Hansard — Tuesday, March 6, 2007 p.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


Introductions by Members		5837

Statements (Standing Order 25B)		5838
	Contributions of immigrants
	J. Yap
	Fred Thomas
	C. Wyse
	Safe schools
	L. Mayencourt
	Alouette Home Start Society
	M. Sather
	Commonwealth awards for rescues
	R. Lee
	Vancouver downtown east side
	J. Kwan

Oral Questions		5840
	Patient discharge policy at St. Paul's Hospital
	C. James
	Hon. G. Abbott
	N. Simons
	Long-term care assessment
	G. Coons
	Hon. G. Abbott
	Children and Family Development Ministry policy on e-mails
	M. Karagianis
	Hon. T. Christensen
	Seismic upgrades for schools
	D. Cubberley
	Hon. S. Bond
	Fraser River dike system
	M. Farnworth
	Hon. J. Les
	Firefighter services for 2010 Olympics
	C. Puchmayr
	Hon. J. Les
	Regulation of emissions from Vancouver region greenhouses
	S. Simpson
	Hon. B. Penner

Petitions		5844
	C. Trevena

Tabling Documents		5844
	Public Service Benefit Plan Act, annual report for year ending March 31, 2006

Throne Speech Debate (conitnued)		5844
	B. Simpson
	L. Mayencourt
	C. Trevena
	Hon. W. Oppal
	D. Routley
	R. Hawes
	B. Ralston
	Hon. M. de Jong

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply		5875
	Estimates: Ministry of Labour and Citizens' Services
	Hon. O. Ilich
	C. Puchmayr
	C. Evans
	B. Simpson

Hon. O. Ilich: We're being visited today and yesterday by members of the British Columbia Professional Fire Fighters Association. So it is with great pleasure that I welcome them to the House.

These are the people that we want to have in our community. We want to know that they're always there. We never want to see them other than that. I know they provide terrific services. They are involved in all sorts of charitable works, and they do all sorts of things in keeping our communities safe and happy.

They are currently in Victoria, along with other British Columbia firefighters, meeting with our MLAs. I had the great pleasure of addressing them yesterday morning, and I look forward to continuing our positive relationship with them.

Would the House please help me welcome all the members of the Professional Fire Fighters Association.

C. Puchmayr: On behalf of this side of the House, I too want to make welcome all the firefighters that are here this week in Victoria, speaking to us about very important issues that come before them. As opposed to going through them all individually, I want everyone again to give the firefighters a warm welcome to this chamber.

Hon. W. Oppal: I have the pleasure of introducing two members of the Law Society of British Columbia, the governing body for lawyers who practise in this province. We have with us today Anna Fung, who is the president of the Law Society, and Tim McGee, the executive director of the Law Society of British Columbia.

J. Horgan: It's my pleasure to rise today and introduce two very, very old friends of mine: Steve Hanna, who saved my life once, and Mike Game, who almost took it once. They both also happen to be professional firefighters, but that's just an aside. I'm proud to recognize that they've come to this place. They have prominent roles in the community in Saanich, where I grew up, and the member for Saanich South is their MLA. I'm just delighted that they came here to put forward their issues so that all of us can understand them.

B. Lekstrom: It's my pleasure today to introduce a number of guests visiting us from the great city of Dawson Creek in the beautiful Peace country. Joining us today — and they're all very good friends of mine — is His Worship Mayor Calvin Kruk, the mayor of Dawson Creek.

I will take the opportunity to mention two close friends and people I've played a great number of nights of hockey with: Ted Cousens and Dennis Kesterkey, who are both down from Dawson Creek doing work on behalf of the firefighters here to visit with the MLAs. Please make them welcome.

H. Bains: Also in the vicinity are firefighters from Surrey. Over the years we have become very good friends. In the team we have Larry Thomas, Mike McNamara, Terry Hunt, Mike Starchuk and Mike Murphy.

B. Bennett: In the gallery someplace above us are Doug and Judy Walker from Vancouver. Doug is the CEO of the Nature Trust of British Columbia. They have a reception for MLAs at Government House tonight starting at 6:30.

S. Fraser: I'm going to break protocol, since it's already been broken. Ben Halychuk and John Haley are in the gallery today, and they are constituents, friends and firefighters. John and I served on the Tofino volunteer fire department quite a few years ago. He was the chief, and I was the disciple.

Hon. M. Coell: I would like the House to welcome a constituent of mine, Ryder Bergerud, who is a grade 10 student in Gulf Islands Secondary School. He's earning credits toward his planning 10 course by attending question period, and I think he deserves very high marks for that.

D. Thorne: I have a couple of my firefighters here today from Coquitlam, and I must say it's a pleasure to me to be lobbied instead of helping them to lobby, as I did when I was a Coquitlam councillor — Randy Hammell and Steve Farina.

M. Farnworth: It's my pleasure to introduce a constituent and also a member of the Port Coquitlam fire department — that is, Al Coplin. Will the House please make him most welcome.

C. Trevena: Mr. Speaker, I know that an agreement was made, but everybody else has broken it, so I also would like to ask the House to make welcome Mark McKenzie and Reid Wharton, two Campbell River firefighters here in the gallery. Many of you will have met Reid last night. He was greeting members at the reception. I hope the House will make these two Campbell River firefighters very welcome.

R. Fleming: It gives me pleasure to add to the introductions firefighters from my constituency —

Gary Birtwhistle and Rick Farrell from the Victoria fire department and Mitch Williams from the Saanich fire department.

Mr. Speaker: On behalf of all of us, we welcome all the professional firefighters across British Columbia.

J. Yap: I rise in the House today to focus our attention on an ever-increasing portion of British Columbia's population — that being our immigrant population — and the significant contributions these people have made and continue to make towards the province's economy, community and culture.

We live in a nation of immigrants. Most of us in this House can easily trace our ancestors back to a foreign nation within only a few generations, and some of us sitting here today, including myself, are immigrants. Over one-quarter of the population of this province was born outside of Canada. British Columbia continues to draw the best and the brightest from around the world, as well as being a new home for those who are seeking to start a new life. Not only do we accept immigrants here in British Columbia, but we roll out the welcome mat and greet them with open arms.

The provincial nominee program offers accelerated immigration for skilled workers and entrepreneurs, encouraging people from around the world to make B.C. their home. In my own community we're lucky to have volunteer organizations that make it their goal to ensure that Richmond is a great place to feel welcome and eventually thrive, upon their arrival.

The Richmond Multicultural Concerns Society assists newcomers settling in Richmond as well as facilitates their inclusion in the community. The Richmond Chinese Community Society helps new immigrants from China and the Far East not only become settled but also stay connected with their culture while becoming active members of our Canadian society.

I know we all agree that the international flavour of British Columbia is what truly makes B.C. the best place on earth.

C. Wyse: In Canada 58 professional rodeos are held each year. Over 1,600 persons volunteer their time to ensure each event is a success. These events provide an opportunity for cowboys and cowgirls to demonstrate their skills to the thousands of rodeo fans across the country. In addition, the rodeo serves as an economic generator for the sponsoring community while bringing both national and international recognition to that community. For example, the Williams Lake Stampede is internationally recognized as one of the major rodeos on the professional rodeo circuit in North America.

But I've digressed from the main reason for addressing the House today. In 2006 Williams Lake's Fred Thomas was recognized as the Canadian Professional Rodeo Person of the Year. This award was presented to Fred in recognition of his 16 years in promoting professional rodeo in Canada. Though he knew he had been nominated for the award, he was very surprised to be chosen as the recipient of an inscribed buckle and a gold membership to the Canadian Professional Rodeo Association in recognition of his work over the years.

Fred's comment provides some insight into the person. "Everyone does their thing. Williams Lake is one of the most fortunate rodeos in western Canada. We have excellent volunteers and directors, and the way our rodeo is run is second to none. I was pretty humbled."

In closing, I request that the House join me in recognizing the volunteers who make rodeos across Canada possible but, in particular, for the House to recognize Fred Thomas, the 2006 Canadian Professional Rodeo Association's Person of the Year.

L. Mayencourt: It gives me pleasure today to rise and speak about safe schools. One of the things that came out of our throne speech, which was very important to me, was the fact that the provincial government has decided to adopt a piece of legislation that I've been trying to get passed for the last three or four years in this House to deal with discrimination, harassment and bullying in our school system. I'm proud that our government is stepping up to the plate to take on that responsibility.

At times in my travels around the province, people will ask me why I feel so passionate about that. I'd like to just go through one little piece of information that's been brought to my attention over the last several weeks. Some months ago Michael Richards, the guy that played Kramer on Jerry Seinfeld's show, started referring to a member of the audience using the "n" word to describe that person's race. Last month Isaiah Washington, a star of a local television show, referred to one of his co-stars with an "f" word.

This week Ann Coulter, who's a CNN consultant, talked about John Edwards and wanting to talk about him, but she didn't want to because she thought she'd have to go into treatment if she mentioned the "f" word. Just this week Louis Champagne, a Quebec broadcaster, referred to André Boisclair, the Parti Quebecois leader that's in the middle of an election race — that no one would support him because he's with a group of "f"s.

Words like the "f" word and the "n" word are pervasive in our society. It is our responsibility as adults and as legislators not to ban the use of those words but to at least educate kids that it is not right to pick on people because of their sexual orientation, their race, their gender or their gender identity. We're moving

forward to make sure that kids in every school in British Columbia know that those words are inappropriate. I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for this opportunity to raise the issue again.

M. Sather: In my constituency of Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows, the non-profit Alouette Home Start Society operates the Iron Horse Youth Safe House and, through the receipt of federal funding, employs two community outreach workers. The Alouette Home Start Society was incorporated in December 2003 resulting from the Maple Ridge, Pitt Meadows and Katzie youth and family networks' desire to address the needs of the homeless and those at risk of homelessness in my community.

The Iron Horse Youth Safe House, operational since June 2005, has served over 237 youth from Maple Ridge and surrounding areas over the last 20 months. With a five-bed co-ed facility, Iron Horse addresses the needs of youth and youth at risk of homelessness, aged 13 to 18, with support services being provided off-site by many community partners such as PLEA and the Greg Moore Youth Centre.

To date, the community outreach workers have provided basic services to over 450 different at-risk and homeless youth. The homeless have a wide array of health concerns, and through an integrated case management approach, the Alouette Home Start Society has been able to bring many of these youth off the street and redirect their lives. The Alouette Home Start Society received federal funding to keep them open until October. They will require provincial and federal funding to remain open beyond that point.

Support for youth, whether it is addictions services or housing, is essential to prevent youth from falling into a life of homelessness. We need the services that the Alouette Home Start Society provides in order to address the issues of youth in my community.

R. Lee: Last Saturday, with the Lieutenant-Governor and the Attorney General, I attended the 95th annual Commonwealth awards ceremony presented by the Lifesaving Society. It was an honour for me to again listen to the heroic actions of British Columbians as young as seven years old.

Last summer seven-year-old Calum and ten-year-old Macaulay Mowbray saved their great-grandpa's life when he lost his balance at the poolside, broke his hip and fell into the water. The young Mowbrays received silver medals for their courage and for remembering what they learned in swimming lessons.

Silver medals for bravery were presented to Chad Becher, Kevin Loewen, Kelly Parslow, Joel Visscher, Ryan Boivin, Chad Longland, Russell Mills, Dave Trickett, Robert Murphy, Alejandro Muzio, Dave Paslawski and Ashlie St. Laurent.

Chad Longland was presented with the Governor's gold medal for the most heroic rescue of the year. While he and his fiancée were walking their dog along the Vedder River near Chilliwack last August, Chad noticed a limp body was drifting into an eddy. He quickly swam ten metres to the place he had last seen the person. He learned later that he was rescuing 16-year-old Nicholas Chan of Vancouver, who lost consciousness unexpectedly while swimming with his family and friends.

Chad found Nicholas at the bottom of the river. He dove down, grabbed him by his shirt and pulled him up. Nicholas wasn't breathing. Chad resuscitated him, and he was later treated for hypothermia in hospital.

I would like to ask the House to join me in thanking all the award recipients for their quick thinking and unselfish acts at a time when they were needed most.

J. Kwan: Over 700 units of single-resident-occupancy hotel rooms have been converted to other uses, such as turning them into hotels and condominiums, resulting in mass evictions of low-income people. The form of housing is often the last option for people who are not able to get into social housing. Though many of these rooms do not meet basic standards, they are the last link to accommodation before someone ends up on the street.

In the period prior to 2003, an additional 800 units were also converted into hotels, condominiums and youth hostels. According to a report by the Pivot Legal Society and the Carnegie Action Project, one in five lodging rooms in Vancouver has also been sold or put up for sale since January 2006. Twenty-two hotels have changed hands since January 2006. An additional ten hotels are currently for sale, with an average cost of over $60,000 per room.

The downtown east side was a name given to this unique, historic Vancouver neighbourhood when the term "skid row" used to be its name. I've learned everything about the realities of politics and public policy in this neighbourhood. This neighbourhood has, more than any other, challenged us as lawmakers — our sense of justice and human decency and compassion. We have the only safe injection site and heroin prescription trial in North America.

Though there is sadness and grief in this neighbourhood, there is also immense beauty. This is a neighbourhood that has taught us about human rights. There are more art galleries and more artists living in my community than anywhere else in Canada. It is a place of creativity, innovation and inspiration for all of us who come to see it.

It is one of the last unique low-income neighbourhoods in North America. People live for a longer period of time in this neighbourhood than anywhere else in Vancouver. But today there are many threats to this community. The downtown east side has been through many traumas, individual and collective. People have

Mr. Speaker, I would like to acknowledge the importance of this neighbourhood in this Legislature and the very threats that it faces as a community that provides stable homes for low-income people.

C. James: On February 1, Dan Lessard, a resident of Powell River, suffered a heart attack. Two days later he was flown to Vancouver for surgery at St. Paul's Hospital. He was told after his surgery that he would be flown back to Powell River to stay one more night in the hospital there. However, his flight was cancelled because of weather delays. As a result, only four days after the heart attack he was discharged from St. Paul's and told to find his own way home.

Can the Minister of Health explain why the government discharged a heart patient with no support and told him to find his own way home to Powell River?

Hon. G. Abbott: Mr. Speaker, I have been briefed with respect to the case of Mr. Lessard. The details are not consistent with what the Leader of the Opposition has just articulated.

I believe it is correct that Mr. Lessard was transferred by air evac to St. Paul's Hospital, appropriately, for a procedure in respect of his heart. I understand from the details I have that the cancellation-of-flight information is correct. However, it is my understanding that Mr. Lessard himself requested that he be discharged from St. Paul's.

In those situations where a patient is being discharged — he was directed to speak to a social worker in respect of his return to Powell River — policies in respect to the transfer of patients either by air evac or by ground ambulance are long established. They long precede this government. I understand that the transfer was made in accordance with those policies…

Hon. G. Abbott: …and we are following up to obtain more information in respect of this case.

C. James: I do, Mr. Speaker. The facts remain. Mr. Lessard was discharged without a flight home. He had no ferry fare and no money in his pocket. The only bus to Powell River had already left. He was required to track down a friend of the family in order to find the fare to be able to take both a plane and a ferry to try and get back home again to Powell River. This was days after suffering a heart attack.

Again, I'd like to ask the Minister of Health: does he think that was good-quality health care for Mr. Lessard?

Hon. G. Abbott: Again, it is a policy that long precedes our government. The longstanding policy of B.C. Ambulance Service — where a patient is being discharged to their home in another community from the hospital, where the transfer is not being made to another facility — is that the transfer would not be made by air ambulance.

I hope the member can appreciate that there is a demand for the availability of air ambulance at particular points in time. The aim of that policy is to ensure, when a critical case appears, that the air ambulance is available to the patient.

Again, in fairness to St. Paul's and to the medical practitioners who made decisions with respect to this, the Leader of the Opposition should ensure that she has all of the facts at her disposal before she forms her conclusions…

C. James: Well, I do. I'm not quite sure what the Health Minister thinks has to happen for somebody to be able to be flown home. Mr. Lessard had six stents inserted after his heart attack — six stents. He was in no condition for the journey that he was forced to make by ferry and by flight.

Again, my question is to the Minister of Health. Does he think it was good-quality health care for Mr. Lessard to have to go home on his own, on a ferry and a flight, after he'd suffered a heart attack?

Hon. G. Abbott: I'm glad to provide a briefing to the opposition leader in respect of the longstanding policy around the disposition of air ambulance and other ground ambulance. But again, these points should be noted. The patient, I am advised, wished to be discharged from St. Paul's. The physician agreed that the patient was healthy enough to be discharged and did so, providing the patient with prescriptions and instructions for his self-care.

The patient was advised of the Ambulance Service policy and was directed to a social worker at the hospital to assist him with his return to the community. There are some questions at that point about the interaction between the social worker and the patient, but the facts are not as the opposition leader has set them out.

N. Simons: I don't think it's wise for the minister to engage in a debate with the actual health care professionals who have called this a travesty. Quite frankly, allowing a person to go out onto the street poorly dressed for the

weather, with a pamphlet telling him not to walk more than a block or to lift anything more than ten pounds…. That's not exactly good discharge planning.

I'm going to ask the same question of the minister: does he consider that proper health care?

Hon. G. Abbott: Again, the member appears to be forming his conclusions before he has all of the facts. I think members of the opposition would be among the first to be highly critical of the B.C. air Ambulance Service were there to be the absence of a plane to transfer critical patient at a time when it was being used for a nonmedically urgent flight.

And again, I think it is important — before the member or any member of this House leaps to conclusions about whether this was the policy that was undertaken with both full compliance with the policy and full common sense — that we should have all of the answers. I know it is the wont of the opposition sometimes to leap to conclusions prematurely. I'd advise them in this case that they should get all of the facts before they make those conclusions.

N. Simons: The history is clear on how the government responds to actual well-researched issues around a number of other issues, including child welfare. I'm not sure if the minister wants to really go there.

The issue at hand has nothing to do with an ambulance bringing him home, and where the minister got confused, I don't know. Maybe it was in the '90s. The issue at hand here has to do with the fact that he was left in the street — no money for a taxi, no ability to get to the airport — figuring out what in the world he was supposed to do on the street.

The minister can re-create, and he can do revisionist history. But I've been talking to doctors and nurses and people in the health care system who say this is a regular occurrence, that people are left to find their own way back after significant surgeries in downtown. I'll tell you it's a shame on this government that this is the situation.

As much as they like to talk about doing their homework — maybe they heard that a lot growing up — the fact of the matter is that this is inappropriate policy. I'm asking the minister: what is he going to do to make sure that policy is appropriately applied?

Hon. G. Abbott: The answer to the question is that we are going to follow up and get all of the facts before we form conclusions about whether the policy was appropriately complied with. But again, I'm advised that the patient in question….

Hon. G. Abbott: I'm advised that the patient in question requested his discharge from St. Paul's. I understand that the physician, again, appropriately provided the patient both with prescriptions and with a self-care plan. I understand that the patient spoke with a social worker. I understand that the social worker provided the patient, among other things, with a taxi chit for use, which apparently was returned unused.

I'm not saying at this point that the patient was at fault or that the system was at fault. I think it is entirely unfair and inappropriate for the opposition to form those conclusions without having all of the facts at their disposal.

G. Coons: Perhaps the minister can look at its health care plan for Verna Sevigny from Prince Rupert. Last December Verna, who is 96 years old, had a two-hour assessment for placement into Acropolis Manor, a long-term care facility in Prince Rupert. At this point in time Verna was living alone and had no family in town. Prior to this most recent assessment, Verna had been on the wait-list for 18 months but continued to be considered far too healthy for admission.

Shortly after the latest refusal, Verna fell in her home and broke her hip. As a result of complications from her fall, Verna passed away a week and a half ago in Prince Rupert Hospital. Can the minister explain what he's doing to ensure that 96-year-olds are given the care and support they need before it's too late?

Hon. G. Abbott: I think one thing the member should note right from the outset is that the system should not form conclusions about the health of an individual based on their age as opposed to a range of other assessment issues that may come into play in terms of determining if they should be candidates for residential care, for assisted living or for admission to a facility.

I know lots of folks who are in their 90s and in exceptional health. I also know lots of folks in their 60s and 70s who are in very poor health. I think it is unfortunate if the member thinks that rather than doing a rigorous assessment around the suitability of a candidate for residential care or facility transfer, that is made exclusively on the basis of their age. If that's what he's saying, he is very wrong.

G. Coons: I find it quite appropriate that the minister talks about rigorous assessment, and I'm glad that he brought up that topic. One of the questions asked of Verna in her assessment was how many times she had fallen in the past three days. She answered: "None." Unfortunately, she wasn't asked how many times she had fallen in the past month, because her answer would have been: "At least ten or 12 times." The 69-year-old advocate for Verna who was present at her assessment says: "Home care is a farce, and assisted living is a farce. So where do we turn?"

My question again to the minister is: where does a senior like Verna turn to get help in their golden years?

Hon. G. Abbott: Let me now extend condolences to the family. Obviously this is a difficult time for them, and I certainly offer our sympathies at this point in time.

In terms of assessment I think, again, the member appears to be forming some conclusions based on some advice that he has secured from a source in respect to the assessment being inappropriate. If that's the case, he should say so — that the assessment model was not appropriate. If that's what he's saying, then I invite him to provide more.

In terms of supports for the frail elderly in this province, our government has made bigger investments in supportive care for the frail elderly than any government in the history of British Columbia…

Hon. G. Abbott: …with some 3,000 incremental units of residential care and assisted living.

M. Karagianis: The opposition has acquired a security bulletin that was sent out to all staff in the Ministry of Children and Family Development. Under the heading "Appropriate Use of E-mail and the Internet," MCFD staff are told: "You should never correspond with foster parents via e-mail."

My question to the minister is: can the minister explain why foster parents have been singled out in this way and why staff is being forbidden from communicating with them?

Hon. T. Christensen: The Ministry of Children and Family Development, rightly so, takes issues of personal privacy very seriously. We have a number of protocols in place that cross the ministry in terms of what is communicated by e-mail and with whom. This is simply consistent with those protocols to ensure that we're protecting the personal privacy of the clients that we serve.

M. Karagianis: I'm not entirely sure whose privacy is being protected in this particular case and why foster parents are being singled out. Certainly, none of these e-mails is FOI-able.

Another e-mail that was sent from the Deputy Minister of Children and Families to staff after a series of leaks says, "I am now seldom going to e-mail you collectively," and later in the e-mail: "We will shred documents after meetings if they are not needed. Other than that, your binder is to be kept under lock and key."

This is very shocking language around secrecy and stealth in both these e-mails. I'd like to ask again to the minister: can you please explain what the reason is for all of this extraordinary secrecy within your ministry?

Hon. T. Christensen: I would hope that the members opposite would understand the nature of the information that the Ministry of Children and Family Development often deals with. We have, I think, a very solid legislative foundation here in terms of the legislation that applies to this ministry specifically around child protection and services to families as well as through the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The ministry complies with the legislative framework. Again, we take very seriously the obligations we have in terms of the personal privacy of the children and families we serve.

I would add that the member chooses to have some suspicion that foster parents are being singled out. We have a very constructive and solid relationship with the foster parents association in this province. We've just increased the compensation that we're providing to foster parents by an additional $31 million.

That increase and the other work we're doing with foster parents come about directly as a result of that constructive relationship we have developed with foster parents.

D. Cubberley: On March 7, 2005, the B.C. Liberal government announced it was allocating $254 million over three years to seismically upgrade 80 of the worst high-risk schools in B.C.'s earthquake zone. The quote was: "We're fast-tracking seismic projects…so that students will be protected as soon as possible."

Two years of the fast track, and a few of the promised projects are done, and a few others are underway. How is the minister planning to complete the 70 or more outstanding projects this year so that government can keep its pledge to families, when cost projections are from 2004 and there's no new money in this year's budget?

Hon. S. Bond: Only the member opposite could actually stand in this House and think that $1.5 billion to seismic mitigation programs is not showing progress in this province.

Hon. S. Bond: Not only that, apparently the opposition critic hasn't spent a lot of time with the Leader of the Opposition, who previously was a school trustee. There's a process involved in capital building in British Columbia. It actually says that, in fact, we have funded the feasibility studies for 95 fast-track projects in this province, and all of them will continue to be moved forward in this process.

D. Cubberley: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Two years have gone by, and four projects have been completed, according to the ministry. It seems there never was any new money added to seismic safety budgets. In fact, the capital budget dropped in 2005, just after the 80-school commitment.

The minister may like to point to her re-announcement yesterday of the Mount Douglas Secondary School project as a sign of progress. The problem is, of course, that the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head announced that project in 2005. Back then, it would only have cost $7.6 million to get the project done, but now it seems that it's up to $9.5 million.

Will the minister admit that these projects are being slow-walked because, in fact, she has no strategic plan, no firm time lines, no earmarked funding? Will she give B.C. parents a clear commitment that she'll get seismic…

Hon. S. Bond: There's hardly any credibility from the members on the opposite side. Let's just take….

Hon. S. Bond: Oh, they love to roll their eyes and groan. Let's listen to a quote about the progress made under the previous government. In March of 1998….

Hon. S. Bond: Let's listen to a quote from the Vancouver Sun in March of 1998. Listen. You'll love it. "British Columbia's…."

Hon. S. Bond: "British Columbia's biggest stash of liquor is safe from an earthquake, but the government of the day says it doesn't have the money to reinforce a school just down the street attended by 2,000 children. The liquor distribution centre on East Broadway was seismically upgraded shortly after a $2 million plan to upgrade Vancouver Technical School was cancelled."

Mr. Speaker: Members, question period will get shortened if I can't hear the answer and hear the question.

Hon. S. Bond: Perhaps the most telling part is that the members opposite voted against every single increase to funding — to capital, to public education, to post-secondary education. They simply have voted against every single budget increase in the province.

M. Farnworth: My question is for the Solicitor General and Minister of Public Safety. The Fraser Basin report on flood protection raises serious concerns about the state of dikes on the Fraser River from Mission on down to the mouth of the Fraser.

In the case of many communities such as Port Coquitlam, for example, the dikes need to be raised by a minimum of two feet. This is a huge expense for local government. In a year of record snowpacks and concern about devastating floods, what funds is this government committing to assist local government in ensuring the integrity of the dike system?

Hon. J. Les: The member is correct. There is a significant snowpack across the province this year. That is something of which we are well aware. My staff and the staff in the Ministry of Environment are hard at work in addressing that potential threat.

As the member will be aware, the circumstances of a flood are going to be dictated largely by weather patterns, particularly in the month of May. Nonetheless, we have to be sure that we are prepared.

We are taking steps in consultation with municipalities, regional districts and first nations to ensure that we know exactly where the weak spots are. We're going to deal with them proactively.

C. Puchmayr: The British Columbia Professional Fire Fighters Association has made contact with several ministries, asking to have representation on the Olympic fire advisory committee.

To the minister in charge of the 2010 games: will he give the public the assurance that the B.C. Professional Fire Fighters Association will in fact participate on these important committees to enhance the work currently being done in this field by the Olympic fire advisory committee?

Hon. J. Les: I appreciate the question. Obviously, as we approach the 2010 games we are going to want to incorporate the expertise of all British Columbians who have expertise to provide. I know that initial contacts have been made by my deputy minister to the firefighters, and that dialogue will continue.

C. Puchmayr: We don't have to look too far back in history to see the risks associated with firefighters and first responders in a disaster.

Will the minister then commit today that he will invite the association to participate? And will the minister commit that the B.C. Fire Fighters Association will represent those services for British Columbia during the 2010 Winter Olympics?

Hon. J. Les: I really don't want to get into the habit of repeating my previous answer. I think it was fairly self-explanatory. But I just want to point out for the benefit of the members of the House that the police and firefighters in this province actually are going to be involved in a very important event in Adelaide, Australia, in just a few weeks — the World Police and Fire Games.

I think we should also understand and remember and remind ourselves that police and firefighters from all over the world are coming here in 2009 to participate in the World Police and Fire Games. Over 14,000 people will be here in 2009 for those World Police and Fire Games, so they're going to be very actively involved in that as well as in 2010, and making sure that we're all safe in British Columbia.

S. Simpson: Citizens in the GVRD and the Fraser Valley are increasingly concerned about what greenhouses are burning and the emissions they're creating. While the GVRD administers the Environmental Management Act on behalf of the province, greenhouse companies are resisting compliance with their permits, and many are refusing to get permits at all. In the Fraser Valley it is worse. The regional district has no authority on this issue, and they have no support from the provincial government to control those emissions.

My question to the Minister of Environment is: will he commit today to stand up in support of the GVRD's authority to regulate emissions to their standards? And will he speak out for the people of the Fraser Valley, who have no ability to protect themselves and are concerned about what is coming out of greenhouse smokestacks?

Hon. B. Penner: If the opposition critic would take time to do some research, he would learn that under section 31 of the Environmental Management Act, the GVRD does have delegated authority over air quality issues. They have had that for more than 30 years. That's a lot of time for him to do some homework.

The Ministry of Environment does take air quality issues seriously. If infractions are brought to our attention or we learn about them, compliance and enforcement activities are undertaken. But I'm very concerned, because the other night on Global Television I saw the Environment critic criticizing the use of wood waste as a fuel source, when only last November he was on Voice of B.C. saying we need to use biomass as an alternative energy source.

Which one is it? Do we want to use renewable resources in British Columbia to create jobs and economic opportunity? Because, Mr. Speaker.…

Hon. B. Penner: The opposition critic is already working against green power projects like the Ashlu river small hydro project. Other members of the opposition are opposed to green energy projects in British Columbia. If we can't use water and we can't use wood waste, what do we have left in British Columbia?

C. Trevena: I have another petition protesting the provincial cuts to child care, this one containing about 500 signatures.

Hon. I. Chong: I have the honour to present the 30th annual report of the Public Service Benefit Plan Act for the year ending March 31, 2006.

Hon. M. de Jong: In Committee A, I call Committee of Supply. For the information of members, we will be discussing the estimates of the Ministry of Labour and Citizens' Services, and in this chamber continued debate on the throne speech.

B. Simpson: Again I have an opportunity to stand and give some of my reflections on the government's

throne speech. I've had the opportunity to speak to the throne speech and the budget speech a couple of times now. Today I would like to focus more on the implications of the throne speech and the government's activities for rural British Columbia.

There's a particular comment in the throne speech…. In fact, I'd like to put two of the comments together. There's a comment about the self-confidence and optimism. It states: "Self-confidence and optimism have created a legacy of leadership rooted in the power of individual aspiration and the potency of common purpose." Interesting rhetoric.

I want to combine that with a statement about rural British Columbia that says: "Rural British Columbia has record levels of employment and economic growth. That is a credit to our citizens and their hard work."

In fact, to put those two together paints a picture of a government that really is out of touch with what's happening outside the lower mainland, outside the Whistler corridor and outside portions of Vancouver Island. As a member of the Finance Committee, I had the pleasure of touring this province and hearing directly from delegation after delegation in rural B.C. Even in the areas where there is economic growth of the kind that the throne speech speaks to, many of these delegations spoke to the issues associated with managing that growth.

In the Okanagan, for example, we heard that we were overextending the development beyond the capacity to deliver water. There were concerns in the Okanagan around the continued drought, the loss of tree cover because of mountain pine beetle and western pine beetle, and whether or not there was a capacity for us to continue to maintain infrastructure through that growth area.

In Fort St. John we heard the exact same thing. We heard that the communities in that region, which is probably the most booming region economically, are struggling to manage that growth and do not have the necessary infrastructure or the necessary resources to do the kind of work they need to do.

They spoke to us of homelessness. We heard that in Kelowna as well. They spoke to us of poor infrastructure and degrading infrastructure. They spoke to us about the fact that they, as communities, do not have the resources to address all of the social implications of growth, the kinds of lifestyles that people have to live in the Peace region as they've come in and out — contract workers, where that's not their home; the drug addiction; the need for assistance for seniors; and the need for assistance for those with mental problems, with addictions problems, etc.

Even in the growth areas of the province there are significant issues associated with managing that growth as a result of the government retracting all of the services in our social infrastructure. Again, if members on the opposite side want an education on what that retraction of services looks like, all they have to do is read the Premier's appointed Progress Board report on the social infrastructure in this province. It is pointed. It is clear. It speaks to the fact that the government has failed to bring all British Columbians along in this period of an upbeat economy, again as a result — and we bandy this back and forth — of resource pricing and a construction boom.

I want to talk about other areas of the province that simply, unequivocally do not share this false sense of optimism that permeates the throne speech. When I was up in Prince Rupert and in Terrace with the Finance Committee and on other business trips that I took up there, that optimism was certainly not there. Yes, Prince Rupert has this port development underway. It isn't quite sure what the level of government commitment is to that, whether or not they're going to divert some of the Gateway funds from down here along the Highway 16 corridor. There's a lot of uncertainty around there. There are first nations issues in that port development.

We heard a very strong presentation from those who work in the fishing industry in Prince Rupert and, Madam Speaker, quite a heart-rending presentation from that group about people who are being forced, effectively, to go on social assistance, being forced to move out of their communities to seek other jobs because of what's happening with the fisheries.

We heard in Terrace on a recent trip up there that one of their final mills…. They have one sawmill left in that community. We stood on the site of one of the mills that has been closed recently and has been cannibalized. We met with the city council of Terrace, who told us that effectively they do not know what the future holds for that community. They are no longer a forestry town. They're no longer a manufacturing town. So what are they? One of the reasons that they're engaged in the debate with Kitimat around what happens with Alcan is because they are grasping for anything they can to beef up their economy.

As we come down the Highway 16 corridor, anybody who's paid any attention to what's going on in the interior knows that the communities of Houston, Burns Lake, Decker Lake and Vanderhoof are all living with uncertain futures. The CEO of Canfor stated quite bluntly and categorically, both in a speech in Prince George and publicly in one of his quarterly reports, that the future of the forest industry in those areas is uncertain. It's the only way that he could capture it: it is uncertain. He also stated in the speech in Prince George that the provincial government has no plan for the forest sector in the province. It simply does not exist.

These are not my words, Madam Speaker. These are the words of the CEO of the largest forest company in British Columbia, when he was asked a question at a conference in Prince George. So down that Highway 16 corridor there's a great deal of uncertainty in the forest sector.

I was also able to visit Queen Charlotte Islands–Haida Gwaii and attended a town hall meeting in

Sandspit. In Sandspit that community has no idea what its future holds, and it has been trying for a very long time to get a minister of the Crown — they don't care who, but somebody from this government — to come and to speak with them directly about what the government has in store for them. I was there in the spring.

They were pleading for that, and I understand from one of the ministers that someone has visited there. That's good for Sandspit, but again, for that community their future still remains uncertain. They haven't been given surety as to what it holds, what their options are, and — I will talk briefly about climate change — what climate change looks like for rural British Columbia, for a town that isn't on the grid.

Port Alberni is another community that actually came and protested down here on the lawns of the Legislature to get this government's attention to its plight. The provincial government, under the former Forests Minister, took private lands that were part of a historic deal to take old Crown land from the E&N Railway and bring them under Crown management so that they were protected to higher values, they were protected for the public good, and they were put into tree farm licences.

The former Minister of Forests broke that contract and released those private lands, leaving Port Alberni completely surrounded by private lands. Now Port Alberni finds itself with a very uncertain future. They are not optimistic, they don't hold out a lot of hope for a government that continues to refuse to listen to them.

That community was given some concessions by the existing Forests Minister, but on the day that Port Alberni was given what it had been asking for — and a committee was struck and some consulting resources were given for that community to actually take a look at its future — that same day the current Forests Minister released more private lands from tree farm licences, without consultation with the affected communities and over the express disapproval of the first nations in that region.

It's obvious to the community of Port Alberni that all they've got is a smoke-and-mirrors exercise to try and stop them from blocking the highway yet again, to try and stop them from continuing their protest. As far as I'm aware, that is not going to work. Port Alberni — because of the uncertainty, because they don't share this government's optimistic view of the world — will actually be taking to the streets again. They are not happy with how the land base in their area is being managed, how their watersheds are being managed, what their future holds and the uncertainty associated with that.

The community of Midway is another community that the government has failed to serve as it looks at losing its last mill. In fact, the whole southeast part of the province…. Everyone knows that the companies down in that region are the most susceptible companies for the next wave of corporate buyouts and corporate concentration in the province.

In the Kootenays the entire area is also very concerned about the status of fire and interface fire risk in their region. Again, one of the things that is a missed opportunity in this particular budget and throne speech is the opportunity to take the surplus and address fire. I'll speak to that shortly.

In the Kootenays they do have some growth areas. The growth areas are predominantly an influx of capital from Alberta and from other places as people move in to retire in that area — in Invermere, for example, where it becomes a bedroom community for Calgarians. But they are uncertain about what that growth means for their overall infrastructure, and they're also uncertain about what they're going to do to address the growing fire risk. So that sense of optimism, that sense of "everything's going to be all right" is not shared around this province.

I want to share some of the concerns that come from my riding. We have a funny situation in our riding. In Quesnel and Williams Lake and the larger centres we believe that Victoria and Vancouver get all of the resources, get all of the attention — and those are our big, bad urban centres. But in my riding, in Horsefly, Likely, Wells, Nazco — all of those very small communities that are historical communities and have lots of roots in the province, are part of the Gold Rush Trail and have deep first nations roots in those communities — they consider Quesnel and Williams Lake to be the urban centres that get all of the benefits of that urban life.

So we have a bit of a schism in our communities between the smaller outlying communities and our major centres. Horsefly, Nazko, Likely, Big Lake, Miocene — all of those communities feel that over the last six years they have seen a retraction in all of the public services that they believe they contribute to the tax of this province to get. They've seen their roads deteriorate.

A perfect example of that is the fact that over the last three summers, we are not getting mowing on our side roads, our tertiary roads and secondary roads. What the ranchers and farmers point out to us is that the government has an obligation to deal with invasive plants. If a farmer or rancher does not deal with an invasive plant issue on his or her property, they will get in trouble under the law.

That same law, the Weed Act, applies to the government, and yet the government does not hold itself to the same account, because the highways for invasive plants are the ditches along the sides of these secondary and tertiary roads. Over the last number of years they have simply not been mowed. They don't put the mowers out there. They don't get them before the seeds fly, and this causes two problems.

The spread of invasive plants is a very large concern in this province, particularly when you couple it with climate change. The other aspect of it is a public safety issue because one of the things that we have to live with in our neck of the woods is the movement of wildlife. If you're driving down a secondary road that has had the sides ingrown — and some of these weeds grow up to four, five, six feet in height — you have no

chance to respond when a coyote or a deer or something pops out. You have absolutely no chance to respond whatsoever.

So it is both an issue with respect to invasive plants, and it's an issue with respect to public safety. The Horseflys, Likelys, and Nazkos also feel the retraction in services from the perspective of their ability to get any assistance to do development plans, to grow their communities and to be attractive. In particular, when they lose a school, which we've seen in many of those communities, or any kind of health care intervention that they have, retracting a nurse that would go out there two or three days a week or, in some cases, a small clinic that was there before but now has been pulled back…. So the smaller communities are struggling.

Let's go to the larger communities in my constituency, Quesnel and Williams Lake. I would agree with the statement that right now we have record levels of employment in those communities, but it's a false economy because it's based on an uplift in the annual allowable cut in the Quesnel region or the Vanderhoof region, a similar community. We are completely dependent on the forest sector for the bulk of our economy, and as a consequence, we do have higher rates of employment.

We also have high rates of contractor employment and all of the peripheral secondary employment that comes from that, but everybody knows that that's a zero-sum game. We are eating through what is left of the pine forest so fast that any day now — whether it's two years, three years or four years; we don't know — that has to come to a stop. Everybody's asking the question in the community: what does that mean?

I had an interesting conversation with my wife. My wife grew up in Quesnel. She's been there since she was two years of age and is vested in Quesnel. I have two teenage children. They love that community, and we've had lots of opportunities to leave it and have chosen not to. We were talking about renovating our house. As we all know, we have become targets in this climate change game as to whether or not we are reducing our carbon footprint. One of the things that I said to my wife was that we need to do some due diligence around our house, our energy systems, our water-heating systems, our insulation and so on.

So we are putting together a renovation plan. My wife looked at me during the conversation, and she asked me directly: "Is this the right thing to do?" I said: "Well, why?" She said: "Because, what is the future of our community? What does it hold? Should we be investing the $10,000, $15,000 or $20,000 in our home that this is going to take? Will our home hold value? Is the crunch going to come two years from now, three years from now, five years from now? When is it going to come, and is this the right thing for us to do?"

It struck me that those conversations — and I've since then validated it — are occurring at kitchen tables throughout the city of Quesnel. I spoke at a chamber of commerce luncheon. People came up to me afterwards and said: "Yes, we've had those conversations." The car dealerships in town are wondering what their future holds. I spoke with one of our largest electrical contractors, who said their plan is a two-year plan. They do not look beyond two years because they don't know what the future holds for the community of Quesnel.

What is the future in those areas that do not have a transitional economy — the Terraces, the Prince Ruperts? What happens in Midway? What happens in the Horseflys and Likelys of the world when their traditional, normative dependence on forest economy starts to collapse? That question remains unanswered by this government. It remained unanswered in the throne speech and the budget speech.

In Quesnel, for example, we need to know when the annual allowable cut is going to drop. I find it unconscionable that we have a government in power that cannot answer that question for us. Why they can't answer it is because they gutted the Ministry of Forests in 2003. Inventory branch was the biggest hit, and since 2003 they tried to get the corporations to do inventory. That didn't work. They've now pulled the inventory responsibilities back, but they still haven't resourced it.

So we don't know. In the Quesnel timber supply area, we do not have a clue what our annual allowable cut looks like in the future. It's currently at 5.3 million cubic metres. The Council of Forest Industries has done some work around it and, in a worst-case scenario, that 5.3 million cubic metres could as soon as five or eight years from now drop to less than half a million cubic metres of cut left.

That's based on only mountain pine beetle being the pest that's destroying our forests, it's based on only mature pine trees being impacted, and it's based on a shelf life or a usable life of the timber of approximately 15 years. None of that is true. None of it's true.

We now know that every age class, from plantations right through the mid-term timber supply to the mature trees, is being devastated by the mountain pine beetle. We know that spruce beetle, fir beetle, other pests and diseases — collar weevil in the plantations — are wiping out large tracts of the land base. Jim Shepherd, the CEO of Canfor, made a public statement about this: the shelf life, the actual usable life, of the pine in the newly infested areas is very short and could be as short as two years.

So here we have a community — that historically is one of the oldest communities in this province, that historically has provided all kinds of tax to the provincial coffers because we have the largest concentration of primary and secondary manufacturing for a population that size — that simply does not have the data set that it needs in order to understand what its future is. When will the allowable cut come down? How soon will that happen? How deep will the cut level come down? And how long and protracted will that cut be?

The fact that we can't answer that question in 2007 is simply unacceptable. I would suggest that the fact that the ministry — in its service plan, the budget, the throne speech — does not speak to the fact that all of

In conjunction with the issues around whether you're managing growth or no growth or an uncertain future, one aspect that I find intriguing is the government's inability to understand that unless they resource local governments, unless they resource communities to actually build infrastructure, to have amenities in all of those communities, to have schools so that they have their options available to them to attract families, to have health care services and particularly seniors care services, that we end up with our hands tied as we try to develop an alternative future.

There's an irony in our region just now where one of the offsetting strategies that both Williams Lake and Quesnel have is a desire to attract and retain seniors. We actually have a deliberate plan that's being put in place to try and keep seniors around in Quesnel and Williams Lake. At the same time, in Williams Lake, we have the closure of all the public facilities for seniors care and the push towards a single private care delivery provider.

In Quesnel we're going to do that in a different way. We're going to build a new public facility. Kudos to Northern Health for sticking to their guns and doing that, but in the plan for that we do not get additional capacity that jibes with what the city plans on doing in trying to attract and retain seniors. The retraction of home care services is another one of those issues where it makes it very difficult to keep our seniors and their cash in our communities.

It appears to me that the government is working at cross-purposes with what the local communities and local government are attempting to do as they try and position themselves for this uncertain future or, in the case of growth, to deal with the unmanaged growth.

Now, the throne speech does talk about Spirit Squares. Yeah, Spirit Squares are really going to save us. You know, we're going to go after one because you go after whatever is available to you, but Spirit Squares do not replace schools. Spirit Squares do not replace health care facilities. Spirit Squares do not improve our home care delivery services. Spirit Squares do not restore child care cuts.

So a nice thought that we get this Spirit Square, but in general the feedback from our communities is this: they're selling us out for the 2010 Olympics, and they're trying to buy us out with these Spirit Squares.

I've advised our community to take full advantage of Spirit Squares because you take anything that you can get from this government if you live where I live — right?

Towns for Tomorrow is another program that they have. Okay, another nice slogan. In fact, Ronald Wright has written a book called A Short History of Progress. Ronald Wright points out that when civilizations or societies are struggling and they're starting to slide what people do is elect governments that give them the biggest empty promises.

I can tell you this. I get a really good laugh when I say: have you ever heard of the five great goals and the golden decade — right? The biggest empty promises.

It's an interesting aspect of this government that they don't get all agitated when you mention "heartlands" budget. They'd like that word to disappear from their vocabulary. You don't get anything from them when you start talking about the golden decade again. I recall having to sit in this Legislature during the first fall session where government members just went "golden decade" and "five great goals" ad nauseam. We were all looking for travel-sickness bags on this side of the House, we were hearing it so often. Do we hear it now? No, we don't hear it now.

These phrases — Spirit Squares and Towns for Tomorrow…. I hope that they're paying those speechwriters. I hope they're paying a lot of money to the people who've done the PR around this, but it's not working in our communities.

The feedback on Towns for Tomorrow…. Again, I am advising all of our communities to take full advantage of it, but there's a great disadvantage to that in that many of those communities are struggling to do meaningful things in their communities. In many cases, a lot of these government programs require matched funding.

When you're trying to deal with sewer systems…. Again, even the government member's feedback on 20 cents on the dollar shows that they are completely out of touch with the communities in my riding, where 20 cents on the dollar is a very big deal.

So they don't address the issues. In Quesnel, for example, we are going to have to deal with our sewage treatment facility if something happens to our pulp mill, because right now it's done through the pulp mill. If we lose sawmills and can't sustain the pulp mill, the city then has to address what it's going to do with sewage treatment.

The city has to address the impacts of the mountain pine beetle truck traffic on municipal road infrastructure with no additional support from this government. So will they go after a Spirit Square? Will some of the communities go after Towns for Tomorrow? Sure. They'll take whatever handout they can get. The reality is that it doesn't address the real issues.

In closing, my comment on the throne speech and the budget speech is that I think it does a disservice to rural British Columbia. There's a missed opportunity here. This government put aside a quarter of a million dollars to resolve an issue of their own creation, with respect to housing and homelessness.

My preference would be that the government took some of the surplus and put it aside for a true rural strategy — not nickel and dime, not words and rhetoric, but a true rural strategy — that would serve all of my communities and the communities that we heard in the Finance Committee — to serve their needs to have

some control over their future, whether it's managing growth or dealing with an uncertain future.

That's the missed opportunity in this budget. I hope that the government wakes up to the fact that rural B.C. simply does not share the optimism of this government today.

L. Mayencourt: It's great to be here today in the Legislature to talk about the throne speech. I must say that there are times in debate where something really stands out. I was listening to the member talking about chatting with his wife about due diligence and checking about energy plans in their house. That's an interesting kind of pillow talk, but I'm not sure that it really does tell us very much about….

I never referred to having pillow talk with my wife. I don't believe that that's acceptable, Madam Speaker.

L. Mayencourt: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I think, you know, it's really interesting the way some things are framed. I want to know from members opposite what it is….

Deputy Speaker: Member, could you just sit down for a second. When you stand, then I'll recognize you, and then you can begin.

L. Mayencourt: Well, thank you, Madam Speaker. It's a great privilege to be here today to talk to you and to members of the Legislature and to people around the province that are glued to their television sets.

We just had a speech from the member for Cariboo North. It was great to hear him talk. He mentioned that nobody has talked about the five great goals, so I thought it would be really important if I could reinforce the five great goals, because I'm actually very proud of the five great goals. I talk about them all the time.

I talk about the heartland, as well, because I care about the people that are in the areas around the neighbourhood that the member represents. I also am really encouraged by the kind of optimism that I see in British Columbia. I do not see people fretting about their future and all that sort of stuff. I hear optimism.

When I go up to Prince Rupert, I talk to people that think it's really great they're getting their port expanded. When I talk to people in Prince George, it's really great that they're talking about all the benefits that they're getting from an inland port and expanding of airports and all those sorts of things. So there's a lot of stuff that's going on there that is actually pretty important to people and that seems to be missed.

I'm not sure who the member is speaking to when he's getting this "oh, woe is me" kind of attitude around the province. I actually hear people saying: "You're doing great and keep going. We see a bright future for all of us in British Columbia — not just for us but for our kids and our grandchildren."

The five great goals are to make British Columbia the best-educated, most literate jurisdiction on the continent. I think that's a great goal, Madam Speaker, and I'm not ashamed of it at all. I'm surprised that members opposite — many of them from the teaching profession, many of them from higher education, many of them that have gone to post-secondary education and become lawyers and doctors and all that sort of stuff — wouldn't want to embrace a great goal that says we will be the best-educated, most literate jurisdiction in North America. That's a darn good idea.

As a matter of fact, when I sat on the Education Committee with members opposite, I spent an awful lot of time trying to define what literacy was and what best-educated was. We actually had a great dialogue with British Columbians that said: "You know what? That's a good goal. We're with you, and we're going to do it."

That's why I'm very proud of the report we produced on literacy, which shows that British Columbia is at the forefront and will continue to lead in literacy and in being the best-educated jurisdiction on the continent.

Now we move on to the second golden goal, and I do hope that the members opposite will give us an opportunity to spell out our goals. God knows, we've had to listen to their stuff. Our second goal has to with healthy living — to lead the way in North America in healthy living and physical fitness.

I cannot think of anything, other than better-educated and all that sort of stuff, that would be better than that. That's a really great objective for government to set. Sometimes I get from the opposition that they don't really think those are things we should be aiming for — that we should be aiming for something else.

What should we be aiming for? I'm not exactly sure, because members opposite haven't really offered up any great goals other than to stand in this House and fret about how concerned and how disenfranchised and all that sort of stuff….

I get the opportunity to visit with hundreds, perhaps even thousands of British Columbians. What I hear from them is: "Thank you for turning our economy back on, thank you for fixing health care, thank you for dealing with education and literacy, and thank you for leading the way in North America."

Here's another area that's so vitally important to me. I spent the last 15 years of my life working with people that were disadvantaged, people that were sick, people that were separated from their families, people that were dying. It is to build the best system of support in Canada for persons with disabilities, special needs, children at risk and seniors. That's our third golden goal.

I don't know why none of the members over there have actually articulated what they find wrong with building the best system of supports. Maybe it's

because they're so embarrassed that out of ten years in government, they didn't increase income assistance — not a whit, not a nickel, not a dime, not even a food stamp. They didn't even do it for people living on disability. People living with disabilities in our community — British Columbians wanted them to support, and they fell down on the job. In ten years of government, they did not do anything to improve the lot in life for people with disabilities.

Let me tell you members opposite — for those of you who were not here in the '90s — what the NDP did to people with disabilities. As a standard practice, everyone that applied for persons with disability status was denied. Every single one of the people that applied was denied. They went to an appeal process in which the ministry of income assistance at that time did not show up or didn't put forward an argument for why they should be declined. They were ordered to review it and put them in and let them have their PWD designation.

So they went through this process again. They applied for persons with disability designation. They were awarded by an independent tribunal. They were awarded dollars to support them in their healthy living.

The NDP's Ministry of Human Resources appealed each and every one of those. Each and every one of those was appealed. There were 600 people in the province of British Columbia who went through that process under the NDP, who were refused each and every step of the way. Some of them spent the last year and a half of their life applying for persons with disability status.

I'm not proud of that. I don't know why they would be so proud of it, and I don't see why they won't stand up here today and say that we should build the best system of support for persons with disabilities in British Columbia.

Now, the next one I know just burns them deeply. This one bothers them a lot. Environmental management — to lead the world in sustainable environmental management with the best air quality, the best water quality and the best fisheries management, bar none. Why have the NDP turned anti-green? Maybe it's because they're afraid they're going to lose some of their vote. I don't know what it is.

We sat in this government and decided that we would reduce greenhouse gases by a third by 2012. That's not bad. That is excellent, and I'll tell you who's telling me it's excellent. Everybody I see on the street in Vancouver-Burrard, everyone I meet in Victoria…. Everywhere I go in this province, people are saying: "Thank God your government is doing something instead of just letting the NDP talk about it and rag on it." It's about time that a government stood up and said, "We are going to do something good for our environment." We are going to reduce the negative impact of mankind on our earth, and we are doing it in spades.

We're doing it with Washington; we're doing it with Oregon; we're doing it with California. Do you know what? We're going to lead the west coast to an environmentally sustainable environment that's going to spread like a green wave across Canada.

Mark my words, Madam Speaker. The time has come. British Columbians are sick of the negative people over on that side. They are sick of the whiners. They are sick of the people that say: "Oh, I'm not sure about my future."

What they want is courage. They want commitment. They want people that stand up and say: "You know what? I'm going to park my gas car, and I'm going to buy a hybrid." They want people that are going to say: "I'm going to change my lightbulbs to fluorescent too." They want people to stand up and be counted…

L. Mayencourt: …and do what is right in this House. Madam Speaker, the Liberal Party in British Columbia is doing it, and I know that's why they're so grumpy. I know it hurts. It hurts because they thought they were everything to everybody, when in fact they were nothing to anyone.

It's time that people in this House stand up and say what they're going to do, not what they're afraid of doing. I listen to the members opposite talk about complex problems: "Oh, very difficult situation. I'm not sure we can do that." You know what, Madam Speaker? I didn't get elected to solve simple problems, and neither did they, but they shirk them daily.

They have nothing to say when it comes to reducing greenhouse gases. Our plan was better than theirs. They were so surprised that they sat around in here and moped for a week. Now they've been trying to do some catch-up, and of course: "Oh well, not enough in the budget for it." Well, $100 million to start a study on how we can do better in British Columbia for the environment — pretty darned good, as far as I'm concerned.

I have one more, and this one really bugs them. This one really gets 'em bad. We're going to create more jobs per capita than any other jurisdiction in Canada, and we're doing it every single day of the week. We do it every single day. You know why? Because we have ignited a spirit in British Columbia. We have unleashed the power of British Columbians to get in here, to come to a province….

L. Mayencourt: Madam Speaker, I'm happy to work with you to help enlighten the people on those benches over there any old day.

It is time to recognize that over two million people work in British Columbia today. As a matter of fact, under that government over there, 10 percent of the population was on welfare — 10 percent of the population. "There's no hope. Don't worry about it. Come on down here, and we'll give you a cheque."

Do you know what? British Columbians that we work with in the Ministry of Employment and Income Assistance come to me and say: "You know what? I want to work, I want a job, I want to contribute, I want to pay taxes, and I want tax cuts. I want it all. I want to be part of what is the British Columbia dream — a beautiful, beautiful place on this planet where people have the opportunity to fish, to hunt, to swim; a place where British Columbians can invest in their homes, where they can make a living, where they can have friends, where they can live in safe communities."

We are doing that, and that's why we lead Canada in job creation — because we are doing what we said we would do. Those are the five great goals, in case the member has forgotten them. I hope that he'll commit them to memory.

The other day I had a chance to talk a little bit about an issue that was really important. I was talking about a community group that's really done some great stuff in my neighbourhood. I made a mistake, and I admit it. So I want to retract it. Actually, I was talking about Haro Park, and I was talking about Diana Buric. Diana Buric is the director of resource development at Haro Park. Neall Ireland is running the patient identification program there. I just wanted to correct that piece.

Last week I got something that was really amazing, and it really touched me. This is a letter, or rather it's a series of about 150 letters from some people in my riding. It came to me, but it was really directed at the member for North Vancouver–Lonsdale. The member for North Vancouver–Lonsdale started a dialogue in this House two years ago about mandatory retirement, and bless her heart, she struck a chord. People around British Columbia started to see what it meant for them, and people in British Columbia want to get the change so that people can continue to work after they're 65.

This is the example of a teacher in British Columbia who is so loved by her students — and by the kids that have gone through and now become parents of students and all that sort of stuff — that they wrote hundreds of letters to me to say: "Please make sure you change mandatory retirement."

It reminded me of a film that I watched when I was a little kid, called Good Morning, Miss Dove. Miss Dove, for something like 50 years, educated everybody in this little town, and everybody loved her forever. It just reminded me of how important it is.

Amanda White wrote to me and sent me these letters, and I want to assure those people that Ms. Everman's issue of retirement is going to be dealt with in this session of the Legislature. That's something that was in the throne speech as well. I think it's a good thing that we're doing it, and I want to thank the member for North Vancouver–Lonsdale for her vision and her understanding. I think that's a pretty darn good thing to have happen.

Today I started off talking a little bit about safe schools, and I talked about the issues of racism, sexism and homophobia in our school system. There is no doubt in my mind that everybody in the school system is doing their best and that they want to make sure they eradicate those things. But the fact of the matter is that those things, that kind of discrimination and harassment and bullying, occur in our schools. I was so delighted when the throne speech talked about adopting the Safe Schools Act or adopting a piece of legislation that required school districts to deal with this. This time has come.

And you know what? We're on the leading edge. We are on the leading edge of this, of saying to schools: "You have to prohibit discrimination, harassment and bullying in our school system." As a matter of fact, on Friday I'm doing a presentation to the U.S. consul general, because member states from the United States are actually looking at this kind of legislation. They see it as progressive and important. It's time to get on with it, and I hope that all members on both sides of the House will support the safe schools initiative put forward by the Minister of Education.

I've met some great people across this province as a result of the safe schools initiative. I'm going to highlight one just for a moment. They're not from my riding, but they are nice people. It's called Saltspring Women Opposed to Violence and Abuse — SWOVA — and they have developed a program called Respectful Relationships. Respectful Relationships is all about making sure kids have the right tools to make decisions in their lives, the ability to mediate conflict, to make a difference in each other's lives. I want to thank Lynda Laushway, Jean Elder, Randie Clark, Anne Marshall, Leslie DeAthe and Robert Anaviva. They're doing great work. If the House would please join me in thanking them for their good work on that.

You know, I've been the MLA in Vancouver-Burrard for about six years now, and as I've said in other speeches, it's a great privilege. I love doing it. I love to poke fun at the opposition, and they love to poke fun at me, but we do have a good time here. I want to talk now about some vision work that's been done in my riding, which I think is important for this House to consider.

Vancouver-Burrard, as many of you know, is a downtown peninsula of Vancouver. It's bounded by Stanley Park, Main Street, False Creek and Burrard Inlet. So it's a really concise little neighbourhood of about 100,000 people, very nicely put together. We have decided that what we want to create is a hub where all of the kids, adults and seniors — all the people of the neighbourhood — are looked after and interconnected in many, many different ways.

What we've been doing is working on this neighbourhood hub initiative. I want to thank Sandra Menzer and the folks at the West End–Yaletown interagency team who have put so much work into this. I want to describe some of what they're doing.

They want to create a neighbourhood where families would have access to a range of services that meet their children's developmental needs, including physical, emotional, social and intellectual needs. The services are organized into four hubs that are defined by the four neighbourhoods: Yaletown, Coal Harbour, the West End and the downtown south. We have been working to create services in those hubs that give opportunities for children and their families to have a great life.

The issue that we deal with here is looking at a variety of services that are offered, and I've said many times in this House how well looked after we are in licensed child care services. We have a great capacity within all four hubs, and we have family drop-in programs. We have kindergarten through grade 7 — public education obviously. We have before- and after-school programs — things that make for a healthy neighbourhood.

We have some challenges in that our population is continuing to grow, so we've got a lot of new housing development. We've got shortages of kindergarten care, and we need to do a little more on our after-school programs. We also have some needs in our neighbourhood for some more facilities. For example, right now we have an elementary school in the Yaletown area called Elsie Roy. It's sort of bursting at the seams, and we need to add onto that particular school.

The second is International Village. International Village is kind of on the edges of Chinatown and Yaletown. It's a great place, but it's a neighbourhood in transition. There are lots of families moving in there. We're going to need a new school, new day care centres and a new community centre as well. The idea behind the hub is to try and make all these things work together so that individuals get a high level of care and every chance to succeed through their school years.

Coal Harbour is another area. We already have the community centre there, and it's a great facility. But now we're adding on, with having a need for a brand-new school and some additional child care spaces. While at Lord Roberts, which is in the West End, we're going to have to get some extra space and try and open up the school to more non-education-based activities. In other words, when the school is closed, the community gets to use the basketball courts, the playing fields and all that sort of stuff.

Of course, ongoing, we need to continue to work on our child care operating grants. I'm very happy to hear that the Minister of State for Childcare was able to continue to fund some child care referral spaces, which are very important.

The last area that I want to speak on is one that we've talked about a lot in this House, and that's our housing stuff. I've had the opportunity to do what perhaps few in this House have done. I've gone out and spent some time on the streets. I've slept in SROs. I've slept in the park. I've lined up for food at the food bank, at the Salvation Army and at Union Gospel — great organizations that help the poor living in very difficult situations.

I want to tell you, Madam Speaker, that every morning when I get up, I think about how I'm going to find housing for my neighbourhood. I'm doing it because it's really important to me, because I actually value the people that are living on our streets. I think that government needs to do something about it. Our government has committed almost $300 million this year to support people needing housing. That's an important number, because it is three times the amount that any government in the history of British Columbia has ever spent on it. We are very, very proud of that, and rightly so, and we are continuing to work on a variety of different projects.

For example, just last week I participated in an announcement of over 760 spaces that were being created around British Columbia — actual apartments, not just shelter beds, that will be built and will house people who have difficulty finding homes because of their economic situation or perhaps a mental illness or an addiction. We feel that all of these people have a place in our society. That's why I work so hard on trying to find ways to supply more housing for people that are vulnerable in our communities.

I've heard from the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant a few times that we cut housing. I want to tell the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant and every other member over there today, here and now, that in the past six years this government has provided 12,000 new units of social housing in British Columbia.

No one has done that except our Housing Ministry and our government over the past six years. That is 2,000 units of housing each and every year. The NDP couldn't even do half that. I'm really proud of what we've done there.

I'm also really proud of the rental assistance program. The rental assistance program is great because of this. It allows people to stay where they are and get a rent supplement because they are in a low-income situation.

Anybody that earns under $28,000 as a family can get up to $563 as a rent supplement, money that is private. It goes to them and their bank account. They go out and rent their apartment or what have you. Their kids never know that they're in social housing. The kids never know. They don't live in the housing project on the other side of the river. They live where they live, and no one stigmatizes them as a result of being there.

Thousands and thousands of British Columbians are benefiting from that. Last year we did that same sort of program for seniors — Shelter Aid for Elderly Renters.

Once again, they don't want to say it, but in their ten years in government, they thought the rent didn't go up for seniors. For ten years they felt that everything was fine. Well, I heard over and over again from

my seniors and from seniors in Prince Rupert and Kingsway and all over the province that they didn't have enough money to pay for their rent, and that meant they were eating into their food budget. So I'm proud that we doubled that.

Today in British Columbia, 120,000 families benefit from Shelter Aid for Elderly Renters, the rental assistance program, direct subsidy from the ministry and B.C. Housing, plus a large number of non-profit agencies. That's a lot of people, and that means those people have the opportunity to raise their kids, their families. It means they can buy groceries, and it means they can have some dignity. That's important to the B.C. Liberals over here.

That's something that I get up — and I know other members on this side of the House do as well — every morning trying to figure out. What can we do in our communities to solve the homeless problem?

I've spent a lot of time thinking about issues around mental health. Why? Well, because it turns out that an awful lot of people that are homeless on our streets have a mental health issue. What are we going to do about it?

I've talked in this House about a fellow who lives in my neighbourhood. His name is Doug. Doug was born in Florida. He came to Canada, and he has for the last two years lived at a garbage can on my corner. Doug is paranoid and schizophrenic. He's an alcoholic, and he literally lives there. He stays in the same clothes day after day after day until they fall off and someone gives him a new shirt and a new pair of pants.

We have decided in this province that we're going to mainstream people living with mental illness. We're going to let them be free. Doug is not free. He may not have a chain on him, but he's stuck to that garbage can on the corner of Davie and Bidwell. We are not doing Doug any favours. It is time for us to take a look at what we do with people living with mental illness. Do we need institutional care?

It's time that we're having that dialogue now through the dialogue on health care. It's time for us to face up to the fact that the deinstitutionalization at Riverview, while it was great for some, has actually been horrific for so many more. It's been awful for communities that care about people like that. We feel hopeless. We don't know where to turn.

We need to make sure that we talk about mental health, that we decide how we're going to deal with it. Not everyone needs to be institutionalized, but boy, if someone needs it, they should get it. It's as simple as that. So that's how I feel.

I've talked a little about addictions in this House as well, and I've told you a little bit about a visit that I had to Italy last year which was really eye-opening. I went to San Patrignano, a community in south-central Italy where people living with an addiction stay for three to five years. They have 2,200 people living in that community, and they are all surrounded by love and inspiring stories and fellow alcoholics. They're doing something. They're making a difference in people's lives, and 75 percent of the people that go through the program succeed.

Those are the kinds of things that we should be talking about in British Columbia. We shouldn't be fretting about whether or not…. Some of our worries are so small and so minuscule. What we should be talking about is a vision for British Columbia — one that looks after the mentally ill, one that looks after the addicted, one that looks after those with disabilities.

Where are my five goals here? We should be the most literate jurisdiction in North America. We should have the best level of support for persons with disabilities. We should provide the best jobs in North America. We should provide for the best environmental technologies.

There's nothing wrong with the five goals. There's something wrong with the guys over there who have decided that those aren't worthy, noble goals. It's time for the NDP to stand up and say…. What are your goals? What is it you want to accomplish? When are you going to stand up and tell us? Do you want to have a better health care system? Do you want to provide for people with disabilities?

Even though your record does not stand up to those goals, even though in the ten years that you were there you didn't have the opportunity to improve the lot in life for those individuals…. I'd like to hear what they plan for the next election. We're going to be in an election in 2009. I wonder if the members over there have a clue as to what they're going to do for the environment today, tomorrow or more importantly in 2009.

I wonder what members have in mind for their goals. Why don't we have a list of goals from the NDP? Maybe they just haven't had the opportunity to think it out. But you've got two years, guys. Think about it. What do you want to do for the environment? What do you want to do for persons with disabilities? What do you want to do for seniors? What do you want to do for education? What do you want to do for health?

Deputy Speaker: One moment, Member. Member for North Island, just one second.

Deputy Speaker: Members. Members, I think we need to all remember to treat each other with respect when we're speaking in this House.

C. Trevena: Madam Speaker, it's with real pleasure that I stand here to respond to the throne speech, particularly since I've been sitting in the House much of the day listening to the various pieces of debate. I hope I will respond to some of the debate of the throne speech as well as the content of the throne speech.

I'd like to actually start with the member for Vancouver-Burrard, who at the end of his response to this throne speech was talking about: where are the plans from the opposition? I would like to quote my colleague from

Vancouver-Kensington on this: "Our role as opposition is to oppose. Our role as opposition is to question and to criticize and to put up alternatives and to make sure that other people's voices are heard so that there is a debate there."

We will come, and we will explain our vision, and we are sharing our vision, if people want to listen to it. But our role is in opposition. It's been very interesting to hear the rhetoric and the spin that has been coming about this throne speech — the words and the accusations.

It's fascinating to hear about the five great goals again and again. What it comes down to is that both sides of the House have a certain vision. It's just that our vision may not be quite the same. We have a vision on this side of the House where everybody has equality of opportunity and can really achieve a better life. I think that the other side of the House has a vision where some people will do okay but many others won't.

I also just wanted to pick up on something that the member for Vancouver-Burrard said, when he kept reflecting on what happened in the 1990s. This is something which we hear time and again in this chamber. The government benches have a lot to say about what went wrong in the '90s, without realizing that this is 2007. This is well into the 21st century. They have been government since 2001, and I think they have their own record to stand on without trying to find the little holes their spin doctors and PR people can find in what happened in the past decades.

I'm very happy to stand here and respond to the throne speech. I earlier responded to the budget speech, so some of the areas which I'll be touching on this afternoon I did touch on before. Some of the areas that I mentioned in the budget speech — quite a lot about my concerns about education and school fees that were raised in the throne speech — I will be leaving.

As I start this, however, I would like to recognize that I have a huge privilege standing here, like we all have. Standing here for our constituents — for the 50, 60 or 30,000 people whom we represent in our constituencies — is a great privilege.

Like others who have stood before me, I would like to take this moment to thank those who work with me in my constituency. Lynn Stone is my constituency assistant, and Kathy Smail is my part-time assistant — both in Campbell River. Jennifer Daffurn is my assistant in my Port McNeill office. I literally would not be able to do any of the work on behalf of my constituents without their strong support and strong help.

It was a very interesting throne speech in the fact that it was a green speech — no question. Half the speech was about environmental initiatives, and I think that to denigrate that is foolish. I think there are some valuable things in the throne speech, which I hope will be worked on.

But what does concern me, which I mentioned in my response to the budget speech, is that while there is some substance there and goals and targets that can be worked on — which we as a province and as a country truly need if we are going to achieve anything — the substance isn't there. When it comes to looking at the budget, the budget isn't there. The targets are there, but without a budget, it's really hard to reach them.

The member for Vancouver-Burrard mentioned that we may be sniping at money that is going to be put into looking at the problem. But we know what the problem is. Let's start putting the money into finding the answers, acting on the answers and making sure that we as a province are not just saying that we want to take the lead but are taking the lead.

Earlier today my colleague from Nelson-Creston talked very passionately about this throne speech and about the environmental aspect of this throne speech. He raised the issue of how much substance there is here or whether it is a nicely written piece of rhetoric that stands on the bookshelves for a year and then in coming years will be discarded along with others that have gone before. Whether the spin will outweigh the hope, time will tell. I hope that this is really something that government is committed to and will take action on.

I'm pessimistic. I've got to admit that I'm pessimistic. I'm pessimistic because of what we saw later in the budget — that there isn't a financial commitment for some of these targets. I'm pessimistic because as my colleague from Nelson-Creston mentioned, one of the things we've got to do, if we are looking at environmental issues and looking at climate change as the big driver for our province and for our country, is change the way we do things — change the way we do everything.

I think it takes a government with extraordinary courage to start introducing those changes. I hope this might be a government with that extraordinary courage, but I fear it is a government that is glued to its great goals, its rhetoric and its spin, and that we won't see that.

On the specifics of the environment package in the throne speech, there are some very good ideas there, and there are some things that do concern me greatly. One is in the energy plan which is a spinoff from this — the talk about coalbed methane. The best coalbed gas, practically, in North America will be used.

I think we should be questioning whether we need to be exploring for coalbed methane at all. It's very dangerous environmental policy. I think it is something where we should be having alternatives and not exploring these new sorts of drilling.

We've seen what's been happening in the United States and other places where there has been coalbed methane exploration. It is of great concern. I know that there are plans to look at coalbed methane just south of my constituency on the TimberWest lands around the Comox Valley. I think that there will be loud opposition to this, and I will be very happy to be part of that opposition. We need to be moving beyond coalbed methane and looking at other areas.

Unfortunately, one of the other areas that is also mentioned in the plan is offshore oil and gas, and oil and gas exploration, which does lead to offshore oil and gas. Seventy percent of British Columbians don't want offshore oil and gas exploration. The Priddle report a couple of years ago showed very clearly that there should not be offshore gas and oil exploration.

First nations from Haida Gwaii and along the north coast and the north Island have come out very clearly against offshore oil and gas exploration. I hope that this government is listening to those concerns when it's looking at its environmental plans and doesn't push that sort of exploration. It would be extraordinarily dangerous for us as a province to go down that road.

We have fantastic sources of renewable energy. I would have liked to have seen, really, a greater commitment to those renewable energies in the supports that can be found.

Tidal power. There are starts of work on tidal power just in my own constituency. Just off Quadra Island there is exploration of tidal power.

Wind power. It's great to have wind farms, but what about the transmission lines? I know that again in the north Island we've got a number of exploratory proposals for wind farms, but then we don't know about how we're get the power off the north Island and down to the rest of the grid.

I think that one of the problems this illustrates is that we need more of a strategic plan, less of a patchwork of independent power producers — a cohesion and a realization that what we are talking about is something fundamental. It's power for our province, and it's a renewable source of power that can come from across the province but shouldn't be left with one operator who wants to do it here and another operator there. "We'll do that one. This one is a big company; they can basically buy people off. We can make sure this happens and that happens."

Again, it sounds terribly cynical, but I fear that unless we do have a very comprehensive plan, we are going to see that the different ways of developing our alternative energies are just simply going to go to the highest bidder. I think we also need to be very inventive in exploring new ways of alternative power, alternative sources of power.

There has been lots of talk about biomass and wood waste. On this coming Saturday I'm going to be in Gold River for an open house from a company that is looking at burning pelletized garbage as power and selling that to the grid. Concerns about emissions? Yes, there are some, but is this the way we want to move forward? Is this an environmental move that we want to make? Maybe it is.

We really have to look more broadly than the specifics of the buzzwords of biofuels, of this, that and the other. We've got to get beyond that. I think we've got to look for ideas, encourage those ideas and, as I said at the beginning, put some substance behind them.

There are some things that are there that one feels are just filling up space. Reducing energy consumption. We all know we need to reduce energy consumption. We don't need that in the throne speech. This isn't going to be the answer for the province or for the country.

Tree-planting initiatives — great. I would like, as I offered in the budget speech, the Minister of Forests and Range to come out with me to either the TimberWest or Western Forest Products lands and see what is happening there, and try and encourage some tree-planting when we are seeing the wholesale devastation of areas that people who live and work and log in those areas are extremely concerned about.

There is the issue of electrification of ports — again, a very interesting idea. Will the commitment be there? What are we looking at when we talk about ports? Campbell River is getting cruise ships coming through. We have a cruise ship terminal. It would be great if we could plug those cruise ships into the grid in Campbell River. But what does this mean? It just says a statement — electrification of ports.

When you look down the list, what else is there? Hydrogen fuel and fuel cell buses — possibly interesting. But doesn't that mean we've also got to invest in public transit?

It's very amusing. There was a lobby by one of the city councils about smoking in bus stops. It went to all the city councils. Tahsis village council got the letter and said: "First, let's get a bus, and then we can get the bus stop, and then we can stop the smoking at the bus stop."

I think there's a disconnect between the realities of what is happening in Vancouver, Victoria and the lower mainland and what is happening in rural B.C. The access to transport is huge for rural B.C.

One of the issues that I deal with time and time again in my constituency is our ferries — the fact that this government has abdicated responsibility for the ferries, made it into a quasi-private organization and allowed the fares to go up, ratcheting them up and ratcheting them up and ratcheting them up until people are effectively forced out of their homes.

I live in a ferry-dependent community. I use the ferry all the time, and the stresses and strains that the increase in fares and the fuel subsidy are putting on my community — literally the community I live in, not just my constituency — are huge.

Ferries aren't just used by holiday makers and not just used by resort workers. They are used by people who go to work, by people who go to the doctor, by people who have businesses. I use my own ferry as an example. On any one route you don't just have the RVs and the pickup trucks.

You've got the tractor-trailers carrying farmed fish. You have the gravel trucks. You have the workers going on the Island and workers leaving the Island — Telus workers and a cross-section, ambulances…. They all use the ferries, but people are being squeezed. This government needs to take responsibility for B.C. Ferries — for our ferries and for our marine highway.

I've talked quite a lot about the environment and the issues around the environment and about transportation and how it affects my community. I hope they'll

be taken seriously. I hope the government is listening to this as a debate and that they don't just put out the throne speech and then say: "That's it. We've done a great job, and we're going to move on. We've had our say. We've had our five great goals, and we won't listen to anything that the opposition says because we know best."

I'd like to talk about something that the throne speech didn't mention. I was waiting to hear from the Minister of Citizens' Services, who spoke earlier today, whether she would be mentioning it because it is part of her portfolio. Unfortunately, she didn't. That's the issue of women, who make up 52 percent of the population and are ignored in the throne speech — absolutely ignored.

It's very interesting, actually, to read this as a woman and wait, to turn page after page and think: well, there's going to be something here. And there isn't.

While the House wasn't sitting last fall and early this year, I took the opportunity to talk to many, many women across the province. For a couple of weeks I was on the road talking to women across the province. I wanted to hear what they had to say about the issues that affected them in B.C. It was eye-opening. I mean, I talked to a cross-section. I talked to workers, to people in unions, businesswomen, people who are in public services, students, teachers. I was in Prince George, Kamloops, Quesnel and right across the province. I met with first nations women and new Canadians and minority women.

I'd like to share with this House some stories from these women, because what all of them are saying to me, in their own ways, from across the province and from whatever walk of life…. And I'm talking indiscriminately — whatever walk of life, not just our sort of people or your sort of people. Women were not being heard.

A young woman who is working as a trucker. She's working night shifts. She's being paid under the table. It's the only job that she can make work, because she has three children that she is trying to bring up and a student loan that she's trying to pay off and day care that she is trying to juggle.

The older woman I met in Prince George who has had to go back to work. She is 75 years old. She doesn't have an extravagant life, but she has never worked, really, for very long, and so she didn't have the pension contributions to make it possible not to work. So at 75 she's back at work.

I went to child care facilities — again, part of my critic's role — and there were a couple of young mothers I met. One told me — this was in Kelowna — she won't be having a second child because she can't afford the child care. The insurance clerk who said that she won't be going back to work because she can't afford, basically, to use all her income to pay for child care. And the nurse who didn't go back to work because there is no child care.

I'd like to tell the House about the grandmother who didn't expect to be spending her retirement years, her years as a grandparent, looking after her grandchildren. The women who are stressed, who are juggling one or two jobs and two or three children just trying to make sure that lives get on. The woman who told me, "Well, I've got two under two," and just looked at me and smiled, knowing that that is a stress. She's also back at work and trying to make it work with a sister-in-law and mother and making sure that there is the space.

The other women. The women who work with female offenders, who know the reality that when women come out of the provincial jail system, they can almost not re-establish their lives because of the way the system works — the access to housing, to their own children, to supports.

The women who give and give and give professionally. Women are largely carers — nurses and health care workers and transition house workers and counsellors. The women who, through their work and their commitment and their volunteer time, are essentially propping up what was once a social safety net. They're doing it. They're not getting any support from this government. Show them the throne speech, and then offer them the budget, and they see no hope there.

Even the areas where one would hope there would be some movement, where it's so public — violence against women…. Not one word of it in the Attorney General's ministry. Not one word of the need for more supports for women who are facing violent relationships, for women who are trying to get out of violent relationships. Not one word about the fact that we don't have a zero-tolerance policy anymore in this province.

Not one word about the fact that women….The police so often now are dual charging when there is a case of violence against women. So if the man calls and says there's a fight in the house, the woman will get arrested. What that means for not just for the woman, but for the whole family…. Not one word about the fact that it's the woman who always has to leave the house to go to the transition house. There was some support for transition houses.

Nor was there any word about child care. I know that we've been talking a lot about child care in this House over the last while, basically since the House came back in session. I think that it's worth reiterating child care.

The Minister of State for Childcare used to be an early childhood education worker, and so I'm sure that she really does understand and care about the future of our children, upon whom we are dependent for the future of our society. We depend on these children.

I would just like to use this opportunity, since this is my sort of second kick at the can, to read into the record some of the e-mails that we have both been receiving — both the Minister of State and me — from various child care workers, parents and providers.

I think that's a very telling point. What happens to our economy — the issue of the fact that women have to work, and women do contribute to our economy. Child care providers, who are extremely overstretched and extremely low paid, also contribute to our economy

Another child care provider. This is Kathy Rae from Campbell River, who has been working in the child care field for over 35 years and who says she'd like to offer some feedback about the current child care situation.

"The time for a clear plan with time lines and targets is long overdue. We need adequate dedicated operating funds to make quality child care spaces sustainable, to ensure that spaces are affordable for families and to promote quality through improved wages. Only then can communities move forward with confidence to create the child care services that are so desperately needed across the province."

It is communities. We are talking about our communities here. We're talking about the future for our communities, the people who live and work in our communities now and the people who live and work in the communities in the future.

Another — someone who works in child care. Just to give the reality — in case people think we are making this up and that it all relates back to some time in the past — this is a letter from the year 2007.

"My name is Sharon Lusier. I'm an early childhood educator and have been for the past 15 years. I started out in the field making $10 an hour. After 15 years I now make $13 an hour."

This is why I say it's an economic issue, because it's not just the women who are going to come out of the workforce because they can't find child care. It's not just the stresses on the systems because of child care. It's the fact that the people who work in child care are effectively being forced out of the profession because they can't afford to work there anymore.

After 15 years, to be earning $3 an hour more than when you started — to be earning $13 an hour? I know that's above the minimum wage, but it's an insult. It's also scary that we can think that the people we depend on to not just look after our children, but to nurture them and to help create the people who they will become — to say that these people are worth just $13 an hour? I think it's really very insulting.

Most of the child care workers I have met are women. I know there are male child care workers, but most of them are women. There is a longstanding issue of women's equality in pay. I know that this government in its past — I think it's worth it that we do pick up on its past as well as its present record — did repeal pay equity, which means that we now have women quite legally paid basically 70 percent of what a man earns.

While this government espouses the fact that it wants a very good economy of a mixture of people and highly skilled people, immigrants and immigrant women get about half what a white man gets. I put that on the record because I think it's something that has to be…. People have to remember that when we're talking about child care and we're talking about women's issues, we're also often talking about poverty and often poverty-led pay.

Talking about poverty pay…. A woman who works as a health care worker saw her pay cut in this last six years because there was a rollback of pay for health care workers, which in itself is a huge insult. She says: "I wonder if this will ever get read." This is from Michelle Lowe. She says:

"I'm the mother of two boys under six years old, and I'm appalled at what I'm hearing and reading about how our government values children and their caregivers and, ultimately, families as a whole. I wonder if this will ever get read. As of today I'm now an employee at my hospital, but child care at this point would cost me $30 more a month than I would bring home at $19 an hour."

Now, I'm not an economist. I am, I believe, an educated person, but this really makes no economic sense. It makes no economic sense that we have a cross-section of people — not just people who are on low incomes, but people who are on middle incomes, people who are on high incomes — who say: "How do we afford it?"

People on two incomes…. I was talking today to somebody who said she and her husband are both earning $50,000. A $100,000 income, and they still cannot make child care work.

Assuming that there is the money, one has to ask: is there the space? Because when we talk about child care, we are talking about a social crisis in our province. It's a social crisis that is reverberating right across the province. Many of us are not from the lower mainland in this House. We pick up our local papers, and we can see this is reverberating across the province, that this is not something that is isolated.

What we see is that everywhere not only are families squeezed on costs, but they're squeezed on space. In my travel around the province I went to Vernon, the constituency represented by the Minister of Children and Family Development. I went into a very nice day care centre there, where there is a four-year waiting list for infant toddlers.

Now for those who aren't aware of the child care levels, infant toddlers go from naught to three, which does make one wonder what the hope is for children in our province.

As I wrap up my thoughts on the throne speech, I think what I find really sad is that this government talks about its vision but really has no substance to its vision. It has changed year by year by year what its theme is going to be and what it wants to say its vision is, but I think that this province really lacks a driving vision, something that is going to matter to people.

Hon. W. Oppal: I'm most grateful to have the opportunity to speak in support of the throne speech. At the outset I want to thank the voters of Vancouver-

Fraserview for electing me. It's indeed a pleasure, an honour and a privilege to have the opportunity to serve the voters of Vancouver-Fraserview.

As well, I want to thank my ministry and the staff for all the work that they have done, which has made my task easier. I want to make particular reference to Deputy Attorney General Allan Seckel, Assistant Deputy Minister Jerry McHale, Assistant Deputy Minister Bob Gillen, Alison MacPhail, Rob Lapper, Carol Anne Rolph, Jim Crone and many people in the ministry who have been diligent in executing their duties in the Attorney General's ministry.

As well, I want to express my gratitude towards Ministerial Assistant Tom Brown and Executive Assistant Terry Lalari, Sheila O'Reilly, Connie Roberts, Gail Dawson and Barinder Sall — all of whom have been instrumental in assisting me.

As well, I want to pay tribute to Peter Hyndman who was a very dear friend, a former cabinet minister and a member of this House. Mr. Hyndman assisted me and supported me for many, many years, and this province lost a great British Columbian when Peter Hyndman succumbed to cancer at the age of 64 in September of the year past.

I want to direct my attention now to matters relating to criminal justice reform and those matters that our government is now doing in ensuring and in promoting reform of the criminal justice system.

However, before I do that, I was somewhat taken aback by the remarks made by the member for North Island when she spoke about violence against women and the programs that she says are lacking by this government.

I've done a fair amount of work and have committed much of my professional life to dealing with the violence against women issue. I want to make it clear right now that our government has increased funding to address the terrible issue of violence against women. In fact, contrary to what's been asserted by members opposite, we've increased funding more than seven times to what it was. The increase in funding amounts to $12.5 million. The total amount that our government spends in addressing this issue of violence against women is $46 million per year, and these services are made for vulnerable women and children.

Members of the opposition think that the solution to any problem involving the criminal law or social justice is to throw more money at it without any kinds of creative solutions.

Hon. W. Oppal: You know, the fact is that we've increased funding in that area. I know that; I've worked in that area.

What the public ought to know is that the real issues relating to violence against women have to be proactive. The solutions have to be proactive, and we have to get involved in prevention. Prevention is achieved through education — massive amounts of education and knowledge. We have to get in and tell the public and tell the offenders that it is totally improper and wrong to be involved in the horrible crimes of violence against women. We have to step up our campaign in that particular area.

Our government is doing that. Many of us have attended forums where we have made it our business to become involved and to inform the offenders and the communities that we have to make violence against women a fundamental issue for all of us to deal with. It's not a political issue, contrary to what certain members of this House appear to think.

As well, while I'm on that issue, there never was a mandatory charge policy in this province. The member opposite made comments about not having a mandatory charge policy. There never was such a policy.

The fact is the prosecutors, the individual Crown counsel, have a policy of flexibility. In other words, where a particular person is charged with spousal violence, each individual prosecutor has a wide discretion to determine whether or not it would be in the public interest to prosecute the particular offender in the circumstances of this case.

The reason for that flexibility is that there is no one-size-fits-all that makes any sense when you are dealing with the issue relating to violence against women. What you have to do is assess the circumstances of each case.

In many cases it's counterproductive to charge a person, even after a crime has been committed. In many cases the victims of the assaults do not want to proceed with the charges, because it would be contrary to their interests. Many victims have told us that they're more interested in restorative forms of justice, in reconciliation, in counselling.

If we put offenders into an adversarial system in a courtroom, often that leads to a negative impact in that we deal with the matter in a punitive way. The proactive policy that ought to be utilized is then put aside. It's been our experience in the criminal justice system that there ought to be flexibility and that each person, each case, ought to be assessed on its own merits.

Now I want to make reference to the reform that we are involved in. Our government is now involved in far-reaching reform in the criminal justice system. We are investing $12 million over the next three years to transform the civil, family and criminal justice systems so as to protect public rights and to seek solutions.

We have some broad strategies for reform. I might add that we're the only province in Canada that has embarked on such far-reaching reforms where we're looking at solutions. We're looking at solutions to solve the issues, the underlying factors that form the basis of some of the incidents that take place within the system. We are now embarking on a system that will transform the system into a series of broad strategies.

We will be dealing with the question of prevention, the principle of prevention. That is, we want to prevent crimes before they're committed. To save time, we want to minimize and avoid civil conflicts. We want to save expense, and we want to ensure that British Columbians receive speedy justice in a proactive way.

We want to integrate the system by coordinating it with other systems and services in the community. We're doing that for the first time in Canada. We are the leaders in Canada in the reform of civil and criminal justice. We want to provide more information to citizens so that advice and guidance as to how the system works will avoid the confrontation and animosity that invariably exists in the present system. Also, we want to make the system simpler, streamline the system, both the civil and criminal procedures, so as to make them faster, proportional and more user-friendly.

We want to embark on resolutions of disputes, encouraging an early-resolution focus. We will promote problem-solving and mediation while reserving litigation for the most intractable disputes. Only where it's necessary will we resort to litigation in an adversarial system. Again, we're the leaders in Canada in that particular area.

We want to ensure that British Columbians receive early solutions and fast justice. The resources will be focused on early problem-solving, on resolving issues well before they get into a courtroom. Early intervention will encourage early resolution and create off-ramps out of the court system, which many people find to be cumbersome, expensive and time-consuming.

Members of the public should know that over 80 percent of criminal cases that come before the courts are resolved or concluded within ten months of their commencement. Unfortunately, it's the exceptional cases that attract media attention about the efficiency of the justice system. We know that we need to embark on many reforms in the criminal justice system so as to achieve faster solutions, faster resolutions and thereby enhance the public confidence in the system.

In that particular area and to that particular end, we want to improve the efficiency of the system to address the root causes of crime. Why do people commit crimes? We have to resolve those issues so as to achieve more credibility and more public confidence in the system. We know, for instance, that in the area of property crime…. Over 80 percent of the crimes that are committed are property crimes, and over 80 percent of the crimes that are committed are being committed by less than 10 percent of the offenders. Thus we have the issue of chronic offenders.

What we want to do is embark upon a community court project. We're doing that now in the city of Vancouver, where we'll embark upon a community court pilot project that will deal with some of the root causes of crime as opposed to the symptoms that we historically have dealt with in a reactive system.

We know, for instance, that of the chronic offenders who commit property crimes, most are addicted to alcohol, addicted to drugs, homeless or suffering from mental illness. For the first time in Canada, what we in British Columbia are doing is offering an integrated approach to resolving these issues.

By an integrated approach, I mean we have the health care system, housing, corrections, policing and the prosecutors all working together to resolve these in a collaborative way. That's the way we have to go if we're going to make a serious dent, and a serious solution, towards the solving of property crime.

We're also currently involved in a pilot project in the Victoria courthouse that will expedite appearances for breaches of court orders. I can tell this House that breaches of court orders often take an invariable amount of time. By assigning a single judge to deal with these cases one day a week, we hope to speed up how these particular cases are dealt with. We hope to see this model used throughout the province.

We are offering a creative, more innovative way of dealing with the criminal justice system. We know, as I said a moment ago, that the repeat offender syndrome has to be dealt with. By offering solutions as opposed to dealing with matters with a punitive nature and by dealing with the symptoms only, we are taking a proactive approach, a creative approach that makes us the leaders in this particular area.

I want to direct my attention now to the issues of multiculturalism and immigration. We will work to assist new immigrants to British Columbia to find employment and to have the training that they need to successfully settle and integrate into our communities.

We are now the recipients of over 40,000 immigrants per year who come to settle in British Columbia. We are the second-largest recipient in terms of immigrants who come to Canada; 45,000 immigrants came to this province in 2005. Last year, in 2006, that figure approached 42,000.

What we need to do is provide economic opportunities for those immigrants who come to British Columbia — for instance, under the provincial nominee program, which will substantially be expanded and augmented. We need more people to come to British Columbia.

We have a booming economy. Our economy is the strongest it's ever been. Our gross domestic product has grown greatly.

We have the lowest unemployment rate in over 30 years. We have the highest employment rate in over 30 years. We have an aging population and a booming economy, and that has only taken place within the last five years — during the terms of this government.

It's with that in mind that we need more immigrants to fill the void that has now been created in the economy. As the second-most popular destination for immigrants, this province has successfully negotiated with the federal government an additional $71.5 million in immigrant settlement funding for the next two years. We have signed a memorandum of understanding with the federal government to speed up the process for immigrant entrepreneurs to get to British Columbia through the provincial nominee program.

The additional funding will help us achieve a number of goals. First, we will be able to help immigrants gain social and labour-market skills. These skills will enable immigrants to reach their full potential, and to contribute, understand and practise Canadian values related to multiculturalism and human rights.

Too often we hear of the negative effects of multiculturalism. It is often said that multiculturalism is divisive and that it creates divisions within our communities, that it creates ghettos. Nothing could be further from the truth. We have learned in British Columbia — through our strong, proactive immigration policies — that immigrants have provided a positive effect in our way of life. They have contributed so much to our economy, to our social values and to our cultural mosaic. It's for those reasons that we need more immigration.

However, when we need more immigration we have to enhance the programs and enhance the policies that are necessary in order to assist immigrants so as to make them more productive and to make them more viable in our present economy. That economy is the strongest it's ever been, as I said a moment ago, and we need more immigrants to make it viable.

The additional funding that I have alluded to here is funding that we secured — our government, through the assistance of Premier Campbell — during the last year. We have negotiated firmly with the federal government, and the funding that we have received now is the highest that has ever been achieved in this province's history. These efforts will assist new immigrants to fully participate and integrate into daily life.

The province will create welcoming communities for newcomers through programs that enhance community understanding of multiculturalism and cultural diversity. British Columbia received over $1 million of new federal funding this past November to support Canada's action plan against racism and the B.C. Anti-Racism and Multiculturalism Program. The government is consulting with community agencies and the government to develop spending plans for the new funding. We have actively gone into the communities to assist the communities and also to seek the advice of communities as to how those spending plans ought to be formulated and executed.

The government has laid out an ambitious agenda for the spring 2007 parliamentary session — one that provides for bold action. Economic measures introduced by this government since 2001 have made our province well-poised for further growth over the next several years. Government will continue to build our economy by maximizing the potential for growth in ecotourism, in agriculture and in aboriginal and cultural tourism. Recent resort development will be encouraged, and new resort municipalities will be developed to open British Columbia's potential for tourism. We'll focus on new markets in the Asia-Pacific. We are well-focused and well-situated geographically to achieve new markets in the Asia-Pacific.

Our government will take steps to address the challenges of global warming and urban sprawl. In order for our province and country to continue to thrive, we must address global warming by reducing gas emissions. Our province has issued plans and has made plans public as to how we're going to achieve this. A climate action team will be established that will determine the most credible, most aggressive and most economically feasible targets.

Our government will set targets for 2012 and 2016 to ensure that we can meet the goals of a 33-percent reduction in gas emissions by 2020. To more aggressively tackle global warming, electricity produced in British Columbia will be required to have net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2016.

A new $25 million innovative clean energy fund will be established to encourage the commercial development of alternative energy solutions. Some of these sources may include bioenergy, geothermal energy and tidal, river, solar and wind power. British Columbia will also make households more energy-efficient.

We will work with energy providers and industry. We will encourage hybrid cars and develop hydrogen fuelling stations. In partnership with the Pacific coast Governors and key ministers, our province will forge a new Pacific coast collaborative strategy extending from Alaska to California.

We will encourage local governments to exempt small-unit supportive housing projects from development cost charges so that housing can be made more affordable and we can address the issues of urban sprawl that are of concern to everybody in British Columbia. The province will promote the development of a new assessment class and tax exemptions for small-unit supportive housing.

We'll also make changes to funding and transfer payments to ensure integrated regional transportation and housing planning that will make it easier for British Columbians to travel between their homes, offices and community services.

The province will increase affordable housing, reduce homelessness and help individuals with mental health and/or addictions. That's one of the focuses that we have to deal with: dealing with homelessness, mental health and addiction services. In British Columbia's education system, the government will improve quality, choice and accountability by broadening the Ministry of Education's ability to create provincial schools that offer more choice in learning.

British Columbians have increased choice in health care through the development of an electronic surgical patient registry. The registry will give patients more control over surgical options. That's never been done before. Physicians will have further access to patient records through the development of electronic medical records systems. Again, we are the leaders in that area. We will work to improve quality, choice and accountability in health care and education.

Finally, we will lead Canada in partnership with first nations. The government will continue to strengthen relations with first nations and work towards building certainty by working towards final treaty agreements. We all know of the disadvantaged position that first nations people have had in our country.

In our country we have to work towards solutions, and it is with the Premier's lead that we have embarked upon the new relationship. We've had many conversations with leaders in the aboriginal communities so as to make our institutions more user-friendly for our first nations people.

In the criminal justice area, where the first nations people make up a disproportionate number of inmates and a disproportionate number of persons charged with crimes, we have to adopt a more proactive approach so as to deal with some of the root causes of crime, with some of the terrible poverty and the racism that have afflicted our first nations people.

It is our duty as British Columbians to address those issues regarding aboriginal people and the disadvantaged position that they have endured since early times. Our government is committed to placing the interests of the aboriginal people, first nations people, on a priority basis so that we can deal with them.

Our province is heading for great things. The economy is booming. This is the best possible place to live. It's through the leadership of our government that we've achieved that lofty standing.

We've encouraged industry. We've encouraged initiative. We have encouraged access to services. We have lowered tax rates. We have put more disposable money in the pockets of our citizens than any other government in the past. We have the lowest tax rate in Canada for people making $110,000 a year or less.

That's an achievement that any government would be proud of. It is through the leadership of our Premier that we've achieved those lofty goals.

Deputy Speaker: Just one moment. Can I remind the members not to use proper names.

I'm pleased to rise and respond to the throne speech. I had the pleasure of responding to the budget speech earlier. Perhaps it's only appropriate that I responded to the completely disconnected budget from this throne speech, which now I get to address and refer to.

British Columbia expects the policies of this government to reflect their needs, to reflect the challenges they face and to address those in a broad and comprehensive way. But this government is satisfied to govern by slogan. Slogans should perhaps read something like: "No trees for tomorrow," "Heart disease for the heartlands," "So much for seniors," and "The smallest ones pay in our children's budget."

Those would be slogans that would reflect reality. But currently the B.C. Liberal government is content to dress up their cuts and dress up their failings, put a bow on them and report them as a thematic throne speech that we should all rise and applaud. It's unfortunate. It's very sad.

It was sad when the children's speech led, for two years running, to B.C. leading the country with respect to child poverty. It's also sad that the seniors budget, the seniors throne speech, gave way to the sad fact that seniors lead as the largest growing demographic group amongst the homeless. That's some kind of commitment to seniors, I must say.

It's very sad that we've had the dire and immediate environmental concerns we all face as a province reduced to slogans by this government — reduced to slogans and gonna, gonna, gonna commitments that never materialize. One week later in the budget speech, all of those commitments in the throne speech were forgotten.

I intend to go through the throne speech item by item, ministry by ministry. I'll start with advanced education, skills training and apprenticeships. In the throne speech it's noted that the government has embarked on the largest post-secondary and apprenticeship expansion in 40 years. They refer to 25,000 new spaces. But this government is all about dressing up status quo and standstill as some kind of wonderful advance, some kind of wonderful contribution.

Over the period of time it will take for this government to expand post-secondary spaces by 25,000, our student population 19 to 26 years will expand by 75,000. With that kind of expansion in the demand, this kind of response in the supply is less than standstill. If you apply the current participation rates amongst British Columbians in post-secondary education, you'll find that 25,000 spaces for 75,000 new students is less than the current participation rate. Therefore, it represents a downfall — a decline in capacity. But as usual, a ribbon is tied, wrapping paper is placed on the package, and it's advertised as a present to British Columbians.

It's noted that of those 25,000 spaces, 7,000 will be apprenticeship spaces, in a desperate reaction to two years of chaos in the apprenticeship and skills training field. After having listened to the 24th cabinet minister, Phil Hochstein, for the last three years decimating the apprenticeship and skills training program of this province and leaving our businesses to fend for themselves in addressing the skills shortage, this government is now prepared to act.

That will do nothing to make up for three years of inaction and inactivity and the chaos that came out of that. The 25,000 new post-secondary spaces, we are told, are well underway. Well, the Auditor General didn't agree with that proposition. The Auditor General reports that we're well behind in expanding those spaces, which in the end, remember, are not an expansion at all — not even a standstill, not even status quo — but in fact will represent a decrease in capacity per capita. So another B.C. Liberal slogan to stick to your bumper, which will fall off as soon as the reality comes true and we see that the budget does nothing to support this.

Do more to attract and recruit skilled workers. The first nations of this province live on reserves where unemployment rates are in the 80- and 90-

percent range. Years and years of inaction in trying to bring those people to address this skills shortage, and now the new relationship is blighted by the same sloganism.

The provincial nominee plan will be substantially expanded. That's the program under which new immigrants are brought to fill spaces. It's true. B.C. has always been built with immigration. We'll always need immigration to keep up with the expansion of our economy, with our low birthrate and our aging demography, but we need full-scale immigration. We need people to be welcomed to B.C. as British Columbians, to have the opportunity to work here, to establish roots here, and to become residents and citizens of British Columbia.

We do not need the exploitation of guest workers. We do not need a government that will mismanage prosperity during an up-cycle in the economy and allow our children and our youth to go untrained — to not have the skills shortage addressed amongst our workforce and to ignore the warnings and the pleas from the Competition Council for this government to address the growing skills gap. It ignores those pleas. It dresses up Phil Hochstein's package with a nice new bow and does nothing to address the real need of British Columbians.

In the Ministry of Attorney General there's no mention of measures to help women fleeing from domestic violence. There's no mention of new programs to address the crystal meth blight in our communities. These were all very popular sloganistic positions to be taken last year but forgotten in the face of this year's new wave of slogans.

There's no mention of the transformative change promised last year from the Ministry of Children and Family Development — no mention of that, because delivering is a lot harder than saying.

This speech, for the Ministry of Children and Family Development, has done nothing to address the fact that B.C. has the highest child poverty rate in Canada. It is an absolute shame that a province at the height of a business cycle does absolutely nothing to address the damage it did to the families and children who are vulnerable in this province. There's no mention of this transformative change. There's no mention of new social workers and all the other measures that it would take to live up to their commitment to the new officer. This is sad.

In child care and women's services, there's nothing. The throne speech poses a question to us, though: what can we do today to secure the future for our children and grandchildren? But there's not a single mention of child care. There's not a single mention of what will be done to expand child care, to allow the women of this province to access training and apprenticeship programs and any other program they might require — or men, for that matter, who are caring for children. No mention of them. No mention of the government's recent cuts to child care.

No mention that Quebec, for example, has the lowest impact from the skills shortage, the highest participation rate of women in the skilled trades — attributed to the fact that they have universal child care. The speech doesn't want to go there, because of course it's harder to deliver programs and benefit to people's lives than it is to create slogans in the Premier's office. It's all very sad.

The new boards of education will be opening StrongStart centres, and they'll be opened in underutilized school spaces. Last year this member put Motion 70 on the table, which encouraged the government to do an inventory of all closed schools and public buildings in an effort to use them for public purposes, like housing and early childhood education. That motion was defeated by this government.

The government needs to do more than create slogans. It needs to take actions that reflect those slogans, and when it stands up to vote on a motion like Motion 70, it needs to put aside its partisan ideology and support what needs support — the people of B.C., the communities of B.C.

In economic development we are told that we will pursue B.C.'s potential as a net exporter of clean renewable energy, but then the energy plan of last year noted that 50 percent of new energy would come from dirty sources. Ninety percent had always come from clean sources. So another slogan from the B.C. Liberals that's empty, which promises much and delivers nothing.

When the B.C. green building code is created, we are told that there will be consultations with professional and community representatives, that there will be retrofitting of homes and buildings, energy audits. There's no mention of involving the trades or labour in creating the new building code, the people who actually do the work. And if we look to the ITA, those very same people were left out, were pushed from the table. We could probably expect no more.

We're told the Asia-Pacific Trade Council is building a blueprint for our province to fully seize upon Pacific potential in key markets, but this is from the same government that cut the trade offices that were already established by British Columbia in Asia. Now we see that Ontario and Alberta are leading us into the Asia-Pacific century with B.C. trailing far behind as a result of this government's cuts and this government's reliance on slogans and words to govern.

In education we are told that we will see enhanced quality choice and accountability. Well, choice has been offered to school districts already. In my district, parents were offered the choice between two high school programs, different curricula. One was supporting a self-paced model, the other a more traditional model. But there are no resources to support these choices.

Our district ended up busing over 200 students back and forth — 20 kilometres in the morning, 20 kilometres in the afternoon — in order to deliver this government's choice. We couldn't sustain that. Cuts had to be made in other areas. After having offered that choice, once removed through cutting the busing that we offered, it would have only taken seven students

to leave the public system to completely obliterate the cost savings by stopping that busing. It's fine to offer slogans and promises around choice, but if the government isn't prepared to act and support those choices, they will fall, and they will fail.

We heard little about TILMA in this House and nothing in the throne speech. The government's program to eliminate junk food in all public schools needs to be called into question. On February 14, 2007, there was a meeting of the education advisory committee at which the question was asked: how will TILMA affect the government's programs and efforts to remove junk food from vending machines?

Well, the Deputy Minister Emery Dosdall jumped into the conversation at that point and assured the participants that the Ministry of Education has already held talks with companies like Coca-Cola and others who market offending products like soft drinks, chocolate bars and chips within our public schools, and is seeking their voluntary compliance in reducing the volume of such products sold so as to meet the Ministry of Education and Ministry of Health food guidelines.

Voluntary compliance — when we were assured by the minister that this TILMA, the trade, investment and labour mobility agreement, would have no effect on such beneficial programs as the removal of junk food from school vending machines. So it's all about slogan, and it's all about words, but we need more than words to build a reality for people.

This government can't just say it and make it so. This government has to do it. This government has to step up to the plate and live up to their promises to British Columbia. The rising of expectations for children, for seniors, for the heartlands — all dashed against the rocks of the reality of Liberal policy.

This speech tells us that the heart of our government's economic vision is B.C.'s unique competitive advantage as Canada's only Pacific province, but we've seen this government trade away so many of our advantages. We've seen this government chip away at the foundation of public health care and dilute the services of public education. Those are the services that have given us a unique competitive advantage.

Those are the services that allow an upstart province in an upstart country like Canada to be as competitive as we are, at a level we have no business being with the number of people in this country and the challenges we face. But we gained that advantage through collective support of each other, through public services that support a blended economy, successful entrepreneurs and successful businesses supported in an environment of the finest public services.

That's what made us as good as we are, and that's what this government is diluting. Those are the things this government is pulling apart. Those are the treasures tarnished by this government's policies.

We're told that teachers will be given new recognition and financial incentives to reward improvements. Well, who will judge these improvements? Would it be the Fraser Institute and their rankings — their pathetic, pseudo-scientific ranking of our schools? Or will it be this government's equally pathetic FSA testing — snapshots of small populations that are used to measure the progress of a school?

Never mind mentioning the fact that it's a different population measured every year. Never mind mentioning the fact that school boards have as their goals in literacy and numeracy 1-percent and 2-percent gains amongst populations whose statistical variance, because they're such small populations being measured, is in the neighbourhood of 15 to 25 percent. We could report 3-percent progress in our school district and actually, by the statistical variance, be covering up a 20-percent to 25-percent decline.

So who will measure the progress? Will there be socioeconomic factors measured when the government comes to measure the progress of students in schools? Will they measure the average income in the area? Will they check on the literacy levels of the parents?

Will they check the number and percentage of English-as-a-second-language-speaking students? Or will we see, as we have seen in other jurisdictions, those student populations that present a threat to that 1-percent or 2-percent gain pushed out on test day, kept home on test day? We already see parents pulling their children from the testing in large numbers, providing even greater reason to mistrust the results.

Amendments to the School Act, we're told, will also be introduced to enable boards to offer special academies and music programs. School fees. Well, we've seen how school fees affect the universality of delivery. We've seen how schools located in more affluent areas are able to provide greatly disproportionate services as compared to schools in lower economic areas. It is the role of government to provide equity. It is the role of government to provide universality in these services. It is not the role of government to help accentuate and amplify those differences.

Public education has always placed all of our children at the starting line together, equally. The measures of this government are pulling so many students two, three, four steps back from the starting line, and we're told this is a government that encourages competition. Well, it does amongst those it encourages, and it deflates it amongst those it discourages through its policies.

We're told that fees will be allowed for trades programs. We have a skills shortage. Any investment by this government in trades and skills training will be paid back in multiple factors to this economy and to the government. So why would the government insist on fees being collected to provide trades programs?

The boards of education will develop district literacy plans and improve literacy. What will those plans be? How will they be made? How will they be supported? What goals will they have? In the Select Standing Committee on Education, when we examined adult literacy, we were told that B.C. spends the least of any province in community-based literacy programs.

Again the payback is in multiples. A 1-percent gain in the literacy of the B.C. workforce will result in a $1.6 billion increase to GDP. We are paid back when we invest in people, and we are penalized when we fail to do so. What we are seeing now is the penalty — growing homelessness, growing child poverty and a growing skills gap.

Choice and flexibility, literacy goals — they're all fine words. But without the support of resources and the commitment of a government that will act rather than just talk, they are just that — just words. Empty words. The whole concept of literacy is the notion of bringing meaning to words. Perhaps the great goal of literacy from the last throne speech was well placed, but we took it the wrong way. We took it to mean that they would make B.C. the most literate jurisdiction — the people, that is. Perhaps the government itself needs to take a bit of literacy training and bring meaning to words.

Standstill positions. Standstill and fallback positions are dressed up as advance. Some 25,000 new post-secondary spaces equal less capacity when we have 75,000 more students. It's a lower participation rate than we already expect. This is to expect dilution of service.

When it comes to literacy, another vacancy of action in the face of words, the same thing can be said. The same emptiness is found.

Amendments, we are told, will be introduced to broaden the Education Minister's capacity to create provincial schools and offer more choice in learning. Again, who pays? The Liberal record is that we pay — communities, the poor and those who require the service — but they don't pay. They download their expectations onto municipalities, onto school districts, and they download the disillusionment of broken promises onto the vulnerable.

We're told that we'll see free and easy access to adult basic education, but what about the barriers that were placed in front of women and families when it comes to skills training? The fact that those who are on income assistance cannot access literacy programs — is that how the government will live up to its promise in the throne speech? They promise one thing and do another, and that seems to be the Liberal way.

We will "ensure new residents can obtain support in ESL training and streamlined professional and skilled labour certification." Well, in fact, there are great gaps in the ESL programs of this province. In fact, new immigrants reach a brick wall of Liberal policy when they get to level 2 literacy training. A new immigrant must attain level 3 or 4 to continue in post-secondary education, to continue in upgrading skills or certifications from other jurisdictions, but there's nothing in the throne speech and nothing in the budget to address that great gap.

We're told that the government will give the ability to directly communicate with all teachers in B.C. Does this mean that the teachers' duly elected representatives, the Teachers Federation, will be end-run by the government, and that appeals and policies will be driven at teachers without consultation with their professional body? That would mirror the Liberal way of the past six years.

We're told again that we'll use underutilized school spaces as public spaces to deliver on public priorities. We're told that a new process will be put in place to ensure that schools or school lands are used for their highest and best use. Well, I'll refer you again to Motion 70, which appealed to this government to make exactly such an inventory and take steps to ensure that the highest public benefit was derived from the use of these vacant properties.

Unfortunately, it's highest and best use as dictated by the many consultants who, approved by the ministry, travel around this province addressing school boards and bringing the same message, and that is: "Sell. Sell now. Sell while it's valuable. Rid yourself of unwanted inventory."

Those are the kinds of phrases that are used by government- and ministry-recommended consultants. So "highest and best use" means that small communities will see more school closures and more sales of public properties — more liquidation of public assets.

The Education Ministry — no funding for Bill 33. How cynical. Bill 33 was offered to a province that stood behind the teachers in their job action, when the teachers stood up for our children and classroom conditions. Some 65 percent of the province supported the teachers — well beyond the universe of either of the parties in this chamber.

The government responded with words, with slogans, with a Bill 33 that was never funded and that in fact precipitated greater cuts in order to reach its class-size limitation. In fact, it drove school districts into a corner where they could not remotely address the requirements of Bill 33 when it comes to class composition and the number of special needs students in a class.

That was cynicism of the highest order. That is inexcusable. There was nothing to combat the closure of small schools — rural communities again paying the price for Liberal policies.

What about the environmental implications of closing small schools around this province? Hundreds of them closed and thousands of students being bused long distances to schools. How does that equate with the Premier's new coat of green paint? It doesn't. It doesn't because it's more empty words, more empty slogans, more bumper-sticker politics from the B.C. Liberals.

It's so sad. It's so sad when you look to energy. The new energy plan will call for 90 percent of electricity coming from clean energy sources. It already did. It already did. In fact, the 2003 energy plan of this Liberal government called for only 50 percent of new energy to come from clean sources.

That would be quite a standstill. That would be quite a step back. Now the standstill position of 90 percent being clean energy, which we've already achieved, is

dressed up as some sort of gift to B.C. — a bow and a wrap of paper. It's a present for B.C. Open it up, and what you find is a lump of coal. Look to the environment. It is again a new height of cynicism for this government, which cut the Environment Ministry.

R. Hawes: That was quite a speech. It must be absolutely awful to go through life so negative — negative about everything. It must be just awful. I feel so bad for anyone who carries the weight of that negativity. It must be absolutely awful.

Day after day we come into question period, and they ask questions. When we remind them of the hypocrisy and when we remind them of what happened in the 1990s, they rail on that it was a different time. Well, it wasn't a different time. It's who they are. The 1990s is who this group is. They are exactly the same.

The philosophies they get up here and espouse day after day and all of the negativity — it all shows that the basic philosophy and the basic ideals that they carry deep within themselves are exactly what drove us to ruination in the 1990s. It just astounds me that after hearing a throne speech that has so much positive, so much good news, a budget that reflects….

Deputy Speaker: Member. Member. I would like to remind all members not to make statements and to listen to the speaker. They've shown respect back and forth all afternoon, and I would like to see the decorum in the House remain.

R. Hawes: I've said this before. I don't mind the heckling at all. It just shows that they're listening.

The budget actually reflects a surplus. Can you imagine? Do you remember back to the 1990s? A remote dream in the 1990s was trying to reflect back on the '80s when there were some surpluses, because it was a distant dream. But the work of this government and the people of this province working behind this government have created an economy that is right now firing on all cylinders.

I want to talk a little bit about what the throne speech is all about, and I want to go back a couple of years when we talked about the five great goals. The throne speech isn't necessarily something that is going to all be accomplished tomorrow or next week or next month. This sets the direction in which the government wants to move. A couple of years ago we talked about the five great goals, and I just want to reflect on some of them. I'm going to take a little bit of Liberal licence here, and I'm going to go in a broad context.

We said we would be the fittest place on earth to host an Olympics by 2010. We talked a lot about services and supports for those with disabilities and seniors, but I'm going to just call that the social safety net. We talked about being the most literate place in the world. We talked about building an environment that had clean air and water, and I'm just going to call that the overall environment. Then we talked about creating more jobs than anywhere else in this country.

We first go to the fittest place. The Premier created a Minister of State for ActNow. The Minister of State for ActNow is — let's see; he's sitting in his seat and losing weight as he sits there, constantly exercising — leading the province in the direction that, I think, is going to create the fittest place and is going to reflect positively on our health care outcomes in the future.

The kind of programs that he's setting up…. I want to speak for a minute about something that's happening in my riding — something that I think is very positive — and that's Taking It Off for the Kids or "losing it for the kids." I'm going to call it "losing it for the kids." It's a program run by the local Lions Club, where they've challenged me and the MP and the mayor to lose weight and to take pledges on the weight that we would lose. The money is going to kids who are from financially challenged families and who can't afford to take part in outside activities, such as hockey or dance lessons or karate lessons.

That money is being raised all over the community with these pledges. What happened, as this program was unrolled around the community, is that members of the community started to drop into my office and the MP's office and the mayor's office, and they would say: "Can I get a pledge sheet, but could I take pledges for myself because I want to go out and challenge myself to lose weight?"

Madam Speaker — I see it's Madam Speaker now — it's infectious. It's spreading out across the community, and that's exactly the kind of thing that the Minister of State for ActNow is trying to create all over this province.

We came out today with…. There's a news release that went out today about some smoking legislation and changes to smoking in this province that we're going to bring in. That all has to do with ActNow and healthy living. I am really proud of the fact that we are now going to eliminate the display of cigarettes in all places where minors could be present. So the power wall will be gone. The big advertising power wall of tobacco and tobacco products will be gone out of stores all across the province. I think that's a really positive, great step forward to try to get rid of smoking.

There will be no smoking allowed on school grounds anywhere or in public places — anywhere where the public is invited. I think that's a great step forward. That includes pubs and bars. That act is being introduced into the House. It was announced today. I think that this is a great step forward for our province and for future health outcomes.

Under the social safety net. The opposition talks a lot about housing and homelessness. They know that in our budget we introduced a tremendous package for housing. Last fall a tremendous package for housing

was unveiled in this province that has helped countless thousands of people. I noticed the other day that the member for Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows got up in this House and said I had somehow said that I absolutely despise social housing. Well, that's a little strong. I don't think I used the word "despise," but I can tell you that I am not a fan of social housing projects.

I happen to believe that, to a great degree, they stigmatize people that ought not be stigmatized, particularly in smaller communities. People ought to be able to live in an integrated way in the community where their socioeconomic status can't be easily identified.

I just think it's wrong to put up what you would call low-income housing, put people in it…. I know how it works in my community. When the kids go to school, they can be identified by other kids by their address because, frankly, it's not that big a community. I think that puts a stigma on some kids, and I would far rather…. I feel so much better for kids if they're able to integrate into market housing in the community, with some assistance.

That's why I'm so proud of the fact that we have quite innovatively put up rental assistance for families — families of $28,000 and lower income — and that has assisted and will assist approximately 20,000 families in British Columbia. That's the equivalent of putting 20,000 housing units on the market, but those families are living with dignity, because it's absolutely nobody's business but theirs that they're getting some assistance. I think that is the right way to go, and I'm very proud that we're able to do it that way.

In my riding I can tell you — and I listened to the last speaker talk a little bit about crystal meth and drug strategies and the fact that he feels we have not addressed this problem — that I know the Solicitor General has been working overtime on that problem, as has the Minister of Health. I know that there have been great strides made.

But you cannot beat a drug problem like crystal meth with just the provincial government or the federal government. It takes a partnership, and you've got to build those partnerships in communities by involving all kinds of agencies, groups, individuals and school boards. The whole community pulls together with some leadership from the province, which is in place, and with some assistance from the federal government. We are building those partnerships and have built those partnerships in communities all over British Columbia. Many of those communities, in fact, the members opposite live in. So they do know that there are great strides being made to protect our kids from the scourge of crystal meth.

I just want to talk about something I'm doing in my own community. I live in Mission, and I represent part of Maple Ridge and Mission. I have talked to the Fraser Health Authority about what they're doing with drug treatment and with overall addiction services. I will be running, and I am running, a forum. It's in the planning stage, and Fraser Health is an active part of the planning process.

There will be a drug forum run in my community bringing all of the addiction services workers — all of the professionals who work in the field — together with police, the school boards, the mayors, all together in a very large forum to start by talking about…. First, making sure that everybody knows who everybody is, because I know that there's a lot of money that goes into addiction services, and I know that there are workers in that field who aren't aware of all of the services that are actually available. I've experienced that a great deal by talking to these people.

Everybody needs to know who everybody is, and we're going to talk about whether there are overlaps in service, and then we will get down to talking about gaps in service. Then, finally, what are the solutions to those gaps?

I believe that at the end of the day — and the whole object is that at the end of the day — the mayors of the communities, the MP, myself, the police, etc., can go out and tell the public: "We have a plan of action in our community that's going to address this problem and beat this problem, and we will have it under control." I think that it'll work. I know that the professionals who work in the field are very excited about the prospects of this forum.

That's the kind of work that is possible because we have a government that (1) has resources and (2) is intently interested and intently involved in finding solutions to these kinds of problems.

The member talked about last year's Speech from the Throne and the fact that we spoke a lot about transformative change in the health system. That's exactly what we're going through. I think that only the NDP could call an increase from just over $8 billion a year in health care spending to just over $13 billion a year in health care spending in six years a cut.

Our health care budget is rising exponentially. If we take a look at the demographics and at what is facing us, if we take a look at the advance of the grey army — of which I'm a part — we are all getting older. What's left to support us? As we move through into senior status and into old age, what's left to support us, our kids and our grandkids is far smaller numbers. Our birth rates have fallen. I know that a lot of people haven't been, perhaps, doing their part. I have eight grandchildren. I've done my part, but I think there are many in this House who haven't done theirs.

As a result, there isn't going to be the support there to make sure that we have a system that can support the kinds of dollars that are going to be necessary ten and 20 and 30 years from now as we all move through to the most expensive part of our health care lives.

We do have to make changes, and that's what the Conversation on Health is doing — is intended to do. It's intended to get the best ideas from the public, to make sure that the public understands the challenges and is supportive of changes as they start to happen, and is helping and guiding us to the right path to make sure that we have health care into the future.

Transformative change in health care isn't something where you blink your eyes and it happens overnight.

It's something that takes work and time and consultation, and we are absolutely dedicated to making sure that happens.

Under literacy, one of our five great goals, we have a whole litany of programs that have been put in place because the Premier, our Minister of Education and our Minister of State for Childcare understand that if you don't get kids learning at a very early age, you have problems later. That's why we have Strong Start; Success By 6; Ready, Set, Learn; and these types of programs for kids before they start hitting elementary school and grade 1 and kindergarten.

Strong Start is in my community. It started in the West Heights area, and it was called the Win project. I think that's partly what the Strong Start program was fashioned after. That was a program in a school that had a lot of excess space, so a program was started to allow kids at a very young age — two and three and four years old, who were pre-preschool — to come in with their parents to begin their learning career.

It was especially where parents had some difficulties themselves with either reading or literacy or if there were problems with the English language. The parents were invited to come into the school and learn with the kids — learn to read with their kids and to their kids.

It's an excellent program, and it's being rolled out across the province into many school districts. I think that it will be a highly, highly successful program. I know that many school districts are just waiting for their turn to have it put into their school district.

When I look at the literacy part, we have more money now going into the school system than ever. Every year — year by year by year — we have fewer students. The funding per student has never been so high in this province, but again, only the NDP could characterize that somehow as a cut.

While we're on that, when we talk about schools closing, I know that there are times when schools, as communities age…. If you take a look at how a community grows, a new neighbourhood starts. It gets a school. It's got a lot of new houses. A lot of young families move in. They fill the school.

As the kids age and move through the school system, they move on, and the houses get a bit older. The demographic of the community changes, and you get a lot more seniors and empty-nesters living around what used to be a young people's neighbourhood with lots of kids. It's no longer that way, so the school numbers begin to decline. But another part of the city will grow, and new neighbourhoods will spring up.

A new school will get built, and that first one will be half empty. So the school boards around this province are faced with terrible choices, and I don't envy them. That is: how do we balance now when the new community and the school that's overflowing…? Everybody wants to be in that school, but there's not enough room. Over here we have an empty school, and nobody wants to be bused to the other side of town.

How do we keep all of those schools open and running within a fiscal program? I don't envy the school boards with what they have to do. Sometimes they have to make tough choices.

Sometimes when you have a school that's emptying, you have to close it and amalgamate it with another school. That's just the way it goes. I know that doesn't cause happiness for the people who see their kids displaced and having to go to another school, but frankly, I don't see choices. The opposition would have us just leave those schools open and continue to fund empty classrooms, and that just doesn't make sense.

I think our record in education speaks for itself. It's been an excellent record, and I'm very proud of the direction that we're taking under the great goal of making ourselves a very literate province.

The environment. This is the global warming throne speech. It recognizes that we have to do something, and responsibility really does start at home. This throne speech has been recognized internationally as being the most aggressive approach on global warming anywhere in North America, and it is the most aggressive. I hear the opposition say: "Well, there isn't a whole bunch of money, and it should have started yesterday, and boy, we should have flipped that switch, and everything should be running." It doesn't work that way. There's a consultative approach that has to be taken.

Madam Speaker, if you look at what we're saying here, there are definitive targets set for 2012 and 2020. We have tailpipe emission standards. A 30-percent reduction is to be in place between 2009 and 2016. I think that's highly, highly significant. We have extended the tax on hybrid vehicles, the $2,000 PST exemption on hybrid vehicles. Some of the most important…. We're going to work with communities to create a new green building code. I think that's important. There's a lot of work going to be done with communities to make sure that the zoning standards they have in place represent the realities of global warming.

I think one of the most important things that's contained within the throne speech is the emphasis on what you can do in your home and, as an individual, what you can do to take responsibility for yourself, for what you're doing to either combat or add to global warming.

This throne speech is absolutely full of environmental programs that are going to be unrolled over the next year, two years, three years out. This isn't something that will be accomplished and forgotten, just like the transformative change in health care is not something that's being forgotten or a work that's complete. It's a work in process that was announced in the throne speech last year and will probably continue for several years before we get a handle on that. The fight against global warming is a long-range program. This fight will take a long time.

I do want to speak for a couple of minutes about another problem that exists not just for my riding but for communities all over the Fraser Valley. This is probably the eighth or tenth time I've brought this topic up in the Legislature. For six years I have been

talking about the infiltration of gravel into the Fraser River and the fact that nothing is happening to mitigate the flood risks.

As a person who lives in the Fraser Valley, I've been watching this for years. It shouldn't be a big surprise that we have a coming problem if we have a sudden thaw and the perfect storm. When everything comes together, we're going to have real problems. That should not be a surprise.

Years ago I started to speak here about the fact that there is somewhere around 350,000 metres of gravel flowing into the river at Hope every year and flowing down through Chilliwack. In 1996 a moratorium was put in place, and nothing was taken out for a number of years. During that period of time anyone who worked on the river or had anything to do on the river could see the buildup of gravel everywhere. The gravel bars were becoming huge. What's happening within the river….

Frankly, I'm certainly not a hydrologist or a hydrological engineer, but I know enough to know that water courses try to sinuate if they're left alone. There were dikes put in the Fraser River years ago, so we built a channel, a flume in which that water would run, and we really stopped it from sinuating. As the gravel pours in, the river will still try to dig a channel, but now it's weaving back and forth. It's sinuating in the gravel. As it sinuates and hits one side, it's attacking the dikes on one side. It will bounce to the other side, and it'll attack the dikes on the other side. It's undermining the dikes.

In 1948 in my community, in my riding, was the big flood. I can tell you that I have talked to dozens and dozens of people in my community who were there in 1948, who remember what happened in 1948, who remember the devastation and the fear of what was going to happen, because it doesn't just happen suddenly. You have a few days' notice, and they could see where the danger was. They were devastated then, but the coming flood could be much worse unless something is done to avert it.

I want to speak for a minute about where we should have been paying some attention. When I say "we," I am going to talk about the federal government here, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. In 2000, I was the chair of the Fraser Valley regional district. We were very concerned about the infill in the river, so we rented a couple of jet boats to go up the river to take a look at what was going on. We got people from the Fraser Basin Council and from local city councils, and we were all going up in the jet boats. Fortunately or unfortunately for me, something came up, and I wasn't able to go that day.

The two jet boats, though, took off with all of the people that were going to go up the river to take a look at the great infill of gravel. As they were speeding up the river — and these were boats driven by people who make their living on the river and who understand the river — one boat was on the radio and asked to pass the other boat, because the fellow driving the other boat was more familiar with what was upstream in the river. He hit a submerged sandbar going full bore in a jet boat. This is somebody who knows the river.

Everyone in that jet boat was taken away in an ambulance to the hospital with broken collarbones, broken ribs. This river is very dangerous, and it changes day by day. The infilled gravel is moving around in the river, but it is staying up in the Chilliwack down to Mission…. Between Hope and Mission is where the bulk of the gravel is. Below there it's sand, and that sand is choking the river. There are big sandbars. There's a sandbar between Mission and Abbotsford which, if there was a flood take place there, would inundate the JAMES sewage treatment plant on the Fraser River. It would drive all of that untreated sewage from that plant into the river.

I sit and wonder what DFO is looking at and what they're thinking of when they don't let us into the river to clean it out. There's a problem with the dikes. They need to be strengthened in some spots, and there needs to be some extra height put on the dikes. But you can't just keep adding height to the dikes without taking the material from the river. If you kept adding and adding and adding to the height of the dikes, ultimately you would be standing outside looking up at the river, which makes no sense. If you go up into the Agassiz area, you would see that hydrostatic pressure is pushing up under the dikes and up into the farmers' fields, and they're flooding. This is a tremendous problem that has to be addressed.

Since we were elected in 2001, a great deal of negotiation has gone on with the federal government to try to get gravel out of the river. We were able to get an agreement where we could take 500,000 metres a year for five years as a catch-up and then reduce that back down to the annual amount that flows into the river.

Since then, when we go to take the 500,000 metres out year by year by year, there has to be a permit, and you can't get a permit from DFO. They delay; they obfuscate; they will not allow the permits. By the time they approve anything, we're so far into the removal period, so close to the end of the fisheries window that nothing comes out.

The highest we've ever got out was 247,000 metres. This year may be the worst year, the worst risk. Yesterday the Minister of Environment met with the federal minister to talk about this problem, and the federal minister was sitting, saying: "Well, what's the problem? I don't see a problem." He did tell our Minister of Environment that we're going to get 25,000 metres out this year — 25,000 metres. It is absolutely incredible that he could look at this problem and think that 25,000 metres of material coming out of the river would be of any benefit to us. It's just incredible. It's shameful.

The risk of flooding and the fear that's now starting to grow in communities is profound. I want to clearly put in the record that if we face the big flood, it's got to be on the shoulders of those people in Ottawa who will give us no assistance at all. I know the Solicitor General is working on contingency plans and is going to be

proactive and is going to do some things, but we must have the federal government. The communities are there. We are there as a province. The federal government is the missing component. They need to come to the table.

I've gone on a little bit about that, but it is an imminent problem, and it is a fear of my community. They know I've been working very, very hard on that, and I know the members opposite who have ridings on the Fraser River share that fear, share that concern, and they want the same outcomes as we on this side of the House do.

Madam Speaker, in closing, our last great goal is jobs. Say no more. We lead the country. We will continue to lead the country. And with agreements like TILMA, which the opposition doesn't like…. That will add thousands and thousands of new jobs and create an economic engine between Alberta and us that matches Ontario. As Ontario goes into the tank, which they appear to be starting to do, I'm sure our economy will advance even further.

We will look more and more and more attractive as a destination place to those folks, a place to come and live. Those unfortunate folks who have to live in Ontario will see us as the best place on earth to live, because that's exactly what we are. We're getting better and better every year because of the diligent work of this government to ensure that not only are we the best place on earth but I'm starting to think the best place in the universe.

B. Ralston: Listening to the last member head into what is the standard peroration for government speakers, I'm surprised he didn't say "best place in the galaxy." That's something he'll leave to the Star Trek fans perhaps. I'm not sure. Equally credible, in any event.

I'd like to begin by first thanking and recognizing my two constituency assistants, Melissa Sanderson and Brynn Bourke. Members who have spoken about their own constituency assistants recognize the job that they do, particularly when we're over here, in running the office and servicing constituents. Both Melissa and Brynn have established very good working relationships with a number of agencies, which enables them to serve my constituents very effectively.

I want to talk about a couple of topics today. I'd like to begin by talking about something that this throne speech only touches on very slightly. There's a reference to walking safely in one's neighbourhood, but other than that, the whole issue of crime and crime reduction has not been addressed in the throne speech. I appreciate that not every throne speech can address all topics, but my constituents have a particular concern, particularly in some neighbourhoods, about problems related to crime and criminal activity.

I do so particularly in the context of the recent developments led by the city of Surrey. I want to give some fairly unqualified and unstinting praise to the city of Surrey and the leadership of the mayor of Surrey, who put together a crime reduction strategy that was just announced recently. It is very innovative and makes a number of suggestions for policy action, none of which will really be effective without support from both the provincial government and the federal government. I think the challenge in implementing the crime reduction strategy will be to get the attention and the financial commitment of both the province and the federal government.

Now, the council has very effectively lobbied. It certainly has the attention of the government at this point, but that's often easy at the outset of a report. The longer-term commitment sometimes is more difficult to discern. I do want to talk a little bit about the report, but before I do, I just want to recognize some of the challenges that are faced in some neighbourhoods in Surrey-Whalley.

Generally, the neighbourhoods are great neighbourhoods — lots of good family neighbourhoods that have reasonably priced housing that people can generally afford. To some extent, north Surrey has been undervalued, and certainly land prices have been undervalued. A number of developers have begun to recognize the relatively low land values in relation to its excellent central location within the metropolitan area, the great views that are offered, the slope overlooking the river and its proximity to transit. SkyTrain does come to Surrey.

There are some real opportunities to build the kind of dense and vibrant urban neighbourhoods that the planners so often talk about. But within some of those neighbourhoods…. There was a development just at 108th and East Whalley Ring Road or at Quattro developments, a four-storey condo project, which just two Saturdays ago sold out. So there's an expression of confidence in Whalley that is relatively new, but certainly in my view long overdue as a recognition of just what the potential of the neighbourhoods and the business district in Whalley has to offer the metropolitan region.

Within neighbourhoods, though, I do hear from constituents about challenges that they face from criminal activity. There are throughout my riding, in various locations, what are called unregulated recovery houses, and the crime-reduction strategy does have a proposal to deal with that. The problem with these unlicensed recovery houses is that…. The report refers to them as for-profit recovery houses, but the difficulty is that they don't really offer anything in the way of programs. They offer people a place to stay.

Typically, they would sign over the housing portion of their welfare cheque, and beyond that they're simply warehoused there for the most part. That's not only my view, but the view of the police, and certainly the view of this task force that looked at crime reduction. So that generates activity in neighbourhoods that is not welcome. The report does make a commitment to a genuine attempt to tackle addictions through recognized programs, but I think that everyone recognizes that those kinds of programs require a commitment and a structured program and some resources in order to be effective. So these unregulated recovery houses,

In addition, there is a pattern in some areas, particularly where landlords are holding property for redevelopment, to not be too picky about who these properties are rented to. I've had, just as recently as last week, a complaint about a number of what I would describe as — which I think would be fair — landlords who are unscrupulous, in the sense that they turn a blind eye to their tenants and their activities even when they're confronted with it by neighbours — and sometimes by the police.

That causes a deterioration and a concern in neighbourhoods for people's personal safety and the safety of their children — late-night activity, vehicles coming and going, and all of that kind of stuff. So that's a continuing problem in some neighbourhoods, which is brought to my attention. Again, this crime-reduction strategy has some plans to deal with it.

In addition, there are two SkyTrain stations that are in Surrey-Whalley, and there are another two in the companion riding immediately to the south, Surrey–Green Timbers — your riding, Madam Speaker, obviously.

People are encouraged to use transit, and people want to use transit. Around SkyTrain stations there is too often a perception — at the very least, and sometimes a reality — of increased criminal activity such that women and children are sometimes afraid to use this station, particularly late at night, when waiting for the sometimes-infrequent bus service requires that they have to wait in the vicinity of the station for lengthy periods of time.

I will address transit issues, because transit is very topical. The reality of the transit system in what is a city of 425,000 people, Surrey — and I'll have some comments from the mayor and the council and TransLink to share with the House — is far from adequate. It really requires a major commitment from TransLink. Obviously, TransLink — and not only its governance structure but, presumably, its financing structure — is under review at the moment. But more important than the governance structure, perhaps, is the financing structure by which TransLink is able to advance.

There was some comment from a consultant to TransLink today that in order to meet the greenhouse gas objectives, if that's the target, a substantial, major increase in transit in the lower mainland will be required over the next 15 years, and that will of course require major investment on a scale that hasn't been undertaken so far. That really brings us to the question of how all that expansion will be financed. Certainly that is a challenge, but in order that transit be effective, particularly south of the Fraser River in the suburban communities, it's really an open question at this point, and there are a number of issues that need to be addressed there.

But if I may, I want to turn to the crime-reduction strategy. There are some parts of it which I want to talk about, because in my view this document deserves more publicity and a greater public understanding of just how innovative it is. Frankly, I think there's much to commend the document to the Ministry of Attorney General, the Ministry of Health and other provincial government ministries to effect a real change in crime, and I'll talk somewhat more about that.

They describe the crime-reduction strategy as "a complete paradigm shift from what is currently done in Canadian municipalities to combat crime. It seeks to implement new and innovative programs with practical applications that will result in a concrete, measurable reduction in crime." The mayor and council travelled to England and met with the officials from the English Home Office, where there's been a very determined program with measurable outcomes over a number of years that has proven very effective in a number of areas in reducing all kinds of crime. They do elaborate on that. That was the genesis.

The council decided in June that they would undertake that. The trip was in August, and a series of meetings began. Now, I participated — along with my colleagues the members for Surrey–Green Timbers, Surrey-Newton and Surrey–Panorama Ridge — in some of those meetings to the extent that my schedule permitted. Certainly, it was an attempt to gather a wide range of public opinion and knowledgable people to put together this strategy.

This strategy has four strands, as they call them: (1) to prevent and deter crime, (2) to apprehend and prosecute offenders, (3) to rehabilitate and reintegrate offenders and (4) to deal with the reality and perceptions of crime. The primary objects of the reduction strategy are obviously to…. Number one, I think, would be obvious: reduce crime and increase community safety. Increase public involvement in reducing crime. Increase integration between all stakeholders involved in crime reduction. Improve public awareness around the reality and perception of crime.

I want to deal with some of the recommendations, because I think that they meet some of the concerns that I've raised at the outset of my remarks. I regard them as strong recommendations, well worth supporting.

I want to encourage, to the extent that I can, the provincial government to begin work with the city on some of these objectives, and certainly the federal government as well.

The recommendations. Firstly, to enhance safety at the SkyTrain stations. There is a recommendation that the city and the RCMP work closely with the Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority police and the GVTA, the Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority, to coordinate and develop protocol and strategies to ensure that SkyTrain stations and adjacent parking lots are secure and safe for users. Certainly, that meets a major concern that is raised frequently in my constituency office and when I'm in the constituency meeting with people.

Secondly, additionally — and I'm picking and choosing from some of these recommendations because

I don't propose to read them all — to enhance safety on transit and to similarly engage with those same agencies to enhance safety on transit. In this area on policing, also, the city proposes — and this is an innovation borrowed from the English experience — that the city, with the RCMP and academic researchers, create a model for the role of community safety officers with respect to policing, prevention, functions and that appropriate actions be taken to implement the results.

This would be a separate person working with the police, employed by the city to undertake and implement some of the initiatives in this report. In policy matters there's an expression that recognizes that if something isn't measured, it generally doesn't get done. So what's also required is a statistical basis — benchmarks and performance indicators — in measuring progress under this strand.

Police statistics are sometimes difficult to accumulate and also to discern patterns in. Although sometimes statistics are gathered, I think that criminologists — and, certainly, some of those at the University College of the Fraser Valley, Mr. Plecas — would say that the benefit of statistical analysis of the frequency and geographic location of crime and the return of recidivist offenders is not fully utilized. A good statistical basis is not only a sound basis for action but an attempt to measure results and, therefore, to further guide more effective action in the future, so that's strongly recommended as well.

There are a number of sections that deal with education and awareness. There are some principles of crime prevention through community design, effective design of properties. I think that most of that is generally well-known and well-accepted, but the part that I did want to refer to was the section on youth intervention and parenting programs.

One section that is recommendations…. This would involve the Ministry of Education. I've advocated with the Surrey school board and with the Minister of Education to recreate what were called community schools. They, indeed, have adopted that recommendation. They recommend that the implementation of community schools be accelerated.

I'll read a couple of lines of the recommendations because I think they're helpful: "The city continued to collaborate with the school district and community schools partnership committee to accelerate the implementation of community schools in the inner-city schools."

The inner-city schools. Although in Surrey-Whalley we generally don't like to refer to ourselves as an inner city, I think by some of the measures — the school lunch program, for example — there are a number of elementary schools in my riding that could properly be described or fit within that rubric. It's not something that I would want as the only way in which I would talk about the community, but certainly it's a measure of relative deprivation and certain indices of childhood development that are problematic and that require assistance and special recognition in the school system.

A community school would begin to address that, and they go on in a fairly effective description: "Community schools provide an addition to education, augmented services, resources and expertise to enhance the lives of children and youth who may not be given sufficient support in their homes and who may otherwise be prone to becoming involved in criminal activity at an early age."

As a result of some prodding, the Surrey school board has begun a process of setting up community school supervisors. There's been a call for hiring of those people who might lead this project. I expect that sometime within the next 12 to 18 months there will be some very solid steps taken towards establishing community schools. Certainly, that would be of benefit not only to schools in my riding, although there are a number that would, but there are other schools in Surrey that would fall into that category.

But they do have that policy direction, and particularly, when you look at youth who may become susceptible to peer pressures that might lead them into criminal activity, they go some way — they're not a complete answer — towards dealing with those kinds of pressures. Certainly, effectively managed and led, they could have a real impact, particularly on vulnerable youth within the city of Surrey.

They have some other suggestions that I also want to bring to the attention of the House. I know there are some volunteer groups within Surrey and other communities. There's the Surrey Crime Prevention Society, which does a very effective job on some aspects of crime prevention. But in order to better engage citizens, what this report recommends is that the city work to create community action groups in conjunction with a number of organizations — neighbourhood associations, the RCMP, the fire department, bylaw enforcement, building inspection and a number of other organizations.

Effective, modern policing certainly recognizes that there has to be community involvement in policing. It is sometimes problematic for the effective meeting of the minds of police and community groups. I'm sure that members have all attended meetings in neighbourhoods where there's a lively to-and-fro as to what police might be doing more effectively — with the police stating that some of the operational and organizational requirements of police work don't enable them, maybe, to act in the way that neighbourhoods wish. I would support this recommendation and will look forward to the implementation of this in the neighbourhoods that I represent.

There's also a suggestion that neighbourhoods be engaged in neighbourhood maintenance, and particularly that the city continue to work with bylaw enforcement, the Surrey fire department and the RCMP to eliminate drug houses and other locations where drugs are created, bought, sold and consumed.

That's the problem I referred to earlier that often comes to my attention, and it's one of the objectives of the strategy. Understandably, I'm strongly in support of the report. It's a measure of the degree to which the

report has captured community concerns that virtually every concern that's been brought to me about crime and criminal activity within neighbourhoods in the area that I represent is reflected in this report. In my view, one of the reasons that it's effective is that it's very solidly based in the reality of what's going on.

The next strand in the report is the "apprehend and prosecute offenders" strand. Generally, what this involves — the Attorney General was speaking earlier this afternoon; I wasn't able to hear all his remarks, but I believe he did refer to this — is that estimates indicate, and I'm quoting from the report: "approximately 20 percent of the criminals are involved in or cause 80 percent of the priority crimes. These criminals are known as prolific offenders, and are the main targets of the actions included in this particular plan."

When you speak of prolific offenders, where the statistical analysis, the mapping and that kind of crime analysis backup really assists police work is to target these prolific offenders and be very effective in bringing them to court and prosecuting them. I'm certainly aware from personal experience, having practised as a lawyer, that the Crown is sometimes underresourced and understaffed. What I think is being requested here in dealing with prolific offenders is that the Attorney General consider provision of funds to designate a prosecutor or prosecutorial unit that may be dedicated solely to targeting prolific offenders and shepherding those files through the system.

Too often in the busy life of the criminal courts and the prosecution service there are many competing demands, and sometimes it's difficult to follow files through. Certainly where this model has been adopted…. It's being recommended to be instituted in the Surrey provincial court, which services Delta, Surrey and Langley as well as White Rock, an area drawing on some 750,000 people. This might be a very effective place to test this model. I believe there is one prosecutor in Vancouver who is engaged in this kind of dedicated work, and it's regarded as being very effective.

There are a number of other tactics that are also proposed. One unique aspect of law enforcement in Surrey is the role in which the fire service and fire enforcement have played a very vital part, particularly in the tackling of drug crime. Indeed, there was a piece of legislation that we dealt with here in the House last year that flowed directly from the experience of Chief Len Garis and the Surrey fire service in targeting, through electrical inspection, houses where it was suspected that there were illegal grow operations of marijuana in place.

That initially began as an experiment in Surrey. It was successful and adopted and supported — not quite unanimously, but almost unanimously by this side as well — in providing yet another tool to combat drug crime within the city. Although it doesn't result in a criminal prosecution, it's much speedier and it might amount to more marginal criminal prosecutions. It eliminates much of the police time that's required to gather the necessary evidence for a successful prosecution and simply obliges the owner of the residence either to submit to an inspection or face the prospect, within 48 hours, of having their hydro power cut off, thus rendering the house basically uninhabitable.

When the inspection takes place, my sources in the fire department tell me that typically there may be other issues that arise that necessitate major repairs to the residence. It's also a bit of a deterrent for unscrupulous landlords who are claiming that they may not know what is going in the residence. In fact, it's suspected that they may very well be aware, although it can't be proven. It imposes a financial burden on them, and therefore perhaps encourages them to be more scrupulous and careful about whom they rent the properties to. Those are some of the strands within this policy, in that particular strand, that I think are particularly effective.

The other topic which is recommended in the report and will require the express cooperation of the Ministry of Attorney General…. The recommendation is to establish a model for our community court. I'm told that by the strides that the city of Surrey, its officials, council, the RCMP in Surrey and the bylaws enforcement have taken, they're better positioned to begin and open a community court than they are in Vancouver, although that may be an interurban rivalry. I'm not sure.

The recommendation here is to establish a model for a community court system. This would be the focus for implementing a problem-solving, base-sentencing process for juvenile and adult offenders. There's a community liaison process, but it must involve the police, Crown counsel, defence counsel and court judges to ensure that the full benefit of the alternate community court process is recognized.

I know that the mayor is lobbying the Attorney General, but that is a very strong recommendation and I think one that, when the council comes to prioritize those initiatives, will be very high on the list.

It's clear that in order for this plan to be implemented, this very effective plan — and I notice that my time is drawing to a close more rapidly than I thought — will require a major commitment from the Ministry of Attorney General. I intend to pursue that on behalf of those whom I represent because I'm convinced that this is a very effective plan, a very balanced plan, and will lead to real reductions in crime and have the benefit of increasing community safety throughout the city.

I want to touch briefly, just before my time expires, on transit. It's recognized that there have been some new and improved transit routes in Surrey, but I think — and I'm going to quote Mayor Watts here on this — that it's "clear to everyone that even with these additions, public transit in Surrey is woefully inadequate."

So, "woefully inadequate." The mayor is not one that is given to hyperbole. I think that's a pretty

straight and fair assessment of it. At a time when many people profess concern….

Hon. M. de Jong: The clock is winding down on another throne speech debate. Members have had an opportunity and have made their contribution. It's been an interesting debate, actually, and in a few moments we will be voting.

The discussion around the throne speech and the budget is important because together they represent that opportunity we have as legislators to consider where we've been, where we are and where we're going. When we vote in a few moments, people will be able to set on the record, in part, their vision and the degree to which they are supportive of the vision for the province that is contained in the throne speech and, previously, the budget.

It'll be interesting. I think British Columbians will be interested to know where people stand. The vote that takes place in a few moments will be very interesting from that point of view, and very important.

A couple of things, in the time I have available to me, that I'd like to highlight. I think most of them were alluded to in the throne speech, and I will do so fairly quickly, given how close we are to the pending vote.

Firstly, I want to draw members' attention…. In the throne speech there was reference to something that we as a government are very, very proud of.

We're proud of it not individually; we're proud of it because it represents the work of a collaboration — the work of demonstrable leadership on the part of the Premier and leadership on the part of an entire government caucus, but leadership that has been very much tied to leadership from our partners, and that is the First Nations Leadership Council.

The throne speech speaks to the new relationship, the new relationship that begins with a very fundamental and basic phrase which says that we are all here to stay. From that emerges a realization that when we work together, when we sign on to give effect to that partnership, when we realize that there is no time like there is today for us to capitalize on that energy that exists within British Columbia, within our aboriginal communities, our non-aboriginal communities….

There is no time like today when we need each other, a time when our economy is performing so well, when one of the biggest challenges we face as a result of that superbly performing economy is the need for people that are there right in our midst, the largest single-growing demographic: aboriginal peoples. They want to be a part of it. They want to be a part of all of the exciting things happening in British Columbia, in Canada, and the new relationship is about working together to ensure that those opportunities exist and that we bridge those socioeconomic gaps that historically have separated us for so long.

The throne speech, and I say this very purposely, refers to a report. I am going to encourage members in the days and weeks ahead to read that report — the report of the Speaker's advisory panel, Legislative Assembly of British Columbia, 2001. It was actually filed in April, I think, of that year. The reason I say that is because the new relationship is also about ensuring that all British Columbians feel comfortable and feel welcome. This report deals with an issue that has been a longstanding source of frustration for first nations and all members in this House.

I'm not going to debate the report here, but the throne speech makes clear that all members of this House are going to be asked to provide their input on the matter that it relates to. I hope members in the days ahead will take advantage of the opportunity to familiarize themselves with that report and have some further input in that matter as we work together, all members of this chamber, to give greater effect to the new relationship with British Columbia's first nations.

The throne speech talks about health care. It talks about the great progress that we have made, and it talks about the challenges that lie ahead. I am going to selfishly take a moment to talk about one — by provincial standards, perhaps — small step in the direction of progress, but for a great many people in the part of British Columbia that I call home, it is a giant leap in the direction of progress and the delivery of health care services. It is the construction of the Abbotsford regional hospital and cancer centre.

Now I sit here day in, day out, and I hear politicians in the context of the role they play as opposition members of this assembly. I hear them castigating the government and the Minister of Health. What I never hear them talk about is a project that is on the leading edge. I never hear them talk about a project that will be the envy of a nation insofar as it will employ the best and the brightest and incorporate the latest technology.

Hon. M. de Jong: …double the number of health care professionals involved in the delivery of health care services, 14 new geriatric beds, ten new oncology beds, ten new palliative care beds — I could go on and on — and a cancer treatment facility that will mean the days of travelling into Vancouver and travelling into Surrey are over for people afflicted with the scourge of cancer.

I have struggled to understand why it is that we never hear from members opposite about an incredible project that will do so much to improve the delivery of health care.

Maybe it's because of this. Maybe it's because for ten years the people who now sit on that side of the House, when they were on this side of the House, said they were going to do it, promised they were going to do it, and they never did it. They never did it. They talked and talked and talked, and they promised and promised and promised, but it took a government that

had a plan, that could manage our fiscal resources responsibly, that could come up with a partnership that worked and that could deliver this project on time and on budget.

We talked about housing. We talked about housing in the throne speech and the budget, and we talked about the establishment of a $250 million housing endowment. I think it's a good idea. I think generating that innovation, that imagination, encouraging that kind of imaginative thinking so that we can address housing in a real way….

How long have we heard in this chamber and elsewhere around the province and our country: "Let's do something about housing"? There's a government that's doing something about housing, and it's right here in British Columbia.

There's a government right here in British Columbia that has said: "We're going to make sure those shelter beds are open, not on a seasonal basis but on a year-round basis." There's a government in British Columbia that believes that when our economy is performing the way it is, leading the country, we should share that wealth with the people that need it most. That's why we're increasing the shelter allowance for British Columbians who need it.

There's a government in power in British Columbia that believes that housing isn't a luxury. It should be an affordable option for all families in British Columbia, and that's why we've made the adjustment to the property purchase tax. That's why we've said to young families who want to enter the housing market at a time when, admittedly, the cost of getting into the housing market is going up: "Let's raise the threshold for the first-time homebuyers. Let's save some of those first-time homebuyers up to $5,000."

It's not some vague promise from a group who might get around to doing it one day but cash in their pockets that will allow them to get into the housing market. Let's not just say it; let's do it.

Let's say and do for elderly homeowners who are home-rich and cash-poor. Let's say to them: "We understand you're on a fixed income. We understand the value of your home has gone up, but we also understand that your ability to maintain that home is somewhat compromised by your fixed income. So let's make adjustments to the homeowner grant so that you can stay in your home where you want to be."

I want to talk about two other things before we have this all-important vote, which will reveal to all British Columbians where people sit and stand on these important issues.

Hon. M. de Jong: I'm going to resist this temptation to get into a long dissertation about the negativity, the depressiveness, the destructiveness, the pessimism of the NDP because I'm feeling good today. I'm feeling good about British Columbia. I'm feeling good about our prospects.

I'm not just feeling good, I'm feeling proud of the fact that the vast majority of British Columbians are now paying the lowest provincial income tax rates in all of Canada as a result of this throne speech and this budget.

Imagine that. If you're making less than, I think, $108,000…. You know what? That includes members of the opposition now. We have partisan debate. But we actually want them to pay the lowest provincial income tax in all of Canada. But I have it on good authority that if they disagree, the Finance Minister will be happy to take their cheque in refund for the….

We talked about the environment. We talked about some environmental changes that are taking place — global warming, climate change — and this is where the rubber is going to really hit the road. I have heard a rumour. It is a vicious rumour. It is a rumour of such viciousness that I am reluctant to repeat it in this chamber.

Hon. M. de Jong: But I am called to serve. The rumour says that the members on this side of the House and the government members over there are going to support an objective to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 33 percent. And the rumour goes that the opposition is going to reject that objective.

The rumour is that members on this side of the House are going to support a proposition that says all electricity produced in B.C. will have to have a net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2016. That same rumour…. And I don't believe it. I don't believe that the opposition would vote against such a responsible position for legislators today. And I won't believe it.

On this side of the House the rumour says that members are going to support a throne speech that says there will be a new $25 million innovative clean energy fund to generate that kind of inventiveness and that the members on that side of the House are going to reject it. The rumour is that they're going to reject an energy plan that says 90 percent of our new electrical generation has to be green.

We support it on this side of the House. Say it isn't so that they're going to reject it on that side of the House.

Hon. M. de Jong: Mr. Speaker, your interruption is timely because the time has come for British Columbians to see who stands with them on housing, who stands with them on taxes, who stands with them on the environment.

Hon. M. de Jong: It's this side of the House, and I hope it's that side of the House.

Hon. Members, pursuant to Standing Order 45a, the Chair must interrupt the proceedings at 6:15 in order to put the question on the motion on the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne.

Committee of Supply (Section A), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. O. Ilich: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Today I have with me Rick Connolly, Associate Deputy Minister of Labour; Annette Wall, Assistant Deputy Minister of Labour, industrial relations, policy and legislation — very long title; Jim Soles, Assistant Deputy Minister of Labour, labour programs; Terry Bogyo, the director of corporate planning for WorkSafe B.C.; Pat Cullinane, the director of the employment standards branch; Tara Faganello, the senior financial officer; and Jim Weir, the director of budgets. There will be more people coming as we do some changes.

I am pleased today to rise and introduce the estimates. One of the things we are about is providing the best service possible for the citizens of British Columbia. That remains a focus of the Ministry of Labour and Citizens' Services, and our commitment is reaffirmed in the budget of 2007-2008. As I said a few minutes ago, we will operate with a net budget of $97,507,000 and a staff complement of 2,195 full-time-equivalent positions.

The mission of the ministry is twofold. On the Labour side, we will create an employment environment that meets the needs of workers, employers and unions, and fosters working relationships in safe and healthy workplaces. On the Citizens' Services side, our mandate is to transform, deliver and promote public services which are cost-effective, accessible and responsive to the needs of citizens and businesses.

This ministry has a number of significant accomplishments this past year. The labour relations climate has improved greatly, and we have seen fewer strikes and lockouts than at any time in the past 30 years. The ratification of 139 negotiated agreements since February 2006, covering more than 98 percent of British Columbia's provincial public sector, will provide certainty and labour stability for public sector relations for the period leading up to and including the 2010 Olympics.

In terms of workplace safety, we see the accident rate continuing to fall, although this must be tempered by an awareness that serious injuries and fatalities, particularly in the forest sector, remain unacceptably high. We continue to work towards more effective

service delivery both to citizens and for the public sector. Our goal is to provide services to British Columbians where and when they need them, whether it is in person, by phone or on the Internet.

Today we are working to provide government services at convenient times and convenient locations, and integrating services from across government so that people can go to a single location to get the services they need regardless of what ministry ultimately is responsible for those services. Shared Services B.C. continues to leverage technologies and economies of scale to offer effective business solutions to its clients across government and the broader public sector. Because this ministry is in the business of providing services within government, we will have a vital role in supporting the government's goal of leading the world in environmental sustainability.

This ministry is broad in scope, and the opportunities and challenges are many. Achieving our goals and objectives, and making government services more centred on the needs of the citizens of British Columbia, is an aim I know that everyone in this House shares.

I'd be happy to now start answering questions on our budget, and we're going to start with Labour.

I'm going to make a few comments about some of the concerns that this side has seen over the years — directions that this province has gone with respect to labour standards, deaths in the workplace, elimination of many benefits under the workers compensation plans, the reduction in the retraining of workers and the hardships that that is causing — and, also, the changes in the pension.

I'm sure many of the members on the other side are hearing and receiving the same concerns that we are with respect to people who are really falling into hardship from some of the regulatory changes and the changes made by the board of directors since 2001. It saddens me to see the large surpluses that are being accumulated at the expense of working people.

I know that this government headed into a fairly bold initiative of deregulation, where they basically set a benchmark and asked all ministries to effect and to reach that benchmark. Certainly, the implications of that, as we had warned, could be dire. As we look into the issue with the faller's death and the first forestry inquest, the Ted Gramlich death, it really spelled out what the concerns were that were being forwarded by our side.

What I will introduce, as we proceed into this, are warnings that were given to the B.C. Forest Safety Council — warnings from a draft that they received over a year before the Ted Gramlich fatality — which really showed the ambiguities and misunderstandings in the forest sector on what the obligations to safety were and where those obligations were merely rewritten and passed to a contractor down the line.

We are now seeing the impacts of that again as the new categories are established — what is a prime contractor and what is not. We are seeing more and more prime contractors in the field. Even after the recommendations — I believe, 22 recommendations — in the inquest on the Ted Gramlich fatality, we are certainly not comfortable that the information is being communicated and spelled out properly to the workers in the field.

Coupled with that is the new relationship that employees now have where an employee, by virtue of owning a chainsaw and a pickup truck, is now an employer. Many of these incidents where we have had fatalities in the forests were one-person corporations and one-person entities, not with the same death benefit coverage that would have existed had they been working for a forestry company.

It's quite alarming, in our opinion, to see the increase in the small companies. Large forestry companies are looking at the new regulations and the new rules and, basically, finding creative technical ways of passing that obligation on to an individual. We're not seeing the cascading of the safety obligation going up the ladder, as it used to at one time. I know that the regulations used to be quite clear that a violation of a regulation by an employee was also deemed a violation of a regulation by an employer.

Now that we have, I'm told, in the thousands of different companies that are working in the forest sector — and so many of them are single one-person companies — we are seeing the impacts of that quite severely. The cascading ends at that one company. That is devastating.

The calls that we receive…. I'm sure my colleagues on the opposite side receive them as well. Widows who have lost a loved one, a husband — in some cases, the main and only provider of income for that household — are anticipating better protection under the workers compensation system. They are finding out with great shock that they have minimal coverage, because it is basically the coverage that was undertaken by the corporation which was working on that cutblock or on that site.

I certainly have to compliment the fact that there was a lot of work done by the steelworkers. There was a lot of work done by my caucus to ask the government to ensure that it look at having a specific forest coroner that deals strictly with forestry fatalities. We were certainly pleased to hear of the appointment of a forest coroner and to finally see an inquest into a forest fatality, which was a faller's fatality. But I'm disappointed that we haven't seen an expansion of that since then. I'm disappointed that there has only been one inquest.

There are different components in the forest sector that need to be addressed. One of those components is with respect to logging operations and to fatalities of the log hauling sector. Some of them have a trend that goes with them. We are going to explore it to see if we can get the government to at least engage the services of that forestry-specific coroner to look at different components of forestry deaths in the attempt to alleviate or try to eliminate serious injuries in the forests, which are still happening to this day.

With that, I will move on to the other section, which we'll get into first, and that's the employment standards regulations. I've travelled the province to some of the hearings on WorkSafe, on changing regulations, especially for young people. What I really notice in speaking to people in other communities is how little knowledge young people have of what their rights are and what the employer's rights are in the workplace.

Often we'll just want to blame the employer for not passing those rights on to an employee. But in 2002 or 2003 when the Employment Standards Act changed, the provision for having a mandatory posting of that in a place of employment was eliminated.

Employers that are purchasing a new business, for instance…. The transaction could happen in that day. It's a seamless transaction. The business could remain open. Suddenly you have a new employer who really isn't bound to do that diligence and to go into ensuring that the employer knows what his or her obligations are so that the employer could even pass it on to employees.

We did flush that out in the last estimates. We left the former Labour Minister with the concerns we have in anticipation that some sanity in that aspect could come back in so that, at the very least, young employees working in a workplace, especially working alone, would have a fairly easy ability to grab a document and to look at what the obligations were in the workplace and how they can make their workplace safer. I will look into that, explore that a little bit.

The other issue that we discussed in the previous estimates, which I don't think is being addressed properly…. I know that the government talks about the reduction in complaints as if a reduction of employment standards complaints is really a good-news story and people are happier today in their place of employment than they were in the past. That isn't the case.

If you look at the onerous obligations for someone to actually launch into an investigation on wages not being paid, on working conditions, on overtime, it has turned into a sort of self-subpoena system, where the employee has to manoeuvre through the website, pull off the proper documents, fill out the documents and then hand those documents to their employer. Basically they're serving their employer with a document saying, "You're not treating me right," whereas at one time that employee could pick up a telephone at one of the many offices throughout the province, talk to a caseworker and say: "This is the incident that is going on, on my site." They would get advice on that, and if necessary, someone would go down and investigate that.

The system that's been put in place is actually preventing people from going farther and taking on that action, so in many cases the employer is not required to pay. It's difficult for some employees. When I speak with employees, especially women who have English as a second language…. It's very difficult. It is extremely intimidating, as you can imagine, if you're a woman working in a workforce and having to file a complaint against your employer. It's daunting, it's intimidating, and it would be very clear to see that it would result in fewer cases being filed.

I would like to see some positive overtures towards that, so we can have a system that is fair. I understand that there are abilities to actually get an inspector to be involved, but those are extreme cases, normally. I've tried it myself. I've phoned employment standards branch to talk about what the processes would be on filing a certain complaint and could I get someone to do it. That isn't the case. They direct you to that website, and they direct to you that document on anything except the very extreme case, where there may be some violence or sexual harassment involved.

I don't think that the results we're seeing are as a result of happier workers. I think they're results of the daunting position that's been put forward to them.

The other issue that I will explore is the changes in the relationship with mediation services. I will address those through questions. I think what we'll do now is we'll deal with some employment standards and some mediation stuff. Then I know there are people from WorkSafe B.C. that are here, so maybe we can move into that. We'll see how far we get by the end of today.

My first question would be if the minister could share with me some statistics on complaints to the employment standards branch for the last fiscal and the previous fiscal. How many complaints are being made to the employment standards branch by employees?

Hon. O. Ilich: What we have in this year so far is prorated. We have 6,419 complaints; that's what we are expecting as at January 31. Actually, for '05-06 we had 5,384, and the year before that, 5,039. So they are tending to be about the same or up slightly.

Minister, the next question I have along that same vein is: how are the complaints broken down for analysis? Are they broken down by gender? Are they broken down as ESL complaints that are logged through a different website that is consistent with the language the person speaks?

Hon. O. Ilich: The statistics we have are by sections, so the section of the act that was contravened. We can break them down by industry — that is, agricultural industry or other types of industry. We also have how they are disposed of, what the complaint disposition was. We can give you variances granted. We don't have them by gender right now.

C. Puchmayr: Can you give me the numbers in the hand-harvest sector, please?

Hon. O. Ilich: That would be the farm labour compliance complaints. They are down to 27 this last year from 29 the year before and from about 67 in the year 2001.

C. Puchmayr: In the farmworkers sector, do you have a breakdown of when the actual site inspections are happening? And can you give me a number of the site inspections that were carried out in '06?

C. Puchmayr: Can you break that down in months? How many per month? I know there was a concern last year with the fact that it appeared that few site inspections were done during times of peak hand-harvest, and that's certainly concerning, as it may skew the results.

Hon. O. Ilich: We can get that to you with the other information by the end of the week.

C. Puchmayr: Was there a change made after our questioning with respect to when the site inspections are to be performed?

Hon. O. Ilich: They are in fact done during the harvest season. That's when site inspections are done.

C. Puchmayr: I'm sorry, but I believe the statistics that were provided to us late after the estimates last year showed that that wasn't actually the fact. Could your staff maybe look at that statistic again?

Hon. O. Ilich: The site inspections last year started in February and ranged all the way to the end of October. The bulk of them were in June, July, August and September.

C. Puchmayr: Now that we do have that information a week early, could you give me the numbers per month, starting with February, please?

Hon. O. Ilich: These are last year's numbers, which were provided to you last year after you requested them last year, so we'll still have to get them for this year. I think that your concern was that they were being done at times that were inappropriate. They're consistent this year.

C. Puchmayr: Could you give me the breakdown of complaints in the hospitality sector?

Hon. O. Ilich: That's part of the information we will supply at the end of this week.

C. Puchmayr: Maybe you can share this with us: what sector has the highest volume of complaints?

Hon. O. Ilich: Actually, it's a broad range of all sectors, and there's no one industry that stands out as opposed to any other one. So that will become apparent, which sectors have the most, when we do provide that information to you by the end of the week.

Hon. O. Ilich: We're going to have to wait until we have that information for you and let the numbers speak for themselves. I'm told that we used to keep records one way, and now we have a new computer system which allows us to break that down in a better way.

C. Puchmayr: I think your comments were that there were some that were around the same volumes, and I'm just asking where that information came from. Can you share that with us?

Hon. O. Ilich: We actually have been tracking contraventions, and there are over a hundred different sectors that are tracked. The service sector probably stands out, but only because that has lots more people working in it than other sectors. That will be provided to you by the end of the week.

C. Puchmayr: Would you say, then, by "stands out," that would be…? I'm not saying that's a bad industry, and I understand that more people may be working in one over another. Is your information, then, that the service sector industry — food and beverage — is broken down in that way? Is that probably your top generator of complaints?

Hon. O. Ilich: We're going have to let the information speak for itself when you get it, and you'll be able to take a look at it at the end of the week when we have it available for you.

C. Puchmayr: How many employment standards offices are there now in the province?

Hon. O. Ilich: There are currently nine employment standards offices in the province.

C. Puchmayr: Can the minister walk us through any changes that were made with respect to people that have English as a second language, or may not have English yet, on how they would access those services today?

Hon. O. Ilich: The translated materials are currently available in print and on the Web in Punjabi, Spanish,

French, Chinese and Filipino. We make them available at the branch, on the Web and at multicultural offices.

C. Puchmayr: With respect to that information, has the minister looked at the accessibility of that on the computer? Is the minister comfortable that that makes it a friendly method of getting that information?

Hon. O. Ilich: Since last year the main page, the home page, of the website has been changed so that apparently you can access it in the language that you choose. So for instance, if you want to use French or Spanish, you can apparently do that.

C. Puchmayr: Is there still a phone service available that has the translation services on the other end? In what languages, if there is?

Hon. O. Ilich: If they phone the 1-800 number, there are a number of languages available. If there is a language that isn't available immediately, then there are a number of staff who do speak a lot of different languages, and somebody will get back to them.

If at the end of the day that doesn't work, then the branch will hire a translator for the person who's making a complaint.

Hon. O. Ilich: I think that generally people are able to make themselves understood enough to at least let the person at the other end know what language it is that they wish to speak. There's also an exemption for people who don't speak one of those languages from using the self-help kit. So translation services are provided.

Hon. O. Ilich: If there's a specific access issue that the member would like to raise, I'd be happy to look into that issue for him, if he thinks that the translation service isn't being well looked after.

C. Puchmayr: In view of what you've just discovered, would you agree that it isn't well served?

Hon. O. Ilich: No, I would not, actually. I think it's very well served in a number of different languages.

C. Puchmayr: Minister, how does an immigrant farmworker that's coming up on a contract basis understand how to access the services that other British Columbians are privy to with respect to the employment standards?

Hon. O. Ilich: When the workers arrive they are given a package of information in the language that they speak. It provides education for workers, and we also provide that to employers. There are regular site visits by people that speak various languages, and more information is disseminated. So it's education, and they are provided with the information in their language.

C. Puchmayr: Are you saying that there are more regular site inspections when it comes to contract workers or foreign guest workers?

Hon. O. Ilich: Actually, most of the farms don't distinguish between foreign workers and workers who are resident here, so the inspectors will go out and service them at the same time. Having said that, we do have a team that specializes in making farm visits.

C. Puchmayr: I thought that was maybe a different category. I think your comments were 27 inspections and tens of thousands of acres of farmland in British Columbia, and I was led to believe that you were giving us more regular inspections of those sites. That's not correct?

Hon. O. Ilich: I think that the member misunderstood. I said there were 27 complaints last year, which was down from the year before.

C. Puchmayr: Let's just back up to that so that I can get it clear. How many inspections were there, then, on agricultural sites?

Hon. O. Ilich: There were, in fact, 82 site visits, 39 audits, and there were 44 violations and 27 complaints.

Hon. O. Ilich: That took a bit of searching, but we have in fact determined that every single penalty, of which there were 44, had a fine associated with it.

C. Puchmayr: Have there been changes made to the memorandum of agreement on the hand-harvest sector?

Hon. O. Ilich: There is a memorandum of understanding, and it was revised to increase education, understanding and compliance with a focus on core requirements under the Employment Standards Act and to provide a more proactive, efficient and mutually satisfactory means of dealing with issues and complaints.

Having said that, I understand that there is another meeting coming up next month to make further refinements to that MOU.

Hon. O. Ilich: The MOU is between the employment standards branch and the B.C. Agriculture Coun-

cil and its member organizations. Also, the Ministry of Agriculture will be in attendance.

Hon. O. Ilich: I've just told you who is in attendance, representing what organizations. If you want a list of who signed the memorandum last time, we can provide that to you, and we can also provide you with who will be in attendance at the meeting next month.

Hon. O. Ilich: There are members of the B.C. Agriculture Council and its member organizations in attendance and, as well, the ministry officials from employment standards. They're a neutral organization representing the people.

C. Puchmayr: I want to move a bit to young workers now, specifically child labour — children under the age of 15. Have there been any changes to the regulation that governs workers between the ages of 12 and 15?

C. Puchmayr: At one time there had to be a special order from the employment standards branch before a child of 12 could work in this province. There was an inspection of the site. There was an analysis of the distance the child had to travel, the time of day and how the child got to and from work. There was an ergonomic assessment of the workplace, the proximity of machinery and switches and equipment that a young person had to operate. Are any of those anticipated to be brought back into the regulation?

Hon. O. Ilich: There has been no change to the workers-under-12 procedures and processes that were in effect before.

C. Puchmayr: Is the minister not concerned, then, with the process that exists now with respect to children as young as 12 working in potentially dangerous situations?

Hon. O. Ilich: We did have some evidence before that indicated the number of young people working exceeded the number of permits, so we changed the focus to make sure of employers' and parents' awareness and that the key questions that should be asked were asked so that young workers would be protected.

There is an information guide for parents on factors and issues to consider in the process of employment of their child. This material is distributed to parents and to schools. It's also on the website.

C. Puchmayr: Does the minister believe that a single parent, one parent only, has to sign a letter? Does the minister believe that that parent will always have the capacity to do an analysis of a piece of working machinery that was previously being done by somebody who was learned in that field?

Hon. O. Ilich: WorkSafe continues to work closely with employers and worker stakeholders to raise awareness about young workers' health and safety. They have produced safety videos targeted to young workers, made presentations at schools and created a youth worker curriculum from grades K-to-12 to raise their awareness.

C. Puchmayr: Are there additional inspections carried out by the employment standards branch of worksites where it is identified that children of age 12 are working? Is there an ability to identify all the worksites where children of the ages 12 to 15 are working?

Hon. O. Ilich: Can the member give me a specific example of what he might be concerned about? There haven't been any changes to the way that inspections have been done before and after. What we have been concentrating on is raising awareness. We've been doing that through the schools and other areas where we believe that we can more properly target kids.

C. Puchmayr: Well, Minister, I am extremely concerned about young people in the workplace. I'm extremely concerned if the minister tells me that they have not made any changes, that the rules as they were brought in — I believe in 2003 — are still in existence, that other than some curriculum K-to-12 information…. I'm very concerned with the fact that many young people can end up in a work environment without really having the safety background or knowledge as to whether a piece of equipment is safe or is not safe.

Hon. O. Ilich: What I'm trying to say is that there have been no changes to how children who work have been treated since the 1990s. This is more extensively a WorkSafe question. WorkSafe has an extensive education program that they now carry on, as I said, in the K-to-12 schools. We can more properly canvass that perhaps with the WorkSafe people that are here.

C. Puchmayr: I need to correct the minister. With all due respect, there were significant changes that were made. They include an analysis of the worksite, which was done through the employment standards branch, not through WorkSafe B.C. or the Workers

The supervision ratio was eliminated. I think someone as young as 18 or 19 can now be a supervisor of a child who's 12 years old. Now only one parent has to sign a letter saying that the child can work in that industry.

There have been some drastic changes since the '90s. I hope the minister clarifies the information that she has because we're going to need this minister to address this serious issue of children working in the workplace.

Hon. O. Ilich: Even under the old system there was only the requirement for one parent to sign.

C. Puchmayr: Where are the letters when one parent now signs with no follow-up from the ministry? Where does that letter go, and how does the parent know that that letter is mandatory?

Hon. O. Ilich: Employers are legally responsible for proving the child's age and getting the required parental consent or the permission before the employment starts.

We have had no complaints, and the employers who violate these rules do face penalties of $500, $2,500 or $10,000. The workers are also required to work under adult supervision at all times.

C. Puchmayr: How many investigations were there with respect to children working in the workplace?

Hon. O. Ilich: In the first ten months of fiscal 2006-2007 there were 18 child permit applications made, of which two were denied and eight were withdrawn. That to me means that there were eight, and there were no complaints so there were no investigations.

C. Puchmayr: Are you saying that's how many young people were found in investigations to be working in that worksite?

Hon. O. Ilich: Those were the requests for permits. That's the number of requests for permits.

C. Puchmayr: So can the minister walk us through how a request for a permit goes? What is the minister's understanding of how a permit works?

Hon. O. Ilich: Every time there's a request for a permit, except for when they've been withdrawn, there's a site inspection.

C. Puchmayr: So let me clarify this. If a parent signs a letter that her son or daughter can work in an industry and that son or daughter goes to that site and shows the employer, how does that trigger a site inspection or a permit?

Hon. O. Ilich: The site inspection is done before the permit is issued for those that are under 12.

C. Puchmayr: Now how would an employer know that? If they know that the working age in British Columbia starts as young as 12, how does the employer know that that requires a permit?

Hon. O. Ilich: Every employer is required to know what their obligations are under the Employment Standards Act, under the Workers Compensation Act. That's part of what employers are required to know, and we require them to abide by those rules and regulations.

C. Puchmayr: In fact, if it's no longer mandatory to have that document in a place of employment, would the minister agree that that could create instances where the employer would not be aware of the obligations and neither would the employee?

Hon. O. Ilich: We have focused our attention on raising employers' and parents' awareness on the questions that they need to ask to ensure that young people are protected. In addition, employers are legally responsible for proving the child's age, and the fines can be quite hefty.

C. Puchmayr: So a single infraction would be a $500 fine — first offence or whatever you want to call it?

Hon. O. Ilich: The first offence would be $500, and the fines would go up after that.

C. Puchmayr: So when you said that there were fines levied on every inspection, would they all be $500 fines? Maybe I should simplify that. Could the fine be less than $500 on the first offence?

Hon. O. Ilich: The answer is no. The fine is not less than $500 in any case.

C. Puchmayr: That's certainly new information to me. Any contravention of the Employment Standards Act starts with a minimum $500 fine?

Hon. O. Ilich: The answer to the member's question is: any time that there's a contravention of the act there's a $500 fine. It's mandatory.

C. Puchmayr: Will the minister look at the regulation that was repealed, where we no longer have access to employment standards information on the site? Will the minister look at that to make something that is site-specific for every place of employment so that young people know their rights in the workplace?

Hon. O. Ilich: The focus of the branch has been on public education, working with schools, working with employers and working with where young workers are. That's what the focus has been in the last while, and we believe that we're doing extensively more education than in prior years.

C. Puchmayr: Will the minister endeavour to repeal the legislation or the regulation that no longer makes it mandatory to put employment standards information on the sites that is site-specific, so employees coming in the door that morning for their first day of work will know that they will sometime have access to that document — so that they know what their rights are in the workplace?

Hon. O. Ilich: The ministry believes that we are now doing far more to educate young workers than we were ever doing before. There is a much more integrated approach and a much broader approach to educating employers and young workers.

C. Puchmayr: With all due respect, Minister, that certainly isn't what I'm seeing out in the field. I would welcome the minister to come with me some evening to some of the self-serve gas stations and convenience stores and directly ask the young people working there if they understand their rights in the workplace. Would the minister be willing to undertake that with me?

Hon. O. Ilich: I'd be pleased, actually, to undertake a site inspection with you at any time.

C. Puchmayr: Minister, when you categorize complaints of workers in age categories, what's the breakdown for a young worker in the statistics-gathering of the employment standards branch? How do you define it?

Hon. O. Ilich: We don't gather information or keep information by age, except for those that are issued permits to work.

C. Puchmayr: I'm sorry, Minister. I should have caught that before. So you are saying that there are no permits at age 12 to 15?

C. Puchmayr: I thought that was in error, Minister. Could you again refresh me: how many under-12 permits, and if it's not that many of them, could you tell me how young people are actually trying to get their children into the workforce?

C. Puchmayr: Could you tell the people of the province how young those eight were?

Hon. O. Ilich: We actually don't have that information handy at the moment, but I am told that it's mostly parents employing their own children.

C. Puchmayr: Hopefully, you can give that information to my office after the estimates appear.

Hon. O. Ilich: I do confirm that we will get that information to you, along with the rest of the information that you've requested.

C. Puchmayr: I want to back up just a bit to the hand-harvest sector in relationship to the seasonal worker regulations. Is there a difference in how the employment standards branch governs one over another?

Hon. O. Ilich: The answer is that all workers are treated exactly the same under the employment standards branch and under that legislation.

C. Puchmayr: Would it not be correct that employees coming in from another country on a temporary permit have a wage associated with that permit?

Hon. O. Ilich: Yes, there is a wage associated with the contract that they are working under, and it must be at least the minimum wage under the Employment Standards Act.

C. Puchmayr: Could the minister then tell me: if they are the same, what is the wage in the hand-harvest piecework sector?

Hon. O. Ilich: The rate this year is $8.90 an hour, and even if it's piecework, it must average out to at least that.

C. Puchmayr: I am now asking for the wage rate for someone in the hand-harvest sector who isn't a foreign worker coming into this country.

Hon. O. Ilich: There are piece rates that are in effect for agricultural workers, but it must work out to the minimum wage of $8 an hour. We can provide you with those piece rates at the same time as we get you the other information.

C. Puchmayr: Could you point me to the part of the regulation that states that?

Hon. O. Ilich: The regulation is B.C. regulation 396/95 of the employment standards regulation, part 4, section 18.

The Chair: Could I remind both the member and the minister to direct their comments through the Chair.

Could I clarify that? Would you like just the piece rates for the different types of handpicking that go on?

C. Puchmayr: My question was: where is it spelled out that there is a piece rate that also has a minimum wage associated to it?

Hon. O. Ilich: I am just going to read you section 18, minimum wage for farmworkers. It says: "The minimum wage, including 4% of gross earnings vacation pay, for farm workers who are employed on a piece work basis and hand harvest the following berry, fruit or vegetable crops, is, for the gross volume or weight picked, as follows…." Then we have apples, $15.60 a bin; apricots, $17.94 a half-bin; beans, 21.4 cents a pound; blueberries. It goes on and on and on. It lists absolutely everything.

Now, that is expected to be at the minimum wage if they were working on an hourly basis of $8 an hour.

C. Puchmayr: The minister's comments were that there is a minimum wage in the hand-harvest sector. There certainly is for foreign workers that are coming into this country. My concern is that I don't see anything that states that there is one for British Columbia workers, and my question to the minister was to show me where she claims that there is a minimum wage and also a hand-harvest rate wage.

Hon. O. Ilich: Section 15, minimum hourly wage, says: "Subject to sections 16 to 18, the minimum wage is $8.00 an hour."

C. Puchmayr: Minister, you're telling me that employees that are going into the hand-harvest field that are hired at a piece rate are aware that there is also a minimum wage?

Hon. O. Ilich: For the piece rate, hand-harvest workers, the minimum wage is the piece rate.

C. Puchmayr: Thank you for clarifying that. My question to the minister, then, in view of the fact that there is actually a minimum wage for foreign workers coming into this country, who can get, guaranteed, a minimum wage of…. I believe you said it was $8.85 an hour or something. Also, they could engage in a hand-harvest component and receive the greatest of either. Why isn't there the same balance for British Columbia farmworkers?

Hon. O. Ilich: The rate that's negotiated with Mexico for foreign workers is slightly higher, and that's because there are additional costs associated with bringing in those foreign workers, which have to be paid for by the employer.

C. Puchmayr: That's interesting. Is the minister stating now that British Columbia workers don't have expenses?

Hon. O. Ilich: No. What I'm saying is that the employer under those situations doesn't have to pay those expenses on behalf of the employee.

C. Puchmayr: The answer, then, is that there is no minimum wage in the hand-harvest sector for British Columbia workers?

Hon. O. Ilich: The answer is that the minimum wage is established by the piece rate.

C. Puchmayr: Your answer would be that there is no minimum wage for hand-harvest work?

Hon. O. Ilich: I just want to note that this has not changed for many, many years. It was exactly the same many years ago. The minimum wage for the hand-harvest sector is established by piece rate.

C. Puchmayr: Could the minister tell me when that rate was established then? Refresh my memory, please.

Hon. O. Ilich: We can do a little bit of research on that for you. Those regulations were established in 1995. We can let you know what we can find out about how that may have changed over time. But what we're

C. Puchmayr: I'm aware of the information, and it was two rates. My question to the minister is: in view of the fact that there is a minimum wage for foreign workers and there isn't for the hand-harvest sector for British Columbia workers, will the minister look at changing the legislation or the regulations to bring a balance to the two?

Hon. O. Ilich: I just want to state again that the piece rate was established in 1995 and that the numbers I gave you previously are what are currently in the act.

Hon. O. Ilich: The foreign worker program is negotiated between the federal government and the foreign government that supplies the labour. The minimum wage paid to the foreign worker takes into consideration that they do have costs that the employer must pay for on top of that, which often is deducted from the employee.

Now, we saw how difficult it is to find out what the pay scales are for seasonal farmworkers — not only foreign workers but seasonal farmworkers in British Columbia. Will the minister, at the very least, begin by ensuring that that information be mandatory and be posted on farms in the multiple different languages that are available so that workers can actually understand something that we found quite difficult to flush out in here.

Hon. O. Ilich: I can direct the member to the act — same section, part 4 of the act. It says under section 2: "Each employer of farm workers must display, in a location where they can be read by all employees, notices stating the following: (a) the volume of each picking container being used; (b) the volume or weight of fruit, vegetables or berries required to fill each picking container; (c) the resulting piece rate."

C. Puchmayr: Will the minister look at putting the other working conditions in there?

Hon. O. Ilich: I would like to remind the member that we believe that we are providing more education now than we have ever provided before to farmworkers.

C. Puchmayr: My concerns, of course, are with English as a second language. I'm not that confident that these workers are being captured to the K-to-12 system that the minister explained earlier.

At the very least, does the document have, other than the piece rates…? Obviously, it doesn't have a minimum-wage rate. Subject to a piece rate, does the document also have a phone number where a person can call and also a contact for WorkSafe B.C. in the event an employee wishes to have a jobsite hazard identified?

Hon. O. Ilich: I can tell the member opposite that, in fact, that information is provided in the languages that I told you about previously, and there is a phone number available for workers to call. The foreign workers are given all that information at the start of their employment.

The Chair: Member, may I remind you once again that the appropriate order of business in the chamber is to address remarks through the Chair. The conversation goes through the Chair, not across the room.

C. Puchmayr: I believe I was doing exactly that, Madam Chair. I'm sorry if you didn't notice that.

Madam Chair, through you to the minister, is that information…? When you are saying readily available in the different languages, with the hand-harvest rates that are to be posted on the jobsite, are you saying that that information is on that document?

Hon. O. Ilich: I would like to remind the member opposite that we've already stated that the information is distributed. There is a memorandum of understanding between the employers and the employment standards branch, and the information is provided to the employers. It is posted. It's provided in Punjabi, Spanish, French, Chinese and Filipino. There are fact sheets that go out, and we are continuing to do more education than ever before.

C. Puchmayr: The memorandum of understanding is quite an anomaly, in my experience with memorandums of understanding. Normally, a worker and an employer will sit down and negotiate a memorandum of understanding. This one has no representation from the employees. It's strictly the employers, and that certainly concerns me.

Does that memorandum have the rates on it? Is that the memorandum that's given to employees, that lists, for instance, the Cattlemen's Association, the Raspberry Growers Association? There are about 19 on there. Is that the memorandum that is posted in the workplace and in the multitude of languages the minister speaks of? And are those numbers on there? Are the actual rates on there? The only memorandum I have ever seen is strictly the one- or two-page memorandum, so is that something different?

Hon. O. Ilich: The rates are posted at a workplace. This is not the subject of a collective agreement. There's a contract, when they're foreign workers. Other than that, there is a memorandum of understanding be-

tween the employment standards branch and the B.C. Agriculture Council and its member organizations.

As I said before, we continue to focus on making sure that employers know their obligations and that employees know their rights.

C. Puchmayr: Minister, can you just refresh me on the changes? Did you say that there were new signatories to this memorandum? I think you said you were heading into another discussion on amending it.

Hon. O. Ilich: There is a memorandum of understanding. It was signed in May of 2003. Again, I want to tell the member what the focus was on. It was revised to increase education, understanding and compliance; to focus on core requirements under the act; and to provide a more proactive, efficient and satisfactory means of dealing with issues and complaints, while protecting the most vulnerable employees.

There is ongoing discussion, starting this month, to facilitate any changes that there might be to that memorandum.

C. Puchmayr: Well, my concern certainly is with the vulnerable employees. When does the minister anticipate a conclusion to this next round of meetings with the employers?

Hon. O. Ilich: The meeting is scheduled for April 19, and at that point it will be decided how extensive the consultations have to be and how extensive the changes might have to be. So they'll be able to assess at that time whether there are more meetings required.

C. Puchmayr: Is the minister interested in at least having a worker perspective on this discussion, which could affect workers and does affect workers so greatly?

Hon. O. Ilich: I would like to just remind the member opposite that, in fact, the employment standards branch is there to protect the rights of workers. That's their obligation; that's what they do.

This is not subject to collective bargaining procedures. We believe that the Ministry of Agriculture and the employment standards branch, which has the obligation to do that, do that effectively.

C. Puchmayr: My concern is merely with the fact that services have been reduced and offices have been reduced. We're getting more into a self-serve model. Therefore, I would suggest that there is a greater need to have a broader-range approach to any type of agreement that applies to workers in British Columbia.

Hon. O. Ilich: Just to the member opposite: we have four officers that are dedicated, actually, to the agricultural industry. That's an increase of one. Previously there were no dedicated field inspectors for agricultural areas.

C. Puchmayr: My question is on participation in the memorandum that is going in and that is supposed to be completed by April 19. Will the minister engage in ensuring that there are actual on-line farmworkers involved in those discussions?

Hon. O. Ilich: The meeting on April 19 to discuss the memorandum of understanding is between the employment standards branch and the agricultural sector. This is not a collective bargaining process; it is to focus on compliance and how to better serve the needs of both employers and workers in the sector.

C. Puchmayr: Okay, I'd like to move now to another application of the employment standards branch in how it is affected by the trade, investment and labour mobility agreement. What legal counsel is the employment standards branch engaged in, or were they engaged in, with regards to the agreement that was signed between Alberta and British Columbia, which was not brought into our chamber for debate?

Hon. O. Ilich: The agreement actually includes labour standards, specifically. That means that any employee working in B.C. continues to be protected by B.C. laws, including the Employment Standards, Workers Compensation, Occupational Health and Safety, and Labour Relations.

C. Puchmayr: To the minister: does this mean that Alberta's child labour has now dropped to age 12?

Hon. O. Ilich: I think the member misunderstood what I said. I said that labour was excluded and that we continue to be governed by our laws in British Columbia. Alberta continues to be governed by their laws in Alberta.

C. Puchmayr: The clause on review with intent to harmonization. Is the employment standards branch currently involved in any of those discussions, and do they anticipate being involved in any of those discussions?

Hon. O. Ilich: I'd like to make this very clear for the member. First of all, the Ministry of Economic

Development has the lead on the TILMA agreement. Having said that, the agreement specifically excludes labour, as I previously said. That means any employee working in B.C. will continue to be protected by all of the laws, including the Employment Standards, Workers Compensation, Occupational Health and Safety, and Labour Relations. Alberta's laws apply to Alberta.

C. Puchmayr: Is the minister aware of any directives from the other ministry with respect to the future harmonization, as is laid out in the review components of TILMA?

I'd like to end off with the last question, again, just to get a clarification on the child labour. Then I want to move on to the mediation services and the Labour Relations Board.

I just want a clarification on the issue of child labour. Will the ministry engage in, at the very least, an analysis of children working in British Columbia, with a view to looking at bringing in legislation that would be more protective of children working in British Columbia?

Hon. O. Ilich: We believe that the current regime is working well, and we have had no complaints under the Employment Standards Act regarding children in the workforce.

C. Puchmayr: Now I would like to do a few questions on the Labour Relations Board. The first one is…. I'd like the minister to walk us through the restructuring and explain which mediation services are actually being moved from the board to the ministry.

Hon. O. Ilich: I just want to tell the member opposite that, in fact, the legislation has not been changed. The ministry can do mediation, and the Labour Relations Board can do mediation.

C. Puchmayr: Is there a greater component of mediation services that are now going to be at the disposal of the ministry's office than existed a year ago?

Hon. O. Ilich: At the moment there are two mediators. They are at the LRB. What we are looking at is an expanded role for mediation services. We're in discussions with the LRB chair and with the deputy and others to see how best we can serve our constituents with mediation services.

The Chair: Before we go on, can I remind the member once again that the conversation is through the Chair and not directly across to the minister.

C. Puchmayr: With all due respect, I think that we both caught each other glancing across the odd time, but I truly mean no disrespect to the Chair or to the minister.

My question, then, is: what is anticipated in the discussions with the mediation? Does the ministry have sort of a directive that it is anticipating moving some of those services directly to the ministry?

Hon. O. Ilich: At the moment we have no plans to change the legislation around mediation services. What we would like to do is make sure that people who use mediation services are well served wherever they might be, and we can do that either in the ministry or with the LRB.

C. Puchmayr: Do you anticipate an increase in ministry staff to deal with mediation issues?

Hon. O. Ilich: We are looking at mediation services. We have advertised for a director of mediation services. We are looking for an enhanced role for mediation services. We are still deciding at the moment how that is most effectively done.

C. Puchmayr: I'm just looking at some postings, I guess you could call them, for mediation service. I'm anticipating that there's a little more to this than something that maybe is anticipated down the road. Could the minister explain if they are actively looking to hire people in that field who will be working from the ministry's office?

Hon. O. Ilich: We have posted one director of mediation, and the other position that has been advertised is for somebody that is to replace somebody who is leaving.

Hon. O. Ilich: At the moment both the ministry and the LRB can appoint mediators. What we're looking for is expanded roles for the mediators. It doesn't matter whether we appoint them or the LRB appoints them. What we are looking for is more mediation to get done, and it's not really relevant whether it's directed from the ministry or from the LRB.

C. Puchmayr: Is the minister stating that there is a backlog on mediation services?

Hon. O. Ilich: There are lots of issues mid-contract that we feel we can assist in with mediation services. Mediation services are voluntary. So when there are mid-contract issues, we believe that they're best served with mediation.

Also, we think that it's a good idea to work on the relationship between the employer and the union mid-contract, to make sure that by the time they get to bargaining, we don't have a lot of small issues that get in the way. So we are looking for an expanded role for mediation.

C. Puchmayr: My experience is that normally it's the arbitration processes that are significant and ongoing, occasionally, in labour relations. Is the minister stating that they want to have a more active role in between collective agreements, directed from the minister's office?

Hon. O. Ilich: I'd like to just start by making sure the member understands that there's a difference between mediation and arbitration. I just want to say that mediation is voluntary. It's done on a volunteer basis. The parties come and ask for a mediator to come and assist them in working out issues in the relationship.

C. Puchmayr: I'm certainly aware of the difference between arbitration and mediation. My concern is moving that position further from the Labour Relations Board and enhancing that service in the minister's office. Does the minister not think that there may be an appearance of bias in engaging in that?

Hon. O. Ilich: We do not direct mediators. We do not control mediators. Mediation is voluntary. The legislation has not been changed. We have the ability in the ministry to appoint mediators or have mediators once somebody comes and asks for them, and so does the LRB.

C. Puchmayr: Would the minister then share with us why there seems to be a need to enhance a service already happening at the LRB that has all the appearances of impartiality? Why would the minister want to enhance that system in the ministry's office and risk that appearance of independence?

Hon. O. Ilich: To the member: we believe that mediation is a good thing to assist people in reaching consensus on issues. We know that there's a role at the LRB. That has not changed. There's no legislation to change that.

Mediators in other provinces are mediators who work for the ministry. However, we are conscious of bias. Again, it's a voluntary effort to work on the relationship, and we think that more mediation and more mid-contract dispute resolution is a good thing.

C. Puchmayr: I'm having some difficulty understanding the business case for not enhancing the mediation service at the Labour Relations Board and decanting some of that into the ministry's office. Maybe the minister can explain what the business case for such a move would be.

Hon. O. Ilich: I just want to say to the member that we still think, regardless of where mediation goes on, that when it's done on a voluntary basis, it's a good thing to enhance relationships and work out issues. The ministry has a responsibility to make sure that the labour climate in British Columbia is positive. We believe that some extra mediation services would be a good thing.

C. Puchmayr: It's interesting that the comments in the debates in the House were about how few labour relations issues, strikes or lockouts there were.

I'm very puzzled. I need to understand what is in the ministry's documents that would make a business case for…. In view of the climate they espouse, why would there be a need now to remove independence from the Labour Relations Board and decant it into the ministry?

I understand that the minister is able to appoint a mediator. We suggested it in the teachers' dispute with Vince Ready, where the sides were agreeable to having an independent mediator appointed by the government.

Again to the minister: what is the business case for creating a system that may be tainted or have the appearance of not being as independent as the system that currently exists in the Labour Relations Board?

Hon. O. Ilich: We're looking at expanded roles for mediators, and that's something that I think is a good thing. When we talk about the fact that we have had the best labour relations climate in 30 years, it's because we are working on relationships and making sure that issues that come up between bargaining sessions are dealt with.

I think that's what the role of mediation is and should be, and we're going to continue to look for positive roles for our mediators.

C. Puchmayr: That really doesn't answer my question. I need to know and the province needs to know: what is the business case for decanting a service or for not enhancing a service that appears to need enhancement? I don't know.

What is the business case for moving a director of mediation directly into the Ministry of Labour, as opposed to keeping at arm's length with all the appearances of impartiality?

Hon. O. Ilich: As to mediation services, we hope that we can provide more mediation services, whether that happens at the LRB or in the ministry. We think there's a role for more mediation and more dispute resolution, so that's the avenue that we've been pursuing.

C. Puchmayr: Well, my information is that there aren't a lot of cases going to the board. Again, it puzzles me that we talk about a government that boasts deregulation, and now they're regulating a mediator directly in the minister's office.

In view of all the rationale for downsizing or deregulating, can the minister tell me: what is the business case for now enhancing and decanting that service

Hon. O. Ilich: To the member opposite: as I've said before, we believe that mediation is a good thing. We believe that working with people and working on the relationship is a good thing. We believe that there are midcontract issues which can be dealt with. That can happen both in the ministry and with independent mediators, and that can happen at the LRB.

C. Puchmayr: Could the minister share with me what the consultation was that led to the need to now move to this model?

Hon. O. Ilich: We're talking about enhancing services. We're not talking about eradicating services or doing anything or moving people around. We're talking about improving service to the people that use mediators.

C. Puchmayr: Why then would the government not merely add those positions to the independent, impartial Labour Relations Board?

Hon. O. Ilich: I just want to say one more time that we're enhancing mediation services and trying to grow mediation services. We're trying to provide better service for people who voluntarily use mediation services. If the member has an issue with that, he should let me know.

C. Puchmayr: I certainly will let the minister know. My concern is with the appearance of this not being an impartial process. Hiring a director of mediation services to work out of the minister's office is not an independent, impartial process.

Has there been a legal opinion of the two services the code provides: mediation and arbitration? Does the code meet the legal test to even head in this strange new direction?

Hon. O. Ilich: The minister is named numerous times in the code with duties and responsibilities to mediation and making sure that the labour climate is a strong and positive one in British Columbia. There's been no change to the legislation, and there's been no change to what the minister, the ministry and the LRB can do.

The Chair: If I may, Member, I encourage you find a new line of questioning if you are intending to pursue the mediation aspect. It seems to have gotten you a repeated answer.

C. Puchmayr: Thank you, Mr. Chair. With all due respect, this is a very serious matter. It's a matter where we are risking an independent and impartial Labour Relations Board, and we're moving a serious component of that into the ministry.

I believe that is something that I certainly haven't seen. I certainly haven't seen it since I've been here. I haven't seen it in the past. The Labour Relations Code has been the same.

I'm extremely concerned — and I think British Columbians should be extremely concerned — when you have a Labour Code that spells out the provisions of the Labour Relations Code and how it interacts in an independent manner, and now you have a new direction that the government is taking that is actually taking a component of that and moving it into the ministry.

That to me is something very significant. All I'm asking on behalf of the people of British Columbia is for the minister to show me a business case of why that has to take place.

Hon. O. Ilich: Every other jurisdiction does in fact provide mediation services with no bias in the ministry. Having said that, the mediators that are currently at the LRB are still at the LRB. What we are looking at is providing an enhanced service to people who on a voluntary basis would like to use the services of a mediator who at all times will remain independent.

C. Puchmayr: Then my question is: why can't that happen by adding another mediator or two to the Labour Relations Board?

Hon. O. Ilich: I just want to repeat one more time. The LRB mediators are still at the LRB. They're still sitting in the same chairs they've always sat in, and they're providing the same services that they have before.

We are looking at an enhanced role for mediation services. At the moment we think that that's a good service that we can provide to the public and to people who will use the service on a voluntary basis.

C. Puchmayr: Let me get this straight. The minister is saying that this will be a good service. Is the minister saying that maybe the LRB is not a good service?

The Chair: Member, if I may say, I think you have canvassed this question a number of times. I'm not trying to diminish the importance that you put to this issue, not at all. But you have canvassed it several times, and the minister has given you a repeated answer. I'll let this one go, but I'm going to ask you to move on subsequently.

Hon. O. Ilich: What I am saying and have been saying all along is that mediation is a good service. It's a good service wherever it occurs, and we're looking for ways to expand that service to the people of British Columbia.

Hon. O. Ilich: I just want to state one more time to the member that resolving labour disputes whenever they

occur, whether it's midcontract or during the negotiation period prior to a new contract, is a good thing. We want to make sure that that continues to happen and that we have a positive relationship with the workers of British Columbia, whether they're protected by a labour agreement or not.

C. Puchmayr: My question was very simple and very straightforward. It was: on what advice did the ministry decide to engage in this new direction?

Hon. O. Ilich: I think the ministry decided that it was a good thing to do more mediation and to have more mediators available for people who might want to use that voluntary service. It has not escaped my attention as the Minister of Labour that a number of people come into my office and tell me they could use the services of the mediator. There are not a whole lot of mediators in British Columbia, and we hear the same names over and over again.

We believe this is a service that can be provided. An expanded role for mediation, we think, is a good thing, and that's how the decision was made.

C. Puchmayr: I think I just got my answer. Thank you. I think the record will state that some people are concerned about using the same mediators over and over again. So is that the advice? Is somebody advising the ministry that they are not pleased with the mediation service currently happening at the Labour Relations Board? And is that why the ministry is starting a new mediation service out of the minister's office?

Hon. O. Ilich: I think what I said was that the mediators we have in British Columbia right now are busy with a lot of work, and we could in fact use more mediation services. That's why we decided to add a position.

C. Puchmayr: The position is, then, that there were concerns that the same mediators were not acceptable, and now there needs to be a new set of mediators that work out of the ministry office? Is that the answer?

Hon. O. Ilich: I think the member opposite misunderstands. I'm not making any qualitative assessment of the mediators that we have now. I'm saying that we think there is an expanded role for mediation services and that providing better service and more service to the public is a good thing.

Hon. O. Ilich: The labour board continues to have mediators. They will continue to be there.

The Chair: Member, you have come back again to that same point. So once again I would encourage you to move on.

C. Puchmayr: I'd like to canvass again. Maybe clarify this for me. Maybe I'll ask a more technical question. I did ask about the defensibility of the code with respect to now having, instead of a mediation component and an arbitration component, two mediation components. Could the minister advise me as to who the legal counsel was that made the decision on the recommendation?

Hon. O. Ilich: At the moment, the act allows for the LRB to appoint mediators that work there or anywhere else.

C. Puchmayr: I'm certainly very familiar with that, with all respect to the minister. My question was: what legal advice did the ministry take, and from whom, with respect to setting up a structured mediation component from the minister's office?

Hon. O. Ilich: The code, right now, allows for the ministry to have a mediator, and we didn't need to have any legal advice to read that in the code.

C. Puchmayr: The answer is, then, that the ministry didn't even engage in legal advice prior to restructuring a significant component of an impartial labour board and moving that into the minister's office? Is that what the minister is saying?

Hon. O. Ilich: The LRB mediators that are there at the LRB have been there and are continuing to be there. There has been no restructuring of that. What we're trying to do is provide enhanced service to people who ask for it, and it is a voluntary service. We think that there is an expanded role. We didn't need a lawyer to tell us that.

C. Puchmayr: Well, the minister says two different things, then. The minister says that they always have had the ability to appoint a mediator, and now the minister is saying that this is purely voluntary. Is the appointment of a mediator now voluntary as well?

Hon. O. Ilich: The appointment of a mediator is voluntary. If somebody comes to us and says, "Would you please appoint a mediator," we can do that. But they come and request that, so that's voluntary.

C. Puchmayr: So one employer can now bypass the board, go to the Minister of Labour and say: "I'd like you to appoint a mediator." Is that correct?

Hon. O. Ilich: Both parties have to agree that they would like to have a mediator appointed, and when they come and ask, we have the ability to do that.

C. Puchmayr: I'm very puzzled at the direction that the government is taking on this. I do believe that it does take away, at the very least, the appearance of impartiality.

Let me maybe ask a question such as this: dealing with issues with government workers and now dealing with a mediation service that is coming directly from the minister's office — doesn't the minister feel that there may be some concern there?

Hon. O. Ilich: At the moment, if two people — an employer and a union or employees — want to go and have mediation, they can ask for that at the LRB, or they can go and ask for a private mediator such as Mr. Ready, who you talked about earlier. What we're trying to do is provide expanded services. We hope that that will be a service people will come and ask for, and we hope there's a positive role to play there for mediation services.

C. Puchmayr: Can you just give me the genesis of this? How did this materialize, as opposed to just saying: "We already have the service. It's already intact; it's working very well. Maybe we're short a couple of mediators. We'll appoint. We'll go through the process"? I fail to understand why there's the necessity to move it behind the closed doors of the minister's office.

Hon. O. Ilich: We're looking at expanding mediation services to provide better service. It's voluntary. If nobody wants to use it, we will look again, but we're not changing anything else. There are still LRB mediators at the LRB. We have the ability under the code to do what we're doing now. We're not changing the code. We're not introducing any new legislation about that.

It's the same question that the member keeps asking. We believe there is a role to play for expanded mediation services.

C. Puchmayr: I certainly am very concerned with that direction and the loss of the appearance of impartiality.

Noting the time, I would like to now move on to WorkSafe and workers compensation. Do you want to take five minutes while you rearrange the deck chairs?

C. Puchmayr: I am going to yield some questions to my colleague from the riding of Winlaw.

C. Evans: I would like to ask a couple of questions about WCB regulations relating to post–traumatic stress disorder. My questions are real simple, but the prologue is quite long because I would like to put some comments on the record.

The definition of post–traumatic stress disorder according to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, fourth edition, is as follows: "The essential feature of post–traumatic stress disorder, PTSD, is the development of disabling psychological symptoms following a traumatic event."

I have been discussing the changes made in the year 2002 to what used to be called WCB regulations around post–traumatic stress disorder for two calendar years now. Hon. Chair, the citizen, my constituent, who brought this to my attention, is Mr. Darren Gregory, and for the minister's staff the WCB claim number is NC05113164.

Mr. Gregory presently lives in Creston. He brought his issues to me. I raise them today both in defence of my constituent, Mr. Gregory — who used to be employed as an ambulance attendant but has for recent years been unemployed and unemployable — and as it is my job as his MLA to assist him and act as advocate.

Also, through Mr. Gregory I have discovered that the changes to the WCB regulations of 2002 have removed benefits to a large number of emergency workers, essentially first responders: firemen, nurses, ambulance workers, police. I have discussed this issue with representatives of all those organizations in the years since Mr. Gregory brought it to my attention.

As I say, I first raised it with the former Minister of Labour two years ago, and we've had dialogue and no solution. The worksite provisions that I wish to get on the record are those that relate to sections 5.1(1) — in effect, the definition of post–traumatic stress. Rather than put it all on the record, since I've done it before, I am going to give you the gist. The provisions removed — the provisions prior to 2002 — said that repeated work as a police or an ambulance attendant dealing with human beings in trauma, especially physical trauma — injured — might over time build up a response which would leave a worker unable to continue.

The provisions were changed in 2002 to remove the "over time" provision. Today it requires three things in order to claim post–traumatic stress disorder, the first of which is a singular incident that an individual can cite as the cause of their stress. Historically, it used to be that a worker could cite ten years of working with injured people. A policeperson could cite ten years of being in engagement with situations of danger and injured people or the like. Now it requires a single incident.

Of course, the provisions also require a doctor's diagnosis. Post–traumatic stress disorder is not an ethereal condition. It is definable. I could not fake post–traumatic stress disorder and get a diagnosis from a physician who had experience.

In doing the research, I think what the government actually wanted to do in 2002 was get stress out of the compensable list of diseases. People who worked in offices or social workers or people who had stressful jobs were claiming stress and taking time off work, and they wanted to remove stress. I do not believe that in 2002 the government actually intended to take away

post–traumatic stress disorder from emergency workers. I might be wrong; that may have been the intention. I've been operating for the past three years on the basis that this was a mistake and could be fixed.

As I say, the issue comes down to the fact that since 2002 there has been no legitimate, accepted recognition of accumulated impact on emergency workers. I would like to compare that to silicosis. We all know that if you go underground in certain conditions, over time you will do damage to your lungs. It doesn't happen going underground in a day, but over time you could receive legitimate compensation for silicosis as a miner.

My argument, Darren Gregory's argument — all of the emergency workers' argument — is that stress in emergency work is like silicosis to the miner. It can be an accumulated debilitation.

I want to say that in terms of item 5.1(1), I accept item (b), which is that it requires a diagnosis. I accept item 5.1(1)(c), which suggests that it cannot be a decision of the employer related to employment. In other words, an emergency worker who is laid off or is told to go home for a month cannot then claim stress because of some action of the employer.

Unfortunately, I'm going to read to you what my understanding of WorkSafe B.C. policy is at present. WorkSafe B.C. policy, in addition to the above noted section 5.1 of the act, claims that a claims manager to a decision that a worker's normal or usual duties in his or her employment are considered inconsequential…. In other words, the claims manager, in adjudicating a decision, has to consider the normal duties as inconsequential. That's written down in the regulations.

The previous, more significant events are not given weight in a decision for compensation of disability arising out of, and in the course of, employment. It is assumed that a paramedic or emergency responder — this is important — should not have experienced such a reaction or disability, because he was performing duties of a usual nature for which he was trained.

In other words, WorkSafe B.C. in 2002 said: "Because I am trained, nothing that happens within the scope of my training can then be considered stress." If that's true, then soldiers cannot come home with stress disorder, because they are trained.

I was a logger. I don't really get how…. If I was trained to be a faller, and if I fell a tree and it hit me, how can I claim compensation? I was trained. What we're saying, essentially, to the paramedics and police and firemen is: "You were trained; ergo, if something happens to you, if you cave in under the stress of your job, it's your fault. You failed to respond correctly to your training."

My request is that the government engage WorkSafe B.C. and emergency worker organizations and unions and their advocates, doctors trained in post–traumatic stress disorder and MLAs on both sides of the House in a reconsideration of section 5.1(1)(c) of the Workers Compensation Act, and should cases of post–traumatic stress disorder among emergency workers be adjudicated during a period of review, the requirement that there be a single moment of trauma be suspended in favour of medical testimony from doctors specializing in post–traumatic stress disorder.

Now, I've asked this question before of the Minister of Labour, and I would like to ask it again. Will the minister consider with her staff the request I just made, talk to the previous staff and the previous minister, and then agree to meet with me to give me her answer within one month?

Hon. O. Ilich: Just in answer to the member, I don't really want to get into a discussion of individual cases that are before the board. But I must say that in the years 2004 and 2005…. In each of those years, 300 claims were accepted for post–traumatic stress disorder. In 2006 there were 239 claims accepted. Having said that, I will undertake to do as the member asks and review that and get back to him within a month.

C. Evans: Thank you to the minister. I just want to put on the record that for as many years as I get elected, we'll be doing this until we address this question. I very much appreciate the minister's comment that she doesn't want to intervene in individual cases. That would be completely inappropriate for a minister. I accept that answer, and I completely agree.

However, this individual and some others will await the answer, and I would encourage the minister…. I appreciate that there are 200 acceptable claims. My point is that the rules now preclude people who cannot prove a moment of definable injury, and we don't have those numbers as statistics. Those are the people that are now left out. So I'll meet you in a month, and hopefully, we'll never do this again.

B. Simpson: I would just like to canvass the minister on the WorkSafe B.C. regulations review with respect to the forest industry. If the minister could give us a general time frame for that and when we might see some of those regulations changed and/or legislation coming forward.

Hon. O. Ilich: Just to update the member opposite, in November 2006 a first draft amendment was approved by the board of directors. It was released to stakeholders for consultation. There have been meetings throughout December, January and February. There has been some feedback incorporated. With approval of the board of directors, the formal proposals will be released for public hearings in June. After that they'll be incorporated where appropriate and come into force 90 days after deposit with the registrar of regulations.

The issue of prime contractor is an issue that is creating some considerable confusion out on the working forest land base. Is the minister going to do anything in the interim? We're getting into planting season, and we've got full harvesting season underway, and so on.

The prime contractor issue is a significant safety concern. Will there be any clarification on the prime contractor issue in advance of the actual changes occurring?

Hon. O. Ilich: I just want to say right at the start that I think everybody is very much concerned about safety in the forests. That is a big concern of ours. As you know, the Auditor General is currently undertaking a review to make sure that we are doing everything possible.

With respect to the status of workers at WorkSafe, what you're asking is a status question. The board of directors did consider the revised policies at its January 2007 meeting and has asked the policy and research division to come back with proposed changes to address stakeholder concerns regarding that. It'll be dealt with in the March 2007 board of directors meeting. That will be this month.

Seeing as we just left on a forestry matter and understanding that we're a little pushed for time, I'm going to try to maybe get through this component of it first and then start fresh tomorrow morning.

First of all, the minister is certainly aware of the inquest into the death of faller Ted Gramlich. There were a lot of issues that played themselves out in that, as I had made in my opening presentation. I'd like to ask the minister how far the ministry has gotten with WorkSafe B.C. with respect to the recommendations — I believe there are 22 — that were made by the inquest into the death of faller Ted Gramlich.

Hon. O. Ilich: Actually, we have taken a look at the recommendations of the Gramlich inquiry, and we are working on every single one of the recommendations. The recommendations are at various levels of being worked on. Some of it will be looked at as part of the review of part 26 of the occupational health and safety regulations and also in the Auditor General's report. We are working on every single one of those recommendations. We can go into great detail or a little detail on that, or we can provide the member with the more detailed process of what's going on separately.

C. Puchmayr: I think it's important that some of the detail is flagged. First of all, I want to canvass the minister with respect to how the interaction between WorkSafe B.C. and the B.C. Forest Safety Council works. Does she feel that that interaction works effectively for that industry?

Hon. O. Ilich: I would like to just say that, again, we take this very seriously, and obviously, so does the industry. The Forest Safety Council is the industry's response. They're taking ownership of the issue and making sure they are doing everything they can to protect the workers who work in the industry. WorkSafe enjoys a very good working relationship with the B.C. Forest Safety Council.

C. Puchmayr: A memorandum was released, which was a draft to the B.C. Forest Safety Council to Tanner Elton. It was dated the 24th of August, 2005, which was, I believe, two or three months prior to the faller's death. It spelled out some very serious concerns about the new regulations — how they play out in the forest industry, and the responsibilities and obligations of these many new forestry companies with respect to health and safety on those sites.

It was a document that wasn't released to the public. It was a legal draft, which we were somehow fortunate enough to intercept. The flag that it raises…. It's sort of ominous because in the 22 points of the Gramlich inquiry, it makes some of those same observations, even though the Gramlich inquest was not privy to that document. It talks about the ambiguities and the lack of understanding in the forests.

I'm concerned how the B.C. Forest Safety Council, which is an entity that receives funding from WorkSafe B.C. or from the government — you can correct me exactly how the taxpayers' money flows to there — can be warned of something through a legal draft and not respond to it directly. Two or three months later there's a fatal in the industry, and then a year after that there's an inquest and the inquest raises those same issues. That concerns me.

Hon. O. Ilich: First of all, let me just state that there are no public funds that go to the B.C. Forest Safety Council. It is funded separately by assessments to that industry. That industry has stepped up to the plate and said: "We need to take some responsibility." We all need to take responsibility for the safety of workers in the forest industry, and that's how the B.C. Forest Safety Council has been working. So they're focusing very much on that, as are we.

We have asked the Auditor General to look at the results of the Forest Safety Task Force that came out in 2004. We are asking him if he could take a look at whether or not our response has been appropriate and timely and fulsome enough. That's what we are doing. We do take this issue very seriously, as I said, and we're all working on that very issue.

In addition, I really can't respond to a document that I haven't seen. But I would like to just reiterate that anything that is related to the Gramlich inquiry is being worked on right now. So if the B.C. Forest Safety Council already saw those same things, then obviously we're working on that, along with the industry.

C. Puchmayr: I believe there were 22 recommendations. Some were recommendations to the Minister of Labour, some were recommendations made to the B.C. Forest Safety Council and some were recommendations made to WorkSafe B.C.

Has there been an audit of those components, and can the minister give me an idea as to whether they will fulfil all of those recommendations that were made at the inquest?

Hon. O. Ilich: As I stated previously, all of the recommendations of the Gramlich inquiry — whether they were directed at the ministry, at WorkSafe, or at both of us, or at the B.C. Forest Safety Council — are being worked at. We have asked the Auditor General to take a look at that and report out in June. So we are working very diligently on that. We take it very seriously. As I said, the Auditor's report will be out in June.

C. Puchmayr: Would this be a process that includes…? Well, a tripartite process. But would it also include workers in the field?

Hon. O. Ilich: The Auditor General is free to talk to whoever he wants to talk to. If he wants to talk to workers in the field, he has complete freedom to do that.

C. Puchmayr: Noting the time, I would reserve the right to continue on. I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

The Chair: The committee will stand adjourned until after question period tomorrow.

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.


	YEAS — 40

Falcon	Reid	Coell
Ilich	Chong	Christensen
Les	Richmond	Bell
van Dongen	Roddick	Hayer
Lee	Jarvis	Nuraney
Whittred	Horning	Cantelon
Thorpe	Oppal	de Jong
Campbell	Bond	Hansen
Abbott	Penner	Coleman
Hogg	Sultan	Bennett
Lekstrom	Mayencourt	Polak
Hawes	Yap	Bloy
MacKay	Black	McIntyre
	Rustad

	NAYS — 27

S. Simpson	Fleming	Farnworth
Kwan	Ralston	B. Simpson
Cubberley	Hammell	Coons
Thorne	Puchmayr	Gentner
Horgan	Lali	Dix
Trevena	Bains	Karagianis
Evans	Krog	Austin
Chudnovsky	Chouhan	Wyse
Sather	Macdonald	Conroy