2007 Legislative Session: Third 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)

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 2007

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 14, Number 13

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Page

Introductions by Members

Statements (Standing Order 25 B )

Canada line construction on Cambie

Street

G. Robertson

Mining industry in B.C

D. MacKay

J. Horgan

Project Agriculture

J. Rustad

Carey Price

C. Wyse

North Shore Festival of Volunteers

K. Whittred

Oral Questions

Frank Paul public inquiry

C. James

Hon. J. Les

M. Farnworth

Federal funding for mountain pine

beetle infestation

C. Wyse

Hon. R.

Coleman

B. Simpson

Budget for housing strategy

D. Thorne

Hon. R.

Coleman

Funding for Vancouver social housing

G. Robertson

Hon. R.

Coleman

J. Kwan

Contracts for expansion of Vancouver

Convention Centre

H. Bains

Hon. G.

Campbell

Hon. S. Hagen

B. Ralston

Petitions

G. Coons

Motions on Notice

Legislative sitting hours (Motion 40)

(continued)

C. James

Hon. M. de Jong

Budget Debate (continued)

J. McIntyre

H. Bains

R. Sultan

C. Puchmayr

Hon. R. Coleman

D. Thorne

I. Black

[ Page 5527 ]

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 2007

The House met at 2:02 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Introductions by Members

C. Wyse: It is indeed my pleasure today to introduce to the

House a former student of mine from secondary school, a longtime friend of mine

on city council. I would ask the House to make Mayor Scott Nelson welcome.

Hon. M. de Jong: I am thrilled today that my brother Rick

de Jong and his wife Tracy are visiting from Westbank, where they live with

their two children. They're here attending, amongst other things, a conference

in town at the Victoria convention centre. I hope the House will make Rick de

Jong and Tracy de Jong very welcome here in the chamber.

R. Austin: It's my pleasure to introduce four people

visiting the House today. The first two are Rhoda Quock and Eileen Doody. They

are members of the Iskut First Nation band. They are accompanied today by Amy

Crook from the Center for Science in Public Participation and by Carrie Slanina,

a volunteer with the Klabona Keepers Society. Would the House please make them

welcome.

Hon. K. Krueger: Today, as I'm sure everyone knows, is

Mining Day at the Legislature, and we're delighted to host dozens of people

involved with the mining industry in British Columbia.

I'd like to introduce all of them, but some for sure we should

introduce to you: Michael McPhee, the president and CEO of the Mining

Association of B.C.; Chief Richard LeBourdais of the Whispering Pines–Clinton

Indian Band in my constituency.

Scott Nelson, the mayor of Williams Lake, has been mentioned. Jack

Talstra, the mayor of Terrace; Jackie Tegart of the village of Ashcroft; James

Baker, the mayor of the district of Lake Country; Russ Hallbauer of Taseko

Mines; Wendy McDonald and her daughter Penny Omnès of B.C. Bearing Engineers, a

60-year-old company in British Columbia that has operations in 60 countries, all

of which started from here; David Caulfield, the past chair of AME B.C. and the

chair of Rimfire Minerals; Donald McInnes of Western Keltic Mines; Dave Parker,

Teck Cominco; 'Lyn Anglin of Geoscience B.C. ; Mayor Ella Brown and Don Brown of

the district of Logan Lake; Paul Krivokuca, chair of mine managers; Richard

Prokopanko of Alcan; Allen Wright of the Coal Association of Canada; Barb Walker

and Leanne Brunt of First Dollar Alliance.

I hope the House will join me in giving our friends a very warm

welcome.

[1405]

L. Mayencourt: It gives me great pleasure to introduce some

students that we have visiting us from Vancouver-Burrard. There are 120 students

that have joined us today from my high school, King George high school, which is

just great. It's one of the best high schools in all of British Columbia. They

are joined here today by their teachers Mr. Bachar, Mr. Wilmann, Mr. Zloman, Mr.

Coomes, Mr. Howe, Ms. Whyte and Ms. Pagden. Would the House please give them a

real welcome.

Hon. R. Thorpe: Joining us today are a number of

distinguished representatives of the British Columbia professional accounting

profession. From the Institute of Chartered Accountants of British Columbia,

Richard Rees, Doug Murphy, Kerri Brkich; from the Certified Management

Accountants of British Columbia, Colin Bennett and Fred Zdan; and from the

Certified General Accountants Association of British Columbia, Gordon Clissold

and Edward Downing.

These three professional organizations have been instrumental in

the evolution of the taxpayer fairness and service code, and I am pleased to

have them join me here today to launch the third edition of the Taxpayer

Fairness and Service Code . Would the House please thank them and make them

welcome.

Hon. J. van Dongen: It's my pleasure to introduce to the

House today two visiting delegations. The delegation from Belgium includes the

Hon. Marc Verwilghen, Minister of Economy, Energy, Foreign Trade and Science

Policy; His Excellency Jean Lint, the Ambassador of Belgium; and about 20

businesspeople.

From Finland we have His Excellency Pasi Patokallio, the

Ambassador of Finland to Canada, accompanied by his wife Raija Patokallio. I'd

like the House to make them all very welcome.

Statements

(Standing Order 25

B) CANADA LINE CONSTRUCTION

ON CAMBIE STREET

G. Robertson: I rise to recognize my Vancouver-Fairview

constituents who are currently enduring many challenges because of the

construction of the Canada line. Reduced traffic lanes, limited access to bus

stops, car commuters on residential streets, the inability to cross streets for

blocks on end to visit shops or access services, and major noise disturbances

are only some of the problems for those who live and work in the Cambie area.

Vancouver-Fairview residents are forgoing their enjoyment of a

modicum of peace and quiet in their homes. Whether travelling by foot, car, bike

or bus, they are met with delays and detours. It is a tribute to the strength of

this community to be able to withstand these impacts, sacrificing extra hours to

get to their jobs, to get their kids to school and to go to the laundromat or

the grocery store.

Small businesses along Cambie Street are bearing the brunt

financially, despite efforts to promote shopping along the line. Accessing local

businesses is even

[ Page 5528 ]

difficult for neighbours. Real questions must be asked about what's fair for

these businesses, as their ability to succeed has been compromised by

cut-and-cover construction.

Investment in rapid transit is important. The climate crisis we

are facing means we must get people out of cars. But the sacrifices and

challenges to make this happen along Cambie Street are being disproportionately

borne by the dozens of small businesses and thousands of residents in the area.

I believe this warrants recognition and further debate in this

House. Meanwhile I encourage everyone to support the great shops and restaurants

along Cambie Street whenever possible.

[1410]

MINING INDUSTRY IN B.C.

D. MacKay: This is Mining Week, and it's my pleasure to

tell the B.C. mining story.

The B.C. mining story in 2007 is a story of success and

rejuvenation. After a near-death experience in the 1990s, mining is once again a

cornerstone of the B.C. economy. Exploration investment is at a record high.

Claims registrations are up by 500 percent. Our geological database is the best

in the world. Our Mineral Titles Online is the best in the world.

Our tax and regulatory regime just got even better with the 2007

budget. B.C. now has 25 of the 52 major mining projects in all of Canada.

Perhaps most noticeable of all, B.C. is out-competing the rest of Canada for

exploration investment, going from 6 percent of Canadian exploration investment

in 2001 to 16 percent last year.

But the real B.C. mining story is not about statistics. It's about

people, like the two native bands on Vancouver Island near Port McNeill who are

joint-venturing with Polaris Minerals to build and operate a large aggregate

mine and ship the aggregate to San Francisco. There is more hope for the future

of those aboriginal communities.

The B.C. mining story is about the Tahltan people from Iskut,

Dease Lake and Telegraph Creek who are working with NovaGold to develop one of

North America's most promising copper mines in northwestern B.C.

The real B.C. mining story is about a young woman from Chetwynd

who was down on her luck and needed a better job to support her family. She

found out about opportunities in mining from our Mining Rocks road show and took

some training. You can go to the office of the member for East Kootenay in the

east annex — you can't miss it; it's shaped like a doghouse — and you will see a

framed photo of this young woman driving one of those big 240-tonne coal trucks.

She has a smile on her face as wide as the truck itself.

It is these real people who benefit from mining, who have pride in

their work and hope for their futures, that compose the real B.C. mining story.

J. Horgan: It's a pleasure to be in this House today and

speak on behalf of mining and the mining sector here in British Columbia. The

members of the opposition party had an interesting question-and-answer session

today with many representatives from the sector. It was a pleasure to do that,

as it was a pleasure to participate today in a debate with respect to the

importance of mining not just now but into the future.

As we look to an economy with our timber industry on the coast in

question and with the beetle-kill having a significant impact in the interior,

never before has mining been so important to the economy of British Columbia.

I'm very proud to be the critic for that sector standing here today speaking on

behalf of the industry.

As you know, British Columbia is one of the richest mineral areas

in the world, whether it be up Highway 37 into the Galore Creek project or

whether it be in the southeast with respect to coal — and my friend from Tumbler

Ridge as well.

It's a great industry. It's been the backbone of our province in

the past. It will be the backbone of our province in the future, and I ask all

members of this House to support the mining sector today, tomorrow and into the

future.

PROJECT AGRICULTURE

J. Rustad: Each year school district 91, Nechako Lake,

hosts an exciting event designed to provide students with an important

experience in a sector of our economy which is truly the lifeblood of all of us.

Project Agriculture started at least 14 years ago and is designed

to introduce students to a wide variety of employment opportunities within the

industry. It's been so successful that other areas around the province are

looking at it and following similar program models.

Students spend a week participating in a variety of hands-on

sessions to explore the many facets of the agriculture industry — everything

from high-tech analysis to milking cows. The students have a full week both in

the classroom and in the field. The students also learn about the history and

changes to the agriculture industry and get a chance to try many hands-on

components, from plowing fields behind a team of horses to using the most modern

equipment.

This project happened because the farmers and ranchers in the

Vanderhoof area understand that there's sometimes a disconnect between consumers

and where the food comes from. They also understand that in order for the

industry to thrive, they need young, energetic individuals to enter into the

business. In the classic style of northerners, they recognized these issues and

brought forward a homegrown solution.

Please join me in thanking the Nechako Valley Regional Cattlemen's

Association — and in particular Alan and Richard Martens for opening up their

ranch for the many activities — and also school district 91 staff for making the

project such a success year after year.

I'd also like to thank the many volunteers from the community that

make it such a great project. As the member for Delta South says: "We all have

to eat to live."

[1415]

[ Page 5529 ]

CAREY PRICE

C. Wyse: I rise today to recognize one of my constituents

whose name will undoubtedly be familiar to most fans of Canada's favourite

winter sport, hockey. This young man from Anahim Lake, on the western edge of

Cariboo South, has earned recognition for himself and brought honour to his

community.

Carey Price grew up playing hockey on the outdoor community rink

with the other children in Anahim Lake. When he was old enough to join a minor

hockey league, Carey and his father travelled to Williams Lake, a round-trip

distance of almost eight hours on winter roads. As you can imagine, these weekly

trips were quite tiring, so Carey's father Jerry took flying lessons and bought

a small plane for the trips to Williams Lake and back. Eventually, the entire

family rented an apartment in Williams Lake, returning to the family home in

Anahim Lake whenever time permitted.

Carey's mother, Lynda Price, is the Chief of the Ulkatcho First

Nation Band in Anahim Lake. As is often the case, this entire community has

supported Carey and is proud of his accomplishments, and Carey has accomplished

much to make his family and his community proud.

This past January Carey played in goal for Team Canada in the

World Junior Hockey Championships in Sweden. When Canada won the gold medal,

Carey gave full credit to the entire team, but spectators who watched the

exciting series also recognized Carey's contribution to that win. Indeed, Carey

was named the tournament's most valuable player, and he was also named as goalie

for the all-star team.

Today, Mr. Speaker, I ask the House to join with me in recognizing

Carey, his family and his entire community. Later this spring CTV's W-Five

will feature Carey and his journey from a small and proud community on the edge

of the Cariboo Plateau to the world stage of hockey.

NORTH SHORE FESTIVAL OF VOLUNTEERS

K. Whittred: Finding time to give back to your community is

part of what makes a strong community even stronger. That's why I was so pleased

to be part of the organizing committee for the North Shore Festival of

Volunteers this past weekend. It took place at Park Royal shopping centre. It

was the first-ever North Shore–wide volunteer festival and was a resounding

success.

Over 50 North Shore organizations participated — the maximum Park

Royal could hold. These ranged from the North Shore Volunteers for Seniors to

Youth Friendly North Shore to CASARA, Civil Air Search and Rescue, to the North

Shore Chorus. There was truly something for everyone.

The youth participation was tremendous. One group of youth

spearheaded by a young man from West Van, Johannes Rebane, created a youth

volunteer website with a comprehensive database for youth volunteering. Check it

out at www.yvl.ca. Youth Hydrogen had an explosive presentation at which they

actually blew up hydrogen to create energy. My personal favourite was the North

Shore Black Bear Society with their interactive puppet show on being bear smart.

I would like to give a special thanks to Barb MacLellan and Lee

Faurot of Volunteer North Shore for their hard work in making this happen. I

look forward to doing it again next year and encourage all members of this House

to get involved with the volunteer sector in your community.

Oral Questions

FRANK PAUL PUBLIC INQUIRY

C. James: Last week, after years of saying no to a public

inquiry into the death of Frank Paul, the Solicitor General had a change of

heart. This is a very serious issue, and British Columbians want assurances that

all aspects will be investigated.

My question to the Solicitor General is very simple. Will he

ensure that the role of his predecessor the member from Langley-Aldergrove, in

delaying this inquiry, is included in the terms of reference?

[1420]

Hon. J. Les: As all members of the House will be aware,

this tragedy occurred in December of 1998. It has been an issue of concern for

quite some time. It has been reviewed by numerous people in those intervening

years. More recently, concerns have been expressed that not all of the issues

have been addressed appropriately. We are committed to making sure that this

issue is completely and thoroughly investigated and examined. We want to get at

the facts to the satisfaction of all concerned.

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has a

supplemental?

C. James: I do. In 2001 the member from Langley-Aldergrove

as Solicitor General rejected a request to hold a coroner's inquest. In 2004 the

same member rejected the Police Complaint Commissioner's request to hold a

public inquiry. He argued that such investigations would not serve the public

interest, only fuel racial tensions.

So my question again: if the Solicitor General, as he says, wants

the public to know everything that has gone on, will he ensure that the inaction

of this cabinet is investigated as part of this inquiry?

Hon. J. Les: As I've said, this case has been outstanding

for quite a number of years. In that period of time there have been police

investigations. There have been coroner's investigations. There has been a

review by the Police Complaint Commissioner. There have been two reviews, I

believe, by Crown counsel. Indeed, it was reviewed as recently as three years

ago by my predecessor. In all of those cases, I think those decisions were made

based on the evidence and the information available at that time.

[ Page 5530 ]

More recently, people have suggested that there is perhaps other

information out there, which ought to be more thoroughly considered. That will

be done. Our objective is, as I've said before, to simply get at the facts and

get at all of the facts so that it can be properly addressed.

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

supplemental.

C. James: That's why I'm asking this question of the

Solicitor General. It's so the public can get all of the facts.

In 2004 the Police Complaint Commissioner said that a public

inquiry could lead to province and countrywide benefits — 2004. The then

Solicitor General refused to acknowledge such benefits and actually refused to

listen to the family, who wanted an inquiry.

Again to the Solicitor General: after years of pressure, Frank

Paul's family may finally get answers about the night he died. But will they

also get the answers they need about why it took so long for this government to

act?

Hon. J. Les: Our objective here is to make sure that at the

end of the day, when this process is complete, we have all of the facts

addressed appropriately. I think it's surprising that the member opposite would

suggest that others who have made decisions with respect to this issue would not

have done so in good faith. As I enumerated just a few minutes ago, numerous

people have reviewed this file in many different ways and from many different

perspectives, and have all essentially come to the same conclusion.

But because there appeared to be issues that remain outstanding in

the opinion of some, we are making available an independent process, under the

guidance of an independent inquiry, to make sure beyond any shadow of reasonable

doubt that those issues have all been addressed.

The previous Solicitor General agrees that an inquiry should be

held, and I have made that announcement last week, as the member opposite is

aware. That process will unfold and I'm sure will be successful.

[1425]

M. Farnworth: In 2004 an unnamed source went to the Police

Complaint Commissioner with crucial information. The commissioner recommended an

inquiry that this government rejected.

Recent comments in the media make it clear that the unnamed source

was Greg Firlotte, a jail guard who was never interviewed about Frank Paul's

death. How long has the Solicitor General's office, past or present, known that

key witnesses were never interviewed?

Hon. J. Les: Whether or not certain key witnesses were

interviewed is something upon which I am not prepared to pass judgment at this

point in time. Certain assertions have been made. These are the kinds of things

that will be determined at public inquiry.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

M. Farnworth: These are not assertions. In fact, if the

Solicitor General were to review the 2004 complaint commissioner's report by Mr.

Dirk Ryneveld, he would read: "I've also requested them to identify all guards

and officers depicted in the video who have not previously been identified or

interviewed."

There has been no new information since then. That is the

information that was brought forward — the fact that guards had not been

interviewed. This government knew that, and they did nothing.

So my question, again to the Solicitor General, is…. For three

years nothing happened, and in the space of 24 hours the government changed its

mind. Will this commission of inquiry look into why that delay took place and

what role the former Solicitor General played in that inquiry not going ahead?

Hon. J. Les: Again, I would simply say that the inquiry

will be broad and far-ranging, and it will include all of the relevant issues

that need to be addressed. It will be independent from government, and I suspect

that a lot of people will draw a lot of comfort from the fact that we're

actually making available this opportunity to air these issues in that kind of

forum.

This is not that forum. This is not the public inquiry. I would

suggest to the member opposite that we allow that process to proceed and that we

all draw our conclusions after the inquiry is concluded.

FEDERAL FUNDING FOR

MOUNTAIN PINE BEETLE INFESTATION

C. Wyse: To the Minister of Forests and Range: where is the

billion dollars that Prime Minister Stephen Harper promised the province would

receive for the mountain pine beetle epidemic?

Hon. R. Coleman: Some of the money has arrived to us. It is

$23 million being spent along the Rocky Mountain Trench that is under an MOU

with the federal government. The rest of it…. I've spoken with the minister

responsible, and I'm assured that it's coming, but that's the best I can tell

the member now.

They have in front of them all of our proposals, and the mountain

pine beetle information is in front of them. We're waiting for them to release

the dollars to British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker: Member has a supplemental.

C. Wyse: Again to the Minister of Forests and Range: did we

get an additional $100 million of the federal funds this year for the pine

beetle epidemic, and do we have a signed commitment from the federal government

for the $100 million each year for the next ten years?

Hon. R. Coleman: We have an understanding, as you know,

that all the parties in the last federal election committed $100 million for

over ten years to the mountain pine beetle epidemic. We have been working with

the

[ Page 5531 ]

new federal government as they've worked through their processes to get the

money flowing according to the plans that we had laid out to the previous

government, and we've been updating those plans with the present minister. I

spoke to Minister Lunn as early as last week, who assured me that they thought

they were through most of their processes and that things would start to flow.

[1430]

B. Simpson: When Prime Minister Harper committed to the $1

billion — that's what he went into the election for — he committed to $100

million over ten years.

The minister and I had a discussion about $400 million that was

allocated in the federal budget this spring. The minister indicated that it was

his expectation that he would be in contact with the minister responsible in the

next few days. He's done the official thing already, but usually it takes a few

days after the budget comes out to sort of suss it out.

That was on May 3 of last year. Our communities need that money.

The federal government has committed that money. It's in the budget. What is it

that the province is not delivering to the federal government to secure those

funds now?

Hon. R. Coleman: There is nothing the province of British

Columbia hasn't done to meet its obligations to the federal government to let

them move the pine beetle money.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental?

B. Simpson: I do. The Premier in the estimates, when the

Leader of the Opposition questioned him on this, said that we would have the

money in June or July. The minister said that we would have the money a few days

after the budget. We're almost at the end of the federal government's fiscal

cycle, and we know that last time the federal government rolled back the

mountain pine beetle money that they had because it wasn't out the door.

In point of fact, the Cariboo-Chilcotin Beetle Action Coalition

had to forewarn this government that the federal government was going directly

to local governments to see if they could get the money out the door. I quote

directly from that letter: "It is discouraging to discover that the Ministry of

Forests emergency response team and, apparently, the provincial government

itself only discovered the request from the federal government when CCBAC, the

Cariboo-Chilcotin Beetle Action Coalition, forwarded them a copy."

My question, again, to the minister is: what is it that this

minister is not doing to secure that money? How did he drop the ball on a

billion-dollar promise that was made by the Prime Minister?

Hon. R. Coleman: Nothing has been not done that shouldn't

be done. We saw some money flow last year. We saw $100 million last year. I

don't know where the member is getting his numbers from. I also know that we saw

money flow over the last year with regards to a number of issues that we had

with Alberta and stuff on mountain pine beetle.

I actually find it incredible that this member stands up and even

wants to discuss pine beetle when for ten years, they knew the problem existed.

They did nothing about it. Never built a beetle action plan. Never built a

financial relationship with the federal government. Never built a

Cariboo-Chilcotin beetle action committee or any other beetle action committee.

All this member ever does is criticize those local community committees that are

trying to build a future for forestry and economies in the interior of British

Columbia.

BUDGET FOR HOUSING STRATEGY

D. Thorne: It's almost a year since the Minister for

Housing told us he would soon release a full housing strategy. It's four months

since the so-called housing strategy was released in October. After widespread

criticism throughout the province, the minister then told us to wait for the

next budget, and we would see a better and fuller strategy.

The budget has come and gone, and it is apparent that it is

anything but a housing budget. In fact, the budget for non-profit and co-op

housing has actually been slashed by $760,000. Now we're being told to wait

another 60 days before we'll see a full housing strategy.

I wonder how the people of B.C. can possibly believe anything this

government has to say. I ask the minister: if there is a real housing strategy

somewhere out there to tackle this housing crisis in British Columbia, then why

wasn't it announced last week in the budget?

[1435]

Hon. R. Coleman: I find the member's comments rather

laughable in the fact that this government has actually tripled the housing

budget over the last five years.

It's incredible to me that this member doesn't know what a housing

strategy is. Maybe she should read Housing Matters, and we can debate in

estimates because by George, she sure doesn't get what's in there today.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. R. Coleman: Last fall we said we would partner up with

organizations for supportive housing so we can get a proposal call for 450

units. We announced 768 units on Friday because we partnered up and got more for

our money.

In private members' statements this morning is the first time I've

heard a member of the opposition agree with the Leader of the Opposition about

the fact that they think rental assistance programs actually work for people in

B.C.

Interjections.

[ Page 5532 ]

Mr. Speaker: Members. The member has a supplemental.

D. Thorne: I can assure the minister that I'm really

looking forward to estimates to debate this issue. He needn't worry — yeah,

really looking forward.

How the minister, Mr. Speaker…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

D. Thorne: …can stand there with a straight face and say

that they have tripled the housing budget when we all know that three-quarters

of the so-called housing budget is an income tax cut that may be spent God knows

how…. Across this province, people are saying that this budget — this so-called

housing budget, this so-called housing strategy — is at best a joke and that the

spin doctors of the Liberals should be sued for malpractice. Those are the kinds

of comments I'm reading.

In this so-called housing budget…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

D. Thorne: …only $139 million is dedicated to new

construction. Why, today in the Vancouver Sun there's a quote from the

housing director of the city of Vancouver saying that a long-term commitment of

stable funding and programs that address a full continuum of need is lacking.

Mr. Speaker: Can the member pose her question.

D. Thorne: Oh, my question is coming.

He joins a growing chorus, asking the same question. I'm wondering

if the Minister for Housing is still sticking to his government's message box.

Or has he actually done a reality check across the province? Maybe that's why

he's asking us to wait 60 more days.

Hon. R. Coleman: I hear the member for Cowichan-Ladysmith

railing at me across the floor at the moment, although he didn't complain on

Friday when we announced a new housing project in your riding.

I read the memo from Mr. Gray at the city of Vancouver. I met with

the mayor of the city of Vancouver on the weekend and explained the housing

strategy to him. He's comfortable with it. He knows where we're going. They know

it's a complex problem. They know there are things in the wind that are

commercially sensitive today that we can't discuss outside, in the public, until

we complete them.

They know all that, but I want to hear from you. Who on that side

of the House is finally going to admit to the 16,000 seniors in British Columbia

that get SAFER and the up to 20,000 families that get a rental assistance

program that if you ever became government, you would take it away from them?

FUNDING FOR

VANCOUVER SOCIAL HOUSING

G. Robertson: I'll just remind the minister that housing is

all about wood, steel, concrete. It's not about hot air.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

G. Robertson: The well-guarded 2010 countdown clock in

downtown Vancouver now reads about 1,081 days until the games begin, but the

games this government is playing with the 2010 commitments to housing and

homelessness are well underway.

[1440]

Time is now very short to ensure — and I quote from the

commitments — that "no residents are displaced, evicted, made homeless or face

unreasonable increases in rent as a result of the games."

I will remind the minister of additional 2010 commitments: protect

rental housing and provide an affordable housing legacy. Blaming municipalities

for the delays was absurd. Vancouver has 12 sites ready to go. His innuendo

about future funding doesn't cut it either.

Will this minister commit now to fund 1,000 units of social

housing in the city of Vancouver?

Hon. R. Coleman: Again, I guess the member should phone the

city of Vancouver, because when I met with them…. They may have 12 sites, but

they don't have 12 sites ready to go, hon. Member. Maybe that's a little flash

of news for you, but you maybe better go check it out.

There's something that this member doesn't understand and the

members of the opposition don't understand. Housing is about people. If

immediately, today….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members. Just take your seat,

Minister.

Members. Minister, continue.

Hon. R. Coleman: You know, if a single mother with one

child can have $200, $300 or $400 a month where they live today to offset their

rental, I think the outcomes for that child and that family are that much

better. Now, I know you don't support that idea. You just want to build social

housing. You don't believe in actually assisting people with their rent.

That's too bad. This government has made the choice for thousands

of people to have a better life in British Columbia.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant

has the floor.

J. Kwan: The minister can huff and puff all he wants, but

it does not change the fact that in the lower

[ Page 5533 ]

mainland, homelessness is more than double under this government's watch. It

doesn't change the fact that here in the capital city, the latest homeless count

shows that there are 700 people living on the streets in the city of Victoria.

In fact, homelessness has escalated under this government since they took

office.

So yes, it is about people, and it is about ensuring that the

people actually have a roof over their heads. The minister won't listen to the

city of Vancouver, won't listen to the opposition, won't listen to the people of

British Columbia. Let me ask the Premier a question.

Will the Premier listen to his own adviser, Mr. Ken Dobell, who

has recently sent a report to the city of Vancouver asking for a billion dollars

to support housing for the city of Vancouver? They need $250 million to build up

the sites and $750 million to actually fund the operation of those sites. Will

the Premier commit to the city of Vancouver and listen to Mr. Ken Dobell's

suggestion?

Hon. R. Coleman: I know you don't like a rental assistance

program. You don't like the fact that we're partnering up with non-profits and

municipalities to get more supportive housing in the marketplace to help people

with multiple barriers, addictions and mental illness. I know you don't like

that this Premier put together a Premier's Task Force on Homelessness. It's

something you never thought of for ten years, something you never cared about.

I am actually quite comfortable with the fact that the

relationship we have with the city of Vancouver and the work we're doing right

now is going to bring them very significant results over the next number of

months as we get there. And on top of that, in the very city you just mentioned,

we have a very good working relationship with Mayor Lowe and his council, as

well, in the city of Victoria.

CONTRACTS FOR EXPANSION OF

VANCOUVER CONVENTION CENTRE

H. Bains: Two and a half years after the Premier reassured

British Columbians, "That's it — kaputski. It's done," the cost for a convention

centre has soared over 60 percent over budget, and B.C. taxpayers are now on the

hook for $800 million and counting.

[1445]

Can the Premier tell this House how many hundreds of millions of

taxpayer dollars are being forked over simply because this government had chosen

to build the convention centre as cost-plus, for-fee type of contracts?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. G. Campbell: I think everyone understands there have

been significant cost escalations for the convention centre. I also think the

members opposite will understand that the economy is driving a number of those

costs. The complexity of the project is driving a number of those costs, but

here's what is important. There will be billions of dollars of economic

activity, and thousands of new jobs will be created by that convention centre.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

H. Bains: Eight years ago in this House, someone said:

"There must be bad leadership coming from the Premier's office, because the

Premier is not demanding performance. There's no one in the private sector who

would possibly maintain their job when one of their projects had doubled in

price."

Now that person sits in the Premier's office in this House. His

pet project has more than doubled in cost, and the public has no reason to

believe that this bill will stop at $800 million. I ask the question of the

Premier again. Will he do the right thing and take responsibility for the

convention centre debacle and table all of the contracts in full in this House

today?

Hon. S. Hagen: The great news in the Premier's office is

that we have a great Premier.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members. Minister of Tourism, Sport

and the Arts continues.

Hon. S. Hagen: Only the NDP, which stands for negative,

destructive and pessimistic, would have something against a project as great as

this one is. You know, the NDP always wants to take shots at the people who are

working on these projects, people who have given years of public service, who

have done a fantastic job for this province — which is more than I can say for

any members of the opposition.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. S. Hagen: We're talking about a project here that's

going to serve British Columbians and build the economy in British Columbia for

years to come. It's an environmentally friendly project. That was the party,

when they were in power, who wasted $73 million and didn't put a shovel in the

ground or a pile in the sand.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

B. Ralston: My question is to the Premier, again on the

same topic. Mr. Dobell is quoted as saying: "We started on this at a time when

inflation in the construction industry was 2 percent a year. In fact, inflation

has been 10 to 12 percent a year."

On November 3, 2005, the minister responsible at the time said

that $615 million would be the final cost

[ Page 5534 ]

of the building. Now, after just a year later, both the Minister of Finance

and the minister responsible agree the cost is in the range of $800 million.

This is over a 30-percent increase. The figures don't add up.

Once again, will the minister tell the House why he won't admit

that signing cost-plus open contracts is the reason for this convention centre

fiasco?

Hon. S. Hagen: Negative, pessimistic, destructive — that's

what that party stands for. We're going to have a project here that's 1.1

million square feet of exhibition space.

If they're asking the question: are we happy with the

escalations…? Of course we're not. But you know what? We have a booming economy

in British Columbia. That's what's driving construction. That's what's driving

the prices.

[1450]

I'll tell you what we are happy with, though. We are happy with

the fact that we have 50 conventions signed up starting in '09, 27 of which we

would not be able to handle without the new facility. Those 50 conventions will

generate $874 million worth of economic activity — just those 50 conventions.

I just want to make one additional point. At the same time,

they're negotiating with 167 other conventions which want to come to B.C.

[End of question period.]

G. Coons: I rise to present a petition.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

Petitions

G. Coons: I have a petition signed by 354 residents of

Prince Rupert and area, asking that the government restore funding for quality

licensed child care services.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: I call continued debate on Motion 40

standing on the order paper in my name.

Motions on Notice

LEGISLATIVE SITTING HOURS

(continued)

C. James: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak against this motion.

I do so not because I'm against change, but because I'm against the way this

government implements change and the consequences that often result.

As many previous speakers have pointed out in this debate, by

convention and tradition, changes of this type are carried out by consensus

between the government and its loyal opposition. There are good reasons for

that. It leads to better decisions. It protects the independence of this

chamber. It forces compromise between competing interests and viewpoints, and

that dialogue helps to protect the public interest.

The B.C. Liberals have never cared too much about those

principles. After all, it was this government that relied on an obscure

precedent to deny British Columbians an official opposition altogether for four

years. It was this government that brought in a legislative calendar and then

used it to force closure.

It was this government that cancelled last fall's legislative

session and called the Legislature "busywork." It was this government that

promised open cabinet meetings and then turned them into staged media events

where ministers got to throw each other staged soft-ball questions.

It was this government that promised openness, transparency and

accountability, and then cut the budget for FOI and took every opportunity to

restrict access to information. It was this government that unilaterally

appointed a candidate to be Auditor General over the objections of the

opposition. I could go on, but the point is clear. From the start the B.C.

Liberals have acted arrogantly and without concern for the public interest, and

today's motion just adds to that record.

The government assures us that its motives are pure, that it's

acting in everyone's best interest and striking the right balance. But the

result of this unilateral decision raises serious questions about the

government's true intent, its real agenda.

Had the B.C. Liberals sought input and support for these changes,

we would have brought forward serious concerns about their proposal for

discussion and amendment. Had they shown respect for this chamber and achieved

consensus, their motives wouldn't be called into question on this motion.

For example, the net effect of this proposal is to reduce the

number of hours for debate in this chamber, but perhaps that is the government's

real intent. It certainly is the result of this motion.

[1455]

It means fewer questions will be asked in budget estimates, where

the government asks for authority to spend tens of billions of taxpayer dollars.

It means important legislation will receive less time and therefore less

scrutiny. But again, maybe that's what this government wants.

It means that British Columbians who work during the day will lose

their opportunity to see their Legislature work. Once again, maybe the

government prefers it if fewer people have an opportunity to actually watch them

work.

There are reasonable solutions to these concerns that could have

been discussed. We could, for example, extend the Legislature by a week or two

to make up for lost time. We could reduce the number of night sittings but not

eliminate them altogether, still allowing people to watch the proceedings. As

our Opposition House Leader said, our door is open.

It's clear that this government isn't interested in discussion or

compromise. They're determined to impose their will, and they're intent on

treating this House with disdain — a deliberate pattern of behaviour that

[ Page 5535 ]

has further separated citizens from their chosen representatives.

When I entered provincial politics, I said that I wanted to help

bring a new tone to the debate in this Legislature and in politics in general in

B.C. — tough, vigilant, aggressive but also respectful of British Columbians'

intelligence. A new tone never means compromising on principles, and it never

means letting up on government. We will always be tough on the B.C. Liberal

record — whether it's the shameful way they've treated at-risk children, the way

they've betrayed seniors or the harm they've caused our environment.

To get respect from the public, we must show it in return. To be

relevant, all of us — government and opposition — must be heard. We can't be

heard if we call each other names and engage in personal attacks. And we

shouldn't be heard when we speak in spin — for example, when we call a tax cut a

"housing plan" or when we talk big on global warming but do nothing to back up

our words. That only adds to the public cynicism about politics. We won't be

heard if we ignore this chamber.

The people of B.C. have moved way past the way we practise

politics, and the institutions which govern our province have become more and

more distant from the reality of their lives. It's time that we caught up to the

people, but unilateral and heavy-handed decisions to change the way this House

functions take us backwards in that work. It violates the traditions of this

House, and it should be withdrawn.

I would encourage all members of this House, out of respect for

the public, to vote against this motion.

Mr. Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, the House Leader

closes debate.

Hon. M. de Jong: I am, as always, obliged to the Leader of

the Opposition and the members of the chamber who have contributed to the debate

that took place over Thursday afternoon and now the early part of the afternoon

on Monday.

I won't take a lot of time, but I do think it is worth restating

what I said at the outset in introducing the motion before the House. It has not

been lost upon me that an attempt has been made to characterize this as

something that it is not — these allegations of a unilateral attempt to subvert

the practices of democracy within the halls of this chamber in British Columbia.

I don't know what all that I have heard.

[1500]

First of all, let me state the specific facts. We are talking

about a sessional order here, one that applies for the spring session and the

spring session only.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. M. de Jong: You know, members who only a short time

ago were characterizing this as some draconian…. I'll get to the essence of the

thing in a moment. If they don't want to listen, that's fine. We'll have the

vote. If they actually want to know whether or not I was listening….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. The Government House Leader has the

floor.

Hon. M. de Jong: I actually did listen to the debate, and

it may surprise members to know that in a couple of cases I actually heard some

comments that I thought were thoughtful and responsible. The member for Cariboo

South reminded members of some of the circumstances that members like him are

confronted by in terms of travel back and forth to the chamber. You know what? I

and the government and the government caucus actually care about those things.

We actually care about trying to come up with a structure that works for

members.

That's why this is a sessional order. That's why, when we first

began discussing this, I made it clear that that would be one of the guiding

principles — that we wanted to try this. And yes, it was about eliminating night

sittings, but it was also about ensuring that the time — the 40½ hours that

derive from night sittings in the scheduled spring session — was made up.

I know there has been an attempt — and we've just heard yet

another attempt by the Leader of the Opposition — to characterize that

differently, that somehow this was an attempt to minimize the hours of debate. I

know the Leader of the Opposition doesn't want to hear this, and I know members

opposite, in their revisionist history of this thing even while it's taking

place, don't want to hear this. Actually, if we had debated this motion when the

government wanted to early last week, we would have increased the number of

hours available for debate in the spring session.

Now members make a point about the specifics of when that debate

would take place, and there is an element of truth to that. It is a four-hour

issue, and that may be something that, in the course of conversation going

forward, one might be able to address.

I have been around here long enough not to take too much of this

stuff personally, but when the Leader of the Opposition says it would have been

better if the Government House Leader had sought some input…. To leave the

impression, as I think she has purposely done, that an attempt was not made to

engage in some discussion I think is unfair. I just think it's unfair.

I know the Leader of the Opposition wanted to get up and make some

kind of rallying point or debate here, but one of the things…. I must say, when

I'm confronted by that kind of a statement in the context of this debate, that

one of the challenges one has with this Leader of the Opposition is actually

getting a decision from her — actually getting a decision from the Leader of the

Opposition. And what can be even a little more challenging than that…

An Hon. Member: To get her to stick with it.

[ Page 5536 ]

Hon. M. de Jong: …is to get her to stick to that decision

once she's made it.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

[1505]

Hon. M. de Jong: On the verge, the eve, of the vote that

will take place, let's remind ourselves what is in the standing order in the

sessional amendment. It would see the night sittings that have taken place on

Mondays and Wednesdays, which have over the last number of years started at

quarter to seven and run to nine o'clock, replaced by the House convening at

1:30 in the afternoon and sitting until 6:30. Going forward, that would mean

that the 40½ hours that would take place under the former

schedule of night

sittings will be replaced, assuming this motion passes today, by 40 hours of

debate.

There's the acknowledgment. There is the acknowledgment. There is

the grand assault on democracy: 30 minutes of debate.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members, we don't need to debate with

other people on the floor. The Government House Leader has the floor.

Hon. M. de Jong: The notion that has been advanced by some

members that there was no attempt made to engage in a discussion I will leave

for the opposition caucus to take up internally. They can do so, and I won't

make any further comments on that.

My hope is this. My hope is that we can try this, assuming it

passes — that members will feel, notwithstanding the opinions that some have

expressed during the course of this discussion and debate, that members will

have an opportunity to try it, to provide their views as we move through it. At

the conclusion of the spring session we can sit down, perhaps the Opposition

House Leader and myself, to determine whether or not it worked for members, like

the member for Cariboo South or the member for Peace River South — whether there

was a difference in terms of some of the logistics and travel logistics and

whether it worked well.

The Opposition House Leader made some comments about the

possibilities of other meetings superseding the time that heretofore has been

spent with the House in session, and we'll look at that. But to have this

characterized as some sort of full-fledged frontal assault on the democratic

principles and pillars of this institution, I think — something the Leader of

the Opposition and others with nothing better to do than manufacture issues to

detract from some other difficulties they may or may not be having — does a

disservice….

It's probably no more complicated…. What the Leader of the

Opposition has tried to do here has probably revealed as much in a very

straightforward comment she made when she said that British Columbians will lose

the opportunity to watch these proceedings.

Interjection.

Hon. M. de Jong: Well, it is incorrect, because not only

are these proceedings broadcast, and will be till 6:30; they are rebroadcast.

I understand the political desire that the Leader of the

Opposition had to stand up here and try to rally the troops around some cause

that some people apparently have strong views…. But you know, it would be nice

to be accurate. It would be novel, in fact. It would be novel to be accurate.

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Excuse me, Member for Vancouver–Mount

Pleasant. Can you apologize for that? Member.

J. Kwan: I withdraw.

Mr. Speaker: Government House Leader continues.

Hon. M. de Jong: I regret very much that members have

chosen to take a matter that I hope and still hope can be constructive and

positive going forward and try somehow to turn it into a political issue or a

cause. However, be that as it may.…

[1510]

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. M. de Jong: I think it says a lot about an opposition.

I actually sat in here for the bulk of the debate and listened because I was

interested in what members had to say. That apparently is not the case….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. M. de Jong: It is further, I think, a reflection on

this opposition that believes, any time their view does not prevail, that those

opposite are somehow running roughshod over their democratic privilege as

members of this chamber.

We're going to have the vote. Again, I urge members, if this

motion passes, to feel free to channel via the House Leader as we move through

this — or directly, if they wish, via the Opposition House Leader — their views

on its operational efficacy. I urge members of the chamber to give the new

schedule a chance to operate. We'll see how it works and assess it at the end of

the spring session.

With that, I call the question, Mr. Speaker.

[1515]

Motion approved on the following division:

[ Page 5537 ]

YEAS — 40

Falcon

Reid

Coell

Ilich

Chong

Christensen

Les

Richmond

Bell

Krueger

van Dongen

Roddick

Hayer

Lee

Jarvis

Whittred

Horning

Cantelon

Hagen

Oppal

de Jong

Campbell

Bond

Hansen

Abbott

Penner

Neufeld

Coleman

Hogg

Sultan

Lekstrom

Mayencourt

Polak

Hawes

Yap

Bloy

MacKay

Black

McIntyre

Rustad

NAYS — 30

Brar

S. Simpson

Fleming

Farnworth

James

Kwan

Ralston

B. Simpson

Cubberley

Hammell

Coons

Thorne

Simons

Puchmayr

Gentner

Routley

Fraser

Horgan

Dix

Bains

Robertson

Karagianis

Evans

Krog

Austin

Chudnovsky

Chouhan

Wyse

Macdonald

Conroy

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, earlier in the debate with the

Government House Leader and the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant, I

misinterpreted what she said. I thought she said the word "lie." She said "phone

in live." That should be noted for the record.

Hon. M. de Jong: Hon. Speaker, here's a live update. I

think all members probably noticed a bit of activity involving the Small

Business and Revenue Minister. I can advise the House that he was taken to the

hospital earlier today. We're not sure what his condition is at the moment, but

we have assured him that all of our best wishes in the chamber are with him, and

we wish him a speedy recovery.

I call continued debate on the budget.

[1520]

Budget Debate

(continued)

J. McIntyre: It's a great privilege to rise on behalf of

the residents of my communities in West Vancouver–Garibaldi and respond to the

February 2007 balanced budget.

What is being termed by many as a substantive, visionary throne

speech last week laid out our government's plan for the next phase in achieving

our goals for a prosperous decade. We are now actively pursuing opportunities

and initiatives under the aegis of the Pacific leadership agenda, which outlines

five key elements that I wish to reiterate due to their importance.

They're integral to our platform: (1) to lead Canada in

partnership with first nations; (2) to tackle the challenges of global warming

and unplanned urban sprawl; (3) to increase affordable housing, reduce

homelessness and, most importantly from my perspective, help those who cannot

help themselves; (4) to improve quality, choice and accountability in our two

most important public services, health and education; and (5) to open up

Canada's Pacific gateway and strengthen our economic competitiveness — all in an

attempt to keep on pushing each and every one of us to realize the true promise

of our province.

I'm very proud to be part of a team with a real leader who is not

afraid to lay out an ambitious plan to achieve specific goals as well as to

continue to ask the hard questions. Our leader, unlike others, has the courage

of his convictions to press forward with significant change and to actually

implement the plan.

I understand that change is uncomfortable for most people. There

are many vested interests in society — groups who would much prefer the status

quo. But status quo is not good enough for British Columbians now — not ever —

and certainly not good enough for our children and our grandchildren. We were

elected to lead.

[S. Hammell in the chair.]

One of the main themes of government during this term has been

that of individual responsibility. We need to be much more aware of our actions

as well as the need to start to take steps, even if they're small, to alter our

path — whether we're taking steps to eat healthier, to be more active, to step

up to the plate in assisting with the more vulnerable in society and now to be

much more conscious of our personal environmental footprint and what we can do

to mitigate or alter our habits. All these steps will have a cumulative impact.

Collectively, they will assist us in managing resources more efficiently and

more effectively.

As you know by now, the ambitious environmental goals set out in

the throne speech have received accolades from many corners, including various

letters to the editor from the general public and the press, such as this from

David Suzuki on CBC radio. "It's very heartening to me to know that in British

Columbia there seems to be a real shift in terms of the government's approach to

climate change, and I applaud the Premier for making that shift."

From renowned Victoria climatologist Andrew Weaver at the

University of Victoria. "It is the most progressive plan I've seen anywhere in

North America, for a start, and one of the best in the world," he said. "This is

the way to go. This is great leadership. It is really super."

Also, Vaughn Palmer on Valentine's Day, a headline: "A Throne

Speech That Even Satisfies Critics." In his

[ Page 5538 ]

column, he goes on to say: "Even the critics were taken aback. I never

expected a B.C. Liberal government throne speech would be greeted with a press

release from the Sierra Club that began: 'The Sierra Club of B.C. today

welcomed….'"

Identifying these goals is only the first step. We will need time

under the leadership of the climate action team chaired by the Premier to

develop a more detailed approach and attach costs. The opposition, of course,

may have to be reminded that it's essential to actually have a business plan

before you start spending the money.

All of this will be done in conjunction with starting to implement

our new energy plan. This will be a preoccupation, no doubt, over the coming

year. However, I want to remind everyone that there are a number of ongoing

issues that are not being forgotten despite what the members of the opposition

would like you to believe. Our budget clearly shows the ongoing commitment to a

wide variety of initiatives that are advancing our quality of life in this

province.

In contrast, the member for Yale-Lillooet calls the government's

agenda

an act of fiction. That is absolutely laughable. There likely has never

been so much being achieved in so short a time in this province's history.

I was informed by a Clerk that the House has never been so busy as

it was last fall — while we were supposedly not working, according to our

opposition. For starters, there's never been such an ambitious turnaround in the

economy. If he really believes it's fiction, you may have to ask yourself what

planet he's living on, because you can be sure that his constituents are

benefiting from our government's initiatives.

[1525]

The member for Vancouver-Fairview last week insulted our

government members by stating in this House that our government does not have

the prerequisite ability and business experience to be running a $30

billion–plus organization. You should hear what your own member said: "Not many

of the members opposite have experience in business, and all of a sudden they're

in charge of 30-odd billion dollars' worth of expenses to manage. Fiscal

responsibility, when you have no background in fiscal responsibility, is

puzzling."

Has he checked our resumés? It's incredibly laughable and extreme,

particularly in light of how the NDP managed the fast ferry fiasco and basically

torpedoed the B.C. economy in their ten years of ideological rule in the 1990s.

This government has returned B.C. from the basement to a leading position in the

country, and in short order it's attained the highest credit rating possible,

triple-A. Does that sound like incompetence or a fiction to you? I don't think

so.

The Leader of the Opposition goes on and dares — and I say "dares"

— to say in her response to the throne speech that our government's throne

speeches "have always been a terrible barometer of the government's true

intentions." This could not be further from the truth. In fact, there's been

commentary over the past week that the one thing you can count on is that when

this Premier puts his mind to something, it gets done.

We have a proven track record of achievement that no one can

dispute. To me, these are just examples of members of a political party without

their own concrete, realistic plan of action desperately trying to throw stones.

These negative responses to a laudable plan of action outlined in the throne

speech that even media and some of our harshest critics are praising are nothing

short of completely pathetic and embarrassing.

I expected — I guess, it turns out, naively — full and genuine

debate on the issues, on the merits of our plan and an intelligent analysis of

the proposed budget, or at least some concrete forms of alternatives that we

could discuss, that we could learn from. But no. Instead, we get insults and

misinterpretation, along with the doom-and-gloom scenarios. I am so

disappointed.

I'd like to know how this type of constant negativity benefits

British Columbians. I think the NDP has to answer for this. However, I digress.

On to the fundamentals of our fourth consecutive balanced budget,

which run the full spectrum of confirming our commitment to the most vulnerable,

who need a helping hand, as well as to providing tax relief to a vast majority

of British Columbians, who are best equipped to decide how to spend their

hard-earned tax dollars.

While we are managing change, at the same time, we've reasserted

our commitments to increase funding for our core public services, health care

and K-to-12 education, to the tune of $2.69 billion and $633 million

respectively in the three-year budget cycle. This brings these funding levels to

$3.68 million in new — the operative word being "new" — funding for health care

and $765 million, over three-quarters of a billion, for K-to-12 over the next

three years. As enrolment continues to decline by more than 12,000 students

alone this year, per-pupil funding will reach a record $7,910, an increase of

over 4 percent over last year.

The funding increases to the health budget from $8 billion to $13

billion in round numbers represent an increase of over 50 percent since we

rescued this province from the NDP in 2001. That's a cut? No. No, it just sounds

like NDP math to me.

Access to post-secondary education, which is particularly key due

to our increased need for skilled labour in a number of fields as well as in

high-demand regions such as the Sea to Sky corridor, is receiving new funding of

$343 million over three years. Additionally, there is $135 million over three

years to support the creation of 7,000 new apprenticeships and to reach the goal

of 25,000 new post-secondary spaces, including 2,500 postgrad spaces.

We are already significantly upping our efforts on the provincial

nominee program to bring in workers from other parts of the world whose skills

are in demand in B.C. and in the riding I represent. Landed-immigrant status can

now be fast-tracked, sometimes in a matter of weeks. But oh no. I read in the

media today, of course, that bringing in foreign workers is something else the

unions are opposed to.

[1530]

In this budget, in addition to core services, our government has

identified a range of other key initiatives

[ Page 5539 ]

to ensure that we will continue, with momentum, to progress on the right

track and to provide solid supports to British Columbians. The theme of Budget

2007 is "building a housing legacy." We recognize that housing issues

touch us all, right from homelessness all the way to home-ownership issues.

This budget delivers British Columbians a range of new supports

worth $2 billion over four years to help address the challenges created by an

economy on fire. How the NDP Finance critic could stand in this House and say

that this budget "raises questions about the Premier's ability to govern in the

interests of working families" is completely beyond me. This opposition is, in

fact, opposed to the very initiatives that will assist working families —

blinded by ideology.

Here are some key highlights that prove exactly how we are

providing for every British Columbian, including working families. There's a

housing endowment fund of $250 million — that's a quarter of a billion dollars —

that will generate approximately $10 million a year to support innovative

housing solutions. This is in perpetuity and will deliver benefits for

generations to come — for your children and for your grandchildren.

Our government is also helping every taxpayer with their housing

expenses by cutting personal income taxes by 10 percent for British Columbians

earning up to $100,000. By doing this, the government is allowing British

Columbians to redirect these savings to their own personal priorities. This

latest personal income tax reduction builds on the 25-percent tax cut introduced

in 2001 and the B.C. tax reduction introduced in 2005. As a result, 250,000

British Columbians now pay no provincial income tax. Others have seen reductions

up to 70 percent, and most have seen reductions between 30 percent and 35

percent.

The budget offers new supports for homeowners. The

first-time-homebuyers program is enhanced to exempt first-time buyers across

B.C. from paying the property transfer tax on homes valued now up to $375,000.

This will save first-time buyers up to $5,500, and that is a lot of money. To a

young couple, people starting out to buy a new home, $5,500 is a significant

amount of money.

Seniors will also greatly benefit from the new housing tax

measures. Now low-income seniors will be eligible for the homeowner grant,

regardless of their home's assessed value. New legislation will be introduced to

allow people to start deferring their property taxes at age 55 rather than at

age 60. This provides added budget flexibility for those on fixed incomes.

Budget 2007 also expands the rental assistance program, raising

the income threshold to $28,000 a year so that more lower-income working

families — that would be working families — qualify for benefits. An additional

5,800 families, more than 20,000 in total, will be eligible to receive up to

$563 a month to help with their housing costs.

Our government is also raising the shelter rate by $50 a month for

people on income assistance. This means that B.C. now has the highest shelter

assistance rates in Canada for employable singles, couples and single-parent

families. No, this isn't any help at all, I guess.

In addition to building a housing legacy, Budget 2007 builds on

the province's three-year transportation investment plan, providing more than

$2.4 billion of provincial investment in transportation infrastructure as well

as $1.1 billion of investment leveraged — "leveraged" being the operative word

here — through federal cost-sharing and partnerships with the private sector,

local governments and other agencies. This includes allocating $266 million over

three years for the ongoing Sea to Sky Highway safety upgrade in my

constituency.

This budget includes $49 million in funding for initiatives

targeting reconciliation of aboriginal rights and title as well as building

strong and respectful relationships between government and aboriginal

organizations. This builds from the $100 million for capacity-building

previously budgeted and delivered.

[1535]

I'd now like to move on to provide the House with an update on

activities in the special constituency of West Vancouver–Garibaldi, which I have

the privilege of representing here in the Legislature.

The continuing work on the safety upgrades for the Sea to Sky

Highway, which links most of the constituency's communities, is moving along at

an amazing clip. It's literally moving mountains with, I must point out, minimal

road closures and minimal disruptions to people's lives and schedules — except,

of course, I have to say, on the few occasions when Mother Nature has not

cooperated and has inflicted upon us severe weather and landslides.

I must take this moment to thank constituents for their patience

and perseverance, as well as their suggestions for finding solutions and

improving how, together, we can find ways to cope and keep the road open in dire

circumstances.

Three- and four-lane sections of this $600 million highway upgrade

are already completed, making the road safer and more efficient to travel. It's

only going to get better as we move to completion in 2009, on or ahead of

schedule and on budget — the great benefits of an award-winning, successful

public-private partnership which has built-in incentives for performance. It's a

concept that the NDP somehow doesn't seem to grasp, despite evidence of stunning

examples of success in this province that are now being contemplated and copied

by other jurisdictions.

The Sea to Sky corridor continues to have a number of land use

challenges. As I said before, we must learn to share our resources like never

before and try to find innovative ways to ensure that our practices are

sustainable. So 2007 is going to be a very big year, as we anticipate signing

the Sea to Sky Highway accommodation agreement with the Squamish First Nation,

following on the heels of the successful land transfer agreement signed with

Lil'wat Nation just before Christmas.

We're also looking forward to the possibility of implementing an

LRMP — that is, a land and resource management plan — for the region as well as

introducing a new recreational trail strategy. The economic boom in the

province, especially in the Sea to Sky corridor, has

[ Page 5540 ]

created new opportunities for apprenticeships on the highway and work in

construction and in the forest for our first nations residents, which is not

only proving to be an economic benefit but is adding to capacity.

What hypocrisy when the member for Yale-Lillooet, who was elected

in '91 and '96 — during the NDP's dismal decade of deterioration, as it's

commonly referred to nowadays — last week cried about the desperate situation on

the first nations reserves of the many bands located in his region.

What did he and the NDP do for them when they had the opportunity

for ten long years? Absolutely nothing. They did nothing in comparison to what

this government has done to advance the interests of first nations in our term

with the Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation and all the related

ministries that have allocated millions and millions of dollars for economic

opportunities, for sharing resources, for building capacity and for setting

targets for improving first nations health, education and skills.

They did nothing. They did nothing when they had the opportunity.

We are absolutely determined to redress the past inequities and narrow those

gaps. In the constituency of West Vancouver–Garibaldi, as an example, 2010 has

been the catalyst for untold opportunities for advancement for first nations. As

I mentioned: land transfers; jobs and apprenticeships in the forest, in

construction, in the hospitality industry; aboriginal tourism, with the pending

opening of the Squamish Lil'wat cultural centre in Whistler; Olympic live sites

grants and achievements in youth sports.

Lyle Leo of Lil'wat Nation, who recently has won a national award

for his work in economic development, takes great pride in the band's drop in

unemployment from well over 80 percent — which, I guess, would have been in the

1990s — to the low 20s, with expanded opportunities in the works to reduce that

even further. This is not talk; this is significant action and accomplishment.

It's real change and improvement in people's lives because there's a genuine

will and a commitment to change.

As I near my conclusion, let's talk about the highlights in

several of the riding communities over the past months.

Interjection.

J. McIntyre: Why? You can't take the heat?

There are too many accomplishments to enumerate, but I'd like to

touch on several of the noteworthy. Let me start with Pemberton. A number of

positive steps have been taken as the fast-growing, comparatively small

community deals with its infrastructure needs. They've received a child care

capital grant from our ministry, and they've made applications for Olympic live

sites grants.

[1540]

Arising out of some of our government-to-government meetings at

UBCM last fall, the village of Pemberton was awarded a cross-ministry grant for

a feasibility study for the Pemberton Airport, which has the potential to be a

great economic driver in the region and to increase Whistler's competitiveness

with direct access by air to the international resort.

Speaking of Whistler, it's a resort community that for years has

been dedicated to implementing leading environmental sustainability practices,

using their vision 2020 plan and the application of the Natural Step framework

as guiding principles. I hope that Whistlerites, starting with mayor and

council, are pleased with the aggressive environmental targets laid out in our

throne speech.

Construction activities at the Olympic venues in the Callaghan

Valley and at Whistler are in full swing. I had the privilege of joining the

media tour last summer to see what incredible progress has been made. I also

attended the groundbreaking ceremony for the athletes village, which will be

converted to affordable housing units after the games as a lasting legacy for

community residents, to help them live in the community in which they work.

Now moving on down to Squamish. It is enjoying rapid growth, which

of course brings its own set of challenges. Major development projects are in

the works, including on the Nexen lands on their waterfront. The province gifted

70-plus acres. There are other residential developments to satisfy the increased

numbers that are moving there for lifestyle reasons to enjoy the outdoor

recreation capital of Canada, especially now that the highway is improved. The

adventure centre there, which the province also funded to the tune of almost a

million dollars, is up and running and serving locals and tourists alike.

With $2 million of provincial funding, the West Coast Heritage

Railway Park is also undergoing major renovation, adding a turntable and sort of

convention centre facilities. It is just where we steamed up in the Royal

Hudson with the Lieutenant-Governor a few months ago and was also the site

of an art show at Squamish's Wild at Art Festival last week.

As an aside, when I hear "Squamish," I immediately think of and

would like to take an opportunity to comment now on the thoughts of the member

for Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows on the Ashlu project, which he castigated in his

comments last week when he accused our government of capitalist giveaway ripoff

principles. Well, that very project, which is worth millions and millions and

millions of investment in that community, has first nations partners — 45 jobs,

going to 100 jobs for first nations. And it's clean energy. So guess what. The

opposition cannot have it both ways.

Britannia Beach, going on down the corridor here, is also

undergoing a major facelift, with new residential redevelopment. The

award-winning P3 treatment plant had its official opening a number of months

ago, and I had the supreme pleasure of emceeing. I now can assure this House

that clean water is flowing into Howe Sound after decades of inaction.

You might wonder: what did the NDP do about this all through the

'90s? Yes, I guarantee you that there will be resounding silence, because guess

what. They're opposed to the private sector involvement. They would rather do

nothing — nothing.

Interjection.

[ Page 5541 ]

J. McIntyre: Yeah, yeah.

The Britannia mining museum, I can report, is flourishing, with

the updated concentrator building virtually completed with the aid of both

provincial and federal funds.

Lions Bay is dealing with infrastructure needs, as are a number of

the communities. They have the expanding highway and the aftermath of some nasty

winter weather. But on a more positive note, I've had the pleasure of working

with their mayor Max Wyman in developing the Sea to Sky cultural alliance, which

is a fabulous grass-roots initiative designed to create critical mass for arts

and culture in our region.

On Bowen Island I had the pleasure of attending the official

opening of their new public golf course, the pride of many residents who have

worked hard to raise funds and make it the success it is. Along with some of

their local festivals, amenities such as this will definitely help in their

tourism efforts.

As we get to the south end of the constituency, we arrive at West

Vancouver. There has been a major cultural push in this community as a result of

their designation last year as a cultural capital of Canada. Festivals will be

taken to new levels. There's the Harmony Arts in August and now WinterSong in

February, which I just had the pleasure of attending on opening night in its

second year.

The North Shore 2010 Spirit of B.C. Committee and three local

mayors have championed our North Shore MLA initiative of developing a path —

more than a bike path — linking Deep Cove to Horseshoe Bay as a legacy. Over

$700,000 has been returned to the district for policing and should assist with

West Van's venture into E-Comm. The 2010 venues at Cypress Mountain are well in

hand, with one of two completed already in 2006, well ahead of schedule, to

allow our athletes to practise.

[1545]

Finally, I'm very pleased to report that highway construction is

progressing well on the Eagleridge interchange — again, with minimal delays in

traffic. So you can see that the Sea to Sky corridor, to borrow a phrase, is

really a happening place as we progress to 2010.

I'm delighted that this Balanced Budget 2007 should improve the

quality of life for most everyone in one way or another — whether it be

youngsters who can take advantage of early learning and literacy programs;

higher funding in K-to-12 and more government money for trades and skills

development, apprenticeships and higher learning as they go into adulthood; or

for seniors who can, as of last week, feel more secure in their housing

arrangements. As a renter, an owner or someone in need of shelter or social

assistance, rest assured that our government is putting together a full range of

supports for all of us dealing with housing pressures.

Most of all, I hope that the proposed 10-percent tax break will be

appreciated by a broad cross-section of British Columbians. This is the power of

a strong economy.

In closing, I can't help but wonder if the NDP is actually going

to have the courage to support this budget — whether or not, for purely

political reasons, they're going to vote against these tax breaks and family

supports and then turn around and try to claim that they are the only ones to

represent the interests of B.C. families. Well, this is absolute nonsense,

because if they vote against this budget, the NDP will be showing their true

colours. Just look…. [Applause.] Yes, good, good. Keep clapping.

Actually, I appreciate the applause, because guess what. You go on

record for opposing a 10-percent tax break for the vast majority, opposing

record funding for health care and education. Opposed to increased financial

assistance to keep seniors in their homes. Opposed to increased assistance for

new homebuyers, yes. Opposed to expanded rental assistance for an additional

5,800 B.C. families. Opposed to an increase in shelter rates for people on

income assistance, opposed to an additional almost $50 million for first nations

initiatives. Opposed to a minimum of $100 million in environmental initiatives.

The NDP are just plain opposed — negative, destructive and

pessimistic. In contrast, I feel buoyant. I feel buoyant about what this budget

brings to this province. I am confident that this Premier has a vision and a

strong commitment to lead in this province, to improve the quality of life for

us all with a budget we can afford.

I am incredibly proud and humbled at the same time to represent

the West Vancouver–Garibaldi constituents and especially proud to be part of

this team that actually gets it.

H. Bains: I have a surprise for this member who just spoke

previous to me. I'm here to tell her the real reasons why we should not support

this budget.

This is the third budget that I've seen. There's the same theme

developing: give it to the rich multinationals and their multi-millionaire

friends at the expense of the working people, the poor and the most vulnerable

in this society. That's what they're doing.

As a result, we have the highest number of children in poverty in

B.C. Homelessness has doubled in the last four years. Tuition fees for our

students in post-secondary education have doubled or tripled. We have the

highest number of poor living in this province, more than anywhere in Canada.

That's why we should be opposing this.

There are a number of other reasons, which I'd like to bring to

the House, why we should be opposing this. This budget…. They've talked about

how fiscally prudent this government is. Let me tell you that for any business

you start, there's a fundamental to starting a business. You must have a

business plan.

[1550]

When you look at VANOC, at the games that are being developed,

there's no business plan. Although it was promised two years ago that there

would be a business plan that would talk about all of the components of the

business plan, we have not yet seen a business plan. And they call themselves

business people, business-savvy people. Those are not business-savvy people.

That is mismanagement, incompetence.

[ Page 5542 ]

I would like you to take it to my constituency, Surrey. Ever since

this government has taken over, they have allowed the health care system at

Surrey Memorial Hospital to deteriorate to a point where people are losing their

limbs and lives, and this minister continued to say that everything is fine in

Surrey and all of those hospitals in the lower mainland.

Just a few days ago you heard in this House about my constituent

who had partially severed his fingers while trying to make a living at his

workplace. He went to Surrey Memorial Hospital at 1:30 in the afternoon. He was

made to wait two or three hours, and he was told that there are no doctors, no

operating rooms available for him. From there he was shipped to Royal Columbian

Hospital. Again, the same story there. From there his father was told to take

him to VGH. His father drove him all the way to VGH and got there at 8:30 in the

evening. He was told there that surgery would be performed on him first thing in

the morning. That didn't happen. It was the same story there: no doctors;

they're too busy doing other things; no resources. It took 22 hours in pain and

agony in this day and age, in this province, before surgery was performed, and

he ended up losing one of his fingers.

You know what was really, really disturbing? The family made a

statement that if they were in India, a Third World country, they probably would

have saved that finger there. That is a shame. That is a shame.

This is from the family, and I think all of you on that side of

the House should go and talk to that family and listen to their concerns. Go

listen to their concerns. This type of arrogance and ignorance that comes from

that side of the House is the reason why we continue to get ignored in Surrey,

and no one from that side has the guts to stand up to the Premier and tell him

that we need resources in Surrey Memorial Hospital.

Rather than fixing, all we see is announcement after announcement

after announcement. The first announcement was made when they realized that they

were going to lose elections in 2005. Now they will expand the emergency ward;

they will build another hospital. Then they came to Surrey and said, "Yes, we

will expand" — that was October 2005 — and that the construction will start on

the ambulatory day care unit in 2007 and will be completed in 2009.

I'd like the members on the other side to pay attention to this.

That was the announcement made in October 2005. Then the Premier came in about

six months ago and said that the construction will not start in 2007. Instead,

it will start a year later. Come on; stand up for Surrey. What is the reason for

the delay of that hospital to start construction in 2007? What is the reason?

There's no reason. There's only one reason. They need to pay for the

mismanagement, the debacle, of the Vancouver Convention Centre and the cost

overrun at the Olympics. That's what the reason is.

There are a number of other areas that they have failed to address

in the budget. We have hundreds if not thousands of immigrants who are trained,

who are qualified and who cannot use their skills, their credentials and their

certificates to fully realize the potential that they bring to this country.

[1555]

These were the folks — many of them are in the category — who were

recruited from India, from Sri Lanka and from Pakistan and other countries and

were told: "Your skills are needed in Canada, in British Columbia." As a result,

they came through a skill category of the Immigration Act. When they arrived in

Canada, they were told by this government, by the federal government, that their

credentials are no good. As a result, as someone said, the hard-working

immigrant families are desperate for meaningful jobs.

After many years of empty promises, repeated announcements and hot

air, there's no time to waste. What we need is action rather than more promises,

more announcements. That's all we hear from this government on this issue.

Ontario actually took some concrete actions. They actually brought

in Bill 124. They have, through this bill, advised all of the professional

organizations and the foreign-trained professionals that they're to work

together to come up with a process which will speed the line in recognizing

those credentials. They gave them about a year to come up with that proposal.

If they fail to come up with a solution in one year, then the

government can use that act and introduce changes as they please to fix this

problem. At least there's an attempt being made. Concrete steps are being taken

— contrary to what this government does, which is just the announcement,

promises, but no action. That is a shame. There's nothing in the budget to deal

with that issue either.

As I said before, the trend continues on in this budget again — to

help the multinationals, to help multi-millionaires or their friends at the

expense of the poor and the seniors.

Manufactured home owners are another group of folks that are hit

hard by this government. In 2002 they changed the act. Once they were entitled

to up to $10,000 moving expenses. If the landowner decided to develop the land

for other purposes than the home park, they would get $10,000 moving expenses.

This government, true to their form, came in and changed that. Now all they're

entitled to is the equivalent of 12 months' rent, which in many cases is only

$4,000 or $5,000. That is a shame.

Many of these folks who live in those manufactured homes are

seniors. Many of them are on disability, fixed incomes. How cruel a government

can be. I have seen 85-year-olds, 87-year-olds who are affected by this change

crying in my office because, they are telling me, the policy of this government

has made them homeless.

They have no place to go, because they have a home that is too old

to be moved. It does not meet the safety requirements of the highway. No one

buys them. Now they're being moved out. There is no compensation, and as a

result they have no home to go to. That is a shame, and there's nothing in this

budget to deal with that issue.

The other change they brought in when they took office was the

elimination of the Human Rights

[ Page 5543 ]

Commission. A human rights commission is a basic fundamental right for every

citizen in a democratic society. This was the commission that would help the

employer, the workers and the communities to deal with the issues in the event

there was an issue dealing with a human right.

[H. Bloy in the chair.]

They provided education and many seminars to deal with the issues

they are facing, and there's nothing in this budget to deal with that issue

either. Once again, many folks are disappointed — the visible minorities and

folks all across the province.

[1600]

WorkSafe B.C. — another area, same theme. The workers' benefits

are reduced so that the employer can have a holiday in their premiums. If you

look at the area of benefits that are being cut in WorkSafe B.C., it's so

serious that there are people out there who basically have lost their homes, and

they don't know what to do about it. There are people in my office who have been

dealing with WCB for six or seven years now with no end in sight. All they see

is roadblock after roadblock, and they have nothing to go to.

For whoever is entitled to those benefits, their benefits are

reduced to a point where you're talking about working in poverty. That's the

kind of stuff this government has done. Like I said, the theme is the same. Take

from the workers, take from the ordinary families, and give it to the

multinationals. That's the theme again when they changed the WCB and WorkSafe

B.C. in the act.

The forest industry is another area. Many of my constituents work

in the sawmills. I just had another sawmill closed, where many of my

constituents work — Western Forest Products in Queensborough. Over 200 workers

were given pink slips because of the policy of this government. This mill wasn't

shut down because this mill was not profitable or wasn't efficient. This mill

was shut down because the company can shut it down.

There's no accountability from this government. They'll continue

to use our logs and tree farm licences. The workers are thrown on the street,

and there's no responsibility, as we once had, on the companies through the

social contract that we had in place in the '50s and '60s. These are our logs.

These logs are supposed to be used to create employment, both in logging and in

manufacturing.

There was that link, and they took that link out so that their

friends the multinationals can do whatever they want with our resources — our

logs. Log exports, as a result, are at a record high. In the meantime those

companies shutting down these mills are claiming that they don't have enough

logs to keep those mills running. That's the kind of stuff this government has

done, and all you have to do is talk to those workers who are losing their jobs

every day in the forest industry. They refuse to do that. They even refuse to

meet with those workers. It is a shame — the kind of changes that have been

brought.

Child care resource and referral funding was cut just a few weeks

ago. My understanding is that of the $14 million that went to these service

providers, $6 million came from the federal government and the remaining $9

million came from the B.C. government. When the federal government cut their $6

million, this government cut their $9 million down to $3 million.

In my own constituency we have a service provider called Options,

which had 4,758 parent referrals; 53 workshops enrolling over 1,000

participants; 115 networking and drop-in programs; 19,000 loans of resources and

equipment; 27,000 consultations with parents; registered 64 "licence not

required" day cares; assisted 775 families with subsidy applications and

supplied 2,834 applications.

Now they will not have this service in my community. Instead,

there are 17 people being laid off from my community. Those folks, who provided

all of these services to the parents and to the children in my constituency, are

no longer there.

[1605]

They call this a housing budget, for some reason. I looked at it,

and the member for West Vancouver–Garibaldi said that what the member for

Yale-Lillooet — who I thought correctly described this budget — had said was

laughable. But I'll tell you what's laughable, Mr. Speaker. They said that

there's $2 billion in housing. Three-quarters of that — they know that — comes

as a 10-percent tax cut, as they claim, which should be used as a housing

subsidy. That's laughable. There isn't much about housing, but they call this a

housing budget, just like the one before they called a children's budget and the

one before the seniors budget, which I believe was the same thing. There was

nothing in there — all talk.

I want to talk about crime, in closing. I know my time is running

out. Just in the last few days a serious criminal, a rapist, was released in my

community of Surrey-Newton. The Ontario Attorney General went to court and got a

court injunction, got an order preventing this fellow from moving into Ontario

forever. Where was our Attorney General? Where is this government in protecting

the citizens of my community in this province? Nowhere to be seen.

While they are praising this budget, praising their Premier day in

and day out, they are not doing anything about preventing crime. They are doing

nothing to assure my community that they are safe in their homes, that they are

safe when they're walking their children to school. Nothing is being done, and I

think that is a shame. It is a shame for the record of this government.

I want to move on to the education side. When Bill 33 was brought

in after the tremendous amount of pressure from the parents, the teachers and

this opposition, they made some changes, but they went only halfway. They put

the class sizes and the class-size limit on, but they provided no resources to

pay for that. There was nothing for the special needs children — nothing

whatsoever. I think, as a result, our children are suffering in that community,

and those folks and the parents are not getting the support they need in our

schools for their children.

[ Page 5544 ]

I want to talk about the Olympics and the Vancouver Convention

Centre. I've never seen any government doing what this government is doing —

hiding the cost, not being up front, and this from a government that promised

they would be the most open and transparent government in Canada. In fact, they

are quite the opposite.

We calculated that the real cost of the Olympics is over $2

billion. When we add all those numbers, it comes to $2.7 billion. The Auditor

General came up with their report and confirmed that there's $2.5 billion of

Olympic costs for the taxpayers. But this minister, this government continued to

say that it was only $600 million. They have off-loaded hundreds of millions of

dollars on the municipalities, off-loaded on the government agencies, and they

have tried to hide all of that cost in different budgets.

This is the independent office of the Auditor General saying it's

$2.5 billion. But this government, instead of saying, "Yes, we made a mistake.

Yes, we could not add up as you have. We're sorry," continued to say: "No, it's

only $600 million, and the Auditor General doesn't know what he's talking

about." That's the response from this government. That's nothing but arrogance

and a contemptuous attitude toward the taxpayers that we see day in and day out

from this government.

[1610]

The convention centre is another story. In 2003 this government,

this Premier said that the budget would be $495 million. Only a few months later

they updated that to $565 million. Then it went to $615 million. The minister at

the time said that is the final cost of the building. That's the taxpayers'

money — $615 million. The minister said that's the final cost. That was about a

year ago when the minister made that statement.

Then they tried to come up with all kinds of excuses. It's not the

incompetency. It's not the mismanagement. Oh, it's the labour cost. It's the

material cost. This Premier, their two successive ministers and their handpicked

people who are running that project — friends of the Premier — said that the

construction cost is 11 percent to 12 percent and that they anticipated it was

only 2 percent.

A year ago the minister was saying that it was only $615 million.

Now it's $800 million. That's not 10 percent. That's like a 33-percent increase.

What's the explanation of that? There's no explanation from their side because

they know it's pure mismanagement. It's pure mismanagement.

I was asked this question: are we facing another fast ferry

fiasco? When you compare that fast ferries cost over $250 million, the Premier —

who was the opposition leader at the time — lit his hair on fire, and I say

rightfully so. But now we are facing over a billion-dollar cost overrun, and not

a peep is coming from those members from their side — not a peep. They think

everything is fine.

Where are you? The business-savvy folks — where are you? Stand up

to this Premier. Stand up to this Premier and tell the Premier: "Put some

competent people, competent managers, in that project so that taxpayers can be

saved from future cost overruns rather than continue to run these with the

Premier's friends whose only interest is to protect the Premier's political hide

rather than protecting taxpayers and their tax dollars." That is a shame.

When you look at how incompetent they are…. The current minister

responsible for convention centres said only a week ago that about a week

earlier, he didn't even know. He said he didn't know how far the cost overruns

are going to be. Here's a minister responsible, and he didn't know. He didn't

know at all what the cost overrun is going to look like.

"So who is in charge?" we ask. Who is in charge? Obviously, it's

not the minister. It wasn't the previous minister. It's someone else — either

the Premier or the Premier's friends who are running that project into the

ground.

While I've been going at this, I have misplaced all of my papers,

and I don't know where to start now.

I just want to say this at the end. This budget has nothing in it

for the students who like to go to post-secondary education. There's no relief

for them. There's no relief in this budget for the seniors who are paying

through their noses for Pharmacare and because of lack of housing. There's

nothing in it for the children of this province. There's nothing in it for the

women of this province. There's nothing for those folks who came from outside as

immigrants, and they have those foreign credentials. There's nothing to deal

with that issue.

There's nothing to deal with the accountability and lack of

transparency that oozes out of these government offices. There's nothing to deal

with that.

[1615]

In the meantime we continue to see our health care deteriorating,

where people are losing their limbs and lives. In the meantime the minister

thinks everything is fine. That's just pure arrogance and contempt towards the

taxpayers of this province.

In conclusion, I would say that we — all of us — should oppose

this budget and ask the Minister of Finance to bring back a budget that actually

deals with the ordinary folks, deals with ordinary families, deals with the poor

and deals with those who are most vulnerable in our society.

R. Sultan: My goodness. What a litany of incompetence,

mismanagement and ignorance we've heard from the member for Surrey-Newton.

This is what incompetence, mismanagement and ignorance have

produced in this province under this government — 320,000 new jobs. That's the

result of incompetence, mismanagement and ignorance, I suppose. Gosh, what would

competence, good management and sophistication achieve if all that was

accomplished was 320,000 new jobs?

One of my notes reminded me that we are at a 30-year low in

unemployment, but that's a mistake. Apparently, according to Statistics Canada,

since they started keeping records unemployment has never been lower in British

Columbia than it is right now. That's an incredible accomplishment.

[ Page 5545 ]

In contrast to people's voting with their bus tickets and cars

taking them elsewhere under the previous government, under this government we've

seen the population of the province growing about 1 percent a year through

immigration. This is an incredible growth rate to achieve, as obviously people

from elsewhere in Canada and elsewhere in the world rather like what they see as

a result of incompetence, mismanagement and ignorance. So let's keep it up. This

is an achievement to be proud of, and of course, it is the underlying foundation

stone upon which the Finance Minister has presented the budget.

I find curious the tactics of the opposition in response to both

the Speech from the Throne and the budget. The Speech from the Throne — to which

I will not separately speak, so let me just inject a brief comment — clearly

addressed one of the big issues of our day — namely, global warming, energy

conservation and climate change. I expected, particularly from this party

opposite, of all parties, well versed in the doctrine of these issues over many,

many years than people on this side of the House focused on it…. I give them

credit for that.

What did they choose to talk about? Child care. Now, child care is

important too, but I couldn't help but think that they had the wrong parliament.

The consequences of abrupt changes in child care that have caused upset in all

the ridings should be better directed through Jack Layton, it seems to me,

rather than in this House because of the source of the difficulty.

Turning to the budget speech, again focusing on tax cuts,

homelessness, helping seniors and helping first-time home buyers and so on, I

expected a very thoughtful and probably pointed — to the point of discomfort in

spots — criticism of the presentation of the platform by the Finance Minister.

What, instead, were we given the pleasure of? Hours and hours of

debate about the hours of work in this Legislature. I never thought I would see

the day when an NDP opposition would vote against the 40-hour week, but that's

what we seem to have seen here.

[1620]

Having said all of that, perhaps it was their discomfort at

finding a handhold on the various programs that were rolled out which accounted

for what I would call some lapses in opposition opportunity.

Indeed, I can't resist quoting the member for Surrey-Whalley who

said, to quote Les Leyne's column in the Times Colonist :

"The New Democrats seem to have finally realized how

popular tax cuts are as well. The NDP sneered at the Liberals' first dramatic

tax cut, the 25-percent shocker in 2001. They were so down and out at that

point, with two seats, that opposing what turned out to be a pretty popular

move, didn't do them much harm.

" This time they are treading much more

carefully.

The NDP Finance critic" — the member I've just alluded to — "who was the

designated speaker for the opposition's official response…said: 'The income tax

cut is welcome….'"

We'll accept that; we happen to agree.

I suppose the question one must ask is: given the philosophy and

historical strategies of those on the other side of this aisle, what would they

have done in lieu of what our Finance Minister presented in the way of a budget?

In the main, aside from the applause from the member for Surrey-Whalley, it's

been carping criticism if not a diversion to some other off-topic thing, like

hours of work for this Legislature.

We do have the benefit of another quite detailed financial plan

and budget offered by allies of the members opposite. I refer to our old friends

at CCPA, the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives. I took the opportunity of

seizing their B.C. Solutions Budget 2007 document and comparing their numbers

with those in the Finance Minister's budget on this side of the House.

Again, we heard some echoes of those tanks trundling across Red

Square as we flipped through the pages of what CCPA had to offer. In sum, it's

an interesting comparison, and I chose the years 2008-2009 because both are

carefully detailed in the Finance Minister's budget and in their alternative

budget.

Here are the high spots. Their economy is going to be a little bit

bigger than our economy in 2008-2009 by 0.6 percent. Not a lot, but significant.

Their government revenues are going to be 8 percent larger. And this is the

really strange curiosity. Their government spending is going to be 2.3 percent

less.

Juxtapose that with the words with which they introduced their

budget, saying that government must tackle poverty, growing inequality, rising

homelessness, nothing inevitable about unacceptably long wait times in the

health care system, cash-strapped schools, inadequate child protection, etc. One

would have thought, based on that

preamble, that they were going to really cut

loose with some very ambitious spending plans to rectify what they view as

weaknesses in the program.

Here is the reality of what they in fact propose, large item by

large item. In the health sector the allies of members opposite, CCPA, would

actually spend in 2008-2009 about 8 percent less than this government proposed

to spend — 8 percent less. In the education sector, another favourite topic,

they would spend 6 percent less. Less in social services, 0.3 percent — not by

much, but nevertheless less. They would spend a lot less, 11 percent less, on

public protection, 7 percent less on transportation, 3 percent less on natural

resources and economic development, and 3½ percent less on general government.

They would only spend more on debt service, which perhaps stands to reason.

[1625]

Total spending overall is 2.3 percent less in the CCPA alternative

budget. I think this is certainly unexpected, and it surprised me because it did

suggest an approach to debt reduction, for example, that went far beyond what

was envisaged on this side of the House.

Their main theme was that generally revenues had been

underestimated in the past. They came up with their alternative plan, which

showed more revenues, but instead of spending it, they put it towards debt

reduction. I find that very, very strange.

The other thing to comment on with CCPA is the proportion of the

economy that they would see flowing through government coffers in the way of

taxes raised

[ Page 5546 ]

and government revenues. Here we do see some distinct policy differences. The

Minister of Finance is projecting 15.1 percent of the provincial economy flowing

into the provincial government in '08-09. CCPA projects 16.3 percent — 1.2

percentage points more — but also speculates in some text that maybe it could go

as high as 17.7 percent.

Well, 17.7 percent of the British Columbia economy flowing into

government through the tax machine is certainly significantly greater than what

the Minister of Finance is projecting at only 15.1 percent. You get an extra $5

billion with those 2½ percentage points of revenue. I could not see how they

were planning to actually raise that additional money, but I just couldn't

resist the opportunity to compare it to where it might come from and what kind

of a tax increase that might imply.

It would be a 76-percent increase in personal income taxes, for

example. It would be a 359-percent increase in corporate income taxes, if that

was the target of the entire $5 billion. It would be almost a doubling of the

social services tax — i.e., the sales tax. It would be a 500-percent increase in

the fuel tax or a 250-percent increase in property tax. In fairness, if they

were going to raise another $5 billion, they clearly would not load it all under

one sector, but that gives you some idea of the scale of what seems to be in the

minds of some of the analysts over there.

To sum up the CCPA's B.C. Solutions Budget 2007, they're gambling

on a slightly higher economic growth rate and on quite a bit more government

revenues. They've got a bigger share of the economy, and they're planning less

government spending than this government is. That's a first in budget history, I

would suggest, although maybe my research is inadequate in terms of left-leaning

think tanks.

The opposition here in this House, while not putting up their own

budget for analysis, certainly has indicated what they're against in no

uncertain terms. I'm sure we're going to hear more about that before the debate

is ended. Let me just list eight of the things they've indicated clearly that

they're against, which, as I sit in my own constituency office, I don't hear

much complaining about.

The first point is to increase the number of beds available for

full-time shelter by almost 30 percent. They're against that, I presume.

Secondly, the Finance Minister announced up to $38 million in new funding for

housing initiatives around the province for those that are currently homeless or

at risk of being homeless. I presume they are against that.

[1630]

They seem to be against having a family of four receiving up to

$700 a month for housing. I presume it means they're against British Columbia

having the highest shelter assistance rates in Canada for employable singles,

couples and single-parent families — the highest in Canada.

I presume it means they're against this government providing $45

million over four years to upgrade up to 750 of our social housing units to help

people age in place and provide the kinds of housing our communities need.

I presume they're against the SAFER program providing monthly cash

payments to subsidize rent for 15,000 British Columbians 60 years and older and

adding 5,800 additional families to the rolls. I presume they're against the

first-time-homebuyers program helping people get a foot in the door by exempting

them from the property transfer tax.

A couple of other things that I presume they're against. They

presumably are against making low-income seniors, veterans and people with

disabilities eligible for a homeowner grant regardless of their home's assessed

value — an issue of particular importance on the North Shore.

Finally, I presume they're against changing the opportunity to

defer your property taxes from eligibility at age 60 to eligibility at age 55. I

presume they're against that.

I will look forward to the evolution of this debate to see what

they are in favour of, but I would say there's a rather long litany of what they

seem to be against by their opposition to this budget.

I think there are some huge missed opportunities. I must admit in

my heart feeling the occasional irresponsible impulse to rush over and say: why

don't you ask this question, or why don't you ask that question? I'm restrained

from doing so, so let me just offer you some comments from this side of the

House.

I think a missed opportunity for the opposition in debating this

budget is to raise the issue of productivity. It's not mentioned in the budget

at all, but it's becoming an important issue among many observing the Canadian

scene, including British Columbia.

We have had a slippage in productivity in Canada, and I don't

think British Columbia's immune. Interestingly for those who think productivity

means getting workers to work harder and uncomfortable things like that, I think

it's the business sector, in fact, that is showing not to be as productive as it

should be in comparison with our international competitors.

Let me just cite a few statistics again. Since 1961, if we look at

the total economy, gross domestic product per worker, we lost about eight points

vis-à-vis the United States. We used to be about 92 percent of where they are,

and now we're on an 84-percent basis. Business has lost a smidgeon more.

The consequences of loss in productivity are serious. It appears

in the most recent data that the slide in Canadian productivity has actually

accelerated.

You might say: "Well, who cares? This is Canada; that's the world.

We run our own affairs here." But the consequences of poor productivity have

been outlined, for example, by economist Don Drummond, who talks about

Argentina: "Argentina illustrates the long-term consequences of an unproductive

economy." Its anemic productivity is hobbled by "excessive public spending,

mounting deficits, nationalized industries and a closed economy," producing many

"formidable problems, including hyperinflation. This has led to serious social

ills, particularly for the most vulnerable, who have

[ Page 5547 ]

seen the value of their savings and salaries diminish" and, in some cases,

virtually disappear.

Productivity is not something people talk about very much or think

about very much, but if we wanted to look at the economics of British Columbia

and how to make sure we all benefit from the boom that we are in, I think the

opposition could have raised some questions about productivity and asked with

legitimacy: "What are you folks doing about it there? You're in charge."

[1635]

Instead, what we get from members opposite typically are pleas for

more protectionism, a closed economy, anti-TILMA — heaven forbid, let's not

compete with those rude and rough people from Alberta. Let's have more

regulation, not less. Let's nationalize enterprise.

We heard a rumour this morning that one of your critics told a

meeting that should members opposite come to power, they would nationalize the

independent power producer sector. I don't know if that is true or not, but it

would certainly seem consistent with the philosophy of many members opposite.

Certainly, the higher taxes implied by the Canadian Centre for Policy

Alternatives would also be a part of the overall picture.

Now, let's add this up. Higher taxes, nationalization, more

regulation, a closed economy — it sounds like the path Argentina went down many

years ago and has never really recovered from.

I am positively delighted to speak warmly about the budget our

Finance Minister has brought forward. It certainly has been received with

respect and acclaim among people across Canada who look at how governments are

managing their fiscal affairs. It maintains the tradition of prudence and

caution, the maintenance of our superb credit rating, and at the same time, it

injects a very human face and some tangible programs to persons such as the

homeless, to seniors struggling to maintain a standard of living, to people who

are less advantaged right across the system.

I think it's an excellent budget, and I'm disappointed that the

opposition has not seen fit to zero in on the real issues rather than issues

that, frankly, I think are somewhat spurious.

C. Puchmayr: In the dwindling hours of our first overtime

shift, I'd like to thank the members in this House, and I'd like to make my

comments on the tax cut.

There are certainly some interesting remarks coming from the other

side about what we've seen here. "The people's housing budget" is what they're

calling it. When you look at the fact that they're talking about $2 billion in

tax cuts and somebody that's earning $100,000 a year would get returned probably

the equivalent of the payment on a gas-guzzling Hummer for one month, well, they

could have called it the "Hummer budget." Or for people who, between the family,

are getting a dollar — a family of three, 30 cents for the two children and the

mother…. That's not even enough to buy a chocolate bar, so you could call it the

"can't-even-buy-a-chocolate-bar budget."

I guess it depends on what tax bracket you're in. They certainly

praise this budget, just as they praise the throne speech. But, you know, the

proof is in the facts. When you look at the facts, the facts are glaring. It's

not only this side that is making that observation. Here are some quotes. Here's

Keith Baldrey on February 21: "The most misleading part of any budget I have

seen since the Liberals came to power."

Vaughn Palmer says: "Carole Taylor insisted Tuesday that her

budget was all about 'building a housing legacy' and pointed to a reputed $2

billion housing plan. The claim was entirely misleading…. Taylor could have just

as easily packaged her tax cut as 'building a legacy' for child care, education,

retirement or buying a new car."

Interjection.

C. Puchmayr: The member across takes offence at the media

for making those observations. We made those observations as well, and she takes

offence to that as well.

[1640]

I will continue through this. I will continue to let this House

and the people of British Columbia know what the true observations are of this

so-called housing budget.

Michael Smyth: "Somebody should sue the Liberal spin doctors for

malpractice because they sure botched the operation yesterday." That was on

February 21.

Paul Willcocks: "Can anyone argue with a straight face that a tax

cut worth $25 a month for a typical family is really the centrepiece of an

effective housing strategy?" Unbelievable. Absolutely unbelievable.

Don Cayo: "This could have turned into a real housing budget. But,

despite modest increases for the homeless and low-income renters, it isn't. And

Minister Taylor and her colleagues deserve to have their noses tweaked for

pretending it is." That's in the Vancouver Sun .

A professor of political science at UVic says: "When you consider

that we have a growing population, a waiting list for housing and a continuing

homelessness problem, it is very timid. It's a…most timid…start of a housing

policy." That was in the Globe and Mail .

There are many more quotes, and I won't continue on with them. I

will make my comments now. But I also want to say that Mayor Sullivan of the

city of Vancouver had some glowing words about this budget until, I guess, he

did an analysis of it and realized the same thing that we are realizing. This is

not a housing budget.

It's just like the children's budget was not a children's budget.

We now have the worst level of child poverty in Canada. Some 24 percent of

children live in poverty. This is after the children's budget of about a year

ago. When there are children living in poverty, there are parents living in

poverty as well. I think it is shameful that in an economy that is doing as well

as this — with the highest resource values that we have ever seen in

electricity, in cop