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)

Monday, November 24, 2008

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 35, Number 9

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Page

Tributes

Raymond Perrault

Hon. S. Bond

Hon. C. Hansen

Introductions by Members

Statements (Standing Order 25 b )

University of the Fraser Valley

J. Les

Violence against Filipino women

R. Chouhan

Businesses in Burnaby

H. Bloy

Student actions for plastic bag use reduction

N. Macdonald

National 4-H Month

V. Roddick

United Way of Trail and District

K. Conroy

Oral Questions

Government action on forest industry

C. James

Hon. C. Hansen

B. Simpson

Hon. P. Bell

Government action on Vancouver Island forest industry

D. Routley

Hon. P. Bell

J. Horgan

Compensation for tree farm licence land removals on Vancouver Island

J. Horgan

Hon. P. Bell

Government spending on advertising

B. Ralston

Hon. C. Hansen

R. Fleming

S. Simpson

Petitions

C. Wyse

S. Fraser

N. Macdonald

R. Fleming

Second Reading of Bills

Economic Incentive and Stabilization Statutes Amendment Act, 2008 (Bill 45)

Hon. C. Hansen

Hon. K. Krueger

B. Ralston

M. Karagianis

S. Simpson

J. Horgan

N. Macdonald

D. Routley

R. Thorpe

N. Simons

[ Page 13207 ]

MONDAY, NOVEMBER 24, 2008

The House met at 1:33 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Tributes

RAYMOND PERRAULT

Hon. S. Bond: This afternoon, on behalf of the Premier, I would like to read some comments that he wanted to share, both with the members of the Legislature and British Columbia.

We were all saddened to hear of Ray Perrault's passing. Senator Perrault has been a good friend and a colleague to many of us, and I know that the hearts of his many colleagues and friends are saddened at this time. We want to send our best wishes to his wife Barbara and the entire Perrault family at this time.

As a proud representative of British Columbia, Ray served as a Senator from 1973 to 2001, ensuring that our province's priorities were front and centre on the national stage. He served British Columbia and Canada throughout his life with integrity and honour, first as the leader of the British Columbia Liberal Party from 1959 to 1968 and then as Liberal Member of Parliament for Burnaby-Seymour from 1968 to 1972, before becoming a Senator.

We have lost a great British Columbian and a great Canadian. He will be deeply missed by the people of North Vancouver and, indeed, all the citizens of British Columbia and Canada.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Premier, I ask that you send all of the House's deepest condolences to the Perrault family and let them know that our thoughts and prayers are with them at this most difficult time.

[1335]

Hon. C. Hansen: I'd like to add to the comments of the Deputy Premier.

I had the pleasure of working as an assistant to Sen. Ray Perrault in the early 1980s for two years, and I learned a lot from Ray over those years. He is truly a great British Columbian and great Canadian.

I can remember the number of times that we'd go into communities all around this province and just the warmth that he took with him when he greeted people. So many new Canadians were welcomed to Canada by Senator Perrault.

There's a lot that I learned from him about how it is to be a great British Columbian. He has a great legacy and one that I know his family is very proud of.

Introductions by Members

G. Coons: I'd like the House to acknowledge a constituent and friend of mine, Evelyn von Almassy, who is from Haida Gwaii–Queen Charlotte Islands. She's a teacher. She's taught in Haida Gwaii for 18 years, and she's currently the president of the Queen Charlotte District Teachers Association. We had lunch today and discussed many issues. Please make her welcome.

J. Les: You'll recall that on Thursday a number of us made introductions and especially, a few of us, of grandchildren. I regret to inform you that this particular grandpa actually got it wrong, so I'm here today to set the record straight.

An Hon. Member: Somebody is watching.

J. Les: Somebody is watching. Yes, absolutely.

Interjection.

J. Les: I know. I'm not sure I'll ever live it down, but just to set the record straight, on May 30 our granddaughter Olivia Sarah Kelly was born. She's the daughter of my daughter Teresa and her husband Mike. And on September 13 Emily Kiera Les was born. She's the first-born for my son Allan and his wife Elena.

But the one thing that still does hold true…. We are the proud grandparents of 11 grandchildren. For anybody who wants to have a good time, have some grandchildren.

J. Horgan: The last time I stood and we were talking about grandchildren, I was uncertain, but I've had it confirmed that I am still not a grandparent. I want to share that with the House.

I also want to invite everyone to acknowledge a young student, Ravi Parmar, from Spencer Middle School in my community of Langford. Ravi has a profound interest in politics, and for some unknown reason, he seems to think this is a good place to learn something about it. I know you won't let me down, hon. Speaker, when question period starts. There will be some raucous behaviour for Ravi to enjoy.

A belated happy birthday to you, Ravi.

Also, I'd like to acknowledge my constituency assistant Shannon Russell, who's here today.

O. Ilich: My constituency assistant is also here today — Heidi Lyons. She's visiting here with her husband Kevin Lyons, and they're doing what good British Columbians are doing. They're touring the province and spending money and helping our economy. Would the House please make them feel welcome.

D. Routley: Could the House help me welcome two friends and constituents, Robert and Mary MacPhee, people who are devoted to community and to our province.

[ Page 13208 ]

Hon. J. McIntyre: I'm proud to say that we have a school visit today in the precincts. They're actually out in the halls as we speak and will be joining us in question period at about two o'clock. They are grade 11 students from Rockridge secondary in West Vancouver. It's a school that's sort of near and dear to me. In fact, my daughter was in the beginning year of that school, and both my son and daughter attended.

I'm delighted to have had a little conversation with them out in the hall. They're joined by their teachers Paula Waatainen, Greg Elliott and Lindsay Snell. I also just learned from Lindsay…. She happens to be the older sister of a very good friend of my daughter's — her brother. I just wanted to have the House join me in making them feel very welcome today.

Hon. M. de Jong: Flushing Meadows, Roland-Garros, Wimbledon — these are the hallowed grounds of tennis that have given us so many great sporting moments. But now we can add the Cowichan Bay lawn tennis club, because it was there this past summer that this Legislative Assembly, under the guidance of our captain, the Clerk, dispatched yet again the hordes from the press gallery in the 21st running of the Parliamentary Press Gallery–Legislative Assembly Tennis Tournament.

The record is intact. Let the Journals of this chamber record that the good guys persevered yet again.

[1340]

D. Hayer: We have some very special guests in the Legislature today. One is Mr. Dave Sandhar, who is a very hard-working community leader and business person in my community. He owns The Pantry Restaurant in the Guildford mall where I hold my regular coffee meetings. Joining him is his friend, Mr. Avtar Singh Kahlon, who is in the trucking business, as well as his uncle from India, Jaswinder Singh Nahal, who is a proud owner of one of the largest poultry and agriculture farms in Punjab, India.

I would like to thank Mr. Sandhar for bringing his guests over here. Would the House please make them very welcome.

Statements

(Standing Order 25

b) university of the fraser valley

J. Les: I rise today to recognize the recent accomplishments of the University of the Fraser Valley, established by legislation in this chamber just this last May. Last month the University of the Fraser Valley installed its first chancellor, Dr. Brian Minter. It was a very special day for the entire Fraser Valley as we saw one of our own being given this distinction.

Dr. Minter has served our community and this province with distinction both nationally and internationally, and he's recognized as a foremost expert in gardening and as founder of one of British Columbia's foremost tourism destinations, Minter Gardens. He has also served previously as a chair of the board of the University College of the Fraser Valley, and I am proud to say that he has been a long-term neighbour and friend of mine. No finer individual could have been found, and Dr. Minter is an appropriate appointment to fulfil the role of chancellor of the University of the Fraser Valley.

Now, we are of course very proud of our new university and understand the impact and the important role that this institution will play in our region. But it should be noted that our university is also being recognized by the larger academic community as an institution that is in the top rankings in many categories, ranging from academics to career preparation, overall student satisfaction, quality of teaching and student faculty interaction.

In the most recent university report done by the Globe and Mail , the University of the Fraser Valley ranked as one of the province's best public universities. The University of the Fraser Valley scored higher than UBC, UVic and SFU in a number of categories. In fact, smaller class sizes, most satisfied students and the highest quality of education were some of the categories where the university held top spot in the province and nationwide.

We are delighted about our new university and view this as an opportunity to show not only ourselves but the entire world what we are capable of. We're off to a great start, and we will see a great future at the University of the Fraser Valley.

violence against filipinO women

R. Chouhan: Last month on October 26, I had the privilege to attend a political fashion show to stop violence against Filipino women at the centre of contemporary art in Vancouver. This was organized by the Philippine Women Centre of B.C. to share women's personal experiences with violence and vulnerability. The event was organized to engage the audience in the often veiled experiences of women on the margins and to engage in critical thinking that challenges widespread social constructs of Filipino women.

Filipinos are now the fourth-largest visible minority community in Canada and the third in B.C., and 70 percent of the people leaving the Philippines daily to work abroad are women. Nearly 100,000 Filipinos, mostly women, have come to Canada under the foreign domestic movement and the live-in caregiver program. Over the past several decades Filipinos have been subject to systemic racism and discrimination, harassment and senseless fatal attacks affecting the entire Filipino community.

I want to thank the organizers for giving me an opportunity to listen to the stories of these brave women and to admire their courage to unite the community to advance their rights for more equality and to achieve social jus-

[ Page 13209 ]

tice in Canada. It is important that we all raise our voices against the senseless violence against Filipino women.

[1345]

I'm sure all members in this House will agree with me to condemn all forms of violence against women and to congratulate the organizers for organizing a political fashion show to stop violence against Filipino women.

BUSINESSES IN BURNABY

H. Bloy: I rise today to spotlight the many businesses which are so vital to our economy. In these uncertain times of global economic crisis, I'm happy to celebrate and recognize just a few of the businesses in my community which contribute so much to our province's success. Many of them have chosen to join the Burnaby Board of Trade, an organization which facilitates business achievement through networking, education, advocacy and economic development.

It is the mission of the Burnaby Board of Trade to encourage and promote a sustainable business environment. Recently the Burnaby Board of Trade celebrated a few of its members. The Burnaby Board of Trade named Keith Beedie of the Beedie Group as business person of the year.

In addition to Mr. Beedie, I would also like to recognize other business leaders in Burnaby who contribute so much to Burnaby's success and welcoming atmosphere: Peter Legge, Canada Wide magazine; Kazuko Komatsu, Pacific Western Brewery; Phil Hochstein; Gordon Harris, UniverCity; and Dr. Michael Stevenson, Simon Fraser University. It is important that we continue to support local businesses and communities across the province by giving them our business and cutting taxes and red tape. Their success is B.C.'s success.

Now I'd like to introduce Burnaby's Board of Trade excellence award winners for 2008. Burnaby community spirit award, Brentwood Town Centre; Business Innovation Award, Day4 Energy; Entrepreneurial Spirit Award, MetroLeap Media Inc.; Environmental Sustainability Award, Encorp Pacific (Canada); Not-for-Profit Organization of the Year, L'Arche Greater Vancouver; Small Business of the Year Award, Simba's Grill; and Business of the Year Award, A.B.C. Recycling. I would like to salute all the businesses in Burnaby and all the businesses in our great province.

STUDENT ACTIONS FOR

PLASTIC BAG USE REDUCTION

N. Macdonald: I want to welcome the grades 1 to 5 classes of Nicholson Elementary School just south of Golden. They're watching this on the Hansard channel. This is the Legislative Assembly, and MLAs from across British Columbia meet here, including the Premier who you wrote to and whose letter you have received.

For MLAs, I will tell you that last spring, the grades 1, 2 and 3 class were studying sea animals and watched a video that included a sea turtle and dolphins struggling with plastic bags that were polluting the ocean. One of the students suggested writing the President, but the teacher, Miss Larwill, suggested other ideas.

They did a research project and found that plastic bags take a long time to decompose and that there are other ways to carry purchased goods. When approached, the Sobeys and Overwaitea managers and their employees in Golden were encouraging and offered special deals to customers of reusable grocery bags and asked students to make posters, which they did, and then the store displayed them prominently.

The students then talked to their parents about what they could do as a family. They asked me as their MLA to come to their class last spring and again this fall. I helped them with a letter to the Premier this October that they all signed, which took some time, and then sent.

I was asked to come here and tell lawmakers on their behalf the following things — they gave me a list: they want their oceans clean, they want a world that includes sea turtles and dolphins, and they want MLAs here to do something about the overuse of plastic bags so that that can happen. So we've been told.

I want to commend the grades 1, 2 and 3 class and now the grades 4 and 5 students for their work, and I ask members to join me in saluting students who are willing to work to make things better.

NATIONAL 4-H MONTH

V. Roddick: British Columbia produces more diverse agricultural products than the ROC, or rest of Canada. Supernaturally, therefore, we really are the best place on earth. November is National 4-H Month, so as we gallop towards Christmas, it's time to celebrate and capture the spirit of 4-H, our up-and-coming leaders in agriculture under the guidance of their new executive director, Linda Houghton.

Programs like "Fields for Your Future" build interest in agricultural careers among the high school students and provide nearly 3,000 British Columbia girls and boys the opportunity to discover the right agricultural career for them.

[1350]

The provincial agricultural plan, Growing a Healthy Future for B.C. Families, strongly supports youth in agriculture, and 4-H is an essential part of planning this bright future, because it teaches young people to successfully meet the challenges not only in their own lives but also in the lives of their communities. As the 4-H pledge states: "I pledge my head to clearer thinking, my heart to greater loyalty, my hands to a larger service and my health to better living for my club, my community, my country."

[ Page 13210 ]

Thank you, 4-H. It's impossible to imagine where our agricultural industry would be without it, because we all know we all still have to eat to live.

UNITED WAY OF TRAIL AND DISTRICT

K. Conroy: On Saturday, November 8, the Trail and District United Way celebrated 80 years of service at a sold-out gala, which I had the pleasure of attending. That's 80 years of building a better community through support to affiliated agencies that meet the guidelines of supporting the mental, physical and social well-being of individuals in the area.

Trail United Way has also developed a strong relationship with both corporations like Teck Cominco and the labour movement, relationships that have helped Trail to have incredibly successful fundraising drives. At the dinner, Richard Deane spoke on behalf of Teck and the fact that they and their employees have "proudly shared in the United Way's journey to build a better community for everyone since 1930."

The keynote speaker for the night was Ken Georgetti — president of the Canadian Labour Congress but, more importantly, a hometown boy. Ken spoke about the strong partnership that the labour movement has with the United Way, but he also spoke about some of the problems we are facing as a society.

"Helping others is the true measure of how civilized a society is, but charitable giving is also an indication of the values we hold as individuals and what kind of a society we are. That is why my greatest hope is that one day we will actually see a diminished role for the United Way in our communities and for other charitable organizations.

"And I say that not to minimize the great and important work you do in this community and across the country, but in these times when we are keenly feeling the damage done by an unfettered and unregulated global economy and an ideology that rewards greed rather than hard work, I am feeling disappointed that the need for the United Way, its important work, is going to be greater than ever.

"Imagine. Wouldn't it be just great to live where paying a decent living wage for workers is simply a given, where food banks and not industries have gone out of business, where there is good, affordable housing instead of people forced to live on our streets, and where there is help available when help is needed, instead of homeless shelters forced to turn away clients night after night?"

Well, I couldn't agree more with Ken, but until that day happens, I want to thank the dedicated volunteers who continue to ensure that the Trail and District United Way keeps on providing its much-needed support to the people of our region.

Oral Questions

GOVERNMENT ACTION

ON FOREST INDUSTRY

C. James: Forestry is one of our most important industries and a key economic driver. For the last three years, the members on this side of the House have been calling on government to wake up to the crisis and do something to support the industry. But as we know, government hasn't lifted a finger to help this industry.

Today in the quarterly report from the Finance Minister, he didn't mention the forest industry once. The Premier in his economic statement a month ago didn't mention the forest industry once.

My question is to the Finance Minister. What kind of message does that send, when you don't even make a single reference to the industry in your updates, and there's still no plan to help forest-dependent communities?

Hon. C. Hansen: On October 27 the Leader of the Opposition brought down an economic statement with economic measures that the opposition would propose for the coming three years. There was not one mention of the forest industry.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. C. Hansen: If you actually look at what the official opposition is proposing for their three-year budget, it is a recipe for billions of dollars of deficit in each year as we go forward.

[1355]

They have nothing in that three-year budget for forestry or for forest-dependent communities. They have nothing in that for health care, in spite of the fact that their Health critic is going around the province making big, grandiose announcements about increased spending. It was not reflected in their three-year budget.

I believe it's time that the Leader of the Opposition come clean with British Columbians and admit that her three-year budget that she revealed on October 27 is a recipe for significant deficits in British Columbia, like we saw in the 1990s.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

The Leader of the Opposition has a supplemental.

C. James: It's pretty clear why families and communities have been left behind by this Finance Minister, when he can't even get his facts straight and he doesn't understand that resource-based communities are forest-based communities.

May I remind the Finance Minister that the comments from his government to forest communities have been: "We're simply spectators. There's nothing we can do." For three years those communities have struggled. They have seen mills shut down. They have seen jobs lost.

[ Page 13211 ]

I listened to a teacher who told me about lockers being cleaned out in schools. Those families are having to leave, because this government has done nothing to help forest-dependent communities.

Now we heard the Finance Minister say that he needs federal help for the industry. We heard the Premier two days earlier say that he didn't believe in federal help. That wasn't a direction that we should go.

Can the Finance Minister explain why after three years the government still can't get its story straight and why forest communities are the ones who are suffering because of this government's neglect?

Hon. C. Hansen: And this is coming from a Leader of the Opposition that would like to see the softwood lumber agreement torn up — the only thing that is actually giving some stability to the forest sector in British Columbia.

This is coming from a Leader of the Opposition who isn't happy with the fact that there are thousands of forest workers employed in British Columbia today, because there are still in many parts of British Columbia many thousands of forest workers that are working in the harvesting sector today. She's not happy with the fact that they have jobs because that fibre can be exported to other parts of the world. She wants to see them all unemployed as a result of the measures that she would bring in.

In the legislation that we are going to be debating today is a measure that is going to make a difference with the industrial and light industrial firms in British Columbia by relief from the school property tax that they are paying. We've put in measures that are there to support families. We've put in measures to assist…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. C. Hansen: …with job retraining, with bridging to early retirement for older forest workers. Those are the measures that we're taking, and those are making a difference in the lives of British Columbians.

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

The Leader of the Opposition has a further supplemental.

C. James: The people of British Columbia are concerned. The people of British Columbia are concerned because the forest industry has been in crisis. For the last couple of years this government has done nothing. If this is how the government deals with financial crisis in the forest industry, we should all be afraid of the direction the government is going to take around the economic situation.

I've been to those communities. I've spent time in Mackenzie talking to the workers and their families — and Nanaimo and the Cowichan Valley. The list is too long to go through.

The Minister of Forests continues to say: "Things have turned a corner. Don't worry. Everything's fine." The Minister of Finance today said to families: "Don't worry; be happy. Everything's okay." Well, British Columbians are hurting, and all they're getting are television ads telling us that everything is fine.

Well, again to the Minister of Finance: when is he going to take his head out of the sand and do something to help families in British Columbia?

[1400]

Hon. C. Hansen: On October 22 the Premier brought down economic measures that are actually making a difference in the lives of British Columbia families.

Five days later we had economic measures that were being proposed by the Leader of the Opposition that actually, she purported, were supposed to be in response to the financial world challenges that British Columbia was not immune to but that had occurred over the period from September 15 to October 27.

What did we get from the Leader of the Opposition? We got a three-year spending plan based on what she hoped would be numbers, when she knew that the revenues to the province had been eroding significantly.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. C. Hansen: That kind of reckless commitment would actually result in billions of dollars of deficit. We saw that in the 1990s. British Columbia families don't want to pay for reckless NDP promises. That's why British Columbians trust this Premier and this government with the economy far more than anybody on that side of the House.

B. Simpson: Simply put, the reason this government does not have a plan for the forest sector is that two successive Ministers of Forests refused to admit there's actually even a crisis in that sector. That's the reality. The current Minister of Forests has actually stated that he sees signs of recovery all around him. He stood and said, "There will be no more mill closures or curtailments," a few days before another round of mill closures and curtailments occurred.

The minister goes around feeding communities pablum and tranquillizers when we need a plan. So my question is to the Minister of Finance. Yes or no? Is the forest sector

[ Page 13212 ]

in British Columbia in an unprecedented crisis that will be protracted? Yes or no?

Hon. P. Bell: I think that the member opposite should put aside the political partisanship in a time…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. P. Bell: …that's very challenging for the industry. I was looking through some of the opposition critic's comments. It really, I think, tells the tale of the NDP's position on forestry. In fact, in this very chamber on May 2 the opposition critic said: "In anything I read on pulp, it's not viable in B.C."

Here we're supposed to bend over backwards on reducing the cost of social rent, getting a better regulatory and labour climate and everything else for the pulp industry, and their own reports say it isn't viable long term. In Opinion 250 on the second of March, the opposition critic said that the pulp industry is dead. That's the vision of the NDP. We have a completely different vision, and I think it's time for the NDP to set aside the political rhetoric and start supporting an industry in a very challenging time.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Member has a supplemental.

B. Simpson: This is why we don't have a plan. They won't answer the question.

My first job as the critic for Forests was to go into the Minister of Forests' office in 2005 and say: "Let's put partisanship aside. Let's depoliticize the forest sector." I had the express permission of the Leader of the Opposition to ask, and I asked in this House — and it's on the public record — for an all-party committee to deal in advance of the crisis that was about to occur.

This government still doesn't admit there's a crisis. The Minister of Finance said today that there are thousands of jobs in the harvesting sector. Let me ask him a question then. His quarterly report shows that harvesting levels have plummeted and will remain low for some time to come. That puts generational logging companies at risk today. Will the Forests Minister admit today that logging contractors all over this province are at risk of losing their companies?

[1405]

Hon. P. Bell: I think it's important for the member opposite to recognize all the good work that has gone on in the industry, and there are some clear facts that identify that this industry actually is doing well in very challenging times. In fact, in the member's own back yard, the city of Quesnel, the mills are working flat out. People are harvesting; shifts are being maintained.

The results of the industry in terms of West Fraser, Tolko and Canfor…. I've toured those operations, and those mills are functioning when no other mills anywhere in the world are functioning.

In fact, I want to point out what I think is a very important statistic. If you go back ten years — and if memory serves me correct, that would have a nine in front of it, for the '90s…. Ten years ago, B.C. had 48 percent of the total lumber coming out of Canada into the United States. Today that number is 58 percent. Clearly, we are competing against all other jurisdictions. We're doing very well as an industry in very, very challenging times, and I think the member should recognize that.

GOVERNMENT ACTION on

vancouver island FOREST INDUSTRY

D. Routley: The minister's detachment from reality is paralleled only by his refusal to answer questions and his lack of a plan. Since this House last sat, in my constituency we have lost crucial pieces of any kind of industry comeback. Major contractors have failed. We've lost Hayes logging, Ted Leroy, Munns Lumber. For the information of the Finance Minister, those are harvesters. They're not working. Those jobs are gone.

We also witnessed the largest auction ever of logging equipment on Vancouver Island. We're losing the workers, we're losing the skill base, and we're losing the equipment and the infrastructure.

What plan do you have, Mr. Forests Minister? What plan can you offer my constituents? What plan do you have to keep those workers in that industry?

Hon. P. Bell: Clearly, this government, this ministry, has worked hard to create some stability in a very difficult, very challenging time. We've introduced a variety of new initiatives, including lump sum sales, in the last short period of time that are seeing people going out and working on the landscape, taking advantage of those new models and capturing full value from the landscape — something that we should be celebrating in this House.

You know, it's very easy to throw political rhetoric across the House to an industry that's not looking for that. They're not looking for that anymore because they're really looking for leadership. Leadership is something, I think, that has been set through the softwood lumber agreement.

Just as an example…. I want to actually refer to some comments made by the MLA for Columbia River–Revelstoke with regards to the softwood lumber agreement…

Interjections.

[ Page 13213 ]

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. P. Bell: …because there is an inconsistency in some of the comments from the opposition. The member for Columbia River–Revelstoke actually got it right. He said that this deal works for the Downie Street mill. Downie mill is a critically important part of the Revelstoke economy, and this deal protects the mill's employees. It's not my obligation to speak up for the mills in the area, flawed or not. This deal is a good resolution for them.

Mr. Speaker, what I would like to know is: does that member support the softwood lumber agreement, like his colleague?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

J. Horgan: On Vancouver Island we have experienced mill closures. We've experienced job loss, the largest auction of forest equipment in the world on Vancouver Island, bankruptcies of generations of logging firms on this island. And the minister across the way has no plan. He says things are going to turn around.

My question is a simple one to him. When they turn around, who's going to be there to turn on the lights? If we don't have contractors, we don't have workers and we don't have equipment, all we've got is real estate agents to sell the land that you gave to Western Forest Products. We don't want real estate development. We want a forest industry. What's the plan?

[1410]

Hon. P. Bell: I'm glad, actually, the member opposite asks about Western Forest Products, because that was one of the companies that joined me in a trip to China just ten days ago. In fact, Western Forest Products sold about 25 million board feet of lumber to a brand-new marketplace. That lumber is going to be produced in the Cowichan Bay mill. In fact, Duncan Kerr, the COO for Western Forest Products, phoned up the loggers the day that we were in China and said: "Boys, we're going back to work."

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

COMPENSATION FOR TREE FARM LICENCE

LAND REMOVALS ON VANCOUVER ISLAND

J. Horgan: I'm certain Duncan Kerr would have advised the minister while he was on the trip that on the government's watch, WFP has become a penny stock at the exchange in Toronto. That's a vibrant company on Vancouver Island reduced to a penny stock.

My question to the minister is this. If there's compensation due to contractors and workers in the Kootenays as a result of this misguided government's policy of deleting private lands from tree farm licences, why is there no similar compensation on Vancouver Island? When does Vancouver Island get to sit at the table with everybody else in this province?

Hon. P. Bell: The opposition complains that we aren't making any efforts to improve the operational ability of the forest industry to move forward. Yet at the same time, he maligns Western Forest Products in their attempts to maintain economic stability.

Clearly, there were decisions made by the previous minister. I support those decisions. They were the right ones. They were the right decisions in the Kootenays. If he doesn't like the decisions in the Kootenays, he should ask his colleagues about that.

GOVERNMENT SPENDING ON ADVERTISING

B. Ralston: On Thursday in question period I asked the Minister of Finance when he was going to cut the self-promotional government ads. Yet every night since then the ads continue to rush forth on the television stations, on the radio stations and in newspapers. Even today on the noon news, when families were being asked to tighten their belts, there were more government self-promotional ads.

Can the Minister of Finance advise what kind of message he thinks this sends to British Columbians in these troubled economic times?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. C. Hansen: British Columbians have a lot to be proud of today in spite of the global challenges that the economy is facing today. We know that British Columbia is going to weather this economic storm probably better than just about any jurisdiction anywhere.

It's because of the work that British Columbians have done, actually. It's because of the work that we as a government have done in building a solid fiscal framework. We've had surpluses which now create a buffer so that we don't have to cut into existing program spending we have today in order to meet the needs of British Columbians at a time when revenues are falling off.

But let's not lose sight of the fact that we are facing a climate change challenge. We as a government have shown leadership on climate change, which is being asked for by British Columbians. We're delivering to British Columbians the message about how they can take action in their personal lives to be part of the solution on climate change.

[ Page 13214 ]

Yes, that advertising costs money, but it's an important message that we know is resonating with British Columbians, because it's information that they are seeking.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

B. Ralston: On October 22 the Premier promised to rein in avoidable government spending. Yet the government continues to spend millions of dollars on self-promotional ads — clearly avoidable, wasteful government spending. When will this minister stand up and say those ads are going to stop?

[1415]

Hon. C. Hansen: In delivering on one of the ten points that the Premier announced on October 22, we are going ministry by ministry to look at where we can find those administrative savings, and that will be reflected in the budget that is tabled next February 17.

But let's talk about the other things the Premier announced on October 22: a 5 percent reduction in personal income taxes; the reduction of the small business tax in this year alone from 4.5 percent down to 2.5 percent. In that budget was support for the industrial and light industrial sectors. It brought certainty to British Columbians and stability to their families, and we on this side of the House are waiting to find out whether the opposition is going to support those measures that British Columbians are looking for, or are they going to vote against it.

R. Fleming: Today we've seen third-quarter tourism figures with year-to-date declines in six of eight B.C. regions. We've seen state double-digit decreases in U.S. visitors. We've seen declining international visitors to this province. The Minister of Finance has said on a couple of occasions now that his government wants to identify wasteful spending.

So again, shouldn't the easiest area for him to cut spending — the first place he goes to — be those feel-good ads that British Columbians are being bombarded with night after night? Why won't this minister stand up for things British Columbians actually care about — services that benefit them in their lives — and cut those ads?

Hon. C. Hansen: As I've been out and around the province quite a bit, actually, in the last number of weeks and months talking to British Columbians in the smallest of communities, medium-sized communities, even in the largest communities, what I find is that British Columbians are anxious to know what their government is doing, anxious to know how they can be part of the solutions to the crisis that's facing us in terms of climate change around the province. They're also anxious about the economy. They're anxious about their families' personal financial situation and what the future may bring.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. C. Hansen: There is lots of reason for optimism in British Columbia, because we will weather this economic challenge better than anywhere else.

But I can tell you what they're also worried about. They're worried about an official opposition that is suggesting to British Columbians that we should be running up billions of dollars of debt and transferring the challenges of today onto the backs of their children and grandchildren, as the NDP did in the 1990s.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Member has a supplemental.

R. Fleming: Well, British Columbians are anxious about the economy. The Finance Minister has that correct. But what they'd like to see is some thrift and prudence and a leadership that gets it from this government.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Member, just sit.

Members. Members.

Continue, Member.

R. Fleming: Instead, what does this government keep doing night after night? It blows millions and millions of taxpayers' dollars saturating the airwaves with government-friendly advertising. The public deserves an answer, so I'll ask the question again. To the Minister of Finance: has he ordered government's advertising budgets off limits as a place to make savings instead of cutting those funds so that we can protect services that matter to British Columbians, that they actually care about?

Hon. C. Hansen: This is actually quite interesting when I hear a member of the NDP opposition talking about thrift and prudence, because in the 1990s we never saw that government make a single one of its budget targets. We saw five separate debt reduction plans. They never met any one of them.

[1420]

This is a government that has put forward budget targets. We've exceeded them. We have been rewarded by consistent upgrades in the credit rating of British Columbia to the point today where British Columbia has a triple-A credit rating, the highest of any province.

[ Page 13215 ]

S. Simpson: In recent months we have seen thousands of ads, between the electronic and print media. This has been millions of dollars spent on a gratuitous self-promotion project for the Premier and a taxpayer-funded ad campaign for the B.C. Liberal Party. It's nothing more than that.

No taxpayers support this waste. They certainly don't support this waste of their money in tough economic times. There is no leadership in what this government is doing.

Will the government provide a full accounting of all the millions that you've spent in the last few months and end the advertising program now?

Hon. C. Hansen: Yes, we will provide a full accounting of all of the money spent on ads, because we're the first government that has ever done that.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. C. Hansen: The record year for the most money ever spent on advertising was actually in 1994-1995. And guess what. That was one of the years that the NDP drove us into deficit and spent way more money than they had in revenues.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

The member has a supplemental.

S. Simpson: I see that the minister says he'll talk about these numbers, but I'm sure that the minister doesn't have the courage to put those numbers on the table this week as to how much has been spent.

This minister talks about going around the province and talking to British Columbians. Well, we've been talking to British Columbians too. The minister might recall that, finally, some British Columbians in Vancouver-Fairview and Vancouver-Burrard actually got to judge this government, and we know what happened.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

S. Simpson: In 1999…. The Premier was quoted at that time, and he said, "There isn't one person in B.C. who woke up today and said: 'I want more propaganda.' How many people were left on waiting lists so we could have more propaganda?"

Well, today British Columbians are saying: "Enough propaganda from this government. Spend the money on the needs of British Columbians, not promoting your party."

Hon. C. Hansen: That's interesting, coming from a member of the caucus that's using taxpayers' dollars to advertise a visit by the Leader of the Opposition to Prince George as part of their so-called rural caucus. I think it underscores the hypocrisy we hear from these members.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Hon. C. Hansen: Let's talk about the needs of British Columbia families today. They are facing challenges. They're facing uncertainty. What we have done is delivered on economic measures that will actually meet the needs of British Columbia families — a 5 percent reduction in personal income tax, retroactive to last January 1; support for the small business community to make sure that they can manage through difficult economic times.

[1425]

These are the measures contained in the legislation before us, and I challenge the members of the opposition to join with us in supporting those measures and getting on in delivering those benefits to B.C. taxpayers.

[End of question period.]

C. Wyse: I seek leave to present petitions.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

Petitions

C. Wyse: I have three petitions. The first one is 850 petitions requesting something be done about helping the existing doctors in the greater area of Ashcroft.

The second petition, again from the same area — 381 petitions requesting assistance to attract replacements for the doctors after they announce that they are leaving Ashcroft.

The third petition is a request to the Ministry of Transportation to relocate the planned realignment of Highway 97 at the Cargyle Corner onto Crown land. The community requires the agricultural land, and therefore, all efforts to protect it should be made.

S. Fraser: Now, 1,400 more British Columbians have come forward demanding that the government protect wildlife and companion animals by bringing in safe antifreeze legislation.

N. Macdonald: I wish to present a petition of 1,164 more names registering opposition to the Jumbo Creek resort and real estate development proposed in

[ Page 13216 ]

the heart of the Purcell Mountains, 55 kilometres west of Invermere.

R. Fleming: I present 400 names on a petition regarding a proposed ambulance station on Carrick Street in my constituency. It calls upon elected officials, the B.C. Ambulance Service, the Vancouver Island Health Authority and B.C. Hydro, which is the landowner, to base emergency health services on sites that are appropriate, permanent and safe for responder call-out times.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: I call second reading of Bill 45.

Second Reading of Bills

ECONOMIC INCENTIVE AND STABILIZATION

STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 2008

Hon. C. Hansen: I move that Bill 45, Economic Incentive and Stabilization Statutes Amendment Act, 2008, be now read a second time.

This bill contains amendments to eight statutes and other provisions that will give effect to a number of the items outlined in the Premier's ten-point economic plan, which he announced on October 22, 2008, and in his subsequent announcements.

The income tax reductions in Bill 45 are an acceleration of the personal and small business income tax rate reductions announced in Budget 2008 as part of the revenue-neutral carbon tax plan.

[S. Hammell in the chair.]

First, the 3 percent personal income tax cut on the first $70,000 of income that was scheduled to take effect in 2009 is accelerated to the beginning of 2008. This is in addition to the 2 percent income tax reduction that was implemented on July 1. This full 5 percent reduction will be retroactive to January 1 of this year.

The acceleration of this tax cut will put $144 million back into the pockets of British Columbians. Because of the personal income tax cuts introduced by this government, British Columbians earning up to $111,000 a year pay the lowest personal income taxes in Canada.

The bill also accelerates the tax cut for small business. Effective December 1, 2008, the bill reduces the small business corporate income tax rate from 3.5 percent to 2.5 percent. This accelerates the Budget 2008 commitment to make this reduction by 2011.

[1430]

With this change, the small business corporate income tax rate will have been cut over 44 percent this year alone, providing an additional $146 million in tax savings for small business over the three years of the budget plan.

Bill 45 amends the Land Tax Deferment Act to establish a new property tax deferment program for homeowners facing financial hardship as a result of current economic conditions. The new deferment program will allow homeowners facing financial hardship who have at least 15 percent equity in their homes to defer their 2009 and 2010 property taxes.

Homeowners will not have to pay back the deferred taxes until the property is sold or transferred to a new owner, but they can repay the deferred amount earlier if they so choose. Simple interest will be charged at the prime lending rate. Other eligibility requirements are similar to those in the existing program, which benefits homeowners who are 55 years of age or older and eligible persons with disabilities.

We recognize that many British Columbians are currently facing economic and financial challenges and that many workers in critical industries such as forestry have been laid off or have lost their jobs. This bill contains measures that will soften the impact of the global economic slowdown on B.C. and help our province emerge stronger than ever. The financial hardship property tax deferment program will complement those measures by providing financial relief to homeowners in need while ensuring that local governments are not out of pocket.

Bill 45 also amends the School Act to introduce a provincial industrial property tax credit for the 2009 and subsequent taxation years. The credit reduces provincial school tax on major industrial and light industrial properties — that's the class 4 and class 5 properties — by 50 percent. Owners of these properties will receive the 50 percent credit on their property tax notices.

The tax credit is in addition to the property tax rate reduction for major industries provided in the 2008 budget which was phased in over two years. The new tax credit reduces costs for British Columbia's manufacturing, mining, forestry and other major and light industries by a further $50 million annually to help keep these crucial industries strong and competitive.

The Financial Institutions Act will also be amended to provide unlimited deposit insurance protection for depositors in B.C. credit unions. In addition, the amendments will enhance current regulatory powers that can be exercised by the Financial Institutions Commission and the Superintendent of Financial Institutions.

Credit unions in British Columbia are financially strong and are carefully regulated in all corners of the province. The increase to unlimited deposit insurance protection will ensure that British Columbians remain confident in the safety of their deposits and that credit unions remain competitive in attracting deposits.

With this change, we are matching the unlimited deposit insurance protection that is offered to depositors in credit unions in Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba. The enhanced regulatory powers of the Financial Institutions Commission will be similar to that of the federal regulators under the Bank Act of Canada.

[ Page 13217 ]

Finally, the legislative changes will allow the Financial Institutions Commission to delegate credit union supervision and administrative powers to the Superintendent of Financial Institutions, and the ability to delegate will enable quick and effective regulatory intervention in the event that it is required.

There are other provisions in the act which are going to be covered off by my colleague the Minister of Small Business and Revenue and also my colleague the Attorney General, and I know they will be speaking to those particular provisions later in the debate.

B. Ralston: I'm prepared to give way to the Minister of Small Business and Revenue should he choose to wish to speak at this time. That might enable the government to lay out the full text of the bill before the chamber, and then we can debate the bill in its entirety. If that's acceptable, without having given up my place to speak, I'm prepared to do that. I think the Minister of Small Business and Revenue is going to accept that.

[1435]

Hon. K. Krueger: One of the many things that this bill does is support the provincial government announcement to amend the property assessment roll for one year in response to the rapid downturn in the real estate market. These actions build on government's overall strategy to assure the province's continuing competitiveness in the face of a global economic slowdown.

The bill is based on the principles of certainty and fairness, and the amendments reinforce a market-based approach to the valuation of property. The bill proposes amendments that will modify the way property assessment is carried out under the Assessment Act for the 2009 taxation year.

The proposed amendment provides that the valuation of most properties for the 2009 property tax year will be determined by using the lesser of either a July 1, 2007, or a July 1, 2008, market value. For those properties valued by regulation, the proposed provisions will ensure that values are maintained at 2008 levels for the 2009 taxation year. Our government's actions will provide property owners with certainty and confidence in the assessment system while allowing the market to stabilize and assessments to reflect proper market values.

I hear words of high praise for B.C. Assessment throughout the community that watches the issue of assessments very carefully here and around the world. We're proud of their record, and they've collaborated very closely in forewarning us of the difficulties that the assessment system was facing with the rapid decline in market values in British Columbia as elsewhere.

Earlier this year B.C. Assessment told government that producing the 2009 assessment roll through the normal process would mean that well over one million British Columbia property holders would receive assessment notices with a higher value than their actual current market value. The way it is written, the Assessment Act requires 2009 property assessments to reflect market values as of July 1, 2008.

As July 1, 2008, was very near the peak of B.C.'s real estate market, using that valuation date would mean the 2009 assessed values for most properties would increase from their 2008 assessment. The reality, though, is that between July 1, 2007, and July 1, 2008, house sale prices provincewide rose by 11 percent on average. Strata residences rose provincewide by 8 percent on average. I'm told that the value of commercial properties, excluding office towers, rose by 21.6 percent on average.

To offer a breakdown of some particular examples, the median sale price for single-family properties from April 2007 to July 2008 rose provincially by an average of $40,000, or 9.5 percent. The median sale price for single-family properties from July 2008 through October 2008 fell by an average of $70,000, or 15 percent.

The median sale price for a residential strata property from April 2007 to July 2008 rose provincially by an average of $25,000, or 8 percent, but then the median sale price for strata properties from July 2008 through October 2008 fell by an average of $16,000, or 5 percent. There are about one million single-family residences and about 400,000 strata residences in British Columbia.

In consultation with B.C. Assessment's chief executive officer and board of directors, it became clear to government that allowing for the continued use of a July 1, 2007, valuation date in most cases would reflect assessed values much closer to today's market values.

For the 2009 assessment roll only, the following proposed changes will be implemented for all nine property classes in the province: for class 1, residential; class 5, light industry; class 6, business and other, and class 8, recreational property and non-profit organizations. Assessed values for these properties will be the lower of the assessed value at July 1, 2007, or July 1, 2008.

For class 2, utilities, where rates are regulated by the B.C. Assessment board of directors, there will be no change from last year's roll. For class 3, which is supportive housing, a new property class for supportive housing will be implemented as planned. Properties in this class are nominally valued by regulation — $1 for the land; $1 for the improvements.

For class 4, which is major industry, land used for major industrial purposes will be valued at the lower of the assessed value at July 1, 2007, or July 1, 2008. Major industrial buildings valued by regulation will be maintained at their 2008 assessment level.

[1440]

Designated port land values will not change from last year's roll. For class 7 managed forest land, the rates are regulated by the B.C. Assessment board of directors and will not change from last year's roll. For class 9 farmland,

[ Page 13218 ]

these lands are valued using regulated rates that do not change from year to year.

Through these proposed amendments, the 2009 values for property will produce a more accurate, fair and stable outcome for property owners during this highly volatile period for property valuations.

The bill will ensure that all other dates in the Assessment Act for purposes other than valuation remain unaffected. This will also ensure that B.C. Assessment has authority to make adjustments to the 2009 assessment roll to reflect changes in physical condition, permitted uses, new construction, new ownership, zoning and classification.

Regulation-making authority is provided to address transitional issues to ensure a smooth implementation of these provisions. Order-making authority is also provided for some categories of properties. This will allow for consideration of exceptional circumstances where an alternate value would be in the public interest and ensure fairness for property owners. These orders will only be made in consultation with the B.C. Assessment authority and will be made before March 31, 2009.

The right to appeal an assessment and the assessment appeal processes will remain unchanged for 2009. Any property owners not satisfied with their assessments have the right to file a complaint with the property assessment review panel and may further appeal to the Property Assessment Appeal Board.

There may be, for example, people who feel that their properties have dropped below their value even at July 1, 2007. Although we will be using the numbers from the 2008 roll in many cases and the appeal process was already open for those valuations for 2008 taxation, the appeal process will be open again for those values.

It is important to remember that taxing authorities in the province, including local governments, remain responsible for setting property tax rates based on their budget requirements. This will not be affected by the proposed provisions in this bill.

B.C. Assessment is a highly respected Crown corporation and is considered a world leader in the production of market-based assessments. Government is committed to maintaining the outstanding record of B.C. Assessment's process in delivering certainty, fairness and a market-based assessment roll with exemplary accuracy.

Finally, the provisions proposed in

part 3 of this bill are consistent with our government's goals of providing customer service excellence, fair and efficient tax administration and competitive small business growth.

We are weathering a tremendous world economic storm in a ship that is riding fairly smoothly on troubled seas. This provision, as the others which the Minister of Finance spoke to, is designed to ensure that that smoothness continues, that British Columbians are reassured in all of these areas that government…. Hopefully, both sides of the House are watching closely and doing all that we can to ensure that British Columbians continue to thrive in the face of tough economic times worldwide.

B. Ralston: Well, it is nice to be here and to be able to respond to this particular bill. The Premier didn't want to be here, and the plan for this fall was not to recall the House. Certainly, we're only here by virtue of the extraordinary economic events that have taken place across the world in the last few months.

Certainly, the plan was not to call the House back, not to face the opposition in a question period and to completely avoid any public accountability here in this chamber for the actions of the government. So it is pleasant to be here, and I want to make a few comments about the package that has been put forward.

[1445]

Initially, as storm clouds gathered and I made some comments in the spring in the response to the budget, I remember government members opposite heckling me to even suggest that the economic cycle had not been repealed, that just as the world economy had gone up, it might come down, and that there were certainly, at that time, many indices which indicated a weakening, certainly, in the American housing market — the sub-prime mortgage problem — and spreading economic concern.

Obviously, the collapse of major investment banks in New York…. Lehman Brothers has probably been the most striking, where a major investment bank, globally known, which had been in existence since the 19th century, went out of business overnight.

The economic crisis and the ripples that have spread across the globe are being felt here in British Columbia. The Premier, I think somewhat reluctantly, felt obliged to demonstrate some form of action. Thus, we saw what the Premier called the ten-point plan.

One of the ten points — these are not particularly weighty points — was to recall the Legislature, which I think in the ordinary course of things could have been done without dignifying it as a point in a plan. But such were the slim pickings that the Premier and his staff had to cull together for this announcement that that was deemed to be a part of a plan.

There are some areas in this bill which the Leader of the Opposition has already indicated that this side of the House will be supporting. The tax cuts that are referred to, which are really acceleration in time of previously announced modest tax cuts to small business and personal income tax, will be supported by this side of the House. That's contrary to what the Minister of Finance….

Perhaps he was feigning ignorance, or perhaps the public affairs bureau hadn't informed him, but certainly that was what has been said for some time by the Leader of the Opposition and by members of this side of the House.

The plan that's translated into legislation here doesn't really have much in the way of substance. I certainly don't

[ Page 13219 ]

oppose the plan to increase credit union deposits — the deposit insurance — and make that unlimited. That's something that could have been done very easily, without the fanfare of a legislative session to do it. Certainly, that's relatively uncontroversial.

The plan also says that the Premier will be accelerating public infrastructure. So far we're over a month from the announcement, when the tablets of stone were delivered, and nothing in the way of an announcement has taken place — nothing.

The standard for considering public projects as P3s has been changed, I think in obvious recognition that if a project is designated for a P3 review, that delays the evaluation and planning process for a project by a considerable length of time. So that was jettisoned in order to — I think as a first step — at least begin to accelerate some of the much needed infrastructure projects around the province.

Again, a month has gone by. The Premier and the cabinet have the full array of the government bureaucracy — all the ministers, the council of ministers, the Treasury Board — advice, and not a single project has been announced. Not a single project has been announced.

Where is the sincerity, when it comes to recovery, in dealing with the economic crisis, when on that particular part of the plan there has been no movement?

Certainly, the Leader of the Opposition, in responding on October 27, set out some very specific goals: to build 2,400 housing units, and called on using the $250 million housing innovation fund as a place to start; to accelerate transit and green alternatives; to accelerate school seismic upgrades; to accelerate community projects, such as community centres, health clinics and other needed community infrastructure throughout the province.

There are lots of projects that municipalities have put forward, community groups have put forward and non-profits have put forward. At a time when the construction industry is slowing, at a time when construction costs are declining, at a time when construction workers are increasingly available, nothing has been done to advance this point that was announced on October 22.

[1450]

The other missing elements…. The Minister of Finance, earlier in question period, referred to the — and very erroneously…. I doubt that that was deliberate. But in the news release and the statement on October 27, it talked about — the Leader of the Opposition — revitalizing forestry and the rural economy, investing in silviculture and land-based renewal, investing in forest industry renewal and establishing a new rural economic development fund, and funds were set aside in the brief economic note that was provided as a backgrounder to that.

Surely the Minister of Finance knows that. He's just unwilling to give any credit, I suppose, where credit is due, despite the professions of non-partisan interest in advancing the interests of the forest industry that we just heard from the Minister of Forests.

The plan of the Leader of the Opposition talked about investing in education and skills training. Obviously one of the places that people will go during a downturn is they'll return to improve their education — whether in college, whether technical training, whether in university — and colleges, universities and other institutes need to have the assistance to prepare for that influx of students and get ready to assist people as they seek to take that opportunity to upgrade their skills and prepare for the next economic cycle. That wasn't included in the Premier's plan at all.

The other suggestions that were made by the Leader of the Opposition on October 27, which I think the Minister of Finance is beginning, somewhat belatedly, to awaken to…. Although, again, in the time that's passed, there have been no specific announcements about cutting of government waste. The suggestion was made by the Leader of the Opposition to cut government advertising.

I think everyone recognizes that the kind of advertising that's being undertaken by the government at this time is feel-good advertising. It's not essential. Certainly at a time of economic turmoil, it serves no purpose and could easily be cut. Thus far, no steps have been taken on that.

In the private sector, businesses will tell you that one of the first places they look as a matter of course is to put some restrictions on travel by members of the government or government employees. That hasn't been done.

To cut the budget or examine the budget and cut the use of consultants — those suggestions were made. No action taken. No announcements — nothing. The Premier did have, as one of his points: rein in avoidable government spending. I'm not sure whether we can conclude that all the government advertising is unavoidable government spending — that it's necessary; it's vital. Maybe politically the government deems it necessary or vital, but I don't think any British Columbian shares that point of view. So far, no action taken by the Minister of Finance or by the Premier in terms of cutting those areas of obvious government waste which would be relatively easy to do.

They had four weeks to come to even the most basic announcement, and nothing has been done.

Whereas in business, people…. Families are looking at their budgets, deciding whether or not they can afford that vacation, deciding on what holiday plans they might make and cutting back on their expectations. Yet this government is completely silent on those kinds of basic economies that one would think such an extraordinary economic circumstance called for the government to do. That is regrettable.

Perhaps the government will move on these things as public pressure builds, as members of the opposition raise these topics, but I'm not sure. I think the Minister of Finance has stated that people somehow want to hear these ads. I've never heard anyone say that, but perhaps the minister listens to different voices. I'm not sure.

[1455]

[ Page 13220 ]

One section, though, of this very hastily constructed announcement that is particularly egregious in the flaws in it is the portion relating to assessments. What the Minister of Small Business and Revenue has attempted to provide here in the chamber is a justification for the changes that have been proposed.

It's significant that the Union of B.C. Municipalities, for example, which is the body that represents all municipalities in the province, has written a letter to the executive director of the property assessment services branch, making the following points about the announcement, and they are striking.

Coupled with an admission that the minister made to Don Cayo, who is a journalist with The Vancouver Sun , on November 15, 2008…. I'm quoting from the article. "He" — referring to the minister — "conceded the program had been announced before all the details were worked out, a decision he defended as an effort to get some good news out fast to help calm people's response to economic turmoil."

This is the way to make tax policy? To get it out in an emotional response without thinking through the legislation or even the announcement?

There's a very candid admission. I admire the minister for admitting that he didn't know what the heck he was doing. I think that's very refreshing, but it's certainly accurate. He didn't know what he was doing. They weren't aware of the implications of the legislation. They're working it out and making it up as they go along. That's how tax policy in this important area is being made by this government.

The property assessment branch, in their letter from the Union of B.C. Municipalities, confirms that the union, this body that represents all municipalities…. Of course, property tax revenue is the key source of revenue for municipalities throughout the province, so they are vitally concerned about property tax revenue and assessments. Property tax is based on the assessed value of property, so there's an integral link.

They're deeply concerned by it. It's a major source of revenue. They say that they weren't consulted. No one told them. It just came like a bolt out of the blue. I guess an order went out from the Premier's office. "We need to say something about this. Let's scramble something together." The minister confirms that. It was rushed out the door — that's what he said to Don Cayo, so we know that's the case — so fast and in such haste, such indecent haste, that the chief organization representing municipalities wasn't consulted at all.

What they say was: "President Hobson did receive a phone call from the Hon. Kevin Krueger" — I am reading from the letter — "the hon. Minister of Small Business and Revenue"— it says his name in this letter — "on November 1, just prior to the announcement being made." That was the consultation.

Deputy Speaker: Member.

B. Ralston: I'm aware of the rule. Thank you, Madam Speaker. I apologize.

Interjection.

B. Ralston: I was quoting from the letter. I inadvertently mentioned the member's name — would that I didn't have to mention it — and I apologize for that. So if I might proceed, Madam Speaker? Thank you.

That was the consultation received — a phone call immediately before the announcement, according to this letter. Now, there may have been….

Interjections.

B. Ralston: I hear members catcalling on the other side, but perhaps they'll stand up and put those comments on the record rather than leaving them as unrecorded heckles.

The other thing that the Union of B.C. Municipalities expressed was the concern that the whole principle of the assessment authority is designed on a market-based assessment of properties. Once you begin to move away, their concern is, from market-based assessment — this is a very reputable organization, widely regarded across the country and indeed across North America — and begin to intervene in the way this government has chosen to do, you encounter a number of problems and begin to skew the entire assessment system.

[1500]

What they say is in this letter. "Existing UBCM policy discourages moving away from market-based assessments." This is an excerpt from their general policies:

"On a provincewide basis, approximately 60 percent of local government's financial needs are met from property taxation. Such taxation must be based on an appropriate and independently established assessment system so that all properties carry their fair share of tax, and B.C.'s present assessment system generally meets this requirement. The determination of the amount and distribution of taxes must remain the responsibility of those elected to the local office. Other governments and their agencies must, through their grants-in-lieu of taxes, assume the same tax burden as the ordinary property tax payer."

They are concerned by this interference with the long-established principle of market-based assessments and at the consequences that will flow from that. Finally, they are also troubled by how they interpret that — and these are their words, not mine; their words, their understanding and their analysis of the government announcements that have been made — and I'm quoting from the letter:

"Many property owners do not make the distinction between assessment and property taxes and may draw a conclusion that property taxes have been capped. This tendency is likely to be exacerbated because of the choices the province has made in its communications materials."

What they are concerned about is that the public expression by the Premier and subsequent expressions by the minister responsible for this piece of legislation have, in the public mind, created confusion about the

[ Page 13221 ]

link between assessments and property taxes. By freezing assessments — this is what they're saying — people may be drawn to the conclusion that their property taxes are frozen as well. Their concern is — as the authority and the agencies, the municipalities that send out the property tax notice and collect the tax notice — that they will draw the public ire, the public anger, if property taxes are not capped in accordance with that misunderstanding, and they will be held responsible for that.

They are very, very concerned about that approach that the government has taken. I'm not sure. Perhaps the minister will, when we go through clause-by-clause debate, be able to explain this better than he's done thus far. But certainly we understand the predicament that he's in, as he admitted to Don Cayo, of basically making this up as he goes along.

But perhaps a further addition to the legislation or further understandings will be forthcoming from the minister that may endeavour to cut the confusion — hopefully not add to it, but one never knows. We'll see when we get to that stage of debate of the bill.

The other professed rationale by the minister in adopting this very unusual intervention in this independent authority is that it will reduce the number of appeals. They say in this letter — and this letter is dated November 17:

"While the stated intent of the freeze is to ward off unusually high appeal levels, it is uncertain that it will be completely successful. The freeze could create additional or more complex appeals in three specific areas: major industrial properties, which will not benefit from depreciation this year; changes in use, physical condition, etc., unless these are dealt with in a similar manner as properties that did not change during the year; and properties subject to valuations of the lesser of the July 1, 2007 and July 8, 2008 market values, for which both sets of values will need to be reviewed in order to determine if the lower value was used.

"Consequently, UBCM recommends that the communications plan noted above include consideration of how the mechanics of the freeze can be best communicated to B.C. property owners."

Again, one of the professed goals of this piece of legislation, this policy, this dramatic intervention in the assessment process is to reduce the number of appeals. The UBCM, who are very knowledgable — and indeed, their members would be affected by this — are much more doubtful. These particular amendments and this part of the package that was brought forward, I think, as a trailer to the points that the Premier announced on October 27 were announced in that most non-partisan of all forums, the B.C. Liberal convention at Whistler.

[1505]

One detects a certain requirement for the Premier perhaps to have something, as the jargon goes, announceable — in other words, something to say that would appear to further the weak ten points that were set out previously. That may explain, again, why this particular item was so rushed, so botched and so devoid of a rationale as we move forward. That perhaps may explain it. Those sections will be the subject of debate at committee stage, certainly.

The other comment that I want to make about the legislative package is that it is a weak response by the government. The Premier appears to have been caught by surprise by the sudden change in economic events. He, I think, would wish that he were not here having to call the Legislature back, but certainly this does give us an opportunity to examine this particular package in some detail.

But I think, in conclusion — if I may, Madam Speaker — there's a story that appears in the history of King Canute. King Canute was the king who asked that his throne be taken out to the seashore and commanded the tides not to come in. Nevertheless, despite the command of the king, the tides came in.

The Premier is very much in that tradition. I think he thought he could command that the economic tides not come in, that the economic cycle was repealed, that it was not necessary to have an economic plan for the future and was not necessary to prepare for the inevitable downturn, and yet the tide has come in.

So we are here, faced with a very weak response from this government. The people of British Columbia are certainly looking for more and deserve more. When you look around the world — whether it's President-elect Obama, whether it's the Chinese government or whether it's even the Prime Minister of Canada — much more imaginative, vigorous and detailed responses have taken place to what's going on economically than this government has put forward. It's really a testament to the fact that the cupboard is bare on the other side, even to the extent that the assessment provisions are basically made up as they go along.

With those comments at second reading, I will end my comments and take my place here.

M. Karagianis: I'm happy to take my place in this debate on Bill 45. I must say I'm somewhat surprised, in the face of what is clearly a continuing global economic crisis, that this House has not been called back sooner than this.

I find it wholly inadequate to think that we would deal with this crisis here in this province in five days of a sitting rather than a much longer session where we'd have the ability to really look at maybe some in-depth and substantial solutions to the crisis, because in fact the market still is very volatile.

I think you only have to listen to the news every day to see that every single day the marketplace is still reeling. It's up; it's down. We see all kinds of reports of what's happening globally. We see in the U.S. that there has been no stability despite millions of dollars of assurance by governments that there is a pledge to try and halt the continuing volatility of this.

I would have to say that, you know, having assurances here that in British Columbia we will somehow be pro-

[ Page 13222 ]

tected or immune to this…. I have to be very skeptical of that, because I don't believe that we at this point acknowledged the crisis in time.

[1510]

We have certainly at this point, I think, dealt out a kind of a weak-tea solution at the very best. I'm concerned that we're not properly prepared and we don't have the amount of information, insight or capacity here to deal with ongoing concerns with the marketplace and the repercussions it will have here.

I have to say that I'm skeptical about the government's reassurance that all is well here in the province and that we somehow will be the eye of the storm, where we will be protected from continuing global economic meltdowns that will have unforeseen impacts on this province.

However, looking at what the government has currently dealt out as kind of their first weak solution to the economic meltdown, I will say that the idea of some of the tax cuts here, as my colleague from Surrey-Whalley has clearly outlined and as the Leader of the Opposition has stated very publicly on numerous occasions…. We are in favour of this. Will it be enough to halt the impact on most people's lives in the coming months? I suspect not. Most of us will not see any kind of real return on our income tax until sometime in the spring.

In the meantime I know from families in my community, in my constituency, that the concerns are very real. They are immediate. They are happening to households now. They are combined with an ongoing number of economic pressures that have nothing to do even with the economic changes both globally and here in our own country but the ongoing concern for the cost of heating your homes and the cost of affording your homes and the cost of ferry fares and the cost of child care.

All of those things that families have been feeling anyway and that have been a growing concern outside of any kind of economic crisis that's going on, I think, have now been just magnified and exaggerated by the fact that people are seeing this volatility, this chaos in world markets as being something that may affect them, could affect them, is affecting them and certainly will continue to affect them into the future.

So certainly I support the concept of tax cuts, but I'm not sure that they deliver any immediate solutions to individuals in their lives. We'll see whether that first small step is going to be enough. I don't think it halts in any way the crisis that most people are feeling in their lives. You know, a few hundred dollars back on your taxes in March of next year certainly isn't going to offset those people who are seeing huge decrease and erosion in RSP funds that people are looking at as being imperative to their future capacity to retire. I know from personal experience — from my friends, my family, my constituents — that those are real concerns.

I would say that really for me, Bill 45 held some other very, I thought, curious and compelling components that had me much more concerned with looking for some more immediate answers.

First of all, I would like to talk about the property tax deferral program that the government has launched. As the member for Surrey-Whalley so clearly outlined, so much of this looks like it was cobbled together and, as one of my constituents said to me the other day, looks a bit half-baked on the surface.

I would have to say that the first thing I'd flag as being a real concern for me is this idea of tax deferment. I spent nine years in municipal government, so I'm no stranger to the idea of having seniors defer their taxes. That has been a plan that has worked really well, with very low interest rates charged to those seniors. I know some seniors who take advantage of that.

But I'm concerned here with this idea that we would have a tax deferral where you could actually defer your property taxes for the next couple of years even if you're not a senior, even if that's not…. This has opened a much bigger door to families using this as an opportunity to kind of stave off the costs of their property taxes.

I believe that the government has said that this is based on you having 15 percent equity in your property. So based on the other components of this plan, I would have to ask the government: is that 15 percent equity of your property based on the '07 assessment, the '08 assessment or the '09 assessment? Apparently we have a little bit of a buffet of choices here.

[1515]

When you're allowed to defer your property taxes based on a 15 percent equity, what year is that based on? We seem to be now manipulating assessments in this government here in British Columbia, so how are we to base that? For many people, that may be critical — when they had that 15 percent equity in their home and whether they still have that 15 percent equity in their home.

I will again say, relying on my experience at the municipal level, that allowing people to defer their taxes for several years…. What this does is compound the inevitable crunch at the other end, when the full impact of this comes in.

If you're currently paying $2,000 or $2,500 in property taxes, which is the average in my community right now, and you get to defer those for two years, then that means in year three, you owe three tax years' worth of property taxes. So how do you recoup that? How do you pay that at the end of the three years? Or do you simply let that accrue for the rest of the time you are paying property taxes in your community? No.

Families will be looking at a very serious impact at the end of three years, now having a property tax bill that's got three years stacked up onto it. So I'd like to know how the government actually believes that that's not causing more hardship to families. In fact, will this lead to more bankruptcies and foreclosures? Will this lead to the kind of inequity situations we've seen south of the border?

[ Page 13223 ]

I am very concerned that that is exactly the kind of buildup that is going to happen and may threaten families, certainly those who are living now from paycheque to paycheque, who are really feeling the crunch of affordability in their homes. I am very concerned about the impacts of that and will look forward to the government explaining that as we get to the committee stage of this.

The other piece of this package in Bill 45 around the tax deferment is, of course, the assessments and the fact that the government is now freezing assessments at some level, which appears to be a bit of a moving target and appears to have been since the day this was announced.

I think all of us have had a chance to read UBCM's information that was put out here and their concerns immediately on this. Again, I go back to my time at the municipal table to say that the whole issue of assessments here, I think, is going to be grossly misunderstood by the public and by homeowners as we move through and implement this bill.

I would certainly say that UBCM's concerns about how this was determined to be an economic stimulator, how this was determined to be something that would actually produce real results at the end, seems to be very questionable. UBCM was not consulted in this. I'll tell you right now, talking to the mayors and councillors in my community…. When I called them last week to talk about this, there was a growing sense of concern about the fact that the government is going to come in and manipulate assessment values and what the impacts are for those municipal councils.

I think all of us know that we saw a huge number of new mayors and councillors in the last election. There has been considerable change in many municipalities. For those municipal leaders who are now going to be moving very rapidly into a budgeting cycle, there are a whole number of questions that immediately come to mind and, I know, are a great concern to the mayors in my community.

Let's talk about how easily this has already misled property owners into believing that the government has had the capacity to freeze their property taxes, which is patently not true. The government is not freezing property taxes at the 2007 level. They're not doing anything of the sort.

In reality, the government is now adding chaos into the assessments for your property and adding, I believe, more strain and stress on to property owners. In reality, when assessments are set on all the properties in your community and you determine how you are going to set your taxation regime for the year, you do that on a mill rate that's based on the value of all properties in your municipality. If all the properties go up in value, it makes no difference. If they all go down, it makes no difference. The mill rate is set on all of the properties within your municipality.

[1520]

The fact that properties have gone up or down dramatically in the last couple of years is only a concern if your property is out of step with those around you. If all other properties have gone down and yours has gone up, you will pay more property taxes. If all property values have gone up or all have gone down, you will all pay the same relative amount for property taxes. So I think it's misleading for the government to let property owners think that in some way they're freezing property taxes, because they're not.

Frankly, I think municipalities would be very alarmed and are very alarmed by the fact that perhaps there is this misinterpretation and wrong impression out there among property tax payers that somehow municipalities are going to have to deal with the 2007 level of budget taxation.

I think the other thing that's added more chaos into this manipulation of the market is the fact that now the government, once they realized that they had not thought through this very well…. It was very poorly thought through, very poorly developed and very poorly written. The government has had to go back and say: "Well, now you can actually choose either the '07 or the '08, because we didn't think that through, and '07 may not be the optimal number to freeze this at."

What this does is add another layer of very, very serious concern for municipalities, because municipalities are about to go into a budget process where they have to determine what the mill rate is going to be and what property taxes are going to be, in the spring of this year. They have very specific dates upon which they have to report this out. They have public consultations with taxpayers.

Now it's up to property owners to get their assessments, which don't usually arrive until late in the spring, and then determine from their assessments: "Hmm, do I want the '07 level? Do I want the '08 level? Let me think. You know what? I might want to wait and see what my taxes are going to be before I decide which level I will take."

You can automatically see how that's a problem, because municipalities cannot set their mill rate and their tax rate unless they have assurance of what those assessments are going to be, and they don't have that.

In fact, when I've talked with mayors and councillors about this…. The fact that there's a multiple choice here adds a whole layer of complications that I don't think municipalities are going to be very impressed with. Frankly, it just goes to show how chaotic the government's plan is.

Then the other thing that I want to talk about here is: who will actually benefit by this really confusing formula of whether you pick the '07 or '08? Certainly, we know that major commercial buildings have changed their values at a different rate than private real estate property has.

Is there a disproportionate amount of benefit to business with this? Well, I say that there could very well be. If they choose the '07 rate, which is considerably less than what their property was worth in '08 or '09…. It

[ Page 13224 ]

is very possible, in today's real estate market, that their property could have gone up after '07, and those businesses will choose the lowest property assessment. Now we have municipalities who may in fact see millions of dollars of property tax revenue drained away from their coffers — another crisis for municipalities. At the end of the day, that means it's going to hit more taxpayers directly in the pocket.

I'm also concerned here, when I see cuts to school taxation values, whether or not at the end of the day that's going to follow its way right through into school districts and that loss of school revenue is not going to be offset in any way and school boards will be taking the hit on this.

If government is going to make the determination that they're going to give a bigger break to business or light industry in paying school taxes, then I would like to see some assurance that this is not going to cause further budget cuts and erosion of dollars into the education system, where it's needed.

[1525]

I would say that one of the things that concerns me about how we got into the economic crisis is the whole deregulation movement by big corporate America, by corporate Canada for many years. Let's remember that this is a current government, also, that said, when it got into government, that deregulation was one of its top priorities, and they have been busy deregulating.

Let's look at the fact that the global crisis has been caused by a massive amount of deregulation. As we move through and try and cobble together, as this is, a very poor response to the global climate right now, let's ensure that we are not falling into the trap of more deregulation, which will just magnify the current situation.

This is an opportunity right now for us to invest in our communities in a better way. I don't believe that tax breaks that put a few dollars in people's pockets next year are going to give us the same kind of solutions to the economic crisis as investing in real ways into our community, because what I hear over and over again in my constituency is that for people…. The biggest crisis they are concerned about right now is affordability.

People are already in all kinds of affordability pressures in their own households. Whether it's the cost of housing, whether it's the lack of affordable and accessible child care, whether it's the need for more transportation solutions so that people can get back and forth to work in an economic and affordable way, I hear over and over again the real shortcomings that people already feel in their own households and their own lives every single day.

Now we are moving into a time of economic uncertainty, because despite the government's claims to the contrary, I don't for one moment believe that the continuing volatility in the market is not going to affect us. I think that given the performance we've seen over all the good years — seven years of really good economic times here in British Columbia, huge booming times in the resource industry….

We saw a government that went through and eviscerated programs, that has continued, year after year, to top the charts for child poverty. We've seen a government that has seen exponential growth in homelessness. We saw that in good times here in this province. What can we expect as the money begins to drain away and we are hit with more economic tough times?

This is a government that likes to brag all the time about how good things have been under its watch. Yet this is happening under their watch, and I don't see anything here in the way of a brilliant plan of action to get us out of any future problems in this province. I don't see anything here in this five-day sitting that says: "We're going to do something about homelessness."

I don't see anything here that says: "Here's one way to invest in British Columbia. Let's raise the minimum wage in this province." There's a way to invest in real solutions for people in this province. There's a way to put real dollars back into people's pockets. I don't see anything here in this government's plan that gives us that.

I don't see anything in this plan that says: "We're going to find a way to make it more affordable for…."

Interjection.

Deputy Speaker: Member.

M. Karagianis: I don't see anything here in the government's plan that says that there is a way we're going to make post-secondary education more affordable.

I was out knocking on doors on the weekend and talking to people, and one of the things that came up was the number of people who are burdened with huge debt coming out of post-secondary education. That's a concern. That's a concern for those individuals who, on top of everything else that's going on, are still paying off huge, huge student debt. Is the government looking at ways to make that relief available to people? No, not a word about that.

I believe that it is a time when we could be investing in our communities in a more tangible way, investing in individuals in our communities. This government, once again, has completely missed the boat on this.

Because so many of our good years have been squandered away, it doesn't give me a great deal of confidence that the solutions we're going to see from this government are going to be any more tangible than this — a

[ Page 13225 ]

few tax breaks and a very confusing tax deferral system, manipulating assessments.

[1530]

I would say that when you watch what the government's priorities really are in the face of growing concern across this province and across this country with the economy…. What do we see the government doing? Well, we've already canvassed today in a little bit of our debate the fact that we are spending an enormous amount of money on government advertising to tell us how good things are.

It does not escape me that one of those predominant TV ads that runs has a whole list of projects, many of which are actually privatized projects, many of which are not B.C. investments into B.C. It's not the government putting that forward. It's privatized projects like the Abbotsford Hospital.

So while the government is spending and squandering a great deal of our money on government advertising at the expense of an increased minimum wage, at the expense of a good, effective child care system, at the expense of seniors health care, at the expense of homelessness, then I have to say that the government's priorities are skewed. If they want to start someplace, if they want to demonstrate that they are truly taking this economic crunch seriously, then they will start by getting rid of those obscene ads and the amount of money spent on that.

Let's talk about what the government's priorities have been over the past number of years. While we've been heading towards this crisis, we've seen just an astronomical amount of money spent on the convention centre in Vancouver. This could be the biggest white elephant that ever was built on the foreshore in Vancouver — the convention centre.

For the amount of money that has been squandered and overspent on that project, think about what kind of investment we could have made into solving homelessness, into putting together an affordable, effective child care system, into making post-secondary education affordable, into providing better seniors housing and seniors facilities and seniors care across this province. Think about that.

We've already seen where the government's priorities are. What did we see this summer? We saw big, fat salary increases, the biggest of all for the Premier's number one political adviser. So there we can see that despite a downturn in the economy, this government has certainly protected their own very nicely.

I think that the gold medal fiasco here, the Premier's personal vanity project, is a very, very specific and blatant symbol of where this government's priorities are. Again, what kind of money was spent on this gold medal program? And are those dollars that those workers would rather have seen put into child care, put into a minimum wage increase, put into some kind of affordable housing program?

You bet, Madam Speaker. Because, of course, we hear that every single day in our communities, and I'm sure the members opposite do as well. They will certainly not get up and admit it, but I am sure that they hear from their constituents just as we hear from ours.

So it seems to me that a government that delivered a budget here in the spring that gave hundreds of millions of dollars of subsidies to the oil and gas industry and banks…. Have we seen that rolled back? Nowhere in this bill do I see any of that rolled back, and it seems to me that that would be the first place.

If the government really wants to start rolling back some of their misspent priorities, then that's a good place to start — because the oil and gas subsidies of $327 million a year, plus a couple of hundred million dollars a year to the banks, could be money that was invested back into this province — rather than distracting us with deferred property taxes for three years. We could be taking some of that money and putting it back into British Columbia and investing in things that really matter to people in this province.

But it seems to me that the government continues to want to wear rose-coloured glasses on this, and I would say that if there are no alarm bells ringing right now by the economic meltdown in the U.S. that has affected companies like AIG, then once again, I think the government is not connecting all the dots. It seems to me that we are so immersed in these large privatized projects, many of which now appear to be falling apart….

[1535]

You only have to see what's happening in the real estate market to know that some of the same big partners that are privatizing aspects of government services here are also tied to projects that are shutting down. Why? Because of the economic downturn, because these companies can no longer get backing out of the U.S., because they can't get their liabilities insured through companies like AIG. And yet nowhere do I see any kind of discussion on that, on making sure that our taxpayers are protected from that.

We know, and we've canvassed this in many of our discussions at estimates, that ultimately the government says: "Well, if the 3Ps fail, we simply inherit them." Well, I'll tell you, if they fail midway, then you inherit all the liabilities — right?

So for the taxpayers of British Columbia…. While we're being told we're going to get a few tax dollars back in our pockets next spring, there may be a much bigger problem looming over our shoulders, and that will be some of the long-term effect of the crash of the U.S. economic structure. When companies like AIG go down, when big developers here and some of these big, huge, privatized projects can no longer get secure funding and they shut down, who will inherit that project — half-finished, maybe not even started, maybe in some state of building? Who will inherit the problem?

[ Page 13226 ]

We, as the taxpayers of British Columbia, will inherit those problems just like we're going to inherit the problems, any cost overruns, any financial shortfalls with the Olympics.

Let's talk about that. This economic downturn has already begun to erode major sponsors out of the Olympics. Will more fall by the wayside? I say yes. I say that the economic crunch has not completely hit us at this point. If we see more of those sponsors pull out, guess who's on the hook for this, because the Premier guaranteed it — the taxpayers of British Columbia. I'll bet we won't get any gold medals for stepping up to the plate and bearing that cost for the next generation and beyond.

We could have sat in this House for the last couple of months and had a real discussion on all of the implications of this. What are going to be the effects on the Olympics? What are going to be the effects on major privatized projects throughout this province? What are going to be the long-term effects on people's lives if this tax manipulation of the assessments doesn't work and we instead see people in foreclosures and bankruptcies? What is the long-term prognosis for any of this?

We have very little opportunity to explore that, because frankly, five days in this House is not enough time to deal with an economic crisis.

We will take these tax breaks, and we will support them, because a little crumb in the problem is better than nothing. But this is a government that has missed all the opportunities to do a better job of this, and I think they're going to continue to. And it's a shame. It is a darn shame that we haven't had a better chance to discuss this in its fullness here in this House.

S. Simpson: It's good to be back. It's good to be back in the Legislature and to have an opportunity to engage in the people's business. As we know, of course, we should have all been back here a long time ago. I think it was October 6 when we were projected to be back here, if we'd followed the calendar that was adopted by the government.

But the government and the Premier, as you'll know, hon. Speaker, told us that there was no business to do. As you might recall, part of the business that we didn't get to do was the ramming through of, I think, eight critical pieces of legislation in a couple of hours on our last day here, the last day of the spring session.

Of course, those pieces of legislation were rammed through by the government with no debate, with no respect for the democratic process, with no respect for the interests of British Columbians, with no respect for the voices of British Columbians to be heard on those issues — critical issues that the people of British Columbia expect us to be here doing our job on.

But the government chose, of course, to ram those through, because democracy is a faint concern to this government. They've never interested themselves in the democratic process. They'd much rather just ram things through. That's their way.

We, of course, know that we could have come back on October 6 and we could have had those bills. And there's other legislation here.

[1540]

Then, of course, as the Attorney General tells us time and time again, he's not able to get the Lobbyists Registration Act changes through his cabinet. They won't allow him to do that. So he can't bring forward that bill that would deal with the conduct of the likes of people like Mr. Kinsella and others, where allegations have been made and where, in fact, people aren't prepared to allow the process to go forward so that we know who's lobbying and who's not.

Of course, those changes won't happen because this government won't allow the Attorney General to bring a bill forward. If they'd allowed that, we could be talking about the Lobbyists Registration Act here too. But that's another matter.

In terms of this particular bill, Bill 45, the Economic Incentive and Stabilization Statutes Amendment Act, this is a piece of legislation that brings forward — or operationalizes, I guess, would be the best term — the speech made by the Premier back a while ago where he laid out his ten-point plan. Now, as we know, what brought that on was the very difficult economic situation that we now find affecting us globally.

In British Columbia, in Canada, we certainly are feeling the effects of that. It is a very difficult situation. It is a situation that is affecting people across this province. It's a situation that I know is significantly leading people to put their money back in their pockets, to choose not to spend money. It's a situation that's causing hardship for businesses both big and small. It's a situation that is affecting those who are most vulnerable in ways that I don't even think they totally understand or we totally understand. But one thing that we do know is that it isn't good; it won't be good.

Hon. Speaker, when I look at my constituency of Vancouver-Hastings and I look at the effects of this…. I've had the opportunity, when I go up and down Hastings Street, to talk to the small business owners in my community about the effects of this, and they're feeling those effects. Those folks tell me about the shopping that's not going on, the spending that isn't going on in their stores, about the dollars that aren't passing through the economy. They're not passing through the economy, of course, because people are scared. People aren't sure what the future holds for them. People aren't sure how they should respond to this.

In many cases, I have many constituents who work in pretty marginal jobs, and they don't have a lot of security in their jobs. They're very concerned about whether this paycheque quite literally is the last paycheque before layoff. They're concerned about whether they get to pay the rent,

[ Page 13227 ]

and as we all know, paying the rent in Vancouver is a pretty big ticket item if you're working on a low wage or, for that matter, on a modest wage but an adequate wage.

Paying rent in Vancouver is a pretty serious deal. I know in my constituency, which is one of the poorer constituencies in the province in terms of the demographic, people are getting one-bedroom apartments and paying a thousand dollars a month because that's what happens if you want to be there. They're getting basement suites that you and I wouldn't want to have anything to do with living in and paying $700 a month in those basement suites. That's because that's all there is. It doesn't take long when you're making $8 or $10 or $12 an hour for that to disappear pretty quickly.

So they're worried about their jobs. They're worried about where in the future the money comes from. They're worried about the whole question of housing and how we are dealing with the housing issue and the homelessness question. And we know the homelessness situation across this province. We know the homelessness situation in Vancouver. It's a significant issue in my constituency. There are lots of people in those doorways. There are lots of people finding places to sleep out of the rain. There is no doubt about that.

As things get tougher and tougher, they worry and the people who work with them — the advocates, the people who are trying to reflect their interests and speak and add their voices to support these people — are very worried that as times get tougher and tougher the concerns of folks like the most vulnerable, like the homeless, fall a little farther down the priority list. They're already too far down the priority list as it is. They're already too far down that list as it is.

[1545]

You know, we're all pretty excited about the Olympics coming in 2010, but we need to be clear. The priority of the Olympics is important, but the priority of things like poor kids, child poverty…. We know those child poverty records, as we hit another record year of child poverty in British Columbia. Those issues like child poverty, like homelessness, should be at least as big a priority for us as the Olympics. They should be at least as big a priority as giving a gold medal to a construction worker. That's not what is happening, though.

In my constituency it's not just the folks at that end of the scale. I have much, if not most, of the working port that's in Vancouver in my constituency. I talk to folks in longshore, people who work in that port, and they worry as well. They worry about exports and imports, and the effect it will have on the port as it starts to reduce hours and their opportunities to make a good living.

They certainly do make a good living, if they're working regularly there. But even those folks, who make pretty good paycheques, are starting to get concerned as well. We know, of course, what happens when that occurs. People put their money in their pocket. They don't spend. Then it comes right back to what we all talk about as the engine of the economy for us, which is small business. What happens is that money doesn't get spent in small businesses, because people put it in their pocket.

My daughter works in a store on Hastings Street that sells vintage clothes. She works some weekends there in that store. She tells me that she knows that in the last few weeks — the store was doing great — there are less sales. It's down, you know, a couple of hundred bucks a day, and a few hundred dollars a day is important in a small shop like that. But there are a few hundred dollars less sales than there might have been before. I think that's the sign of what's coming. Unfortunately, it looks — and it looks increasingly — like it gets worse before it gets better.

Increasingly when we hear about this economic crisis…. We're no longer talking this time. This time is somewhat different. It's not the cyclical ups and downs of the economy that we all come to expect — that go through the cycles, where we know there are a few good years, there are a few bad years, and there are some years in between. What we're hearing here is that this is something more fundamental. This is a more fundamental situation with a more fundamental change.

It's a situation where we need to really shift the way that we respond to this. We need to shift the way that we in British Columbia decide that we are going to react, and we need to react in two ways: one is in helping to fix a problem, but increasingly, also, we need to find the opportunity here and create opportunities. I know that that's part of what we're talking about. That was reflected in the Leader of the Opposition's comments when she made her statement to the people of British Columbia, and I'll talk about that a little bit more in a bit.

What we need to do is not just put greater regulation in place on what were previously essentially unfettered markets. It was a situation of deregulation. We saw the disaster that that was in the United States, where all of this comes from. Where it emanates from is in the United States. We saw that, and now in the United States across the political spectrum there, you're seeing, whether it be Republicans or Democrats…. They're all standing up saying that we allowed this system to get deregulated to a level that was unhealthy. We allowed this system to be deregulated to a level where the public interest was no longer served.

We're hearing that from the right and from the left. We now have what some would call the most remarkable thing, where you have what is a George Bush government in its dying days that's embracing the notion of starting to take ownership shares in investment houses and financial institutions in order to prop them up and in order to ensure that they move forward in the public interest.

[1550]

Here in British Columbia we saw in 2001, when the government came to power, one of the primary interests

[ Page 13228 ]

of the government…. There was a minister for deregulation. That minister of that day — I wasn't in this place at that time, but I remember reading the comments of that minister — would stand up every week or so and announce how many regulations had been set aside or had been quashed. There's no question that there are regulations…. Unnecessary regulations should be set aside. There's no reason to put regulations in place simply for the sake of regulation.

However, there are times when a regulatory regime makes sense. There are times when a regulatory regime is part of the public interest. The reality is that when we're talking about the protection of people's money, our taxpayers' money, when we're talking about the protection of their investments, when we're talking about the protection of their pensions and their retirement savings plans and their future, then there very much is a reason to regulate.

We in British Columbia, in Canada…. We fortunately have a banking system in Canada that has a pretty strong regulatory regime. We saw, as a result of that, that we have not faced some of the challenges that we've seen south of the border. However, we need to be diligent on that, and we need to make sure that we are protecting those interests long term. We need to be prepared to review and make sure that our system here in fact provides those protections and ensures the public interest.

When we talk about economic growth in British Columbia — this is a government that likes to talk about economic growth, and that's good; we all want to see growth and opportunity — particularly when we talk about economic growth that's based on the real things that we have to offer in B.C., which are largely our resources that belong to British Columbians, let us be assured that the public interest is what is always served first when we're dealing with those issues of growth and dealing with what's good for us.

As we move forward, we need to say: "How do we find opportunities in the challenges that we face?" There's a lot of discussion going on out there, a lot of discussion of people, of thinkers, of economic thinkers, about how we get at this. There's a lot of discussion around the new green economy, around sustainability, around different ways to approach economic opportunity in the future. This is all good discussion. It's all discussion that we should be having here. It's all discussion that this government, which at different times has told us that there is a green economy somewhere in the future….

But we have seen nothing, absolutely nothing, to show any demonstrable effort to actually make that happen. We're just not seeing it.

What we need to do is say: "How do we begin to see those things? How do we begin to find that future? How do we begin to find an economy that actually embraces and meets people's needs in the long run?"

The Leader of the Opposition outlined some of those ideas when she spoke to the people of British Columbia about the future. She talked about the need to put money back in people's pockets. She talked about the need to ensure that people had money to spend and how important that is for the economy. She also talked about the need for people to have money in their pockets.

That included talking about raising the minimum wage, something that has not occurred since this government came to power. We have a minimum wage at $8 an hour. We have almost 250,000 people in this province who work at less than minimum wage.

Let's be clear. When we talk about the more than 22 percent of kids who live in poverty in this province — the highest levels of poverty five years in a row in this country, even as prosperous as we are — half of those kids come from families where there's a paycheque, where people are working. That's a problem.

We tell them: "Go out. Get a job. Do right by your family. Do all those things that are right, and everything will be good." So they go out, and they do that.

Yet they don't make enough money to get out of poverty. That has to be a bigger priority. We have to make that a priority — at least as big a priority as the Olympics, at least as big a priority as a gold medal for construction workers.

We need to invest in education. Everybody will tell you that the future is all about education. If you want to build your future, you build on education. You build on opportunities for young people to go and find their dreams and make those dreams real. You build on opportunities for workers who are going to need to make those changes to that green economy — to that sustainable economy, to that new economy — for them to be able to make those transitions, to learn the new skills, to have those opportunities and to move forward.

[1555]

We need to find the resources to be able to support that. I know I heard the Minister of Finance today, in his statement this morning, say that there was no room for new programs. I respect the fact that money is tight, and I suspect it's a little bit tighter than he led us to believe this morning. That will show itself in time as we head to next year, I'm sure, but the reality is this: we need to talk not just about spending but about investment, and when we talk about investment, it has to be investment in people first and foremost.

We have to find the places and the ways to invest in education that create those opportunities and, hopefully, that create those opportunities without driving students into such a level of debt when they come out the other end of the educational system — when they get that degree, go out to start to earn those wages, build our future and be our leaders of tomorrow — and that they're not hamstrung with such incredible debt that they, in fact, struggle for many, many years before they start to see the opportunities that they want to see for themselves and for their families. We need to do more work on that.

[ Page 13229 ]

I spoke a little bit earlier about the housing issue and the homelessness issue. British Columbia, like Quebec, has historically been a prov