Hansard — Tuesday, March 4, 2008 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


Introduction and First Reading of Bills		10187
	Local Government Statutes Amendment Act, 2008 (Bill 7)
	Hon. I. Chong

Speaker's Statement		10187
	Use of electronic devices in the chamber

Statements (Standing Order 25B)		10187
	60th anniversary of Vanderhoof Kinsmen Club
	J. Rustad
	Chief Ahan and Chilcotin War
	C. Wyse
	Baldy Hughes
	L. Mayencourt
	Wild salmon adopt-a-fry campaign
	R. Austin
	Providence Health Care
	J. Nuraney
	Kidney Health Month
	K. Conroy

Oral Questions		10190
	Funding for school playgrounds
	C. James
	Hon. S. Bond
	D. Cubberley
	J. Kwan
	Services at Retirement Concepts seniors facilities
	M. Sather
	Hon. G. Abbott
	G. Gentner
	Haisla First Nation and B.C. Utilities Commission decision-making process
	R. Austin
	Hon. R. Neufeld
	M. Farnworth
	Hon. G. Campbell

Petitions		10194
	C. Trevena
	S. Fraser

Motions without Notice		10194
	Powers and role of Children and Youth Committee
	Powers and role of Crown Corporations Committee
	Powers and role of Finance and Government Services Committee
	Referral of reports to and powers of Public Accounts Committee
	Hon. M. de Jong

Second Reading of Bills		10196
	Ministerial Accountability Bases Act, 2007-2008 (Bill 5)
	Hon. M. de Jong
	B. Ralston
	N. Macdonald
	R. Fleming
	S. Simpson
	D. Chudnovsky
	M. Farnworth
	Hon. M. de Jong

Throne Speech Debate (continued)		10210
	L. Mayencourt
	N. Simons
	Hon. K. Falcon

Point of Privilege (Reservation of Right)		10220
	D. Chudnovsky

Throne Speech Debate (continued)		10220
	C. Wyse
	Hon. G. Hogg

Hon. I. Chong presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Local Government Statutes Amendment Act, 2008.

Hon. I. Chong: I am pleased to present the Local Government Statutes Amendment Act, 2008. Local governments play a key role in the vibrancy and sustainability of all British Columbians. We have to remember that while communities of all shapes and sizes face different challenges, they also encounter similar challenges. All have an interest in improved accountability and transparency for their residents.

This legislation that I'm introducing today provides important ways to support local governments to achieve this. A key area of local government interest is local elections, particularly in this, an election year. The Local Government Statutes Amendment Act will mean increased transparency in the disclosure of campaign contributions. It will increase the level of public commitment required to stand for local office, and it will allow local governments to improve access to voting for residents.

This legislation will also improve internal provincial approvals, essentially streamlining some government processes to improve efficiencies for local governments. Finally, this legislation will enable local governments in the Elk Valley to establish the new Elk Valley property tax sharing agreement. It's an important agreement for Elkford, Fernie, Sparwood and the regional district of East Kootenay, negotiated with the coal industry for the benefit of residents. These local governments will share municipal property tax revenues generated from coalmining properties in the Elk Valley. The Local Government Statutes Amendment Act, 2008, is about supporting communities to become more vibrant places to live and work.

I move that the Local Government Statutes Amendment Act, 2008, be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 7, Local Government Statutes Amendment Act, 2008, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, I want to take a brief opportunity to address the use of electronic devices such as laptop computers, cell phones and BlackBerry units while in the chamber.

As members know, these devices may be used subject to specific restrictions, as outlined in a memo to you all on February 16, 2006. All members continue to have the obligation to ensure that these tools are used in a manner which does not disrupt the orderly conduct of the proceedings.

Electronic devices must be operated silently while in the legislative chamber. Cell phone conversations are obviously not permitted, but it is imperative that these devices are on silent mode while in the chamber.

The use of technology in this chamber must never impinge on the dignity or the decorum of parliamentary proceedings. As Speaker, I reserve my right to direct any member to discontinue use of electronic devices if I find that the dignity of the House has been compromised.

As noted earlier in the 2006 memo, electronic devices are permitted to access textual information during designated proceedings only. They must not be used during the following proceedings: during the Speech from the Throne, during royal assent, during budget speech, during prayers, during question period, during points of order, during points of privilege, during Speaker's rulings, during votes and divisions, and when the Premier or the Leader of the Opposition is speaking to the Speech from the Throne or the budget speech.

At any other designated time, pursuant to instructions by the Speaker, electronic devices must be programmed to operate silently. Electronic devices must not be used by a member who is in possession of the floor.

I trust that all members will benefit from this further clarification on the use of electronic devices. We must ensure that these tools are used in a manner that maintains decorum in the chamber and public trust and confidence in the Legislature. I want to remind members that I have an extra set of eyes, I understand, up above me that is able to check on some of these things. So just a friendly reminder to members.

J. Rustad: Few service clubs can boast the type of accomplishments that the Kinsmen association can. Founded in 1920 by Hal Rogers, the Kinsmen announced at last year's national convention that they've now raised over $1 billion for the people of Canada. This doesn't include over $36 million that they've raised for the Canadian Cystic Fibrosis Foundation.

The Kinsmen have been instrumental in the battle against cystic fibrosis, but not just through fundraising. They've been advocating for neonatal cystic fibrosis screening as a way to vastly improve the lives of people with this genetic disease. This simple test allows for early intervention and greatly improves outcomes.

Since the Kinsmen's inception, their motto has been to serve the community's greatest need. To that end, the Vanderhoof Kinsmen recently celebrated their 60th anniversary. During their time in the community, they've raised about $2 million. They've supported projects such as medical facilities, parks, sports fields and a spray pool. The current goal is to help build a skateboard park for the youth of the community.

I was honoured to attend a dinner in Vanderhoof celebrating their anniversary but also recognizing one of their members. Joe Fraser has been instrumental over the past decade with the Kinsmen. He joined in 1996 and has focused on helping the community with bursaries that the Kin give every year to a student who undertakes volunteer work in the community.

Joe was honoured during the 60th anniversary celebration with a life membership. This is the highest honour that the Kin can bestow upon a member, and Joe is only the 11th member in history to receive this award in the Vanderhoof association.

Please join me in congratulating the efforts of the Kinsmen and in congratulating and thanking Joe Fraser for his contributions towards serving Vanderhoof's greatest needs.

C. Wyse: On Friday I had the honour to join my colleague the member for New Westminster and several chiefs of first nation bands in a moving ceremony at New Westminster. As this House knows from a previous address I gave in this chamber, the Chilcotin War of 1864 had a long-term effect on first nations people of the interior plateau.

Six chiefs of the Chilcotin Nation went to war against Alfred Waddington and his men, who were intent on building a road from Bute Inlet through the Tsilhqot'in territories to the Cariboo goldfields. The chiefs were trying to protect their families and territory after 60 percent of their people had been decimated by a smallpox outbreak.

As a result of the Chilcotin War of 1864, six Tsilhqot'in chiefs were executed — five of them in Quesnel and the sixth in New Westminster. While the remains of the five chiefs executed in Quesnel have been found, the sixth chief's remains were never located.

Friday's ceremony in New Westminster is a first step in closing a circle that has remained open for 143 years. This moving ceremony in honour of Ahan, the fallen missing warrior, recognized the chief's efforts to protect his people and their way of life.

Attending Friday's ceremony were the current six chiefs of the Tsilhqot'in people; five former chiefs; several elders and youth from the Tsilhqot'in bands; Lynda Price, chief of the Carrier people and representative of the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs; Wayne Wright, mayor of New Westminster; the chair and vice-chair of the New Westminster board of education as well as other representatives of New Westminster school district. The gathering was welcomed by Sharel Wright, daughter of Chief Rhonda Larrabee of the New Westminster Indian Band, Qayqayt.

I know that the House joins with me in celebrating this first step towards resolving a longstanding injustice and closing a circle for the first nations people of the interior plateau.

L. Mayencourt: Modelled on Italy's most successful drug treatment community, San Patrignano, the Baldy Hughes therapeutic community has become a new and inspiring alternative in response to addictions recovery in north-central B.C. Since December of 2007 a small group of recovering addicts has started to arrive with the dream of building a new life for themselves and others that may join them soon.

The 1950s army base of Baldy Hughes is ideally suited to be the first long-term holistic treatment community in British Columbia. The site includes 23 buildings, including several dormitories, a restaurant, a bowling alley, a curling rink, an ice rink and a number of workshops.

As well, we have had a wonderful response from the people of Prince George. Several professionals from that city join us weekly to provide workshops, lead support groups and direct apprenticeships.

Without a doubt, this has been the most challenging experience of my life. We have had some setbacks. There have been times when it's been very, very discouraging, but there are also times when it has been incredibly inspiring to see people in their recovery.

One of the things I want to tell people about in this province is that there are 17 people up at Baldy Hughes today who are working hard, who are brave and who are trying their very best to overcome their addictions, and they're making it.

Among those is a young lady by the name of Stefeni, who is eight months pregnant. Several months ago she was living on the streets, and it looked like she would not be able to have her baby as life moved on for her. I know that now Stefeni and her child will be welcomed at Baldy Hughes. They will be engaged on the recovery program, and the child, Stefeni and the other people that are living up at Baldy Hughes will have an opportunity to heal.

R. Austin: I would like to take this opportunity to speak on the importance of wild salmon to our province and to highlight the significance of this gift that is the heart and soul of so many B.C. first nations communities.

Often when we think of salmon, we think about their economic value in terms of the commercial fishery as well as the wealth that is generated in the sport fishery. We've also come to learn how wild salmon nurture our forests and how without them we would not have the eagles, bears and orcas for people to come from all over the world to appreciate.

I want, however, to demonstrate the cultural importance of wild salmon to the first nations peoples, who figured out long ago that their survival was dependent on this resource. Many legends and songs of first nations peoples have to do with salmon, which was often their primary source of protein. I'd like to share one such story that I and the member for North Coast witnessed when we attended Hobiyee in Gitwinksihlkw.

The volcanic eruption that took place in the Nass Valley about 250 years ago is attributed to the anger of the Creator at the way in which some children disrespected the life-giving salmon by putting stones and burning sticks into their backs and watching them swim. The elders warned the children repeatedly to stop, but they did not. The volcanic eruption happened soon after.

According to the veteran story teller, [A first nations language was spoken.], the people saw a big fire. It moved down slowly — very slowly. It was strange and frightful, [A first nations language was spoken.] continued. Invisible fumes pushed ahead of the advancing wall of fire. Those who smelled them were smothered, the elders said, and their bodies stiffened like rock.

All of us need to work to preserve wild salmon. They have suffered stress from logging, industrial activity on rivers, commercial fishing and now climate change and fish farms, particularly those on migration routes.

With that in mind, I would like to bring to the attention of all members of the House an organization called Adopt a Fry. For just $20, we can go on the Web and help them to physically transport salmon fry around fish farms, thus helping their survival rate and not exposing them to unnecessary levels of sea lice. The website is www.adopt-a-fry.org.

I challenge all members of the House who care about wild salmon to assist in their efforts.

J. Nuraney: I would like to take this opportunity to recognize Providence Health Care in Vancouver for being selected as one of the top-20 best employers for new Canadians.

Providence operates seven acute care rehab and residential care sites in Vancouver, including St. Paul's Hospital, Mount Saint Joseph Hospital and Holy Family Hospital. The ranking is compiled by Mediacorp Canada, the same organization that conducts Canada's top-100 employers ranking.

Providence Health Care is one of the two Canadian health care organizations in the top 20 and one of the two organizations selected in British Columbia. Providence was recognized in particular for its programs and initiatives designed to attract, retain and develop recent immigrant employees. The government of British Columbia is working to make it easier for internationally educated workers, including health professionals, to come and work in British Columbia.

This award is in recognition of employers who have taken steps to reduce the barriers that new Canadians face in making the transition to a new country and a new employer. Finalists represent employers from across Canada that lead their peers in creating workplaces that welcome new Canadians and that allow them the most opportunities for their skills, education and talents. Congratulations to the staff and administrators at Providence Health Care on winning this award.

K. Conroy: For those of you who know my family, there are a number of health-related issues I could speak to, and most of those are just specific to my husband Ed and his amazing ability to keep on testing our medical system. March is Kidney Month, and this last November Ed started on another new experience: kidney dialysis.

The kidneys are the master chemists of the body, as vital to our health as the heart or lungs. If left untreated, kidney failure can lead to death within days. There are an estimated 145,000 British Columbians with undiagnosed kidney disease. As well, 2,400 people are on dialysis and 6,100 on predialysis.

Dialysis in this province is coordinated by the B.C. Renal Agency through regional centres. Ours is located in the Kootenay Boundary Regional Hospital in Trail. Three days a week those requiring dialysis make their way to the unit for a procedure that can take four to six hours, depending on extenuating circumstances. You can add a few hours' travel time, depending on where you live.

An initial reaction from people might be: "What a long time. That takes your whole day," or "I would have trouble with that." The reality is, though, that for those people being dialyzed, it is a fact of life, as routine to them as going to work is for us. Some of these folks will eventually end up with being able to dialyze in their own home, with great support from the local team. The technology that has advanced over the years allows people to even dialyze at night, ensuring a fairly regular life.

I want to take a minute to acknowledge the incredible team of people who work in the dialysis units across the province, but specifically those who do such an amazing job of keeping not only my husband healthy and happy but 40 other people from around the region, who all come three times a week. That's 120 treatments in six days.

So to the techs — Joy, Cheryl, Barry, Peter and Jim; the RNs — Kelly, Rose, Mary, Sharon, Kim, Margie, Melissa, Joanne, Teresa and Donna; and also to Tina, Maureen, Britt, Katy and Dr. Zhang — thank you from our family and everyone in our region, who are indeed fortunate to have all of you as part of our health care team keeping West Kootenay kidneys healthy and functioning.

C. James: First it was booster seats and partisan photo ops for Liberal MLAs. Now it's school playgrounds — another botched Liberal distribution scheme.

The B.C. Liberals took a million dollars, knowing that it wasn't enough to meet the demand, and gave it to the B.C. Confederation of Parent Advisory Councils to distribute. The problem? Many schools don't belong to the confederation. They had no opportunity to apply for this needed money. Other schools simply couldn't afford to come up with the matching funds. Then there was no needs assessment, just a random handout of $1 million.

My question is to the Minister of Education. Why did she agree to a random distribution of the million dollars that potentially ignored the schools, the communities and, most importantly, the children who needed it the most?

Hon. S. Bond: The only thing that's disappointing about the question from the Leader of the Opposition is the fact that she would full well know the value of the B.C. Confederation of Parent Advisory Councils in British Columbia.

Hon. S. Bond: In fact, for the kind of discussion and dialogue that's taken place from the members opposite over the last couple of days around BCCPAC, it is embarrassing and irresponsible.

C. James: What's embarrassing is how many ways the minister has to twist herself up to point fingers somewhere else instead of looking at the government's problem on funding issues.

BCCPAC itself said that it didn't have the capability to manage these funds, so it decided to do a lottery system because it didn't know what else to do. There was another requirement. Schools and their parent advisory councils had to let government participate in the announcements.

Clearly, that meant Liberal MLAs. That would explain the photo op that the Minister of Forests had in Langley when he delivered his $20,000 cheque or the photo op the member for East Kootenay had when he delivered his cheque for $20,000 — or any of the other Liberal MLAs who are plastered all over the government caucus website.

My question, again, to the Minister of Education: did she not learn anything from the booster-seat fiasco? Instead of a botched distribution scheme and Liberal photo ops, why didn't she actually use that time properly and develop a system that would ensure the money got to the schools and students who needed it the most?

Hon. S. Bond: In fact, there's only one botched thing in this Legislature, and that's the question the member opposite just asked. Perhaps we should look in the dictionary for the definition of the word "random." In fact, let's actually look at where some of the playgrounds have been selected, and let's just think about where those might take place.

Oh, Cariboo North, Dragon Lake Elementary School. Perhaps in the Legislature today the member for Cariboo North would like to stand up and say: "We don't need the money for the Dragon Lake Elementary playground."

C. James: Well, the only defence the Minister of Education can stand here and give is the definition of "random." Does she actually support random distribution of a million dollars instead of looking at the schools and the children who need it the most? I find it extraordinary that a Minister of Education would say that random is the best way to ensure the money gets out to schools.

It's amazing, but as I said, they did spend time making sure that Liberals got their photos taken with those cheques when they handed them out. They decided to take that million dollars but chose to ignore which kids and which schools needed it the most.

Again, my question to the Minister of Education: why have she and her government taken time to make sure the photos are there and the press releases are there and ignored the children and the schools?

Hon. S. Bond: You know, it's amazing. What was then was then; what's now is now. What did the Leader of the Opposition say to the B.C. Confederation of Parent Advisory Councils when she was a trustee? Perhaps on this side of the House we're going to stand up every single day in this House and trust parents in British Columbia to make decisions that are in the best interests of children.

Hon. S. Bond: In fact, parents across this province…. When we visited schools across British Columbia — hundreds of schools — one of the things they said was that in the past, previous governments didn't provide any additional funding for playgrounds. We responded. We provided the money to BCCPAC, and they made the decisions they felt were appropriate.

D. Cubberley: Queen Mary Elementary was a west side winner in the minister's mini-lotto for playgrounds. It decided it should do the right thing and give its $10,000 to a needy east side school. The parents that the minister says we should trust at Queen Mary said to themselves: "We're thinking about this, and we think this money should be better spent by a school with little or no equipment rather than a school that has good equipment."

So my question to the minister: why didn't she think about it? Why didn't she aim the million dollars at the neediest schools, recognizing they've got the least ability to fundraise? Why did she freeze those schools out? And then, why didn't she trust the parents and listen to them when they tried to do the right thing and give the money to a needy school?

Hon. S. Bond: You know, as the Education critic, the member may want to ask himself how appropriate it is to stand in the Legislature today and criticize an organization that represents almost 1,100….

Hon. S. Bond: In fact, it's an organization that represents over 1,100 parent advisory councils, which this government has partnered with on numerous initiatives. We trust them, we support them, and that will continue.

D. Cubberley: Well, I was certainly criticizing an organization, but I think it was the organization sitting on that side of the House.

There are a lot of public schools in British Columbia that don't have PACs, and the minister knows that. Many of those schools that don't have PACs are among the neediest schools in the province. Many of them don't have adequate playground equipment, or any playground equipment at all.

What I want to know is: why did she endorse a lottery that didn't apply to all schools? Why didn't she insist that the money go where it's actually most needed? And why would she refuse to allow parents of the school to correct her mistaken approach, when she says she trusts parents?

Hon. S. Bond: Perhaps the member opposite would like to finish the rest of the story. You see, the million dollars isn't the only investment that this government made in playgrounds. In fact, working with the Solicitor General, we're going to provide $1 million for three more years, for an additional $3 million for PACs.

Hon. S. Bond: Perhaps we should just mention the other piece of the playground program. In a partnership with the Rick Hansen Foundation, we have also provided $2.5 million to allow boards of education, municipalities and a wide group of partners to apply for $2.5 million in playground funding.

J. Kwan: The minister says she wants to listen to parents. Let's listen to these quotes from a parent from Queen Mary's: "It's really disappointing. We have been getting lots of interest from schools, and they felt they could put the money to good use. We found out that many people who wanted the money and who really needed it, didn't get it. There was an agreement that if we could find a school that really needs it, we would all feel a lot better if we can donate those dollars."

The parent goes on to say: "I always thought that when the government was giving out money, it had processes in place to do it in an accountable way."

So the government allows for a lottery program in place from an organization that admits that they don't have the wherewithal to do it otherwise — to assess it on the basis of need. That's accountability from this government.

Will this government trust the parents of Queen Mary's and allow them to donate the moneys to schools that are much more in need of playground equipment dollars?

Hon. S. Bond: So which is it? You're not prepared to…. Sorry, through the Chair. The member opposite is not prepared to actually support and provide the kind of responsibility to the B.C. Confederation of Parent Advisory Councils, who made every single decision on that list independently. We support that, and we're going to continue to work closely with BCCPAC.

J. Kwan: Let's be clear. The president of BCCPAC said that her organization opted for a lottery program because it did not have the staff or the expertise to assess the needs of the applicants. The government, which touts the ActNow initiative, refuses to fund all schools in need of playground equipment.

Instead, they choose a lottery program to be put in place. They did this even though they know that this would eliminate some 30 percent of the schools from

qualifying. Even when a winner of the lottery, Queen Mary School, wanted to donate that money to another needy school, the government said no.

Is it a wonder, Mr. Speaker? It turns out that the priority for this government on this initiative is all about photo ops. How's that for accountability for you?

My question is actually to the Premier. Will he tell his Minister of Education to be accountable to the taxpayers of British Columbia, and will he finally commit to fund all schools that are in need of playground equipment, and do it today?

Hon. S. Bond: Well, I know this comes with great risk, but I want to point out this fact. This is the first government that has actually stepped up to the plate and provided playground funding. In fact, Mr. Speaker….

Hon. S. Bond: Well, what's ironic is…. Let's talk about the opportunity for photo ops. I remember the last time that I was at Cambridge Elementary School, actually opening that particular school. It was a pleasure to share the ribbon cutting details that we had with the member for Surrey–Panorama Ridge, happy to attend that particular photo op.

Hon. S. Bond: This is about providing, for the first time in British Columbia, $6.5 million to support parent advisory councils. We're proud of that record, and we're going to continue to work with BCCPAC.

M. Sather: Golden Ears seniors centre is operated by Retirement Concepts in Maple Ridge. An audit was done of the facility by the Fraser Health Authority. They found them non-compliant in all categories, and they said that the lack of supervision has led to serious risk to resident health and safety. Tony Baena from Retirement Concepts blames the government. He said that the government is not providing the funding that they need to meet the needs of the residents there.

Now, lack of the staff to care for these residents is serious to seniors. It means less cleaning. It means less personal care. It means less dignity for them. When is the minister going to stop standing up for his friends, when is he going to start standing up for the seniors of this province, and when is he going to get Retirement Concepts to provide the care to these seniors that they should be providing?

Hon. G. Abbott: The issues which the member references were raised with the licensing authority at Fraser Health last July. Immediately after being in receipt of the complaints, the Fraser Health licensing authorities stepped in. They ordered remediation. The remediation was undertaken very promptly.

In fact, all of these issues were canvassed, I thought very thoroughly, in a local newspaper in the area back on October 16, 2007. I know that the hon. member was not in the batting lineup for the opposition last fall and perhaps didn't have an opportunity to raise the issue at that time.

What occurred at Golden Ears was that the licensing authorities, immediately upon hearing of a concern, stepped in and resolved it, as the system should work.

M. Sather: We don't know what's going on in this facility because they don't report anymore. No one knows what is going on there.

I'll tell you that Tina Vos's mother is there at the facility. She's been there since before Retirement Concepts took over. She said that the care has gone steadily downhill, and it's not improving. She observed her mother, who was in soiled clothes, being cleaned but being put back into the same clothes.

When is this minister going to stop apologizing and covering up for Retirement Concepts? When is he going to start acting in the best interests of the seniors of this province? When is he going to act in the best interests of my constituents at this facility?

Hon. G. Abbott: Again, I'm rather puzzled that the member didn't have an opportunity to know about these things, because they were canvassed very extensively in his local paper on October 16, 2007. If the member didn't choose to get up at that time and raise this issue on behalf of his constituents…. I don't know what to say about that. There is a several-months delay in the member asking these questions.

In terms of apologizing for anyone, we don't apologize for anyone. Residential care….

Hon. G. Abbott: Residential care in this province is a trust that must be observed. Every complaint, every allegation that we ever receive…. We always ensure that the licensing officers immediately follow up. They follow up rigorously. They follow up comprehensively.

If the member has an accusation to make, he should make it, because this is a very good system. It works very effectively, unlike the opposition.

G. Gentner: The minister talks about a complaint process whereby Retirement Concepts intercepts those complaints before they reach his office.

Last fall the opposition exposed the serious decline of seniors care in this province. The Leader of the Opposition raised in this House the alarming issues of Beacon Hill Villa, another Retirement Concepts facility.

The minister defended Retirement Concepts. He said that it was okay. He said that he would have no trouble putting his own parents there. Well, the administrator overseeing this facility has been extended and admissions remain closed.

Last night we learned of another story about the Summerland Seniors Village, another Retirement Concepts. The member for Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows has spoken and shared with us concerns relative to Golden Ears village. We hear endless horror stories — Guildford Seniors Village, Williams Lake Seniors Village, Nanaimo Seniors Village. On and on they come, and all are from Retirement Concepts.

When is enough, enough, Mr. Speaker? When is this minister going to take action? When is this government to protect seniors instead of his friends?

Hon. G. Abbott: The member's comments are utter nonsense. We demand of every residential care facility in the province of British Columbia the highest standards in protecting the lives and well-being of the fragile and often very vulnerable seniors that they protect. We demand that of every facility in the province.

At any time when we get a complaint, when we get an allegation, when we get a concern from a staff member, from the family or from the patient themselves, they are followed up on rigorously and demonstrably. This is a system that works very, very well.

If this member has any suggestions to make about an allegation that has not been followed up on, I'd love to hear it, because it's not true.

G. Gentner: We have the records of those so-called highest standards from the Fraser Health Authority, which indicate that they have the lowest staffing levels, the lowest standards in western Canada, if not in all of Canada.

Can the minister explain to us: how many care hours do seniors receive in long-term facilities from this government? Please tell me: what is the standard here in B.C.? Your own ministry information tells the real story, Minister.

Hon. G. Abbott: I am very proud of what Fraser Health Authority has done in terms of providing residential care and assisted living for the people that they serve in the Fraser region.

When we took office, it took residents in the Fraser Health region almost one year to access residential care — almost one year. Today that has been reduced to between 30 and 60 days because Fraser Health has invested and the province of British Columbia has invested…. We have a thousand new residential care and assisted-living spaces in Fraser Health, thanks to that investment by the government and Fraser Health.

Hon. G. Abbott: Over the four years that Fraser Health facilities have been monitored — that's 64 facilities and thousands of residents — there have been 23 high-rating reports for Fraser Health. That is approximately five per year over 64 facilities.

R. Austin: Yesterday in this chamber, the Minister of Energy and Mines denied that this government has made any deal with Steve Wilson, chief of the Haisla Nation, regarding the B.C. Hydro–Alcan energy purchasing agreement. But in a letter to the Premier, Chief Wilson makes it clear that he agreed to take a neutral position on the EPA in exchange for government support of some of his projects.

Chief Wilson says: "I have more than lived up to my promise, and I expect the province to live up to what it has promised me." My question is for the minister. Is he asserting that Chief Wilson is not telling the truth?

Hon. R. Neufeld: Yesterday I was very clear with the members opposite. They don't want to listen to it, but I'll tell them again in case they forgot already. It was just yesterday about this time.

This government has never done anything to subvert any decision made by the B.C. Utilities Commission on behalf of all the residents in the province of British Columbia — never has intended to and never will do.

One thing we have done is that we have been working with first nations across the province of British Columbia, including the Haisla and Chief Wilson, on a whole bunch of projects to actually help them get economics happening on their traditional territory, to actually get jobs. What's getting tiresome is listening to the members opposite, who want to subvert that position all the time and not have those first nations actually enjoy what the rest of us do.

R. Austin: This isn't a matter of Chief Wilson's opinion. It's right here in black and white. Again, I quote from the letter to the Premier: "What we need from you is to direct your ministers to work directly with us to succeed in a short time span."

He goes on to say: "I expect the government to live up to what it has promised me. That includes what B.C.

Hydro has promised for the Haisla, to take a neutral position on the EPA at the BCUC hearings."

The Energy Minister won't answer the question directly, but his response suggests that he doesn't believe Mr. Wilson.

So I ask the Premier, the man to whom this is addressed: does he agree with the Energy Minister? Does the Premier think that Chief Wilson is not telling the truth?

Hon. R. Neufeld: Well, it's amazing. It's amazing that in this Legislature we have a member of the opposition now accusing a first nation leader in his own right, who has done a lot of things in the northwest for the people in the northwest…

Hon. R. Neufeld: …whether it's the LNG port, whether it's the energy corridor, whether it's working to try and get training done on reserve so that those people can actually go to work — all of those things. We have a member of the opposition saying that that Chief would do something illegal. That is entirely unacceptable in this House.

M. Farnworth: Well, the opposition just wants to get the answer to a question of a letter from the Chief to the Premier. The minister refuses to answer the basic question. The question is really quite simple. Is he saying that the Chief is not saying the truth in that letter?

Hon. G. Campbell: I don't think that this side of the House could be any clearer. The government has never attempted to influence the BCUC process or anyone's ability to participate in it.

The government has done this. The government has said to first nations across this province that we want to work with them to build economic strength for the future of their first nations. The government has worked….

Hon. G. Campbell: The government has worked with communities in the northwest, including the Haisla First Nation government, to try and bring forward a break-bulk terminal in Kitimat. We have worked with the Haisla First Nation to try and make sure that we can establish an LNG proposal worth $500 million that that opposition has been opposed to.

The government has said to first nations across this province that we will work with first nations in the development of IPP projects, which convert clean power for first nations economic opportunity. The government has said to first nations that we will work with them on the northern energy corridor, which could bring billions of dollars of opportunities across the north of this province.

So to the members opposite, let me reiterate. The government has never attempted…

Hon. G. Campbell: …to influence the BCUC process, but we will always work with first nations to close the economic gaps, the health gaps and the education gaps that exist in British Columbia.

I have a petition for more than 1,300 residents of Quadra Island, which is 82 percent of the electorate, calling for a freeze on ferry fares and a review of the Coastal Ferry Act.

S. Fraser: I present a petition from people from all over the province once again demanding that we protect animals and the environment from dangerous antifreeze.

Hon. M. de Jong: By leave, I move a series of motions dealing with the select standing committees, which I have provided to the Opposition House Leader.

They charge the following committees with their duties: the Select Standing Committee on Children and Youth, the Select Standing Committee on Crown Corporations, the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services, and the Public Accounts Committee. I think my friend has had an opportunity to peruse the motions and finds them acceptable.

Hon. M. de Jong: I call second reading of Bill 5, Ministerial Accountability Bases Act, 2007-2008.

Bill 5 provides for an increase in the amount of estimated operating expenses for the purposes of ministerial accountability under the Balanced Budget and Ministerial Accountability Act by the amounts referred to in the supplementary estimates for 2007-2008, which was tabled on February 26, and for statutory expenditures under the Emergency Program Act and the Wildfire Act.

As debated in the House last Tuesday, the $1.045 billion supplementary estimate provided funding for the climate action dividend, a host of climate action initiatives, grants to organizations in support of applied science and technology, funding to support research and treatments for illness and injuries, preventing and treating childhood cancers, and funding to support arts and culture in British Columbia.

The Ministry of Forests and Range was required to spend against their statutory authority for direct forest fire fighting costs. Although the province experienced an average year with cooler temperatures and wetter weather, the southeast corner of the province remained unseasonably hot, dry and susceptible to fire.

There were several notable fires in the '07-08 fiscal year, including the 1,500 hectare Hamill Creek fire north of Argenta, which caused a number of evacuation alerts; the almost 600 hectare Arrow Lake–Penstock fire southwest of Nakusp, which caused the evacuation alerts and power outages to Nakusp and several other communities; the almost 3,000 hectare Springer Creek fire north of Slocan, which also caused evacuation orders and alerts; and the just over 3,500 hectare fire 20 kilometres southeast of Trail, which caused evacuation orders and alerts.

So it was a difficult fire season, especially in the southeast corner of the province, with the overall numbers of fires totalling just under 1,600, with almost 60 percent of those caused by lightning.

The additional amount under the Emergency Program Act is to account for statutory costs incurred for responses to storm events and for the severe flooding in the province. Because of the storm events and the associated flooding and mitigation strategies, the Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General was required to spend over their budget allotment in Vote 39. The current estimate for statutory overspending for '07-08 is $75.2 million.

These costs included — that is, the $75.2 million — 55 mitigation work projects to protect communities across the province, 33 mitigation work projects to protect highways and bridge structures, the distribution of

5.3 million sandbags, dike and flood response training, evacuation costs and the flood response to the Nechako River ice jam.

It's been another challenging season for storms and floods. It's important for the province, in our view, to mitigate the effect of these disasters.

The Ministerial Accountability Bases Act, 2007-2008, makes provision to increase the amount of estimated operating expenses for purposes of ministerial accountability under the Balanced Budget and Ministerial Accountability Act for the Ministry of Advanced Education, the Ministry of Environment, the Ministry of Finance, the Ministry of Forests and Range, the Ministry of Health; the Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General; and the Ministry of Tourism, Sport and the Arts, as identified in Bill 5. I move second reading.

B. Ralston: Well, this is the ministerial equivalent of "The Puppy Dog Ate My Homework Act." What happens here is that the ministerial accountability act, which was passed in the halcyon days of 2001, provides for a penalty to individual ministers and to ministers as part of the cabinet in their collective responsibility if they overspend their budget targets.

What has happened routinely under this legislation is that for one reason or another, those targets have been exceeded, and mostly for deliberate policy choices by the government rather than the purpose for which the act was crafted ostensibly at the outset in 2001.

Granted, the minister has spent most of his very brief time introducing this bill on forest fires, and no doubt forest fires are a legitimately unpredictable expense. This bill touches on a number of other ministers: the Minister of Advanced Education; the Minister of Environment; the Minister of Finance; the Minister of Forests, as I've mentioned; the Minister of Health; the Minister of Public Safety; and the Minister of Tourism, Sport and the Arts.

What has happened in the budget process this year is that the Minister of Finance has chosen to take money from the previous budget year and add it to the estimates for that year, thus requiring and triggering this legislation. Section 3 of the Balanced Budget and Ministerial Accountability Act prescribes a salary holdback of 20 percent, which will be redeemed to the minister.

In section 4, half of it is to be redeemed to the minister. If in the main estimates for that fiscal year a surplus was estimated, and there's a surplus of at least 50 percent of the amount estimated, that's the holdback for achieving collective responsibilities. Then in section 5, the other half is for achieving individual responsibilities.

So what started out as a trumpet call — and in the initial Speech from the Throne it was referred to back in 2001 as true accountability — has now become a routine and embarrassing procedure for the government to circumvent the act, thus requiring this legislation each time.

Without this act, these ministers would suffer, I suppose, the reduction in pay that's prescribed by the act. The government is willing to engage the entire mechanism of this Legislature — the drafters, the introduction, the Clerk's office, all the rest of it — simply to save that small amount of each minister's salary in order that they not suffer the consequences of an act that they set in place back in 2001.

It's probably somewhat ironic that in this Bill 2, which we were debating earlier this morning, there are amendments proposed to section 27 of the Financial Administration Act. Government members, if they're appointed to a board or commission and if the legislation passes, will be able to be paid in addition to their salaries for that.

There's never, apparently, a good time for the ministers opposite or the members opposite to live up to their responsibility under this act and take the pay cut that's prescribed. There's always an excuse. There's always a way around it. There's always amnesty for the ministers, and this year is apparently no exception.

I speak against this bill at second reading. What the government should probably consider doing is simply revoking or amending the governing legislation so that we don't have to enter into this charade every single year. I speak strongly against this bill.

N. Macdonald: Bill 5 has, as the member previously said, been put in place and put before this House because a series of B.C. Liberal ministers have failed to keep to their budgets.

It's before I came to the House, but it was back in 2001. Many of the members here were present during that time, voted for this piece of legislation and made a big deal about it before they became government and when they became government.

So it's a highly hyped piece of legislation. The B.C. Liberals made it law that a minister would have a percentage of their salary held back and that it would be lost if a minister did not keep to their budget.

Of course, what so often happens and what so often follows, after this heavily hyped piece of legislation, is that like time and time again, the reality soaks in eventually. The reality with this piece of legislation is that every single year certainly that I've been here, and I believe going back seven years, ministers have not kept to their budgets.

Every single year there's a piece of legislation like this that forgives them. It makes the original promise farcical, and it makes the piece of legislation that's being amended here a bit of a joke — in fact, more of a joke. It is a complete joke, and it is a misrepresentation to the public about what's going on.

I have time to speak, and the focus of my speech is going to be on the fact that we need to be very careful as an institution with how we communicate to the public. There is a tremendous amount of cynicism, and I'll give you a context for that.

In Alberta and where I'm from…. I'm closer to Alberta and more tuned into Alberta than a lot of

places, except for maybe the members for Peace River South, Peace River North and East Kootenay. What happened in Alberta yesterday was that 41 percent of people bothered to go out and vote in the election there — 41 percent.

As people who get their power through the democratic process, that should concern us. We have an obligation to stop people from drifting into cynicism. This sort of exercise every single year is bound to reinforce that cynicism. What do you have? You have a solemn promise that ministers are going to keep to their budgets, but every single year they don't, and every single year a bill is brought forward that excuses them.

What one minister has ever been held accountable for the fact that they have not kept to their budget? Not one. There could be some argument if it's a forest fire season, and certainly what was highlighted were the places where you could have an argument. You could have a debate. But so many of these things that have been pulled forward and were put into last year's budget were items that when we debated them, and the question was asked of ministers to rationalize why it would not be in the upcoming year, they couldn't give a decent answer because there was no decent answer.

There was no compelling reason given by at least three of the ministers for why the money should be put on the books the way it was put. There was no compelling reason. There was a political reason why you'd do it the way they did, but there was no logic to where it was placed.

It makes a farce of a piece of legislation that was heavily hyped when it was first put in. Since it was a piece of legislation that flowed from a political promise that was made in the election, it only adds to the cynicism that is bound to be out there — cynicism that rightly would be directed at this government but in reality is directed towards this institution and politicians in general.

That's the truth of it. That cynicism, we know, is getting deeper and deeper as time goes on. I tell you that 41 percent voting in our neighbouring province is a problem that all of us should be worried about. It's something that we need to be cognizant of.

We have an obligation to make sure that people do not distrust an institution that has served not only this country but many countries for a long, long time. We should be leaving this institution strengthening it, not weakening it.

What I would point to is just a series of promises that were made that, over time, haven't been kept. People notice it. People are aware of it.

You have solemn promises that are made pre-election not to reduce the minimum wage. That was a promise made before 2001. It happened. Any explanation about it being a training wage — there's nobody who doesn't see through that. It is a solemn promise made before. And what do politicians do? Well, as soon as it's finished, they switch that. Does it not happen again and again?

They promised they wouldn't privatize health care services. Is that not happening in this province? It is. People can see through it. Yet a solemn promise was made before, and then it's gone. Well, we can think of 50. I think Rafe Mair did a list of 25. He could update that to 50. We could name them off the top of our heads.

Promises not to sell B.C. Rail. How did that go? Now, that was a pretty solemn promise that was made. It could not have been made any clearer. And yet just like this legislation, at a convenient time, when they have the power to do so, they just switch it.

A solemn promise that ministers who can't keep their budgets lose a percentage of their salary. It's a big thing to brag about, but it has not taken place once. There is not one year where a minister hasn't been unable to keep to their budget, and it happened again this year. It happened again to not just one. In fact, when the list was being read, it was…. You're trying to think: well, which minister was not involved in this? It's a long list of ministers that are going to be excused from not being able to keep their budgets in place.

There was a promise not to break contracts. Remember that one? How did that go? The implications of breaking that promise are not only the cynicism of the population. It has also fundamentally weakened a system that we depend upon. It has fundamentally weakened residential care. There's no question on that. There's no question.

There was a promise to give us a health care system that was accountable to us. Well, how's that going? Take a minute to talk about that. Question period is obviously not a great forum for those sorts of debates. Let's just talk about some of the realities and some of the cynicism that comes when there is a promise to have a health care system that's accountable.

The central issue in residential care is the number of staff you have for the number of residents that need to be looked after. What is incontestable is that some of those numbers cannot be acceptable in any way.

Mount Cartier Court. Not only did it receive a licensing officer report that was heavily critical. It also put, in fact, a ratio of workers to residents that was within this government's standards. There was a nurse and two care aides looking after 46 residential care residents — 46 of them. Now, these are people that need a tremendous amount of care. That's overnight. What I was told by many, many people is that that is not enough.

We were told we were going to have a health system that was accountable. I know that one of the ways you can take it forward is to go to the minister. I understand that. But you need a system that is going to work better than that.

What people told me with relation to Mount Cartier, what they told me with relation to issues at Joseph Creek, was that there was a fundamental problem with the ratio of care workers that is acceptable to this government and that when issues are brought forward, there is no accountability.

These are our most vulnerable people in residence. They are highly vulnerable, and their families are

incredibly vulnerable too. When they bring an issue forward, they are deeply concerned that it will affect the level of care.

We were told by this government that just as we would have ministers who were held accountable, we would have a health system that's accountable. But it is not the reality. The reality is that those people are highly reluctant to bring anything forward, and they live in fear of repercussions. We can stay here and stand up and say that they have no need to fear repercussions. That's easy for us to say. We will not face them.

The reality is that people fear repercussions. When I was talking to a resident…. Actually, her husband was a resident in Mount Cartier. She eventually brought the story forward publicly, but when she first contacted my office, she would not come to my office to meet because she was afraid somebody would see her. I had to go to her apartment.

You can stand up and say: "Well, she shouldn't have been in fear." Reasonably, she shouldn't have been, but that is the reality. There are more families that have the same concerns as Tina, but they will not speak. They will tell me, but they will not speak.

The fundamental problem is the ratio of care workers to residents, and it is a huge problem. In a truly accountable system, if you had one….

We put an idea forward. Get a seniors representative. Have their issues dealt with in a forum that's different than this, because I can tell you that this forum is part of what will keep people reluctant to bring issues forward — real issues that should be talked about, things that the light should be shone on.

But we have not set up a system. The promise to get a system where health is accountable has not been set up by this government. It is another failed promise. A seniors representative would remove the fear. It would give people a way of bringing issues forward and dealing with issues in a way that is far more respectful, far more dignified.

That is a promise that was made by this government, just as they made a promise about holding ministers accountable — that they would somehow be docked pay. Well, my experience in this House has not been that anybody here gets docked pay. In fact, it seems to me that the pay system for all of us goes up and up.

Joseph Creek. Let's talk about Joseph Creek, Minister. Joseph Creek had a situation brought forward. It was brought forward by people whose parents had passed away. There are many others that raised the same concerns, but the only ones that would bring it forward were those that had parents who are no longer in the facility. They've passed away.

They raised the same concerns, just as I've heard with Fernie, with many, many facilities. There are not enough people looking after residents in these facilities.

Let's move on. There's more time for that as the session goes on — to keep pushing on that issue and to hope that the government will listen to seniors and raise the standard of care so that we have seniors treated with the dignity and respect they deserve, and that we put in place systems so that they can bring their concerns forward and light can be shone on conditions in these residential care facilities.

Let's talk about another promise that was made. It's a really interesting one. The B.C. Liberals promised that they wouldn't privatize B.C. Hydro. Well, how's that going?

You know, the reality…. The starting point for any discussion on this should be: well, how is public power doing for us? How is that working out — the lowest rates, second-lowest rates in all of North America? If there was a system that was lower, it would be — what? — Quebec or some other system that is publicly owned. You compare that to California. I mentioned Alberta before. Compare that to Alberta.

Why do you tinker with that? Well, why do you promise you're not going to tinker with it and move right into making substantive changes? Let's understand that deal. We take a successful system…. The B.C. Liberals promised they're not going to change it, and as soon as they're in power, they move very quickly and very thoughtfully to make changes — and very thoughtful about hiding those changes.

We paid to identify sites that would be good for run-of-the-river projects. We paid to find those sites. We own the water; we own the land. We own the land that the roads are going to go on. We own the land that the transmission lines are going to go over. We own all of that.

Then somehow those are given away for — what? — $5,000 or $10,000. Did anybody hear when that was offered? I don't think so. You had to be on a special list to get those grabbed up. That's for sure.

Have a look at who got them. Have a good close look, and I invite the public to do that. This is the biggest ripoff in the history of this province. Look at who got the rights to those rivers, and look what they did to them.

We took a system that was excellent in every way. We've tinkered with it, and people have made out with huge amounts of money. The only way people would not be revolted by it is if they didn't understand what was going on. There is a fog that the government very deliberately put around this whole issue so that you would really have to dig to get through it.

Just as there's a fog that goes with this piece of legislation. The idea that there is some ministerial accountability when not one minister has ever been held accountable for missing their budget and when every single year there is at least one, two in this case — what is it? — five, six…. It doesn't really matter. It's become such a joke now that nobody really even bothers to count. It's just assumed that nothing will come of it.

Let's continue with public power for awhile. So we own all of these things, and we give it away. All sorts of things are tinkered with B.C. Hydro that restrict their ability to do their job in the public interest. Instead, things are set up so that it is done for the

interests of a small group of private investors. It's not a small group; it's a growing group. How many are we giving away here? How many sites? There are 300, 400 or 500. It's a lot — a lot of money to be made. How many water licences are there? Some 300, 400, 250….

N. Macdonald: Eighty are approved — right? So who are they, and why would we be doing it in private…?

N. Macdonald: Well, the Minister of Environment has a lot to say. Maybe at some point he would stand up and explain to us why he thinks he should get the money that's supposed to be held back. He's the one who voted for the accountability act. He's the one who made the big deal about the accountability and being held to account for not keeping to his budget. He hasn't kept to his budget, but he's going to vote to change that. They have the majority. They can do whatever they want. So maybe if the minister wants to speak, he can stand up and explain that.

Let's go back to private power. Private power is — and I will say it again — the biggest giveaway of B.C.'s wealth that will have happened in this province — the biggest giveaway. We are talking hundreds of millions of dollars.

These contracts are for — what? — 15 to 40 years. The minister will stand up and talk about security of power. What happens after 15 to 40 years? It goes on the market. It goes to California or whoever is the highest bidder.

That is not in the public interest. That is in a select private interest, and that is what is taking place here. So we're talking about all sorts of things. We're talking about promises that were made, promises that were not kept.

What I will tell the public is that if there is one issue that you want to understand, it is this one. The government has put it in a fog. It is in a fog that you want to cut through.

There is material out there. Read Liquid Gold by John Calvert. Read the report by Dr. Shaffer. Go on the Web and google independent power projects. That innocuous name should properly be private power projects. They are….

N. Macdonald: Oh, the minister says: "Let's call them green power projects."

It is all of that terminology that makes them sound innocuous and benign. The only thing green about them is the money that's being stuffed in private developers' projects. That is the green part of it.

You look at the environmental impacts of these projects, which are substantial. All of it, if it was to be done, should be done publicly so that there is a public good, so that in the end we own it. All we do is give it away. So let's come back.

N. Macdonald: It sounds like the Minister of Environment wants to speak again. As I say, the invitation is that if you want to speak, you can stand up and tell us why the money that was announced in….

N. Macdonald: The minister has every right to stand up and explain why items that were talked about in this year's budget speech somehow show up in last year's budget, get stuffed in there so it doesn't show up. When he doesn't keep to his budget, a law that he campaigned on, a law that he voted for, he casually breaks. It asks….

N. Macdonald: Well, the Minister of Tourism is getting in here too. The minister asks: didn't I vote for it?

Here I'm talking about Bill 5, which deals with the minister's salary. I'm also talking about the bill in 2001 that the ministers supported and fully understand and campaigned on, the idea of ministerial accountability. The question I have is…. If those ministers want to stand up and explain the rationale for something being put into last year's budget and the way that it was, I'd be happy to hear it. It seems to me that's an explanation that is very carefully avoided.

So I guess with that, I can give a whole list of other projects, other promises that were made that have turned out to nothing — open cabinet meetings, not using public money for advertising, the most open and accountable…. How's all that going?

N. Macdonald: Oh, and the Minister of Revenue from not quite his seat gives a comment. He tells me to sit down.

Let's talk about one other thing. Let's talk about the convention centre. In terms of promises not kept — and the convention centre expansion project is certainly something that the members will like me to speak about — I remember that minister standing up, thumping his chest and talking about $495 million on time, on budget.

Well, how is that going? How did that promise work out? On time, on budget. Well, not on time. Well, not on budget — $495 million. What are we at? About a billion. And in terms of a billion, I think a billion is about the sum that was being thrown onto last year's budget.

So I guess the invitation I would make to that minister is: you have an opportunity to speak.

You do have an opportunity to speak. You can explain how your compatriots here deserve the right…. Excuse me. The minister can explain how his compatriots are willing, are able to break a piece of legislation that that minister voted for. That minister voted for a bill that said that ministers who break their budget, who can't keep to their budget, and all the flowery words….

I went back and looked at what Mr. Farrell-Collins said. I mean, wonderful speeches, high rhetoric, all these things that we're going to do, a new era — a new era this government campaigned on, a new era they talked about as they introduced the legislation. But there's something very old now about the idea of making a promise and not being able to keep to it. Like I say, Rafe Mair has a list of 50. I'm sure we could easily come up with a list of a hundred.

I realize that my time is coming to an end. If the ministers are going to make how many thousands on this, they get their…. It would be interesting to see the figure. What is it — $20,000?

N. Macdonald: Yeah. The least that they can do to earn their money is to have to sit here and listen to this from me. So with that, I thank you very much for the opportunities. It sounds like the Minister of Revenue would like to get up, and he's welcome to do that.

I, for one, will be speaking against Bill 5. I think we trivialized the promises that politicians make and that we need to do a better job at making promises that we intend to keep.

R. Fleming: I'm pleased, I think, to be speaking to Bill 5 this afternoon, although it's interesting that this legislation seems to come in pretty much as predictably as spring changes season every year. When it comes time to amend the budget and make sure that for the seventh year in a row running, no cabinet minister, even though they've overspent their particular ministerial budgets, suffers the indignity and the original accountability in this legislation of a pay cut of their 20 percent holdback.

We see this kind of bill happen every time, early in the session, to make amends and to make sure that once again the escape hatch for ministers to not suffer the indignity of a 20 percent pay cut from overspending their budgets and their ministries doesn't actually directly hit them in the pocket book. That accountability is actually subverted yet again.

There's a long list of areas where the budgets have been overspent. The previous speaker, the member for Columbia River–Revelstoke, did a good job of reminding the Legislature again of the convention centre cost overruns. I think that's a great example of the mad loopholes in this legislation that allow ministers to escape any accountability for poor decision-making or anything happening under their ministry, right before their own eyes. It actually subverts the very notion in our parliamentary democracy of the concept of ministerial accountability and responsibility.

Something like that can happen in your ministry. You can have legislation that proposes to be visionary, that gives the taxpayers of B.C. the comfort that if a minister is doing a bad job and they overspend in their area, they're going to get a 20 percent pay cut. Maybe they'll even be fired from their job, although we haven't seen that happen and although there have been many deserving cases where it should have happened, including to some individuals in the House right now. But I'll leave that aside.

In the case of the convention centre…. I can't think of a better illustration. Here we have the largest cost overrun in B.C. history for any capital project — period — of any government — an all-time record for cost overrun, overspending by 400 million bucks. The member previous from Columbia River mentioned that government had loved to go out and announce every

year that $495 million is the total cost of this project. "Count on it. Judge us. Evaluate us. It won't go over a dollar over."

Then we saw it go to $535 million. Then we saw it go to $590 million. Then we saw it go into the $600 millions. Then there was a long pause, and we saw it go into the range of $800 million. Now I would suggest we're in the range of a billion. Who knows? Officially, it's $893 million.

You know what? The minister has never, ever been held to account under this legislation for any of those cost overruns three years in a row. It proves that the value of this legislation — that there isn't any, that it's useless legislation. In fact, it doesn't give the taxpayers any comfort that there's anything personally on the line that actually judges the performance of a minister. I can't think of a better example than the trade and convention centre that illustrates that point.

Even the consultants — there's no accountability for them. The content consultants that got rich on that project and are maybe even still billing on that project, and the PavCo structure — that built that. They didn't suffer any penalties either, and neither did the minister.

So it begs to ask the question: where is the accountability? Under this act, it never winds up back here, and it never winds up in the minister's office. There is no reckoning. There is no full circle. There is no check and balance in this legislation. It's fake legislation, designed to address the public's yearning for accountability. Desperately, they do want to see government work better. They want to see decisions that are made reconciled against results in terms of performance on projects and on the annual operations of a ministry.

This legislation is a mockery of that, because it never happens. There isn't one example ever, since this legislation was adopted, of a single cabinet minister ever suffering the indignity of a holdback on their salary for the performance of their ministry, although every year, as sure as the flowers come out in the spring, as I said, we see this type of bill come before the House in the nick of time to save any minister before the date might become so close that they would suffer a 20 percent pay holdback for overspending in their ministries.

I want to look at one element of Bill 5 here. My colleague from across the way, the Minister of Advanced Education, isn't in the House, but he owns some of this year's bill — $72 million in Bill 5, ostensibly an overspend in the Ministry of Advanced Education. Additional funds for Science World and some of the research agencies — Crown agencies, that are involved with research in the province — are involved in that overspend.

You know, it's interesting for a number of reasons. While the minister has failed to keep to the budget projections — the spending, the actuals are now out of line with what was budgeted last year — he gets to overspend. He gets to bring in a bill here with other ministers and supplement that budget.

There are 26 public post-secondary institutions in this province, and I can tell you that nearly every one of them last year at some point…. Their boards of governors struggled with deficits themselves. They had costs that were higher than anticipated. They had enrolment projections that were wrong, and they had to scramble to anticipate the cost.

But, you know what? None of them, not one of those institutions, got to overspend their budget and go into deficit. They didn't have a magic wand that bailed them out at year-end. They had to deal with the fiscal realities. They had to deal with real legislation that constrained their ability to spend, as against what they were allocated. UBC had a $30 million deficit that they were struggling with midyear last year, which they managed to wrestle down. They had to do program cuts.

The minister knows about that because we talked about them in estimates. And he knows about that because the university has been talking to them about that. We've seen the same thing in institution after institution. Community colleges — university colleges around British Columbia — are in deficit positions. But come year-end, when they're audited, they will have a balanced budget sheet because they are not allowed under legislation to go into deficit.

They don't have the ability to come into this place and say: "Please could we have some more money," and "Can you put it into a bill like this?" It doesn't happen.

You know what's really interesting? It's that you think the minister might learn his lesson from Bill 5. He's asking us now for $72 million more…. You'd think the 2008-09 budget might actually learn something from the overspending in that fiscal year by building it into the base budget, but you know what? The budget actually goes down next year, interestingly enough.

So are we going to be in this position again next year, where the magic wand is waved in the Legislature to bail them out yet again? I can't for the life of me explain how the minister overspends this year, asks for $72 million in this bill and then projects that next year he'll need $37 million less, in terms of the allocation for the increase in this ministry. This is a big, complicated $2.2 billion ministry that was overspent this year, and it's being allocated less in 2008-2009 than it was in 2007-2008.

There are also cuts in this year's budget that, clearly, they didn't learn from in the previous year as well. I mean, per-student funding is down 3 percent. So you overspend in this budget year, and next year — brilliant — you're going to budget on the basis of needing even less. The institutions will get even less per capita to try and manage the system again in the following fiscal year.

There are other elements too. The capital budget in the current budget has mysteriously declined by $300 million, from over $700 million to $450 million in capital spending. I can tell you that administrators around the province would love to know what that means.

They have to now deal with the implications of that decision, having only learned about it a couple of weeks ago. It's their projects which have been budgeted for. Some of them are underway that now face uncertainty. But they live in the real world. They don't live in the world where the minister gets to come in by legislation here and create more money for himself when he's failed to meet his budget targets.

You know who else lives in the real world in this ministry? It's the students that we're educating and training for our labour-market needs, for our research and development, for the jobs of tomorrow. They study and make an investment in themselves — the single best investment they can probably make in their lives. They're going to be disappointed to hear that next year, for the second year in a row, the student aid system in British Columbia has been cut — by 7 percent next year.

It's unbelievable, because the government publishes these goals on the website, saying: "We'd like to expand spaces by 25,000." It acknowledges — doesn't acknowledge explicitly, but it's well known — that B.C. graduates fewer credentialed bachelor's degrees than almost any other province and that we have fewer PhD and master's students per capita than other provinces. Yet this is a budget next year that doesn't learn from last year, that projects a cut in spending for student aid programs. It's unbelievable.

B.C. colleges are actually telling the minister…. They're going to watch what happens here with the $72 million under discussion, because they've told him that right now they have a $14 million deficit — just in the college sector. I'm leaving aside the big four universities out of this equation, which is the majority of the budget for this ministry, and it will escalate to $30 million in two years.

Well, they wanted to see something in this budget that recognized the job that they're doing, the recruitment and the targets that they have to meet, the ability that they've absolutely hit their limit. They've all signed public sector wage accords. They have costs that are rising. They've made cuts in previous fiscal years. They're projected to have less funding per student going forward.

They would like to know why they haven't been listened to when the minister comes to this place repeatedly, year after year, having failed to manage his own budget and creates money for himself. They haven't had any answers to that. The budget elsewhere is doing exactly the same thing for other ministries.

You know what's interesting is that there's a silver lining, I think, strategically for the government. In their overspending, they've put the $72 million and ostensibly called it research and development funds, even though we're talking about Science World and the various councils and agencies that are supported by government.

That gives them some camouflage and some cover from what they've been hearing from the Premier's own Progress Board, from the research community, from university presidents' councils and from interprovincial comparisons that show that B.C. ranks ninth out of ten in terms of per-capita, university-based research and development funding.

"The best place on earth" is ninth out of ten in R-and-D funding. There are serious implications for that. That means we're running ninth in an area that generates the jobs of tomorrow.

This is supposed to be a green budget. You couldn't talk about an area better suited to diversify your economy, to create clean, high-paying, sustainable jobs that actually are researching what contribution B.C. can make to the global challenges — some of them around the environment and climate change. You couldn't talk about a sector better suited to make a contribution to that global effort than the university sector and the research and development that go on there.

We can think of the spinoff companies that have already been produced and the billions of dollars of economic activity that just come from that research cluster in the lower mainland — SFU, UBC and other institutions.

What is happening in this bill is that the minister is camouflaging his failure over the years to even listen to Mr. Plant, who they hired on a nice contract to take a high-level look at the university sector. Well, he recommended that B.C.'s position of ninth out of ten in Canada is not a good position. He recommended that we come third. I don't know why he wanted us to go for the bronze rather than the gold in terms of our placement.

That recommendation alone has a $200 million cost implication, and we're not making any steps in this budget to make up that gap, that huge lag, which most definitely contributes to the sagging productivity numbers of labour in British Columbia. The failure to invest in university-based R and D is linked directly to sagging productivity in B.C. We failed to do anything about it. Actually, I shouldn't say failed. I said there's a $200 million gap that Mr. Plant identified. To his credit, the minister did manage to find $1.5 million, or less than 0.5 percent of the recommended lift to university-based R and D, in the budget next year.

What he's doing in this bill is camouflaging his overspending in his ministry last year by trying to call Science World and the other Crown agencies "R-and-D spending." It's not what we're talking about. It's not what's identified in those reports. It's not directly supporting graduate students and researchers in our university community in the activities that are outlined in the B.C. Progress Board's report.

I think this bill makes a mockery of the word "accountability." It makes a mockery of it because, as I said before, there is no reckoning here. There is no closed loop. There is no balance to the check of making a minister accountable for the budget in his or her area if they overspend. It's an escape clause. It's used every year. It's as predictable as the sun setting or rising every day. Every year this happens — seven years running.

This legislation talks the talk of accountability. British Columbians had expectations for it to deliver on that, but the performance every year is to see every cabinet minister of this government escape any accountability, any cost in their pocket for overspending in their ministry.

That's not the way the real world works. That's not the way the 26 presidents of our colleges and universities in this ministry work. They have to make the tough choices and the sacrifices and the decisions.

The minister gets to come in this place, vote himself this thing and escape accountability. For that reason, I will oppose Bill 5.

S. Simpson: I'm pleased to get an opportunity to stand up and speak to the Ministerial Accountability Bases Act, 2007-2008 — Bill 5. It's an interesting bill, as we know. The original ministerial accountability act was brought in by this government around five years or so ago. The purpose of this was, with a great amount of fanfare, to hold ministers accountable. They would, in fact, be held accountable for meeting their budgets and for managing their ministries properly. That was the intention of this.

We now are into looking at what has become the common practice, which is a bill like Bill 5. It happens every year. Since this legislation was brought in about five years or so ago, we've had six times that there have been bailouts — at least six times where ministers have been bailed out by government legislation.

In 2004, apparently, it took three attempts to get it right. They had to come back with three similar bills in order to bail out ministers who had either some combination of ministerial ineptness or government arrogance, or some combination of the two, which succeeded in putting ministers over budget.

In 2005, 11 out of the 20 ministers of the day had to be bailed out by this bill. This year we have another rogues' gallery of ministers here who are going to be bailed out by the government again.

We have the Minister of Advanced Education who is going to be bailed out. We have the Minister of Environment who is going to be bailed out. We have the Minister of Finance who will be bailed out. The Minister of Forests and Range will be bailed out. The Minister of Health, the Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General and the Minister of Tourism, Sport and the Arts — all of these ministers have gone over budget, again, through some combination of their ability to do their job and of the government's disregard for the budgeting process that I'll talk about a little bit.

We have seven ministers this year, only seven — not 11, only seven. I guess we're making progress. In 2005 there were 11 ministers that had to be bailed out. This year we only have to bail out seven.

To be fair, periodically there are instances where there are circumstances that come up. People here have talked about forest fire fighting and things like that, where you can't determine what the costs will be ahead of time. You might legitimately have costs that overrun your budget and create a circumstance where you're spending in deficit.

Those are legitimate issues, and at that time, a piece of legislation like this might make sense. But that's not what we're talking about here. If you look at the budget that we just passed and you look at what was done in that budget, it becomes very clear that that's not what's occurring.

For example, we have the Minister of Environment. His budget is over by more than 100 percent because, as we know, the government decided that instead of putting money into this year's budget where it rightly belongs, where it will be spent in this year and in subsequent years, they're back-loading the dollars into the previous year's budget, the '07-08 budget. They're back-loading into that budget with the dollars because they don't want to count them against this upcoming year's budget. So as a consequence, you get a situation like the Minister of Environment, who has this massive increase.

Now, the reality of what we see there, of course, is that you have a government that's playing fast and loose with the budget process — that's what's going on here — and taking hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars and loading them back into a previous year's budget, when in reality they're being spent in this year's budget. That would require the government to actually be forthright with people, to be transparent, to tell the truth about these things — not something the government is very good at.

As I said, most of these items will be spent in the future, yet they're being accounted against the past. This particular piece of legislation, the accountability act, is largely to deal with financial accountability, but there are other forms of accountability, as well, where the government should show some degree of accountability.

Accountability is not a big deal except in rhetoric with this government. Actually, when I reflect on it, maybe this bill really shows inherently where this government is at. You have a piece of legislation, a law, an act that talks about transparency and accountability with all the glowing language. The government wraps itself in that legislation when it chooses to, but then just as quickly, time after time, as sure as we come back here every year — and I'm sure if the government had its way, we wouldn't come back here every year — the government brings in a bill that breaks its own legislation, its own act, its own intent — like Bill 5.

You know, there are other issues where accountability would be a healthy thing for the government too. My friend from Columbia River–Revelstoke talked about one of those, and I just want to elaborate a little bit because I thought he was very insightful, and I was motivated by his comments. I think that it raises another area where accountability might be something to look at.

My friend from Columbia River–Revelstoke talked about private power. He talked about the privatization of power in British Columbia. What we know, of course…. The government will say there are 60, 70 licences out there, but we know that there are over 500 applications floating around out there for water licences. It's a gold rush. It's a gold rush on private power. Every one of those rivers….

There's no accountability on that side of the House for this. There's no looking at cumulative impact, and there's no fair consideration of other uses. It's just a gold rush to get those applications, get those licences firmed up, go get those power purchase agreements out of B.C. Hydro — power purchase agreements you can't beat.

When B.C. Hydro says, "We'll pay you $87 a megawatt. You pay $5 or so of that back towards the licence fee, and you get to keep the rest," here's the deal: "We'll sign that deal for 25, 30, 40 years, and even if we don't need the power, we'll pay for it anyways. Even if we don't even take the power, we'll pay for the power anyways. Doesn't matter."

As these things roll out, we're speculating now there's about $28 billion of value in these. It's probably going to hit around $60 billion. What this is, is this government giving away $60 billion to their corporate friends because they need to create another pocket for people to write cheques to the B.C. Liberal Party. That's all this is about.

When you talk about accountability, this is about a government that didn't have and doesn't have the courage, doesn't have the jam to stand up and say: "We want to privatize B.C. Hydro. That's our objective. We don't have the guts to stand up and say that, so we're going to do it through the back door by stealth." That's this government's position. So instead, we're giving away our power. We're giving away our rivers. It's a free ride. Just sign up and you get a river — $5,000, buy a river.

S. Simpson: A Liberal card is important, but $5,000 or $10,000 will buy you a river every time. The Minister of Energy, time and again, will tell us this is about energy self-sufficiency. But what the minister won't talk about is that these power purchase agreements will run for 25, 30, 35 years as we buy this energy from our resource at a premium. And then those players — whether it be Ledcor, Plutonic, General Electric or whoever — are free to take that power and sell it where they want.

We know you've just got to read the minutes from the California utilities board. You've just got to look at what they're saying in California around clean energy to know they're investing now in the feasibility studies to build the transmission lines from the B.C.-U.S. border to take that power to California.

What that means…. This minister will tell us it's about energy self-sufficiency. I'd say that if this minister and this Premier get their way, it's about energy policy and energy pricing for British Columbia being decided in Sacramento instead of in Victoria, and that's wrong.

But they'll also tell you that it's green. They'll tell you that this is green power. Of course, what we know is that increasingly — and this is very interesting — we are seeing environmental group after environmental group that at first said: "Oh, green power. That's kind of interesting." As they start to look at these, they're realizing there's nothing green about this except for the money going into the pockets of the friends of the B.C. Liberal Party. That's the only green thing about this. That's what's green.

So if we had real accountability, like this act, maybe the Minister of Environment or the Minister of Energy would have the fortitude, would be accountable to go and meet with some of those people who are concerned about this — like the 500 people who showed up in Pitt Meadows, like the hundreds of people who will show up in Mission, like the people who would like to be in Vancouver — who want to talk to government about their giveaway of B.C.'s resources and their sellout of B.C. Hydro. They want to privatize this because they're ideological midgets. But that would be if we had accountability in broader terms. But I digress. I want to get back to the bill.

Now, the core issue of this particular bill, Bill 5, is the total hypocrisy of the government on this issue. It's total hypocrisy, the total lack of credibility of a law, for this government to stand up and embrace a law that they know they will break every single year. They'll have to bring in something like Bill 5 to get themselves off the hook, because they're fiscally incompetent. They're living off good times elsewhere in the world, and they couldn't manage their way out of a paper bag on this one. So spend the hundreds of millions of dollars and take the ride.

This really is a credibility issue in this chamber. As my friend from Columbia River–Revelstoke also said — he said many, many insightful things in his presentation, and I was inspired — it is this chamber that is at risk. It is the integrity of this chamber. People in British Columbia want us to say what we think and then do what we say.

The reality is this. The government has said: "We have an accountability act. We will hold our ministers accountable. They will spend their budget and no more. If they can't do that, there will be a penalty as a consequence of that."

Not once since this bill has been put in place has anybody been held accountable, not a single time. So where's the credibility in that law? There is no credibility in that law. Frankly, it fits the pattern of this government, which is to say what we want and not mean a word of it.

If this government wanted to be honest with the people of British Columbia they would, for this time, tell the truth. They would say: "You know that law that we passed five or six years ago, the ministerial accountability act? Well, we didn't really mean it. We're going to rescind the law, because we break it every year. We're never, ever held accountable to it. We've had dozens and dozens of ministers go over budget, seven more this year, but none of them are ever held accountable for any of their conduct. So we're going to quit the charade around this, and we're going to go ahead and just scrap the bill altogether."

But you know what? We can be assured that's not going to happen. That's not going to happen because I think it is pretty clear that this government is pretty confident that they can again pull the wool over British Columbians' eyes with this one. They believe they can do it with all that good talk — kind of like their talk on being green.

Well, let's talk about that for a minute. We had a budget, and it was the fuel tax budget. It was supposed to be the green budget. The reality is this. We had a

budget that dealt with this tax. It had a handful of issues that got PST exemptions for a short number of years, and nothing else in that budget is green.

Instead, we've got $200-odd-million to spend on transit and a $14 billion plan. That's over four years, the $200 million. To give you some contrast: $200 million to spend on transit over four years and $850 million to spend on roads and bridges this year. That's probably what we're talking about.

What do we know here? We've got a government that's still out there campaigning for offshore oil and gas. We've got a government that can't wait to build pipelines to ship that crude coming here out of Alberta, out of the tar sands, to be shipped off — all of this while they wrap themselves in the green flag. Yet nothing for municipal infrastructure in there. I didn't see any of that. Nothing around improved transit. I didn't see any of that.

Instead, we have a government that talks one thing and does something altogether different. But that's pretty standard practice for this government. They never do what they say they will do. They just say what they say and then move on and do what they please. They just do what they please.

S. Simpson: It does. It sounds very familiar, doesn't it? If we had ministerial accountability, would the government have done something like…? Well, here's an example. I mean, if the Minister of Children and Families had come in here and said: "You know what? I'm going to deal with child poverty. I've got hundreds of millions of dollars to invest in child poverty, and it's going to put me over my budget, but I'm going to fix the problem of the fact that we have the worst child poverty in the country." Off on this side we might say: "That's a good way to spend a little extra money to deal with child poverty."

But no, we don't get that. That would be doing something that was positive, but we're not going to have that. Instead, we have the ministerial accountability act. We have the Minister of Advanced Education — over their budget again. We have the Minister of Environment — double budget. We have the Minister of Finance — again, over the budget. The Minister of Forests and Range, the Minister of Health, the Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General, and the Minister of Tourism, Sport and the Arts — all over budget again.

So I will be voting against this — the hypocrisy of this particular piece of legislation; the hypocrisy of the government to not be prepared to stand up and be accountable; the lack of ability of this government to stand up and be accountable, to pass laws, to make laws and then say, "These laws apply to others, but they don't apply to us. We can tear them up. We can break them whenever we choose," like they've done on ministerial accountability.

I would urge the government to, just once here, do the right thing on this. Stand up and say: "It was all a charade. We didn't really mean the ministerial accountability act. We're going to tear up Bill 5, and we're just going to rescind the law and get it out of the way, because we never stand up to the law. We never account for the law. It doesn't mean anything to us. It isn't worth the paper it's written on, because we break it year after year, minister after minister with this government."

D. Chudnovsky: I'm pleased to rise today to speak in opposition to Bill 5 and to signal that I will be voting in opposition to Bill 5.

Somebody said that this was the most accountable government in British Columbia history. Somebody said, I remember, that this was the most accountable government in Canada. Somebody said that this was the most accountable government in the world. Somebody said that this was the most accountable government in the history of the world. I think I heard somebody say that this was the most accountable government in the known universe. I think I heard somebody say that.

I was trying to remember who said all those things. Who said that this was the most accountable government in British Columbia?

D. Chudnovsky: This government said that this was the most accountable government in British Columbia. Those are the only people who ever said it. It was this government that said this government was the most accountable government in Canada. Those are the only ones who said it. It was only this government who said that this government is the most accountable government in the history of the world. Nobody else.

The reason that nobody else ever said any of that stuff is because it's nonsense. It's pure and complete nonsense. Accountability, transparency, democracy — those are words that this government doesn't seem to understand. This bill that's before us right now is a perfect example of that.

What is the bill about? Well, while they were trying to convince themselves — and I think it's a bit of a stretch even to convince themselves — that they're the most accountable, the most transparent, the most democratic government, they invented this bill that said: "Well, if the ministers overspend, then they're going to pay a penalty."

It was brought to us with much fanfare and press releases and self-congratulation. I think it might have been announced at one of those open cabinet meetings. Remember those? That was another example of accountability and transparency. Remember that? Yeah.

So this law was announced with tremendous fanfare and self-congratulation because only they think

that they're accountable. Only that government thinks that they're accountable, and they keep trying to convince themselves. Breathtaking hypocrisy.

It reminds me of what the real motive is for this bill that's before us, Bill 5. This is the "Show me the money" bill, 2008. This is the same gang who brought us enormous raises that were pushed through the Legislature, jammed through the Legislature.

The trained seals may want to consider what they're suggesting. I did everything to the penny that I promised with that raise when the "Show me the money" bill was brought to this House — to the penny. So those hypocrites better think twice about what they're suggesting.

Deputy Speaker: Member, will you please stand up and withdraw your remark about being hypocritical. When we refer to all members, we want to use as much respect as possible in the House.

D. Chudnovsky: Hon. Speaker, I wasn't aware that the word "hypocritical" was unparliamentary. If it is, I certainly will withdraw it, but I seek your advice, hon. Speaker.

Deputy Speaker: You've received my advice. So I'm asking you to please withdraw the remark and continue speaking.

D. Chudnovsky: "Hypocrite" is unparliamentary, I understand, hon. Speaker. I believe that this government is being hypocritical.

D. Chudnovsky: I thought I did. But I will do it again, hon. Speaker. I take your advice very seriously. The word "hypocrite," I understand, is unparliamentary. I used it. I withdraw it.

It is the "Show me the money" bill 2008, which follows the "Show me the money" bill 2007. It's hypocritical. It's greedy. It's wrong. We're voting against it, and we're doing so proudly.

M. Farnworth: I can't resist the temptation to comment on this bill, because I think it's important that we expose the government for what they're trying to do with this piece of legislation — just remind people about this piece of legislation. It's called….

M. Farnworth: Ah. I hear the members going: "You voted for it." Yes, we voted for it because we expected the government to live by the legislation. We expected ministers to actually live by the spirit of the legislation. What was not anticipated is that year after year after year, the government would bring in a piece of legislation basically to pardon itself.

That's the type of thing you expect from George Bush at the end of his term. He pardons people. This government does it every single year. They do it every single year with this piece of legislation.

When we voted for it, members voted for it on the understanding that if ministers went over budget, there would be no excuses. There would be no conditions. If you went over budget — the Premier's own words — "you will be docked your pay."

You know, the government campaigned on it. No ifs, ands or buts about this. If ministers are going over budget, they're taking a hit on their own paycheque. This is accountability. This is the most accountable government in Canada — they were going to be. Guess what. Every year now we see this farce take place, and that's exactly what it is.

You know, it really shouldn't be called the Ministerial Accountability Bases Act. It really should be the Premier's "Let's keep my cabinet under control" act, because basically they're sitting around the cabinet table. They know they've gone over budget, and they know unless they get this act in place, they're getting a 20 percent pay cut to their ministerial bonus. They're not getting their performance bonus.

So it wouldn't surprise me one bit if a contentious issue comes around the cabinet table, and guess what. This piece of legislation is always in the back pocket. You want it passed? You want your bonus? Then guess what. Here's what I want to do. And then down comes the bill.

It really is something. This is a government that thrives on public relations, on public affairs bureaus and spin, and that's what this bill is — spin, spin, spin. Hit the campaign trail and say: "We're the most accountable government. Our ministers will be responsible. They'll be fiscally responsible just like it is in the private sector where if you don't make your targets, you don't get your budget. If you overspend a ministerial budget, you're getting a pay cut."

They played that to the hilt. They advertised it. They spoke about it. They spoke about it on television. They spoke about it on radio. They spoke about it every chance they could get, but what they didn't say and what they didn't tell the public was: "Guess what. We got a little out in case it all goes wrong." Every year

we get a piece of legislation that comes down, and it will, in short…. It's a CYA piece of legislation that makes sure….

M. Farnworth: Through the Chair, hon. Speaker. I think a member down there needs to go learn his alphabet.

Anyway, this piece of legislation, even though some of the expenditures and the cost overruns are with the best of intention, and we actually support them…. We think you should be dealing with issues of child poverty. We think you do need to fight fires. We think money should be going into the health care system.

But what we also expect is that when the government goes out and says that we are taking the 20 percent pay cut if we don't make our targets — guess what — you actually live by that. When you make that a central point of your campaign, when you made that a central point of your raison d'être of government to govern — that it's a mantra you repeat over and over and over again, and somehow it's what separates us and makes us different…. The public gets pretty cynical pretty darn fast when this bill comes in year after year after year.

So why don't they just be upfront with the public. They'll go, "You know what? This ain't working quite the way we thought," and do one of two things — either eliminate or change the act to take into account the fact that the health budget does rise, that we do need to spend more on ensuring that we don't have the lowest rate of child poverty in the country.

Or say that it does cost more to fight fires and that the unintended consequences render this, what we wanted to do, impracticable, and so we're not going to continue to give you the snow job every time, pull the wool over your eyes — that somehow we're being transparent, when in fact we're not, and either change the act or do away with it to recognize those challenges or stand up and live by the spirit of the act and take your pay cut. It's that simple. They've got the choice.

The trouble is that we've seen too many times, year after year after year, that they take the convenient, easy way out with this bill so that they can continue and go to the public, crank up the public affairs bureau, which…. Let's see. It has grown from — what? — I think 21 people when we were government to over 200 people who do nothing but spin.

M. Farnworth: You know, hon. Speaker, the member jokes, but every time you go into the corridor, for example, and speak to the press, you've got those little minders there with their little BlackBerrys just taking down everything you say. They've clearly been to the "Kim Jong Il school of communications," because they just appear out of the woodwork. That's this government's approach — control everything.

That's what they'll be doing on this bill — justifying it. Justifying this piece of legislation to the public while at the same time still trying to peddle this old line that we are accountable and that our ministers are responsible and will take a financial hit if they don't make their budgets. It's been proven time after time after time to just be false.

It's one big farce, and that's why I and the rest of my colleagues will be voting against this bill.

Deputy Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, I call upon the minister to close debate.

Hon. M. de Jong: Well, the debate on Bill 5 has been eminently predictable. I listened carefully, and I thank the members who participated in the discussion around the debate. I heard some interesting things.

The member for Columbia River–Revelstoke, I think, talked about the credibility of the institutions of democracy and the fact that there is cynicism out there. I think that's true. For someone that's been here as long as I have, I have to accept a certain amount of responsibility to the extent that that is true. But I also think some of that may derive from the fact that what people hear emerge from these debates doesn't always bear the strictest consistency with what is actually the case. This, notwithstanding the opposition's desire to make a few points about the legislation, may be an example of that. In my view, it is.

I'm trying to reconcile what I heard today in the course of this discussion with the actions of the opposition in the past, just the recent past, and the Opposition House Leader made some reference to this. One of the statements that came up time and time again is about ministers not keeping within their budgets.

I have been here long enough to know what happens when that actually occurs — when a situation occurs where a minister and a ministry overspend their budget. It's called spending warrants, and we used to see them regularly.

To the member and other members: here's what used to happen. The Crown would get a spending appropriation voted to it through a budget, through an estimates process. They would go away, and then for a

variety of reasons — occasionally legitimate, oftentimes because of poor planning or poor discipline — they would, during the course of the fiscal year, overspend.

The House wouldn't be sitting, and they literally ran out of money. They'd sign a piece of paper, because the business of government and the ministry had to go on. Then a step in this budgeting process that the member has never seen…. It's never happened while he was here, because ministers haven't overspent their budget. Those ministers and the government of the day — yes, the NDP government of the day when I was here as an opposition MLA — would come before this chamber and say: "Look, we're really sorry. We overspent our budget. We ran out of money, and we had to keep spending. Now we are seeking the forgiveness and the authorization of this chamber for having overspent our budget."

That is what happened. It may not be consistent with the story that some members….

Hon. M. de Jong: I hadn't realized that some members were parliamentary historical experts. This may not be….

Hon. M. de Jong: So that's what would happen when ministers actually overspent their budget. There would be a warrant issued. This happened all the time under the NDP.

We said: "No, enough of that." We introduced legislation that would visit consequences upon ministers and the government if it were to occur. It hasn't, and the member chooses to ignore the fact — I know why; I've been around politics long enough to know why he does so — of what has actually taken place here.

First of all, for the year '07-08 the budget was again balanced. In fact, there was a higher than projected surplus. So instead of spending money for which it had no previous authority to do, the government comes before this chamber and says: "We would like to spend a portion of that money — a portion of that surplus."

I've heard a couple of things from this opposition over the last number of years. I've heard criticism from them for using surplus funds to pay down the debt, which we have done. "Why on earth," they say, "do you do that? You should be allocating…." We know what regard some of these members opposite have for accumulating debt. It doesn't seem to bother them at all. They have criticized the government for doing that.

So we come before the chamber with a specific listing of what a portion of those surplus funds should be spent for, and we ask for this House to grant permission — to grant authority prior to spending the money. In effect, we seek an amendment to the departmental budget of those ministries.

One of the members — I think Vancouver-Kingsway — said this in his speech, and I'm paraphrasing. He said: "We wouldn't have a problem as opposition if the government presented some good ideas for what it intended to do with some of those surplus funds and then decided. We wouldn't have a problem."

Well, I had to do some extensive research. I had to go all the way back to last Tuesday, one week ago, when the motion….

Hon. M. de Jong: Last Tuesday, when all the members of this chamber were asked whether they thought it was a good idea for the government to expend those additional dollars from the surplus.

Each member was asked his or her opinion on whether it was a good idea to do so, and we heard that famous Latin phrase nemine contradicente. Every single member of this chamber — 71 — stood up and said: "We agree it's a good idea, and we authorize those ministers and that government to expend those dollars."

Hon. M. de Jong: I think I just heard a member say that the House doesn't authorize those expenditures. That is one of the fundamentally important reasons that this House is here: to authorize expenditures by the Crown. Certain members opposite may not have a clear understanding of what that involves or the importance of that.

This House unanimously said it was a good idea to expend those dollars and granted the Crown the authority to do so — prior, I might add, to the expenditures having been made. That is fundamentally different than what happened under the previous NDP administration, when those funds were expended. We came here and we dealt with it after the fact and granted authority for moneys it had already spent over and above the original spending authority.

No, I wouldn't be proud of that record either, Mr. Speaker. I wouldn't be proud of that record, but that is the record.

We believe that these are important initiatives. We believe that it is legitimate to say, via a legislative accountability statute, that if ministries overrun their budgets, ministers should be held accountable. But we also believe this….

I guess if you trace your political roots to an organization that simply never understood or never seemed to understand this, if you trace your political roots to an organization that year in, year out actually did overspend their budgets and had to come before this House with spending warrants…. And if the member doesn't know what a spending warrant it, I'm sure one of his colleagues will explain it to him.

We think that is not only defensible but entirely consistent with the notion of accountability that is enshrined in the act and the process that we have

followed. Here's the difference. Under the previous administration, we wouldn't even be having this discussion.

I know what we would be doing. We'd be having a debate about spending warrants, because the government of the day, the NDP, would have already spent the money. They would have been over budget, and we'd now be trying to clean up that mess. That is not the case here. That is not the case at all.

I'll bring my remarks to a close. I'm not sure exactly what I've heard from the opposition today. Have they changed their minds about expending a portion of the surplus? Because I suppose that was an option. Or is there something more punitive at play here? Maybe.

I'm trying to rationalize the events of one week ago, when every one of the members of this chamber, including all of the opposition MLAs, stood up and said: "You know, upon reflection, having asked the questions, on balance, we think it's a good idea." By the test that the member for Vancouver-Hastings offered in this discussion, it should follow, therefore, that this wouldn't be an issue. "If it's a good idea," he said, "we'll support it."

Well, they said it was a good idea, and they supported it. Now they come before this chamber, and they want to impose some kind of punitive sanction. I'm not sure what the logic or what the approach to this is or where the consistency is. Someone said that it's about consistency and credibility.

People will have to decide for themselves, and they will. They will have to decide how to measure the performance of a group, who on Tuesday, February 26, came in, stood en masse in support of important spending initiatives and then a week later came into the chamber and chastised the very people who were sponsoring those initiatives.

I am hiding the tears. I am hiding the grief that weighs so heavily upon these shoulders, secure in the knowledge that, yet again — in ten seconds when I wrap up remarks — we will have an opportunity to have another vote. Members will have another opportunity to register their position on this. Dare I say it? I suspect I won't hear that Latin phrase nemine contradicente, but democracy will have persevered once again.

Hon. M. de Jong: I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting after today.

Bill 5, Ministerial Accountability Bases Act, 2007-2008, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

L. Mayencourt: It's a pleasure to rise and complete my comments on my support for the Speech from the Throne. I have been in this chamber for about seven years, and it's been a great privilege and an honour to represent the people of Vancouver-Burrard.

I've got to say that this is one of the most impressive speeches from the throne that I've ever heard. It is one that speaks to so many important issues in my riding, and it speaks to British Columbians across this province that I've had the pleasure of meeting.

It talks about looking after our environment. It talks about the commitment that we need to make to ensure that the world we have today is available and is as clean and pristine as it possibly can be for future generations.

The Speech from the Throne talks about many other things. It talks about a new approach to dealing with

mental health and addictions. We know, from many years of experience over the last 20 years, that methods that we and previous governments tried to use to provide community care for people living with mental illness have not quite worked. It's time for us to recognize that, and it's time for us to try a different approach.

I am particularly glad that back in 2004 the Premier talked about this issue with the Union of B.C. Municipalities and that over the last couple of years we have had a great deal of time to consult with people from the various health authorities, with mental health advocates and with people from all walks of life about what we need to do for people with mental health issues.

The reality of it is that not everyone with mental health issues will seek the help they need. It is very important that we recognize that in a humane society we will have to take action to ensure that people are safe and to see that they are well fed, that they are clothed, that they are housed.

As we move forward and look at the Riverview lands and look at the Willingdon House in Burnaby as an opportunity to provide safe and secure housing for people living with mental illness…. I want to say that that's a step forward.

When we talk about creating housing and creating safe, caring places for these individuals, we are not going back to the dark days when everybody was shoved in on a ward with bars on the windows and stuff. We're talking about a new approach, one that is more communal, one that is more therapeutic and holistic, one that does not just treat them for their illnesses but also helps them to develop skills, one that helps them to become a part of a community, one that helps them to understand their place in the world — how they can contribute, how they can give and how they can ensure that they are living their lives as well as they possibly can. I'm very encouraged to see that kind of work.

There has been some work that has been done in Duncan over the last several years by a group that runs a therapeutic community. It is a place where people with developmental and physical disabilities can go during the day to spend the day gardening, raising livestock, getting involved in crafts and such. When I saw that place, I knew that we could almost create that kind of an environment at Riverview as well.

I really believe that Riverview is a jewel, that it's something that we should protect and preserve for people living with mental health issues, that it is a beautiful site. But it needs to be put to work in many, many different ways. It can't simply be an institution. It must be a community. By community, I mean for those individuals living with mental health issues. I mean for people that care for them and families. I think that the path we have started on towards that goal is important.

I've talked a lot about therapeutic communities in this chamber over the last couple of years. I am really sold on them. I really believe in them. I believe in them for many reasons. I've seen them at work. I've talked to people that have lived in them. I've talked to people that have gone through recovery programs, whether it's for addictions or mental health. I've talked to homeless people that have changed their lives by becoming part of these types of communities.

But I also know it very well from personal experience. Over the last several months I've been working at Baldy Hughes, which is the army base that I spoke about earlier today, where we're creating a therapeutic community for people living with addictions. I have seen people come in off the street in the very worst of conditions, to rebuild their lives. It takes great courage, for many of these people have lived a life on the streets, addicted.

I have a young man there who, at the age of nine years old, started doing lines with his mother because he had ADHD. I have an individual that spent ten years on the streets on heroin. All of his teen years, all of his early adult years were in a drug phase. That gentleman is, for the very first time, understanding things like joy, hope, opportunity. He's also learning about his anger. He's also learning about ways of dealing with challenges in his life, and he's making a difference in his own life. It fills me with pride when his father and his mother come out and see us at Baldy Hughes and can see the difference in their son, can see what's happening for him.

We have folks there that have spent a lifetime in very tragic situations. I have a number of guys living at Baldy Hughes right now that got involved in the drug trade in and around Prince George. I've known a lot about the drug trade down in the downtown core of Vancouver, but I could not ever expect what I saw through the eyes of these gentlemen from Prince George.

There's a serious problem, not just in Vancouver but in communities around the province, and we need to address those things. These guys have come to me with their stories, with their life histories, and they've said: "Look, we want to begin anew."

What we're doing at Baldy Hughes is taking an old army base, building it up again and building a community. Our hope is that over the course of three years we will raise a community of 500 recovering addicts, people that are working together, peers that are leading others, folks that have been in recovery for a longer time helping others.

It's not just about the addictions either. Just as I said about the mental health programs down at Riverview, it can't just be about one thing. One of the things I've learned, as an MLA dealing with mental health, addictions and homelessness, is that when you're dealing with those issues in isolation, it's like walking on a waterbed. What happens is that you put your foot down here, and all the water squishes up over here.

This has to be done in a very careful and systematic and holistic manner, and that's what we're trying to do there at Baldy Hughes. We have two gentlemen right now that are taking an apprenticeship program. Can you believe it? Just 30 or 40 days ago, they were living on the streets. They had no prospects. They had no food. They had no opportunity and no desire to do anything other than to score or get their next fix.

Today I've got two guys that are learning how to wire a building. They're learning a job that will earn

them $100,000 to $150,000 a year. We're doing the same to help bring a plumber in, who's going to help us with an apprenticeship for a couple of people to be plumbers.

I have three guys up there right now that are in the framing business. They've started to take one of our old dormitories, and they've started to build it up again. Together we are building a facility, a place where these people will be welcome, where they will be safe and warm and clothed and helped.

I spoke a little earlier about the fact that we've had some challenges up at Baldy Hughes. I want to tell you all that I really mean this. I've never done anything that hurt more, that was harder to do, that made me feel more — I don't know — responsible or overburdened.

But I have seen changes in people that have lifted that burden off of me. I have seen joy. I have seen hope. I have seen people making a difference in their own lives and starting to help the guy behind them.

As we move forward and we look at what we're doing on homelessness, mental health and addictions…. We have a plan that is being implemented by this government, by this Housing Minister, by this Health Minister, by this Premier, by members of the Premier's Task Force on Homelessness, Mental Health and Addictions — a plan that says we have to treat this as one problem. We have to do it together. We have to make these people welcome in our communities. When we do that we have an opportunity for great healing.

I am amazed. I want to just give you something to give you an idea of the scale of the problem that we face in British Columbia. Insite is a supervised injection site on East Hasting Street in Mount Pleasant. That facility is there for people that are injection drug users.

There are almost 8,000 people registered at that site. That means that there are 8,000 addicts in that neighbourhood that are using that site. That does not include the people that are addicted to crack cocaine or the thousands of young people that I know who are in our school system addicted to crystal meth or ecstasy or other drugs.

The scope of the problem that we face with drug addiction always leads to homelessness. It always leads to mental health issues. It always leads to poverty. It always leads to crime. We have to blaze a new path. We have to get off of our duffs, and we have to try new approaches.

Therapeutic communities will not work for everyone. I know because we've brought in about 27 people to Baldy Hughes, and five of them left because it didn't work for them. That's okay. Different approaches will work for those guys. But it is a method that will help a lot of people, so we need to keep moving forward. We need to have a range of options for people.

When I was running Friends for Life, which helps people with AIDS and cancer, I got to know that if you provided people with lots of options, they had much more possibility of succeeding, of surviving. I believe that the same is true for the mentally ill, the homeless and the addicted. It's time for us to open our eyes and start looking to other places for models of care that make a difference.

I believe that that path we've started down is a solid one that will lead to success and may shift, may actually change, the outlook for addicts, the homeless and the mentally ill. It may create a paradigm shift. It may say to governments, not just in British Columbia but across Canada and North America, that if you want to save the lives of these people, you've got to understand you cannot do it in four weeks. You have to invest time, money, energy, love and compassion. You have to do it all. The lessons that I'm learning up at Baldy Hughes tell me that that works.

I'm hopeful that over the course of the next three years, as we grow our community, we will be able to prove to people across this province that we've got a better approach. We'll be able to prove that these people can succeed. The last thing that I want to hear…. The last thing I want to tell an addict, a homeless person or a person with mental illness is that they don't have any hope. That's what that project at Baldy Hughes is all about. It's about saying to people: "There's hope." It's very simple.

We talked the other day about the federal crime bill. We were talking about criminals — people who have done serious crime. I've run across a lot of those folks in my time at Baldy Hughes. I have also looked at what we're doing in the criminal justice system around that.

I've had the opportunity to visit Nanaimo Correctional Centre and to see what they're doing there with a therapeutic community. This is a prison with 250 inmates, and 45 of them are living in a place called Guthrie House.

It's a separate building, and these guys work every day on their recovery. They have an AA meeting. They have group meetings. They look after each other. They don't swear. They don't smoke. They get up every morning at seven o'clock, and they go out and do their work. I have been to see them. Those guys are not going to come out and reoffend. Those guys have a dream that they'll be able to reconnect with their families, their moms and their dads, but especially with their own children. I can see that kind of thing happening.

The therapeutic model can work for the mentally ill. It can work for the homeless. It can work for the developmentally delayed. It can work for inmates in our prison system. It can work in British Columbia, and I'm very, very proud that our government has started down the path to give those options to people across British Columbia.

N. Simons: It's my pleasure to respond to the Speech from the Throne. I'd like to start by acknowledging my constituency assistants in Powell River and in Davis Bay, Maggie Hathaway and Kim Tournat, who do amazing advocacy work on behalf of my constituents. They always let me know when there are issues that I need to bring to the House. Their work is tireless, and their dedication is unbounded. I really do appreciate their work.

Of course, Anne Paxton here in the Legislative Assembly keeps me organized and also commits herself very professionally to the work that she has. I thank them all for their work.

I'd like to take this opportunity to also acknowledge a constituent of mine who passed away this year, Brenda DeGraag. Brenda was a lifetime member of the New Democratic Party, and she was a very influential person in Powell River, a person with strong conviction and always looking out for those who are less fortunate. She was a city councillor and performed her duty with the utmost respect for the constituents that she served. Powell River and the Sunshine Coast will miss her, as we know her husband Roy does. We just want to acknowledge her boundless energy on behalf of those people we represent.

I'd like to take this opportunity, as well, to thank Chief Walter Paul of the Sliammon Nation for the work he does for his people and to acknowledge Marita Paul, who is the outgoing chief of the Sechelt Nation. Garry Feschuk has been re-elected. I congratulate him and I congratulate Marita for serving their constituency so admirably. The work that they do helps everyone on the Sunshine Coast to achieve the goals we have for our communities.

It's my pleasure to be able to respond to the Speech from the Throne that was given to this House on February 12. My comments aren't all positive, as members of the government side of the House may realize. My opportunity here is to point out how British Columbians will or will not be served by the promises put forward in the throne speech.

While there are some aspects of the throne speech which I take no issue with — some I may have been, in fact, pushing the government to do, including some funding for arts increases and a few other suggestions — I do find that this throne speech was lacking in terms of substance for the constituency I represent — that is, regular folks who live on the Sunshine Coast, who get up early every day and work hard and bring back to provide for their families. The dedication that they put into their work makes our communities richer, and I thank them for that work.

When we look at the budget and we see some of the changes that have occurred in this province, I think our responsibility as elected officials is to assess whether or not the benefits of our province, as well as the burdens and the challenges that we face, should be shared among people in this province. I'm of the belief that when we are successful, we share our successes and that when we have a burden to carry, we share the weight. Unfortunately, I found very little in this throne speech that spoke to that issue of the sharing of both the plenty and the want.

My concern grew as soon as I heard government commit to what is called Jordan's principle. It wasn't a concern over the adoption of that principle nor over the commitment to following that principle. Jordan's principle, of course, as the House may know, was unanimously approved in Ottawa on a motion by Jean Crowder, a Member of Parliament from Vancouver Island here, representing many people in the Parliament of this great country.

She put forward this motion in response to what appeared to be a very loud and obvious injustice that had, essentially, been perpetrated in our country for a lot longer than we realize. That principle, which was to address this shortcoming, says that aboriginal children, regardless of their place of residency, are deserving of the supports and the services, both medical and otherwise, that others receive.

In a way, it's a bit disappointing that we require a motion in the House to say that we stand for equality. But in fact it is necessary, because for so long that equality has been absent. My concern with the mention of Jordan's principle was the fact of what followed. There was a lack of adequate resourcing to be able to sustain that principle.

The principle is named after a young boy named Jordan, who was born with severe health challenges which required him to live in hospital far away from his reserve in northern Manitoba. He spent a long time in hospital, until he was ready to return home to his reserve. Unfortunately, because of jurisdictional disputes the young boy stayed in hospital for another two years as the governments, provincial and federal, argued over who would be responsible for the financial support that he would require.

Jordan died in hospital, unable to be surrounded by his family. His family has obviously been affected very deeply by this — not just by the illness but by the treatment he received while he was in care.

The first nations communities across this country are fully aware of what Jordan's principle aims to redress. I believe that the inequalities that exist, even in our province, will require substantial investment, because as we know, the services for children on reserve are usually funded by the federal government and off reserve by the provincial government. That conflict has led to numerous examples that are only highlighted by Jordan's circumstances. Numerous examples exist in this province that can be cited by anyone involved in either child welfare or the provision of health services on reserve, which I was fortunate to do for close to a decade.

I appreciate a commitment in words to Jordan's principle, but I will certainly be ensuring that I'll do what I can to hold government to that word and that we'll see that children on reserve are, in fact, provided with the types of services that we expect are provided elsewhere in the province.

I'll turn to another issue that affects people of Powell River–Sunshine Coast, and that is transportation. There was a lot in the Legislature recently about transportation plans, funded or otherwise, that will serve commuters and residents alike in their daily needs. I'd just like, if I may…. I know this won't bother members from the other side, but if my colleagues could please bear with me, I'll read a portion of the throne speech of February 12.

"Better transit leads to reduced greenhouse gases, cleaner air, shorter transit times and healthier communities." I tend to agree, but I fail to see how anything in the throne speech or the subsequent budget is going to address the needs of my rural constituents when it comes to making better choices. The options for public transit are limited. The roadways are already congested, narrow and dangerous. And alternatives to the car are often dangerous, inaccessible or expensive.

What particularly concerns me is that rural communities in the province, such as Powell River–Sunshine Coast, and residents in those communities will be unable to make a choice simply based on cost, convenience and health. Those choices are limited in some parts of this province, and I think that a throne speech that spoke to the needs of all British Columbians would have been able to recognize the difference that these initiatives, as laid forth in the throne speech, will have on various parts of the province.

I believe that residents of Powell River–Sunshine Coast are contributing members of this beautiful province and thus deserve some of the benefits derived from the revenue that is collected from them.

There is a section in the throne speech which caused me some concern, as it spoke to communities that are sustainable as being the energy-smart communities and the water-smart communities — communities, essentially, that are aware of issues that face them and of their impact on those particular resources or community infrastructure. Their reliance on those is dependent on their ability…. A power- and energy-smart community, a water-smart community, a healthy community is one that has some authority over its own resources.

On the Sunshine Coast recently a battle took place between residents who were concerned about protecting their water source, a water source that serves 85 percent of the community, versus a logging operation which was targeting old growth in that very same watershed. The watershed itself, the Chapman-Grey, had been protected under an informal agreement that there would be no activity.

All of a sudden there was activity. Residents were rightfully concerned, especially concerned, because of the lack of true, strong, legislative oversight. The lack of that oversight and the lack of the legislative protections for water are, I think, what caused community members to rise up and make their views known. The local board of health, using the only tool available to them with the knowledge that they had, believed that a health risk might exist, and they pursued legal options to protect their watershed.

Now, I'd ask whether it was fair for the regional district to have to go to such lengths and expense to protect the watershed for which they're liable. At the same time, they're unable to protect the source prior to the water entering into a water treatment plant. With that apparent contradiction — that double whammy or catch-22 — the regional district did what they could.

There is mention in the throne speech about "you choose, and you save." That's in fact the title of one section: "You choose; you save." I'd like to apply that particular little slogan to the case of my goddaughter, who lives in Surrey in a basement suite with her mom. I'd like to think, if in fact she had choices, of what those choices would be. I'd like to think, if she has anything to save, what she would save. I look at that, and I look at my goddaughter, and I think: there's a disconnect. There's a disconnect between what the needs of this province are and what this government is offering.

I'd like to know if her mother is supposed to choose whether she should buy food or get to school; if she should choose between keeping her phone operating, in case she gets a job offer after school, or food; if she has a choice between going to the food bank on Monday or on Thursday; if she can choose whether to get minimum wage when she starts her job or not; or whether she can choose to make less money working than on welfare, when the welfare rates are so low that it's almost impossible to get out of a desperate situation.

I'd like to know if she could make those choices. She's five. She's going to school, and that's a good thing. Her mom's supporting her with that, but before that she couldn't get child care while her mom was going to school. The school didn't open early in the morning, so she left her child in a place that would be questionable — as a social worker, very questionable.

The choices that we're asked to make are in bold letters and capitalized letters: "You choose; you save." There are very many people in this province who have neither a choice nor anything to save. I believe that it's our responsibility as elected representatives, regardless of our stripe, to say: "What are we doing? What are we doing to make our society a little bit more just? What are we doing to give those who need a hand the hand?"

It's not about slogans, and it's not about convincing ourselves that we are in the best place on earth. My own personal feeling about a slogan like that is that it just cheapens what we have. We're lucky to live where we are, and we know that. We don't need to tell people we're luckier than they are.

That's also the way it seems that this throne speech is telling us to think. If you haven't got anything, then you must not really deserve it.

This is a province of immense wealth. We know that. We are rich in resources. We're richer in creativity. We're rich in a history that goes long past the 150 years we're celebrating now. The first nations are as diverse here as anywhere in this country. They're as powerful and as resourceful as any. They're our brothers and sisters. Yet we do know that the policies of successive governments have not addressed major imbalances.

That should be our focus. We live in a beautiful province full of wealth, yet somehow we can all come into this chamber and bow, knowing that we lead the country in child poverty. I don't know whether we want to say we're last or second to last. We could even say we're first in child poverty, but we're second to last in the country, or last.

I would like to say that it doesn't matter if we're second to last or last. We're in a province where we

hear, day after day, that it's way better than it ever was. Well, we know that that's political overspeak. Unfortunately, that stops us from recognizing the fact that we have a lot of work to do. We have the ability, we have the knowledge, we have the creativity, we have the stamina, and we have the guts to do better than we're doing.

While there are some initiatives in the throne speech that take steps towards addressing huge concerns in our province, there are those that have been left behind yet again. It's those people that need our voice. They need our voice more than the banks need our voice. They need our voice more than the oil and gas companies need our voice.

Those who provide services to children with disabilities, those who provide services to children in schools — they need our support. We can no longer treat them as if they'll just do that job because it's in their heart. People need to be fairly compensated for the work they do, and the work they do saves us money in the long run. How sad that we talk about social programs in terms of how much money we can save.

Unfortunately, that's sometimes the reality. We can do a lot better serving families and children in this province, and it can save us a lot of money in the long run. Unfortunately, I see government making one mistake compounding the next mistake, going down a path that is neither demanded, requested nor necessarily useful for the people and the children of this province. I am definitely looking forward to going to the skeleton of this throne speech, the skeleton which is the figures and the facts that we'll be able to examine in the estimates process.

Now, the estimates process, I've been telling people in my constituency, is one of those parts of what we do in this place. It doesn't get a lot of attention. I think if it was put on television, people would turn it off. It's a boring process but a highly essential process for the proper functioning of democratic government. That process allows members of Her Majesty's official opposition to ask members of government, cabinet members, how they're intending to spend their finances that this government has collected as revenue.

That process is perhaps cumbersome, and it's challenging, and it's difficult for those involved. But that ability to question the direction of government beyond the flowery words and the softened corners of the pages it's written on…. We need to get into the depth of the matter. That will be the true test of whether this government is actually going to be making steps towards bettering the lives of all British Columbians.

Hon. K. Falcon: I'm pleased to stand in this House today to speak in favour of a throne speech, a throne speech which sets out a vision and an action plan on how this government — possibly the first government in North America, hopefully not the last but certainly the first — put forward a real plan and a real vision that the people can understand and buy into and support for the province of British Columbia.

What has been so disappointing to me, Madam Speaker, is the fact that sadly, as in so many other things, the opposition comes out against it. The opposition opposes a plan. They call it a throne speech that is all talk and no action.

You know, I think that when we think about that, we have to think about: what is a vision? Well, I'll tell you. A vision is actually setting out and charting a course. It's setting high goals, the kind of goals that opposition members couldn't even dream about.

We know they had a decade to implement whatever vision they had on climate change. Nobody could figure it out. I had no idea what it was. Most British Columbians couldn't point to you a single achievement that the opposition made in terms of climate change. But I'll tell you, Madam Speaker, that I don't mind being part of a government that's not afraid to set out a vision with targets and to challenge us, to the best of our abilities, to try and rise to the challenge of meeting those targets.

That's what the throne speech set out, followed by a budget speech that said exactly how that is going to be implemented through the introduction of a carbon tax, a revenue-neutral carbon tax that says we are going to cause a tax shift. We are going to try and bring about a shift in behaviour, and we're going to try and do it in spite of the fact that the politics may be difficult. It may be a difficult thing to do. We know that there are people who have problems with a carbon tax, and for very valid reasons — who have concerns about that.

That is what leadership is about. It's about setting out a vision. It's about charting a course, and it's about not being afraid to follow the courage of your convictions. That's where the opposition will be forever challenged, because they have no convictions. They have no leadership, and they've got no vision.

That has become apparent to me, year after year after year. I've sat in this House for seven years now just once trying to see what they stand for, what the Leader of the Opposition stands for, what they actually believe in and are prepared to fight for. I haven't heard it yet.

I've heard a lot of empty rhetoric. I've heard a lot of grandiose talk. I've heard almost everything but a position. On every major issue that comes before this House you will almost invariably be guaranteed that the NDP will have no position. The opposition will have no position.

Well, I'll tell you. I am pleased, and I am proud, to be part of a government that's not afraid to be bold, to have a vision, to actually undertake decisions and steps that are going to get us towards assuring British Columbians that we will meet that vision and meet those targets. We're not afraid to do that.

I'll also say another thing. Politicians, in government and even opposition, like to talk about how great their particular plans are. But I'll say this: I really like the fact that we've got a Premier that lays out a vision, lays out some targets and then follows that up with actions in the form of a revenue-neutral carbon tax.

We're not the only ones saying that we think this is a vision we're supporting and that we think it's something British Columbians will support. There are groups outside of government — some would say they might even historically have been allies of the opposition — that are actually saying that this is leadership in action. It's not rhetoric. It's not the kind of empty rhetoric we've listened to for years from the members opposite. It's leadership in action.

I want to quote a couple of those, because I think it's worth mentioning. The Sierra Club of Canada said that a carbon tax was an extremely exciting development that would illustrate B.C.'s commitment to reducing its greenhouse gas emissions. That's what they were saying before the budget, and the budget responded in the affirmative. Then we've got the David Suzuki Foundation. "We congratulate British Columbia on taking this visionary step by pricing carbon. This marks a real turning point for British Columbia and puts the province at the forefront of North American action on climate change."

As I said earlier, I don't want to pretend that it is not without challenges. When you bring in a tax shift and a change like this — a carbon tax, where you start to price carbon, where you don't treat it as a free good and where you try to encourage new investment in technologies to respond to the reality that carbon emissions impact on climate change and global warming — there are going to be opponents out there.

We are prepared to act. It's a government that's prepared to act. We're prepared to take on the critics, including the opposition, who wouldn't have had the courage and didn't have the courage to move with anything even remotely close to the kind of plan that we put into place for British Columbia.

Then in order to buttress the climate action plan that we put forward and the revenue-neutral carbon tax, we are also investing in the largest public transit, rapid transit investment plan in the history of British Columbia — a $14 billion investment, a plan with four new rapid transit extensions.

It's not just the Canada line, but taking the existing SkyTrain line — a $2 billion overhaul to double the capacity on that 22-year-old line — extending the line into Surrey and ultimately right out to Willowbrook mall in Langley is part of what that transit vision is about. Extending a line out to UBC will ensure that area has the opportunity on the Broadway corridor to meet the challenges of the growing commuter pressures and the growing fact that we've got a city in Vancouver that needs to have a transit system that responds to it.

Building the Evergreen line. Unlike the members opposite that talked about the Evergreen line for years and never put a dollar towards it, we are getting it built. We've committed over $400 million. We have the federal government coming to the table, and we're going to get that built, too, for the benefit of folks in the lower mainland.

The transit plan isn't just for the lower mainland. We are taking B.C. Transit's budget. We are increasing the fleet of buses by 60 percent — 600 new clean-burning buses, with the latest fuel cell technology on our buses — and we're spreading those around the province in B.C. Transit's region to ensure that every part of the province has the opportunity to expand the transit options for the folks in their communities.

I want to contrast that. Again, we hear the usual complaints from the members of the opposition. It always follows the same path. "Where's the money?" is usually where it starts. Then when we introduce the money, they say: "Well, that's not enough money. I don't see the entire $14 billion in the next three years." Then we patiently try to explain that you actually can't spend $14 billion in three years. There's actually a process that you go through as you build these major projects, and you fund them as you go along.

I heard the same arguments on the Gateway program. I heard the same criticisms. "Where's the money?" Then we'd show them the money. They'd say it's not enough money. Then we add more money, and the project keeps getting built.

Although they're a little more quiet about it recently, I have to admit, because again they're having trouble developing what they call their consensus position. A consensus position, apparently, is a position of the opposition where they all have to agree on it, and they can't. So you get the Leader of the Opposition coming out against the twinning of the Port Mann, and then very quickly the Surrey MLAs are in their ethnic media saying: "Oh no, no. That's not what she meant. We actually support the twinning of the Port Mann."

This is the kind of dichotomy that you hear from the members opposite. But you know, it's going to catch up. It does catch up with them, because you can't say one and say the other and have different members talking about different things.

We have in this budget over $600 million this year and the next three years for that Gateway program to ensure that we get RapidBus across that corridor; to ensure that we have the largest expansion of cycling infrastructure in the history of British Columbia — that's part of the plan; to ensure that we twin the Port Mann; to ensure that the Pitt River bridge gets built, and it's under construction as we speak, and the South Fraser perimeter road.

All of those projects are getting built in spite of the opposition from the members opposite, in spite of the fact that they have voted — every single budget — against those projects. We won't forget that. When they try to show up, as they always do…. When we're having grand openings, you see the NDPers flitting around, trying to get up on the stage and trying to pretend they were supportive of those projects when they never were. We won't forget that. We won't forget it.

I will remember one thing. You may forget this in this House; even the government members may forget this. The NDP, when they ran in the last election, apparently had a transit plan. I want to quote from the now Transportation critic, the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin, in a letter to the editor when she talked about the transit plan.

I'd like to read that right into the record — May 4, 2005, the Times Colonist. "B.C. New Democrats propose to increase funding for public transportation and have committed" — get this; everyone's sitting, thank goodness — "$11 million for green transportation and transit in our fully costed platform." So $11 million. Let me tell you, $14 billion is a lot better than $11 million in my books any day of the week.

Then we have their position on the climate. Oh my, we've listened to them over the last number of weeks speak about how they apparently are in favour of climate action. But they had a record there too, unfortunately, and it was a record of failure. Let's just call it what it was. They had no plan.

The greenhouse gas emissions went up dramatically during their time in power. You've got the Leader of the Opposition, who has talked about how she wants Kyoto, that we have to not only meet Kyoto but go beyond Kyoto. Then we have the Environment critic saying: "Well, our plan" — the B.C. Liberal government plan — "is very aggressive. We'll have to see whether they make any progress to get there. We want to see how they plan to get there."

Well, I'll tell you how we plan to get there. First, we lay out a plan that makes sense and is applauded internationally. Second, we set out targets that we actually intend to meet. Third, every single ministry and Crown corporation and authority in government is going to work and work day and night to make sure that we meet those plans.

That's how we're going to do it. That's leadership. That's vision. That's following through. That's something that the opposition does not recognize and will not support.

So what else do we have? Well, then there's their stand on the carbon tax. Now, this has been fascinating for me, because I think I've heard every possible position on the carbon tax from the members of the opposition. I mean, it's actually remarkable.

I'm just going to try and reconcile — if reconciliation is possible, which it probably isn't — where they stand on the carbon tax. I've got the member for Malahat–Juan de Fuca, April 24, '07 in Hansard saying: "I'm in favour of reducing gas prices at the pump, which many people think is incongruent with addressing climate change. I don't believe that's the case." Okay. So I think they're for reducing that now.

Then I have another quote from that same member, Malahat–Juan de Fuca, on February 28, '07, in The Vancouver Sun. "How do you change public behaviour if you're going to keep electrical prices low? What's the incentive to move to more efficient appliances, for people to Power Smart their windows? There's nothing new to encourage people to meet those goals."

On the one hand, reducing gas prices apparently is the way to go, and that's somehow consistent with climate action on the part of the member for Malahat–Juan de Fuca. On the other hand, he's talking about electricity and that we need higher prices if we're going to change people's behaviour. I'm puzzled by that. I would like to have the member reconcile that position.

Then we've got Carole James, the Leader of the Opposition, who comments to say: "But let me also say….

Hon. K. Falcon: I apologize, Madam Speaker. I do believe I mentioned the individual by name. I apologize for that. I just meant to refer to the Leader of the Opposition. I was referring to her quote, so I said her name mistakenly. I shouldn't have.

The Leader of the Opposition says, on November 15, '07: "But let me also say that the point of a carbon tax cannot be to raise money. The point is to change behaviour." So I think the Leader of the Opposition recognizes that we're trying to change behaviour.

But members of her own opposition have stood up at various times in the House, and they've taken positions all over the spectrum on this issue. I would just love to know, yes or no, up or down: do they support a carbon tax or not? It would be nice to know, on a major environmental position like that, what the position of the NDP opposition is.

We still have yet to know that, just like we don't know what their position is on Gateway. Just like we don't know what it is on the transit plan. Just like we don't know what it is on every major issue that comes before the House.

Then there's the economy. The economy has always been important to this government, because we've always recognized that if you want to invest in climate change, as we are, if you want to invest in social programs, in education and in health care, you've got to have an economy that's growing, that provides the revenue you need in order to make those investments. So we continue with the tradition we've had in this government to put more dollars in the pockets of the people that earn the wages.

I hear the members opposite talk about how they care about the working class and how they're so concerned about working folks and working families. Well, the problem is their record is devastating to working families. It's devastating in terms of constantly increasing taxes and regulation and government interference. It's an assault on working families.

What we have done since getting elected…. On our first day in 2001 — the first day — a 25 percent personal income tax into the pockets of working families…. They voted against it.

I remember listening to years of lecturing from the NDP opponents who said that these tax cuts would bankrupt the revenues of government, that we would have no dollars to invest in all the important programs that they like to talk about but never actually follow up on. Let me tell you, I ask the members to review our budget today and review the budget in 2001. Look under personal income tax revenues. They will find a startling discovery: we collect more in personal income tax revenues today than we did in 2001. They were wrong there. They're wrong today.

We went further than that 25 percent personal income tax cut. We did another 10 percent last year — which they voted against — for working families. In this budget, another 5 percent for those that earn up to $70,000 in income.

What does that mean? As a result of our tax policies, our tax changes, 250,000 people in British Columbia no longer pay personal income taxes. I want to take a moment on this, because I want you to think about….

The people opposite that pretend to care about working families saw fit during their decade to take a single mother that's earning $15,000 a year…. They were so concerned about that single parent earning $15,000 a year that the NDP thought it was important that they take $419 out of their pay packet. It was important to take that money and bring it into government, because they know how to spend better, apparently, for low-income folks.

Let me tell you, the low-income folks today pay zero income tax in British Columbia, and I'm proud of that. By 2009 British Columbians will have the lowest income tax rates anywhere in Canada for those earning up to $110,000 a year.

But it goes further than that, because it's really a philosophy about taxation. The philosophy that distinguishes the government from the opposition is that we believe that what working families really need is to have more dollars put into their pocket, that we ought not to be figuring out every single day how we punish working families and how we punish British Columbians, but how we reward them for the hard work that they do. That's the difference between government and opposition.

This is the same opposition, remember…. When the NDP in the last campaign federally were campaigning for an inheritance tax — what is commonly known as a death tax — we had the Leader of the Opposition say: "We're the only country in the western world that doesn't have an inheritance tax. I think the people of Canada will support that tax." That was the Leader of the Opposition.

Well, let me tell you, they won't support that tax. We don't support that tax. We're not going to bring in a death tax, an inheritance tax, onto British Columbians. That's the difference in philosophy. That's the difference between the NDP and the government. It goes to virtually every issue — the difference between action and rhetoric.

I sit in this House, and every year I hear the same rhetoric about how they care for low-income folks, for those on social assistance. They apparently care so much. The challenge with that is: what did they actually do about it when they had an opportunity? Well, I'll tell you what they did. We took the rate for single employable welfare recipients, and we increased it by 20 percent — $100 a month.

Hon. K. Falcon: Listen. Pay attention, Member for Vancouver-Kensington. You'll find this interesting. In the ten years that you guys were in power, you did nothing but cut it in 1995….

Hon. K. Falcon: Madam Speaker, through to the member for Vancouver-Kensington, who is heckling. I know this is tough to listen to, but it's the difference between rhetoric and action.

We increased welfare rates for single employables by 20 percent. They decreased them in 1996. We increased shelter and support rates for families with children, with increases that ranged from $97 to well over $200 a month, depending on the number of children. That's our record in government. I will put that record up to their record in government any day of the week.

It's important to point this out, because empty rhetoric is just that: it is empty rhetoric. If there are going to be members that will stand up and talk about all their great plans and how they're going to do things so much better, they better have a record to back that up. They better have some demonstration of leadership that they can point to.

Whether it was on the social side, on the climate action side, you will be hard-pressed to find the international accolades on the NDP. You would be hard-pressed to find any accolades, not only while they're in government but while they're in opposition. Where is their climate plan that is getting accolades from around the world?

Where is their climate plan that is having anybody actually stand up and say: "That's the way we ought to be going. That's the kind of leadership we ought to be showing." You will be hard-pressed to find it, because it doesn't exist. That is the difference between rhetoric and leadership.

In every issue that we hear…. This is a throne speech that reinvigorates the support that we've given — the massive amounts of support in K-to-12 and post-secondary. I hear the members opposite talk about the school closures. "Oh, school closures. There are school closures here; there are school closures there." It's really interesting to me that they don't seem to talk about school openings. Now, that is fascinating. I come from Surrey, and I can tell you that in Surrey under the NDP, when they were in power, we had so many portables that just the amount of portables would have made us the tenth largest school district in the province. That's how many portables we had because of the absolutely disastrous planning that went on in the Ministry of Education.

When they talk about school closures, I think it's important to point out that it's a belief of this government that we should make sure that dollars flow

through students. Dollars should actually follow where students are, and the districts that have to deal with school closures and declining populations…. That is a challenge; there's no question.

That is a management challenge that they have. But you know, it's no different than the challenge the growing districts like Surrey have had — growing districts that have opened over 15 new schools, that have had to expand and renovate dozens and dozens of new schools, that have the largest district in the province.

I can tell you that we've never had had so good in Surrey in education in the province of British Columbia. That's not just me. That's not me saying that. Talk to the….

Hon. K. Falcon: Apparently there's a heckler, the member for Vancouver-Kensington, that says that I don't know what I'm talking about. Well, actually, Member….

Hon. K. Falcon: The member for Vancouver-Kensington is a former teacher, and apparently that makes him an expert. He once taught in Surrey.

Hon. K. Falcon: Well, once again the member for Vancouver-Kensington talks about the expertise that he must have after 30 years of teaching.

Well, let me tell you, your expertise did not do a lot of good for the Surrey school district in the '90s, when we had portables in virtually every single school. It didn't do anything for a district that had kids piling out of those portables.

Now we've got a government that recognizes that you ought to invest the dollars in the districts with growing populations, build the new schools, expand the existing schools and provide opportunities. You do not see portables in Surrey anymore. You don't see them because we're investing in new schools.

I know it's tough to hear for the members opposite. I know it's tough to hear, because the empty rhetoric that they spout…. When it comes to being aligned with the facts, it's a big challenge for them. I understand that. It's a big challenge.

But this throne speech is about something that the opposition hasn't yet figured out — that vision sometimes means showing leadership and that vision and leadership mean setting standards that are high — high enough standards that you may not be able to achieve them, but we are going to strive and move heaven and earth to try and achieve them. That's what leadership's about.

It would be helpful if just once we could hear the opposition take a position. What is their contrasting vision? What is it? What is it on the major issues that we face as a government and as a province and as a country? It would be nice to hear. It would be nice to have that alternative vision held up in the bright light of accountability so that others could look at it and judge it, so that we could hear whether the Sierra Clubs and the Suzuki Foundations and governments around the world are going to say: "That's a vision that we would support." But you won't see that, because there is none.

It's really unfortunate. It's unfortunate because I think that British Columbians will see through that. They will see through that, and they will recognize that at the end of the day we as a government don't profess or pretend to make every decision being the right decision. We make mistakes. When we make mistakes, we acknowledge those mistakes and we get on and we keep moving and we keep trying to do a better job on behalf of British Columbians. But at least we are not afraid to show leadership. We are not afraid to take positions. We are not afraid to be the first.

Being the first can be a challenge. Introducing a revenue-neutral carbon tax can be a challenge. But it's the right thing to do, and we're going to do it because it's the right thing to do. That is what leadership is about.

When these members opposite say that they don't support the throne speech and they don't support the budget, that's a real shame. It's a shame for the $150 million in arts and culture that they vote against that will be so important for the arts and cultural community in the province of British Columbia.

They vote against the $10 million that will go into Van East for the cultural centre refit. That's going to be so important in the member for Vancouver-Kensington's own area, yet they oppose it. What a shame. What a lack of vision.

That $150 million that is being put in an arts and cultural fund will spin off $8 million a year that, with the input of the B.C. arts advisory council, will go into arts and culture throughout the province. What a record to be proud of.

Something that is, again, a divergence from the rhetoric and the reality…. They'll talk about how they care about arts. They'll talk about how they care about culture. They just won't do anything to actually concretely, manifestly change the direction of arts and culture.

Hon. K. Falcon: And then they'll vote against it. When we put in a budget of $150 million and tens of millions of additional dollars for the arts and cultural community, what does the NDP do? They vote against it. What a shame. What a lack of leadership.

But I will say this. This is a government that believes it is very important to do those things, a government that recognizes how important it is to have a strong economy so that we can invest in the largest transit plan in the history of British Columbia, so that we can bring about a revenue-neutral carbon tax that will plow $1.8 billion back into the pockets of small business, back into the pockets of British Columbians. It's important we do that to bring about the kinds of changes we want.

I believe, and our government, the Premier and the Finance Minister believe, that these are the kinds of decisions that will help continue to grow our economy — an economy, I might remind the members opposite, that has gone from having successive downgrades in public debt credit rating to upgrades to where we now have a triple-A credit rating, the highest in the country along with Alberta.

A province that has gone from being the shame of a have-not province — where we sunk to, as a have-not province under that NDP opposition — to now being a have province that in spite of a looming economic downturn in the United States…. They may even, in fact, be in a recession. In spite of that, British Columbia's economy continues to grow.

I want to say that I am pleased to support this throne speech. I am pleased to support a vision that actually lays out targets and challenges the government and British Columbians to be the best we can possibly be. That's why today I stand in support of a document that is visionary and will get British Columbians to where we need to go.

C. Wyse: It is indeed my privilege to rise today in the House to talk about a throne speech that misses much of the province in its vision. It is somewhat gratifying to follow my colleague opposite from the riding of Surrey-Cloverdale, because as I sat here listening to his defence of the throne speech, what I heard consistently was his focus upon the lower mainland. It came through time and time and time again.

A throne speech is supposed to touch all of the province. It is supposed to touch all the demographics. It is supposed to touch the entire socioeconomic cross-section of the population of British Columbia. It is not meant to focus upon a region of the province, as has been demonstrated here by my colleague opposite for 30 minutes.

As I sat and I listened to that debate, I couldn't help but reflect upon one contradiction that was brought forward, and that was dealing with how the income tax funds had been spread across British Columbia. What he failed to mention in that discussion and debate was that, in the initial $2 billion income tax reduction that was made by the Liberal government, 90 percent of that $2 billion went into the pockets of 10 percent of the population of British Columbia.

I am no rocket scientist, but I can understand where the money was going. I can understand the effect of those types of policies. I am not going to spend a great amount of my time living in the past in the discussion. I wish to return to this year's throne speech. I wish to talk about its effect upon Cariboo South specifically, rural British Columbia and the interior of the province more generally. That is the area that I bring the responsibility back to this House to deal with this particular throne speech and the vision that is contained within it.

There is, contained within the throne speech, a focus upon urban British Columbia. That focus is at the expense of rural British Columbia, where I am from, where I am elected to bring forward their concerns to this House, where I have patiently listened for 30 minutes upon how it was demonstrated, better than I, how this throne speech concentrated upon urban British Columbia.

Let's reflect back just briefly. Fourteen billion dollars was mentioned for the expanded public transit for the lower mainland. The interior, rural British Columbia, doesn't look at that and say: "Okay, so what?" However, when you take that into the overall total of things….

The new Port Mann Bridge. We look at the Olympics — the activities that have been concentrated upon here in the lower mainland so that the Olympics can be put on. That has raised the question of whether there is funding left for the rest of the province, including rural British Columbia and the Island. I consistently hear that question raised in my riding, and I bring that here to this House.

The Minister of Transportation didn't mention the promise of the Cariboo connector, where we were promised four lanes from Cache Creek through to Prince George. In looking through the budget, I can find some sums of money, but those sums of money are no larger than what normally would have appeared in any regular budget for any amount of new capital upgrades — no mention, for much of the rest of the province, of the billions of dollars, the hundreds of millions of dollars that are spread here in the urban part of British Columbia; no mention of work on Highways 20 and 24.

I can find little sums of money for the damage that has been done, for the secondary roads that are deteriorating. The number one complaint and concern that comes forward in my constituency office is in that same area. The previous speaker immediately before me went on about this great vision, while in the interior of the province infrastructure and transportation is deteriorating. It is falling apart in a part of the province where there are not options for how people get around, for whatever the reason is that the transportation is required.

Now, I would like to reflect and put this into context. Some quotes go back, dealing with British Columbia. A quote from today's Premier from 2003: "For too long government turned their back on the north and rural communities, and that's about to stop." Further, again from the Premier, in the throne speech of 2003: "In the heartlands of British Columbia, from one community to the next, the optimism of the people burns bright, as it has throughout our history. It is that indefatigable sense of confidence and community spirit that has always been the hallmark of British Columbia. In these times, as in those long past, it is the strength and imagination of British Columbians that carry us to a brighter future."

Opening up B.C.'s heartlands to economic growth. I will return to this particular issue, directly in the throne speech, and will be pointing out some things that are not included when we look at industries that the interior is dependent upon, forestry and agriculture — aspects contained within the throne speech that are mentioned in passing. I will put it into the context of the situation that exists. The vision that is lacking, which covers the interior of British Columbia, covers Vancouver Island.

When I also looked through the throne speech, this vision, I reflect upon promises. Long-term care beds — 5,000 of them for our seniors. Where I am from, we've had the closure of hundreds of these beds. A concern.

When I return to this particular throne speech, the vision that I'm able to find — and I will bring it to the House's attention — is that the government will undertake a study of the opportunity and cost involved in the establishment of a new independent living savings account framework. A vision to set up the equivalent of an RRSP plan so that people can save for home care support, assisted independent housing and supportive housing options.

A vision contained in here for our seniors — a study to look into setting up the equivalent of an RRSP plan. A vision that I question — the respect that it extends towards our seniors wherever they may be found within the province. A vision that I question.

Now, in the area of paramedics I was looking for some vision, something to address dealing with the issue that has been ongoing for a number of years — dealing with the rural and remote classified ambulance stations. Some vision that would provide for support in the staffing on an ongoing basis for these areas — areas where we no longer talk about the turnout rate for an ambulance getting to a call. We talk about, in actual fact, the station being out of service or in first responder — that there is not an ambulance available to respond because there's the lack of trained paramedics.

In February of '08, not contained in the throne speech is the layoff of seven full-time ambulance paramedics. Where? Chemainus, Merritt, Chase, Oliver, Invermere, Fernie and Castlegar. A downgrade to foxtrot status further undermining the availability of an essential service being available when needed. Not to forget back in Cariboo South, the closure of the hospital in Ashcroft. The acute care component removed.

Other parts of vision I was looking for in the budget, in the throne speech, that I couldn't find. I looked at the announcement for $14 billion for the transit plan that I've mentioned, and rural B.C. going wanting. I reflected upon the cut in funding for B.C. women's centres and community-based rape crisis lines, 24 closed courthouses, closed legal aid offices, over 28 local welfare offices closed.

You can see, Madam Speaker, that I bring a different perspective in looking at the throne speech. I bring a different lens to it than the speaker immediately in front of me. I bring the lens from rural British Columbia, from the interior.

The throne speech. As my colleague from Surrey-Cloverdale — who focused so clearly — demonstrated so much better than I did, this throne speech concentrated upon a singular portion of the province. The same individual is also responsible for the transportation needs of the entire province — a vision that concerns me.

In education. In January of 2008, a $15 million cut to the rural school boards by withholding the generally accepted accounting principles. Rural British Columbia is an area where there has been closure of rural schools. Many of them were the centre of a particular community. They provided the focus for where the community would gather. They provided the lifeblood for community interaction. Yet the squeeze is there upon the lifestyle of rural British Columbia.

While I'm here I am going to move to another item that has had a profound effect upon British Columbia — not found here in the throne speech but of concern. In the throne speech, I can't find support for the agriculture industry. I've read it, and I looked for it, and I can't find it.

I reflect upon the sale of B.C. Rail a short few years ago by a government that said it would not be sold. In selling B.C. Rail, they forgot to look after two industries that are important to my part of the province: agriculture and industry.

In the ranching industry, the practice was that the railway looked after the fencing costs, looked after the rail crossing. It actually let the rancher know within a reasonable period of time should the train strike their herd and kill them. It then very quickly, upon proof of loss of livestock, reimbursed the rancher. It looked after the movement of noxious weeds through the corridor of the rail line. Gone. Disappeared.

Likewise, in the sale of B.C. Rail, the government forgot to ensure how CN Rail, the new owner, delivered to the interior and, in doing such, had an effect upon the environment. They forgot to ensure that transportation would proceed in a safe, reasonable manner, and we experienced record numbers of accidents.

Very recently in this House I brought to the attention of the House that the shortage of railcars is contributing to the potential shutdown of milling operations in Cariboo South. West Chilcotin Forest Products, Lakeside Reload and Jackpine have all reported that they can stay in operation in spite of the toughest economic times facing the forest industry that anyone can find historically here in British Columbia and quite

likely across the entire Canadian or North American history. They can stay in operation.

However, it's dependent upon railcars being provided in quantity and in a timed fashion. That is not happening, and for that, I don't find the vision here in the throne speech.

When I get into forestry, what I find is Trees for Tomorrow. That's what I find in the throne speech, when in actual fact I'm from an area where on Monday 1,100 workers stopped going to work. They will not be going to work this week or next week and possibly much longer.

In the throne speech, did I find the promise for transition funds for assisting these communities here in British Columbia in these toughest of times? I apologize if I missed it, but I can't find that promise, and we have communities all across rural British Columbia that have lost their major employers. Some of them have lost their single employer, and there is no vision contained in this throne speech that I can find.

It concerns me that for a protracted period of time I was told about all the good things that existed for another part of the province, when I can't find things in the throne speech that apply to the two major industries that support the part of the province where I come from and that have consistently, for decades, supported the economy of British Columbia. Proud people working day in and day out, and being subject to no vision. That concerns me greatly — that lack contained here within this particular throne speech.

I did find some things in here that I do want to mention, which I find laudable. Jordan's principle is one of them, should it be applied. Where I am from, I have 13 communities of first nations. They have been subject to neglect for decades, not necessarily exclusively here within this House. That is not what I am saying. But I do want to come back to the point that I am making.

Jordan's principle, if applied, removes jurisdictional battles over who and what senior level of government will provide the necessary services for our first nations communities. That is most commendable. When implemented, that shows vision that I commend.

I also find within the throne speech the commitment to remove trans fats by 2010. It's good for the health of British Columbians. It's an item that the federal NDP has been pushing for, for years but nevertheless still laudable.

Likewise, the mention in here of the expansion of responsibility for some care providers — the nurses, the pharmacists, the paramedics and midwives. Where I'm from, we might argue that we need more of those individuals, rather than increasing their workload. That is assuredly more of the issue where I am from. However, good move by the government contained in the throne speech to attempt to get more out of those that are already in the field.

I've already alluded to the effect upon the forest industry — the backbone of British Columbia, the backbone of rural B.C., an area in which we now know that within the last year approximately 10,000 workers have lost their job. A vision I'm looking for in 2008 for this particular industry…. Over 40 mills shut down. Now, we see the result of policies that have helped contribute to this particular set of circumstances. The removal of appurtenancy, the removal of cut control, making tenure a tradeable commodity — all of these items and many others have helped contribute to the situation that exists.

As I've mentioned, when I looked through the throne speech, I was looking for the vision that would offset those particular effects. What we have ended up with is a forest industry that is concentrated corporately in a few dimension lumber producers who are more dependent on the U.S. market than ever.

As has been challenged to us, I bring forward a very simple plan. If I'd found it in the throne speech, if I had found that vision here, then I would not have been as critical as I am about what is missing in the throne speech vision for rural British Columbia, from where I am, and where it affects the Island as well as the interior.

A green plan for reinvesting in B.C.'s forest land base that calls for an innovative 21st-century forest products industry; a community and worker stability program; a permanent commission on forestry, as well as a careful review and reform of the tenure system. I would have liked to have seen that contained in the throne speech, but as I have mentioned already, I was able to find Trees for Tomorrow.

In agriculture. I've had meetings with ranchers over the last several weeks. I've had many ranching organizations right in my constituency office. I have had the pleasure of actually addressing annual meetings of Cattlemen's Association, and they have pointed out to me the economic concerns that they have and what they are facing.

So I looked through the budget and through the throne speech, looking for assistance for this area, looking upon an industry that has been selling off their herds because they are cash-strapped. They are dealing with low prices. They have longtime established ranches going out of business.

I was looking for things in the throne speech that might have promised things like some emergency support, a review of the meat industry regulations effect or possible implementation of the Cariboo-Chilcotin Beetle Action committee action plans here in the agriculture, ranching and farming industry. But I couldn't find that in the throne speech.

In closing I would like to focus upon one other item that has transpired over the last few days. That was a budget that was able to find release of $220 million for the banks and $327 million for the oil and gas industry.

When I looked through the throne speech, I couldn't help but add up and get over $550 million, and reflect upon these items that weren't contained in the throne speech — and some that I've not had a chance to mention, like no mention of increase for minimum wage — and how, with different choices and different

visions contained in this throne speech…. That we would not have had one that had been narrowed in so much on one part of British Columbia and would have shown a vision that covered across the entire province, covered all the demographics, covered all the regions of the province and looked after the needs of all British Columbians, both rich and poor.

That would have been a throne speech that would have covered all of British Columbia rather than one that narrowed in on such a narrow segment here within the province.

With that, I have appreciated your time and your attention in listening to the points of view of another part of the province and how the throne speech affected them.

It is my pleasure to respond to the throne speech — a throne speech that talks about sustainability, about our environment and about climate change. All of those are talked about because they relate to all of the living creatures on this earth and how we reflect that.

I keep reminding myself that the environment, about climate change, is really about the people on this earth as well as all of the other living creatures — how we share this earth, how we have to be careful in terms of how we deal with it and how we have been trending so badly in the wrong direction.

I think I want to focus a little bit on what that foreshadows for the things that we can do, the things that we do have great control over, and what we can do in terms of our personal health.

In looking at the issues, particularly in terms of the ActNow B.C. initiatives, I note that we in British Columbia are actually pretty well off if we compare ourselves to the rest of the world, but not so well off if we look at ourselves in terms of the trending.

If British Columbia were a country, we would have the second-longest life expectancy in the world, behind Japan, at some 81.1 years. We do have in B.C. the lowest percentage of obese residents, at 19 percent, while the Canadian number is about 23 percent overweight and obese. In B.C. we have a low percentage of inactive residents, at about 40 percent, while the Canadian numbers are running about 42 percent.

The changes that have been happening are about what epidemiologists refer to as an obesigenic environment that we live in, telling us that the next generation will undoubtedly be the sickest generation ever to be born and live in this world. They will have the shortest lifespan unless we do some important things in terms of looking at changes.

Those things are occurring because of the impact of our lifestyle — fast food, soft drinks. The number of soft drinks being used has doubled over the past 30 years. Twenty years ago 50 percent of children either rode a bike or walked to school. Now it's far less than 20 percent. We're being told that up to 25 percent of the waking time of children is often spent in what's called screen time, in front of a computer, a video game or a television set.

So we have now in British Columbia double the number of children who are overweight and triple the number who are obese. Those challenges are significant. This throne speech foreshadows a number of initiatives and a number of directions we're able to take in terms of looking at, managing and trying to deal with that.

We're being told that by 2020, chronic disease will be responsible for 60 percent of the disease burden and that 73 percent of all deaths will be coming from chronic disease. In B.C. we need to address those through such initiatives as ensuring that British Columbians eat their fruits and vegetables — five-plus servings a day. Today only 40 percent of British Columbians do that.

As I made reference to, overweight — we're at about 42 percent. Our tobacco usage is about 16 percent. That is the second-lowest in North America. Only Utah has less tobacco usage than we do in British Columbia, so we do have, and we are in, an enviable position in that sense.

A chronic disease develops slowly. It lasts a long time, and in most cases there is not a cure. They are such things as arthritis, cancer, diabetes, heart disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Those are the real villains in the process.

The Health Council of Canada, which was appointed by the Premiers of Canada and the Prime Minister, issues a report each year. Their last report was in November of last year, and it was on chronic diseases. Their report said that one in three Canadians over age 12 has a chronic disease.

In B.C. we know that 91 percent of seniors have one or more chronic diseases. In British Columbia chronic diseases represent 72 percent of hospital overnights, 67 percent of community nurse visits, 51 percent of family doctor visits and 55 percent of the visits to medical specialists.

The Canadian Council on Learning has recently come out with a report on health literacy. Health literacy is our numeracy, our prose and our reading skills. They have told us that those skills are the skills that are necessary, at a certain level, for us to develop an understanding of how we can use information for our own health.

Their report tells us that 60 percent of Canadians lack the capacity to make appropriate health care decisions. They do a number of tests and rate different populations around that. Those people who have low health literacy are two and a half times as likely to have poor health.

So not only do we have to have good health programs, promotion programs and remedial programs, we also have to have some assurance that we're able to have a level of health literacy in existence within the population and have to work at that.

We know that changes as significant as dealing with lifestyle are cultural shifts, and cultural shifts take

a long time. As western societies, we've been fairly successful in dealing with such things as smoking, wearing seat belts, drinking and driving, and recycling. But those are all initiatives that have taken a considerable amount of time. We try to raise consciousness and awareness, and unfortunately information doesn't mean change.

If information meant change, then we would quickly be able to look at and effect those types of changes. But they do not, and there are lots of reasons for that, and there are lots of ways for us to look at and manage those cultural shifts.

We have been very fortunate to look at the leadership of our partners in terms of looking at this change. The Healthy Living Alliance is one of our partners, as well as the ActNow leadership council. They've worked hard at raising consciousness, at looking at models for effecting change, and one of the models that's now being utilized through a lot of organizations is something called the transtheoretical model for behavioral change.

It says that at one level, we have something called a precontemplative stage. That's where we don't even know there's an issue. It's like when we smoked years ago, and people didn't know it was a problem. And so you move from the precontemplative to the contemplative, where you start knowing there's an issue.

Then what do you do about that issue? "I might change." Then it moves into a planning phase, where you say: "I'm actually going to do something, and I'm going to do that within three months." Then it's action, and then how you maintain it and then extinguishment of those.

That's a model which has been developed and is now being utilized by most organizations for looking and effecting behavioral change. I think it's a global model that allows us to look pan-provincially at the initiatives we need to look at.

Through the ActNow initiatives, through our partners and the advertisements we've used, we've been able to raise the awareness at that precontemplative and, hopefully, contemplative stage where we're starting to have some levels of understanding.

Statistically speaking, one year ago in January of 2007, the name recognition for ActNow B.C. was virtually zero. By last summer it was about 44 percent, and by the end of November it was over 50 percent. I'm told by our public relations people that that is phenomenal growth, that it takes many business organizations six and seven years of work to be able to get to that level.

The other unique or interesting part of that is that 20 percent of the people who were able, both prompted and unprompted, to identify ActNow said that they were making some behavioral changes as a result of the knowledge that came to them — whether it was looking at becoming more physically active, whether it was looking at dealing with their nutrition or whether they were engaged in gathering further information about them. Twenty percent — that is a very high figure, I'm told, in terms of being able to look at and manage and effect changes that come through both advertising and through the engagement of so many people across this province.

Certainly, the media has been an important partner right across this province — from small community newspapers to the daily newspapers as well as all the electronic media — which has consistently been talking about the initiatives, the issues and the concerns that we have with respect to our health and the future of the next generations. [Applause.] Does anybody know why they were clapping? It was to wake people up, I'm sure.

Hon. G. Hogg: Rapt attention, which leads me right into one of my…. My wrap is where you're wanting me to go, I'm sure.

The Healthy Living Alliance is one of our partners. We granted them a substantial amount of money to develop some programs. They have announced about $24.5 million worth of programs, partially because we said that this isn't cultural change and this isn't about government being able to do it, but it's about: how do we engage all of the sectors of society in terms of being able to do that?

They have engaged the Michael Smith Research Foundation to look at how they can evaluate it, because we wanted to have good baseline data so we could actually see that we are affecting change, that there are some differences happening. Part of that consciousness-raising has also been through the ActNow B.C. health tour that we're going forward with this year and that's forecasting and coming forward as a result of our throne and our budget.

Last year we visited some 20 communities, and close to 100,000 people were involved in it. There were 1,850 British Columbia people who were assessed by the hearts@work people, the Healthy Hearts people. Those assessments were an integral part of being able to provide people with their current status — the things that they might do to effect and become healthier. And 68 percent of the people that were involved in it said they were going to go forward. They were going to take action. They were going to see their doctor. They were going to look for and seek further advice in terms of the things they might do.

As a part of that process, in the local communities that we went to, 73 individuals became trained in terms of screening, in terms of being able to do this health screening and provide greater resources in the communities they lived in. This year we're looking at a much larger presence in terms of hearts@work and the tours that we go on to communities. We're wanting to ensure that we can provide many more services to local communities so that they can have the personal information they need.

We know, unfortunately, that the people who make the biggest and dramatic changes in their health are those that have a catastrophic diagnosis. Those people seem to quickly effect change. We want to be able to identify what the precursors are to those things and

hopefully get people in a position where they will make some behavioral changes, some lifestyle changes, without having to move forward to the catastrophic issues that sometimes force that type of change. We want to ensure that people have the best chance possible to have quality of life to the end of life.

We were present at the Union of B.C. Municipalities convention, and we'll be there again this year. There were many, many municipal politicians who went through the tour and who had assessments done. There have been over 70 communities that have said: "We want you to come to our community. We need to have this happening locally."

The member for North Island…. We tried to go there, but as we set up our pavilion, the wind came along and blew it down, and we weren't able to spend time there. We'll have to find a better time of year to visit and provide services and information to the people from the north Island.

We've also been actively involved in the aboriginal communities. Certainly, we've made a grant of some $6 million. In the near future we're going to be announcing how the aboriginal communities have decided to use their initiatives. We know that type 2 diabetes has been rampant in the aboriginal communities.

We need to look at ways that we can develop programs. The chiefs health council has been looking at ways to do that. We're looking at participating as part of the North American Indigenous Games. We're looking at how we can have satellites so that when we do the tour to big communities, we can have satellite vans to go out into smaller communities and aboriginal communities to provide those types of services, that type of information, that is necessary for them — as we, again, raise consciousness so that people can understand what the issues are — and then try to provide services that are able to respond to that so people can start taking the actions necessary.

Action Schools has been an important part of this initiative. We know from the issues of Action Schools that they've actually increased the amount of physical activity it takes. The research has shown that after people have participated in an Action Schools initiative, there have been over 15 minutes — in some instances, at the top end — more physical activity that those children are having on a daily basis. That type of physical activity….

We know that children are an integral part of cultural shifts. They're affecting their parents. We know that the school fruit and vegetables nutrition program is affecting parents, because the research is telling us that when kids go home, they're talking to their parents. In fact, they're telling their parents that they should be eating differently and that they should be getting exercise. It's much like, as many of us will know, when we get into cars, it's children telling us to do up our seatbelts. They're powerful shapers of the adult psyche.

Active communities has been a wonderful initiative as well, as we now have over 120 communities that are registered, in terms of looking at that and looking at the initiatives that they can take in terms of affecting change. We have an activity challenge that's on the website, and I have been looking at it and following it.

Certainly, Mayor Donna Barnett of 100 Mile House…. I think it's a community of about 2,000 people. They have purchased and sold over 800 pedometers to the citizens of 100 Mile House. They've been selling them for $5 each. They're using that money to increase their trail system, to upgrade their trail system so that they can show the physical activity they can be engaged in as they effect change, as they look and try to take their 10,000 steps a day.

Each time I see Mayor Barnett, she is showing me her pedometer and how many steps she has on it and saying that 100 Mile House is going to be one of the healthiest communities in the province. We want your community, as well, to be one of the healthiest in the province, as we want our province to be the healthiest jurisdiction possible.

The daily physical activity is something that we've taken an initiative in, and we're requiring that come next September, there will be a minimum of 30 minutes a day of physical activity. We've moved to ban junk food in schools and in government-owned facilities.

The research on the school fruit and vegetable nutrition program shows that it actually makes a difference. It is an educational program that talks about the value of eating B.C.-grown fruit and vegetables, about the quality of B.C.-grown fruit and vegetables and about the impact that has on people's lifestyle and on their health.

We know that the earlier people learn these lessons, the more likely they are to last throughout a lifetime. So engaging in this program as an integral part of a whole, comprehensive, pan-provincial program is a very positive way of teaching all of us about the importance of having over five servings of fruits and vegetables a day.

In this throne speech, as well, we've talked about the banning of trans fats by 2010, which I think is another good signal in terms of how we are concerned about and moving towards the health of all British Columbians; about eliminating smoking when children are in cars; about Walking School Buses; and about bike trains.

There are always some commentators who say that it is like the nanny state, that there's some direction and focus that is the nanny state. I think I like to compare it. At one end of the continuum there's a nanny state, and perhaps at the other end of the continuum there is a neglectful state. Where on that continuum do we actually sit in terms of being able to create options?

I think our goal has been to create a level of information, of consciousness and of understanding and then to encourage people to make intelligent, informed decisions — to help make the right decisions, the easy decisions, to focus on ways that the simple things can happen that make a big difference.

It's such things, perhaps, as ensuring that you park in the corner of the parking lot instead of spending 20

minutes driving around trying to find the parking place right in front of where you want to be, and being able to walk. Perhaps it's taking the stairs instead of the elevator. If you're on public transit, perhaps it's getting off one stop before your stop, and being able to walk.

Those small things can make a big, big difference. I've been told that, on average, people gain about two pounds a year after graduating from high school. If we were drinking a can of soda a day, it could cause us to gain 12 pounds as well. I'm told that if you take out the can of soda and don't change anything else, you'll lose about 12 pounds in a year.

If we have our meals at the end of the day and we're just a little more conscious and take about a third of it off the meal, we won't be gaining those two pounds a year. Little things do make a big difference. Apparently, if you have the fast-food meal, the full part of that meal with hamburgers, large fries and a milk shake, it takes 26 miles to walk that off, which is a significant initiative in terms of looking at where we are.

The hon. member made reference to pizza. Pizza, depending on what you have, can be positive or negative, depending upon what is put onto it. Again, all of this is about balance. All of it is about being able to do everything in moderation. We're not trying to say that people shouldn't be eating the full meal deal or those things, but that it has to be done in moderation. They have to understand what's involved in that.

Another initiative announced in the throne speech is the seniors activity parks. I was invited and privileged to be at the opening of a seniors activity park, the first one in North America — I believe there are a couple in Beijing and another one in Germany. That one is in south Delta. It was led by a gentleman by the name of Harry Caine, who is an active Lions member. He engaged his Lions Club in looking at and developing this seniors activity park, the ActNow seniors activity park.

It is a park that has a number of elements to it which cater to seniors. It does have almost like a playground feel to it. It has places where you can walk on balances; isometrics, where you can sit and push your legs up against it to do isometrics; things that you can spin your arms on. It's been developed by a number of people at Trinity Western University out of the kinesiology department, who looked at what the initiatives are we need. What are the things that are the antecedents of chronic diseases? How can we actually work with those?

Traditionally, we've said in the past, the common belief or knowledge was that we should be slowing down as we get older. The research is telling us that the more active you stay, the more likely you are to have a quality of life to the end of life, to stay more active. We need to be able to focus on that. I'm very pleased with the announcement of the ActNow seniors activity parks, which will give us that opportunity to again focus on how important it is to stay active, to be able to ward off the challenges of the chronic diseases.

If we look at things where we live, where we work, where we play, there are a number of initiatives that we have to look at. Another initiative that we'll be talking about is workplace wellness in the public service and the Crown corporations, across all businesses in terms of the initiatives that we need to take.

We know that inactivity costs B.C. employers some $800 million in lost productivity a year. Nationally, stress leads to unhealthy lifestyles and costs Canadian employers about $3.5 billion a year. That's again an important reason for us to be involved in and looking at positive alternatives and positive lifestyles, and we are developing what we believe will be the most comprehensive workplace wellness system in Canada.

We've been very fortunate to be partnering with the B.C. Chamber of Commerce to look at small businesses, at how we can provide initiatives for wellness within the context of the small business family, and that we can have initiatives and provide resources for them so that they can raise consciousness, raise awareness and make good decisions for the health and well-being of their employees.

The University of Victoria, in concert with the province, developed something called a wellness atlas, and that was released about four or five months ago. The wellness atlas is unique. We don't know of that being done anywhere else in the world. It focuses on the positives. It breaks out about 120 different indicators of health around different cohorts, different age levels, and it breaks it down into 16 health service delivery areas around the province. When we started out this program, we had just pan-provincial data, data that went across the whole province. In some cases, it went across the whole country, and we had to try and extrapolate.

This allows us to focus now on 16 health delivery areas. For example, we can find out through that process that the city of Vancouver is slightly below the average in terms of physical activity, but that the seniors in the city of Vancouver are the most active in the province. So it allows us to actually look at and start to focus our programmatic responses around the specific needs, again, allowing us to move towards an evidence-based approach.

We've been getting a lot of attention for the directions that we've been taking and directions which are being reinforced by this throne speech — our cross-ministerial approach and the attention and accolades we've been getting from such organizations as the Canadian Public Health Association, the Conference Board of Canada, the Dietitians of Canada. I made reference to the Health Council of Canada, Cascadia Institute and the International Union for Health Promotion and Education.

Of particular interest is the World Health Organization and the interest they've shown in the initiatives we've been taking. They're particularly delighted that we've followed in the development of this program, the declaration on health promotion for the 21st century, that came out of Jakarta, and the models that we've been looking at have been receiving lots of attention.

The World Health Organization has been here evaluating our models and looking at it in terms of a practice model, a model which may have applicability in other parts of the world. We are delighted to be assured that we are having good evidence-based practice in terms of the model we're developing out of this.

I made reference to the Healthy Living Alliance. I want to pay special tribute to them and the active participation they've had and what great partners they've been for the people of this province — the Canadian Cancer Society, in particular Barb Kaminsky; the Heart and Stroke Foundation with Bobbe Wood; the current chair of the Healthy Living Alliance, from the Canadian Diabetes Association, Jean Blake; the B.C. Lung Association, Scott McDonald — despite the fact that a couple of weeks ago, he tried to get me to walk to the top of the Wall Centre, which I think is 47 storeys, as part of their initiative, and he didn't do it either; the B.C. Recreation and Parks Association, Suzanne Strutt; the Dietitians of Canada, Janice McDonald; 2010 Legacies Now, Bruce Dewar; and the Union of B.C. Municipalities have all been very good about being engaged in a part of….

They've all recognized for the first time that it's not actually just about: "How do we find cures, but how do we prevent?" If we're going to prevent things, they've got to come together and stop competing with each other. They've found they're able to make a change and able to make a difference in terms of doing this.

That's the really good news. We can make a change. We can make a big difference. We know that if we have the physical activity, half an hour of physical activity, 10,000 steps…. We know if we eat the proper servings, the proper nutrition, that we can actually reduce the impact of type 2 diabetes by up to 90 percent. We can reduce the impact of cancers by up to 50 percent. We can reduce the impact of cardiovascular disease, strokes and heart by up to 30 percent.

Those are the reasons why we're engaged in this. Those are the reasons why all of the Healthy Living Alliance partners have said: "It's not just that we want to spend our time raising money so that we can find cures. We've got to actually stop getting to the point of having such a high number, such a high percentage, such a high rate of those types of diseases, and we can do it collectively together in terms of addressing that."

They've been real leaders in showing us as a government the directions we should go, the difference we can make.

Another important group, in terms of doing that, has been reaching out more broadly into civil society. We have a leadership council who is doing that, and representatives on this provide a great wealth of professional experience and skill around all parts of the province and all initiatives in terms of many walks of life.

They have such people as Dr. Art Hister, who has been a great spokesperson for health in this province; Lui Passaglia, formerly of the B.C. Lions; Jamie Pitblado from CanWest; Peter Robinson, who is the CEO of Coast Mountain Equipment Co-op and is now the CEO of the Suzuki Foundation; Sandra Stevenson, who is former CEO of Sport B.C.; Dr. Evan Adams, who is the aboriginal medical health officer for the province; Supt. Ward Clapham from Richmond, who has been a real innovator in the provision of community policing and sees these types of models as some of the best models for the prevention of delinquency and crime; Satnam Johal, who's a businessman who has a great interest in developing programs for youth; Faye Wightman, who's the CEO of the Vancouver Foundation; Mark Nairn, who's in the agrifood industry and has been on their executive; Stephanie Cadieux, who's with the B.C. Paraplegic Association and has provided a number of insights; John Bishop, who's a well-known chef and has been instrumental in helping us look at initiatives regarding nutrition; and Bob McFarlane, who's the chief financial officer with Telus. Telus has a wonderful workplace wellness initiative.

All of those people have been very generous in providing their ideas, their insights and their information to provide some balance and ensure that we're taking steps and going the right direction. They, combined with the B.C. Lions and the Vancouver Canucks, who have also been great proponents of the initiatives we're taking, are important parts of where we're going.

An evaluation process is so important in terms of this — developing logic models that look at baseline data, inputs, activities, processes, outputs and outcomes for each one of the initiatives. Measuring those, going across ministries…. Those are all the initiatives that are a part of what we're trying to do — a baseline.

I think the throne speech puts us in a place where there are more initiatives to help us move towards our goals of being the healthiest jurisdiction ever to host the Olympic and Paralympic Games, and to lead North America in healthy living and physical activity. I believe that the initiatives I've talked about, the initiatives that are foreshadowed and talked explicitly about in the throne speech, will help us to do exactly that.

Thank you for that thunderous ovation. Thank you, thank you. Well, the red light has apparently gone on.

Hon. G. Hogg: We clobbered them so badly last time that I dare not go back onto the ball field again, despite the physical activity. The only physical activity the hon. member had was chasing the ball when I hit it so far over his head that he had to go for weeks to catch it.

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 — 42

Falcon	Reid	Ilich
Chong	Christensen	Les
Richmond	Bell	van Dongen
Roddick	Hayer	Lee
Jarvis	Nuraney	Whittred
Horning	Cantelon	Thorpe
Hagen	Oppal	de Jong
Campbell	Taylor	Bond
Hansen	Abbott	Penner
Neufeld	Coleman	Hogg
Sultan	Bennett	Lekstrom
Mayencourt	Polak	Hawes
Yap	Bloy	MacKay
Black	McIntyre	Rustad

	NAYS — 30

Brar	S. Simpson	Fleming
Farnworth	Kwan	Ralston
B. Simpson	Cubberley	Hammell
Coons	Thorne	Simons
Puchmayr	Gentner	Routley
Fraser	Horgan	Lali
Dix	Trevena	Robertson
Karagianis	Evans	Krog
Austin	Chudnovsky	Chouhan
Wyse	Macdonald	Conroy