Hansard -- Tuesday, September 13, 2005 p.m. -- Vol. 1, No. 4 (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		29

Motions without Notice		29
	Amendment to Standing Orders
	Hon. M. de Jong

Statements (Standing Order 25B)		29
	Social service providers in B.C.
	G. Hogg
	Fire at Burns Bog
	G. Gentner
	Abbotsford Airport expansion
	R. Hawes
	Sports in Trail
	K. Conroy
	Economy in northwestern B.C.
	D. MacKay
	Reopening of Mount Polley mine
	B. Simpson

Oral Questions		31
	B.C. Rail–CN Rail agreement and cost of rail crossing upgrades
	C. James
	Hon. K. Falcon
	D. Chudnovsky
	N. Macdonald
	J. Kwan
	Mountain pine beetle strategy
	B. Simpson
	Hon. R. Coleman
	Federal funding for mountain pine beetle strategy
	H. Lali
	Hon. R. Coleman
	Availability of mental health services for youth
	C. Wyse
	Hon. G. Abbott
	Support for parents of infants relocated for health care services
	D. Cubberley
	Hon. G. Abbott
	J. Brar
	Investigation of CN train derailment and damages to environment
	S. Simpson
	Hon. B. Penner

Throne Speech Debate (continued)		36
	C. James
	L. Mayencourt
	J. Rustad
	D. Routley
	Hon. I. Chong
	B. Simpson
	Hon. R. Coleman
	C. Evans
	J. Nuraney

S. Hawkins: Today in the House I am pleased to introduce members and staff from the Select Committee on Electoral Reform from the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. They are Norm Miller, MPP and vice-Chair; Michael Prue, MPP; Monique Smith, MPP; Richard Patten, MPP; Larry Johnston, research officer; and Anne Stokes, Clerk of the committee.

The committee is meeting in the precinct today on matters relating to the Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform and the work of the Special Committee on the Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform. Tomorrow meetings have been arranged for them in Vancouver. I would ask the House to please make them all welcome.

Hon. G. Campbell: Today I'm sure members in the House will recognize that Scott Sutherland, the longstanding legislative correspondent for Broadcast News, is not with us. He and his wife Marcie are on Saltspring Island right now, where they are celebrating the birth of their first grandson, Michael Ellery Stocks. I'd like to congratulate Scott, Marcie and the mother, Bronwyn and the father, Jamid.

R. Lee: It's my pleasure this afternoon to welcome several guests from Shanghai, China. They are Mr. Frank Fu, deputy general manager, China International Intellectech Corporation; Mr. Jeffery Zhang, assistant general manager; and Mr. Yongxiang Qiu, manager, department of overseas development. Accompanying them are Anguo Huang and Mr. Eugene Liu from Burnaby. CIIC is seeking opportunities in building up trade between China and British Columbia. Would the House please make them welcome.

G. Hogg: In British Columbia we have some of the world's most creative, accountable and effective social service providers, and many of them are on the forefront of excellence-seeking for the non-profit sector. They recognize that what business entrepreneurs are to the economy, social entrepreneurs are to social change.

William Drayton has observed that over the past two decades the world has seen a dramatic expansion of the citizen non-profit sector and has seen the explosive emergence of social entrepreneurship. This change has come about as a result of a profound change in our society's underlying culture. The social sector is becoming structurally as entrepreneurial and competitive as the business sector. Increasingly, the world is being defined by the irrepressible dynamic of citizen groups competing to solve social problems at whatever level is required.

We have long understood that top business entrepreneurs create or redefine industries. Now top social entrepreneurs are redefining health, poverty, homelessness and other areas of human need. Both sectors, the business and the social, market their products and their services. Both are operational sectors, and both become wonderfully innovative when the political and cultural environments are supportive. The distinction that business does its work through a for-profit format and that citizen groups usually do theirs through a non-profit format sometimes obscures the fact that both exist and that both are sanctioned and regulated by the state for the purpose of creating value for society.

Government's primary strength is not its operational ability but its ability to represent the whole population and to foster conditions to promote fairness and productive activity in all sectors. Government's announcement of a Pacific centre for social innovation will help to provide a supportive environment within which our social innovators can create value while addressing social needs for British Columbians. It's a good, good thing for British Columbia.

G. Gentner: Mr. Speaker, I congratulate you on your election and thank you for the opportunity to speak.

At noon today I spoke to my constituency assistant, who told me of the possible need to close our office today because of the almost unbearable smoke from

the fire raging in Burns Bog. I rise to give heartfelt thanks to the 60 or more firefighters from Delta and the 30 support crew members of gallant and brave men and women who are risking their lives on the fire line, the hand crews fighting the extremely dangerous terrain of 200 hectares — almost half the size of Stanley Park — within a bog area of over 7,000 acres that encompasses over a quarter of the land mass of Delta, overlapping both the constituencies of Delta North and, of course, Delta South.

Burns Bog is a carbon sink, scrubbing the atmosphere of carbon and storing it. Unfortunately, there are arteries of methane underground, making bog fires stubborn to put out. Hopefully, our fire crews will be able to put out this fire very soon.

I would particularly like to take the opportunity of thanking Fire Chief Gord Freeborn and his Delta fire crew; the GVRD; the B.C. Forest Service, for its quick response in this cooperative effort; Delta Mayor Lois Jackson and her council; Delta Chief Administrator Mr. George Harvie and his staff; Delta operations; and the Delta Parks and Recreation Commission for assisting with the command post. I ask this House to recognize at this time all workers and volunteers involved in putting out this potentially devastating fire.

R. Hawes: The Fraser Valley is the fastest-growing area in Canada, and that growth is putting great pressure on the Abbotsford International Airport. The airport now services 400,000 passengers annually, and with growth rates averaging 25 percent per annum, the annual passenger load is anticipated to surpass one million within five years. To accommodate this growth and build on a burgeoning international market, a $20 million expansion has commenced. Our government has funded $4.25 million of this, and the airport itself will raise $5.5 million. The airport authority is calling on the federal government to fund the $10.25 million balance, but to date there has been no commitment from Ottawa.

Additionally, the Abbotsford International Airport must pay the federal government $1,500 for customs service for every international flight. Other much smaller airports such as Bathurst, St. Stephen Airport, Grand Manam and Edmundston, all of which have no scheduled airline service, receive customs services at no charge from the federal government.

Recently an aircraft bound for Vancouver from Mexico was diverted to Abbotsford. Passengers were forced to wait on the plane for three hours until customs could send a number of guards to ensure all of the passengers got onto a bus for Vancouver, where they could go through regular customs. There were 11 Fraser Valley residents on that plane who had to bus into Vancouver and back rather than deplane in their own community.

This is a huge economic development issue for the Fraser Valley and for the province as a whole. There are also issues of regional equity and fairness at play here.

I know that the Minister of Transportation will continue to pressure the federal government on this issue. I call on all members of this House to request that their MPs lobby on behalf of all British Columbians for capital funding support and federally supplied customs services so badly needed at the Abbotsford International Airport.

K. Conroy: Today I'm pleased to inform the House that in my constituency of West Kootenay–Boundary, the city of Trail has recently been named the best sports town in B.C. Nominations were based on history, passion of the citizens, achievement and the athletes produced.

Trail has a long history of team and individual accomplishments in the athletic world. These include the hockey legacy of the Trail Smoke Eaters, a senior A team that won the 1939 and 1961 world championships; NHL players like Barrett Jackman, Adam Deadmarsh, Ray Ferrero and Steve Tambellini, to name just a few; also, Olympic heroes like rower Kathleen Heddle, decathlete Gerry Moro, and Gordie Robertson — who was on the gold-medal Olympic hockey team in Oslo in 1952.

There have also been some amazing coaches, like track coach Willi Krause, and Little League baseball coach Andy Bilesky, who's taken a number of Trail's Little League teams to the Canadian nationals and on to Williamsport, Pennsylvania. Of course, everyone is watching with pride the career of Jason Bay, the 2004 National League Rookie of the Year, and his sister Lauren Bay and her amazing pitching arm on Canada's national women's fast-pitch team.

This tribute also goes to the many volunteers in the community who make all these sports possible. As the community promotion chair Betty Anne Marino said, our distinctness is that sport is so much a part of the fabric of our community. And it's not just the sports. It's the volunteers that go into making the sports success happen — that culture of volunteerism and sense of commitment. I don't think many communities have all of that.

It is indeed unfortunate that I don't have time to list all of the many athletes who have excelled in their sports who hail from Trail, but the city has taken care of that. In 1996 a statue and monument was erected in downtown Trail that lists all of those who've excelled in sports, industry or lifestyle, and it is added to every year. Most names so far are athletes, and I think all of those recognized to date, of all ages, feel as Jason Bay has said: it is quite an honour.

Trail is indeed, as its community slogan says, "The home of the champions." I ask that the House join me in acknowledging this recognition.

D. MacKay: I would like to spend the next two minutes and speak about the economy of the northwest part of our province. The naysayers of four years ago said that tax reforms would not pay for themselves and

that the reduction of red tape and regulation would not work to revitalize our economy. We saw the very positive results of those initiatives almost immediately in the lower mainland. Today I would like to speak about some of the positive economic indicators that are taking place in Bulkley Valley–Stikine.

The Tulsequah Chief mine near Atlin finally got the final environmental approval from the federal government. The Red Chris mine near Iskut received final approval from the provincial environmental review committee. The Galore Creek property was expected to spend $20 million on exploration. By the end of this year they will have spent almost $40 million just doing exploration on that one property. Blue Pearl Mining is looking at developing a molybdenum mine in the Hudson Bay Mountain near Smithers.

The town of Smithers is expanding its airport terminal building, and plans are underway to extend the runway. And 20/20 Resorts Inc. acquired the Ski and Ride Smithers resort. This ski hill was named B.C.'s top ski resort by the B.C. Ski Association in 2003. Big development plans are awaiting that development. We are also seeing some bidding wars on real estate in Smithers.

B. Simpson: This Friday I will have the pleasure of attending the official reopening of Mount Polley mine near Likely. The reopening of this mine is an economic boost to this region and will make a positive contribution to the diversification of the economies of Likely, Horsefly, Williams Lake and Quesnel.

However, before the government members of the House take credit for this mine reopening, I'd like to read an excerpt from Imperial Metals Corp.'s website. Imperial owns Mount Polley.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I'm thrilled to announce the official reopening of this mine while at the same time setting the record straight as to why it is indeed reopening. I look forward to joining the hard-working folks at Mount Polley on Friday and celebrating their achievements.

C. James: Mr. Speaker, it's an honour to rise and ask my first question in our new 30-minute question period. My question is on an issue of importance to all British Columbians, and my question is to the Premier. Can the Premier explain why he signed a contract to sell B.C. Rail that allowed CN to charge property owners for upgrades to rail crossings along the B.C. Rail corridor?

Hon. K. Falcon: Actually, the CN–B.C. Rail investment partnership was undertaken to provide some extraordinary benefits for British Columbians — benefits that I am pleased to say include a $135 million northern development initiative, benefits that include over a thousand new railcars and benefits that will open up the province and feed the economy of British Columbia.

C. James: I would just like to provide a little more information for the Premier to be able to answer the question and to speak to the benefits, like new charges, perhaps, that property owners are now having to carry. According to CN, in a letter sent on August 16 to property owners, CN is now transferring its responsibility to individual British Columbians to pay the cost of upgrades to rail crossings. Needless to say, this has come as a complete surprise to the property owners. As we all know, B.C. Rail was responsible for rail crossings in our province.

Again, I'd like to ask the Premier to tell us: where in the sale contract does it speak to the fact that CN is now allowed to charge British Columbians for upgrades to the railway that that government gave away?

Hon. K. Falcon: I'd be happy to try and get more details for the member. One thing I do know is that B.C. Rail…. Under B.C. Rail operation they had the same obligation to charge those fees. What often happened was — not surprisingly, when it's a government-run railway — there was political interference that took place. One of the things we wanted to do was actually eliminate political interference in the operation of the railway. That's one of the great advantages of having CN as the new independently operated railway. They are investing enormous amounts — hundreds of millions of dollars — to improve that rail infrastructure right across British Columbia, to the benefit of British Columbia's booming economy.

C. James: It's very clear that the minister doesn't know his file well on this issue. I'd be happy to provide some more information to him.

Let me quote from the letter. This is a quote from CN. "Improving approach grades and installing a gate with a lock is your responsibility. You must do it at your own expense." CN then goes on to say that a charge of $535, an annual administrative fee for this privilege, will be charged.

I would like to ask again if the Premier can tell us how many British Columbians are being forced to pay CN's bills.

Hon. K. Falcon: As I said to the member, I'd be happy to look into further detail, but what I want to remind the member of is that, actually, nothing has changed since B.C. Rail was also operating on those tracks. The only difference is that what used to happen, inevitably, as in so many cases as a result of political interference, is that politicians interfered with B.C. Rail making the kind of economic decisions they were supposed to have made.

As a result of that, B.C. Rail ended up under a staggering debt load of half a billion dollars. As a result of that, the previous government, as that member should well know, had to write off over a billion dollars of taxpayer money as a result of political mismanagement and interference. I think it's great today that we now have a situation where we have a railway that is making the hundreds of millions of dollars of investment to ensure that our economy in British Columbia continues to grow…

D. Chudnovsky: This extended question period isn't going to work very well if all the ministers do is dodge the questions.

Let me provide some additional information. Not only is CN forcing British Columbians to pay thousands of dollars to maintain their rail line; they also want their strong-arm tactics kept secret. Section 24 of the contract that CN is forcing people to sign says very clearly that the new agreement is confidential and that no one is allowed to talk about it.

Can the Minister of Transportation tell us if he thinks it's appropriate for CN to muzzle British Columbians in this way, and can he tell us what he's going to do about it?

Hon. K. Falcon: Well, I'm a little surprised to hear the member of the opposition say that, because actually, if the member would take the time to go onto the website, he would find the entire agreement, over 600 pages, is available for his purview. I would encourage the member to go and take the time….

Hon. K. Falcon: I would encourage the member to actually take the time and go through and read that agreement. I think he'll find it most interesting.

D. Chudnovsky: CN is not giving people a choice. The message is simple: pay up or else. I'll quote from the agreement: "If the agreement and rental fees are not paid, the agreement may be cancelled and the crossing removed." Can the Minister of Transportation tell us if he signed off on this new arrangement when he sold B.C. Rail, or is CN violating that agreement?

Hon. K. Falcon: To the member of the opposition, one thing that I would remind the member is that both local governments and private landowners paid for the maintenance and the construction of road crossings over the railway right-of-way when the railway was operated by B.C. Rail. These often, in many cases…. Granted, they never paid them or wouldn't pay them, and there was often political interference, but that was the standard of the day. CN is operating in the same manner that used to be operated under B.C. Rail. I imagine the only difference is that they probably want to make sure they get paid for that. In this case, we won't be interfering as the government used to do under B.C. Rail's operation.

N. Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, it looks as if the government knew all along about this arrangement. In 2004 the government rescinded legislation that gave the minister the authority to force CN to pay for its own upgrades. Will the Minister of Community Services assure this House that CN isn't going to use its bully tactics on municipalities?

Hon. K. Falcon: You know, Mr. Speaker, I'm almost enjoying this, because it seems that the member opposite — in fact, all the members opposite — haven't recognized one other thing they're very silent about, which I find interesting. What about the tens of millions of dollars in property taxes now being paid by CN Rail to all of those municipalities this member professes to be concerned about? That was one of the many benefits. I'd be happy to list a lot more of them for the members, if they'd like; for example, the 7 percent average reduction in shipping costs, the fact that

shipping times are 30 percent faster, the fact that we get goods to market faster, the fact that they've invested in over a thousand new railcars. Mr. Speaker, that's the kind of value that British Columbians were looking for in that agreement…

J. Kwan: I'd like this minister to tell British Columbians how being charged a fee for rail crossings is actually a benefit.

From the very beginning the B.C. Rail deal has been marred in secrecy, scandal and serious corruption allegations. This summer we have seen unprecedented derailments affecting our environment, and now we have this: CN picking the pockets of British Columbians.

I notice that the Minister of Revenue is displaying a huge, life-sized sign — "A Taxpayer Fairness Code," it says — in his office. The code says he will treat B.C. taxpayers with respect. Can he tell us if CN's tactics meet with this government's definition of respect for B.C. taxpayers?

Hon. K. Falcon: I'll say it again, because perhaps the three other times I've said it, it hasn't quite registered. Under B.C. Rail operation, the local governments and private land owners paid for the maintenance and construction of road crossings over railway right-of-ways when the railway was operated by B.C. Rail. Nothing has changed there. This member then goes off on a rant about the B.C. Rail–CN investment partnership, which has provided tremendous benefits to British Columbia. I just note that they overlooked those benefits.

In fact, one of the ones that I've heard about just recently that folks were glowing about in Asia was the fact that we were investing, in partnership with CN and the federal government, almost $100 million into the port of Prince Rupert. That is going to turn that port into a superport, which is going to be a tremendous benefit to the northwestern part of this province. That is something that they are excited about in China and we are excited about in British Columbia. That was yet another benefit of this tremendous CN investment partnership.

J. Kwan: Is the minister saying, then, that public safety is now a responsibility of individual property taxpayers? Is that what he's saying? Was that explicit in the contract which he signed with CN?

Hon. K. Falcon: Well, I have now answered this four times, and I'll say it again: private land owners, local governments — anyone with a private crossing over a railway — have always been responsible for any costs of upgrades to those crossings. Nothing has changed, except the only thing that changed is that the government no longer has the ability to interfere with the decisions about making those payments. Apparently that troubles the member opposite, but I can tell you, as Minister of Transportation, I'm comfortable with that.

B. Simpson: Just last month the Agriculture Minister told a reporter in Prince George that the mountain pine beetle epidemic was good for agriculture in this province, because as the beetle kills off forests, that land will become farmland.

Does the Minister of Forests and Range agree with his cabinet colleague's suggestion that forestry is a sunset industry?

Hon. R. Coleman: I think what's important here is that people realize that we have a pine beetle epidemic in the interior of British Columbia and that all strategies relative to enhancement of agriculture, as well as the protection of our forests and the economic values of the fibre, along with a way to implement to protect the future of our communities and including the fact that forestry will not be a sunset industry in British Columbia — the priorities of this government…. It will include all aspects and all discussions relative to agriculture, forestry, reforestation and the plan to protect our communities in the future.

B. Simpson: I find it intriguing that the minister talks about all aspects being included in finding a solution to the mountain pine beetle. I find it intriguing that he talks about a broader strategy beyond the mountain pine beetle that includes all of the issues that are out there on our land base. I also find it intriguing that this minister refuses to engage this opposition in a bipartisan approach to resolving this problem and finding long-term sustainable solutions.

Hon. R. Coleman: The fact of the matter is that over the last four years this government has engaged all aspects with regards to this. There was an MLA committee that went out and dealt with the mountain pine beetle. It led into a Premier's summit in the Cariboo with regards to the mountain pine beetle strategy. A strategy was put together. It is now at the implementation stage. It is funded.

We also went to communities and said: "Would you come back with your business case, your beetle action plan, so we can work with communities across the province to build long-term sustainability." We've already funded the Cariboo-Chilcotin beetle action committee. We are now sitting down with the Omineca Beetle Action Coalition and working with one in the Okanagan.

In addition to that, we have an implementation plan coming shortly with regards to the $100 million from the federal government. We will do a plan and work through this with the communities and the people affected, so we can build long-term sustainability and protect the people in the Cariboo and other areas affected by the mountain pine beetle.

H. Lali: My question is to the Minister of Forests. Will the Minister of Forests and Range please reveal to this House whether or not his government has received the $100 million of pine beetle aid from the federal government?

Hon. R. Coleman: We have the commitment from the federal government. We will be dealing with it in the budget debates that are coming forward. I cannot disclose what may or may not be in the budget, as you know, but tomorrow you will see the provincial budget.

I can tell the member this. We have the commitment for the $100 million. We have an implementation plan for the $100 million. It will include first nations; it will include communities; it will include resource management. It will include the things we have discussed with the federal government of the importance to protect our communities in British Columbia.

H. Lali: Yes. The minister says he's got a plan. Then what's the plan? Is the government's plan, then, to turn forestry into farmland? The member from Prince George has made the statement publicly that he sees this as good future farmland.

Meanwhile, you've got all of these communities throughout rural British Columbia — ranging all the way from the north and Prince George through to Williams Lake, Quesnel, Merritt, Princeton and all of those areas — that are being devastated by the pine beetle, and the government has done absolutely nothing but sit on their hands. The Premier and the minister have played willy-nilly for the last four years.

What's the government's plan? Is the government's plan to turn forestry into farmland? Is that the plan, and will the minister or the Premier, either one of them, please get up and answer this question?

Hon. R. Coleman: In 1905 there were three million cubic metres of mature pine in B.C.'s forests. Today there are 1.2 billion cubic metres of mature pine in B.C.'s forests. What changed? The temperature went up 2.6 degrees, and we put out forest fires — the only other thing that deals with beetle. This is not something that some member can stand up in this House….

If I wanted to go back and give you the history of when this started in Tweedsmuir Park, we could get into that debate, and you would find out it was 1993 and the history behind it. I don't believe that does a darn thing for communities in British Columbia. What I do believe is that we will build a plan, just like we raised the annual allowable cut in that member's riding area with regards to mountain pine beetle, so they can get the fibre off the ground. Actually, then we'll reforest, and in some cases there may be opportunities for other use of the land. We'd better be open to that, so we can build sustainability for our communities in British Columbia.

C. Wyse: A father from Surrey recently pressed criminal charges against his own daughter in hopes of getting her the care she needs. In fact, a team of health care professionals told the father that this would be the only way for his daughter to get the help she required.

Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Health. Is this the minister's strategy to help citizens that suffer from mental illness — to leave parents with no option but laying charges so that their children get the help that they need?

Hon. G. Abbott: I thank the member for his question. I'm not familiar with the case that the member cites. I would certainly welcome him providing me with the details of that file, and we'll look into it for him. What I would not want to note, though, is that this government makes annually a billion dollar investment in mental health care in this province.

We have done tremendous things in the area of mental health. Obviously, there are more things to be done, and we look forward to working with the members opposite to try to achieve that. But we've made great strides moving forward. We've come a long ways, I should tell the member, from the days when the NDP would announce a $125 million mental health plan and then not fund it. We've come a long ways from there, and I look forward to working with the member to do even better.

C. Wyse: Indeed, I will provide that information to your office, but let me try this another way.

To the Attorney General: should B.C.'s courts be performing triage for people with mental illness?

Hon. G. Abbott: Again, to the member, I think I would welcome him providing us with that case file,

and I would certainly, if it's a constituent of his or someone of particular interest to him, welcome the opportunity to work with him or with the appropriate MLA to try to find a resolution to this important issue. Again, I'm not going to speculate on what can or should be done. These cases are very frequently difficult, as the member knows, and I believe that they should be resolved without politics. So, I look forward to working with the member to see that occur.

D. Cubberley: Recently the experiences of Melissa White, a resident of Vancouver Island, came to light. When Melissa's baby was born prematurely, there were no neonatal care beds available on the Island, so she was relocated to Surrey Memorial Hospital. That would be distressing to any new parent. What's even more distressing is that the Ministry of Health refused this new mother any support so that she could stay in Surrey with her premature baby, forcing her to leave the baby in Surrey while she travelled to and fro.

To the Minister of Health: what is the ministry's strategy for ensuring parents are assisted in staying with their children when they're relocated for care?

Hon. G. Abbott: I thank the member for raising this important issue, because it is an important issue. I have followed and the ministry has followed, with interest and concern, the particular case that the member cites. We continue to look into it. I will say this, though. Every health authority attempts to make provision for all of the mothers and babies that are born within their jurisdictions. There are occasions…. I understand that for a long time it has been the case that occasionally circumstances arise where there are situations in terms of the level of care required or the number of cases that are in a particular jurisdiction at a particular time, and people, unfortunately, are forced to relocate to another hospital or jurisdiction to get the care they need. So, we are looking into this. I think it is very important that wherever possible we are able to ensure that the mothers and babies remain together.

I am also, as the member noted, concerned particularly about what was offered to the mother in terms of accommodation and management during a very difficult period in her life. So, I do appreciate the member raising it. If the member has information which I'm perhaps not privy to, I would certainly welcome that as well.

D. Cubberley: I thank the minister for the comments, but Ms. White is not alone in her experiences. Recently Joanne Harding, a mother from 100 Mile House, was relocated to a hospital in the lower mainland for the birth of her premature twins. However, after just a week these new babies were relocated to Kamloops, this time without the mother's knowledge or permission. Imagine arriving at the hospital and your babies are gone. That's what happened to Ms. Harding.

My question again to the Minister of Health: are parents being shut out when it comes to decisions affecting the welfare of their own children?

Hon. G. Abbott: The answer is no — absolutely not. It is entirely wrong that parents don't have management over their children at that particular point in their lives. Again, I'm not familiar with the specific case that the member cites. I will note, though, in fairness to the health authorities, that there will be, into the future, cases where mothers and/or their babies require a higher level of care than is available at the hospital in which they are giving birth. That will continue to happen. That having been said, it would be inconsistent with protocols, as I understand them, for a mother to see her children transferred without her knowledge.

Again, if the member wants to add some additional detail here or forward that detail to me, I certainly would look at it with interest and concern.

J. Brar: The stories of Surrey Memorial Hospital are not new to this House, but we are starting to hear stories about other areas which are happening as well. I'm troubled by listening to the comment and question of my colleague and the answers from the minister.

I want to know: how could this happen in this province — separating the babies from the mother? Can we get assurance from the minister that this will not happen in this province again?

Hon. G. Abbott: I think it's always a little dangerous for politicians to start making decisions which appropriately reside with the medical community. To say that that will never happen again, I think, exposes mothers and their children to some jeopardy. It is not going to be the case in every hospital or every health facility in the province that they are capable of dealing with the kind of emergent situations which can occur during childbirth. It would be inappropriate to make the kind of commitment that the member asked me to do.

What we are doing, much more appropriately, is looking at this issue within the health authorities and across the province to ensure that, in as many cases as is possible, we can avoid the separation of mother and children, and in fact have the mother and children in the hospital in which they are resident. But there will always be cases where, in the best interests of the mother, in the best interests of the child or children, they get a higher level of care.

J. Brar: What the minister is telling us is that he cannot stop this happening in this province — in very simple language. I don't understand that. I understand that these decisions are made somewhere else, but this

government has a responsibility to provide directions to those people and to make sure the people in this province feel safe, feel secure and have the quality health care as everybody expects.

I want to understand from the minister: will he leave all those important decisions in the hands of those bureaucrats and sit here doing nothing, or will he direct them to do something so that this does not happen again in this province?

Hon. G. Abbott: Again, we are not going to be making decisions about people's health, in particular the health of a mother and her newborn baby, within this Legislature. I think we need to give some credit to the exceptional people — the doctors, the nurses, the administrators, the front-line workers across this province — who every day make life-and-death decisions.

We have a great health care system in this province — a great health care system. Is it perfect? No, it's not perfect, but it's a great health care system that we have in British Columbia.

Hon. G. Abbott: And we want to make that great health care system even better. We've added dollars for maternity care in this province. We've added significant dollars for maternity care. We are working with the health authorities to try to ensure that where we have cases like the members have mentioned, which I think are unfortunate and exceptional, we need to work very hard. We need to seek continuous improvement so we see that occur less often.

S. Simpson: Earlier this year the people living along the Cheakamus River faced an environmental and economic catastrophe caused by a sodium hydroxide spill from a CN derailment. This, as we know, was only one of a number of derailments and accidents caused by CN in this country.

Can the Minister of Environment tell this House whether his assessment of that accident has been completed and whether we can expect any fines or charges to be laid against CN in this matter?

Hon. B. Penner: Work is ongoing in terms of the assessment, in terms of the damage that took place and, more importantly at this stage, what recovery work can take place. There's an ongoing investigation being headed up by the federal government in terms of the cause of the actual derailment.

I can tell you that I was very displeased to learn about the fish kill that took place as a result of the derailment and the spill of the chemical into the river, but at this point I do think it's important to stress the good news: no human lives were lost and, to my knowledge, nobody became ill or sick as a result of the spill.

We all regret the loss of fish in the river. The Ministry of Environment is leading the recovery task force effort, which will put together some plans to recover the fish stocks for the future. But at this point, we're awaiting the results of the Transport Canada investigation. I can tell you that if we find that CN violated British Columbia laws, I expect prosecutions to take place, and I fully intend to hold CN entirely responsible for the cost of any and all cleanup, including the recovery effort itself.

Mr. Speaker: I'd just like to take this opportunity to introduce a former MLA. Mike Hunter from Nanaimo is sitting here in the court.

C. James: Today I rise in response to the Speech from the Throne, my first speech in this House as a member of this Legislature and as Leader of the official Official Opposition. I'd like to start by acknowledging a unique privilege: I have the honour of speaking within my own constituency, Victoria–Beacon Hill.

This community is a special place for me. I was raised here, and I raised my family here. It's a place I've called home almost my entire life, and it's a place where I formed my values — the values that I bring to bear both on my personal and my political life. The people of Victoria–Beacon Hill put their trust in me to represent them in this House. It's a humbling responsibility, and I will work every day as hard as I can to return that trust and to fulfil that responsibility.

On this occasion I also want to acknowledge the Premier, his ministers and the members of his caucus. On behalf of my caucus, I congratulate them.

The founders of the British parliamentary system, the system on which this House is built, centred it around two poles: government and its opposition. Our political system is adversarial by design. However, none of us should forget why we're here. We are here to do the best possible job for the people of British Columbia — all of us in this House. Everyone on this side of the House is here with that principle first and foremost in our minds as we begin this parliament.

For the sake of our province we look forward to developing a constructive relationship — one that will, no doubt, be marked by heated debate but one that

will, hopefully, be devoid of invective. The people who put us here and to whom this Legislature belongs expect no less of us than they do of themselves.

Four months ago British Columbians sent this government a very clear message. They gave the government a second mandate, but they also demanded fundamental change and a different approach. For four years this government pursued an agenda that disappointed the people of this province, catching some by surprise and hurting many others. It was an extreme and often uncaring agenda that provided little or no rationale for mean-spirited policies and shortsighted cuts to services, that punished the poor and the most vulnerable and that too often ignored the priorities of low- and middle-income families. It was an agenda that unnecessarily put confrontation and conflict ahead of problem-solving and that shut many British Columbians out.

To many people it seemed this government put politics ahead of common sense and ideology ahead of public good. The people of this province, British Columbians from every region and from all walks of life, spoke with one voice on May 17. They said they want balance. They elected the largest New Democrat opposition in history in order to strike that balance — an opposition to hold this government accountable. And it will be held to account — for the mismanagement of tax dollars and broken promises, like the sale of B.C. Rail; for skyrocketing health care wait-lists and failing privatization schemes that are costing British Columbians more and more for less and less service; for the ongoing chaos in child and family services; for the anguish and anxiety felt by thousands of B.C. seniors who have been treated terribly by this government. Our seniors deserve much better.

Every minister in this government should understand that they now have a counterpart on this side of the House watching their every move, examining their every decision very carefully.

We are a new team. Many of us have no experience in this House, but we have tremendous experience in our own communities, and we are guided by common values — values that are shared by the majority of British Columbians: fairness, balance, compassion, responsibility and democratic accountability.

British Columbians elected New Democrats to bring these values to this House — and we will — to stand up for British Columbians who have not seen these values reflected in the policies of their government, and to ensure that the government is working in the broad public interest, building for the future a better future for everyone, not just a few.

The challenges ahead will test all of us. Prices today for our commodities may be very high, but we must prepare for the day when the inevitable downturn comes. Windfalls are fleeting, and they shouldn't be squandered. Some economic indicators may be up, but far too many people are still struggling. In the interior our mills may be operating, but our forests are dying.

Beneath the surface rhetoric of the government's golden decade, there's growing anxiety and concern about the future — a deep sense expressed by hundreds of thousands on election day that this government's us-and-them attitude, its winner-take-all confrontational approach is out of step with the needs of our province and the reality of our lives. The question now is quite simple: did the government get the message? Did they hear what British Columbians told them?

The throne speech doesn't yet answer that question. British Columbians have learned that throne speeches delivered by this government are unreliable indicators of the government's real agenda. Promises of cooperation, inclusion and shared purpose have all been made before in previous throne speeches, only to be forgotten and abandoned the day after.

One throne speech, one budget isn't going to change that. Only a real and sustained attitude change from this government is going to make the difference. Over the coming weeks and months we will see if government action follows its words.

Is the government serious about quality public health care, or are we going to continue to see creeping privatization? Does the government understand how much it hurt seniors, or will it continue to play definition and numbers games while reducing real levels of care? Does the government realize that British Columbians aren't really interested in its grand privatization theories, that fining contractors doesn't make up for a loss of basic public service? Or will we continue to see ideology trump common sense?

Does the government grasp that access to education and training is the foundation of growth, innovation and shared prosperity, or will the cost of an education continue to far exceed inflation while student assistance is slashed and training programs are abandoned?

Does this government finally understand its obligation to aboriginal people in British Columbia? I don't want to see this government break its word to first nations and aboriginal communities in the same way we saw the government abandon its throne speech promises to the heartlands.

Does this government understand that we must measure our economic success along with our broader environmental and social progress, that we can't succeed as a province if we continue to abandon the sustainability of future generations and keep leaving people behind? Or will words paired with inaction continue to stand in for environmental protection? Will platitudes continue in the absence of real commitments to make life better for the most vulnerable in our province?

Does the government appreciate that its zero-sum political calculations, where many pay the cost and few enjoy the benefits, are jeopardizing our long-term competitive advantage? Or will we continue to see that gap, between those who have and those who don't, continue to grow larger? Does the government understand, as we said time and time again in this campaign, that every British Columbian matters — everyone?

These are the key questions that we're going to be asking in this session and over the course of this par-

liament. And yes, although we are new and may be inexperienced in the art of legislative debate, we also bring a fresh perspective and new priorities to this chamber. We form the official opposition.

But British Columbians also elected us to get things done, to oppose but also to propose. When the government fails, we will be tough and unrelenting. But when the government shows a readiness to work in partnership for the common good, we will join in that pursuit.

This House may be divided, but I know there is much that we share in common. Over the next four years we must not forget that, because to meet the incredible challenges of our time, British Columbians cannot afford to always let what divides us conquer what unites us. We cannot afford to allow the shutting of ears and minds to new ideas simply because they were put forward by old adversaries. Now is not the time for complacency or for traditional habits.

Over the two years that I have led my party, I have travelled throughout British Columbia reaching out and listening to the people of this province. I've made it my priority to reach out across the political divides in search of common ground, and I've seen very clearly that what unites us is much stronger than what divides us.

In Prince George the pine beetle epidemic that is ravaging our forests does not distinguish between New Democrats and Liberals. In Revelstoke the closure of long-term care beds and the separation of seniors offend everyone's sense of fairness. In Nelson relentless cuts and closures have torn the fabric of the entire community. In Surrey everyone is forced to wait in an overcrowded emergency room. In communities around this province, growing homelessness, addictions and despair on our streets underscore our collective sense of responsibility to each other.

As I have said before, there are no enemies in British Columbia. We will all sink or swim together, and despite our differences, we must take up our challenges with shared purpose and resolve.

That's why, for example, we're proposing a united approach to addressing the pine beetle epidemic. Of course there are compromises to be made on our proposals, but the point is that we must take this issue on more aggressively than has been done.

I'm glad to see the Premier acknowledge the extent of the challenge posed to our province by the pine beetle, but I'm disappointed to hear the government still offering nothing more than talk. Communities being devastated deserved action months and months ago. Indeed, they were actually promised action months ago, but to date we've seen nothing from this government but road signs that point out what we already know. We have a disaster on our hands. We must engage everyone in finding a solution and putting forward a plan to manage this ongoing natural disaster. Again today I would reach out to the Premier and ask him to take us up on our offer of help and support in addressing this crisis.

The government has put forward proposals for reform inside this House. They're welcome steps, but equally important is the need for democratic reform outside this House.

The Premier has acknowledged public concerns flowing from the STV referendum result, and he has identified voter participation in the political process as a priority. We should also be putting forward a bolder package of democratic reform. We agree that voter participation should be a priority.

The Premier and his party have expressed concern regarding the role of third parties and special interests in politics, and we on this side of the House also share those concerns. That's why we've proposed far-reaching campaign finance reform to take big money out of politics and to give democracy back to the people. Again I ask the Premier to bring forward legislation this session that would limit the funding of political parties to individual citizens and that would cap third-party spending at reasonable limits.

I would also ask the Premier to take up our suggestion to ban wasteful taxpayer-funded partisan political advertising. Rather than blowing millions more than were ever budgeted on ads aimed at nothing more than getting the government re-elected, it's time to stop and bring in rules, and we will call for that again.

We've said time and time again that we need to reinstate an independent child protection commissioner. Governments, no matter the political stripe, simply cannot be afraid of the consequences of independent reviews when the lives of our children are at stake. As the Premier said when he sat in this chair on this side of the House: "I want decisions to be made openly, so you can see why those decisions were made and hold us to account, so you can measure the progress we make as we try and create a better environment for children and families to live in, in the province of British Columbia." A quote from the Premier. It was true then, and it remains true today, despite the fact that the Premier now sits opposite.

We also proposed a non-partisan economic advisory council that includes a diversity of voices from business, big and small; from trade unions; from communities and first nations; and from the growing number of British Columbians who work outside traditional industries, often for themselves, on contract or at home. I am pleased to see that the Premier has taken up several parts of our proposal, but there's a long way to go yet.

Every British Columbian has a stake in the economy. The tax-cutting, service-slashing, trickle-down approach has never worked for very long. That's why it lies failing or abandoned in other jurisdictions — because the consequences are always the same. Some benefit; more don't. Societies become strained, and divisions, exacerbated.

We must ensure that more voices are at the table when decisions are made that affect all of our lives, and that the challenges of middle- and low-income British Columbians are not left out of the equation but in fact

Mr. Speaker, it is often said that we're blessed to live in this province — one of the most diverse, interesting and bountiful places on Earth. Like everyone in this room, we watch the incredible disaster that has struck humanity on the Gulf Coast. The sad and startling pictures raise the same question in all of our minds: what combination of factors resulted in a situation where the pain is suffered so disproportionately by those without means?

The answers are not simple, but the question serves as a reminder of our responsibilities to each other, of the reason we all work so hard to get into this chamber. I am so proud to be a British Columbian, and like everyone in this House, I want the very best for our province. I believe passionately that by caring for each other, by looking out for common ground through compromise and through consensus, we will build a better, prosperous, fairer and more just British Columbia for all of its people.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Vancouver-Burrard will continue where he left off.

L. Mayencourt: Mr. Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to continue on with my comments.

I too, as the Leader of the Opposition was speaking, look forward to this new atmosphere of cooperation. I think she used the words, "There's going to be good debate in this House," and I'm sure there will be. But she did hope that it would be devoid of invective.

I just want to point out that when I look at the motions that were put forward in today's orders of the day, nine of those were from the NDP and called on this House to condemn the government of British Columbia. I think that's something that needs to be looked at. I don't think that is devoid of invective; I think it is rife with invective.

I do think we have to make a very strong effort to ensure that we work together because, like she said, we are all here at the behest of British Columbians to do the best that we can. I'll just carry on with my comments from there.

When we finished off this morning, I was talking about the safe schools initiative — something that I'm really committed to seeing happen in British Columbia and something that I'll continue to work for and try to advance over the next few months. Additionally, there are a number of things brought forward in the Speech from the Throne that I'd like to highlight and that I'd like to talk about.

One is our relationship with first nations. I think that, for the first time, we have an opportunity in British Columbia to go well beyond any other place that any other government has been able to do in the past, not because other governments have not tried hard to do it, but because there is a new sense in this province around…. Just the name of the ministry — reconciliation. That's really one of the key issues that I hear from first nations. Many feel wronged by previous governments, by people in this province.

It's time for us to come to a sense of how we can bring everyone back to the table, apologize for the wrongs of the past and move forward. The way we're doing that is by providing those first nations with resources that allow them to participate fully in treaty negotiations and that allow them to deal with some of the social problems they're having in their communities. It's really a tragedy when you look at some of the ways that first nations are somehow removed from the rest of society in that they have low graduation rates. Maybe there's something we're doing wrong there. Maybe it's time for us to take a look at that and try to find better ways of doing that.

Why are their health levels so much lower than those for non-aboriginals? Why do they live in poverty? Why is their housing bad? Why don't they have some of the things that we enjoy all across North America? The answer is that we have to take another look at it. We have to sit down with them. We have to talk about what solutions they see and how we can achieve those goals. It's in the achievement of those goals of raising education rates, raising literacy levels, improving the health care system for our first nations, providing better housing…. Those are the things that are most important to first nations. They're quality-of-life issues and things that we have to work together on as a Legislature.

So I'm encouraged just by the name of the new ministry, the fact that we are acknowledging that there is a need for reconciliation. There is a need for apology. There is a need to bring people together and say: "Look, this has been bad. Let's move forward." I'm encouraged by that.

I am also very proud of some of the work we've been doing for communities that are less advantaged, particularly areas like the downtown east side, areas where…. Well, the member from Nanaimo mentioned today about some of the homeless situation there. As someone who has travelled around the province, I know there are serious problems with homelessness, with mental health services and delivery mechanisms, and with addictions services. I am very proud of the fact that over the last year and a half, the Premier has convened a council of seven mayors from across British Columbia that is looking at the issues of homelessness, mental health services and addiction services.

I think it's really time for us to stop talking about: "Let's do something better." I think it's time for us to get going on it. I know many of the mayors that are part of that — the mayor of Nanaimo, for example; the mayor of Vancouver; the mayor of Surrey; and others — who have in their hearts the very best of intentions. They have a desire to actually make their communities more welcoming and better prepared to deal with people who are less advantaged.

I think that's a new spirit that we see here in British Columbia — that government is really looking at this not just as numbers of housing units but actually about

what it's like to live in those housing units. Are they satisfactory? Are they good? Do they provide for small children? Do they provide for people that have physical disabilities and such? I think it's really important that we actually focus on those sorts of things over the next several years as we start looking at the Premier's task force on homelessness, mental health and addictions.

I know there are some projects that are underway. In my riding I have one in a sort of pricey little neighbourhood. Coal Harbour is one of the priciest neighbourhoods in…. I'm proud of it, but it's a pricey neighbourhood. We're actually putting some social housing into that neighbourhood because we've found that when we mix housing uses between low-income, high-income and mid-income, we actually create healthier communities. I'm really proud of the fact that we have one in Coal Harbour. We have another one that's just to the east of that, which is called Seaside.

We've done some really great work in Mole Hill in my riding. It's a wonderful old neighbourhood — one of the more historic neighbourhoods in Vancouver — that we've completely restored. We've created suites for low-income families and individuals — urban singles and what have you. Across the street from that we've got another building that helps a lot of people in my community as well.

Right adjacent to the Mole Hill development is, of course, the Dr. Peter Centre. That's a 22-bed facility that reaches out to individuals living with HIV and AIDS and helps them provide for their end-of-life care, if you will. But in addition to the 22 people who live there, there are hundreds — literally hundreds — of people every day that go into the Dr. Peter Centre and partake of their programs. Those are good things. Those are things that are worth fighting for and defending and all those sorts of things. I think it's really magnificent what we did in Mole Hill and with the Dr. Peter Centre.

Speaking of HIV and AIDS, my local hospital, St. Paul's Hospital, is home to the B.C. Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS. I'm very proud of the fact that right downtown in Vancouver we have one of the pre-eminent centres to develop new treatment protocols for people living with AIDS.

British Columbia has a lot to be proud of when it comes to strategies on HIV/AIDS. That is really reflected well in my neighbourhood. You see, I have seven or eight or perhaps even 15 different community groups that deal with people with HIV/AIDS. There's the Dr. Peter Centre, of course. There's AIDS Vancouver. There's the B.C. Persons with AIDS Society, Friends for Life and many, many others that do very valuable and important work. Forgive me if I forgot the name of your society today.

The important thing is that in British Columbia we spend $100 million every year on HIV/AIDS. We do that in a number of ways. We do it through the centre for excellence in terms of research, best practices, how to treat people. We do it in ways like hospices, such as the Dr. Peter Centre. But importantly, we also do it through our drug treatment program there. That program is unbelievable.

If you were living in Ontario, you'd be paying $40,000 to $50,000 a year for your drugs for HIV/AIDS. In British Columbia you pay nothing because we as a society, as a government — and this is true of the previous government as well as ours — have decided that the health care of these people is very important to us. So we've made available to those individuals the treatments they need in order to survive, in order to live healthy lives. I know, from being in that business for a long time, the result of that.

I have friends that if they had lasted another six months would still be alive today, but instead they died in 1994. Today we have people that are living upwards of 30 years with HIV infection. That is a remarkable accomplishment here in British Columbia and only possible through the concerted efforts of our health authorities, through the centre for excellence and through the commitment from government to make sure that people get the health care they need.

I'm also very proud, Mr. Speaker — or rather, Madam Speaker now…. By the way, I'd like to congratulate Madam Deputy Speaker, as well, for her appointment as Deputy Speaker. Speaking of health, it's great to see you in such great health.

The other areas we work on that have been very, very important to me have been street youth, street-involved youth. I know that all members in this House — I think this is true, but anybody can contradict me if they…. I think that almost every member in this House has a crystal meth problem, a youth-at-risk problem, a street youth problem in their community. This is huge. This is a big, big problem. How do we deal with it? Well, we have to be creative.

One of the things I noted when we first got elected was that there were a lot of fractured services. In my community today, despite some community apprehensions, we have created an integrated youth services building. It's right on Burrard Street across from St. Paul's Hospital. I am so proud of that place because it brings together members of the ministry of children and family services, the ministry of human resources, the Ministry of Health. Virtually every player in delivering services to youth at risk has been brought into one building.

This is a new model, and it also combines with that some very important services that are directed at people, like street youth job action, a job program that gets these kids stabilized and into work — little, little steps that along the way have made our community safer and more welcoming to youth on the streets.

We've also provided for Dusk to Dawn to continue its services so that all the time it is dark, there's a place for those youth to come and be warm and safe. We've done this in a way that really is, I think, remarkable because, as I said at the beginning of talking about the integrated youth services building, there was community resistance. We actually had one space that was all ready to go on this on Seymour Street, and the community said: "No, no, no. We don't want this here." We

got together a group of business, residents, social workers — people that were actual stakeholders in this — and, of course, youth. We said: "How can we make this centre happen in this neighbourhood? We need it to happen, but how can we make it happen in a way that is acceptable to all of these different constituent groups, if you will?

So we created this community task force. We sat down and worked out the problems. We worried about security, so we've dealt with that. We worried about people hanging out on the streets, so we dealt with it. People were worried about a whole range of things, and we actually got the community to come together and define what the integrated youth services building should be and how it should be run, and then moved forward with it.

You know, I'm really proud of the fact that MCFD came to the table. When I needed 24-hour security, they gave us the money for it. I'm really proud that when there was a little bit of cost overrun, we were able to find some money in our budget, because this is an important place. But I want you to know it's the first of four such centres in Vancouver. I know that efforts are underway to do likewise in other communities around us.

Crystal meth has become a real problem on virtually every street corner in urban areas and in many rural communities as well. We need to do something about that. I'm not exactly sure how we're going to get there, but I was very pleased when our government came forward with a strategy for dealing with crystal meth. Now we have to put that strategy to work.

One of the ways that we can do that is look at the different ways that people detoxify from crystal meth, because it is different than detoxifying from alcohol. It's different from detoxifying from any other number of drugs. It requires a much longer detoxification period.

Dr. Bill MacEwan, who is a researcher at St. Paul's Hospital, has told me that it can take between three and six months of stable living to bring people to this point where they are ready for treatment for crystal meth addiction. That's a long time. How are we going to be able to take those kids off our street? Some of them are not just kids; some of them are adults, of course. How are we going to get those people into something stable for three to six months, give them a treatment program and then, after the treatment program, deal with some of the life skill needs they have — whether that's a bit of an education? Maybe we have to improve their literacy — all those sorts of things. But there are good people in this province at work trying to deal with that.

I want to commend.… There are many communities that have done a lot on this. Mission comes to mind. Mission and Maple Ridge have really done an awful lot of work on the Meth Watch program. I know under the former Solicitor General's watch we actually brought the Meth Watch program to British Columbia.

It's actually making a difference, because in order to make crystal meth, you've got to buy products. You've got to buy a variety of what they call precursors that make this happen. When we went out and joined the crystal meth program, we were able to tell people: "Listen. If a lot of people come in here and buy ephedrine, they might be making crystal meth. If a lot of people are coming in here and buying Drano, or other products that are involved in the creation of crystal meth, maybe you should be aware of that. Maybe you should be able to tell local police authorities about it."

That is a program that has resulted in us having a better handle on how big the crystal meth problem is. I do say to this House, to all members and to you, Madam Chair: it's a big problem and something that we as a province have to dedicate ourselves to in the same way that we dedicated ourselves to treating people with HIV/AIDS. We must do this.

The problem with crystal meth is that it can give you a wonderful high, but it's a high that can lead to psychosis — sometimes for an hour, and sometimes for the rest of your life. So it's serious, and we must do something about it.

I want to put that forward as something that we as a government will go forward and work towards. It's important, and it's accomplishable. I know because I can look at the strategies we used with HIV/AIDS which worked. Now we must do the same for our youth on our streets.

I look forward to working with all members of this House, on both sides, to address the issues that are so important to all British Columbians, particularly to our seniors, to people who have built British Columbia. That's why I'm so committed to seeing assisted living buildings being built in our communities. That's why I'm so committed to working with seniors groups, to ensure that they get the very best level of services of any jurisdiction in North America.

One way we can accomplish that is through creating a centre for aging — a space where we can actually study what best practices are to keep people healthy longer, to keep them in their homes as long as they want to be and to allow them to live full, active lives.

I propose that this is something we should do in the next four years, something that is very important: take advantage of the fact that we have hundreds of thousands of seniors in this province, find out the best way to deliver services to them, find out the best way to keep them in their homes, find out the best way to ensure they have active, healthy lifestyles, and then spread the word, not just through British Columbia but across this nation. I think British Columbia can lead the way on this initiative if we have the same resolve, the same determination that we have put towards so many other things.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. It's a pleasure to see you in the chair. It's a pleasure to be back in this House after a little bit of a lag, and it's a great privilege to be here with all of these members of the Legislature who I know are all dedicated to making our province a better place to live.

J. Rustad: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Let me add my voice in congratulating you in your recent appointment to the chair.

I would also like to extend congratulations to all members of the Legislative Assembly in their recent election victories. Whether elected for the first time with me or re-elected, it's an honour to partake in the history of serving the people of this great province. It takes a lot of hard work and the support of many people to receive this honour, and I'd like to take the opportunity to thank a few of them.

First, I would like to thank my wonderful and loving wife. Without her support, without her caring and without her love, I would not have the opportunity to be here today. My campaign manager Peter Vogt and the entire Vogt family, financial agent Alan Weeks, computer chair Ray Tracy, riding president Betty Bryce, June Clark and Gary Blatner who organized my campaign out west, Tejinder Grewal and so many from the Sikh community and, really, too many more to name.

To all who helped, to all who voted to move Prince George–Omineca forward and to keep our economy growing strong, thank you.

The election of 2005 was truly historic. For the first time in a quarter century, the people of B.C. have returned a sitting Premier. It is my great pleasure to congratulate the hon. member for Vancouver–Point Grey, Premier of B.C., and to say that his leadership, his vision, has taken B.C. from worst to first, leading Canada by almost any measure.

The people of B.C. have recognized this leadership and given our government a continued mandate for building a golden decade. Yesterday's throne speech outlined our plans to achieve this promise with our five great goals, bringing hope and promise of a bright future to the people of British Columbia. But in order to build that future, we must be mindful of our past and learn from those who have gone before us.

Our province's history is truly rich, but few ridings can lay claim to having communities with histories as longstanding as the riding I am honoured to represent. As the geographic centre of the province, the riding of Prince George–Omineca has its roots in communities that were established alongside many first nations communities more than 200 years ago.

In fact, in 2006 the community of Fort St. James will be celebrating its bicentennial anniversary. The pioneering spirit that came to this remote corner of the world in search of building a better future for themselves and their families is alive and thriving today.

More than 200 years ago, people came and settled in my riding, building partnerships with the first nations peoples, whose history dates back thousands of years. It was these trading opportunities that offered a promise of a bright future for all and attracted investment to the riding. Over the years many things have changed, but the pioneering spirit has lived on.

In the 1990s, Fort St. James went through some tough times. Investor confidence was lost, opportunities dried up, and more and more people put their houses up for sale, with plans of leaving to find a better place to build a future. The same story has been carried out in many communities across the province. B.C. has long been known as a place of opportunity. Unfortunately, the hope — the dream that B.C. is so famous for — was fading.

It was during this time of despair that in 2001 things changed in B.C. and cautious optimism started budding. Difficult decisions were made and, after a short time, the flickering light of a promising future was rekindled.

The great province of B.C. is back. Growth started to rebound, and job creation was once again leading the country. The "dream that was" had returned. The historical vision of B.C. as a place to lay down roots, a place to build a future and a place to dream had once again returned.

Today in the community of Fort St. James investors are returning. In the forest sector companies have invested more money in the last two to three years than during the entire '90s, helping to stabilize the community by creating new jobs. To this end, Fort St. James recently welcomed and celebrated the forest company Pope and Talbot to the community. Pope and Talbot can see a future in B.C. They can see a future in Fort St. James. They can see the stability and sound policy this government has brought to B.C. and are willing to make a long-term commitment.

As another example of the benefits that Fort St. James has been experiencing over the past four years, one of my fellow constituents, Grant West, was considering closing his small helicopter business and leaving town. Yet he saw the change in the province and made the decision to place his trust and hope in this government's new direction. Four years later Mr. West has not regretted making this decision. He is as busy now as he has ever been, as the mining sector has been revitalized.

But the best is yet to come for Fort St. James. The community is nestled in the heart of a rich area, and its people are resourceful. Opportunities in tourism, in resources and with first nations mean that the dream that was kindled more than 200 years ago is once again alive and well.

I'm proud of our government's achievements and of the direction laid out in the throne speech. The foundations have been repaired, and the direction outlined is one of a promising future for Prince George–Omineca and indeed for the entire province.

The dream that has been rekindled in Fort St. James is not the only one in the great riding of Prince George–Omineca. I would like to relate a story that punctuates the promise of a golden decade. This past spring Endako Mines and the community of Fraser Lake celebrated the 40th anniversary of Endako Mines. Endako Mines was on the verge of closing just four year ago. The investment environment in B.C. was such that it could not attract the kind of capital it needed to keep going. But with the revitalization of the mining industry by this government, a new future has been found. Today Endako Mines is growing strong and is now estimating that the mine will continue for eight years or more. Mining exploration is booming, and the area and the future for Fraser Lake is looking bright indeed.

This is exactly what our government set out to do. We repaired the foundations through policy so that investors and people could build a bright future, but the story does not end there. A year ago a young woman on the other side of the country was pondering her future. She had some education but was unemployed. Prospects of finding meaningful employment were dim, and the opportunity to dream of a bright future must have seemed hopeless.

Yet it was at this time that a ray of light came into her life. She sat down with her family and had a heart-to-heart about her situation. Her family had heard about a place that was brimming with good news. The place was leading the country in job growth, leading the country in business optimism and leading the country in construction. They suggested to her that perhaps it might be worth considering.

For the first time, the dream of a promising future had dared to creep into her thoughts. With renewed optimism, she made what must have been one of the toughest decisions of her young life. She packed her bags, said goodbye to her family and friends and bravely moved thousands of kilometres from one coast of Canada to the other. She moved to a land that had long been known as a place of promise, a place to dream of building a future, a place called British Columbia.

She came to a community called Fraser Lake and there ventured out to look for work. Within a week she started in a high-paying mining job at Endako Mines. She was welcomed into the community by the warm and friendly people and became excited about her future prospects. This young woman has since met someone special and is now expecting her first child.

It is this example that truly captures our government's great goals. This is why we made the tough decisions to get our province back on track, and this is why we are striving to build a golden decade of hope and prosperity.

The future for Fraser Lake is not just in Endako Mines. Fraser Lake Sawmills has also been expanding, investing millions to increase its production and creating new jobs. After a decade of virtually no investment, the company is now optimistic about the golden decade to come and willing to invest in our future.

This optimism is contagious in Prince George–Omineca. In the community of Vanderhoof forest companies are confident about their future. Despite the difficulties facing the community with the mountain pine beetle epidemic, people are making significant investments. Plateau Mills has more than doubled its capacity, creating a host of new jobs. L&M Lumber, in conjunction with Premium Pellet, have expanded their plant to become one of the world's largest pellet producers. The people of Omineca, as well as across the province, have much to celebrate.

The mountain pine beetle epidemic, which is exacerbated by the decisions made in the 1990s, is threatening the livelihood of many in Prince George–Omineca. Yet the people are resourceful, and the pioneering spirit that settled the area is still strong today. With our government's investment in the northern development initiative and the upcoming initiative of the Omineca Beetle Action Coalition, the people of Prince George–Omineca have many reasons to be optimistic. The resources of the NDI and the potential of OBAC, run by the people of the north for the north, have truly brought hope for the future of Prince George–Omineca.

Our efforts with the federal and provincial governments, as well as the other initiatives outlined in the throne speech, show real leadership in dealing with the mountain pine beetle epidemic. With this optimism and the promise of a bright future, a strong housing market is being created. Real estate companies have had the best year in many. Housing prices have increased, and construction companies are busier now than in more than a decade. In Vanderhoof, in Prince George and indeed across the riding and across the province, the housing market highlights the success of our government's policies. It's a major vote of confidence in the plan our government outlined in the throne speech.

Ranching also plays a big role in Prince George–Omineca. Even in the face of BSE, the people of Prince George–Omineca have continued with their passion for ranching. People like Charlie Belsham and Richard Martens, whose families have lived in the riding for many years, are leading the way in optimism for a bright future in ranching. Our government is doing all it can to help this sector, and despite the challenges, ranchers' dedication towards their livelihoods and communities continues.

With partnerships like Project Agriculture, people like Richard Martin are truly making a difference for Vanderhoof and indeed for all of the riding. Project Agriculture, which has run for many years, will be offered again to the students of school district 91 next week. This week-long experience explores all aspects of the agricultural industry, including how to operate modern farming equipment. Richard has opened up his feedlot and dairy farm in a partnership with the school district that emphasizes the true nature of this great riding and the commitment of its people.

So far, I have outlined the hope and promise of a better tomorrow in Prince George–Omineca, but the better tomorrow is not just about economic development. It's also about education, health, the environment and support for those at risk.

I have to tell you, our education system is better today than it has been in many years. Staff and parents alike are enthusiastic. The difference our government's commitment to education is making is phenomenal. Teachers, administrators, support staff and parents all across Prince George–Omineca are commenting on what a difference the recent $150 million increase in provincial funding has made. We are now funding students at the highest level ever, and the difference this is making can plainly be seen.

For example, in Prince George school district 57, the funding increase provided last year is the first time in more than 12 years that this district will actually be able to increase services for its students. Everyone involved has noticed the difference. Class sizes have

dropped, library time has increased, special needs support has improved dramatically, and students are receiving the benefits.

In fact, the school district trustees made the decision to focus a portion of its extra resources our government provided to directly reducing class sizes. This has had the impact of reducing intermediate class sizes by two students per class. It is this type of leadership that our government has provided by empowering school districts across the province with the ability to manage their own resources. When decision-making and autonomy are given to local school boards, good things happen.

Another example of this is school district 57's capital plan initiatives. The school district has gone through some difficult times with declining enrolment, but out of this they've been very innovative. The school district has utilized the resources that were no longer required because of declining enrolment and have reinvested in their students. They've helped to create the South Fort George Family Resource Centre, a first in this province. This model combines the services of the Northern Health Authority, Ministry of Children and Family Development, the city of Prince George, the school district, Make Children First and the South Fort George Community Association. Their combined resources under one roof are now taking services to the people rather than having people seek out services. Not only will this help those in need, but it will also help children at risk with early literacy opportunities.

After 18 years school district 57 has finally found a way, with the approval of our government, to make the expansion of College Heights Secondary a reality. These are the results that flow from good government and from providing districts with the ability to manage their own resources.

The throne speech outlines our government's great goal of becoming one of the best-educated and most literate jurisdictions on the continent. In order to achieve this, we have great plans around early literacy for improving our education system. But it's important that all of our education partner groups work together to help all of us realize this great vision.

I have to say that a letter to the editor in my riding just this past week by one of the teacher union's representatives gave me cause for concern. The letter suggested that parents are not educators. This couldn't be further from the truth. Parents are a critical partner in the children's education. Throughout the preschool years they are the primary educators for a child. This important relationship continues throughout a child's education.

I'm excited about the future of education in our province. Our initiatives — like the plan for every kindergarten student to receive the book Down at the Seaweed Café and to develop a comprehensive literacy framework offering services in every community — will lay the foundations for our great goal. But if we are truly going to lead the continent in literacy and education, we must all recognize the critical role that all of our partner groups play. We must bring everyone together to bring the kind of essential education that the people want for the children of this great province.

In post-secondary education I am proud of our government's progress. In Prince George–Omineca, the University of Northern British Columbia has truly become one of the best places in Canada to acquire an education. With lower-than-average tuition rates and affordable living costs, UNBC is the university of choice for many. With the expansion of seats at both UNBC and the College of New Caledonia and the northern medical program expansion and the professional environment that has been created, many are receiving a top-notch education in the north by the north for the north.

It is also my pleasure to give a tremendous amount of credit to the university's leader, Dr. Charles Jago. Not only has he had a distinguished career, but he has provided the kind of leadership that is second to none. Dr. Jago's work has recently been recognized nationally with his appointment to the Order of Canada. This is a tremendous honour, and I'd like to take this opportunity to congratulate Dr. Jago on his accomplishments and recognition. It's people like Dr. Jago that help to build the dreams of students, that help to bring hope for a better future and that help us to lead towards becoming the best-educated and most literate jurisdiction on the continent.

Education leads into the next great goal outlined in the throne speech: to lead the way in North America in healthy living and physical fitness. Through projects like Act Now and with the commitment to remove low nutritional food from our schools, we are actively promoting a healthier, happier society. But the benefits do not stop there. Healthier students have greater attention spans and will perform better in our classrooms.

I'm also very pleased that our government has made a commitment to build the Northern Sport Centre in Prince George–Omineca. Changing the lifestyle patterns go hand in hand with the needs for providing facilities. These are courageous steps towards improving our way of life, and I am proud of the direction our government is taking. To lead the world in sustainable environmental management is truly a worthy goal. As more people come to B.C. to build their future, we must make sure that the future, passed on from generation to generation, continues as one of opportunity. We must ensure that what we undertake is well managed and sustainable.

One of the projects I will be working towards that helps to further our government's great goals in environmental management is the Nechako cold water release. This is a great project that will help regulate water flows to reflect a more historical pattern. It will help to maintain water temperatures so that we better protect our wild salmon and fish species. It also has the potential to generate electric power that can help provide a host of economic opportunities. This project also has a tremendous potential to work with the Cheslatta first nation and to help to further our government's direction in aboriginal relations and reconciliation.

While mentioning first nations, the Prince George–Omineca riding received a first this summer. The Yekooche first nation signed a historic agreement-in-principle. This is great news for Prince George–Omineca and great news for the Yekooche first nation. As it stabilizes resources, this leads towards a great benefit to the Yekooche riding.

Our government's fifth great goal is to build the best system of support for those in need. We have already made great progress towards improving the lives of those in need. Our strong economy has allowed us to invest significant resources towards achieving this worthy goal, but we will continue to do more.

I would like to point out one specific example in Prince George–Omineca, and that is the upcoming grand opening of the Vanderhoof Omineca lodge. This facility was in the works for many years but never seemed to get the support needed throughout the 1990s. Our government made this facility a priority, and now, four years later, we will be celebrating the opening of a quality facility designed specifically to meet the needs of the people in Prince George–Omineca.

Finally, I would like to thank the Premier for his leadership in setting up the Citizens' Assembly and for bringing forward a plan for all of the people of British Columbia to consider. Electoral reform has been on the forefront of this provincial agenda for many years, and the steps outlined in the throne speech speak loudly about the quality of leadership the Premier is providing.

Some may agree with the potential change of our voting system to the Citizens' Assembly's recommended BC-STV, and some may disagree. It's important and appropriate that both sides of the debate get the opportunity to further discuss the issue and bring it forward to the people of our great province. I look forward to the discussions and debates over the coming years.

With this, I am also pleased that our government will be looking into ways to improve voter participation. Democracy is a cornerstone of our society. It is appropriate in this Year of the Veteran that the throne speech raises this issue. Many people gave much and some gave all they had so that we can have the freedoms we enjoy today, so that we can have the right to vote. This is the greatest right that anyone can ask for, and I applaud any steps that help to promote participation in this important process.

The throne speech presented to this House is our government's blueprint for building upon our success over the past four years. It's designed to continue to nurture our economy while providing the benefits of good government to all British Columbians. I'm excited to be a part of this, and I'm looking forward to the months and years ahead, because I know our plan will benefit not only the people of Prince George–Omineca but also the entire province.

D. Routley: Thank you for the acknowledgment, Madam Speaker, and I would like to acknowledge and congratulate you on your election to that chair, although I note that you weren't dragged to the chair.

I would also like to acknowledge the benefits that the government has provided in the throne speech in expanding question period and numerous other benefits, but then I would like to take credit for those on behalf of the people of British Columbia who have elected a sizable opposition that will ensure that the government is and continues to be responsive to their needs.

I'd like to begin by thanking the first nations upon whose traditional lands we now stand and to thank the Hul'qumi'num group of nations from my own riding — the Cowichan, Lyackson, Chemainus, Penelakut, Halalt and Lake Cowichan peoples — who stand proudly on the shores of my riding awaiting patiently the partner they have been promised for so many years. To them I say hi sat ka.

I would like, obviously, to thank my family, but most of all the people of Cowichan-Ladysmith for the trust that they have instilled in me and invested in me. I promise to work on their behalf to the best of my abilities.

My riding, Cowichan-Ladysmith, is a beautiful mix of rural and urban communities, a beautiful river, several beautiful lakes and emerald green forests that all stand waiting to be adequately managed.

In 1961 the party for which I stand was formed, along with public health care, by the greatest Canadian — Tommy Douglas. We in Cowichan-Ladysmith are proud to say that Tommy represented our riding from 1968 until 1976. This is a proud piece of our history, and we still bear the legacy of compassion and empathy instilled by Mr. Douglas and affronted by the recent past, by the recent government.

When I was on the campaign trail in my riding going door to door, I was stunned by the capacity for caring I saw. I visited seniors homes where the questions they asked were about single moms living in poverty. They asked about families living in poverty, and then they asked about themselves. That is the true spirit of British Columbia.

I have watched as the impacts of the government's policies have affected the disabled in my community. In Cowichan-Ladysmith we have the highest proportion of people living with disabilities in this province. They bear a special burden, and they are the last people who should be paying the price for misguided and ideologically driven policies. I've watched our core industries of pulp and paper be affected by giveaway stumpage rates in the north and unreasonable stumpage rates on the coast.

I've stood as a school trustee and managed the affairs of students, of teachers, of public education in my riding. We have watched policies gone wrong, costs downloaded and the most vulnerable pay the price for that.

I have watched as the workers of Saltair mill prepare themselves for October 26, when they face what has been called an indefinite mothballing of their mill — another casualty of coastal forest policies gone wrong, of principles not honoured.

The principle of collective bargaining. I have seen it dishonoured in my community, in the tearing up of teachers' contracts, in the tearing up of nurses' contracts.

During the campaign I visited an older gentleman in a trailer park. I knocked on his door. He opened the door with tears in his eyes. He told me the story of delivering his wife to the hospital and not being able to get any help taking her from his van to the emergency ward — no staff available. He struggled, and he got her in there. He cried. Tears rolled down his cheeks, and he fell into my arms on his doorstep. I comforted him, not knowing quite what I could do for him, but as I walked away from his door, I turned and saw the most terrible contract that was torn up by this government — and that was that his licence plate was blue. He was a veteran. He had invested everything in our community, and he had been disgraced by the policies of this government.

I am here for the ordinary people who struggle with the outcomes of those ideological and mean-spirited policies. Those of us who decide the circumstances in our communities ought to at least understand the repercussions of our decisions, ought to at least understand the lives being led by those we affect. That's why I'm here.

I'm here for my family, my stepfamily, my stepmother, my mother who made difficult choices leaving a relationship and who knows all too well that the gains women have made over the last 20 and 30 years should never be put to threat.

I come here for my father, who passed from ALS, for his courage, for his fairness. My father was a conservative man but a fair-minded man. We always saw eye to eye. The trouble was that our noses were always an inch apart at the time. But my father was fair, and he would never have stood by to see the most vulnerable in our communities pay the price for a gift to the most wealthy. That would never have been accepted.

I've heard a lot in the chamber today about tough decisions. British Columbians face tough decisions every day. I've faced many tough decisions at the ends of months when the income is smaller than the outflow. But we don't turn to our smallest and say: "You don't eat this month." That is not a progressive way to solve problems. The people of British Columbia expect better.

My ten-year-old daughter Madeline is somewhat of a naturalist. She wants to start a website called "Save B.C.'s Birds." She wants my help, and I can't offer much help these days, so I gave her a little assignment: make some reports on the birds you'd like to feature. She came back to me with a little stack of handwritten business cards that identified her as "Madeline Routley, bird whacker." I think she meant "watcher." We'll be passing those to our neighbour who has a particularly noisy rooster. But she cares, and she understands that what she cares about is inextricably linked to the broader world.

This summer my wife and I had the occasion to have five days free, so we took a quick trip up to Barkerville and drove for hour upon hour through orange-carpeted hillsides, dead trees. I tried to explain to my daughter what this meant. I tried to explain to her what it would mean to those communities affected in five to eight years and, most particularly to her, what it meant to the habitat of the birds that she cares about so much. She became so alarmed by that that we drove for a couple of hours to find a newly planted site and had lunch at that site. I was able to point to her and tell her that if people like her who care about our communities and our environment and our world do the right thing, that that will be the outcome, that we can manage our way out of these difficulties, but not by ignoring them and not by applying pure raw ideology — only by working together in the spirit of the benefit of British Columbians.

During the campaign I visited non-profit groups who struggle because their main partner is absent. The partner is the provincial government, who has stripped their funding and left them to compete with one another for project dollars, forever painting themselves in new colour year to year — yellow this year, red this year; we'll find funding if only we're blue next year. Through all of this there is a drastic mandate slippage and an affront to the fine efforts of those people trying to administer services, who have now become proposal writers more than service providers.

This is a tragedy. This cannot continue. This is why British Columbians elected the strong opposition that they have. I'm here as a school trustee, here for public education. As a trustee, I have watched the policies of this government, of downloading costs, play themselves out in the stripping of the services from our most vulnerable children. Class sizes have soared. Class composition destroys the learning conditions that our children have to endure. This must stop.

I've heard claims about education, but it's going take more than slogans to solve the problems in our schools. It will take funding, and it will take a partner — a provincial government who can sit down in goodwill and deal with the complicated issues that confront the system, not by vilifying and standing off against the teachers that we so respect.

In the end, I'm here for those who bear the weight of failed, mean-spirited, ideologically driven policies. It will never be good enough to say to those people: "We didn't mean it that way." That will always be thin gruel to them, because they expect much more from us.

We should all be aware that what is most precious and beautiful and strong in people is exactly that which makes them vulnerable, just as is the case with butterfly wings. It will take more than slogans — even five slogans — to solve these problems.

This beautiful place, this building so exquisite in its detail, was crafted by caring hands — artisans memorialized in the faces that are ensconced on the walls above us. This place was not built for an elevated elite. This place was not built just for a powerful economy.

This place was built to elevate ordinary people — their interests, their needs — to the highest place possible.

I'm here because British Columbians have witnessed a bailiff-like sell-off of their assets, and they demand that it stops. We have heard about have-not provinces. Well, what we're seeing is the creation of a have-and-have-not province, and British Columbians reject that.

We have heard here today that the economy pays the rent. I will say that the economy is not paying the rent for tens of thousands of British Columbians, soon to be hundreds of thousands, who have slipped under the waves under the watch of this government.

I'm here to bring hope to my community, to work together with the government for the best interests of everyone in British Columbia, not leaving out those who are weak, those who are frail, those who are challenged, but including everyone. That is the British Columbia I stand for, and that is the British Columbia that brought us here.

Hon. I. Chong: First of all, let me, as tradition goes, offer my congratulations to the Speaker, the member for Penticton–Okanagan Valley; to yourself, the member for Kelowna-Mission, as our new Deputy Speaker; to the Assistant Deputy Speaker, the member for Surrey–Green Timbers; and, as well, to the Deputy Chair of the Committee of the Whole, the member for Burquitlam — a new list of people who, I know, will ensure that the debates that take place in this chamber will be conducted with civility and decorum.

But let me also say how exciting it is for me to be back, as has been mentioned many times, in this very exceptional chamber — this chamber where profound and vigorous debates occur and should occur, where reasoned discussions take place from members representing diverse backgrounds and representing varied constituencies.

One common thread unites all of us here as members of this Legislature. That is, we were all duly elected in a democratic process by a majority of our constituents on May 17. So I offer my congratulations, then, to all members of this House, newly elected and returning members.

Every year — as I have said, but it bears saying once again — it truly is an honour and a privilege to represent the people of Oak Bay–Gordon Head and to be given this responsibility to engage in public dialogue in this chamber. So I also begin by thanking the voters of Oak Bay–Gordon Head who have placed their trust in me, who have returned me to this very important role for a third term.

I am equally grateful to all those who volunteered their time on my election campaign — my campaign manager, my campaign office manager, the volunteers, the door and phone canvassers, lawn sign volunteers and all our supporters. I truly had a fantastic and energetic team. I know that the students who volunteered from my local high school also indicated to me that they had a wonderful experience, and I truly hope that all other members found the same wonderful experience.

As I listened to Her Honour deliver the throne speech yesterday, I was reminded that as MLAs we certainly do have a unique and special opportunity. We are but one of 79 people, in this province of over four million people, who are awarded this job. This Legislature is not for any one member. Rather, it exists for all members, once elected, without regard to affiliation — political or otherwise.

So indeed, I look forward, in the weeks and years ahead, to constructive and productive work on behalf of the people of this province.

On May 17 our government was indeed returned for a second consecutive term, and with a renewed mandate. I believe the people of this province endorsed the leadership and the real progress we made during our first four years and that they were also desirous of moving forward, not backward. The voters also expressed their desire for a larger opposition. That, too, was achieved. Now here we are, ready to do the people's work.

I am very proud to stand here today and respond to the Speech from the Throne for the 38th parliament — I believe my tenth reply to the throne speech in my time here in this chamber. As with tradition, the government's throne speech is indeed a plan for the road ahead. It is our plan for the long-term prosperity for British Columbia, the very best place on earth.

Our platform document was very clear in its mandate. It endorsed the five great goals for the golden decade, five goals where B.C. is the most educated and most literate jurisdiction on the continent; where B.C. leads the way in North America in healthy living and physical fitness; where we build the best system of support in Canada for persons with disabilities, special needs, children at risk and seniors; where B.C. leads the world in sustainable environmental management; and where B.C. creates more jobs per capita than anywhere else in Canada.

I believe these goals are ones that every British Columbian supports. Why should they not? But we have to acknowledge as well that these goals will not be achieved overnight, nor can they be achieved unilaterally. It will require time, and it will take commitments from all of us in this House to work together to achieve these for our communities.

In four short years this province has achieved many significant and noticeable accomplishments. In 2001 we were the worst-performing economy in the country. Today by all measures we are indeed viewed as the best-performing economy in the country. Our credit rating has improved, saving taxpayers millions of dollars in interest and debt-servicing costs, and what that means is that more dollars can be invested in sustainable services and programs.

B.C. is a leader in many ways. What we have seen in education, with new schools of excellence, with new student spaces at our post-secondary institutions…. What we have seen in some health care reforms, which have allowed us to have accountability contracts in place and fewer health councils that hinder progress…. But we have also seen our transportation investment,

with new roads, new bridges, ports and airports being expanded to allow for more tourism opportunities and more movement of goods and services.

But what is sometimes forgotten — which is why perhaps it is more lacklustre, I suppose — is the leadership that we have actually shown in legislative reforms. In our first term we introduced fixed legislative sitting dates. We introduced set election dates. We brought in the Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform. We recharged several select standing committees that were dormant during the '90s.

You would think that after those innovative changes there wouldn't be much more to do, but we didn't stop there. With cooperation from members of the opposition, we have brought in some more changes by adding a new assistant to the Deputy Speaker who is a member of the official opposition and by extending question period — doubling it, in fact, from 15 minutes to 30 minutes.

I'm confident that we can indeed continue to bring in legislative reforms that assist us in doing our jobs and in serving our constituents by working together with the members of the opposition.

The goals laid out in the throne speech are important to the people of Oak Bay–Gordon Head, the people that I serve. We are already seeing the benefits of some of those goals. In the areas of education, literacy and advanced education, Oak Bay–Gordon Head is seeing new investments in our public libraries and new student spaces at Camosun College and at the University of Victoria, both post-secondary institutions in my riding and schools of excellence that have been nationally and internationally recognized, as evidenced by a recent article in Maclean's magazine.

The Island medical program at the University of Victoria is not solely about education, but rather, it is about health care. By training and educating doctors here in my constituency and in my community, the likelihood of those doctors staying here means that my constituents will be better served.

The improvement in the economy has had another profound impact on my community as well. Construction is underway in two specific private projects in Gordon Head that I want to mention. A new Home Depot will soon be opening. The groundbreaking for Tuscany Village occurred this summer. Both these projects will provide yet more jobs for people in Oak Bay–Gordon Head and particularly for the many students who attend the university, as well, who can now work closer to home.

The Oak Bay portion of my riding is also busy with activity. Among the many homes being redeveloped or constructed, there are also two other projects that I want to briefly highlight. A new ice surface at the Oak Bay Recreation Centre is almost ready for the citizens of Oak Bay and for the surrounding communities. Our government was able to assist in this project by providing an infrastructure grant. Similarly, the construction of Windsor Park pavilion and field house will be starting soon, which was also made possible from a provincial infrastructure grant. While both these projects will indeed create jobs, more importantly, eventually they will also contribute towards fitness and healthy living.

I now would like to speak briefly of the area of responsibility that I am now involved in, and that is in the Ministry of Community Services. Our plan is to continue building on the foundation that we laid in our first term. Our goal is to continue strengthening communities across the province for all British Columbians. Strong communities are the backbone of this great province, and we will work closely with local governments to ensure that they are the front-line providers of those key community services that British Columbians depend upon.

I'd like to share a few examples of the groundbreaking work that we've been doing with local governments since we were elected in 2001. To make it easier for local governments to provide services that cater to the needs of their communities, this government introduced the Community Charter. This was an important step toward increasing local autonomy and accountability and harmonizing provincial and local government relations. Now local governments can make the best decisions for their communities. They can streamline and standardize regulations across municipal boundaries, making it easier for businesses to operate in multiple jurisdictions. The Community Charter outlaws downloading of costs by the province. It enhances local accountability by ensuring that councils prepare annual reports.

In April we reached an agreement with the federal government and UBCM on a made-in-B.C. new deal for cities to share $635.6 million in gas tax revenues with local governments across the province. Over the next five years local governments will be able to fund infrastructure projects, providing environmental benefits including better transit, clean drinking water, improved wastewater infrastructure and improved air quality.

We also returned 100 percent of all net traffic fines to municipalities, which exceeded our new-era commitment of 75 percent. This funding is part of a comprehensive strategy to enhance community policing, crime prevention and public safety. This represents a funding increase of over 300 percent in traffic fine revenues going to local governments. We are already seeing the results in many communities around the province.

Madam Speaker, we will continue to find new opportunities to work with communities to meet the challenges of tomorrow. As was mentioned in the throne speech, we are establishing a southern interior development initiative, the north island–coast development initiative and further investment in the northern development initiative.

We will also be working closely with affected communities to fight the mountain pine beetle with an on-the-ground decision-making body equivalent to the emergency response team and addressing its economic impact with increased resources for economic revitalization.

As the Minister Responsible for Seniors' and Women's Issues, I know how important it is that our communities reflect the needs of all British Columbians, young and old alike. We are committed to building the best system of support in Canada for B.C. seniors.

We sometimes forget some of the facts that are out there, because it is all around us, but British Columbia has one of the most rapidly aging populations in Canada. The number of people over the age of 65 has been growing at an average rate of 2 percent over the past ten years — twice the rate of B.C.'s general population. Seniors currently make up about 14 percent of the population in British Columbia. British Columbia is currently home to about 586,900 seniors, and by the year 2031 the seniors population will more than double to 1,279,600. That's 23 percent of the population.

About one-third of people 65 years of age and over participate in daily physical activity. Seniors are living longer and are more active. About 60 percent of seniors maintain a household. Seniors want to be independent and live in their own homes. While most seniors do live in private households and in single detached houses, we must also look at other options for when it is time for them to leave.

Seniors make up 9 percent of the total volunteer workforce, but contribute 18 percent of all the volunteer hours in British Columbia. There are also more seniors staying in the workplace. About 7 percent of people aged 65 and older were employed in 2004, compared to 5 percent ten years ago. One in four seniors aged 65 to 74 and one in ten over the age of 75 received employment income in 2002. In ten years visible minority seniors will increase from 13 percent to 20 percent of the total seniors population. One in five Internet users in British Columbia is 60 years of age or older — the highest rate in Canada.

Why do I provide these facts? Because I think it is important that all members of this House realize the importance of an aging population. While I have spoken to a number of seniors who have told me that 70 is the new 50, it means that we still have to plan for them because of their longer life span. We are doing that.

Earlier this year the Premier announced that he was creating a council on aging and on seniors issues to examine how to support seniors' independence and health and support for seniors — an ability to continue as contributing members of society. This council will examine the demographic and socio-economic changes with an outlook to 2020, identifying pressing needs and opportunities to improve seniors' independence and quality of living, including healthy lifestyles and nutrition, seniors' independence and quality of life, housing options and home care services and mandatory retirement. This council will be reporting back to government sometime in November of next year.

In order to serve the seniors of today, though, we also launched a new health and seniors' toll-free information line. This new information line enhances the existing resources of the Ministry of Health information line by adding new staff and additional training. I recall being at the launch of this new toll-free information line this past spring, where a senior used the line and was very happy to know that at the other end there was a friendly voice who picked up the phone so that she could ask a question that she had.

We've also released an updated information guide for seniors. For the members opposite who are new, if you do not already have this guide in your constituency office, I would suggest that you have your constituency assistants contact our office to obtain a number of these guides. I can tell you that all seniors are interested in this guide and make very good use of this guide. Many of them carry it around with them on a daily basis.

Because of the tremendous uptake or interest in this guide, we updated it to ensure that seniors have a hands-on resource of government programs and services available to them. A more comprehensive version of this guide is also provided on line for those who would prefer to use computer services. We will also be updating this guide regularly so that seniors, their families and their caregivers will have up-to-date information on services and programs.

Madam Speaker, it is also my priority to make sure that the Ministry of Community Services delivers direct and essential services to women.

I want to say that within the Ministry of Community Services we have a department that is dedicated to women's policy to ensure that this in fact does occur, that direct and essential services to women are the focus. Women's services and programs often link to local communities and local governments, which is why our ministry is ideally positioned to help build these very important partnerships which will result in the very best possible services for women and their families.

Women also make up 57 percent of university students and more than ever are enrolled at the graduate level and in trade schools. British Columbia boasts one of the highest rates of small businesses owned by women in Canada. It's 35 percent across the province.

In January of this year this government allocated the largest funding increase in over a decade for transition houses and front-line services to help women escaping violence. This funding was an important component in my work in the previous year as the minister of state as I travelled around the province meeting with front-line workers in many communities. When they shared with me the need for enhanced services, there was no question that I would work to be able to deliver that. As I said, it was over ten years since there had been any attention paid to providing enhanced services.

This funding increase will total over 33 percent, bringing the yearly funding for a variety of these programs to over $48 million. These programs have been providing over one million hours of services to women and children escaping violence. Now it means they will be able to provide more services. This increase will provide women and children with improved 24-7 access to transition house services in British Columbia and to front-line services such as counselling programs.

I would like to conclude by just simply stating this: strong communities are essential to the continued

prosperity of this province. Our plan will ensure that we continue to strengthen communities in every region. British Columbians have given us a mandate to continue in building long-lasting strength in the economy and also to make progress on the long-term challenges facing our province. As the Premier has said, British Columbians are looking at the future with renewed optimism and confidence as our economy continues to grow and our government remains fiscally sound.

B. Simpson: Mr. Speaker, please accept my personal congratulations on your election as Speaker. I trust you will take a leading and proactive role in assisting the members of this Legislature to rise to the challenge presented to us in the throne speech. I think the words are important for us to recall: "…elevate public confidence through a common commitment to constructive debate marked by civility, dignity and decorum." As someone who sat up in that gallery and watched many a question period, I think that is an enormous challenge for us.

One of the things that I'm curious about is whether or not the citizens of British Columbia can discern between constructive debate — when we choose to disagree with each other for whatever reason — and political rhetoric. I think all of us have an obligation as politicians to help to educate the public about the difference between those two things. Otherwise, people will think we've just reverted back to form the minute we have some kind of engaging debate in this Legislature.

It's an honour and a privilege to be here today as the representative of the riding of Cariboo North, a riding which is at the forefront of the mountain pine beetle epidemic, a subject which I will return to shortly. I hope that the Minister of Forests and Range remains to hear those words.

First, I would like to recognize the efforts of my predecessor, Dr. John Wilson. John first served as a member of the opposition and then as a government member. He served on numerous committees and always brought the basic common sense of a rancher to any discussions or debates. I guess when you work where he works, it's easy to call things the way that they are regardless of the nature of the debate.

I saw John after the election was called, and the smile on his face and his relaxed manner spoke volumes of the burden that was lifted from his shoulders when he stepped out of the public domain and back into his veterinary practice and his ranching. I wish John well in both those endeavours.

I would not be in this Legislature today if it were not for the support of my wife Trish and my children Jonathan and Jillian. Throughout our 20 years of marriage Trish has gracefully and patiently supported my insatiable curiosity and my desire for new adventures and new challenges. We've embarked on this new adventure together as a family, and I know that their commitment to support me will make me a stronger and more capable representative for my constituents.

I would also not be in this Legislature today if it were not for the efforts, the vision and the leadership of the Leader of the Opposition. In my capacity as an organizational effectiveness consultant and leadership coach, I've had the privilege of working with a wide array of leaders over the past 14 years. Without question, the hon. member for Victoria–Beacon Hill is one of the strongest, most well-rounded leaders I have ever had the privilege to work with and for. Her approach to political leadership and her vision for British Columbia attracted me back into politics, a realm I walked away from in disgust in 1996.

I thank the Leader of the Opposition for her commitment to the cause of progressive politics and for the extra votes she garnered for me after her performance in the televised debate, when the people of British Columbia got to see firsthand the strength, courage and conviction that she brings to everything she does.

My fellow Caribooster, the hon. member for Cariboo South, also had a lot to do with why I'm here today. Due to the strange way the boundaries are set between the two Cariboo ridings where they intersect in Williams Lake, the hon. member for Cariboo South is actually a constituent in my riding. He also knows a great many people in that portion of my riding and recruited many of them to my cause, which I'm sure the hon. member regretted enormously when he was declared a winner by a one-vote margin on election night. I'm sure the member for Cariboo South would have wished that the boundaries between our ridings were pushed a little further north so that he truly could have won by a landslide. I owe the member for Cariboo South a debt of gratitude and look forward to serving with him in this Legislature and our constituencies over the next four years.

Many, many people assisted me to win my seat in this House — people of all ages, cultures and political persuasions. As a political neophyte I was constantly amazed at how much time and energy people put into my campaign over and above the demands of their normal daily lives. I've had the opportunity to thank those individuals in person, and therefore, I'm not going to list them here today. Instead, in their honour, I will speak to the issues that motivated them to support me, because the one refrain I heard over and over again was that people in my riding wanted the voices of rural British Columbians to be heard once again in this Legislature.

The people of Cariboo North sent me here to be their voice, so today I want to give voice to their concerns. The throne speech makes the claim: "Today British Columbians are confident in their future and buoyed by the cresting tide of opportunity that is lifting B.C. higher." Noble words, and we've heard many of the government members speak to that dream.

Well, I say that whoever penned those lines or conceived that notion as applying to every British Columbian equally has not visited my riding and many other resource-dependent rural ridings recently. If they did, then either they had ideological blinkers on, or they were simply talking to the wrong people. Instead of

confidence, most people in forest-dependent communities, like those in my riding, are concerned for their future. Instead of being buoyed by a rising tide of opportunity, the people in these communities feel a rising tide of fear and uncertainty. When your community depends on forestry for 90 percent of its economic activity and that resource is being consumed by an insatiable bug which we have proved powerless to stop, there isn't much cause for confidence in the future.

The city of Quesnel is at the epicentre of the beetle epidemic, and to illustrate the depth of this problem, it is useful for the members of this Legislature to hear what this community faces in the next few years. The sustainable allowable cut for the Quesnel timber supply area was previously set at two million cubic metres. In order to address the mountain pine beetle, as the Minister of Forests and Range has already indicated today, it was lifted to over five million cubic metres. The mills in our area are now ramping up to process that volume. However, in as little as eight years, the allowable cut for the timber supply area will drop to somewhere around one million cubic metres. That's an 80-percent drop — an 80-percent drop in a forest-dependent community that has 90 percent of its economy depending on that resource.

In fact, the total volume of post-beetle timber that may be available from the entire Quesnel forest district could potentially be just enough to supply the one new supermill that is being built as we speak. The hon. member from Prince George spoke of the many mills that are getting capital. Those mills will receive return on that capital within two years because of these uplifts in the cut. It's the same in Quesnel.

This begs the question of how many other mills in our town will get the fibre they require to operate. It is only natural, then, that the talk in Quesnel is of mill closures and job losses. It should not surprise the members of this Legislature, therefore, that instead of confidence in the future, there is concern. Instead of a growing tide of opportunity, there is a growing tide of fear and uncertainty. The Canadian Forest Service just released a study of the northern interior forest region which shows that we can expect a similar dramatic and prolonged downturn in the forest sector in the entire region. The hon. members from all three Prince George ridings should be aware of this and aware of that dramatic downturn.

More troubling yet is another recent study which suggests that the impacts of the mountain pine beetle infestation are likely to be more dramatic than anyone could have originally imagined. Not only is the mortality rate in mature pine stands higher than expected — potentially as high as 90 to 100 percent in some stands — the beetle is infecting and killing off juvenile stands, a trait that is not normal for this forest pest.

I have witnessed this phenomenon firsthand. I have flown over stands that were less than 30 years old of which over 60 percent of the trees were infected. In one stand that was only 28 years old, I saw beetle exit holes in some of the larger trees, which suggests another change in the beetles' behaviour, as it is not supposed to survive and reproduce in these young trees, and yet it is. The beetles' attack on the juvenile stands means that it will take that much longer for our forests to regenerate to the level which will allow them to once again support a sustainable and robust forest industry.

The same study also suggests that the shelf life of the impacted trees will be shorter than expected as well — potentially as little as three to five years for dimension lumber and as little as eight to five years for alternate products. If this is true, it means that the potential falldown in the amount of usable timber from the infected pine stands will occur much sooner than expected. It means that our options for other uses for dead pine, such as OSB, are time-limited as well. It means that mill closures and job losses will occur sooner and be much more dramatic.

Now we may argue the finer points of the data these reports represent, which I'm sure we will, but the point remains that these reports and others like them are feeding uncertainty and concern in all of our forest-dependent communities in the north — every one of them. It is easy for some members on the government side to say that we should simply see the mountain pine beetle as a challenge to be risen to and that rather than focusing on the negative, we should focus on the positive — a refrain we heard all too often during the election campaign in both Cariboo North and Cariboo South and an ideological position that I believe the members of the government hold dearly and nearly to them.

At heart I'm an idealist and generally an optimist, and I agree with the sentiment that we should confront difficult challenges with a positive spirit. In fact, I would like nothing better than to engage in an exercise of positive visioning around the mountain pine beetle. However, there are some other realities about British Columbia that the people of my riding want heard in this House. These realities make it very difficult to keep a stiff upper lip when confronted with the magnitude of the challenge that the mountain pine beetle confronts us with.

The first reality is that in order for any community to have success in diversifying its economy, it must have certain basic attractors in place. The most basic of these include adequate health care facilities, good transportation infrastructure and a broad range of educational opportunities. In today's global economy access to high-speed Internet is also essential. Unfortunately, many of the communities in my riding do not have these basic attractors for economic development in place. In fact, over the last four years the communities in Cariboo North and much of the rest of rural British Columbia have seen these basic foundations for economic development and diversification eroded.

We have seen schools and hospitals closed. We have watched our road infrastructure deteriorate. We have experienced a retraction in basic public services at a time when, arguably, we need them the most. It is very hard to attract new residents, never mind new investment, to a community that has second-class pub-

lic services, poor roads and a slow-as-molasses connection to the electronic universe.

The second reality that my constituents want the members of this House to hear is that the changes to forestry legislation the Liberal government undertook in its first term have facilitated a degree of corporate concentration in the forest sector the likes of which we have never experienced before. This means that many forestry-dependent towns now only have one or two major companies operating in the area. As John Brink of Brink Forest Products in Prince George pointed out earlier this year, only two major corporations now control over 70 percent of the Crown land base and manufacturing capacity north of 100 Mile House. Mr. Brink made the point that this makes it very hard for him as an independent to get access to the fibre he needs to run his value-added mills.

For companies and individuals who depend on the forest industry, the absence of competition for their products and services has meant that they have had to drop their prices to the mills dramatically. I have had silviculture contractors tell me that they're now being paid in 1970s dollars for their work today.

Another example of this price squeeze that the members of this House should be very aware of is the fight over the past year by independent truck-logger drivers to get fair compensation from the major licensees.

In short, at a time when we need a more entrepreneurial spirit in our forest sector — a spirit that is best fostered by strong competition — we have dramatically reduced the level of competition in the forest industry and, as a result, have made our forest-dependent communities more susceptible to the whims of the shareholders of only one or two major corporations.

The fear that this trend has generated is well captured by the very recent comments made by Chief Robert Charlie of the Burns Lake Indian band. In the band's press release announcing the upcoming first nations summit on the mountain pine beetle — a summit which, by the way, the first nations called to fill the vacuum left by the provincial government — Chief Charlie stated that he is concerned about the mad rush to harvest the beetle wood and the impacts this will have on forest health. He also stated that he fears "that big industry will take what they can, and when the resource runs out, we'll be the ones left holding the bag." This fear of future abandonment by the few remaining major corporations is not limited to first nations communities.

The third reality is there is a growing sense in our communities that our forests are not being well managed by the Crown at a time when we must manage them more deliberately than we ever had to in the past. This fear stems from the move towards the results-based code. It was deepened by the dramatic and deep cuts to the Ministry of Forests, and it has been entrenched by an astonishing lack of resources that the ministry has to engage in forest health activities.

The Association of B.C. Forest Professionals — they just changed their name — was concerned enough about these trends to write the Premier directly about their concerns. In that letter they admonished the Premier that forest management is no place for "short-term minimalist thinking." The letter quipped that forest management isn't rocket science; it's harder than rocket science. As such, the association urged the Premier to reconsider the depth of the cuts he made to the Forest Service. This concern is echoed by those who know how much work needs to be done in our forests.

The fourth and final reality that I wish to present today, which I want the members of this Legislature to hear, is that the mountain pine beetle is only one of a host of pests in our forests and on our land base. In fact, every major tree species is under attack by some kind of disease or pest. Much of our agricultural lands and grasslands are being taken over by invasive plants.

Many of you may have heard of the recent report about the pine blight that is impacting the forests in the northwest of this province. This common fungus has turned lethal and shows similar traits to the mountain pine beetle, as it has a higher-than-normal mortality rate among young trees this time. It is killing off mature lodgepole pine trees, a phenomenon that the scientist studying this disease has not seen anywhere else in the world. The reason our forests are so susceptible to these pests and diseases is as a result of climate change. We should stop denying that this phenomenon is occurring and that it is having dramatic impacts on our natural ecosystems.

Therefore, it is with great disappointment that I noted there is no mention of climate change in yesterday's throne speech. This is a gross oversight. But I guess the topic doesn't fit well with the image of a golden decade in which everyone rides the tide of confidence and opportunity. In fact, this government's response to climate change to date can only be characterized as weak and ineffective. I believe that the government knows this, as it is the only rationale I can think of for releasing its climate change plan last December during the Christmas holiday season so that it would go unnoticed by the public and by the press.

If the mountain pine beetle was the only concern of forest-dependent communities like those I represent, it would be a tough enough challenge. However, against the backdrop of a retraction in public services, the negative effects of corporate concentration, deep cuts to the Ministry of Forests, and the growing and troubling impacts of climate change, the challenges for our communities and for the citizens of rural British Columbia who are impacted seem insurmountable.

The reality is that we do not have a mountain pine beetle problem; we have a forest health problem of enormous magnitude. The reality is that we do not have an economic development problem limited only to forest-dependent communities; we have a forest sector–wide restructuring challenge that has significant implications for the long-term health of the provincial economy.

It is within this context that this summer I called for a bipartisan approach to this enormous and far-reaching challenge, a call that was dismissed again today. The fact that the government has not even seen fit to resurrect a standing committee on forestry sug-

gests to me that it does not comprehend the magnitude of the changes taking place in our forests and our forest industry.

Once again, I challenge the government to allow us to work together on this significant issue. I urge the Premier to allow members of both parties to work with impacted communities and companies to find creative ways to face the challenge of restoring our forests to health and of reinventing this vital component of our economy.

I hope the Premier will take this challenge more seriously than it has been taken to date. I appreciate the indulgence of the hon. members who remain in this House for allowing me to bring the voices of my constituents into this Legislature. I trust that I will have many opportunities to ensure that their voices are heard. I hope the Premier is true to his word that we will be afforded opportunities to also see their concerns addressed in a meaningful and cooperative manner.

Hon. R. Coleman: I appreciate the time I have today to respond to the Speech from the Throne.

In making my plans to speak today, I was thinking back that this is actually the tenth time I've responded to a Speech from the Throne in this Legislature. Thinking back over that ten-year period, I go back to 1996 and look at the changes in this House that have been brought by a progressive government being able to recognize some of the difficulties in the job of MLAs in the Legislative Assembly.

Members on the other side of the House that were here from 1996 through to 2001 will remember a number of things. They will remember that this House would routinely sit till 11 o'clock at night during estimates debates. They will remember that on Good Friday, a major religious holiday in the province, we were debating interim supply till two or three o'clock in the morning, because the budget hadn't even been brought forward by the government by the end of March in that particular year.

As I look at all that, I remember back and think about the people that were here with us, the people that have been here with us and those that have gone away from us. There was one guy in particular that I always think about when I think about how we operate in the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia, and that was Fred Gingell. Oftentimes you'd have to ask yourself: what would Fred have said? If you thought about what Fred would say, you would think about how we did business and how he viewed the whole process of estimates to the budget as a process that was almost insulting to his feelings of integrity, professionalism and fair play. Fred believed that estimates debates didn't belong in the political realm of the Legislature but in committees, where you could actually discuss and go through stuff without having to be in this sort of adversarial position as you went through a budget.

When I think about Fred, I have to think back to others. Many of us who have been here for ten years have seen members of this Legislature come and go. Some of our very good friends were elected or not elected, depending on whether you were in opposition or government. It made no difference. We've also seen friends of ours with cancer and heart problems. We've lost friends and families. We've cared about the people that we visited in hospitals who got sick while we were in a term of office. We've all seen it. It didn't matter what side of the House we were on.

Sometimes we lose sight of the fact that people have made sacrifices over the last hundred-plus years in British Columbia for their families in order to be called Members of the Legislative Assembly to do the job for British Columbians. I think about that a lot these days. In the last session of the Legislature particularly and in the one just before that we saw some people stricken with some significant health problems. The one thing I reflect when I see that, as I see questions in the Legislature where somebody can always find fault with a system of health that is $11 billion in investment on behalf of British Columbians….

I marvel at the people I saw at my barbecue on Saturday. One individual who's had lung cancer and now has had a brain tumour removed told me: "I was in the hospital, taken care of immediately by the system." I have a lady who used to come to my barbecue in a motorized wheelchair, who is now walking with canes, saying: "Don't you ever let anybody tell you that the health care system in British Columbia is no good."

We can sit here as legislators and find the story, find the negativity at every step of the way, but I can tell you this. If you go talk to your friends, families and people you know in your constituencies, you will also find the great stories — the stories where our health care system has worked for people, the stories where somebody that had a heart attack was in for open-heart surgery within 24 hours of the heart attack because of the emergency aspects of the surgery required.

I think we have got to remember that. As we came through from 1996 to 2001, many of us saw the frustration on both sides of this Legislature. We saw the frustration sometimes on the way the debates were conducted. We also saw the frustrations of the fact that no member of this Legislature from 1996 to 2001 saw a full summer where they were back in their constituency. Never once did the House rise before July 31. Once it rose in the middle of August. In the five years previous to that, when I wasn't here as a member of the Legislature, the same thing happened.

When we came in with a parliamentary calendar, it was for a number of reasons. Let us do the job of debates in the Legislative Assembly. Let's do it in a fundamental way where we have a time line attached to it so we can do our business. When we're done that, give us the time to take care of the people that elected us. Give us the opportunity back in our constituencies to deal with constituent issues. That's a side of politics and a side of the job of an MLA that I have great concerns about — of all of us going forward as members of this Legislature.

The concern is this. As we sit in the House today, those of us who were here from 1996 on both sides of

the House can recall this: there were no BlackBerrys and there were no laptops in the Legislative Assembly. There are today, which allow us, frankly, to have more information to be able to communicate and to do certain things while we sit in this House. I don't think that's a bad thing.

My concern, though, is this: whether it be this government or any government previous or going forward, people have forgotten about one-on-one communication. People have forgotten about the fact that when a constituent phones you, you should phone them back and have the opportunity to talk to them one-on-one. There's not a member of this House — even the new members, I suspect — that wouldn't tell you that when they returned a call to a constituent, the first comment out of the constituent's mind was this: "Oh, I never expected a call to be returned."

We have to remember that we serve the people of British Columbia. In serving the people of British Columbia, that means we can't get taken in by technology. We need to remember the ability for two people to either sit in a room and communicate and discuss issues or get on a telephone and have a conversation.

There's nothing more frustrating to me as a minister or Member of the Legislative Assembly, or at any other time in the last five years, than hearing this. When I ask somebody, "Would you please call that person back" or "Would you talk to this person about that…." And after I ask the question of the individual, they say: "I e-mailed him." The request wasn't to e-mail. The request was to have one-on-one communication with the other person that had made the call.

My father taught me that if a letter was written to you, you responded in writing. If a call was made to you, you responded with a call. If you met with someone and they wanted to meet with you again, you met with them. The communication always went back and forth on the same level as the communication was started. I don't think that's a bad thing.

As I've watched this Legislature evolve over the last number of years, I think, slowly but surely, we as legislators have started to learn that we can do our business better and improve. Now, the members that were here in 1996 — and a number of them are in the House together with me today on both sides — will also today reflect on the interesting changes that have taken place. We never knew in 2001 when we might go to the polls, because we didn't have a fixed election date. We never knew whether we were going to be in the Legislature during the May long weekend or not, because we didn't have a legislative calendar. Today we have all of those things and more, and I welcome the fact.

I actually enjoyed a 30-minute question period today. I think it's healthy. I don't have a problem with it. I think it's worthwhile for both sides of the House. It will give the opposition the opportunity to hone their skills on questioning and research as they come and ask us, as government, questions. I think that's healthy. It also helps us because we are in the position where our research will be stronger, and we'll be more ready to answer questions with regards to things.

But as I work through that, I recall this in my mind: this is a lot better place today for a Member of the Legislative Assembly to do their job than it was ten years ago or nine and a half years ago when I gave my first speech in this Legislature. If we can remember that, going forward, we will actually build governments and relationships across the province for the people that we serve, and that's the most important aspect of what we do today.

I also reflect on the fact that it's pretty nice — and I admit, because we're government, I have a little bit of a bias on this subject — that we re-elected a Premier for the first time in over 22 years in British Columbia. I think it's great that, unlike the previous ten years to that, when we went through seven or eight Premiers, we're not doing that today.

I think it's great that the integrity of government is not in question with regards to some personal scandals or scandals that were in government over the last number of years. That's not reflected on any side of the House. I just think it's good because the people of British Columbia are ready for some consistency of leadership, some consistency of government and some consistency of the people that are in public office doing the public's work rather than having to do their personal work, which gets in the way of their ability.

When you reply to a Speech from the Throne, you can often go into the platitudes and the great things your government has done. I don't have to do that, because I know when I came into government in 1996 as an MLA, I had one goal in mind. It was a pretty selfish and personal goal. It was to see a change in the way we do business in British Columbia, to reattract investment and people into this province so that my two children would have careers in British Columbia. That was my primary reason for entering public life. All of my friend's children seemed to be leaving the province, and as mine were coming through high school and into university, I wanted them to be here.

I can happily say today, nine and a half or nine and some years later, that goal has been achieved. Both of my children are married today. Both of my children have careers, and they have careers in British Columbia. That goal is something that any one of us would like to have: to make sure our children and our grandchildren have the opportunities that they need.

I do reflect sometimes on the discussions that take place in this House. I reflect first of all on some comments that I've heard even sitting here this afternoon, where someone — you know, it's the way the Legislature works in speeches — says things about transition housing or housing for the homeless or issues in and around that. I always find that interesting because on reflection and in research it is clear that this government in the last four years did more in social housing and homelessness initiatives and put more funding into transition houses than the previous government did in ten. I don't think anybody should jump up on top of some pedestal and say that they are better than

I didn't see the previous people that would like to criticize this government today making it so that no person that made $15,500 or less in the province didn't pay provincial income taxes. This government did that. I didn't see it being done in the previous ten.

I didn't see, during the previous ten years, an increase to those people on social assistance with disabilities, an increase at all in ten years in the money they receive from government on a monthly basis. I did see this government make the largest single increase in money for people with disabilities on social assistance in the history of British Columbia.

I never saw, during the discussions about education when they talked about so many schools being closed and so many teachers being unemployed, that they would finish the sentence and say: "…but there are also 30,000 fewer students in the school system in British Columbia today, and there will be 22,000 fewer by the actuarials in four years from now." I didn't see them finish the sentence, but in spite of that, $400-and-some-odd additional million were put into education during the term of this government.

I heard about people saying: "You cut education; you cut health care." How could going from an $8.5 billion budget to an $11.9 billion budget in just four years be a cut to health care? The reality is this. Health care is a challenge that we will face in this House for the time that we are here and for the time that those who follow are here. We have an aging society. We have more demands. We have technological demands on health care, and we have to recognize that as we move forward.

The one thing I did see was the Ministers of Health in this government and the Premier of this province take the leadership on the national stage with regards to how we deal with health care in this country. I was proud of the fact that they were at the table and that they went with an agenda and delivered — not just for British Columbians but for all Canadians. That's what leadership was about when it came to the re-election of our Premier in this province.

I listened to the Leader of the Opposition earlier, who stepped over and said, basically: "You're not doing anything about mountain pine beetle. You don't care about rural communities. You don't care about what's going on here." It's very difficult to listen to those statements being made, whether by an opposition member or anybody else, within this environment.

Having been here from 1996 to 2001 and having listened to repeated questions about the mountain pine beetle to the Ministers of Forests of former NDP governments, recognizing the fact that it was first brought to this House in 1994 by a member of the Social Credit Party then in the province of British Columbia and that for eight years it was completely ignored…. All of a sudden we are going to tell you, the government, that you don't care about communities in British Columbia.

Then what happened? Immediately after we were elected, a committee of MLAs went into the Cariboo and throughout the province and looked at the mountain pine beetle issue. The Premier had a summit in the Cariboo which led to the mountain pine beetle action plan. Money was put into the northern development initiative. Additional funds were given to the Ministry of Forests to do the work to get the plan ready to go.

As we moved through that, what do we see today? We have a beetle action plan. We're going to put resources on the ground for its implementation. Shortly you'll see the implementation plan for the $100 million, which will, frankly, take care of the concerns of the first nations, who have expressed concerns with regards to it. Somebody said: "Oh, they're having this summit, and you know, it's a response to the inactivity of the government."

So why is the government paying for the entire summit? Because we're not involved? Because we haven't engaged with first nations? Of course we're engaged with first nations on this issue. As we've done the beetle action committees by municipalities, we've offered opportunities to first nations to be participants. We will continue to do that. We will build a plan with first nations and communities throughout the entire region with regards to this.

I've heard people say: "You know, in eight years it's over." Well, it isn't over. You need to find strategies for how you move your fibre. You need to find strategies for how you make your fibre work better for you and how your silviculture works better. You need to find strategies for alternative products. If it's over, why is one company alone building and prepared to build two $250 million OSB plants in the Cariboo and the Prince George area? Do they see a future for the fibre? Do they see an opportunity to make a change?

Why are their pellet plants looking at locations in the Cariboo and the north? What about that? I've spoken and met with these people. We've sat down and talked about their tenures. We've sat down and talked about what it needs to attract investment. Frankly, we're going to do that.

We also raised — yes, we did raise — the annual allowable cut. Frankly, you should cut it down and use it if you can. But as you do it, you're going to deal with your silviculture issues; you're going to deal with your other issues on the land base. You're going to do that.

I think that other than the comments from some members of the House…. The forest industry in British Columbia does need to have some reorganization and remodernization with regards to how it does its business, not just in the Cariboo and the north. We always talked about the mountain pine beetle epidemic, but let's remember this too. One of the members made a comment earlier about pulp — how we're not paying attention to pulp and that we've really disproportionately hurt pulp in B.C. Well, there is a problem worldwide with pulp. We have a competition council looking at that to come back with recommendations on scientific improvements and competition and tax things and all the rest that we need to do with regards to the pulp industry.

But when we do that and when we go back to our ridings, let's remember this. Just one example. There's

one pulp mill in the province that pays $26 a metric ton in municipal taxes — $26 a metric ton in municipal taxes. Its competitor in Quebec is paying $4 a metric ton in municipal taxes. So this isn't a panacea that you can point to one thing and say somebody should fix it.

The Coast Forest Products have issues with regards to markets and how they're going to access markets, what size of timber they should be cutting, whether they're going to modernize their mills and where they get the capitalization to do that. This is a job that shouldn't be just looked at from the standpoint of the mountain pine beetle.

There are other areas of the province. The southeastern portion of the province has a different fibre supply which is being disproportionately hurt because of the fact that we actually reduced stumpage in order to encourage people to cut pine. All of these things have to be taken into account.

As I went through the Cariboo this summer, I met with a variety of mayors, regional directors and what have you. I didn't get from them that nobody was working with them. I got from them: "Here's our economic officer. Here are his ideas. We like the beetle action committee that we're working with. I like the fact that we've got the opportunity to have this engagement with the ministry and with industry."

We think there's a future here. We think there's a way to build that future, and we're going to work with those communities — and, frankly, we're going to work with the opposition — to get there.

But the one thing I heard consistently from mayors that I spoke to in all the MLAs' ridings in the area was that the last thing they thought they needed was another committee. They said: "We've done that processing. We've been through that process. In all due respect, we don't need you to go spend a bunch more money to come back and tell us the problem we already have. We would much prefer you concentrated your efforts on helping us build and recognize the futures of our communities."

So I make no apologies for the fact that I think that's the right way to go. If members of the opposition feel that they need to go into the Cariboo, like our members did four years ago, to look at the mountain pine beetle and have discussions with companies, they have eight business trips. We did it in opposition. You can form your own group of people. You can go out and have a look at it. Nobody stops that from happening, and nobody stops the information from coming back to this House, either, in estimates debates or discussions. But I've been given a job by the Premier, and that's to get on top of this issue, to try and build a plan on the ground, and that's exactly what we intend to do.

It would be impossible for me to stand in this House and not reflect on the previous four years in another portfolio, because I am proud of this government. I am proud of this government for a number of reasons. I was the Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General for the province of British Columbia for four years. I saw us handle floods. I saw us handle the second-largest evacuation in Canadian history without a loss of life. I saw us take care of the avian flu by going on the ground and finding solutions between groups and communities. I saw us deal with SARS. I saw all of that in an envelope of the ministry that was under public safety.

But I also saw something else, something that hadn't happened in a decade. That was an engagement between government and law enforcement in British Columbia — how you build a policing plan for the future of its people. Prior to my becoming the Solicitor General, the minister would not meet with the leadership of law enforcement. So how can you build a plan for integration? How can you get to where you put ISPOT teams on the ground to track sex offenders? How can you get to where you improve their technology? How can you get to an understanding whereby we put an additional $122 million into policing in British Columbia?

For ten years policing was flatlined in this province, and the way it was managed was this. What we would do is we would say that we've got vacancies, and because the government wouldn't sit down and discuss the cost of policing, we just left the positions vacant to balance the budget in policing. We left communities out there without police officers. That was a shameful, shameful thing for the ten years of the previous government, and we needed to go build a public safety plan, one for policing. Not only did we put $122 million more into policing, we built the integration. We went after the technology. That initiative I heard again today, reflected in a new Solicitor General's comments, his belief in the future of integration and the operation of policing in B.C.

In addition to the $122 million, we gave $41 additional million in fine revenue to communities that didn't have contracts with the government, who were not paying for the policing. We delivered. We delivered because we had people in this government that believed in the fact that we needed to protect our communities.

I reflect on the fact that today the number of injury accidents and fatals among young people is down because this government changed the graduated licence program. In fairness to that, I will recognize the previous government as starting the original graduated licence program, because that had similar impacts on young people and people's driving habits.

As we move forward, we have to remember this: we're not here because we want to, for some reason or another, ingratiate ourselves to an issue. We're here because there's a group of people in our ridings that gave us the vote. They asked us to come here and do a job. And when we do that job, let's remember who the job is for. It's for the people like Fred, who came before. It's for the people like Arnie, who had a brain aneurism. It's for people who have gone through cancer and illness and given up portions of their lives with their families to serve in this House.

It's about the people that elected them to begin with. It's about the evolution of government. It's about the evolution of a society — a society that is based on

one fundamental thing. One comment that I will never forget…. One man said: "Canada is one of the greatest places on Earth because they changed their government with a ballot and not a bullet."

We are lucky to be here in this House. We are lucky to be here because we actually have the opportunity to make change. Even though sometimes you might have philosophical differences, always remember this: it's the people back home, the people across this province, that you're here for. For anyone to say that any member of this House is not here because they believe in the people of the province does an injustice to the memory of the people who came here before us, because we're all here for the same reason. We're here for the people of British Columbia.

As you're aware, this is not my first speech. If this was a marriage, I wouldn't be dressed in white. After I gave my real maiden speech, which was 14 years ago, I received a note from a lovely man, Emery Barnes, who worked here then. He said: "That was a good job." I took it home, and I pinned it on the wall. He kind of tried to show me how you function here. In honour of that wonderful fellow, I'm wearing a shirt made by his daughter so I'll look better. He always was better dressed.

Like all members here, I would like to thank my family and my friends and the 600 or a thousand people it takes to make an election for letting me come here, and the 10,000 people that have to vote for you for giving me this job. I'd like to thank a woman, Tish Lakes, who ran against me for the nomination to get everybody excited and remind me of why I wanted to do this. And I'd like to thank the previous MLA for Nelson-Creston. Are you allowed to say previous members' names in here? Blair Suffredine. The gentleman and I disagreed on almost everything except the principle that you come here to do the best you can. And I think he did. I thank him for representing us for those four years.

I would like to acknowledge the Minister of Energy and Mines. I have a critic role that will interact with these folks, and I would like to say that I would like to do so in as respectful a fashion as possible, being tough on ideas and kind on people.

I would like to thank my leader, who is kind of in the process of changing my ideas about what leadership in politics is. You can work here for a while and get a little cynical about who the bosses are. My present leader is teaching me at this late age that leadership can be a collaborative thing and yet a strong thing. And I'd like to thank this caucus, who I think might be the most optimistic and intelligent group of people I ever got to work with.

Now I want to get on to the part where I tell you what a good job you're doing so you'll remember it when I get on to the part about what I don't like. I'd like to congratulate the government for consideration in the throne speech, which is what I'm talking about today, of the process of this building and how we do government in opposition. There were several points in the throne speech where I think the government did a wonderful job, and I want to list them off. There might be others, but they didn't occur to me.

The first one was the commitment to advancement of first nations issues. I read it last night. It took up four pages, and good on you. Second was a commitment to parliamentary reform, changing this institution into something that works better, moving away from an anarchical sort of historical nonsense towards something that is modern and works. Thank you for that. Third was your willingness to revisit the referendum. I don't think anybody knows what we ought to do with the referendum, and the throne speech suggested that the people would decide. I think that was a good idea.

Fourth, I want to congratulate the government for your consideration of rural constituencies in the upcoming boundary review. I was very happy to hear the Lieutenant-Governor read that there would be seats added to the House and rural constituencies protected against the demographic change that is turning the "Big Smoke" into almost the equivalent of government by itself. Thanks for thinking of them.

Last, the fish farm committee. I think it's a good idea that a government would take an issue that's kind of tough — and maybe they don't know what to do with it — and give it to the other team because we might have some thoughts. Good on you for that novel idea.

I want to congratulate the Premier personally on being the first Premier to finish a term in two decades in this building. I have children who are 40 years old who had never voted in an election where the Premier at the end of the term was accountable for the beginning of the term. The blood sport that has attacked leadership of all political parties in this province had to end. This gentleman, this Premier, was the guy who saw it through to the end, and good on the people of B.C. for beginning to go back to politics instead of attacking people when they see something they don't like. I liked it. I liked running against a guy where accountability actually mattered. I kind of wish we'd have beat him, but good on him for doing it.

Since the election on May 17, I've been meditating on the idea of opposition because, of course, this is a job I never did before. I have never in my life gotten up and asked a question in a question period. I have never had to work on this side of the House. I have never had to treat the Speaker with such respect because he might actually…. This is all new to me. I've been meditating for six months on what an opposition member is. Truth to tell, I started thinking about it when I worked over there.

I read a decade ago that when the Soviet Union fell apart and it turned into 17 little countries that had never done democracy before, they all realized that they had to have votes. The hardest thing for them to figure out was that after the vote, the guys that lost… You didn't get to shoot them or put them in jail or in exile. You had to give them wages and go off and actually pay them to oppose the state.

Tommy Douglas said that he really liked it when the opposition was intelligent because when they were stupid, his government was stupid. When I was Minister of Agriculture, British Columbia was represented by two people at national agriculture meetings: the opposition member from the Liberal Party and the minister. That's because I figured that if the agriculture critic didn't know what I was doing, I was likely to do stupid things. Besides that, we were all there to represent British Columbia.

I think the institution of opposition is honourable and serious and historic, and I'm going to try and do that work in a way that reflects my faith in the job. So now, I don't know how much time has passed with me being nice and friendly and everything, but if opposition is such a good idea, then I'm going to try and get on with it here and maybe oppose a little bit.

The jingles of the golden decade and the five great goals seem to me to be right out of Chairman Mao's Little Red Book. I get it that we're supposed to sell lumber to China and buy goods from China, but why do we have to take the dumbest of their slogans too? While I congratulate the government on the process, all five of those things…. The process that you guys put in the throne speech had some good things. I've got to say that sloganism is no substitute for content, and that was the most vacuous throne speech that I've heard of in decades in this building.

In order to check that statement — because I know that vacuous is a big word — I thought I'd do some research. I didn't want to go back to the time when New Democrats governed, because I know you'd yell at me. This isn't a maiden speech, and you can heckle if you want. I didn't want to go back to something I was proud of, so I decided to go back to the antecedents of friends opposite, to the Social Credit Party, and read the kinds of things that they would say in a throne speech when they governed.

Remember the legislative session of 1982? That would be Operation Solidarity. It was tough times. There was a recession in Canada. The Social Credit throne speech of 1983 was coming in the midst of probably the biggest recession in western civilization in 30 years. This province was in a jam. But Social Credit understood, as does every other political party in Canada and probably every government except folks opposite, that the job of government is to consider and then to intervene in the issues that affect the land, the people on the land, the communities, industry, the economy — essentially, the citizens of this province. The throne speech used to be a blueprint for the intentions of the government to try and improve the people's well-being.

Let me give you some examples. I didn't hear anything about mining in the throne speech. Did you? No, hon. Speaker, I don't think you did. But in 1983, in the midst of the recession, they said: "In the northern sector of the province, development of mines, rail lines and the new community of Tumbler Ridge and all related infrastructure is progressing on schedule." In our throne speech yesterday, the content on mining would be zero.

Agriculture and food. In the midst of the recession, the Social Crediters said: "The industry in British Columbia has fared better than agriculture in Canada as a whole. I am advised that the gross value of agriculture production in British Columbia has increased by 5 percent and continued to outpace growth in Canada…." Now, in the throne speech yesterday, hon. Speaker, did you hear the words "farmer" or "food" or "agriculture"?

The Socreds actually took responsibility for the softwood fight. It was going on back in the '80s. The Lieutenant-Governor in 1983 got up — here's a bit of déjà vu, except they had the guts to address it — and he said: "I am advised that the severity of the downturn contributed to a concerted effort by a relatively small group of United States lumber producers to have a countervailing duty imposed on Canadian softwood lumber imports into the United States." This is 1983 in the throne speech, copping to the troubles of the day: "The imposition of a significant duty would have had a devastating impact upon the British Columbia economy and upon employment in the industry. I am pleased to report that my government played an active, measured and responsible role in cooperation with industry and the federal government to ensure that the threat of the duty was not realized." That was Social Credit, who understood that government is supposed to intercede for the citizens.

What did you hear yesterday about the countervail, hon. Speaker — $2.7 billion of British Columbians' money trapped at the border, $5 billion…? Was it there?

How about transportation? They're living in a recession, and in 1983 they said: "In the southeastern sector of our province, massive investment in rail capacity upgrading is planned." Did you guys hear anything about transportation in that vacuous bunch of slogans yesterday? That would be a no.

If 1983 is too far back for us, I want to move ahead to 1986. In 1986 — again Social Credit — they understood that the job of working over there on the government side was to use the resources of the people to intercede to make jobs for citizens and to make industry work, about using our rivers and the power they produce to drive industry.

In 1986 in the throne speech they said: "My government's program of discount prices for surplus electricity has already assisted 14 companies to extend production and increase hiring." Yesterday we've got Alcan diverting power that could drive a whole other

smelter to sales in the United States. We've got Cominco on strike and Cominco selling power into the United States.

Did the government make any statement about it yesterday? Did you guys say: "Okay, it's a brave new globalist world. This is okay"? No, you didn't even have the guts to say that. Did you say: "No, we're going to make it stop"? Did you take a leadership role, as your parents' party would have done? No. There wasn't a word. It's apparently not an issue, hon. Speaker.

It's kind of odd, because amongst the people I talk to in Trail and in Kitimat, they think it ought to be the business that we're talking about right here. They actually think that's what we came here to talk about — not the golden decade and five goals, and all the people are going to kill flies and everything will get better, but real issues.

What about the other issues, hon. members? Out there, we all just went through an election, and they raised all kinds of questions that your government could have addressed. When she got up and read it out, she could have taken a brave position. She could have said: "This is what we're going to do on uranium mining — moratorium or mine." Did she say a word? Not a word.

She could have addressed offshore oil. What's your position? What are you going to…? Do you have a vision? Not a word.

Here's one. What about the fact that all of your constituents can't afford to fill their cars? We had a throne speech in a week where the crisis in every family in Canada, and the debate in every other Legislature except this one, is: what are we going to do about it? Was that in the throne speech? It was about the golden decade. That's right. It wasn't actually timed. Gas prices isn't one of the five easy goals, is it?

Okay, so I'm trying to figure out, in my meditation, exactly why it is that hon. members opposite, my friends over there, don't have comments on the issues that actually matter to our lives. I'm reminded of last week. Hon. members will know that for 30 years in this province, we had a notion that the provincial government would manage gas and oil for the citizens of British Columbia. New Democrats and Socreds both thought it was a good idea to have an outfit called B.C. Gas so that we could heat our greenhouses and grow cucumbers and stay warm in the wintertime and dry our pulp and run our smelters — right? Do you guys remember? You were growing up in those days when the notion was that resources that belong to us would be used by us. Even Vander Zalm, when he decided to privatize B.C. Gas and create Terasen, came in this building, stood up there and passed a law that said it had to be at least 80 percent owned by the people of the province.

Now, the folks who work over there, this government that didn't used to have any opposition at all, kind of quietly…. Maybe I missed it; I was working in Nakusp. There isn't a lot of news, and the TV doesn't work. Maybe I missed it, but in 1983 they went over there, and they passed a law and said Vander Zalm was wrong, W.A.C. Bennett was wrong, Barrett was wrong, Bill Bennett Jr. was…. They were all wrong. Actually, our natural gas could be owned by the world. They lifted the limit and said, "Okay, the world can own B.C. Gas" — this thing we call Terasen. With 800,000 customers running every business and industry in British Columbia and heating our homes, and the — what? — third-largest utility in Canada, anybody can own it. So some folks in Texas called Kinder Morgan said they wanted to buy it.

Last Friday the hon. member for Vancouver-Hastings and I go over to Vancouver. I thought lots of folks opposite would be there with me. I thought we'd be shoulder to shoulder to say that maybe it's not a good idea to sell our natural gas company, at a time of energy crises all over the world, to another country. Oh. Hon. Speaker, not only was there no mention of natural gas in the throne speech, but the Minister of Energy wasn't in Vancouver. His staff weren't.

Anyway, here's us standing over there, and what does the lawyer representing the folks from Texas say? He says: "You know what? Who owns the natural gas, the energy resources of British Columbia, is no longer a matter of public policy. The Utilities Commission shouldn't really go to Castlegar and have hearings where pulp mill workers could talk about their need for pulp. They ought not to go to the smelters and ask about their need for natural gas. They ought not go to the constituencies that members opposite and folks over here represent, all the way from Fort Nelson to the U.S. border. They should go to Vancouver, because it's no longer a problem of the public interest."

You know what, hon. Speaker? These folks…. I know they're wonderful people, but they're paid to say outrageous things. He then says, "And another thing is that here in Vancouver we don't actually want to let anybody speak. It can all be done in writing," which means that it can be done by lawyers. And then he says: "Can you commissioners get it done by September 29? The stockholders are having a meeting, and we'd like to have the deal done when we have our meeting."

I was stunned, the hon. member next to me was stunned, and there was nobody over there to say, "Yes, the public interest needs to be defended here," except the opposition. I was there, and I thought: where is the government? I thought: I know. This the biggest issue of public policy in British Columbia alive today. They're going to wait until the throne speech, so the press will see them. They're going to get up in the throne speech and say: "We're defending British Columbia's resources for British Columbians."

So I'm sitting here, and the Lieutenant-Governor is there. I'm waiting for your actual intervention caring about anything that's going on. It wasn't there. Hon. Speaker, you didn't hear it. You know what's going on? The government of the day is giving us slogans, "Five great years" or whatever it is — golden, whatever — because they have decided that the role of the government to intervene on behalf of the citizens is over. Now resources belong to stockholders, and the role of government is to manage for the corporate folks of the

world to come here and buy and sell or open or close or lock out — whatever they need to do — because it's the globalist corporate sector that will drive our economy and not the people sitting there.

That's why the throne speech is empty of content — absolutely devoid of vision, New Democrat type or Social Credit type. The Liberal type is slogans and process and the absence of economic vision.

I came here to do a job, to work, and I hope to do so in a constructive manner. To members opposite, I would like to apologize in advance for any moments in future where I may falter and not be kind and friendly. I did see one thing in the throne speech that I took to heart. It said: "Mistakes will be made." Hon. Speaker, if I make mistakes in future that denigrate members opposite or this place, I beg your pardon, and please call me to account, because I don't mean to do so.

I love this work, but I think of it as work. I do not think we came here as actors for capital. I don't think somebody sent us here to read vacuous slogans as a substitute for government.

I want to thank the government for your bravery in making changes to this hidebound institution and to how democracy works in British Columbia and in this Legislature. I challenge you now to get past the slogans and the jingles to the substance of the issues of the day — the things that people are actually thinking about out there. Tomorrow I think you're going to introduce a budget, so I'm going to sit here, and I'm going to wait for the Minister of Energy to say: "You know what? We need to protect natural gas for British Columbians in order that we have a budget."

If he doesn't say it and if all the other ministers don't begin to intercede on behalf of British Columbians, you know what's going to happen. You do, don't you? We're going to have to do it for them, hon. Speaker.

To the constituents of Nelson-Creston, those wonderful people who trusted me to come do this job: I've got some hard news for you. We might have to represent more than just the folks who sent us here. We might have to represent the folks that were supposed to be represented by the folks who work on the other side, who appear to be silent on all the substantive issues of the day.

At eight o'clock tomorrow morning the rural caucus of the opposition is going to meet. We're going to discuss these issues, all of them — timber, fish, gas, energy, mining, those issues that actually matter to the people out there who were hoping to hear in the throne speech…. I would like to make an offer to those prospectors, miners, farmers, ranchers, fishermen, first nations, tourism operators, those people wishing they were working in those smelters that were once driven by the powerful rivers of this province. If the member who represents you by virtue of being elected can't speak up for you because of his or her silence of loyalty to the government, you write to us, because we know our job.

J. Nuraney: I have a speech here that I have written in response to the throne speech, but after hearing our member for Nelson-Creston, I am really tempted to say things that are not scripted here.

When the member for Nelson-Creston started to talk about how good a leader we have on this side of the House and what a great job our Premier has done and our government has done in the last four years, I was beginning to believe that perhaps there is a miracle here in the offing, that we may see this member wanting to come over to this side of the House perhaps and take part in the great achievements of this government. But then to my great disappointment and dismay, I saw the member fall back on the same old rhetoric, the same old tradition of not really understanding what this government's achievements have been and what this government's vision is.

He talks about the throne speech being devoid of any substance. We could have spoken about mining. We could have spoken about the days when the miners and the mining companies were exiting, getting out of British Columbia and going down to South America because the government of the day at that time had absolutely no program and was not encouraging mining.

We could have spoken about the forest industry — the forest industry that was at its worst when we took office in 2001. We could have talked about education, which was in absolute shambles when we took office in 2001. We could have talked about many other aspects of social life, economic life, educational life and life in general in British Columbia, which had come to its absolute ebb when we took over office in 2001. But we did not speak of those things. We talked about a vision. We talked about what we consider really to be the golden age, the golden decade.

In our throne speech we laid down the vision — a vision that perhaps may be too difficult and too complicated for members on the other side. We shall attempt in the years to come to explain, to try to make it simple, to try to make it understandable for the members in the opposition.

Now let me say what I was supposed to say. Mr. Speaker, let me first of all congratulate you on your election as the Speaker of this House. Even though the tradition dictates the reluctance of that position, I have no doubt that your being in that chair will bring the dignity and fairness that is demanded of that position. My congratulations.

My constituents offered me once again the opportunity to serve as a member of this Legislature in the last election, and I am very grateful to them for placing their confidence and trust in me once again. I pledge to serve my constituents to the best of my ability in bringing forward their needs and advocating for their needs, as I have done in the past.

Mr. Speaker, allow me to also congratulate all the members who got re-elected and those who were successful in getting elected this time around. The results of the last election indicate that our system of democracy is still very much alive and reflects the desires and wishes of our electorate. The opposition party has managed to garner reasonable support, which augurs

well for our democracy. It is our hope that they will perform their task with the dignity and decorum that is in keeping with the true etiquette of this House.

As mentioned by the Lieutenant-Governor in her speech, our task is of vital importance and consequence. It is a chance to build upon the legacy of achievement that has marked our province from its inception — to help all British Columbians realize their full potential. With this in mind, our government, in the past four years, made some significant gains.

Among the more outstanding achievements I would like to mention are bringing our financial house in order, resulting in eliminating deficits — a daunting task which we have succeeded in achieving; investing more into our education, both in elementary and secondary levels; creating a healthier environment for our advanced education institutions to flourish and expanding their capacities to allow more of our children to take advantage of higher education; restructuring the health care administration to bring about more accountability and creating a more creative environment in combating the serious load for our aging population; encouraging new investment and recovery of our economic opportunities.

We have proven ourselves the leaders in job creation. We have attempted to bring about reforms to our parliamentary system, which I think is applauded by everybody across this nation. These are some of the achievements of our government that have helped create a positive and more encouraging setting for British Columbians.

We also experienced a net increase in immigration, in contrast to the days five years ago when more people were leaving our province than those that came back in. Let me mention that all this was achieved with a lot of hard work and sacrifices. British Columbians knew that drastic measures had to be taken to reverse a negative trend, and we were successful in delivering on our promise with help and cooperation from our citizens.

In setting our goals for the future, we are advocating to make British Columbia the best-educated and most literate jurisdiction on the continent. We are also to lead the way in North America in healthy living and physical fitness, and to build the best system of support in Canada for persons with disabilities, special needs, children at risk and our seniors. We are also pledging to lead the world in sustainable environmental management with the best air and water quality and best fisheries management, bar none, and to create more jobs per capita than anywhere else in Canada.

These goals are in keeping with the needs and desires of British Columbians. Over the past four years we heard on various occasions the importance of education, of healthy living and of helping persons with disabilities, special needs children, children at risk and our seniors.

Our environment is our inheritance. With the increasing economic activities it is critical that we manage our resources in a more sustainable way. Job maintenance and the creation of more jobs are most important to ensure a life for British Columbians where they can fulfil their dreams and raise families that are excited about their future. With the increasing economic activities it is crucial that we ensure an appropriate supply of expertise and skills, and it will be our responsibility to offer these opportunities.

With the opening of our Asia-Pacific gateway, we will be experiencing an unprecedented growth potential. It is imperative that we prepare ourselves to take full advantage of these phenomena. Countries in the South Asian subcontinent will become the new areas of trading and technological opportunities, and in British Columbia we are well placed for becoming a significant player. Our efforts will continue to develop closer ties in this regard.

Burnaby has developed into a nucleus of high-tech and biotech industries. We have in the past three years seen the emergence of some of the world leaders in technologies, and they have taken advantage of their resources and research capabilities. Our government, through the Premier's council on technology, has successfully encouraged these initiatives, and more and more companies are opening and expanding their operations.

With the introduction of new technologies, we are also faced with social challenges. Cell phones, BlackBerries, MP3s and such have become the norm in our lives, making communities and ourselves more interactive and more accessible.

Our younger generation, however, is growing up with a quicker and a speedier pace of life. It is important, therefore, to have them keep their minds challenged in more creative and productive ways. Addictions to vile drugs, alcohol and other debilitating habits are also beginning to rear their ugly heads. Our government is seriously looking at addressing these issues and is undertaking innovative ways, like cross-ministerial initiatives.

History is studded with injustices and inconsideration towards marginalized communities. In Canada we have unfortunately, either through inadvertence or through design, neglected the aboriginal communities. Our government's resolve to reach out to the first nations and aboriginal people to forge a new relationship is one of the noblest goals. It is time that we developed a relationship of trust and confidence so that we are able to correct the past and the centuries of old injustices. It is my fervent hope and wish that we are successful in bringing about this sense of inclusiveness and fairness.

The member from Nanaimo raised the important issue of homelessness earlier today. This is also a matter close to my heart, and I have for many years worked closely with organizations involved in offering help. I'm proud to say that our Premier also feels passionately about addressing this issue. He has established a task force, in collaboration with mayors of different cities, to find lasting solutions. I believe moneys are also allocated for this purpose. It is my opinion that this is a stain on our society, and we must bring about a speedier resolution.

As we move forward to making British Columbia the best place to work and live, we have to continue to keep our eyes on the goals we have set for ourselves.

British Columbia, as in the rest of Canada, is increasingly becoming a pluralistic society, and we must recognize and acknowledge the changing face of Canada. This is one of our most endearing heritages, and this is what makes Canada unique and the most exciting country in the world.

Lastly, I want to once again welcome the new members to our House and wish them well in the coming years.

Mr. Speaker: The House stands adjourned until two o'clock tomorrow afternoon.

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