2010 Legislative Session: Second 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)

Monday, March 22, 2010

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 11, Number 9

[ Page 3457 ]

MONDAY, MARCH 22, 2010

The House met at 1:37 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Tributes

DARREN FITZPATRICK

Hon. G. Campbell: Hon. Speaker, on behalf of all British Columbians, I'd like to extend the Legislature's condolence to the family of Cpl. Darren Fitzpatrick of Prince George. He unfortunately succumbed on Saturday to injuries sustained earlier in the month while on patrol in Afghanistan. Corporal Fitzpatrick proudly served with the 3rd Battalion of Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry and had been in Afghanistan since October on his first tour of duty.

Today I think we all should reflect our gratitude for the men and women who serve our country on Canadian soil and around the world. Canadians like Corporal Fitzpatrick take on dangerous jobs on behalf of all of us to protect our freedoms and help make the world a better place for the people of the world to live.

British Columbians stand shoulder to shoulder in support of Corporal Fitzpatrick's family, friends and brothers-in-arms at this difficult time. I would hope that the Legislature will send their condolences and their support and prayers to the family.

SOPHIE THOMAS

Hon. G. Abbott: It's with great sadness that we mark the passing of Sophie Thomas, a healer and elder with the Saik'uz First Nation. Sophie passed away Wednesday in her home south of Vanderhoof. Sophie Thomas was a living encyclopedia of traditional ecological knowledge and provided much of the content and inspiration for the book Plants and Medicines of Sophie Thomas, prepared by UNBC professors Jane Young and Alex Hawley and published in 2002.

The movie The Four Seasons of Sophie Thomas was also based on the Carrier elder and her profound knowledge of an ancient wisdom about the medicinal value of plants. For the past 20 years she'd been invited to speak at elementary and high schools, colleges and universities. She'd also spoken at international conferences, sharing her knowledge of herbs and traditional Carrier healing.

Ms. Thomas was a founding community member of the Carrier-Sekani Tribal Council, which represents eight nations west of Prince George, as well as the Yinka Déné Language Institute. She was to receive an honorary degree from UNBC this May to recognize her work as a prominent knowledge-keeper and medicine woman.

I'd ask that members of the House join me in celebrating her accomplishments and sending our condolences and prayers to the Thomas family during this very difficult time.

MARIA HO

J. Kwan: I, too, have some sad news to share with members of this House. On Wednesday, March 10, Mimi Ho, who was also known as Maria Ho although many of us called her Mimi, passed away very suddenly. She was diagnosed with an inoperable brain condition at the hospital and died peacefully the next evening. She was surrounded by her husband, her three daughters, her grandson, and other close family members and friends.

[1340]

Those of us who knew Mimi would have known that she was the founder of the Strathcona Chinese Dance Company. In fact, those of us who attended community events would have seen her dancers at virtually every community celebration. So it is with great sadness that I inform the House of this news. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, if you would send condolences and deep regrets on behalf of all of us to the family.

HARI SHARMA

R. Chouhan: Mr. Speaker, I also want to share very sad news. Last week on Tuesday a very dear friend, Prof. Hari Sharma, passed away at his house. Those who know Hari Sharma…. He was very passionate about defending human rights. He did everything since 1968, when he arrived in Canada, to stand up for workers' rights and people in general.

He was connected with all those people's rights all across the world, not only in the Lower Mainland. He was everywhere, with the native people, with the aboriginal rights. With great sadness, he left us last Tuesday. Yesterday there was a funeral for Hari Sharma, and more than 400 people came to join us there. I want to say thank you to all those who came.

Maurice James Hillard McKENNIREY

M. Karagianis: Hon. Speaker, I would like today to mark the passing of Maurice James Hillard McKennirey. Maurice was 84 years old. He lived a full and happy life, although he was captured by Alzheimer's in the last years of his life. He is succeeded by three children, nine grandchildren and three great-grandchildren. He passed away this morning. Maurice was my father.

Introductions by Members

Hon. M. Coell: Watching the proceedings in the House today are several Association of Canadian Mountain
[ Page 3458 ]
Guides members, who responded to the recent and urgent avalanche calls by immediately rushing to the aid of the victims. These professionals selflessly brought their advanced knowledge of the mountain environment, safe travel and rescue to these desperate situations, helping to ensure the well-being of many. Will the House please help me in welcoming them.

M. Farnworth: In the gallery today are a group of students and their teachers from Archbishop Carney Regional Secondary School in my constituency of Port Coquitlam. They're here to watch question period and learn how this place functions. Will the House please make them most welcome.

J. McIntyre: In the gallery today are the parents of one of our terrific caucus communication officers, Sheldon Johnson. His parents, Ken and Tracy Johnson, are here visiting — I guess to see their son at work. I understand they hail from Medicine Hat, which I know is the hometown of our famous and favourite Canuck Trevor Linden. I hope the House will make them feel welcome.

R. Chouhan: In the gallery today we have a delegation of 22 members of Shri Guru Ravidass Sabha, also known as the Gilley temple in Burnaby, led by Mr. Surinderpal Gaught and Mr. Hukam Chand. Also with them is Mr. Harbhajan Lakha, a former MP from the state of Punjab who is joining us today. The temple is holding its third annual community parade in Burnaby on April 3 at 10 a.m. It is expected that more than 15,000 people will be joining that community parade, and the temple would like to invite everyone to join them. Please join me to welcome the delegation.

L. Reid: I have a very special guest in the gallery today. She first occupied a seat there when she was probably ten days old. She's now ten years old. I would ask the House to please welcome my daughter Olivia Reid-Friesen.

Hon. B. Lekstrom: Today joining us in the gallery are a number of workers with Nexen. Joining us are Paul Jonassen, the VP of asset management; Ron Bailey, the general manager of shale gas; Brian Humphreys, the director of governmental relations North America; as well as Doug Bearinger, who is the geology adviser for shale gas. Would the House please help me make them welcome.

[1345]

Tributes

CARL LIDEN

G. Gentner: Today is a sad day for all of us in Delta and British Columbia. I would like the House to express its condolences to the family and friends of Carl Liden. Carl was a former member of the House. He was a member of the Barrett cabinet in the 1970s. I met Carl 25 years ago at the hall he helped build with his own hands, Sunbury Park Hall. It's a fishermen's hall. It actually has one of the only spring floors in the Lower Mainland.

He was with the Tunnel and Rock Workers, a worker's advocate, a labourer's union. I think he was the business agent. United Fishermen and Allied Workers — he was a business agent there, and it was a very tumultuous time in British Columbia's labour history.

He was a fisherman and a worker on a packer ship. He served as a board member of Deltassist and many organizations and charities in Delta. He was chair of the board of the Delta Credit Union for ten years. He was a municipal councillor from 1958 to 1964, where he was in charge of the headhunting committee that actually hired Delta's first city planner, by the name of Bob Williams.

He became Minister of Transportation and Communications, and he was in charge of the ferries, but he'll always be most remembered because he was one of the forefathers of the Agricultural Land Commission. He took a lot of flak when he took his position on the floor, but he stood his ground.

Of course, Canadian Japanese fishers will miss him, because he stood up against the Japanese internment. He was a hard-working man, and he was very dedicated. I ask the House to bid Carl all the best on his next journey.

Introductions by Members

M. Dalton: Today in the gallery we have Art and Evelyn Schindel visiting us from Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan. This is their first visit to the Legislature, and they are with their son, Rev. Tim Schindel with Leading Influence Ministries here in Victoria. Would the House please make them feel welcome.

Statements

sinking of queen of the north

G. Coons: Four years ago to the day, March 22, 2006, the Queen of the North sank. Gerald Foisy and Shirley Rosette lost their lives and left their families questioning what happened that fateful night, as well as questioning what the numerous events were that led up to this tragic sinking. Fifty-seven passengers and 42 crew members were on board, many still suffering from this traumatic experience. The heroes of Hartley Bay still witness the upwelling of diesel as it drifts by their harvesting grounds.

As the months go by, we all hope that the families that lost loved ones, the passengers, the crew and British Columbians will finally get closure to this devastating event.
[ Page 3459 ]

Tributes

unbc timberwolves
CCAA men's Basketball Championship

Hon. S. Bond: On behalf of my colleague from Prince George North, we want to extend incredible congratulations to the UNBC Timberwolves men's team. In fact, both our women's and men's teams finished their season this year, their regular season play in the Canadian College Athletic Association, with 17 wins and one loss. The men went on, on Saturday night coached by Coach Mike Raimbault, and he was named coach of the year.

In fact, our Timberwolves beat the Southern Alberta Institute of Technology 96 to 63 in the final, becoming national champions for the first time in UNBC's history. It was absolutely amazing. I wanted today to recognize that while the team is fantastic, we had three absolutely unbelievable performances by Inderbil Gill, who was the most valuable player in the country. We had Jose Araujo, who was actually our first team all-star and hit more three-pointers than you can imagine. Francis Rowe also made the second team all-star team.

Congratulations, Timberwolves. We're proud of you. It's the first of many to come, I'm sure.

Tabling Documents

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, I have the honour to present the annual report of the Office of the Conflict-of-Interest Commissioner for 2008-2009.

Ministerial Statements

2010 OLYMPIC AND PARALYMPIC GAMES

Hon. G. Campbell: I rise to make a ministerial statement. Last night we marked the end of a remarkable time in the history of our province and our country as the Paralympic torch was extinguished, and we all said goodbye to the 2010 Paralympic Winter Games. It was the end of a remarkable story written by countless Canadians and thousands of others around the world who we are proud to call our friends.

[1350]

The 2010 Winter Paralympics were the most watched in history. Thirty-three nations televised the first Paralympic Winter Games ever to be held in Canada. As Sir Philip Craven, president of the International Paralympic Committee, said, the 2010 games were "truly magical" and in his words, "the best games ever."

International Olympic and Paralympic committees gave us a great opportunity. I know that all British Columbians and certainly all Canadians are grateful and honoured that we were allowed to host those games in our province and in our country. It was an exceptional opportunity for all of us to open our doors to the world and welcome new friends from nearly every corner of the planet.

The Paralympians gave Canadians a chance to have a defining moment in our history yet again, and they provided a stage for a display of incredible Canadian pride. At the same time, they gave Paralympians the opportunity to show their incredible athleticism, their dedication and their commitment, and left an unequivocal message that the most powerful muscle in the human being is their heart, their imagination, and all we can do when we dream and pursue our goals together.

To all the Paralympic athletes, I would like to say a special thank-you for reminding us of the values we have and the values they have shared with us that help make us a better society: sportsmanship, dedication, friendship, and an unparalleled respect and honour for each other.

We should all pause today and remember the Georgian luger, Nodar Kumaritashvili, who unfortunately lost his life at the beginning of this incredible odyssey. I take my hat off to John Furlong and the people from VANOC, who have reached out continuously to the people of Georgia to offer our thanks for their understanding, our support and our sympathy. Mr. Furlong is in Georgia with them today as they remember that great athlete. We will all remember him in Whistler, in British Columbia and in Canada as we have a memorial constructed in his honour.

We owe a great debt of gratitude to the Paralympians who taught us what it really means to overcome a challenge and who remind us that every day the human spirit can drive us forward to a better life for all involved in our communities.

We've had the opportunity, I think, in the last month and a half to watch some truly great athletes who deserve our respect. They deserve our honour, and they deserve our thanks for the example they have set for all of us.

The Paralympians bring out the best in all of us and raise awareness of the necessary steps we have to take to help others in our community and others around the world. Programs such as Canada's Soldier On program — which provides the resources and opportunities for ill and injured, past and present, Canadian Forces personnel to fully participate in physical fitness, health promotion and sport activities — are just as important as the Own the Podium program is to our Olympic athletes. They are just as important, as they inspire people to become fully part of our community and pursue their own goals and objectives.

Not only did the Paralympians inspire us, but did they ever know how to put on a great show. For anybody that had the opportunity to see the Paralympians on the slopes, in the rinks or on the curling sheets, you will know they are truly great athletes with superb talent and a passion that's unmatched in any other sport in the world.
[ Page 3460 ]

We should all take a moment to be proud of our Canadian Paralympic athletes. North Vancouver's Lauren Woolstencroft became Canada's first golden girl when she set a Canadian record for the most gold medals in a single Paralympics, with five gold medals. She truly did dominate the standing women's alpine competition, winning super combined, slalom, Super-G, downhill and giant slalom events.

Edmonton's Viviane Forest won five medals in the visually impaired category of women's alpine, including one gold in women's downhill, three silvers and a bronze medal. Viviane was aided by her guide Lindsay Debou from Whistler, British Columbia.

[1355]

Of course, there was the inspiring story of Brian McKeever, an Olympian and a Paralympian from Canmore, Alberta, who won three gold medals at the Paralympics with the help of his brother and sight guide Robin.

Canada continued to show that we are the best at one of our national pastimes when it comes to mixed wheelchair curling team when they took home the gold medal with a narrow — much too narrow, I said to Jim — 8-7 victory over Korea. Four of the five members of that team were from British Columbia: Jim Armstrong and Darryl Neighbour from Richmond, Ina Forrest from Armstrong, Sonja Gaudet from Vernon, as well as Bruno Yizek from Calgary. What a great job they did for all of us.

During these Paralympics Colette Bourgonje of Saskatoon was actually competing in her ninth Paralympics. She managed to win a silver and a bronze medal in women's sitting cross-country events. I was fortunate enough to be on the mountain the day that Josh Dueck won a silver medal in men's slalom sitting event, right here in British Columbia. He's from Vernon. Karolina Wisniewska from Vancouver won a pair of bronze medals in women's alpine skiing standing event. Canada won ten gold medals, 19 medals in all, and came third for a record number of medals for Canadians at Paralympic Games right here at home.

I know we want to say congratulations to all the countries that participated in the games, to all the athletes who participated in the games, but a special thank-you to all their families, all of their friends, their supporters, their coaches and their technicians. All of them overcame some pretty incredible obstacles to be able to compete at the international level on behalf of their country. They made all of us proud with not just their participation but the excellence they showed in each of the sports that they chose.

The 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Games were the culmination of years of hard work by thousands of people. Thousands of people gave their time year in and year out, month in and month out. Just in the last number of weeks we have seen that incredible army of blue-jacketed volunteers from every corner of our province and every province in our country make sure that everyone knew that when they came to Canada, they were welcome. We wanted them to do their best in the field of play, and we were proud of all that Canada had to offer them. To them, we should say a very special thank-you for volunteering their time and for making these Olympics truly exceptional.

As John Furlong said last night, I'm sure that Jack Poole was watching down and that he had a big smile on his face. He started with a vision to make sure that these were Canada's Olympics, that we embraced all Canadians, that we embraced Paralympians from every part of this country and that Canada was able to hold itself up to the world, to be a mirror to the world of what we have and what we offer to people when they live here.

The Paralympics should surely remind us of what we have accomplished. But as Rick Hansen so eloquently reminded us yesterday, they should also remind us of what more we can do — what more we can do to reach out and help people reach their full potential in whatever line of endeavour they may choose to pursue.

To athletes, to the media, to torchbearers and community organizers across our province, to the people who have spent their lives bringing these games to us, I'm pleased to stand here on behalf of all British Columbians to say thank you for the example you have set and for the gift you have given us in the 2010 Winter Olympic and Paralympic Games.

Together, complete strangers waved the Maple Leaf flag with glowing pride and patriotism. Together, we chanted: "Go, Canada, go!" Together, we erased the boundaries that often separate us from pursuing our common objectives and our common goals. Together, whether we were in restaurants, celebrating on our streets or in the comfort of our own living rooms, we broke out and loudly sang O Canada.

[1400]

I won't forget one story that I was told. Someone had come to go to the closing ceremonies. The streets were packed. They decided to park their car in a parking lot a few blocks away from the stadium. On the way there the five-year-old daughter sang O Canada every step of the way. She was joined by a different choir and a different chorus of people singing O Canada with her. As he said to me: "I am sure that my children won't remember any particular sporting event, but they will remember singing O Canada when we hosted the Olympic and Paralympic Games."

Last night in Whistler, as the athletes came through the village and were cheered by the people of Whistler for all that they have given us, you couldn't help but feel a sense of pride for what Canada has given the world. Thanks to the Olympics and the Paralympics, we've remembered who we are. We've remembered what we can accomplish. I'm sure all of us — our families, our children and those who will follow — will be able to touch back to the 2010 Winter Olympic and Paralympic Games and say: "We can be better when we work together."
[ Page 3461 ]

Thank you, hon. Speaker, and thank you to the Paralympians.

C. James: I want to echo the words of support for the Paralympics and the Paralympic athletes.

It was an extraordinary time for all of us to watch the energy, the dedication, the commitment of those athletes, of the volunteers. It was an extraordinary event to attend the opening ceremonies and to watch the crowds cheer as the athletes came in.

If anyone thought that these were secondary to the Olympic Games, they just had to attend the opening ceremonies to see the kind of energy of the crowd who stood up and cheered on every single one of those athletes. I certainly think the countries with one athlete or two athletes received just as loud a cheer as they came in as the countries that came in with teams, because we know the dedication it took to get there.

As the Premier has said, this was a Paralympic of records and a Paralympic of firsts. We were extraordinary when it came to the medal haul, when it came to the first on Canadian soil. But I think what I'll remember the most in the importance of these games was the extraordinary spirit of the athletes. I think that's what's important for all of us to remember at the end of these games.

The Paralympics is about more than just simply athleticism. It's also an opportunity to show that disability doesn't mean "to stop." Disability doesn't mean "a hindrance." Disability can mean ability, and that's what we saw so loud and clear in these games — the abilities of athletes, the abilities of individuals.

I don't think any of us can underestimate the difference it makes to a child who's struggling with a disability to see that kind of performance, to see what they're able to do. I also think it was incredibly fitting and great timing that the closing of the Paralympics occurred on the 25th anniversary of Rick Hansen's Man in Motion tour. Again, what a role model for all of us, for people across the world, when it came to showing what people with disabilities can really do.

On behalf of the opposition I also want to echo our appreciation to the volunteers and to the organizers but most importantly to the Paralympians for showing all of us what you can do, for reminding all of us what determination and hard work can really do.

Introduction and
First Reading of Bills

Bill 4 — MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES
AMENDMENT aCT, 2010

Hon. M. de Jong presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill intituled Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2010.

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

Motion approved.

Hon. M. de Jong: Bill 4 amends the following statutes: the Coroners Act; the Child, Family and Community Service Act; the Employment Standards Act; the Engineers and Geoscientists Act; the Health Authorities Act; the Hospital District Act; the Music Teachers (Registered) Act; the Teaching Profession Act; the Water Act. The bill also makes some housekeeping and clarifying amendments to several other statutes and repeals a number of obsolete statutes.

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

[1405]

Bill 4, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2010, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

BILL 5 — ZERO NET DEFORESTATION ACT

Hon. P. Bell presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill intituled Zero Net Deforestation Act.

Hon. P. Bell: Mr. Speaker, I move that Bill 5 be introduced and read for a first time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. P. Bell: Today I introduce Bill 5, which establishes in legislation the government's goal of zero net deforestation for the province of British Columbia. Today's bill states that the province must achieve a goal of zero net deforestation by December 31, 2015.

British Columbia's forests are an important ally in the fight against climate change. Deforestation releases greenhouse gases into the atmosphere and removes trees that are absorbing and storing carbon. Greenhouse gas emissions can be reduced by avoiding and minimizing deforestation.

Impacts can also be mitigated by planting additional trees to create new forests in areas that are suitable for afforestation. Decreasing the total area of deforestation at the same time as increasing the total area of afforestation will result in a zero net loss of forest land and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

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

Bill 5, Zero Net Deforestation Act, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the
[ Page 3462 ]
day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Statements
(Standing Order 25B)

PARALYMPIC GAMES AND ATHLETES

R. Howard: I think we all stood in absolute awe as we watched the 2010 Winter Paralympics come to a close. I cannot remember being so moved, right from the moment young Paralympic hopeful Zak Beaumont lit the flame at the opening ceremonies to the closing speech of John Furlong reflecting on the life of Jack Poole.

Again our athletes came out and performed like they never had before and showed the world how great we can be. Like the Olympics, the first gold medal we won was such a special moment that made us all proud to be Canadian.

I was present at the handing off of the Paralympic torch in front of our Legislature back on March 6 and again at Riley Park on March 10. These torch celebrations definitely brought our communities closer together, and this was great to see.

Included in many of these events, as with all things Olympic and Paralympic, was Richmond's own Rick Hansen. Rick and now so many others as well, whose names we will now recognize, are people who symbolize the determination and the success that follows. He and they are exactly what you think of when you envision the games.

I'm very pleased to say that two Richmond residents were competing in the Paralympic Games. Jim Armstrong and Darryl Neighbour competed on the men's Canadian wheelchair curling team. Of course, Richmond, B.C., and Canada are all proud that these two were able to win a gold medal in their sport. They made us proud. Would the House please recognize their success.

BERNICE LEVITZ PACKFORD

C. James: Our community of Victoria lost an extraordinary woman this past week. Bernice Levitz Packford, a lifelong social activist who served her community and worked to make our world a better place, died peacefully in her home at the age of 95.

Bernice blazed a trail her whole life. She was a pioneer in social work. She fought for the rights of children, parents and foster parents. She helped form the Capital Families Association. She championed clean water and protection for green space, old age pensions, the importance of voting, the Esquimalt/Victoria Working Harbour Association, women's peace conferences, just to name a few of the activities she was involved in.

One of my first memories of Bernice was when I was six years old. Very late one night Bernice, who was a social worker, arrived on our doorstep with five children who were in need of a foster home. It was almost impossible to say no to Bernice, and she knew those people she could push who would be up to the challenge. I grew up with those children, and thanks to Bernice and my grandparents, I had an extraordinary, amazing extended family.

Bernice was known for her ferocious spirit and drive. She cared deeply about her family, her grandsons, her faith, her community and fairness in the world around her.

[1410]

I had tea with Bernice a few weeks ago, and as I was leaving, she reminded me to find the contacts for those people who were fighting the old-growth logging, because she wanted to talk to them and set them straight about their work.

If she was here with us today, she would remind us all that apathy is the biggest danger in the world. She'd push all of us to get involved, to be passionate, to keep working until all the injustices were made right.

I feel so proud to have known Bernice, and I consider it a privilege and a gift in my life that I will always cherish. She will be incredibly missed. I will miss being summoned by Bernice. I will miss being told off by Bernice. I will miss being set straight by Bernice. I'll remember her. She's missed in Victoria, but she'll always be with all of us.

SEYCOVE SECONDARY SCHOOL ACTIVITIES

J. Thornthwaite: I would like to recognize Seycove Secondary School as an example of high-calibre education, community involvement and environmental stewardship in my entire riding. Students and teachers at Seycove Secondary captured a gold-level win in the B.C. Spirit School program by participating in over 30 activities.

As participants in the Adopt a Country program, Seycove students adopted a school in Enkhuizen, Netherlands, and welcomed a World War II veteran to come to their school and speak about his battalion's efforts in the liberation of Holland. As well, the school joined the B.C. fruit and vegetable program, started a garden to reflect the Olympic pillar of sustainability and tracked the torch progress on a large display in the school's main hallway.

In recognition of their gold-level win, I was pleased to be able to present them with an ActNow B.C. 2010 Winter Games kids' package in December of 2009.

On February 10 this year, when the Olympic flame arrived in North Van, Seycove students were cheering it on with a banner the length of two city buses, which they created. Following that, Seycove's own Connor Svensrud had the opportunity to run the torch for the 2010 Paralympic Winter Games. It is clear that Seycove's Olympic spirit was second to none.
[ Page 3463 ]

On Friday, March 26 — this Friday — Mr. Peter Cardle and 145 grade 10 students and five adults from Seycove will be descending on the Parliament Buildings. I would ask all members and staff that come into contact with them during their visit to congratulate them on all their efforts and in making the games such a success in our riding as well as making global citizens of our students.

JOURNÉE DE LA FRANCOPHONIE

N. Simons: En célébrant le jour de la francophonie, je veux premièrement exprimer ma fierté d'être représentant d’une circonscription des plus francophones hors des deux centres métropolitains. La région de Powell River–Sunshine Coast, joui de communautés francophones actives et vibrantes.

Même s'il y a deux jours depuis la journée de la francophonie, c'est encore le mois désigné par notre gouvernement pour célébrer les richesses culturelles que nous apprécions grâce à nos frères et sœurs francophones de partout dans le monde.

Nous avons la distinction d'avoir deux écoles françaises — l'école du Pacifique à Sechelt fondée en 1986, et l'école Côte du soleil à Powell River, fondé en 1979. A ce moment, il y a plus de 200 élèves inscrits dans ces écoles.

A Powell River, nous avons aussi un centre culturel, le club Bon Accueil. Je veux féliciter les fondateurs et fondatrices qui avaient la prévoyance d'établir un tel établissement; et les bénévoles qui, depuis plus de 40 ans ont créé un héritage non seulement pour les résidents locaux, mais que le reste du Canada peut émuler.

J'aime bien entendre parler les touristes qui sont parfois surpris de voir le mot "bienvenue" sur les autobus publics. Au début des évènements comme le festival de la chorale Kathaumixw ont applaudi quand le maire de la petite ville de Powell River, située entre la mer et la grande nature, sur la côte ouest du Canada, presque 4,000 kilomètres du Québec — a souhaité la bienvenue en français.

[In celebrating the Journée de la Francophonie, I'd like to first say how proud I am to represent a rural community with the most robust French-speaking communities in the province. Powell River and the lower Sunshine Coast each have an active and vibrant French-speaking community.

While the Journée de la Francophonie was two days ago, the month has been declared by our government as one to celebrate the cultural diversity we enjoy due to our French-speaking brothers and sisters here and around the world.

Powell River–Sunshine Coast has the distinction of having two French schools — Ecole du Pacifique in Sechelt, founded in 1986, and Ecole Cote du Soleil, founded in 1979 in Powell River. Combined, they have an enrolment of over 200 students from elementary to high school.

Powell River also has a cultural centre, le Club Bon Accueil, which, loosely translated, means a place of a warm welcome. I'd like to congratulate its founders, who over 40 years ago had the foresight to create this place, as well as all the volunteers who have created a legacy not just for residents but for the rest of the country to emulate.

I like hearing tourists express their delight at seeing "Bienvenue" on our city buses and at the beginning of big events, like the upcoming Kathaumixw choral festival. We enjoy hearing Mayor Stewart Alsgard, the mayor of a little city on the ocean and surrounded by wilderness and 4,000 kilometres from Quebec, when he welcomes everyone in French as well as English.]

[French text and translation provided by N. Simons.]

WORLD WATER DAY AND
WATER LEGISLATION IN B.C.

J. Slater: Whether it is for human consumption, industrial processing, irrigating or agricultural uses, water touches everyone, and today, March 22, is World Water Day.

[1415]

The theme for the World Water Day 2010 is "Clean water for a healthy world." The overall goal for the 2010 campaign is to raise the profile of water at the political level so that water quality considerations are made alongside of those of water quantity.

It is still a reality that it's estimated that 1.1 billion people in the world rely on unsafe drinking water sources. Special events are happening throughout the world to bring awareness to the importance of water quality and quantity.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased and honoured that I will be at the launch of the Okanagan Basin Water Board's water supply and demand project this Friday, March 26, in Kelowna. After more than three years of intense study the project provides a comprehensive look at water availability in the Okanagan Valley. Most importantly, it includes an analysis of how our water supply will be affected by climate change. We believe that this project will be a learning resource for all watersheds in our province.

To respond to the new challenges that exist for managing British Columbia's water, including dealing with population growth and climate change, the government is looking at ways to modernize the Water Act. The Water Act was established in 1909 and is the province's primary water management legislation. The government recognizes that the social context in the Water Act was built upon very different circumstances a hundred years ago.
[ Page 3464 ]

Through the months of March and April the Ministry of Environment's water stewardship division is hosting 12 one-day Water Act modernization workshops throughout the province to share information, discuss principles for a new water act and explore proposals for change.

CHIMO ACHIEVEMENT CENTRE
IN COQUITLAM

D. Thorne: The Chimo Achievement Centre in Coquitlam has closed. For 25 years Chimo, a therapeutic rehabilitation centre, served North Fraser adults under 60 who suffered from serious physical disabilities. Chimo closed its doors to clients on January 31 when Fraser Health decided to cut the program, even though it had the small annual budget of only $164,000. What false economy.

Last Wednesday was the official goodbye event, which I attended. After working with these folks — clients and staff — for the past six months, trying to get Fraser Health to change its mind and save the Chimo program, I consider them to be friends. People from all over B.C. came to say goodbye — therapists, nurses, volunteers, clients and their caregivers — all participants from sometime between 1984 and 2010. Lots of tears and lots of laughter as tales were told out of school.

It's hard to figure out where the current clients or those on the waiting list will go. There are no comparable programs for people under 60 that I know of. It's hard to know how much this move will cost the health system in new dollars — dollars that had been saved by Chimo clients who no longer needed hospital care once they had discovered Chimo, a safe place where purpose, friendship, independence and meaning completely changed their lives.

Over the past six months Chimo supporters organized several rallies and press events to raise awareness about Chimo and its value. Their last hope, a big rally at Fraser Health's head office in Surrey, was very successful, even with the difficulty of getting many people in wheelchairs to one location. Unfortunately, this rally did not convince Fraser Health to reverse their shortsighted decision.

Sad to say, but that's the end of the road for the Chimo clients, who may, some of them, have lost their most precious reason for getting up in the morning.

I ask, and I ask this House: how do we put a price on independence?

Oral Questions

SCHOOL DISTRICT COSTS AND FUNDING

C. James: Last week the B.C. Liberals released school district budget numbers that have raised alarms across this province. Here's what the Surrey school board chair said: "The public needs to clearly look beyond the spin and ask…hard questions of the provincial government." This from the Kamloops school board chair: "I'm quite suspicious. Victoria doesn't run schools. The school districts of British Columbia run them, and we're where the rubber meets the road, and we need dollars now."

[1420]

My question is to the Minister of Education. School board chairs are speaking out. Parents are speaking out. Teachers are speaking out. There seems to be a voice missing when it comes to standing up for public education, and that's the B.C. Liberal voice.

Could I ask the minister now: what does she expect school boards to cut in this budget?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: I'd like to be really clear. Our government has made education a priority. That's why school districts will be receiving a record $4.6 billion next year in their operating grants. We said that we would provide the funding necessary for the teachers' salary increase, and we've done that — $54 million. We said we would provide funding for full-day kindergarten, starting for half of our students next fall — another $58 million going to school boards.

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

C. James: After that response, I couldn't say the school board chair in Kamloops could be more right when he says that Victoria doesn't run schools. It's a good thing that school boards are there to be able to stand up, because they certainly don't hear anyone standing up for education on this side of the House.

I'd like to remind this minister of some of the government's downloaded costs for school board — $900,000 in pension increases, $120,000 in MSP increases. Kamloops district faces a $2.4 million shortfall.

Again, to the minister. The Kamloops school district has already been forced to close schools because of the Liberals' broken promise in education. What more does the minister expect them to do to be able to manage the frozen costs that they're faced with?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: Our government, as I said, has made education an absolute priority. This year our government has provided a budget with increased spending in three areas: health, education and for our most vulnerable British Columbians. We've been able to do that in spite of revenues that are much lower than they have been in the past — a $1.7 billion deficit for the province.

But in spite of that, we have provided the funding for full-day kindergarten, we've provided funding for teachers' salaries, and we provided the annual facilities grant. We're investing in education like we never have before.
[ Page 3465 ]

With respect to Kamloops, they're like many of the districts in this province that have had substantial declining enrolment. Next year they will have 17 percent fewer students than they did in 2000, and yet, despite 200 fewer students next year, they will be receiving increased funding. Their per-pupil grant will be 31 percent higher than it was in 2001.

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

C. James: I would like to remind the minister of the facts. The facts are that schools are closing. The facts are that classes are going to be larger. The facts are that programs are being cut across this province. The facts are that parents are having to fundraise for basics in our schools. The Minister of Education's news release boasted of record-high funding. Well, the fact is that communities are facing record-high costs because of this government — communities like Kamloops, Vernon, Okanagan, Boundary, Comox Valley, Saanich and the Gulf Islands.

My question is again to the minister. When will she stop playing games with numbers? When will she admit that this government has downloaded costs onto school boards and that parents and students are not getting the quality public education that they deserve in this province?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: It does concern me when I hear the members opposite talk about the quality of education in this province, because we all know…. It's been acknowledged by the members opposite that we have excellent, high-quality education provided by high-quality educators in this province.

[1425]

Like many other jurisdictions in North America, we are experiencing enrolment decline in this province. It's projected that by next year we'll be down 60,000 students from the levels they were in 2000-2001. The only reason that enrolment is actually up this year is because we are implementing full-day kindergarten for half the students in this province.

When it comes to closing schools, this is a very difficult decision that is made in school districts at the school district level after consultation. But I'd like to remind the members opposite that we've been able to come to some agreement about school closures in the past, and I'd like to quote the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you, Minister.

R. Austin: The issue is this. The government has forced millions and millions of dollars of unfunded costs onto our school districts, and it's pushing school districts like Kamloops into a corner.

Here's what the vice-chair of the school district has to say: "By claiming education funding is on the rise while downloading costs on school districts, the province is playing a dirty game with the public."

Across B.C., parents and professionals are expressing deep concerns. They've been forced to consider alarming cuts. Where does the minister suggest communities like Kamloops should make these cuts?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: I really would like to take the opportunity to share with the House where we agree on school closures, and that's by quoting the Leader of the Opposition…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: …who said: "There are some schools that have been closed because of dropping enrolment, and you're always going to see that in the province. There were schools that were closed under the New Democrats because of dropping enrolment."

When you have 60,000 fewer students in a province, from time to time there will be a school closure. But we are continuing to invest not only the $54 million for the teachers' salaries and the $58 million for full-day kindergarten but $110 million for the annual facility grant. We are also going to make sure the HST does not cause a burden for school districts. We're investing in education in this province.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

R. Austin: On the annual facilities grant, let's be clear. It's coming back over two years, so it's actually being cut in half. Let's be clear about that.

Since last week when the numbers were released, the minister has had several opportunities to respond, to show that she gets it. She goes on and on about funding increases but says nothing about the record costs that are being downloaded.

Let's look at some of the unfunded costs, for example, in Surrey: $2 million for portables, half a million dollars in MSP increases, $3.6 million for pensions, $1 million in carbon offsets, $600,000 for student tracking. These costs and others have left the school district with a $12 million shortfall — this in a school district with an increasing population.

Again, to the minister. The school districts have already cut to the bone, and our kids have paid the price. What more does she expect them to sacrifice to make up for the government's broken promise to protect education?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: It's true. Surrey is one of the few districts — in fact, one of eight districts in the province
[ Page 3466 ]
— that's going to have increasing enrolment. Fully 52 of the 60 districts in this province between grade 1 and grade 12 will again have declining enrolment — a reality of the demographics in this province that is not anyone's fault; it is simply the reality.

In Surrey their enrolment next year is expected to be 15 percent higher than it was ten years ago. It is a growing district, and they will be receiving an additional $14 million of funding. Their funding per pupil will be 36 percent higher than it was ten years ago. In addition to that, in Surrey we've invested over $200 million in capital projects and seismic upgrades.

FUNDING FOR
SURREY SCHOOL DISTRICT

H. Bains: Surrey school board has to spend $2 million on portables because of the download cost by this minister and this government. There will be 235 portables as a result of neglect by this government.

My question to the minister is this. It's a growing community. It has a growing enrolment. Why are you downloading, and where are they supposed to cut in order to preserve that education?

[1430]

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: My colleague reminds me that back when the opposition was governing, the number of portables in Surrey would have made up the tenth-largest school district.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: As I mentioned, there's over $202 million of investment in new school seismic upgrades and additions in Surrey. Those include, for example, Cambridge Elementary, which was an $8 million investment for a 400-student-capacity school. We're investing, and we're working to expand classrooms in Surrey, one of the fastest-growing districts in British Columbia.

FUNDING FOR VERNON AND
CENTRAL OKANAGAN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

N. Macdonald: Okanagan Similkameen, Okanagan Skaha, North Okanagan, Shuswap, Vernon — these districts have costs that continue to rise significantly, yet their budgets have been frozen. Everyone knows that means cuts to services in the classroom. These are expenditures that are predictable. The minister knows this.

Medical premiums, pension costs, and costs like carbon offsets, increased hydro costs — all of these are government-downloaded costs onto districts. What Bill Turanski, chair of the Vernon school district, says is that parents have to get ready for substantial reductions for students.

My question to the Minister of Education is this. What programs or services to students does she suggest Vernon school district cut?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: Vernon is one of those districts where enrolment is declining. This year they're expected to have 14.5 percent fewer students than they did ten years ago. They are going to have the same funding that they did last year, in spite of the fact they have over a 2 percent decline in enrolment.

That is one of the things we have done in the Ministry of Education. Where student enrolment is declining, we provide funding protection for these districts so that they can plan. It is difficult, and we acknowledge that it is difficult when enrolment is declining.

This district this year will have per-pupil funding that is actually $2,300 higher than it was in 2000, and that is almost a 40 percent increase in funding. We are providing increased funding in education, because as I have said, it is a priority for this government. But I would ask the members opposite: if they believe that this area should receive more funding, what would they do? Which taxes would they raise? Would they increase school property taxes? How high a deficit should we have in this province? These are important questions.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

N. Macdonald: The minister asks an interesting question. There are three Ministers of Sport. There are two Ministers of Health. There are two Ministers of Forests. This is the most bloated cabinet in the history of British Columbia. If there are cuts to be made, administrative cuts that the Education Minister talks about, I suggest you start right there, Minister — right there.

But it's not just about declining enrolment. The Central Okanagan district is a growing district. There are 300 new students that will be entering the classroom next year, yet it is $4.5 million short of what is needed to maintain services. This is the third year in a row that there are going to be cuts to Kelowna schools.

Now the district is talking about being forced to eliminate classes like advanced placement, calculus 12 and a whole range of other programs, all significant steps backward for our public schools in Kelowna. The question I have, again to the Minister of Education: why are children being denied important opportunities because of this government's fiscal incompetence?

[1435]

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: It is difficult to receive instruction from the members opposite on fiscal incompetence
[ Page 3467 ]
— the group that took British Columbia from have to have-not status during their tenure.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Continue, Minister.

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: The Central Okanagan district has had a slight enrolment decline — 3.3 percent lower next year than it was ten years ago. They will be receiving additional funding next year of $3 million, and I'd like to point out that their per-pupil funding has actually gone up 33 percent in the last ten years. Not only that, but because of unique geographic school features, this school district receives extra funding to acknowledge that they have climate issues, sparseness and some very small communities.

We're investing in this school district, and we're investing right across the province with new funds and new programs, the beginning of full-day kindergarten. This is a very positive time and a very positive budget for British Columbia's students.

FUNDING FOR COMMUNITY SOCIAL
SERVICES WORKER PENSION PLANS

S. Simpson: In 2006 the B.C. Liberals negotiated the enrolment of unionized community social service workers into the municipal pension plan. This is to take effect on March 31 of this year. The government assured the cash-strapped community service agencies that they would cover the employers' costs to fund this pension commitment.

Those assurances are now unravelling, and the government is reneging and telling these organizations they will largely be on their own to find the money elsewhere. This could cost these organizations as much as 7 percent of their salary budgets. Will the Minister of Housing and Social Development commit today to keep his government's promise and fund the employers' share of these pension plans?

Hon. C. Hansen: Government has been working with this sector to look at the cost implications of this transition. As the member may know, it is a subject of collective agreement. There is a tentative settlement in that particular bargaining unit, which is subject to ratification. We anticipate that we will continue to work with the sector and work with the relevant ministries to ensure that we live up to the obligations that government has made.

Mr. Speaker: Member has a supplemental.

S. Simpson: What we know is that this commitment comes due on March 31. What we know is that after the offset of existing RRSP money, there's a $12 million unfunded commitment this year and a $20 million unfunded commitment next year for over 200 organizations in this province — organizations that have had their grants cut, their contracts cut — and they now face this.

This government made a commitment in 2006. This minister's predecessor made the commitment in order to ensure labour peace during the Olympics. They're now breaking this commitment like they broke other commitments, like they broke the commitment around the HST. Will the minister stand up today and tell these organizations they won't have to face this download from the B.C. Liberals?

Hon. C. Hansen: I'm not going to engage in a collective bargaining process on the floor of the Legislature, but I can assure the House that this government will live up to those commitments.

[1440]

B.C. HYDRO ENERGY PURCHASE AGREEMENTS
WITH FINAVERA RENEWABLES

J. Horgan: Last week Finavera Renewables was awarded four contracts in B.C. Hydro's clean energy call. Now, this is a company that one market analyst said two years ago was characterized by being "undercapitalized, with little experience and no turbine agreements." That's the end of the quote.

Just last January the stock was trading at about three cents, and they had a debt of $41 million. Fortunately, a track record in renewable energy is not a prerequisite, apparently, and these executives at Finavera had expertise at moving public money into private hands when they assisted Accenture in privatizing one-third of B.C. Hydro, moving $1.5 billion from the public realm into private hands.

So my question is a simple one to the Minister of Energy. How is it that after two years the best you could do with respect to wind turbines is to retain a company that has no experience and that was selling for about three cents a share?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: I'm surprised at the question. There is a rigorous process that applicants go through to receive EPAs through B.C. Hydro. We don't hand-pick winners and losers in the sense of who can actually do their business in a way that's acceptable within the public body.

But let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, what's even more surprising from the opposition. Now they're opposed to wind energy. They seem to be opposed to B.C. Hydro. They seem to be opposed to independent power projects. But the reality is…. What I'll tell you is that each and every applicant that goes into this process goes through a rigorous process. There are evaluations done to ensure that they meet the criteria established for EPAs in this province, and they met them.

Mr. Speaker: Member has a supplemental.
[ Page 3468 ]

J. Horgan: The last wind project that went under, the Dokie wind farm in Chetwynd, in the minister's riding, was bailed out when Plutonic Power was assisted with a revised contract. The terms of those contracts have not been made public. The minister made a commitment to make those costs public so that the people of British Columbia could have some sense of whether or not the ministry and this government are pushing renewable energies at a time when we can't afford to do it, certainly on the wind front.

We've got four wind farms in the minister's riding — no idea what the cost is going to be. We have no idea what the impact is going to be on B.C. Hydro ratepayers. All we know at this point is that the company was selling for about three cents a share less than a year ago, and now they've got a windfall.

Will the minister agree today to table all of the material numbers and data on these contracts so that the public can have a say? Do it today. Let's not wait for Christmas.

Hon. B. Lekstrom: I would think the member knows this, but he's doing this, probably, for show. The reality is that the EPAs, actually, that are entered into, Member, have to be put before the B.C. Utilities Commission, at which time the range of prices will be shared with the public. So at this time for you to ask the question….

I know, coming from the previous administration, when the NDP actually did the same thing with IPPs — let's be very clear about that — that you know how the process works. It's premature. B.C. Hydro will file these applications with the British Columbia Utilities Commission, at which time the full range of prices for these EPAs will be made public.

B. Ralston: Stock analysts knowledgable about the industry question the strength and credentials of Finavera, noting that "making a serious error in accurate project bidding is typically more of a problem for inexperienced developers" — developers like Finavera. Does the Minister of Energy have a backup bailout plan at a secret price ready to go, as he did with the Dokie wind project, or is he content just to gamble public money?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: It is not the minister that sets the rates for power, as it was done under the B.C. New Democrats during the 1990s. In fact, the B.C. Utilities Commission will look at these EPAs. They will make a decision whether it is in the public interest or not.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Minister, just take your seat for a second.

Continue, Minister.

[1445]

Hon. B. Lekstrom: What I do find interesting is now…. I guess the policy being developed by the New Democrats is that unless you have high share prices, you can't bid in. We don't operate that way. We're actually going to take the best of the best.

These energy purchase agreements are negotiated. B.C. Hydro then submits those to the British Columbia Utilities Commission for their involvement, to determine whether it's in the public interest. But if what the member is implying is that I, as the MLA for Peace River South, had anything to do with setting the prices for Dokie, step outside and make that in the hallways, Member, because you're dead wrong.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

The member has a supplemental.

B. Ralston: The minister has given heart to those who trade pink-sheet stocks and over-the-counter stocks everywhere. I'm sure Mr. Baines will have a heyday when he begins analysis of some of these deals.

Knowledgable analysts didn't expect Finavera to be awarded an energy purchase agreement, and no wonder — a debt-ridden company with a $41 million cumulative deficit and a stock price of three cents. What assurance can the minister provide that the public, through B.C. Hydro, is paying huge dollars for real value and not just for the insider political connections of a company that stock market analysts call inexperienced developers?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: These processes that take place on an energy purchase agreement are evaluated fully by B.C. Hydro, which is a valuable Crown corporation, one I believe that most British Columbians, if not every single one, is very proud to call their own.

Most importantly is that once those EPAs are negotiated, those energy purchase agreements are put before the British Columbia Utilities Commission to be evaluated whether they're in the public interest or not. That body makes the determination whether to accept or reject that energy purchase agreement, and I have faith that they do a good job on behalf of British Columbians. We will not be setting the rates, as the NDP did, at the cabinet table in order to gain votes in British Columbia.

CHILD IN THE HOME OF A RELATIVE
PROGRAM AND EXTENDED FAMILY PROGRAM

N. Simons: My question is to the Minister of Children and Families. Earlier this month she announced the end of a program called Child in the Home of a Relative, which serves approximately 4,500 children in this
[ Page 3469 ]
province. She said the replacement in the Ministry of Children and Families would be a new program called family preservation or enhanced family program — extended, something like that.

The facts remain. There's a transfer of 4,500 children to a new ministry without any additional resources for that ministry — a ministry that's already understaffed, that's experiencing budget cuts on a regular basis and a ministry that Justice Hughes pointed out so eloquently, saying it "mustn't go through unmanageable change without the adequate resources."

How can that minister justify the end of a program serving 4,500 children — and a new one — and say that it's not going to have any impact on the workload of child protection social workers?

Hon. M. Polak: It's a bit difficult to know how to begin when the member is wrong on so many points. First and foremost, the program is called the extended family program. Secondly, the Child in the Home of a Relative program has not been cancelled; it has been capped. All 4,500 people who are involved in the Child in the Home of a Relative program will see absolutely no change to the support that they are receiving. And finally, our ministry this year will receive a budget increase of $9.5 million.

[1450]

The extended family program is just one more opportunity for social workers to have a tool for out-of-care options, because we know that the best place for children is in homes with families.

[End of question period.]

Petitions

K. Conroy: I have a petition with over 6,500 signatures from people in the West Kootenay concerned about the reduction of operating time by 25 percent at Kootenay-Boundary Regional Hospital. They're asking the Minister of Health to rescind the cuts to health care in the West Kootenays.

Introductions by Members

Hon. B. Lekstrom: I rise to make an introduction. Joining us in the gallery are Lawrence and Joanne Cook, as well as Belinda MacInnis-Baker.

Lawrence and Joanne are visiting us from New Brunswick. They are visiting family in the Comox and Victoria area. Lawrence works for New Brunswick Power, which is similar to our version of B.C. Hydro power. Belinda is their host in Victoria and is a nurse at Victoria General Hospital. Will the assembly please make them welcome.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: In Committee A, I call Committee of Supply. For the information of members, we'll be discussing the estimates of the Ministry of Citizens' Services and, in this chamber, second reading on Bill 3, Supply Act (No. 1), 2010.

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 3 — Supply act (No. 1), 2010

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

This bill is required to provide for the continued delivery of government services to the public. The first section of the bill provides supply for the first ten weeks of the 2010-2011 fiscal year, based on the voted expenses as presented in the 2010-2011 estimates. Ten weeks takes us to the scheduled end of the current legislative session, allowing sufficient time for debate of the estimates.

The second section provides for 50 percent of the voted financing transaction requirements set out in schedules C and D of the 2010-11 estimates. These disbursements are not evenly distributed throughout the year. The additional appropriation is required to accommodate project timing.

The third section provides for revenue collected for and transferred to other entities which appear in schedule E of the estimates. As there is no impact on the surplus, borrowing or debt resulting from schedule E financing transaction, 100 percent of the year's requirements is being sought in this supply bill.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

B. Ralston: Just to respond briefly, this bill is customary at this point in the estimates process, being necessary to fund the ongoing operation of government. The opposition, by supporting this bill, is simply supporting the ongoing operation of government and not necessarily taking any position on the budget bill itself, as we've clearly indicated in earlier debate and on the vote which took place some ten days ago. We voted against the budget.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

So this is simply a normal part of the parliamentary process. I want to assure anyone who might be listening with fascination to this debate here. The opposition supports Supply Act (No 1).

Mr. Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, Minister of Finance closes debate.
[ Page 3470 ]

Hon. C. Hansen: I'll just simply move second reading of Bill 3, Supply Act (No. 1), 2010.

Motion approved.

Hon. C. Hansen: I move that Bill 3 be referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 3, Supply Act (No. 1), 2010, 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. I. Chong: I call Bill 2, Budget Measures Implementation Act, 2010, for second reading.

Bill 2 — BUDGET MEASURES
IMPLEMENTATION ACT, 2010

Hon. C. Hansen: I move that Bill 2, Budget Measures Implementation Act, 2010, be read a second time now.

Bill 2 is divided into two parts. Part 1 enables several non-tax initiatives in the budget and in the fiscal planning process, and part 2 implements the tax measures that are contained in this year's budget.

[1455]

In part 1 the Members' Remuneration and Pensions Act is amended to freeze the annual compensation for Members of the Legislative Assembly for a period of two years. In these times of financial restraint government's negotiating framework for renewing labour contracts is set at a net zero wage mandate. This amendment reinforces government's commitment that the net zero mandate applies to everyone in government, even members of this House.

The B.C. Railway Act is amended to transfer government shares in B.C. Rail to the B.C. Transportation Financing Authority and to enable direct distributions to the CRF. B.C. Rail is being made a subsidiary of the B.C. Transportation Financing Authority in order to achieve administrative efficiencies and better provide coordination of resources in support of the Pacific gateway strategy.

B.C. Rail will continue as a legal entity with its existing legislative authority, including ownership of all B.C. Rail's right-of-way, railbeds, tracks and land, and the move does not alter the province's revitalization agreement with CN Rail or other existing agreements or contracts.

Bill 2 amends the Homeowner Protection Act in order to, first of all, dissolve the Homeowner Protection Office as a Crown agency, effective April 1, 2010; secondly, transfer the administration of the reconstruction loan portfolio to the Ministry of Finance; and thirdly, transfer the administration of the remaining functions of the act, including residential builder licensing and home warranty system oversight, to the B.C. Housing Management Commission.

In July of 2009 the province announced that it would no longer be accepting applications for new loans under the reconstruction program. However, ongoing management of the active reconstruction loan portfolio remains to be done. Responsibility for the portfolio will be integrated with the existing loan administration responsibilities of the Ministry of Finance. The reconstruction fee paid by builders on new construction of multi-unit residential buildings will continue until all financial obligations of the reconstruction loan portfolio are retired.

The consumer protection mandate of the Homeowner Protection Act continues as before, but with program administration assumed by B.C. Housing. B.C. Housing will retain the Homeowner Protection Office brand, which is expected to result in a seamless transition for stakeholders. These changes are expected to improve service delivery, reduce corporate overhead and result in administrative efficiencies.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

The Budget Transparency and Accountability Act is being amended to provide Treasury Board with the authority to determine the accounting and reporting framework for all of government. The amendments will enable Treasury Board to ensure that the province's financial information is recorded and reported in a consistent, transparent and accountable manner. The accounting standards and guidelines that make up generally accepted accounting principles for senior governments — or public sector GAAP, as we refer to it — are set by the Canadian public sector accounting standards board.

Up until now public sector GAAP has reflected the legislative and policy framework of government. However, public sector GAAP is scheduled to undergo significant changes in 2011 that may result in a lack of consistency and clarity in government financial reporting.

Some of the changes, including a direction that commercial Crown corporations are to follow international private sector standards, are inconsistent with how government organizations are managed and regulated. Government needs the flexibility to ensure that the accounting standards and guidelines it uses for financial reporting reflect government's legislative and policy framework.

The amendments provide Treasury Board with the authority to adopt by regulation an alternative standard or guideline to what is proposed under public sector GAAP. The alternative standards or guidelines must come from other areas of Canadian GAAP or from GAAP as determined by an accredited standard-setting organization in another jurisdiction.
[ Page 3471 ]

To ensure transparency and understanding, the fiscal impact of any alternate standard adopted by Treasury Board must be made public the same as for any accounting policy change. Government remains committed to reporting its finances according to generally accepted accounting principles.

These amendments will ensure that the GAAP we use makes sense within the context of government's legislative and policy framework. Treasury Board is also provided with the authority to issue directives on the accounting policies and practices of government organizations.

[1500]

Within GAAP, individual policies often include options on how the policies are to be applied. These directives will ensure consistency among individual government organizations when applying common accounting policies and frameworks.

A new section in the Financial Administration Act provides authority for the comptroller general to ensure that all government organizations follow the accounting policies and practices adopted by Treasury Board. This includes the authority to examine and report back to Treasury Board on all financial and accounting matters relating to government organizations.

The amendment also ensures that any requirements issued by the comptroller general will comply with the accounting standards and guidelines set by Treasury Board.

The University Act and the College and Institute Act contain solvency provisions that state expenditures must not exceed grants received plus other revenues. These provisions ensure that post-secondary institutions budget and operate within their means.

However, under recent changes to GAAP, other revenues can include unrealized gains. These are paper gains in market investments that can disappear very quickly, as we have seen in recent times. Basing spending on paper gains can leave an institute exposed to financial difficulties should those gains disappear in a market downturn.

Similarly, the term "expenditures" is deemed to only include cash payments for operating costs. It would be more prudent to include all expenses in the calculation, including liabilities that will have to be paid in the future. Therefore, the solvency provisions in these acts are being strengthened by providing definitions of revenue and expenditure.

These definitions do not alter how post-secondary institutions record and report their financial information. They're part of an internal fiscal management solvency test that will ensure that post-secondary institutions operate in a fiscally responsible manner.

Bill 2 amends the Insurance Corporation Act in order to modernize its provisions and reinforce the segregation of ICBC operations into two lines of business, basic and optional. The amendments adopt the federal guidelines on capitalization for insurance companies and apply them to ICBC's optional insurance business.

The provision that the corporation can be directed to make payments to the CRF is maintained. This is not new. However, the amendments clarify that any payment made to the consolidated revenue fund can only come from optional capital and that the payment cannot cause ICBC's capital to fall below the minimum amount established under the federal guidelines.

As well, the amendments enable the adoption of the federal guidelines to any order issued under the act, and they give Treasury Board the authority to reduce the amount that otherwise would be payable under a capital payment order.

ICBC's basic insurance business is not impacted by this legislation. Basic insurance continues to be regulated by the B.C. Utilities Commission. The basic insurance capital will remain in ICBC to keep rates low and stable.

For optional insurance, the amendments ensure that ICBC operates in a manner similar to private insurance companies. The competitive marketplace will ensure that prices remain fair and that ICBC's optional insurance customers receive value for their money.

Part 1 of Bill 2 also has a few minor housekeeping measures. The Financial Administration Act is amended to enable appropriate accounting for recoveries to a vote. The Financial Information Act is amended to remove an out-of-date reference to the Vancouver Convention Centre Expansion Project Ltd., and the Budget Transparency and Accountability Act is amended to set the minimum number of members of the Economic Forecast Council at ten.

In part 2 of Bill 2, it amends 12 tax statutes to implement some of the tax measures announced in Budget 2010. These measures provide additional support for homeowners and families. They ensure that our agricultural, industrial, film and mining sectors remain competitive. They improve tobacco tax administration and enforcement, and they make a number of technical and administrative improvements to various statutes.

[1505]

As announced in the throne speech, the Land Tax Deferment Act is amended to allow families with children to defer their property taxes. Effective for the current property tax year, this new ongoing program could benefit up to 400,000 families throughout the province. It builds on the longstanding deferment program for those aged 55 and older and the temporary program for those experiencing financial hardship.

Municipalities will be fully compensated, so this program will not affect local government revenues or services. It will, however, provide a very significant benefit to eligible families who use the program to help manage their budgets while raising and caring for their families.
[ Page 3472 ]

As part of the government's commitment to return carbon tax to taxpayers through tax cuts, amendments to the Home Owner Grant Act provide homeowners outside of the greater Vancouver, Fraser Valley and capital region districts with a new annual benefit of up to $200 to reduce their property taxes.

This benefit is effective for the 2011 property tax year and will be delivered together with the existing homeowner grant. It will provide most homeowners with a combined benefit up to $770 per year and seniors with a combined benefit of up to $1,045 per year. This benefit specifically helps those in communities impacted by the economic downturn.

Also, as part of government's commitment to return carbon tax revenue to taxpayers, the School Act is amended, effective for the 2011 property tax year, to provide a new 50 percent school tax credit for land classified as farm and to increase the school tax credit for industrial properties to 60 percent from the previous level of 50 percent. These changes will further enhance the competitiveness of our agricultural and industrial sectors.

The mining sector will benefit from an amendment to the Income Tax Act to extend the B.C. mining flow-through share tax credit to the end of 2013. This three-year extension will provide greater certainty and stability for the mining industry and will allow them to move forward.

The Income Tax Act is also amended to enhance provincial film tax credits. These enhancements, when combined with a new tax credit for interactive digital media which will be introduced later this session, support the continued growth and development of these two important and converging sectors.

The changes to the tax credit include an increase in the production services tax credit to 33 percent from 25 percent, an increase in the digital animation or visual effects tax credit bonus to 17.5 percent from 15 percent and an increase in the cap on qualified B.C. labour expenditures to 60 percent from 48 percent of production costs to match the federal cap. As previously announced, these changes are effective for productions with principal photography that began after February 28, 2010.

The Corporation Capital Tax Act is amended to repeal the financial institutions minimum tax. Upon further analysis, it has become apparent that a provincial minimum tax is not necessary because the federal minimum tax which applies to banks provides a form of provincial minimum corporate tax for banks.

Moreover, as a condition for receiving federal compensation for eliminating the capital tax, the provincial financial institutions minimum tax was designed to ensure that no tax is payable under normal operating conditions. Therefore, the removal of the tax will have no effect on provincial revenues.

Bill 2 also amends the Tobacco Tax Act to clarify the calculation of the tax on cigars and increase the minimum tax payable per cigar to $6 from $5. Amendments also provide authority for an annual fee to be imposed on all persons selling tobacco in the province, and payment of the fee, which will be implemented later this year, will be required to sell tobacco in the province. Revenue from the fee will fund an up-to-date registry of all tobacco sellers, which will improve tobacco tax enforcement and administration.

Bill 2 contains a number of technical amendments that provide greater clarity and certainty for vendors, purchasers and government. Amendments to the Carbon Tax Act, effective March 3, 2010, clarify that the definition of "natural gas" includes acid gas and waste gas, even if separated from natural gas, to ensure that the emission from these sources are taxed as intended.

[1510]

Effective July 1, 2010, propane is included in the carbon tax collection security scheme that applies to the sale of most other fuels in the province, including gasoline and diesel fuel. The security scheme essentially shifts the responsibility for the collection of tax to the wholesale level from the retail level. This change will significantly reduce compliance costs for the many retailers of propane who are currently required to collect and remit the tax.

Also effective July 1, 2010, and again to reduce compliance costs, the carbon tax rate for kerosene is increased slightly to 5.22 cents per litre from 5.08 cents per litre to equal the jet fuel tax rate. This will eliminate the costly need to label and track sales of kerosene separately from jet fuel.

The Motor Fuel Tax Act and the Carbon Tax Act are amended effective March 3, 2010, to introduce a penalty for persons who sell fuel in the province without first being appointed as a collector. These provisions are similar to penalty provisions in other provincial acts.

Two technical amendments are made to the Property Transfer Tax Act to ensure that taxpayers benefit from the exemption for transfers to correct conveyancing errors and receive an exemption for amendments to strata plans under the Strata Property Act. The former is generally consistent with the longstanding administration, and the latter is required to reinstate an exemption that was lost when the Condominium Act was replaced with the Strata Property Act.

Technical amendments are made to the Assessment Act and the Ports Property Tax Act to ensure that the same land is designated under both statutes consistent with current policy and administration.

Finally, for many years under the Tourist Accommodation (Assessment Relief) Act, the assessed value of business-class, short-term overnight commercial accommodation property has been reduced for property tax purposes under a number of designated acts.

Amendments effective this year clarify that the Police Act, the School Act, the South Coast British Columbia
[ Page 3473 ]
Transportation Authority Act and the University Endowment Land Act are included in the definition of "designated acts" consistent with longstanding administrative practice.

Bill 2 ensures government's net zero wage mandate applies to everyone. It streamlines the administration of the B.C. rail act and the Homeowner Protection Office. It ensures government's financial reporting will continue to be consistent and transparent. It ensures that our post-secondary institutes remain solvent and operate in a financially responsible manner, and it modernizes the management of ICBC's capital.

This act provides additional support for eligible homeowners and families. It enhances the competitiveness of certain sectors to ensure that they are prepared to take full advantage of the economic recovery, and it makes technical and administrative changes to simplify compliance and improve the administration of various statutes.

B. Ralston: This bill seeks to implement many of the measures set forth in the budget that the House voted on some ten days ago, but it's notable for several things in the sense that it does not implement the HST, which is the centrepiece of the government's economic recovery plan.

Imposing a new tax on small business and consumers appears to be something that this government is dead set upon putting through, despite their commitment in writing in the last election not to do that at all. There's nothing in here about the HST.

Once again, today when the opportunity came to introduce legislation that would assist the HST by repealing various provincial statutes — changing the Income Tax Act and various other amendments that are necessary — it was not forthcoming. So one waits, I suppose, with anticipation as to just when that bill will be tabled.

There does seem to be some question about the government's timetable in terms of bringing forward that legislation. There was some speculation in the media recently as to what the timing is on the implementation of the proposed changes to phasing out the provincial sales tax, which might be required in order to recoup the $750 million bargained for in the agreement between the federal government and the provincial government on the issue of implementing the tax.

The minister was quoted as saying that in his view the legislation was required, and he was proceeding on the assumption that it had to be introduced and passed by the end of this month — that is, the end of March.

[1515]

Last week I took the opportunity to direct a letter to Mr. Doyle, who is the Auditor General, and I asked him if he would advise me on this question. It is understood that in order for revenue to be recognized, it has to be certain.

The agreement says that the originally negotiated $750 million would be paid to the province by the federal government "within seven days of the tabling by the province of legislation to wind down the provincial sales tax of the province." I asked the Auditor General to comment on that.

This is relevant to the budget implementation act, in my submission. I don't hear the Speaker chiding me just yet, and I notice I have the member for West Vancouver–Capilano — who always assumes a role in setting me straight when I stray, in his view, bearing in mind his professorial background…. I appreciate his guidance as well. So I'm well served here by guidance on when I'm in order and when I'm not.

I do want to say that the Auditor General then replied to me on March 12, saying that according to the documents that he had available to him, if the legislation were simply introduced before the end of March, it complied with the agreement and therefore could be recognized as revenue.

The Minister of Finance has negotiated, for reasons best known to himself, the sum of $750 million down to $250 million, but that could be recognized if the legislation were introduced — merely introduced, not passed — by the end of March 31.

The other area that this bill does not address is the changes to the International Financial Activity Act, and I expect that the minister, if he's considering advancing the changes that were announced in the throne speech, would deal with that in a separate bill. But this bill does do a number of things, and I propose briefly to comment on some of them, much in the sequence that the minister himself adopted working through the bill.

It is striking in many ways that there is really a dearth of vision and scope in this particular budget. The rather shrunken nature of Bill 2 really expresses in legislative form the limited demands that the government has placed upon itself to provide a vision of going forward, particularly at this crossroads as we end the Olympics and come out of the recession and look forward to new growth and new prosperity. The government really seems to have run out of all but very small ideas on that score.

I want to record the position of the opposition on the freezing of members' compensation. Indeed, that's something that…. When questioned some time ago, I suggested that if the government wished to bring in that freeze, the opposition would support it. I simply want to record the fact that the opposition will support that provision of this bill — that is, to freeze members' compensation at the current level for two fiscal years.

The legislation proposes to take B.C. Rail in-house. This would appear to be a response that arose out of public expressions of concern about the fact that B.C. Rail in its present form really runs no trains and merely 40 kilometres of track, yet compensates a CEO at $496,000 a year and vice-presidents at $232,000 and $213,000.
[ Page 3474 ]

It's not clear, I don't think, to any member of the public what the public purpose of B.C. Rail is at this point — certainly not sufficient to justify that kind of compensation to executives, given the rather narrow range of duties that they're asked to perform.

[1520]

At committee stage, obviously, there'll be an opportunity to ask more probing questions. One of the questions that will be posed is: what is the future of those executives, their compensation? Will there be severance packages, or are they planning to stay on?

This legislation proposes taking it in-house under the responsibility of the Minister of Transportation. Very much as Tourism B.C. ended its existence as an independent agency, perhaps for different reasons, B.C. Rail — what's left of it — will be taken in under the auspices of the Ministry of Transportation. It will be the subject of some questions when the opportunity arises.

The changes that the minister spoke of to the Budget Transparency and Accountability Act and the Financial Administration Act arise from, I think, matters that accountants are very vexed about these days. That's the transfer, certainly, in possibly the commercial Crowns to the international financial reporting standards. That's a step taking place in the private sector around the world in stages. There's clearly an impact, at least on the commercial Crowns such as B.C. Hydro.

There is much debate about the efficacy or the reporting effect of IFRS in the sense that some people…. I think that Al Rosen, who's a noted financial commentator particularly on accounting matters, feels it is a very backward step rather than GAAP, which has come to occupy the financial world, particularly at this time when questions of accounting and public scrutiny of accounting measures…. Certainly, if one looks to some of the aspects of the financial crisis, whether it's financial institutions broadly speaking across the world, there's very much concern about transparency. Nonetheless, I doubt his view is going to prevail, and the commercial world is moving in that direction.

Obviously, there are implications here in British Columbia, and that is something that the comptroller general has advised the Public Accounts Committee on. This provision would appear to give the government some tools to evaluate, based on professional advice, the best accounting standards for different aspects of the government reporting entity and those outside the government reporting entity as well.

Some of this, as I've said, is detail that's beloved particularly only by accountants. Nonetheless, it is critical in making clear just what steps are being taken within government in accounting for many of the financial transactions that take place within a $40-billion-a-year operation. That is something we'll deal with at second reading.

The next area that appears to be amended is the University Act and the College and Institute Act. Again, if I could briefly set out my position. I believe that's certainly within the ambit of second reading debate on these broad matters.

There was much debate about…. Certainly the late Fred Gingell, who was the opposition Finance critic up until his death in 1999, was very much an advocate of bringing universities and colleges and the SUCH sector broadly within the government reporting entity. Certainly, the Auditor General placed reservations on the public accounts of the province because that wasn't done.

As I understand the changes that are proposed at this stage, they will not impact on the fact that the SUCH sector, as it's called — schools, universities, colleges and hospitals — will remain within the government reporting entity, but it will merely tweak some of the accounting standards that apply to those entities in their financial relationship with government. In that sense, again, that will have to be explored at committee stage, but certainly I will reserve my right to ask questions at that stage.

[1525]

The more controversial amendment that's introduced here as part of Bill 2 is an amendment to the Insurance Corporation Act. This has been widely denounced as a step by which the government has extracted cash reserves from the Insurance Corporation and is using them for other government purposes.

The minister has insisted that that is because the optional side of the Insurance Corporation will then be governed by voluntary financial standards that apply to the federal insurance industry, setting the minimum amount for reserves. That's again something that will be explored in committee stage.

Certainly, this step is widely regarded as a disguised cash grab rather than as a reinforcement of the financial probity of the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia.

There are a number of tax measures that are proposed. The amendment to the Home Owner Grant Act, which proposes to provide a new northern and rural benefit of up to $200 to homeowners outside the Lower Mainland and capital regional district, is one where I think there is some legitimate confusion in the public.

The definition of "northern" appears to be very porous. I believe there are citizens in Kamloops who are questioning whether it applies to them or not. Certainly, I'll be asking the minister, and I'm sure he will provide clarity, to what areas of the province geographically that provision will apply to.

There is an estimate of its cost. It's a program that will cost some $20 million in the first year and $83 million in the second year, so it's a substantial program in that sense.

The next area that's proposed as an area of revision is the revision to the land tax or the so-called Land
[ Page 3475 ]
Tax Deferment Act. This is a measure that the minister justifies as enabling families to plan by deferring their property tax.

One would have some sympathy for people in a jam where this may be the only place at which they can remove a stone from their financial shoe, if I could put it that way. But it is really an encouragement, in the eyes of many people, to take on more debt. When you defer your property tax, it doesn't disappear. It remains as a debt that you owe.

Presumably, people might think that they could pay it off when they sell their property at some point in the future, but it does accumulate interest as well. There is a real question among many as to whether it is a good incentive, is a good measure to encourage families to simply take on more debt, rather than encourage financial planning in the broader sense.

There are some issues about take-up of this and what the anticipated take-up is. It's clear that it will operate much in the same way as other programs of tax deferral, particularly that one for seniors, which I think has been around for many years. This certainly expands that program. In the eyes of many it's of questionable value and the wrong kind of policy incentive for families. Some have described it as simply just putting off the day of reckoning on debt.

The School Act amendment provisions proposed. There is a proposal to increase the school tax credit for industrial properties to 60 percent from 50 percent.

[1530]

I suppose the question here, and the minister hasn't really provided much of a justification for it, is that at the same time, the Minister of Community and Rural Development has announced a joint review of major industrial property assessment and taxation. Even as the review is out the gate, the composition of the committee has determined that there has been that announcement.

This is certainly a burning issue among many municipalities. It was discussed at the Union of B.C. Municipalities conference, with presentations from Mr. Gerry Armstrong and from Mr. Finlayson of the B.C. Business Council. One wonders why the minister is moving forward at this time with that increase in the credit, when the commission that he has asked to look at this is merely getting its feet in terms of beginning to prepare to comment on that.

Obviously, this is an issue that, while it may seem very banal, excites — understandably so, because it is a significant source of revenue for many municipalities — much passion, particularly among those who represent citizens at the local level.

If I might, I want to quote from the member for Kamloops–North Thompson in his previous incarnation as the mayor of Kamloops. He said: "Many cities are rapidly growing, and we face infrastructure costs with sewer, water and roads, which of course are used by heavy industry. And yet we are not seeing a lot of other options in terms of where we get our money to support our cities. Where do you see us replacing that income?"

He's now a member of the Legislature, so perhaps we'll hear his views on this topic at some point. But certainly, he expressed very succinctly the question that many other mayors and members of councils across British Columbia express as to how the revenue, which is of course scarce, and the property taxation — whether it's residential or classes 4 and 5, industrial and commercial — are the major source of revenue for most towns and cities in the province. What's the offsetting mechanism?

Again, the other thing here that's notable is this is a continuation of the standard B.C. Liberal policy, which is tax policy concession for no tangible return. The moving from 50 to 60 percent, even as the debate at this committee goes on…. It hasn't even begun to meet yet. It has simply been appointed. There's nothing that's taken place that suggests that in return for giving that concession to industry, the government received anything in return.

It's simply a tax policy change without any analysis as to what the effect might be — other than, I suppose, perhaps, to respond to some of the loudest voices, such as Catalyst, who have been before the courts with their view that they're unwilling to pay their assessed property taxes in several communities in the province. The latest is that the courts have not agreed with them. They were certainly rebuffed in the B.C. Supreme Court by Mr. Justice Voith, I believe, on that issue.

It's a live debate. It's an important debate. It's important to many towns and cities in the province. There's a review underway, yet the minister, in this bill, makes another concession. It seems to be something that doesn't appear to have been terribly well-thought-out, and I look forward to engaging with the minister in committee on this point.

The amendments to the Income Tax Act. The government has proposed some enhanced film tax credits in changes to the Income Tax Act. That's something where the Leader of the Opposition, the member for Vancouver–West End and myself made a proposal in advance of the government's proposal, strongly suggesting that given the very competitive environment, particularly the changes that Ontario had brought about, in order to keep the very skilled film labour here that we have and to enhance a growing sector….

[1535]

It's an area which as a sector has benefited from targeted tax cuts over the years. The difference here is that a labour tax crediting requires that people be employed in order to receive the credit, and a labour tax credit has proved very effective in keeping jobs in British Columbia.

I'm pleased that the minister has seen fit to follow the lead of our critic, the member from West End, in
[ Page 3476 ]
his proposals that he made publicly in advance of the budget and in advance of the minister's announcement on this topic.

I want to talk briefly about the amendments proposed to the corporation capital tax. When this matter was before the House proposing to amend the corporate capital tax on financial institutions, the Minister of Finance, this minister's predecessor, said that there would be a minimum tax which would establish a floor that would mean that financial institutions would have to pay some tax, but she expected that they would be sufficiently prosperous that their taxation would not fall to that minimum level.

It's very clear that that was simply a legislative rhetorical device in order to ease the passage of the changes that were being sought at that time. The corporation capital tax is striking in the sense that whether it was the government of Bill Bennett and the Social Credit who supported that tax….

They certainly had a view of financial institutions that was born of a western perspective, a western Canadian perspective about eastern Canadian financial institutions, and they were of the view that financial institutions in this province were well able to pay that kind of tax. They didn't change it when they were in power. Indeed, they increased it.

This is a tax that both populists of the right and populists of the left have supported over these years, yet it was the B.C. Liberals and the minister at the time who assured us that Asian financial institutions would be moving here in response to these changes. When asked to produce any kind of analytical study, she had a single anecdote not reduced to writing.

Again, it's a tax policy change without any prospective benefit, any analysis, simply devised on the basis of ideology, one presumes, and no analysis, no suggestion of any impact on jobs — a lot of rhetoric about that but no analysis whatsoever. She confirmed that, and it's very clear that this minimum tax was simply a legislative fig leaf to cover the passage of the other aspects of that change, and there was no intention that it would ever come to pass.

The Tobacco Tax Act is proposed to be amended. I suppose one will hear, when the minister begins to defend the harmonized sales tax, what impact the harmonized sales tax will have upon the black market, not only in tobacco products but everywhere throughout the economy.

There's widespread suspicion and prediction that the HST — I think certainly in the home renovation sector and the construction sector — will lead to an increase in off-book black market financial transactions in order to avoid the impact of the HST. Tobacco is probably one example where I think governments have learned that if the tax is set too high, then it becomes very difficult, even through very effective enforcement, to gain any revenue from that area.

[1540]

The bill then seeks to implement a number of measures that are part of a budget — a budget that is a failed budget, a budget that has no vision, no optimism for the future of the province, no plan to recover and come out of the recession other than the harmonized sales tax. Rhetorically, the Premier and the Minister of Finance call it the single best thing that British Columbia could do right now.

That view is rejected very widely throughout the province. I dare say that when the government screws up its courage and introduces the bill — which we are waiting for — and begins the debate in this House, the eyes of British Columbia will certainly follow the Legislature in a way that they don't ordinarily do, whether it's out in the towns and cities of British Columbia — where there is growing opposition, a grass-roots opposition to the HST — or here in the Legislature, where we will oppose its passage with every legislative tool that we can muster.

Those are my brief comments on Bill 2 at this time.

Deputy Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, the Minister closes debate.

Hon. C. Hansen: I look forward to the members' questions during the committee stage. With that, I move second reading of Bill 2, the Budget Measures Implementation Act, 2010.

Motion approved.

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

Bill 2, Budget Measures Implementation Act, 2010, 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. I. Chong: I call response to the throne.

Maybe we can have a five-minute recess.

Deputy Speaker: This House stands recessed for five minutes.

The House recessed from 3:42 p.m. to 3:51 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Throne Speech Debate

(continued)

R. Fleming: I appreciate very much the opportunity to speak to the throne speech this afternoon and will take my place in this debate, which adjourned some time ago. We're getting back to it for the first time since
[ Page 3477 ]
before British Columbia and our Canadian athletes competed in the 2010 games.

[C. Trevena in the chair.]

I can remember the afternoon that the speech was delivered and many of its features, of course. The themes that the government addressed and advanced to British Columbians in that document were around the unique economic period that British Columbia finds itself in.

That's the job loss, the economic contraction, British Columbia's participation in a global economic recession — the most severe in at least 35 years and possibly more — advanced, in particular, by our close trade relationship with the United States, which experienced, among industrialized countries, one of the worst housing bubbles and corrections in the global economy.

So I have the opportunity here this afternoon to match some of the commitments — some of the fine words, even — contained in the throne speech around the unique economic challenges that B.C. finds itself in, around an intention for the province to participate and create, indeed, a transition to a low-carbon economy.

I think the speech even dwelled at some length about making British Columbia society fairer and more affordable for families and for children.

Those words can't be argued with, obviously. But the reconciling of that speech occurred several weeks later, on another Tuesday, when the budget for the province of B.C. was tabled. So we look at how that document contrasts with the speech on economic issues, whether the response was indeed adequate to help families in need, families worried about staying in their homes, paying their mortgages, accruing savings for their children, paying bills for their loved ones who are aging.

We have to look at where the action lies, because that's more important than the words that were spoken by the Lieutenant-Governor in this place in the Speech from the Throne.

So we have to go down the list before we take at face value that this was a throne speech that really meant what it said about children, about seniors, about a green economy and about responding to the sensitivities of families struggling with economic crisis. Let's look at that document. Let's look at the budget that was tabled and compare it to the literal text of the throne speech.

We had a throne speech that referenced seniors on the one hand. We had a budget that implemented residential fee increases for low-income seniors in public facilities across B.C., well outside rent control guidelines — such as that we have them anymore in this province — well above the rate of inflation, targeted at people on fixed incomes, least able to afford it.

[1555]

It was imposed from above by this government in its budget. The throne speech didn't mean a thing to those people in that regard.

We had a throne speech that spoke at some length about strengthening supports for children, vulnerable children and all of our children in British Columbia. Then we had a document where the money was allocated for programs for children in our society in early childhood education in our community, for community agencies that get their funding from gaming grants — the entire non-profit sector that takes care of so many gaps in our working lives and for the well-being of our kids — and this budget let them down. It let them down.

Again, the words of the throne speech meant next to nothing in response to economic anxieties that working families felt.

Let's look at the housing crunch that we have in British Columbia. We live in a part of this country — actually, in a part of the world — where we endure some of the highest housing costs imaginable, which take a greater share of our family budgets just to have a roof over our heads — very high cost of housing here in British Columbia. We have moved ahead of almost every U.S. jurisdiction that I know of now because of the high dollar.

In fact, a study that came out just in advance of the throne speech's delivery looked at metropolitan areas around the world and concluded that Vancouver was in fact the most expensive place in the world, if you can believe that, surpassing cities like Paris, Manhattan in New York City, Tokyo and Moscow — places like that that you think of per square foot as the most expensive places in the world, surpassed by Vancouver, British Columbia. What did we see?

And Victoria is not much far behind. My own constituency is not much far behind Metro Vancouver in terms of how difficult it is for young people to get a starter home, to purchase a property for their first time, for renters to find available supply to rent an appropriate and suitable house or accommodation.

It's very difficult because land costs are so high here, as they are in Vancouver, and because the challenges fall to not just new buyers but, of course, to developers, who are extremely challenged to put affordable housing products on the market even though the demand in this market is so strong, the need for it is so strong.

So what did we see in this budget to deal with the housing crisis writ large that we see? It spans a spectrum beginning at homelessness that we have never seen before in this province's history, in the thousands — in a city like Victoria an estimate of 2,000 homeless people living in our streets and getting worse, not better — all the way to families that, in some cases, make combined incomes that are almost in the six figures, who can't even afford a basic starter home or condominium unit, whatever it is that they are looking to buy to get into the
[ Page 3478 ]
market. What did this budget do for people spanning that range in the housing spectrum?

The short answer is nothing — nothing. Housing supports were cut. Housing programs whose results have been found wanting were not retooled. The rental assistance program, which has been horrendously undersubscribed since it was first introduced, was not given access to people and retooled so that it would apply to more people's lives. It wasn't done.

In fact, the only single idea and program that was advanced around housing in the throne speech and later confirmed in the budget was this idea of deferring property taxes for people with children under the age of 18. Now, on the surface, maybe it could be argued that this is government showing sensitivity to homeowners who are struggling to pay bills and that this would help in some way to keep them in their homes.

[1600]

But let's look at what this really means for homeowners that are struggling to keep up on their payments, who have children in the house. This was basically government giving, in effect, a credit card to people.

The policy specifically said that it would only apply to those with children between zero and 18 years of age. As long as you had children in the house between those ages, you could defer property taxes as much as you like. This can add up to quite an extent.

Let's say a typical tax assessment bill in my municipality is — round it up, round it down — $3,000 or somewhere around there. So $3,000 per child, per year for 18 years — or potentially longer, depending on the ages of the children and the gaps between their ages. You could accumulate tens of thousands of dollars of household debt from this policy exactly at the time when — any financial planner would tell you this — you should be saving for your child's education.

Now, this is odd because government a few years ago — when it had no ideas, once again, in 2006 on the eve of its convention — invented another program. It said: "If you have a child born in British Columbia, we'll give you a thousand dollars so you can start their education savings plan."

Well, that's interesting. It wasn't followed up with any other tax incentives to encourage savings for children, but it was advanced in a completely different spirit than this tax deferment program. How does that square?

The government one year — 2006, not that long ago — says, "Here's your thousand dollars. Build on it. Save for your kid," because heaven knows that under the Liberals tuition fees have doubled, student debt is among the highest in the country, and parents know that. This was their chance to politically address it.

Now all of a sudden it completely turns 180 degrees around and says: "If you've got kids under 18, mortgage their future. Don't save for it. Borrow $60,000 or more from government, and don't worry for two decades about how you'll pay for it." It's unbelievable, but that was the single biggest idea and program contained in this budget.

Now, are you really helping people who are struggling to stay in their homes by offering tax relief on just the property taxes, or are you treating a very small symptom of a much bigger problem and treating it very poorly? I would argue that's exactly what's happened in this budget, in realizing what was promised in the throne speech regarding housing. It's not what we need. It's not what families need.

By being a gimmick, it lets the government off the hook in their own minds from talking about real housing solutions for communities and people who live in them, which are needed now in British Columbia. Those programs, of course, have been cut and abandoned in many cases, and government has failed and taken its attention away from B.C.'s housing crisis exactly at a time when it needed to be refocused.

Now let's look at another area of the throne speech that certainly stood at odds with statements that the government and its candidates made during the last election. Only ten months later, the harmonized sales tax went from something that would never be considered by government, which would be a complete surrender of the province's sales tax autonomy and its ability to construct a sales tax regime to the liking of provincial interests….

It went from being something that was categorically rejected by the voters, something that in an ironclad way was said in a party statement in the middle of the election — "This will not be done" — to a complete and utter reversal and betrayal of those very words a couple of months later.

We had to wait until this throne speech, and we've had to wait until this legislative session. We still haven't seen a bill in this regard, but we will have to wait until this legislative session to see how the HST is implemented.

[1605]

The throne speech did offer some weak words into at least why, in the government's view, the HST was introduced. It's interesting how selective those words were, because this government cannot claim to be ignorant of the views that have been expressed to it from a number of leading industries in our economy that have told this government that the HST will negatively affect their sector and will kill jobs.

I look at the tourism industry in particular. I come from a region of the province where tourism is very successful. It's upwards of 12 to 15 percent of our GDP, and our market share of tourism is disproportionate to the size of our region. We've been very successful at marketing south Vancouver Island, at offering a world-class tourism product, and decisions made by tourists are very price-sensitive.

Here we are in British Columbia…. The government often likes to say: "We can't afford not to have
[ Page 3479 ]
the HST, because our competitors have one." Well, let's look around us. We've got Alberta to the east of us, and Alberta has no sales tax. Alberta has rejected the HST categorically. They won't participate in it.

We've got Saskatchewan, which has rejected the introduction of the HST. We've got Manitoba, which has rejected introducing the HST. Then of course, we've got U.S. jurisdictions just to the south of us, Washington State and Oregon — no HST, none at all. No value-added tax system amongst our largest trading partners, amongst our closest competitors in the tourism market and in other sectors. They don't have that.

In fact, they have rejected it. They did do studies, and they looked, in the context of this global recession, and said that at a time of low consumer confidence, that would be one of the worst market signals you could send. That would be one of the worst things you could do to employment growth prospects — to introduce a sales tax.

Interjection.

R. Fleming: Studies in other provincial jurisdictions, including the Sask Party in Saskatchewan — I know that member probably would be a card-carrying member were he a few thousand kilometres from here — have rejected it.

This government has spun a political story around why they now support it since the election, since saying that it was something they would never do. The betrayal of that election promise has been codified in the text of the throne speech and at least, for the first time, made a little bit more explicit — even if it is completely disingenuous in the reasons it offered as to why it's being introduced.

The real reason — and British Columbians understand this — is that it was twinned with another deceit that this government perpetrated on British Columbians during that election period, and that is the size of the province's deficit.

The Premier and candidates from that party went out of their way to say, in advance of the election and throughout the campaign, that the size of British Columbia's deficit was $495 million, maximum. Even during the televised debate, it was said again.

Now we know the Premier had a phone call from the deputy minister to tell him that that figure was not accurate, that the first fiscal quarter alone meant it was several hundred millions of dollars inaccurate. Yet it was perpetuated.

Then we came back here in September, and we got a better idea. The deficit was now $2.8 billion.

When the government changed its story on the HST, broke its trust with the public and did a complete reversal on the HST, why did they do that? They did it to pay down a deficit by taking money that was offered from Ottawa at the time, cash up front in advance, transition money — transition money which has been half spent now. That $2.8 billion deficit, by the way, would be north of $3.5 billion had the feds not advanced $750 million. We've got another instalment of it in this budget.

[1610]

Now, one thing that was not in the throne speech that I think is interesting…. My constituents are very curious about this. They've been told that there's no money for arts and culture groups. They've been told there's no money for arts and culture groups. They've been told there's less money for sports and community organizations. They've been told that for autistic children we can't afford "Cadillac programs" that the minister likes to denounce.

We've been told that all kinds of things are extras and can't be afforded in the middle of a downturn and an economic recession. We've been told that again in the throne speech. Times will be tough. Decisions have to be made.

Yeah. Well, here's one decision that my constituents just can't seem to understand, given that rationale provided by this government. They can't understand how this government found $100 million to give to the banks in this budget — a hundred million bucks to give to the banks.

You know, legislators in other parts of the world are trying to figure out how, with profitable banks who failed millions of people in lazy and callous disregard for regulations, in recklessness and the rush for profit, now that they're profitable — in some cases they've received bailouts from governments — they can tax outrageous things like bankers' bonuses being paid in the middle of this recession.

That's what they're trying to do in France and in the United States. They're even talking about it in Ottawa, and they may do it yet. Wouldn't it be interesting to see that happen in Ottawa? Yet here we're not talking about it in British Columbia. We're not talking about how to recover moneys where we can, moneys that were advanced by government in some cases, and help the bottom line of our struggling finances. We're talking about giving away more money. We're talking about lowering taxes for a profitable industry and sector by a hundred million bucks.

Banks before kids. That's what the throne speech should have said and never said. Banks before families. The mortgage lenders before the mortgage holders. That's what this budget should have said, because they've got a hundred million bucks, and working families who are in trouble in their housing situation have got nothing.

Let me also address some of the rhetoric in the throne speech around the green economy, because that was interesting too. We had oil and gas subsidies, which are already greater than a billion dollars a year, increased by almost $300 million in this budget. Again, we're talking
[ Page 3480 ]
about a highly profitable industry. Quarterly reports have been very strong. Shareholders have been receiving dividends in those sectors.

Government, in its wisdom, has enhanced subsidies that were already in existence. You know, tough decisions for public services, health care and education. Tough decisions for vulnerable people in society that government is supposed to speak for, and we found $300 million to enhance the subsidy regime in place in British Columbia.

Now contrast that with the size of the "reinvestment" in a green economy. Let's look at the LiveSmart program. That was a $60 million program upon its inception. After the election, it was cancelled to zero. No grants and rebates were available. Nothing but a website was left of LiveSmart.

Now fortunately, British Columbians got pretty angry about that, and they wrote government and petitioned government. It was reintroduced ever so slightly, at about 50 percent of its former self, in this budget — $35 million for two years for LiveSmart; $35 million on the one hand to shift people and help consumers make their homes more energy-efficient, to lower their carbon footprints in their daily lives, to improve the energy security of this province, to conserve as it is its corporate goal 50 percent of B.C. Hydro's electricity supply by 2020, which isn't that long from now.

So $35 million is supposed to do all of that, and that's what government's statement of its worth was in this budget, while they found ten times as much — $300 million — to give back to oil and gas companies which have shown very handsome profits even during this recession. I think that almost says it all.

[1615]

Do you know what else is interesting about the HST? I forgot to mention this earlier, and I want to come back to it because we're talking about the green economy. It is that over three decades we built up a series of provincial sales tax exemptions that had a variety of public policy goals behind them, whether it was breaks for women's products, family products, children's clothing or the book and publishing industry — school supplies — those kinds of things. Those are a list of some exemptions.

One category of exemptions that was added — and several of them were added in 2008 under the so-called green budget — was around PST exemptions for things like Energy Star appliances. Green goods and services of all kinds, but green building products — windows, heat pumps, high-energy furnaces.

We, of course, have had a PST exemption on zero-emission and low-emission transportation products for a number of years, whether it's bicycles, electric vehicles or hybrid cars. We've had those, but those are gone now.

This is the interesting thing. On the one hand we have a throne speech that says we must prepare to transition B.C. to a low-carbon economy, and then when we get the budget we see taxation measures that take away even the most modest…. And let's be frank here. These are pretty timid tax concessions and incentives provided by government.

They were only started in 2008, and now they're unceremoniously dumped. It's March 2010. These things didn't even last two years before they were killed, and they were killed in support of a throne speech that talks about transitioning B.C. to a low-carbon economy. I'm sorry.

At a time when the most concentrated sector experiencing job loss in British Columbia is the construction sector; when we could have actually used a boost in retrofitting homes and commercial buildings and part of that boost could have been gleaned by maintaining tax exemptions. Some of it could have been helped by green economic stimulus that government wouldn't consider, which this government would never consider. We got none of that.

There was no attempt to match up a need to undertake green capital projects in B.C., to employ people in high-paying jobs and to ease the amount of unemployment in a particular sector, which would be truly in service of transitioning to a low-carbon economy.

It's one that's obvious to other governments. Look at the spending and the green capital programs going on to the south of us from the U.S. federal administration under the new President. They're outspending the federal and provincial governments' stimulus packages on green infrastructure by 50-fold. They are investing in research and development to create renewable and clean technologies that this government will not support, and had an opportunity to support, here in British Columbia.

That is, after all, where most of the research and development activity occurs in B.C. — at our research universities. That is where we could generate patents that would lead to companies that would be spun off, would create jobs, would create wealth, would transition us onto the path of being a green economy leader, where other people from other parts of the world would come and see what we have going on here.

The throne speech talked about us trying to become a Pacific Northwest powerhouse in the green economy. Fine words. No argument from this side of the House. The argument is with the lack of support for any of that in this budget document, and that's really what counts.

On a number of scores when we go back and read the throne speech, when we read about protecting children, strengthening families, and then we look at what government has offered the people of British Columbia, there's nothing there.

[1620]

When we look at addressing the difficult, unique economic times that we find ourselves in, in British
[ Page 3481 ]
Columbia, in the global economy, and then we compare what special economic measures were taken in this budget, we find nothing — nothing that aligns with the words we heard in the throne speech, nothing to make life better for working families, nothing to help people get back to work in the immediate term and contribute, nothing to build the capital of the province of British Columbia by having targeted stimulus programs that will do that and will transition us into a low-carbon economy. It isn't there, Madam Speaker. It isn't there.

That will be the legacy of this throne speech, like so many before. We've had them in this House. We've had a speech that prefaced the so-called seniors budget, which did nothing for seniors.

I will conclude my remarks there and thank you for this opportunity, Madam Speaker.

Hon. K. Krueger: I rise to support the throne speech and its drive to capitalize on the huge opportunity presented to British Columbia by our privilege and our fantastic success in hosting the Olympic and Paralympic Games.

I like the throne speech's drive to capitalize on that opportunity as well as to encourage and help British Columbia families in so many different ways. Of course, the budget which the previous member spent most of his time actually talking about did flesh out those goals and the way that we're going to get to them, so I'm not at all disagreeing with the latitude that you allowed, Madam Speaker.

A poll just before the Olympics said that the British Columbians who live on Vancouver Island were far less optimistic about the benefits that the Olympics would bring to British Columbia than the people around British Columbia in general — far less optimistic. I think we just saw a classic illustration of why that is so. There is heavy NDP overrepresentation of Vancouver Island, and when the elected representatives are constantly negative, constantly destructive, constantly pessimistic even in the face of the most glorious success, no wonder the constituents they purport to represent become discouraged.

We saw Vancouver come alive in a way that nobody has ever seen before. I was there for the entire 17 days of the Olympics, and from the opening ceremonies forward it was a joyous city. That joy caught fire right across the country, around the continent and around the world. There were people celebrating in the streets of Toronto the way that they were celebrating in the streets of Vancouver.

We had 7,000 more policemen than normally we would have in Vancouver. By the end, as I was walking down to the closing ceremonies of the Olympic Games themselves and we were meeting the crowd of happy throngs coming up from the men's gold-medal hockey game, the traffic policemen had their arms up in the air, both arms, doing high fives to the young people coming at them from both sides, because people were just in such a state of joy.

But not the member opposite. You wouldn't have thought that anything good had happened in British Columbia in his lifetime, the morbid delivery that we just heard.

I want to challenge the opposition members again whether they really think it's a positive thing for anybody to constantly be delivering doom and gloom and living up to that NDP acronym: negative, destructive and pessimistic.

It almost seemed to me that the opposition members boycotted the Olympics, because I was there the whole time, and sightings of them were so very rare. Yet everyone else was celebrating and having a great time, and the outcomes were far beyond our expectations, far beyond anything that any of us could have ever dreamed.

I loved it at the closing ceremonies when Neil Young appeared from under the platform and sang his song and inspired young British Columbians, as he inspired people of my era many years before.

Interjection.

Hon. K. Krueger: I hear an NDP member grousing, as he did as Olympic critic all the way in the lead-up to the Olympics — negative, destructive and pessimistic.

Neil Young sang Long May You Run. Long may British Columbians and Canadians and athletes from around the world compete, and may we repeat successes like that. It's a new gold standard for the Winter Olympics. People would like to stage an Olympics such as we had.

[1625]

Neil Young also sang a famous song where he refrained: "Teach your children. Teach your children well." Our throne speech and its follow-up budget are all about teaching the children well, making sure we continue to put children, students and patients at the centre of our education and health care decisions, making sure we fully fund all-day kindergarten for those who want their children to have it, making sure we give the children every opportunity that we possibly can.

Why would anybody be negative about a throne speech that capitalizes on such a huge opportunity, such a huge success, and deals with that issue of making sure we give children every possible opportunity and — yes — making sure we don't leave our children, British Columbia's children, and their children saddled with debt?

We have declined to go any deeper into deficit than we cannot possibly avoid, and we're meeting all of our targets. We're climbing out of the deficit situation, and I believe we will be the quickest to recover from the recession that swept around the world starting, unfortunately, with our neighbours just to the south of us.

Neil Young did another song where the refrain was: "Our house is a very, very, very fine house." And that's what we have done. The Liberal government of British Columbia has created a solid foundation for British
[ Page 3482 ]
Columbia's finances, a fiscal plan that first brought us out of a structural deficit of almost $4 billion that had been signed onto by the previous NDP administration, turned us from the worst-performing economy in Canada to the best-performing and now is helping us weather a worldwide recession in ways that few, if any, other jurisdictions have managed.

I have the happy responsibility of being the Minister of Tourism, Culture and the Arts for British Columbia. My family and my friends tease me about being a hunter-gatherer type, and a lot of people wondered why I would be assigned to that portfolio. But I have always appreciated culture and the arts. Certainly tourism is an industry that anyone who knows and cares about the economy of British Columbia must appreciate very much, but it has been such a pleasure working with the people who work in tourism, culture and the arts.

Again, the many friends, the networks that are built in arts and culture, remind me of part of that last Neil Young song: "I'll light the fire while you place the flowers into the vase that you bought today." I'm more of a fire lighter than a flower placer. I've never been very good at things like that, but it takes 4.4 million British Columbians to deliver the kind of quality of life that we all prize. I really would love to see our 35 opposition colleagues across the way catch some of that B.C. spirit that seems to be so sadly lacking over there.

I mentioned in an earlier speech in this House a young couple that was standing beside me during the opening ceremonies for the Olympics, and Sarah McLachlan was singing her beautiful song with the refrain: "It's just another ordinary miracle today." We have so many miraculous days and so many miracles per day in British Columbia. This young couple said to each other, "Born and raised, baby, born and raised," and clinked their glasses and drank a toast to this wonderful place that we live.

Why can't the NDP members catch that kind of spirit? We have a triple-A credit rating. We have hundreds of thousands more jobs right now despite a worldwide recession than the NDP government was able to maintain during the sad decade of the '90s. There are more to come.

Pretty much everybody with any credentials who is independent around the world says that a harmonized sales tax is the way to go. An independent expert published a report anticipating 117,000 new jobs by 2020 directly as a result of the HST — but oh no, just negativity over there.

We were one of the first to launch an effective climate change plan. The NDP ridiculed our five great goals even while they see us reaching those goals and doing tremendous things to continue to reach those goals every day. They can't deny the results, but they try. One of those goals, the fifth great goal, is to create the most jobs per capita in the country, and the Olympics are going to help us do that. Success beyond our dreams.

[1630]

The Premier, who the folks opposite constantly criticize, led the Olympic initiative from start to finish. He participated in the winning bid. He very much led everything that happened throughout the development. When John Furlong was chosen to be the CEO for VANOC, the NDP didn't approve of that. The NDP actually called for his resignation. Today, again, their leader stands up in the House and praises him, as he richly deserves.

How can people be so negative, be utterly humiliated by their negativity, turn around — never say they were wrong, just say exactly the opposite of what they said before — yet be negative about what's being debated at the present time? We would really like the NDP, and their leader would be a good start, to try to do something more than speak negatively and bring British Columbians down.

I was listening to the NDP leader's response to the throne, when she started out. She said that the B.C. Liberal government needs to do more than what we are doing and that she and her colleagues were not afraid to ask the tough questions.

Well, ask all the tough questions you like. We ask ourselves questions all the time. "What are we going to do about the turmoil that the world finds itself in?" We deliver answers, and they're before us in the throne speech, they're before us in the budget, and once again, it's a blueprint that will continue to build on all of our successes since 2001.

I call upon the members opposite. They can help deliver answers, if they have any. Their leader talked continually after the election about how they realized the error of their ways. They shouldn't have opposed independent power production. Shucks, now it's a good thing. Now it's part of their policy. They shouldn't have opposed carbon tax. Shucks, now that's a positive thing and something that they no longer oppose.

I don't hear any positive messages. I don't even hear any tough questions, which is the best she was able to suggest they can do, in her response to the throne speech. When are we going to hear those positive messages? When are we going to hear questions that deserve an answer? When are we going to hear ideas that might actually have some merit?

I'd love for them to start now, today. We aren't rolling in dough right now. That's true. This is a very challenging time. But the blossoms are everywhere from the success of the Olympics. The flowers came early in Vancouver, and figuratively speaking, the blossoms that cover the cherry trees and the ornamental trees in Vancouver, in Victoria, are symbolic of the opportunities blossoming around us as a result of the successful staging of the Olympics.

Why can't those members come up with some ideas? Bring them out. We're not having another election till 2013 — not a chance. Yet we don't hear any ideas. We don't hear anything concrete, other than asking questions that they think are tough, from the members opposite.
[ Page 3483 ]

Well, Jesus said: "By their fruits ye shall know them." He was talking about results, and I submit to our colleagues opposite that we have delivered tremendous results. We're back to the best-performing economy in Canada, pulled up from being the worst-performing economy in Canada by the time the public turfed the NDP out of office, leaving them with only two members in 2001.

The fruits of the B.C. Liberals' labour — the best-performing economy in Canada; doubled health care funding; huge additions to education funding, which the members opposite are unwise enough to question our Minister of Education about pretty much every day. We're tremendously proud of $8,301 per-capita funding — tremendously proud.

We have the best education system, I believe, in the world, but the members opposite, the NDP, the opposition, are constantly criticizing it with their confederates and giving the public concerns and worrying the public, giving them little confidence in that education system, despite its results.

We've doubled the number of doctors and nurses in training in British Columbia. We've established new universities all around British Columbia, starting with Thompson Rivers University in Kamloops, which the member for Kamloops–North Thompson and I represent.

We are bringing into being the first new law school in Canada in, I believe, 35 years, with its first intake of students next year. We're very, very pleased with our results, and we're going to deliver more.

[1635]

What are the fruits of the NDP's labour? I can think of two major things from the 1970s, the Dave Barrett administration, that have stood the test of time — they may both need some work, some modernizing — ICBC and the ALR. Nobody can suggest that those weren't the ideas of the NDP. [Applause.]

I welcome their applause. Those things have stood the test of time. But what has stood the test of time from the NDP government of the '90s — the ten lost years? Can anyone actually…?

Interjections.

Hon. K. Krueger: They're heckling. I'd like to hear any concept at all of anything that stood the test of time of the NDP government of the '90s. Not much fruit there. Not many results to point to.

Part of that Neil Young song that I mentioned, "Teach your children well," the next line is: "Their father's hell did slowly go by." That's what it felt like in the '90s to British Columbians. People were moving away in droves. We had actually gone to the worst-performing economy in North America.

Nobody could find a jurisdiction doing as badly until they got to Chiapas, Mexico, where they were also running deficits while every other jurisdiction was paying off debt and running surpluses — every other jurisdiction but here in British Columbia, the province of opportunity, the province that now 88 percent, I believe it is, of Canadians say is the place they want to go for a vacation. That was a poll before the Olympics. Now we're the darling of North America. We're the place people want to live — British Columbia, absolutely.

Interjection.

Hon. K. Krueger: The member opposite once again…. I think that I will print this Hansard and send it around his constituency with his negative, destructive and pessimistic critique. Well, I'm glad it's not like Chiapas, Mexico, anymore in British Columbia.

Sadly, there is absolutely no indication that the new NDP members have learned anything that their couple of colleagues that are back from the 1990s couldn't have told them on the basis of their miserable results then.

My critic is fond of, when challenged on the NDP record of the '90s, saying things like he was in elementary school at the time. I don't think he's got any mentors over there that are teaching him anything positive in order to help him do better as a member of the NDP opposition caucus. If they ever, unbelievably, were elected to government, then how they did in the 1990s…. Now he's elected.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Minister….

Hon. K. Krueger: Now, the members who are catcalling across the way are all elected. They've got a job to do — not just be negative, not just shout out in the Legislature but actually come up with something positive, some policy that we can talk about, maybe implement. Why wait three years if they have a good idea? Why do that?

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Minister, would you take a moment.

Can I ask all members to allow the minister to make his remarks, and they will have their opportunity to make their remarks. I'd like to be able to hear what the minister is saying. Thank you.

Continue.

Hon. K. Krueger: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I'd really like to know if they have any new ideas besides being deeper in debt. Again, the member opposite called out for more money, more spending. That's what we constantly hear. Why wouldn't the members opposite care about accumulating deficits and debts to be left
[ Page 3484 ]
to their children and grandchildren and great-grandchildren after them? Why wouldn't they care?

I heard one young fellow say that he felt Neil Young should have rewritten his song, and it should have been more directly applicable to the Olympics if he was going to sing it at the closing ceremony, the song Long May You Run. I thought: "Well, I wonder if he thinks the 23rd Psalm should be updated as well, or if that's overreaching, perhaps the national anthem." Actually, somebody floated that idea recently, and that wasn't very popular either.

The point is that we'd like to have a little help from our friends opposite the way. We'd like to know if they've got any good ideas, because we're facing a tough situation in British Columbia. We're on our targets to climb out of it, but we're not hearing ideas. When the NDP says we've got it wrong, we'd like them to stand up and walk their talk. Instead we get this negativity. I wonder how they possibly think that it would serve them well, if they did frighten people into believing that it was all doom and gloom, that the future's tough and that there's no hope.

[1640]

Do they think that there's the remotest chance that the public would vote for an NDP government if they thought things were as bad as the NDP say? They already showed them in 2009 that that doesn't work. The last thing the public wants is NDP fiscal management if they're frightened.

Interjection.

Hon. K. Krueger: Again, the member across the way, talking his negativity. That negativity actually frightens some people — vulnerable people, elderly people — and when they're frightened, it affects the status of their health. Maybe the members opposite would like to hear about that from the Minister of Education, far more schooled in the subject than any of them.

We will demonstrate that the harmonized sales tax works, and we'll be demonstrating that in our results long before the election of 2013.

The NDP thought they had a big issue with the carbon tax. Lo and behold, by the time the election came around…. The electorate are very smart, and they vote on the basis of results. They don't vote on the basis of NDP negativity. Once again, they said: "No thanks. No thanks very much. We really aren't interested in an NDP government." They'll say it again in 2013.

But maybe if the members opposite actually help us by delivering some good ideas that we can implement — take the credit for those ideas, if they have any, all they like — rather than the fearmongering and bafflegab that are their habits, which accomplish nothing, they could impress someone.

When the NDP say that the economy's bad, the taxpayer thinks, "That's why we surely don't want you in control," and that's the way it'll always be. When the NDP says that unemployment is up, the people think, "Employment is way better than at any time when the NDP was government. Why in the world would we want an NDP government?" because they do have the hope and the opportunity and the relative prosperity compared to the struggles the rest of the world is having, which we promised them before we were elected to government.

When the NDP say that we have a terrible poverty record, they know they are twisting a Statistics Canada study. They are saying the opposite of what the report itself said. The public says to itself: "How could that possibly be?" Well, in dealing with people who actually are in poverty, the ability to help those people is supposed to be the NDP's forte. But we don't hear any good ideas. It's always just: "Spend more money."

I'd like to pause here to give some credit to an NDP member who was elected in the year 1991 for Kamloops, a man named Art Charbonneau, who was promptly elevated to cabinet by the NDP Premier of the day. He's a good guy. He used to have a breakfast once a year, and he would invite the chamber of commerce to come and just talk to him in small groups. He'd want to know what we thought of how things were going.

I always remember. It was a sad thing. After his second year in office he said to us: "You know, we really thought it would help if we moved welfare rates in British Columbia to the highest in Canada. To our shock and dismay, a year later we had a 20 percent increase in the number of people on the welfare rolls, and then a year later we had a 20 percent increase over that."

He's a very good man. He just couldn't understand why that would be so — an honest man in an NDP cabinet but no idea about how to actually stop the cycles of poverty, no understanding of how to create jobs and a robust economy, as the B.C. Liberals have done since 2001.

It doesn't work to just throw money at problems. You have to create hope. You have to create opportunity. That's how you create prosperity. You need an economy to pay for social programs. Because we're successful at that, we're able to provide double the funding for health care that the NDP were ever able to provide.

There was a woman quoted on what is referred to as welfare Wednesday by the Vancouver Sun in a recent lengthy article. She said: "British Columbia won't let you freeze or starve," and "I blow my cheque in one night." She believed that society would always help her with her essentials of living, so she had money to spend on her addictions. What a sad thing. You have to be always thinking about how to overcome situations like that.

My colleague the Minister of Housing and Social Development has built homes for British Columbians in tough circumstances all over Vancouver and around the province, given them a basis from which to rebuild their
[ Page 3485 ]
lives — having social workers meet them in their point of need, find out why they were homeless, help them get a home, help them get established. The stories of those individuals are heartwarming.

[1645]

I'd like to know if the NDP have a plan to improve on that, or even an idea. Teach the children. That's a part of our plan. Grow the economy. That's a consistent part of our plan.

When we staged the Olympics, our leader, our Premier — and even before he was Premier, when he was Leader of the Opposition — said that the opportunities that follow the Olympics are what will really benefit British Columbia. We planned to stage the best Winter Olympics in history, and most people say that that's what we've done. The Paralympics just closed yesterday. But the opportunities that follow are the really big thing.

The partnership that we have with Aboriginal Tourism British Columbia is a heartwarming thing to see and be a part of. I worked with Aboriginal Tourism B.C. well up to the Olympics, all through the Olympics, and I will be throughout my time in office, whatever my assignment.

Our new relationship with First Nations is very real. We're meeting First Nations at the point that they're willing to meet right across the spectrum, from individual economic opportunities, through helping promote and support tremendous organizations like Aboriginal Tourism B.C., right through to full treaties — meeting at the point of need.

Our Premier has said, and we all believe it, that successful as they were, the Olympics were a launch pad that we are going to spring from now. It wasn't something that we've just finished. It's something we've reached the point we dreamed of, and higher, from which we will launch our success — success beyond the wildest dreams of anybody on this side of the House or the wildest thoughts of anybody on the other side of the House.

I think it's sad that the NDP skipped that great event, skipped it with the same old grinding sarcasm and socialism. Winston Churchill referred to socialism as the equal distribution of misery, and that's what I see on the faces across the way, hearing their words. Seeing that poll result just before the Olympics — Vancouver Island, of all places, the beautiful place to live that it is, is the least positive about the outcomes of the Olympic Games. Look what we achieved. Look what we're poised for.

The Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Arts strategies started earlier than 2005, but kicked into gear in earnest in 2005, and were well coordinated at the regional, sectoral and community levels. This set the stage for the ministry to collaborate with the tourism industry, VANOC and key ministry partners, including the Olympic Games secretariat, the Ministry of Small Business, Technology and Economic Development, and the public affairs bureau to maximize the opportunity and to leverage scarce resources.

We've had compliments from everywhere about our campaign using B.C. celebrities with the motto "You gotta be here," and people very much felt that way. They flooded into Vancouver, hundreds of thousands of them, without tickets, without reservations, to take part in the joyous occasion that was going on.

The positive imagery of that and everything else about British Columbia that was broadcast during the games have provided us a huge opportunity to showcase B.C.'s tourism assets to the whole world: the 3½ billion people who watched the opening ceremonies; the largest television audiences in Canadian history for the opening ceremonies and the men's gold-medal game; 1.8 million visits to the hellobc.com website during February alone, up from an average of seven million visits per year; 100,000 visitors through our visitor information centres in the first three weeks of February.

Endless successes, and much more to come. The sorts of reviews that we've had from around the world…. How about this one? It's from the New York Times. It goes: "You're gorgeous, baby. You're sophisticated. You live well." Vancouver is "Manhattan with mountains. It's a liquid city, a tomorrow city — equal parts India, China, England, France and the Pacific Northwest." We're working in all those places, working successfully. It goes on to say: "It's the cool North American sibling."

Another one, the Boston Globe: "You have heard that Vancouver is a great city, but it's better than that. On a good weather day — and we had a spectacular five-day run in the middle of the games — it is stunningly beautiful, and it is an excellent eating, drinking and shopping city."

[1650]

There was a New York Times editorial commentary to the effect that Vancouver has the best cuisine in the world. You can't buy that sort of advertising, folks. The Seattle Times said Vancouver looked gorgeous on TV. NBC's shots of Vancouver's downtown and waterfront and aerial views of the Whistler ski areas provided a media boost no marketing campaign could have delivered.

That was us. That was British Columbia — showcase to the world. That's still us, and really it'd be nice if the members opposite got on board.

The Daily Telegraph in the United Kingdom said: "Vancouver is a city unlike any other. Wherever I look, I see water or mountains — or both. And everybody looked so healthy." I don't think the writer could say that if he looked at the glum faces across the way every day, like we have to.

The Buffalo News said: "A remarkable environment. The licence plates read 'Beautiful British Columbia' for a reason. The Sea to Sky Highway carries travellers on a jaw-dropping journey from the serenity of Vancouver's waterfront to the majesty of Whistler and Blackcomb mountains."

Can't the folks across the way get a little enthused about that sort of coverage? Start talking positively
[ Page 3486 ]
about the best place on earth? We'd really appreciate it. So would their constituents.

M. Mungall: I rise today to take my place in the debate on the Speech from the Throne. First, I'd like to just congratulate the member who spoke before me on finally getting an opportunity to get up and speak in this House. I know that means a lot to him.

When the Speech from the Throne was first delivered over a month ago, in early February, my local media in my wonderful, beautiful constituency of Nelson-Creston called me up, and we talked about what my overall thoughts were. I listened attentively. I reread Hansard.

I was looking for something positive to say, because I often feel like, as the member opposite who was just speaking…. He was commenting that we're always so negative over here. Well, there's very little to be positive about coming from this government, especially after nine years of cutbacks and misleading information and drastic changes that have had such incredibly negative impacts on our communities.

I see it every day in my community. I see it every day when I go to Vancouver. There isn't a single corner that I can walk by that doesn't have somebody who is homeless. Homelessness has gone up by almost 400 percent in this province, and that is nothing, absolutely nothing to be proud of. Yet this government continually boasts about all these things that it does. At the end of the day, what it has done is create an incredible amount of poverty for many, many more British Columbians, and that is absolutely unjust. I'm going to come back to that, because there's so much more to say on that.

But going back to my overall thoughts on the Speech from the Throne when talking to local media, I didn't really have anything positive to say. In fact, it was very, very clear that the Liberals offer little in this plan for the session outside of a plan to party at the Olympics.

You know, it's clear that they have very little outside of that if you just listen to the previous member's speech and his contribution to the debate. He went on and on and on about the Olympics and how great they were, and there's no denying that they were fabulous. [Applause.]

Not as much applause as I thought that would garner from the other side of the House.

The Olympics were absolutely fabulous. Canada made world record in the number of gold that we achieved. I was able to watch Alexandre Bilodeau making Canadian history when he went past that finish line and became the first Canadian to win gold on Canadian soil.

[1655]

I watched Maëlle Ricker go past that finish line, just dart right out from the pack in the boarder cross and go past that finish line and become the first woman to make gold on Canadian soil.

Here was this wonderful event with so many excellent moments. I remember where I was. I remember exactly where I was when Crosby made his goal. I was in the car listening to the radio on the way to the airport to come back to work here. Everybody remembers that. It was a momentous time in Canadian history for that.

But criticizing the way in which the Olympics have been managed by this government and the excellent work of our athletes in the country are two entirely different things. This government needs to move beyond the party, and they have not with this Speech from the Throne.

The member from the opposite side talked on and on about the Olympics. What he forgot to mention was that they have no plan after. The greatest evidence of having no plan after the Olympics is the cuts that have happened in his ministry to tourism. Here was an opportunity where we could have capitalized on the Olympics, really built our tourism sector more robustly than it currently is, and instead we're going to cut it. Talk about backwards movement.

It's clear that the member across the way has just absolutely missed the boat when it comes to doing something after the party. He has no clue. He kept talking about Neil Young. Neil Young is a wonderful, wonderful singer and songwriter in this country. Obviously, he's got a fan over here. Unfortunately, I don't think the Minister of Tourism, Culture and the Arts has a fan in Neil Young, because I'm pretty sure he's not too fond of the cuts to the arts that this minister has been putting forward budget after budget.

Hon. K. Krueger: What does Sarah McLachlan…?

M. Mungall: Sarah McLachlan — not too fond of those cuts either. He mentioned Sarah McLachlan. I'm sure she has had much to criticize with those cuts, as has Kim Cattrall.

B.C.'s successful artists and B.C.'s emerging artists have nothing positive to say about this government's plan for arts and culture and tourism in this province. They acknowledge, they recognize, that after the party and once the cuts come in, there's just no plan coming from this government.

Another thing that the member across the way mentioned that I really want to touch on is that…. He said a sentence. He was talking about us on this side of the House. He said the sentence, "the constituents that they purport to represent," trying to imply that we actually aren't doing a very good job or that we're not representing our constituents at all over on this side. That's quite an accusation to be making from somebody who in Kamloops sees a tremendous amount of opposition to the HST.

Who is he representing? Is he representing the people of Kamloops on the issue of the HST? I'll tell you what. He is not, and I know this as a fact because I have been to Kamloops. I have been to Kamloops talking to people about the HST.
[ Page 3487 ]

Back in November the local labour council was having a signature drive. They were going out, and they wanted to see how many people in Kamloops are opposed to the HST. They were really concerned that average working families just simply couldn't afford the HST and that they were actually opposed and that they never got to have a say on this issue, because the Liberals didn't bring it up in the election, other than saying in writing that they were not going to implement the HST. And here we are, having the HST coming forward.

Does the member represent his constituents on the HST? Well, I spent no more than five hours going around Kamloops just outside the Wal-Mart, holding petitions. People were lining up to sign them. In five hours of work over two days, a thousand people signed the petition to stop the HST and to ask their Members of the Legislative Assembly of this province to vote against the HST.

[1700]

If they actually listen to all those people, those thousands of people who have signed petitions in their constituencies, to the small business owners who said, "I am against the HST," to the thousands of people who said: "I am against the HST, and if I would have been able to have my say during the election, you might not be there…." That is what their constituents are saying to them. That is what they're saying.

The question is…. When this member talks about us purporting to represent our constituents, he should be careful of throwing stones in glass houses, because he certainly…. The question of whether he does or not can only be answered by his constituents who right now feel that he is not representing them at all. Instead, he is representing his boss, the Premier of this province.

An Hon. Member: Name one.

M. Mungall: I have thousands, Member. I have thousands of people who are opposed to the HST in your constituency, and I would be happy to deliver those petitions right to your door. In fact, I'm sure they will do it for me. I don't even need to do it. I was there. They said they don't like the HST, and it's up to this member to decide whether he's actually going to do his job and represent his constituents, because he didn't do his job by being upfront with them during the election but, rather, misled them.

It's not just me saying this. I've already mentioned that thousands of his own constituents are saying it, but 82 percent of British Columbians are saying it as well — that they do not like this HST. They are opposed to the HST, and the most recent polls coming out in this last week show exactly what they think of those who are driving the HST agenda and those who are opposing the HST agenda. The polls speak louder than words, because people are very smart. The electorate is very smart.

That is one thing I can actually agree with, with the previous speaker. The electorate is very smart. You know what? They see this as a tax shift — rightfully so. A $1.9 billion tax shift from the big corporations on to the backs of working families, and how unfair that is. This government, this Liberal government, is going to start taxing many everyday consumer items, like haircuts. I just got my hair cut the other day. In a few months I'm going to have to pay an extra 7 percent.

Bikes. I ride my bike to this Legislature every day. I need to go get a tune-up. Well, that's also going to cost me an extra 7 percent, that tune-up on my bicycle.

School supplies. My sister-in-law has a little one who is going to start school in the fall. She's going to be paying more. The sad reality is that she doesn't have any more to spend on school supplies, but this government thinks she does. The big corporations — they don't. But my sister-in-law who is struggling every day — apparently she does, according to these B.C. Liberals.

Restaurant meals. I remember as a child my grandmother used to take me and my family out for birthday dinners and anniversary dinners. She was on a fixed income. Seven percent more — that is what my grandmother would have had to pay if the HST came in before she passed on. Think about other grandmothers, other grandfathers in the same scenario. They're going to have to pay more. People on fixed incomes just wanting to do something nice for their families are now going to have to pay more because of this Liberal government's misleading the public during the election.

Home renovations. That's really important in my community, actually. We have an incredible amount of heritage homes in my area, and a lot of people upgrade them and are trying to reduce the amount of substandard housing in my community. They're going to be paying more.

Movies are going to cost more. They're going to tax 3-D. I just went to see Alice in Wonderland. Fantastic movie. Really great. Recommended if you like the whole 3-D thing. Now there's going to be HST on 3-D, car repairs, gym memberships. The list goes on and on and on to the tune of $1.9 billion, and British Columbians aren't into it, and they're going to have their voices heard. Guarantee it. British Columbians are going to have their voices heard on the HST.

[1705]

That was something that was brought up in the Speech from the Throne, but something that wasn't, and something I started to talk about a few minutes ago, was the issue of homelessness. This is an issue that I've been dealing with for several years in my rural community of Nelson.

The other day I was in Creston, and a young man who is homeless approached me at an event that I was hosting. There was some local cheese, and he came in to grab the rest of the cheese so he would have something to eat that night. Homelessness, unfortunately, is alive and well all throughout this province. Like I said, it's gone up by 400 percent since Gordon Campbell and his Liberals….
[ Page 3488 ]

Deputy Speaker: Member, please. We don't name….

M. Mungall: My apology. I withdraw the naming. Thank you, hon. Speaker.

Since the Premier and his Liberals took office in 2001, homelessness has been steadily increasing. So you'd think, hon. Speaker, that in the Speech from the Throne that this government perhaps might want to tackle homelessness. They perhaps might want to address this issue, especially in an economic downturn when it's poised to increase even more.

Homelessness is not a choice that people wilfully make. Often when people are faced with the choice of a rock and a hard place, they might take the rock because that hard place was an abusive home. It was an overcrowded home; it was a car that maybe got stolen. For every person who is homeless, there is a story. At one point the Premier actually did acknowledge that homelessness was a problem and struck a task force. So why not bring forward some of what that task force learned into this Speech from the Throne and choose to actually address the issue of homelessness?

I said that for every person who is homeless, there is a reason, but there are structural reasons. One is that Canada as a whole, B.C. included, has an overreliance on market housing. It does not have a substantive social housing stock needed to maintain housing prices at a more reasonable level associated with the income that the average person has in our province. So we have an overreliance on market housing.

We are not doing a good enough job in ensuring that there are sufficient units of social housing, and that's part of the problem — no new units. That's what we need on the ground. It's one thing for the government to put money into redeveloping existing units like the SROs in the Downtown Eastside, but that only maintains homelessness at the current level. It doesn't start to reduce it.

To reduce it we need to move into a model of social service provision that puts housing first. It makes sure that people have the supports they need once they're in that housing, and that means we have to have new units on the ground.

For example, in Nelson the CMHA, the Canadian Mental Health Association, had a wonderful plan to put in 35 new units in Nelson for seniors 55 and over. When you're homeless, by the time you're 55, your body has aged the same way as somebody who hasn't been homeless to a point where they're a senior. They're physically much older than 65. So we have 35 units being proposed for seniors who have been homeless and who have addictions. They were hoping to get funding. They were negotiating funding with B.C. Housing, and depending on who you talk to, B.C. Housing didn't come through when they said they would.

B.C. Housing says that they never had any intention to come through. The B.C. Housing Minister, the minister responsible for B.C. housing, is either saying he has no intention to address homelessness in rural areas, so tough luck, or he's saying that we did and we don't anymore, so tough luck. Either way, it ensures that people who are homeless now are going to stay that way because they're not going to get the housing that they need to get off the streets.

[1710]

That's what we need — to get people off the streets and get them into housing. That's how you solve homelessness. You get somebody into a house, and then you make sure that they have all the supports that they need to retain that housing. That's not this government's approach at all. Their approach is to perhaps ignore it and hope that it will go away. But it will never go away until we put new units on the ground.

We have an opportunity in Nelson. We have a great project that's ready, and I have a tendency to believe the local organization when they say that they had a commitment from B.C. Housing and the minister has pulled that away. The reason why I believe the local people in my community rather than the minister on this issue is because the people in my local community have endless credibility, and after the HST, this government has none. They haven't addressed homelessness at a time when it's in crisis.

What they are going to do is drive their agenda on the HST and drive their agenda on independent power production. Essentially, what that means is: drive their agenda on privatizing power production in this province. They're going to do that, as it says in the Speech from the Throne, through a clean energy act.

What's so fascinating about this is the rhetoric calling it a clean energy act. It sounds so green. It sounds so friendly. It sounds like this is going to be a problem-solver to all of our issues around climate change and energy needs. The reality is — and I know firsthand — that this clean energy act is rhetoric. It is veneer. It is AstroTurf. If it's green at all, it's AstroTurf green.

Let me tell you, hon. Speaker, it is definitely punishment to the B.C. Utilities Commission for not falling in line with the Liberals' plan for their long-term acquisition. That's what this is. That is absolutely what this is. I lived through what their independent power projects looked like when AXOR corporation came to my constituency and wanted to put up a private power project on Glacier and Howser creeks.

The Liberals called it run of the river, but they should have come to my constituency and seen what that project would have actually looked like — more like ruin of the river. It would have dammed the creek, totally destroying the creekbed and the watershed around it, and diverted that water into 16 kilometres of tunnel that were dug through the mountainside, producing tonnes and tonnes of waste rock and muck. Then it would have gone through a turbine and into the lake, never coming back
[ Page 3489 ]
to the creek ever again. That's not run of river. That's river diversion, hence ruin of the river.

Why would they have done this? So that some of their donors could make some money. The proponents for this project gave a hefty donation to the local Liberal campaign. Independent power project proponents, as a whole, have donated over $800,000 to the Liberal Party since 2006. To keep those donations flowing into the party, perhaps they have to make sure that those companies are able to make those profits, and here we have the clean energy act. Here we have the clean energy act making sure that the circle just keeps going for the Liberal Party.

Unfortunately, these independent power projects…. The title says "clean energy." It wasn't clean. It was destroying habitat for wolverines. It was destroying old-growth forests. But most importantly, it was destroying habitat for a blue-listed bull trout genetically unique to Glacier Creek.

[1715]

If it wasn't for thousands of people coming forward in the public input process and if it wasn't for the Department of Fisheries and Oceans from the federal government stepping in, the EAO, the environmental assessment office, would have hoped that they could have snuck this one through. But public pressure won the day. It won the day. Thank goodness.

This brings me to another point: this one project, one process that we find in the Speech from the Throne, the issue of streamlining the federal and provincial environmental assessments.

Like I mentioned, the DFO came forward in the Glacier-Howser project in my backyard, and said: "No, you cannot do this project, because of the blue-listed bull trout in Glacier Creek." Well, the federal government, through the DFO, is also having similar concerns over Prosperity mine.

That's not working out for this Liberal government, so they want to see a streamlined process. In fact, today it came up earlier.

Having it come up in the Speech from the Throne isn't the first time that I've heard the possibility of this streamlining process. The first time I heard about it as a new MLA was in my role on the Select Standing Finance Committee.

It wasn't because there was an overwhelming outcry from industry and the public for a streamlined process. It wasn't because environmental groups were coming forward and saying: "This is the right thing to do for an environmental process aimed at protecting the environment." Rather, it was mentioned once and then advocated by one member. Then lo and behold, it makes its way into the recommendations from the Finance Committee, despite the lack of NDP support for it, and then into the Speech from the Throne.

The drive to streamline is something that the federal and provincial governments have bandied about in the name of saving industry time and money. But where the Liberals have missed the point on this issue is that one project, one process, in the interest of saving time and money…. It's that an environmental assessment process isn't about saving time and money. It's about protecting the environment. They've completely missed the point.

Nowhere in their arguments have they said it would be good for the environment. No, it's always about the money, and this is very alarming. This is very alarming because an environmental assessment is about environmental protection, in theory. That's what the public believes. It's clearly not what the Liberals have done over the years.

The environmental assessment process is about protecting the environment. It's about ensuring checks and balances, and that's what the current situation is between the federal and the provincial governments. There are checks and balances. There is accountability. There is transparency.

That's what it's supposed to be, but in 2002 the Liberals rewrote the existing environmental assessment process that had widespread buy-in by industry, environmental and community groups. They rewrote it. Then they gutted the office by 37 percent, and since 2008 that budget has been cut by 16 percent.

So you can see why I would have cause for concern here, why I would find it disconcerting to see this one project, one process. It makes it sound like it's just so simple, so easy, but our federation in this country and the relationship between provincial and federal governments are not easy. It's not a simple matter.

The devil is inevitably going to be in the details on this one, and so far there is no reason to trust the Liberals on what those details are going to be — that those details are actually going to be exactly what an environmental assessment process is supposed to be. If they had any credibility, they lost it with the HST. They lost it on issues of homelessness. They lost it in the fact that they have not protected health care and education. They have lost it time and time again.

[1720]

This Speech from the Throne does nothing for their credibility. It continues to mislead the public. With that, there is no way that I could possibly support such a blatant disregard for ensuring good public policy.

R. Sultan: I am pleased to respond to the Speech from the Throne. It sets the framework for our fiscal future, and I acknowledge the eloquence of the member for Victoria–Swan Lake who castigated the banks for their sins and the great difficulties they've created for all of us. The big banks are to blame for much of our difficulty currently.

As he went on and on, I realized he wasn't talking about our banks. He wasn't even talking about our country. He was talking about Morgan Stanley and Citibank down in
[ Page 3490 ]
New York City. It occurred to me that it was a bit strange that he had to go so far to find a suitable target.

In any event, after spending the better part of my life in academia teaching economics and working for one of those nasty big banks myself, as a matter of fact, and after other senior assignments ranging from money management to the trust industry, I guess you might say I've spent most of my adult life studying other people's financial books. With that background, I want to discuss the special care with which our government is managing the taxpayers' financial books and the prudence they continue to demonstrate by doing what's right and not always what is easy.

Since being elected in 2001 our government has cut taxes aggressively. Low taxes allow British Columbians to choose what they want to do with their own money. We've continually lowered taxes for small businesses, for corporations, for individuals, particularly those at the lower end of the income scale who need all the help they can get, and we would all acknowledge that. This encourages investment and jobs and helps families be more secure.

Over the last eight years the government has converted B.C. from a province which was high-tax, inefficient, business-unfriendly and losing population, in fact, to one of low taxes and higher wages where businesses can thrive and workers prosper. The throne speech continues to build a British Columbia which we can all be proud of in that respect by taking action on four fronts.

Firstly, commencing this year, spending for health will be increased by more than $2 billion in the current plan. These increases will be focused on front-line service delivery with more than $1.3 billion of new money for regional health services, acute care, community care and assisted living for seniors.

Secondly, education funding is also going up to its highest level ever. We are introducing all-day kindergarten as well as additional funding for school salaries and school maintenance.

Thirdly, we're controlling spending to ensure that B.C. returns to a budget balance by 2013. Governments everywhere are deficit-spending to maintain the services citizens need. We're no different. However, B.C.'s prudent fiscal management stands out from the pack. The U.K.-based economic journal The Economist notes that among the 43 nations and currencies they track on operating deficit, B.C. ranks higher than 39 out of 43.

Finally, our government is moving forward with initiatives to stimulate economic growth and reassert our role as Canada's job creation leader. More than 850 accelerated capital projects across the province will generate approximately 34,000 jobs.

An even more important economic initiative is the HST. It will lower incremental taxes on new investments by up to 40 percent, help create jobs in every region of the province and give new momentum to resource industries, such as forestry, which are struggling. Of course, it has not been an easy sell. For example, at my constituency office we keep careful track of our incoming e-mail.

When I was hit with about 450 e-mails complaining about the HST, I sent them my own essay — two of them, in fact — on the HST. About 25 percent of those 450 replied back to me again, and three-quarters of those who did were supportive — from which I conclude that the biggest problem with the HST is not the tax itself but the unique challenges faced in introducing it and, even more problematic, trying to explain it.

[1725]

I will try to rectify that a little bit today. A lot of misleading information is circulating out there, which of course isn't all that accurate. The most vivid example — and in some ways, to the front-line politicians such as myself, the most troublesome — was an e-mail which went viral, as they say, outlining the estimated $2,100-plus impact of the HST on a hypothetical seniors couple. They were obviously modelling it on themselves, the authors of the e-mail — earning, between them, $41,000 a year.

Well, let's also note right off the bat that this seniors couple would be filing separate tax returns and could each be grossing a level of income where they pay little or no income tax at all.

Let me repeat that. Our hypothetical HST tax–vexed e-mail couple hardly pay any income tax at all. Why is that? Well, they're the beneficiaries of the approximately 120 tax cuts which the B.C. Liberals have instituted in this province since being elected just over eight years ago. Each of them has experienced about a $650 tax cut over that period of time on their personal income tax.

Many don't seem to realize that whether we're talking about personal income tax, small business tax or large corporate taxes, we're now not simply living in one of the most beautiful and pleasant jurisdictions in North America. Not simply the place with just about the highest longevity for seniors outside of Japan, thanks in part to a wonderful health system and the wellness which all of us try and pursue, helped along by things like ActNow…. We also live in one of the most attractive investment locations in the world, thanks in part to low taxes.

Another flawed impression is that the HST is a new 7 percent add-on for everybody in the province, when it's actually a replacement for the old PST of 7 percent — which, if the NDP opposition party allows us to do so over the next few weeks, will be cancelled.

I might point out that the HST is now the federal law of the land, so all those speeches the NDP are making against it are misdirected. They should really take their complaint to the federal government in Ottawa, since it's federal, not provincial, law of the land, which has already been passed. Either the NDP is so completely unaware of the law of the land or else they're being dishonest with British Columbians.
[ Page 3491 ]

Back to the famous e-mail still making the rounds, probably — the viral $2,100 seniors couple that's so fed up. This probably non-income-tax-paying couple are shown to have a budget in the e-mail. This is how much they spend on some incidentals: cable television, $720 a year — the very deluxe package, of course; golf club fees, $3,000, not counting the bar bill — wow; gym membership, $840 a year; hairdressing and haircuts, $900 a year. They put this in their e-mail.

Now, if you're keeping track, they've already spent $5,460, or about 14 percent of their income, on cable television, golf, gym and haircuts. This is not your average couple, I might conclude.

Moving right along, they're also shown as spending about a thousand dollars on hydro, a thousand dollars on heating — neither of which is affected by the HST, although they don't tell you that. But their pesky bills do continue to roll in — $800 for the Internet; $300 for their tax accountant, who presumably explains that they're not really taxable; the cost of the annual revision to their wills; also hockey, football and baseball tickets — they certainly lead an active life; not to mention movies 24 times a year, lots of magazine subscriptions and also curling.

They are budgeted to spend $1,200 a year on curling, and that doesn't even begin to count the brooms. Telephone bills, $600 a year. They don't shop around very hard. One must not overlook their expenses for front-row seats, and they list them — the ECHO Players, Bard on the Beach and the Chemainus actors guild. The cost of living in B.C. certainly does add up.

Then there's their annual trip to Palm Springs, only $900 in airline tickets for two. The beagle needs his trip to the vet, which they mention. The vitamin pills are such a financial burden, not to mention the cost of morning coffee at Tim Hortons.

[1730]

Add it all up, and this rather active seniors couple claims the new HST taxes are going to cost him and her more than $2,100 per year. Get on the Internet and e-mail your MLA right away.

What do I say to all this? Baloney. Any senior couple with a combined income of $41,000 would not be able to afford all this stuff, in my opinion.

Some of what they list is not taxable at all. We boil it all down. Their meaningful, recurring, new HST taxes will be for restaurant meals, haircuts, cable, telephone and investment advice. My very prudent financial planner figures it out to be a tax increase of maybe 1½ percent. That's before the price decreases on what they buy start to kick in, which is surely going to occur under the HST as the lower-cost value chain works its way through the economic system.

The HST is a value-added tax, as they have had for years in Europe. It's not a sales tax. Manufacturers, distributors and retailers do not collect taxes on what they sell. They remit a tax to government based only on the value they've added to the goods and services passing through their hands. No more sales tax on sales tax on sales tax compounding into infinity, to the joy of the tax man.

Brian Mulroney had a heck of a time explaining all of this in the late 1980s. I personally recall sitting down with one of his emissaries, who tried to explain this new world of the GST, as it was. It was, of course, a replacement for the old manufacturers sales tax, some of you may recall — a tax paid only by manufacturers even as the economy shifted to a service economy. The problems this old tax created for Canadian companies had been debated since 1924, and it took about 65 years to reform it. Now it's our turn.

British Columbia is adopting the value-added tax for most of the same reasons which applied to the federal government 20 years ago. The B.C. economy can't operate at full efficiency and in competition with those value-added-tax nations unless we go to a value-added tax as well.

The HST will give our economy a real boost, particularly our resource industries. For example, there's every indication that Rio Tinto will now proceed with their $2 billion expansion and update of the Kitimat aluminum smelter due to the approximately 40 percent marginal tax reduction on capital investment attributable to the HST.

Huge tax savings for industries that provide jobs all over B.C., the magnitude of which hasn't really begun to sink in, include $140 million savings for the forestry sector — this is real money; $80 million for the mining, oil and gas sector; $210 million for the transportation sector; $880 million for the construction sector; and $140 million for the manufacturing sector.

"Well," you might say, "that's all very nice for those industries, but what's it going to do for that seniors couple earning $40,000 between them?"

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: One moment, please, Member.

R. Sultan: Well, what it's going to do for them….

Deputy Speaker: Could you just wait one moment, please.

Would the two members who are discussing educational credentials please have that discussion outside.

Please continue, Member.

R. Sultan: As I was saying, you might say: "Well, it's all very nice for those industries, but what is it doing for our hypothetical" — in actual fact, real-life — "couple as they head down to Palm Springs?"

Well, what it's going to do for them is provide the tax revenues domestically here in British Columbia needed
[ Page 3492 ]
to pay for all those medical bills which they're piling up. Our wonderful free — and I should say "free" in quotation marks — health system rests on the fiscal foundation of money generated by a healthy economy. The HST will help us maintain a healthy economy.

Some of you may have noticed that some of our B.C. industrial sectors are looking a bit old and dodgy these days, partly due to the bureaucratic dead weight of double environmental assessment, which we've already discussed this morning, and in part the burden of the sales tax, which doesn't help at all.

[1735]

We've not built a new metal mine in B.C. for decades. Our Kitimat smelter, once the marvel of the aluminum world — and I helped build it personally — is about 25 years due for an overhaul. In the petroleum sector, gas prices have headed to the cellar recently, dampening one of the really attractive sources of revenue paying for health services for seniors. High tech is great, and so are services, but the core strength of the B.C. economy remains our resource sector.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

The resource sector is welcoming the HST with open arms. Their taxes paid mean that all of our citizens will be able to continue what is virtually the lowest tax environment in North America and one of the best and most generously funded health systems anywhere — even after that hypothetical couple throw their last rock at the curling rink, settle up the bar bill at the golf club and ship their beagle to Palm Springs for the winter. As they enjoy the sun, I hope they have their travel medical insurance paid up — several thousand dollars for that high-priced U.S. health care — which I think they forgot to include in the cost-benefit equation.

Our government was elected to manage the economy. To do that, we have to do what is right, not what is easy. In that regard British Columbians can rest assured that their government is delivering a budget that builds on the success of our past, recognizing the opportunities in our present, and launches us into an even more prosperous future.

H. Lali: It is a pleasure for me to actually take my place in the debate that is taking place here. I see the South Asian caucus on the right-hand side is cheering me on over there.

This throne speech was brought down, and it was shortly followed by the budget earlier, a couple of weeks back. One of the things about the throne speech is that we saw in the throne speech a regurgitation of all of those failed ideologies and failed ideas and failed pieces of policy and platforms over the last three terms now — this is their third term in government — that the Liberals have been bringing to this House and to this province. We saw a replay of that.

One of the things in there was about, I don't know, a couple of dozen promises that were made. Some of them were new. Some of them were old. Some of them were repeated, I think, half a dozen times already in the last number of years that the throne speech has been taking place here under the Liberals.

When I talk to people out in the constituencies and folks meet me on the street, no one believes them. No one believes the Liberals. Their modus operandi has been, over the last nine years that they've been in government, to come out and make an announcement, make a speech, put it in the throne speech, put it in the budget, and then turn around and break each and every one of those promises and not put the money into where they said they were going to — turn around and make those huge cuts.

No one believes them. No one believes the B.C. Liberals. In this province no one believes them. No one believes their false promises. No one believes it when they say they're going to do something, because they know they're going to turn around and do exactly the opposite.

It's been going on for nine years. It's ridiculous that they would come back to this House year after year repeating the same old tired promises, making new promises which they know very well that they're not going to keep. So why do they come to the House and continue to make those false promises? No one believes them. No one believes the B.C. Liberals.

I just want to talk about some of these. First of all, there are no new ideas in the throne speech. After eight years of the same old failed economic policies and the massive mismanagement, especially in the forest industry….

Interjection.

H. Lali: I think I touched a raw nerve with the member from Kamloops over there, who didn't even have the gall to actually stand up for his own constituents in Kamloops and fight the toxic fumes that are going to be there as a result of burning of the railroad ties, which he wants. He didn't even have that. I had to do that.

[1740]

My caucus colleagues had to go in there. We went into Kamloops and stood up for the people of Kamloops. We stood up for the elected community leaders, the mayor and council in that community, and did the constituency work that that member should have been doing in his own riding. We stood up for the people of Kamloops and the Thompson Valley over there.

Except for the member who's duly elected…. He was muted, because the Premier put a zipper on his mouth so he can't talk against that and stand up for his own constituents. And he's got the gall to stand up here for 14 or 15 years and try to repeat that same old ideology.

In any case, the massive mismanagement, as I was talking about, of the forest economy in this province….
[ Page 3493 ]
We had thousands and thousands and tens of thousands of forest workers in this province. Because of deliberate mismanagement by this Liberal government, we have had in this province under this Liberal government over 70 sawmills and pulp mills that have closed. Over 35,000 well-paying, decent, family-supporting jobs in the forest industry are gone as a result of the mismanagement of the economy by this Liberal government.

Obviously, they've run out of ideas. When you read the throne speech and you look at it, there's no agenda. In February's throne speech, which was read by the hon. Lieutenant-Governor, the Liberals offered no agenda to actually help B.C. families and even businesses trying to emerge from the downturn — nothing. You know, people were telling me, when I got out there, that the Liberals are going to run out of gas.

You know what happens to a vehicle when it runs out of gas. It stalls, and if it's on a bit of a hill, it starts going backwards. That's what's happening with the Liberals, putting forward these tired old ideas. You know, they're out of gas. They don't have an economic plan, you know.

They keep talking about the Olympics and all the glory it was going to bring for jobs. People in my neck of the woods, in Fraser-Nicola, are still looking for it. They're still looking for these jobs and opportunities — and people in Kamloops and other parts of the province. What they've got to offer is this harmonized sales tax, an unfair tax which actually costs jobs and hurts the economy. [Applause.]

I see members applauding, as they're going to tax seniors and youths and single mothers and aboriginal people who are already impoverished, to further impoverish them. I see the Liberals applauding on the other side. What a shame. What a shame, hon. Speaker.

They want to increase privatization and deregulation and more cuts. I've already talked about the broken promises and the cuts that the Liberals have done in the past. Despite actually promising during the election that they were going to protect public services, today's B.C. Liberals, these guys over here, have foreshadowed more deep cuts.

We'll have to wait, I guess, and see how the budget comes down. We already know what their real plan is, because the budget has already stated how those cuts are going to be taking place in every sector. What you see in B.C. today…. B.C. is already facing significant challenges, including heavy job losses — I think there are over 110,000 jobs in the last 16 months.

These persistent child poverty rates, six years running. British Columbia now leads, for six years now, the rest of the country in the highest rate of child poverty.

An extended recession. You know, it's still going on. It's hurting families who are struggling to try to make ends meet.

Not only did the Liberals fail to mention any of these challenges actually in the throne speech, but they also failed to put forward any plan to address any of that — absolutely nothing in their plan. But we've had our Finance critic and also the Leader of the Opposition and other New Democrats, on our side, putting forward positive alternatives in the absence of any action by the Liberals.

The NDP are proposing positive and actually practical solutions to get British Columbia's economy moving and to create new jobs, including investing in education. You know, these guys are making deep cuts to education at a time when we should be putting more money into it. You need an educated workforce to actually create jobs for tomorrow.

Investments, also, in green infrastructure and green jobs. We should also be supporting our rural communities. But the Libs aren't doing that. We are. We're proposing and putting forward those positive alternatives. We see nothing. We see nothing from the folks across the way, as they continue the agenda of massive cuts.

[1745]

For the last nine years we've heard nothing but speaker after speaker from the Liberal side thumping their chest and bragging about how great they are in terms of managing the economy. Well, if you look at it and take a historical perspective as to what's taken place in terms of economic growth and job growth in this province, you'll see the real picture.

Under the Social Credit, in their last ten years in office — if you just take a ten-year span — their economic growth over that ten years averaged 3 percent per year. Look at the NDP decade for the ten years we were in office; our economic growth was 2.9 percent.

Interjection.

H. Lali: He can check the facts. The member can go and check those economic facts put forward by right-wing institutions, not by NDP institutions — right-wing institutions.

Social Credit was 3 percent growth per year average. The NDP was 2.9 percent — comparable. The Liberals, 2.4 percent in the last nine years. They've been in office for nine years. Their economic growth, even during the economic good times when the rest of Canada was benefiting, was 2.4 percent. They finished third — third, hon. Speaker.

Despite all their chest-thumping and bragging, they can't manage a peanut stand. And when you put the Liberals and a peanut stand in the same sentence, that's an insult to the person holding the peanut stand. Even they do a better job than these folks across the way. They finished third during a time when we saw unprecedented turnaround of the economy of the world, in North America and Canada. These guys, out of the Social Credit and the NDP and the Liberal decades, finished third — a lousy third.
[ Page 3494 ]

These guys finished third, and then they think they can manage a…. Look at the Olympics and the costs. It's going to cost us what — $600 million? What are we looking at, hon. Speaker? Six billion? Half of that, about $3 billion, is the provincial share.

They were building this huge convention centre. I've got nothing against convention centres, but it's supposed to cost half a billion dollars. It's a billion dollars — $500 million cost overrun. Every project that they have started has been cost overruns — massive cost overruns. Golden Ears went from $800 million to — what? — over a billion dollars. Port Mann was supposed to be $1.3 billion. It's going to be over $3 billion. It just goes on and on and on.

Anyway, some of these empty promises that they made they followed shortly by a budget and a deficit. They're saying it's going to be $1.7 billion. But they're going to be taking money away, from robbing ICBC. It's $800 million over the next three years.

They're going to rob B.C. Hydro of $250 million instead of lowering rates for hydro or lowering rates for ICBC so that the folks who are paying the premiums would get a rebate. No, they're going to take that, and they're adding it on to their treasury in order to try to lower the deficit.

Then, of course, what is it — about $250 million in this coming year's budget? They're going to get it from the federal government as the HST transfer. You know, that's over a billion dollars right there. Their real deficit is over $2.7 billion. That's their deficit — record deficits. That's what they produce.

You know, there's a big to-do about it in the throne speech and in the budget that followed after. They're trying to resell — this is the biggest joke of it all — the HST when everything else that they tried didn't fly. They're saying, "We're going to fund health care. All the money from the HST is going into health care," as if there was no money going into health care before. They're trying to rechannel that and say it that way. But what really the throne speech does is allow for more cuts, more cuts and deeper cuts on top of the cuts that they've been making since 2003.

Let's take a look at health care for a minute. Despite all sorts of promises saying that they're putting a record amount of money into health care, putting more money into capital, the fact of the matter is that for the last hundred years, every budget that comes forward, you put a little bit more money into it, you're setting a new record.

[1750]

It makes no difference for folks to stand up and say they're putting a record amount of money in. It's not keeping up with the cost of inflation, with the wages and negotiations that had taken place, HST, MSP premiums, all sorts of costs — just the overhead in terms of running a hospital. It just doesn't keep up.

So what you've got is health care going to an underground world — I'm not allowed to use that word — where it's really hot in a handbasket. That's what's happening in every community, and they've virtually abandoned rural British Columbia. I just don't know how rural MLAs from across the way can actually get up here day after day and make these speeches about how glowing it is in British Columbia and ignore the reality that's taking place in their own back yard.

Interjection.

H. Lali: Here we have the member from Kamloops again talking. Within the IHA region, all the funds for capital projects and rehabilitation and renovations and health care are going into the Okanagan, and the two MLAs from Kamloops can't even stand up for their own constituents.

When you have about four or five regional districts in the Thompson IHA region — I think there's a few more than that — guess who's the poor child out of it all. It's the Thompson-Nicola region with Royal Inland Hospital, which is our regional hospital. Those two members from Kamloops can't even stand up for their own constituents. They see bucketloads of money going towards health care in the Okanagan, into Kelowna. That's how bad these guys are. They won't even recognize the problems in their own back yard.

You have hospital closures, ER closures. You've had doctor shortages, nurse shortages, services being pulled out of all sorts of communities in Fraser-Nicola and rural British Columbia. Merritt, for instance. You know, the community way back in the 1990s, over a number of years, raised $150,000 to put in an ultrasound machine in Merritt. Now this Liberal government wants to take that machine out, and the job with it, and put it into Kamloops, where it doesn't belong. It belongs in Merritt. They should be standing up and speaking for those folks there.

In Princeton on Friday night they closed the ER because they couldn't get a locum. It was closed from 8 p.m. Friday night until 8 a.m. Saturday morning, and you might as well have posted a sign on the front of the hospital in Princeton that said: "Time your emergencies, but not after 8 p.m. or before 8 a.m. on Saturday morning." They might as well put that kind of sign, because they did in Ashcroft. There was a big fat sign on the door at Ashcroft hospital. It's been there for most of the time, for six months over the summer, and it said: "Go to Kamloops."

An ambulance brings in somebody, or you happen to bring in somebody who has an emergency, and you go to the Ashcroft hospital. There's a big fat sign waiting for you posted by this Liberal government: "Go to Kamloops. "Might as well put another sign on there that says: "Time your emergencies to see when is the four hours a day that the ER might be open."
[ Page 3495 ]

Lytton was the other one. These guys were going to close the hospital for a week. It wasn't until this side of the House, the NDP opposition, rang the alarm bells. Our Health critic rang the alarm bells. My office rang the alarm bells. It was only then that they were actually able to provide a doctor and make sure that hospital would be open the next day. These guys don't care. It just goes on and on and on.

You know, Logan Lake, Ashcroft, Lytton, all of these communities — unreal. It is unreal what these guys are doing for health care in our region by making these massive cuts. They made those cuts on the false promise in 2000 that we're going to make these cuts and we're going to balance our budget, which they unbalanced — because they had inherited the largest surplus in the history of British Columbia at $2 billion in 2001. They turned it, two years later, into the largest deficit at $3.4 billion.

These guys, the Liberals, created the mess. They took money out of health care and education and brought it into Victoria and shovelled it from the back of a truck to their corporate buddies, which they have no shame in giving, but they won't provide roofs for the people who are homeless in this province or lower the child poverty rates in this province from the highest in Canada to the lowest. They have a problem doing that.

They took that money from health, education and social services with the false promise that they were going to put it back when they balanced the budget, which they did in '05. But not a penny of that came back. All of those services in communities like Merritt, Ashcroft, Princeton, Lillooet, Lytton, Logan Lake and other communities were taken out of their hospitals and actually centralized into the regional centres. They did not put a penny of that back because of the false promises.

[1755]

I talked about education, and you heard today in question period that there were questions that were also asked. You know, in education there have been cuts every year for the last seven years in a row — eight years, actually. They have made cuts to education, and you know what's happening?

They are closing schools by the dozens every year. During the 1990s we got rid of hundreds and hundreds of portables, and actually, there was a school that was opening in British Columbia every 19 days. We opened up 189 new schools in this province during that decade. What has this Liberal opposition done in the last nine years? They've closed a school every 17½ days — 210 schools and counting. That's how many schools they've closed.

You know where most of those schools are? They're in rural British Columbia. They're in my communities. They're in Hedley. They're in Princeton. They're in Ashcroft. They're in Lillooet. They're in Hope. They're in every community in rural British Columbia where they've closed schools, and the class sizes are increasing. They have no commitment to education. At a time when the world economy is dependent upon all those students getting their education and their higher degrees in order to compete against the Indias and the Chinas of this world, these guys are going backwards.

I've got a few minutes left, and I want to talk about aboriginal issues. You know, the folks who are the most hard done by, by this government, the poorest folks in British Columbia, the folks that have the highest rate of unemployment in this province, have the lowest social indicators and health, are the First Nations of this province. This government has had nine years to deal with that problem, and every year they seem to be going backwards.

They make all sorts of promises every year, and then they break their promises, whether it's their new era, whether it's the new relationship, whether it's the era of reconciliation or whatever name they're going to think of tomorrow. Who knows? But they keep thinking of these fancy names. Somebody gets paid thousands of bucks to come up with these names. The Premier has got — what? — about a couple of hundred people in the communications department.

Interjection.

H. Lali: Yeah, 194. What is it called? Public affairs bureau. You know, they feed all this….

Deputy Speaker: Member for Columbia River–Revelstoke, if you wish to join the debate, you must do so from your seat.

H. Lali: PAB feeds all this information, does all this work for them. It's like they've got little spies everywhere. You can see them in the hallways whenever the media is there trying to interview some New Democrat critic. Somebody from PAB has got their little gadget there taping everything. They have their little spies there listening everywhere, and they report. They feed all this stuff. It's like they're feeding them pablum. PAB is feeding the Liberal MLAs pablum, and they just spit it out. Whatever is fed to them, they just kind of spit it out.

They come out with these fancy names: new era, the new relationship, the reconciliation and all sorts of other things. I'm just waiting to see what they're going to come up with tomorrow. You never know what kind of pablum PAB is going to be feeding. But I wonder if any of them actually do some real research and come up and give the Premier and this cabinet some advice and say to them: "Look, we've got a real problem. This province has a real problem here. We're not helping out the aboriginal people in this province."

In this throne speech this is what the government said. It said: "The government will fully respect and adhere to
[ Page 3496 ]
the First Nations' rights to consultation and accommodation." That's what this new relationship and this new era of reconciliation was supposed to do. But you know what? Everywhere you go in the province, when you talk to First Nations, they kind of take their document of the new era and they rip it up. That's what they're doing. That's what the First Nations leadership all across the province is doing. You know why? Because they're just empty words.

[1800]

There's no money put into it, no money for capacity-building for First Nations, no money to actually do economic development for First Nations on reserve, no money for health and educational facilities. They're getting their money from the feds because these guys aren't coming to the table. They're fed up with being poor. They're fed up with having the highest rates of suicide and alcohol and drug abuse. First Nations are fed up with the teenage pregnancies and the other spread of disease — HIV and AIDS — that is taking place.

They're fed up with being poor and having to come, cap in hand, to both the federal and provincial governments. They're fed up with all of that. They want to be in control of their own destiny, and so they should be — to be able to plan out their own futures, to be able to actually be in control of their own economic futures so they can have the same educational and economic opportunities that you and I enjoy, my kids and your kids are going to enjoy and their kids after that. That's what First Nations want.

They don't want a special deal. They don't want special privileges. They don't want to be treated differently. They don't want to be treated better. They sure as heck don't want to be treated any worse either. What they want is to be treated equally, and the only way they can be treated equally is when they get equal billing and equal access to educational and employment opportunities on the same basis as you and I do. That's what they want.

They don't want empty words from this government, because that's all that this throne speech is promising. Every year, year after year, this government has promised the First Nations of this province that they were going to do this, they were going to do that and they were going to do the other thing. Every year they have failed on that promise, and First Nations are tired of waiting. They're tired of being misspoken to. They're tired of being misinformed. They're tired of this beads-and-trinkets type of mentality that this government has.

They're waiting for a day when any government will actually come forward with something on the table that's going to work and have aboriginal people be in control of their own destiny so they don't have to have the lowest health indicators of anybody in the province. They don't have to have the highest unemployment.

You go to reserves. There's no reserve anywhere in British Columbia where there's unemployment of less than 50 percent. It usually hovers around 70 to 80 percent. If your unemployment rate on a reserve is about 50 percent, you're doing good, comparatively speaking to the others. But not everybody's like that. It's up to 70 to 80 percent, and they're tired of being poor. They're tired of the kinds of cuts….

Just to give you an example: legal aid services. You know, First Nations are disproportionately in higher numbers in terms of the legal system of this province because of all of these problems that I've talked about related to health, education. employment and all of the other issues that I talked about. They're also the poorest.

Aboriginal people, more than any others, perhaps with the exception of single mothers, use legal services on a higher per-capita basis than anybody else in society. This mean-spirited government, starting in 2002, started cutting back on legal aid.

Not only is legal aid not available for residents in Lytton, Lillooet, Merritt and the First Nations on reserve — and they have to shut down the legal aid office — but they were told they have to go to Kamloops. Then they were told there was a toll-free number in Kamloops, and now they've been told — First Nations in Lytton — that that toll-free number in Kamloops is gone, and it's a toll-free number in Vancouver that they have to call. That's their idea of providing legal aid to the poorest people in society.

It's a shame. It's a shame, and I just can't see how Liberal MLAs, one after the other, can stand up here and brag about the throne speech and the budget that followed.

When you look at forestry, it's in a shambles under this government. When you look at health care in this province, it is falling apart right before your very eyes, hon. Speaker. When you look at ICBC rates, they have skyrocketed under this government, and now they're going to rob ICBC of $800 million just so they can actually lower their deficit.

If you look at hydro rates, they've gone up something like — what? — 150 percent since they took office. Up 150 percent. They have no problems signing these lousy deals with the private power producers. Buy it at a high price, and turn around and sell it at a low price. They're subsidizing their friends.

[1805]

They're subsidizing their friends in the private power production sector. The very people that put bucketloads of money into the Liberal headquarter party for their re-election are being rewarded handsomely.

Look at tuition fees. They've gone up anywhere from 200 to 400 percent, depending on which college or university you go to in this province, under the Liberals.

You look at the minimum wage. Here we are — nine years in a row under this Liberal government, zero increase in the minimum wage yet truckloads of money for their corporate buddies on Howe Street.
[ Page 3497 ]

Child poverty. I already talked to you about that — six years running, highest in the country. Same thing with homelessness. Put them out of sight while the Olympics were here, but do nothing to put a roof over their heads.

That's the reality, and I just can't see how these Liberals…. Not a single one of them gets up here to talk on a compassionate level about these very people, the most disadvantaged lot in society, whether you're talking about youth, seniors, single mothers, people with disabilities, visible minorities, the aboriginal people, the people who are homeless.

How many MLAs on the Liberal side have even got the gall to stand up and talk about their own record vis-à-vis those groups that I talked about? Zero. But they've got no problem standing up here talking about those folks that work in the ivory towers in Vancouver or Toronto or Beijing or Tokyo.

That's who they're talking about when they talk about: "Oh, we have the lowest marginal tax in the country." You know what that means? They have the lowest tax for the richest 2 percent in British Columbia. That's what they're proud of. And to heck with the people who are the lower- and middle-income earners in this province. It's the richest 2 percent. The marginal — that's what that means.

They don't get up there explain it to anybody when they say they have the lowest marginal taxes. It's the richest 2 percent. That's who they're talking about. Then when they turn around and say that they have the lowest business tax, they're talking about the corporate sector too.

I'll be gladly voting against the throne speech.

D. Barnett: It is with pride that I stand here today in British Columbia's Legislature to respond to the Speech from the Throne. I am humbled to respond to the speech on behalf of the constituents of the Cariboo-Chilcotin. It is a responsibility that I take very seriously, and I am excited to work very hard for the people in our communities, both in my role as MLA and as Parliamentary Secretary for Pine Beetle Community Recovery.

As British Columbia emerges from an economic downturn, the resource industries in the Cariboo-Chilcotin are poised to grow. These key industries of forestry, mining, manufacture and agriculture are the backbone of our province's economy and are the creators of real jobs and revenue both in my constituency of Cariboo-Chilcotin and throughout the province of British Columbia.

What is government doing to assist jobs in the Cariboo? Announced in the throne speech, the corporation capital tax has been eliminated. Corporate income tax rates and property tax for industry have been dramatically reduced, and the small business corporate income tax will be eliminated in 2012.

We are dedicated to helping those in our communities who are in need, building on our social commitment to health care and education as well as doing all we can to protect the health of our environment for the well-being of all British Columbians.

My constituents, for the most part, are this hard-working, blue-collar group that values and supports these core industries that are necessary to the economic health of the province. My constituents care about their futures, and they're concerned about the economy and jobs. They're concerned about health care, and they are concerned about education. It is with this in mind that this throne speech serves as reassurance to those in my community and all over the province that their concerns are being addressed in this House.

This speech outlines how this government is capitalizing on the massive surge of goodwill and global exposure from the Olympic and Paralympic Games. Emerging from an economic downturn while ensuring the protection of vital services and jobs is top priority throughout the province. To ensure that in the future the province can enjoy the quality of life that we have all experienced so far, the government today is planning for the future.

[1810]

Looking back, several unpredictable global changes have occurred that have rocked many economies. No one could have predicted that forest fires would cost this province over $400 million in 2009, that natural gas prices would drop so sharply or that pressures on the real estate market and the private sector would be so devastating to so many. The list goes on. Our forest revenues dropped due to the global recession.

Most all of these noted shortfalls have been experienced in one way or another in my community. Pertaining to the summer of forest fires we had and the current and ongoing recovery, not many know the impact these fires had in their riding much better than mine. We had one of the hardest-hit areas and know the devastating toll it takes on those within the community.

However, from problems, we find solutions, based on the lessons learned, and our government moves forward. It is clear from this speech that British Columbians want more than anything a stable government, one that makes sound choices that would make all of us accountable to those that impact. This is what this government is doing.

After experiencing an economic downturn, British Columbia has emerged in a post-Olympic glow. The government is in an enviable position after showing our province to over three billion people during the games. We can advertise the great qualities that will encourage investment. This is a golden opportunity to promote global investment in forestry, manufacturing, clean tech, tourism, film, entertainment, digital media, life sciences and more.

To improve the provincial economy, we are implementing the harmonized sales tax. The HST is the single largest thing we could do to strengthen our economy.
[ Page 3498 ]
The HST will lower business costs on productivity by almost $2 million annually.

By removing these costs from job-supporting sectors such as forestry, mining, oil and gas, construction, manufacturing, agriculture and transportation, it will allow them to support local jobs. These industries provide hundreds of jobs for my constituents and, as a direct result, will see savings put back into the economy and community as these industries continue to grow and prosper.

Aside from business, which will benefit from the HST, with equal significance, core services like health and education directly benefit from these initiatives.

This government is targeting its spending on critical services that are needed for patients, students, children and families. The $1.6 billion from the federal government in transitional funds for moving toward the HST will deliver on our promise to protect health care and education. Fully 90 percent of all new spending in B.C.'s three-year fiscal plan is devoted to health care. That's over $4.8 billion, and overall, health care spending has gone up nearly 70 percent since 2001 under this government.

Another aspect of the throne speech is our continued and working relationship with First Nations in British Columbia. This opportunity for First Nations also has been developed by a positive climate developed through the Premier's vision of a new relationship. I am heartened that the Speech from the Throne noted that this government's commitment to First Nations is unflagging.

As the throne speech denotes, despite many historic shifts in understanding and intent over recent years, we still have miles to walk before we reach this mutual understanding that we know exists. This reconciliation demands that we listen to First Nations and their needs as we improve and further develop these bridges that we need to cross for mutual and meaningful relationships.

Addressing climate change will continue to be a major focus of this government. This government believes in clean, green energy for all the environmental and economic benefits that it brings, but primarily because we know it's the right thing to do.

[1815]

I think it is important to recognize that the LiveSmart program not only met its targets, but it is exceeding them and will result in permanent greenhouse gas reductions. This program has local effects in my constituency. Through its LiveSmart program, the city of Williams Lake was one of the first to combat these emissions by making an idle-free city back in April of 2006. There is awareness in the community that idling generates harmful emissions, wastes fuel, reduces engine life, is revenue-negative and can easily be minimized.

Since the throne speech $35 million over three years for the LiveSmart B.C. efficiency incentive program has been announced in the budget. Furthermore, this is just one localized example that, by concentrating on green energy, the province is showing leadership in the global fight to limit the human impact on climate change not only here but around the world. The government has reiterated its commitments to climate action, plan and targets.

R. Chouhan: It's a great pleasure to respond to the throne speech, and it's also a great pleasure to talk about my community of Burnaby-Edmonds, the province of British Columbia and the Liberals' contribution that they have not made in the last many years to British Columbia.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

I would love to talk about these issues.

Mr. Speaker, it's good to see you in the chair.

When we are talking about the throne speech, I was hoping that I would hear some of the issues that we have been raising in the past many years and that my colleagues have been talking about. But I was so disappointed that we did not hear anything about homelessness, the minimum wage, safe working conditions for our children and other workers in B.C. We saw none of that.

Then I thought that maybe we can wait until the budget comes down so we can hear all these issues, which will be addressed in the budget. Again I was disappointed that none of that was dealt with.

The many issues that I had talked about in Burnaby-Edmonds…. The housing situation is so desperate that many people have been waiting for years and years to get into appropriate housing. Burnaby-Edmonds is a very diverse community. We have people who have good houses, but there are many people who don't have any house, and they're waiting to get into B.C. Housing. They're waiting to get into subsidized housing, but the situation is so desperate that they cannot find housing for their family.

We also have a very significant number of people who are government-sponsored refugees. They come and live in Burnaby-Edmonds as well. Traditionally in the past, when we brought people to British Columbia, they would come with husband and wife and two kids. Now we have single mothers or single parents with five or six kids. So it's a very difficult, very different situation.

When we read through and listened to the throne speech very carefully, instead of providing answers to these issues, what we heard was that the HST is the answer for everything. The HST was it. So is it really? Before the last election, HST was not even on the radar for the B.C. Liberals. Suddenly it appeared from somewhere. I don't know how that happened. Maybe they had faulty radar before the election, and certainly, the radar got fixed. They found the blip on the radar, and somehow the HST became prominent.

[1820]
[ Page 3499 ]

They were promising that the HST…. Actually, we heard before the election that it would not be introduced.

The member for West Vancouver–Capilano was talking in his speech about how the difficulty with the HST is not the HST itself but that it's hard to explain it. Of course you're going to have difficulty explaining the HST when you're breaking a promise, when you are deceiving people, when you are not telling the truth. Then you are going to have difficulty explaining it. That's the reality.

People expected that the government of B.C. would not introduce the HST. Now we heard after the election: "Because Ontario did it." Then we heard: "It's revenue-neutral." Then we heard: "Well, it's all going to be earmarked for health care."

No matter what amount of spin you put on it, it's not going to work. A pig is a pig no matter how you dress it. That's how people see the HST, and it should be stopped.

I see the time is running out, so I think I have to move for adjournment. I'll hold my space and move adjournment of the debate.

R. Chouhan moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Committee of Supply (Section A), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. G. Abbott moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

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

The House adjourned at 6:22 p.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
CITIZENS' SERVICES

The House in Committee of Supply (Section A); H. Bloy in the chair.

The committee met at 2:58 p.m.

The Chair: Good afternoon, everyone, and welcome to the Douglas Fir Room. Today we'll be doing the budget estimates for the Ministry of Citizens' Services.

I just wanted to remind all members and people in the gallery that there's no voice use of their electronic devices. In the gallery it's at the pleasure of the Chair, as long as you're not disruptive in communicating with other people. When members are standing, they're not allowed to read from their electronic devices, but staff and members can use them between questions.

On Vote 21: ministry operations, $45,063,000.

Hon. B. Stewart: I'd just like to introduce the senior staff that are here today. To my right is the Deputy Minister of Citizens' Services, Kim Henderson. To my left is Ron Norman, the head of the public affairs bureau. As well, I have here Lynda Tarras, the head of the Public Service Agency, and Brad Grundy, the chief financial officer for Citizens' Services.

It's an honour to rise here today to talk about the budget estimates for the Ministry of Citizens' Services. The Ministry of Citizens' Services is committed to providing leadership across government in the delivery of a wide range of public services that serve the needs and expectations of the citizens and businesses of British Columbia.

[1500]

This ministry is composed of four defined areas of responsibility. Citizens' Services sets the direction to enable efficient and cost-effective services. The Public Service Agency provides human resource leadership for all of the organizations that depend on the government's 30,000 employees. The public affairs bureau leads and coordinates communications with internal and external stakeholders, ensuring that citizens are informed about government programs, policies and services in an open and transparent manner.

Shared Services B.C. is responsible for delivering the infrastructure and the services that government needs to operate: buildings, technology, procurement and supplies.

One particular point I want to make here is that there is a change in the funding model for Shared Services. Costs across government have been centralized under the Shared Services B.C. vote. This change increases the accountability for the Shared Services budget and achieves cost savings and efficiencies. These benefits will allow government to operate on a smaller Shared Services budget for the fiscal year 2010-2011.

With the added responsibility for multiculturalism, the ministry continues to work in support of cultural diversity and in building welcoming and inclusive communities across the province. By bringing all these components together in one ministry, we will continue to deliver the best quality of service for British Columbians.

The ministry is broad in scope and the opportunities and challenges many, but I look forward to working
[ Page 3500 ]
together with the ministry staff in the year ahead. I now welcome comments and questions about the budget estimates.

D. Routley: I welcome the ministry staff and thank them for their help in guiding us through the process and the answers that British Columbians seek when they consider the essential and vital services that are provided and overseen by the ministry.

It's an interesting history, this ministry. It was a part of the revenue ministry in the previous NDP government. Many of the services that are grouped together under this ministry were then part of Government Services, which was part of the Finance and Corporate Relations Ministry.

Since that time it's moved around a lot. It's had different services added in, different budget implications. It's been a bit of a shell and pea game in terms of trying to identify exactly what the ministry does, where its budgets come from and what its budgets really are.

In 2002 the Black Thursday budget of the B.C. Liberal government brought the budget down by 2½ percent, but the budget actually jumped that year 16 percent. So it's been a history of this kind of targeting that hasn't quite been met in practice. Back then it was called Management Services, and it was tasked with the outsourcing of so many key government services.

Over the years, through 2004, there was a 34 percent increase in the ministry's budget, which is kind of ironic — that the ministry that's tasked with downsizing government has been ballooning in size and scope throughout this time. The 2005 pre-election budget was met by a 2005 post-election update that revised numbers and again increased the budget.

This ministry has been a ministry of dichotomy. It oversees the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, which in itself is a bit ironically named, because one seems to work against the other. I think the practice of government could be rightly recorded as creating an oxymoron at both ends of that term "freedom of information."

The performance of government has been abysmal, has been condemned by the officer, the OIPC. The privacy issues very recently, as well as over the term of the government, have shown an equal level of failure.

[1505]

I think that when we've sat in the committee reviewing the Freedom of Information Act, we've heard of a governmentwide, sophisticated culture of avoidance that has been developed. I think we've seen, in terms of protection of personal privacy, an equal level of commitment to disdain, a deliberate ignoring of the role of government and its obligation to protect privacy. These are some of the issues that I think we need to look at when we consider this ministry's budget proposals.

The public affairs bureau, widely seen as the spin factory of government messaging, is overseen by the same minister who oversees the Freedom of Information Act — another dichotomy and another conflict. The integrated case management system and its implications for personal privacy, overseen by the same minister who is responsible for protecting personal privacy — again, a real dichotomy….

When I try to describe to people which ministry I'm critic of, I often say, "Well, I'm critic of the ministry of secrecy, surveillance and propaganda," because the FOI Act has essentially become the secrecy act of government.

Whether we see this abysmal performance and the obstacles put in front of groups and individuals seeking information about governments, surveillance in the integrated case management case and the combining of information about personal issues for British Columbians, and propaganda in the public affairs bureau, these are dichotomies that really beg British Columbians to question the credibility of their government and its record.

That being said, I appreciate the minister and his efforts to accommodate me as a critic, and I know that the goals set out for the ministry and for its various servants are grand. They're great golden goals, "the most open jurisdiction in the universe."

And yet how could anyone have fulfilled the goals that were set out in slogan, in sort of a bumper sticker political sloganeering fashion, that really haven't been able to be met by people very devoted to service of the province? And now we see, really, an attempt to back away from some of those commitments and, I think, an ongoing failure to meet them in any case.

But I believe that British Columbians have a much grander expectation when it comes to the issues overseen by this ministry, particularly around openness in government. They really believe that for democracy to function, we need to have access — and open access — to our own government. I'll have more to say about that as we go along, but in the meantime I'd like to open with a couple of very general questions.

I'd like to first focus on how the ministry was affected by the recent Olympic Games. Did the ministry incur any Olympic costs?

[1510]

Hon. B. Stewart: First of all, I'm so glad that we're getting a chance to open up and talk about the recent success of the 2010 Winter Olympics and Paralympics. I know that the opposition appreciates how much this has propelled Canada and British Columbia to the forefront of the world and the world stage, thanks to being able to host these games.

An unprecedented 3.5 billion people, more than half the world's population, viewed the games on TV, over the Internet or mobile device, making the 2010 Winter Olympics the most-watched winter games in history. This gave us an unprecedented international marketing
[ Page 3501 ]
opportunity, exposure and outreach. The Conference Board of Canada forecasts that the games will add an additional $770 million to the B.C. economy in 2010 alone.

To ensure that the Olympics provide a lasting benefit to British Columbians, the province put in place a strategy to leverage the games and sell B.C. to the world. As part of that, Citizens' Services took a part in that in business hosting. As well, we had the public affairs bureau, which was at the forefront of hosting international media here, to get our message out. All of those costs are going to be forthcoming in public accounts, as we've declared in the House before.

D. Routley: If I understand the minister, he's confirming that there were significant costs incurred by the ministry for the staging of the Olympics. I would hope that he would be able to share some of those costs with me here. Perhaps a more specific question.

Of course, we all agree that the Olympic Games were a benefit to the province. We could have a debate over what that benefit accounts for, with PricewaterhouseCoopers slightly disagreeing with the Conference Board numbers. But if the minister has the enthusiasm for the Olympics expressed and out of his system, that would be appreciated because I'd like to ask specific questions about the cost.

I agree that the Olympics were a grand spectacle, and I cheered like any other British Columbian or Canadian when Sidney Crosby scored, Hayley Wickenheiser being my favourite athlete. We're all encouraged by that.

What I would like to know more specifically: were any staff of the Citizens' Services Ministry seconded? Were any full-time-equivalents seconded?

Hon. B. Stewart: I appreciate the member opposite's enthusiasm for the games and the absolutely outstanding outcome for Canadian and British Columbian athletes, with the Paralympics just finishing yesterday on such a high note. It took all British Columbians to participate in that. The Ministry of Citizens' Services and the public affairs bureau, as well, were involved in that success.

As far as secondment to VANOC, we did second some employees from Citizens' Services to VANOC. We had other ones that were reassigned to help during the games, as with many of the other responsibilities — security, hosting the media. We did provide staff that redirected to help market British Columbia to the world, and I have to say that we did a damned good job of it.

[1515]

D. Routley: Could the minister be more specific? How many staff were seconded, and how many were reassigned? I think it would be difficult to really understand the difference between secondment and reassignment, except for perhaps who is directing. How were these staff paid? Were they paid by the ministry, by the government in any fashion? Were they paid directly by VANOC?

Hon. B. Stewart: First of all, the secondment program with the B.C. public service and VANOC resulted in a total of about 250 public service employees being assigned. We don't have the exact number for Citizens' Services. We'll get that for you a little bit later.

I can assure you that every one of those employees gained invaluable opportunities and experience. I talked to hundreds of them myself. I can tell you that people that were here from all different departments literally grew in scope and size in terms of their ability to understand the magnitude of hosting an event like this. The government provided all of the costs for payroll in both those cases.

D. Routley: I would like to ask the minister: did he or his staff receive any Olympic tickets to events?

Hon. B. Stewart: As a member of the executive council for the province, I was a part of the business hosting program. That information, as well, is going to be available for the public to know about. But it's my understanding that none of our staff received any Olympic tickets during the Olympic Games.

D. Routley: Could the minister share which events were attended? What was the purpose of attending those events?

Hon. B. Stewart: Just in regard to your earlier question about secondment — the number of employees that were seconded from Citizens' Services — there were three seconded from Citizens' Services, three from Shared Services B.C. and eight from the Public Service Agency — a total of 14 from our ministry.

In regard to the Olympic ticketed events, as I mentioned to you, all of the executive council as well as MLAs were expected to be available to help with the business hosting program.

[1520]

I can tell you that I had the opportunity to participate in many events — some ticketed, some that we hosted at the B.C. Showcase pavilion, some that were at the B.C. Pavilion. I can tell you that the number of events was basically based on our availability. I know that I personally only attended a couple of the ticketed events.

The other events that we hosted were ones that the government was regularly putting on to host people who were here to do business. I can tell you that I talked to literally hundreds of people, brought back opportunities of people that were completely taken by the way that British Columbians and Canadians — not only the patriotism, but the fact that this was a place where they really knew they wanted to do business….
[ Page 3502 ]

I had people come up on the last days of the closing ceremonies, while we were watching it, and tell me about the fact that they wanted to invest — from New York and other places in Asia, who were here to just see the Olympics, who experienced everything about it. We were able to answer questions. We didn't have to sell them. They were already sold on it. I'm privileged to have been a member, to be able to help host.

D. Routley: I guess it's obvious that what's of interest here are tickets that were paid for by the public. The minister says that he hosted people who were already sold on British Columbia and didn't have to sell them, so it would bring into question why the public would have to pay for his attendance in order to sell them on British Columbia — they being already sold.

Also, when people understand that millions of dollars were spent on Olympic tickets for government MLAs, ministers and Crown corporations, they expect to have a more detailed accounting of what the outcomes are and what benefit those tickets brought to them as taxpayers.

I'd like the minister to tell me why it was necessary for him to attend Olympic events on the public dime. Also, what guests did he take with him? Did any MLAs attend these events with the minister?

Hon. B. Stewart: I wish I had all the answers that you're asking for about the costs of Olympic ticketing, whether MLAs attended. I can tell you that at the couple of events I did attend that were ticketed Olympic events, there were MLAs in attendance.

I can tell you that the deals that I was talking about just a second ago here — about people wanting to do business — weren't necessarily the ones that I had at ticketed events. These are people that just walked up, who I was randomly introduced to at our events where we were doing business hosting.

I can tell that you the Ministry of Small Business, Technology and Economic Development, which was responsible as the lead ministry in terms of business hosting, has agreed to put out an accounting of all the business hosting that was taking place — who the attendees were.

I'd be happy to share in more detail as deals start to unfold for government. At the present time there are deals still coming in every day, and there are going to be many deals in the future as a result of hosting the world here at the 2010 Winter Olympics and Paralympics.

D. Routley: Well, it's obvious that the minister perceives a benefit from his attendance. He perceives that there will be an overwhelming increase in business opportunity in British Columbia. You know, that's a fairly large claim, given that a lot of money was spent on tickets. The PricewaterhouseCoopers analysis before the Olympics really doesn't support what the minister has said about economic activity being generated by the Olympics.

[1525]

If the minister really believes there is such a grand benefit to be gained through his attendance and his availability to these potential investors, I'd like to know how the minister intends to follow up on these opportunities.

Hon. B. Stewart: To the member opposite's question about some of the specific benefits. You know, as I mentioned, I participated in a lot of the hosting events that we as government did. I think if you had the opportunity, and I don't recall seeing the member opposite actually at Robson Square, although I did spend a better part of two weeks in that area…. I can tell you that every single day I saw the faces of people that were enjoying the Cultural Olympiad and the entertainers that were there, the ice-skating surface. It brought people together in a very, I guess, transparent and collective way.

Maybe just a little bit of a sidebar on that is that one of the things we celebrated there was the provincial Nesika Awards, which was during Multicultural Day, celebrated during the Olympics. It was a very big success.

But more importantly, I think that personally, just in travelling from friends that I was staying with during the Olympics on the North Shore — riding the buses, riding the SeaBus and walking around in the downtown — it would be pretty difficult for anybody around the globe, of those 3½ billion viewers, to not have noticed the fact that we had such a multicultural and inclusive society.

The fact that I could be sitting on a bus chatting away with Japanese ESL students — albeit that my English was better than theirs; my Japanese would have been much worse…. But needless to say, I enjoyed the opportunity and the freedom that everybody took upon themselves to enjoy the fact that we're so multicultural and inclusive.

You know, the other thing that we were…. We had business hosting opportunities in tourism. I had a number of opportunities with some of the people that are working in terms of technology, and as you are aware, Citizens' Services is responsible for technology and information management.

I can tell you in meeting with some of the people that we do business with — people like IBM, Cisco, Hewlett-Packard…. Sitting and talking with these people for a few hours at either the B.C. Pavilion or the B.C. Showcase, lots of ideas were generated.

Some of them…. I'll just give you one. It's that the government, working with EDS Canada, now HP, in terms of its data storage centre, which is in the process of being constructed in Kamloops…. The amount of power consumption that is used in one of those facilities is absolutely staggering. Now, where better on earth were they to get green energy? Many of these companies in
[ Page 3503 ]
California, our competitors down in the Silicon Valley, are looking for places to be able to get green, clean energy. I can tell you that they're thrilled to be in British Columbia doing this.

This is one of many other economic opportunities that could go to many other places in the province because of the diverse fibre network that we have in the ground. That's just one small example of some of the things that we are going to find that we're going to be able to take advantage of in the coming months and years.

D. Routley: Although I respect the minister, I have a really hard time responding to that answer with respect.

[1530]

The minister used the words "transparent" and "collective." What the British Columbian taxpayer would like is a transparent accounting of what the Olympics meant and what the participation of government meant. Even if the minister were prepared, which he doesn't appear to be, to stand up and fully account financially for the Olympics, I'm sure he wouldn't be able to account for the cost of the loss of focus of this province.

As the minister shows in his response, they're focused on this celebratory kind of language about the great benefits of the Olympics. It's almost as though if you don't support it, you're against it. It calls into question a person's devotion to their province if they have any critical question about the Olympics. Any critical question is answered by: "Wow, wasn't it great that we brought together people?"

Well, Mardi Gras brings together people. The World Cup. All these events bring together people. I really question whether HP and their data storage facility would be making their decision on location based on the good time they had at Robson Square with the minister.

You know, he talks about the green energy opportunities. Well, British Columbia has always enjoyed green energy opportunities and benefit from B.C. Hydro and the legacy dams, which his government tried to sell and now which is being diluted in value, as the Utilities Commission pointed out, through the lack of protection of public interests when it came to power purchasing.

The minister is broadening this to the point where I'm responding with criticism of their power policy. What I want to know in a transparent way is: what are the material benefits of having the Minister of Citizens' Services paid for by the public — not only his ticket but also his hotel and his travel expenses to the Olympics — to host people?

We would like to know. I'm sure every British Columbian taxpayer would like to know what the material benefits are of having millions of dollars — public dollars — spent on tickets to Olympic events. Who attended with the minister? What was discussed?

We don't want our business done on a bus headed for Robson Square or at a celebration or a party. We want our business done in a transparent way, and that is the job of this minister. This minister is meant to oversee the Freedom of Information Act. So I wonder: did the minister keep records of his meetings? Did he keep records of who he met with and what was discussed? Will those be available to us and the opposition and to British Columbians?

Hon. B. Stewart: I want to make certain that it's absolutely and perfectly clear that the government position in terms of Olympic ticketing, in terms of our role with the hosting program, is that it's something that is being tabulated now that the Olympics and the Paralympics are over. It's going to be available at a later point than today, because it's not part of Citizens' Services. It will be part of Small Business, Technology and Economic Development's reporting out through public accounts.

All of those questions you ask will be available — who we met with, the terms of what the costs were. But I can assure you that, from the member's point of view, I do find that the use of the province's "loss of focus" during the Olympics is a very constructive way to describe hosting one of the most unique opportunities in a very difficult economic climate — to be able to highlight and focus attention in terms of investment and why people would want to consider being in a province such as British Columbia.

I just want to kind of highlight the fact that I know that the statistical information in terms of promoting British Columbia in the United States for tourism…. The uptake in the American TV watching was over 25 percent what the projections for NBC were. CTV has never yet seen higher audience uptake in terms of that.

That's not just about being proud. It's about the fact that people are coming here to discover. I think you might have remembered some of the advertisements that were promoting British Columbia — you know, "You gotta be here." I think it's important that you recognize the fact that this is the launching pad. It's not a stopping point.

[1535]

D. Routley: Well, certainly people were proud. There's no doubt about that. I was very proud, and I was happy for everyone involved that it was successful, particularly from an athletic point of view.

What we want as an opposition examining the budget of the provincial government is an accounting of the financial benefit that we can expect from this focus of government. In fact, for the past three years the government has had as its sole focus the Olympics and the benefit that that would bring. I would say that there are a lot of students and a lot of people struggling in this province who have resented that loss of focus on the other issues of this province.

We could have this debate all day long, and unfortunately we don't have quite that much time. We could
[ Page 3504 ]
debate whether or not the tourism potential will be realized when cuts are made to supports for the tourism industry and to the ministry itself, but that would take us into other estimates.

In September estimates the minister said that questions around the HST and its implementation were not related to that budget. He indicated that that would be a topic for discussion by February. He said: "I would like to offer to be able to debate and have the discussion about the embedded HST in the upcoming spring of 2010 budget. I give you my assurance that we'll try to answer those questions at that time."

Is the minister ready to answer questions about the costs of the HST to ministry operations?

[1540]

Hon. B. Stewart: In regards to the HST, the Ministry of Citizens' Services is currently upgrading financial systems to handle the change in the collection of the GST and PST into the HST. While work is still underway, the cost for this transition is expected to be under $80,000 in capital expenditures for the upgrade of the affected systems.

However, in costing the individual HST on ministry operations, the HST will not increase operating costs for ministries. Currently the ministries do not pay the 5 percent GST but do pay the 7 percent provincial sales tax. Once the HST is implemented, the ministries will pay the 12 percent HST but will be eligible for 100 percent of the rebate. Bottom line, this means that HST will not impact on ministry services, and in fact, there may be a net reduction in the tax burden and their costs, because they will no longer pay the PST.

The implementation of the harmonized sales tax, or HST, could result in a net benefit to some alternative service delivery, or ASD, providers. The province is aware of this issue and has created a task force led by the office of the comptroller general to address the impact of HST on major contracts, including alternative service delivery arrangements.

Task force findings and associated recommendations will be presented to the Deputy Minister of Finance prior to the implementation date of HST on July 1, 2010. The future of all ASD contracts will contain appropriate language regarding the payment of HST.

D. Routley: The minister, in his own speech, claimed that many jobs will be created in the chain of production. How many jobs will be created through the Ministry of Citizens' Services — those stakeholders who engage in contracts with the ministry or who outsource services under the Shared Services B.C. title?

Hon. B. Stewart: First of all, the HST questions are probably something better left to the Ministry of Finance in terms of the forecast in terms of jobs. I think, in terms of the context of your question, it would probably be: how does the HST actually increase and provide job opportunities?

I don't personally believe that government is the one that should be providing the job opportunities. I think that it's important that we create the financial conditions so that private business can create those job opportunities, whether they happen to be in the small entrepreneurial or large unionized-type operations. The reality is that there are operations here….

As a matter of fact, I met in Prince George just last Wednesday night the owner, a fellow that's putting a $3 billion investment into Dease Lake as a mill operation, and he told me that the HST was the single biggest issue that has made that deal a go-ahead-type deal.

He said that there's nothing else that would…. It's literally removed hundreds of millions of dollars out of their startup costs so that they can actually do that investment of $3 billion and be able to create opportunity for people that live in Watson Lake, Dease Lake, Stewart, Premier — all of those communities that are looking for new opportunities. That's one example.

[D. Horne in the chair.]

The second one was the Red Chris mine right up on the border — the same thing from the president and the people that are working in that. The people in the forest industry will tell you it's a game changer in terms of selling product abroad, in taking out all of the embedded PST that they pay to get logs into milled timber that gets out to the market.

I know that in your particular community there are mills there, in Chemainus and places like that, that are looking for that opportunity to be able to export around the world. This is what the HST does for them.

[1545]

D. Routley: In fact, many of the people I speak to feel that this is a shift from those corporations who have been exporting our resources in very raw form onto the types of small entrepreneurs who would add value. Certainly, the tourism industry and the restaurant owners would disagree with the minister.

In any case, we're here to talk about the Citizens' Services Ministry. In fact, the ministry contracts out a good deal of government services. What effect will the HST have on those contracts of government services? What studies were done to examine this impact, and who was consulted to determine what the impact would be on those contracted-out services?

Hon. B. Stewart: Coming from the tourism and the restaurant sectors, I can tell you firsthand that the HST is important to me, because — you know what? — if the people of British Columbia are not working, if they're
[ Page 3505 ]
not gainfully employed, they don't come and spend money on tourism. They don't come to the restaurants to spend the money that they need to be able to enjoy the services that we provide.

Interjection.

Hon. B. Stewart: I can tell you that a lot of people haven't taken a close enough look at how the embedded PST removes costs from tourism. I can tell you that — you know what? — until you sit down with your accountant, it won't happen.

More important, in regards to the alternative service providers that are providing services to government, as I've previously stated, the province is aware of the issue and has created a task force, led by the office of the comptroller general, to look at this very issue, to address the impact of HST on major contracts, including the ASD arrangement.

The task force findings are due to be out and reported to the Deputy Minister of Finance before July 1 so that he can take appropriate steps to deal with those issues.

Secondly, all future ASD contracts will make certain that they contain appropriate language in dealing with the HST and regarding payment of it.

D. Routley: This is a truly astonishing revelation. The minister is waiting for the impact studies to be done. The minister cannot tell us as British Columbians or even himself as the administrator of all of those alternative service delivery contracts what the effect will be.

It's absolutely astonishing as a taxpayer that the government could have implemented such a massive shift in tax policy without any discussion with British Columbians — in fact, telling British Columbians during the election campaign that it wasn't on the radar screen, that they weren't going to do it.

A Premier who campaigned for ten years against it, and then only weeks after the election, suddenly having this conversion to the realization that it's the greatest and best thing that could ever be done for the economy, but not yet able to stand up and tell us what the effects will be on his own ministry — now that is really an astonishing set of circumstances to me.

The fact that the minister oversees hundreds of millions of dollars in contracts of government services contracted out in a privatization drive, in a faith-based approach to economics — that if we privatize it, it will be more efficient…. Simple. Done.

Yet the minister and the government still can't stand up and deliver to British Columbians the facts. They can't tell us what the effect will be. How could a government of this province, of which I am so proud, take a step like this — blindly, based purely on faith?

That's what the minister is saying. He doesn't know what the effect will be. He assures us that future contracts will have adequate language to protect the taxpayer but can't tell me the effect the HST will have on the hundreds of millions of dollars of contracts already let out by this privatization-driven government. I think that's completely and utterly unforgivable.

[1550]

I would like to ask him what effects the HST will have on his stakeholders, but I don't think he's able to tell me, based on the last question.

I don't know. I guess it's not really fair for me to make those kinds of statements and not offer him a chance to reply, but the questions don't offer us anything, really — do they? They just tell us that the news will come; the news will be coming. In September I was told that the February budget…. "We'd discuss it then, but we can't."

Let's move on to another subject. You can reply if you want when you stand up and offer me the reply to the next question, but I'd like to ask about the recent controversy around the Royal Canadian Legion, branch 127, which since 1934 had an agreement with the government for a cost-free lease.

I'd like to ask the minister why the minister's deputy sent an e-mail to Legion members in February telling them that the arrangement was going to be reversed and that the Legion would have to start paying $26,000 a year or move.

Hon. B. Stewart: First of all, I think that the way you've described the circumstances around Royal Canadian Legion 127…. I don't think it's fair to the deputy minister, and it is not accurate in terms of the way that they actually unfolded.

But I can tell you that I made it clear in the House last week that there is nobody moving. The fact is that the agreement that we have been honouring since 1934, when Premier Pattullo supposedly gave the Legion the benefit of being able to stay there as long as they decided to have a branch there, will continue.

D. Routley: Well, it's the minister's own words. It's the members of the Legion who dropped off at the Leader of the Opposition's office the e-mail from the deputy minister that stated that unless they were able to pay $26,000, they had to move. It's a simple fact. The minister spent most of the day a couple of Thursdays ago back-pedalling from that decision, but that was what was delivered to those members.

I'd like to know why it was done. What was the decision-making process that led up to that e-mail? Maybe it's unfair to characterize it as though the e-mail came out of the clear blue sky and that they had never heard anything from the government before that time that would have indicated there was any question of whether this longstanding agreement with these legionnaires was to be honoured or not, but if there was a
[ Page 3506 ]
decision-making process that led up to that e-mail, what was it?

[1555]

Hon. B. Stewart: I don't think there's more that I can add as the minister responsible for Citizens' Services, other than the fact that we have told the Legion that there won't be anybody moving out. The fact is that the arrangement where they are not paying rent on the piece of property on Superior will continue. I don't think there's anything else I can add to that further.

D. Routley: Well, that's one of the things the minister said. That was, I think, the last thing the minister said. There's an old phrase: "Never again is what I said the time before." The government came knocking on this legion's door twice in the last ten years, threatening them with eviction.

If the opposition hadn't brought this forward, if the members hadn't had the courage to bring that e-mail to the opposition, if the opposition hadn't brought the issue forward and if the media hadn't embarrassed the government and the minister to the degree that they did, it's clear that this would have happened. In fact, the deputy's e-mail indicated quite clearly that this decision had the full backing of the minister. That's what the e-mail said.

Even after the veterans — and their average age is, I believe, 87 or 88 years old — had a news conference with their MLA, who is the Leader of the Opposition, the minister continued throughout that day to insist that some kind of rent would have to be paid — or other options, such as moving the legionnaires.

Yes, the minister said at the very end of the day after question period in the scrum in the hallways that they wouldn't have to move, but leading up to that point a lot of other things were said. On what basis did the minister reverse this decision during the day? What drove the minister's decision to reverse that decision?

Hon. B. Stewart: I think that it's clear that there was…. We initiated discussions in the hopes that we might be able to have some dialogue, but I realized throughout those discussions that that was not in the best interests of this particular group and, as such, made the decision to allow them to stay on the property at the continued arrangement indefinitely.

D. Routley: Well, it seems to me that what drove the decision was the embarrassment. This was clearly an intention of government. It has been an intention in the past few years to do exactly the same thing. How it was handled was disgraceful. I wonder if other e-mails have been sent out to similar groups.

Why did it take the minister, who is, in the end, responsible for the public affairs bureau, which I started out identifying as the spin factory of government information…? How could it possibly have taken him, with 200 public relations people working for him, a full day to change his story, and three separate versions of that story in one day?

Hon. B. Stewart: Well, I stand by my decision. The reality is that I did have a conversation with the president as well as the commander of the Legion before that press conference. They called that on their own. As such, I had to make a decision as to where we were going to go from here, and that's the decision I made. That's the end of that discussion.

D. Routley: Well, that is not the end of the discussion. It may be the end of the discussion for the minister but not for British Columbians, who want to have confidence that their government actually has a sensitivity to the fact that they're not dealing simply with bridges and ditches but actual people — children living in poverty, for example, and seniors who served their country and this province, who have expected that that service would be recognized in an honourable way and found that it wasn't.

[1600]

The minister may desire that this conversation end, but those veterans and other seniors who have been treated in a ham-fisted way by this government…. I can think of Cowichan Lodge and the hundreds of people who were affected by that decision — seniors, many of them veterans — and how they were insulted by this type of behaviour.

It's led to many people in the media commenting on how disastrously this incident was handled — how disastrously it was handled by the ministry and, forgive me, by the minister himself. The minister is responsible for the public affairs bureau, which is the messaging arm of government. How does the minister feel this reflects on the work of the public affairs bureau?

Hon. B. Stewart: I don't think that this really has anything to do with the issue. The issue with the Legion has nothing to do, really, with the public affairs bureau. It had to do with an operational decision. We were looking at all costs to government. I mean, as you can appreciate, we've been working to make certain that our corporate operations are as efficient as possible. As such, it came out of a review of that, and it was not an order. It was a discussion that was going on.

I've made the decision that we're not going to change the arrangement that they have. I think that that's where you should be clear — that we are going to support the Legion in that location.

D. Routley: The quotes and the timeline of this seem very interesting. It was called a communications
[ Page 3507 ]
breakdown. Then we were told that government has a cost of operating all of its buildings, and for that particular building that's what the costs are identified as. Then: "Evaluating all our properties…should be utilized to the best capacity…that space might not be the most appropriate."

So we went from a very simple and rather cold analysis of cost and the current market value of that building to maybe it's not quite appropriate. Then: "The reality is that government is looking at all of its spaces. Certainly, we have nothing but the highest regard. Our intention is to meet with them and find a solution."

Then the minister said: "I did talk to them today. I was only aware of the issue as of yesterday." In question period he said that the e-mail transaction took place without proper meetings. Yet, we're told that there had been an ongoing discussion about the space, but the minister only found out that day.

Really, I think it points to a government that is responding to a crisis with crisis-level management. The decisions are being made on the fly. As the challenges come up, as the spot fires erupt, they're stamped out one by one as best can be done. But that's no way to manage the province or manage the affairs of people who have made such a commitment to our province.

Can the minister share with me what his awareness of the issue was and how these quotes, throughout those two days, reflect an understanding of the ministry, of its operations and its effect on British Columbians? How did he make this decision? How did he reverse it in a matter of — according to the minister — less than two days?

[1605]

Hon. B. Stewart: I think it's important that we realize here…. You know, in the process as the member opposite is describing, etc., I think that I came to the conclusion that the decision we were going to down the path was perhaps insensitive. As such, I made the decision to make that change so that that arrangement wasn't continuing.

Frankly, it's unfortunate. I described the fact, the miscommunication. I had offered to meet with the members of the Legion personally, and I still have that offer out there. But the reality is that the day unfolded as it did, and we made the decision to reverse what was the perceived position.

D. Routley: Being rather short for time — I'd like to continue that discussion, because I think it deserves more — I'm moving to questions around Shared Services B.C., if that would be all right with the minister.

In this current budget the government has centralized many administrative functions that were previously in other ministries. Can the minister explain all the areas that are being centralized, why it's being done and how it's being done?

Hon. B. Stewart: Shared Services B.C. is not centralizing its services or changing. It has changed the funding model for Shared Services B.C. It's changing from a recoverable model, where we would recover back from the ministries — and be a $1,000 vote — to a mixed model that includes both a voted appropriation and cost recoveries from outside agencies.

The change in the funding model has centralized the Shared Services B.C. funding, previously held in the ministry budgets throughout government, into one place. Centralization of funding places accountability for the Shared Services B.C. budget in one organization and will enable government to better coordinate ministry consumption of services, as well as take advantage of further efficiencies of shared service delivery.

[1610]

D. Routley: It's clear that centralization of freedom-of-information operations led to considerable disruption and delays. That's the opinion of not only this member but of many of the people who have brought briefs to the committee reviewing the act.

What is the process for the centralization of the other functions, such as IT and accommodations? How has the process of centralization been adapted based on that experience in FOI?

Hon. B. Stewart: First of all, we started in June of last year with Shared Services B.C. looking at the overall operations in terms of customer satisfaction and who the client was. The services for all government ministries have been centralized for some time under the Shared Services B.C. model.

All we've really done was change the funding model in this particular case and the Shared Services organization. Although the organizational structure has changed, nothing has been added into the Shared Services model that would add to or centralize more operations there.

D. Routley: Well, the government has centralized many of the administrative functions that were previously not centralized in this ministry. The experience of the centralization of FOI would lead this member to be questioning the efficiency and the outcomes that might be expected.

How can the minister reassure us that anything has been gained through the experience of the centralization of freedom of information that will make this centralization more effective?

Hon. B. Stewart: First of all, this change has come about as a result of a relook at the way that the process or the way the businesses did work. Within Shared Services we had very separate models. It's not a centralized service in the sense that…. We've changed the organization, but we haven't centralized anything further.
[ Page 3508 ]

The last one that was centralized was the freedom of information in January of 2009. This change in Shared Services B.C. is moving from the fully recoverable cost model to a mixed-funding model and will enable Shared Services B.C. to take advantage of further efficiencies in shared-services delivery and allows government to place accountability for the Shared Services budget in one organization.

D. Routley: Last year in estimates the minister went to great lengths to extol the virtues and explain the value of the Shared Services model and the management structure. At the beginning of March we learned that CEO Beth James was leaving and had been replaced by Mr. Bert Phipps. Mr. Phipps was coming in not as the CEO of the organization but as the chief operating officer. What was the reason for this title designation change?

[1615]

Hon. B. Stewart: The head of the public service employees makes changes sometimes when, you know, there are changes in the ministries that require changes.

I refer to the fact that we had gone through a very long and challenging process of business process review in Shared Services, and Beth James was reassigned to another important project to deal with the wood innovation centre. It was deemed by the Deputy Minister to the Premier that in this case the chief operating officer of the new business of Shared Services B.C. would be Bert Phipps and reporting to Kim Henderson, the Deputy Minister of Citizens' Services.

D. Routley: Mr. Phipps was the public service servant brought in from the Solicitor General's ministry to perform the internal review of the ministry's mishandling of the Wainwright privacy breach. Is this part of the reason that Mr. Phipps was brought in to replace Ms. James?

Hon. B. Stewart: No.

D. Routley: How much more oversight is there from the deputy minister over the Shared Services COO versus their previous role of CEO?

Hon. B. Stewart: When Shared Services B.C. was brought into Citizens' Services…. It's really the operational side, and the policy side is the part that the deputy of Citizens' Services has overseen since the creations of Citizens' Services as a ministry.

I think it was the decision of the deputy to the Premier that now that we've gone through that business process transformation and we were working that out, it made more sense to have the accountability with one deputy and chief operating officer reporting up to the deputy of Citizens' Services on operations. I can tell you that ADM Bert Phipps has got an exceptional record within the public service in the ministry of the PSSG, the Public Safety and Solicitor General's Ministry.

D. Routley: What impact will this change have on the ministry? What impact will it have on the ministry as a whole — the shift from CEO to COO? I should be clear. In terms of change, I'm wondering what change there will be in terms of responsibilities in the position.

Hon. B. Stewart: The change really just changes the reporting relationship. It doesn't actually change the responsibilities. Associate Deputy Minister Bert Phipps will be responsible for the same responsibilities that Beth James was previously — just a different report.

D. Routley: Until earlier this month Mr. Jay Schlosar was in charge of issues management for the Premier and the Premier's office. What does the minister understand Mr. Schlosar's new job to be, and who does he report to?

[1620]

Hon. B. Stewart: Jay Schlosar has now taken on a new position. He's the executive lead in Internet strategy. He's going to be reporting to Kevin Jardine, who is the assistant deputy minister in business and workforce transformation.

D. Routley: I understood that Mr. Schlosar's new role was to be the person leading a new Internet strategy. Am I wrong?

Hon. B. Stewart: That's correct.

D. Routley: Well, what about Mr. Schlosar's experience as the issues management, damage control operator in the Premier's office leads to him being assigned to be the lead on an Internet strategy? The job description that I have includes the quote: "Executive lead of the Internet strategy."

This sounds like a sequel to the infamous Web portal project. This was a project started by the Premier himself, launched by him in 2002. It went many times over budget. The Auditor General was highly critical of the way that it was pushed ahead by the Premier without a business plan and led to the revolving door of chief information officers between '02 and '06.

Is this new strategy a continuation of the Web portal project? Is this digital dumpster No. 2?

Hon. B. Stewart: First of all, Jay Schlosar has been in government as a member that was an order-in-council appointment and made a decision to apply for a position that was competed on by many other individuals — over a dozen. It was through a merit process that he was awarded that position.

[1625]
[ Page 3509 ]

The issue that we face, as you can imagine, in business today is that technology is rapidly changing, and as such our Internet strategy continues to need to evolve and needed executive leadership. From my experience, knowing Mr. Schlosar, he'll provide excellent leadership in that area under the supervision and reporting relationship with Assistant Deputy Minister Kevin Jardine.

D. Routley: The minister has described the qualities that Mr. Schlosar brings to the position, but he hasn't really answered the question of whether this is digital dumpster No. 2 — whether this is a continuation of the Web portal project. And if this is a different project, what is fundamentally different about it compared to the Premier's disastrous Web portal project?

Hon. B. Stewart: First of all, I want to make certain that it's completely clear that this has nothing to do with the Web portal project. There's no relationship whatsoever.

This is about Citizens' Services. One of our responsibilities, as you can imagine from the title of the ministry, is that we're expected to deliver services to the citizens of British Columbia in a way that they have become accustomed to receiving them and the way that they expect to receive them.

As we can tell just during the recent Olympic activities, I think I was quite surprised even myself to find out how many people were actually watching the Internet on their telephone or their device, which I found…. You know, being one of the early users of cell phones and knowing how much it costs, I couldn't quite comprehend how you could get it down in cost.

But the point about it is that as the demographics of society are becoming younger…. And people — or a portion of our demographic in British Columbia — are expecting access to tools in government to be delivered in a different way than most people that are here in the Legislature, and we need to continue to push at that.

So we've taken the approach that we are going to become leaders in terms of accessibility that way. I can tell that you some of the things that we're doing on the Internet that have proven out to be successful is the introduction of the e–fishing licence through Environment, which was an idea that was novel and interesting, and it's certainly improved over the last year. But I can tell you that our goal is to be able to provide more government services through an accessible, web-based Internet strategy.

D. Routley: Well, this does sound a lot like the general description that the Premier gave to this Web portal project. But really, I would like the minister to describe exactly what Mr. Schlosar will be delivering.

I'm aware that my daughter is more dependent on technology than I am. In fact, she's been buzzing me throughout this entire process. So I'd say to her, if she's watching: "If it's an emergency, talk to Leanne. If it's not, stop bothering me." She'll appreciate that.

A Voice: She's probably just trying to help you out.

[1630]

D. Routley: She could be. Yeah, she could be. When I was a school trustee, she used to bother me, and I told her: "It better be broken, bleeding or burning if you phone me." Then when she phoned me, I thought, "Oh my god, it's broken, bleeding or burning," so I'd always respond — but not now.

Given the challenges of the Web portal project that the Premier engaged in and what the minister has loosely described as an increasing dependency on new forms of technology and the decreasing costs associated with that, what checks are in place to see that this next approach doesn't become the next Web portal project, or digital dumpster No. 2? Shared Services B.C. — we've seen the 15 percent budget cut, so how can Mr. Schlosar be expected to deliver an adequate product with diminished resources?

Hon. B. Stewart: I think it's important to realize the funding and resources that are required for this. This is about developing strategy around government's use of web-based products and Internet strategy. It's not about building a system, which is what you're kind of suggesting. It's about coming up with a strategy that's accepted by government and the deputies from all ministries as to how we move to that next level of how we better utilize the Web.

I'll give you a good example of where we should be using the Web more actively, and we will be using it this year in terms of YouTube and things like that, is during forest fire season. A lot of these younger people that are going out into the woods and looking at the campgrounds, etc. — we want to make certain that they're able to get an up-to-date fire hazard report when they're going onto the Web and these things.

That's only one small example. I'm not here to describe the entire Internet strategy for government, but that's what Mr. Schlosar's responsibility is, and to report to his assistant deputy minister.

D. Routley: Mr. Schlosar sounds like the public affairs bureau. I think that was exactly the reasoning used to justify some of the STOB 67 advertising. A lot of the function of the public affairs bureau during the last election was to communicate with people about the dangers of forest fires. If this project is really about the government tweeting to young people about services that they might require, why isn't this being dealt with by the public affairs bureau? Why is it in workplace transformation secretariat?

[1635]
[ Page 3510 ]

Hon. B. Stewart: I think, more importantly, that this whole issue about where we're going on the Internet strategy is about rationalizing what exactly the government is doing. It has over 300 different websites. One of the things that we have is literally hundreds of thousands of pages that are being hosted, and it's very difficult to sift through.

The part about it is that when you put stuff into an Internet system where you've got hundreds and hundreds of thousands of pages that we're hosting, hundreds of websites…. The bottom line is that the system needs to be cleaned up, because it's not necessarily serving the end users, which are the citizens of British Columbia, and that's what the ultimate goal is of what we're looking for here.

D. Routley: Well, I've referred to the fact that there's been a 15 percent cut to Shared Services B.C. I think it's $24 million that has been cut — from the ministry, at least. How does this affect Shared Services B.C.? How can this cleaning up of all those thousands of webpages be achieved in an atmosphere of reduced resources?

Hon. B. Stewart: I acknowledge the fact that all government ministries are having to work with less resources today. Even ministries that have been seeing increases in their budgets have been faced with the ongoing challenge of change in terms of the service levels that people are expecting or historic funding levels. I can tell you that there isn't anybody in the government that is anxious to run up deficits.

Our projected forecast is a $1.7 billion deficit, which is on the backs of our children and our grandchildren. The reality is that we're trying to find those savings and make certain that we use every dollar effectively.

So in Mr. Schlosar's case, his is one position that has been created out of existing resources to come up with a prioritization of what is expected in terms of Citizens' Services in terms of our Internet strategy. As such, once we have that strategy, then we'll be able to look further at the actual costs as to what we are looking for in that area to fulfil that.

D. Routley: Another area that's been negatively impacted by the current budget is B.C. Stats. It's reduced from $1.192 million to $210,000. Why has B.C. Stats been cut again? This is a skeletal budget. What's the justification for it? It's an important publicly funded service, a source of information.

What implications will this cut to B.C. Stats have for the government, for the people of B.C. and for the public service?

[1640]

Hon. B. Stewart: Just in regards to B.C. Stats, one of the things that B.C. Stats has been using as part of its budget expense in the past has been outside professional services in contracting to get some of the services that it has needed. With the decrease or reduction, they're going to be reducing the outside use of professional contractors.

The overall budget remains at about $6 million, of which most of that is made up through recoveries. I know that it's the case that they're working on priorities as to what stats are the most important for government and the ones that are required by the other ministries as how they're addressing that budget reduction.

D. Routley: I think this would be my final question on the Shared Services B.C. piece. Why doesn't the Ministry of Health publish all of its tender results centrally via B.C. Bid? The health contracts do not appear in the dropdown menu of B.C. Bid's database. It's a bit of a scavenger hunt. Maybe the Minister of Health should answer this, because I think….

Purchasing service shows some of the contracts but not all of them, and according to staff, as long as Health releases the results of the bid process in some way, publicly, this meets the requirements of transparency. Does the minister agree that this is a high enough level of transparency, or does he agree with me that all the B.C. Health contracts should appear centrally at the B.C. Bid website?

Hon. B. Stewart: The question you raise is an important one, and unfortunately, the staff here are not in a position to be able to answer exactly for you the question or the answer you're looking for. So I'd like to be able to get that to you at a little bit later time, if you don't mind.

[1645]

D. Routley: I would like to move on to freedom of information, if that's satisfactory to the minister.

Before the centralization which occurred in January 2009, the overall freedom-of-information budget was $19.6 million. After the centralization in the February 2009 budget, freedom of information received $14 million; records management, $5½ million. This was cost-recovered from other ministries.

The government decided that only $11.5 million should have been taken, so $2.5 million was returned. Then after consolidation, the minister, I believe in the last estimates, identified that $1.5 million in savings to FOI was achieved, so it was reduced to $10 million.

In the September 2009 budget, we'd already seen a cut of $4 million to the FOI budget over February 2009. This is from $19.6 million down to $15.6 million. How much is budgeted for FOI services this year, including all cost recoveries?

Hon. B. Stewart: I just want to reiterate that the budget for fiscal 2010-11 is going to remain the same
[ Page 3511 ]
as the budget that was stated in the September '09-10 budget update: $15.6 million. That includes $5.6 million for corporate records management–related costs and $10 million for recoveries for centralized services.

D. Routley: In a briefing from the minister's deputies in September, I was told that the goal of the FOI centralization was to process more FOIs with fewer FTEs. How many fewer FTEs are now working on FOI?

Hon. B. Stewart: First off, I'd just like to introduce Lois Fraser. Lois joins us as the ADM of operations for Shared Services B.C.

Just in regards to the member opposite's question about the freedom of information, the current level of positions is 148 positions that are required for the information access operations and as part of the centralization of FOI and records management. This has been arrived at through attrition and reductions of nine staff — one in FOI and eight in records management.

The number of positions in the information access operations has not changed since the estimates debate in September of 2009. FOI operations has demonstrated that 148 positions are sufficient.

[1650]

Since January of 2009, while the number of FOI requests has been increasing, the achievement of the FOI response time within legislated time frames has improved. As of February 1, 2010, government on-time responses have increased to 87 percent from 71 percent in the 2008 calendar year.

D. Routley: Those are the numbers that I have from the September estimates. We did 148 — I heard that correctly? Okay.

In the most recent report of the FOI commissioner, he states that it's about money. He states clearly that a good FOI system needs to be properly resourced, and this is what he says: "In the end, this is about money, plain and simple. Access and privacy staff are dedicated, hard-working professionals, but they can only do so much. More is needed, and that means more money for more staff." Does the minister agree with the then FOI commissioner?

Hon. B. Stewart: You know, that report that you're referring to — by the former Privacy Commissioner David Loukidelis — is dated, and the information that I just had stated to you is much more current.

Since the reorganization, this business process review of the freedom-of-information office, we have demonstrated that we can do the job more efficiently and better with staff being centralized. The fact is that the numbers speak for themselves. I mean, to have our on-time responses reach 87 percent from 71 percent in just one year…. I think that that goes to show that we're improving. I think that that's where the commissioner's next report would be more relevant, in terms of the fact that our goal is obviously to get to 100 percent, but sometimes that's not always possible.

D. Routley: Well, the fact that the Information Commissioner's report was dated is even more condemning of the lack of resources, because it was dated to a time when there were more resources available — 172 full-time positions — so now the reduction to 148 full-time equivalents seems to be in absolute contradiction to what the commissioner was recommending.

The government…. I think it comes down to whether or not centralization was a means of saving money or of delivering more service. The minister stated several times to me — and previously in estimates and in other forums — that the goal was to process more FOIs.

The minister states that the on-time rate has increased to 87 percent. Well, most of that increase is in politically non-sensitive information requests. We've heard time and time again from presenters to the committee reviewing the act that anyone who asks for a politically sensitive set of information is routinely — in fact, more than half the time — delayed beyond the requirements of the act, still to this day.

If the minister is claiming that the government is processing more FOIs, how is that happening? What methods has the government adopted to achieve that result? If the minister's claims are accurate that more FOIs are being produced within the time guidelines of the act, then how is that happening? Does that include politically sensitive requests from political parties, from public interest groups and from the media? Those are the three groups that routinely are delayed, at least half the time, beyond the requirements of the act.

[1655]

[H. Bloy in the chair.]

Hon. B. Stewart: To the member opposite: in regards to his request about freedom of information, I just want to make it as clear as possible that this is a business process review that occurred within Shared Services B.C. in drawing back the staff that were in freedom of information, staff that were in other ministries.

The government has implemented a process of improvements to more closely monitor ministry programs charged with retrieving requested records in order to improve timeliness. The information access office has managed cross-government requests better than standardized records call form and process, standardized fee estimate worksheets, standardized records review, and sign-off form and process, consistent escalation and alert process. These are aspects of the business process review that are essentially being redesigned so that the staff have better control over the system.
[ Page 3512 ]

The Shared Services business transformation team was assigned to review the business processes in September of '09. New processes were rolled out to client ministries in late November and early December of 2009.

[1700]

More importantly, to the delay in terms of political parties and media requests, from April 1, 2009, to February 1, 2010, general requests by media are 85 percent on time; by interest groups, 92 percent on time; and by political parties, 89 percent on time. This has been accomplished while requests from political parties have increased by over 250 percent in that same period.

D. Routley: We heard on the committee to review the act about the development of a sophisticated culture of avoidance, and one of the mechanisms of avoidance is to reply that there are no records. We in the opposition and other groups have noticed a drastic increase in the number of responses that are deemed on time, but the response is that there are no records.

For example, we have FOI'd documents for the minister's own briefings based on the meetings in his calendar, and those have received the response that there are no records at all or that the only record is a calendar appointment.

How does the minister explain, as the minister responsible for FOI, that his own briefings have absolutely no records attached to them?

Hon. B. Stewart: First of all, as the Minister of Citizens' Services, I take the claim that we might not be providing information or briefing notes very seriously. I can tell you that we very explicitly make certain that information is provided if it is available and that there's no intent or objective to not supply it.

Surely the member opposite must realize that some of the briefings that we have are verbal and that there are not briefing notes attached to every single meeting that we have in government.

D. Routley: What we're beginning to realize and what other groups are realizing is that there are not briefing notes attached to very many meetings at all. In fact, there's a considerable concern by information and privacy advocacy groups that the B.C. Liberal government is simply trying to duck its FOI obligations by creating essentially an oral culture. This is supported by a lot of statements from B.C. Liberal insiders like Ken Dobell, who said that his response to the drive for freedom of information is: "I don't write anything down."

So while a lot of other jurisdictions are moving to a duty to create records, this government appears to be denying access, and part of the sophisticated culture of avoidance is not to create records. The minister, in fact, refers to that as one of the possible explanations.

Does the minister have an alternative explanation to this decreasing availability of information and this increasing occurrence of "no records" responses?

Hon. B. Stewart: Well, I want to just restate that we haven't noticed any trend in terms of the fact that there's less information about briefing notes that have been supplied in terms of…. There's no statistical or empirical evidence to support what you're saying. The records management in government, which is the responsibility of Citizens' Services, is taken very seriously. It is not something that is treated….

[1705]

I know, in my own office, about creating documents and how they're stored and recorded and assigned numbers. I'll just give you a little bit of statistics here about the number of requests received by the freedom-of-information office. Political requests were 177 from April 1, 2008, to January 31, 2009. It moved up to 635 received from April 1, 2009, to January 31, 2010. That's a significant increase, and you can imagine that maybe the reason you're seeing more without briefing notes is because of the volume that is being requested by the political parties.

D. Routley: Well, it's an interesting assignment of responsibility for the fact that no records are being kept — because the opposition political parties are asking for documentation. I think it's astonishing.

Another example is an FOI request around the Premier's calendar of an Olympics advertising meeting in the Premier's office. That request came back as: "No records were located." So we're noticing — and other groups are noticing — that there's an increase in the response that no records are available or that no records can be located.

Is the ministry tracking this? Is it tracking the response rates, and is the ministry's tracking showing an increase in this category of response?

Hon. B. Stewart: First, we are not tracking this information as to the number of briefing notes that are in turn responded to or returned with each FOI request, but I will tell you what the policy is just in terms of making certain that documents are kept. "Employees must create and maintain complete and accurate records sufficient to document their decision-making and work activities." That's the policy.

D. Routley: Well, it's clear that the policy isn't being followed when meetings such as an Olympics advertising meeting in the Premier's office come back with: "No records can be located." The policy that the minister just read out to me applies to all employees throughout government — certainly to all bureaucrats within government and, one would expect, ultimately, at least, to
[ Page 3513 ]
the Premier. So here we have important meetings coming back as "No records being located" or "No records being produced."

It reminds me of the words of the previous privacy and freedom-of-information commissioner, David Loukidelis, when he said that the historical record is at risk. Throughout North America…. In the United States we see the Obama administration moving to the positive duty to produce documents and duties to create documents. We see it in the city of Vancouver. We see it in the city of Nanaimo. At all levels of government it seems possible to achieve this, so I think that the government has to reassess its performance here.

I certainly would not like to think that the kinds of motives that have been offered by many people, including you and me — my suspicions around why this might be happening — could be true and that government is actually trying to obscure the record of its decision-making process, particularly a government that is bent on deregulation and privatization.

[1710]

We're seeing the sale of the assets of British Columbia and the reduction in the regulations that have protected British Columbians. I attended the inquiry into the death of faller Ted Gramlich, and the coroner pointed directly to deregulation policies as contributing to the death of that logger. These are serious issues, and if we have a government that is actually trying to obscure the record, then that is a terrible peril for our democracy.

If I went further, I'd be really sharing with you my closing remarks, and I'm sure you'd like to wait for that. But I'd like to know how the ministries have made the minister aware of how FOI centralization has affected the performance or the ability of ministries to obtain records or to retrieve records from individual ministries. How has the centralization affected the ability of his ministry to reach out and collect the information?

Hon. B. Stewart: First off, I think I want to just remark on a couple of the comments you made about the Obama administration and the positive duty to present.

You know, British Columbia has some of the strongest FOI legislation in North America. We were one of the first jurisdictions to deal with the U.S. Patriot Act, and I can tell you that we have more public agencies and organizations that are part of the overall global FOI process. So it's a much bigger process than many of these areas that you referred to and much more complex.

On the other side of it, I want to just talk to you for a minute about the fact that we have made significant new business processes to facilitate FOI processing, just because of the sheer volume that we're dealing with.

We've got improved records-gathering processes to retrieve records. We've improved our request-tracking-and-alert system and consolidated teams to make better use of the resources and reduce duplication — a citizen-focused website; the FOI online application process up on December 11, 2009; the consolidated intake to better serve the public by facilitating one-stop shopping for FOI requests implemented November 13, 2009.

I'm really happy to…. I mean, I have to take my hat off to the people that are working in the FOI office and their ability to have had an increase of over 21 percent in the requests for freedom of information last year. During that period we've increased our timely response from 71 percent to 87 percent.

What can I say? The record speaks for itself, in the sense that we're handling more requests per capita than any other jurisdiction in the country. Our turnaround time is getting close to 90 percent, and we have significantly improved it. I think that record speaks for itself.

D. Routley: Well, the record certainly does speak for itself. In B.C., the minister said, we have more agencies covered. Well, he's probably referring to ICBC. That's the largest agency that is covered in B.C. that doesn't have a similar counterpart in Alberta or Ontario, other jurisdictions that we're commonly compared to.

[1715]

But ICBC has a very effective records management process that complies with the act at a very high level. There is not a political sensitivity to those requests. The minister can just…. There's a phrase. Just because you say it doesn't make it so. Just because the minister says it doesn't make it so. The ministry's compliance overall is what the minister is talking about with 87 percent. But when we look at freedom-of-information requests of a highly political sensitivity from opposition parties, from the media and from public interest groups, the government continues to fail by any measure.

Unless the minister is going to completely defy the findings of the Freedom of Information and Privacy Association of B.C., unless the minister is going to completely defy the findings of the privacy and freedom-of-information officer, he needs to admit that the government in fact has failed — continues to fail — to live up to those obligations.

The minister replies to my claims about the Obama administration. The Obama administration is creating a duty to report, and they're creating websites where there's a proactive, routine disclosure of documents, as many as possible, on websites within 60 days — to create that facility in less time than it takes most politically sensitive information requests to be fulfilled in this province.

It's an abysmal performance. In fact, when the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act was implemented in the '90s, it was leading the way. But every revision has been to close access to information — every revision to that act. No revisions have been made to open up that act. It has fallen behind. We have fallen behind other jurisdictions.
[ Page 3514 ]

The government needs to make a commitment to create records, to disclose records routinely and to increase the performance and compliance under its own act by providing adequate resources to the freedom-of-information process in this province.

The commissioner has pointed to the fact that there are not adequate resources. The commissioner's own words are, "It's about money. We need more money to adequately perform under the act," and this government has withdrawn resources.

How does the minister explain those differences? Is he right? Are all those other organizations and people, including the commissioner, wrong?

Hon. B. Stewart: To the member for Nanaimo–North Cowichan: first off, I want to make certain that it's absolutely clear that the member opposite doesn't feel that we're not doing everything possible in government to comply with the legislation and the regulations around the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

I can tell you that one of the things that everybody is asking for these days outside of government…. Even within government people are asking for more money. I'm sure that you'd know from House duty how often that question comes up. Unfortunately, we've made it a priority to balance our budget, and we're still working with a $1.7 billion deficit.

I can tell you that until we retire that, we're still going to be faced with ways which I think are healthy and improve the way we function in terms of government and looking at the way we rationalize the service that we provide.

Now I am going to just give you an example here. You talked about routine release. We do actually routinely release. The province fully supports accountability and transparency through the proactive release of information and already makes very large volumes of information available through government websites.

[1720]

A few examples. The integrated land management bureau releases Crown land tenure information. The Ministry of Agriculture and Lands releases aquaculture information, including fish health data. The Ministry of Environment releases quarterly compliance and environment enforcement summaries.

Going back to some of the questions that you had about our duty…. I just want to cite a couple more statistics here about the volume of requests that we're receiving and how quickly we're turning it around.

Interest groups. The number of requests that we had from April 1, 2008, to January 31, 2009, increased from 149 requests in that period to 282 requests — an 89 percent increase. However, interest groups' requests were dealt with 92 percent on time.

Media requests. Some 365 requests for April 1, 2008, to January 31, 2009; down to 351 requests from April 1, 2009, to January 31 — a 4 percent decrease. However, media requests were dealt with within an 85 percent time of turnaround.

I think what's important to realize is that as a government, or freedom-of-information office, we have had a 21 percent increase in overall increased requests for freedom-of-information information. We've been able to change the way that we do business by increasing the delivery time within the allowed 30 days from 71 percent to 87 percent. I think the record speaks clearly for itself. It's not perfect, but it's getting close to it.

D. Routley: Well, it helps to increase the allotted time by almost 50 percent by making it 30 business days rather than 30 calendar days. I guess that helps.

One of the aspects of the complaint that I mentioned before — the increase in the "no records" response rate — is that it really refers to whether or not an adequate search is being done. When there's a review, the OIPC looks at whether or not there was an adequate search. There's no inquiry beyond that. There's no inquiry into the government's records.

I think this brings up a question of records management. How many records management FTEs are there now?

Hon. B. Stewart: The total number of people that are in records management in the FOI office is 54.

[1725]

D. Routley: Well, I know that it's a concern of the Freedom of Information and Privacy Association of B.C. There's the number of replies that are coming back as: "No records could be located." Then when there is a review, the adequacy of the search is what's being examined. But no one is actually looking at the records to look over the shoulder of government and see whether or not there's actually a record available.

It's becoming difficult to accept that so many requests could be occurring. In my opinion, either there's a concerted effort to avoid creating documents or documents aren't being located through inadequate search.

So what kind of training does the government provide to ensure that adequate document archiving and retrieval occurs? Has the budget for this training gone up or gone down?

Hon. B. Stewart: I just want to confirm that we do provide records management staff with training. I don't have the exact amount that's provided for that.

I can tell you that in the review of the privacy breach from last year and the report that came out on January 29, it's one of the recommendations, that we improve training throughout the public service employees in that area, and we are in the process of implementing those changes as we speak.
[ Page 3515 ]

D. Routley: The minister has made several claims about improvements in performance, and the minister uses the overall average numbers to support those claims when, in fact, the commissioner found abysmal performances around media, political parties and interest groups — 49 percent, 53 percent and 57 percent, respectively.

The experience of the official opposition has not been that centralization has made FOI more effective or more efficient. In fact, the government's responses are becoming longer with multiple extensions offered. This is another complaint. Throughout the groups affected by the Freedom of Information Act, time delay has been achieved and engineered through the allowance of extensions.

[1730]

I'd like to give you a couple of examples of delays. Just in the opposition offices, our researchers and members have been issued nearly 80 extensions on FOI requests. That's resulted in approximately 2,400 days of delays.

There are a couple of examples. The pre-election budget FOI that was filed last May. The opposition made a request related to the government's farcical pre-election budget, the one that claimed a deficit 1/6 the size of the one that was brought in after the election. Provincial revenue forecast updates between the dates of October 1, 2008, and May 29, '09 — this was the wording of it.

The request was made on May 29, 2009. Even after we paid a $660 fee that the government charged for the documents, there were multiple delays. No documents were forthcoming, so we had to file for a review with the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner. There were more phone calls, more arm twisting. Then with estimates looming, this past Friday, on March 19, the response finally arrived — 294 days after the request was made, 98 days after its due date of December 11. That package that did arrive was so heavily severed that we're now having to file for another review.

Is this the picture of a well-functioning FOI? Is this the most open and accountable jurisdiction or government in the country, as the Premier promised?

Hon. B. Stewart: Obviously, we don't see eye to eye on this. The way that you characterize these delays as being…. They're not a delay. The act allows for an extension, and as such it's used as a matter…. I mean, I've seen the process that these people have to go through to get records from different areas, and sometimes it's not always that easy.

I'm happy to stand behind these statistics that we've reported today as being the fact, as the way they were in February 2010. We look forward to the next commissioner's report that backs up our information.

D. Routley: Performing under the act is coming down to a debate over quality. What is a response? A response is no response? Often a response is no response — a letter that says there's no response, no records located, request for extension. Is an on-time response in 30 days? Or is an on-time response in 60 days, with the extension that the minister or any ministry can apply?

I'd like to compare two jurisdictions for our study in contrast in FOI performance. In January of 2010 two FOI requests were made by the opposition — one to Washington State, one to British Columbia. On February 3 the Officer of the Governor issued a fee of $63.30 or the alternative of coming to Washington State and viewing the records for free. Unfortunately, that option isn't available here in B.C. We, the opposition, paid the $63.30 and received a fulsome package of records, over 300 pages in full with no severing.

We still have not received a single record from the Office of the Premier. The Office of the Premier extended the due date 30 days, to March 29. If the Office of the Premier takes no further action to delay the requests, which is highly doubtful based on the record — especially in the Premier's own office — it will have taken 85 days to produce those records from the same meetings.

The idea that the records would be provided without any severing, as Washington is apparently very able to do, is also laughable when you look at the degree of severing that's experienced in most of our FOI requests. Is this not an embarrassing contrast for the minister — this contrast between Washington State and B.C.?

[1735]

These were requests for records relating to a joint cabinet meeting between the state of Washington and the province of British Columbia — a joint cabinet meeting — and we get 300 pages unsevered from Washington State for $63.30. How many days was it? It's February 3; it was less than a month. Now still we haven't got a single word from the Premier's office.

How does the minister explain his government's inability to produce records in a timely manner when Washington State makes it clear that this is indeed a manageable task?

Hon. B. Stewart: First of all, I guess when you look at statistics, you have to be satisfied that statistics give you some sense that there's a trust that you place in them to get the information.

I want to mention one of the statistics we haven't talked about today. The average processing time for all requests, including those with extensions, has been reduced from 35 days in the calendar year of 2008 to just 24 days in the period from April 1, 2009, until February 1, 2010. You know, that's roughly a third reduction in terms of the overall speed that the government has been turning that out.

If you want to challenge that, I'm telling you that that's the information that our branch of the freedom-of-information office is putting out there. I'm sure that
[ Page 3516 ]
the commissioner will be reporting on that in his upcoming reports.

More importantly, I don't know anything about Washington State and how many requests they handle or what they have under freedom of information. As we mentioned, we have the broadest and most complex freedom-of-information coverage in terms of Canada, and I'm not certain about Washington State. We've had over 6,300 requests in the past fiscal year.

The fact that Washington State turned out a request in that period of time may be a function of how much volume they're dealing with or some other function of the way that their office puts records out.

D. Routley: Or it might be a measure of their commitment to openness in governance, or it might be an indication of their efficiency in records-keeping. All of these things are the assumptions that I make after having been critic in this area for some time and having spoken to the various stakeholders who have experienced the delays — the routine delays that the government has put up as obstacles, the outrageous expenses that have been requested by this government for records, the ongoing denial of records through severing.

Just another example of the outrageous severing that this government does on documents that it finally does release. We, the opposition, made a request for "any and all material used to calculate the annual operating loss of the Canada Line" and received a single record that was almost completely severed. I mean, if that isn't an issue of public interest to taxpayers, particularly in the Lower Mainland but to all British Columbians, I don't know what is.

What records is the ministry keeping? What effort is the minister making to determine or gauge how fulsome the responses are and how much material is actually being severed out of FOI?

[1740]

Hon. B. Stewart: First of all, in terms of severing, I want to make it clear that our staff follow the act, and we expect them to comply with it. That's what I can tell you about that.

In terms of the fact that you're talking about costs being used as a barrier to getting information, I can assure you that the majority of requests that are handled for individuals are free of charge, or routinely the fees are waived. They're very modest, and the fees haven't gone up for many, many years — $30 an hour.

Some of the requests that are coming in…. I have seen some of the most outrageous requests about documentation. We're talking about volumes, truckloads of paperwork, and they wonder why a request would be in the thousands of dollars. The reality is that the narrower and more specific it can be made makes it far easier to find that documentation.

The fees, as I mentioned, were $30 an hour, and I can assure you that that's very reasonable. It may not seem reasonable when it comes in at $10,000, but that's the prerogative of the person that's inquiring.

D. Routley: Where do you start? Well, $30 an hour. The photocopying costs are 25 cents per page, and the mainframe access — this is one of the biggest fees — is $16.50 per minute. It's $900 an hour, roughly, for the cost of mainframe access, if the request requires mainframe access. This in an age when the minister earlier referred to the increasing levels of technology and the decreasing costs associated with adopting new technologies, all to justify his other enterprises in investing in new technologies and the Web portal, or whatever we're going to call it this time.

We've seen fees ourselves in the official opposition, requests for records related to the decision to distribute the H1N1 vaccine to doctors' offices in addition to public vaccination clinics and the conditions placed on doctors in exchange for receiving a supply of the vaccine. That request came back with a price tag of $73,882.50.

Another one was for records residing in the Ministry of Healthy Living and Sport in regards to the H1N1 pandemic, and the planning time frame for this request was September 1 to December 24 of this past year — $48,120. Those were the price tags.

We have heard at the committee reviewing the act — and I'm sure that the minister is aware — of requests that came in at $24,000 for an environmental group, with a deposit required of $12,000. Those are obstacles to British Columbians and organizations within British Columbia accessing information about government and, in fact, participating in democracy.

[1745]

That request that I referred to, the environmental group, was $24,000 with a $12,000 deposit requirement. After they contested it, it came back with a $176,000 revised estimate for the cost.

The minister talks about the act being groundbreaking and leading other jurisdictions. Well, one of the requirements, one of the basic tenets of the act — if you read second reading debate of when the act was first implemented in the '90s — was that fees would never become an obstacle to the access of information. How can we make that claim when these fees, which are entirely unimaginable for issues related to public health, safety and the public interest, can possibly be occurring?

Many of the requests we heard about at the committee were in the many thousands of dollars, and they weren't pursued because of the cost. The proponents, the groups, actually come and tell us: "We didn't pursue it because of the cost."

So there is the severing. There's the culture of delay, the response-time delays, and then there's the cost. This is what people are referring to. This is what the
[ Page 3517 ]
president of the Freedom of Information and Privacy Association of B.C. referred to as a sophisticated culture of avoidance.

So how can the minister explain these costs? How can he explain that the government, with the technology it has — this information being available at the push of a button — can deny access and obstruct the access through these kinds of fees? Does the minister really believe that this kind of performance supports the Premier's claim of the most open and accountable jurisdiction in the country? In fact, he said anywhere.

Hon. B. Stewart: Just in terms of the fees, I think that, more importantly, we are trying very hard to make certain that people get access to this information. It's difficult in terms of the number of requests escalating at the rapid rate, as I've demonstrated with the numbers presented here today. It's been difficult to maintain the turnaround times that people have come to expect and demand, but we've also improved on that.

The fees that are charged are the same fees that were set in 1992. There have been inflationary pressures and other cost pressures. The reality is that it is, really, I think, the staff at the FOI office…. I'm told that they often will work with people that are requesting information to help narrow down and make it so they can structure their requests in a way to help cut those costs and, in some cases, have them reduced.

I know that those examples you cite are something that…. I'm sure that we'd be happy to try to work to find a narrower amount, a version, to be able to cut down those costs. There must have been something that requested an awful lot more information than what the person asking was expecting.

D. Routley: Unfortunately, given the claims of the Premier and the promises of the Premier for the most open and accountable government anywhere, that response is totally unacceptable.

The minister has said that the fees were set in 1992. Well, the mainframe access rate, at $16.50 per minute, can't possibly have increased in that time. In fact, the access and the technology available to the government have made that figure ridiculous, and it's quite atrocious that it has not, in fact, been revised downward. That is the source of a lot of the cost in many of these requests.

[1750]

The minister has claimed that those requests were somehow aberrations. In fact, we have dozens of examples. If my House Leader would allow me days upon days to engage in Citizens' Services estimates, we could go days and days reviewing individual requests that are of similar magnitude. Unfortunately, I don't have that time. I'm sure the minister would appreciate it.

How can these costs possibly have gone up when technology of every kind has made all of this storage and all of this availability so much easier? In Alberta, a jurisdiction that we're often compared to, anyone can go on line and find out about the travel spending by the Premier and his cabinet, month by month, trip by trip, minister by minister. Not so in B.C.

In B.C. the Premier's office releases a global figure that is the total cost of the entire cabinet's travel, and it's annualized. It's not broken down individually or by ministers or by trip.

I'd like the minister to go on record here. Does he agree that his government's FOI costs could be decreased if the government engaged in a more aggressive approach to proactive disclosure and on-line publications of government documents and information?

Hon. B. Stewart: Just to make it really clear here about what you're asking…. First off, I'm going to just touch on the fees for a second. The overall operating budget of the FOI office is about $10 million. Recoveries, just so you know, to put that in perspective, are about $50,000.

The fees, as I mentioned, haven't been changed since 1992. Actually, changes to the fees are required to be made through an actual change in the statute to the act. It was recommended at the last committee that the new media be considered — a fee for that — and that hasn't been implemented. So unlike other provinces, B.C. currently does not charge individual fees for searching their individual records.

On the issue of regular release, government is actively seeking to make more information readily available and is looking at a variety of ways of doing this, including wider use of electronic dissemination.

I take your point about the government of Alberta, and we'll take that under consideration.

[1755]

D. Routley: Well, it seems that a policy of routine disclosure that would encompass all levels of government, all ministries, all documents that are not exempted by the FOI Act…. In fact, we could have a longer discussion about the exemptions around cabinet advice and how that's been broadly abused and extended beyond what its original intention was. But a routine disclosure and a proactive approach to all documents not exempted by the act — would that not be a progressive act by a government that considers itself to be a champion of open governance?

Would that not be a cost saving to government when you consider that tens of millions of dollars are invested in FOI review every year? So much of that cost could be reduced by simply adopting that requirement. With the new technology that the minister based his claims earlier around other issues, it would be easily adopted.

Hon. B. Stewart: As I've said, we're looking at it. We would like to try to find other ways to streamline
[ Page 3518 ]
freedom-of-information requests so that regular publishing or release of records is the norm, and we're actively working on that. You know, the proliferation of electronic recordkeeping, storage, data management — this whole thing does increase our costs. We're trying to find ways to streamline, and we're working on that.

D. Routley: In the Premier's estimates several years ago, the Premier stated that PIN-to-PIN records — those records that go between BlackBerrys without passing through a central server — were already being captured. Then he had to retract that statement when it became clear that, in fact, they weren't being captured. The minister stated that these records are indeed being archived for retrieval.

I'd like to ask the minister: what is the current status of that, and will text messages be covered?

Hon. B. Stewart: The PIN'ing that the member refers to, as well as SMS texting, are short messages that are considered to be like short phone calls. They're not something that is captured. Nor can they be captured, based on the current technology; that's the understanding from our chief information officer.

D. Routley: It's unfortunate that the Premier made the claim that they were being captured, and it's unfortunate, then, that the minister stated that the records are being archived for retrieval.

Is there any policy guiding ministers or staff around the use of this type of messaging? If there is a sophisticated culture of avoidance developing in the government, as has been pointed to by numerous stakeholders who present to the committee reviewing the FIPPA, then this would be an avenue that needs, I would think, to be explored.

[1800]

Is there a policy around the use of these communications, around what type of communication is appropriate for that technology, given the fact that it's not capturable by freedom-of-information mechanisms?

Hon. B. Stewart: Just to be clear here, there are two types of these messages that we're talking about. The text messages are not captured and stored. But the PIN-to-PIN, as the Premier made that commitment…. It's my understanding that we do actually keep those and that they are stored. Most of those PIN-to-PINs are transitory, so they'd have to create a record in order to keep a record for FOI. But they are stored.

D. Routley: I'm not quite clear on what the minister has just said. I believe he said that the PIN-to-PIN is being stored. But as far as creating a record in order for it to be retrieved, I'm not sure exactly what he's referring to. I would like the minister to provide any documentation of this policy of archiving PINs and also any record of its implementation by government. Also, are the BlackBerry-to-BlackBerry messages — text messages — being archived and stored?

Hon. B. Stewart: Mr. Chair, I think probably the best way to handle this…. We're probably at a level of technology here that is better handled by somebody else. Why don't we provide the member opposite with the documentation just to be really clear in terms of how we store that information. I'll also answer your question about the BlackBerry-to-BlackBerry once we've got that information.

D. Routley: Thank you to the minister, because this is a direct commitment by the Premier to the Leader of the Opposition in Premier's estimates — that, in fact, this was being done.

Within FIPPA, section 25 puts an obligation on the head of a public body to release or disclose information to the public that affects public health or the environment.

[1805]

It reads: "Whether or not a request for access is made, the head of a public body must, without delay, disclose to the public, to an affected group of people or to an applicant, information (a) about a risk of significant harm to the environment or to the health or safety of the public or a group of people, or (b) the disclosure of which is, for any other reason, clearly in the public interest."

Will the minister admit that in the case of the Prince George air quality testing issue — in this case where there was delay, where information was not released in the most broad sense — the Environment Minister clearly breached section 25, public interest duty to report to the public of Prince George about their poor air quality?

The Chair: If the member could clarify how that question relates to the estimates before you — vote 21.

D. Routley: Yes, Mr. Chair. I think this refers to the efficiency of this minister in administering the act which he is appointed to oversee. If this failure to disclose to the public violated section 25, then it seems to me that it would be the onus and responsibility of the minister to rectify that or to act to reassure the people of Prince George that this public interest section of the act actually is functional and means something.

Hon. B. Stewart: I think that although we're responsible for the act, there are also other responsibilities that are shared with other ministries. I think that under this particular issue about public interests, that's a question that should be put to the Minister of Environment, not to the Ministry of Citizens' Services.
[ Page 3519 ]

D. Routley: Who's the minister who oversees the Freedom of Information Act?

Hon. B. Stewart: Just to clarify, the Ministry of Citizens' Services is responsible for administering the act. But the individual ministries are responsible for certain responsibilities within the act, and that's where I'm going on section 25 — under the Minister of Environment.

D. Routley: I'm sure the people of Prince George feel reassured by that answer, and I'm sure people in British Columbia feel reassured that the Freedom of Information Act is being adequately administered, because the minister responsible ensures that questions related to the act are deflected to other ministries.

This is a section under the act that requires that the head of a public body disclose information of significant public interest. In my opinion and in the opinion of many people who have reviewed this situation, that section of the act…. The government clearly failed. The Environment Minister, in particular, clearly breached section 25 of the act.

[1810]

Unfortunately, the minister who administers the act has chosen to deflect the question to the Minister of Environment. So we'll leave it at that for now.

Does the minister consider it problematic that Shared Services B.C., with its number of outsourcing contracts, and FOI are now under the same minister, given that under FIPA, section 21, information can be removed that can impact the business interests of a third party?

Hon. B. Stewart: I think it's best to say that we don't perceive the same conflict in the two sections. But if there is a body or a group that feels it is affected, it has that right to be able to appeal as set out in the act and can appeal to the commissioner responsible for the act.

D. Routley: When will the B.C. Liberal government bring B.C. Ferries back under the Freedom of Information Act?

Hon. B. Stewart: Just in answer to the member for Nanaimo–North Cowichan's comment about B.C. Ferries, we don't necessarily…. You know, that's a regulation that is not a responsibility of ourselves, although if we're asked to bring them in, we will do so, as instructed by the Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure.

Noting the hour, I move that the committee rise, report progress and seek leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 6:14 p.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Hansard Services publishes transcripts both in print and on the Internet.
Chamber debates are broadcast on television and webcast on the Internet.
Question Period podcasts are available on the Internet.

TV channel guide • Broadcast schedule

Copyright © 2010: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada

ISSN 1499-2175