2005 Legislative Session: 6th Session, 37th 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)

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 23, 2005

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 27, Number 16

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Page

Introductions by Members

Tributes

Keith Oleksiuk

J. MacPhail

Sven Fredrickson

G. Trumper

Statements (Standing Order 25 B )

Electoral reform

J. Bray

Poco a Poco Service Society

G. Trumper

Mining in B.C.

W. Cobb

Oral Questions

Termination of Fraser health authority

CEO

J. MacPhail

Hon. C. Hansen

Acute care services at Surrey Memorial

Hospital

J. Brar

Hon. C. Hansen

Funding for Fraser health authority

E. Brenzinger

Hon. C. Hansen

Long-term and acute care beds in Fraser

health authority

J. Brar

Hon. C. Hansen

J. Kwan

Services at Smithers Airport

D. MacKay

Hon. K. Falcon

Committee of the Whole House

Thompson Rivers University Act (Bill 2)

Hon. I. Chong

Report and Third Reading of Bills

Thompson Rivers University Act (Bill 2)

Second Reading of Bills

Income Tax Amendment Act, 2005 (Bill 7)

Hon. C. Hansen

J. MacPhail

J. Bray

L. Mayencourt

K. Whittred

B. Penner

R. Stewart

Hon. C. Hansen

Taxation Statutes Amendment Act, 2005

(Bill 8)

Hon. C. Hansen

J. Bray

L. Mayencourt

Hon.

C. Hansen

Budget Debate (continued)

K. Whittred

J. Bray

J. Nuraney

G. Halsey-Brandt

[ Page 12069 ]

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 23, 2005

The House met at 2:04 p.m.

Prayers.

[1405]

Introductions by Members

P. Nettleton: Doug Longstaff and Ruby Campbell are here

today from Minnedosa, Manitoba, visiting with our very own Luana from the dining

room and her husband, Ron. Please give them a big welcome.

Hon. J. van Dongen: Visiting us today from Saskatoon are my

son, Peter van Dongen, and his wife, Clarice Springford. With them, as well, are

Clarice's grandparents from Vancouver Island, George and Christine Doney. I just

want to report to the members of this House that Peter and Clarice are making

plans to come back to British Columbia, and both families are very happy about

that.

Tributes

KEITH OLEKSIUK

J. MacPhail: I rise to announce a little bit of sad news.

Keith Oleksiuk, who was the chair of the Labour Relations Board in the 1990s,

died this morning of cancer. He was a transplanted Ontarian to British Columbia.

He chose this province as his home, served us well in the field of labour

relations for several years and loved this province. I would ask if we could

send condolences to his family from the House.

Mr. Speaker: Absolutely. We will.

Introductions by Members

G. Trumper: In the precincts today are Ben and Shirley

Anderson. Ben is the chief constable for the Oak Bay police. I knew him as an

RCMP inspector in Port Alberni. They're good friends of mine. I would ask the

House to please welcome them.

Tributes

SVEN FREDRICKSON

G. Trumper: I also would like to just say that last week we

lost a resident of Port Alberni, Sven Fredrickson, who was injured and became a

paraplegic in 1974. He was one of the co-founders of workers disability for

forestry workers, and he was a co-founder of the National Institute of

Disability Management. He contributed the rest of his life to trying to make

things easier for people who had been injured in the workplace.

Introductions by Members

L. Mayencourt: I would like to introduce a number of people

that joined us this morning for a very interesting dialogue with the Health

caucus committee. They are from the Planned Lifetime Social Advocacy Network and

the Vela Microboard Association of B.C.

These folks are parents of and advocates for children that are

living with developmental disabilities. I would ask that the House please make

Jane Short, Randy Wilson, Linda Perry, Lori Emanuels, Donna Diggens and Ellen

Candlish very welcome.

G. Halsey-Brandt: It's my pleasure to have two

introductions today on behalf of my colleague the member for Richmond-Steveston.

The first is a visitor in the gallery, a young man who I've known for his

lifetime, Matthew Ilich, who is a recent graduate of UBC and very interested in

politics. Today is his first visit to the Legislature. Would the House please

make him very welcome.

The second is 55 grade 9 students who are visiting us here today

from Robert Alexander McMath Secondary School in Richmond. They are accompanied

by two teachers, Ms. Monique Vonk and Ms. Susan Myler. A parent, Ms. Cooper, is

with them as well. The students are here today for a tour of the legislative

precinct to observe question period and to learn about decorum and parliamentary

procedure. Would the House please make them welcome.

Hon. I. Chong: Visiting in the gallery today are

constituents of mine from the Gordon Head area of my riding. Pavan Nirwan, who

worked for me previously as my executive assistant, is joined by her brother

Rajan and her mother, Davinder. I should say that Rajan is returning home from

having studied back in another province. He graduated from Lambrick Park

Secondary school last year, where I attended his graduation ceremonies, as an

excellent student and wonderful athlete. This is his first time watching

question period. I ask the House to make them all very welcome.

[1410]

B. Suffredine: It's not very often we get someone here from

the West Kootenays. Today we actually have someone here from Ontario, where the

university tuitions are not bound by the cost of living as far as increases. I

can tell this House that from personal experience. My son James, who last

visited us over the Internet, has chosen to spend what is called reading week

here in Victoria. He is taking a break today from the intensive reading that I'm

sure he must be doing during the days when he is not here and is advancing his

education by watching question period. Would the House please welcome him.

Mr. Speaker: In the members' gallery today it is a pleasure

to introduce Corinne Swystun and six articling students from the Attorney

General's ministry. Would you please make them welcome.

[ Page 12070 ]

Statements

(Standing Order 25

b) ELECTORAL REFORM

J. Bray: On May 17 British Columbians will be given an

historic opportunity to shape their electoral system. I am proud to have a

Premier with a vision who said: "Wouldn't it be great for democracy to have

citizens engaged not only in looking at how we elect our MLAs, but also have the

power to put their potential recommendation directly to the people." I was proud

on April 30, 2003, to second the motion that brought the citizens' assembly to

life. Subsequently, I was proud to have been the Chair of the Special Committee

on the Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform that recently tabled its final

report.

For my constituents the issue of electoral reform and the

citizens' assembly is very prominent. The subject is important because politics

comprise the institutions, rules and practices which permit and limit access to

state power.

One of the key facets of the assembly's success has been the

absence of political interference. By not taking a stance for or against, my aim

is to keep the spirit alive by ensuring the outcome of the referendum is

citizen-driven. I want to ensure my constituents have ample opportunity to learn

and discuss the BC-STV option and make an informed decision on ballot day.

To that end, I will be holding a major town hall on April 6 at the

Victoria Conference Centre, where Dr. Norman Ruff and advocates for the yes and

no sides will present their views and take questions.

I will also be sending a questionnaire to all my constituents

asking them to let me know whether they support the BC-STV or not. That question

will also be available on my website at www.jeffbraymla.bc.ca. On April 11, I

will announce the results of that poll, and I will provide voice to that result

throughout the following weeks. I encourage all my constituents to contact my

office over the next few months ahead to learn how to become involved and learn

more.

In closing, the electoral system belongs to the people. It is only

fitting that they should decide how they wish to elect MLAs.

POCO A POCO SERVICE SOCIETY

G. Trumper: Poco a Poco Service Society, which translated

means "little by little," was founded in 1995 by Dr. Jill Sampson and operates

out of Qualicum Beach. Normally Poco a Poco works in Guatemala, taking

much-needed medical supplies to the area, but following the events of December

26 in Asia they decided that they had to help out in that region. Volunteers

from Vancouver Island started a huge drive. Collection points were set up in

Duncan, Nanaimo, the Comox Valley, Campbell River, Quadra Island and Port

Alberni. Clothes, household goods, beddings, bath towels, etc., were added to

the medical supplies, and a 40-foot container was loaded and sent to Asia.

Jill Sampson left for Sri Lanka on January 5 to work with a small

group from Children's Hospital. Poco a Poco had over $3,000 worth of medication

donated, and they bought another $5,000 worth. They worked at Kalmunai North

base hospital on the east coast of Sri Lanka. The hospital is really old and

primitive by our standards. They took over the looking after of the children.

Around them were the refugee camps, which were largely in schools.

The refugees slept on concrete floors. The trucks brought in water for drinking

and cooking. Jill Sampson went on to help find temporary shelter for refugees,

and tarps, which are desperately needed still in the area. DART was in the

region and assisted in the construction of shelters.

She has high praise for the work done by DART. However, one of the

issues she discovered was that aside from the supplies they brought, DART had no

discretionary money to spend on needed supplies such as nails, tape measures and

lumber, but was able to provide all the labour to build the necessary tents. The

recommendation for some money will be going to Ottawa.

Another volunteer from the area, Len Walker from Bowser, is now in

Sri Lanka helping.

[1415]

Jill was awarded the Meritorious Service Cross in 2003 by the

Governor General for her outstanding contribution to health care and education

in Guatemala. She is truly a remarkable individual who gives of her time,

tirelessly looking after those in desperate need.

MINING IN B.C.

W. Cobb: We've heard a lot recently about the golden decade

we are entering into, a decade of prosperity and growth across B.C. For places

like Ashcroft and Cache Creek, the term golden decade could have a more literal

meaning. Almaden Minerals recently discovered a new high-grade gold vein in an

easily accessible area not too far from Ashcroft. This is one of the biggest

geological finds in B.C. in a long, long time. This vein has potential to turn

into a high-fledged gold mine and will provide employment and economic growth

throughout the region.

It's no surprise the work that led up to the discovery was

undertaken in the past couple of years. In the nineties, for every mine that

opened in this province, two were closed. The NDP did everything they could to

choke the life out of this sector. They buried it in red tape and taxation and

put miners on the unemployment line or sent them to other countries. So far

there has been no indication they would do anything different, when their leader

makes statements and says she doesn't see any future for mining in B.C.

What a difference three years makes. Mining is back in B.C. We

slashed useless and redundant red tape and introduced policies to aid

responsible mining. We actually encourage investment in our communities. What a

concept.

[ Page 12071 ]

Spending and exploration reached $130 million in 2004, four times

the amount spent in 2001. The 2005 budget extends the mining tax credit for ten

years and establishes a B.C. geoscience centre. In the Cariboo-Chilcotin the

rebirth of mining is paying off big-time. Recently Gibraltar Mines reopened, and

Mount Polley Mine is scheduled to be in full operation later this spring. It's a

simple formula: encourage responsible, environmentally sound exploration and

development. In return, companies will invest in projects that create jobs and

benefits for communities and families. It is a formula that is working for B.C.

and for all British Columbians.

Mr. Speaker: That concludes members' statements.

Oral Questions

TERMINATION OF

FRASER HEALTH AUTHORITY CEO

J. MacPhail: Yesterday the Minister of Health said that she

was not happy with the performance of Bob Smith, the CEO of the Fraser health

authority. Can the Minister of Finance tell us if Bob Smith was fired because he

was incompetent and couldn't do the job, or was it because his government needed

a last-minute political scapegoat for the chaos the B.C. Liberals have created

in the health care system?

Hon. C. Hansen: The decision to terminate the contract for

Mr. Smith was a decision that was made by the chair and board of the Fraser

health authority.

To respond to the second part of her comments there, I think what

we have seen in the Fraser health authority over the last three and a half years

has been a pretty big transformation from what was there before. We have seen

new MRIs, for example, open at Surrey Memorial Hospital, and CT scanners…. MSA

Hospital, Burnaby Hospital, Langley Memorial Hospital, Royal Columbian Hospital,

Ridge Meadows Hospital, Eagle Ridge Hospital, Peace Arch District Hospital,

Surrey Memorial Hospital now have new CT scanners, in the last three and a half

years.

We've seen the funding for the Fraser health authority increase by

16 percent over that period of time. We wound up with new emergency rooms

opening in expansions in Ridge Meadows Hospital and new emergency room

expansions in other facilities, new operating rooms opening in Eagle Ridge

Hospital, a new cath lab opening in Royal Columbian Hospital. There's no end of

good news in terms of what's happened in the Fraser health authority in the last

three and a half years.

Mr. Speaker: Leader of the Opposition has a supplementary

question.

J. MacPhail: Yeah. The problem is, Mr. Speaker, you just

can't get to the services, because you're backlogged in an emergency waiting

room for hours and hours and hours.

I note that the minister decided to once again fob responsibility

off for the shotgun firing of Mr. Smith. Well, if Bob Smith was fired because he

wasn't doing his job, then the law is clear: he should not get a severance

package. But as we know, he is getting a year's severance, a year's salary, as

he goes out the door. A year's pay is over $300,000.

[1420]

Again to the Minister of Finance: who's to blame for the chaos at

Fraser health authority? It isn't the chair of the board. They have been warning

this government for ages that there have been problems. Is it Bob Smith, who's

taking away a year's severance for his efforts, or is it the B.C. Liberals who

need a last-minute political fix to a problem they've created, a problem of

their own making?

Hon. C. Hansen: I've actually got an interesting table here

of some of the severance paid out under the NDP. Inge Schamborzki , North

Vancouver health region: 1993, that was a $200,000 payout. There's a whole list

of them here. There's one here, Bob Smith, CEO, Lions Gate Hospital, 1996. I

think the member was actually the Minister of Health at that time. That was

$330,000. We've got Ron Mulchey, 1996, $500,000. Here's another one, Etta

Richmond, again when this member was actually the Minister of Health. Again,

that was $200,000.

One of the things that this government did was to bring in

amendments to legislation that put limits on severance pay so that we don't see

the kind of exorbitant payouts of severance that we saw as a result of contracts

that were in place while the NDP were in office.

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The Leader of the Opposition

has a further supplementary.

J. MacPhail: Well, that's a real brains trust. Someone gets

fired and this government hires him back at almost double the salary, pays

75,000 bucks to move him out here and says he's the greatest thing that ever

happened to health — and yesterday he was fired. That's a real brains trust over

there.

The fact is that this government dragged its heels for four years

and did nothing — absolutely nothing — to plan or expand the emergency room of

Surrey Memorial. As early as 2002, executives at Fraser health raised the alarm

bell about what this government was not doing for emergency care. This morning

the Minister of Health says it will be years before the emergency room is

expanded.

Again to the Minister of Finance: why are the B.C. Liberals four

years behind in planning for a new emergency room for Surrey Memorial, and will

he just tell us when that emergency room will be completed?

[ Page 12072 ]

Hon. C. Hansen: I want to take that member back to about 1991,

when they actually promised the residents of the Fraser Valley a brand-new

hospital in Abbotsford.

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Let us hear the answer to the

question, please.

Hon. C. Hansen: They had ten years in office to deliver on

a new hospital in Abbotsford.

Interjection.

[Mr. Speaker rose.]

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Order, please.

If the Leader of the Opposition does not want to continue with

question period, we'll end it right now. Listen to the answer, please.

[Mr. Speaker resumed his seat.]

Hon. C. Hansen: What we have actually seen over the last

three and a half years, after ten years of neglect, is some progress. We've got

shovels in the ground on a new hospital in Abbotsford; we've got new operating

rooms open….

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. C. Hansen: We have new operating rooms open at Eagle

Ridge Hospital; we've got a new cath lab. Get this, Mr Speaker. The new cath lab

at Royal Columbian Hospital was actually fitted up when they were in office, but

they had no operating money to actually operate it. It is now up and operating.

We've got new capacity in Surrey Memorial Hospital. We've got new capacity in

all of those hospitals…

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. C. Hansen: …so that the needs of patients can be met.

ACUTE CARE SERVICES AT

SURREY MEMORIAL HOSPITAL

J. Brar: After four years the Minister of Health finally

admitted yesterday that the emergency room at Surrey Memorial Hospital is, in

fact, in crisis. But the crisis at Surrey Memorial can be laid directly at the

feet of the B.C. Liberals. They shut down the emergency room at Delta Hospital.

They closed St. Mary's Hospital. That put enormous pressure on Surrey Memorial

Hospital.

Again to the Minister of Health….

Interjection.

J. Brar: She is not here.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Would the member please direct his question to a minister.

J. Brar: Again to the Minister of Finance: why is planning

for the Surrey Memorial emergency room only starting today when it should have

started four years ago, when the B.C. Liberals started shutting down hospitals

and reducing emergency care in the Fraser health authority?

Hon. C. Hansen: I would welcome the member to go back and

look at the history of funding for what was then known as the South Fraser

health authority, which is now a portion of the Fraser health authority.

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. C. Hansen: If the member were to go back, he would

actually find that the South Fraser health authority was the most underfunded

health authority of any of the 52 health authorities in British Columbia. The

reason is because they didn't flow money to reflect the growth in population

that was there.

[1425]

We are catching up. We now have new funding in place that resulted

in a 16 percent increase in the funding for that health authority. I wish that

we could solve some of the problems in health care overnight, but we certainly

made a lot more progress in three and a half years than the previous government

did in ten.

FUNDING FOR

FRASER HEALTH AUTHORITY

E. Brenzinger: The Health minister yesterday would

apparently have had us believe that the Fraser health authority is one of the

winners of the pre-election handouts from the Liberal election budget. Yesterday

the House was told that by the end of next year the Fraser health authority will

have received an additional $200 million. Not good enough, Mr. Speaker. When

this government was the opposition, it made health care funding an election

issue.

My question is to the Minister of Finance: why did it take four

years for this government to recognize the funding shortfalls in this region of

the province, and why do you refuse to act upon it now? Further delay is not

acceptable.

Hon. C. Hansen: The member is quite correct; we did make

health care an election issue. If you look at the absolutely dismal record of

the previous govern-

[ Page 12073 ]

ment, even when the member for Vancouver-Hastings was the Minister of Health,

we saw story after story about backlogs in emergency rooms throughout the

province.

We actually now have a pretty good track record in most hospitals.

There are still some challenges, I will acknowledge, that we are dealing with.

The member is very correct: we said that funding for health care was a priority.

We've delivered on that commitment. There is an additional $1.8 billion in the

budget for health care today.

In terms of the Surrey health authority itself, it has seen an

increase in funding of 16 percent in the time that we've been in office.

LONG-TERM AND ACUTE CARE BEDS

IN FRASER HEALTH AUTHORITY

J. Brar: The real reason that the emergency room expansion

at Surrey Memorial Hospital is still years away is because this government

dropped the ball, and they don't have a plan. This government has been big on

business plans, but they threw $28 million out there yesterday without any plan

at all. Now the minister says that the residents of Surrey have to live with

interim measures before they get their real emergency room.

Again to the Minister of Finance: can he tell us how many

long-term and acute care beds he has advised the Fraser health authority to open

to relieve the pressure on the emergency at Surrey Memorial Hospital?

Hon. C. Hansen: I'm glad the member has asked the question,

because the track record is actually pretty good in terms of new beds that have

been opened in…. Actually, let's look at South Surrey, for example.

There is funding for 75 of 101 beds at Fleetwood Place residential

care facility in Surrey. There is the opening of 20 new assisted-living beds at

Augustine House in Delta and the opening of 60 new assisted-living beds at the

Gateway in Surrey. Preparation is underway for ten new hospice beds located in

Langley. If you look at Fraser north, there are 59 assisted-living units at

Nikkei Home and 40 more at Dania Home. There is a new tertiary-level ten-bed

palliative care at Burnaby Hospital. There are 45 new assisted-living units

opening at Royal Crescent Gardens in Maple Ridge and construction of a 70-unit

assisted-living cottage-type development at Hawthorne Care Centre in Port

Coquitlam. Mr. Speaker, I could go on and on.

J. Kwan: The minister's non-answers point to the need to

have a full debate on this budget, a debate that the Premier refuses to allow.

Since 2001 the B.C. Liberals have cut 600 long-term care beds and

closed 450 acute care beds at Fraser health. That's created a huge backlog at

emergency departments. A recent study showed that 17 percent of patients in

acute care beds at Fraser health are waiting to be transferred to long-term care

beds.

To the Minister of Finance again: if the Minister of Health can

order Fraser health to build an emergency room after doing nothing for four

years, why can't this government order Fraser health to add thousands of new

long-term care beds and acute care beds, or is this just one more pre-election

broken promise from this government?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The minister has the floor.

[1430]

Hon. C. Hansen: I think the member for Vancouver–Mount

Pleasant may not have a perspective on history here. If she went back and

checked the period of time prior to her first election, she would actually

discover that while the NDP were in office, the number of acute care beds in

British Columbia dropped by 3,000.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order please, hon. members.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Let us hear the question.

The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant has the floor.

J. Kwan: Next thing we know, we're going have this Minister

of Finance and this government blame the NDP for making them commit the 5,000

new long-term care beds. They are going say that it was us who put it in their

campaign information.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. members, order, please. Order. Hon.

members, let us hear the question.

J. Kwan: The fact is that none of the promises from this

government are credible. It is all last-minute damage control. The B.C. Liberals

ignored Fraser health for four years, and now residents of Surrey will have to

wait for years before they get any relief.

Will the Minister of Finance just admit that the real problem is

not one health care bureaucrat but a government that closed long-term care beds,

that broke their promise and closed acute care beds and that shut down emergency

wards with no plan in place for patient care?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. C. Hansen: I think the most celebrated broken promise

on health care we've seen in the last 15 years was a promise that was actually

made by the member

[ Page 12074 ]

for Vancouver-Hastings for a mental health plan that was supposed to be

funded to the tune of $125 million, for which there was virtually no funding

provided.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Let us hear the answer.

Hon. C. Hansen: One of the things that is so important is

that we get away from the old model of having each hospital as an island unto

itself and instead build networks of care so that people can get timely access

to care. That is exactly what's happened over the last three and a half years.

It's not to say that it's been fixed. There are still some big

challenges, and those challenges are being worked on. We sure made a heck of a

lot more progress in three and a half years than the NDP did in ten.

SERVICES AT SMITHERS AIRPORT

D. MacKay: I have a question for the Minister of

Transportation. Nav Canada recently announced a reduction in manned services at

the Smithers airport. Currently the airport receives 24-7 on-site services by

personnel at the airport 24 hours a day to look after weather and airport

conditions. That has obviously created some concern among people in the area

about the safety of overnight flights. I would like to ask the minister: is

there anything being done to address the concern about Nav Canada's plans?

Hon. K. Falcon: The member knows and has been very

forthright in bringing this issue to my attention, as have many members from

smaller communities.

Interjection.

Hon. K. Falcon: Apparently the member for

Vancouver-Hastings is intensely interested in this. She should be, because it is

actually good news.

We have worked with Nav Canada on this issue, and we were able to

change their original decision from complete automation to where they are now

being manned 16 hours a day in the summer and 13 hours per day in the winter. We

will continue….

Interjection.

Hon. K. Falcon: Sorry, Mr. Speaker. It's hard to hear when

I have the member for Vancouver-Hastings chirping away in the background. There

are actually people in the province concerned about the manned airports, so why

doesn't the member allow us to answer the question?

The fact is that we will continue to work on this and ensure that

those airports are operating for the benefit of those communities.

[End of question period.]

Orders of the Day

Hon. G. Bruce: I call committee stage on Bill 2.

[1435]

Committee of the Whole House

THOMPSON RIVERS UNIVERSITY ACT

The House in Committee of the Whole on Bill 2; H. Long in the

chair.

The committee met at 2:36 p.m.

Hon. I. Chong: I wanted to, first of all, introduce staff

who are with me. I have Assistant Deputy Minister Arlene Paton as well as Tony

Loughran, who will also be able to provide assistance on any particular

sections.

Sections 1 to 31 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

Hon. I. Chong: I move that the committee rise and report

the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 2:37 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

Bill 2, Thompson Rivers University Act, reported complete without

amendment, read a third time and passed.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. members, the House will take a

five-minute recess.

The House recessed from 2:39 p.m. to 2:44 p.m.

[J. Weisbeck in the chair.]

Hon. G. Bruce: I call second reading on Bill 7.

[1445]

Second Reading of Bills

INCOME TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 2005

Hon. C. Hansen: I move that Bill 7, Income Tax Amendment

Act, 2005, be read a second time.

Bill 7 amends the Income Tax Act to, first of all, cut taxes for

low-income and modest-income taxpayers. Secondly, it extends the mining

exploration tax credit. Thirdly, it increases the film and television tax

credit,

[ Page 12075 ]

and fourthly, it implements several other income tax measures included in

Budget 2005.

Bill 7 introduces the B.C. tax reduction, which is a new,

non-refundable income tax credit. The B.C. tax reduction will cut taxes by $120

million annually for a total of 730,000 taxpayers, starting this year. Actually,

it will take effect as of January 1, 2005. The B.C. tax reduction will be

calculated as $360 less 3.6 percent of net income in excess of $16,000. As a

result, virtually all taxpayers with net incomes of $16,000 or less will pay no

provincial income tax at all. This will immediately result in 330,000 additional

individuals in British Columbia paying zero provincial income tax.

I was interested in the new federal budget that just came down

about an hour and a half ago. In that new federal budget, they provide for a new

income tax reduction for Canadians that will be phased in over the coming four

years. The federal budget, by 2009, will result in individuals with incomes of

up to $10,000 a year paying zero federal income tax.

If you put the two together, it's good news, but I think if you

contrast the two initiatives, you will see that what we've done in B.C. is

increase the tax threshold for provincial income tax to just under $16,000 a

year. That doesn't have to wait until 2009. It takes effect January 1, 2005.

In addition to the 330,000 people who will now have to pay zero

provincial income tax and who otherwise would have had to pay some, there are

also another 400,000 taxpayers with net incomes of up to $26,000 a year who will

get a partial reduction. This tax credit will still provide some benefit to

individuals with incomes of up to about $26,000 a year, eliminating income tax

completely for those under $16,000 a year or slightly below that.

One thing that's important to underscore in this measure is that

this will have enormous benefit to seniors in British Columbia. If you look at

the median income of seniors in this province, household income actually comes

in at about $26,000 a year. About 50 percent of senior households in British

Columbia will be able to benefit from this if they have been in that bracket of

about $8,000 to $26,000 of income. They will, in fact, see a benefit from this.

[1450]

The other thing that is important to underscore with this measure

is that it means there is no province in Canada where, if you're earning up to

$85,000 a year, you will be paying less provincial income tax than you will pay

right here in British Columbia.

This government has also improved the tax and regulatory system

for mining in British Columbia. Exploration expenditures have increased from a

low of $29 million in 2001 to over $130 million in 2004. For the first time in

many years, mines are opening in B.C., and they're reopening in B.C. today. To

build on these successes and create certainty for the industry, Bill 7 extends

the mining exploration tax credit for an additional ten years to take us through

This government is also committed to helping British Columbia's

small businesses. Bill 7 increases the small business threshold to $400,000 a

year from $300,000 a year — the second-highest level in all of Canada. If my

memory serves me right, I think the only province that has a slightly higher

threshold is New Brunswick. We have, among those nine provinces, the best

threshold for the application of the small business tax rate. This increase will

help ensure that our corporate tax structure for small business is in line with

those in other provinces.

Bill 7 also increases the province's basic tax credit for domestic

and foreign film production. The tax credit rates will increase to 30 percent

from 20 percent for domestic productions and to 18 percent from 11 percent for

foreign productions. These increased rates will be effective from January 1,

2005 through to March 31, 2006. The increases to the tax credit rates will match

the rates announced by Ontario late last year and will take effect in this

province at the same rates as Ontario, effective January 1, as I mentioned.

During the year the government will undertake a review of the use

of tax credits to encourage film and television production in this province. For

its part, the industry will undertake a broad-based effort to ensure the

industry can continue to thrive in an increasingly competitive marketplace.

Bill 7 also changes the calculation of medical expenses that can

be claimed when incurred on behalf of dependent relatives. These changes are

effective starting with the 2004 tax year and will allow more medical expenses

to be claimed for relatives.

Finally, Bill 7 implements the following administrative measures.

There are changes to exclude expenses claimed for purposes of the federal and

provincial mining flow-through share tax credits from the calculation of the

mining exploration tax credit. There are also changes to clarify that the

determination of refundable tax credits constitutes an assessment. There are

also changes to ensure that our legislation parallels the federal act regarding

the treatment of a series of transactions for purposes of the province's

anti-avoidance provisions.

There are changes to confirm the existing practice of not charging

taxpayers additional interest if the taxpayers' accounts are paid by the date

specified on their notice. There are changes to ensure that penalties apply to

various provincial refundable tax credits. Finally, there are changes to limit

the foreign tax credit that can be claimed by corporations.

J. MacPhail: Let's be clear about what the government's

doing here. They're wasting valuable time in this Legislature passing the

administrivia of implementing a budget that they refuse to pass in its entirety.

The exercise we're going through here is absolutely meaningless, because this

government is denying this Legislature the right to pass a budget.

The government is trying to silence the opposition in asking

questions about the budget line by line. Yet they think, "Oh, isn't this

wonderful" — that they can

[ Page 12076 ]

stand up in this second reading and waste time with the administrivia of

implementing a budget that isn't real and isn't legal — and won't be, because

this government is making a mockery of what they claim to be parliamentary

reform.

[1455]

Fixed sitting dates. Fixed election dates. Well, it turns out that

what they intended was to give themselves a two-month, all-taxpayer-expense-paid

election time, where they can go out and campaign and not face the music on

debating their budget line by line.

The House Leader refuses to commit to estimates. He won't tell us

whether we're going to be debating the estimates of the House before the

election, so we can only assume that we're not going to. Because if they had the

guts, they would stand up and tell us that we're going to debate the budget line

by line by line. Again, the government caucus members….

Deputy Speaker: Hon. member, please take your seat. I'd

just caution you to keep your comments relative to this bill. We're speaking in

second reading. Even though we have a lot of latitude in second reading debates,

I would like you to confine your comments to this bill, please.

J. MacPhail: Let me tell you how we'll link the two, then.

I appreciate your direction. We're passing administrative measures to implement

a budget that won't be legal. That's the link.

Why won't it be legal? Because this government refuses to pass the

estimates line by line and allow a line-by-line budget debate in this

Legislature. They brought in these great reforms. They were going to be

different. They brought in changes to the Election Act, to the Constitution Act.

They were going to have fixed sittings.

The Minister of Finance might want to listen up. Here's what they

promised. They promised fixed election dates and fixed sittings and that all the

work would be done. It turns out the bar by which they judge themselves is the

time in history that they decry, deride and cast shame on every single day.

Every single day in the Legislature they cast shame on that period of time. Now

they're using that as their measure.

Well, what they said about that time, then, is false, and their

own actions now are hypocritical in the extreme. If the Minister of Finance has

any fortitude whatsoever, he'll get up and say: "I'm wrong." He will get up and

say, "I'm wrong," that he is going to debate the budget line by line and that he

will take the opposition up on its offer to have the estimates completed when

the fixed sitting ends, which is April 18. Perhaps he will get up and take us up

on that offer.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Order, please. Through the Chair, please.

Leader of the Opposition, you have the floor.

J. MacPhail: It is incredible that the Minister of Finance

refuses to take responsibility for anything. Here's what they promised. They

were going to be the most open and accountable government in the history of

British Columbia. Instead, we now have a Finance minister that actually refuses

to take responsibility for his horrible health record, refuses to acknowledge

the harm he's causing patients and now refuses to take responsibility for

breaking another election promise, which is to shut down this Legislature and go

to the election on a budget that isn't passed, is full of holes, can't stand up

to scrutiny.

Here's what the Minister of Finance and all of his cohorts over

there claim: "Well, we're no worse than previous governments." Well, I hope

that's their campaign slogan. There will be many MLAs who will suffer the

consequences of their arrogance and their misleading of the public when they

said they were different. There will be many MLAs who will suffer the

consequences of that. In fact, almost everyone in this chamber today on that

side of the House will suffer the consequences of their misleading the public

and now claiming: "We're no worse than anybody else."

[1500]

I guess they weren't telling the truth. I guess they were

completely misleading the public when they said: "Openness beats hiddenness." I

apologize for that, but that's a direct quote from the Premier: "Openness beats

hiddenness." Well, until today. Hiddenness is what this government is all about.

They want to run. They want to hide from debating their budget. We're not going

to spend any time on this ridiculous exercise that the Minister of Finance is

putting this House through before a budget is made legal, before they're going

to pass the budget.

The Minister of Finance has never explained how he is going to

continue to govern without any authority — any authority whatsoever. We are

against the mistreatment of the public that this government is foisting upon

British Columbians. That's what we're against. We're disappointed, angry and

frustrated that this government continues to mislead British Columbians day

after day as their arrogance increases. Their arrogance increases every day.

The members over there laugh. The members from the Tri-Cities area

and the Surrey area, where health care is in chaos, who refuse to take any

responsibility for it — they laugh and they mock. Well, the people they're

mocking are the citizens of British Columbia, as they deny this chamber the

democratic right to debate, line by line, a budget. They want to run. They want

to hide. They want to use taxpayer dollars in a completely inappropriate way to

campaign for their re-election. Well, the voters are on to them. The voters

understand. The voters understand how arrogant and misleading this government is

about just about everything they do.

J. Bray: It is my pleasure to rise in support of the bill,

Income Tax Amendment Act, 2005. You know, it's very interesting that….

[ Page 12077 ]

Interjection.

Deputy Speaker: Order, please.

J. Bray: I know that the members of the opposition have

said they're frustrated about this bill. I know why they're frustrated. In

second reading debate, where we debate the principles and the main points of a

bill, they actually couldn't say one negative thing about this bill. They know

that the Minister of Finance has introduced a bill that is good for British

Columbians who live in our cities, good for British Columbians who work in our

mining sector, good for British Columbians who work in our filming sector, good

for British Columbians who live in our rural and remote communities. In fact,

they're frustrated because Bill 7 is good for every British Columbian. That's

why they're standing over there, frustrated and unwilling to debate on the

points of the bill. It's why I am pleased to rise in strong support of this

bill.

I struggle when the Leader of the Opposition…. Excuse me. I guess

it's the House Leader of the Opposition, because we're not sure where the Leader

of the Opposition actually is. The House Leader of the Opposition talks about

how we haven't changed the way we operate in this House. Of our 201 commitments

and the 97 percent of those we've completed, one of them was to re-engage the

select standing committee process that would engage British Columbians on a

number of policy areas.

Yesterday we had the Chair of the Education Committee, who tabled

his report…. This government was the first government to bring the Education

Committee together in 25 years. We recently tabled the report of the Select

Standing Committee on Finance, Report on the 2005 Budget Consultation Process .

Bill 7 reflects what that committee heard from British Columbians

— but not just a select few. As the Chair, the member for North Coast, pointed

out in his remarks when he tabled the report, we had a record number of British

Columbians consult with that committee in the fall of 2004 to provide this House

— and through this House, the Minister of Finance — advice on the formation of

the budget for the '05-06 year.

I am proud that that committee's report listed 19 recommendations.

I think it's instructive for the opposition — who couldn't debate the principles

or the points in this bill, because they know it's a good bill — to actually see

how we have changed this place to be more responsive to British Columbians.

[1505]

Interjection.

J. Bray: Yes, a colleague points out that they did agree

with the bill. They passed the report uncontested.

One of the facts of Bill 7 is extending the mining exploration tax

credit to 2016, to bring back geosciences funding. That is exactly what Bill 7

does. In fact, it adds ten years on to that, which is what the mining industry

had asked for. It was one of the things the mining industry cited as a reason

for the rebirth of mining in this province.

Another thing this bill does is increase the corporate income

small tax threshold to $400,000 from $300,000. It might be helpful for the

opposition to realize that was actually…. Let me go to the report. It happens to

be recommendation 19 of the committee that heard from British Columbians that

the government should consider raising the small business tax threshold and

surtax threshold for passenger vehicles, increasing the property transfer tax

exemption.

Let's take a look at that. From $300,000 to $400,000 — sounds like

the people of British Columbia told the Finance Committee something that was

important for small business in this province. This Legislature tabled a report

that included that recommendation. The Minister of Finance has now brought that

recommendation almost word for word to the floor of this Legislature.

I'm assuming the opposition will support that. I'm assuming the

opposition thinks that small business is important, because I can tell you

something, Mr. Speaker: this side of the House recognizes that small business is

the heart of our economy. Small business is the heart of our communities all

over this province. We're going to continue to support small communities so that

they can get on with their business. They can raise their families, and they can

participate in their communities, because they're what make British Columbia

great. They're what make British Columbia strong.

Another major part of Bill 7 — and I would think the House Leader

of the Opposition would be thankful for this — is the increase of the film

incentive basic tax credit and the production services tax credit. We know that

in British Columbia we're referred to as Hollywood North. We know we have a

strong and vibrant arts community and film community, both domestic and

international, here in British Columbia.

One of the most important parts of this bill, from my

constituents' perspective, is the tax credit levelling up with Ontario. It's

unfortunate that Ontario wants to get into a bidding war with other provinces,

but I'm proud that our government is responding in a way that is good for our

industry and good for our employees.

Here in Victoria our direct film industry did $25 million worth of

business in the last year. We anticipate that actually means that the film

sector here in Victoria represents $75 million overall to our local economy.

I remember that a few years ago people who worked in the film

sector — caterers, production assistants, lighting techs who lived in Victoria —

spent most of their time going across on the ferry and working in North

Vancouver or somewhere else on the lower mainland. Because of what we've done —

the support we've given and our own exemption on production sales tax

provincially — we've spurred domestic, Victoria-made films to the point where

those people now live permanently in Victoria and work permanently in Victoria.

We have a film industry in Victoria. We don't have some people employed over

[ Page 12078 ]

in Vancouver in the film…. We have our own film sector.

By making sure that we stay competitive with Ontario, we're going

to keep those jobs here. We're going to keep those productions here, we're going

to keep those families here, and we're going to continue to make Victoria a

wonderful opportunity for productions around the world to come here and film —

not in competition with Vancouver, but in conjunction with Vancouver.

The most important piece of this bill, from my perspective, is the

introduction of the B.C. tax reduction — in other words, targeting a tax

reduction to those of low and modest income. I'd like to read from the select

standing committee's report to this Legislature, recommendation 17: "The

government continue to explore ways of extending tax relief targeted to

low-income British Columbians."

In other words, what we heard time and time again in our

consultations around the province from various sectors — be it unions, public

sector, industry, individual British Columbians — was that they didn't

necessarily feel we needed an across-the-board tax cut. What they did believe we

should do, once we had our financial house in order, was to make sure that some

of the gains we get as a province are directed to those with low and modest

incomes. By putting almost $500 million back into the hands of low- and

modest-income British Columbians over the next three years, we achieved that

goal.

[1510]

I know why the members of the opposition are so frustrated. While

they talk the talk, they have no ideas, no new concepts. They have no leader

who's presenting any kind of plan for British Columbians. In the meantime, here

in this House, doing the people's business, we're actually delivering on those

recommendations that we've heard from British Columbians. We are actually

providing the most significant tax reduction to low- and modest-income British

Columbians that we've seen in two decades. That means families having more in

their households to make the choices they want for the raising of their

families. That's good for local economies. That's good for small business, and

that's excellent for low- and modest-income British Columbians.

I know why the Leader of the Opposition and the other two members

don't want to debate this bill: because they know every provision is good for

British Columbians; they know British Columbians support these measures; they

know it's what they told us on the Finance Committee; and they know it's what

the Minister of Finance has delivered.

I am pleased to support Bill 7. I congratulate the Minister of

Finance for moving on the recommendations of the Select Standing Committee on

Finance and endorsing what we heard from British Columbians.

L. Mayencourt: I rise to support Bill 7 as well. I was

sitting in this House when the Leader of the Opposition began her tirade on this

particular bill. I've got to tell you, the nerve — the bloody nerve. A woman

that has said….

Deputy Speaker: Member, just be cautious of your

parliamentary language, please.

L. Mayencourt: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'll take your

guidance.

The nerve, though….

Deputy Speaker: It's unparliamentary. Please retract it.

L. Mayencourt: Absolutely. I'll retract it, Mr. Speaker.

I will say that that is an individual who stands in this House day

after day and says she represents the working poor, the working families of

British Columbia. Each and every day she says that, and she comes into this

House and will not even debate a piece of legislation that lowers income tax

rates for every family in British Columbia earning under $85,000. That means

every person in her riding is benefiting from this piece of legislation, and she

has no intention of debating it. Instead she throws a red herring out there

about us not debating the budget.

This is the budget. This is an important piece of legislation.

It's something that I and 74 other members of this Legislature fought tooth and

nail to do. I can remember sitting in caucus in 2002 and asking the then Finance

minister, Gary Collins: "What would it take to make British Columbia the place

in all of Canada with the lowest personal income tax for a province?" He said:

"You know what it will take? It will take half a billion dollars — $480

million."

That is a goal that I and other members of this Legislature on

this side of the House worked towards. We worked at it. We worked hard. We've

made some tough choices. We had to do some things that people criticized us for,

but we did it because it was important. We did it because it's important to have

every British Columbia family have the best leg up of any jurisdiction in

Canada.

I've got to tell you, I'm insulted that she would not even debate

that, that she would not even admit this is a noble goal, that this is an

important thing we're doing here today and that this is the start of a whole,

great opportunity for British Columbians. I have low-income families in my

riding. I have people that are single parents. I have tons of seniors in my

riding. Each and every one of my seniors is benefiting from this piece of

legislation.

Now, I don't know about anyone else here…. Actually, I do know a

lot about everybody else here. I know that we on this side of the House respect

every senior in this province. There are literally hundreds of thousands of

those seniors that are going to benefit from this piece of legislation.

I cannot imagine why the Leader of the Opposition would come in

here and decry this and say this is awful, that we are somehow pulling the wool

over somebody's eyes. It's not the wool over anybody's eyes. It is plain and

simple: a tax cut for low-income British Columbians. I will fight tooth and nail

to keep it, as did

[ Page 12079 ]

other members of our caucus from two and a half years ago when we thought of

that, when we said: "What would it take?" We made all those difficult choices.

I'm proud to say that this piece of legislation is going to do that for people

in British Columbia.

[1515]

That member's government decimated the mining industry —

completely destroyed it. It went from $100 million a year in exploration down to

$10 million. My goodness. They made us the worst-looking place in the whole

world to do any mining. They made people walk away from this province. The chief

mineral export from British Columbia turned out to be the mineral engineers who

moved from British Columbia down to Chile, or to Mexico, Quebec or some other

jurisdiction.

They decimated our mining industry. They decimated it because they

don't believe in a resource economy in British Columbia. They said it was a

sunset industry, that it was gone, that it wasn't going to make a difference in

the lives of people. Well, more people today working in the mining industry

means that we can afford wonderful programs that support hospitals, that support

schools, that support families that are vulnerable, and seniors.

All of that money….You know, the average wage for someone in the

mining industry is in the $80,000 range. Those are good, high-paying jobs,

steady income. They make a difference in communities like Williams Lake and

Cache Creek and so on. That government pushed all that away. Well, not this

government. This government recognizes that our economy has been built upon a

rich tradition of managing resources effectively, of looking after them, and of

slowly turning them into dollars — dollars that make it possible for us to build

day care centres and so on. I'm very proud that our tax credit will be extended

to 2016.

I met with a bunch of miners just a few weeks ago, along with the

member for West Vancouver–Capilano, and they talked about the importance of our

doing what's right to make sure that the mining industry survives in this

province. You know what? It's flourishing now. We're back up by tens and tens of

millions of dollars in exploration, and we're right on the cusp of perhaps

having some new mines actually open up in British Columbia to add to our

opportunity, to add new jobs, and to give people in this province the kind of

services that they want and deserve and that we need to deliver to them.

Finally, I want to talk about the film tax credit. My

neighbourhood, Vancouver-Burrard, is a neighbourhood that has been greatly

influenced and affected by the film industry in British Columbia. We have film

units that are on our streets pretty much every day of the week. Those people

are doing something very important in my community. They are bringing money to

my community. They are bringing productions to my community. They're putting

Vancouver on stage, and they're making sure that our community is doing well.

What people maybe don't understand about the film industry is that

one of the expenditures they have is community outreach — working with

community. Whether that's in Victoria or Vancouver-Burrard does not matter. When

the film industry comes to town, they are engaged in the community. They support

the community.

As you know, I was founder and executive director of Vancouver

Friends for Life Society. We used to do an event once a year called Sunday in

the Square. It was for seniors in the West End. Who was at the table to pay for

that but the film industry. I am glad we are doing what we need to do to protect

that industry, to make sure it is not a sunset industry, to make sure it can

thrive in British Columbia and contribute to all the wonderful things that are

British Columbia.

I am very grateful for the opportunity to speak here today. I am

still so shocked by the response from the Leader of the Opposition. I just

cannot believe it. I just cannot believe the screeching and the hawking about

this piece of legislation that lowers taxes for British Columbians, particularly

low-income citizens — particularly for people in Vancouver–Mount Pleasant and

particularly for people in Vancouver-Hastings.

How could she do that? How could she abandon her principles as

someone defending the poor? How could she walk away from opportunities like the

film industry to make sure that they could thrive? How could she walk away from

making our resource industry a thriving part of our economy again — something

that builds hospitals and day cares and provides women's shelters and all of

that? How could she abandon that? I'm shocked.

[1520]

Then to claim that it's all because we're not debating a budget….

This is part of our budget, and I'm here to say that I'm willing to sit in this

House until she's satisfied that she's crossed off every comma and semicolon and

whatever else. I think our budget is good, and I'm here to defend it. I like it,

and I'm going to fight for it. I congratulate the Minister of Finance, the

former Minister of Finance, Gary Collins, and all of the members of our caucus.

It was a tough thing to do to find half a billion dollars for low-income

families, but we did it. I'm proud of it, and I wish the NDP would stand up here

and tell us if it's a good idea or a bad idea.

K. Whittred: I, too, am very pleased to rise in support of

the Income Tax Amendment Act. The material in this act is instrumental to the

way that my community functions.

I'd like to tell you just a little bit about my community. It is a

community, first of all, of small businesses. Small businesses are the very

backbone of my riding of North Vancouver–Lonsdale. We occupy the area of North

Vancouver that is sort of in the centre. We go along the waterfront. We have

Lonsdale Avenue. We have Main Street.

All along these corridors is small business after small business.

I think one of my colleagues has already said that small business is the very

backbone of our economy. Every one of these small businesses employs…. Somewhere

between six and 30 people would probably be the average. They pay wages. Those

peo-

[ Page 12080 ]

ple spend money in the lunch rooms. They buy gas at the gas station. They

have lunch in our parks. They are really what makes the economy of my community

go around.

Who would not be pleased to see that one part of this bill is to

increase the corporate tax threshold for these businesses and to encourage them

to invest more money in equipment, to hire more people and to get on with

improving the economy? That is something I'm sure the people of North Vancouver

are absolutely delighted about. I would have thought, too, that the member for

Vancouver-Hastings might also have wanted those same opportunities for the

people in that community, but apparently not.

Another part of this bill that is very, very important to my

community of North Vancouver–Lonsdale is, of course, the Film Incentive tax. I'd

like to go back in history just a little bit, to 1989. I believe that was the

year that what was then called Brooksbank Studios was built in my neighbourhood.

It later on became North Shore Studios, and of course today it's known as Lions

Gate Studios.

It is almost impossible to describe the growth of this business in

my community in the intervening 15 years. We have seen not only a huge growth in

the actual business of filming, the idea that filming trucks are commonplace on

the streets…. We see people that work in the industry in the coffee shops. You

go into a gas station, and you see that they've got a credit slip on the wall

that's for one of the productions. There is evidence everywhere. You go into a

hairdressing salon, and you find that the hairdresser works in the movie

industry. You go into a makeup place, and you find that they are, in fact,

offering instruction for the movie industry.

The spinoff and growth over the years, in a very short period of

time, has been quite something to behold. I would say today that of all the

industries, of all the kinds of categories of small businesses, there's none

that is more instrumental to my community than the movie industry. It employs

many hundreds of people.

[1525]

I got a breakdown one time from just one of the payroll service

companies that broke down the employees by postal code. It would be astounding

if there was any other industry that employed so many people at one time. The

total amount is about $92 million dollars. That is the amount of payroll that

comes into North Vancouver from the movie industry, and that isn't even counting

all the spinoff. Some of the spinoff industries themselves have become quite

large. I've already mentioned Lion's Gate Studios. There's Sharpe Sound, which

has become quite an entity in its own right, and E.P. Canada. Thomas Special

Effects has become a very well-known industry. There are rental companies. There

are catering companies. There are carpentry companies.

It has motivated a whole lot of new growth in various skills and

trades that I wouldn't even have thought of a few years ago. I had the

opportunity one day to tour one of the studios, and there was a group of

tradesmen who were building a set. This set was made to look like old brick, and

it was being built out of something that was sort of like papier mâché. I

wouldn't have known, until I actually saw it, the kind of skill and artistic

talent that went into these various trades.

It goes without saying that my community is dependent, to some

extent, on the way in which the movie industry functions. We, therefore, are

fully supportive of the increase in the tax credit that was announced by the

Minister of Finance a few weeks ago and which is in fact retroactive, I believe,

to January 1.

The third area in this particular bill that I think is very, very

important to my community is one that was mentioned by my colleague from

Vancouver-Burrard. That is the area around the B.C. tax reduction. My community,

like many others, is a community that has many, many seniors. I have in my

riding many seniors who are living on perhaps not the very minimum of income but

something not too far above that. Many of them struggle to pay their rents,

because we have very high rents in North Vancouver. The very fact that we are

putting a few dollars back in their pockets by reducing their taxable income is

something that has been long overdue. It is a way in which we can give these

folks a raise, and they receive incredible benefits from it.

It was mentioned that those people who are earning less than

$26,000 a year all receive some benefit. That certainly captures the majority of

seniors that fall in what we call that middle income group. For that, I want to

congratulate the Finance minister, because that indeed has been long in coming.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support this bill. It

goes a long way to accomplishing many of the economic goals that we wanted to

see, to enable the people in North Vancouver–Lonsdale to live their lives just a

little bit more comfortably.

B. Penner: It's a pleasure to stand in my place here in the

chamber and indicate my support for this bill. Unlike the NDP opposition, I

support reducing taxes for low-income people. I can't believe their hypocrisy on

this issue. Well, we'll get into some of the financial details later. I'll take

listeners through a number of statistics that I've gathered.

It's just shocking to me. Well, no, it's not shocking. I can

understand it. I think they're reeling from their understanding that they're

simply out of touch with British Columbians. I don't think things bode well for

them come May 17. I think that realization is what has sparked some of the

purported outrage that you heard here today.

In fact, we've heard some crocodile tears from the Leader of the

Opposition around opportunities for debate. Here, when given an opportunity to

debate, what do we hear? We hear a set piece from her for a few minutes and

nothing from her colleagues in the NDP. They have an opportunity to participate

in the debate, but they choose not to — so much for their desire to have a

debate around a budget matter. We're having a debate here about a specific

budget matter, and it's about lowering taxes for low-income individuals.

[ Page 12081 ]

[1530]

Specifically, what are we doing with this bill, and how does it

save people money? Well, let's take a little look here. For those individuals

earning $9,000 or less in British Columbia, they're already not paying any

provincial income tax. With this targeted tax measure that we're debating today,

individuals earning $12,000 per year will also not pay any provincial income

tax. Previously, they would have to have paid $161. This bill we're debating

today will help individuals earning $12,000 annually by $161.

Those earning $16,000 previously would have had to pay $387 in

B.C. income tax. Once this bill is completed, they will only pay $27 annually,

for a saving of $360. Similarly, individuals earning $20,000 per year, where

they would have paid $612 annually in B.C. income tax, will now realize a

savings of $216, meaning that their B.C. income tax bill will now be $396. So we

see significant savings for individuals who are at the lower end of the income

scale, and those are individuals who, quite frankly, could use some help.

Already, this government has taken dramatic efforts to lower taxes

for all people in all income spectrums. We all know that there was a personal

income tax reduction, on average about 25 percent, but for those people on the

lower end of the income scale, their income tax reduction was actually 28

percent in terms of B.C. income tax payable.

By taking a look at some cross-Canada comparisons, maybe we can

further understand some of the NDP's discouragement for this initiative here

today. When you take a look at how B.C. compares to those socialist utopias that

are controlled by the NDP in Saskatchewan and Manitoba, you start to see an

interesting picture. In British Columbia, as I already noted, individuals

earning $20,000 or less were paying about $396 in provincial income tax, and I

think that's even before this measure. In Saskatchewan a comparable income level

will result in payment of $1,143 in provincial income tax. Over in Manitoba the

figure is $2,231 in provincial income tax.

Is it possible that low-income individuals in British Columbia

could look forward to paying those kinds of substantially larger tax bills if

the NDP were to win the election?

J. Bray: That's their hidden agenda.

B. Penner: Maybe that is their hidden agenda. Maybe that's

why they're upset about these reductions, because it will make the increases

that the NDP would like to foist upon British Columbians that much more

substantial.

For individuals earning $30,000 per year or more, the provincial

income tax payable in British Columbia would be $1,175.

I'm sorry; I've misspoken. The previous figures for $20,000 per

year should have been $1,143 in Saskatchewan versus $1,191 in Manitoba.

For $30,000 it's $2,167 in Saskatchewan and $2,231 in Manitoba

versus $1,175 here in British Columbia. Again, British Columbia compares very

favourably to Saskatchewan and Manitoba. In fact, with these reductions we're

actually showing lower provincial income taxes in British Columbia than Alberta,

which had previously been the trendsetter and the leader in Canada in terms of

reducing taxes.

British Columbia is quite properly taking its appropriate place

and showing leadership again in the Canadian economy. We're showing job growth.

The largest number of jobs created in the country have been created right here

in British Columbia — almost 200,000 since the end of December 2001. That leads

the country.

Again, that is British Columbia's appropriate place. We should be

a leader in Canada. Sadly, during the 1990s we saw us lose our leadership

position. We went from being the best economy in the country to having the worst

job record, the worst investment record, the worst economic growth record in the

country. That's not where British Columbians want to be. In fact, it's hard for

most of us to believe this, but for a short time in the 1990s under the NDP

government more people were actually leaving British Columbia to move to

Saskatchewan than were coming from Saskatchewan to British Columbia.

[1535]

I'm happy to report that those trends seem to be turning around.

Net interprovincial migration is now a positive again into British Columbia.

That's the way it traditionally has been, but after a few too many years of NDP

government in the 1990s, we saw that trend reverse. We saw people voting with

their feet and leaving British Columbia.

I'm very proud that after a few short years this government — this

party, the B.C. Liberal Party — has been able to reverse that trend and

encourage Canadians to seek their future here in our great province. The results

speak for themselves with, as I already said, the job growth, the record growth

in construction, new home starts and increasing revenues to government, which

are allowing us to make investments in a whole range of areas including targeted

tax reductions for low-income individuals. That's how people benefit from good

fiscal management and from good government.

From time to time, again, we'll hear the opposition say that the

tax relief that's been granted to all British Columbians has only benefited the

rich. Well, I've pulled together a few statistics — this is going back to 2002 —

indicating the share of taxes paid by different income brackets or income groups

in British Columbia. What's interesting to note is that for those earning

$100,000 or more annually, they pay 33 percent in total of taxes collected by

the province. Those earning $50,000 or more are paying 71 percent of total taxes

collected.

If you go through the different income brackets, you start to see

an interesting picture. This is merely to illustrate that even with the

reduction in personal income taxes, it's still very much the case that those who

are earning more are actually paying more of

[ Page 12082 ]

the overall share of taxes. That is what the graduated system is all about,

and that is how we help fund the government. But the record does speak for

itself.

For those earning $10,000 and less, their contribution in terms of

provincial taxes is reported to be $2 million in 2002. For those between $10,000

and $15,000 annually, it's reported to be $23 million. Between $15,000 and

$20,000 per year, we're looking at $74 million in terms of their contribution to

the provincial treasury. From $20,000 to $25,000 per year, it's $108 million per

year. Between $25,000 and $30,000 annually, it's $141 million per year to the

provincial treasury. Between $30,000 and $40,000 per year, it's $420 million to

the provincial treasury. Between $40,000 and $50,000, that number jumps up to

$487 million annually.

By the time you reach the bigger incomes between $50,000 and

$100,000 annually, that group pays $1.63 billion per year to the provincial

treasury. Well, that's the biggest group right there. Between $100,000 and

$150,000, the contribution is $431 million annually. Between $150,000 and

$250,000 per year — clearly more than people in this chamber are earning, I

would think — they contribute $326 million per year. For those few individuals —

I presume it's few — that earn $250,000 or more per year, their contribution to

provincial taxes is $695 million per year.

So you see how the tax range is actually a sliding scale. The more

you earn, the more you're contributing to the provincial treasury. That's fair,

because if you're able to pay more, you should — to help all those who are less

fortunate. With this specific tax reduction that we have in this bill today,

we're furthering that cause by raising that threshold so that those earning less

than $16,000 per year will essentially not have to pay provincial income tax.

I note that in the federal budget announced a couple of hours ago,

the federal government is promising to raise the minimum exemption before which

individuals have to pay their federal share of income tax. It's a fairly modest

relief. I think I saw a media report indicating that in the first year, average

taxpayers can look forward to savings of about $16 per year. Well, that's

helpful. It is certainly much more modest than some of this tax relief that

we're debating right this moment on this particular bill, which will benefit

almost 750,000 British Columbians.

I think the province is showing leadership. We are doing our fair

share in terms of helping low-income individuals make ends meet. At the end of

the day, it's not just about tax relief. It's also about growing the economy so

that people have more job opportunities. As I've already noted, on that front

too, British Columbia is leading the way.

R. Stewart: I wasn't going to rise today, because I really

thought no one would have anything negative to say about this bill. This is one

of the things that I am very proud of our government for having been able to

achieve.

[1540]

One of the things we set out to do right off the bat was to

re-establish a competitive tax environment for British Columbia so that we

didn't have to face the constant loss of jobs we faced in the nineties, the

constant loss of industry, the loss of head offices and the loss of economic

prosperity that were brought about by the previous government's shortsighted

approach to most things economic.

Their decision today to stand up and not debate this bill, to

suggest that they don't have anything to say about this bill…. They're going to

criticize it from someplace else, I guess, but they're not going to stand up and

support it. I found that outrageous. I found myself on my feet right now, not

because I felt that this was a bill that needed to have someone standing up and

supporting it. I thought everyone would.

I'm just astounded that the House Leader of the Opposition has

taken the stand she has. We, of course, don't have the leader of the opposition

in the House, because she's chosen to not be here, to not find herself elected

to this chamber so that she can debate the important work this House has to do.

I find it outrageous that she has sent someone else in here to suggest that we

should be debating things — important matters — when she won't even come in to

debate them herself. And then to have the person she has sent in to debate them

stand up and not debate them because she feels that she'll get political points,

I gather, from choosing to not debate something that she apparently has some

issue with….

Well, I'm really proud of this bill. I'm proud of the measures

that we've been able to take, and I'm really proud of the budget. I stand and

support it today.

Deputy Speaker: Closing second reading debate, the Minister

of Finance.

Hon. C. Hansen: There was a comment made by the member for

Vancouver-Hastings at the outset of this debate this afternoon. She quoted a

comment that was made by the individual who is now our Premier. He was the

Leader of the Official Opposition at the time. He said that openness is better

than hiddenness. I would like to stand by those words. Just for the benefit of

which says that hiddenness is the condition or state of being hidden.

What we saw during the NDP years was a lot of…. Well, they were

called the fudge-it budgets. We saw a total lack of transparency. What we have

actually been celebrated for across Canada and throughout North America is the

fact that our budget process is now so transparent. We've won awards in British

Columbia for our move to generally accepted accounting practices and the

transparency that we put in our various budget documents.

This bill that is before today, I think, implements some of the

tax changes that we are all very proud of. It will benefit this year,

immediately, 730,000 British Columbians and will make a very big difference in

their

[ Page 12083 ]

lives. What it is going to mean on that one tax measure alone…. I won't go

into all of them that are in Bill 7, but that one tax measure alone is actually

going to result in $480 million over the next three years staying in the pockets

of British Columbians with low and modest incomes. That's so they can decide how

to spend that money themselves — on their children, on their families and on

themselves. It's going to make a big difference in their lives.

I'm proud to support Bill 7. Thank you for the time.

[1545-1550]

Second reading of Bill 7 approved unanimously on a division. [See

Votes and Proceedings .]

Hon. C. Hansen: I move that Bill 7 be referred to a

Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House

after today.

Bill 7, Income Tax Amendment Act, 2005, read a second time and

referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting

of the House after today.

Hon. G. Bruce: I call second reading on Bill 8.

TAXATION STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT, 2005

Hon. C. Hansen: I move that Bill 8 be read a second time.

Bill 8 implements a number of tax initiatives announced in Budget

2005. The changes improve the fairness of the tax system. They encourage energy

conservation, improve administration and compliance and clarify the application

of tax.

The Health Authorities Act is amended to clarify that property tax

exemptions for hospitals owned by health authorities apply to space occupied by

other providers on behalf of the health authority and by the medical faculty of

the University of British Columbia for teaching purposes. This ensures that the

property tax treatment of hospitals owned by health authorities will not be

affected by the choice to deliver services through public-private partnerships.

This province is experiencing a booming housing market. This shows

immense confidence in our economy, as people move here to build their futures in

British Columbia. But rising property prices can make it difficult for young

families and others to enter the housing market. To help offset the effects of

rising house prices, Bill 8 amends the Property Transfer Tax Act to increase the

value of a home that a first-time buyer may purchase exempt from property

transfer tax.

Rising property values also create a concern for many of those who

already own their own homes. This is especially true of seniors on fixed

incomes, who stand to lose some or all of their homeowner grant because of

rising property values. The Home Owner Grant Act is to be amended to increase

the threshold value for homes to qualify for that full grant. The new threshold

value ensures that over 95 percent of eligible homeowners in British Columbia

can claim the full homeowner grant this year. That's approximately the same

percentage as was the case last year.

The Home Owner Grant Act is also amended to reduce the rate at

which the grant is phased out. This change, together with the threshold

increase, means that the proportion of British Columbians who will receive tax

relief through the homeowner grant will increase despite the overall increase in

assessed values of properties around the province.

The Insurance Premium Tax Act is also amended to clarify that

insurance premiums paid to an unlicensed insurer by a corporation or partnership

with a permanent establishment in B.C. are subject to tax. The act is also

amended to provide the commissioner of income tax or other authorized officers

of the Ministry of Provincial Revenue with the authority to require records to

be kept by insurance agents or taxpayers and to allow access to those records.

This authority will improve the government's ability to administer and enforce

the act.

[1555]

Bill 8 also amends the Insurance Premium Tax Act to clarify the

application of tax to persons who are licensees under the Real Estate Services

Act, and it provides authority for a regulation to exempt medical services or

health care plans retroactive to January 1, 1997.

Bill 8 amends the International Financial Activity Act to clarify

the appeal provisions and to change the name of the International Financial

Centre Vancouver Society to the International Financial Centre British Columbia

Society.

The Motor Fuel Tax Act is also amended to clarify that farmers are

authorized to use coloured fuel in any unlicensed farm vehicle when used for a

qualified purpose. It is recognized that all-terrain vehicles and snowmobiles

have become important vehicles for enhancing productivity of farms in British

Columbia. As such, these vehicles qualify for coloured fuel use when used for

farming purposes. Bill 8 also amends the Motor Fuel Tax Act to clarify the

administration and enforcement of the use of lower-taxed coloured fuel.

The Social Service Tax Act is also amended to allow for new tax

reductions and exemptions by regulation to encourage energy conservation and to

reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The incentive to purchase cleaner alternative

fuel vehicles, in particular hybrid electric vehicles, is enhanced by a couple

of measures: firstly, by converting the refund program to a point-of-sale tax

reduction to provide an immediate tax benefit to purchasers and to reduce red

tape; secondly, by expanding the definition of hybrid electric vehicles to

include hybrids propelled solely by electric motors running on electricity

generated by an on-board internal combustion engine; thirdly, by raising the

maximum tax benefit through to March 31, 2008, for most hybrid vehicles to

$2,000 from $1,000; and fourthly, by ensuring the tax benefit available to other

alternative fuel vehicles.

[ Page 12084 ]

Alternative fuel vehicles generally cost more than comparable

gasoline and diesel vehicles, and the enhanced sales tax benefits for these

vehicles will help offset that incremental cost and should encourage more

consumers to consider this promising technology. The $2,000 tax reduction for

these hybrids will be reduced to $1,000 on April 1, 2008, and eliminated on

April 1, 2009, in anticipation that the current incremental cost will fall as

hybrid production and market share increase.

In addition, a new two-year sales tax exemption is introduced for

energy-efficient furnaces, oil and gas boilers, and ground and air source heat

pumps installed for residential use. The exemption will encourage British

Columbians to choose more energy-efficient heating equipment and to allow

government to evaluate the effectiveness of the tax incentive before considering

any program extensions or expansions.

Fairness is enhanced by providing exemptions for purchases and

leases of audio and visual recordings for certain purposes. For example, audio

and visual recordings are exempt if purchased for public broadcast by a licensed

broadcaster or to make copies for public broadcast exhibition in movie theatres

and similar venues or for sale or lease. In addition, these recordings are also

exempt where film and television show producers acquire them for incorporation

into other recordings. This will level the playing field for small television

broadcasters and other businesses whose business models made them ineligible for

longstanding exemptions available to other competitors.

The threshold for the surtax on passenger vehicles is raised from

$47,000 to $49,000 to reflect vehicle price increases since the threshold was

last increased in 2001 and to ensure that British Columbians can continue to

purchase the vehicles they need for their families and work without having to

pay the surtax.

The maximum price for self-contained smoke or fire alarms eligible

for exemption is increased from $50 to $250, because they are now often sold as

more expensive units combined with gas detection devices.

Finally, the act is amended to require all amounts collected as

environmental levies on tires and batteries to be remitted to government. This

is consistent with the remittance obligations for all other taxes under the act.

[1600]

Alternative energy power production is an important part of the

province's energy plan, and to encourage the development of clean, reliable

energy, the School Act is amended to allow for school tax exemptions and refunds

for alternative energy power projects by regulation.

Newer hydroelectric power producers who are either

run-of-the-river projects with long-term contracts to sell power to B.C. Hydro

or who are certified to use the EcoLogo under the federal environmental choice

program will be exempt from fuel tax on penstocks and related improvements

beginning this year. This exemption will encourage the development of clean

small hydroelectric power in British Columbia.

Bill 8 also amends the Corporation Capital Tax Act and the Tobacco

Tax Act to improve administration and enforcement. The Tobacco Tax Act is

amended to provide officials with the authority to seize tobacco products that

were not purchased from an authorized wholesaler. The changes to the Tobacco Tax

Act will strengthen the province's ability to crack down on illegally traded

tobacco products and to protect tobacco revenue use.

J. Bray: I rise to support this bill, and I'm very, very

pleased to do so.

First, I want to point out some of the reasons why this is such a

critical piece of legislation for my riding. The property transfer tax is

something that is certainly a very important revenue source for government. But

in the capital region, as you probably are well aware, we have one of the most

vibrant housing markets in all of Canada. We have had housing starts that have

had record levels for the last several years.

One of the great and positive signs about it is that people

recognize that British Columbia and indeed here on the South Island are places

they want to come and invest and make the most significant purchase they'll

probably make in their lives. They want to raise their families here. They want

to work here. They want to retire here.

We have had an absolutely incredible housing boom. Single-family

dwellings, multiple-family dwellings, condominiums, townhomes — you name it;

they're building it here in record numbers. In fact, earlier today I met with

the Victoria Real Estate Board, who wanted to personally congratulate the

government, through me, for the changes that are contemplated in this very bill.

Raising the threshold for people to qualify for the first-time homebuyer's

exemption by 18 percent is a significant boost for young families right here in

Victoria to be able to stay in this community, buy their houses, set down their

own roots, raise their own families and contribute to their communities.

You know, it's not just that particular point that's important

about this whole issue around how we are trying to assist people to be able to

be homeowners again in British Columbia. It is this other important aspect. I

saw a very important graph a few weeks ago that showed the net loss of

population that British Columbia suffered during the nineties, especially the

late nineties. In the previous debate the member for Chilliwack-Kent made a

point of that.

What was very interesting is that as you saw that negative trend

of people fleeing from this province during the time that the opposition was in

government — the time when that opposition, when they were government, drove

people out of this province…. When you lay on top of that graph the graph of

housing starts, something pretty amazing happens. They follow each other almost

exactly.

One of the reasons why the Victoria Real Estate Board is so

pleased with the changes we're making here is the same reason that the housing

industry is so pleased with the changes we're making. When people leave this

prov-

[ Page 12085 ]

ince, housing starts go down. A new house being built in the province

represents 2.8 permanent jobs when you look at the manufacturing of windows and

doors and all of the other work that goes into it.

When that opposition drove out British Columbians, they also drove

out carpenters, framers, glaziers, electricians, plumbers, roofers, tilers,

manufacturers. The impact of the NDP driving people out of this province

impacted dozens of industries that are involved with home building. But guess

what. Now that we have a net in-migration of people coming from elsewhere in

this country, guess what happens to housing starts. They, too, rise at the same

rate.

Attracting people back to British Columbia isn't just great for

our pride, although we do feel good about that. It actually has an impact on all

those people involved in the housing trades.

[1605]

The opposition always talks about how they represent the working

person. Well, during the 1990s, I can tell you…. Plumbers are working people.

Electricians are working people. Roofers are working people. Glaziers are

working people. Real estate agents are working people. But they had no work in

the late nineties, because this government was driving people out of the

province.

We support working people in this province, because we give them

the hope and opportunity they need to succeed. Housing starts are growing at

record rates. We are miles ahead of the rest of country, with no real signs of

slowing down.

The opposition always says: "Well, you're benefiting from low

interest rates." Sure we are. So is Saskatchewan. So is Manitoba. So is Alberta.

So is Nova Scotia. But we have created the environment that people and families

are moving to this province for, and they're driving demand for new housing. All

of those working families that depend on that kind of inflow of people are

driving that industry at great guns.

We went a step further, because we want to make sure that the

younger families — the first-time homebuyers — have the best opportunity

possible to participate in the great economy of this province and in their

communities. I can tell you that for my constituents — especially those who have

children that are becoming the age where they're looking to make their first

purchase — this news has been very welcome. We have some of the highest housing

prices in Canada, because we're one of the best places in the world to live.

This is going to make a big difference for families to be able to stay in their

communities, be able to live where they want their children to go to school,

live close to where they work, live close to their neighbourhoods and their

families. They're going to be able to buy homes in the areas that they want to

choose.

Another big area is the homeowner grant. I know that some people

get nervous every time they get their tax assessment and see that their property

assessment has gone up. But of course, as you know, your municipal taxes are

adjusted. They're not dependent on the assessment. They're dependent on the mill

rate set by the municipalities, which is a separate exercise.

I also know that in my riding I have areas like Rockland. I have

Fairfield. I have emerging areas like Fernwood and Vic West, where those people

are generally thrilled to see the equity in their investments growing at 15

percent, 18 percent, 20 percent. They're thrilled because that means their

investment in this province, in this community, is going to pay off for them. It

is good news to have your properties gaining in value.

Because Victoria has some of the highest prices, it was starting

to push some people out of the full homeowner grant opportunities. Some of those

happen to be seniors who are on fixed incomes. Yes, they're living on a valuable

piece of property, but their actual cash flow is limited. Moving this threshold

up a full $100,000 and ensuring that 95 percent of British Columbians continue

to receive the full exemption makes a big difference for seniors in my community

to be able to stay in their homes — the homes that they may have raised their

families in — connected to their neighbourhoods and communities, because they're

able to continue to manage their municipal tax bill. This is good news for

homeowners and for seniors in my riding.

You know something? I also know why people in my community are

getting a bit nervous. It's because they know that the reason the NDP won't

debate these bills that have really constructive and targeted tax reductions is

that it goes counter to what I think is Carole James's hidden agenda, which is

to raise the taxes. I think people in Fairfield and Rockland are starting to

recognize that voting for Carole James, voting for the NDP, actually means that

they will see their property values drop. They'll lose equity in their property,

and they'll see their property taxes go up. They'll see opportunities like the

homeowner grant disappear. They'll see personal income taxes go up.

Do you know that in British Columbia families earning $80,000 or

less pay the least amount of tax in the entire country? That means middle-income

families and lower-middle-income families have more money at the end of every

paycheque to spend on their families and communities as they see fit. That goes

counter to the NDP's plan. Their hidden agenda is about raising those taxes.

[1610]

When the NDP last had a crack at the tax jar, they raised taxes

year after year after year. In fact, before we took office, people earning

$60,000 or less — the low-and modest-income households in this province — paid

the highest tax rates in this province.

How was that good for working families? How does it support

communities when Victoria decides it's going to take money out of low- and

medium-earning households and decide that they know best how to spend it?

We know that individuals and families know how to best spend their

dollars in their own communities. We keep more of that money in their pockets

while ensuring that we're investing in health and education on behalf of all

citizens.

[ Page 12086 ]

In Glen Clark's first budget he actually proposed…. Get this.

We're increasing the exemption on the property purchase tax, increasing the

homeowner grant. Here's what Glen Clark proposed in his first budget. He

actually proposed a surtax on homes worth over $500,000. At that time that was a

tax that would have affected about 30,000 properties. Imagine going to a senior

who raised his or her family, who happened to have made a good purchase 20, 30,

40 years ago and now is sitting on an asset — yes, it's worth more, but it's

their asset — and deciding that that senior is going to have to pay tax on

$200,000 or $300,000 or $400,000 worth of property. Imagine that.

[H. Long in the chair.]

How is that senior going to pay the surtax? How would they do

that? Is that part of the opposition's hidden agenda? Is that part of their

secret plan they don't want British Columbians to know about? They certainly

don't want to debate this bill. Is that because it goes counter to what they

know is going to happen in 90 days? Is Carole James actually going to have a

fully costed plan that she promised, or is she just going to put out some loose

promises with nothing about the hidden tax increases that she and Jim Sinclair

have cooked up? I wonder about that.

Glen Clark brought in the corporate capital tax. We're reducing

taxes for small business people. We're reducing the tax burden on the film

industry to keep them competitive. We're reducing the tax burden on the oil and

gas sector to keep them competitive. Why? Because it's good for the industry.

When it's good for the industry, you know who it is really good for, Mr.

Speaker? It's good for working families. Glen Clark didn't think that working

families deserved to be in strong industries, didn't think people deserved to

own their own homes and wanted to tax all of those things.

We said that we were going to promote alternative fuels

exploration in this province. Our energy plan had a voluntary commitment by B.C.

Hydro to purchase 50 percent of their new generation through green and

alternative sources. We continued to implement that energy plan every year with

new measures to help them increase that.

Hybrid vehicles are now becoming a major opportunity for ordinary

citizens to participate in the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. I know the

Minister of Management Services is pursuing ways to increase the fleet of hybrid

cars used by government. I know we're supporting a pilot project here in the

capital region encouraging fleet managers, including B.C. Transit, B.C. Mail and

Canada Post, to use a 20 percent blend of biodiesel to reduce greenhouse gas

emissions. Biodiesel doesn't require any changes to diesel engines. We've also

funded the ability to look at the feasibility of production of biodiesel here.

With amendments to the Social Service Tax Act, we're encouraging

more British Columbians to participate in some of these strategies. We're making

it more affordable. Imagine this. The NDP doesn't want to debate the fact that

we're making it more affordable for British Columbians to purchase hybrid

vehicles, that we're doing it in a way that recognizes that, as market share

increases, we can reduce the tax exemption accordingly, and that we're

encouraging the marketplace to support alternative energies. Imagine that. I

would think the NDP would be thumping their desks right now in support of that.

Somehow I don't see much support for that.

Imagine this. We're actually recognizing that when school

districts and individual PACs make decisions about looking to have their school

use alternative fuels, we'll provide them tax relief in order to recognize that

contribution they're making in their community. Imagine that. We know that

schools continually look at ways in which they can contribute to their

communities, and being environmentally conscious is one of them. We're

supporting them in making those decisions.

[1615]

You know, option 19 in the select standing committee's report that

I referred to in my previous debate called for, among other things, increasing

the threshold for passenger vehicles for tax exemption. This bill increases the

vehicle surtax threshold to $49,000 from $47,000. On the Finance Committee, we

heard from around the province that perhaps in the middle of Victoria–Beacon

Hill, my riding, it may not be necessary to have a four-wheel drive, V-8 SUV in

order to go to Thrifty's to buy your latte. Fair enough. You know, in many parts

of this….

Interjections.

J. Bray: My heartlands colleagues are agreeing with me on

that.

In many parts of the province heavy-duty vehicles are actually a

necessity just to get your kids safely to school, to get your kids to the hockey

rink or to get out into the bush so that you can earn your living and support

your family. It's not a luxury. The NDP thought it was a luxury.

We recognize that working families depend on those vehicles. We

heard them asking for us to raise the threshold. We've done exactly that. We

reinvigorated the select standing committee process. We gave British Columbians

a direct voice. The Minister of Finance again, for the umpteenth time in this

budget, has responded directly to what British Columbians said through this

Legislature.

You know, Mr. Speaker, when the NDP get into the position where

they can't debate bills because it's all good news, it really must be

frustrating. When the Leader of the Opposition stands up and gives some really

baseless argument, which has nothing to do with the bills, about why they're not

going to debate it, it's because they realize that we have responded to real

British Columbians in every corner of this province in a way that they can't

possibly.

I wonder where Carole James is today on this bill. I hope she's

having a press conference right outside the

[ Page 12087 ]

gates here. I hope she's showing us her plan and how she would do things

differently. I hope she's having a press conference right now saying: "This is

how I would encourage more alternative fuel usage and support British Columbians

to participate in the use of green and alternative energies." I hope that's what

she's doing right now. But I suspect, like every other day, that's not what's

happening.

I hope that she's out there with her plan of how she's going to

help low- and modest-income families in British Columbia. How is she going to

ensure that she does something…? We've got the lowest taxes payable by families

earning $80,000 or less. Those are working families in every community in this

province. I hope that she's having a press conference right now, giving us a

fully costed account of how she's going to improve on that. But like we heard

from the opposition, I suspect not. The reason they won't debate these bills is

because they know they've got nothing to debate.

It's what British Columbians have asked for. It's reasoned. It's

balanced. It benefits British Columbians, the way they've asked their government

to do that. That is why they won't debate it. That's why their leader doesn't

have a plan. That's why I'm proud to support this bill. This government is doing

what it said it would do four years ago. We're delivering it, and our plan

continues right up until the next election. I congratulate the Minister of

Finance for bringing in these measures.

L. Mayencourt: I'm here to speak in favour of the Taxation

Statutes Amendment Act. Before I start, I want to refresh our memory. Just a few

hours ago the galleries here were full of people watching question period. In

that question period the Leader of the Opposition, the member for

Vancouver-Hastings, and the member for Surrey–Panorama Ridge thumped the desks

and screamed about the fact that they weren't having a chance to debate the

budget. Well, I've heard nothing from them yet about this budget, and yet this

is a piece of that budget. Once again, they fall silent. It's only for the

theatre of question period that they showed up and did that. I'm sorry for that.

I think this is a very important piece of legislation that we have

in front of us. I think it affects a lot of people in this province. I think it

affects a lot of people in their ridings. I think that they have an obligation

to be in here to speak either in favour of this legislation or against it on

behalf of their constituents. They challenge us to do that. I challenge them to

do it as well.

[1620]

In my particular case, in my riding, as this House knows, I have

seen an incredible growth in development in my neighbourhood. The change in my

neighbourhood has just been massive in the last four years. With that has come

over 20,000 new residences in my neighbourhood. We have seen the cost of a

typical condo for a single person go from $200,000 to much, much higher. It's a

sign of a thriving economy, a sign that people are investing and feel like they

believe enough in themselves that they're willing to put down money for a

mortgage.

We have a wonderful thing called the homeowner grant, which is

there for first-time buyers. We have an ability to help them maybe make the

difference between being renters for the rest of their lives and being able to

have the opportunity to own their own home — whether that's a condo or a

single-family home or what have you, matters not. It's about the ownership.

People can have access to this because of this piece of legislation. More people

will be eligible for the homeowner grant.

Also important in my neighbourhood is the property transfer tax.

My goodness. As the price of housing in my neighbourhood has gone up, so has the

cost to homeowners for their property transfer tax. This act takes it and makes

it more applicable to neighbourhoods like mine, neighbourhoods like Surrey, and

the Tri-Cities area in Coquitlam. It recognizes that the average price for

housing for first-time buyers is really a lot higher than the $275,000 it was;

it is much closer to the $325,000 range that we are moving it to today, if this

bill passes.

I think this Legislature has been good to listen to the people of

my riding, to listen to the people of ridings around this province that have

said: "Look, there are some inequities with the property transfer tax, and we

want them rectified." We want to make sure first-time owners have an opportunity

to get into the market. We want to make sure they have access to the homeowner

grant, and we want to make sure we do what we can to make it possible for them

to own their own home. I support that. I'm proud to support this particular bill

as well.

A couple of other things I wanted to mention. I'm very proud that

this government has decreased the taxes that someone would pay when they buy a

hybrid vehicle. Out in our parking lot I have a 1966 Mustang, which certainly

wouldn't qualify for the lower taxes because it burns a little bit too much

fuel. Out in our parking lot we have a couple of people that have bought

Priuses. It's a new Toyota car that is a mixture of electric and, I guess,

regular fuel. What that means is that we're encouraging people to do what is

right for our environment, that we want them to get into these hybrid vehicles,

that we want them to look at alternative sources of fuel for driving their cars

to work. I think we are doing something very important by saying to people: "We

will give you a bit of a tax credit as a result of that."

We also have done that for schools, for example, that are looking

at alternative ways of creating energy for their school buildings. In my

neighbourhood I have Lord Roberts annex elementary, which is up near Nelson

Park. In that neighbourhood we've created a neighbourhood with the Molehill

Society that has geothermal heating. They're actually using alternative ways of

heating the buildings around them. This is as it should be. It should be

encouraged by government, and that's what this bill helps us do. It helps us do

that for schools and school districts.

[ Page 12088 ]

I'm really happy with this particular piece of legislation. I do

hope that we hear a lot from the Leader of the Opposition, the member for

Surrey–Panorama Ridge and others from the NDP about this bill. I think it is

their job, as they said, to debate each and every line of the budget. They

should be here. They should do that, so I yield the floor to them.

Hon. C. Hansen: I don't have any particular comments to

wrap up with. I think it has been well said by my colleagues in the House.

It is a surprise that the opposition members did not choose to

participate in this particular debate. This would have been a great opportunity

to find out if in fact they do have any policy positions around this whole area

of tax policy.

With that, I move second reading.

Motion approved.

[1625]

Hon. C. Hansen: I move that the bill be referred to the

Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House

after today.

Bill 8, Taxation Statutes Amendment Act, 2005, read a second

time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the

next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. C. Hansen: I call budget debate.

Budget Debate

(continued)

K. Whittred: It's my distinct pleasure to rise in the House

today to speak in support of Budget 2005 — a blueprint for optimism, a blueprint

for a golden decade.

Before I start, I would like to just take a moment to pay tribute

to a few people in my community of North Vancouver. As many members of the House

know, we recently had a serious landslide. This landslide wasn't exactly in my

riding, but it was only a few blocks away. I had the opportunity to visit the

site early the day that it happened, and I have to share with the House that I

was extremely impressed by the professionalism and by the quality of the

emergency services that had fallen into place so quickly.

I was able to be at the site approximately three or four hours, I

think, after being called early in the morning, and it was quite unbelievable.

It was like a whole townsite had been set up. There was a medical station, a

comfort station, a rest place, large equipment. The rescue people were all

there, and I really want to say thank you to the fire department, the police and

the urban search and rescue team. It is my understanding that it's the first

time in the history of British Columbia that the urban search and rescue team

had actually been used.

It is sort of interesting to note from a North Shore perspective

that in North Van we have a very famous search and rescue team that is often

used — in fact, almost every weekend. But it's not often that the urban group is

called out. I did want to mention that.

Then, of course, there were the volunteers. They were most obvious

in the evacuation centre, which was also set up and running almost immediately,

and one could not help but be impressed with their efficiency. They had signs

that were there, all pre-prepared. They had a pet centre. They had food, of

course, registration procedures, and so on.

Then there was the command centre, where the whole effort was

being commanded from. It was all very impressive.

The provincial emergency program worked extremely well, and the

district of North Vancouver has asked me to convey to the House their

appreciation of the way in which that program fell into place.

The landslide, of course, had a very sad outcome. Eliza Kuttner

lost her life in that landslide. I certainly want to share my thoughts and the

thoughts of my colleagues here in the House with her husband, Michael Kuttner,

and her daughter, and to commend her colleagues at Capilano College, who have

set up a fund and called for an Eliza Kuttner award. My thoughts and those of

the House are certainly with that family, and we wish Michael Kuttner a full

recovery, as he is still recovering in hospital.

I'd also like to take this opportunity to congratulate the former

mayor of North Vancouver, Jack Loucks, who was recently presented with a

lifetime achievement award by the North Vancouver chamber. I know there are many

members in this House who served with Jack as municipal politicians, and some of

you may know that Jack has had a little bit of a health setback recently. He had

a mild stroke, but he's doing very well, and I was very pleased to see the whole

family out when he received this award not long ago.

[1630]

I also want to congratulate my friend and neighbour John

Braithwaite. He is another councillor who served the city of North Vancouver,

actually for as long as I can remember. He has recently been honoured in my

community by having a community centre named for him. It was very indicative of

John Braithwaite and the community he served that when he accepted this award,

he said he was so pleased this was called a community centre and not a

recreation centre. A community is a place where people gather, and that was

important to him. Congratulations to John for that very, very deserved

recognition.

I also want to congratulate Janice Harris, who was recently

elected mayor of the district of North Vancouver — replacing the former Don

Bell, who was elected Member of Parliament — and Jim Cuthbert, who was elected

as councillor for the district to replace Janice Harris. That sort of brings us

up to date on the local happenings, Mr. Speaker.

What is this job of being an MLA all about? I think it's about

having a vision. It's about appealing to those

[ Page 12089 ]

lofty ideas of creating a community — a community of possibilities and

optimism. Today in the time I have I would like to try to build a bridge between

vision and my community in North Vancouver–Lonsdale. I'd like to sort of put

this in a context.

What is my community all about? Well, we're 12 minutes from

downtown Vancouver. I think a lot of people don't think that, but we are 12

minutes from downtown Vancouver. I often say: we're the snap in the snapshot.

We're the snap when people are at the Pan Pacific Hotel enjoying a drink on the

deck or staying in their expensive room. We're the view from the window.

We're a gateway. We're talking a lot these days about gateways. We

are on the north shore of Burrard Inlet, and we are a gateway to British

Columbia. We're also where the sea meets the sky. We often hear about the Sea to

Sky Highway in my neighbouring riding of West Vancouver. In my riding we have

what we call the Sea to Sky Trail, and it goes from Harbourside Park to the top

of Lynn Valley in less than an hour. Did I mention that we're 12 minutes from

downtown Vancouver?

In my community you can feel the optimism. You look around, and

what you see is cranes. You see cranes everywhere. You see roadways that are dug

up. You see headlines in the local newspaper about job shortages. You hear that

local tradespeople and construction people can't hire enough workers. You see

ships in the harbour that are waiting to get to the wharves to either drop off

or pick up their goods. All of these are signs of boom. They are signs of

optimism, and the optimism is palpable.

This is something that's only happened in the last four years.

When we came to government in 2001 we had a vision. We had a vision to offer

people hope and opportunity. We had a plan to get there. A plan is not something

that is usually achieved in a month or two months or even a year. We were

hopeful that we would achieve our plan in four years. I'm very pleased to see

that our plan is working.

When we were elected in 2001 we found many, many things that we

didn't know we were going to find. I think one of the things that shocked me the

most was the aging infrastructure. I had responsibility at that time for part of

the Ministry of Health. I was astounded at the neglect that had been shown to

infrastructure over the years before.

[1635]

I had an experience in the last two or three years to visit one of

my schools. This school was actually asking for a new school. I was astounded at

the degree to which that school had been allowed to deteriorate. Not only was it

obvious to a layman…. The rain was actually coming through the walls.

Transportation. We have real issues with, particularly, the north

end of the Second Narrows Bridge and with east-west transportation. These are

areas that have truly been neglected, to say nothing of hospitals and other

health care facilities.

We know our plan is working, because we have come, in the short

time since 2001, from being very last in terms of the economy…. We were ninth in

job growth; we are now first. In my particular region we have seen a 9 percent

increase.

We see people moving to British Columbia. This is really obvious

in my community, because we have a huge housing market. Some of you may have

heard of Yaletown in Vancouver. Well, my community of lower Lonsdale is being

marketed as an extension of Yaletown. I will be speaking a bit more about that a

little later.

What is a budget? It's a plan to achieve the vision. It's a plan

to achieve this hope and opportunity. It's a plan to help families achieve their

goals and enhance their quality of life. Time probably won't permit me today to

address every single goal in the budget, so I'm going to confine my remarks to

two or three of them.

I would like to start with the goal of making British Columbia the

best-educated, most literate jurisdiction on the continent. I mentioned a few

minutes ago about Sutherland School. This is actually a school that my children

went to. I hadn't been into it in a number of years because they, of course, had

graduated. I was invited back by the principal there to have a look.

This is when the ceiling actually fell in one day. This was sort

of a serious thing. The parents' committee was upset, and kids were upset. I was

invited in to have a look. As I said, I was shocked. I just couldn't imagine how

a government had allowed a school to deteriorate to such an extent. From there,

I got involved with the ministry. I worked with the board. The really happy news

is that we have managed to get funding, and a new school is being built at

Sutherland.

I'm also happy to announce that several schools in my community,

including Ridgeway, will be receiving seismic upgrades. My community is the old

part of North Vancouver. Some of it dates back many, many years, so I have some

very old schools like Ridgeway and Queen Mary. These were built early, probably

in the 1930s. Beautiful old buildings, but they need some upgrades. I'm very

pleased that in this budget we have money for those seismic upgrades.

I'm very pleased we have added dollars to the education budget

that are tailored to communities and that these are district and school

decisions. I'm also pleased about the Ready, Set, Learn program. I had the

privilege one night of actually visiting one of the schools, Westview, where

this was being introduced.

Ready, Set, Learn is a program to introduce three-year-olds and to

assess their needs. It was well attended by the parents in the community and by

the children. The children were assessed. I had an opportunity to talk to the

teachers, who were very generously giving their time that evening. I had an

opportunity to talk to the speech pathologist and to learn a little bit, for my

own benefit, about some of the aspects of the program and how valuable the early

childhood educators felt it was.

[1640]

Money has recently been given in education, in terms of moving

towards the best educated, to ensure that learning-disabled students have the

opportunities

[ Page 12090 ]

they need. You know, back in the old days when I was in school, which was

almost medieval times, there used to be something called opportunity classes.

Today I would like to think that we no longer have opportunity classes and that

we have developed a school system that has gone from opportunity class to

opportunity — that all children, whether or not they have difficulty learning,

do have the opportunity to learn.

I know as an educator, or at least a former educator, that one of

the biggest changes that has come about in recent decades is the research and

the knowledge that all children can learn. It used to be that certain children,

if they had difficulties…. It was just sort of assumed: "You know, you're dumb;

you can'