Hansard — Thursday, February 15, 2007 a.m.

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


Throne Speech Debate (continued)		5299
	D. Chudnovsky
	Hon. K. Falcon
	S. Simpson
	M. Polak
	J. Horgan

D. Chudnovsky: I need to say, to begin with, Mr. Speaker, that it's a treat to see you today. It's terrific to be here with you. Except for a couple of days this fall I missed you. And you know, my constituents missed you too.

More to the point, they missed this House. They missed the fact that the House didn't sit because this House belongs to them. It doesn't belong to the government, it doesn't belong to the opposition, and it doesn't belong to the Premier. The House belongs to the people of the province, and they expect it to sit and to do their work. So the people of my constituency, Mr. Speaker, missed you, and they missed us doing their work this fall.

I guess the Premier thought that everything in the province was perfect there for a few weeks. All the problems had been solved — no reason to call the Legislature, no discussions to be had, no questions to be answered, no challenges to wrestle with.

That, of course, was before his recent epiphany. It seems the Premier has discovered climate change. It took him a while. It wasn't very long ago that he was a charter member of the flat earth society, the no climate change society. But he's joined the rest of us in the 21st century, and we want to welcome him. We want to welcome the Premier to the 21st century.

We have one tip for the Premier. You can't just talk the talk; you have to walk the walk. It's not enough to make vague promises and mushy commitments. The issue of climate change is real. The issue of global warming is real.

Unlike his performance and the government's performance on the seniors budget, which left seniors out in the cold, and on the children's budget, which didn't speak to the needs and didn't make a difference with respect to the needs of children, on this one he'd better walk the walk. It's not enough to talk the talk.

Speaking of talk, I wanted to talk about another talk that the Premier told us about in the last throne speech. The Premier told us he wanted to have a conversation on health care. It's interesting to note the development of this conversation, just parenthetically to begin with, because it used to be called the Premier's conversation on health care. Do you remember that? It was the Premier's conversation on health care. If you listen carefully, you'll see that it's now just the conversation on health care.

I want to talk about that in a second, but you know, it's a good idea to talk about health care. It's a very important thing to have a conversation on health care. Health care is very important to all of us. We care about our children's health, as we should, and we worry about their health.

We care about our parents' health, and increasingly the health of our parents is an everyday issue for tens and hundreds of thousands of British Columbians. We are concerned about our neighbours' health, because we live in community and want to make sure that our community is as healthy as it can be. And we're worried about our own health.

Everybody knows that this government has not been living up to the expectations of British Columbians when it comes to providing health care. Long-term care is especially problematic — broken promises on the so-called 5,000 new long-term care beds, seniors tragically separated from one another.

Emergency room crises. One emergency department after another report code purples and hallway medicine and an inability to provide the care that British Columbians need and deserve.

The senior people get fired, and senior executives resign, one after another. Ministers can't get it straight. Maybe surgeries were cancelled, or maybe they weren't cancelled — can't be sure. One minister says one thing; one minister says another thing. We're not sure who gave the order. Maybe it was this one; maybe it was that one.

Attempts to cut emergency services in my community, at Mount Saint Joe's, were stalled only because the community, the doctors, the ethnic community, the people who work in the hospital and the MLAs stood up and prevented that cut from happening.

It's a good idea to have a conversation, a very good idea. But as I said, they're not calling it the Premier's conversation on health care anymore. That's because if the Premier is going to have a conversation on health care, he's got to show up for the conversation. He's got to be there, because the conversation requires two sides, or at least two sides. And if it's the Premier's conversation on health care, then the Premier has to be there. But this Premier called a conversation on health care and decided not to attend.

Mr. Speaker, as you well know, I've been a teacher for 30 years, and from time to time I thought it was necessary to have a conversation with students and their parents about education. Can you imagine what would happen if I called and scheduled a conversation with students and their parents about education and I didn't show up? It wouldn't be much of a conversation, would it? But that's what we've got with the Premier's conversation on health care — a conversation with the Premier, except the Premier's unprepared to attend.

Now the Premier is willing to talk to some people about health care. I noticed on TV the other day that he was at the board of trade to have a conversation about health care. He's happy to talk to his pals, his party

supporters, the wealthy folks who would benefit from the kind of changes that the Premier wants to make in health care. But talk to the people who he invited to a conversation on health care? No, he doesn't want to show up for that one.

We already knew and the people of British Columbia already knew that this Premier and this government lacked compassion. What this latest chapter tells us is that they lack courage. They can't stand to hear what the people have to say about health care.

They know — this government knows, and this Premier knows — that the people want a universal, accessible, publicly funded and supported health care system. They're not interested in privatization. They're not interested in for-profit health care. They're not interested in extra billing. They're not interested in the rich moving to the front of the line.

They're not interested in huge multinationals taking millions of dollars of profit which should be spent on providing quality health care for the people of British Columbia. They're not interested in health care policy decisions being made at boardroom tables in Cleveland and Brussels. They want medicare. That's what our parents fought for, and that's what we should have in this province.

This Premier calls and invites the people of the province to a conversation, and then he doesn't have the courage to show up to listen to what they have to say — no compassion, no courage.

There's lots of cynicism about the process of the so-called health care conversation. If you ask British Columbians — if you go out onto the street, as I have done in my constituency, and ask about the conversation on health care and say, "Well, what do you think? Do you think it's legitimate? Do you think the Premier really wants to hear what you have to say about health care, or do you think he's already made up his mind?" — the people are clear.

The folks I talk to are clear. They know that the Premier's mind is already made up — health care providers, the people in our constituencies, the people who actually do the work in the system, patients, even Liberal supporters. I've talked to a number of B.C. Liberal supporters about the conversation on health care. They kind of wink and giggle and go on with the conversation.

You ask anybody on the street if this Premier is serious about the conversation or if he's already made up his mind. Everybody, even the folks on the other side of the aisle…. If they were honest and frank, you'd hear from them that they know there is an agenda on health care, and the Premier is following it despite the so-called conversation. So the cynicism of the people is reinforced.

It seems to me that what we might want to do is to invite the Premier and challenge the Premier to reduce the cynicism of British Columbians about the conversation on health care and about government in general by attending the conversation on health care. We challenge him to talk to the folks who he has invited to have a conversation on health care, sit down with them, hear what they have to say.

I wanted to talk for a few minutes about child care. The only way to describe what's happening in child care, it seems to me, is to use the word "outrage." It's an outrage what's happening in child care in British Columbia. The minister in charge of child care took a lesson from Orwell's 1984. Remember doublespeak? Love is hate. War is peace. Unhappiness is happiness. For this minister, cutting child care is somehow advocating for child care.

How pathetic. How tragic — all the kids who need and deserve quality, affordable, accessible child care who won't get it; all the families whose lives will be disrupted; all the jobs that will be lost; all the support and counselling and advice that won't be available; all the early learning that won't happen; all the economic growth that will be forgone because this government is not prepared to provide the resources necessary and is prepared to see massive cuts in child care in British Columbia.

The latest cuts mean that spaces will be reduced, centres threatened with shutdowns. Parents will have to take their kids out of care. Waiting lists will get longer. Vital referral centres will be shut down. Millions of dollars will be wasted.

Remember, Mr. Speaker, that this is the government that used federal child care funding not to increase services to children — no, not this government — but they used that money to replace provincial resources. This is the minister and this is the Premier who didn't make a peep when more than half a billion dollars in child care funds for British Columbia disappeared at the stroke of Stephen Harper's pen.

Premiers from all over the country, from all kinds of political parties — some of the ideologies of which I certainly don't support — spoke loudly and clearly in defence of the children and families in their provinces, but not this Premier and not this minister. We heard this minister…. I remember her standing in this House at the time that the Harper government cut child care funding, and the minister said: "Don't worry. Everything's going to be okay." She said: "I'm speaking directly with the federal government. It's the better way to go. Got to keep quiet. Everything is going to turn out. Don't make any noise. Leave it to me."

The result? Nothing. Hundreds of millions of federal dollars squandered without even a hint of a criticism from this government, which pretends to be a government of good managers and good business people. This minister has been and continues to be the minister in charge of cutting child care in this province, and she and her government should be ashamed of themselves on this issue.

I wanted to speak for a few minutes about the issue of public education. It featured mightily in the Speech from the Throne — another throne speech with all kinds of things to say about education but nothing about providing the resources to support children's learning in classrooms.

The throne speech has got additional bureaucrats at the provincial level. "Superintendents of achievement," the speech said. How many of these $120,000-a-year guys and gals are there going to be? What about using that money to deal with real issues in the schools of our

province? There are 10,000 classes in the province with more than three students with special needs — directly contrary to the provisions of Bill 33.

In the throne speech we got new reports from school districts on hiring and firing and discipline and professional development — more forms, more bureaucrats, more paper. How much is that going to cost that could go into educational services that kids need and deserve in the province? We've got more forms to fill out. As if schools and teachers and parents and kids don't have enough forms to fill out.

Now we've got to have district literacy plans — more salaries for more bureaucrats, more paper, more reports. But is there a commitment to open closed libraries in schools — libraries closed as a result of this government's policies, libraries where real literacy is developed, libraries where professional specialists deal with real children? Not a word about closed libraries.

We've got a plan to pay teachers based on the achievement of their students. Now where the heck did that come from? Well, I was looking on the Internet yesterday, and I found this little note on the Internet. It's entitled: "Commission urges tracking of teacher progress." Dateline Washington: "An updated no-child-left-behind"— so-called no-child-left-behind — "law should track the progress of teachers as well as students, a special commission said Tuesday. The private commission said schools should be required to measure how well teachers are doing at raising student test scores, one of 75 recommendations." Students should be evaluated annually based on progress in the test scores of their students, the panel said.

You know who came up with this so-called no-child-left-behind plan? That would be George Bush. So we have the George Bush–ization of the B.C. public school system, brought to you courtesy of the B.C. Liberals. It would be entertaining if it weren't so tragic. Don't any of the people who come up with this stuff…? Haven't they ever been in a school?

Don't they know what happens when children's education…? And that's what we're talking about here. We're talking about the education of our children. The more standardized tests — the more emphasis on standardized tests, the more tracking of standardized tests — the more curriculum will be diminished and constrained and narrowed, the more the enterprise of education will end up being bureaucratic and boring and the less children will learn — really learn.

The priorities of this government when it comes to education are all wrong. They start from the wrong premise — that the most important job to do is to count and to measure and to administer and to build the bureaucracy. That's not the most important job.

The priority of our system needs to be to put additional, needed resources into classrooms and programs — to children, not to build the bureaucracy; to fund Bill 33, not to build the bureaucracy; to expand the educational experience of children, not to hire more administrators. The children must be at the centre of this enterprise, not the bean-counters.

It seems to me that this government makes a tragic and dangerous error when it suggests, as it does through the presentation of these ridiculous suggestions in the throne speech, that instability should be the watchword in our schools again. This is the government that precipitated a gigantic crisis in our schools not so long ago. This is the government that created conflict and tension and instability in our schools because it refused over and over again to acknowledge the fact that there was a problem in class size and class composition in the schools of British Columbia.

Finally, after students and teachers and parents and communities across the province stood up to the government and forced it to back up, the government acknowledged that yes, indeed, after denying it for months and years, there was an issue with respect to class size and class composition, and it was going to do something about it. Now we have all this stuff about bureaucracy. Instead of focusing on what should be focused on, which is learning for children, we have forms and bureaucrats and paper and administrators, which can do nothing but cause additional instability, because there will be tension arising from these silly and counterproductive proposals.

I want to talk for a minute, if I may, about the fact that there was no Legislature in the fall. The fact that there was no Legislature in the fall was an excuse for the government to move ahead with important decisions, decisions that affect the people of British Columbia in a fundamental way, without anybody having the opportunity in this House, in this place, to ask questions about those decisions, to explore the significance of those….

D. Chudnovsky: It appears that I get on the nerves of some of the people opposite, and you know what? That's exactly what I want to do: get on the nerves of the people opposite.

D. Chudnovsky: Yes, and the member opposite says that he missed me, and I want to tell him that the people of the province missed him. The people of the province — who own this place, for whom this place is constructed and whose work gets done in this place — missed him and missed his colleagues, because they believe that the work of the government has to be done in the light of day, not in the back rooms.

D. Chudnovsky: While we were gone, the government signed an interprovincial trade and investment agreement with Alberta — in the back rooms, out of the light of day — which will have an impact on professional certification, the environment, labour legislation, local procurement and hiring, local government, municipalities and companies across this province. There are provisions for individuals and corporations to sue local government for up to $5 million if they believe that the provisions have not been adhered to. No debate. No discussion. No questions. No accountability.

The minister says, when he's asked about all of this: "Don't worry. The critics are being negative. None of this is going to happen. These problems that are being pointed out aren't real problems." You know, when this government says don't worry, that's when I start to worry, and that's when the people of the province begin to worry.

If there's nothing to worry about, as they suggest, then bring it to the House. Bring the trade and investment legislation to the House. Let the questions be asked. Let the accountability be proceeded with. Let the people of the province hear the justifications. Don't hide it away. We challenge this government to bring the TILMA to the House so that the people of the province can understand what's being done. But as I said before, we have a Premier who lacks the courage even to have a conversation, even to have the debate, even to have the engagement.

Speaking of courage, I wanted to say a word about the Minister of Transportation. I know that he would be disappointed if I didn't turn to him at least for a minute or two during my comments. Now, there's a guy who should be giving lessons. He should be a teacher in running away from the tough decisions. For two years there have been dozens of….

D. Chudnovsky: Madam Speaker, once again I'm getting under the skin of the members opposite. Once again I'm getting my job done. That's what they elected me to do.

For two years dozens of derailments from CN. As a result of CN's running of their railway in British Columbia, a river is dead. British Columbians have died as a result of these tragic accidents. Citizens across the province, residents of British Columbia, are rightfully frightened about what might happen next.

I've asked for more than a year and a half now that there be a public investigation into the way that CN runs its railway in British Columbia. I asked the Minister of Transportation in this House and outside this House over and over again if he would agree with me and call for a public investigation. He said: "No, it's okay. I have these private talks with CN. They're doing great. They're improving." He was doing his job as the PR guy for CN instead of the advocate for the people of British Columbia. He was doing his job as the PR man for CN.

At the federal level the House of Commons transportation committee, which is made up of representatives of all the parties in the House of Commons…. And I repeat that some of those are people with whom I don't have a lot in common. They voted unanimously to have an investigation of railway safety in this country and specifically talked about CN and specifically talked about, in the unanimously passed resolution, the problems in British Columbia and particularly the tragic spill on the Cheakamus River and the more than tragic accident that took place near Lillooet.

It's good news for British Columbians that the federal transportation committee has chosen to investigate railway safety and specifically CN. I invited the minister to come with me to Ottawa and together present what we know and what we've learned about the actions of CN and the way they run their railway in British Columbia and to do it in a non-partisan way.

I know that I've learned a lot about what's happened in British Columbia with respect to CN, and I trust that there's information the minister has that could benefit the committee. But the minister said no. He's unwilling to speak in public about this. His answer, as I understand it, is that he has private meetings with the federal minister and with CN.

You know, Madam Speaker, the people want to know. The people of the province have a right to know: what does this minister know about CN and rail safety? What discussions took place at the time of the privatization of CN? That was the privatization that wasn't going to happen, which the Premier promised wasn't going to happen. Remember that one.

What discussions took place? This minister was involved in those discussions, I trust. What was said about safety, and what was said about maintenance? What was said about environmental protection?

The people have a right to know that. I think that the opportunity is there for the minister to join me in speaking before the Commons transportation committee, about rail safety. The opportunity is there for that minister to make that information available to the people of the province and, more importantly, make that information available to the committee which is investigating railway safety. But he says no, not prepared to do it.

They on the other side aren't prepared to let the light of public information shine on their actions. They'd prefer to do their business in the back rooms. They'd prefer not to call the Legislature. They'd prefer to take the big decisions away from the glare of public attention.

They don't want to have the public involved in the big decisions that face this province, but this opposition won't stop pushing. Despite their unwillingness to have the light of public discussion and debate and engagement shine on the issues important to British Columbians, we won't stop. We'll hold them to account. We'll ask the questions. We'll demand the answers. We'll demand of them that they end the silence, that they end the hypocrisy and that they stop being so cowardly. We'll demand that they become what British

Hon. K. Falcon: Madam Speaker, I appreciate this opportunity to rise and respond to the throne speech — a throne speech that set out a vision and a bold sweeping approach to dealing with some environmental challenges that go well beyond anything we have ever heard from the members of the opposition, both while in government and, certainly, while sitting there in opposition.

I listened to the member for Vancouver-Kensington just give a long dissertation on all the evils of government and everything that apparently government is not doing well, but I must say I was struck by one thing that I'm sure struck many of my colleagues on this side of the House. The member for Vancouver-Kensington, who is also the Transportation critic, did not once talk about transportation. That is of some interest to me. He did not talk at all about greenhouse gases, about environment or about the issues related to transportation.

I gather that the reason why the critic for Transportation didn't talk about those things is because, as is the case with so many other things that this government is spearheading, it is just more good news.

I was also surprised that I didn't hear the critic for Transportation talk about the single biggest transportation project in the history of the province of British Columbia, which is actually in the lower mainland where his riding is a significant part of it, and that is the Gateway transportation program. I didn't hear a word about that, and I'm a little bit puzzled by that. I'm a little bit puzzled by that because I can't imagine that this member, who has so often been critical about that project, is silent when he's given the unvarnished opportunity to speak for up to 30 minutes, to say whatever is on his mind. But he did not talk about that. Why is that?

He didn't talk about it because this is a project that enjoys huge, widespread support not just throughout the lower mainland and throughout the province by the public that recognizes the important contribution it will make to the future of the economy, but by many members of his own party who come to me and tell me how much they support what we're doing as far as the Gateway program.

When we kicked off with the first significant piece of that Gateway program, the announcement of the construction of the new Pitt River bridge, a $200 million, seven-lane bridge which will replace the old swing bridges in the Pitt Meadows–Port Coquitlam area, one which has been there since 1956…. This new seven-lane bridge….

I was pleased to see all the dozens and dozens of mayors, members of the public and stakeholders, and more importantly, perhaps, I was really pleased to see that the House opposition leader was also there sharing in the joy and the enthusiasm that those communities had for this very, very important Gateway project that will help to relieve congestion that was totally ignored for far, far too long — certainly in the 1990s.

Today, as we move forward with our transportation program, I am happy to have a moment to speak about that because the vision that the Premier and government set out for greenhouse gases and for reducing emissions is bold. They're sweeping, they're important, and we will meet them. We will meet them because it's the right thing to do.

The Gateway program and the investments we're making in public transit are all part of us meeting that challenge. That is why we fought so hard for the Canada line. That is why the almost $2 billion investment that is on schedule and on budget is so important to the future of the province of British Columbia. It will take 100,000 people a day out of their cars and put them into public transit — a huge public benefit, a benefit that will remove hundreds and hundreds of tonnes of greenhouse gases from the atmosphere.

Yet in spite of all those benefits, it was amazing to me that there were so many groups and so many left-wing ideologues who were arguing against that, telling us all the reasons why we shouldn't do the Canada line. You know, they're still out there today, Madam Speaker. You will still hear their voices chirping away, trying to talk about how it's inconvenient. Gee, they wish it didn't interrupt traffic. How could we cause these kinds of problems?

Well, let me tell you. As with all these other projects, our biggest challenge as government is going to be this. When we announce and we open up and we have the ribbon cuttings, our biggest problem will be trying to get those same people from trying to elbow their way under the stage to try and claim benefit. That is going to be the big challenge we will face.

It's not just the Canada line. It's the Evergreen line, another important light rail rapid transit project that will go to the northeast sector. This government said we would honour the $170 million commitment that was initially made by the members of the opposition while they were in government. They just forgot to put any dollars attached to that. It was another empty promise. We said that we will stand by that, and we will make sure the dollars are there.

That project will get built because that project is also important in ensuring that we meet our environmental objectives and our environmental goals. Again there will be lots of people telling you all the reasons why we shouldn't do it. We'll do the same thing we did with the Canada line. We'll get it done because it's the right thing to do.

The Gateway transportation program is also important because the one thing we have to do with the transportation plan is to have balance, and we cannot ignore the fact that we are a trading province and a trading nation. For us to be effective in trade, we have to recognize the growing opportunities, particularly in a growing and emerging China and India and the important Asian states that are reshaping global trade patterns around the world.

British Columbia, as a gateway to North America, as the closest piece of real estate to Asia, has an enormous opportunity to capitalize on that and to secure our generation and the generation beyond. In fact, I want to quote from a speaker who I think hit the nail on the head, who said:

Those words were uttered by no less than the Leader of the Opposition, who gets how important the emerging gateway is. The problem — what they don't get and what she does not get — is that you have to have more than words. You have to have action. That's what the Gateway transportation is all about. It's about a balanced approach: investment in public transit and investment in strategic infrastructure — in particular, the Port Mann Bridge.

I want to take a moment to talk about that if I could, because there are critics out there who will tell you that this is the wrong thing to do, that we shouldn't do it. There are groups like SPEC, for example, who say: "You know what? The answer is to just add buses. There's a transit-only solution. We can just add buses."

Well, there's a problem with that suggestion. One of the problems is they haven't done their homework, and they need to do their homework if they're to have any credibility when making a suggestion like that. We know from the independent studies that have been done by both our ministry and by TransLink. They all say the same thing: a transit-only solution is not a solution.

It's not a solution because it doesn't answer the most fundamental issue, which is that there have been no buses crossing the Port Mann Bridge since 1986. The reason is that it is so congested, they can't even keep a schedule. You cannot say to the public, "We're going to put buses here. Please ride them," when they're going to be sitting in rush hour congestion for 13 hours a day. It just simply doesn't work. That is not a solution. It is a mockery of a public transit alternative.

What the Gateway program will do is build into place numerous what we call traffic demand management tools to actually be able to effectively and environmentally sensibly deal with these issues. It was this government, and it was this Premier and this Minister of Transportation, that said the right thing to do was not only to help pay for the twinning of the Port Mann Bridge and the improvements to the Highway 1 but also to provide the right environmental outcomes by ensuring that we control the future growth of traffic.

It was this government that said we're going to move forward with electronic tolling not because it's easy to do politically — because it never is — but because it's the right thing to do. That's why we said we were going to go to the public and have a discussion about doing that. The public came back to us, and they said: "We support it. We appreciate the government coming forward with the recommendation." Though it is always going to be challenging politically, the public bought into the fact that this is the right thing to do. There's very widespread support.

We're also building HOV lanes on the Surrey side of the Port Mann that will go all the way to Langley for the first time ever — something that has been called for, for a long time.

We are also designing the new bridge crossing for rapid transit. This is very important because the fastest-growing parts of the province are in the northeast sector and south of the Fraser. When TransLink decides that the population growth and the densities are at a level that it will be necessary to add rapid transit, they will have to do nothing more than add it to the new bridge crossing that we already put in place. That is called long-term thinking. That is called vision.

It will also include the single largest expansion of cycling in the history of British Columbia — $50 million worth of cycling expansion that will allow people to ride, cycle and walk uninterrupted all the way from Surrey right through to the northeast sector and right into downtown Vancouver. That is progressive, and it is the right thing to do.

Finally, as a resident of Surrey, one of my great frustrations has always been that you cannot even take a bus across that corridor. Imagine that, if you will. Almost 50 percent of the traffic that goes across the Port Mann from south of the Fraser is going to the northeast sector, and we can't even get a bus across that corridor.

Well, let me say this. When that is completed, there will not be just buses. There will be buses with specially designed queue-jumper lanes, with specially designed dedicated commercial lanes that will allow commercial goods and our public transit to move efficiently across that corridor, creating a real alternative for British Columbians and for lower mainland residents. That is actually how you get people out of their cars.

At the end of the day, it's really about whether government has the leadership, the vision and the willingness to move forward with important projects that serve the public interest. You know, I have learned one thing in government. I have learned one thing in public life, having had the opportunity and the honour to serve now for just over five years, and that is that there is a large gap between what many in public life like to talk about and what actually ends up getting done.

I have never been more proud to be part of a government that is not afraid to actually set out a bold vision, whether it's in transportation, in health care, in education or in dealing with the challenges of climate change and global warming. This is a Premier and a government that is prepared to be bold and sweeping and to meet those challenges. Madam Speaker, I have the pleasure of telling you: we will meet those challenges.

In the Ministry of Transportation, just as we will across every ministry in government and all of the MLAs, we'll do everything we can, day and night, to ensure that we meet those challenges. But we will

never forget this: at the end of the day, the true success of an economy and the true underpinning of strengthening families is to make sure we have a thriving economy and an economy that creates opportunities for people to work and raise families and provide opportunities for their children.

We will meet those dual challenges by having an intelligent, well-thought-out, well-defined plan, and we will take it forward to British Columbians. We will achieve it because it's the right thing for British Columbia, it's the right thing for Canada, and it's the right thing that our Premier, once again, is showing leadership not just in this province, not just in this country, but across North America for the rest of the citizens to follow.

S. Simpson: I am pleased today to get an opportunity to stand and respond to the throne speech. I guess I'd like to start by saying it's always a great pleasure, and this is the time when I reflect on it. It's a great pleasure to be here to represent the people of Vancouver-Hastings and to be able to sit in this place on their behalf. It's a pleasure, and it's a privilege, and I certainly thank them for that opportunity.

What I'd like to do to start is talk a little bit about some of the omissions that I saw in the throne speech as they affect my constituency. But people in other constituencies, certainly, are similar to mine…. What we saw — or maybe more correctly, what we didn't see — in the speech was an effective response to the issues that women face in this province. We have seen cuts to services to women. We've seen cuts in transition houses. We've seen a lack of response to those women who are living in vulnerable situations and living in poverty.

When we talk about the most vulnerable people in our society who have been impacted, we also know that we have seen the reduction of services in the area of child care. We know that this government early in its time in government cut $50 million out of child care services. Then the federal government, in fact, essentially put that money back and then withdrew it again, quite correctly. This government again has now chosen not to replace that money.

Again, we're seeing an erosion in child care services in British Columbia, and that erosion is the responsibility of this government. The Minister of Transportation talked about leadership. Well, the leadership we see over here is this government turning its back on children.

We know that it's more serious than child care. We know that for all the talk that we have in this province from this government about how well we're doing, we have the highest levels of child poverty of any jurisdiction in this country. We know that 25 percent of the children in this province live in poverty, and what we know about that is that children don't get poor by themselves.

Poor children are about poor families. That's the situation we face in British Columbia: an enormous number of families that are living in poverty and being ignored by the government. In my constituency that number is more like one in two rather than one in four, so it becomes an even more serious situation in my constituency.

A critical piece of meeting the needs of those who are most vulnerable is housing, and we know that the support is not there to improve the housing circumstances for many of the people in our province and certainly many of the people living in our urban areas.

There was nothing in this throne speech to speak to the needs of urban aboriginal people. I know in my constituency, which may have the largest urban aboriginal population in the province…. When I speak to the people in my community — the first nations people and leaders in my community — they talk about the desperate needs of people in that community that are not being met and that this government is not responding to the needs of those urban aboriginal communities.

Many of the people who live in Vancouver-Hastings are among the most vulnerable in this province. If this throne speech that we heard the other day really is the harbinger of things to come, then those people have an awful lot to be concerned about, because they will continue to be left behind by this government as it moves forward.

You know, Madam Speaker, in a province that does have the wealth and the prosperity that we have here in British Columbia, it's very, very sad that no hand goes out to those who are truly in need. That's the legacy that this government is going to leave behind — the legacy of forgetting about those who are most vulnerable, leaving those who are most vulnerable behind.

I'd like to talk now a little bit about the focus of the throne speech — the 13, 14, 15 pages on climate change. We can all be happy that the Premier now has discovered climate change and has discovered that climate change is an issue of importance. We have seen the conversion on the road to Damascus for the Premier on climate change.

However, the reality is that British Columbians can be forgiven if their cynicism over the sincerity of those comments runs a little bit high. We've seen these types of assertions from this government before, and if tradition holds true, we can expect that all of those fine words about climate change that we heard the other day will be soon forgotten. After they're proclaimed, we'll see that they will lead to the dismal results that end up doing more harm than good.

To give you some idea about my concern, Madam Speaker, is that recently we had the year of the child. The results of that, as we talked about, were cuts to child care — $50 million in 2002 — no support for poor families in the province and to continue the highest level of child poverty. The only positive result we saw out of the year of the child was the children's representative. However, this government opposed that position with all the energy and vigour they could. They threw up every roadblock possible to stop the children's representative from coming into reality.

This government opposed that position desperately, and the only reason that position changed is because public opinion moved, the official opposition moved, and thankfully, Ted Hughes told the government to do the job they weren't doing — that they were negligent, that they had ignored children and they had

to step up, and the children's representative was a key piece. This government was embarrassed into that by Ted Hughes and by public opinion. Only then did the government move.

We had a seniors' budget, yet we're still waiting for the broken promise of our 5,000 long-term care beds to be fulfilled. One of the most telling things in our province today is that probably the fastest-growing sector of our society in terms of homelessness is seniors. That's the legacy.

We had the priority of health care, of course. We now have a health care system that is spinning out of control, that is all about resignations and firings. It's about doctors telling us almost on a weekly basis about the crisis that we face in this system and a minister that denies any responsibility for the chaos that he and the Premier have created and continue to perpetuate in this province around health care. Now it's climate change.

Madam Speaker, it's always instructive to look at what people have done in the past if you want to have some idea of where they're actually going to go in the future. So let's talk about that. This is the government that cancelled the climate change business plan that was put in place in 2000. They came into office; they cancelled that plan. Up until Monday they have done pretty much nothing around the issue of climate change, and they have undermined the efforts of others to make progress on reducing greenhouse gases.

This is the government that a couple of years ago chose to put in place its climate change action plan, which had no targets and yet has been defended vigorously by this Premier and this Minister of Environment. A climate change plan with no targets, no meaningful action was just fine for British Columbia — until Monday.

This is the government that deregulated the oil and gas industry, which has led to greater problems around flaring and emissions. This is the government that reduced the emission requirements for coal-fired power in 2005 and then pressured B.C. Hydro into approving two coal-fired plants — plants that they're now going to kill off because of pressure from the public and the official opposition.

This is the Premier who joined Ralph Klein in condemning the federal government for supporting Kyoto and who refused to participate in efforts to move Kyoto forward. This is the Premier who told people that our emissions in British Columbia are so minuscule in the big picture of things that we shouldn't worry about it, because we can't have a real impact on emission reductions anyway.

This is the Premier who, in February of 2002, told the Vancouver Sun: "We're concerned that the ratification of the Kyoto protocol and Canada's response to climate change could impact competitiveness and in turn employment, economic growth and investment opportunities across Canada." This is the Premier who, in the Vancouver Sun in November 2002, said: "The only climate that the Kyoto protocol signed by Canada is going to change is the economic climate."

This is the Premier who, in October 2002 in a speech to the North American Gas Strategies Conference, in talking about Kyoto and about affecting climate change, said: "We're in a competitive global marketplace. We have enormous opportunities in this country if we are smart about the way we deal with that global economy. It's not too smart to tie our hands behind our backs in competing with our major trading partner."

He was talking about accepting our responsibilities for climate change, and the Premier's position was that climate change doesn't matter; it's the economy that matters.

Our Environment Minister defended these conventional coal plants in this House — until yesterday, that is. And he's rejected the notion of emission targets as being an important objective for British Columbia in the past.

On January 18 the Environment Minister told CBC: "We have not yet established a plan to reduce emissions by specific amounts." I can assume — and to be fair to the minister, it's probably a safe assumption — that either there was a plan going on at that time in the Premier's office to develop this plan, which maybe he wasn't aware of, or it could be that this plan was cobbled together in pretty short order in the last couple of weeks, as the Premier found the need to be able to respond to these issues of climate change.

What about the plan itself? First, there is one target in this plan, and that's for 2020. To be fair, we don't have a plan yet. We have a speech. There is one target in this speech, and that's for 2020. There are no meaningful commitments for anything prior to that date. We talk about 2012, and we talk about 2016, but there's nothing that tells us what those commitments might look like.

There's some reference to them being sectoral, not being across the board. We don't know what those sectors might be. Nobody's told us which sectors those might be. Nobody's told us what those targets might look like.

The reality is that without action today those emissions will continue to grow for years to come. That's why we in the opposition called for immediate action to stop the growth today and to be given time to be able to look at how we evolve real solutions.

The reality of this speech is that there is no meaningful action we see today that takes place until after 2009, after the election. We might suggest that this plan, this speech that the government put forward is a strategic and certainly cynical decision of this government to get through the next election without having to do anything meaningful on the issue of climate change.

There's an interesting list of actions in the throne speech. It's a list that I found interesting, and I want to read you a list, Madam Speaker, as well — a list that talks about leadership, that talks about what we should be doing around climate change, that says we should have a cross-government structure for implementing climate change initiatives and measuring progress.

There should be participation in carbon credit trading. We need to make the Legislature and the public

service carbon-neutral. We need an incentive structure for green industry similar to that currently available to the oil and gas industry. We need to fast-track adaptation strategies that focus on safety, worker transition and affected industries and communities. We need consumer-friendly strategies to dramatically increase conservation.

In the area of transportation we need stronger vehicle emissions to match California. We need an incentive structure to dramatically increase the use of alternative-fuel automobiles, including hybrids. We need a funded plan to increase transit ridership, including fast-tracking for the northeast line and consumer incentives. We need to work with the federal government and port authorities to reduce high greenhouse gas emissions from shipping.

In energy, no conventional coal-fired production and 100 percent of new energy production in B.C. from clean sources. We need to re-engage B.C. Hydro in the production of clean and alternative energies. We need to develop and implement, with the oil and gas sector, realistic carbon sequestration plans. We need a heritage fund from oil and gas royalties to support green economy research and development. We need to make B.C. Canada's number-one provider of clean alternative energy, including wind, solar and tidal.

In the area of land use, we need to support local governments in developing and implementing greenhouse gas targets and plans, including smart growth plans to reduce urban sprawl; to set world-leading standards for energy, water and materials efficiency; to expand energy efficiency programs for new and existing buildings; to invest in methane gas capture technologies for landfills; to adapt LEED standards and other greenhouse gas reduction standards for use in the B.C. Building Code; and to fast-track programs to improve forest health in the context of climate change, as well as reforestation programs.

That's the list that the official opposition put out ten days ago. That's the list that we said needed action. It looks very similar to the list that we saw in the throne speech. I'm pleased that the government, not knowing where to go, chose to adopt most of the NDP's position on climate change. I suspect what's happened over there is that this government read the polls in the Premier's office, and probably Ms. McDonald and Mr. Brown panicked. The Premier bought a hybrid, and they cobbled together a plan. That's what happened.

S. Simpson: I'm pleased that this government, which hasn't had an original thought in five years, chose to adapt our plan. However, Madam Speaker, there are things that this government didn't choose to adapt.

This is the government that didn't choose to adopt our position on a legislative committee on climate change. We have been told the science is done and now what's needed is the political will.

Well, if we're going to deal with these challenges and if political will is what we need, then we should be putting this issue in the hands of legislators — legislators who would hold public meetings on this issue and who would speak publicly with the experts, where the discussion would be on the record; legislators who would report back to this House, in an open and transparent way, on how to make an effective climate change plan work and who would be accountable to British Columbians.

Instead of this, we have the climate action team, I understand, which will be headed up by the Premier. It has no commitments to public process. It will all go on in the back room. I guess that's where Mr. Finlayson, who has raised serious concerns today about the plan and the 2016 levels on the oil and gas industry…. That's where those discussions will go on — in a back room with Mr. Finlayson or others, instead of in a public forum that a legislative committee would afford us.

There are no commitments, to this date, on any public reports. We have no idea who this committee will report to. Well, I guess, actually, since it's chaired by the Premier, it will report to no one.

The throne speech — I think it was on page 2 of the throne speech — spoke of partnership, not partisanship. The Premier has chosen to shut out the official opposition, to shut out the majority of British Columbians, to keep control over this in his office where he can manage this for his political advantage, not to deal with the issue of climate change.

It's only days after the big splash, and we're already starting to hear questions about what this really means. The excitement of a 2020 target is fading as the reality of how little there really is in this plan starts to emerge.

We have been told the details will be in the budget, in an energy plan and in a climate change plan. We will look for the justifications in those plans that will promote more cars — like the Minister of Transportation talked about.

This is a government that puts priority on cars over transit and, in the most absurd claims in this throne speech, attempts to claim that by putting more cars on the road, somehow you'll reduce greenhouse gas emissions. It's the most bizarre thinking I've ever heard, but it is the thinking of the Premier, and clearly it's the thinking of the Minister of Transportation, and sadly, it's the thinking of the Minister of the Environment.

What we see are delays. Where do we see those delays? We see the delays as they push off light rail in the northeast sector. It keeps getting pushed off into the future because the government has overextended itself on its spending elsewhere.

We will look for answers on the government's active promotion of oil and gas. We will look for answers on the government's radical deregulation of the oil and gas industry. Will that change now? I don't know. We'll have to see, because when I look at oil and gas….

If I look back to the speech the Premier made to the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers back in

November of 2003, he said, when he talked about oil and gas: "One of the things we want to try and do with Alberta is work to harmonize our regulatory regimes and harmonize some of our codes…." When he talked to the Houston Forum in Houston, Texas, he said: "We're looking at harmonizing our regulatory codes between Alberta and British Columbia so that when you come to Canada, we can reduce your overall costs and you'll see significant additional benefits."

Does that mean that we're going to take the lead when it comes to greenhouse gas emissions from Alberta? That's what I read. Alberta might do a lot of things right. They don't deal with greenhouse gases and climate change well at all. If this government says the Alberta record is the record we want on oil and gas, then we can tear that 2020 set of targets up and throw them away, because we'll never get within a million miles of them.

This government is embracing deregulation and saying: "We want to be like Alberta when it comes to oil and gas." Who will monitor the actions of this plan, and who will report on their credibility and their progress? There is nothing on that in the throne speech.

Further, Madam Speaker, the Premier said in the media, when he was asked on CTV News and on CKNW whether there were any plans on legislation to actually make these targets law, to make this plan law: "No, I don't have any plans for legislation. I can do this through regulation and through my office."

It will be at the whim of the Premier. There is no plan by this government to legislate any of those shallow promises from Monday. So the reality, I believe, is that this is where we're going. Once we get over the Premier's spin from the other day it becomes increasingly evident that this plan has an awful lot more to do with getting through the next election in 2009 than it has to do with climate change. It has very little to do with meeting our responsibilities around this global challenge. It has everything to do with getting another election eked out.

That's unfortunate. It's unfortunate that this government would deal with such an important issue in such a cynical way. We need to get something more sincere, just once — something more sincere out of this government. So we'll wait and see.

There will be a budget next week. We'll see what's there. There will be a series of service plans for the ministries. We'll look forward to looking in every one of those service plans to see what the strategy to meet the climate change objectives is, service plan by service plan. We'll see what this energy plan looks like. We'll see what the climate change plan looks like. We'll see whether this government intends to actually open up and talk to British Columbians. So far, not much. A good speech, pretty good spin — not much substance.

We'll be looking for that, because right now there are no commitments for 13 years. Most of us in this place will probably have retired and moved on to other things in 13 years or so. I suspect the Premier probably won't be here in 13 years, won't be able to be held accountable for any of these promises that he made the other day. I suspect that's just fine with him, because he's gotten through another day, and this is a government, when it comes to big issues, that struggles to get through the next day. It has such a poor, poor track record on dealing with issues of importance to British Columbians. It has a track record of dealing with issues that are important only to its friends. It's a sad story.

The throne speech has come and gone. We'll now wait to see if there's any substance or any content behind the rhetoric in the throne speech. I look forward to those plans. I look forward to next week's budget. I look forward to seeing when the shine comes off, and as people start to realize how little is really there and the frustration rises, how the government backs its way out of the commitments that it made on Monday that I am convinced they have no intention of fulfilling.

M. Polak: Thank you, Madam Speaker, and may I say welcome to the Pacific century in the best place on earth. The Pacific century is one that British Columbia will be at the centre of, not just because of our geography, although that's important; not just because of our resource sector, although that's important; but because we are a province that's ready to move forward, face change with strength, with self-confidence, with optimism, leadership, boldness, vision, innovation and purpose.

I remember not that many elections ago in the United States there was a rather comical line being thrown around that seemed to capture the minds of the youth who were really coming to the forefront in that election. The line was: "It's about the economy, stupid." Well, I have to say to the members opposite who just haven't been able to believe what's going on. Let me tell you: it's about the future, stupid. That's what they would say in the United States.

H. Lali: I beg that the hon. member has used a word that is unparliamentary, and we request that she withdraw her remarks.

Deputy Speaker: Members, please refrain from characterizations of other members. Thank you.

It's certainly something that we need to realize here in British Columbia, that we are the ones who have the opportunity to lead into the future. The Premier has realized it. He has realized it by taking hold of something that the world is looking to us to lead in, and that's in the environment.

Certainly, we know that the future of our environment is about the future of all of us. We know that there are sustainability issues that are going to confront each and every one of us in our own lives, and that's

where it marks the difference between our B.C. Liberal government and the New Democratic opposition. We believe in the responsibility of each and every individual, each and every business, each and every part of government to take hold of the direction, the future of British Columbia and make it happen — make it happen for our young people, for every citizen.

There are those who would say: what about records of the past? What about the things you've achieved or haven't achieved? In fact, we've heard very much from the opposition about all sorts of other issues. The surprising thing to me is that while they will get up and say: "Here's something I didn't hear in the throne speech. Here's something else I didn't hear in the throne speech. I'm concerned that I didn't hear that in the throne speech." Well, I'm a little concerned, because the throne speech was all about the environment, and I've heard very little about the environment in the responses from the opposition side — very little.

Why? Maybe it's because when you want to start talking about actual, on-the-ground work, there really isn't a lot that they can bring to the table and say: "Here. Here's what I've got." Certainly, we know that many experts who have commented on the throne speech since it was given would like to see that. Quoting from climatologist Andrew Weaver, one of the things he said is that if you're going to start throwing stones from the outside at some action like this, you've got to be prepared to put something up that's better and to do it.

In order to decide whether or not the opposition could, in fact, put something forward and do it, maybe we ought to take a look at what their record has been. There's a really interesting one. The Premier announced at the UBCM that this government was finally going to take some action with respect to cleaning up the raw sewage that is dumped out of Victoria into our wonderful oceans. What did the NDP do? The NDP ignored it. Not only did they ignore it when they were in government, but while we have been sitting in this session of the House and since we were elected in 2005, we haven't heard anybody raise questions about it. In fact, we haven't even heard the Leader of the Opposition raise questions about it, and it's in her own riding.

What have we done? We've committed to finally taking action to clean that up. Why? Because we have a commitment to this environment. We have a commitment to the future of British Columbia.

Britannia Beach water treatment is another one. What did the NDP do as 454 kilograms of toxic copper sulphate was being poured out of that minesite into Howe Sound? What did they do? They did nothing. That was 454 kilograms of copper — 166 kilograms per year. Unbelievable. We acted; we cleaned it up. Why didn't they do it? I don't know. Maybe they didn't want to.

Actually, it seems that that was a P3, wasn't it? Could it be possible that the opposition would let an ideological bias against public-private partnerships stop them from cleaning up the environment? I hope that's not the case, but certainly, for whatever reason, they decided not to deal with those toxic substances going out into Howe Sound.

Sumas 2 power plant. The NDP was in government. Did they lift a finger? Did they say anything? No. They didn't lift a finger to fight it.

What about Burns Bog? We've completed a $73 million deal to protect Burns Bog, and that includes $28.6 million from the province. What did the NDP do? They wanted to pave it over and build a theme park. I think the environmental theme is one we want to stay on, not paving Burns Bog.

When it comes to parks and protected areas, since 2001 our government has established 43 new provincial parks and expanded 38 others. We've established the living rivers trust fund. Oh, but they voted against that $21 million to protect and restore B.C.'s rivers. Actually, they also voted against the B.C. Conservation Corps — so $9 million over three years to establish and operate the Conservation Corps, and they voted against it.

There are a lot of things they decided to vote against. They voted against exempting hybrid vehicles from PST. They voted against PST relief on alternative fuel vehicles. They voted against exempting energy-efficient home heating projects from PST. They voted against the Canada line, or they were opposed to the Canada line. Imagine: that's going to take up to 14,000 tonnes of greenhouse gases out of our environment by 2021. It's the equivalent of ten lanes of traffic off the road between the airport and Vancouver.

Of course, they've actively opposed clean energy projects such as Cascade and Ashlu. You're talking 50 megawatts of clean power, you're talking first nations support, but they don't support it. They'd rather let their ideology trump something that's good for the environment, because that's what they're about. They're about ideology; they're about staying with the status quo. They're not about leading into a Pacific century. They're really simply about maintaining the status quo in whatever way possible. We know that whether it's child care, social housing, the environment, economic development, all the various things — transportation, everything that government deals with — it's about the future, and it's about preparing for the future.

The environment is an issue that has grown in the concern of the public over the last number of years. Certainly, we've all been challenged by the dire predictions that come with climate change. We've all been concerned about it, and people still continue to debate whether or not it's man-made, it's the environment that's doing it itself or it's Mother Nature.

The fact of the matter is we have all come to grips with the fact that this is something where we need to act. We can certainly do more to be good stewards. We can certainly use the principles of our parents and grandparents who taught us waste not, want not; who taught us that it was just a responsible thing to go about, to look after your part of the world, to do the kinds of things that would take care of the environment around you, even though they didn't call it environmentalism. We can all commit to that.

As has been pointed out around the world, people have finally woken up to the issues, the dangers that are before us should climate change truly take hold on our planet. It has come to the point where it is an accepted part of living in the 21st century. This has taken a lot of evidence-building and scientific research. As it's been presented, many people have argued with it, and it's taken some time for folks to get around to it. It's probably taken all of us in our lifetimes a major adjustment.

I know I've heard over the last couple of years the Leader of the Opposition, other opposition members saying: "You know what? People just don't get it." You hear other environmentalists say that people just don't get it. They don't get it about climate change. We're now at a point where I think pretty much everybody gets it.

There's a part, though, where our opposition doesn't get it. If you want to talk about sustainability — and we've been doing that with the environment — it's not just about the environment. There's another area that deserves our attention in terms of sustainability, and that's health care. While the various columnists, British Columbians that I speak to around the province, our government and experts have all come to grips with the fact that we have an unsustainable reality in our health care system, there is one group who still denies it. I would submit to you that they are in the same category as those who deny that there's an impact of climate change, and that's the opposition. They don't believe it. They don't believe that health care funding is not sustainable in the way in which we take care of it.

The $885 million we added to the budget next year for health care. They will stand up and say that it's not enough, but they won't say how much they would put in. Why? Because the reality is starting to dawn on them that this isn't an equation that's just about more money. You're not going to solve the nursing shortage with more money. You solve it with more training spaces. Oh, oh, but they cancelled training spaces when they were in government. It took us to put them back.

Doctors' training — same thing. We've more than doubled the number of doctors in training. We've increased the residency spaces. We've taken action because we know it's going to take time to fix that problem, especially after ten years of neglect. Health care needs to be sustainable. Next year's increase in health funding is going to be 7.3 percent — twice the rate of economic growth, three times the current rate of inflation.

It's not just us who are saying it's unsustainable. If you take a look at how much the health care budget has increased since 2001 and if you project that out, you can debate whether or not it's going to be 70 percent of the budget by 2017, but you can't debate that it's going to happen. In that case, it is extremely similar, if not entirely similar, to what's going on with climate change. The fact of the matter is the opposition needs to wake up to the fact that it isn't about whether it's 2017 or 2050, it's going to happen, and if we don't take action to change our health care system in a fundamental way, it's not going to be there for our children and our grandchildren.

Certainly, I would hope that the opposition would see sustainability in health care as equally important to sustainability of our environment. After all, we are all here to defend those things that we hold dear, and one of those is our public health care system. It's got to be as important as sustaining our environment.

We know that when it comes to transportation, these guys…. It's another area they don't get. They like to say: "Well, you're not going to build your way out of congestion." They love to throw around rhetoric. This isn't about building ourselves out of congestion. On the lower mainland there's been more than ten years of neglect. The last major road improvement project on the lower mainland was the Alex Fraser Bridge in 1986, and that has left us with an untenable situation. I have a Langley resident in my riding who recently commented on the kind of thing that Langley residents face — residents in the south end of the valley, south of the Fraser — and he described the current state of traffic in that area as "a life-sucking death grip."

Certainly, people who live outside of the valley, outside of Langley and those environs, don't get it. They don't understand. More importantly, they don't get how far behind we are.

When you talk about Gateway, you're talking about removing idling vehicles that are sitting there for hours. This particular Langley resident was advocating that MLAs take more time to drive around that area so that they can actually see it, because they don't get it. If you've got trucks, a big part of this problem, loading up those highways because they don't have a South Fraser perimeter road or a North Fraser perimeter road. They're sitting on that Highway 1 idling. They're chugging out the carbon dioxide emissions. They're chugging out all that dirty air.

Freeing up that space by building the perimeter roads, getting the truck traffic off the Number 1, twinning the Port Mann Bridge, widening the Number 1, upgrading the on-ramps and off-ramps — that's another idea. They like to talk about the twinning of the Port Mann and the Number 1 because they know they can generate some opposition in some parochial areas north of the Fraser. What they don't like to talk about is the fact that this is part of the Pacific leadership agenda. This is part of something far bigger than the lower mainland. This is going to mean freight is going to move through ports. This is going to mean truck traffic is going to be moving faster. That's going to move our goods. That's going to open up the doors. We are so far behind that this is only catching up.

Why wouldn't I take a bus across the Port Mann Bridge? Because there isn't one. This is going to return bus traffic, transit traffic, to the Port Mann Bridge, to

that corridor for the first time in 20 years. You have to start somewhere. We have to catch up. If we're going to lead, we have to do it now.

I want to get back to talking about some of the comments about health care. I was listening yesterday, and I was reminded of a wonderful quote from one of the members opposite, the member for Nelson-Creston. Yesterday I heard one of my favourite lines — that the position of this government was to say: "Don't get sick." I have a response from the member for Nelson-Creston, because I think this is entirely accurate. He's quoted on December 19, 2006, in a letter to some of his constituents: "We have the best health care system in the world, and we denigrate it to sell newspapers or to get votes."

There's no other excuse for a simplistic — I don't know — almost uncaring kind of line like "don't get sick." I will castigate many times members of the opposition for opinions that I think are damaging or for things that they believe in that I don't believe in, and I'll argue, and I'll debate it.

I don't think there's anybody in this House who doesn't want to see patients treated well, patients getting the best care we can possibly provide for them. To suggest that there's anybody in this House who is so uncaring as to just not want somebody to get sick is exactly what the member for Nelson-Creston has said. It's simply a way to denigrate our system to sell newspapers or to get votes. That's what it is.

So let's move on from that. What are we going to do about it? Well, those of us on this side really want to hear from British Columbians. We recognize that the people who know more about their health than anyone are British Columbians themselves. Certainly there have been lots of people on the other side of this House telling folks that the Conversation on Health is meaningless, telling them they don't need to bother to get involved, telling them that the Premier has already made up his mind and nobody wants to listen to you. Well, nothing could be further from the truth, and fortunately British Columbians realize that.

We're now well over 6,000 British Columbians who have registered to take part in regional forums. We've now had well over 65,000 individual hits to the website. Understand, this is a website that isn't an entertainment website. It's not one where you're going to relax and have your fun browsing around and talking about health issues. These are tough issues. People have to really be motivated to contribute. But they're doing it. Why? Because they care.

As I walked amongst the people attending the forum in Surrey not that long ago, I was absolutely excited by the energy they had. They were absolutely primed to sit down and get talking about solutions. They understood that it wasn't good enough just to complain. I mean, you could actually take Mr. Weaver's quote and apply it to health care.

You can't just keep throwing stones without putting up some kind of solution that's going to work and doing it. The public, unlike the opposition, understands that saying "spend more money on health care" isn't a doable solution. That's not going to fix the nursing shortage. That's not going to fix the doctor shortage. That's not going to fix the technology issues. That's not going to fix the access issues we have as a result of people needing support in their homes and needing support elsewhere.

There are all sorts of issues that can't be dealt with just with money. For the sake of argument, what if we could? What if we could solve all those problems with money? Where would we get it? Does anybody want to offer up a program we ought to cut to take it from? All through the budget discussions we ask that question, and I know it's a challenging one, and it's one that governments have to deal with all the time.

Of course, I suppose we could always raise taxes. I don't see anybody jumping up in support of that notion. I'll bet you if I stopped ten people at random on the street, you wouldn't find one who thought they weren't already paying far too much in taxes. The answer is that we have to come to grips with the fact that this is not going to be solved by money. It's going to be solved by creative and innovative solutions.

We've provided $100 million for a health innovation fund. Why? Because we recognize that we have to start investing in the development of new technologies and new approaches to health care. If we don't, we're going to be in the same problem that the opposition government left us in when we took office: burgeoning budgets that weren't actually doing the job. That's the challenge for us.

When I talk to British Columbians around the province, they're amazed by the fact that with all that money going into health care, we still don't have a system that we feel proud of. It can be number one in Canada, which it is. And yet we want to see it be better.

So let's compare. We've had a government that took the approach that the solution to all of this was to just keep putting in more money, passing special warrants. Talk about budget control. When the NDP government was in power, the only way they could keep a handle on health care was to pass special warrants to be able to afford it, because they couldn't plan a budget around it.

It's challenging for people involved in health authorities and in other areas of health to keep control of a budget, but you do it because there are other services we need to provide. We need to provide assistance for women leaving violent relationships. We need to provide for child care. We need to provide for social assistance. We need to provide for people with disabilities. We need to provide for the most vulnerable in our community. If you want to fight about controlling health care costs, that's what you're fighting about.

If you want to just say that all the issues you have in front of you are a matter of spending more money, that's what you're saying. You're saying, "I really don't care about all these other services. I don't want to do anything about that. I'm not interested in protecting their funding" — well, unless you want to say you're

I don't think that's what we're interested in. I think as we look ahead to a Pacific century, to a time when British Columbia moves back into the leadership of this country, we don't want to see ourselves as a government that interferes with British Columbians. We don't want to see ourselves as a government that says: "You know what? You don't need to do anything. We're going to do it all for you. Give us all your tax money. Give us everything that you earn, and we'll just make sure that everything gets done right for you."

Of course, we all know that if you take a dollar out of a taxpayer's pocket, take it over to Victoria, throw it around a few places and send it out, it's worth more. Nobody believes that. People want to pay less tax, not more.

We want to be sure that we give people the opportunity to succeed. We want to make it possible for British Columbians to succeed and have confidence to face changes. We can't deal with this issue — with any of these issues — by somehow purporting to believe that change doesn't exist. It's all around us. The future's here. The future's now. It's happening. If we don't take hold of the very important matters that this throne speech addresses, if we don't embrace them, if we don't work hard together, we won't own that future. We need to. In British Columbia we deserve to.

British Columbia did not deserve to spend ten years at the bottom. British Columbians didn't deserve that, because while the economy was in the tank, those people were still working hard every single day, and they were still at the bottom. We've given them some chances to come back. We've worked hard — all British Columbians, not just this government. We knew that by setting the stage, British Columbians would take us up on that offer: work with us, and the future will be ours. Work with us, and we will have a province that is great again. Work with us, and we will have a province that will lead.

We're saying the same thing now. All of this environmental agenda — the targets, everything that government can do — is meaningless without individual responsibility and action. It's meaningless unless each one of us is willing to take a look at our own lives, our own actions, and see how we're contributing.

Of course, you could also take a look at some of the other rhetoric that the NDP wanted to throw around in their response to the throne speech, like no dirty coal. Sounds really great.

M. Polak: I'm really glad to hear that the opposition supports our moves toward the kind of energy self-sufficiency that British Columbia needs, because under their watch — you want to talk about spin — they didn't have any dirty coal. They just imported it from other places.

Sixty percent of the power that's generated that we import is from the burning of coal. We are net importers of electricity because there was a government in power that didn't see fit to look to the future. They were confident in their spin. They were confident that they could fool British Columbians into thinking that the course they'd plotted was fine. Just spend some more money. Don't talk about the issues we're dealing with. Why don't we promise some things that we're not going to accomplish? And, by the way, we're going to import our dirty coal energy from outside of the province, and that'll keep us clean. You know what? That's not good enough any more.

One of the reasons that our Premier is leading and working together with the United States, working together with states like California, is because we recognize this isn't just us. Many times you will find those in politics who want to put a fence around British Columbia and say that it's just us.

Economically, we certainly saw that with the opposition government when they were in power, except they did leave a little hole in the fence for all those thousands and thousands of British Columbians to escape to Alberta. But beyond that it was just an ignoring of what was going on around them, and not planning to provide for energy self-sufficiency for British Columbia was one way they exhibited that. There were many others.

You want to talk about child care? Well, it's a little hypocritical coming from those who promised to have a $500 million, universal child care plan but really hadn't budgeted or planned for any of that.

Instead, we've taken the challenges put forward through the change in the federal funding, and we've said: "You know what? We're going to target the money we have left, and we're going to give it to those who are most vulnerable. We're going to make sure that those parents who need the subsidy are still going to have it. We're going to make sure that those children who have special needs are still going to be supported." And, by the way, we've raised both of those, and we're maintaining them. That's the kind of problem-solving we do. That's how we continue to support child care resource and referral with $9 million from the province. We have to be there.

This can be a really frightening time. Looking ahead to the future and seeing the kinds of challenges we face, whether it's in the environment, whether it's in health care, whether it's in economic development — chasing that Asian economy…. All those things can be very frightening and challenging.

I'm really proud that we have a Premier who isn't afraid to go to that danger and say: "We're going to have a plan. We're going to make a plan."

We have a climate change plan coming out. We have an energy plan coming out. We have work to do all together, and we will get there. When we look at the goals that were set out…. Interesting, really, because when the goals came out, there certainly was much guffawing across the way. Jeez, why would we want to put these goals out? I mean, my goodness, it's silly — you know, the five great goals.

But it's really interesting, you know, because when you talk about leading the world in sustainable envi-

ronmental management — which, by the way, was goal 4 — you start to realize that this is something our government's been working on for a heck of a long time. What I am very proud of is to read from people like Andrew Weaver that this plan is one that, as he said, is one of the best in the world — and not from somebody who would be typically running along behind us to support it.

Why? Because this goes beyond partisanship. Partisanship should be in politics, in our parliamentary system, about debating ideas. It should be about throwing around different solutions, but of course they'd rather throw stones. They'd rather throw stones and not come up with a solution. They'd rather take the rhetoric and denigrate things like our health care system in order to gain some votes.

In reality the only thing that's going to gain votes is if we can lead into the future for British Columbians. We are going to provide them with a plan, not only in the environment. We're going to provide them with a plan, a path, and a march into the future that will take us all together, because that's the only way we're going to do it. It's all together.

So, Madam Speaker, I close as I have begun. Welcome to the Pacific century in the best place on earth.

J. Horgan: It's a privilege and a pleasure to rise in this place and speak to the throne speech on behalf of the people of Malahat–Juan de Fuca. Those on this side of the House are certainly familiar with Malahat–Juan de Fuca. I speak about it every single day, and I'm always anxious and delighted to stand up and advise members on the other side of the House about what goes on and who lives in Malahat–Juan de Fuca.

It's a diverse riding that stretches from the Cowichan River to the north, south to the burgeoning community of Langford, Highlands, Metchosin, East Sooke, Sooke, Otter Point, Shirley and all the way out to Port Renfrew. It is a pleasure and an honour to represent that area.

I advise the members on the other side of the House where these communities are, because based on the amount of government activity in that area, I'd be surprised if they could name any one of those communities.

Certainly, the Minister of Community Services, the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head, would have a modest understanding of my community. But based on the disinterest and contempt it appears that those on the other side of the House have for the 40 percent of British Columbians who voted against their vision, who voted against their view of the world, I think it's important that we remind them of that right now.

The member for Langley just gave us one of the better dissertations on revisionist history that we've heard in some time, and I commend her for that. But, as a historian, I think it's important that I remind this House and anyone who's paying the least bit of attention to this debate that public policy is a river. It's not static. It's not a series of events. Things happen. Governments respond to it.

It was Churchill, hon. Speaker — very delighted to see you — who said that governing is the trick of dealing with events. So what has this government done with respect to events and using the throne speech to challenge those issues? Well, certainly, in my first throne speech in this House in 2005, the government spoke about their throne speech as…. I believe it was seniors. Seniors were going to be the focus, and they spent 16 or so pages discussing what they were going to do for seniors.

Then they completely lost interest in that, and not six months later it was a child's budget. We've run the gamut. We've got our senior citizens and we've got our children, and that was going to be the focus of the government. This year it's climate change.

As I've only got a few minutes before lunch, I just want to read from the press release a couple of quotes, if I may.

"Our government is committed to reducing B.C.'s greenhouse gas emissions and to improving air quality for British Columbians," the Premier said. "This strategy was developed after two years of consultation with the B.C. Greenhouse Gas Forum, which represents industry, environmental groups, resource sectors, labour unions and local communities."

The Minister of Environment said: "Taking action now to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is the right thing to do for our environment, our economy and future generations. Our government is leading by example by reducing our own emissions and working with business, communities and individual British Columbians to develop new technologies to address climate change here and around the world."

Of course, the Minister of Energy said: "B.C.'s climate change business plan will support energy efficiency, build awareness of transportation alternatives and improve environmental practices in the oil and gas sector. We will work with other provinces and the federal government to put a national climate change strategy in place that promotes economic growth in B.C. and across Canada."

Moving words, and they were spoken in 2000 by the Premier of the day, a New Democrat Premier; by the Environment Minister of the day, a New Democrat Environment Minister; and by the Energy Minister of the day, my former boss, Dan Miller.

So don't lecture me, hon. Member for Langley, about getting on board late. The opposite side came to power and gutted the Green Economy Secretariat, cancelled the climate change business plan, and last week the Premier went and bought a car and said: "Hey, I'm hip. If it works for Arnie, it'll work for me."

Well, the Gordinator won't sell in my community. What we want in my community is improvements to transit, improvements to transportation. I've been talking about the Malahat corridor for 18 solid months and can get nothing out of that other side. We've had a study — a two and a half year study — on transporta-

tion alternatives, but it hasn't yet hit the ground. The public doesn't know what the government has in mind. They make one passing reference to the capital regional district in their throne speech, and that's it.

History will judge the '90s. History will judge the first decade of this century. It's not our job to bring up what happened yesterday. It's our job to talk about the future. If I could support the member for Langley for one moment, it would be on that comment that she made. We all need to be forward-looking — not just that side of the House but this side of the House.

That's why I was heartened when Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor was reading the speech from the throne when she said: "This is a time for partnership, not partisanship." I was delighted to hear that as were my constituents. People at home, people in the gallery, are saying: what are they droning on about? That side's talking about the 1990s. This side's talking about something else. Why don't they work together?

Well, the throne speech laid the ground for that. I was waiting for Her Honour to make reference to an all-party committee, a cooperative approach to climate change, all of us rolling up our sleeves and getting to work solving problems. That's why we've got elected on this side of the House. We didn't come here to throw stones. We didn't come here to talk about the 1990s. We came here to do something for our children.

I have to tell you, hon. Speaker. I know I've told my friend from Yale-Lillooet this story, but I'll tell you because I know you like to hear my stories. I was in my shorts. It was late October. I was thinking about cutting the grass, and my oldest son, the anti–greenhouse gas kid — and I know the member from Burrard likes to hear about these stories as well — came wheeling by on his bicycle, his hair hanging down and his helmet on. He wouldn't create a greenhouse gas if you paid him money. If we're going in the same direction and I'm driving, he'll say: "No thanks, dad. I'll take my bike."

He turned to me and said: "Dad, are you concerned that it's 29 degrees on the last day of October?" With my generation at the bottom end of the baby boom, I thought: well, yeah, I kind of like it. It's nice. We're having a long, long summer. That's encouraging for us old people. We like the sunshine. He said: "Dad, I thought we were going to get you elected to do something about these things." It stuck with me.

We came back into this place with a very brief session, hon. Speaker. You'll recall that. It was a day or two in the fall. I had the opportunity to ask the Minister of Energy some questions about their coal plan. Of course, at the time he defended it vigorously because, come hell or high water, every idea on that side of the House is right and every idea on this side of the House is wrong.

Now I hear that coal is a bad idea and that we're going to do away with it. Well, good on the government for recognizing that. Thank you very much. I know that the Minister of Environment, rather than revisiting the Sumas issue, is now in a position where he can comfortably go out on the stump and talk about an actual Environment Ministry. Good on him. I welcome that. I think he's probably looking forward to it. It must have been difficult to be the Minister of Environment in a government that's advancing coal technology that comes from several decades ago, not the Pacific century, not from the….

Everyone's looking; it's time for lunch. Well, I'm going to keep talking, hon. Speaker, because I kind of like doing that.

I'd like to go back to my son, who said: "Why are we creating all these greenhouse gases?" I said to him that I'm going to go cut the grass and think about what I'll do to meet my commitment to him and his young friends, his teenage friends. They're very concerned about climate change.

I heard someone on the radio the other day from the other side, who said: "We have to teach our kids to do a better job than we did." Well, I think what's happening in my home is that my kids are teaching me how to do a better job. I know that the member from West Vancouver is saying the same thing. Let the kids have their say, and we'll get the way we want to go.

The challenge is that partisanship will reign supreme until the government side says: "You know what? Let's give it a chance. Let's say to the opposition members: 'Come on in, we need to solve these problems.'"

We need to solve them on Vancouver Island. The member for Nanaimo-Parksville was speaking about that yesterday. The member from Comox. The member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head. There are Liberals on Vancouver Island. They're a rare breed, but there are some. I'm delighted to sit down with them and address issues of concern to Vancouver Island residents, but the government has to give away a little bit of power, and that's really tough to do.

I remember that the Premier — I'm reluctant to raise this, and I'll talk about it in general terms — had a press conference a few years ago in January. He said he was very troubled by a personal action. It was moving, and it was sincere. I thought for a minute he was going to say, "But this is what I think I should do now," and he didn't. He said: "No, I have a higher calling, and that's to cling to power as long as possible." Had he said, "I have a higher calling, and that is to take my talents and work with all the people of British Columbia to make this a better place," I would have applauded him.

I would have stood right here and applauded him again today if he had done that, but he didn't. He threw a little line about partnership over partisanship in the throne speech. Then he proceeded to talk about how he was going to appoint all his friends to a climate action team rather than inviting in people from both sides of the House.

We represent 40 percent of the people in British Columbia. That's a big chunk of folks. I know the member for Vancouver-Burrard represents 12 more than us — right? — or maybe it was 13 more than us. It was really, really close. Although I have every regard for the member from Burrard, and I'll listen to him and respect his views as a representative for his people and his community, it was 12 votes. What's the difference

between the member who's sitting here now and the member who would have been sitting over here? Not a lot.

I think that's an opportunity, and I know the member from Burrard thinks it's an opportunity as well. If you're that close to being 50-50, why wouldn't you reach across the hall? Why wouldn't you reach over and say: "I bet you've got an idea or two over there that might be useful to the completion of this program"? It might be useful.

I know when I go home…. I live in Langford. It's a pretty rough-hewn place. It's a free enterprise community. I'm happy to live in it, and I do what I can to stimulate the economy there. I try and work with the Minister of Transportation to get some transportation initiatives going.

I have to deal with everyone in my community. I talked to the member for Burquitlam earlier on. He deals with everyone in his community. Why can't the government deal with everybody in this Legislature? I know that the people watching up there are saying: "What's that guy talking about?" He's talking about people working together cooperatively, in harmony, to solve the world's problems.

The Minister of Environment wants me to wrap up. I'm just on a roll, hon. Speaker. I'll lose my edge if I have a sandwich. But in the interests of allowing those in the gallery to break for lunch, I reserve my right to proceed after, and I now move adjournment of debate.

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