2008 Legislative Session: Fourth Session, 38th Parliament
HANSARD
The following electronic version is for informational purposes
only.
The printed version remains the official version.
(Hansard)
THURSDAY, MARCH 6, 2008
Morning Sitting
Volume 28, Number 1
|
| ||
|
CONTENTS | ||
Routine Proceedings |
||
| Page | ||
| Introductions by Members | 10267 | |
| Introduction and First Reading of Bills | 10267 | |
| Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Amendment Act, 2008 (Bill 9) | ||
| Hon. P. Bell | ||
| Motions on Notice | 10267 | |
| Committee of Supply to sit in two sections (Motion 37) (continued) | ||
| D. Routley | ||
| Hon. T. Christensen | ||
| C. James | ||
| B. Lekstrom | ||
| G. Coons | ||
| B. Bennett | ||
| D. Thorne | ||
[ Page 10267 ]
THURSDAY, MARCH 6, 2008
The House met at 10:02 a.m.
[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]
Prayers.
Introductions by Members
Hon. P. Bell: It's a real pleasure for me to introduce four key individuals in the BCSPCA today. Joining us are President Marguerite Vogel; CEO Craig Daniell; Marcie Moriarty, who's the general manager of cruelty investigations; and Lorie Chortyk, the general manager of community relations for the BCSPCA. I'd please ask that all members of the House make them very welcome.
Introduction and
First Reading of Bills
PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS
AMENDMENT ACT, 2008
Hon. P. Bell presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Amendment Act, 2008.
Hon. P. Bell: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.
Motion approved.
Hon. P. Bell: I'm pleased to introduce Bill 9, the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Amendment Act, 2008. This bill will make a variety of amendments to the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act to ensure that the BCSPCA has the tools necessary for prevention of cruelty to animals and continues to have the legal authority it needs to carry out its mandate effectively.
It will also significantly stiffen penalties for offences involving animals and will make sure that B.C. standards are consistent with standards in other parts of Canada. We've seen in the past week a very disturbing incident in British Columbia that the BCSPCA was able to get involved with and deal with. Their partnership and relationship with the RCMP I think is second to none.
With that, I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
Bill 9, Prevention of Cruelty to Animals 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.
Orders of the Day
Hon. M. de Jong: I call continued debate on Motion 37.
Motions on Notice
COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY
TO SIT IN TWO SECTIONS
(continued)
D. Routley: It's my pleasure to be able to rise in this House again but decidedly not pleasurable to speak about another attempt by the government to limit debate in this House and to remove from the people of B.C. access to their own government.
There are several reasons we oppose this motion that are based on the principles of democracy, but there are many, many reasons that are based purely on the practical outcomes of this government's policies. I'd like to bring reference to one of them today, because this situation only developed overnight.
Last night in Cowichan school district there was a motion passed where the board, rather than make the deep cuts that the ministry is requiring of it, rather than do that themselves, has asked for a special adviser to be appointed to their school district to advise them as to where they can make these cuts.
[H. Bloy in the chair.]
It is most unfortunate that this government's policies have pushed boards into a corner from which they cannot fight without some help — help that isn't coming from this government. The policies of this government, this Education Minister, have driven our school district to consider the closure of four more schools. The community reaction was swift and emphatic, and it was a definite no.
Our community rejects these cuts demanded by the funding formula of the B.C. Liberal government when it comes to education. They are rejecting the notion that what is truly the first aboriginal school of choice, Koksilah Elementary, should be closed because of a lack of student enrolment. It's a school with over 140 students, 40 more than last year and ten on a waiting list, a school that is now facing closure despite the fact that for the past three years it has been instrumental in the saving and salvage of the Hul'qumi'num language. With its 30-year development of language and cultural programs, this school truly is the first aboriginal school of choice.
It goes beyond just the label. It is the school that the elders have chosen — at least have been able to reacquaint and reconnect with our public education system and their neighbours when it comes to education. These are the very same people who were so injured by the residential school experience. These are the very same people who come to public meetings in my riding and plead with the board of education not to hurt them all over again. Those were the words of one elder. "Please don't hurt us all over again." The words of another elder: "Please don't take our children away again."
This is the practical outcome of the failure of the B.C. Liberal government to properly fund public education in British Columbia. This is the practical outcome that needs to be challenged at the discretion of the opposition.
[ Page 10268 ]
The government opens debate. The government opens the estimate process. In the past the opposition would close it when the opposition had fully extinguished and exhausted all questions and inquiry.
That's all changed now, and the results will be devastating, because instances and outcomes like Koksilah Elementary will not be able to be pursued properly, and the people who sent us here will be let down.
It's just one more broken promise from this government and this Premier. It was B.C. Rail; it was B.C. Hydro. The promise of the most open, democratic and accountable government in Canada was another broken promise, a promise that "we will bring in the most open and accountable government in Canada."
I know some people will say that we'll soon forget about that, but I promise we won't. Those were the words of the Premier in the New Era document. Those were the words of the Premier of British Columbia, and they've been broken by his policy and by his ministers — broken. The result of that is gaping wounds when it comes to our public education system, our health care system and the dispensing and dilution of the common wealth.
A comparison of the number of hours spent in estimates reveals just how damaging Liberal policies have been to the openness of government. Last year, 2007, there were 212 hours spent in estimates debate. Ten years previously there were 438½ hours, a reduction of 226½ hours. The year before that, in 2006, there were 194½ hours and the year before that less than 154, compared to 1997 with 438½ and 1998 with 298½ hours spent in estimates debate.
How can this House be expected to hold the government to account when the government has done everything it can to turn the tools of democracy against the house of democracy? Rather than use the tools available to us like a hammer to build the House of this province, this government has set about to use that hammer to tear this House down — to tear down the access points and to nail closed the doors of community voice in this place, in school districts, on town councils, in TransLink. So many steps taken to limit debate.
In that year, 1997, when we spent 438½ hours in this House in estimates debate, there was a total of 29 hours and 14 minutes spent in the debate of education and skills training. Last year there were only 212 hours spent here on estimates debate, and the total amount of time spent on Education was 15 hours and three minutes. That is half the length of time spent debating the estimates of Education in 1997 — half — and that will be reduced again by this motion.
My ability to bring this concern of my constituents, as they see their schools –– Somenos, Tansor, Koksilah, École Mill Bay — threatened with closure…. That was after we have already closed eight schools — Yount Elementary, A.B. Greenwell, Cowichan Station. On and on it goes. It's a sad list. The people of British Columbia expect more, and we need more.
It's widely accepted that we are living through a period of a skills shortage and that demographically, we are challenged because we don't have enough young people. Yet this is the time when this government chooses to disinvest in young people. This is the time when that hammer is to be used against us. This is the time when this Education Ministry, realizing that there would be a dip in enrolment, uses that against the system of public education and against the students of British Columbia by applying a per-student funding formula which would maximize the damage of an enrolment decline in the classroom. That is cynical, and it feeds the cynicism.
People expect more. They expect us in this chamber to use every tool available to us to build up that house they live in, British Columbia, not to tear it down. In so many ways, this government has turned the tools against the people, and the people want that power back. The people want their interests protected. The people know that we lead this country in child poverty. They know that we have the most seniors living in poverty. They know that homelessness is doubling and tripling. They know that their rivers are being taken from them, sold off in IPP deals with friends of this government.
They know these things, and they expect this government to be held to account. In an expression of cowardice, policy is used to flee from that accountability, that scrutiny. As the member for Nelson-Creston said in a recent question period, there's no moment of accountability. It's all blamed on someone else.
Everyone who comes to this government with a complaint meets the same statement: "Next window, please." If it's an elder on Kuper Island who can't collect enough pop bottles to meet the doubling of ferry fares brought in by our Transportation Minister, he says: "Next window. Next window." That's the problem of the ferry corporation.
Deputy Speaker: Member, may I remind all members of the House that they should be speaking and tying their comments back to the motion before us.
D. Routley: That unfortunate elder, who was removed from the ferry by the RCMP because she couldn't collect enough bottles to get on our Transportation Minister's ferry…. Her interests will not be pursued the way they should be because of this motion.
We cannot spend the time necessary to bring this government to account for the myriad of issues — the many, many times that tools have been turned against this province — because of this motion. I cannot take the time necessary to pursue this Education Minister and the steps she's about to take, directing her deputy minister through to our district to make cuts that our trustees just cannot make.
That will happen. That is a certainty. Now it appears that I won't have adequate time or chance to challenge that.
If this government is confident enough that what it's doing is right, then stand up to account. That's what I would say to this government. Stand up to account. Don't bring us a motion that I mark quite appropriately
[ Page 10269 ]
with yellow highlight, because it's a fear. It's a fear of scrutiny, a fear of accountability and a refusal to acknowledge their responsibility to this House.
This government took power in order to dismantle, to dilute, to tear down and to pass the spoils to their supporters. That needs to be challenged every day in this place. But through so many efforts and so many small changes that add up to big damage, the scrutiny of this place is limited — cancellation of fall sittings, cancellation of night sittings and now this motion to limit estimates debate.
The outcomes lessen us all and bring us down to a place where this government rests — below the standard of this place. That is so unfortunate. I know I expect more. I know the people I represent expect more. I know, as they watch this government walk away from the future of forestry on southern Vancouver Island — allowing the removal of TFL oversight over lands on southern Vancouver Island — that there's not been any discussion. There's not been any consultation, any questions asked of first nations or otherwise.
It was a gift. It was a gift in return for favour. British Columbians should expect more from public policy. Our most renewable industry, our most environmentally friendly industry, our number one industry is being abandoned by the Forests Minister on Vancouver Island. There's been no discussion, not even along the lines of the phony discussion on health care. There's been nothing.
This government has walked on the future, turning over to developers the future of southern Vancouver Island, taking away public oversight. It's another step to reduce the community's voice in this place. It's another step to reduce the community's oversight over its common wealth — common wealth which it sees fractioned, given away, bartered and auctioned away by this government.
The achievements of the past are spoiled in the present. The member for Nanaimo talked about 800 years of developing these traditions that we are supposed to respect. Yet what have we seen? Revolutionary ideologists who come in and say: "No, we know better. This democracy, this scrutiny, this accountability — it's a nuisance." It's a trip on the path to imposing an agenda that the government doesn't have the courage to share with the people.
We are elected, all of us, to serve this province first and foremost, above all other consideration. Yet what we've seen are policies that have driven away and cut off any mechanism of control and input that people have, be it TFL removal, privatization within the health care system, a fractioning of B.C. Hydro and privatization of our rivers.
On and on it goes. A sad story that's all carried out under the veil of an overheated economy offered to us by an American neighbour, eastern Canadian real estate sales and a demographic bulge that has boomers retiring here. But our Premier can't make that happen twice.
We have a problem, because underlying that…. All those industries that we depend on to build that common wealth, to be the tools that we build the house of British Columbia with — all of them are in crisis or have been completely abandoned, and now they don't want to hear about it.
They don't want to hear the voices from Koksilah Elementary who are saying: "No, no. Prince George, where the Education Minister is from, is not the first, first nations school of choice. Ours is." Koksilah Elementary, that struggles to repair the wounds of the past, that makes real the notions that this government only voices when it comes to reconciliation…. That is going to be destroyed. This minister will direct that, through her deputy minister, with a direct hand in our district.
That deserves to be challenged, and the opposition should have every opportunity, as much time as is required, as in the past. But that doesn't suit the agenda, does it? The agenda isn't one of opening doors, as the Premier promised. The agenda isn't one of accountability. For this government, that is a notion that runs one direction, through contracts with school districts and otherwise. But there's no accountability running up toward the government. Whatever ladders there are for people to climb up to this place, to bring that voice to this government, are being pushed off the wall by this motion and other steps like it.
We have a beautiful province of great wealth and great potential. It has always been that way, but its future is being bartered and fractioned by this government. This motion is one of the worst of all. A government that runs to hide, a government that will not face scrutiny and a government that says to the people: "We don't want to hear about it. It's all good. There's no story here. Remember? It's all gold."
Well, it's spinning straw into gold. It's spinning the straw of poverty, the straw of the deficits in health care, the straw of the deficits in education and the straw of a failing forest industry into gold — golden promises, golden notions that materialize into nothing, that evaporate along with the Premier's attention span.
"The B.C. Liberals will reform how government works from top to bottom to create the most open, democratic and accountable government in Canada." What a joke. Is this a joke? Who could bring this to us in this place? Who could sit on that side with the responsibility that that carries and answer the questions and scrutiny of the province of British Columbia with this motion?
Only that government could do such a thing, and our constituents will pay the price for that. The people of Cowichan-Ladysmith will lose their schools. The people of Ladysmith saw their hospital downgraded. The people of Vancouver Island see their forest industry in failure and being traded off for all time. That's the outcome. There should be a better outcome.
Hon. T. Christensen: I'm pleased to rise and take my place in the debate around Motion 37. I must confess that in listening to the remarks of the member for Cowichan-Ladysmith and previous members of the opposition, in their opposition to this motion, I would have some trouble in actually trying to figure out what the motion was about from their comments. The comments
[ Page 10270 ]
certainly stray far and wide, and one might take from the opposition's comments that pretty well everything the government does or is responsible for is wrapped up in this one motion.
I think it is worth reminding the House that this is a motion about establishing that legislation will be the priority in this House and that the estimates debate will be the priority in the other House. It's about ensuring that this place is operating in a manner that allows priorities to be set effectively, that allows debate around important legislation to occur and move forward, that allows estimates to proceed in an effective manner.
The public expects….
Interjections.
Deputy Speaker: Members, Members. Please refrain from commenting and allow the member that has the floor to speak without being interrupted. You'll have an opportunity to speak to this motion.
Hon. T. Christensen: The public expects, quite frankly, that this place be managed in an effective way. They recognize the work that we do here is critically important, as do we all, and they expect us to be focused in that work. They expect us to move through the session, ensuring that there is opportunity for debate and opportunity for questioning, but that the work moves forward with some efficiency.
I think that if you look at this government's record, it's this government that doubled question period, a critical opportunity each and every day for the members of the opposition to raise questions that are pertinent to their constituents, to raise those questions here and to have an opportunity for those to be responded to. That's a doubling of question period.
That, I think any objective observer would be able to agree, is probably the most opportune time for members of the opposition to raise critical issues. It's the time that, certainly, the media is paying most close attention to and is going to report on the issues and allow the public to see what is occurring.
I can understand that from the opposition's perspective they'd like the House to sit each and every day, 24-7, 365 days a year. [Applause.]
A number of members of the opposition are applauding that. But let's think about that. Let's think about the role of a Member of the Legislative Assembly, and the work that an MLA does. I can tell you in my own experience that much of the critical work done by an MLA is in his or her constituency office. It is an opportunity to get out, speak to people in your community, hear their challenges, hear what's working and hear what's not.
That's why it is important that we have a legislative calendar which allows for that — allows for people to be back talking to their constituents so that their constituents' views can actually inform what we are doing in this place and so that it not become some insular building in Victoria where everything gets decided, where the people who are entrusted with the responsibility to come here don't spend sufficient time in their communities.
I can tell you that this is a government that has taken pride in ensuring that we have opportunities, as ministers, to get around the province, to listen….
Interjections.
Deputy Speaker: Member, just one moment.
Are we prepared to allow the person who has the floor to continue without interruption?
Please continue.
Hon. T. Christensen: Ministers are getting out around the province, meeting with both our own constituents and constituents of opposition members to hear what's going on in schools, to hear what's going on in health facilities, to hear what's happening in terms of various industries, to find out how we can move this province forward.
For the first time ever, we have a Minister of Education who last year actually visited every school district in the province. That's valuable input that those boards of education and schools provide when you have the opportunity to get out and talk to them. I think it's unfortunate that members of the opposition can't see that that type of interaction with communities around the province is actually a critical component of the work that then goes on in this place.
Interjection.
Deputy Speaker: Member. Member for Columbia River–Revelstoke, would you please allow the speaker to have the floor. You will have an opportunity to speak to this motion if you so wish. That's for all members of the House.
Please continue.
Hon. T. Christensen: As I said, the public has a right to expect that legislatures across the country will provide ample opportunity for debate of bills, for debate of estimates, but also that they will operate in an effective manner and in an efficient manner. If we look at what has happened in legislatures across this country, virtually every other jurisdiction in Canada has actually assigned responsibility for estimates debates to a committee outside of the main chamber.
So we're not breaking new ground here. We're actually following a path that is consistent with other parliamentary systems right across Canada. There are a number of jurisdictions that limit their estimates debate to a hundred hours or less.
We're not reducing the time for estimates debate. We're merely changing the venue where those debates take place, from using time in this House — time that would otherwise be used for debating important legislation to the people of British Columbia — to using the committee structure more effectively for estimates debate.
Let's also be clear that there's been no overall change in the time allocated for estimates and bills. What this
[ Page 10271 ]
change does is ensure that legislation remains the priority for time in the large chamber of the House and that the legislation debate is not cut short due to estimates. This motion will ensure ample time for both activities.
If we look over the last number of years, the average length of time for estimates debates has been 175 hours. The vast majority of those 175 hours has occurred in the committee room. If we actually began estimates debate yesterday when this motion was introduced, that would have allowed 188 hours of debate in the committee room, with the possibility of additional time in this large chamber of the House, had that been available.
So there's plenty of opportunity as this debate around the motion continues. Certainly, that diminishes the opportunity in terms of the actual time available for estimates debate. But that seems to follow a pattern that the opposition seems fond of. Last year we spent a week debating a motion in this House, the effect of which was simply a two-hour change.
While the opposition wants to prolong the debate and use the opportunity to pull out strings of every grievance or concern or objection that they have in respect of how government operates in the province during this debate…. The reality is that if we could actually focus on the motion itself and provide ourselves an opportunity to conclude debate on the motion, we could then move forward with the important estimate debates, with the important debate of bills in this House.
There's another aspect of this discussion which I certainly find curious. It's something that seems to be consistent in the opposition's approach to many things. It's that question of quantity versus quality. What I hear the opposition saying…. It doesn't, quite frankly, matter whether it's a case of debate or whether it's a case of how you provide services. The opposition's answer to everything simply seems to be that you either spend more time doing it or that you spend more money doing it. "Don't worry about whether it's quality, but let's just spend more time doing it."
I think that if members of the public choose to go back and review the estimates debates over the last number of years, they can probably look through them and say: "You know, there are some aspects in there that are critically important questions to the future of British Columbia." But there's lots of information in there from time to time, based on my own experience, that you simply look at and say: "You know, we're not really sure where that was going. Perhaps members of the Legislature on both sides need to get a little more focused in the questions and the debate that is at hand."
Finally, the original rationale around having some of the estimates debate here in this main chamber was to facilitate the broadcasting of proceedings to the public, and that was an important rationale. I think it was a major step forward a number of decades ago when they chose to start to record the proceedings of this House in Hansard so that the public would have an opportunity to review those proceedings, to read about the debate, to look at the arguments being made.
I think it was another step forward when this place became televised so that the public has an opportunity to watch the debate, to listen, to see which matters are being considered. But that opportunity exists in the committee room as well. Those debates are available. They are televised now, so it provides an equal opportunity to ensure that the public has an opportunity to see what is going on in this House in terms of the debate of the important legislation that is put before members of the House which will impact the future of this province.
Equally, members of the public have an opportunity to watch and review the debate that is happening in the committee room around the budget estimates that enable members of both the opposition and the government side to be asking ministers about specific issues within their particular area of responsibility.
So there is ample opportunity in respect of the structures that are now in place for the public to have the opportunity to review what is going on in both this House and the committee room. I certainly stand in full support of this motion, to ensure that both legislation and estimates have sufficient opportunity for questions and answers and debate so that the people of British Columbia are properly served.
Deputy Speaker: May I remind all members of the House to show respect to the speaker that has the floor.
Debate will continue.
C. James: I rise to speak to Motion 37. It's a sad day once again under this government, when it comes to democracy — to have to stand and rise to speak to a motion that is looking at actually limiting the opportunity for debate, limiting the opportunity for discussion.
I'm not surprised to hear the words that I've heard from the other side, because they've done everything they can to try and avoid accountability. I wish I could say that this was a unique motion coming forward from this government. I wish I could say that it was a surprise that we would have a motion like this coming forward from this government.
But sadly, it's a pattern. In fact, it's a hallmark of this government to do everything they can to avoid openness, to avoid accountability and to avoid questions. That's the pattern that we see from this government.
Three years ago in a Speech from the Throne, the Premier told British Columbians that he welcomed the election of the official opposition, and he actually promised to work constructively on the challenges facing British Columbians. I want to take just a minute to actually quote from that throne speech.
The people of British Columbia "have elected a strong opposition to help accomplish that task and to hold your government accountable for its actions." Going on from the throne speech from this Premier: "All members of the Legislature have an opportunity to elevate public confidence through a common commitment to constructive debate, marked by civility, dignity and decorum.
[ Page 10272 ]
That's a fitting goal for this new parliament as your government seeks to advance its election platform and commitments."
Those were the Premier's words in 2005. At the time they seemed to actually acknowledge the clear message that British Columbians had sent in the provincial election. If we go back to the first mandate, you'll recall that the Premier began that mandate by denying British Columbians the right to a recognized official opposition. That's how that started off in the first mandate. That was one of the Premier's first acts — to actually restrict democracy, similar to the motion that we're here debating today.
So it was no surprise that this Premier wanted to do what he could to remove any ability for the opposition to do its job — to ask the tough questions, to actually speak for the British Columbians who this government is leaving behind. As we know, after that first term we saw this government embark on one of the most extreme agendas of cuts in British Columbia's history. Now, was that an agenda that was promised? No. Was that an agenda that was expected by the vast majority of British Columbians? No.
In fact, British Columbians heard the Premier tell them that health care would be there where and when they needed it. That was actually a commitment by the Premier. The people of British Columbia also heard the Premier say that he would spend what it took to protect children. That was a commitment and a promise made by this Premier. The public of British Columbia heard the Premier promise 5,000 long-term care beds for seniors. They heard this Premier promise he would never, ever sell B.C. Rail. They also heard this Premier promise that all British Columbians would benefit from the mandate that they gave his government.
The last one, which relates most particularly to this motion that we're talking about today, is that the Premier promised the most open and accountable government ever. In fact, I want to read those quotes, because I think it's important to take a look at the Premier's own words. This is from his victory speech in 2001: "We're going to bring in the most open and accountable government in Canada. I know some people will say we'll forget about that, but I promise I won't." That's actually what the Premier said.
At the swearing-in ceremony, the Premier said: "This cabinet is founded on two fundamental principles: political accountability and improved public access." Well, this motion is one more in a list of making a joke out of what the Premier said when he was sworn in and the promise and commitment he made to British Columbians. As we know well, the Premier broke that trust with British Columbians. He broke that commitment.
It's no surprise to me to see this motion coming forward today, because the Premier and his government would prefer that they not be held accountable for those broken promises. They would prefer that we had less opportunity to speak out on behalf of the public. This government would prefer we had less opportunity to point out that after this Premier took power, we saw hospitals closed, we saw seniors care facilities shut and downgraded, we saw B.C. Rail sold, we saw the budget for at-risk children slashed, we saw advocates fired, and we saw the independent officer for children eliminated.
We certainly saw freedom of information restricted — this coming from a Premier and a government that said they wanted openness and accountability. We saw the most vulnerable people in our communities forced to pay the heaviest price for huge tax cuts in the government's first mandate that were geared to the very top.
In 2005 British Columbians said: "Enough." They elected the largest New Democrat opposition in B.C.'s history. The public reaffirmed their belief in a healthy and balanced democracy, and they gave the official opposition a clear mandate to hold this government accountable and to present an alternative to its agenda. After four years, the first term of this government — this unaccountable and arrogant government — British Columbians actually hoped that they might look forward to a more modest, a more accountable, perhaps even a more open government.
For a very, very short period of time it appeared that the Premier might actually have been humbled by the message that he was sent. But it didn't last long. It didn't last long, for British Columbians have been let down once again by this Premier and this government.
This motion before us to further restrict debate in this democratic chamber is in a long list of cynical tactics that this Premier and government have used to distance themselves from the principles that are critical to democracy: the principles of openness, of accountability, of transparency. Under this government and this Premier, these principles are malleable to the Premier's will.
The rules, conventions and traditions of this Legislature aren't in place only as long as they serve the political interests of whoever is in power. They're actually in place to serve the needs of British Columbians, and that's what this government seems to have forgotten and is completely ignoring. They're so arrogant that they've forgotten that they're here to serve the people of this province.
These rules are in place as a foundation of our constitutional democracy. They must be treated with great respect and great care. When the rules of the Legislature change, it must be with the consent of everyone who was sent here to represent the interests of their constituents.
That has happened. In this Legislature, we all agreed that a set legislative calendar actually made sense and that it served democracy. For it to work, it required a commitment on both sides of the House to organize our work.
When we saw the government, at its whim, cancel the fall session of the Legislature and call it busywork, they revealed once again the arrogance of power. When they used the set calendar to force closure on important pieces of legislation only introduced in the session's dying weeks, they once again exposed their true intention behind fixed sittings.
When they unilaterally changed the hours that the House sits, again reducing the time that the opposition has to spend debating the government's budgets and
[ Page 10273 ]
bills, the Premier showed his disdain for the people's right to know what their government is up to.
Now here we are again, taking a look at a motion in front of us that actually moves debate on ministry budgets from this House to a committee room. A motion that was introduced without consultation. A motion that further reduces the time that the opposition has to hold the government accountable for billions and billions of dollars in spending — billions of dollars that belong to the public and taxpayers, not to this government. A motion that once again, as if there was any doubt, makes a mockery of the Premier's promise to actually respect this institution.
The most disappointing thing is that it makes a mockery of a commitment to the people of British Columbia. This isn't an esoteric argument about esoteric rules. This is about the public's right to know.
We all, as members of this Legislature, have school groups come to visit to talk about how the Legislature works. We see university groups coming to the Legislature. We see interns from courses at university working at the Legislature, wanting to see how the business of the people is done. They're told about the rules. In fact, some of the ministers on the other side actually meet with them and talk about the rules of the Legislature, about how important it is to uphold those rules and how those rules give the ability for democracy to occur.
So what lesson is this government giving all those people who come to the Legislature? They're giving them the lesson that when you're in power, it's fine to forget about the rules. It's fine to twist the rules whatever way you want to suit your own needs. That's a terrible lesson.
That's a terrible lesson that this government is giving around democracy in British Columbia. This motion is about the role of debate and dialogue in a democracy. It's ultimately about how we face the big challenges in British Columbia.
Let's take a look, for a moment, at estimates last year with the Premier. During estimates debate in this House, the Premier used every move he could find to avoid answering questions. There was more dead air than answers to questions. In 110 minutes of morning debate, for example, the Premier stayed silent for 63 of those minutes.
It took the Premier almost five minutes to come up with an answer to a simple question that asked who in his office was responsible for the public service standards of conduct. Five minutes to come up with an answer to that question. When we asked about B.C. Rail, what did we hear from the Premier? "It's before the courts."
When he actually did answer questions, he didn't share all the information that he had. When we asked questions in estimates about health care, the Premier said: "Go ask the Minister of Health." When we actually asked about information, we were told by the Premier: "Go to FOI. Go to freedom of information." It's very similar to what we've heard in this Legislature. We hear ministers saying: "Well, it's not my responsibility; it's the school board's responsibility. It's not my responsibility; it's the health board's responsibility. It's not my responsibility; it's Community Living B.C.'s responsibility" — everything they can to avoid answering questions.
But that wasn't enough for this government and for this Premier. Now with this motion we see that they actually want to change the rules to put debate on the Premier's budget further from public view. The simple fact is this: this Premier doesn't like answering questions. He certainly doesn't like being held accountable. He'll do everything he can, from tightly controlled press events to non-answers in this House to cancelling sessions and now to changing the rules of the Legislature, to suit his political purposes.
These are the actions of a Premier who thinks he's always right and is so arrogant that he doesn't think he should ever be questioned about it. These are the actions of a Premier who is increasingly out of touch with the province that he governs. These are the actions of a Premier who is content to close his eyes and his ears to the realities that are going on out there.
Those are realities that are our job to bring into the Legislature. Those realities that the Premier would rather not deal with are exactly the realities that this motion is trying to reduce the opportunity to raise questions about.
What are some of those realities that the Premier would rather not hear about? The first one, and certainly one of the most shameful statistics in British Columbia, is the fact that today we have an epidemic of child poverty — one in four children living below the poverty line. That's the worst record in Canada for four years in a row. The Premier doesn't mention that. As we see from this motion, he certainly doesn't want questions on that issue.
Today in British Columbia we see that seniors are suffering because of this government's action. And what response do we get back from this Premier? "Seniors generally do well in British Columbia." That's a response we got back. Those are exactly the kinds of issues and questions that the opposition will continue to ask and that this motion tries to limit. We know that the Premier and the ministers and government don't want to get questions on seniors care. That's very clear.
Yes, it's often frustrating on this side of the Legislature to ask those questions and get no answers, but that's our job. It's our job to raise those issues on behalf of British Columbians who are not being heard by this government, who are being shut out by this government, who can't be heard by this government, because they refuse to listen.
Today in British Columbia, forest-dependent communities are facing the worst crisis they've seen in generations — 10,000 jobs lost; mills closed — and we saw nothing in the throne speech that addressed that issue. The Premier doesn't seem to care or understand. I could list issue after issue after issue where this government doesn't want to have questions asked, but the role of this Legislature is to debate those issues, whether the government wants to listen to them or not.
[ Page 10274 ]
The Premier and his ministers are expected to come before this House to receive consent for their budgets and laws and to be held accountable for their actions. Well, for seven years British Columbians have been governed by a party and a Premier that will do everything in its power to avoid that basic democratic responsibility. Today's motion is one more example of that, one more example of undermining the Legislature, the people it serves and the province of British Columbia.
The government hopes that they can just slip this through, that nobody will notice. Well, in 15 months British Columbians are going to pass judgment, and the message is going to be very clear. It's time for a change, because we need a government that is open and accountable to the people that it serves in British Columbia.
So we will say no. We will say no to this motion on this side of the Legislature, because we know what it's like, on this side of the Legislature, to stand up for the people of British Columbia. We'll continue to do that.
B. Lekstrom: I rise today to take my place in this discussion and debate on Motion 37. It is a motion that I will be supporting; I'll start off by saying that. I find it quite interesting. I take great pride, as I'm sure every member in this chamber does, in the work that we do not for ourselves but on behalf of the people of our constituencies and the people of this great province.
But today we're debating a motion that was brought forward yesterday. It really, in a nutshell, says that we're going to take the debate of three of the ministries' estimates and, rather than do them in this House, we're going to do them in the committee room or the Douglas Fir Room, where every other estimate is debated.
We've heard a number of things — that this will cut debate, that this will cut the ability for the opposition to make questions. I want to be very clear to the public that that is not the truth. That is not factual, and it's not right.
I want to lay some things out. There was the question that there was no consultation on this. I believe the House Leaders spoke, and they actually….
Interjection.
Deputy Speaker: Member. Member.
All members of the House, we've had two presentations from the opposition this morning without interruption from the government side.
Member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast, we're asking you to show the same courtesy now — through the Chair — to allow the speaker that has the floor to continue. Thank you.
B. Lekstrom: Although the consultation maybe ended without the result that the opposition wanted, I believe there was discussion between the two House Leaders. I do want to point out that discussion like that has occurred before, and agreements have been reached, only to be broken by the opposition. So there is a trust factor there. When we talk about trust, certainly I think the opposition has to have a look inside themselves.
We also hear that this is about the public's right to know. Well, I try and work hard on behalf of my constituents, and I can tell you that I haven't had a lineup of people banging on my door saying: "I was watching estimates the other day, and my God, there was a good question."
Interjection.
B. Lekstrom: It's unfortunate the member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast keeps yapping off over there, but we'll let the little man do that.
We talk about school groups coming here to see democracy and….
Point of Order
N. Simons: I think the hon. member from the other side should withdraw that remark and apologize, just because of the standards that bring this House into disrepute.
Deputy Speaker: Thank you.
Member, I'd ask you to withdraw the remark.
B. Lekstrom: For calling him a little man? Okay.
Deputy Speaker: Please withdraw the remark.
B. Lekstrom: For being rude and interrupting? I'll redefine my comments.
Deputy Speaker: Member. Member, please withdraw the remarks.
B. Lekstrom: Which remarks, Mr. Speaker?
Deputy Speaker: The last remarks you made.
B. Lekstrom: I withdraw the "little man" remarks.
Deputy Speaker: Unequivocally.
B. Lekstrom: Unequivocally.
Interjection.
B. Lekstrom: That's very nice of you.
Debate Continued
B. Lekstrom: So going back, we heard the Leader of the Opposition talk about the public who come to this amazing building to watch democracy. I think we should all actually take a second look at some of the things they watch.
[S. Hammell in the chair.]
[ Page 10275 ]
I'll put this to both sides of the House. I don't think when we're here, whether it be in question period or during some of these debates, that I'm very proud of what the children from the schools see. I certainly don't think the teachers of this great province would want their children acting that way in their classrooms, yet we seem to think it's acceptable in these chambers. I, for one, don't think it's acceptable. I would love nothing more than to see that change in this democracy of British Columbia.
We heard the Leader of the Opposition talk about many things — unfortunately, not much about Motion 37. I do want to focus on Motion 37. There is no reasoning in this motion that will stifle debate and stifle the ability for the opposition to ask questions of any minister or the Premier in the estimates process.
It was laid out during the introduction of this motion that there will be no overall change in the allocated time for estimates. I pride myself that I have read every single piece of legislation that's been put before this Legislature since I was elected in 2001. I take pride because I study it. I want to understand each and every piece that we debate in this Legislature and that we vote on, and I encourage every member to do likewise.
I do want to reiterate my stance on this motion. It is one that I will support. I think that the amount of time…. I'm not going to spend the 30 minutes that I'm allocated here, because I want to get on with the debate of estimates rather than eat up time debating this motion. I would hope the opposition does, as well as all members of this chamber.
But the real issue here is possibly that the opposition wants to be on TV, because that's the only difference that I can see. We debate three estimates. Three estimates is what this motion is about. What we're saying as a government is that there is a heavy legislative agenda.
The work of the people of British Columbia is more than just looking at the estimates from the opposition's side. It's about dealing with legislation and the making of laws that make our province a better place to live. We have a legislative agenda that's going to be full, and the first priority is that we want to make sure that that legislation is debated on this floor of the Legislative Assembly.
But I also want to show and talk with the people of British Columbia and explain to them that under no circumstances has the ability of bringing estimates before this House been limited. What we said was "if we have time." If the time allows that we go through the legislation and there's time allocation available to debate the estimates in this chamber, we'll gladly do that. We will gladly do that.
I'm going to speak, and I'll speak broadly. I won't even speak from 2001. I'll go back before that and before the previous government as well.
I think most people in British Columbia who do pay attention to the politics that take place in this province, who do watch the legislative channel, probably shake their heads from time to time. They shake their heads, maybe, on some of the questions that are asked, wondering why that question was asked because it makes no sense. On the other side of that, they may shake their heads at the answers that are given. But I can certainly tell you, and I'm included in that, that I've shaken my head at some of the answers, at some of the questions — certainly some of the questions that come out during the estimates debate.
It's like we're trying to fill time rather than actually find out what the information is that we're there to find out, and it's sad. So to stand here and have the opposition actually say that this is going to limit democracy, that it's the end of democracy as we know it, is not factual. I wouldn't be doing the job I was elected to do if I didn't stand and reiterate that this has nothing to do with thwarting democracy or limiting debate. I think this enhances the ability for British Columbia to see the legislative debate in here. We have new technologies that will allow it to be broadcast from the Douglas Fir Room.
In closing, again, I fully support Motion 37 and encourage the debate to go on, on this but, hopefully, not too long. For every hour we debate this motion — and I have to believe this motion is going to pass this Legislative Assembly — we take one more hour away from the debates estimate that we're actually here talking about today. So in closing, I fully support Motion 37, and what I have to say is: let's get on with it. Let's do the work of the people of British Columbia and quit playing the type of politics that we've seen here over the last few hours.
G. Coons: In response to Bill 37, we have to realize that debates on budgetary estimates is a crucial part of the democratic process, and any move to remove them from the public eye should be seen as an attack on accountability and on the fundamental process of democracy. Estimates debate is often the only time that the public is provided with the opportunity to see this government answer detailed questions in the Legislature about ministerial budgets. Shunting estimates off to the side will make it impossible for the public to judge how effectively the government is managing their tax dollars.
For those out there, estimates debate is one of the few times in this institution when someone is able to ask questions and actually keep asking until they get an answer, because there is staff available there to help the ministers and to advise the ministers. Eliminating the debate on that is an attack on our democracy.
Hon. Speaker, we cannot allow the members on the other side of the House to alter this basic and fundamental procedure of the House without a justifiable cause, especially when it is so vital to the public, whom we were all — on both sides of the House, including the members on the other side — elected to serve. It is in the best interests of British Columbians that estimates proceed as normal.
Accountability must not be sacrificed for convenience, especially unnecessary convenience put in place only for their political convenience. Yes, I say political convenience, and that's what's at stake here. If the members on that side of the House are willing to commit
[ Page 10276 ]
to a fall session, there will be more than enough time to allow the full proceedings of estimates to go forward. No one on this side of the House wants to see the process of this Legislature subverted for political convenience.
It's absolutely essential to the people of British Columbia that this government and those on the other side, the lemmings of the Premier, be held accountable through an estimates process that allows the opposition to highlight the most pressing issues of the day here in the heart of the Legislative Assembly, before the galleries, with the press and everyone watching.
I am anxiously waiting for any member to stand up and actually justify their support of this and why they need to curtail debate on their government's spending. Not one of them will deviate from the Premier's motion that's before us. Are we a banana republic, a tinpot dictatorship — the sort of illegitimate government that would be willing to sacrifice the traditions of this honourable House at the slightest political opportunity?
Such abuse of the public trust is not in keeping with the dignity of this assembly. It is not becoming to the members of the government to seek such a flagrant abuse of the process by quashing the public's chances to hold the government to account during estimates.
The people of British Columbia, the taxpayers, have the right to a Legislature that follows the normal practice of allowing debate on the most pressing estimates in this chamber. There can be no question about it. The people of British Columbia have the right to an estimates process untainted by the whims of this government, which would prefer that these important matters be pushed to the side. Anything less than the bare minimum of estimates that the opposition is currently allowed to bring to this chamber would bring shame upon this House, shame upon the members who would ram such a sneaky, conniving and hypocritical motion through the House.
I've seen no compelling evidence, and I've heard no compelling evidence that would lead me to believe there is a legitimate reason for stifling estimates. In the past, debates went on much longer than the debates we hold today. I believe that the members opposite like to talk about the '90s so much that they would bring them up now. In the 1990s, debates on estimates were not stifled, nor should they be now. How can the Legislature claim to represent the people of British Columbia if they refuse to fulfil their parliamentary mandate to give a full, open, public accounting of themselves in this chamber?
I'd like to see a single shred of evidence that this shameful motion to limit the transparency of the government is in the best interest of British Columbians. The government has not, at least to my knowledge, offered any evidence whatsoever that the people of British Columbia anywhere in any region or in any city of the province have given their agreement to this government to shut down democracy. No, the public has nowhere called for the curtailment of estimates at all.
Now, if we take a look at the Premier's previous promises, a promise in the New Era document: "B.C. Liberals will reform how government works from top to bottom to create the most open, democratic and accountable government in Canada." In the swearing-in speech in 2005 this Premier said: "This cabinet is founded on two fundamental principles: political accountability and improved public access." In 2001 in Hansard the Premier says: "We think openness beats hiddenness every time, and we want to be sure that people can see what's taking place."
This motion is filled with this Premier's hiddenness and highlights his attack on accountability and on the fundamental process of democracy. This motion breaks the sacred trust between the government and those we have been elected to serve. It sets a dangerous precedent and threatens to undermine the authority and dignity of the House.
I am deeply concerned, and my constituents are deeply concerned about this motion. I'm sure the constituents that the members opposite are supposed to serve are also deeply concerned with this undemocratic motion.
People throughout British Columbia are becoming increasingly cynical about this government. There are many people who question the secrecy of self-serving governments. I would like to say that any member that votes in favour of this motion need never ask themselves again why people in this province choose not to vote when given the opportunity.
I cannot help but believe that the reason people in this province are opting out of the political process is because of motions like these, which serve no purpose except to hide the truth from the public. People in this province feel, and rightly so, that governments who undermine legislative processes in order to gain a political edge cannot be trusted. The trust of the public is sacred, and everything must be done to preserve it, lest the government lose all authority in the eyes of the people.
However, if one word could tie together this motion, the various issues we've brought forward in the last year or so, that word would be "arrogance." The level of arrogance shown by this government simply astounds me. I can forgive a government for making mistakes. We all make mistakes. But to deliberately set priorities which are out of step with the values of the people they were elected to represent and continue to demonstrate an unmatched arrogance shows they don't care about the current concerns of everyday people, and that is unforgivable.
I'm confident that no one in the province voted for the sort of petty politics that was demonstrated recently by the booster-seat fiasco. Nor can I believe that anyone would allow lavish office renovations at the expense of sexually abused children. The Ministry of Children and Family spends over half a million dollars on renovations. Leaked documents show that the Ministry of Children and Family Development may have censored a report critical of the government's inadequate support for sexually abused children before releasing it.
The documents also indicated the ministry has known for at least 18 months that children who were sexually
[ Page 10277 ]
abused weren't getting the counselling and support they needed, but this government failed to act. I find it completely unbelievable that any government could sink to such lows of heartlessness or extremes of mismanagement, because it really is either one or the other.
This motion exemplifies the contempt, the disdain of this unprecedented assault on the rights of the opposition and on the rights of British Columbians who want answers to the questions before us. Perhaps "arrogance" really does not express it best, although I find it difficult to imagine that this government would truly believe that British Columbians think it is okay to spend half a million dollars decorating offices, when they've been repeatedly told that for children and youth who need therapy there's no money to spare. Or maybe they just thought no one would notice or care.
Just like they might have thought that no one would notice when, after two years of waiting, the coastal forest industry was given a seven-page chunk of recycled fluff instead of a real strategy for renewal. Maybe they thought no one actually cared about the forest industry anymore. After all, they released tens of thousands of hectares from tree farm licences, land that is vital to a steady supply of fibre for many struggling mills, and allowed the corporations to sell this off as real estate.
This government actually granted forest companies the right to take back their private lands and sell them off to developers, at a fat profit, while keeping their exclusive rights to log the public lands without providing compensation. If the forest industry was ailing when this government began its term of office, it is all but on life support now, except for the companies selling real estate that belongs to us — the public. That's shameful.
Of course, this government, being so arrogant, may just think British Columbians are all a little bit stunned, in which case they can blame every ill in the forest industry on the dollar being high. Industry executives who are laughing all the way to the bank will nod and smile and hope we forget that their industry donated more than $6 million to this government in the last ten years.
I find it hard to believe that companies which can't afford to run their businesses have millions to spend on elections. No, they can't afford jobs for British Columbians. They can afford to cut down our best wood and use it to keep Americans working. They can afford to heavily donate to this government, but they can't afford to keep our mills open. One would have to be pretty arrogant to believe we would be dense enough to buy that.
British Columbians deserve better. Facing an arrogant government that believes it can do anything it wants without being accountable to the people of B.C. highlights this Premier's style and this Liberal government's actions. That's what this bill represents.
There are many issues before my constituents that they want answers for, that need debating and discussing in this House, and this government's curtailing of the democratic process through Bill 37 will have a significant impact on getting the many answers that need to be dealt with.
For example, on Haida Gwaii they're asking for help for forest-dependent communities. The Coast Sustainability Trust needs to be questioned. For those people that don't understand the Coast Sustainability Trust, it was put into effect to help mitigate and give compensation for the land use plans. Currently the money is all in a community matching fund, which does not cover compensation for workers. There must be financial compensation for job losses, pension-bridging assistance for anyone who chooses early retirement, financial assistance for retraining within the industry and other industries, financial assistance for moving off-island and real estate losses.
The original trust started with $35 million, and $25 million was allocated to worker and contractor mitigation. But after a certain time frame whatever was left in that account was transferred over to the other matching fund, which does not go to help workers. As the time frame ran out and as the Haida Gwaii land use plan was not yet agreed to, workers on Haida Gwaii lost the access to that fund. Forest workers on the Charlottes and Haida Gwaii must be recognized and not treated like second-class citizens, and that needs to be answered.
Ferry questions. Many, many questions about ferries in this province. I've been to over 25 communities discussing issues with ferry-dependent communities. The minister has received lots of communication, as I have, and recently there was a rally on Quadra Island. To summarize that, Susan Westren, who is from Quadra, wrote a letter to the minister that I'd like to put on record. It says:
Dear Minister:
Not so long ago you said 'boo hoo' in response to the current concerns of those of us who live in ferry-dependent communities. Yesterday on camera, in response to a televised protest by Quadra Islanders, you were not so callous but just as unfeeling.
I wonder how you would feel and others in the province would feel if, to every trip you made, $14.50 was added for the cost of your road. This is what it costs for the ten-minute ferry ride from Quadra Island.
Your two children need swimming lessons or new shoes? Add $22.40 to reach the swimming pool or the shoe store. You'd like to go to a movie with your partner? Add $20. Your parents come to visit? Add $33.10, because you don't have commuter tickets.
Perhaps your business relies on the arrival of tourists. In peak off-months it costs $41 for a family of four to come to the island for the day. No one at B.C. Ferries will say what this year's peak fares will be, but they will certainly be higher. Perhaps it will cost that family $45.
If you work off-island and require your car, each week your road will cost $72.50, and on it goes. If you live on an island further away, the fares, of course, are higher. From Saltspring to Swartz Bay a car and adult costs $28 with commuter tickets and $41.55 without.
In 2003 your government promised that the new B.C. Ferries would guarantee fair rates and achieve ongoing accountability. A 75 percent increase in five years certainly isn't fair. The continuing refusal of both the government and the corporation to address island concerns certainly isn't being accountable.
Do the people of West Vancouver pay for repaving and maintenance of the Lions Gate Bridge? No. But we who live in island communities are expecting at least four more years of increased costs, well above predicted inflation — a minimum of 122 percent increase by 2011.
[ Page 10278 ]
Our island economies are at risk, which means our communities are at risk, as higher and higher ferry fares are added.
I ask, along with the 82 percent of Quadra Islanders who signed a petition, that ferry fares be frozen until a legislative committee has studied the Coastal Ferry Act.
That's signed Susan Westren from Quadra Island.
Now, there are many hundreds, if not thousands of concerned people in ferry-dependent communities that have concerns. We've heard the minister in this House respond with his boo hoo comment. That's pretty shameful.
The issue of poverty and hunger in our schools needs to be dealt with in estimates. A constituent, in anger, wrote to me with the following:
"I was having difficulty justifying government policy with real life. The Ministry of Education is now requiring an average of 30 minutes per day of daily physical exercise. Knowing the child poverty rate in B.C., I wonder how many malnourished children will be subject to compulsory daily physical activity. It seems to me rather cruel, if not Auschwitz-like, that we torment children with exercise when we have not provided a guarantee that they are properly nourished."
We continue to push forward huge pollution megaprojects, have hundreds of millions of dollars in overrun projects, give away over a billion dollars to oil companies and banks and have the hundred dollars dropped off in our mailboxes instead of looking after our children — hungry kids in school and number one in child poverty for the fourth straight year. This is shameful. These are issues we need to have dealt with during estimates.
In Rupert, my hometown, the school district is desperately seeking to help its at-risk students, and Prince Rupert has one of the neediest student populations in British Columbia, especially for students entering the school system. The school district is trying to find ways to address the rising number of at-risk students and the low graduation rates of aboriginal students.
Based on the results of Clyde Hertzman's early development instrument, the EDI, and school district's 52's own kindergarten assessment tool, there's a concern about the large percentage of children entering the school system. Based on the data that the school district has, 47 percent of kindergarten students this school year were considered at risk in terms of basic skill development for entry into school, while 74 percent of students entering kindergarten were considered at risk in phonological development.
What's happening in Prince Rupert? Well, elementary schools, four of them, are on the chopping block. Discussions are happening, and this government, due to its policies, is going to devastate many heart-and-soul community schools in Prince Rupert. Bill 37, again, is eliminating and shutting down debate in estimates and shunting the possibilities of getting questions answered is an attack on democracy.
One question that people on the Queen Charlotte Islands have is the impacts of the sea level rising. Northern Graham Island, which is on the Queen Charlotte Islands, is one of the most sensitive areas. It's subject to high tides, frequent storms and erosion of one to three metres a year. The islands are getting that sinking feeling.
Governments in the States are looking at how it will help vulnerable Alaskan first nations communities with the impact of rising oceans, but it's not rising as quickly in Alaska's most vulnerable places compared to some communities in the Queen Charlotte Islands. In Alaska the first nations village of Kivalina, which is on the southern tip of an eight-mile-long barrier reef, is losing its battle, and the government is planning to relocate the village.
However, we look at the Queen Charlotte Islands. A study in 2006 said that erosion is eating away the northern portion of the Queen Charlotte Islands at an even more alarming pace than in Kivalina. Due to tidal ranges, erodible sediments, storm surges, wave climate, the Queen Charlottes is eroding at about one to three metres per year. In Kivalina, which has lost 19 metres in the last 15 years, it's less than a metre.
What we need to ask and to clarify is: what is happening as far as climate change in places like the Queen Charlotte Islands, and what plans are in place for this province to deal with the impact of climate change in communities that are vulnerable to rising sea levels and soil erosion? Can we get answers? Can we have debate? Can we get due process? Can we ask the minister responsible? Not if debate is restricted by Bill 37.
First nations in this province are ready to again try to implement the UN declaration on the rights of indigenous people with the federal government. Where is this government as far as that? Silent. The recognition act was flipped away by this Premier in dealing with first nations.
Down in the southern Okanagan there are U.S. dams out there that are going to threaten rare, endangered ecosystems in Canada. A dam at Shankers Bend, just south of the U.S.-Canadian border near Osoyoos would back up the water into the communities of Cawston and Keremeos affecting the lower Similkameen and Chopaka native reserves. It will flood close to 7,000 hectares. We need to bring this out. We need to ask questions about that. We need to know where this government stands.
With Bill 37 we are not going to get the chance. It is typical of dictators to avoid due process. If the members opposite want the respect of British Columbians, it's important to refrain from selfishly twisting the truth. British Columbians will not be fooled by rhetoric that puts political convenience over transparency and government accountability.
I'm beginning to wonder if the members opposite care about the integrity of the House. If they did, I doubt they would be so quick to commit themselves to a course of action that is so detrimental to the public good. I feel somewhat ashamed on behalf of the members opposite, because it appears that they have no conscience that would drive them to feel ashamed for themselves. Bill 37 highlights the contempt and the arrogance of the members opposite.
When I read the throne speech, I noticed that they talked about a new Pacific carbon trust — carbon trading
[ Page 10279 ]
and carbon offsets, made-in-B.C. projects that will be regulated by the government and new investments in carbon offsets projects that benefit first nations. There are many questions about the Haida Gwaii carbon forest pilot project that I brought up before in the House. John Disney, who is the economic development officer for the village of Masset, is still awaiting permits and the necessary tape to be cut so that they can restore old-growth characteristics to dysfunctional riparian zones and temperate rain forests on Haida Gwaii.
This is a part of the solution to global climate change. Will there be an opportunity to discuss and delve into this project, especially since the Haida Gwaii pilot project works closely with Freegro? I've brought that up before, and their plant shelters. Right now on Haida Gwaii and the Queen Charlottes there are about six million foreign plastic shelters in current use, made in China or someplace else. They will have to be removed and transported to landfills, causing huge impacts along with high costs.
This Freegro plant has these shelters designed and assembled in Prince Rupert. Right now they've got orders for hundreds of thousands, from just about every province in the country except British Columbia. A homegrown company with ten or 12 workers, and this government has ignored them for the off-sea foreign companies. It's cost-effective, both in price and in damage to the environment, and would do great.
Deputy Speaker: Relevance, Member. Relevance to the motion.
G. Coons: I'm talking about Bill 37. I'm talking about the relevance of Bill 37 in not being able to bring up questions from constituents who have written to me and said: "Could you bring this up in estimates and get some answers to these questions?"
Again, the people in Haida Gwaii and Bella Coola are dealing with farm-gate sales. There are many questions out there that need to be asked of the Minister of Agriculture, with $2.4 billion in farm-gate sales and close to 250,000 people employed on almost 2,000 farms in B.C.
There must be time in this House to deal with that — to deal with our farmers, to have somebody to answer the questions dealing with the vital initiatives that are important to our local farmers. They've failed to listen, and Bill 37 just highlights how they will continue not to listen to British Columbians throughout the province, especially farmers and their concerns about meat regulations.
In the Central Okanagan more than 100 poultry, lamb and cattle farms have been forced to shut down because of this government's regulations. That's shameful.
I saw in the throne speech that there were claims that there are going to be supports for women fleeing abuse. They've said that's been increased, but it's unclear what these supports will be. We need these answers in an estimates process that this government is curtailing.
They also said they would improve some violence against women programs. What about the highway of tears? The minister needs to be asked about what's happening with incentives and initiatives in funding for the highways of tears.
The new energy corridor from Prince Rupert to Prince George was also mentioned. I've had lots of constituents with concerns that this highway, this energy corridor, is basically for the drilling of coalbed methane. The public has not supported this, and neither do the majority of British Columbians.
The manner of this Liberal rule is an insult to democracy and an insult to the members of this side of the House, who believe in integrity, accountability and respect for the traditions of our provincial parliament.
Noticing that I've got the green light, I would like to end on that note and voice my opposition to Bill 37.
N. Simons: Madam Speaker, I may have made a comment that was offensive to a member in this House. I would like to withdraw and apologize for that comment.
Interjection.
Deputy Speaker: Member, Member.
B. Bennett: I'm going to speak in support of Motion 37. Actually, Members on the other side, it's not a bill; it's a motion.
I just want to ask, first of all: what is happening here? Is this the end of democracy as we know it? One could perhaps think this, listening to the other side. I would suggest that it's not the end of the democratic world as we know it. In fact, there will be as much time allowed for estimates as there has been over the last several years, an average of 175 hours. With the new process, we'll have 188 hours. That's a fact that gets in the way of the hyperbole that's coming out of the other side.
What about other provinces? Shouldn't we spend as much time on estimates in our process here as they do in other provinces? I think we should. I think all members would agree that we should. When you look at the facts — again, the facts get in the way sometimes of a good argument — the facts are that we here in British Columbia spend more time than most of the other provinces on the estimates process.
So why is the opposition lighting its hair on fire over this? I wouldn't pretend to be able to get inside their heads to determine why they are lighting their hair on fire, but I'm guessing that this maybe isn't an issue of democracy as much as it is considered by the opposition to be a crass political opportunity, one that they clearly relish and are going to take advantage of.
So be it. That's fair enough; that's allowed here. But let's call a spade a spade. Why else would they be so shrill about a change of venue? That's really what we're talking about here, a change of venue. Isn't the point that the opposition is allowed, and, actually, members of the government are allowed, to ask ministers questions about their budgets? That, I think, is the process of estimates. That's what we're really talking about here.
Does it really matter whether they ask those questions here or whether they ask those questions in a committee
[ Page 10280 ]
room someplace else in this building? I agree it's important that they are given the opportunity to ask the questions of the ministers about the budget — absolutely essential that they be given the opportunity to do that.
What happens in other provinces? I'm not sure how you would argue against a comparison with other provinces to determine whether our process is fair or not. The committee room we're talking about here…. The deliberations that take place there are televised. They're open to all members. They're open to the public. Hansard is there. Hansard records them, and they broadcast out over the Internet and on the legislative TV channel. I understand that they'll be rebroadcasting these estimates debates in the evening.
What happens in places like Ontario, Alberta, Saskatchewan — even the last remaining NDP government in the country, I think, Manitoba? There's only one left. I don't know how long it will last, but there's one left.
[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]
Even there they mostly use committee rooms for this estimates process and, if they don't use committee rooms, if they do use the main chamber, they severely restrict the time available for estimates. So their process is not nearly as accountable or as effective as the process that we're going to be using here in British Columbia.
I think it's fair to ask: why the change? I think it's a fair question to ask. My understanding is that estimates were done in the main chamber mostly because television was unavailable in the committee room until 2005. That's my understanding of why we did some of the estimates here.
I think, frankly, that the opposition has proven over the past few sessions that they're quite capable of giving long and often very meaningless and irrelevant speeches and delaying legislation for cynical political purposes. Rather than let the government get on with the business of the people — which is dealing with legislation, which is debating legislation and estimates — they do really like to waste time. I think, frankly, that the public in this province are wise enough and perceptive enough that they see that and that the public will probably express their point of view in May of 2009.
I think there have been, as I say, lots of specific opportunities. I remember one last year where the opposition wasted a whole week talking about some procedural matter. In my opinion, they wasted a whole week. In their opinion…. Obviously, they thought it was a worthwhile exercise to delay the government's legislation. But they wasted a whole week, and they're wasting more time now.
It's my opinion that government can separate the legislative function and the estimates function, as virtually all provinces already do, and give the main chamber an honest chance to debate and pass legislation that benefits British Columbians, that is important to British Columbians and that is brought forward by the duly elected government, while at the same time the estimates process goes forward and is given all the support that it needs in the committee room to have a perfectly effective and accountable and democratic estimates process.
I would like to say, in closing and in speaking in support of Motion 37, that I am, as a member from a rural riding, a riding that has a tradition of being a populist riding — one where people really care about democratic principles and where sometimes people feel alienated from Ottawa and from Victoria — very, very proud of the things that this government has done to increase the democratic principles that we operate under, such as free votes.
I happen to sit beside the member for Peace River South, who, over the seven years that I've known him, has stood up and voted his conscience and voted on behalf of his constituents in a way that's different from the majority of the people on this side of the House. As difficult as that can be sometimes for a government, the Premier of this province, the head of our caucus, allows that to happen. I'm proud of that.
We have free votes on this side of the House. I can tell you that they don't have free votes on the other side of the House. We saw what happened last spring and last fall. They do not have free votes on the other side of the House. For them to stand up and be all high and mighty and suggest that they really care about democracy but that this side of the House doesn't care about democracy…. I think the facts would suggest otherwise.
We were the first province in Canada to establish a fixed election date calendar. I'm proud of that. The folks on the other side hate it when we talk about the 1990s, but they did have ten years to implement those kinds of democratic reforms, and they didn't do it.
Something else. You know, it's not exciting and it's not sexy, but something that we have done that I think has been a big improvement in terms of accountability and transparency to the people of the province is that we introduced three-year rolling service plans with performance targets. After the 1990s, I think it was particularly important to people that they knew how the government planned to spend their money, the taxpayers' money, over the next three years.
We passed truth-in-budgeting legislation. We made deficits illegal. After having a government for ten years that had had eight or nine deficits out of ten years, we passed legislation that just wouldn't allow that any more. We also have made cabinet ministers personally responsible for their budgets.
We have the toughest privacy legislation in Canada.
We had the Citizens' Assembly. We've given the people of the province a choice on how they elect their MLAs in this province. Did the other side ever do that? Not even close. That is one of the most democratic exercises ever seen in this country, the Citizens' Assembly.
I would suggest that what we're hearing from the other side is the same old stuff that we usually hear. They like to waste time. They like to represent themselves as being the agents of democracy and fairness.
What we're really talking about here is organizing the way that this place works, making sure that we've got a fair, open, effective and transparent estimates process.
[ Page 10281 ]
We're going to put it in the committee room. They're going to have television there. Hansard is going to be there. In my opinion, what we ought to be doing is getting on with that.
D. Thorne: I was going to say — because I usually say it when I stand up in this place — what a pleasure it is to stand and speak to an issue, but I have to say that today I really don't feel that way. I feel as if I do this with a heavy heart. I feel as if I'm forced to do this. It wouldn't have been my first choice of what to be doing today, but I have to stand up on behalf of the residents of Coquitlam-Maillardville and state what I am sure would be the majority opinion. This is a sad day in this place.
Motion 37 will in fact take away many, many hours of debating time. That, I think, in and of itself, is a very, very bad thing. It's a bad thing for openness and transparency. It's a very bad thing for getting questions answered for those of us who have many questions that we want to ask, not only in our critic areas but in other areas in which our residents have asked us to get up and ask questions of the specific ministers.
You know, the really sad thing about this is what it says about the importance of the whole process of estimates — that it no longer fits into this particular place, the place we call the big House, the important House, and that it's okay to relegate all of it. Over the years more and more has been relegated to what we call the small House.
I think that's quite a statement. I think it's a philosophical event that's happening here. It's a degrading of the opposition being able to ask questions about how this government spends the taxpayers' money. The people in my constituency, when they realize what's happening, and I'm sure that at this point most of them do not know what's happening, are not going to be very happy about it.
The first thing that happened after I was elected was that the 2006 fall session was cancelled. That eliminated time for us to do the business of this House on behalf of our constituents. Then the shortened session in fall 2007 occurred. Now we're seeing this happening in the House.
You know, eliminating debate on spending may not seem like an important thing to the members on the other side of the House. They are the government. The ministers have made their decisions on how they want to spend their money. All I want to do as an opposition member — duly elected the same way they were, in my riding — is ask some questions about the priorities, about the way they have made the decision to spend the money.
I really find it very, very difficult to accept without getting up and saying that I think it's wrong, wrong, wrong, especially from a government that we all, across British Columbia, understood was going to be the new transparent government, the new open and democratic government, as opposed to…. I assume they were talking about the prior government, my government, which was in prior to them. I can only assume that they meant: "We will be better. We will be more open and transparent."
In this particular instance…. There are many instances — I doubt if I'll have time this morning to talk about all of them, but I have them marked in my pages here — of how this government has, in fact, become much more unaccountable than I think they meant to be in the beginning. It's a slow process, but there's no doubt that it is occurring.
You know, I might want to add here, before I move on, that it was in the time of the last government that the opposition was allowed to continue estimates, by law, as long as they wanted. I wasn't around in those days. I was a city councillor in those days and not part of the debate in this big House, not part of the questions about estimates spending. I do know, from an observer's point of view — and I think my constituents would agree with me — that when you give the ability to ask questions, the power to stop those questions, to the opposition, why that is quite a statement, why that is quite a democratic thing to be doing.
I think that whoever is in opposition should have that right to end the debate, should be able to say: "No, I am not ready yet to stop asking questions. I have many more questions from my constituents who still have problems with the way the money is being spent. It's their tax dollars." I think that I should have the right, as an opposition member, the way the members on the opposite side of the House had the right to say: "Enough. We understand the process. We're ready to let this go and put the budget to bed. Let's end the estimates process."
I'm very disappointed. When I came to this place I thought I was going to have the opportunity to stand up and ask as many questions as I wanted, as I said earlier, not just in my critic area but in other areas of great interest to the people in my riding. The people in my riding have great concerns about environmental issues — not just about housing, my area, or not just consumer affairs, my other area.
We have great concerns about, for instance, Pinecone Burke Park and the boundary changes that are being requested to put a transmission line through for independent power projects, which will be damming, to some extent, eight of our tributaries on the upper Pitt Lake that are known for their abundance of wild salmon.
Pinecone Burke, which this chamber spent many hours discussing…. There was great jubilation when it became a provincial park, because it was such a natural place so close to the urban areas of British Columbia. Wild grizzly habitat. I mean, there are any number of wonderful things about Pinecone Burke that could easily be destroyed by running a transmission line through, not to mention the precedent that might be set.
I have many, many of my constituents working…. Actually, quite a few of them are working day and night as volunteers to try and interfere in this IPP process, and they want me to get up and speak to the Minister of Mines and Resources and the Minister of Environment — not my critic area.
[ Page 10282 ]
I certainly have many, many questions still about the gravel and the Coquitlam River that my Kwikwetlem band is working so hard to have running with red salmon again. Those are all areas that I will probably not get a chance now to ask about. I probably won't, with this many hours gone from the estimates process.
Even last year I had a hard time fitting my questions in. I couldn't even fit in all of my housing questions, questions around the demise of mobile home parks in this province — that is the slippery slope that we are on, and it's getting slipperier every day — and the seeming lack of concern by this government for those people.
The problems that renters have in this province — the lack of not just affordable housing for renters but the lack of rentals, period; the fact that the marketplace is not building supply; and the fact that the rent supplements program seems to be the only housing strategy this government has come up with since I've been in the chamber — how it's really a dismal failure.
The minister, I feel, is…. Some days, I have to say, I feel sorry for the Minister Responsible for Housing. His program is such a failure, and he really did have such high hopes for it. Unfortunately, the law of supply and demand…. If you don't have a home, whether you can afford it or not, a rent supplement is not going to help you out in any way.
I do feel a little sorry for the Minister Responsible for Housing. What is he going to do with his housing strategy? What is he going to do to resurrect it to try and help the people of British Columbia who cannot afford to buy a home? They need rentals.
Is he going to throw his hands up in despair and abandon them? They feel abandoned. They want me to talk to the minister. I'll be given a few measly hours to talk to the minister, and then I won't have enough time to get all of the answers I need.
Democracy, transparency — those are all excellent reasons to continue to have estimates into the night, into the summer, if necessary. Mainly it comes down to each one of us in the opposition trying to do the job for the residents of British Columbia.
We are their voice. We are here to be their voice, and we are being shut down. It isn't right. It isn't right, no matter how you look at it.
I wish I had more time. Noting the hour — you're going to say it any second, if I don't say it first, Mr. Speaker — I will adjourn debate, and my colleagues will carry on this afternoon. If necessary, I may rise again to speak on this issue.
D. Thorne moved adjournment of debate.
Motion approved.
Hon. B. Penner moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1:30 this afternoon.
The House adjourned at 11:58 a.m.
[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]
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.
TV channel guide • Broadcast schedule
Copyright © 2008: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada
ISSN: 1499-2175