proposing amendments to the Police Act to overhaul the police complaint process in British Columbia was initially tabled in the spring of this year.

This current bill is essentially the same, as it aims to greatly enhance the role and powers of the Police Complaint Commissioner and make the police fully accountable to the public that they serve. In addition, since tabling of the legislation in the spring, some refinements have been made which will provide additional effectiveness and clarity in this bill. These refinements include facilitating and assisting the commissioner's ability to work with the RCMP by adding a provision authorizing the commissioner to consult with counterparts in the RCMP as well as other jurisdictions.

The discretion of the commissioner has been increased to provide appropriate information to a third party whose complaint is replaced by a complaint made by the directly affected person.

[1005]

With the changes, there is now greater clarity regarding the definition and reporting of incidents involving serious harm and there is new discretion for the commissioner to provide guidelines to the police. In addition, a few technical changes have been made to some provisions to ensure proper interpretation of their intentions.

I believe that now, with the addition of these few refinements, we have comprehensive legislation which will greatly improve the oversight of the police complaint process in British Columbia.

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

Bill 7, Police (Misconduct, Complaints, Investigations, Discipline and Proceedings) Amendment Act, 2009, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: I call second reading of Bill 4.

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 4 — Wills, Estates and
Succession Act

Hon. M. de Jong: I move that Bill 4 — the Wills, Estates and Succession Act — now be read for a second time.

As I pointed out at the time of introduction of the bill, this is the product of a great deal of work by a great many people. Particularly, in reintroducing this piece of legislation, I want to pay tribute to the work and assistance of the British Columbia Law Institute in the preparation of the legislation.

With one or two notable exceptions that I'm sure we'll talk about when we get to the committee stage of the debate, it reflects the recommendations of the B.C. Law Institute, which with the support of the Ministry of Attorney General, began working on a project to reform the legislation in the area of wills and estates back in 2003 and actually presented their initial report to the Ministry of Attorney General and a first draft of legislation in June of 2006.

Part of the advantage of working as closely as we did with the B.C. Law Institute was the ability to attract extremely high calibre volunteers from the legal community and leading academics, people who spent a lot of their professional life working in this area of the law and turning their minds to some of the issues that arise when discussing wills, estates and succession law.

In fact, the chair of the project committee for the project tells me that he estimates that we, the chamber and ultimately the people of the province of British Columbia, are the beneficiaries of in excess of $1 million worth of pro bono volunteer work on the part of the professionals, the men and women who contributed to this project.

To return to the actual legislation, the purpose of the Wills, Estates and Succession Act is to repeal and replace
[ Page 480 ]
four existing statutes and to move a significant amount of three other pieces of legislation into one consolidated legal framework, a legal instrument for wills, estates and succession law so that for practitioners and the public — those people who from time to time have an interest, and I suppose at some point we all do — there is essentially one place people can look to acquire a much better and more comprehensive idea of what the law around wills and succession and estates is in the province of British Columbia.

Perhaps not the most gripping or exciting topic that one can discuss or that we will discuss in this chamber, but it is worth saying that it is an essential element of the body of law that governs society and our interaction as individuals, and in this province we had some particularly archaic provisions that in many cases were outdated or of limited use and utility. It's an area of the law that's been long in need of modernization. I seem to recall a predecessor to the Law Institute, the law commission of British Columbia, calling for reform even as I was embarking upon the practice of law in the 1980s.

[1010]

The bill before us makes the law more accessible to the public, in my view, by both consolidating the law and adopting modern drafting practices. I'll just summarize a couple of the key amendments that I believe and the government believes will be of benefit to the public.

The legislation adds a simplified process for administering estates under the value of $50,000. There is a curative power that allows the court to recognize non-compliant documents as wills on application to the court. The legislation clarifies that upon death, the benefits from a person's RRSPs and similar plans do not form part of the deceased's estate and cannot be claimed by creditors, so there is an element of protection for the estate where RRSPs and similar plans are concerned.

There is a new distribution scheme for intestacy estates, which gives spouses a greater share of the estate in the event that a person dies without a will. Upon the recommendation of the Law Institute, we have replaced the problematic life estate with, arguably, I believe, a more sensible system that protects spouses but better reflects modern commercial realities.

As I've mentioned, the act replaces four existing statutes and part of three other statutes. Therefore, the benefits I have just mentioned are but a few of the benefits that will accrue and improvements that I believe this statute makes to the body of law governing wills, estates and succession.

L. Krog: I'm delighted to rise on second reading debate in this bill today.

It wasn't entirely unexpected. We've certainly had one of the two great certainties in life, which is taxes, presented through the budget, and now we're dealing with the second great certainty of life, death, through the Wills, Estates and Succession Act. That was a joke, for my friends who didn't recognize it.

I can't help but suggest that the rumour that there was great concern around the cabinet table, because when the Premier saw the term "Succession Act" there, he thought it might have something to do with his continued leadership and was surprised it was in fact not true.... It's only a rumour.

This is very timely. Those of us in the profession who have practised in this area have recognized for years that reform was required. It was long overdue.

I, too, want to pay respects to and offer my thanks for the incredible work of the B.C. Law Institute, under the able direction of Jim Emmerton. That organization has worked very hard to ensure that the profession was widely consulted; that there was an opportunity for public input with respect to this bill; and that it represents, indeed, what it is supposed to, which is reform of an area of law which, as the Attorney General alluded to, has been so long established that it's hard to remember.

Many of the provisions relating to the execution of wills go back to 1837, the Wills Act in England. That law was adopted across Canada.

There were also some changes that I think are extremely important and that law students first recognize when they take wills and estates at university, and that is those dreadful situations where, clearly, the intentions and the wishes of a deceased person could not be recognized because there was not strict compliance with the Wills Act, situations which no court was in a position to remedy — had no authority and no basis. Therefore, this statute represents a significant reform in that area.

As the Attorney General has also pointed out, it wisely recognizes the reality of the modern world. The concept of a life estate in the family home dependent on the time of the death of the testator, or of the deceased — I should say the deceased, not the testator; there's no will — was in fact extremely problematic.

Giving a life estate to someone when they are 60 or 70 may make sense, but a life estate in a family home encumbered by a mortgage to a young widow may not in fact have made any sense at all.

In recognition of changing economic circumstances, upping the amount available to the spouse of a deceased person in an intestacy situation, again, is long overdue. But this does represent a significant change in the law, and it has to be recognized as such.

[1015]

My understanding is that the government's intention is not to bring the act into effect until at least 12 to 18 months after proclamation. The reason for that, I think, is apparent. Numerous practitioners across this province are going to have to acquaint themselves with the changes in this legislation and prepare their clients. Indeed, one could cheekily argue that this may be a great boon for the legal profession in the province, who will be calling in all their clients with existing wills to advise
[ Page 481 ]
them of changes to the law that may in fact impact on their own estates and their intentions.

I think another great reform in this bill is around the Survivorship and Presumption of Death Act as well. The law historically has been that where two persons died in a situation where it could not be determined who perished first, the younger was presumed to have survived the elder. Now, it may have provided a nice, clean way of dealing with the situation, but it often wasn't terribly fair in terms of the disposition of parties' estates. Again, this bill represents significant reform.

But as the old saying goes, the devil is very much in the details. This is a significant change. It is a large bill in every sense of the word.

I place the Attorney General on notice — and I'm sure he's expecting it — that it is my intention to ask numerous questions during the course of this — not to drag out the debate, but because I think it is extremely important that a bill of this nature, which really will impact on every British Columbian at some time in their lives, as opposed to some of the legislation we pass here....

It is important that there be a clear understanding of what this legislation will mean, what effect it will have on British Columbians and what impact it will have on the practice of law in this province in terms of lawyers advising their clients, and notaries as well.

With that, I'm happy to support this in the general sense. I look forward to committee stage of this bill, and I'm sure the Attorney General does as well.

Mr. Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, the Attorney General closes debate.

Hon. M. de Jong: I'm obliged to the hon. Member, the opposition critic, for his comments. We'll have a chance to canvass all of the issues that he has raised and may wish to raise in committee.

I move second reading of the bill.

Motion approved.

Hon. M. de Jong: I move that Bill 4 be referred to a Committee of the Whole House to be considered at the next sitting after today.

Bill 4, Wills, Estates and Succession Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. M. de Jong: I, with leave, call the motion that has been provided to my friend the hon. Opposition House Leader, which has the effect of creating Committee A for the purpose of Section A and Section B for the purpose of considering the estimates for the present sitting of the current session.

Leave granted.

Motions Without Notice

COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY
TO SIT IN TWO SECTIONS

Hon. M. de Jong: My only comment, rather than reading out the motion, would be to assure members that it replicates the motion that was tabled earlier this spring.

Mr. Speaker: Attorney, are you moving the motion now?

Hon. M. de Jong: And I move the motion, Mr. Speaker.

[Be it resolved that this House hereby authorizes the Committee of Supply for this Session to sit in two sections designated Section A and Section B; Section A to sit in such Committee Room as may be appointed from time to time, and Section B to sit in the Chamber of the Assembly, subject to the following rules:

1. The Standing Orders applicable to the Committee of the Whole House shall be applicable in both Sections of the Committee of Supply save and except that in Section A, a Minister may defer to a Deputy Minister to permit such Deputy to reply to a question put to the Minister.

2. All Estimates shall stand referred to Section A, save and except those Estimates as shall be referred to Section B on motion without notice by the Government House Leader, which motion shall be decided without amendment or debate and be governed by Practice Recommendation #6 relating to Consultation.

3. Section A shall consist of 20 Members, being 12 Members of the B.C. Liberal Party and 7 Members of the New Democratic Party and one Independent. In addition, the Deputy Chair of the Committee of the Whole, or his or her nominee, shall preside over the debates in Section A. Substitution of Members will be permitted to Section A with the consent of that Member’s Whip, where applicable, otherwise with the consent of the Member involved. For the first session of the Thirty-ninth Parliament, the Members of Section A shall be as follows: the Minister whose Estimates are under consideration and Messrs. Dalton, Hogg, Les, Hayer, Horne, Lake, Lee, Letnick, and Ms. Cadieux, McIntyre, Thornthwaite, and Messrs. Bains, Chouhan, Farnworth, Fraser and Mmes. Corrigan, D. Black and Hammell and Ms. Huntington.

4. At fifteen minutes prior to the ordinary time fixed for adjournment of the House, the Chair of Section A will report to the House. In the event such report includes the last vote in a particular ministerial Estimate, after such report has been made to the House, the Government shall have a maximum of eight minutes, and the Official Opposition a maximum of five minutes, and all other Members (cumulatively) a maximum of three minutes to summarize the Committee debate on a particular ministerial Estimate completed, such summaries to be in the following order:

(1) Other Members;

(2) Opposition; and

(3) Government.

5. Section B shall be composed of all Members of the House.

6. Divisions in Section A will be signalled by the ringing of the division bells four times.

7. Divisions in Section B will be signalled by the ringing of the division bells three times at which time proceedings in Section A will be suspended until completion of the division in Section B.

8. Section A is hereby authorized to consider Bills referred to Committee after second reading thereof and the Standing Orders applicable to Bills in Committee of the Whole shall be applicable to such Bills during consideration thereof in Section A, and for all purposes Section A shall be deemed to be a Committee of the Whole. Such referrals to Section A shall be made upon motion
[ Page 482 ]
without notice by the Minister responsible for the Bill, and such motion shall be decided without amendment or debate. Practice Recommendation #6 relating to Consultation shall be applicable to all such referrals.

9. Bills or Estimates previously referred to a designated Committee may at any stage be subsequently referred to another designated Committee on motion of the Government House Leader or Minister responsible for the Bill as hereinbefore provided by Rule Nos. 2 and 8.]

Motion approved.

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

Budget Debate

(continued)

T. Lake: I am pleased to be able to continue my response to the budget that I started yesterday. I basically started yesterday by referring to a letter to the editor in the Kamloops Daily News, which, if I could sum up and paraphrase, was that we know the world is what it is. Let's pull together as a province in a positive manner and address the problems that we see in front of us and move forward. This is what this budget does. It moves forward in a positive manner.

[H. Bloy in the chair.]

We all know that our situation is drastically different than it was a year ago. We've seen that across North America and, in fact, around the world where government revenues have plummeted. We've seen Alberta go from an $8 billion projected surplus to a nearly $7 billion deficit.

[1020]

So this budget is concerned that we do have to go into a deficit, but that's a reality that we're facing. But it does preserve the critical core services in health care and education as well as over $400 million added for social services and assisting those that face the greatest challenges of the economic downturn.

But it also looks to the future and says: "What can we do to make our province even stronger in the future so that we don't have perhaps as many ups and downs as we've been subjected to over the years?" One of the key components, of course, is the harmonized sales tax.

It is a system which, as mentioned by my colleague the Minister of Forests and Range, is employed in 29 of 30 OECD countries around the world and almost all of the G8 countries as well. It's a system that removes the cascading, embedded sales tax system that we currently have, which adds $2 billion worth of costs to business that finally get passed on to the consumer and makes us less competitive with our friends around the world.

Of course, being an exporting and trading province, it's very critical that we be competitive with those other jurisdictions. With Ontario moving to this system, it became clear that British Columbia would be at a competitive disadvantage if we didn't do the same thing. So of course, it came suddenly, but we are moving ahead positively.

I must say that I was proud to have the Minister of Finance in Kamloops last week, when he was able to speak to numerous groups about this harmonized sales tax system and the way it would change business and the way we do business around the province. We met with the chartered accountants. We met with city council. We met with the chamber of commerce — and I must say, a very good turnout at the chamber of commerce.

In all of those meetings the Finance Minister did an excellent job explaining all of the technical aspects of the HST and the benefits to business and also to consumers with this new system, which removes that embedded cascading provincial sales tax. I must say some very good questions were asked and answered very well. I think the result was that there's a lot more clarity and a lot more comfort with this new harmonized sales tax that will come into effect in July of 2010.

Now, I know there has been some concern raised from the opposition. I heard the member for Columbia River–Revelstoke yesterday quote a senior who was concerned about the impact the HST would have on his finances as he goes through his daily spending. The senior constituent apparently came up with a number of about $1,050.

I want to just say that a lot of times when these kinds of figures are quoted, conveniently left off are all of the measures in the budget that mitigate the effects of the HST on the most vulnerable in society — for instance, the decrease in the MSP premiums for low-income British Columbians, the HST rebate. Over $1.1 million will go out in rebates to low-income British Columbians, many of whom are seniors.

The increase in the basic personal exemption before anyone starts paying tax is going to make a big difference for lower-income British Columbians — in fact, to the point where over 325,000 people living in British Columbia will no longer pay any personal provincial income tax.

When you add all that in, the average senior couple making $30,000 a year will actually have a savings of $228 per year. So it's really important, when we talk about this policy and we talk about this budget, that all the facts are laid out, that the people understand, that we don't spread confusion and fear, that we talk about all of the things in the budget that help the most vulnerable in society, and there are many of those things in the budget.

Of course, the HST certainly is a way to improve the business investment climate in British Columbia. We've heard from the opposition that this government has provided no support for forest workers. Yet the biggest single thing we can do for the forest industry is remove the provincial sales tax system and replace it with the
[ Page 483 ]
harmonized tax system, which allows for input tax credits. My colleague the Minister of Forests and Range gave a very good example of a logging truck, in which he would save over $30,000 in costs.

[1025]

If you're a worker for Canfor in Vavenby and all of a sudden you've lost your job, at least temporarily, because of the downturn, this is a very positive prospect. The introduction of the HST will convince companies like Canfor to invest in that mill, to upgrade that mill to ensure the long-term viability, and 200 jobs in the Clearwater area will be much safer long term with a more competitive forest industry.

Over $140 million worth of input tax credits going to the forestry industry. That will make us very competitive on the world stage. When those housing markets come back, as we see them starting to in the United States already and across Canada, the British Columbia forest industry will be well positioned to take advantage of that.

I had the pleasure of touring the new Interfor mill in Adams Lake recently. There we have a wonderful $100 million investment in the forest industry that is making the best of our timber that's affected by the mountain pine beetle.

The machinery is high-tech so that it can check for all of the defects in the wood and figure out the optimal way to cut the wood so that every bit of that fibre is utilized in the best possible way. That makes that mill extremely competitive on the world stage, and certainly they're going to be going full bore once the U.S. housing market starts to come back, as we've seen it start to already.

The work that we're doing overseas to develop new markets. Of course, we always talk about diversifying our economy. British Columbia is sometimes subject to world pressures, as many jurisdictions across Canada are since we are an exporting nation, and we need to diversify our economy in terms of the forest industry. This government has worked very hard to do that in Asia, for instance, where the promotion of British Columbia wood has resulted in China surpassing Japan as the second-leading importer of British Columbia wood.

On a recent trip to China, as the former mayor of Kamloops, I was very honoured to be included in a business excursion with Domtar, which is a company that has a very, very good pulp mill in the city of Kamloops — employs over 400 people. Their families are supported by those very well-paying jobs.

It was an honour for me to sit with the Domtar officials and talk to their customers in China that use their pulp for a different array of paper products in that country. That market is extremely important to the forest industry, and we know that it will grow and make us much less dependent on just one market in the U.S.

I want to talk just a little bit about Domtar in Kamloops, because it is certainly a plant that has been under pressure, as the pulp industry across North America and in fact the world…. There are only 30 active pulp mills around the world. That was new information for me — only 30 pulp mills around the world. So to have a successful pulp mill in the city of Kamloops is something that I know the city is very happy to have. They pay their taxes, they are great corporate citizens, and they employ over 400 direct jobs and many, many hundreds more indirect jobs.

But one of the reasons they have become so viable is from the diversification that we've been talking about. They don't just rely on selling pulp anymore; they sell electricity as well.

They have a cogeneration plant, an independent power project that takes waste products from around the Thompson and Okanagan region — in fact, into the Cariboo — to make sure that they generate clean electricity. That has resulted in three beehive burners closing down in our valleys, improving air quality, making this pulp mill more viable, keeping 400 families with well-paying jobs and many, many more through indirect jobs — an independent power project that the opposition is not in favour of. They have continually criticized against the privatization and the viability of our industries.

This opposition seems to think that jobs appear out of thin air instead of knowing what most people know — that industry and business create jobs. The jobs provide well-paying salaries for union and non-union people around this province. Those jobs don't just magically appear. They appear because we set an economic climate that encourages investment so that risk-takers like Domtar and Canfor and mining companies will put their money here in British Columbia rather than somewhere else.

[1030]

Teck Cominco has a very large copper and molybdenum mine near Logan Lake — over 900 employees, half of whom live in the city of Kamloops. The average wage at that mine is $90,000 a year — $90,000 a year. You can imagine the contribution that makes to the Kamloops regional economy. It is absolutely huge.

That mine is going extremely well because of the investment climate that we've created here in British Columbia, because of the markets that are created around the world. In fact, they are looking for 40 more people to work at Highland Valley copper — 40 more people at $90,000 a year. I think that's a really good news story, and we can expect more of that in the mining sector because of the reduction in input costs associated with our new HST policy.

But there's no question that finances are tight. We don't have the level of income that we've had in the previous number of years, and that's just a reality. So while protecting core services like health care and education, making sure that social assistance is maintained for those that are most vulnerable to the economy, we have to look at ways to tighten. We have to look at ways to make government more efficient, to choose programs that are
[ Page 484 ]
going to help the most vulnerable and the most number of people, and those make for some hard choices.

The opposition has been critical of every reduction in spending, but they have never put forward any kind of positive suggestion on how they would deal with a deficit, a reduction in finances. Throughout the election they said that they would find an additional $1.2 billion worth of savings, but I've yet to hear how they would do that. Yet every time we demonstrate how we are trying to reduce the cost of government, they are criticizing the way in which we're doing it.

For instance, the gaming revenue. Certainly, we have taken a look at that and set priorities. The priorities for gaming are programs that support low-income and disabled British Columbians, programs that provide food, shelter and support for at-risk individuals, programs that support community health services — in other words, programs that really support the vulnerable people in society. I don't think there's anything to be ashamed of by making choices.

You know, when times are good, certainly there are individuals and groups that will benefit from that in terms of gaming grants. But I have no problem going to the Kamloops Recreational Soccer League, of which I'm an active and happy member, and telling them: "You know what? There's no money for your operations." Times are a little bit tighter, and we have to use that money to help those who really need it rather than those who can get by without it at this point in time.

The member for Vancouver-Hastings was talking about gaming policy and criticizing the government for the use of gaming funds and talking about the problem gambling situation that we all know is out there in a small number of people who take part in gambling activities. I certainly don't want to make light of that. In fact, I want to point out that the B.C. Lottery Corporation is a leader in self-identification and providing the assistance necessary to those who may have problems with gambling.

I found it a little bit ironic, I suppose, that the member was talking about the evils of gambling and gambling expansion when in fact a lot of that expansion happened under the NDP government. The official opposition includes a member who was a senior government bureaucrat during that administration, who later formed a consulting company who lobbied Vancouver city council to put 600 slot machines — a huge expansion — at the Plaza of Nations. To use the member for Vancouver-Hastings's own words, if that's not cynical, I don't know what is.

Making choices is not easy sometimes. We were elected to make those hard choices, and that's what we will do. We'll do it in a positive way, not in a negative way. A positive way is like working with the ranching community. I'm very proud to be co-chair of the Ranching Task Force and to provide opportunities for input about how we can make that ranching industry sustainable in the province of British Columbia.

[1035]

In the meantime, while we're working towards those new ideas, there's over $5½ million in partnership with the federal government for replacing fences throughout the province and another $6 million committed in 2010 and beyond for railway and highway fencing to make sure that, obviously, the cattle are protected and the people on the roads and rails are protected as well. There's over $3½ million to combat noxious weed problems throughout the province. We know that ranchers are some of the best stewards of the environment that we have.

These measures help support ranching in our province, and we're going to go further than that. We're going to look at what we can do in terms of regulations, in terms of policy, to make ranchers' lives a little easier, to make their bottom line better and to make sure that their future generations will want to take on the ranching operations and continue to provide all of the world with B.C.'s best beef.

I also want to talk about what we're doing for local governments….

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Member.

G. Gentner: I rise here today to primarily take an analysis of this budget, particularly from the perspective of Delta. I have to say that this budget isn't worth a wooden nickel. It certainly is a piece of paper that has been built on deception. It is nothing but a spurious, deceitful, phony budget that's been presented to us, it seems to me, by nothing but a bunch of snake oil salespeople. That is exactly what we're seeing here.

They've tried to bamboozle us. Here we are today dealing with a budget that is trying to cheat the people of British Columbia into believing something that they said during the election. It certainly isn't what is being delivered here today.

I have to start by…. Let's just back up here, and let's quote the Minister of Finance on June 11. He said: "If I were in a position to table a budget today, it would be a deficit of $495 million or less. I'm still confident that come September 1, we'll be able to deliver on that."

Then, lo and behold, on August 25, just before the budget, the minister states: "It was only as we got into May and June" — June, the same time when he said previously that he could commit the $495 million — "that the forecasters started to diminish their numbers for 2009."

We know the falseness of that statement. We know the months and months and months of preparatory work that goes into presenting a budget. The government was certainly aware, and it's admitted it today, that it did know the numbers.

Briefly, let me talk about balanced budgets. Tommy Douglas, who served for 18 years in Saskatchewan…. An ardent democratic socialist, for 18 years of government he balanced the budget 16 years, and he inherited debt like you haven't seen before since the Great Depression.
[ Page 485 ]

Interjections.

G. Gentner: I will talk about the '90s.

Since the Depression….

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members. Members.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members. Member for Fraser-Nicola.

Take your seat, Member.

Would the member for Coquitlam-Maillardville please refrain from making remarks.

Member, please continue. Please direct all your comments through the Chair. If everyone else would respect the person who has the floor so that we may all hear.

[1040]

G. Gentner: It's interesting how this House, or some members of this House, deny the fact that probably, without question, Canada's greatest Canadian balanced the budget every year except for two. The two years were based on trying to deal with farmers' debt inherited over a huge Depression era.

Let's quickly look at the budgets and what happened during the '90s. Let's compare them to today. In 2000-2001, when this government inherited it, the so-called provincial debt of the NDP was $34 billion. At the end of this debt cycle, we will be seeing a debt of over $52 billion.

You know, times are good. Did they put together a rainy-day fund, like we see in Manitoba, or a fund for forest workers? Or did they look at what's happened in other provinces? No, they were like drunken sailors — spend, spend, spend. The debt has increased year after year after year.

We had about $1.4 billion of revenue coming from forestry during the NDP. These guys have mismanaged this economy so badly that we're now down to less than $400 million. It's an absolute disgrace. And you know what? We have seen for years a decade of deceit, a decade of falseness, a phony apparatus across the way that is in denial of the fact that they have mismanaged this economy.

What do we have today? We are indeed heading towards a structural deficit, where there'll be no return. There'll be no return. We're not just talking here today about a budget for the province alone but about the ongoing costs for other governments.

TransLink is through the roof, municipal governments are going to have a hard time, and this government has no answers. It's lost its way, and it certainly has lost the integrity and trust of the people of British Columbia.

The government has recognized that British Columbia has endured the hardest recession in 27 years, so it recognizes that things really weren't all that bad in the '90s. They were not bad at all.

But why are we in this situation? Well, we have a government here that will say: "When times are good, it's all because of us. When times are bad, well, it's because of the global economy." Why we are here in this situation is because of something called the credit crunch — the deregulation of credit, banking.

This is what the government has been foisting upon British Columbians for ten years, and we're seeing in the throne speech even more reference to deregulation. We'll be in a situation where we will have more debt piled upon debt because of a lack of oversight into how our finances are governed.

These are tough times. Families are worrying about their prospects. The scope of the economic crisis is hurting our expectations, and the government talks about the seismic economic shifts that have rocked our province, which have hurt our industries and are now leaving thousands and thousands of workers worried and unemployed.

Again, if ever there was a need for a rainy-day fund, it should be now, and this government has spent it all away.

It's really a matter of our approach and how we deal with budgets and how we deal with deficits. On this side — at least the member for Delta North believes — we should be putting money more into fixing and maintaining our infrastructure — fixing and maintaining, not spending it foolishly like we have with certain megaprojects.

I want to talk specifically about the South Fraser perimeter road.

An Hon. Member: Weren't you talking a year ago about…?

G. Gentner: I'm going to talk about the South Fraser perimeter road. I talked about it a year ago, I talked about it three years ago, and I will keep talking about it until we can wrestle this deficit.

We have a megaproject, well over a billion dollars and climbing. Now is the time to postpone this project, do a rethink and take the remaining dollars out of this capital no project and put it into operating expenses that help people in this province.

It's a matter of priorities. This is not stimulus, this project. This is nothing but a sinking hole. It's a throwaway of money.

[1045]

The government states in the throne speech: "Shrinking revenues will by necessity curtail our discretionary spending." Well, discretionary spending for this bunch is a matter of politics. They choose whether they want to cut here or cut there — cut women's services, provide services to poor, provide money for schools. That's all discretionary. But it's also political.
[ Page 486 ]

The member from south Kamloops asked us how we can find $1.2 billion. I just told you. It's a matter of priorities.

We know that this government is in trouble. It certainly talked about the possibility of cutting away the retractable roof at $365 million. That is a decision, a capital project, where perhaps you'll return to it. But now is not the time for that flagrant expense.

But instead the mentality here…. We certainly have to replace the roof. But $365 million for a retractable roof — now is not the time. Now is the time to fix and maintain our economy where the money is most dear.

Unfortunately, this government sort of has a freeway burger mentality. You know, it's going through the drive-through in the 1960s. The fiscal cupboard is bare, but they still believe in the big-fin cars, big freeways. They believe in the Styrofoam containers and throwing them out the window. That's what this government is all about.

It certainly isn't to find savings and invest in people. It is here to invest in programs for the wealthy and, above all, international corporations — not in the province or the people.

In my community of North Delta we'd rather see the money spent on programs that affect seniors. We would rather see money spent on our children. We'd rather see our money spent on libraries and health care. We'd rather see money spent on post-secondary education — far more dear to us than the completion of the South Fraser perimeter road.

The Liberal government, when times were good, didn't properly plan for the future. You know, global trade has collapsed, and now is the time to rethink what we're doing here with that kind of megaproject.

Globalization has collapsed. Some 80 percent of the ships in Singapore are tied up. You go talk to our longshoremen about trade, what's happening out there. We are falling behind. It's a whole different world. The Vancouver Sun reported on February 6, 2009, that retail container traffic at the port of Metro Vancouver is expected to drop by 15.6 percent the first year as part of a survey of U.S. and Canadian ports in wake of the global economic downturn — from industry watcher Port Tracker reports.

As well, on April 7, 2009, the Vancouver Sun reported that early-year sales result in a 25 percent decline from 2008 and that the port of Metro Vancouver "is taking a hit from the slow-moving economy, with container traffic taking a hit. It's down sharply for the first month in 2009."

Considering the Port of Vancouver has started container traffic and it's down significantly, how can the Ministry of Transportation continue with this bulldozer approach with the South Fraser perimeter road without taking into consideration the new economy, the new global situation we're in?

We heard through the throne speech this great idea on the northern corridor and how the new emphasis is going to move containers and diversify the north. When you look at the congestion within the Lower Mainland, that diversification is a good thing. It's a good thing. It's a good thing to create a sustainable economy that recognizes the north and the savings of travel time, in particular that of the facilities of Prince Rupert.

[1050]

But when you look at the budget, the cuts that are happening and how they're going to disrupt people's lives…. The major cut of $1.17 million — to put it on the shelf for a while and earmark the money into other valuable necessary programs is the right thing to do. It's the right thing to do.

There are other alternatives. If we take a step back and look perhaps at what we could do, we should be looking at short sea shipping — the availability, and how we could earmark or use alternatives to move goods and services in the province at a huge cost savings.

We would be able to put money in for kids. We would be able to look at parent advisory committees and say: "We're not going to cut your grants. We found the money." We can put money into building a decent society.

The cuts to the environment and spending on a freeway…. What's the difference? When we compare and describe the South Fraser perimeter road, the impacts…. Let's look at what it's going to do to Burns Bog, what it's going to do to the agricultural land reserve.

Think of what in this budget you can do with more than $1 billion. At the South Fraser perimeter road we're going to see increased congestion. I'm urging the Minister of Transportation, the Minister of Finance and the Premier, again, to postpone the South Fraser perimeter road until a comprehensive transportation plan looks at the future global, national, regional trade cycles along with a thorough examination again of all practical, sustainable, inclusive options and concepts. I think that's reasonable.

With the recent announcement that some capital projects may be scrapped, I believe now is the time to earmark that money somewhere else. It's a matter of shifting priorities from the completion of some megaprojects and put that money into things such as housing, municipal infrastructure — stimulus that will stimulate the construction industry. It would be maintained.

A broad approach to the redistribution of investments will be a benefit to British Columbians through these tough and recessionary times. So what the South Fraser perimeter road means to the budget…. What does it really mean? Let's itemize the costs and the shipping expenditures according to our priorities. Let's look, for example, at river habitat that's going to be impacted here with this road.

Ravines — in my community there are eight of them — provide nourishment for salmon. Most of it is chum, but there are chinook in these areas there. There's cutthroat
[ Page 487 ]
at intertidal areas; there's eelgrass providing riparian habitat. At one time we used to have sturgeon up and down that river, up in Delta. It's gone.

How we've destroyed the foreshore. We had something called FREMP, which was a quasi-judicial body that looked at that kind of development. You look at the old records, and that was red-zoned, which meant no development along there. It's funny how the funding was cut on that program, and now the government is having its way.

We used to have canneries from Steveston all the way up to North Delta. Originally, you didn't even have to fish; you could pick the fish right out of the river. That's all gone. And what do we have today? We have a Premier that's now walking away from the mess of the fish farm industry that he and this government helped create. They're walking away.

The South Fraser perimeter road is receiving $350 million from the federal government for the international agenda of shipping companies. Can you imagine if you took that $350 million and put it into fisheries in this province — how we would rejuvenate the sport fisheries, the first nations fisheries, the commercial fisheries and, above all, tourism? That $350 million — you know what that could do? It would put us back on the map as a leader when it comes down to wild salmon.

We have a chance to save the Fraser River. We have an opportunity here to create a jewel within the urban and rural setting, and this government is letting it slip away. Just wait for the hazardous wastes that come speeding along the Fraser River's most sensitive environmental areas. It's madness; it's simply madness. There will be a calling that we will have to address later with a huge mop-up cost and environmental degradation.

The heritage of my community, Annieville and Sunbury, which is made up of the Finns and the Japanese and the Swedes…. These huge, wonderful, heritage-rich sites are going to be wiped out by this road. For a minuscule amount of money that we find in the South Fraser perimeter road, can you imagine what we could do for heritage in this province? We could revitalize it.

[1055]

Let's not forget about the first nations. Did you know that along the Fraser River, we have two archaeological sites? One in particular is Glenrose. It is the oldest archaeological wet site in North America — 8,500 years ago. The first nations, as the glacial till was left behind and the ice age was receding…. The mouth of the river was not Richmond. Richmond didn't exist back then. It was indeed….

Interjection.

G. Gentner: Here's a member who doesn't care about first nations history. This member does not care about first nations.

Deputy Speaker: Member, please direct all your comments through the Chair.

G. Gentner: Absolutely. It's obvious, Mr. Chair, that this government does not give a hoot about aboriginal history. They're going to wipe out the most significant archaeological site in the province.

An Hon. Member: They think it's a joke.

G. Gentner: They think it is a joke. Well, it's not a joke.

For the minuscule amount of money that we're spending on the South Fraser perimeter road…. We could divert that money and put it into heritage.

Pollution. You know, the pollution budgets have been slashed. They've delegated authority to Metro Vancouver. Unfortunately, the regional government has no teeth to implement that.

Could you imagine if we stopped the accumulation of the smog and pollution from the South Fraser perimeter road by investing $50 million, or just 5 percent of that budget, into children with respiratory needs, those who have asthma? Can you imagine if we took that $50 million and put it into cancer research?

A $15 million cut I hear of today to the Michael Smith Foundation. We could easily divert that money. What's more important — fighting cancer, or a freeway?

Of this budget, 40 percent is for land acquisition, making it the greatest accumulation of land in the history of the province, and we're wiping out the most valuable farmland this province has in production. Land along the river could be used for preservation, parks, sustainable development. Some of the most fantastic vistas overlooking the Fraser River — wiped out, nuked.

Could you imagine if we took 40 percent, or the $400 million, and invested it instead into farming? That could cover the Minister of Agriculture's cuts for four to five years. If you want to fight climate change, you start by producing local and buying local food. You don't wipe it out.

That still leaves you with $350 million to $400 million. Think about it. We can put it into real stimulus — real stimulus. Advanced Education — $68 million cut. Some 5 percent of the total of the South Fraser perimeter road could enhance advanced education. Again, agriculture has been cut by $75 million. Again, we can take it from this ridiculous project that's really going nowhere.

The member for Surrey-Fleetwood talked about leaky roofs, and this government's solution is buckets. Leaky roofs in schools, and their idea is: "Oh, we'll give them a bucket." If we took some money off — we're looking at $135 million, one-tenth — of the South Fraser perimeter road into real priorities…. That's education. We wouldn't be in the mess we are.

[L. Reid in the chair.]
[ Page 488 ]

It's all about priorities. It's about what's dear and what's important to British Columbians. I can talk about North Delta. North Delta has had an application way back on February 19, 2009, for the Sungod Recreation expansion project. It's what my community wants — not necessarily the South Fraser perimeter road, but, you know, a stimulus package. We would provide 3,500 square feet to up to 7,000 for recreation that would push capacity for another 50,000 population capacity-wise — a cost share of $4.3 million.

The municipality has heard nothing from this government — nothing. They're waiting. They've been waiting for a long time. But the priorities are very different for this government.

We can look at the stimulus packages. We can say that B.C. stands to lose $400 million in federal handouts because they're behind the game.

[1100]

We have a Premier who, way back in 2008, said: "We vow to accelerate spending on government infrastructure." That was October 22, 2008. He said the same thing in '09. The clock is ticking on these projects, and we still haven't had any resolve. We're going to lose out. The good thing about the cost share with the municipalities is it's 33 percent — 33 percent buys you 100 percent — one-third, one-third cost share.

You know, Manitoba, a different municipality. Interesting, Manitoba has had ten balanced budgets, including this one, and they had a reserve fund to bail them out in times like that. That's an NDP government — interesting. They went for a stimulus package — $227 million; the feds $100 million. It went right into housing, low-income households.

They snapped that money up right away. They didn't dally around. They created a stimulus package and jobs. The government knew about all these deadlines. I don't blame all the members across the way. They weren't here in the spring when all this stimulus money was being talked about, so I'm going to excuse them.

But you know what? When you're looking at 33 cents on the dollar…. That's what it costs you. Half of these members, particularly half of the members of cabinet, who are denying the fact that they knew nothing about this and that we're going to get on with…. Either they're not telling the truth or they're just plain stupid. What is it? Are they stupid?

Interjections.

G. Gentner: I'll take it back. I'll withdraw. Not half of them are stupid. They're all incompetent.

I recently was up at the Flathead, another disgrace in the world's eyes. We now have the United Nations coming and seeing what's happening there. I was up there, up in the Montana area. I took in the river. I talked to park officials at the glacier park, and they're betwixt as to why this B.C. government would turn its back on some agreements that were basic understanding memos years ago.

I was also at the PNWER Boise conference, and I would like to thank the gracious hosting by the member for Abbotsford South. His speedy hosting was most welcome. But unfortunately, it seemed to me it was more like a Republican orgy there. It was incredible dealing with…. And there were some Saskatchewan party Conservatives there and of course the B.C. Liberals. It was a love-in. Many were there hopeful to see Sarah Palin, and of course she wasn't there at all.

I have to say this about Sarah Palin. At least she's had the moxie and fortitude not to welcome fish farms in Alaska. We've got to say that one thing. I mean, she makes this bunch look like Genghis Khan when they start talking about right-wing politics. It's incredible, absolutely.

We listened to a presentation done by Plutonic. They were down there. It was interesting. I was sitting beside some of these Republicans, and they were cringing. They couldn't believe that we were allowing this to happen.

Oregon. With their stimulus money, they're putting it into renewable energy — wind power, solar power. They couldn't believe that we would allow in British Columbia energy to be generated at a time when the rivers are running and, the same thing, we're competing with hydroelectricity. In fact, they were perplexed, because in the wintertime they had it already solved. When we're at a low premium, demanding need for electricity in the wintertime, they have it. They have it now with wind power. We're so far behind the eight ball on that one.

Hon. Speaker, I wish I had more time, because I could start talking about priorities. Some of the priorities are when…. I usually give you my annual report on credit card expenditures. I mean, the Minister of Finance and the Premier's office have merged their credit card numbers. I don't know why that is. I guess the Premier's office wanted to hide behind the Finance Ministry. But it's interesting to see that between 2007 and '08 to 2008-09, it went over a million dollars at a time when since October this government knew it was in fiscal trouble.

[1105]

You know, I can go on about all the expenditures: the nightclubbing; Ric's Grill, Prince George — $3,000, the one entry.

Bikes — $2,800 for bikes. I don't see any bikes. I don't see the Premier riding up here on his bicycle. Bikes? Obviously he wants to get it done before the HST kicks in. Can you imagine $2,800 on bikes? I don't see any of the members opposite riding their bikes here to work, you know.

Movie theatres. Can you imagine $225 to go out and see movies at your expense? There's another one that's going to be hit by the HST. Absolutely incredible, the country-club attitude over there, and they have the gall
[ Page 489 ]
and nerve to tell everybody else in the province to tighten their belts. Balderdash. It's a betrayal. They certainly aren't telling the truth on that side.

I'll end it with a notion that is interesting. Up on the Sunshine Coast the Premier has his annual little get-together at the Rockwater Secret Cove — $6,000 at Halfmoon Bay. Fine dining, Madam Speaker, at a time when everybody else is cutting back — fine dining indeed.

You know, half a block away is his good friend Bill Good flipping burgers for him. I mean, this is the type of attitude we are putting up with in this province, and it stinks. It stinks.

We've got to make some changes, and we will make changes when we're government. We will put together a fiscal policy, and I can tell you right now that on this side we're already working on the transition. We're working on it, because heaven help us that we have to put up with another four years of deficit and deceit.

R. Sultan: I believe "not telling the truth" is not parliamentary language.

Deputy Speaker: I thank the member. While the tone may not have been the most respectful, the language was, in fact, parliamentary.

J. van Dongen: I'm pleased today to speak in this budget debate and the update of September 1. But first, thank you to the voters of Abbotsford South for their continuing support. It is a privilege to serve my constituents, and I do so with the energy and the enthusiasm that the job requires and deserves.

Thanks are also in order for all those who worked on my election campaign. I especially want to express my deep appreciation to Sherri Wacker, who has become a close friend and confidante and who has been unreserved in her dedication to our constituents of Abbotsford South. She has been actively supporting me for over 12 years, and her commitment to providing constituents with the best of service has been invaluable. I also want to give an honourable mention to her son Lukas because he has made certain sacrifices to allow his mother to do her job.

One other individual that stands out from the crowd as well is my good friend Jim Matheson, who has gone to some unusual measures to assist me at election time. So Jim, to you and Ted and your staff and friends, thank you so very much for everything that you have done for me during the last two elections.

I ran for the position of MLA in my community because I enjoy the work of serving people, and every day brings new issues and new challenges. Thank you to my son Stephen, who for the last ten years has worked for Microsoft in Redmond, Washington, but who did apply some of his phenomenal computer skills in my earlier elections.

Thank you to my younger son Peter and his wife, Clarice Springford, who reside in Parksville. He works in business development for a major accounting firm, and Clarice is a stay-at-home mom for my granddaughter Janel, who is just over two years old and very precious.

[1110]

Peter and Clarice are exemplary, dedicated parents, and I appreciate the priority they give to family in their daily lives. They clearly demonstrate commitment to parenthood, more important than ever in our society today. And I say to all mothers and fathers: "Good on you for the job you do raising your children to be good citizens."

I want to thank my wife, Karen, who is a very private person and never much did like politics. Even though we have been separated for over three years, she continues to take an interest in my well-being. To my father, brothers and sister, their spouses and a host of nieces and nephews: "Thank you for being productive, contributing British Columbians."

I want to now turn my attention to the budget update. In reviewing the significant public concern about the budget and the decision by our government to enter into an agreement to implement HST, I see some key issues, including the following. Some of my constituents have stated that they believe that the government did deliberately understate the $495 million projected deficit, which was forecasted in the February budget. Some people believe that the government had a secret plan to enter into an HST agreement and that the motivation for that agreement was to get $1.6 billion from the federal government for the sole purpose of offsetting a growing deficit.

Some of my constituents also have expressed that they believe that the Minister of Finance, the Premier and the government knew during and after the election that the deficit would be much higher than the $495 million forecasted in February, and some of my constituents believe, depending on their situation, that they will be worse off under an HST policy and, therefore, HST will be bad for them and bad for British Columbia.

These are serious allegations that have been expressed by citizens and constituents, but the most serious of these concerns, though, is not whether or not HST is good policy or what the deficit is. The most serious concern that some people have is whether or not the government, the Premier and our Minister of Finance have integrity in what they have said and what we have done.

Today I want to speak very specifically to what I know and what I believe with respect to the issue of integrity on these issues. So what do I know? I do know that almost exactly one year ago today, the U.S. and the world economy entered into one of the most unstable, recessionary and unpredictable periods of time in my memory, which unfortunately, is getting to be close to 50 years. I do remember major recessions in the 1980s
[ Page 490 ]
and early 1970s, but experts have said that this recession dates back in severity to 1929.

I know how the normal budget process of government works through the fall of each year with a very wide net of consultation and following a very systematic and experienced process led by career public servants in the Ministry of Finance. I know that normally all the budget numbers for a new February budget are finalized in the preceding December.

I know that this past year, due to the very high level of uncertainty and the continuing volatility of the numbers, that the Minister of Finance delayed the finalization of the budget numbers as long as possible into January. I know that there was a great deal of concern about whether or not the government would actually be able to meet its legal and political commitment to a balanced budget for the 2008-2009 fiscal year, despite the fact that less than six months earlier we had a projection of a $2 billion surplus, for which we were often criticized.

I recall the Premier saying in January that for the Minister of Finance to meet our legal target of a balanced budget for the year ending March 31, 2009, it was the equivalent of the Minister of Finance jumping out of an airplane at 30,000 feet, free falling for a bit and then hitting a target the size of a dinner plate.

I know that in building its budget forecasts, the minister and the ministry, besides doing their own forecasting, also assemble the economic forecasts of twelve credible outside economists, including Helmut Pastrick of the Central 1 Credit Union. The minister used the average of these twelve forecasts and reduced it by another 0.9 percentage point to add an element of conservatism, as our government has always done.

[1115]

The Ministry of Finance relies heavily on industry sector projections for price and volumes of relevant commodities as well as many published Statistics Canada and federal government projections and forecasts.

It is important to bear in mind that the budget projections tabled in the spring budget had to be finalized this year in January and tabled in this House in February for a fiscal year that did not actually start until April 1. The September update and forecast of a $2.8 billion deficit includes an actual record of only the first quarter, the first three months of the fiscal year starting April 1.

I know that in June the federal government issued its regular update of personal, federal and provincial income tax revenue projections, including massive, previously unexpected reductions across the board in projected revenues. I also know that the price of natural gas is running at below $3 per gigajoule, which is much lower than anyone inside or outside the Ministry of Finance or the industry expected.

In fact, the price of natural gas has dropped from $9.33 a gigajoule in July of 2008 to $2.05 in June of 2009. This is after major instability, including three very large price spikes in the last eight years which all but destroyed demand for gas by major residential and industrial customers. At one time natural gas price projections were in the $9 to $10 range. Every time the price of natural gas has gone down by $1 a gigajoule, the B.C. government has lost $300 million in royalty income.

Page 8 of the three-year fiscal plan, which is available to everyone, sets out the projected revenue and expenditure changes that we now either know about or are forecasting based on the best information available at September 1, 2009, which is a long time from January in the economic chaos of the last eight or nine months.

I want to now refer to table 1.2 in the fiscal plan of September. This chart sets out revenue reductions that, as I said, have either been confirmed or forecast by our Ministry of Finance in comparing the February 17 budget target of $495 million with the deficit projected in this budget. Personal income tax revenues, down $881 million. Corporate income tax revenues, down $120 million. Both those numbers came from comparing the latest federal numbers from the numbers previously provided.

Social service tax revenue, down $240 million. Revenue from our forests, down $222 million. Natural gas royalties that I referred to, down almost $500 million. And revenues from energy, metals, minerals and other natural resources, down $339 million.

Combine all of this, and you're looking at $2.7 billion in additional revenue losses compared to February. We need to add to that the record costs of fighting forest fires — $347 million increase. Offsetting that are savings of $454 million in discretionary expenditures that our government made. We do include in this budget $750 million which represents the first instalment from the HST agreement.

What else do I know? I know two things for sure. Other governments in Canada and elsewhere have run very large deficits. And more importantly in terms of the discussion about integrity, all of them have had to revise their deficit numbers upwards as time went on during the last twelve months. Alberta, for example, a year ago forecasted an $8 billion surplus and in twelve months revised in different stages its projections to a $6.9 billion deficit. That is a swing of $15 billion as compared to British Columbia. If we move from a $2 billion surplus to a $2.8 billion deficit, that is a swing of less than one-third of Alberta's.

[1120]

Ontario. Currently the June-forecasted deficit is $18½ billion, but consider that in the past twelve months they have gone from a projection of a third consecutive surplus for '08-09 to a $3.9 billion deficit for '08-09 and moved from a $14.1 billion deficit for '09-2010 to the $18.5 billion current projection.

Our federal government has moved from an initial projection of $15.7 billion to a $33.7 billion deficit. Then,
[ Page 491 ]
when we included the stimulus package, it moved to a $50 billion deficit, and now the official projection for this fiscal year is $56 billion.

I also know that our government clearly and consciously made a deliberate decision to resist the notion that: "Well, we're going to be in a deficit anyway, so why not open it up and run a bigger deficit, keep the voters happy and make life easier on ourselves?" We didn't do that. In fact, we did just the opposite, and we are doing just the opposite today — working to build the economy, maximizing revenues, minimizing expenditures that do not meet core service needs for our citizens.

Our government continues to believe and to govern to ensure that we do not saddle our children and grandchildren with debts that they will not benefit from and did not incur.

I want to now talk about what I know and what I believe about the proposed agreement to implement the HST tax. HST as a possible tax policy has been in the background and in my consciousness for the last 14 years as a member of the B.C. Liberal caucus.

I clearly recall the advice of our then opposition critic for Finance, the member for Delta South, Fred Gingell — for newer members, an accountant, a founder of Mohawk Oil, a businessman who was well respected by both sides of the House. Mr. Gingell always advised us of at least two specific things with respect to HST. Firstly, clearly, there were efficiencies to be gained by merging provincial sales tax collection with the collection of federal GST tax, but secondly, we should never do that agreement if it meant that the combined tax for British Columbians would go up.

To this day our caucus has heeded and maintained Mr. Gingell's advice. So for the last eight years in government, among other things, our position on HST always was that if we had to increase our combined tax rate to enter an agreement, we would continue to decline the federal government's longstanding invitation.

Every year at budget time the Ministry of Finance specifically reviews the HST policy position to confirm that our position was the right one for British Columbia. As in previous years, the advice to the minister and the decision of the minister in February of '09 remained unchanged. It was not considered in B.C.'s best interests to enter an agreement if we had to increase our rate.

On March 26, 2009, the province of Ontario, a significant player in the Canadian Confederation, signed an agreement to harmonize their provincial and federal sales taxes. I know that on or about March 26 the federal government, based on the Ontario agreement, advised provinces that they were now prepared to provide flexibility, which they had previously consistently refused.

The two significant areas of flexibility offered after March 26, 2009, were that provinces could enter into an agreement today at less than the combined rate of 13 percent, which is the rate in all other provinces with an HST agreement and, secondly, that provinces would be allowed to exempt from HST products representing up to 5 percent of their total eligible taxable goods under GST.

That was on or about March 26. The B.C. provincial election started April 14. I can confirm for this House that I and, to the best of my knowledge, all of my cabinet colleagues were not aware prior to the election that the status of the HST option had changed in any way from the background status that it had for the previous 14 years.

I also believe that the Minister of Finance was generally aware of the Ontario negotiations and the conclusion of an agreement. I do not believe that the minister was aware of much detail, if any, of the specifics and their significance for British Columbians.

[1125]

Elections can be an interesting experience in more ways than one for an incumbent MLA and ministers. In an election no one is an MLA. For those 28 days, everyone is a candidate.

Secondly, cabinet ministers suspend their normal duties as cabinet ministers and are also campaigning for re-election. Deputy ministers run day-to-day management functions of government. As well, they focus on developing briefing binders on a very wide range of subjects for whoever forms the next government, irrespective of political party or individual named to cabinet post.

The Minister of Finance was still acting on an interim basis after May 12, but I know that before cabinet was appointed in early June he was given a very preliminary briefing on various issues, including HST, two or three days after the election on May 12. This led to a more detailed briefing later and a discussion with the Premier and a first conversation with the federal Minister of Finance. In that period of time the province was offered $1.6 billion in transition dollars to incent B.C. to enter into an HST agreement.

In addition, the province was told by the federal government that it would have to join in the HST agreement immediately if B.C. expected to implement at the same time — July 1, 2010 — as Ontario. If B.C. did not sign the agreement immediately and announce its intentions, the federal government said it would be at least one or two years down the road before implementation could be implemented.

The Minister of Finance advised the interim cabinet in the first few days of June and in a more detailed way after the new cabinet was appointed in early June, resulting in a cabinet decision for an announcement on July 23 that the B.C. government would enter into an HST agreement with the federal government.

I posed four serious concerns that British Columbians have. The first three have to do with integrity. The fourth has to do with whether or not the HST is good public policy. The lack of public confidence in the integrity of
[ Page 492 ]
government is something that really concerns me, and I don't take this issue lightly, nor does the rest of our government.

At this point I digress to a point in time in October 1994 when I was first thinking about running to be elected as an MLA. I said to a lawyer friend of mine, "I'm thinking about running to be an MLA," to which he cautiously said: "You might want to think about that. Honest guys generally don't survive in politics." To which I said to him: "Well, Barry, I appreciate your advice, but I'll just have to figure that out and figure out how to do that."

Integrity is paramount in any worthwhile endeavour, enterprise or organization. Having integrity and having a reputation for integrity is personally important to me, and I think all MLAs would agree with that. I also believe that I have a responsibility to my constituents and all British Columbians to ask the right questions, to make competent assessments and to exercise good judgment, and I have consciously tried to do that.

The issues of concern regarding the government's budget and the HST policy decision demand our closest attention. It is my carefully considered belief that the $495 million budget deficit announced in February was the result of an honest, bona fide, systematic and well-established professional process and that that number was based on all of the best information available at the time.

Secondly, I believe that there was no plan and no intent by the provincial government prior to the election campaign to enter into an HST agreement. The trigger for the decision to do so was the new-found and announced flexibility granted by the federal government, especially on allowing a 12 percent rate, the lowest HST rate in Canada. The $1.6 billion promised by the federal government over the next three years will admittedly help to keep our deficits lower than they would have otherwise been, and that is helpful to all B.C. taxpayers.

Thirdly, in reviewing the work of my own government on these issues over the recent summer months, I believe that the Ministry of Finance and the Premier always reflected in their statements, targets and projections that they genuinely believed were achievable.

[1130]

It is important to underline the fact that we have not yet reached the halfway mark in the fiscal year, which is upcoming on September 30. After that date, we still have another six months to go — another six months with at least as much upside economically as downside, and there are lots of current indicators that the economy is turning.

The two key numbers that we are talking about are still only forecasts for this fiscal year. The $495 million of February and the $2.8 billion are projections only.

What we also know is that B.C. actually turned a positive number, a surplus of $78 million, for fiscal 2008-2009. Not every province or the federal government can make that kind of a claim.

I also want to underline that under the Balanced Budget and Accountability Act, it is the law in British Columbia that the accounting profession in Canada ultimately determines precisely how the accounts of the province's revenue and expenditures are recorded and how they are reported to the public. Elected MLAs, ministers and ministry public servants have no ultimate control over that.

The government's accounting to the public, by law, is based on independent accounting rules known as generally accepted accounting principles for government in Canada, as interpreted by the Auditor General, an independent officer of the Legislature.

With respect to the fourth issue that I identified earlier — that is, whether or not HST is good public policy — there have been many good comments made by my colleagues. I will simply summarize by saying that the member for West Vancouver–Capilano has very well summarized and described the solid merits for British Columbia of entering into an HST agreement. But he also correctly describes that it is not a perfectly painless transition for everyone. Our government recognizes that and is working very closely with affected sectors.

I also want to refer people to an article written by Jon Kesselman, who I know was held in high regard by Fred Gingell. He holds the Canada Research Chair in Public Finance at Simon Fraser University. The article, published in the Vancouver Sun on September 1, is entitled "The HST: Overcoming Fears and Misconceptions" and represents one of the best explanations by an independent person of the merits of entering into an HST agreement for British Columbia.

In my experience, changes in our sales tax regime and all tax regimes are exceedingly complex, and like a lot of things in life, in our jobs and in our businesses, there never seems to be a perfect time to do most things we know we need to do.

I feel it is my duty as a responsible elected representative to listen carefully to my constituents, to research and analyze their concerns and to make judgments about those important issues. It is equally important that I communicate to my constituents what I believe and why, and with the time available today, I have attempted to do that.

I support our government's February 2009 budget forecast, I support the Minister of Finance's September 1, 2009, budget update, and I support the decision of our government to enter into an agreement with the federal government to implement a 12 percent HST, effective July 1, 2010.

Thank you, hon. Speaker, for this opportunity to comment on these important issues.

K. Conroy: I, too, rise to take my place in the chamber to give my response to the budget. However, first, I'd like to congratulate you, Madam Speaker, on your election. I am sure you will do a great job presiding over this chamber
[ Page 493 ]
in what can often be difficult times. I'm sure you will do it well.

Before I share my thoughts on the budget and how it affects my constituency, I first want to thank the people of Kootenay West for their support during the recent election. It is truly an honour to represent this incredible region of our province.

The election was also a great opportunity to travel throughout the area. I did put over 7,000 kilometres on my car, not only to remind myself of the amazing beauty of the area but also to meet again with the remarkable people who live in our communities.

I now represent three different school districts, two regional districts with 20 very distinct unincorporated communities, and ten municipalities, with their mayors and councillors. It is a very diverse community, not in a big urban city way but only in that unique way one finds in the Kootenays.

[1135]

I could never have succeeded in this election without the untiring support of the many volunteers who came out to help — so many that I could not even begin to name every one of you. You all made a huge difference, and I am forever grateful.

I think that as a politician, it is important to remember that none of us are here solely because of who we are. We are here because of the support of our family, friends and the political parties we belong to, and we should never forget that support.

I do want to acknowledge the presence in this House of the member for Delta South, who has defied the odds, and I congratulate her on her historical win and look forward to her deliberations in this chamber.

I also want to acknowledge my family, whose incredible support has always been there. My husband, Ed, truly understands the work I do and never complains about my absence or accompanying me to events. I mean, really, how could he after his ten years in politics?

Really, thank you, Ed, for your support, advice and always being there in spite of your personal obstacles you face.

To our four children, their partners and five grandchildren: thank you. Thank you for being there for the barbecues, the meetings, the parades and for taking up the slack when I can't be home, and so much more. It means a lot.

I also want to take a moment to acknowledge my parents, Ben and Ingeborg Thor-Larsen, who have made educating their children, grandchildren and now great-grandchildren about the important things in life — love, family and politics, the correct kind of politics being the left kind. For all of that, I am eternally grateful for your support, wisdom and guidance throughout the years and during our election campaigns.

I would be remiss if I did not personally acknowledge the incredible campaign team that I had to work with. Thank you to all of you — too many to mention.

However, I need to say individually to Colleen Jones, our campaign manager, what an exemplary job she did as a first-time campaign manager and to Henny Hanegraaf, our financial agent — one of those jobs we all know none of us really likes — again, great work for her first time too. I'm looking forward to, hopefully, working with both of these amazing women in 2013.

As I said, none of us get here solely on our own. For those of us who have been elected again, I am sure you will agree with me that we are also re-elected, in a large part, due to the people we have here working with us here in Victoria and back at home.

So to all of the staff that work here in Victoria for our caucus: thank you for your hard work and dedication, especially to Amber Nash, my legislative assistant.

Now, I think the government Whip's office would agree with me that Amber, with her highly organized efficiency, has kept all of us on task, but you would also know that the Government Leader's office would also agree, as I share Amber with our House Leader. Not only does she keep me on track. She keeps the member for Port Coquitlam on task, an even more amazing feat.

So thanks, Amber....

Interjections.

K. Conroy: My colleagues agree.

So thanks, Amber, for everything, and I look forward to continuing to work with you.

Interjections.

K. Conroy: Hey, you're not supposed to heckle your own members.

I also have the very good fortune of highly competent constituency assistants.

To Elaine Whitehead, Edena Brown and Sheren Spilker, thank you seem like inadequate words for everything you do. The people of Kootenay West are the beneficiaries of your dedication and commitment to making things right for so many people.

Now, Sheren had to take a leave of absence, and I want to take a minute to tell the House why. Sheren's sister is Sandy Korman. Any of you who have had any dealings with Nelson-Creston's former MLA Corky Evans will know Sandy as Corky's constituency assistant and ministerial assistant for all the years he was an MLA and minister. Corky would be the first to agree that in many ways, Sandy was as much a mover and shaker as he was — involved in her subtle, diplomatic way, often when Corky wasn't.

Sandy, unfortunately, has been diagnosed with a cancerous brain tumour and is undergoing treatment in Kelowna. Sheren is there with her, and I wish her all the best from the many, many people she has touched in this Legislature, who are thinking of her and sending her positive thoughts for a full recovery.
[ Page 494 ]

That is one of the amazing things about this job and the life of politics. You do get to know so many people and become friends with people from across the province and realize how fortunate we are. It also makes me realize what a government has the power to do or not to do, how decisions made here in Victoria can profoundly affect individuals, groups and communities in ways that could be very, very positive.

[1140]

However, what I saw this government table as a budget…. The issues and concerns it will raise throughout my constituency made me again think of the political will of a government.

When a government has the political thought process of getting elected at all costs, it not only destroys the people's belief and trust in politicians but in the very fabric of what a good government should be. It should be for the people that need it when they need it. Working together to provide support to the most vulnerable while ensuring a healthy, sustainable economy for all to prosper — not just for a few, not just for the friends of the government, but for all British Columbians in it together.

Now, I'm not sure about the rest of my colleagues, but I sat through five debates in five different communities and listened to the Liberal candidate during the election. I watched and read the news and listened to other Liberal candidates, including the member from Point Grey, and have to say it is astounding. Not once did I hear of the coming economic ruin we are hearing about today. Not once did I hear the actual budget numbers that were really being discussed behind closed Liberal doors. No, the numbers we got were a $495 million deficit and not a penny more.

Now, really, anybody who has been watching the news or reading the paper since last fall knows full well the economy was in trouble — the collapsing financial markets, banks being bailed out, unemployment skyrocketing — but for some reason our province, this Liberal government, chose to either ignore the obvious truth or misconstrue what was staring everyone else in the face.

We have to ask ourselves why. Why would an hon. member, as that is what we all are in this House…? Why would someone misinterpret the obvious facts so blatantly?

When I was a little girl, my mom had a rather ingenious way of teaching us to always tell the truth. If she thought we were stretching reality a wee bit, she would warn us that she knew we weren't telling her the truth, because a black line was appearing across our forehead. Instinctively, we would quickly rub a hand across our forehead to erase the offending line as we said: "No, no, Mom. It's true. It's really true."

I think every one of the Liberal members should get used to rubbing their hands across their foreheads as they continue to spread the myths they were telling throughout the entire election.

I mean, really, Madam Speaker. I have had hundreds of constituents calling my office and stopping me on the street. How many of you cannot get through Safeway from one end to the other to do your shopping without being stopped by people who are angry — people who are signing petitions — about the deception of the HST? I have also met with small business people, restaurant owners, ranchers, seniors — all stunned by the hypocrisy of this government, a government who said they did support small business. Well, not supporting those in my constituency….

One restaurant owner I met with said he is so worried about this tax increase, so worried, that he is probably going to have to lay people off, and a large group of the people that work for him are single moms.

Another small business person said that it might make his accounting a bit more cost-effective but that the additional cost to him and his family, personally, would take away any benefit he would get in his business.

Then one only has to look at the budget to try to find where this is really going to help. Because, in our area, it looks like this has been implemented to ensure that money, the $1.6 billion payoff coming in from the feds…. It's just going to pay off a little bit of that great big debt — not for any new programs, not for any better health care, and certainly not for enhancing the education and services to children and families.

Things are tough in our area for many people, but for those constituents who are dependent on the forest industry, it has become incredibly difficult. A number of our communities have seen sawmills close in the last two years, and what support has there been from this government? There's been nothing. I need to remind the member for Kamloops–North Thompson that there has been nothing from this government. The financial support has come from the federal government.

What we've had from this government — a wringing of hands. It's all the U.S. market's, the housing market's, fault down there. There's nothing we can do. Well, we know that's just not true.

[1145]

There were policies that could have been put into place, policies that could have assisted the industry, saved some mills, jobs, people's future. There is some financial assistance, but again, that came from the federal government. Did this government contribute anything? No.

In fact, I have men and women who worked in the forest industry who are facing their unemployment running out, and they're not sure what they're going to do. A community development fund with guidelines that eliminate them at every turn…. The first batch of them — the approvals were only for those people over 55. Many of them had just met that target age, and they thought: "Gee, is it really going to get much worse? Can I hang on to unemployment for a year, if a year, and then get back to work in the local sawmill?"
[ Page 495 ]

Did it get better? No, it got worse. Now, when they realize that, no, that mill will not open and their unemployment is running out, they turn to the community development fund and, surprise, the goalposts are changed again. Now they have to be 60. So those people, they're out of luck. What do they do?

You tell me: what does a person do? For example, a 58-year-old man who's worked in the forest industry all his life, had one of those good family-supporting jobs with good wages and benefits that helped him to raise a family, buy a house, contribute to the local economy and the provincial economy — now what will he do? He goes to the fund, and he's too young. He can't access it.

There are many people like that in our communities. They come in, and they express their dismay that this has happened to them. They feel abandoned by this government. One fellow has found a job — ten bucks an hour, 20 hours a week. He's struggling to make ends meet. Who's going to hire a forest worker who has been in the forest industry for 30 years? He's 58. He's struggling to make ends meet.

There are others like him who are sharing this desperate feeling of what are they going to do? One of the fellows described it to me as a growing quiet desperation. The local folks for mental health have said their caseloads are increasing, and they're facing budget cuts. It's an ongoing cycle.

What do we have to offer them? Will the HST actually open some of the mills in our area? I don't think so, especially when this government's policies have allowed a company like Interfor, the new owner of our closed sawmill in Castlegar…. They can cut the logs in the tree farm licence they inherited — that they got given to them by this government — and they can ship them anywhere they want. They don't have to mill them in Castlegar. They don't have to mill them in the community so that it would benefit the people of the region. They can ship them anywhere. How is that going to help them?

We as a community have lost those resources. We've lost those trees. Our children and grandchildren have lost that resource, and I say shame on you to all the current and former Ministers of Forest and cabinet ministers who allowed that to happen — allowed the giveaway.

You allowed the giveaway of our resources, our children's heritage, and it's a shame. Did they learn anything from this forestry fiasco? No, they're still too eager to sell us all out to their friends, and we only have to look at what is happening with water.

Now, I always have said and I still say that children and now grandchildren are our most valuable resource and should be invested in at an early age, as that investment gives you incredible returns for years to come. I'll talk more about that investment and what this government's actions have done, but first I want to talk about water.

Anyone who has been watching current events in our world knows that water is quickly becoming our most valuable natural resource. We as humans can't live without it, and we must respect the sources we have. As a province, we have some of the largest bodies of fresh water in the world, and how does this government protect this most valuable resource? It sells it off to the highest bidder so their buddies can make a fast buck on the stock exchange or actually destroy a pristine valley to take the power out of the water.

What do they call this? So-called green energy? Give me a break. One only has to look at the potential destruction of the valley like the Glacier-Howser project was proposing, to know it was an incredibly short-sighted initiative. Thank God for the fish at risk in those creeks — this has stalled this project — and for the thousands of people who have come out and voiced their concerns at protests, hearings, and have done direct presentations through the environmental protection process. They stopped it for now, hopefully forever.

[1150]

Hopefully, the minister in his wisdom and the ministry will listen to these people and know that this is one project that should not go ahead. We have other ways to increase the energy production in this province. It's called B.C. Hydro, and we need to ensure the support to that Crown corporation so that power is produced — that it's not only environmentally sustainable but is generated by and for the people and not by and for an independent producer and their shareholders to pad their pockets.

Now, about our other resource and what this budget has for them: our children and, for some of us, our grandchildren. Okay, I don't usually agree with the members for Chilliwack and Fort Langley–Aldergrove. In fact, it's probably safe to say I never agree with you, but you both did say something in your responses that I did agree with. They talked about their grandchildren and how much they mean to their lives.

Now, we are incredibly fortunate to have five grandchildren, and they have all brought new meaning to our lives in five very different, very special, unique ways, and I worry for them. The cuts coming to our school district are significant, and the concerns are the same throughout the entire area. The cuts to the facility grants will mean cuts to direct education.

I mean, the minister needs to get real. You make cuts; it's going to affect the children somewhere down the line. A quote from one of our local school districts: "Despite government's promise to increase funding by $84 million this year, school district 20 will instead feel a $1 million hit. 'That puts us in a tough financial situation,' said school district 20 chair Mac Gregory."

Really, a million-dollar hit, and it won't affect our kids? What kind of Liberal math is this? One that will hurt our kids' education and future.

Then we get the cuts to the PACs. Now, I used to be involved in PACs. PACs used to provide fun things to schools: field days, trips, sports days, the occasional hot
[ Page 496 ]
dogs or pizza lunches. What happens now? Now they provide necessities for our kids' education: computers, library books, classroom supplies, and this government is cutting the very funds they receive. At the same time, they're cutting funds to libraries. So kids whose families can't afford computers or books, who can't get them at school, who could go to a library, won't even be able to access them there now.

Cuts to school sports. News flash to all of those ministers responsible for sports: not too many kids from the Kootenays are going to be able to access the facilities being built in the Lower Mainland and Whistler for the Olympics. Those who might, just might, have come to provincial tournaments in the future…. Well, that won't happen, because all the funds have been cut that would have allowed them to travel.

Sports can be a huge, positive influence in a child's life in rural B.C. It has been proven that children involved in sports or extracurricular activities like arts tend to keep involved for a lifetime, and also through all those difficult teen years when kids can get into so much trouble if there isn't a positive influence in their life. That's trouble that can have a far greater cost to society in the future.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Yet this government can afford to spend half a million dollars on a party, an exclusive party, to profile the Premier? That's an appalling example of priorities gone wrong.

Another example is with health care. We keep getting told that there are no cuts to health care in this budget. Again I have to ask: who's doing this government's math? My nine-year-old granddaughters both could do a better job. Really, when is a cut not really a cut? Ask the people of my constituency who have just been told we have a huge deficit in the Interior Health Authority.

We have to deal with that. So what are they doing? They're closing an operating room. They're closing an operating room at our regional hospital, an operating room that is busy. It's not standing there empty. It's busy. It employs nurses and doctors and ensures that patients in our area are getting much-needed operations that they're waiting for.

Ask the senior who has been waiting for months for his hip operation or the young man who's put his life on hold until he can get his knee fixed. Believe me, this sure as heck feels like a cut to them. And the long-term repercussions, besides the personal ones to those individuals? Will we retain those nurses or doctors, or will we lose them to other jurisdictions that have operating rooms actually operating?

We also have a housing crisis in our region that is affecting seniors, families and students. Affordable housing is becoming more and more difficult to find, and the impending HST will only add to these difficulties.

[1155]

I had a fellow in my office who is struggling to find a job and is currently on social assistance. He pays $600 a month for room and board, so he does get to eat. He's left with $60 a month to pay for gas to find a job, car insurance and other necessities of life — basic necessities like toiletries, all of those things which will cost more with the HST.

He says he's one of the luckier ones, because he gets fed. He talked to friends of his who don't get room and board. They're trying to find a place to rent, but once they find the place, there's no money left for food or anything else. So what does that say? What does that say about a province like ours that is providing services like that to people? It's unacceptable.

Folks in our area don't expect to have the government there for them at every turn, but they should be there when their services are desperately needed. I talked to students at Selkirk College. Cutbacks to post-secondary education, the very grants that enable students to attend Selkirk College, are gone. Students are struggling. Housing is an issue for them. They're accessing food banks in order to go to college.

I want to talk a little about the cuts to the lottery grants and how it's affected our region, and there have been a lot of examples throughout people's debates, so I'm going to talk about a little bit of a different one.

In our area there's an annual grant to the United Steelworkers, and you're probably thinking: "A union? Why should it matter if a union had its grants cut?" Well, there's a history there. The Steelworkers ran a bingo in Trail for years. That was taken away, and they were promised direct access to grants.

What did they do with that money? They contributed to the United Way. They held annual picnics for retirees and their families, attended by hundreds of people throughout the region. They held an annual Christmas dinner for the seniors at the local extended care facilities and supported many, many other worthy causes. Now what can they do? They were guaranteed this funding, and now it's children, families and seniors who are going to suffer because of the cuts, another shortsighted cut by this government.

Another issue that the steelworkers are dealing with that's a direct result of cuts from this government is to the workers in the area that have been diagnosed with asbestosis or mesothelioma. It was due to the Liberal cuts that these men who have been diagnosed are now suffering incredibly, not only from this disease but getting no financial support through WCB. Their families are getting no support. It's an incredible travesty that these families have been abandoned by the government, and it is an unacceptable situation that I will continue to work with.

There are many more examples of what this government has done, but one of the ones I want to talk about before I'm finished with my time, Mr. Speaker…. Or am I finished? I'm finished.
[ Page 497 ]

Noting the time, I will save my place and adjourn debate.

K. Conroy moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. B. Penner moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

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

The House adjourned at 11:58 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