2008 Legislative Session: Fourth Session, 38th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 28, 2008

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 27, Number 5

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Page

Introductions by Members

Point of Privilege

(Speaker's Ruling)

Statements (Standing Order

25 B )

Frederick James George

MacKay

Bridges for Women Society

C. James

ACT Foundation high school CPR

program

Lekstrom

Kersley Musical Theatre

Simpson

Raise-a-Reader campaign in

Nanaimo

Cantelon

Victoria High School

demonstration electric vehicle

Fleming

Oral Questions

Call for independent

investigation into ICBC vehicle sales

C. James

Hon. J.

Les

H. Lali

Farnworth

Simpson

Regulation of new home pre-sale

agreements

Thorne

Hon. C.

Taylor

J. Kwan

Staffing levels at Mount Cartier

Court

Macdonald

Hon. G.

Abbott

Status of Sunshine Lodge

Trevena

Hon. G.

Abbott

Cleaning services at health care

facilities

A. Dix

Hon. G.

Abbott

Budget Debate (continued)

R. Hawes

J. Kwan

L. Mayencourt

M. Farnworth

Hon. T. Christensen

D. Routley

Hon. J. Les

K. Conroy

R. Cantelon

Royal Assent to Bills

Supply Act (No. 1), 2008 (Bill 3)

Supply Act, 2007-2008

(Supplementary Estimates) (Bill 4)

[ Page 10073 ]

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 28, 2008

The House met at 1:35 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Introductions by Members

Hon. R. Coleman: It's my pleasure today to introduce a gentleman who is a colleague, a friend and a member of this Legislature from 2001 to 2005 who served the North Coast riding with distinction. Would the House please make welcome Bill Belsey, who sat on the floor today.

Hon. L. Reid: I have two sets of introductions today. First, constituents visiting from Richmond East are celebrating their 28th wedding anniversary. I'd ask the House to please make welcome Yogesh and Parveen Arora.

My second introduction is Per and Karen Androvic, senior consultants from the Swedish Reggio Emilia Institute. The Androvics are keynote speakers at the REACH — research in early childhood care, education and health — seminar at the University of Victoria. We'll be sitting down together this afternoon to discuss early childhood development. I'd ask the House to please make them welcome.

V. Roddick: I would like to introduce Kate Rennie from Aberdeen, Scotland. Kate comes from a fascinating political background. Her maternal grandfather, James Emery Cross, was a Florida State Senator. Her paternal grandfather was Captain L.P.S. Orr, leader of the Ulster Unionist Party, and her great-uncle is Lord Ian Roberts, whose many decisions have shaped policy and legislation in Scotland.

Kate is visiting her political family here in Victoria. She is the niece of one of our former colleagues, the MLA that represented Victoria-Hillside, Sheila Orr. Would the House please make Kate very welcome.

Hon. S. Hagen: I'm really pleased today and feel privileged to introduce a group of 46 grade 11 students from G.P. Vanier Secondary School in the Comox Valley. Accompanying them are some teachers and parents. We have Mr. Dave Neill, Ms. Eileen Yeoman, Mr. Greyson Pettigrew and Mr. Mike Hucksome. Would the House please join me in making them feel very welcome.

C. Wyse: I would ask the House to join with me in welcoming a former colleague of mine for many years, Ray Hornby, and his wife Chris, who have joined us in the gallery here today.

I. Black: A moment or two ago the member for Richmond East introduced guests who are having a wedding anniversary today, and I think we in this House would be remiss if we didn't acknowledge another one.

He's our former Speaker. He's the current Minister of Employment and Income Assistance. He and his wife Pat hit a milestone today that is worthy of a tip of the hat and a round of applause — their 50th wedding anniversary. Our congratulations to them.

Mr. Speaker: Did the Minister of Employment and Income Assistance wish to respond? [Laughter.]

Point of Privilege

(Speaker's Ruling)

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, on Monday, February 25, the member for Nanaimo raised a point of privilege in which he put forward his contention that this House should find that the Premier has misled this House and that he be directed by the House to apologize. His complaint arose out of comments made by the Premier in response to questions posed by the Leader of the Official Opposition during Committee of Supply debate on estimates of the Office of the Premier in May 2007.

In particular, the member's argument focuses on statements made by the Premier regarding the involvement of the government officials with respect to the release of documents related to the case Regina v. Basi, Virk and Basi.

[1340]

In his submission the member for Nanaimo argued that the information recently brought to his attention established that the staff from the Office of the Premier had in fact been involved with the review of documents from 2004 to early 2007. The member therefore concluded that the Premier had knowingly misled the House in 2007 with respect to his office's involvement in the process of reviewing documents. Accordingly, he contended that a prima facie case of privilege should proceed.

In his submission the member for Nanaimo presented supporting documents, including various reports from 2004, which he claimed had first been brought to his attention on Monday, February 18, 2008. The member also explained that additional information came to light through a media column on Friday, February 22, and again reserved his right to raise a point of privilege on the morning of February 25. Both reservations were covered in the member's statement later that day.

In his submission on this matter the Government House Leader submitted that at no time did the Premier ever mislead the House. In referencing more extensive comments from Hansard transcript of May 28, 2007, he described how the Premier explained the role of the Deputy Attorney General with respect to the review and release of relevant cabinet documents. The Government House Leader described how the Premier stressed repeatedly in that debate that he would not personally intervene or politically interfere with the process, which had been delegated to the Deputy Attorney General.

In support of these comments the Government House Leader tabled a letter from the Deputy Attorney General to the member for Nanaimo in which he describes his role reviewing documents for cabinet confidentiality in the matter identical to that described by the Premier during debate. The Deputy Attorney General also noted in the letter that as of the date of this letter, there were no documents that had not been disclosed based on any assertion of cabinet privilege.

[ Page 10074 ]

I appreciate the submissions and supporting written documentation provided by both members, which assisted me greatly in my decision with respect to this matter. I reviewed the evidence put forward by both sides as well as the transcript of additional Hansard debate on May 19, 2004. Like 2007 — Hansard's transcript referenced earlier — the 2004 transcripts also focus on the debate in Committee of Supply on the estimates of the Office of the Premier.

In response to questions from the Leader of the Opposition Joy MacPhail about the government's role reviewing relevant court documents regarding cabinet confidentiality, the Premier responded: "I understand that there is a package of information which is effectively being reviewed by the deputy cabinet secretary, the special prosecutor and the judge. The judge is now reviewing that information and deciding what the judge believes should be released."

The articles cited by the member indicate that in 2004, pursuant to the protocol presented in court by the special prosecutor, documents which had been seized by the RCMP were being examined to see whether they involved cabinet privilege. The Premier's comments at the time accurately described the process.

It is clear from the Deputy Attorney General's letter of February 26, 2008, that the process he was involved in during 2007 was related to the disclosure of information to counsel, a completely different process from the process being carried out in 2004. The Premier's comments in 2007 are consistent with the letter of the Deputy Attorney General.

I can see no relationship between the Premier's comments in 2007 and the process in 2004. I can find no evidence of deliberate misleading of the House either during the May 2004 estimates process or during the similar debate which took place three years later. While the process of reviewing relevant government documents may have changed during this period, the Premier's comments to the House appear to be an accurate account on both occasions.

I'm also compelled to comment on one other important issue with respect to this matter. In order for the member to be successful in presenting a matter of privilege, a number of stringent requirements must be met. The necessity for raising the matter of privilege at the earliest opportunity is examined in detail in a decision of Speaker Schroeder reported in the B.C. Journals , November 25-26, 1982.

[1345]

In this decision Speaker Schroeder cites Standing Order 26, which reads: "Whenever any matter of privilege arises, it shall be taken into consideration immediately." He referenced a number of decisions from the British Parliament at Westminster in which matters concerning newspaper reports published in preceding weeks were refused precedence because they were not brought to the prompt attention of the House.

Speaker Schroeder correctly noted: "Because a motion based on privilege is given precedence over prearranged program for public business, strict compliance with the rules has invariably been required."

Although the member for Nanaimo makes reference to the recent media report dated February 22, 2008, in fact much of the substantive information presented in this column relates to information publicly available through court records and reports almost four years ago in other media articles which he submitted.

The member explained that 2004 media reports, including an

article in The Vancouver Sun and in the parliamentary journal, were not brought to his attention until February 18. However, it seems to the Chair, based on the existing authorities, that his argument is based on information that has been in the public domain for almost four years. Therefore, the matter clearly appears to have failed the earliest-opportunity requirement.

It is the opinion of the Chair that the Premier did not mislead the House, and therefore, no prima facie case of breach of privilege has been made out.

Statements

(Standing Order 25

B) FREDERICK JAMES GEORGE

D. MacKay: On February 17, 2008, Frederick James George passed away in Smithers at the age of 89 years. He was born on June 22, 1918, at Trout Lake, which is located just south of Houston, B.C.

At the age of 21 years he enlisted as a volunteer to fight in World War II. He completed his training at Vernon, B.C., and was part of the first Canadian Army Service Corps. He was trained as an ammunitions truck driver and mechanic. He served in France, Belgium, England, Germany, Austria, Czechoslovakia and Holland. He also fought on Juno Beach in Normandy. After the war he remained in Holland to help with reconstruction and relief.

When Fred returned to Canada, he was denied the benefits that were granted by the government to returning officers, such as land and a pension. Fred had served with pride and distinction alongside other Canadian soldiers. Fred was denied land and a pension, which had been offered to other returning soldiers, because of the fact that he was a native Indian. Fred did not even have the right to vote. He fought for aboriginal veterans' pensions and benefits in the early 1970s. He started receiving a disability pension in the mid-'90s due to his loss of hearing during the war.

I marched with Fred and other veterans with pride during the November 11 parades from the Royal Canadian Legion in Smithers to the cenotaph for the past 26 years. During the last couple of years, due to failing health, Fred was brought to the cenotaph in a wheelchair by his family members.

Fred will be missed by his family and those of us who joined him every year to remember the many veterans who fought for this great country called Canada. Thank you, Fred, for your contribution. You will be remembered.

[ Page 10075 ]

BRIDGES FOR WOMEN SOCIETY

C. James: Since 1988 the Bridges for Women Society has been a Canadian pioneer, providing unique employability and training programs for women with histories of abuse. Programs of Bridges are built around two main objectives: to provide women survivors of abuse with education, training and other supportive programs which help them break the cycle of abuse, and to share information with groups, organizations and the public on the needs of women who have a history of abuse.

Meeting those objectives requires an ongoing dedication of a team of professionals and volunteers who are committed to improving the lives of women. Bridges offers a wide array of programs from job and technical training to life skill advice and support. Every program is delivered in a safe, caring and non-judgmental environment built around the woman's personal needs and her experiences.

Bridges has earned widespread acclaim for its approach and long-term success for students. Over 800 women from Victoria, Saanich and Western Communities have completed the program. Because of Bridges' initiative, there are now 12 bridging programs throughout B.C.

[1350]

As an MLA for Victoria, I've seen firsthand the incredible success and impact this organization has had on women's lives. On February 29, Bridges for Women Society celebrates its 20th anniversary at a Tribute to the Divas celebration at the Empress Hotel here in Victoria.

I ask all MLAs to congratulate Bridges on 20 years of proud service to women in this community and many, many more years ahead.

ACT FOUNDATION

HIGH SCHOOL CPR PROGRAM

B. Lekstrom: As we all know, February is Heart Month, and I would like to speak about an amazing program for the students of this great province.

The Advanced Coronary Treatment Foundation, the British Columbia Ambulance Service and the ambulance paramedics union are helping schools across British Columbia to launch the ACT high school CPR program through which paramedic instructors volunteer to train teachers who, in turn, teach CPR to their students.

To date, some 400 teachers in 100 schools throughout the province have received the skills needed to empower and teach approximately 20,000 high school students each year the life-saving skill of CPR. The program goal is to have all B.C. secondary schools set up with mannequins and materials and running the program by 2010, training approximately 50,000 students annually.

Through the ACT high school CPR program, students bring the knowledge of heart disease, prevention and a healthy heart lifestyle to their current and future families. They also learn how to react in an emergency situation by calling 911 and administering CPR and, hopefully, saving a life. The training they receive provides a lasting impact on their lives and the lives of others.

In the spirit of Heart Month, I want to ask all members to join me in acknowledging and praising the efforts of the B.C. Ambulance Service, the ACT Foundation, the Ambulance Paramedics of British Columbia and all the volunteer paramedics, teachers and students involved in the high school CPR program, which will benefit all British Columbians.

KERSLEY MUSICAL THEATRE

B. Simpson: Since I was last home, my son has shaved his head, lost an arm and walks with a limp and says "arrr" a lot. I've heard that my daughter can play a mean riff on the tom-toms, has dyed her hair jet black, and her skin has a reddish tint to it. My wife is apparently wearing the most outlandish costumes and has taken to parading around, alternatively pretending she's an old fairy or a bird of paradise. I guess when the MLA is away, the family gets to play.

To quote Shakespeare: "The play is the thing." In this case, it's Kersley Musical Theatre's production of Peter Pan , which opened last night.

Around this time, for the past seven years, Kersley community hall has been transformed into a magical place where people from the Quesnel area have experienced community theatre at its very best. The reputation of Kersley Musical Theatre for putting on professional performances has grown so much over the years that tickets are grabbed up as soon as they're available. Everybody knows that they will be treated to an experience which will transport them out of the wintry Cariboo and into a world of music and a story well told by a wide range of local talent.

The group has become a testament not only to the innate talent in all of us but to the power of family. Entire families have participated in this theatre group from the inception, including my own. This has created a huge extended family made up of people of all ages and backgrounds — a family with only one purpose: to give people an opportunity to laugh and cry, to sing and dance and to escape for a few hours the trials and tribulations of our own hectic lives in the long Cariboo winter.

I ask the House to join me in thanking the director Janice Butler, the producer Cathy Heinzelman and the amazing cast and crew of Kersley Musical Theatre for their continued and dedicated service to the mental and spiritual health of the people of the Cariboo.

RAISE-A-READER CAMPAIGN

IN NANAIMO

R. Cantelon: "Extra, extra. Read all about it." Those are the words that rang out in Nanaimo recently during the Raise-a-Reader program as hundreds of volunteers, including yours truly, took to the streets to hawk newspapers on behalf of Literacy Nanaimo.

It was a great day. It was a lot of fun, and it was great to get out there on the street and meet people and talk to them face to face about literacy. It's all part of CanWest Global's now nationwide program to support literacy.

[ Page 10076 ]

I think both sides of this House understand what a challenge it is, what an unseen barrier and quiet prejudice it is, for those who can't read and can't fill out job applications.

[1355]

It was great to take

part in this event. I want to particularly salute CanWest and the Nanaimo Daily News , who supported the event with their resources. They supplied us with newspaper outfits and change, and away we went. It was very well organized and very well run, and I certainly compliment Curt Duddy and his staff for supporting us.

Of course, like all of these things, it requires more than just the organization of the day. I want to particularly acknowledge the support of the Rotary Club Downtown and the Rotary Club North. These service clubs, like many other service clubs throughout our province, continually support these important events with their hard work.

In this case, they went out and were very successful with a book sale program to raise $12,000 with the downtown Rotary and another $5,000 with the Rotary North. We were happy to hand over a cheque, because the province generously matched the $19,000 that they raised, for $40,000.

We had great hopes of doing better than most of the other cities. I modestly would say we did outdo other major cities, perhaps, like Kelowna and Prince George. But I have to look across and say that I don't know what they did in Port Alberni, but they smoked us, and good on them.

Let's all congratulate those who participated in these efforts to eradicate illiteracy in our province and make it the best-educated jurisdiction in the country.

VICTORIA HIGH SCHOOL

DEMONSTRATION ELECTRIC VEHICLE

R. Fleming: I'm very pleased to say a few words today about students and teachers at Victoria High School who are raising awareness and taking action on global warming. The school's environment club and the auto mechanics are taking the lead at Vic High under the guidance and support of their mechanics teacher, Mr. Mike Grew. Right now students are converting a gas-guzzling GMC truck to a 100 percent emission-free electric vehicle that runs on perhaps $100 of electricity per year.

The training and specialized skills to do these conversions are rare, and students are fortunate to be on the leading edge in gaining experience. Marie Shuman is the president of Vic High's environment club and an auto mechanic student. She said that at first it was tough to get the mostly male students in the class excited about the project. But after the blue GMC S15 was hoisted and work began, more and more students got involved.

Last semester students stripped the engine block out of the vehicle. This term a new group of students is installing a 24-battery-cell power source. The project has also spurred awareness in other areas of the school. Screenings of films such as An Inconvenient Truth and Who Killed the Electric Car? have been held in support of this program.

Electric vehicles aren't new technology, but they represent promising technology that was never popularized by the big three automobile makers on this continent. Here on the Island, though, there is now a burgeoning conversion market. Mr. Randy Holmquist runs Canadian Electric Vehicles out of his three-bay shop near Parksville. It was basically a hobby for him up until 1995, when he incorporated. Up until this year he sold a kit per year. This year he has already sold a dozen, and his most recent orders are for 50 electric-powered jet-refuelling trucks for airports in Australia and Dubai.

I know the Premier has been approached for support, and pending what I'm sure will be a positive reception from his office, the member for Victoria–Beacon Hill and I are pleased to be supporting the grass-roots fundraising efforts of the students with their bottle drive this weekend to help fund this demonstration vehicle. The students are aiming to have the vehicle ready for the May 24 Victoria Day Parade, where tens of thousands of people will see this demonstration project.

Oral Questions

CALL FOR INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION

INTO ICBC VEHICLE SALES

C. James: On February 13, ICBC launched an internal investigation into the sale of repaired write-offs. The concern is that ICBC knowingly repaired write-offs and sold them without disclosing that they were rebuilt. ICBC has temporarily shut down the facility in question while the investigation is underway.

But the minister in charge is the Solicitor General. British Columbians know all too well that he has no ability to deliver an independent investigation. So my question is to the Solicitor General. Given his record of flip-flops, his record of failures, will he launch an independent investigation…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

C. James: …into ICBC's alleged chop shop?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

[1400]

Hon. J. Les: That's an interesting assertion coming from the member opposite, who hasn't had a consistent position on anything for months in this House.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. J. Les: This matter at the facility that the member has referenced is actively under investigation. As usual, what I think is important here is to ensure

[ Page 10077 ]

that we allow that investigation to proceed, and we will deal with the conclusions.

Mr. Speaker: Member has a supplemental.

C. James: "As usual" is the key phrase from the Solicitor General, because as usual, nothing happens with this Solicitor General.

Let's actually take a look at his record. The Solicitor General told British Columbians that everything was fine with child death reviews. We discovered that hundreds and hundreds of files were missing and lost. He denied any problems with the B.C. Lottery Corporation until the Ombudsman delivered a scathing report.

His response to gang violence was to actually attack the West Vancouver police chief. Then he flip-flopped around amalgamation. This Solicitor General said no to a public inquiry into Robert Dziekanski's Taser death until he was actually contradicted by his own Premier.

Now we know that ICBC has been caught allegedly selling repaired write-offs without disclosure. Again to the Solicitor General…. His assurances mean absolutely nothing to the public. He has no credibility left. Will he launch an independent investigation into this issue?

Hon. J. Les: I can assure the member and all members of this House that this matter, which was surfaced by ICBC recently, will be properly and independently investigated and that we will deal with the conclusions properly.

If the opposition leader wants to look at our record, I'm pleased to review our record in terms of policing — for example, the $60 million a year that is being made available to municipalities from traffic fine revenue; the $66 million a year that is being made available for integrated police services, mostly in the lower mainland of British Columbia; the $40 million that we have invested in a state-of-the-art information management system for police in British Columbia. I could go on for quite some time to list our accomplishments.

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

C. James: It's incredible. How can the Solicitor General stand here and say it's an independent investigation when ICBC is investigating itself? That's the problem with this Solicitor General. He doesn't understand "independent investigation." That's what's critical.

This is a very serious matter. As many as 174 write-offs were repaired and were sold to unsuspecting buyers. The CEO of ICBC, Paul Taylor, said that it's just an issue of documentation and disclosure. Well, it's much more than that. It's about safety, and it's about the public being ripped off.

Again to the Solicitor General: will he admit that this is a much bigger problem than simply documentation, and will he today commit to launch an independent investigation from ICBC?

Hon. J. Les: As always, the Leader of the Opposition's idea of a review is to jump to conclusions before an investigation is complete.

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Member.

Hon. J. Les: Anyone who has purchased a vehicle that came out of this program is being contacted — in fact, at this point, will already have been contacted — by ICBC. We think it's important to protect public safety. We are doing that, and we are going to deal properly with any recommendations that come out of the investigation.

[1405]

H. Lali: We know that we can't trust the Solicitor General. He was wrong about the child death review scandal that took place, and he was also wrong about the B.C. Lottery scandal that also took place. Now he wants us to actually believe that he can deliver an independent investigation into ICBC's alleged chop shop.

Under the Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act, it is an offence for a supplier to "engage in a deceptive act or practice in respect of a consumer transaction." My question is to the Solicitor General or the Attorney General. Have they launched an investigation into whether ICBC has broken the law?

Hon. J. Les: The member opposite, we should all understand, is frequently confused. He was railing on a few weeks ago about the increases of ICBC rates and the cash grab, as he described it, only to know that his own constituents actually are seeing decreases in their premiums.

I have said and will say again that this matter will be properly investigated, and it will be properly followed up with the appropriate actions as necessary.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

H. Lali: You know the minister doesn't have an answer when he has to shift on to something totally unrelated to the question at hand. The legislation is clear.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

H. Lali: It is an offence to engage in

an act of deception. But then again, these Liberals are no strangers to deception. That's the history of the last seven years.

ICBC….

Mr. Speaker: Member, be careful of your language, please.

H. Lali: ICBC has been caught allegedly selling written-off cars to unsuspecting consumers, and we're

[ Page 10078 ]

supposed to trust the Solicitor General that ICBC will investigate itself — whether they have broken the law. We know that whenever the Liberals try to investigate themselves, all we get is cover-up after cover-up.

Again to the Solicitor General: will he finally agree to launch an independent investigation that includes determining if ICBC broke the law or not?

Hon. J. Les: A question, again, full of innuendo and full of jumping to conclusions that are completely inappropriate at this point. I can assure the member opposite — and I'll try this one more time — that this is being properly, thoroughly investigated.

There are independent legal and forensic auditors working on this case. All vehicle owners, as I have already said, will be contacted, and their vehicles will be reinspected. We are going to make sure that everyone is protected and that any wrongdoing, if there was any, will be properly prosecuted.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

M. Farnworth: What we're trying to get from this minister is a commitment to independence, because the track record of this minister is plain for everyone to see. He more often than not has to be dragged kicking and screaming to doing the right thing. We saw it in lotteries. We saw it in Children and Families. We've seen it when it comes to policing on a host of issues.

The allegations around ICBC and chop shop allegations are very serious, and the public wants to have confidence. The minister, in his first answer, said that it would be independently investigated. Can the minister tell this House: who is the independent person who is doing the investigation?

Hon. J. Les: That is the same question that's been asked several times today, and the answer is exactly the same. There are independent legal and forensic auditors working on this particular case, and they will come to the appropriate conclusions. They will let ICBC and government know what has happened here, and we will deal properly with that information.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

[1410]

M. Farnworth: My question to the Solicitor General is this: will he table in this House who those independent individuals are, who those independent auditors are, and will he table their terms of reference in this House so that we can see whether they are outside of ICBC and independent or whether it is a case of ICBC investigating itself?

Hon. J. Les: It is my objective that this entire investigation be properly done, transparently done. I have no issue with making all of the information available to members opposite.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

S. Simpson: The questions to the Solicitor General are clear and straightforward. Will the Solicitor General commit to releasing the information on who is doing this investigation, who's paying for the investigation and that the reports will be public? Will he commit to that today, or is it going to be another sham?

Hon. J. Les: It would appear that members opposite are deaf. For any other questions like that, I would suggest that they refer themselves to Hansard and read the answer again.

REGULATION OF NEW HOME

PRE-SALE AGREEMENTS

D. Thorne: The developer for two more prepurchased condominium projects in Vancouver and Richmond has gone into receivership. These collapses also came as a shock to those people that were expecting to move into their homes in June. This latest incident, the second in a week, demonstrates that this is a growing trend, with likely more to come for people currently in prepurchase agreements.

My question is for the minister responsible for consumer protection. When will he step in to protect people who risk losing their life savings and their homes — stand up for these people instead of just talking?

Hon. C. Taylor: Indeed, there has been another situation this past week that has come to our attention. There are two condominium developments, in this case, that have now been put into the hands of a receiver. The receiver has been making a couple of public statements on this, and he apparently has said that he believes that there's enough money there to actually finish the construction and that the original buyers would be able to receive their units.

But he did say something else that I hadn't seen before. He said that it has come to his attention that, allegedly, some of the units may have been sold to insiders at reduced prices. He has said that he will look at that. So what we need to do now is wait for his complete report, and we'll know exactly what the situation is.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

D. Thorne: This answer is not good enough for British Columbians who are uncertain if they will ever move into the homes that they have prepurchased. This is a growing trend in an increasingly unaffordable housing market. So far all this government has done is asked developers to disclose a bit of their past history, then left homeowners with nothing but a message of buyer beware.

I ask again: will the minister responsible for consumer protection sit back, allow this trend to continue, or will he finally stand up for prepurchase buyers in British Columbia?

[ Page 10079 ]

Hon. C. Taylor: This is a new situation for British Columbia, with a very hot housing market and a strong economy. We're all grateful for the strong economy, but it has made the pre-sale situation different from anything we've seen before.

[1415]

As a result of some of the situations that we saw last fall, the superintendent of real estate, who has the responsibility in this area, made two specific moves that we believe will help future buyers of pre-sales. The units we're talking about today, of course, happened before these measures came into play.

The first is that now the developer is required to do a full disclosure of their own background, which includes anything in the past ten years that relates to a court order or difficulties with any buildings they've had or any problems with the courts. That is now a requirement, and — because I have also been asked this question — it doesn't matter if the developer was working in another province or not. That information has to be part of the disclosure statement.

The second takes the small print at the end of the document that talks about the risks of pre-sales and puts it up front so that everyone knows immediately what the situation is with pre-sales, what the circumstances would be if a developer went into bankruptcy and how that would be handled.

J. Kwan: The disclosure requirements that the minister talks about actually bring little protection for the consumers. The fact is that the enforcement mechanisms are weak. The real penalties are not really there. Where there are violations, the only recourse that's left for the consumers is the courts. If the developer goes into receivership or goes into bankruptcy, there is nothing that the consumers can get.

My question to the minister is this: what is the real recourse for consumer protection in her measures, to ensure that pre-sale purchases are not leaving homebuyers out in the cold?

Hon. C. Taylor: One of the measures that is in place is to guarantee the deposits of anyone who became involved in these pre-sale agreements, and that has been done. We are trying to strike a balance where pre-sales can continue to happen in the British Columbia market but where we can ensure protection or understanding with our consumers as well.

I invite the members opposite, if they have some ideas of how this could be accomplished…. I've said it to the industry as well. If they have ideas of further measures that can be taken that continue to keep this balance so that we do develop pre-sale developments, then we'd be glad to hear them. I'm sure the superintendent of real estate would like to. I know he's been speaking to many people in the industry.

What we don't want to have happen is to make it impossible to have pre-sales. I think everyone on the opposite side would be quite shocked at the number of developments that would all of a sudden close down and at the consumers who wouldn't have a chance of buying into future apartment units.

STAFFING LEVELS AT

MOUNT CARTIER COURT

N. Macdonald: Another question regarding seniors care in the Kootenays. Tina Horsthuis's husband stays at Mount Cartier Court, which is a residential care facility in Revelstoke. She has been clear with me and clear with Interior Health that staffing levels are too low and that residents' current concerns go unaddressed. The impacts on residents are shocking. There are no reasonable people that would think that this is an acceptable level of care.

Seniors are at risk in Revelstoke. That is not an overstatement. What action is the minister taking to give our seniors the care they deserve in Mount Cartier Court?

Hon. G. Abbott: In terms of issues at Mount Cartier Court, I am well familiar with those. There was a high-risk report that was assigned to the facility, as the members may now know. The first was assigned prior to the facility ever being opened, part of the default high risk. There was another three months later.

If the member would take the time — unlike what he did with the facility at Cranbrook — to actually talk to IH, talk to the facility operators and so on, he might understand that it was very, very small issues that dealt with the second risk report that came with Mount Cartier.

In fairness to the members, they as a government never had any experience with opening any new residential care or assisted-living facilities in the interior of British Columbia.

[1420]

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Member.

The member has a supplemental.

N. Macdonald: Small issues to this minister, and that is the problem with this province.

Let's get the full story on this. High risk, the report that the minister saw…. This is how it worked. The individual goes to the newspaper — has to go to the newspaper. The newspaper carries a story that is critical of the shortages at Mount Cartier Court. In the newspaper the Interior Health says that things are fine. The day afterwards the inspection takes place. The day afterwards we get the list.

It's exactly what the resident is saying — exactly what was said again and again — and what Interior Health ignored. What does it say? It says that the facility is without a manager. The facility is charged with numerous ongoing contraventions of adult care regulations. The facility has water leaking through the roof. You can't get out some of the doors. Again and again and again.

How does it come out? It comes out through complaints. When it comes out, the minister denies and protects and trivializes every single time. That is the flaw with this system. This is unacceptable. Revelstoke deserves better.

[ Page 10080 ]

I want this minister to stand up and tell people in Revelstoke that we are going to get acceptable care at Mount Cartier Court. Stand up, and do that now.

Hon. G. Abbott: Well, this is the same opposition speaker that a week ago had to pull off of their website a press release about 106 infractions on Vancouver Island because they…

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Member.

Minister, continue.

Hon. G. Abbott: …had duplicated 45 of them. They condemned 11 facilities for the sin of not being opened yet. In this case, this member is criticizing Mount Cartier Court for the sin of moving from a multi-bed ward facility to private rooms.

There was a reinvestment made in Mount Cartier facility. There were some minor problems in terms of the transition. Those are being corrected.

I know this group over here would like to leave everything as it was in 1998. I don't believe that. We've come a long way in adding new residential care and assisted-living capacity to this province, and we're proud of it.

STATUS OF SUNSHINE LODGE

C. Trevena: Sunshine Lodge in Campbell River is due to close very shortly, and residents will start to move to a new facility in a couple of weeks. In fact, the new facility….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

C. Trevena: Sadly, again, the government members haven't actually….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Member, do you want to start again, please.

C. Trevena: It would help if they listened to the question. It really would help if they listened to the question.

While there is going to be a new facility, the staff and the families have only recently been told. They heard reports in the media that there is going to be a new facility, but they never got official notification. So they spent weeks asking about what's happening, and nobody would tell them. Nobody would tell them what's happening to their family members.

It was only yesterday, three days before staff are going to start getting trained in this new facility, that they got a letter from VIHA informing them that there was going to be a change and effectively saying in that letter: "Give us a call. We'll let you know what's happening."

I'd like to ask the Minister of Health why it's taken this long. Why were the staff and family members left to the last minute to be told what's happening?

[1425]

Hon. G. Abbott: Well, I thank the member for raising the issue of Sunshine Lodge. When we came into office in 2001, there were 127 long-term care units in Campbell River. Today, thanks to the addition of new facilities, there are 216.

As the member referenced, the good news doesn't stop there. With the New Horizons facility that'll be opening soon, we will have 272 long-term care beds in Campbell River. That is a 114 percent increase in the number, and the quality has enormously increased as well. Further, I guarantee that for anyone who's looking for employment in Campbell River in the long-term care sector, there are bountiful opportunities.

CLEANING SERVICES AT

HEALTH CARE FACILITIES

A. Dix: On Monday we learned that the Vancouver Coastal Health Authority cut 150,000 hours of cleaning work every year. That decision put patient safety at risk and hospitals got dirtier. That's what happened.

Now we learn, through an internal memo from Ridge Meadows Hospital, that they are experiencing serious cleaning problems of their own. What does the memo say? This comes, hon. Minister, from the Fraser Health contract manager. It cites inconsistent service — perhaps we'll hear cheers — understaffing, poor training and days without service.

When will the minister acknowledge that hospitals are getting dirtier and that it's time the government took action to deal with its failed privatization scheme?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. G. Abbott: I told this opposition Health critic the other day that he was wrong, and he remains wrong today. There has not been any cut of 150,000 hours from cleaning schedules in Vancouver Coastal Health. That is wrong. It was wrong a week ago. It's wrong today. He remains wrong.

Now, I know that this member always has an agenda in asking questions in accordance with the people who provide him with campaign contributions every election. But the fact of the matter is that we are doing…. In the 2000s, after our election, we've been doing every year comprehensive external audits on cleanliness in our hospitals. Further, the health authorities, on a monthly basis, do audits in our hospitals. When….

Mr. Speaker: Minister, thank you.

Hon. G. Abbott: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'll complete my answer on a supplemental.

[ Page 10081 ]

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

A. Dix: All you have to do….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

A. Dix: Nothing is more disrespectful from this government than when they talk about people who do the hard work in our hospitals. Their contempt has been cited not just by me, not just by patients, not just by doctors and nurses and people in British Columbia; that contempt has been cited by the Supreme Court of Canada.

My question is very simple. This memo doesn't come from me. It comes from the person in charge of the contract.…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Just wait.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Continue, Member.

A. Dix: Hon. Speaker….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Continue.

A. Dix: There are patients today at that hospital who have to deal with a dirty hospital, and the members laugh over there. It's a serious issue. It's a serious issue that the contract manager, Shaun Taylor, has to deal with every day.

[1430]

So my question is very simple, to the minister. He doesn't have to believe me. He doesn't have to believe patients. He doesn't have to believe the people who work in the field. But his own contract manager is contradicting him here. When will he take steps to deal with the crisis that has been caused by the privatization policies of his government?

Hon. G. Abbott: I'll provide the information the member wants, and I'll follow up with a memo, if that's necessary.

But he should go on the Vancouver Coastal Health site and have a look at the most recent audits that were done by the Vancouver Coastal Health Authority. In 29 out of 30 hospitals, those hospitals achieved the benchmark rating of 85 out of 100.

Now, I know that the member opposes the cleaning contract that went to Aramark, but I can tell the member that before that contract went to Aramark, the level that was being achieved at that time was 75 out of 100.

We have seen continuous improvement in cleaning. We're going to continue to audit. We're going to continue to drive continuous improvement in this area as we do in every other area of health care.

[End of question period.]

Orders of the Day

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

Budget Debate

(continued)

R. Hawes: Before lunch I was starting to talk about what the power of a strong economy can do for us in British Columbia. I think we should be noting and celebrating the fact that last year, 2007, Standard and Poor's upgraded B.C.'s credit rating to triple-A.

The year before, October of 2006, Moody's bond-rating service increased us to a triple-A, which is the best credit rating that you can get. That's after years and years of decline under the previous government, where our credit rating continued to slip as our economy languished in the doldrums.

[K. Whittred in the chair.]

The Conference Board of Canada — I mentioned them this morning — has noted that the upward trend in B.C.'s economy is translating into higher income. On a per-capita basis, personal disposable incomes in B.C. surged 6.2 percent in 2006 following back-to-back increases of 4 percent in 2004 and 2005. As a result, the personal income after tax in British Columbia is 15 percent higher — that is, in 2006 — than it was three years previously.

They also note here that the unemployment rate in B.C. fell to an all-time low in March of this year to 3.9 percent. What we have is higher incomes and more employment.

As I mentioned this morning, if you want to talk about child poverty, the way to build a program to end child poverty is to build an economy and put people to work in good, high-paying jobs. That's precisely what's happening through the fiscal management policies that we have implemented since 2001.

[1435]

I want to touch briefly, in the remaining time I have, on what I have heard the members opposite say day after day in here about the carbon tax. Day after day they talk about how, in their belief, there's going to be tremendous burden put particularly on those who have lower incomes. They don't seem to get that the carbon tax is in fact revenue-neutral.

Perhaps the members could benefit from going to the Finance Minister for a private briefing if they don't quite grasp what's out there and what has been said over and over, and that is a total explanation of even how much money is projected to be collected and where it's going to be expended.

[ Page 10082 ]

Just to clarify, it is anticipated that the carbon tax will generate about $1.849 billion over the next three years. That money is going to be returned — all of it — to businesses and individuals, with lower-income families receiving $395 million. Plus, there will be an income tax return to personal income taxes of over $780 million.

When you add it all up, the money that we collect in the carbon tax will be redistributed. Those with lower incomes are going to see a benefit. They will actually be further ahead. They are, generally speaking, the people who are lower carbon users.

These NDP can talk day after day about people who are on low incomes and how they'll be affected by a carbon tax. Generally speaking, the people who are very low incomes — some of them — don't have cars. They are struggling, but I can tell you that the carbon tax is not something that's going to cause them a big burden.

But there is, within the budget documents…. It has been calculated, and that's available. The opposition have that, yet they choose to completely ignore it or misstate it. It does show a whole host of examples. A seniors couple with $30,000 income who drive an older car up to, say, 7,000 kilometres a year — which would not be out of line for a seniors couple — will actually, after factoring in the increase in fuel prices and oil for their furnace, see an extra $110 in their pocket with the tax reductions.

For the lowest-income families there is a carbon dividend of $100 per adult and $30 per child, which helps offset this tax. This tax is not going to be borne on the backs of people who have low incomes. We have made sure that they are protected.

This is a very, very cleverly calculated tax. It has been said that it's been done with genius — and it has — because it does begin to address the problem of climate change. It does focus people's attention on it, and it does it in a way that will not harm the economy nor put a burden on the backs of those who cannot afford it.

I think the members of the opposition should be standing up and applauding the Finance Minister for this budget. Instead, day after day they denigrate this budget that has been lauded nationally by pretty much every environmental group out there.

It's with shame that I have to tell the opposition members that they are wrong. They're misleading the public as they talk about the way that this carbon tax is going to affect people. This carbon tax is actually widely supported by those who do understand it. As people begin to understand it, they will understand just how reckless the opposition has been in the statements they're making.

I would suggest that they get copies of the budget…

Interjection.

Deputy Speaker: Point of order, Member?

Point of Order

J. Kwan: The member suggested that the opposition misled the public. Nothing could be further from the truth, and I would ask the member to retract those words unreservedly.

Hon. G. Abbott: Madam Speaker, the context in which the member used the expression, I think, is entirely appropriate, but we would be glad to be guided by your advice on this.

J. Kwan: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

Deputy Speaker: Continue.

J. Kwan: It's unparliamentary language, and the members know it.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members.

Would you take your seat, please, Member.

I am going to rule that there was no deliberate attempt to mislead, and I would caution all members to be careful of the language that is used in this House.

Would you continue with your statement, Member.

[1440]

Debate Continued

R. Hawes: Yes, thank you, Madam Speaker. Rather than saying "mislead," I think what I should say, then, is that they appear not to have read the documents. I would strongly suggest they read the documents so that when they do convey the intent and what is actually going to happen, they are accurate in the portrayal of the events that will follow from this tax. They have not been accurate to date.

J. Kwan: It gives me great pleasure to get up and actually follow the member right after his comments. I've just been advised that the word "misled" is not unparliamentary.

Let me just begin my comments with this. This government misled the public with their budget by calling it a green budget, and there's nothing but green in this budget. Let's just be clear, then.

I rise to respond to Budget '08. I would, first of all, getting back to the point, like to welcome the new Lieutenant-Governor. I want to thank him for a most enjoyable evening at Government House. It was entertaining.

Deputy Speaker: Order, Member. Order, Member.

I wish to bring to the attention of the member that it is a long tradition in this House that to deliberately mislead is unparliamentary. To use the word "mislead" is not in that category. I have ruled on this matter, and we will continue.

J. Kwan: Excellent. As I said, this government misled the public by suggesting that the budget is green and that by printing the budget on green paper,

[ Page 10083 ]

somehow it is green. I would suggest that that is actually misleading the public.

I have more to say about this budget, but I do want to take a moment, though, to welcome and thank the Lieutenant-Governor for a most enjoyable evening, for providing entertainment, really, to all members of this House at Government House where he recounted his story of how he came to be the Lieutenant-Governor in British Columbia and also where he shared his hopes and dreams for our community.

I also want to say that this budget is the last budget of this Minister of Finance. Let's just take a moment to review the budgets that this minister has delivered to British Columbians to date. As the representative for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant, the poorest neighbourhood in all of Canada, it is with regret that the legacy of the Finance Minister and her government has been underwhelming, at best, in its treatment of those living on the margins of our society. There has been an unprecedented attack on civil society in British Columbia, an unprecedented attack on the homeless and those living in poverty.

This government has increased the divide and created a social rupture that will take years to bridge. This government has left rural B.C. behind. The Premier has forged public policy like a series of personal fads, faded ambitions, while being aided and abetted by an acquiescent and compliant back bench. Like army pants, mullet hairstyles and butterfly collars, fads don't always last. The people of B.C. want substance, seriousness and purpose behind the policies of government.

As Olympic costs have skyrocketed and security budgets are being drawn out of thin air, employment opportunities have not been extended into the inner city in a comprehensive way. The inner-city inclusive commitment statement has been a whitewash. This budget, like the first three budgets this Minister of Finance introduced, is big on PR but fails to deliver in reality and in substance.

The minister's first budget, which she called the children's budget…. Well, three years later, how's it going? B.C. has the highest child poverty rate in Canada for four years in a row, and that is despite a booming provincial economy. The proportion of children living in poverty in B.C. was 20.9 percent, well above the national child poverty average of 16.8 percent.

[1445]

There were an estimated 174,000 poor children in B.C. in 2005. That was more than the combined populations of the cities of Victoria, Nanaimo and Comox. According to the Pivot Legal Society report released February 20, specific government policies have contributed to the problems of child poverty, including cuts to social assistance, cuts to women's centres, inadequate income assistance rates, lack of safe and affordable housing, costly public transit, lack of addiction and mental health treatment beds, and inaccessible child care.

The main conclusion from that report is that the current child protection practices under this government "violate the guiding and service delivery principles that are set out in law."

The report goes on to say:

"The resource problem intensified in 2001, when a new Liberal government was elected to B.C. and asked the Ministry of Children and Family Development…to slash its budget, resulting in an 11 percent budget reduction across the newly formed ministry. Services to support families in caring for their children were either eliminated or strictly targeted to families in crisis. Apprehensions as the last resort…. The spirit behind this principle is lost where there are inadequate resources in place to employ the 'least disruptive' intervention.

"For aboriginal families, child protection cases continue to be handled on an individual basis that ignores the systemic nature of the problem…. Huge caseloads make it impossible to respond quickly to changes in parents' lives and to appreciate the strides parents are making to address the ministry's concerns."

One idea of devolution versus this government's reality.

The report says:

"The difficulty lay in putting it into practice as women's centres and other services working with the communities most affected by the child welfare system were undergoing deep government cuts or being closed."

The report notes that apprehension of children is rarely for sexual abuse by parents, less than 1 percent, or even physical harm, less than 10 percent, but instead is "generally the result of a parent's struggle with poverty, addiction, mental health issues or family violence."

The report goes on to state: "The government's lack of commitment to providing publicly funded services has severely undermined the ability of the Ministry of Children and Family Development to take a preventative approach to child protection issues."

That's a recent report that just came out this month. Is that not an indictment on the government's children's budget, on this minister's children's budget? Three years later there is chaos in the ministry. Children who are in great need are not getting the assistance that they need. Most recently we just learned again that this government is thumbing their nose at a court decision to provide support to children and adults with an IQ that does not reach the minimal threshold that the government has set out.

Just because you turn 19, you're going to be cut out of services. The government ignores the court decision and continues on, business as usual. That is the legacy of this government. That is the legacy of this Minister of Finance. The government has done nothing to address the true issues that the community faces.

The next year the Minister of Finance came out with the seniors budget. Let's just take a look at the seniors budget. Seniors continue to suffer from lack of support and services. Seniors are being evicted from SRO housing units without protections. Tied with Quebec on the highest rate of seniors poverty in this country. The city of Vancouver's homelessness action plan shows that the amount of seniors homelessness is actually increasing and not decreasing.

Privatization of long-term care facilities is hurting families and the quality of care for seniors. Seniors are being separated. In spite of the fact that they've been together for a long, long time, they're being torn apart

[ Page 10084 ]

because they cannot get the services they deserve. People worry about the expansion of privatization of the health care system, and they're getting pickpocketed day by day with more fees and increased costs and premiums from this government. That's the legacy of the seniors budget.

[1450]

Then just this year, in this throne speech, the minister and the government say, the Premier says: "Oh, it's okay, seniors. Here's a solution for you. Here's what I'm going to say. We haven't delivered on the 5,000 long-term care beds that we have promised you as far back as the 2001 election. Never mind that. Don't worry about it, because this is what we're now going to consider, seniors. We're now going to say to you that we'll give you a tax shelter. Actually, while you're paying taxes all your life, right now what you should really do, families, is put that money aside sort of like an RRSP but use that money when you get old for seniors care.

Code, Madam Speaker? What that really means is that seniors services will no longer be provided by the government. This is irrespective of the fact that seniors have paid taxes all their lives, and they deserve so much better and so much more than what this government is offering them in their golden years.

So the budget after that — what do we have? Well, remember the housing budget? Homelessness has more than doubled since this government took office — without resources, I might add. According to accounts from my colleague from Kensington, who actually had a volunteer phone up municipalities to get their homelessness count in their communities, he came up with a figure of over 10,000 people across British Columbia. That is a figure that has just been released based on volunteer work with no resources, phoning municipalities and regional districts for that information.

Recently the UN housing rapporteur visited Vancouver. Here's what he had to say:

"There is a deep homelessness problem here. I must say I was taken aback by the scale of the crisis here in the downtown east side.

"The decrepit nature of the SROs, the conditions of the buildings that people are living in, very poor health…. I was repeatedly struck by the contrast that I see because it's such a beautiful city, because there has been so much investment. It is striking that a few blocks from million-dollar condominiums there is such immense poverty. There seems to be a disconnect between the economic policies in Vancouver and the social policies that need to be in place."

That is an indictment from an independent third party on this government's performance on dealing with the homelessness crisis in our communities. The homelessness count will be happening again in a few weeks for Metro Vancouver, and everyone expects that there will be an increase again.

How's it going since the government delivered the housing budget? Homelessness is on the rise. People are being evicted left, right and centre, and the government is ignoring the commitments they had made in order to win the Olympics. How's that for a legacy?

Rather than listening to communities and civil societies and the opposition, this government stuck its head in the sand and refused to even acknowledge the depths of the problem for several years. We have a society today where the affordability crunch is forcing families to put their groceries on their Visa cards.

Just this week hard-working British Columbians are being cheated out of their life savings through prepurchases. This week we had Sophia Street in Vancouver, where prepurchase homebuyers are now going to be out of their life savings, and they're just waiting with bated breath to see what the court report is going to say to see whether or not they can even recover their damage deposit.

We just heard later on this week of two other projects. H+H in the Yaletown community has gone into receivership. Again, prepurchase homebuyers are also going to be stuck in a situation over there. Another project actually in Richmond, Garden City, is also in a similar situation.

We just heard today from the Minister of Finance, who says: "Don't worry. All is good. Chances are they will be able to continue to buy because they'll get another developer to come in." Let me tell you this too, Madam Speaker, because I also talked to the receiver in this case. What he told me was: "Yeah, that might happen, and they will have to evaluate the viability of the project, but chances are those prepurchase homebuyers will have to pay more than what they expect to, to get those homes."

For the minister to take comfort and say: "Well, gee, they'll get their deposits back." Let us just be clear. There is no guarantee that those prepurchase homebuyers will actually get their full deposits back. There is something that we should be worried about in terms of what the government is doing to ensure that there's protection for the prepurchase homebuyers.

[1455]

This is escalating. It's not an isolated incident anymore. There's the middleman, who sometimes goes in and actually makes a deal with the original developer and gets a couple of units and then later on flips them. Then where are the requirements for disclosure for the middleman? Where are the enforcement requirements for both the developer and the middleman in this case? How do you enforce this?

The only recourse that's really available for these homebuyers is the courts. I have to say good luck to those homebuyers, because the reality is this. The developer has gone into receivership. They may well have gone into bankruptcy, and they have to go to court to make sure they have abided by some disclosure statements that, frankly, are meaningless to the home purchasers in this scenario. Well, how is that for consumer protection?

We have a Premier who has now turned fashionably green, as he moves away from such innovative policy breakthroughs as the Waste Buster website, the racist referendum on aboriginal rights, cutting red tape by one-third and having open cabinet meetings. Remember those commitments?

[ Page 10085 ]

He's now continuing with this embarrassing faddish tenure. This year we got a green budget that is really a sorry excuse to give their corporate friends bonuses. Yes, in this budget the winners are the banks and the oil and gas companies.

Banks get a $220 million corporate tax cut while they're making record profits. Oil and gas companies will get a $327 million subsidy this year and a $358 million subsidy next year. And guess what. They're exempt from the carbon tax. The big greenhouse gas emitters in B.C., the oil and gas industry, who release some 21 percent of greenhouse gas emissions, got the Liberal government's exemption to pay the carbon tax.

Apparently, the "everybody" that the government refers to is the average Joe on the streets, and it doesn't include the government's business friends. These are companies who made record profits, but the Liberal government still wants to contribute to this enormous subsidy to them.

The oil and gas industry is not the only sector that got the special Liberal treatment or that got the giveaways from the Liberal government. The aluminum industry also got exemptions not to pay the carbon tax. How's that for fairness? How's that for fairness for British Columbians, and how do you like a green budget that targets the little guys for carbon emissions while exempting the big polluters?

I have been elected in office for a long time myself, and it is not theoretical. This is not just theoretical. There must be meaning behind these gestures and photo ops for the government. The people of British Columbia will know that the emperor has no clothes. Like the wizard of Oz, there's just a man behind the curtain. You can print the budget on green paper all you want. You can market it however you want to.

The government is planning to spend $30 million, by the way, of taxpayers' money to go and spin you to tell you that their budget is all about a green budget. That's at least $30 million of your hard-earned taxpayers' money that they're going to spin to the public. That's what they're intending to do.

No matter how you disguise it, this is not a green budget. So let's just face the facts. What's worse, the budget does not actually give British Columbians an alternative to get out of their cars. The transit investments, frankly, are pitiful in this budget. Sure, the government touts a $14 billion transit plan, they say. And guess what. The budget only provides for some $300 million for transit infrastructure.

Well, at this rate, I don't know. I'm pretty sure I won't be around to take that bus across the street to take my daughter to school or to get to work. So that's a realistic plan for you. There's a $14 billion plan, and this budget gives you $300 million to get started. Woo hoo. Let's just wait, and let's just sit back. I'll say this, folks. Don't take it to the bank because it ain't coming.

[1500]

What about those folks outside of the lower mainland? Quite frankly, we actually have it easier in the lower mainland. At least the weather is not minus 40 outside, and we don't have piles and piles of snow.

What about those communities where you have the distance to deal with, road conditions to deal with and the weather to contemplate? The government says: "Get out of your car." In the meantime, the local school has closed. The government has closed some 130 local schools across British Columbia in their tenure. It is only minus 40 outside, and you're supposed to take transit to work, and then you're supposed to take transit to take your kid to school.

But wait. There's only one catch. There's no transit in your region. How about that? There's no bus or transit resources that you could take. In some communities there's only one cab that you can order to actually get to and fro, from one location to another. There's the solution. The minister says: "Well, there's the hundred bucks that you get. You get a hundred dollars in rebate."

The Finance Minister says she's going to buy a pair of runners so she can get out of her car and do some more walking instead, and that's really good for the environment. Well, that may work for the Finance Minister, who just jets into a community for a meeting in the boardroom. But I've got to tell you that I will challenge her to do that in Castlegar, in Fort St. John, in Williams Lake — in any of those communities where there is snow on a day-in and day-out basis. See how those runners are going to get her from one location to another when she has to walk more than from the cab into the boardroom.

Working families are falling behind. Entire forestry towns are being abandoned by the Liberal government — 16 closures in four months in places like Kamloops, Mackenzie, Fort Nelson, Campbell River, Elk Falls and New Westminster. Quesnel is losing a mill, and three more Tolko mills in Williams Lake…. Without a paycheque, how will people pay their mortgages, help their kids get through university and colleges, care for their loved ones?

What is this government going to do? Well, in this budget those communities get a round table. They don't get $327 million in subsidies. They don't actually get any money for reinvestment for economic development in those communities. They get a round table.

I ask you this question: will the Minister of Forests take charge? So far, we have seen him take no action but report after report after recycled report. I guess that's green. At least it's recycled.

What about the Premier? Will the Premier step up and take charge? We haven't seen any action to date. It's kind of like an Abbott and Costello act. Someone's going: "Hey, who's on first? Nobody's on first. Who's on second? Nobody's on first." Then you say: "Who's on third? I don't really know." That's what's happening with this government with respect to how they're dealing with the rural communities and the challenges they face with forestry health.

If our entire economy is built on game theory because it fits with the government's ideology, who will stand up for communities facing hardships? The rich history of rural enterprise in B.C…. Who will contribute to the culture and identity of the province — the idea of reciprocating the public good, the idea that we have a sense of responsibility for each other? Who will

[ Page 10086 ]

actually step up to ensure that there is leadership shown so that these communities do not fall by the wayside?

Margaret Thatcher didn't believe in the concept called society, and this government just pays lip service to it. In B.C. we have to take leadership on our economic and geographic challenges by having responsibility for each other, not by leaving people behind or only thinking about ourselves. Even when entire communities are unravelling and civil society is breaking down, this government won't intervene because it doesn't fit their narrow ideology.

As they give away tree farm licences and roadways and sell off public assets, entire communities of people who have contributed to the cultural, social and economic life of our province are being told that they don't matter. They're not relevant to this government's agenda, this Premier's agenda and this Finance Minister's agenda.

[1505]

What happened to the heartlands strategy? Was it abandoned like the Premier's plaid shirt and guitar? As this government paints itself green so it can play its PR politics, big polluters get a pass on climate change. People die in the streets because homeless people try to stay warm with Coleman stoves in the alley, and somehow that's okay. The oil and gas company gets big breaks and banks get $220 million in tax cuts, while families in small towns are left behind. Higher transit fares, higher tuition fees, a new gas tax but no reality check on how we're going to reach our emission targets.

At the end of January everyone got evicted from the Dominion Hotel, and tomorrow everyone will get evicted from 334 Carroll Street. Community groups are desperately trying to help relocate those who are being evicted. As of today, there are four residents still in grave need of a home.

What is this government going to do about it? I got a letter from the Minister for Housing basically saying that there's nothing he could do. The Premier was a city councillor and a mayor as he watched hundreds of people get evicted during Expo 86. Well, it's déjà vu all over again. The Geneva-based Centre on Housing Rights and Evictions came out with guidelines on housing policy in pre-Olympic environments back in June of 2007. Will the government act on those policy recommendations, or will they do nothing?

The transit system in Vancouver continues to be in terrible shape. The Main Street, Fraser Street, and Victoria bus lines are amongst the heaviest used, but people still have to stand, and there's still no room to get on the bus. Buses still pass them by as they wait to try to get on the bus.

A nice new transit plan for the lower mainland but no plan on how to get there and how to ensure that British Columbians could afford it. A closed-door transit board without transparency gets a 500 percent pay raise. For one meeting, they make 1,200 bucks. That's more than what some of my constituents make a month. Somehow this government is okay with that.

The Premier made decisions in the back room when he was the mayor of Vancouver, and he continues to do so. As families face higher mortgage rates and higher rents, and while their wages stay stagnant, the Premier is putting families on the hamster wheel of economic survival and making them work harder. Families who pay for oil and gas and hydro will be hit hard by this Finance Minister's budget. B.C. has the highest child poverty rate and seniors poverty rate in the country.

B.C. continues to have no poverty reduction strategy. Even Newfoundland has the wherewithal to come up with a strategy but not this province, not when the government can sit there and say: "Hey, our economy's performing great." But they cannot have the wherewithal to find the time or the political will to actually come forward with a poverty reduction strategy.

This government refused to give minimum-wage earners a lift. How many years has it been — five years, six years — since they actually got a wage increase? This government will stand by and see their transit board members — the friends, the hacks that they've appointed to the board — actually get a 500 percent increase. But they will not see the lowest earners of this province get an increase in terms of the minimum wage.

B.C. doesn't even carry a homelessness count. Though we are clearly having a crisis in this province, the government has not taken a proactive approach in even understanding the issue in a considered way. Despite the government's purchase of hotels, more low-income residents continue to be evicted in the downtown east side due to provincial government loopholes. Will the government take a preventative or precautionary approach, or will they just continue to do nothing as seniors and low-income people get thrown out onto the street?

Is that the story the government wants the rest of the world to know as the Olympics arrive in Vancouver in less than two years? There is nothing to address the affordability crisis in post-secondary education. A lost generation is encumbered by debt, due to the devastating public policy choices of this government. There's another cut in student aid, and the average student debt after four years is now some $27,000.

[1510]

There's no new direction for child care, a system working families can't even afford. There are no plans to address women in poverty, no plans to address aboriginal poverty and socio-economic status, no plan to address the urban aboriginal issues in my constituency. A legacy of misguided policies and arrogant decision is what we got. There's no plan to address the skyrocketing ferry fares, B.C. Hydro rates, ICBC rates and transit fares.

I have great pride and immense privilege in representing the constituency of Vancouver–Mount Pleasant. Before I entered public life I was a community advocate in the downtown east side, and I'm honoured to be here in this Legislature to carry out the responsibility and legacy of a century's worth of protests and dissenting behaviour that brought action and social change. That is the hallmark of Vancouver–Mount Pleasant, and I will continue to work my hardest to ensure that those voices of our community are not lost in this government.

[ Page 10087 ]

We always believe in standing up for our community. We're a community forged together in a history of dissent, trauma and compassion. I ask all members of the House to reflect on these issues and to reflect on the place of every community and on the challenges that they face. I challenge the government to come forward with a budget that actually deals with all of these issues and to show that everybody does matter in British Columbia.

L. Mayencourt: It's a pleasure to stand in the House today to respond to Budget 2008-2009. I don't think it will come as a surprise to the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant that I'm going to be voting in favour of a budget that supplies each and every British Columbian with a cheque for $100 to help them start saving money and to start them on a path to reducing the carbon footprint that they and their family have in British Columbia.

Since 2001 our housing budget has gone from $120 million to $360 million, a significant increase, something that has made a huge difference in the lives of literally thousands of British Columbians.

Madam Speaker, it is a shame that the member opposite does not recognize the contribution that B.C. Housing has made to her neighbourhood. As a matter of fact, she could even take a look at what's happening in her own household. You see, her husband works for the Portland Hotel Society, which has a hundred new units going up at the Woodward's building, 70 new units at the….

Deputy Speaker: Member, I was sitting here contemplating that we just had the discussion about the use of the word "misleading," so I do ask you to be cautious of your parliamentary language. I also wish to remind you that your most recent remarks are personal. So please continue with those cautions in mind.

L. Mayencourt: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

As I said, it's very important that we come into this House and talk about what we believe in, and this is what I believe in. I believe that the policies of this government have resulted in hundreds of people getting housing, that thousands and thousands of British Columbians are not paying taxes.

The changes to the taxes for this personal year…. She just talked about people in poverty. There are 250,000 people in British Columbia that, as a result of this budget, will not be paying provincial taxes. That's something that really makes a difference in the lives of people in British Columbia.

They are people that are also able to get Fair Pharmacare at a reduced rate, to be able to have MSP premiums reduced, to be able to access things like Shelter Aid for Elderly Renters or our rent supplement program.

There's an old myth that flutters over on that side of the House that the NDP owns the word "compassion." Well, they don't. The fact of the matter is that governments come and go, and that government was unable to meet the needs of their homeless in British Columbia in their term. This government has steadily increased the amount of funding each and every year, to the point that it is three times higher than it ever was before. The increase in the budget means a big difference to people in British Columbia, and it makes a big difference in the member's riding as well.

[1515]

For example, I can recall last year when she was speaking about the need to preserve single-room-occupancy hotels. We heard her voice. We went out, and we bought ten of those SROs. Why? We wanted to make sure that we were preserving that form of housing stock in British Columbia. We were very glad to do that. In fact, we now have about a thousand extra units of single-room-occupancy hotels that we did not have before.

I also mentioned the Portland Hotel Society, which is something that is very…. You know, it's right in the middle of her riding, and it is an agency that has received over and over again….

Deputy Speaker: Member. Can I please remind you that the conversation in this House is through the Chair.

L. Mayencourt: I was addressing it through the Chair, Madam Speaker.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Member. Would you please avoid personal reference to members opposite.

L. Mayencourt: Well, that's going to be very, very difficult, because I was just witness to a personal attack from the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant, and I am not to respond?

Deputy Speaker: Member, we are debating the budget. We are not embarking on personal attacks across the floor of this House.

L. Mayencourt: Madam Speaker, really, you cannot be serious. You cannot be serious.

Deputy Speaker: Continue with your remarks, Member.

L. Mayencourt: Madam Speaker, I'm here listening in the chamber to people say things in debate. I think my job is to respond to that debate. I think it's very, very important that if someone casts aspersions on my Premier, I stand up and defend him. Today I heard people saying that the Premier was in a conflict of

[ Page 10088 ]

interest in this chamber, and no one stopped them. That's very unparliamentary.

We heard the member talking about the B.C. Liberal government misleading British Columbians. That's unparliamentary, and yet nothing was done there. So I must say that I am very, very serious about the fact that I am going to stand up and defend my government's record each and every day that I'm in this chamber.

It is really important that there be some fairness and some balance in this chamber, that the voice of what we are trying to accomplish in this province gets heard around this province. That's what the purpose of this chamber is. This chamber is a place where truth should reign. This is a place where we should be able to know that British Columbia puts more into health care than any other province, anywhere in its history.

And yet we have an opposition that can stand in this House and talk about the fact that we've made cuts to health care when our budget has gone from $8 billion to $13 billion. They can't add, they can't subtract, and they can't divide. What can they do?

I'll tell you something. They can't stand in this House and seriously say that we are not doing everything in our power to ensure that the poor, the vulnerable and the weak are looked after. I want to tell you something. That government over on that side, when it was their turn to run this, was in such disarray that there were people who were not getting access to welfare, not getting access to services — no health care, no mental health services and nothing in the way of addictions services.

That's not a personal attack. That belongs to all of them. It is time that British Columbians understand that that side of the House didn't do its job properly. As a result of that, we have been left with people stumbling from corner to corner in the downtown east side, with people that have no idea of how to lift themselves out of poverty.

So our government's done some stuff. Our government has introduced rent supplements. A family earning under $28,000 can get about a $500 subsidy cheque to pay their rent. You know what? They don't even have to tell their neighbour that they got the cheque. It just goes into their bank account, so we don't have to stigmatize them. We don't have to degrade them in the way that they have in many other cases in this province.

In my riding in 2002 I started doing an outreach program. I went out in the middle of the day and I talked to people that were homeless. I took them to welfare offices. I got them on welfare, and I found them a place to live.

[1520]

That program was expanded in 2004 with the city of Vancouver. It was expanded around this province just recently. In 2004 we helped 65 people. In 2007 we helped 2,000 people access welfare, a place to live, medical services, addiction services and mental health services — things they could not get from that group over on that side.

I think what we have here is a group of people that just don't want to admit…. We have a group of members over on that side that just do not want to admit that this government is doing more than they did — much, much more. We have a group of individuals over there that really can't talk too much about opening housing projects because they've never done it.

I've worked in the social services side of things for many, many years, and what I know is that those guys talk it…

Deputy Speaker: Point of order, Member.

L. Mayencourt: …and we do it. There's a big difference between talking and doing.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Order.

Continue, Member.

L. Mayencourt: In 2001 the housing budget was $120 million. In 2007 it is $360 million. By 2008 it will be $380 million. That is an increase. That is three times what the NDP did in their time in office. Our homeless outreach program….

D. Routley: I rise on a point of privilege regarding the member's remarks. Point of order.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Continue, Member.

D. Routley: The member asserts that the previous government opened no social housing. We contest the factual account the member shared with the House.

An Hon. Member: Not a point of order.

D. Routley: It's not for you to rule, my friend.

Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order, Member. It is a dispute of fact between two members.

Member for Vancouver-Burrard, continue, please.

L. Mayencourt: Our homeless outreach program, of which I am very, very proud, last year connected 2,500 people to supports and housing, and 80 percent of those people are still in housing. That's in 40 communities across British Columbia. I'm proud of that, because that program actually works for people.

There were a lot of people in our province that weren't accessing those kinds of supports. We went out on the streets, we went to them, and we said: "Can we help you?" We took them to a place where we could help them. And that's something wonderful.

Our rental assistance program last year helped 4,400 families. Those are families that live below $28,000. And, as of this budget, I think it's — what? — $36,000 annual….

An Hon. Member: It's $35,000.

[ Page 10089 ]

L. Mayencourt: It's $35,000, which is a low income for a family. They are eligible for a rent supplement. That's something that provides housing security. But they're also available for MSP premium assistance. They're also available….

Interjections.

L. Mayencourt: I can't believe it. The members across this way voted against those things. Madam Speaker, what is it that they don't like about it? Was it wrong that we went out and reached out to the homeless in an unprecedented way and said: "Look, let's help you out. Can we help you? Can we get you a place to live? Can we make sure you have a safe, clean, affordable place to live? Can we make sure your kids have lunch at school?" So these guys over here have voted against it and that's as simple as that.

Deputy Speaker: Member, through the Chair, please. Your conversation is through the Chair.

L. Mayencourt: Oh, absolutely, Madam Speaker. I thought I referred to you, and I apologize if I missed something there.

The SAFER program is the Shelter Aid for Elderly Renters, and that's a very important program. It's something that my own father even applied for when he was still alive. What that's for is to help seniors that are frail or elderly who are at risk of becoming…. They have less options with their ability to buy food and all that sort of stuff.

[1525]

Our Finance Minister said: "Look, that's a really great program, but it needs to be expanded. It needs to affect more people." So since 2001, 3,000 other seniors have had access to that service. In 2001 the housing with supports was 1,300 units. Today it is 3,579 units, plus 895 that are under construction, plus 389 SRO room purchases this year. There are 700….

We have actually doubled the number of shelter beds in British Columbia, because we know that there's a critical problem with housing affordability. We're trying to address it. We have to make sure that those folks are there and looked after, so we've expanded that. They've doubled it so that there are 1,400 expanded shelter beds available. We've included that to be a 24-hour, seven-day-a-week thing.

We've also been reaching out to aboriginal communities. In 2001 there were 430 units of aboriginal housing in British Columbia. Today there are over 3,500. That's a very significant increase. Today in British Columbia over 84,000 people have been helped through our rental assistance programs — any of the ones I've mentioned. In the last year 10,000 new people….

We have an opportunity here in British Columbia to lead, and last year our Premier decided — and the caucus supported him — to move towards a green agenda. It was something that was really important to us. We're not just talking about our own lives; we're talking about the world that we're going to leave behind for other people. Those people are our kids, our grandchildren and our great-grandchildren.

We've advanced on a green agenda. The opposition members called for a carbon tax. Their leader called for a carbon tax as late as two weeks ago. Yet today we heard from the member for North Island that that wasn't the thing that was needed. The carbon tax was not something that was needed.

Well, I know for a fact that taxes that change people's behaviour are taxes that work for the people. You know, we started taxing the heck out of cigarettes and that means less people are smoking. We taxed the heck out of a variety other things, and that is a way for us to move and change people's behaviour.

By having a carbon tax, we're telling people to get out of their cars. We're telling people to start using other forms of transportation. We're making them pay for that service. I think one of the most important things we can be doing is protecting our environment.

We've talked a lot about things that are going on in the first nations community. I can remember back in 2001 how we were portrayed by members opposite. Where are we today? We are leading the country in relationships with aboriginal communities and aboriginal leaders. I'm very proud of the work the Premier has done on that.

The progress that we've made has resulted in treaties being signed, something that is very important if you're actually going to have some certainty in British Columbia. I was very, very happy to see the signing of a couple of treaties in the past year. I think it was really wonderful that we were able to accomplish that, and the government deserves full credit for it. So I'm very happy about that as well.

There are many things that we've been able to do over the past several years, and it has been a pleasure to be here. I want to thank all the members that have sat on this side of the House and voted with us on the successive budgets that have been brought forward by this government. Those budgets have resulted in people in British Columbia paying less tax, having more money in their pockets to make decisions that they and their families deserve to have choice on.

There are many voices on the other side there that think they have a better idea of what to do with the people's money. Well, we don't. We believe that the person that should be making the decision on how they spend the money is the person that earns that money. That's a very important distinction for us.

[S. Hammell in the chair.]

We have also been moving very much on the areas of mental health and addictions. I must say that the government is making moves that should have been made many, many years ago. We are now for the first time taking a look at what we can do in terms of Riverview. We recognize that successive governments since 1980 onwards have slowly deinstitutionalized a whole lot of people from Riverview and other care facilities

[ Page 10090 ]

across this province that really should not have been left to fend for themselves on the street.

[1530]

It does break my heart. Every once in a while I get to see some people out there that really need our help — people that will not ordinarily accept that help. It's very, very important that we reach those people, that we take our responsibilities and look after people that cannot care for themselves.

I have seen much of that in the downtown east side, but it's also been in my neighbourhood. It's a very important thing we do today when we talk about Riverview and we talk about the possibility of having institutional care brought back to British Columbia — not the stuff from the 1950s but a new way of doing things — to provide a humane way of operating.

It's important that we have a good debate. I understand that I may have offended the Chair, and I do apologize for doing that, Madam Speaker. I am very, very passionate about the things that we are working on. I believe that we need to speak about those things, but if I offended you or the previous Chair, I do offer my full apology to you.

We're doing some pretty good work all around this province. I'm very, very happy about the things that are brought forward in this budget. I am excited that we have an opportunity to make a difference in British Columbia for those children. I look forward to further debate.

M. Farnworth: It's my pleasure to rise and take my place on the budget and offer a few comments, some thoughts and some ideas on this budget which the government side is proclaiming as: "The bells are ringing, hallelujah, hallelujah. It's all here. Repent, and ye shall be saved." I see the minister opposite giving two thumbs up.

I think what's important is that we get beyond the hype and the rhetoric and the bell ringing and the chest thumping and look at what it means for regular people — the people of my constituency, Port Coquitlam–Burke Mountain — and their priorities and the issues that they're concerned about. It starts to tell a little different story.

There are a number of things that aren't quite what the government says, and I think that we need to talk about them. That, I think, would be a really good idea. So I want to address this budget from the perspective of the citizens of Port Coquitlam–Burke Mountain.

I'll start on education because that is a top of mind issue. What we see is a budget that the Minister of Education constantly likes to trumpet as saying: "We're spending more money on education now than we've ever spent before." Well, duh — it's called inflation. The fact is the increase is not funding the needs of districts such as school district 43.

School districts are still in the position of having to make cuts that are closing schools. Lincoln Elementary was one of those, and there's nothing in this budget that deals with those types of issues.

We are still significantly behind on the issue of seismic upgrading. There's not a lot in this budget that's going to see a significant increase on the number of schools that are seismically upgraded. That's something that this government was trumpeting a few years ago, as: "We are getting the schools in this province seismically upgraded."

The fact is that we are falling further and further behind on seismically upgrading schools and ensuring our children are protected in those schools than ever before. Nothing in this budget fixes that.

[1535]

We're able to find $200 million in a tax cut for banks, but we're not able to put additional resources, the resources that are needed, to bring the seismic upgrading program to where it should be today. That's a serious flaw with this budget. That's an issue of serious concern to my constituents. It's a serious flaw in this budget, and there is nothing the Minister of Education can say to contradict that or counteract that, because, clearly, at the cabinet table she failed to make the case for increasing the number of schools that are going to be seismically upgraded. That's a serious flaw in this budget from the view of my constituents.

Health care. Again, the lift in this budget at first blush may look to be significant, but as we know, over the course of the year it doesn't….

Interjection.

M. Farnworth: The minister says: "More than first blush." Well, when you start to peel away at the budget documents, you really see the issues start to come to the fore, and you really see the problems with this budget, and the pressures it is going to place on health care facilities and on the delivery of health care services. We are still going to be facing some of the same challenges we have been facing, whether it's around wait-lists, around service levels or around issues such as long-term care facilities.

One of the things this government likes to trumpet when it comes to health care is: "Oh, we're doing more. We're doing more. We built more long-term care beds. We built more assisted living. Assisted living, assisted living, assisted living." They hang their hat on assisted-living beds. But assisted-living beds aren't long-term care beds. There's a significant difference, and the government and the government members don't want to acknowledge that they're different. They don't want to acknowledge that they are very different from the beds that many seniors require. That's where this budget falls down, and that's where the government has been falling down.

The government and the government members and the member for Vancouver-Burrard have been talking about people making choices and putting more money back in the pockets of people to make their own choices. Trouble is that they don't have any choice. They don't have any choice when it comes to increasing drug costs. They don't have any choice when it comes to the increasing cost of heating their homes. They don't have any choice when it comes to the increasing cost of their ICBC insurance. They don't have any

[ Page 10091 ]

choice when it comes to the increasing costs of their day-to-day expenses, on fees and licences and permits.

The nickel-and-diming to death of people by this government more than offsets any one-time $100 bonus that individuals are getting. It more than offsets.

Hon. B. Penner: You voted for it. Why did you vote for it?

M. Farnworth: The member says: "Why did you vote for it?" Well, I'm happy to vote for putting some money back in people's pockets. What I'm opposed to, hon. Member, is the duplicity of that member and other members who say that people….

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Member.

Minister.

M. Farnworth: I would remind the member that if he wants to heckle me — and I do enjoy his heckles — at least do it from your own seat.

But it is the duplicity saying that this hundred dollars gives people a choice. It doesn't. What they're doing is paying out in higher hydro fees; they're paying it in higher ICBC rates; they're paying it in higher transit fares. They're paying it in higher cost of living day to day, more often than not brought on by decisions of this government — in essence, a downloading of costs onto everyday taxpayers.

At the same time, we can afford to give a $220 million tax break to banks….

C. Evans: What's that about?

[1540]

M. Farnworth: My colleague from Nelson-Creston is saying: "What's that about?" That's what a lot of my constituents are saying: "What's that about? Wait a second. We've got a homeless crisis here in the Tri-Cities."

We've got a homelessness crisis. We have one of the highest rates of homelessness outside of Vancouver. Yet there's still no shelter, the number of homeless has increased, we have the highest rates of child poverty in this province — in the entire country. Yet there's nothing that really, substantively, makes any change to those conditions flowing in this budget.

Interjection.

M. Farnworth: Well, hon. Member, they're already a shelter for a lot of money.

But that $220 million would have provided a lot of assistance, would have built a number of shelters. Even more important than providing shelters, we could have started to do other things, such as building and making an even greater impact on things such as detox centres — a lot more than what we're doing and a lot more than what we're seeing in this budget.

All those things, my constituents are asking.

Interjection.

M. Farnworth: I hear the baritone bellows of the member from Fort Langley–Aldergrove, and I'd just like to say that I am not against those people he mentions. What I am against is his inability and reluctance to assist and to help all those other people who need it. The fact is that we are making barely a dent in this problem. That's what this minister doesn't get, and that's what that government doesn't get. They don't get that they can trot out that where….

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Minister.

Member. Member, sit down for a second.

An Hon. Member: He's a tenor, not a baritone.

Deputy Speaker: Minister.

M. Farnworth: Whether the Minister of Forests is a baritone or a…

An Hon. Member: Or a saxophone.

M. Farnworth: …or a saxophone or — judging from the increase to his ministry at the cabinet table — perhaps a castrato….

The member from Langley, I think, got that one.

Anyway, the fact is that this government has not been putting the money….

Interjections.

M. Farnworth: If the member wants to talk about those individuals whom he's helping, he also needs to recognize those whom he is not helping. The fact is that we have seen significant rates of homelessness in the Tri-Cities, and what's….

Interjections.

M. Farnworth: I love the heckles from the Minister of Forests and homelessness.

He talks about buying SROs, but the fact is that there's still an SRO. There's no new net increase. The fact is that we're not seeing the net increases that we used to see. We're not seeing the building taking place that used to take place in this province, and that's what people want to see.

Interjection.

M. Farnworth: The minister, again, is making his comments from across the way. We will explore that, hon. Minister, in the estimates debate, and we'll go to them in detail. But the fact is that homelessness rates have doubled.

[ Page 10092 ]

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Member. Member, sit down. Member, sit down for a minute.

Members, you genuinely cannot hear, despite the baritone and tenor dulcet tones.

Member.

[1545]

M. Farnworth: On issues around homelessness, we're not seeing it. What we're getting is more questions from my constituents. They read in the paper that one day it's 7,000 units that the minister wants to put on the Riverview site — "I'm thinking big," was the phrase I think the minister used — and then the next, we're getting told: "No, no. It could be significantly higher than that — 25,000."

But it's not addressing the root cause, which is that ordinary people are being made homeless and don't have a place to go to — not enough shelters — and the fact that homelessness has doubled under this government, and the steps that are being taken are minuscule and not solving the problem.

The other area this budget does not really address is those who can't afford or who are working on the edge. They're working on the edge. They make too much for social assistance but not enough to save for a home, and in many cases, to not be able to pay the rent. There's no mention, for example, of the minimum wage in this budget — raising the minimum wage to $10 an hour.

Interjections.

M. Farnworth: My colleagues say that they gave it to the banks. That $220 million could have done so much in making a dent in some of those areas.

Other areas, for example, that my constituents are very much concerned about, and that this budget didn't address, are transit and transportation.

I want to deal with the issue of the term "carbon tax" from this government. My constituents, when they look at the budget and the government's trumpeting it as a green budget — saying that the carbon tax will change behaviour, that the carbon tax is revolutionary, that the carbon tax will advance British Columbia in areas of global warming…. They're looking and going: "How will this change my behaviour? If it doesn't change my behaviour, then it's only a tax grab."

It's only a tax grab. Without the additional buses that they can take, without the additional transit that's required to the Tri-Cities — and I'm thinking specifically here of rapid transit, SkyTrain, Evergreen line, however you call it — to the Tri-Cities, to Coquitlam Centre, to Douglas College…. Without that in place, people don't have those alternatives to switch to, no matter how much they want to.

This government has been in place now since 2001, and we still don't have rapid transit SkyTrain to the Tri-Cities. That is shameful. I see members on the other side hanging their heads in shame, as they should. I see the member from Chilliwack scratching his head and does a heckle and nodding, and well he should. I will remind him that his government has had — what? — seven years, not quite seven years, in power.

What's been accomplished? Not much. I know that in my first term as a government backbencher we put in place commuter rail, West Coast Express, out to Port Coquitlam and out to Mission. Hugely successful.

Hon. J. Les: That was a real success.

M. Farnworth: Actually, the Solicitor General laughs mockingly and says that it was a real success. Well, I can tell you, hon. Minister, if that's your attitude, you really do need to get out of Victoria more often. You do need to come to the north side of the Fraser, because by the time you get to Coquitlam Centre, you cannot find a seat on that train.

[1550]

Many of his constituents, in fact, rather than fight traffic, will go over the Abbotsford Bridge to Mission and take the train. It was an NDP government that put that train in place. It is so successful that they need more cars. By the time it gets to Coquitlam Centre, it's standing room only. You can't get a seat. It's been extremely successful.

Yet this government has not provided any additional funding in this budget to assist in getting new cars for West Coast Express. They have provided no additional funding to get additional trains running on West Coast Express — nothing. That train was put in, in my first term as a member in this place, in '91. By the time of '96 that train was running.

In the second term, '96 to 2001, we started on the SkyTrain line that would have gone to Coquitlam Centre. The Millennium line. It got to Lougheed Mall. It was a long-promised, long-fought-for transit improvement in our area. It's a huge…

Interjection.

M. Farnworth: …huge project.

I hear the heckling from the member for Port Moody–Westwood, and he is right.

Deputy Speaker: Member, it's a convention that we don't recognize the members who are absent or present in the House.

Interjection.

Deputy Speaker: You don't recognize the members, whether they are absent or present.

M. Farnworth: Thank you, hon. Speaker. I will accept your ruling.

The member who I work with, the Liberal member who represents Port Moody, made comments about Port Moody not getting anything. And he's absolutely

[ Page 10093 ]

right. They didn't get anything, and why didn't they get anything? Because this government cancelled a decision to take it to Coquitlam Centre. They cancelled it and sent it to Richmond instead and made the RAV line the priority. They made the RAV line the priority and not service to the Tri-Cities.

That is the great failure of this government — that even seven years on, they have still not brought transit, rapid transit, SkyTrain to the Tri-Cities. Richmond got first-class service, and we didn't even get second class. We got pushed under the bus for the last seven years.

I still, despite all the good words of the government…. "Oh, Evergreen line to the Tri-Cities…." Well, they've said they want to build it, but they've said that they expect matching funds from the federal government. Well, in the budget that came down on Tuesday, we saw $67 million. Now, I'm happy that we're getting the $67 million. I'm just wondering where the other some $330-some-odd million is going to come from.

They said that they wanted $410 million — they were expecting that — and we got $67 million. So I'm just wondering where the rest is going to come from, because we can't afford to wait too long out our way for rapid transit to the Tri-Cities. We cannot afford to wait, if we are to take the growth that we are projected to take, for rapid transit to come out to our area.

That's another significant failure of this budget. It doesn't address the transportation and rapid transit needs of the residents of my constituency. That's why they're skeptical. They are skeptical when they say: "Oh, it's a carbon tax." Until those alternatives are in place, they view it as a gas tax. Until those additional buses are in place, they view it as a gas tax. Until the additional West Coast Express cars are in place, they view it as a gas tax.

That's a real problem for the government if they want to genuinely ensure, if they want to genuinely convince people, that the carbon tax in this budget will do what it says and is the right direction to go. If they're not seeing the alternatives, they're not going to buy it. They're going to remain extremely skeptical.

[1555]

So that's on transportation. What about other areas in this budget that my constituents are concerned about? Well, public safety is something they're extremely concerned about. They were looking to this budget to see that we'd have some significant increase to ensure that our streets are safer — that there would be significant increases to provide additional resources to fight gangs. Clearly, the government didn't listen. When you look at this budget, there are no additional resources to fight gang violence.

I guess that at the cabinet table, in the opinion of the Attorney General, who said that we do need more resources, and the opinion of the Solicitor General, who said that we don't need more resources when asked in this House, the opinion of the Solicitor General won out, and we don't have the additional resources in this provincial budget to get serious to do more on areas of gang violence.

I think that's really unfortunate. I can tell you that my constituents are not impressed by that. They are not happy with that one little bit. They were expecting action in this area from the government, and it has failed to deliver.

I know that today the Solicitor General was out making an announcement of about $500,000 from proceeds in crime, and that we're going to…. [Applause.]

I hear the applauding from members on the other side. You know what? It's really nice. Frankly, illegal proceeds from crime obtained from criminals should go back to fight crime. It should go back to ensure that our streets are safer. The trouble is that it's a drop in the bucket for what is actually required. This minister failed, and it's pretty clear he wasn't a baritone at the cabinet table. He was clearly a castrato at the cabinet table.

Interjection.

M. Farnworth: My hon. colleague asked what a castrato is. I would ask the member to think about the root word. It was — I will elucidate for the hon. member — a procedure that was done on.…

Interjection.

M. Farnworth: Well, actually, if he wants to use the term "ministers…." To ensure that their voice would never become a deep and powerful voice, that it would stay high-pitched forever…. So I guess if you want to use the term about ministers, you can do that. Clearly, he did not have a baritone voice at the cabinet table.

The point is that people in my community were looking for a significant substantial increase in the fight against crime in my community and communities right across the province, and they're not seeing it. The fact that the minister was out today trumpeting $500,000 tells me that this government knows this budget is weak in this area. This government knows that they failed to pass the test of public expectation when it came to fighting crime and public safety in this budget.

There is nothing in this budget that deals with the issues raised by those RCMP memos that were released last week that said there were serious problems in the ICE team — the integrated child exploitation team — and the ISPOT team.

The minister stated that yes, those programs will not end and they will stay in place. But nothing in this budget deals with the underlying issues around burnout of resources and the ability to do the job as effectively as it should be, as that program was set up to be. Nothing in this budget will resolve those issues, and that is a significant, fatal flaw in this budget.

[1600]

It doesn't matter whether it's education, whether it's health care, whether it's transportation. It doesn’t matter if it's public safety. This budget fails to live up to the hype and hyperbole of the government. Instead, it fails to deliver, because it doesn't deal with the choices that everyday people have to face in this province.

As I said earlier, $220 million would provide a lot of shelter beds, a lot of affordable housing, a lot more social housing. They could do a lot more in our health

[ Page 10094 ]

care system, and $220 million could do a tremendous amount more in the area of public safety, in dealing with gang violence. It could do a lot more to ensure we have resources for prosecutors in this province. It could have done a lot more in terms of courthouses. It could have done a lot more in terms of correctional facilities.

The Solicitor General wants to create more beds so that we can house people who shouldn't be out on the street and make our streets safer. But there's a problem, again, when it comes to human resources. There are significant recruitment and retention problems of correctional facilities, of sheriffs. The $220 million could have done a lot to address all of that, but it didn't.

Hon. Speaker, I just want to say in my closing remarks that this budget fails my constituents. It fails my critic area. It fails the province of British Columbia. It does not live up to the hype and the hyperbole. That is why I will be standing and voting against this budget when it comes up for a vote in this Legislature.

Hon. T. Christensen: It's an honour to have an opportunity to stand in the House and speak in favour of Budget 2008, a budget that has been receiving accolades across this country and around the continent since the Finance Minister presented the budget last week. It is the first budget in North America to introduce a revenue-neutral carbon tax, a major step forward in the battle against climate change. It is being recognized as such by leading advocates in the fight against climate change as well as leading policy experts in what is necessary to move forward in addressing the challenge of reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

It's a budget that sees income tax reductions for lower-income-earning British Columbians. It's a budget that includes a climate action dividend that puts money back in the pockets of all British Columbians very soon.

We were subjected to a rather unique experience this week in the House in the debate of the supplementary estimates, which actually included the ability to pay that climate action dividend. We had a unanimous vote in this House. Members on this side voted in favour of the climate action dividend payment, and members across the floor voted in favour of it, notwithstanding that we've heard speaker after speaker from the opposition say they don't like it. Yet when the opportunity came, they stood and voted in favour of it.

It was interesting. The member for Port Coquitlam–Burke Mountain, who just spoke, says that he doesn't mind voting to put money back in the pockets of British Columbians. It actually comes as a surprise to me, hearing that from that member. For the decade that they were in government, and certainly the budgets since we've been in government, they have consistently voted against putting money back into the pockets of British Columbians. It's one of the things that's a defining difference between this side of the House and that side of the House.

[1605]

When given the opportunity, we are always going to look for those opportunities where we can put money back into the pockets of British Columbians. We fundamentally believe that they're in the best position to decide how those hard-earned dollars should be spent, not government.

This budget also sees record investments in health care, in education and in social services right across the spectrum.

It's been interesting to listen to some of the debate in the House and some of the positioning, in particular, taken by members of the opposition. The members of the opposition — not all but certainly most — try to portray themselves as the protectors of low-income British Columbians, that the NDP is the party who cares about low-income British Columbians. Let's look at the facts, Madam Speaker. Let's look at the changes over the last number of years.

For somebody earning $15,000 of annual income — something that all of us in this House would agree is a low income that it would be very difficult to get by on…. The NDP felt that with $15,000 of annual income, you can pay provincial income tax. We disagreed. We said that if you're earning up to $15,000 a year, you shouldn't pay any income tax. The opposition voted against that in previous budgets.

MSP premium assistance. A dramatic higher number of British Columbians qualify for MSP premium assistance today because this government said: "Do you know what? Lower-income British Columbians shouldn't have to pay MSP premiums. We'll raise the threshold, and we will ensure that more British Columbians get full relief through MSP premium assistance."

Fair Pharmacare. We hear consistently the challenge of drug costs with new and improved drugs from the research that's done these days and always coming on the market. This is a gove