Hansard -- Tuesday, March 8, 2005 a.m. -- Vol. 27, No. 28 (HTML)

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.
The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY


CONTENTS

	Routine Proceedings
		Page

Introductions by Members		12361

Introduction and First Reading of Bills		12361
	Environmental Ticket Enforcement Act (Bill M201)
	B. Penner

Petitions		12361
	D. MacKay

Standing Order 42		12361
	L. Mayencourt

Second Reading of Bills		12361
	Supply Act (No. 1), 2005 (Bill 20)
	Hon. G. Bruce
	J. MacPhail

Throne Speech Debate (continued)		12364
	R. Sultan
	K. Stewart
	Hon. J. van Dongen

R. Stewart: It's my unexpected pleasure and my deep honour to be able to introduce to the House someone that I've known all my life: one of my former Boy Scout leaders, the recipient of the Queen's medallion, an all-around amazing person and one of the leaders of the Maillardville community, M. Jean Lambert.

B. Suffredine: On behalf of my colleague from Esquimalt-Metchosin, I would like the House to welcome students and teachers from David Cameron Elementary School. Would the House please make them welcome.

B. Penner: The Environmental Ticket Enforcement Act is meant to crack down on thoughtless people who treat our parks and waterways like garbage dumps. People would still have their day in court to contest the ticket if they wanted to. But if they choose not to or if they are convicted, they would be unable to renew their driver's licence until their fines were paid. This same concept is being applied to tickets now issued under the Liquor Control Act, thanks to recent changes sponsored by the Solicitor General.

I would like to give environmental tickets some extra teeth as well. Depending on the year, up to 70 percent of fines under statutes like the Park Act, the Wildlife Act and the Environmental Management Act go unpaid. In contrast, tickets for Motor Vehicle Act offences have a collection rate of almost 90 percent, likely because the fines must be paid before driver's licences will be renewed. A number of conservation officers have asked me why the same concept isn't applied to other provincial statute offences.

I would like to find a way to discourage people from using our beautiful Chilliwack River as a dumping ground for old tires, mattresses and washing machines. Conservation officers have told me that even if they catch people in the act, some of the perpetrators know there will be little or no consequence. This decreases the morale of conservation officers, it decreases the deterrent effect of provincial laws, and ultimately it decreases the attractiveness of our natural settings.

This bill would complement recent announcements in the B.C. budget to hire an additional 60 park rangers and conservation officers over the next two to three years. I think it would be terrific if we could give law enforcement agencies another tool to protect our streams from litterbugs and other scoundrels.

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 M201 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.

D. MacKay: I wish to file a petition on behalf of 4,400 residents in the northwest part of our province who are asking for equitable access to health care — specialized health care systems such as cancer clinics. They're asking the government to either build one in the north or provide some assistance in the travel costs associated with accessing that.

L. Mayencourt: Pursuant to standing order 42, I rise to correct the name of a school district mentioned in my comments regarding the teachers' registry on Monday, February 28, 2005. I referred to Mission school district when, in fact, I meant to refer to the Maple Ridge school district.

Hon. G. Bruce: On behalf of the Minister of Finance, I move that the bill be now read a second time.

This supply bill is in the general form of previous supply bills. The first section of the bill requests one-half of the voted expenses as presented in the estimates to provide for the general programs of the government. Two-thirds of financing transaction requirements set out in schedules C, D and E of the estimates have been

provided for in the interim supply bill. This will allow for later, more complete debate on these items.

The third section requests the disbursements related to revenue collected for, and transferred to, other entities which appear in schedule F of the estimates. As there is no impact on the deficit, borrowing or debt from these particular financing transactions, 100 percent of the year's requirements is being sought in this supply bill.

Mr. Speaker, the opposition have let me know that they're on their way. They've had some transportation difficulties, so I would suggest that we just recess until their attendance in the House.

J. MacPhail: Mr. Speaker, let me begin by saying thank you to you and the Government House Leader for acknowledging our tardy arrival. I do appreciate the recess — both to the Government House Leader and to you, Mr. Speaker. Thank you very much. Of course, while…. Well, no. I will stop there. I appreciate that.

There is lots and lots of time to debate this legislation. We have until April 18, actually, to debate the matters of the budget. However, the B.C. Liberal government has chosen to stifle debate, shut down debate and not allow for a line-by-line debate and examination of their pre-election budget.

Of course, as someone said yesterday, I guess that means that they're not confident in their own budget and that they want to go to the polls with British Columbians not having had a chance to really look at what their tax dollars are going to go toward. One might say — well, that must be the conclusion that British Columbians must arrive at — that the government is running, hiding, scurrying.

What other kind of creature scurries away into the corners when they have a light shone on them? Let me think. Would it be a kind of bug that scurries into the corner as soon as you turn on the lights in your bedroom? Well, that's what the Liberals are doing under this budget as well.

There are furry animals, furry bugs, and now we have furry-headed Liberals who don't want to stand up and defend their budget. The ministers don't want to stand up and explain line by line to the taxpayer why this budget is the way it is. British Columbians are supposed to, as the Liberals say, look to the campaign trail to find out the truth about the Liberal budget.

Well, we know already, from having had a look at the '05-06 budget of these Liberals, that it is a pre-election budget. That's all it is. It's a pre-election budget with big gobs of slush money sprinkled throughout it — not enough money for long-term care beds. In fact, I don't think that there's any money in here for the long-awaited promise of 5,000 additional long-term care beds.

We saw yesterday that the government made an announcement claiming they were going to do the seismic upgrading on our schools. Really? Well, perhaps we could have found out from the Liberals, if we had been allowed, why they cancelled the seismic upgrading program when they came into government and why children have had to wait almost four years now to get the seismic upgrading of our schools back on track. But no, we won't be able to ask those questions, because the Minister of Education won't be here to defend his budget line by line.

We won't be able to ask the Minister of Finance about what his plans are in the event of an economic downturn. Now, I don't think that there's going to be an economic downturn, because China is on fire. China, a burgeoning economy, a maturing economy from a developing nation into a player, has enough economic activity to go the world around. British Columbia is getting a share of that. Perhaps our share could be bigger, but nevertheless, it is a buffer against an economic downturn. But what is the plan if there is an economic downturn? Will we be able to ask the Minister of Finance that? I'm sure he'll claim that this institution is not the place for asking those kinds of questions.

It's interesting — the announcement the government made yesterday about seismic upgrade. It's a 15-year plan. Well, there are those out there with a great deal of expertise, both from the previous government and the school boards, who say we should be doing all the seismic upgrading in the next ten years. But no, we won't get a chance to ask those questions.

What role does the taxpayer have in this great expenditure of $13 billion-plus that we're debating on Bill 20? What does the taxpayer get to say? Well, according to the Liberal government, they can come forward and ask questions on the campaign trail, not through their elected representatives. They don't get to test the mettle of their elected representatives who they voted for four years ago. Oh, no. Those government caucus elected representatives won't have their mettle tested on this budget, because the debate will be stifled.

Will the citizens of Nelson and Creston hear from their Liberal government MLA about why health care is in such a crisis in the hospitals in his area? No, they won't hear their MLA ask those questions, because the government is stifling debate.

The Liberal government is saying: "Well, we'll go out on the campaign trail, and we'll tell British Columbians how good our budget is." Well, doesn't that make a mockery of the fixed election date? Did the fixed election date mean that the Liberal MLAs would be able to use their own taxpayer-paid resources to go out and campaign for not 28 days but a couple of months beyond that? Is that what the government promised in their fixed election date? No, no, no. That wasn't what they promised. They promised they would have a fixed election date, a fixed budget date, a fixed day for con-

cluding the session and that the budgets would all be passed by that time. Now we see that this Bill 20 and the shutting down of the Legislature by this Thursday afternoon makes a mockery of all those promises.

How many times does the government have to hear from the public that they want a sensible budget, a budget that is thoroughly examined by all aspects?

You know, this government sent out the Finance Committee, the legislative Finance Committee, of which I was part. I was the sole New Democrat opposition member, and there were 10 or 11 Liberal MLAs who travelled around with me as well. We talked to the community. We listened to the community, and there was interesting feedback, very little of which is reflected in this budget — very little of which is reflected in this budget. In fact, the several key recommendations of the legislative Finance Committee — which cost hundreds of thousands of dollars, I think, to conduct those hearings — are completely ignored in this budget, completely ignored.

Well, that wasn't good enough anyway for the Liberal government, the then Finance minister Gary Collins. He was a little bit concerned about what he was hearing from the public during those legislative Finance Committee hearings, so then he sent out his own flyer, his own taxpayer-funded leaflet, to every single household in British Columbia, and he asked those people to send in their thoughts on what they wanted in the budget. Of course, they sent them in. Even though it was their own tax dollars that they were being asked to spend in order to give their government feedback, people sent them in. The results of those returns have been largely ignored in this budget as well.

Of course, the citizens can't walk down to their own Liberal government caucus offices and give their feedback, because those offices are often locked, or you certainly have to have an appointment to get through the sealed door. It's not like any previous administration, whether it be NDP or Social Credit, where the constituency offices were community offices. People walked in, gave their views, didn't have to have an appointment. You were allowed to give your feedback. No, no. That's not the case with Liberal MLAs now. They have to make an appointment. They have to make an appointment to see….

J. MacPhail: My goodness, aren't the Liberal MLAs defensive? Except that we hear from constituent after constituent after constituent of these Liberal MLAs, who are now barking away in this Legislature, about how they can't get in touch with their Liberal MLAs — that they can't get any action. I'd be happy to show each and every one of the Liberal MLAs sitting here exactly that correspondence. So it does kind of demonstrate the saying that methinks they do protest too much.

Nevertheless, as my colleague and I just heard as we arrived here, the judgment day will be on May 17. Judgment day will be on May 17 for each and every one of these Liberal MLAs who ignore their constituents, ignore the concerns of their constituents, and have the gall to use unparliamentary language in here and to accuse me of being deceitful.

J. MacPhail: Well, it is, and we have evidence after evidence after evidence of these Liberal MLAs ignoring their constituents, absolutely ignoring them day after day after day.

They ignored the Finance Committee. They ignored the Finance Committee's input that we received from the public. Then they ignored the input from the people who mailed in returns to the budget, and there is nothing — nothing — to suggest that they won't simply ignore their constituents if any one of them is re-elected again. It has been their record of ignoring their constituents year after year after year, and that is exactly what they will do if, God forbid, they're re-elected.

In fact, the Finance minister speculated just yesterday — I heard him in the hallway, and then it was reported in the newspaper — that he may have to change the budget if, God forbid, this government is re-elected. They're not going to pass the budget. They're not actually going to go to the electorate with a legal budget. It won't be a legal budget. It won't be passed. The Finance minister speculated yesterday: "Oh my gosh, there is a potential that we would have to change the budget when we come back."

So there they are. They deride and chastise everybody else for actions of former governments, and now they're speculating prior to an election that they'll do exactly the same thing. But it's even worse with this government, because they're asking today under this legislation for six months of a free ride. That's what we're debating right here. This government is asking this Legislature to pass six months of expenditure with a few token hours of debate.

It has never been done. Well, it has never been done by a New Democrat government. I know that the Minister of Finance was out there trying to spin: "Oh, the New Democrat government did that in the past." Well, he's dead wrong. Never, ever has a New Democrat government, and I don't think…. Well, I don't know. I shouldn't speak for a Social Credit government. Liberals, former Socreds can stand up and speak to their previous record. But never before has any New Democrat government come in here and asked for six months of a free ride like this government.

On top of that, 100 percent of tax revenues are being passed. So what does that mean? Six months of expenditure that this government is going to pass without one of them standing up and asking a question

about what that means, I predict. And 100 percent of tax revenue is going to be justified by this legislation. The taxpayer doesn't get any representation from their Liberal MLAs in this debate, and yet they're going to have to be obligated to pay their taxes for a full year without the budget being legal.

This government said that they were going to be the most open and transparent. They claim to have brought in new rules — new rules that they would be the most open and transparent. Their new rules are just a farce now. Each and every one of them stands up and says: "Well, we're no worse than anyone else."

J. MacPhail: No, that's true. That they're no worse than anyone else is their maximum claim, but they promised they were going to be so much better. In fact, by them misleading the taxpayer and saying they were going to be different, they are worse. They absolutely are worse. In fact, I will go on at length about how this government through their broken promises, their abuse of their office, their abuse of democracy, their abuse of their constituents…. I will show that we have not seen a government as bad as this Liberal government.

That will take me several minutes, Mr. Speaker. I note the hour and that I must now move adjournment of debate on Bill 20.

R. Sultan: I am delighted to respond to the government's Speech from the Throne and its references to the film industry. About two and a half hours north of Hollywood sits the third-largest film and television production centre in North America. It's a place where Hollywood's dollar goes further and where a large pool of skilled technicians and facilities can meet every need and every budget. Up here in British Columbia, four pillars — business, government, labour and municipalities — work together to support the film industry. Each recognizes the film industry as green, high-tech, well paid and a lot of fun.

Each of them also realizes that film showcases our wonderful province and attracts celebrities. For example, Harrison Ford was in town last week, although word on the street said that shooting was creatively challenged. Just like with respect to the opposition in this House from time to time, there had been delays in getting the script finalized. Isn't showbiz wonderful?

Industry growth has been — and I would emphasize the past tense here — spectacular. In 1978 the film and television industry spent $12 million on production in British Columbia. That was 1978. In 2003, 25 years later, the film and television industry spent over 100 times that amount — $1.4 billion.

It's an industry which is British Columbian to the core. More than 90 percent of the production crews make their home right here in this province. We have film and video companies, talent agencies, 50 shooting stages, specialty supply houses and post-production services meeting the needs of projects, whether shot locally or around the world. We can crew and service 40 projects simultaneously. It all adds up to about 30,000 British Columbians doing film for a living.

In 2002, 169 film and television productions were shot in British Columbia, including 47 feature films; 18 movies of the week, pilots or miniseries; 37 television series; 46 documentaries; 11 TV pilots; and four miniseries. That was 2002.

Did you know that on the North Shore there was a shy woman endowed with the speed, reflexes and senses of a cat walking a thin line between criminal and heroine? Her real name was Halle Berry, and we called her Catwoman. And did you hear about the engineer who came up with the breezy idea to net millions of dollars but who had to run for his life and piece together why he was being chased? He lived in Vancouver, his name was Ben Affleck, and the film was Paycheck. Turning to outer space, did you realize that we have built a portal that can instantaneously transport an object from anywhere in space to anywhere else through a wormhole called Stargate?

That's just a quick peek at the amazing things we do for a living on the North Shore and in the lower mainland these days. Of course, none of these things come cheap. Film companies, their employees and their contractors are paid directly. But they in turn spend money on hotels, commissary vans, accounting services, camera rentals, electrical cable and lumber, and the list goes on. We succeed because of the quality of our work and the economy of our prices. In this we are aided by the competitive tax environment created by the government right here in Victoria.

But there are challenges. Things have gone soft in the past couple of years due to the high dollar, intense competition and changes in the product mix. Louisiana, New Mexico, Illinois and New York State have all adopted tax credits to lure Ben Affleck and Halle Berry next time. In Sacramento, California, Arnold has promoted a stay-at-home attitude. For those still willing to travel, Iceland and New Zealand beckon — and many other parts of the world. B.C. jobs have been impacted negatively.

We've got pretty good information about the job creation impact economically. For example, Cheryl Nex of E.P. Canada, a payroll services company, collects these numbers. They kindly provided detailed figures. Now, they don't encompass the entire universe, of

course. In particular, they don't include the non-unionized sector or the staff of Lions Gate Studios or Sharpe Sound or West Media or the rental companies or any other businesses providing services on a non-unionized basis. Their numbers are for unionized crews only, directly employed.

What do they say? In 2003 on the North Shore, for example — this is only the North Shore we're talking about — unionized employment was 4,044. The unionized wage bill was $87 million, just on the North Shore. Now let's add another 50 percent to encompass what E.P. missed. Therefore, we're talking here about an industry which on the North Shore probably accounted for about $125 million in wages that year.

We also know, by the postal code information attached, that that number is divided about one-third each to the constituencies of North Vancouver–Lonsdale, the constituency of my colleague on the right; and North Vancouver–Seymour, represented by the member sitting opposite me. The remaining third is split roughly equally between my own constituency of West Vancouver–Capilano and that of West Vancouver–Garibaldi. Any job and payroll base of this magnitude — and it is a large magnitude — automatically gets MLA attention.

That was 2003. What happened last year — 2004? It was a downer. E.P. reported that the North Shore's unionized payroll was down 47 percent from the year before. Vital North Shore employers were being squeezed, and the film workforce was shrinking. One frantic Edgemont Village couple told me that they were delaying plans to adopt a child in China because of the economic situation that all of sudden their household faced, and they were considering selling their house.

Add in the aggressive tax raid by Ontario and Quebec on our film industry at the end of 2004, and one can appreciate that fast action was required. Three of the pillars responded quickly.

First, start with management. Led by the Motion Picture Production Industry Association, or MPPIA, as it is known, the industry held an open forum in December to deal with competitive issues. It's fair to say that the industry had gotten used to a low dollar and had lost its competitive edge. Rising costs were less of a concern when the Canadian dollar continued to weaken. Film crews got larger. Drastically higher location fees were shrugged off and simply eaten without complaint. A certain slackness had set in.

With a higher dollar came the realization that the industry needed to become much more cost-competitive if it was to attract future business. Managers cited the California buyer with the plaque on his desk saying: "Free is too much." Studios and facility owners sharpened their pencils and reduced costs and fee structures.

Next, consider labour's response. They did their part. The unions did their part by voluntarily reducing their wages to take into account the strengthening of the Canadian dollar and other competitive factors. Consider that. This is extraordinary in this province. The unionized sector voluntarily took a pay cut to help their industry. Reductions ranged from 4 percent to 13 percent — voluntarily. They accepted greater flexibility in the work rules to address productions searching for new locations. They addressed the seniority issue.

Over three-quarters of film hiring is not now subject to seniority rules, unlike the situation ten years ago. The recently announced industrial inquiry commission, headed by Vince Ready, is examining further how the remaining rules impact our competitive position.

Thirdly, consider what the government itself brought to the table. This government got the message just before Christmas, and they responded very quickly. The government announced that as part of Budget 2005, the production services tax credit available to foreign productions would increase from 11 percent to 18 percent. The basic Film Incentive B.C. tax credit for domestic productions would go to 30 percent from 20 percent.

The higher credits, competitive with those initiated by Quebec and Ontario, would continue until March 2006. Peter Leitch, chair of the MPPIA, declared that the industry was extremely pleased with what the Premier and the Finance minister — and all of the government caucus, for that matter — had done and how they continued to be very supportive of the B.C. film industry.

What was the production response to this package of measures by management, by the unions and by the government? Well, the industry's response in terms of business booked was immediate and magnificent. In the few weeks, and it's only been a few weeks since the tax credit announcements were made in January, these projects have jelled.

Witness: the Amber Frey Story, a CBS MOW — I'd look it up. That's called a movie of the week — where B.C. stands in for central California; Whisper and Dungeon Siege, two feature productions being produced through Brightlight Pictures, producers of White Noise, starring Michael Keaton, which has a box office in North America of over $60 million U.S. in just over one month; Sony-Columbia, four features: Catch and Release, 30 Days and Nights, RV with Robin Williams, and I Dream of Jeannie — all starting shooting very soon this spring; Disney's Antarctica filming for six weeks in Smithers, where my esteemed colleague for Bulkley Valley–Stikine hails from.

It's bringing the economic benefit of film production to northern British Columbia and to the heartlands.

R. Sultan: I'm tempted to ask whether any new stars have appeared to brighten your life, member.

New Line will start filming Final Destination 3D three weeks from now. A number of pilots are in the mill, including Touchstone's Quantico and Fox's Deviant Behaviour, are filming this month. Finally, X-Men 3 has

booked space and should be filming this summer. Total value of projects announced: considerably north of $350 million. This is serious money.

But sad to say, there is unfinished business involving the fourth pillar. Municipalities are one sector which have yet to come to the table in a meaningful manner. Some of the comments I have heard are, "City location charges have been going nuts," and "We have this little problem of security. A major municipal police force" — I won't say which one — "is simply using film security as a way of boosting their salaries with overtime. This has to stop. We're forced to pay $60 to $80 an hour for a police officer, and five of them show up when one would do, or maybe none at all."

But let's give municipalities and their police forces the benefit of the doubt. Maybe they've not been told that the gravy days are over. MPPIA is working on initiatives along with the B.C. Film Commission to educate communities and their agencies about the consequences of overcharging for locations and hampering reasonable filming in the community.

The message is clear. The industry needs assurance that municipal charges and police force charges will be adjusted downward significantly, like the other three pillars have done in concert with the package. For that matter, British Columbia, in my opinion, also needs those assurances. I do not believe provincial taxpayers will for very long be content to see their own paycheques docked through the tax system so that money can be transferred to pay unreasonable municipal location charges and unreasonable police overtime. It's just not going to happen.

There's also further work to be done on the labour front. Further progress on work rules and restrictions can enhance flexibility and drive costs down more. The Tysoe industrial inquiry commission report on the film industry was submitted last year, and considerable effort has gone into implementing these recommendations. I'm told there is agreement on four of the five key recommendations.

As already mentioned, Vince Ready was once again recently appointed as an industrial inquiry commissioner to address the outstanding issues. His conclusions, whatever they might be, will help determine the longer-term competitiveness of this industry.

There is a built-in deadline. The province has warmly supported the industry with provincial tax credits on labour costs. A lot of other industries would like to enjoy that privilege. The privileges extended to the film industry on the tax front expire in 2006. Further progress must be made on the labour cost file.

Well, what's the future of this industry? Where's it headed in the longer term? Let's start with the reminder that 85 percent of the film business in B.C. is service work for Los Angeles. This is great business for our province, and we want to do all we can to retain it. Job one is continued focus on providing maximum value to our good friends and customers in L.A. Beyond L.A., future growth may lie in specialty work such as visual effects and animation. As Electronic Arts illustrates, B.C. already has a comparative advantage in those areas, and we see emerging synergies in film, computer technology and electronic games.

Another point. With the 2010 Olympics, as we look into the longer-term future, B.C. is about to become more famous worldwide, and this creates an important spinoff opportunity for local film production again. Another longer-term possibility: partnering with other jurisdictions in Europe and, in particular, in Asia could be an important strategy going forward. Here, B.C.'s unmatched Asian connection offers the potential of immense rewards. Can Bollywood and Vancouver get together? Why not?

Finally, it is important that B.C. develops capital pools to invest in its own productions. Possibly our VCC legislation, our legislation pertaining to venture capital corporations, can further be made attractive to help with the financing of film ventures. A number of amendments to this act, as well as minor amendments to the Income Tax Act, were made by the Minister of Small Business and Economic Development in order to revamp the province's venture capital programs. To date it is not my impression that the film industry, which certainly falls into the risk capital category, has taken advantage of these or has been encouraged to do so, frankly. But some of these VCC features are of interest and potential benefit to the film industry.

Changes already made to the VCC were in response to recommendations by the Premier's technology council in terms of accelerating early-stage technological investment. Other amendments have been introduced to streamline the regulation of the program and to reduce red tape.

VCCs are potentially important for the film industry. The regulations should be modified, should that be necessary, to encourage participation by the film industry. The VCCs could conceivably become an important vehicle for increased investment in Canadian productions in the film industry, in partnership with distribution companies in the U.S.

On this topic of British Columbia productions, Da Vinci's Inquest and The Beachcombers, shown worldwide, need more company on the world stage, bringing British Columbia to living rooms around the world. More local productions mean less exposure to volatile currencies as well as encouraging the growth of creative talent right here at home.

B.C. Film has an important role to play. Moneys invested through B.C. Film in television and film lever by a factor of four the dollar amount from other levels of government, I am told.

For now, B.C. studios are once more largely filled, and people in the industry look forward to a good year in 2005. This happy situation, we emphasize again, is due to the suppliers, the unions and the government each pitching in to do their part.

Pillars who haven't yet figured it out need to be reminded. Some of them may still think there's a great big pot of gold out there somewhere waiting to be tapped for the privilege of merely using city streets.

Well, there's no great big pot of gold. All must start from a position of "yes" to locations. In other words, we want to do this now. Let's make it happen, and let's not slow it down with red tape and encumber it with a lot of charges. "Starting from yes" has become the provincial government motif, and others should be encouraged to do the same thing.

Municipal governments could develop a common set of rules and regulations to streamline decision-making while guarding the public interest. The film industry would welcome this, and I believe the province should take the lead.

To sum up, the provincial government is in the film business in a big way. The film industry knows that and appreciates it. It's important that all four pillars — the film industry suppliers, the film unions, the government, and the communities and municipalities — continue to work together smoothly, understanding the economic realities and the competitive race that we are in, in order to continue to grow this fabulous British Columbia industry.

R. Stewart: It's actually an extension of an introduction I made earlier today. I forgot to mention that Jean Lambert, who is in the House today, is also a freeman of the city of Coquitlam. He's a staunch supporter of Maillardville's new tourism program, Flaunt your Frenchness, which celebrates our community's francophone history. This program — put forward by the Coquitlam tourism director, Barb Stegemann, and Société Maillardville-Uni director Joanne Dumas — has created a real buzz in Coquitlam and throughout the province. I'm so pleased that Jean and his wife, Suzanne Lambert, are able to join us here today, and I ask the House to make them welcome.

Recently, we have presented both the throne speech and the budget to the House. Both of these major documents helped set out the future for the people of British Columbia. Taking an overview of these two documents, an individual may ask: "What does this mean for me? And what is your role as an MLA in this?" To answer that, I would like to review the major themes of the throne speech and how it has reflected upon the riding that I'm so honoured to represent here, the riding of Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows.

Prior to coming up, I was listening to Hansard on our local TV downstairs. The Leader of the Opposition made some comments about our constituency offices. Now, I wasn't really planning on talking about our constituency office, but I thought I really should, because they do such a great job. I'm so pleased to have two wonderful individuals working in my offices with me, both Sandy Wakeling and Janis Butcher.

Over the period of time that I have been representing Maple Ridge, we have tracked over 16,000 contacts in our office. Those are contacts taking action, and we've documented these to our Maximizer system. So those who say that we aren't available, aren't open…. The criticism of the Leader of the Opposition, I think, is totally false and untrue when it comes to the constituency of Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows. I would challenge the previous MLA for our area to come up with any type of documentation that shows that their office, which was moved to an isolated spot, was utilized in any small percentage for the activity we're now seeing in our office.

When I was first elected, I wanted to make our office much more accessible to the public and the people of Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows. We found a very active spot for it right next to the very popular public library, right across from city hall, adjoining the health offices and near the government agent's office. Any time a person had to do government business, if they had difficulty with any agency and wanted to come down and report to us the issues causing them some conflict, we wanted to be there to assist them in that manner. I just want to say how pleased I have been with the performance of that office, the amount of traffic we've had through that office and the very, very popular response we've had from the public with it.

Again, it certainly is a very non-partisan office. Many times people will come in who voice displeasure with some actions we may have taken as a government. We try to give them the issue as we see it, and it always ends up in a very amicable discussion. In many cases the justification for the action actually changes the person's perception of the representation of an MLA. Some people who had been traditionally very opposed to our government are starting to see the reality and the rationality of some of the actions we're taking on the global and the local picture. I just wanted to bring that up.

On to the throne speech highlights. From the Speech from the Throne that was presented on February 8, 2005, there were some main themes put forward. I'd like to go over the themes and see how those actually react to actions that were taken by this government and actions that are forecast to be taken by this government and how they actually interact with the people of Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows.

What we had were the themes of better access to education; high-quality health care; better support services for women, children, seniors and people in need; more jobs and new opportunities for families, first nations and small businesses across British Columbia; higher take-home pay; and a better standard of living. This is the power of a strong economy. This is the point of responsible fiscal management, and that has always been the object of your government's visions for a brighter future. We know that to be in a position to

We came out with five great goals for a golden decade. These five are: to make B.C. the best-educated, most literate jurisdiction on the continent; to lead the way in North America for healthy living and physical fitness; to build the best system of support in Canada for persons with disabilities, special needs, children at risk and seniors; to lead the world in sustainable environmental management, with the best air and water quality and the best fisheries management, bar none; and to create more jobs per capita than anywhere else in Canada. That's what we set out to do.

To make B.C. the best-educated, most literate jurisdiction in North America. The first goal I had when arriving in Victoria was to push for a fair and representative format to be used to distribute educational funds. School district 42 now receives a fairer share of funding based on a real per-student basis. The old formulas were very ad hoc and inconsistent. Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows, with one of the faster-growing school populations over the last 20 years, was always in the bottom three of funding.

I'm very pleased to be able to say that excluding the capital funding for a complete renovation of Maple Ridge high school and a new high school that's been started and is near completion, over the past four years there's been an increase of over 11 percent of operational funding. That's an 11 percent increase, and there's been less than a 1 percent increase in students. By anyone's math, that's an improvement in funding. This doesn't even include the recently announced $150 million in new funding to ensure that school districts provide library services, textbooks, art and music programs, and services to students with special needs.

I would like to take a moment to talk about school district 42. Our school district has been very receptive to working with our office and with the government to try and ensure that we can get as many dollars as we can into our school district and that those dollars go responsibly to the classroom. I made it very clear in working with the school district, with whom we have a very amicable relationship, that I will try to do my best to get as many dollars as I can — and our proportion of dollars — to our school district 42, which wasn't the case in the past. My expectation from them is that they would wisely use those dollars to ensure that they could provide the best education possible with the dollars available. They've been doing that and the results have been there.

We've seen all kinds of improvements in student performance. We've seen new activity in upgrading of resources in schools. Contrary to those that talk about how our schools, especially the words we hear from the B.C. Teachers Federation about how we're cutting back, cutting back, cutbacks…. I don't know how anyone can possibly look at an 11 percent increase in funding — that's operational funding only, not even counting the capital funding — with only a less than 1 percent increase in students and not say that's a very positive increase in funding.

K. Stewart: That's right. One of my confidants to the right indicated that was NDP math. I'll talk more about NDP math as we move along here, as we do some looking back to history — back to those very special moments in time over the nineties — and what was really going on in the province.

There are some other programs when we start talking about education. Both provincewide and in my district, there is extending the Roots of Empathy program. This teaches children compassion and understanding and has proven very effective in helping reduce aggressive behaviour at every school.

This is a program I very recently witnessed at the Pitt Meadows Elementary School. There was a very young baby coming in with his mother and interacting with the kids. It was interesting talking to the person that's coordinating the program, Mrs. Ramsay. She was indicating something I saw at the particular session that I was at, which she said occurs over and over and over. Children who may not come from the happiest homes and may have difficulty in the class seem to really grasp onto the nurturing and caring through bringing this baby into the classroom. It was a very, very positive experience and, I'm sure, one that's occurring all over British Columbia in many schools. I know they're trying to expand this program all across the province.

The other indication of our commitment to student safety is the $1.5 billion plan to complete all seismic upgrades within the next 15 years. I know that the minister is working very hard to try to expedite that time frame to ensure that we can get these upgrades done in as timely a fashion as possible.

I'd like to take a minute now to move to our second major goal, and that's to lead the way in healthy living and physical fitness. I'd like to talk about the $1.5 billion more that we're dedicating to health care over the next three years. Again, this is another area where we've increased health funding by almost $3 billion — $3 billion — and our critics are talking about cutbacks.

Again, referring back to the person to the right, my very favourable comrade who doesn't necessarily buy the NDP math…. Neither do I. That's another example of where you add $3 billion, and it's a cutback. I just don't see it. I know that when we look at some of the numbers that are being thrown out around health care…. How can you possibly say that there have been cutbacks when we see this expansion going on in some of the hospitals?

Early in our mandate we identified that we must improve emergency care at our local hospital, Ridge Meadows Hospital. We're undertaking an emergency ambulatory care redevelopment program. It's an $11 million project. That's $11 million, folks. That's real

money that's being added to our hospital to improve the scattered out-patient programs as well as to free up space for in-patient use by developing this new emergency-space project.

Our partners, the Ridge Meadows Hospital Foundation and the communities of Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows, are committed to raising over $3 million for this equipment. Emergency access and improvement have reduced the average waiting times in an emergency bed into a regular hospital bed from 23 hours to less than eight as a result of this increase in funding. That means that the time from when you come into emergency and you're diagnosed until you get into the regular bed in the hospital in the proper ward has been reduced from 23 to eight hours.

Many doctors have commented to me how the new money into the hospital has allowed for much more new equipment, and this makes their time much more efficient and effective. Their job can now be done with less waiting time. Many times they had to send patients out to hospitals like Eagle Ridge and the Royal Columbian, and now they can do it right in-house. It not only makes better use of their time but allows for a much quicker diagnostic regime for those who need it.

Another thing that happened with health care in our area was the need for doctors. One of the things that was evident was that we had a very low number of doctors per capita in the area. Working with the ministry, we were allowed to designate that area as an area of need for doctors. As a result of that, we've got 15 new family doctors and seven new specialists in the community. Again, when you have a hospital that's well-staffed, that's well-equipped, that has the expansion ongoing in there…. Doctors want to work in a hospital like that, where they have the tools to do the job and the support to do it.

As a result of that, we've managed to also increase specialists, with regard to the surgeries, to help with that. Again, you can draw these people when you have the support staff to allow them to do the work that needs to be done.

There are a couple of other things we're doing provincially that I think are really going to assist our health care. We're reviewing the U.K.'s innovative personal health guides as a possible model for B.C. health care. This is where you get the citizens working together with their families, the doctors, nurse practitioners, nutritionists and other members of the health care team to develop personally tailored health plans and help citizens achieve their health goals.

I know many members of the House will recall hearing me talk about alternative types of medicine. I'd just like to say that I'm very supportive of less traditional types of medicine, which are becoming more and more mainstream as the public becomes aware of them — things such as naturopaths, chiropractic services. These things, I think, are very beneficial in our health care, and I think we have to start looking at the outcomes of their work and start including them more into our mainstream health care plans.

I know that many individuals, even today, although they have to pay out of their own pockets for these services, believe strongly enough in them that they are doing that. I would certainly like to see those services get the recognition that the public is giving them by our government to ensure that we can expand them so we have a holistic health plan for us as the citizens of British Columbia and so we're not just stuck into acute health care. The more we put into prevention, the more we put into ensuring that the proper health care is applied to the citizens, the better we're going to be.

Of course, early intervention and education are very important aspects of health care. In this throne speech there certainly are some initiatives to do that. Expanding B.C.'s reputation as a global leader in public health, assisting such things as the B.C. Centre for Disease Control into the Pacific centre for disease control and working with all governments and institutions is allowing us to become a world leader in that.

Another area we're a world leader in is cancer research, with the Michael Smith Foundation. If you have to get cancer — and trust me; I know — there's no better place in the world for treatment than British Columbia. I think that people who talk about places like the Mayo Clinic and that are now saying: "Well, if I'm in British Columbia, why would I want to go to the Mayo Clinic when we have some of the most advanced cancer care in the world…?" We certainly have a colleague in this House who's living proof of the great care that you get in British Columbia with regard to that.

Moving to another theme, and that's to build the best system of support. A new Premier's council on aging and seniors issues has been set up to identify opportunities to improve seniors' services, examine how to improve housing options and home care, consider the issues of mandatory retirement and make recommendations on how to improve seniors' independence and quality of living. We have the member from White Rock who is working hard on that project.

Another thing we're doing, when we look at the throne speech and we see the themes that we're putting out there and then look at the budget and how we're relating the two together…. There have been many issues in the budget that are going to help seniors, especially those that make under $30,000 collectively, to expand their dollars with regards to the money they have to spend. If they have more money to spend, quite often that goes to enhancing their lifestyles. Part of that is food and nutrition. It's encouraging to see the budget supporting the themes of our throne speech.

Another thing I am very pleased with, when we talk about support services and health care, is the Asante Centre, which is in Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows. We recently were able to grant them $450,000 to help combat fetal alcohol syndrome. This is a great boon, of course, to the area of Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows, but this is now becoming a provincial resource. It's not something that's just for our local area.

I was at the centre recently, and I was listening to a number of people from Coquitlam, New Westminster and other areas around there who are using the services of the Asante Centre. The change that it has made by having that support and having that assessment there in their families and their lives has just been incredible. I've been very pleased to be able to have helped assist in getting funding. We've got over $800,000 funding for that agency since I was elected in 2001.

I would now like to talk about strengthening early childhood development programs. There is $76 million that we've dedicated to flow through in our out-years up to 2007 for early diagnosis and screening of children for hearing, sight and dental problems. It's amazing how often health problems do slow a child's educational and learning processes.

What we're going to try and do with this program — I'm sure we're going to be successful, given the commitment made to it not only by the government but by the practitioners out there in the various areas of hearing, sight, and dental — is ensure that children are healthy and that problems are diagnosed early, so if there are issues they do have that will impair their health and learning, they will be caught at as early an age as possible. That is another issue I think is very important.

Another major theme was to lead the world in sustainable environmental management. I think that as a government we've done a lot in this area, although we don't necessarily get the credit for all the work we have done. The opposition keeps trying to label us as a group that doesn't care about the environment, and I think that's totally misleading. I have not met a group of individuals who come together as much as our caucus and talk about the importance of the issues of the environment and the effect they have on us and the citizens of British Columbia.

As recently as Saturday I was attending the local annual Ducks Unlimited dinner. I was very pleased to have been one of the charter members 22 years ago. Over those 22 years, this group has raised over $850,000 for waterfowl enhancement. That's one local committee.

The partnerships — that's a really big part of doing government these days. I look back at a project that was completed last year, the acquisition of the Codd wetlands. That was a $5 million project. On top of that, there was a $1 million donation from the Aquilini family. When they sold the property, they gave up $1 million of the purchase price as a donation, which certainly helped make the deal work.

It was done with a consortium of partners. The two major partners were, of course, the British Columbia government, which provided $1.5 million, and GVRD parks, which provided $1.5 million. Then again, there were groups like Ducks Unlimited and the TLC leading a consortium of partners to make up the final third of funding so that $5 million purchase price was received.

This is what I think is a very, very important aspect of partnering. You get the community interests there, you get the community dollars there, and then you fund that in partnership with both the provincial government and…. In this case the federal government didn't come to the table, but we do see, giving them their due, the federal government partnering with us on many infrastructure projects. We see the federal-provincial municipal infrastructure projects many times.

I think that not only with those three levels of government but with the individual community organizations…. Again, going back to our improvements on the emergency health aspect through the emergency ward renovations and expansion at the Ridge Meadows Hospital, there the community is putting in close to $3 million towards that project, which allows a much better facility for our community.

Leaving Codd Island and moving on now to some of the other issues of sustainable environmental management, we have contributed to the habitat conservation trust fund $6.5 million. Now, I saw a flurry of e-mails come back from various conservation organizations saying how important this funding was and how they could utilize that funding to partner with other groups to really get some very valuable projects done throughout British Columbia.

Locally, I was also pleased to see that after so many years of neglect at our local Golden Ears Park, the minister — as recently as late last year — funded a replacement of the Gold Creek bridge, which was left in decay and decline for numerous years. That was a $200,000 project, and my understanding is that there are future projects to be done in the park. We're certainly looking forward to that. As a park user for the last 30 years, I can certainly say that the park needs it. We've seen over the nineties nothing but decline in that park. Even before that, the trails were being degraded to the point where, in many cases, they were dangerous.

As a bit of an outdoorsy sort, I was also very pleased to see that there is $7.5 million of new money to add 50 new park rangers and conservation officers. This is an area that did suffer when we had to crunch a bit to try and get our way out of that structural deficit that we encountered when we first became government. It is very pleasing to see, now that we have the funding, that we are starting to enhance those areas.

We know that the last government was really good at designating parkland, but they sure weren't very good about funding the care and upkeep of it. They just announced increases in parkland with decreases in funding for the operations of it, so it's really nice to see we are now starting to catch up on that deficit.

As we move through the years, we are looking at other ways of working with partnerships to try and enhance the services in those parks. As a fairly common user of the federal parks, I'm certainly supportive of working with other groups and agencies that have an interest in the park. I belong to the Alpine Club of Canada, and it's really great to be able to go up to the mountains and go to some of the huts.

These partnerships have been going on for years and years. When you go up to places like the Abbott

Pass hut, up at the top of Lake Louise, and on to Mount Lefroy, which I've been to a couple of times, you can see the benefits of these partnerships and of working with agencies. I'm fully supportive of that concept within government — even within parks — to work with long-established agencies and park facilitators, which have been shown to be of great interest to what goes on in the park — to be able to work with them in an area of cooperation that will enhance it not only for their clients but also for all the people of British Columbia who use the parks.

As I start to wind down the major components of our throne speech, there is one I'd like to touch on, and that is leading the nation in job creation. Certainly, no one can argue with the numbers that are coming out of British Columbia. I mean, when I look back at what we were faced with over the nineties and the decline, and I start…. I picked up the Globe and Mail the other day, and they had a whole section on B.C. — B.C. is booming — and all the great things going on in the economy.

When they start noticing it in Toronto, the centre of the known world and universe, then we really must be doing something, because they're really aware of what we are doing out in British Columbia. They're not just noticing the investment value for the fat cats in Toronto to invest in but also starting to look at their own government, saying: "Why aren't you guys getting on board and starting to take some initiatives like they're taking in British Columbia to ensure that we can get our economy going again too?"

It is nice to know that instead of being a lagging follower at number ten in economic growth in the country, we are back up to number one. Not only are we number one, but people are really looking to what we are doing to do that.

Locally, one of the success stories I like to talk about is our local airport. I have been very pleased over the last four years to be involved in three projects there. We just recently, last week, announced $337,000 in funds to assist them in blacktopping the airport. The airport was getting to the point after years of neglect — and this just doesn't happen overnight — to where if they didn't get some major work done to their runways, they may even have had to consider shutting down some of their runways.

That would have really been a very sad event, because they've just recently — again, through provincial help — built a new terminal building. For the dollars that they spent on it…. It is an amazing building that they got for the money they put into that. Plus, we recently contributed $80,000 to a greenway project, a tunnel along the dikes which allows the security of the airport to not be breached.

This does allow people who are walking the circuit around the Fraser River on the dike system there to continue through the airport without causing a security breach. This was another great project partnering with the community, which allows an industrial and commercial centre like an airport, which has security needs…. It allows it to be open in a sense of allowing traffic around it that was recently impeded. So these are great projects for that.

Looking out to the future, this airport…. I see nothing but positive things happening out there, when we have…. It is one of the closest airports, actually, to Whistler. Very few people know that next to Pemberton, it is probably the closest airport. It's directly south of Whistler. You just go up the Pitt valley and hop over the pass, and there you are in Whistler. So we're looking forward to some spinoffs from that.

As I wind down, sort of the last topic that I would like to talk about today…. We do have an election coming up. People were talking about what we've done over our period of time. The opposition is always saying: "Well, you know, you are comparing us to the last government." Well, that's what we have to compare ourselves with.

I look at how we've come up with a plan and actually completed 97 percent of that plan that we came up with. When I look at the types of activities we've done, the way we have turned the economy around…. I think that occasionally, you really do have to look back in history and remember what it was like. I remember coming into the election in 2001. The nurses were on strike, the doctors were threatening strike, transit was a mess, and the teachers were ready to go out.

You know, you have to look back occasionally to see where we were and where we've come from. Now we look, and we see we've had the least number of days lost to strikes in British Columbia for decades. We look at all the improvements that have gone on in the economy, and we look at the average take-home pay. Well, let's reflect back a bit and remember when, five short years ago, we had the worst economy in Canada. The average in-house pay for a family went down by $1,700 over that decade, and 50,000 British Columbians left B.C. to go to Alberta. If you've ever been to Red Deer in the middle of winter, that's pretty hard to imagine, but they did.

That was just because the jobs weren't here. One in ten British Columbians was on welfare. We've got these people back to work, and they're very happy for it. One of the things I led off with was talking about our local office and the work they've done.

In closing, I just want to say how proud I am to have been involved with this government. I'm certainly looking forward to returning here in the future. If not, it has certainly been a wonderful experience to date.

Hon. J. van Dongen: I'm pleased to address the House today on the throne speech. I'm very pleased to do that as MLA for my constituency, Abbotsford-Clayburn, and as Minister of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries.

It is great for the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries and for farmers, fishermen and processors to see ourselves as an integral part of the government's plan and to see our future in the vision of the golden decade ahead. I would like to tell you how relevant agriculture, food and fisheries are to four of the five themes of the throne speech and how these sectors will

Our ministry's vision is for a competitive and profitable agrifood industry that provides safe, high-quality food for consumers and export markets. We are able to accomplish an astonishing amount of work in partnership with other levels of government and the industry on behalf of our very significant sectors. We do it with limited resources, and we do it with a lot of heart and commitment to the constituencies we serve.

One of the things I am most proud about, being in this government, is that we do have the willingness to lay out a plan. We have the courage to make the difficult decisions to deliver on that plan, we have the persistence to stay the course as the plan begins to work, and we have the dedication to avoid the temptation to stray off course into knee-jerk and ad hoc decision-making. Now we see, within British Columbia, the positive results of having that plan and sticking to it. Our plan is taking root and bearing fruit. Our government's plan is now helping British Columbia realize its full potential as the best place on earth to live, play, work and the best place on earth to grow.

It is no secret that the decade prior to 2001 has been dubbed the lost decade. That's when British Columbia lost its leadership as an economic engine in Canada. That's when we lost so many of our bright young minds to other provinces because there was no hope for employment here in British Columbia. That's when British Columbians lost confidence in their economy, and when major industry decided it just wasn't worth the risk of major investment. We see industries like the mining industry coming back to British Columbia. They were literally driven out of the province by the previous government. We did lose our course as a province through that decade. But in the last four years we have been rebuilding and regaining B.C.'s stature within Canada and on the world stage.

In 2001 the Premier told us to roll up our sleeves and put British Columbia back to work. Because British Columbians embraced that challenge and made the sacrifices, we are now able to make more choices in terms of our social programs.

The throne speech delivered in this House on February 8 laid out a vision for a golden decade, a vision that is so much better than the lost decade of the 1990s. The coming decade will be a time of unprecedented improvement in our lives, a time of growth, a time of accomplishment and a time to enjoy the fruits of the sacrifices that have been made.

Every economic indicator and every forecaster says that B.C. is back in business. Over the last three and a half years we have made the difficult decisions, but to put it in simple terms, B.C. will have a sound future because we took responsibility to build a sound economy and to get the province to a point where we didn't spend more money than we had coming in as revenue.

Most importantly to me, our government believes that rural and coastal communities also deserve to benefit from the economic recovery just as much as urban British Columbia. Agriculture, especially, has come through a few rough years with the twin crises of BSE and avian influenza. Our government has given significant support to these sectors in the past year — financially, with staff resources and by keeping B.C.'s issues high in the consciousness of the federal government. We have worked closely all along with the Canadian government and the poultry industry to address avian influenza, and we are now taking measures to ensure that poultry biosecurity and emergency response are enhanced.

Three weeks ago I travelled to Washington, D.C., with the federal minister and several provincial colleagues. We were there to receive the news that the U.S. border would open on March 7 to live cattle under 30 months. But more recently — last week, in fact — we received the discouraging news of the Montana court decision and the vote by the U.S. Senate. Both opposed a further opening of the border as proposed by their own U.S. government, based on pure politics rather than sound science and good economics.

Here in Canada, our meat processing industry has stepped up to the plate to meet the new demands and requirements and to boost own ability to process our own meat products and not to rely on live exports to the U.S. to such an extent. Canada will now concentrate on increasing processing capacity and selling to countries other than the U.S., and U.S. consumers will pay more due to the shortsightedness of their judges and Senators. Despite the ongoing pressure, we have weathered the storm. Now we are able to look on to brighter horizons for the future.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. members, pursuant to the motion on today's Votes and Proceedings, page 3, the vote will now be taken.

The motion — moved by the member for Delta North, seconded by the member for East Kootenay — is: "We, Her Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia in session assembled, beg leave to thank Your Honour for the gracious speech which Your Honour has addressed to us at the opening of the present session."

Hansard Services publishes transcripts both in print and on the Internet. Chamber debates are broadcast on television and webcast on the Internet.


	YEAS — 31

Coell	Bell	van Dongen
Barisoff	Roddick	Wilson
Bray	Cobb	Brice
Abbott	Anderson	Jarvis
Nebbeling	R. Stewart	Chutter
Long	Mayencourt	Johnston
Krueger	J. Reid	Stephens
Masi	Nijjar	Lekstrom


MacKay	K. Stewart	Suffredine
Whittred	Sultan	Hawes
	Kerr

	NAYS — 4

Kwan	MacPhail	Brar
	Nettleton