2009 Legislative Session: First Session, 39th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

official report of

Debates of the

Legislative Assembly

(hansard)

Monday, September 21, 2009

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 2, Number 9

CONTENTS

Page

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Tributes

Ken Stone

C. Trevena

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

Energy conference in Dawson Creek

P. Pimm

Work of women's organizations in Campbell River

C. Trevena

Women in government

L. Reid

Gorge waterway cleanup

R. Fleming

Tynehead community history

D. Hayer

Curtis Brick

J. Kwan

Introduction and First Reading of Bills

Bill 8 — Strata Property Amendment Act, 2009

Hon. R. Coleman

Oral Questions

Funding for public health and sports programs

C. James

Hon. M. McNeil

K. Corrigan

J. Horgan

Funding for public health programs

J. Brar

Hon. I. Chong

D. Donaldson

A. Dix

Shelter policy for homeless during extreme weather

S. Simpson

Hon. R. Coleman

Orders of the Day

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 2 — Budget Measures Implementation Act (No. 2), 2009

Hon. C. Hansen

B. Ralston

D. Routley

S. Fraser

M. Sather

M. Karagianis

L. Krog

N. Macdonald

S. Hammell

G. Coons

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Labour

Hon. M. Coell

R. Chouhan

A. Dix

J. Brar

K. Conroy

B. Routley

S. Fraser

M. Sather

[ Page 561 ]

MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 21, 2009

The House met at 1:34 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

R. Cantelon: Joining us today in the gallery is a beautiful and talented singer from Nanaimo, Michelle Krall, who has a better-known sister but nevertheless is a very talented and beautiful woman — Michelle. [Applause.] Thank you, Members.

[1335]

Joining her today in the gallery are two people well known to this chamber — former members here, Sindi Hawkins and Lorne Mayencourt. Please make them all welcome.

B. Simpson: In 1967 Canada changed forever when my folks immigrated here from Scotland with four Simpsons.

Interjections.

B. Simpson: I'm not saying it was good or bad. It just changed.

It's my great pleasure to have my mom and dad, Bob and Cathy Simpson, in the audience. They now hail from Kelowna, and they're here to watch us all behave ourselves during question period. I ask the House to please join me in welcoming my parents to the House.

Hon. M. McNeil: It gives me great pleasure to introduce some of my family members here today: my husband, Rod McNeil; my eldest daughter, Molly O'Callaghan; and three of my gorgeous grandchildren, Nora Jess O'Callaghan, Fiona Frances O'Callaghan and Roger Webb O'Callaghan. These three children go to Highlands Elementary School in North Van, one of the new schools that just opened this year, where my daughter is chair of the PAC.

D. Donaldson: It's not often — in fact, I think this is the first time — I've been able to introduce guests from Stikine, because it's so far north. On this occasion it's just because they missed their flight home that I'm able to introduce them.

I'd like to introduce in the gallery my wife, Anne Docherty, who is also president of Literacy B.C., and my former colleague in Storytellers Foundation, Melanie Sondergaard. Would the House please welcome them to this session.

Hon. N. Yamamoto: I'd like to introduce Matt Morrison. Matt is the executive director of the Pacific NorthWest Economic Region, better known as PNWER. This is a group that brings together legislators, private sector leaders and communities to discuss areas of common priority, such as the environment, economic development, energy and trade. Please make Matt Morrison welcome.

M. Mungall: Well, it's my joy today to introduce a very talented nurse practitioner, an excellent community volunteer and the best do-it-yourself home renovator that I've ever worked with — my partner in life, Zak Matieschyn. May the House make him feel very welcome.

It's great that the member opposite's parents are here, because I'm sure we're all going to be on our best behaviour this afternoon.

The second introduction. We're delighted to have a number of visitors with us from Prince George. They're here for meetings in regards to the assessing, planning and training program for displaced forest workers. So we're very delighted to have Frank Everitt and Brian O'Rourke, who are with the United Steelworkers; Terry Tate, who is the forest worker coordinator; and Myrt Turner, who is with Turner and Associates, who have worked very hard to put this successful program together.

I know the members will join me in making them all very welcome today.

D. Routley: I'd like the House to help me make welcome four guests: first, my friend Rick Doman, who's a friend to everyone from the Cowichan Valley, the family legacy being one of the elements of the history of Cowichan Valley that we are most proud of; Tek Manhas, who is a manager with Island Hearing; and a local accountant, Les Atcheson, and his partner, Katherine Atcheson — both dedicated servants to the communities in the Cowichan Valley. Please help me make them welcome.

H. Bloy: I want to introduce a group of individuals from Nigeria that is visiting here today — they're attending Simon Fraser University — the learning strategies group at the Segal School of Business. I'll apologize now if I mispronounce anyone's name.

[1340]

The Parliamentary Secretary for Multiculturalism and I will be meeting with them later this afternoon. I'll just say the last names. We have Akinyoola, Lofindipe — Linda was helping me — Omodu, Onyeji and Orji.

[ Page 562 ]

J. Slater: It is my pleasure to introduce Zach Poturica from Osoyoos. Zach worked tirelessly on my campaign. He's a very active member of the Young Liberals of British Columbia, and he's a volunteer fireman. So please make him welcome.

Tributes

ken stone

C. Trevena: We often talk in this House about how we rely on our constituency assistants. Well, they have someone they rely on — their family members.

I'm very sad to share with this House the death of my constituency assistant's husband, Ken Stone. He died last week. Ken, as anybody who knew him knows, was a generous, decent, good man who loved and supported my assistant, Lynne. They were married for more than 30 years. They originally came from England and lived across the north Island — Port Alice, Quatsino and then Campbell River. Ken loved his family. He was an ardent cricket fan and cricket player and a fan of Manchester United.

He also loved politics, so I was very pleased when he worked on my campaigns. He'd worked on previous NDP campaigns in the past, for Colin Gabelmann and for Margaret Lord. Then he joined and worked on my campaigns. When he died, he was hoping to be my constituency association president for a second year.

I hope the House would extend their sympathies to Lynne and to her family. They're having a private funeral next weekend.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

ENERGY CONFERENCE IN DAWSON CREEK

P. Pimm: This week is Oil and Gas Week in British Columbia, and to celebrate Oil and Gas Week, the community of Dawson Creek is hosting the energy conference. Every year one of our major communities in Peace River and the northern Rockies area takes a turn hosting the annual oil and gas conference. This year the conference is being hosted by Dawson Creek on September 24 and 25. It will be billed as the energy conference, rather than the usual oil and gas conference. Last year was Fort St. John, the year before Fort Nelson and so on.

The conference is a time when the energy sector can get together with municipalities, the provincial government, first nations, the local area businesses as well as contractors to discuss issues and concerns and to look at what the future may bring. It's also an opportunity for municipalities to talk to the industry about issues that are of concern to them and for dialogue to flow between all of the groups. It's also a time for these groups to talk with the Energy Minister and have an opportunity to deal with any concerns that they may have.

The energy sector supplies many full-time, seasonal, spinoff jobs that help secure the future of our area. The northeastern part of the province has a very bright future not only in the oil and gas industry but in the entire energy sector in general. We know that there's a slight slowdown at present, but the price of gas will not stay at this low level forever, and we will be positioned to strike again once the price and the economy recover.

British Columbia remains one of the most competitive regions to do business primarily due to the good policies that this government has put in place over the past eight years. The oil and gas sector contributes in a huge way to the economy of British Columbia, with about 28 percent of the total resource revenue and an annual contribution of about $2 billion — a total of $38 billion since 2001. With the addition of the rest of the energy sector, these totals will increase dramatically in the future.

I want to congratulate the organizers of the annual conference and wish them continued success in the future.

WORK OF WOMEN'S ORGANIZATIONS

IN CAMPBELL RIVER

C. Trevena: I'd like to offer the House a couple of snapshots of life in Campbell River. We're always proud of our constituencies, and I'm particularly proud of the way people in the communities that elected me to represent them come together to help one another.

At the end of every summer the Campbell River Women's Centre becomes more of a focal point in the community for women than usual, so much so that it has to temporarily use another space in town to hand out school supplies. The binders, notebooks, bookbags, pencils, pens and scissors — the necessities of school life not provided by the school — are handed to those families who can't afford to buy them for their children.

[1345]

This year about 300 school supply kits were distributed. That's 300 children in town whose families can't afford the basics for their children's education. There's never any stigma in the annual school supply drive, and the volunteers from the women's centre try to match the students' individual preferences with the donated stock that they hand out.

A couple of weeks later another group of women comes together to help other women and their children. The annual Women for Women 10-kilometre run or walk raises money for bursaries to help women — often single mothers — with some of the costs involved in going to North Island College. This year enough cash was raised for at least four bursaries.

[ Page 563 ]

One of them was thanks to the donation of just one woman — a woman who was the first graduate of a high school child care program. She became pregnant in grade 12 but was able to stay in school and graduate, thanks to Cari's at Carihi. Now she's a nurse with a 17-year-old and a new younger family, but she knows she was lucky. Her child care was free, and as a single mom she had financial assistance to be able to attend post-secondary. She knows that women and their children are not so fortunate today and wanted to ease the way for at least one other woman to get a post-secondary education.

These are just two snapshots, but in so many ways and at so many times across the community, women come out to help women and their children have a better chance at a good life.

WOMEN IN GOVERNMENT

L. Reid: In 1918 Mary Ellen Smith became the first woman Member of the Legislative Assembly in the province of British Columbia. Over our history, we have elected 87 women MLAs in British Columbia. We now have a record 25 women, as well as the highest-ever percentage of women MLAs at almost 30 percent.

However, considering that women make up about half the population, clearly there is still work to do. The United Nations has emphasized that equality in decision-making is essential for the best public policy. One of the ways we can work towards this goal is by supporting organizations such as Equal Voice, an organization that is multipartisan and non-profit.

This autumn Equal Voice will launch a campaign to see more young women elected to all levels of government. Equal Voice brings together men and women, I'm pleased to say, who feel that more women must be elected to every level of government in Canada. These women and men come from every political stripe, and it is a great honour and pleasure for me to be part of this great organization. As it says on the Equal Voice website, our mission is to promote the election of more women to all levels of government and ultimately to change the face of Canadian politics.

This group deserves our support. I would like to encourage everyone to visit the Equal Voice website at www.equalvoice.ca. I also hope to see everyone at the Equal Voice event which will be held here at the Legislature in November.

GORGE WATERWAY CLEANUP

R. Fleming: Over the weekend a wonderful event took place in my community in Victoria–Swan Lake. I'm referring to the annual cleanup of the Gorge waterway. For the ninth year in a row, the Burnside Gorge Community Association and the Gorge-Tillicum Association hosted the Gorge Waterway Cleanup.

It was on Saturday, September 19 this year. It's an annual event that has become very successful and is actually linked to international initiatives during the month of September that are aimed at clearing up shorelines around the world.

These two community associations, which represent a shared shoreline in both Victoria and Saanich neighbourhoods, have been working with schools and small businesses, local government, non-profit organizations and hundreds of volunteers to clean up the ocean and shoreline of the upper arm of Victoria's harbour, which stretches from the Bay Street bridge to the Tillicum street bridge.

Over two tonnes of debris is retrieved during the cleanup of the Gorge each year. This benefits, of course, birds and wildlife and sea creatures. And the greater community will, and has, benefited from their activities over the years.

Like a lot of community members, I'm extremely proud of the results because we have a visibly cleaner stretch of land and ocean here in the urban area of Victoria. This includes a healthier habitat for a wide variety of species, and it also links up to one of our strongest recreational corridors that we have in this region. It's a beautiful area known as the Galloping Goose Trail.

Thanks to the annual cleanup, recreational activity in the Gorge is flourishing like never before. It's home to our region's dragon boat races. There are several rowing and kayak clubs on this waterway. There have been incredible improvements to water quality, which have actually enabled the return of one of the area's original water sports that was enjoyed on this pristine waterway, and I'm referring to swimming. I'm told that during the July heat wave, it actually was quite bearable for those activities to happen. Hundreds of people were seen swimming again in the Gorge waterway because of nine years of cleaning up.

[1350]

I want to thank the community and all the volunteers who participated again.

TYNEHEAD COMMUNITY HISTORY

D. Hayer: Remembering our history is incredibly important because it reminds all of us where we came from and what it took to make British Columbia what it is today. Nowhere in this province is our history celebrated more than in my riding of Surrey-Tynehead, which is one of the most historical areas in B.C. Tynehead dates back to the 1880s when they were first homesteaded by William Bothwell and his family, who were joined on a neighbouring homestead by William's brothers James and Thomas and their families.

The centrepiece of the area is, of course, Tynehead Hall on 168th Street and 92nd Avenue. This wonderful reminder of our history was built over a hundred years

[ Page 564 ]

ago. It is operated by Tynehead Pioneers association, Tynehead Historical Society and Tynehead Women's Auxiliary, the first women's auxiliary formed in B.C.

Every year there's a celebration of our history when the Tynehead Pioneers host, as they did last week, the annual reunion of members of Tynehead pioneers' families. I was in attendance on September 12, the 57th reunion, as I have attended every year since 2001.

This was a wonderful gathering of longtime families in our community of Tynehead. I want to congratulate the current Tynehead Pioneers association president Dave Stevens, grandson of pioneer Joseph Stevens's family who arrived in Tynehead in 1918; past president Zina York, granddaughter of pioneer Rory McCaskill's family who arrived in Tynehead 1890; and secretary Judy de Vries, granddaughter of pioneer William Frost's family who arrived in Tynehead in 1907.

I ask all the members in the House to join me in congratulating all those members, volunteers and family members for keeping our history alive and for reminding all of us of the value and importance of the contribution of all of those who over many years have made our community and our province the best place to live and a great province.

CURTIS BRICK

J. Kwan: At four in the afternoon on Wednesday, August 19, a crowd of 160 people gathered to pay their respects to Curtis Brick, a well-known and popular homeless man. Flowers were placed at the spot where he was found on July 29 in Grandview Park on Commercial Drive. His friend, Dwayne Koe, brought his guitar and sang a song called "We Are One." Curtis Brick, 46, died on one of the hottest days of the year mere metres away from a water fountain and children's water park.

Aboriginal outreach worker Eric Schweig saw Brick in the morning that day and became alarmed when he saw him convulsing almost six hours later. There are still outstanding questions relating to the circumstances of his death. Kat Norris of the Indigenous Action movement; David Dennis, president-elect of the United Native Nations; Grand Chief Stuart Phillip from the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs and the Vancouver Aboriginal Transformative Justice Services Society are asking for a coroner's inquest. Both the member for Port Coquitlam and I certainly agree with this request.

A number of Curtis Brick's friends regularly visit my constituency office. A group of people known as the Homeless Nation have frequented Grandview Park for many years and are an important part of our community. I would like to express my gratitude to them for informing my office of this situation and the caring attitude they have shown to each other and the kindness they have for their friend, Curtis. The Homeless Nation are amongst the most compassionate and caring people that I have ever met. They help to make our community stronger.

I would like to express my deepest condolences to Curtis's family, friends and many organizations that were in contact with him. I would like to ask all members of this House to recognize Curtis Brick and to thank the members of the Homeless Nation for showing such compassion and caring for their friend, Curtis.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

bill 8 — strata property

amendment act, 2009

Hon. R. Coleman presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Strata Property Amendment Act, 2009.

Hon. R. Coleman: I move that Bill 8 be introduced and read a first time now.

[1355]

Motion approved.

Hon. R. Coleman: I am pleased to introduce amendments to the Strata Property Act. This act oversees the creation of strata developments and how strata corporations must operate. These changes will provide greater certainty to own or rent a strata unit. They will significantly improve dispute resolution processes for strata corporations and strata owners, enhance consumer protection, improve certainty regarding the ability to rent a strata unit and clarify aspects of the act.

Small claims court will now be able to hear strata property disputes. The disputes will be solved faster and cost less money, and the amendments will create new arbitration and mediation processes. We are also improving the Strata Property Act so that strata corporations are more prepared for any future repairs or upgrades that need to be made.

Changes will enhance opportunities for renting out units and new strata developments, creating more housing opportunities in a tight rental market. These changes are the results of consultations with key stakeholders, including condominium associations, strata managers, developers and lawyers.

I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 8, Strata Property Amendment Act, 2009, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

[ Page 565 ]

Oral Questions

FUNDING FOR PUBLIC HEALTH

AND SPORTS PROGRAMS

C. James: In February B.C. Hydro paid $264,000 for some of the most expensive seats for 2010 events. Here we are, six months later, and this government is cutting programs that promote public health and active living and support kids' sports.

My question is to the Minister of State for the Olympics. Why is B.C. Hydro spending taxpayer dollars on Olympic luxury tickets, and why is this government making the choice to pay for a few to watch hockey when it's also cutting dollars for kids to actually play hockey?

Hon. M. McNeil: There's a reason most leading economists in Canada say B.C. is going to lead Canada in growth in 2010, and it is because of these Olympic Games. These games will be the single largest economic generator our province will undertake this coming year.

In addition, these games are expected to generate $4 billion in economic benefits at the very time we need it the most, so that we can afford to support health care and education.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Leader of the Opposition has a supplemental.

C. James: I'd like to remind the minister again that this is about choices — choices that this government is making to spend $264,000 for a very few people to be able to watch one of the most expensive events at the Olympics and cutting support for kids who actually want to play hockey in British Columbia all year round.

So my question, again…. I come back to the cuts. When we heard last week from the Minister of Healthy Living, the minister said that the cuts were only administrative spending. Then we heard that perhaps they were one-time pilot programs. Well, I would like to remind this House of the reality. B.C. Healthy Communities, a program that promotes healthy living in rural communities — a $556,000 cut. Active communities B.C. — five years this program has been going, providing services for aboriginal communities — $1.5 million in cuts.

So my question is again to the minister. Why is it acceptable to spend hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars on luxury boxes at GM Place when British Columbia is losing vital programs for kids and to keep our population healthy?

Hon. M. McNeil: B.C. Hydro is an official sponsor of the Olympics, and they are using this opportunity to promote conservation, which all of us on both sides of the House should be game for. But I would like to remind….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Continue, Minister.

[1400]

Hon. M. McNeil: I would like to remind the members opposite that hosting the Olympic and Paralympic Games offers the ideal opportunity to continue to spread the ActNow B.C. message on the importance of leading a healthy lifestyle. British Columbia now leads the country as the healthiest jurisdiction in Canada, and this government is proud of our record of support in this area.

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

C. James: I've never heard such an explanation. Using the money for conservation to send a few people to a luxury box during the Olympics? Perhaps the minister and government could tell B.C. Hydro to actually conserve the money to address climate change. That might actually be something positive to use the dollars for.

The government's story keeps changing but certainly not its priorities. We've seen minister after minister try and cover up the cuts that are coming. Last week we heard a minister describe the cuts in her ministry as only one-time pilot projects. Now we know that wasn't the case. We know that critical public health services are being cut.

Last week we found out that this government made the choice to spend $500,000 on an Olympic party. This week it's luxury seats at GM Place.

My question is again to the minister. When will this government get its priorities right? When will it start spending taxpayer dollars where they should be spent — supporting kids in sports and healthy communities?

Hon. M. McNeil: I find this interesting to hear from the members opposite, when the NDP has voted against cap-and-trade. They have voted against carbon tax and any of the green energy projects.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. M. McNeil: B.C. Hydro….

Mr. Speaker: Minister, just take your seat.

Interjections.

[ Page 566 ]

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. M. McNeil: I think it's very clear that B.C. Hydro is an official supporter of the 2010 Winter Olympic Games. They understand that in promoting these games they are able to get their conservation message out there. I think it's important for all of us.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Continue.

Hon. M. McNeil: I would like to ask the members opposite: what is it about the 2010 Winter Olympic and Paralympic Games that they have an objection to?

K. Corrigan: Well, that's the conservation message at 400 bucks a ticket. Over a quarter-million dollars of public money for the most expensive — the most expensive — private suite available, for 33 hockey games for a mere 20 privileged people, while thousands of the most vulnerable in B.C. will lose access to health promotion programs.

To the minister: why are 264,000 of taxpayer dollars being spent on an Olympic hockey game luxury box when British Columbians are losing access to important health services — services that B.C. Liberals promised to protect during the election?

Hon. M. McNeil: If the members opposite would have spoken to B.C. Hydro about their Olympic tickets, they would have discovered that the vast majority — more than 80 percent — of these tickets will be going to the public and to their customers. And again, these tickets will be….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Minister, just take your seat.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. M. McNeil: Again, these tickets will be distributed to residential and business customers who have demonstrated leadership in the area of conservation and to promote business development opportunities with B.C. Hydro.

[1405]

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Member has a supplemental.

K. Corrigan: We're well aware of that program. If the minister is telling me right now that those 400-bucks-a-seat tickets are going to members of the public and others, we'd be welcome to hear about it.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

K. Corrigan: We're talking 400 bucks a seat for just 20 people, and that doesn't include the cost of wining and dining the chosen few — this at a time when we are seeing cuts to sports, young athletes programs and health promotion services — things central to the success of the 2010 games.

To the minister: will she admit it was wrong to waste $264,000 — taxpayer dollars — to allow a few government insiders to watch exclusive 2010 events, when funding to support young school and community athletes and kids' sports is being obliterated?

Hon. M. McNeil: If I could repeat again that B.C. Hydro is an official sponsor of the 2010 Olympic Games. The vast majority of these tickets will be going to the public and their customers.

I think that if they did their homework, they would see that B.C. Hydro is there to spread the word of conservation and economic development in this province. These games will be an economic generator of almost $4 billion.

In just 144 days, when the games begin, there will be 250,000 people here in British Columbia to visit during the games. They will be spending their dollars, and they will be benefiting our province big-time. There will be over three billion viewers watching this province.

J. Horgan: So let me get this straight. The government expects us to believe and the people of British Columbia to believe that they scoured the books for discretionary spending to cut — like high school sports, like parent advisory councils, like programs for public health. And they missed luxury boxes for hockey games? If ever there was discretionary spending, one would think that would be it.

My question is to the Minister for the Olympics. Is B.C. Hydro going to promote conservation by turning the lights out in the luxury box when the hockey game is on? Is that how they're promoting conservation?

Hon. M. McNeil: Again, B.C. Hydro, an official supporter of the 2010 Winter Games, is a supporter out there for the Olympics. They will be demonstrating to the rest of the world, through the television audience that we will have, all about green energy and about conservation. These are important messages that obviously are lost on the other side of this House.

[ Page 567 ]

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

The member has a supplemental.

J. Horgan: I think you're missing the point. But what's new?

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

[1410]

J. Horgan: As much as I would like to hear more from the impartial Attorney General, perhaps I can pose my question to the Minister of Healthy Living. Perhaps she can explain to the people of my constituency and right across British Columbia how it is a good thing for British Columbians to reduce access to high school sports and then, on the other hand, spend a quarter of a million dollars so some fat cats can sit in a luxury box and watch hockey games. How do I sell that to my constituents? How do I do it?

Hon. M. McNeil: As I've said continually, the most leading economists are saying that we are going to lead the economy in growth in 2010, and it is because of the 2010 games. This will be the single-largest economic generator that we will have in 2010, and that's what's…. These games will generate $4 billion back into our economy at the very time we need it the most so that we can pay for our priorities, which are health care and education.

FUNDING FOR PUBLIC HEALTH PROGRAMS

J. Brar: People of British Columbia expect honesty, and they expect to be given the facts. That's not the case with this government, and that's not coming forward from this minister.

Last week, when we asked to provide the details of the 42.9 percent funding cuts in her ministry, the Minister of Healthy Living and Sport refused to provide the facts. Now we know. Now we know that significant cuts are on the table, and key Healthy Living services will be lost.

My question is to the Minister of Healthy Living and Sport. Can she now confirm that funding for B.C. Healthy Communities and active communities in B.C. has been cut? And will she also confirm that these are more than one-time pilot projects, as she claimed last time?

Hon. I. Chong: When we reviewed our ministry budgets to find administrative savings and other savings to ensure that we can protect our critical services — like health care, like education — we absolutely did take a look at where we were spending dollars in discretionary spending.

Discretionary spending is absolutely that. It provides an opportunity for us to fund pilot programs — some of which last two years, one year or even five years or longer — but they are, in fact, discretionary in the sense that they provide the opportunities for applications to come forward to allow us to support those initiatives in the community and then for the communities to build on that foundation.

We've done that, and many of the communities are going to continue to provide those services, because they do promote healthy living, they do have active, healthy lifestyles, and they want their citizens to be healthy, as we do.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

J. Brar: Three cabinet ministers, one file and zero answers — that's the deal. Mr. Speaker, $556,000 is being cut from B.C. Healthy Communities, and another $1.5 million is being cut from active communities in B.C., and yet the first response from this minister when we asked about the funding cuts was that these are administrative cuts.

This minister has had a week since we asked this question the first time. Can she finally provide the facts to the people of British Columbia by tabling the list of all funding cuts related to public health?

Hon. I. Chong: I appreciate the opportunity to correct the member opposite. Last week when I indicated that savings were being found throughout government to support health care and education, I did in fact say administrative savings were being found as well as in our discretionary spending.

[1415]

I didn't say to the member that there wasn't going to be a reduction in discretionary spending. He had the blue books. They were put out on September 1. The blue book, the estimates, actually shows that the amount set aside for discretionary spending has, in fact, been reduced.

However, we are continuing to support some of our critical programs — our QuitNow program, which is important for tobacco cessation. I don't hear the members opposite talking about that program.

There are a number of programs that we have supported in the past, which were provided to support pilot projects, which were provided to jump-start a number of communities so that they can promote healthy lifestyles. I can say that our ActNow initiative, our provincewide initiative, continues to gain international recognition, and that's one of the reasons why British Columbia is the healthiest population in all of Canada.

D. Donaldson: Just on Friday, September 18, the director of B.C. Healthy Communities, Jodi Mucha, had to

[ Page 568 ]

send a letter to her staff announcing more than $500,000 in program and staff cuts — cuts to seed grants for rural communities supporting food security initiatives, for example.

The minister responsible said to this House that she is cutting $20 million, with no program cuts. "Administrative only," she said. Well, that now flies in the face of reality. Will the Minister of Healthy Living and Sport tell us: did she not even know these cuts to programming in her own ministry were coming?

Hon. I. Chong: Once again, I want to advise the member that the savings that we have had to find throughout government to fund health care and to fund education come from a variety of areas, administration included, which is travel and office expenses, and also, as I indicated last week, deals with discretionary spending.

Discretionary spending is exactly as the word…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. I. Chong: …describes. It's discretionary in that it's not guaranteed funding each and every year. It does provide for opportunities on a year-to-year basis to take a look at those programs from applications that we wish to help fund seed dollars to. It may be to continue on to a program, but it also allows us, because it is discretionary, to fund new programs. The discretionary spending that has been reduced throughout government allows us to keep funding health care and education.

Mr. Speaker: Member has a supplemental.

D. Donaldson: Unbelievable. I mean, we all saw this minister's performance on television last week. She wasn't talking about discretionary cuts. She was talking about administrative cuts.

I'm asking the minister just one straightforward question, looking for a simple answer. Again, will the minister stand up and explain why she said that no programming cuts are taking place when it's obvious they are?

Hon. I. Chong: Well, it's obvious that those members opposite don't support finding the savings necessary to protect health care and education. They vote against every budget. They vote against every increase that we have to our health care and education spending.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Minister, just take your seat.

Members. Members.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. I. Chong: What is important is that we find savings to support health care and education, and the dollars we have available to continue to support critical programs are supported — critical programs such as our QuitNow program. We have the lowest tobacco use in this province, and we continue to drive that number down. Why? Because we support programs, and we work with the B.C. Lung Association through our QuitNow program. We're going to continue to fund that.

Those are some of the critical programs we'll continue to work towards. Other discretionary spending — there certainly have been programs that were introduced for one-year, perhaps two-year programs. Those are no longer going to be funded.

[1420]

A. Dix: The Minister of Healthy Living last Tuesday in question period described these cuts as administrative six times, while she increased her administrative budget by 5 percent and doubled the costs for her minister's office.

One of the programs they cut was the Healthy Choices in Pregnancy project, a $420,000 program designed, in the words of the now Minister of Children and Families, "to improve the health of mothers and their babies and decrease the number of infants born with fetal alcohol spectrum disorder." Can the minister explain why she chose to eliminate this program?

Hon. I. Chong: Well, I'm really proud to say that with our ActNow B.C. goal for counselling pregnant women about alcohol consumption, we've exceeded that goal. According to a review — fall of 2008, a physicians chart — 71 percent of pregnant women in British Columbia received counselling about alcohol consumption during pregnancy. That's a huge amount.

This member should know, as well, that all health authorities have a fetal alcohol spectrum disorder prevention plan in place. They are programs that are continuing to provide important information for women who are pregnant. That will continue.

A. Dix: In the fall of 2008 the ministry actually created this program. In February they confirmed it in the budget, and they confirmed the budget line. Then, in June the program was cancelled with no ability to assess its effectiveness.

And now — get this for ineptitude — the minister is stiffing B.C. Women's Hospital with the bill for the first three months of this fiscal year: $100,000. There was no explanation, none given by the minister just now, for cutting this program, which her own colleague lauded not less than a year ago.

A very simple question, Minister. We'll try it again. Why did the minister cut this program?

[ Page 569 ]

Hon. I. Chong: No government has done more to support pregnant women and mothers in the province than our government. Recently in Richmond a new maternity unit at Richmond Hospital was opened, a $6.7 million investment; a $13.8 million expansion and redevelopment of the maternal and pediatric unit at Prince George Regional Hospital. Our government has a strong record of support for pregnant women despite these challenging economic times.

SHELTER POLICY FOR HOMELESS

DURING EXTREME WEATHER

S. Simpson: Earlier this morning we received documents and heard about documents regarding the proposed assisting to shelter act. This is a piece of legislation, the key premise of which is nothing less than an outrageous and likely illegal imposition on the civil liberties of the homeless.

Just to note that if you look at the proposed process to assist persons to shelter, in point 5 it says: "…in order for the police officer to discharge their legal responsibility, the individual may be taken to police cells, either voluntarily or involuntarily, where they will be held until the extreme weather declaration is no longer in effect."

Now, we know the Minister of Housing and Social Development has been backtracking on this all day in the media.

Will the minister admit that if he had provided his staff with directions to look at ways to improve the stock of shelters for this winter, rather than directing the proposed schemes on how to strong-arm the homeless, we'd be better off today?

[1425]

Hon. R. Coleman: Don't confuse the critic for the opposition with the facts. He knows it's a discussion paper, but let me just stop there for a second. I just want you guys over there to think for a second.

If there was a way last winter, when three police officers talked to a woman on the streets of Vancouver, that you could have convinced somebody to go into a shelter rather than burn to death, would you come up with a piece of legislation or something to try and make that happen? Would you have enough…?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Minister, just take your seat. Minister, take your seat.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members on both sides, please.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. R. Coleman: Would you have the humanity to try and find solutions? Would you? Would you?

Let me tell you something, hon. Members. There were only 700 shelter beds in British Columbia at the time you left government in 2001. Today there are three times as many shelter beds in the province of British Columbia.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. R. Coleman: Calm down, Member. Calm down. I'll get to you, Member.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. R. Coleman: There were 1,300 units of supportive housing in the province of British Columbia for people with mental health and addictions that were homeless on the street. Today there are 5,000, plus a thousand more under construction.

[End of question period.]

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: In Committee A, I call Committee of Supply. For the information of members, we'll be beginning with the estimates for the Ministry of Labour, and in this chamber, second reading of Bill 2, the Budget Measures Implementation Act (No. 2).

Mr. Speaker: Could members going to Committee A…. We just want to get started.

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 2 — BUDGET MEASURES

IMPLEMENTATION ACT (No. 2), 2009

Hon. C. Hansen: I move that Bill 2, the Budget Measures Implementation Act (No. 2), 2009, be read a second time now.

Bill 2 is the first step in laying the foundation for economic recovery. The provisions in this bill give government the time needed to put in place the measures that will bring the budget into balance once again at the earliest opportunity.

It makes a number of amendments that will facilitate the business of government and ensure broader representation in the decision-making process.

[ Page 570 ]

Bill 2 secures a competitive tax system by providing further tax relief for individuals and for small businesses, and it clarifies a variety of tax treatments, including the treatment of motor fuels in relation to the renewable fuel standard.

Bill 2 is divided into two parts. The first part deals with non-tax budget measures, and the second part deals with the tax measures.

part 1, the Balanced Budget and Ministerial Accountability Act is amended to allow deficit budgets over the next four years, returning to a balanced budget in 2013-2014. Extending the deficit period from two to four years is absolutely necessary to ensure critical services are maintained for British Columbians.

[1430]

The changes that we have seen are too big. The loss of revenue is too great for governments to table a balanced budget any earlier than that without doing significant harm to critical services. Government accepts the consequences of this action, as laid out in the Balanced Budget and Ministerial Accountability Act. During the four-year period that the government will be tabling deficit budgets, government ministers will lose their 10 percent salary holdback until we return to surpluses.

Once we return to balanced budgets, government is still committed to eliminating the provincial government's direct operating debt. The Finance Statutes (Deficit Authorization and Debt Elimination) Act, 2009, is amended to adjust the date that government must begin retiring the operating debt to coincide with the resumption of balanced budgets.

Government has maintained the provision that once the deficit period is over, no supplementary estimates may be presented to this House until the direct operating debt is gone. This government is committed to living within its means, and as B.C. returns to solid fiscal ground, we intend to get rid of the direct operating debt once and for all.

Bill 2 also amends the Balanced Budget and Ministerial Accountability Act to ensure that supplementary estimates are automatically included in individual ministerial accountability targets. This measure streamlines the business of the Legislature by eliminating the requirement for separate legislation to adjust these targets every time supplemental estimates are passed by the Legislature. Other than the years when supplemental estimates will not be permitted, these supplemental estimates will still be debated and voted on in the House.

Once they are passed, the approved appropriations will immediately be added to a minister's accountabilities and a revised

schedule of those accountabilities will be included in the supplemental estimates. As well, ministerial accountabilities will no longer include statutory spending. As we've seen this summer with forest fire costs, statutory spending can increase significantly due to factors beyond the control of the ministers responsible. However, these amendments to individual accountabilities in the Balanced Budget and Ministerial Accountability Act do not alter cabinet's collective responsibility to balance the budget.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

Bill 2 amends the Budget Transparency and Accountability Act to set March 2 of 2010 as the legislated budget date for the 2010-2011 fiscal year. This allows the 2010-2011 budget to be presented in the lull between the Vancouver 2010 Olympic Winter Games, which end on February 28, and the start of the Paralympic Winter Games, which start on March 12.

This opportunity will bring together 7,000 athletes and coaches, a quarter of a million visitors and three billion television viewers to showcase British Columbia. The timing of budget day ensures that the full focus of the Legislature will be on the budget when it is presented. The amendment also allows the release of the third quarterly results for the 2009-2010 fiscal year on that same date.

Bill 2 amends the Continuing Care Act to enable the Minister of Health Services to alleviate financial hardship for low-income British Columbians by authorizing the reduction or waiver of user fees for continuing care services. The amendments authorize the Minister of Health Services to obtain client consent for the disclosure of personal information from other public organizations such as the Canada Revenue Agency.

This information is necessary for the purpose of determining the client's entitlement to a fee subsidy or a waiver. Collection of this type of information is consistent with the practice for low-income-based relief programs such as the shelter assistance for elderly renters and other programs.

The amendments also authorize the Minister of Health Services to prescribe how a payment is calculated, in order to allow for the use of a formula in place of fixed rates. Such a formula would increase the flexibility in determining client rates, particularly in instances of financial hardship. Similar amendments are also being made to the Hospital Insurance Act to enable the setting of differentiated rates and the waiver of payments in cases of hardship.

Bill 2 amends the Financial Administration Act to provide full voting status to private members of the Legislative Assembly who sit on the Treasury Board. This amendment ensures broad representation on the cabinet committee by enabling full participation in committee decisions by all members of Treasury Board.

[1435]

The amendment recognizes the chair and the vice-chair of Treasury Board to be members of the executive

[ Page 571 ]

council, and the majority of Treasury Board members must be appointed from executive council, thereby preserving the appropriate cabinet oversight of the committee's deliberations.

Bill 2 contains several amendments and provisions to facilitate the windup of Tourism British Columbia that was announced on August 17 of this year. The Financial Information Act and the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act are amended to strike out references to the corporation.

The Hotel Room Tax Act is amended to continue that portion of the tax dedicated to Tourism B.C. and to ensure that it remains as revenue allocated towards promoting tourism in the province. The Tourism Act is amended to enable the Minister of Tourism, Culture and the Arts to carry out the activities previously done by Tourism B.C. The Tourism British Columbia Act is amended to clarify how boards are appointed, and the Tourism British Columbia Act is, in fact, repealed effective April 1 of 2010.

Finally,

part 1 of Bill 2 contains a number of transitional provisions. Once Tourism B.C. is dissolved, Bill 2 provides for the transfer of all assets and liabilities of the corporation to the consolidated revenue fund, and Bill 2 designates the estimates and other budget documents presented to the Legislature on September 1, 2009, as the new estimates for the 2009-2010 fiscal year.

This clarifies the key financial planning, reporting and accountability reference points for the 2009-2010 fiscal year that are contained in the Budget Transparency and Accountability Act, the Balanced Budget and Ministerial Accountability Act and the Carbon Tax Act.

Part 2 of Bill 2 amends six tax statutes to implement many of the revenue measures announced in the September budget update. Bill 2 amends the Income Tax Act, effective January 1 of 2010, to increase the basic personal exemption by $1,627, or about 17 percent, from the current level of $9,373 to $11,000. The spouse and equivalent-to-spouse credits will be increased by the same amount. This tax cut will save a single person up to $72 a year and taxpayers with dependent spouses or single parents up to $147 a year and adds to the personal income tax cuts that we have introduced since 2001.

With this additional change, individuals in British Columbia earning up to $118,000 a year will now pay the lowest provincial personal income taxes of any province in Canada. It also means that an additional 75,000 British Columbians will no longer pay any provincial income tax at all. Because of the tax changes since 2001, an additional 325,000 British Columbians have been removed from the income tax rolls and no longer pay any provincial income tax.

Bill 2 also amends the Income Tax Act to provide further relief to small business by increasing the small business tax threshold from $400,000 a year to $500,000 a year. This is the highest threshold in the country and will save small businesses a total of about $20 million annually.

Other amendments to the Income Tax Act. It doubles the basic training tax credit for employers and extends the mining flow-through share tax credit for an additional year. Doubling the training tax credit increases the incentive for employers to hire and train new apprentices, and the extension to the B.C. mining flow-through share tax credit will continue to encourage individuals to invest in British Columbia's mining sector.

Bill 2 amends the Motor Fuel Tax Act and Carbon Tax Act in preparation for the renewable fuel standard, which comes into effect on January 1. The renewable fuel standard is an integral component of the province's climate action plan to reduce CO 2 emissions. It will require that the total volume of gas and diesel sold in British Columbia contains an average of 5 percent renewable fuel such as ethanol and biodiesel.

As a result of this requirement, effective January 1, 2010, Bill 2 amends the Motor Fuel Tax Act to tax ethanol and biodiesel at the same rates as the fuels with which they are blended or, if sold as pure ethanol or biodiesel, as gasoline or diesel fuels respectively. The Carbon Tax Act is also amended effective January 1 to impose carbon tax on ethanol as if it were gasoline and on biodiesel as if it were diesel or light fuel oil.

[1440]

However, the intent of the carbon tax is to impose tax on the actual CO 2 emissions from the combustion of fossil fuels. Therefore, the carbon tax rates for gasoline and light fuel oil are reduced by 5 percent to reflect the overall reduction in CO 2 emissions which will result from the renewable fuel standard.

These changes are, in part, a response to a significant administrative problem associated with the implementation of the renewable fuel mandate. It is not possible for sellers to track on a litre-by-litre basis the percentage of renewable fuel in each litre of blended fuel sold. These changes address those issues and allow sellers to comply with both their tax obligations and the renewable fuel standards.

Refunds of motor fuel tax and carbon tax are available for persons who entered into fixed-price contracts for ethanol or biodiesel before budget day, subject to certain eligibility requirements.

Bill 2 also contains a number of technical amendments to the Carbon Tax Act, the Motor Fuel Tax Act and the Social Service Tax Act to provide greater clarity and certainty for vendors, purchasers and administrators.

The bill amends the Carbon Tax Act to clarify the taxation of natural gas by eliminating the distinction between unprocessed, or raw, natural gas and marketable natural gas. This distinction is not necessary because both types of natural gas have the same emission profiles and tax rates.

[ Page 572 ]

As part of this clarification, two new fuel types are added to the carbon tax schedule: gas liquids and pentanes plus, both which are obtained from the processing of natural gas. These amendments come into force at the same time as the amendments resulting from the renewable fuel standard to minimize the compliance burden for fuel sellers.

The Carbon Tax Act and the Fuel Tax Act are both amended to clarify the exemption from the obligation to pay security on sales of fuels between eligible collectors by creating a special class of collectors called refiner collectors. This will provide greater clarity for collectors and ensure that the exemption is available to those companies that, in the normal course of their business, regularly exchange fuel, often in other provinces, to ensure that supplies are available as required in British Columbia. This exemption is consistent with the tax treatment for these fuel sellers in other jurisdictions.

Other amendments to the Carbon Tax Act clarify the exemption for fuel brought into British Columbia in the supply tank of a non-commercial aircraft or ship to restrict it to craft used solely for personal use. Separate rules are provided for commercial aircraft and ships to ensure that their domestic emissions are subject to carbon tax as intended. The grounds for suspending or cancelling an appointment, certificate or licence issued under the Carbon Tax Act or the Motor Fuel Act are expanded to include failure to provide a bond, as is required under the act.

The regulation-making powers under the Carbon Tax Act and the Fuel Tax Act are also amended to broaden the powers to make regulations with respect to appeals under the exempt fuel retailer program for fuel sales on first nations reserves. This ensures that exempt fuel retailers have appropriate appeal rights.

The regulation-making powers under the Carbon Tax Act are amended so that the regulatory provisions related to the eligibility of commercial air services that provide only interjurisdictional flights, and exemptions and refunds for commercial air and marine services providing interjurisdictional flights or trips, may be amended retroactively. This ensures that domestic emissions are taxed as intended, consistent with the current administrative practice.

Bill 2 amends the Social Service Tax Act to clarify the tax treatment of leased property that becomes real property during the term of the lease. These provisions are designed to ensure that the tax continues to be payable on leased property that is incorporated into real property, as has always been intended under the act.

The Social Service Tax Act is also amended to clarify the fuels which must be coloured under this act and to clarify the exemptions for drugs and vaccines as a result of amendments made by the Ministry of Health Services.

Finally, Bill 2 amends the Assessment Act to maintain the valuation date for pipelines and other continuous structures at the same date used for the 2009 taxation year. The intent of the assessment changes implemented last fall through the Economic Incentive and Stabilization Statutes Amendment Act, 2008, was to avoid valuing properties at the peak of the market. Bill 2 ensures that the continuous structure properties will not be valued at the peak of the market and will be treated consistently with other property types.

[1445]

It is also important that we look to the future and continue to work to strengthen our economy. Bill 2 implements measures that will continue to encourage investment and to foster a climate where B.C. businesses and industries will have a real competitive edge over their counterparts in other jurisdictions.

Bill 2 also provides income tax relief for individuals and families, and incentives for employers to train apprentices. These measures will help to position this province to take full advantage of the coming economic recovery and will ensure that we are building a future of prosperity for all British Columbians.

B. Ralston: I rise to speak on this bill, Bill 2, which is the group of legislation that seeks to implement the budget that was just tabled on September 1.

I do have a number of comments in a number of areas, but I think it's rather striking that the minister begins his remarks by talking about the goal of the budget being to set, he claims, a climate for economic recovery. He's far too modest, really, because he didn't mention in his remarks the harmonized sales tax, the HST.

This is not included in the measures. It's not included in these measures because there is no legislation before the House on that matter. We've heard from the Minister of Forests, who says that perhaps legislation will be introduced in the spring, but it's not clear just when that legislation will come forward.

This budget implementation act omits the centrepiece of the budget, and it's clear that introducing what is essentially a regressive tax in the middle of a recession will not assist business or consumers to guide their way towards recovery. I think it's certainly worthy of comment at this stage when attempting to assess the impact of the claims that are made by the minister about the budget in general.

The minister also speaks again about recovery but doesn't really — because this will be addressed in other legislation — speak about medicare premiums. It is anticipated in the budget that the estimate is that $1.6 billion approximately will be recovered through medical services premiums. That number is projected in the three-year projections to grow by 2011-2012 to $1.87 billion.

In this province most employers pay, whether they're unionized…. It's typically an aspect of a collective agreement or even is part of a regular, non-unionized

[ Page 573 ]

employment relationship. The employer pays medical services premiums for its employees. We've seen among the public sector employers that medical services premiums…. The announcement of the increase is a burden on those employers.

While the minister makes some claims about making tax measure changes to assist businesses in the recession, these are an impact on the bottom line of public sector employers, small business — those who pay them — and other employers who pay them regularly as a part of their benefits. Those measures, which are two really significant measures in the budget, are not included in these measures that are before us here at this time.

But the really, I suppose, galling part of this particular bill is the changes that are proposed to the Balanced Budget and Ministerial Accountability Act. The balanced budget act has been now changed — proposed changes — twice in one year. It might as well be written on a blackboard instead of being enshrined in statutes. It's so subject to change by this government.

The suggestion that the government finances will return to balance — there's a date given somewhere in the future — is of course subject to the fact that if that doesn't take place, the legislation will merely be changed again. The legislation, despite the fancy rhetoric, the high-flown words about a commitment to balanced budgets….

[1450]

This government has now run the two biggest deficits in the history of the province, the one projected for this year and back in 2003. They inherited a surplus in 2001-2002 of $1.5 billion, confirmed by the Auditor General in the public accounts of the province, and quickly took the province's finances into the biggest deficit ever seen. We're now back, with their dismal record of fiscal incompetence and bad management, to the biggest deficit, yet again, in the history of the province.

This government was quick to claim, when commodity prices were high, when the world economy was chugging along, that this was all the magic of B.C. Liberal management. But now that the economy is in the tank and the government did not prepare properly for an inevitable downturn, somehow this is a problem of the global economy and no responsibility can be assigned or claimed by B.C. Liberals on the opposite side of the House.

It's fine to take the credit on the way up, but when it comes to the downturn, someone else is to blame. There's never an opportunity, it seems, to look in the mirror and face squarely what was going on, and that relates to the budget that was tabled in February.

We heard the repeated claims of the Premier — most notably on April 23, square to the cameras — that the deficit in this province would be $495 million maximum, a very emphatic, clear statement which obviously, by the tabling of this budget, was not accurate, not correct.

One wonders what was passing through the Premier's mind at the time he said that in public. The rules in this place constrain me from saying more, although I have said more outside the chamber, about what we on this side of the House think about what the Premier was thinking at that particular point.

We now have the necessity to amend yet again the balanced-budget legislation. There seems to be a somewhat reduced level of rhetorical piety here, although it was very evident the last time these amendments to this statute came forward. But this is the Premier, who claims that he tosses and turns at night, not about some of the other decisions that he makes but about whether or not the government would run a deficit.

Given the record of seven deficits in 12 years, that must really account for a number of sleepless nights for the Premier, which I think speaks to the fact that there's a certain measure of irreality about these measures, that they're really intended as political talking points. There's not a sincere commitment to them, and it's well understood in the quiet of the cabinet room that this is something merely to float forward for political debate and political opportunism, rather than anything that is a sincere commitment about managing the finances of the province.

The measure will be changed. It will now permit the government to run deficits, rather than for two years, for four years. That's to project a deficit in the main accounts, the main estimates of the province, for the next four years. It's clear, given some of the estimates that are contained in the budget document about projected growth, whether it's in resource revenue or government revenue generally, that this may not come to pass. Certainly, there are some fairly optimistic projections in the years 2011-2012 and 2012-2013 about renewed growth.

[1455]

I hope, on behalf of the citizens of British Columbia, that those numbers come to pass, but I think informed opinion and economists who examine those projections and the underlying assumptions that found that overall conclusion suggest that that may be optimistic at best and completely unrealistic at worst.

There is certainly informed economic opinion, and obviously, there's a real debate going on among economists about what the new normal, as it's sometimes referred to, will be. I think there's a sense, an emerging consensus, that the new economy in the United States, our biggest trading partner and the predominant influence on the economy of this province, will be different than it was before.

It may not return to the levels of growth that we saw in the United States for some time, particularly in the housing sector and in the rate of unemployment, although it's a lagging indicator, generally, in a recession. Some economists predict that it will continue to rise in the United States, none of which is particularly

[ Page 574 ]

good news for this part of the world and for the citizens of British Columbia.

To talk about this piece of legislation, which is included in Bill 2, the balanced-budget legislation, really is to commit the government to, basically, a process of continuous revision and amendment of this statute — to what effect, it's not clear. It would be more realistic to table legislation that included and recognized, at its fundamental base, the opportunity, where the economic growth was not there, to run deficits as an expected part of the business cycle.

So certainly, that part of Bill 2,

part 1, "Non-tax budget measures," the amendment proposed to the Balanced Budget and Ministerial Accountability Act, is something that really deserves further scrutiny, which we will attempt to provide when we come to debate at committee stage.

The minister says that this bill is there to provide…. The claim that's made is that this is there to provide the basis for renewal and growth in the economy. Yet I think that the Council of Tourism Associations takes a very different view of the budget measures. They were completely taken by surprise by the provincial budget and described it in their media release on September 1, the day that the budget was tabled…. They described the provincial Budget Update 2009 as a bitter pill to swallow for the B.C. tourism industry.

This is an important sector and, as they point out, one that has been traditionally supported not only by the government but by the opposition. It's recognized as a growing sector. Certainly, there are a number of niche markets in tourism where the potential for growth is there.

But this budget not only dissolved Tourism B.C. That's part of the measures in this bill, Bill 2. It requires the legislation to be amended to direct the hotel room tax, the 3 percent, which was directed to Tourism B.C…. It's now to be directed to general revenue.

Tourism B.C. was widely regarded as a successful organization here in British Columbia, across Canada and internationally, as a successful vehicle — indeed, regarded by some as a model vehicle — for promoting tourism, for uniting tourism operators and for providing the kind of marketing dollars that are necessary in a cluttered mediascape to draw attention to British Columbia as a destination for tourism of all kinds, whether it's adventure tourism, wilderness tourism, hunting, the cultural attractions of British Columbia, the fantastic landscape or the warmth of the people here.

All of that was something that was built up over a number of years in a very effective organization and, at the stroke of a pen in the budget, dissolved. This Budget Measures Implementation Act provides the legislative tools to finish off the process of burying Tourism B.C.

[1500]

The tourism industry basically received a double whammy in the budget, and this legislation really confirms that. Tourism operators are very worried about the impact of the HST on their operations and their competitive position, particularly vis-à-vis Alberta and in relation to Washington State.

Generally, there is a deep concern, which they have expressed publicly and very widely. Particularly in a number of regions — such as the Kamloops region, which as the economy shifts there from a dependence entirely upon the natural resource sector to a more broadly based economy, of which tourism is a big part — they're very concerned and very troubled by the direction taken in this budget.

The elimination of the central coordinating body, the marketing arm, the overall leadership that's been provided by Tourism B.C…. This bill puts the legal finishing touches on doing away with it. So there is, I think, a real and deep concern about that aspect of this Budget Measures Implementation Act.

There are some other measures that are taken and contained within the body of the bill that I want to comment on as well, and I'll leave clause-by-clause detail for committee stage.

The change that's proposed to the Financial Administration Act,

section 9, allows non-cabinet Members of the Legislative Assembly to be appointed to the Treasury Board as long as the majority of the members are also cabinet members. This is something that I expect to explore further at committee stage, but I would say that at this stage I understand that non-cabinet members were members of Treasury Board but did not have the power to formally register their vote.

I suppose it really confirms a practice of membership on the committee but accords them a formal vote, which is something that they did not have before. If I'm wrong on that, I'm sure I'll be corrected at the appropriate stage.

I guess it does raise the question of the ultimate accountability of non-cabinet members of Treasury Board, since the avenue to question individual cabinet ministers is available in question period. Non-members of cabinet, those private members on the government side who might be members of Treasury Board, are not subject to the opportunity to be questioned. So it does leave, it seems to me, a gap in basic accountability.

That's something that, while it may be an administrative convenience for the operation of the Treasury Board committee — which is, after all, the most important committee of cabinet because it makes the ultimate decisions on spending…. It does seem to me to detract from basic accountability.

The other comment that I wanted to make was on some of the changes that are proposed in the Carbon Tax Act. There's a number of provisions here that make the change, but I think I just want to make it clear that if

[ Page 575 ]

the intention of the amendments — which I think it is — is to reduce the carbon tax on the renewable portion of the mix of fuel that's ultimately provided, I'm prepared and I think we're prepared to support that.

But it's not clear from the way in which some of the provisions are drafted that this is indeed the intention. There does appear to be some ambiguity, at least as I read those sections, at this stage. So that's something that I think will quite properly be dealt with at committee stage.

[1505]

The other provision that deserves comment at this stage is the increase in the basic personal exemption and the basic exemption for spouse and equivalent. These are the lowest-wage earners, the lowest level of income, in the sense that that threshold — basic personal exemption and the basic exemption for spouse and equivalent — would be increased. I would indicate at this stage that we support that. The other provisions are things that I think should be pursued more fully at committee stage.

In drawing my relatively brief remarks on these sections to a close, I just want to stress that we oppose this bill, with the qualifications that I've made. This bill seeks to implement the measures of a budget that we do not support, which we voted against. We continue to oppose, and the public out in British Columbia, when they've examined the measures — most importantly the HST, which is a part of the budget but not particularly a part of these statutory amendments to implement the budget — vigorously and widely oppose this budget.

The measures that are required to bring this budget into existence we will fight, we will oppose and we will vote against, subject to the several qualifications that I've given.

D. Routley: It is my pleasure always to stand in this House and speak to the government the views of my constituents, but it becomes rather tiresome to rise on the same subject over and over again — the subject of the B.C. Liberal deception when it comes to budgeting and throne speech replies.

What this bill does is present us with the mechanisms necessary to implement the budget that was delivered to us a couple of weeks ago. Again, this needs to be a speech about deception and about truths untold.

Deputy Speaker: Member, the language you're engaging in is unparliamentary. I'd ask you to withdraw.

D. Routley: Withdrawn.

When government tells its people that it's going to do one thing and then it does another thing, then the people rightly lose faith. This shows a contempt. This is a misleading of the voters of B.C.

When we are told that the deficit before the election would be a maximum of $495 million, only to find out after the election that it was indeed six time greater than that, people feel misled. They feel misled. They feel as though their government has failed to tell them the truth and that it has presented false information to them at the most critical time, when this province was facing a huge challenge economically and as they were headed to the polls to bring judgment on the government's performance.

The people of B.C. expect more from government. They expect that their principles will be reflected by their government. They expect that their principles of empathy, consideration, hard work and honesty will be reflected by the government they elect.

Unfortunately, they found the complete opposite, and this bill is just a confirmation of what the government did before the election — knowingly told the people that the deficit would be one figure when they knew it was clearly going to be much greater than that.

They didn't tell the truth. The Premier and every member on that side of the House went door to door throughout this province and made promises to the people of B.C. that they have broken. This bill is a confirmation of that.

This government was elected on a false premise. This government promised not to harmonize the HST, and the budget has promised to do exactly that — the throne speech, promising to do exactly that. This government, in writing, promised industry in this province that they wouldn't take that step, just weeks before the election. This bill is a confirmation, again, of that broken promise.

Every member on that side of the House, particularly those who were elected by very narrow margins, knows that if they stood today, we would have a much different result. In standing today, the people of B.C. would know the truth of what they were told.

[1510]

The members told this province that they would not harmonize the PST with the GST. This Premier has held that as a policy and a principle for at least ten years, and yet they turned around and did exactly that.

It's not so much the issue of the tax itself that draws people through the doors of my constituency office. Why they come in is objecting to the principle of not being told the truth. They recognize that solutions and remedies and policies that address our problems need to shift and change with context. What they don't expect is that our principles will shift and change with the context for political expediency, which is clearly what this government did and clearly what this bill confirms. They expect us to be truthful, open and accountable.

Previous budgets have promised to address the issues that face our children. What does this budget do? It

[ Page 576 ]

confirms this government doesn't care. We now, for the sixth year running, have the highest child poverty rate in the country, and this bill confirms the government cares nothing about that.

For the second time in two years — in fact, in only nine months — we're asked to amend the government's balanced-budget legislation. It's a ridiculous discrediting of this government's budgeting forecasts. They didn't tell the truth to the people of B.C., and this is the result.

When we see half the people of the province choosing not to vote, they can hardly be blamed — cynicism being a booming commodity in this province, built and grown in the spaces between the words of their broken promises. We can hardly blame the people of B.C. for not turning out. We couldn't blame them for being resigned that their representatives will not be telling them the truth.

But they haven't given up that hope. You can see it in the reaction to the HST. You can see it in the anger in this province directed towards this government — not based on policy but based on principle, based on the principle that this government didn't tell the truth, that they misled the voters. That's why people are angry. That's why the Premier's rating is so low and the B.C. Liberals' polling is at the lowest it's ever been. It's because of cynical acts like this.

It was politically expedient at the time for them to bring in their balanced-budget legislation that they did. We told them at the time it was not flexible enough, that it was denying the reality that there is a business cycle. But for political expediency, they insisted that they were immune. They were immune from all of those realities.

As long as the money was flowing, they could paint themselves green and make themselves immune to the business cycle. Now, this bill and the budget that it implements show us that none of that was true.

Any thinking person in B.C. knew it wasn't true, but this Orwellian reality that this government puts forth — these mistruths that are delivered, these words that are meaningless, the new relationship…. Yet our first nations still labour with horrible levels of poverty, unacceptable levels of unemployment, a housing reality that has an average of ten to 12 people per home on our first nations reserves. That is what this government has delivered as a legacy to this province, and this bill confirms it.

Throne speech after throne speech, budget after budget, assumed metaphors that were never realized in action and never meant anything to people on the ground.

The housing budget didn't build a single unit of housing. This government counts, as a subsidy to parents, a tax credit for child care as being a contribution, as creating child care spaces.

[1515]

It's like the assisted-living myth. They took housing money that had been withdrawn by the federal government and that was finally restored in 2002 and directed it to covering another broken promise — the 5,000 long-term care beds — and built assisted-living instead.

Meanwhile, affordable housing in this province went without being built, and people who have waited and waited on waiting lists that are over 10,000 long still wait. Yet they label their initiatives, in the most Orwellian fashion, as housing budgets or children's budgets. What is the outcome? The highest rates of child poverty. We have seniors as the fastest-growing group of homeless in this province, by percentage. They had a seniors throne speech as well. It's pathetic that we have to stand here and address these failings by this government.

A government is meant to do two basic things: to protect its people from harm and want, and to empower the people. It is meant to protect the public interest, but this government, in this implementation act and in its budget, failed to do either of those things. It failed to protect the public interest and redress what it did to our forest industry. It failed to protect the people of B.C. from harm or want in allowing poverty rates to grow without any word of a poverty reduction strategy in either the throne speech or the budget. This act continues that failing by a weak government that has failed to protect the people of B.C.

The tourism industry — their friends — are reacting to the HST, reacting to the cancellation of Tourism B.C. They're not listening. If people cry out, this government either doesn't hear them or shuts them up, and we can see that with the failing of their support for an institution, Tourism B.C., that was judged both in B.C. and around the world as being a leader in promoting B.C.

B.C. was fighting over its weight class in the tourism industry. We were doing better than could ever be expected because of Tourism B.C., yet to quiet the voice of the tourism industry, it was cancelled. Not the 3 percent hotel room tax that supported it. No, that'll be directed by this bill directly to government. That will still be collected. But we won't have the service of that institution, that enterprise — B.C. Tourism. The tourism industry calls that a failure, an abandonment and a betrayal.

New levels of irony are reached every time this government brings forward budget legislation. The Premier, who said he would lose sleep over the notion of a deficit, now has to accept amendments to his own balanced-budget legislation for the second time in less than a year. It's ridiculous. It's not credible.

This government shows contempt for the people of B.C. through its budgets, its throne speech, its deception. This is the legacy of the B.C. Liberal government — a decade…. As the member for Nanaimo put it, a decade of deceit, a decade of broken promises — the only booming commodity being poverty and cynicism.

It's sad how they struggled to ignore the coming downturn, how they struggled to tell us that we were immune from it, as forecasts throughout this province back in

[ Page 577 ]

late 2008 in September and October were warning the Finance Minister that housing starts were declining, retail sales were declining and GDP was declining.

They could see the forest revenue declining, yet what did they do? They promised the people of B.C. that it wouldn't happen here, that there would be a $495 million deficit — not a penny more; that was the maximum — and that for two years they would run a deficit. After three years, they decreed, they would balance the budget.

Now they reappear before the people of B.C. with another act that amends that promise, promising four years of deficits and somehow decreeing that then we will right our ship, and we will again be in the black. Well, so far, their forecasts have been less than reliable, their promises less than reliable.

[1520]

I wonder what the next budget implementation act will look like. I wonder what promise will be broken by it. I wonder what confirmation of debt and deficit will be recognized and acknowledged by it. This is a government that promised no deficits. This is a government that stood up and said it would reduce our debt, and yet by 2013 we'll have doubled our debt. That doesn't include the off-balance-sheet accounting they're doing through their public-private partnerships.

This is a weak government. This is a government that has mismanaged the fortunes of B.C. But even that would be giving them too much credit, because the real agenda, as we can see it, is transferring the benefit of this province from the hands of the many upward to a few of their supporters.

We can see it in the way they've moved the tax burden towards those who can least afford it. This HST moves the tax burden towards consumers. Over 70 percent of the tax files in this province are paid by the bottom three tax brackets. Over 70 percent of the tax files in this province are paid by people who earn less than $70,000 per year.

This government is transferring wealth to the wealthy and robbing the average British Columbian of the benefit of their province. Ordinary people and families are the ones paying for these broken promises through service cuts, through increased fees. Medicare payments increased by 50 percent and now by another 6 percent. Fee after fee. Licence fees. All of the things that ordinary British Columbians pay have added to the burden and have removed the burden from their friends.

So it's hardly mismanagement. In fact, they've done a very good job of managing things for their friends. They've given away the benefits of our province. They've given away the rights to our rivers. They've given away the obligation of forest companies to manufacture wood in this province. They've mismanaged our core industries to the point where what it will take to recover is gone. They've auctioned off and liquidated our common wealth.

Those are the principles that guide this government. A strong government protects the people of the province and their public interest. The Auditor General has repeatedly condemned this government's actions as failure to protect the public interest — failure. Failure by a weak government. A strong government would balance the interests of this province in the way that benefits the most people, not the few.

This government has failed to protect the people of B.C. This government fails to empower the people of B.C. as it cuts from education programs, as it cuts from literacy programs, as it cuts from services to children and families. That's the reality of this government.

A strong government would stand up to those realities and bring in policies that help people, not hurt them. Tough choices to this government mean taking from the many and giving to their friends. How tough is that, Madam Speaker? How tough is it for them to take a cheque from major forest companies and give away the jobs of this province with deregulation? How tough was that?

The tougher choice would have been facing these realities and coming out the other side without diluting the common wealth of this province, without giving up on the housing policies and programs that they slashed and cut when they came to power. None of these things are addressed or remedied by this. In fact, it's a confirmation of the deceit.

[1525]

It's been a long eight years for British Columbians as they've watched this government plunge its hands into the treasury of this province and give away what our parents built. But that's what they've seen. They expect more. They should have received more. Instead they've seen mismanagement. They've seen management, in fact, that acted for the few at the expense of the many.

There's a certain sadness about it, but there's a resolve within British Columbians that we can do better. When I go around the province and speak to people about the HST and about the budget deceit of this government, they don't say: "Well, we're giving up." They're angry. You're not angry when you've given up. They're resolved to changing things. They're resolved to bringing this government to account for these deceitful promises that they knew were untrue.

They knew that they were telling the people of British Columbia what was not true. I mean, the same people are saying they recognize that the approach to a problem needs to evolve and change as the circumstances and the context of that problem evolve and change.

The people of B.C. are mature. They're ready to stand up and get behind the task of rebuilding our province. But what they also know is that they weren't told the truth. They weren't told the truth. It's very basic. It's the most basic thing that they expect, and they don't support the HST.

[C. Trevena in the chair.]

[ Page 578 ]

That member has seen the polls just as well as I have. They reject it. They reject the transfer of the burden of this province to them. The member's own Premier for ten years was against it. Then suddenly, in an epiphany immediately after the election — I think it must have been at about 8:45 — they realized that somehow it was the best thing that could ever be done for our economy.

Too bad they didn't share that with the rest of the province. Too bad they didn't share that with the restaurant industry and the tourism industry and the builders of B.C., when they wrote them letters promising not to do it — promising not to.

Interjection.

D. Routley: Promises broken, Member. Squirm. Twist on a rope.

It's difficult for this government to face the truth. They certainly don't share the truth with people when they run for office.

The member for Kamloops–South Thompson — I was in his community just the other day, and the people there are angry. They're angry with the member for having gone door to door with them and promising that the size of the deficit wouldn't be above $495 million and that it would only go for two years, when he knew and his government knew that wasn't true.

He campaigned with false information. This government was elected on false premises. This government has no credibility. This government is illegitimate.

The people in that member's community lined up to tell me on Saturday how they were affronted, how they were insulted by the broken promise he made on their doorstep. That member told his constituents that they would not harmonize the PST with the GST. He told them that.

What did they do? They turned around and broke that promise. They broke that promise. So the issue to those people isn't the tax itself, Member, through the Chair. The issue is the promise you broke — through the Chair, Madam Speaker. That member campaigned on false information. That government was elected on false information.

[1530]

Madam Speaker, people expect more. They're ready in this province to get behind leadership that's credible and honest with them, which shares the truth of their economy and their society, that doesn't duck the difficult truths, that doesn't hide behind false promise and Orwellian titles to throne speeches and budgets, that faces up to the facts of this province, shares them with the people and then consults with the people and asks the people: "What should we do? How do you want us to address these problems? These are our principles. We believe in you, the people of B.C., that you can solve these problems, and we'll work with you and support you."

But that government didn't do that. They hid, they spun the truth, and people know it, and people are outraged. This bill is simply a confirmation of it, simply a confirmation that what they do is good for them first and their friends. What they do and the decisions they make are meant for them and their friends, not the people of B.C.

People in B.C. expect their government to put this province first, to put their public interest first, to put the interest of children and families and our forest industry and the forests themselves first. But what you have to do to get to the front of the line with the B.C. Liberal government is write a big enough cheque. That's what you have to do. You have to be a big donor.

The government that prides itself on cutting carbon emissions now sends the benefit to international trade ahead of local business, penalizes local business. The restaurant industry creates more entrepreneurs than any other industry, and they penalize it.

Interjection.

D. Routley: I guess they didn't contribute enough — eh, Member? I guess the restaurants in his constituency didn't contribute enough. Yes, yes….

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Order, Members. Order.

D. Routley: Madam Speaker, another broken promise — not to do what this government has done to on-line gambling: a $9,999 weekly limit; half a million dollars per year limit. That member for Kamloops–South Thompson is quoted as saying that an expansion in gambling would mean that women would die, that children would die and that that would be on the heads of any MLA or the government who supported it. And look at him now.

Interjection.

D. Routley: Look at him now heckling me when I tell him that his own constituents, as recently as two days ago, were telling me how they felt so betrayed, so betrayed on their own doorsteps. They heard the knock on the door, and they opened, and there was that member promising not to bring in an HST What did he do? He brought in an HST. How does he equate that with what he told his voters?

People in this province expect more. The people who built this province did more than this government did. They invested in us and our future, and we've inherited that foundation. The values that that represents, the

[ Page 579 ]

values of openness, honesty and hard work have been broken and besmirched by the actions of this government time and time again.

Here we are again, lined up in this place, them facing us and asking us to endorse a bill that would allow them to break yet another promise, because they don't really care. They say what they need to say to get by on the day they say it.

I spoke during my throne speech reply of opposites day, a game that I play with my children. That's the day that they love spinach and hate ice cream. That's the day they turn on the light to go to sleep and turn off the light to read. So you know what the game is — right, Madam Speaker?

[1535]

Well, for this Premier and this B.C. Liberal government, opposites day is elections day. Opposites day is when they say: "We won't harmonize the GST and the PST. We won't sell B.C. Rail. We won't tear up contracts."

The trouble is that they don't share the information with B.C. that this is opposites day. There's another word for that. It's not opposites day. I can't say it very clearly here because of the rules of this House, but every British Columbian knows the word I'm talking about, and this government did it. They did it to British Columbians. They misled British Columbians. They told mistruths.

Deputy Speaker: Be careful, Member, please.

D. Routley: I am being careful, Madam Speaker. I am being careful, but it's difficult. There was an American general who referred to mistruths as bovine scatology. With HST, maybe it's equine scatology.

In the end it doesn't matter how we say it. This government did it. They misled this province. They deceived this province in getting elected. They told this province things that weren't true. So I don't know.

There's a shorter word for it, but I can't use it. But everyone listening knows it, and they know they did it. This bill confirms it again.

To sum up, this government can't be trusted. This province doesn't trust them. We will provide leadership that people can get behind and trust, that will support them, that will empower them, that will protect the public interest. That's what this side of the House will do.

S. Fraser: I rise today to speak to Bill 2. This is the Budget Measures Implementation Act (No. 2), 2009. It's second reading, and I very much enjoyed the comments just made by my colleague from Nanaimo–North Cowichan. He's pretty much covered it, I think, but I get a chance to cover it now too.

I do note that throughout his oration — very great, accurate oration, I must say — he held his patience and, I'd say, temper amongst quite riddling comments and heckling from the ministers on the other side. I notice that they were allowed to do so with impunity, and I note also that the Liberal members and ministers, while they are comfortable sitting in their seats heckling, are not so comfortable, I would note, to stand up on record and make statements in defence of this.

The minister's opening comments, I would note, were pretty shaky on this one, and for good reason.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Just one moment. I would ask all members to come to order, please. If they would like to speak about this bill, they can speak about it, but please, could you come to order.

Continue, Member.

S. Fraser: This is the Budget Measures Implementation Act. Basically this act, the way I understand it…. I am getting somewhat confused on how this act works, because we've seen this act play out before. It is a hard act to follow.

It amends the Balanced Budget and Ministerial Accountability Act. Just for those watching that may not know the Balanced Budget and Ministerial Accountability Act, the Liberals brought it in very early on in their term. It basically made it illegal to run a deficit. It's where I start getting confused.

They brought it in right after the election that they won — so 2001. The NDP had just handed them a record surplus, according to the Auditor General. The structural deficit is in the ministers opposite.

[1540]

They took a record surplus inherited by the then NDP government, and they turned it in a blink into a record deficit. It was at the same time as this bringing in the record deficit, which was all based on paying back their friends, their donors, at the expense of all British Columbians.

So what happened there? While they were bringing in the largest deficit in the history of the province of British Columbia from the largest surplus that they inherited, they brought in the Balanced Budget and Ministerial Accountability Act, which said that you couldn't run a deficit. While they were bringing in the largest deficit in the history of the province, followed by at least two more deficits, which in my mind were contrary…. They were the polar opposite of what was supposedly intended in the wording of the Balanced Budget and Ministerial Accountability Act.

What is the purpose of

an act, brought in with much fanfare, that the government is breaking as they're writing it? We have a record surplus inherited from the NDP government turned into a record deficit. To cover that, to much fanfare, bring in legislation that says you can't

[ Page 580 ]

run a deficit while they're running the largest deficit in the history of the province, followed by deficit after deficit, until commodity prices went through the roof.

It could have been an orangutan in the chair of the Premier, and there would have been a surplus, and there would be nothing you could do about it. The commodity prices went through the roof. This government got out of their deficit after deficit after deficit that, according to the Balanced Budget and Ministerial Accountability Act that they brought in, they weren't supposed to be running.

All through the next few years the commodity prices stayed high. Interest rates were as low as they could go, housing was up — things that the provincial government has really no say over. Yet this government took credit for it. What they didn't take credit for was three back-to-back deficits that were simultaneous with their Balanced Budget and Ministerial Accountability Act that said that you couldn't run a deficit in the province of British Columbia.

If you can understand this, you're doing well. I'm trying to lay it out in a way that I can sort of recapture what's happened, because we're here today bringing in Bill 2, the Budget Measures Implementation Act (No. 2), 2009, that's to amend the Balanced Budget and Ministerial Accountability Act, which was in place to say that you couldn't have a deficit.

We know that the Premier doesn't want a deficit because the Premier does not want to lose sleep. He's on record as saying that, and we don't want the Premier to lose sleep. But I digress. The Premier said this about nine months ago because the Premier and the Finance Minister brought in a similar act that amended the Balanced Budget and Ministerial Accountability Act so that they could run a deficit, and we're doing it again today — second reading of another bill.

It is like the bill is written in invisible ink. Why did they bring in such a bill? What will the future hold for us? Every time this government bungles the finances of the province, they'll bring in another amendment to amend the Balanced Budget and Ministerial Accountability Act to allow them to run another deficit.

[1545]

Now, I think this will make it seven deficits in 12 years, as this plays out. The Liberals have become experts at running deficits. It is ironic that the Liberals actually brought in a bill initially saying that you couldn't run a deficit, because we spend a lot of time in this House debating bills to undo the bill that says you can't run a deficit. Hypocrisy comes to mind. The deficit is a moral one, I would submit.

The minister said in his earlier speech that this bill will set the stage for economic recovery. Well, if I recall last week in question period and, following that, the minister's statements — the minister responsible for the finances of this province — we have yet to achieve the money from the federal government that was designated for economic stimulus, for economic recovery during the worst recession in memory.

If you recall, the federal government, a year ago or so, announced about a half a billion dollars for B.C. for shovel-ready projects. The Premier said, "Fast-track them. Yep. Economic recovery. We are great fiscal managers" — even though we don't need the economic stimulus, because the Liberals said they were such great fiscal managers that British Columbia was immune to the worldwide recession. Great news.

Instead of accessing this half a billion dollars of federal stimulus money, like the other provinces did, we learned last week that the shovels that were ready in the other provinces won't get a chance this construction season in British Columbia. There will be no stimulus money in British Columbia this season.

So when the minister says Bill 2 sets the stage for economic recovery, it is laughable. This government could not even assess the importance of a half a billion dollars. All they had to do was match it. It's one-third, one-third, one-third — which means that for a half a billion dollars from the province, they would access a half a billion dollars from the federal government and a half a billion dollars from local government. So that's like for 33 cents, you get a buck's worth of stimulus, thousands of jobs.

Bill 2 and the comments by the minister saying it sets the stage for economic recovery…. This government couldn't set the stage for economic recovery if their life depended on it. Many people's livelihoods depend on some sort of economic recovery and economic stimulus, but this government couldn't even get their act together to get a half a billion dollars from the feds.

Now, local governments applied in good faith — hundreds of projects across the province: infrastructure projects, local community hall projects, road projects, construction projects of all kinds. Thousands of jobs should be flowing, shovel-ready jobs, into this province, and they're not.

Deputy Speaker: I'd like to remind the member that we are discussing Bill 2.

S. Fraser: Ah, thank you, Madam Speaker. It's so easy to get slipped off here because so much has happened in the last few weeks that we've been back at the Legislature. Thank you for your advice.

[1550]

The economic recovery and stimulus that the minister claims is going to happen through this bill… Let me see. Did I mention that we didn't get the infrastructure grant money? That's not in the bill. Oh, we have the dismissal of the entire board of directors and CEO of Tourism B.C. Well, there's economic stimulus. I'll note

section 13 here. It removes the 3 percent hotel room

[ Page 581 ]

tax that is earmarked for Tourism B.C. For those that don't know, Tourism B.C. is a world-class organization — been around for many years, energizing the tourism industry in this province.

I recall many years ago sitting on that board. You know, even then, I think it was Australia that had visited B.C. to learn just how Tourism B.C. worked. They modelled their tourism agency on Tourism B.C. — a national organization built on our provincial model. It's recognized around the world as a very successful model for promoting tourism. I think it's still the No. 2 economic driver in the province.

This Bill 2 that the minister claims will set the stage for economic recovery — it's the opposite. Tourism B.C. sets the stage for recovery of the tourism industry, the No. 2 industry in the province. They just dismantled the leadership that has been so well respected, and I would note that there was no consultation on the removal of Tourism B.C.

The 3 percent hotel room tax that is earmarked for Tourism B.C. That's being replaced in the bill by simply stating that the tax is "for the purpose of promoting tourism." Madam Speaker, that's what Tourism B.C.'s purpose was. The industry-respected Tourism B.C. was dismantled.

Section 14 says it amends "Section 1 of the Tourism Act," giving the minister the authority to do such things as sell pamphlets for the promotion of tourism activities which Tourism B.C. used to be responsible for.

I wonder if the minister will be able to handle that pamphlet stuff. Tourism B.C. was an integral part of any recovery program for the tourism sector. They helped the tourism sector grow, as we come up to the Olympic Games. So dismantling this bill that we're debating today in second reading, Bill 2…. Part of the bill is dismantling the agency responsible for stimulating the tourism industry.

Now, how does that jibe with the minister's statements that this bill will set the stage for economic recovery? It's pulling away the pieces of the stage for economic recovery. I don't think that the tourism operators in B.C. get any comfort from knowing that that stage — Tourism B.C. — that has been pulled away will now be under control of the Minister for Tourism, Culture and the Arts. That minister doesn't seem to get it. That minister seems to be more interested in heckling than he is in standing up and taking a strong stance on behalf of his industry that he's supposedly responsible for.

I represent Alberni–Pacific Rim. Tourism is essential there. It is essential for the west coast of the island — Ucluelet, Tofino, Bamfield, the Nuchatlaht First Nation communities — working on initiatives for ecotourism, world-class initiatives in partnership with Tourism B.C., which has just been dismantled by this bill.

No consultation. Not with tourism operators, not with the agencies involved, the Council of Tourism Associations, the Island tourism associations. No consultation with Tourism B.C. No mention pre-election that the plan was to dismantle the support system in place for the tourism operators of British Columbia.

[1555]

The Alberni Valley has taken many hits. The resilience of the people there who have faced betrayal in the forest industry by this government, giveaways — the pattern that we've come to understand, the pattern so eloquently described by my colleague from Nanaimo–North Cowichan, of giving away things to people that pay government, this government….

The forest industry has been going through desperate struggles in the Alberni Valley and every other forest community. The work done by the tourism people in the valley is there to diversify the economy, to help bring about a new economy. The chamber of commerce in the Alberni Valley is working on that. Individual groups are. Award-winning operators like Batstar Adventures are doing that work, and they just had the rug pulled out from them with this bill.

This bill,

section 15, repeals subsections that deal with the composition and appointment of the board of directors of Tourism B.C. without any consultation with the board of directors of Tourism B.C. that we're talking about here today or the operators that were relying on that board. Remember Beautiful B.C., Madam Speaker? That's a logo from Tourism B.C. The amendment to subsection 6 allows cabinet to appoint the chair of Tourism B.C. without reference to any recommendation of the board. This

section is made retroactive to August 14, 2009.

This is a betrayal of the tourism industry enclosed in Bill 2, which we are now debating in second reading.

On the east side of Vancouver Island — the Oceanside, they call it — there's Parksville-Qualicum, Deep Bay, Bowser. These areas are also reliant on tourism. Qualicum was in my riding up till the boundary changes, but I still have groups that contact me out of frustration with this government. They want to know why Tourism B.C. was dismantled without any consultation with them.

Bill 2 is giving the government the ability to run a deficit again. The last budget did that — the one a few months ago before the election. That was the budget that…. The pre-election promise, if we recall, was a $495 million deficit — not a dime more. Anyone on this side of the House that questioned that was called a fearmonger. Their own economists who questioned that were discredited by the government.

So we get post-election. We're coming to a point where we have Bill 2 having to be brought forward again — another amendment to the same act, the Balanced Budget and Ministerial Accountability Act, because the pre-election promise made by the minister and the Premier before and through the election, even while there were consultations with senior officials in the ministry who would have told them otherwise….

[ Page 582 ]

They stuck to the $495 million maximum deficit, which has grown to $2.8 billion — well, actually $3.5 billion, because this government slipped in what's called the harmonized sales tax, which brings the deficit down from $3.5 billion to $2.8 billion.

[1600]

Boy, I can't remember. This is either the largest deficit we are authorizing with this bill or the second-largest deficit, depending on if you include the HST portion of the blood money from the feds.

We've got a government here that didn't just give us, with this bill, seven out of 12, coming up, deficits so far — that could change too; we could just amend it again — they brought us the two largest record deficits in the history of the province. When commodity prices were high, they basically gave that money away to their friends, and the minister….

Interjection.

S. Fraser: I'm hoping the minister will stand up and speak to this bill on record. I love the heckling. Bring it on.

But the minister should be speaking about tourism issues. He pulled the rug out from Tourism B.C. without even talking to the people of British Columbia about it, without even talking to the tourism industry.

I wonder if the Minister of Tourism, Culture and the Arts and the Minister of Small Business, Technology and Economic Development — it's suddenly quiet in this room — are going to be explaining some of these reversals, and I know it's a touchy thing. Some of these, what I would say and what some people are saying, are deceptions.

I wonder if that's going to be explained in individual meetings with mayors and councillors at the upcoming Union of B.C. Municipalities meeting. I wonder how many meetings they've booked to explain the unexplainable, the reversals in every promise they made to win the last election.

It's like they've been lying around all summer, oblivious to what's happening since their election promises were made — protect health care, protect education. Well, that's not going to happen with Bill 2. On Vancouver Island alone there are 4,400 MRIs that are going to be cancelled this year.

Deputy Speaker: Member, I would like to remind you again that you are discussing Bill 2.

S. Fraser: Thank you, Madam Speaker. It's second reading. I believe there is a pretty broad range here.

The bill here is allowing us to have a budget deficit of $2.6 billion, a reversal that this government…. This bill will allow them to cut services to health care, education — the very promises they made to win the election.

I will heed your advice on this. I know that this is not appropriate at committee stage, but at second reading I will….

Deputy Speaker: Member, you are discussing Bill 2. Restrain yourself to what is in Bill 2.

S. Fraser: I would suggest that Bill 2 is the height of hypocrisy. Bill 2 is designed to amend

an act that says you can't run a deficit — right after they amended

an act to say that you can't run a deficit, after they brought in

an act to say that you can't run a deficit and while the Liberal government was running a deficit for three years in a row.

I would submit that Bill 2 could never be supported by anyone who cares about the people of British Columbia, by anyone who cares to not look hypocritical, because Bill 2 represents the height of hypocrisy of this government of British Columbia.

M. Sather: It's my pleasure to rise and address second reading of Bill 2, the Budget Measures Implementation Act, 2009.

[1605]

Well, it's been a rough road for this government over the last year in terms of budgeting, in terms of accountability…

Hon. K. Krueger: And all other governments.

M. Sather: …in terms of being able to convince the people of British Columbia that in fact they have some idea, that they know what they're doing when it comes to budgets.

Madam Speaker, the member for Kamloops–South Thompson says: "Well, all other governments, too, have had a difficult time." I doubt that you will find many on this continent that have gone through the gyrations that this government has done, and the dips and doodles that have completely made a mockery of any sort of sound financial budgeting.

Here again we see the government going to the well to try to correct the sins of yesterday — or, shall we say, last winter's sins — which were a budget that was put out….

The government said, "You know what? We've got to amend the act, the Balanced Budget and Ministerial Accountability Act," which said that British Columbia will never have a deficit again as long as we live. And my gosh, they decided that maybe that wasn't going to be the case after all. They were going to have to amend that particular act, and they did.

Well, in addressing this bill, it certainly bears some examination of how it came about — this whole sad affair of saying one thing and doing another, of saying that there's going to be a balanced budget, and then there wasn't. It's like this is, I guess, balanced budget 2.0. I mean, we had budget 2.0 last spring, and now we have follow-up 2.0.

[ Page 583 ]

If we go back a little bit and look at what happened a year ago…. Remember a year ago when this recession hit North America, including British Columbia? The government said very confidently at the time…. People were starting to express concerns about the future of our finances, about our ability to maintain a surplus, which was the thing that the people of British Columbia understood was the law so therefore had to be done.

What was this government saying at that time, around mid-October, late October of 2008? They were saying that British Columbia is a deficit-free zone.

Only a government that had a great deal of confidence about their surplus budget, which they were going to bring forward, would say such a statement as, "British Columbia is a deficit-free zone," but that's what they did. When you look back now at what the Finance Minister has said more recently, that becomes a rather peculiar statement. The minister said rather recently that he remembers the day, September 12, 2008, very well.

Hon. K. Krueger: Lehman Bros. bank. Don't you remember?

M. Sather: The minister opposite is taking the words out of my mouth. He's heard the minister himself say these words, which was that that was the day they got word of the impending collapse of Lehman Bros., the global collapse of financial services. That was in September. By the minister's own admission, it was September 12 that he said that, yet this government was still saying throughout mid-fall that British Columbia was a deficit-free zone.

I don't know. Maybe the Finance Minister's revelation didn't get passed on to the Premier. It certainly couldn't have got passed on to the member for Kamloops–South Thompson, because that is not the message this government was giving. It all leads us to where we are today and the sorry state this government has brought our finances to.

[1610]

Again, with regard to Bill 2 we need to look at how we got here in order for us, the people of British Columbia, to have some understanding of why we are having a Bill 2 at this time — why we are discussing it, why the government has introduced it.

If we fast-forward to the middle of January last year, before the spring budget, you will recall, Madam Speaker, that the Finance Minister was still strongly maintaining that there would not be a deficit in British Columbia, just short weeks before they were to introduce the budget.

But now again, if we look at what the minister has been saying more recently, fast-forward to this year. On August 29 he said: "We started putting our February budget together through the fall months and had to watch projected revenues erode week after week."

The Finance Minister is admitting that through the fall they saw the finances eroding week after week — continually eroding finances. Yet that same minister, that same Finance Minister, said that we're going to have a balanced budget.

One has to forgive the people of British Columbia, the voting public and all too many of the non-voting public, when they question what this government really knew and what they were saying publicly. Were they the same thing?

If they were not — and there's ample evidence to suggest they were not — then any thinking person can only conclude what happened. We've heard many words to describe what happened.

Then we had the budget. The government finally admitted last February that there was going to be a deficit, albeit only $495 million. That seemed kind of interesting, rather small in comparison to the circumstances that we were facing with finances falling every week. But still this government was so arrogant that, if you will recall the budget debates we had last spring, they said that British Columbia is the best place in North America to weather the recession.

They had finally recognized or realized or were willing to share with the people of British Columbia that there was a recession. But hey, not to worry; British Columbia is the best place in North America to weather that recession. [Applause.]

It's interesting that the member for Kamloops–South Thompson applauds, because we know, in fact, that it isn't true — that British Columbia is not the best place in North America to weather the recession.

I said that to these members last spring. I said that it's not going to be the best place to weather the recession for a couple of obvious reasons. This government has been depending…. I mean, the member from Alberni mentioned that commodity prices were high. They've been riding the commodity gravy train and the building boom, which burst, and they didn't seem to notice that it burst. Everybody else did.

Consumer spending. What does consumer spending depend on? It depends on people working. It depends on them having a job. So our unemployment has scooted up to about 8.1 percent.

The Minister of Finance is still in denial, even though he is the one that's brought in two creative budgets — the first one last fall and another equally creative one now. Madam Speaker, you would think that the minister would be a little bit more humble, considering the mess they've made.

[1615]

Then we had the budget introduced, the latest 2.0 version. We had that introduced September 1, and I'm sure the members are probably going to cheer about this one too.