2008 Legislative Session: Fourth Session, 38th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 21, 2008

Morning Sitting

Volume 26, Number 10

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Page

Budget Debate (continued)

J. Rustad

R. Chouhan

Hon. C. Richmond

D. Thorne

B. Lekstrom

[ Page 9847 ]

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 21, 2008

The House met at 10:02 a.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

Hon. C. Richmond: I call continued debate on the address in

reply to the budget speech.

Budget Debate

(continued)

J. Rustad: I'm pleased to carry on with my comments this

morning with regards to our budget.

Yesterday I closed off by talking about a few of the differences

between our side of the House and the opposition side of the House. I want to

carry on with a few of those comments and put it into a bit of context.

When you think about what the NDP Finance critic has said in

response to the idea of a carbon tax and our work on the budget…. He was asked

whether he would eliminate the carbon tax if they were to form government. The

response was no, he probably wouldn't. Yet the member for Cariboo North says,

clearly, that he doesn't support a carbon tax.

[S. Hammell in the chair.]

When talking about the softwood lumber agreement, one of the

members from the Kootenays for the NDP said that he thinks it's good for his

industry. The member for Cariboo North says that he thinks it's a bad deal. It's

clear that what you see is that the opposition doesn't seem to really have a

position.

We brought forward some leadership and vision in the budget, just

as we did in the throne speech. We brought forward some ideas that are going to

build this province, and what do we see from the opposition? Just that —

opposition. We don't see a government in waiting. We don't see a Leader of the

Opposition that has a vision, who wants to see where this province is going

forward. She seems to be very content to simply oppose.

That's good. If that's what the opposition wants to do, then

that's fine. But on our side of the House, we're not interested in simply just

opposing. We want to see the province move forward. I want to put that in the

context of some of the things for my riding in my area.

[1005]

Throughout the throne speech and the budget, we're making a

commitment to looking at building an energy corridor between the Pacific Ocean

and Prince George. What that will do is create an opportunity for about $6

billion in investment throughout and along that corridor and help to spur

numerous economic spinoffs that will come from that.

We're seeing a $2 billion commitment coming from Rio Tinto in the

Kitimat area in terms of rebuilding the smelter. We're seeing a commitment,

also, that was talked about in terms of the electrification of Highway 37. We're

going to continue to work with the mining companies to move that forward. That's

another $400 million–plus, not to mention the billions of dollars that will be

invested from the mining industry through that.

We're looking at Site C, trying to look at whether or not we

should be doing that and moving that project forward. That leaves us with what

could be up to $6 billion in investment and spinoffs that would come in the

northeast sector of the province.

We've got work that's happening in Prince George in health care,

where we've got a northern cancer strategy. That funding is in this budget — a

$100 million commitment, at minimum, to put in a cancer clinic in Prince George

and to move forward with a cancer strategy that's going to benefit the entire

north. I can guarantee you that that side of the House will be voting against

all of those initiatives.

All of those things — what we call leadership in rural B.C. and

leadership in the north — provide the framework and opportunity for the

betterment of the lives of the people in our area. That is what we are doing;

that is what we're building.

When you look on the forestry front and at the work that we're

doing on that side, more than $600 million have already been spent on pine

beetle initiatives. We are moving forward on that strategy. We're going to be

seeing here in the next year the plans coming back from the beetle action

coalitions. We look forward to working with them to develop a positive future

for our area.

Also on the infrastructure side, when you look at the work we're

doing with the Cariboo connector, the twinning of the Simon Fraser Bridge, the

moving of the weigh scales in Prince George, the addition of a passing lane on

Highway 16 out west and the overpass work that we're doing, all of that is

building the infrastructure for rural B.C., throughout my riding and the other

ridings around the area, to be able to help us expand.

We have an agriculture plan that just came forward that has

built…. It's designed to promote local consumption and local production. It's

going to help the farmers get through some challenges that they have with

wildlife. It's going to help farmers look at biodiesel options that can come

from our agricultural products.

All of those are designed to support a very important component of

our industry throughout my riding and throughout the Cariboo in areas on the

agricultural side. Clearly, Madam Speaker, when you look at those initiatives

that are undertaken, the foundations to move forward are very solid.

I want to repeat something else that I said earlier yesterday in

my speech, and that's with regard to the carbon tax. What the carbon tax

essentially does is take a portion of our income tax that we normally collect

from people on a yearly basis and shift it over to a consumption tax. We shift

that over to a tax on the use of carbon.

It's completely neutral in terms of taxation for the people.

They're going to get the 5 percent reduction on

[ Page 9848 ]

their taxes. They get the tax credits that I've talked about in the past, and

those dollars get shifted over in terms of a consumption tax on carbon use.

That enables the people, if they want to take initiatives on

improving around their homes and with the way they use their vehicles, actually

to control their taxes. They can say how much they want to put forward in terms

of that, and that shifting in priorities helps to raise the level of awareness

of the issue of greenhouse gases. It helps to raise that whole level of

discussion within the communities. Ultimately, that's what's needed.

If we're going to tackle greenhouse gas emissions, if we're going

to tackle climate change, it's up to us to do it as individuals. Government can

help provide some tools, and we're doing that with some of the incentives that

are talked about in this budget, but it really is up to us to make the

difference and make those changes.

[1010]

It's just like it is with agriculture. We have to make choices. Do

we want to have food that's shipped in from Brazil or Australia or from over in

Europe, or do we want to eat our own locally grown products? I can tell you,

Madam Speaker, I've had the products that are produced from the ranches and the

farms out in my area, and there is nothing better. The taste and the quality are

100 percent. They're way better than what you can get buying from the bulk

that's imported from the States or other places. It's those taste differences

and nutrition differences that I believe people need to think about and step

forward.

I'm actually encouraged, because when you look at farmers' markets

and the products that our farmers are bringing forward in farmers' markets

throughout our area, they're fabulous. And they're doing well. When you go down

there, there are always lots of people. There's lots of interest. People are

interested in eating healthy. People are interested in making the right choices.

I'm glad to see that the agriculture plan has brought forward $2

million a year to be able to help promote local products and help people make

those choices to be able to eat locally. The idea of tagging on the number of

kilometres that food comes from just helps to empower people to be able to make

those choices.

Another thing that I'm very passionate about is our decision to

ban trans fats. That is very progressive. It's the right thing to do, in terms

of banning them from schools and our restaurants. It means that people can have

healthier choices. That, combined with things that we're doing on the smoking

front and what we're going to be initiating over this spring session in terms of

some of the health care reforms that are needed…. It's what we have to be doing

to help make our health care system sustainable.

We're adding $3 billion more into health care. That's a 25 percent

increase over the current levels of health care spending over the next three

years. The health care budget will go from about 43 percent to 47 percent of our

overall provincial spending. We're doing that because of the demand, but we

cannot continue to see those kinds of increases. Within the next ten years, if

we were to see those kinds of increases, there would be no money for virtually

anything else other than education and health care.

We need to be able to be making those reforms, and the plan that

was outlined and discussed in the throne speech and the budget and stuff that

are put in place are going to lead us toward those reforms — and the legislation

that will bring in. They're going to lead us towards what we need to be doing so

that we can have one of the best health care systems, not just in Canada but in

the world.

We already have, according to the Conference Board of Canada, the

best health care system in Canada. But that is not good enough; we need to be

making some improvements. But we must be sustainable.

Talking about things that are sustainable, I want to just come

back to one of the differences that we see between the opposition and us. They'd

say: "It's not enough spending. We want to put more money towards that." Well,

where are those dollars going to come from? Where would those dollars come from?

I can tell you, Madam Speaker, if the opposition were to be in power, they would

be looking at raising taxes and killing off our economy to try to put more

dollars towards it. We must find the right balance.

One of the reasons why I suggest that is the evidence that comes

forward in the forestry plan. On the one hand, on the forestry plan the NDP have

brought forward, they say that they want to create a community stability fund

coming from the export tax that we have on our lumber. They want to create a

stabilization fund.

That's an interesting thing to look at. On the other hand, they

suggest they want to eliminate the softwood lumber agreement. They want to pull

out of it. You can't have it both ways. If you don't have the revenue coming in,

how are you going to do the one thing? Clearly, they're in conflict even within

their own policies.

I just want to say, in closing, that what we have done with our

budget and what we have done with the throne speech, I believe, is going to help

the people in my riding, in Prince George–Omineca. It's going to help to lay the

foundations. It's going to help to expand our economy through initiatives with

mining, through initiatives with oil and gas, through initiatives with the

energy sector, our bioenergy strategy. All of those things are showing

leadership on the economic front, on the environmental front, and are the kind

of leadership that is needed.

I want to close with one more thing. What we've been doing with

our taxation in this province is bringing down that tax burden. What the

opposition seems to be standing for is…. They want to increase spending. Well,

Madam Speaker, you cannot increase spending unless you increase taxes. That is

what that side of the House stands for.

[1015]

We are opposed to that. Our position is that we want to see

dollars stay in the pockets of the taxpayers of this province. I'm proud of the

initiatives we're taking. I'm proud of what our government is doing, and I look

forward to bringing this forward throughout the spring session.

[ Page 9849 ]

R. Chouhan: When the spring sitting of the B.C. Legislature

began, I had high hopes that the Speech from the Throne and the new provincial

budget would reveal some timely and useful initiatives from the government which

would help children, families and seniors in Burnaby-Edmonds. Unfortunately, I

was disappointed. The speech was long on slogans and empty promises but very

short on concrete actions to deal with any of our issues.

The budget gave ordinary families new taxes, and the banks and

large corporations were rewarded with tax breaks which they do not need and

which they do not deserve. There was nothing to help deal with child poverty,

the forestry crisis, crime on our streets or the high costs of raising a family.

I had hoped there might be some programs to make housing more

affordable in Burnaby. I have been working very hard to convince B.C. Housing to

redevelop the government-owned Hillside Gardens into a mix of subsidized and

market housing, but this government provided absolutely no help with that.

The affordable housing shortage is a serious problem in Burnaby,

in Burnaby-Edmonds in particular. The majority of casework that my staff deals

with is housing-related. The changing demographics in Burnaby mean that there is

a long waiting list of people who need appropriate housing units to accommodate

their large families. Instead of providing leadership to build more affordable

housing units, this government played politics and blamed the city council. The

province has been asking Burnaby to give up some of its city-owned land for this

when the province already has a huge chunk of land they could use.

The government owns a big chunk of land at the corner of

Willingdon street and Canada Way. The site is big enough to accommodate the

minimal-barrier shelter and transitional housing. The site is huge. It's about

half of the size of BCIT. It is zoned for a public institution, so the shelter

and housing could be built without having to go through rezoning. It is on major

bus routes. I hope the government will think about it seriously and do something

to help the homeless and to ensure that they are connected to real treatment and

adequate supports.

I had anticipated that the Liberal government would bring in

measures to make the residential tenancy branch more responsive to tenants in

our community, who have no choice but to turn to it for support when they are

faced with unscrupulous landlords. That didn't happen.

I thought that the government could announce funding for a hub

building for settlement services, to help immigrants find their way in their new

country and in our community. Our community desperately needs to co-locate

settlement services in one location. Currently our immigrant and refugee

population must find their way to multiple agencies that are scattered

throughout the community.

I was looking for some recognition of the serious impact on

Burnaby streets when thousands of additional commuters opt to take the Pattullo

Bridge when tolls go up on the Port Mann Bridge in a few years. The throne

speech had nothing to say about this problem, and the budget didn't help either.

We can count on extremely heavy traffic pouring through our neighbourhoods when

the second bridge is built.

[1020]

Madam Speaker, I'm concerned about the quality of health care

available from Burnaby Hospital, particularly in view of recent unsettling news

stories regarding the standard of maternity care. The government had nothing to

offer on this issue. Instead of giving the health authority the additional $300

million they need, this government gave the big banks a $220 million tax cut.

I had hoped that the government might address the huge issue of

seniors care, particularly the problem of moving frail seniors from one care

home to another against their wishes, taking them out of their community and

distances away from their loved ones. The budget offered no hope of new funding

to improve the care we provide for older people, and this is a shame.

The government must answer these concerns. These are very serious

issues for my constituents. We must continue to ask for programs we all need if

we are to achieve the dreams we all have for ourselves and for our families.

Government must restore our public services to the levels which existed before

they began to cut services to pay for tax giveaways. All British Columbians

should be able to share the prosperity which comes with the current strong

Canadian economy.

Now is the time to build for a future for all of us in British

Columbia. Our children need to be able to grow into healthy adults, enjoying the

benefits of a first-class education system. All members of our family should

feel safe on our streets and in our communities, and our grandparents should be

able to enjoy their senior years in comfort and dignity. Instead of listening to

ordinary British Columbians, the government continues to please its big business

friends, and the rest of British Columbians are constantly pushed down and down.

This budget includes another cut in student aid, even as the debt

load for B.C. students grows at alarming rates. The average student debt at the

end of four years of university is $27,000. I think it's a great budget for

banks and oil companies, but it is a terrible budget for students.

There was nothing in the budget for children. The Liberal budget

didn't even mention B.C.'s shameful record of having the highest rate of child

poverty in the country. Although there is a 5.5 percent demographic growth of

children with special needs who need care, the budget increase allocated for

this area is only 0.7 percent.

The budget may be revenue-neutral for the treasury, but it is not

revenue-neutral for working and low-income people. This new gas tax is a cash

grab. That's what it is. The day before yesterday the Minister of Finance

claimed that the low-income earners would not be unfairly hit by the new tax.

But by 2012 the government will only return a dollar in special credits to

low-income people for every $2 it takes in the form of added carbon taxes.

The banks and big corporations will continue to get preferential

treatment from the Liberals. I guess the Liberals feel obliged to return favours

to their friends

[ Page 9850 ]

who have made huge contributions to their election campaign fund. The

ordinary working people, the working poor, children, families, seniors and

students don't matter.

There's no new provincial funding for a new child care system to

help working families with long wait-lists and higher fees. Nothing has been

done and offered to address the severe shortage of qualified staff. What we need

is a government providing real solutions, not a band-aid budget.

[1025]

In the throne speech the government claims that the supports for

women fleeing abusive relationships…. More will be done to improve programs to

prevent violence against women. The same promise was also made in the throne

speech in 2006, yet the Liberals still haven't restored the 2002 cuts to legal

aid or to women's centres.

B.C. is the only province in Canada not having a Human Rights

Commission. Despite the numerous attempts made by the opposition, despite the

fact I have twice introduced a private member's bill to restore the Human Rights

Commission, the government has failed to do it. There is no mention of human

rights or multiculturalism in the budget and the fiscal plan. The only systemic

barriers to economic equality for recent immigrants that are acknowledged by the

budget and fiscal plan are work-based language training and credential

assessment.

The 2008 budget does not acknowledge that poverty

disproportionately impacts racialized women, immigrants and refugees in this

province. Nearly one in five immigrants experiences a state of chronic low

income, more than twice the rate of Canadian-born individuals.

D. Routley: Welcome to B.C.

R. Chouhan: Welcome to B.C.

According to the most recently available data from Statistics

Canada, the rate of child poverty among recent immigrant families living in

Metro Vancouver is over 50 percent. The poverty rate for recently immigrated,

lone-parent families is 70 percent. These numbers compare only to the poverty

rates among aboriginal peoples in B.C. In Metro Vancouver 60 percent of

aboriginal children living in single-parent households are living in poverty.

The Liberals have refused to raise the minimum wage. There's

nothing in the budget to implement effective monitoring and the enforcement of

fair housing and labour standards under the unique conditions imposed by the

guest worker program in which vulnerable workers are bound to a single employer.

The budget puts the burden of tackling climate change on working

families while big polluters get a free pass. The new gas tax is unfair and will

accomplish little in the way of actually reducing emissions. The oil and gas

sector is responsible for 21 percent of all emissions in B.C., and they're

getting the largest subsidy ever.

H. Lali: That's because they pay for their election

financing.

R. Chouhan: Exactly. People in forestry-dependent

communities are getting thrown out of work. Mills are being closed, but the

Liberal government has done nothing to help these people. There's nothing in the

budget to address the crisis in the forest industry.

So what have we seen? The big banks and the oil and gas companies

get a whopping $550 million, and ordinary British Columbians get $100. So $100

as compared to $550 million to their friends. Just $100, Madam Speaker, while

the hydro rates are going up by 25 percent.

Medical premiums increased by 50 percent in this government's

first term. Seniors who do not qualify for premium assistance are now charged up

to $200 per year.

In 2003 the government initiated user fees in 28 of B.C.'s parks,

and in 2005 they implemented fees in another 13 parks. These fees range from

between $9 and $50. If that was not enough, as of April 1, 2008, fees in B.C.

parks will increase again by $1 per night for rustic and basic sites and $2 per

night for moderate and developed sites.

[1030]

Ferry fares have increased, and fuel surcharges have been added to

B.C. Ferry routes since this government's quasi-privatization scheme happened.

Since 2001, ferry fares have risen in B.C. by 35 percent on major routes and by

up to 75 percent on minor routes. They are projected to rise even further by

2011 — 46 percent on major routes and up to 85 percent on minor routes. ICBC

rates went up an average of 3.9 percent in 2004 and by 6.5 percent on February

1, 2006. In May 2007 the basic premiums increased by 3.3 percent.

The government members, when they make their speeches, are blaming

the opposition for not praising their budget. You tell me how on earth anybody

who has even a small portion of brain working can support this budget.

Interjections.

R. Chouhan: It has to be insane.

Transit fares have continued to rise, and in January 2008 Metro

Vancouver's transit fares became the highest in Canada.

Interjections.

R. Chouhan: We'll find out, I guess, shortly.

At a time when we need to entice people out of their cars, the

Liberal government has shown no leadership in making public transit more

affordable. Instead of lowering transit fares, the government has decided to

give a big gift of $550 million to their friends in the banking and oil and gas

industries — but only $100 for ordinary individuals.

While the working poor will carry the bulk of the burden of this

new gas tax, they got no help from the government — no help whatsoever. The

government should have increased the hourly minimum wage to $10 per hour but did

not do it. What a shame.

Speaking of the working poor, farmworkers are continuously ignored

by this government. They don't

[ Page 9851 ]

get the same rights as other workers. A year ago three farmworkers were

killed in a road accident. A year after, there is no coroner's inquest, and no

criminal charges are laid against the person or persons responsible.

Burnaby does not have adequate ambulance service, and cuts to

long-term care are putting seniors' lives at risk. The budget does not address

the critical need for improved ambulance service and better care for seniors in

Burnaby. The government's refusal to adequately fund the New Vista Care Home so

seniors can age in place….

The budget has confirmed that the B.C. Liberals won't provide the

critical health care dollars for my community. B.C.'s health authorities are

forced, with a $300 million shortfall…. As a result of it, patients will see

even more cuts and longer wait-lists.

In closing, I would say that my constituents are totally

disappointed. They were expecting help to deal with the rising costs of making a

living. Instead, what they got was $100. The big banks and the oil and gas

industry get $550 million. This budget and the throne speech once again have

proved that this government is out of touch with reality and has neglected the

poor and working families.

Hon. C. Richmond: It truly is a privilege for me to get up

here and speak to the budget speech and to reflect back on the throne speech and

talk a little bit about my constituency of Kamloops. I don't get a chance very

often to stand here and talk about Kamloops. It's usually about other things. So

this morning I am going to do that a little bit.

[1035]

First of all, I would like to thank a lot of the people who work

with me. We wouldn't be able to function properly if we didn't have a good staff

around us. I'll be very brief with it. I have Ian, Muneesh, Gail and Barb, who

are my right arms in Victoria. In Kamloops I have Linda, Jennifer and Lois. I

thank them very much for all of the work they do on my behalf. My job is made

very much easier by them.

I guess I can't help but respond to just a couple of things that

the speaker before me mentioned. They love to say that we are favouring the

large corporations and that we don't pay attention to working people. It seems

to me that they haven't grasped the concept that if you wish to attract industry

and business to your province, you must make sure your taxing policies are in

line with all of your competition that surrounds you to the east and to the

south. They don't seem to get it.

In fact, they didn't get it the whole ten years they had the

levers of power in the '90s. What happened is that a lot of those companies

decided that British Columbia was not a good place to do business, so they left.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members. Members.

Hon. C. Richmond: We had head offices leave this province,

because they couldn't grasp the idea that B.C. was not a good place to do

business. We will never get back those head offices that left, but we can make

sure the ones that are here stay and that we attract more, because they are the

people who provide jobs for British Columbians.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Minister. Minister.

Members.

Hon. C. Richmond: Madam Speaker, I don't think they like to

hear that, because they're the ones who chased thousands of jobs out of this

province. They chased the people who hire people out of this province.

They don't seem to have grasped the idea that if you want to

attract investment and business to the province, you must be competitive. We

were not competitive in the '90s. All you have to do is look at the statistics

of the people, young people especially, who left this province to find

employment elsewhere.

Now we have a tax regime in this province that attracts industry

and business, large and small, to this province, and the unemployment rates

attest to that. In my hometown alone, in Kamloops, in 2001 the unemployment rate

was 14.1 percent. It's now about 4 percent.

In fact, I just wanted to make a comment, as I made an observation

to myself the other day. I've listened to a lot of speeches in this House over

the years that I've been here. I haven't heard them all, of course, because

nobody sits in here all the time and listens. We couldn't handle that. But of

all the speeches I've heard sitting in here, I do not recall one from the other

side of the House — not one — where they stood up and talked about earning

money. I've never heard that.

I hear speeches every day about how we should spend money, but I

never hear a speech about how we should earn money. I don't know if they have

ever grasped the concept that you should earn money before you spend it. I don't

think they know about that.

In fact, it is quite evident by their record of the '90s, when

they spent money that they didn't have. We wound up $20 billion more in debt

after ten years than when they started, and when they took our province from

number 1 to number 10 in the country when the rest of the country was enjoying

relative prosperity. The rest of the country was doing quite well, and we went

to number 10.

I am certain that they still haven't grasped the concept…

Interjection.

Deputy Speaker: Member.

Hon. C. Richmond: …of earning money before you spend it.

Interjection.

Deputy Speaker: Excuse me, Minister.

Member.

[1040]

[ Page 9852 ]

Hon. C. Richmond: Now I want to talk about my constituency

for a while. We've done a lot of things for and with the city of Kamloops in the

last few years — things that you are able to do when you have a balanced budget

and a thriving economy, things that you could not do when you didn't have. The

proof is all around us. Families, students, workers and employers are truly

benefiting from B.C.'s vibrant economy, strong housing market, increased social

supports and numerous government initiatives.

Like all government MLAs, I take great satisfaction in working for

all British Columbians and the wonderful people I have the honour of

representing. I'm very fortunate to represent a constituency and a town in which

I have a great deal of pride, Kamloops. It's been my home for a long time. I

grew up there, and I've seen the many changes. I've seen the ups and downs that

have happened in my community.

Kamloops is a city that provides an exceptional lifestyle. It is a

great place to live, a clean place to play and a supportive place to raise a

family and get an excellent education. Kamloops' economy remains strong — as I

said earlier, a far cry from the 14.1 percent unemployment that plagued us

during the '90s.

It's a wonderful place to work. One of the most important

industries in Kamloops and the Thompson region is tourism. Each year hundreds of

thousands of people visit us in pursuit of both rest and recreation. We are

known now for the Tournament Capital Centre and the 2011 Western Canada Games.

Speaking of recreation, Kamloops is known now as the tournament capital of the

country, a reputation that is very well deserved.

To build on this well-earned reputation, the new $23 million

Tournament Capital Centre was officially opened last May as part of an overall

$48 million sports facility — an expansion project in the city.

You can do many things when the economy is strong. I am pleased to

add that our government helped finance this worthwhile project with a $6 million

contribution through the major recreational sports facilities initiative and a

further $4 million through the Canada-B.C. infrastructure program. The centre

has a stadium, an aquatic centre, a six-lane indoor track, gymnastics space and

three world-class hardwood courts for games such as basketball, volleyball and

badminton.

The Tournament Capital Centre is a very welcome addition to our

community, and it is expected the new centre will add over 45 new tournaments

each year — tournaments like the 2008 all-native junior provincial basketball

tournament, the Scott FireFit Championships, the invitational slo-pitch

tournaments. The tournaments could draw over 20,000 additional out-of-town

visitors, requiring 23,000 nights of accommodation, and that means up to $8

million in direct and indirect benefits for Kamloops.

Speaking of major tournaments, I would like to remind everyone

that the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games is not the only major sporting

event that will be held in B.C. in the next few years. Kamloops will be proud to

host the 2011 Western Canada summer games. Over nine days almost 2,300 athletes

from Manitoba, Alberta, Saskatchewan, the three territories and homegrown

competitors from B.C. will converge in Kamloops and compete in 20 different

sporting activities.

Along with the athletes, their coaches, managers, officials and

3,000 volunteers, the Western Canada Games are expected to generate $10 million

in local economic activity. I know Kamloops will once again rise to the occasion

and put on the best games that western Canada has ever seen. I invite you all to

visit the city in 2011 and cheer on the young athletes.

In addition to promoting the benefits of healthy living and

physical fitness, it's just as important to develop healthy minds, and I am

proud that here, too, Kamloops is leading the way. Learning has long been a

priority for our government, and we have committed significant resources to

create more spaces for students. A brilliant example is the $12.3 million B.C.

Centre for Open Learning located at Thompson Rivers University, which opened

last autumn.

The centre serves students provincewide who are taking

post-secondary courses and programs with media such as the Internet, video

conferencing and traditional print methods. The new state-of-the-art building

has 15,000 students who are enrolled in 400 open learning courses and employs

180 people. Needless to say, the B.C. Centre for Open Learning is an important

component of TRU and helps Kamloops build as a centre for advanced education.

[1045]

Now I'd like to briefly turn our attention to a very serious

issue: subsidized housing announcements in Kamloops. The opposition, if you

listened to question period yesterday, would have you believe that we're doing

nothing about housing. Just give a listen to this:

"Kamloops, like many other cities

and towns in our province, is home to people who increasingly need our help

and assistance. To help those most in need, our government has made affordable

housing a priority. Our provincewide Housing Matters strategy includes a

commitment to create more than 2,300 supportive housing units. This year our

government will invest some $360 million in housing."

That is three times the amount that was spent in 2001. The 2007-2008

budget number towards shelters and affordable housing is three times the amount

that was invested by the opposition. I'm very pleased to say that those most in

need in Kamloops are benefiting from the action our government has taken.

In fact, 2007 could have been called "Kamloops — the year of

affordable housing announcements." First, this government announced it invested

$1.2 million to purchase the Whistler Inn and preserve its 28 units as

affordable housing to help those most in need. I am pleased to say that the AIDS

Society of Kamloops will manage the inn.

In addition, the AIDS Society received $480,000 in October to

expand its homeless outreach services. Thanks to this funding, outreach workers

will direct help to the homeless and connect them to supports and

[ Page 9853 ]

services that will make a real and positive difference in their lives,

including income assistance, housing options and health programs.

The John Howard Society received $5.9 million in provincial

funding to build the 48-unit Georgian Court development on Fortune Drive.

Construction is well underway on this four-storey building to provide housing

this summer for those at risk of being homeless.

The New Life Mission received $1.8 million from this government to

expand its House of Ruth. As a direct result of this funding, the New Life

Mission can now provide 18 new units of transitional housing and shelter beds

for women and children most in need.

Kamloops first nations were not left out of the housing mix. As

part of a provincewide $50 million aboriginal housing initiative — a partnership

between the federal government, our government and the Aboriginal Housing

Management Association — the Kamloops Native Housing Society received a $5

million grant to build 20 residences on Summit Drive.

One of the announcements I was particularly excited about was also

made in Kamloops at the John Howard Society's Victory Inn, one of my community's

most respected and important service providers and a real success story.

Low-income and other vulnerable British Columbians who are moving into

provincially subsidized housing developments are benefiting from a $1 million

grant that we gave to the B.C. Non-Profit Housing Association for their

welcome-to-your-home starter kits.

These kits provide people with the amenities they need to start a

home. In fact, this idea was one that came from the ground up, from our staff,

which we encourage in the ministry. They said: "It's pretty tough sometimes when

you move someone into a new apartment, and they have nothing to set up

housekeeping." So we gave them starter kits, valued at about $900 retail, that

contain everything you would need to set up housekeeping, such as sheets,

pillows, pots, pans and dishes. In fact, the response we got from these people

was overwhelming. They couldn't believe that this was theirs to start setting up

home.

As well, in Kamloops we just opened the Hamlets, a beautiful

facility with 200 beds in west-side Bedford Manor, the seniors village. So

Kamloops has really benefited from our housing projects over the last few years.

[1050]

The home starter kits were just one of the many innovative

programs that the Ministry of Employment and Income Assistance launched last

year. The ministry implemented a new immediate-needs assessment process ensuring

that the urgent needs of all income assistance applicants for food, shelter or

medical attention are met when they first contact an employment and income

assistance office, whether they become a client or not. If anyone shows up at

one of our offices, nobody is turned away if they are in need.

I know the opposition would rather sit there and use data that's

three years old to talk about some statistics that are flawed from the beginning

and that are out of date….

Interjection.

Hon. C. Richmond: Yes, but they haven't paid attention to

the things that we're doing at this time in the ministry.

I also want to emphasize something that will explode a myth that's

out there. I want to emphasize to members of this House and to everyone in

British Columbia that income assistance is available to everyone who is

eligible, regardless of whether they have a fixed address or not.

We should all recognize that the first step to stable lodging for

our most vulnerable citizens is receiving the supports they need, and that

includes financial assistance. This is part of our simplification project, with

emphasis on ensuring that their needs are met first. Processes come second.

We also standardized payments for all income assistance clients

residing in Community Living B.C. facilities, meaning that they will achieve the

maximum persons-with-disabilities rate available of $906 a month.

To help persons with disabilities save for their future, we

announced that the federal government's new registered disability savings plan

will not be considered an asset when calculating clients' eligibility for

disability assistance. This means that British Columbians with disabilities who

to contribute up to a lifetime maximum of $200,000 after-tax to a registered

disability savings plan. Good news, indeed.

Our government provided 2010 Legacies Now with a one-time $900,000

grant to establish Access Works, a program that will help persons with

disabilities benefit from employment and volunteer opportunities resulting from

the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games.

One of the most memorable events I attended during last year was

for the $4.2 million grant presented to the communication assistance for young

adults program. This program provides communication devices and services to

young adults who have severe communication disabilities.

While I was at this event, I had the opportunity to meet two very

intelligent young women who use communication devices to speak. One was able to

type commands on a computer to speak. The other was most impressive. She had

cerebral palsy — extreme cerebral palsy, I should add. She was unable to speak

and unable to hear, but by the piece of equipment that we had funded for her,

she was able to move her head from side to side and tap out Morse code on two

pads that were on each side of her head. The Morse code was then converted into

text by the computer and then into speech.

Was it ever impressive when she was able to respond to the words I

said when I was able to give them this $4.2 million grant on behalf of British

Columbians. It made it all worthwhile when you sat there and saw in this

dysfunctional body an IQ of about 170 able to send Morse code to a machine and

respond to the audience. Their excitement to speak to the media and guests

showed me just how much our government and community

[ Page 9854 ]

partnerships are really making a difference in the lives of people with

disabilities.

Along with my colleagues the Minister of Children and Families,

the Minister of Advanced Education and the Minister of Community Services, I

helped deliver $750,000 to the University of Victoria's CanAssist team to help

build individualized technology devices and service for persons with

disabilities. This is truly a fascinating program, and the creative minds of

CanAssist have designed some really innovative technology that is improving the

quality of life for many people, including children with special needs.

[1055]

The ministry announced policy changes that encourage employable

income assistance clients to accept short-term, seasonal agricultural jobs while

allowing a seamless transition back into an assistance program, if it's

required. This means expected-to-work clients who accept a seasonal or temporary

agricultural job of less than two months in length will have their files kept

open. Moreover, they will not be required to perform a three-week work search

nor go through the application process again should income assistance be needed.

Not only does this policy offer encouragement to ministry clients,

but it helps farmers and the agricultural sector recruit seasonal workers,

especially for harvest work. Remember the quotation: "Work, not welfare,

eliminates poverty."

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Obviously, what we really want to see is clients move from income

assistance to full-time work, where a good job provides a much better level of

support than welfare. The average stay on our rolls of a person expected to work

is just four months, and when they leave our rolls for employment, the average

wage they are attaining is $13 an hour.

The Ministry of Employment and Income Assistance invests over $70

million a year in a full range of employment programs. This includes $35 million

for the new B.C. employment program, $7.5 million for the new community

assistance program, $20 million for the new employment program for persons with

disabilities, $5 million for the bridging employment program and $5 million for

the community volunteer supplement program.

Each year over 25,000 people with significant barriers to

employment participate fully and benefit from a full range of employment

programs. Our employment programs are a proven and undeniable success. Since

2001 over 54,000 British Columbians have been placed into jobs through our

programs. I'm pleased to add that the average wage paid to former clients who

have been placed into jobs was approximately $13 an hour in 2007.

One issue I'm very passionate about is our province's commitment

in building the best system of support for persons with disabilities. The

government has a vision in which British Columbians with disabilities have real

choice and are well supported by services that create healthy, accessible and

welcoming communities.

The government's disability strategy includes focusing on a

citizen-centred service delivery for all government disability supports and

programs, enhancing employment opportunities and improving access to personal

assistive devices. The disability strategy builds on the provincial government's

current investment of more than $4.3 billion each year on disability programs

and services, ensuring that B.C. is the best place to live, play and work for

all British Columbians.

Interjection.

Hon. C. Richmond: I notice the member from Cowichan Valley

cannot wait his turn to speak in the House. I'm not sure if he's sitting in his

own seat, because they've moved…

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. C. Richmond: …around quite a bit in the last little

while. But let me assure the member that he will have his turn to speak in the

House the same as everyone else.

Last year our ministry completely revamped its $20 million

employment program for persons with disabilities and made it even more

responsive to individual needs. This program is available to all British

Columbians with disabilities, not just people who are on our income assistance

rolls.

Approximately 44 percent of working-age British Columbians with a

disability are working, but I know we can do a lot better. The one way we can do

it is with our 10 by 10 Challenge that we have issued to communities throughout

the province. I'm pleased to say that over 50 communities have now taken up the

challenge to increase the employment of persons with disabilities — to increase

it by 10 percent by 2010.

[1100]

It's an issue all MLAs should promote, and I urge you to speak to

your municipal counterparts and encourage them to take up the challenge. There

are still communities out there that we're waiting for to come on board. If we

can get full participation, this will mean an additional 13,000 persons with

disabilities will be working over the next two years.

Another highlight occurred for me last year in November at an

event behind the steps of the Legislative Library to help celebrate the United

Nations International Day of Disabled Persons. My ministry announced a $225,000

funding grant to the B.C. Wheelchair Sports Association to help athletes with a

disability participate in sporting activities. The grant allowed the B.C.

Wheelchair Sports Association to purchase a new modified passenger van that will

transport athletes and equipment to events throughout the province and western

North America. In addition, they were able to purchase up to 50 new

sport-specific wheelchairs designed specifically for court sports such as

basketball, track sports and rugby.

For the uninitiated, wheelchairs that are designed for playing

rugby are quite different than the ordinary

[ Page 9855 ]

wheelchair, and they cost in excess of $3,000 each. It's a bone-jarring

physical engagement, as I can attest to. The Minister for ActNow and I had a

short game of wheelchair rugby out there, and I can tell you that it almost

jarred the fillings out of your teeth.

The Canadian Wheelchair Sports Association won the bid to host the

2010 World Wheelchair Rugby Championships, beating competitions from Britain and

elsewhere. They're taking place from September 16 to 25 in 2010, and 144

athletes from 12 countries will compete at the Richmond Olympic oval. Please

join me in congratulating the B.C. Wheelchair Sports Association for being

afforded this great honour.

While it's always enjoyable to announce funding and awards and to

talk about events, there are many pressing issues that all of us British

Columbians must face. The issue of low-income working families is an issue our

government takes very seriously, and it has made positive progress over the last

few years. Statistics Canada reports that the number of British Columbians,

including children, living in low-income situations is declining. From 2002 to

2005, 103,000 fewer British Columbians were recorded as living in the low-income

cutoff category, accounting for over 80 percent of the national reduction.

The percentage of British Columbians, 13 percent, falling into the

LICO category is the lowest in a decade. The number of children living in

low-income circumstances declined by 16 percent in one year alone, from 2004 to

2005. These numbers are from Statistics Canada. They only cover up to 2005, and

we know our economy has improved significantly since then. Today our

unemployment rate sits at 4.1 percent provincially, one of the lowest ever on

record. In the past 12 months alone 53,400 new jobs have been created in our

province. This is the number equivalent to almost the entire population of

Vernon.

While encouraging, our government is working hard to see the

number of British Columbians in low-income circumstances drop even further. To

help, we have introduced a number of initiatives and programs that help

low-income families and children. Working families with children and household

incomes of less than $28,000 a year — I have to revise that now, since the

budget, to less than $35,000 a year — are eligible to receive up to $563 a month

in direct payments through the rental assistance program towards their housing

costs.

I noted yesterday that the member — I think he's from

Victoria-Hillside — said: "What good is a rental assistance program if you have

almost zero vacancy rate?" I don't think he gets it. This assistance program is

for people who are already in houses. They already have a home. The only problem

is that they're paying more than 30 percent of their income for rent. They are

assisted immediately. They don't have to wait for housing to be built. They're

assisted right now, thousands of them, with up to $563 a month.

There is much more I could say, but I thank you for the time. It's

always a pleasure and a privilege to speak in this House.

[1105]

K. Whittred: I ask leave to make an introduction.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

Introductions by Members

K. Whittred: Visiting me today are family from

Saskatchewan, that place where I think it's still really cold. I hear they're

having winter there. Anyway, it is my pleasure today to introduce to the House

my cousin Dalice Abraham; her husband, Max Abraham; and their very good friends

Linda and Les Ferguson. All of these folks are from Saskatoon, so welcome.

Debate Continued

Mr. Speaker: The Member for Coquitlam-Maillardville.

[Applause.]

D. Thorne: Oh, there you go. I have a fan. I hope that's

not eating into my time, Mr. Speaker. Thank you for the opportunity to speak

today.

I am honoured to represent the residents of Coquitlam-Maillardville

in this House and to bring forward my comments and concerns re the 2008 budget

on their behalf. I find this so-called green budget quite alarming, as it

appears to put all the pressure of tackling climate change on average families

who are already struggling just to get by.

I see big banks and big polluters getting an even better financial

break, while key public services like affordable housing, child welfare, crime

and public safety are ignored. This budget won't help families living in

poverty, in substandard living conditions or, worse, facing eviction from the

only housing they can afford.

This budget won't help the thousands of people on the growing

waiting list for non-profit affordable housing, those unfortunate enough to not

be benefiting from the good life in this rich province of ours. Mr. Speaker, I

can assure you that a cheque for $100 will not change the lives of these people

or their future any more than this new budget will.

Before I discuss other issues of concern in my constituency, I

want to talk a bit about my role as opposition critic for Housing. At this time

last year I outlined the many challenges facing thousands seeking affordable and

decent housing in this province. Regrettably, once again I must report that

there has been no significant progress toward alleviating B.C. Housing's crisis.

[K. Whittred in the chair.]

Throughout my remarks today, I will be reading quotes from some of

the e-mail, phone and written messages I have received recently. I think it will

be valuable for this government to hear from British Columbians who, in their

own words, talk about the situations they are facing. The government members

opposite may not like what is being said, but I hope they will listen carefully

to these words, which are not my opinions only or the

[ Page 9856 ]

opinions of the official opposition. These are the life experiences and views

of real British Columbians.

In my work as Housing critic, I hear constantly how affordable

housing is virtually non-existent and even more so for the lower-income tenants

who are often threatened with losing their home due to a strata conversion or to

renovations which lead to exorbitant rent increases or eviction, just to name a

few examples.

Pascal, a tenant in Vancouver, tells me: "All 22 tenants in my

building are being evicted for renovation purposes. The new owner estimates the

rent for my unit will subsequently go up from $705 a month to $1,150."

I am asking this government to make an immediate commitment to

build non-profit housing. Non-profit housing and cooperatives are partnerships

where all parties have an interest in making them work. They are community

assets — long-term investments that benefit everyone. The sooner the members

across the way acknowledge this, the sooner we can move ahead together, all of

us, to really make B.C. the best place on earth for everybody.

The story told by constituents who contacted my Coquitlam office

recently reiterates this need. "We are immigrants from Sudan," they told my

staff, "a married couple with four children and a fifth due in several months.

We are currently living in a one-bedroom suite in a run-down building on

Brunette Avenue. We have contacted B.C. Housing and our social worker on many

occasions but have received no response so far. Please, can you help us?" The

words of real British Columbians.

[1110]

R. Fleming: I seek leave from the House to make an

introduction.

Deputy Speaker: Proceed.

Introductions by Members

R. Fleming: With us today are a number of students from the

Four Corners Language Institute in downtown Victoria, and I would like to

introduce them. They are students from Japan, Korea and Mexico who are coming to

the Legislature for the first time.

Would the House please welcome Ms. Jisun Hong, Ms. Alice On, Ms.

Misun Kim, Mr. Joon Young Lee, Mr. Tomoyoshi Ueno, Ms. Naoko Fujimura, Mr. Kyo

Jung Cho, Mr. Edgardo Del Olmo, Ms. Hyo Jeong Jeong and Mr. Takamitsu Yanase.

Will the House please make them feel welcome.

Debate Continued

D. Thorne: Government promises and expectations aside, the

free market is not helping to provide affordable rental housing. Virtually no

new market rental housing has been built in British Columbia in the last 20

years as a result of the rising cost of land and the lack of incentives for

developers. This, along with strict eligibility requirements, is also why the

government's rent supplement program has had such minimal success.

To date about 4,500 people have taken advantage of the program,

far below the 15,000 promised by the Housing Minister last year at this time. In

a low-vacancy market like ours, rent supplements will only work for people who

already have an apartment and who also meet the numerous eligibility

requirements. Raising the income level will help some people, but only those

fortunate enough to have housing.

Renters who are fortunate enough to have housing also face many

issues with their tenancies. Since 2001 this government has slashed the number

of residential tenancy branch offices and the staff who work in them, to the

detriment of all renters and landlords in British Columbia.

B.C. has been left with only two and a half RTB offices,

residential tenancy branch offices, leaving dedicated staff struggling to keep

up with the growing number of people who need assistance. Wait times for

services are simply unacceptable. There are long waits no matter how you try to

access the system — in person, by phone or by e-mail. Arbitrations are so far

behind that by the time the RTB rules in favour of the tenant, it's often too

late. They have already been evicted or have already had to find other

accommodation because of their fear of being evicted.

It's not just the tenants. Landlords are also being negatively

affected. Let me quote directly from my constituent Chris, who contacted me

about this. Chris says:

"I am the owner of a number of rental properties. Over

the last number of years I have been consistently frustrated with how long it

takes to get anything done when dealing with the residential tenancy branch.

"Today is March 14, the middle of the

month, when they should have the most time to deal with issues,

and a question I ask by e-mail gets the response below. Fifteen business days

to wait for a reply is unacceptable. When I call to speak to an information

officer, I'm told that I'll be on hold for 46 minutes.

"When I apply for an arbitration hearing

to remove a formerly good tenant who has become a crack addict,

who is not paying rent and is becoming a threat to my other tenants, the

earliest I can get a hearing is six weeks. Delays like this put other tenants'

lives in danger and force me to live with the problem for an unreasonable

amount of time and to be denied the rent that I am owed.

"The system in place to recover the lost

rent is so cumbersome that most landlords never collect, and the

tenants know it."

The words of a landlord, somebody living in British Columbia who

feels he has significant issues. These comments are from a landlord, and I've

received many, many more from tenants who are also adversely affected by delays

in service. They complain of telephone waiting times of more than an hour and

three weeks for an e-mail reply.

There's an old saying that justice delayed is justice denied.

Clearly, many landlords and tenants feel that the government's lack of

commitment to providing an efficient and properly funded tenancy branch is

denying them fundamental justice. I do not fault the staff at the branch, who

are doing the best they can in the face of office closures and budget

reductions.

[1115]

[ Page 9857 ]

I brought these issues up in the House last fall, and the minister

acknowledged the problems. He said that there would be improvements, and I am

pleased to see that finally, there is some movement in this budget. We've been

waiting a long time. Renters and landlords will be watching with me to see how

far these changes actually go, if they really make a difference on the ground.

Changes to the Residential Tenancy Act in 2004 appear to have

created many of the problems with amendments that were intended to balance the

rights of landlords and tenants but that instead created loopholes that are

causing many of the problems we have seen the residential tenancy staff trying

to deal with, loopholes that might allow landlords to circumvent the legislated

annual rent increase in several ways.

For example, landlords can deliver letters to tenants that propose

above-guideline rent increases, sometimes as high as 50 percent. Tenants who are

unfamiliar with the Residential Tenancy Act often agree to these exorbitant rent

increases, believing it is the only way they can keep their home. B.C.

regulations at the moment do not protect tenants from these letters.

If a tenant doesn't agree to excessive rent increases, landlords

can use

section 49 of the act, which states that landlords can end a tenancy to

do renovations or repairs that require the unit to be vacant. Relatively minor

renovations often allow an entire building to be evicted. Once a tenancy is

ended, rents can be raised to amounts otherwise prohibited by the act. Evictees

include long-term tenants, new immigrants, foreign exchange students and elderly

individuals, many of whom do not have the time or resources to go to

arbitration.

When tenants do challenge their evictions, they often find that

the residential tenancy branch offices are inaccessible and understaffed and

that the process is intimidating. Until recently most tenants who fought

evictions under

section 49 lost their cases.

Sharon, Janine and Sarah are neighbours in the West End's Bay

Towers who refused to agree to rent increases up to 55 percent. Shortly after,

along with their other neighbours, they were evicted floor by floor "for

renovations." Not a coincidence, they thought. They challenged their evictions

at the RTB, and they won.

Recently another group of evicted tenants in Richmond overturned

their residential tenancy branch decisions at the B.C. Supreme Court and the

Court of Appeal. After these two notable cases, called Allman vs . Amacon,

and Berry and Kloet vs . British Columbia, the hon. Justice Williamson

stated: "The purpose of

section 49(6) is not to give landlords a means for

evicting tenants; rather, it is to ensure that landlords are able to carry out

renovations." He went on to say, "It could not surely have been the intent of

the Legislature to provide such a loophole for landlords" — very, very sharp

words about our Residential Tenancy Act in British Columbia.

It is obvious that the courts are aware that

section 49,

particularly (6)(

b) under that section, is being used improperly and that

tenants' rights are not being properly protected — an urgent situation which

requires the attention immediately of legislators.

Section 49(6)(

b) needs

revision or removal, as does the issue of those "voluntary" rent increases.

British Columbia should seriously consider recent Ontario

legislation developed in response to evictions for renovations. New regulations

include the right of first refusal, allowing tenants to return to their units at

the same rent once renovations are completed or three months' compensation and

120 days to move out if tenants are able to move elsewhere. The right of first

refusal is really the only way to give renters in B.C. any security of tenure in

this increasingly tight rental market.

[1120]

These examples illustrate the trend — I hope my mouth is not going

to stop working, Madam Speaker; I'm only halfway through — of large apartment

owners buying up older affordable rental buildings and using loopholes in the

Residential Tenancy Act to engineer large rent increases. Leading up to the

Olympics, this is a trend that is exacerbating the crisis in affordable housing

in this region.

We also continue to have manufactured home owners around the

province suffering as more and more of them see the property their home sits on

sold for condo and subdivision redevelopment. Changes made to the Manufactured

Home Park Tenancy Act by this government did not deal adequately with notice or

fair compensation, and in the past year further changes have enabled

manufactured home park owners to raise pad rentals above the prescribed limits

to cover increased operational costs. As a direct result, many manufactured home

owners are facing financial ruin.

Some members will say, "Oh, there goes the Housing critic finding

fault again," so let me quote directly from an e-mail, which I received ten days

ago — not my opinion. Bruce, a man living in Burnaby, writes: "The residents of

the manufactured home park where I live have received their notice to vacate.

The property has been sold to a developer. This park is occupied by citizens,

disabled, new arrivals and otherwise disadvantaged citizens. There are very few

options available to us. Where will we find somewhere else to live that we can

afford?"

Manufactured home park owners should be required to provide a fair

and uniform relocation package to those they are displacing. The city of

Coquitlam has been a leader in this regard by requiring owners of manufactured

home parks to negotiate fair agreements with their tenants before they can

rezone the land for other development. The Union of B.C. Municipalities agreed

with this.

What is really needed is improved provincial legislation so that

all manufactured home owners in B.C. receive fair and equal treatment when faced

with relocation. Fortunately, several manufactured home owner associations have

formed and have taken on the plight of those living in parks facing possible

closure due to redevelopment. I have found these groups very efficient and

knowledgable, and I wish to thank them for bringing such important issues to my

attention in a timely manner.

The plight of float home owners who are presently not covered by

any provincial legislation at all is another

[ Page 9858 ]

issue I intend to bring to the attention of the minister, as Budget 2008 has

ignored both these two groups of homeowners.

The government's current housing strategy does little to increase

affordable housing stock for families. It relies heavily on rent supplements,

but everyone knows that rent supplements will not raise our vacancy rates, which

are the lowest in the country.

I also wish to remind this government that the cities and towns of

British Columbia, our community partners, are not responsible or funded to

provide social services or housing. These are the responsibilities of the

provincial and federal governments, who collect tax dollars for that purpose and

who must always be held accountable, especially in these troubling times when

homeless numbers are tripling and quadrupling.

I have met with owners of the so-called leaky condos, who are

still suffering from their financial fiasco. These are often people whose lives

have been ruined, who now suffer ongoing medical conditions as a result of too

many years of uncertainty and chaos, victims of a seemingly uncaring system.

Even though we may not hear as much about it in the media, thousands of owners

are still paying for faulty construction. Frankly, many of these people feel

abandoned by our provincial government, which had promised, before the 2001

election, to take on a leadership role and to move immediately towards the

resolution of this problem.

Again, it is the volunteer consumer advocacy groups that are

carrying the torch on behalf of victims, not the provincial government, and I

again thank these groups for their continued hard work and their tenacity.

The leaky-condo crisis has now spread to the subsidized housing

market. Last June it was reported that at least ten buildings run by the GVRD

need major repairs. Many wood-frame apartments and townhomes built 25 years ago

are rotting from water leaks. At that time, it was stated that the average unit

would cost $70,000 to repair, and the costs have probably escalated since then.

[1125]

Recently, a B.C. Housing official informed me that they have

dozens of projects underway to correct water ingress and other construction

problems. One of the affected sites is a family and seniors complex located in

my own constituency. The mainly low-income tenants have already endured 18

months of intrusion, noise and dirt from a very disorganized and slow repair

process. Now they have been informed that the renos are being expanded to

include more work and that they will have to endure another two years of living

in a construction zone. As Jerry, one of the tenants, so aptly described it: "It

has been a nightmare. You can only imagine how it has affected the old and the

ill. Now, to add insult to injury, B.C. Housing is increasing my rent, which I

suspect is due to the cost overruns of this project."

I have continued to communicate with members of various home and

property inspection associations to discuss the need to establish standards for

the home inspection industry. When I questioned the Solicitor General about this

in the Legislature, he pooh-poohed the idea and was quoted in the media as

"having seen no evidence that such standards are needed."

[H. Bloy in the chair.]

As it was clear that there would be no action forthcoming from the

government, I took action and initiated a private member's bill calling for

regulations to license home inspectors — again with no response from the

Solicitor General. Then suddenly, a few weeks ago, with very little publicity,

the Solicitor General did another of his famous flip-flops and acknowledged what

I and many others have been saying.

He announced that his ministry is intending to regulate home

inspectors after all. A public consultation process asking for input has been

launched, with a very tight time frame for feedback. I'm glad the Solicitor

General has finally recognized the error of his previous statements.

It is still concerning me that this process was launched in such a

quiet way that the public and even some industry stakeholders were not aware of

what was happening until the deadline for feedback was rapidly approaching. I

would say to anyone who is listening that they can certainly contact my office

if they have information that they need to input and don't know how to do it.

I've met several times with representatives from the B.C. Real

Estate Association and discussed with them many items of interest to their

members, including and especially the property transfer tax. One interesting

suggestion that they have put forward, which I believe warrants further

discussion, is the feasibility of using a portion of the PTT to fund affordable

housing. Along with the Real Estate Association, I have raised this issue, which

continues to be ignored by this government.

I guess all we can hope is that another in a long line of

flip-flops will take place one day and this source of revenue will be earmarked

for projects to assist those who need help to find adequate, affordable housing

— often seniors, single-parent families and the disabled. Surely their needs

should be paramount in our just and caring society. There are no excuses. A rich

province with a huge surplus can do better to assist vulnerable people.

In my role as critic for consumer protection, I am receiving a

significant amount of feedback from British Columbians who are upset about

continual rate increases for basic services such as Hydro, B.C. Ferries and

ICBC. Over the past six years we have also seen huge increases in tuition fees,

medicare and prescription costs, park fees and, of course, continuing pressure

on child care costs.

Transit fares in Metro Vancouver — where residents need

affordable, accessible public transportation — have soared. Recent fare hikes

will seriously impact working people, seniors and youth, and will do nothing to

encourage people to use transit. It is unconscionable that transit riders, often

minimum-wage earners, will have to pay $10 to get to work from Surrey to

Vancouver, especially in the face of the 500 percent increases to the newly

appointed, unelected TransLink board.

[ Page 9859 ]

This government's refusal to investigate increasing gasoline

prices is also a concern. Income tax reductions and cheques for $100 are of

little use if they are offset by continual price increases and by the hands of

government always in people's pockets. My Coquitlam constituency office

continues to hear from residents about all of these and about a variety of other

concerns and suggestions which have not been covered in Budget 2008.

[1130]

The biggest issue in my community right now is the future of the

Riverview lands. I was disappointed to read in one of my local newspapers that

the member for Port Moody–Westwood complained that a "new level of hysteria"

surrounds the Riverview issue. Surely the member is aware of the deep feelings

that residents of the Tri-Cities, including his constituents, have expressed

regarding the preservation of the Riverview lands. Why isn't he joining the

member for Port Coquitlam–Burke Mountain and me in our efforts to support the

community's wishes instead of dismissing their concerns as hysteria?

One of his constituents, Elaine Golds, a freeman of the city of

Port Moody, summarized the solution perfectly in a recent letter to the editor

in The Vancouver Sun . "The Riverview Hospital should be kept for the

mentally ill, and public transit should be built to serve Port Moody, where a

number of highrise towers are under construction and more have been approved."

It now appears that pressure from the 11,000 — and still growing —

signatures petition that the opposition tabled in this House opposing market

housing on the Riverview lands, as well as opposition from Coquitlam city

council, may finally have been heard in some government circles, as the minister

was quoted recently as saying he has no plans. "We're not doing anything — at

least, not right now."

I'm glad the minister has suspended his secret discussions that

were initiated last summer and fall. He and the Minister of Health should

concentrate on utilizing Riverview for the mentally ill, as there is a great

resource being wasted there that could be used for transition and supportive

housing for mentally ill homeless currently languishing on the streets of

communities throughout British Columbia.

The recent Evergreen announcement has created more questions than

it has answered. Will the necessary federal funding come through? Why is the

southeast line option, which runs past Riverview lands, suddenly back on the

table? Important questions, as so far no representative of the federal

government has given any guarantee that they will come up with at least $400

million to close the funding gap. Resurrecting the southeast line as an option

has raised huge concerns for Coquitlam residents fighting to preserve the

Riverview site.

When announcing the plans for the Evergreen line, the Minister of

Transportation claimed the northeast route option, through Port Moody, and the

southeast option shared identical construction costs, operating costs and

ridership projections. In fact, the southeast corridor was projected to have a

slightly higher ridership potential.

This did not agree with numerous and intensive earlier studies

done while I was a Coquitlam city councillor. Naturally, many questions had been

raised by current council and others about these numbers. Then TransLink

officials confirmed that a redevelopment of the Riverview lands with thousands

of units of market housing was, in fact, included in the ridership projections

for the southeast route. Transportation Ministry officials deny this.

When I sought clarification from the minister in the House as to

which version was correct, he ignored and basically refused to answer. We need

answers now so that the public can make an informed decision during the short,

45-day period they have for input on route selection.

Residents in my riding also watched the budget carefully because

of ongoing problems in the delivery of health care. Emergency room doctors at

the Royal Columbian Hospital repeatedly voiced concerns that the department is

dangerously overcrowded, a problem confirmed by the fire inspector in New West

last week, who closed down the hospital because of crowded hallways and too many

people in the emergency ward.

Even more shocking was an incident several days later when a

patient left in a side hallway went into unnoticed respiratory distress — a

close call that further shows the need for expansion of the emergency ward at

the hospital and for more facilities in the community to which patients can be

moved.

Here's a quote from a doctor on the front lines. He says that the

Fraser Authority has approximately 300 patients who at any one time are floating

around hospitals without beds, and that's the size of one whole hospital. That's

the quote from Dr. Sheldon Glazer, who works in the emergency room at RCH. That

one badly needed hospital, of course, could have been St. Mary's, until this

government closed it down. The Fraser health region continues to suffer from

that loss to this day.

[1135]

Of course, all of these problems were forecast by the former chair

of our Fraser health board, who quit last year because he said inadequate

government funding threatened patient care in the region, and he felt powerless

to change its course. His predictions have all come true.

Many of my constituents are also concerned about the threat to the

Pinecone Burke Provincial Park, where Northwest Cascade Power has applied to

allow the removal of 52 acres of park to facilitate construction of a hydro

transmission line to Squamish. It is an unprecedented move, an unprecedented

request, prohibited under the B.C. Park Act. To facilitate an IPP, the proponent

has requested that land be removed to get around the Park Act.

The transmission line will go through sensitive wetlands and

critical grizzly bear habitat. Fears are high that deletion of land from

Pinecone Burke will set a new precedent and that many more boundary adjustments

will follow in British Columbia.

The proposed Upper Pitt run-of-the-river project will divert all

major tributaries that lie outside of the park boundaries. Within only a short

12-kilometre stretch, eight creeks would be diverted. The Upper Pitt

[ Page 9860 ]

is internationally renowned for its abundant wild salmon.

Transmission lines and roads and gravel pits will clear riparian

cover and forest covering, and creek crossings will have to be built in the

Upper Pitt. Despite these high environmental and financial costs, the

electricity produced from this project is considered low value because the lakes

and the streams will be frozen in the wintertime. With no overall planning,

B.C.'s remote wildernesses are likely to become covered in these webs of

overlapping private transmission lines.

I wish I had more time, because I have many, many more concerns,

but thank you for letting me speak today.

B. Lekstrom: I rise to take my position to respond to the

budget speech this year, a budget speech that I wholeheartedly support and will

speak to and will break down into a number of categories. We're talking about a

budget this year, in the '08-09 budget presentation, that will spend $37.69

billion to deliver the services for British Columbians. I think this money is

being wisely spent.

I'm going to start off by thanking the people of Peace River

South, the constituency which I represent. I want to, as well, thank my

colleagues on both sides of the House who come here with the honour and

privilege to represent the people of British Columbia and try and make a

difference in their lives.

I want to thank the staff I have: my legislative assistant Katy

Fairley, who works here in Victoria, as well as my constituency assistant back

in Dawson Creek, Mr. Jim Noble, who has been with me since 2001.

Most importantly — and not to take anything away from the others

I've mentioned — my family. My wife Vicki and my daughters Lindsey and Taiya —

thank you very much. I also will be in big trouble if I forget this thank-you. I

think my mom is watching, so hi Mom, and thank you very much.

Health care. I'm going to start by discussing that. It is an

important part of any budget in British Columbia, regardless of the year in

which we operate. But health care has been a challenge, not just for British

Columbia but right across this great country of ours.

This year's budget will see us invest an additional $2.9 billion

into our health care budget over the next three years. That is an amazing amount

of money. It's easier to say $2.9 billion the longer I seem to hold this

position. We talk in millions, tens of millions, hundreds of millions, billions

of dollars, but it is a significant amount. It is two thousand nine hundred

million dollars.

That means that next year's health care budget will stand — just

the Health budget, and there are other moneys spent on health care — at $13.765

billion. That is a significant increase. By the end of our three-year fiscal

plan we will have increased the health care budget in British Columbia by $4.9

billion from 2001.

[1140]

Does that mean health care is completely resolved and everything

is fine? No. I think there's a great deal of work, and we've taken the bold step

as a government to say that no longer is it going to be satisfactory to just

inject money after money after money. We as a government have engaged the people

of British Columbia in the Conversation on Health. We engaged them in a

discussion that went out and talked about what works in health care, what

doesn't work and what they think may help our health care system.

We are going to go down a road of a delivery model that we think

is sustainable, one that is within the health care act, one that is publicly

funded. I want to make that very clear, because we often hear: "You're going to

go private." Well, nothing could be further from the truth. It's unfortunate

that the opposition seems to want to mislead the public, because fear sometimes

plays a role, but they do that.

They also say that we've cut health care. The member for

Yale-Lillooet was railing on about: "They have cut and slashed health care."

That's the kind of math that got you guys in trouble in the '90s. And $4.9

billion is a significant increase. Two-thirds of all new government spending in

this budget will be spent on health care. That's a significant amount of money —

two-thirds of all new government spending over the next three years.

I'm going to focus just briefly on my area of Peace River South.

We have an expansion going on in our complex care facility and assisted living

with the redevelopment of sites at Rotary Manor and Southview Housing in Dawson

Creek. These are redevelopments of the Pouce Coupe Care Home in Peace River

Haven in my region. That is very welcome news for the constituents that I

represent and for the seniors that are reaching that level of care and need. So

it is a bonus and a very added benefit, not to me as an MLA but to the people I

represent.

As well, to the north of the river — my colleague the hon.

Minister of Energy and Mines — we have a new hospital being built in Fort St.

John. Many people think: why would that be good for members of Peace River

South? Because it helps us all. In northeast B.C. we have about 63,000 people

total. But we work together to benefit all people of the northeast.

There's also a $300 million transformation fund in our health care

budget that is going to help us go down a road of changing how we look at

delivering our health care services in this province, changing it to one that is

sustainable for the long term. We've enjoyed a great quality of life in this

province. It's our job to ensure that that great quality of life remains for our

children, our grandchildren and future generations, and we are going to do that.

Education in this budget sees an increase of $144 million in our

K-to-12 system over the next three years — again, not much of a cut, in my eyes.

This is a significant increase. There's $38 million for StrongStart centres,

which is a very, very good number. We have student enrolment that continues to

decline in this province. At the same time, we recognize the importance of the….

[ Page 9861 ]

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members, Members. It's very hard to hear

the speaker. If we could keep our side comments to individuals and the

discussions across the way so that we can hear the speaker. You'll all have an

opportunity to speak to the throne and budget speeches.

B. Lekstrom: Thank you, hon. Speaker, and certainly I think

it will help if he can keep it quiet a little bit over there.

But anyway, going back to education — 144 million new dollars into

our K-to-12 system. This is an investment at the same time that we're seeing our

student enrolment decline because families are having fewer and fewer children.

We know that. That transcends any government party.

I note there are a number of students in the gallery here. We're

doing this for them. We're not doing it for us. We're doing it for them, and I'm

very proud to be able to say that. In this budget we have a K-to-12 education

budget of $5.675 billion.

I encourage the public and the members of the opposition to

actually read the budget document. It's a good document. It lays things out very

clearly. I think every British Columbian would be well served to look into this.

Our social programs. We hear a lot about that in British Columbia,

because that's the balance. You need a strong economy so that you can deliver

the programs that we all would like for ourselves, our families and our

children. And 438 million new dollars are going in with this budget into our

social programs over three years.

We hear a lot about the opposition talking about homelessness and

the increase. There's an additional $104 million to continue reducing

homelessness. That's significant — $104 million.

[1145]

D. Thorne: That's not enough.

B. Lekstrom: I hear from the opposition that that's not

enough. You know, I'm not sure what the number would be. We haven't heard an

option from them.

What we've got is an additional $78 million going into the

emergency shelters in this province to keep them open 24-7 and provide the

services that those less fortunate don't have.

There's $135 million in this budget….

Interjections.

B. Lekstrom: I'm trying to stick to the budget, unlike many

of the members from the opposite side. I haven't quite understood what they

spoke about because it wasn't the budget. But there are 135 million new dollars

to create 2,000 new child care spaces. Again, good news for the people of

British Columbia.

There's $42 million to develop programs and services for adults

with developmental disabilities. Again, something we can all be proud of — all

British Columbians, not just government.

Our justice and public safety in this budget is something that

stands out as well. Budget 2008 invests $329 million over four years into that;

$165 million to improve safety and maintain critical services in our justice

sector. There's an additional $164 million to increase our correctional facility

capacity.

We hear a lot about taxation. I want to talk about that for a

while. We have in this budget personal income tax reductions of 2 percent this

year followed by an additional 3 percent next year on the first $70,000 of

earned income. I want to put that in context. Since 2001 that will mean that in

British Columbia our government has reduced personal income taxes by 37 percent

by this year and by a full 40 percent by the end of next year. That is the

largest reduction that our province has ever seen.

I'm sure that it's welcome news. The people I talk to are thankful

to have that money in their pockets. They are very happy to be able to make the

choices for themselves.

The other taxes that we've had in this and the adjustments we've

made are the general corporate tax in British Columbia, one that is important to

keep us competitive with the rest of the country and, also, with North America.

We are going to reduce the rate to 11 percent immediately for our general

corporate tax and reduce it further to 10 percent by 2011.

It makes us competitive. Our small business community is very

happy about this. The people I've talked to in my area are saying: "You

recognize what we need to be competitive. You recognize what we need to employ

people."

We're going to lower the small business tax rate from its present

4.5 percent to 3.5 percent this year, followed by another reduction to 2.5

percent in 2011.

I've also heard the opposition rail against the issue of the

financial institutions and the phase-out of the capital tax for that group.

There is no reason that British Columbia should not be the western capital for

our financial institutions, and it's unfortunate that actually we don't have

that yet. We are going to do what we can to make sure that we are western

Canada's financial centre in this great country of ours, and we will do it

through this.

I want to speak briefly about some of the PST issues. Here's what

I think we have to relate. I heard again from the opposition that were railing

that there's nothing in it for agriculture. It's clear to me that they haven't

read the budget.

We're going to remove the PST on all-terrain vehicles for our

agriculture community. That may sound like something small and trivial to the

members who are from different parts of the country or province that don't have

farming, but no longer is the horse the main tool when we go out to look at our

cattle or look at our fences. They jump on an ATV. To remove the PST on that

because it's for farm use is welcome news to myself, to the community I

represent and to all of the agricultural community right across this province.

We also hear on the personal income tax side that we've cut taxes

for the rich, and that the poor and the

[ Page 9862 ]

low-income have been left out. I want to refer people to page 105 of the

budget document. Again, I'm going to hopefully enlighten some members and some

of my colleagues from the opposition.

[1150]

If you look at a single individual who earns $15,000 of income —

and this is prior to 2001, prior to us coming to office — they paid $419 in

income tax in this province. That was under the New Democratic Party of British

Columbia. Today in British Columbia those same people pay zero. That's a 100

percent reduction — 100 percent.

I'll go to a person who makes $40,000 a year. Prior to 2001 they

paid $2,553 in income tax in our province. Today they pay $1,564, which is a

reduction of 39 percent — a 39 percent reduction. So the lower income has 100

percent reduction; a middle income is at 40 percent. I'll even use an $80,000

income; it has a 37 percent reduction. The higher you go, the lower your

reduction.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

I want to make it very clear to the public who are watching — I

know they're tuned in and listening — that when you hear the opposition talk

about that they have cut taxes only for the rich and that the poor and the

low-income have been left out, they're misleading you. They're misleading you

with mistruths. We have some good news, and we're going to make sure that we

tell the people and that we base it on facts. That's what I pride myself in.

Also, in this budget we have $105 million for our arts and culture

community in this province. I have had the privilege of chairing our Finance

Committee for a number of years — since I've been here, since 2001 — and each

and every year we have the arts and culture community come to our Finance

Committee and say, "You know, we make an incredible contribution to this

province," and we recognized that. We've increased it slowly over the years, but

this year is the most significant increase we've seen, at $105 million, and I

think that is great news.

Our debt-to-GDP continues to go down. It's the highest in the

country. I can understand why they got in financial trouble from '91 on. I can

understand. For those people that want to look at our debt-to-GDP ratio and

watch the steady decline in that, that's great news. That's why we have a

triple-A rating from our bonding agencies in this country. That's why.

Transportation is another very important aspect of this budget.

It's certainly important in the area that I represent. We continue to invest

record amounts of money in our transportation infrastructure, and I'll speak to

the Peace region. We have invested, in Peace River North and Peace River South,

about $240 million in each of those constituencies since 2001. That is the most

we have ever invested in our road infrastructure in our history, ever.

I want to speak about agriculture, something that's very important

to me, to the people I represent and to this province. We have just put out our

agricultural plan. Certainly, I think it was well received right across this

province. In this budget we have funding to implement that agriculture plan, and

I want to focus on a couple of key things.

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Member.

B. Lekstrom: I know he talks a lot over there; doesn't he,

Mr. Speaker? He does.

We have a wildlife mitigation and compensation program, something

the farmers in the Peace region have been working on and asking for, for many

years. Our Crown resource known as wildlife is all of ours, and it's a great

asset, but it actually has an impact on our agricultural community, a negative

impact, where it can be devastating to their crops. It can get into the feed of

our ranchers. So we are implementing, similar to Alberta and Saskatchewan, a

wildlife mitigation and compensation program that will take into account the

impact that this wildlife has on our agricultural community and make sure that

they don't lose as a result of a Crown resource that we all should be very

thankful we have in this province.

We also have a bioenergy strategy, with $25 million attached to

that. That bioenergy strategy is really about rural British Columbia. That's

where the impact will be felt. What we're going to see from that is new

innovation, and we're going to see new opportunities right across northern and

rural British Columbia with this strategy as it comes into play. I want to focus

more closely on biodiesel and the production of biodiesel in British Columbia.

[1155]

We have a $10 million amount set in this budget for the

development of biodiesel. It comes in the form of a nine- to 14-cent-per-litre

incentive to develop that, so that we can be competitive with our neighbours to

the east. We're very close to seeing a production facility put into place in the

Peace country, developed from canola, and it's something our agricultural

community — my farmers — are very thankful for. We're diversifying our markets,

and this will go a long way to that, Mr. Speaker.

I note by the look I'm getting from you that time is coming to a

close prior to our lunch break, so at this time I do want to reserve my right to

continue my speaking on the budget.

B. Lekstrom moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. J. van Dongen moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

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

afternoon.

The House adjourned at 11:56 a.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Hansard Services publishes transcripts both in print and on the Internet.

Chamber debates are broadcast on television and webcast on the Internet.

Question Period podcasts are available on the Internet.

TV channel guide • Broadcast

schedule

Copyright © 2008: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada

ISSN: 1499-2175