Hansard — Monday, May 5, 2008 a.m. — Vol. 32, No. 3 (HTML)

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.
The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY


CONTENTS

	Routine Proceedings
		Page


Private Members' Statements		11923
	Changing lives for the better
	H. Bloy
	D. Chudnovsky
	Job losses in Fraser Valley
	H. Bains
	R. Hawes
	A shot in the arm
	L. Mayencourt
	C. Evans
	Health and equality for all B.C. children
	D. Cubberley
	R. Cantelon

Motions on Notice		11932
	Contributions of Armed Forces members (Motion 15)
	D. Jarvis
	M. Karagianis
	Support for run-of-the-river power projects (Motion 53)
	R. Hawes
	S. Simpson
	J. McIntyre
	N. Macdonald
	J. Horgan
	J. Rustad

H. Bloy: Thank you for the opportunity to rise in the House today to speak about the importance of early learning and literacy in British Columbia. As I recently became a grandfather, this is a subject that's growing even closer to my heart — a baby boy, James Lawrence, from my son Jeremy and his wife Jen.

I know that investment in the early childhood years is critical to future success. Research on infant brain development tells us that a child's experience in the first three years of life directly impacts their later development and learning. There is also a 90 percent probability that a child will remain a poor reader at the end of fourth grade if the child is a poor reader at the end of grade 1.

This government recognizes the importance of supporting the development of British Columbian children at an early age. Families in British Columbia want their children to be given every possible opportunity to succeed in life, and I am pleased to see that the early learning and literacy programs being developed and supported in our province are doing exactly that.

I would like to start by talking about the success of StrongStart B.C. early learning centres in British Columbia. StrongStart centres are funded by the Ministry of Education and offer a free drop-in early learning program for parents or caregivers and their children prior to kindergarten.

In 2006 Coquitlam was chosen as one of the sites for the initial StrongStart B.C. centres. Due in large part to the success in Coquitlam, we now have 86 StrongStart B.C. centres across the province, which include six in and around my riding of Burnaby and Coquitlam.

These centres are a wonderful resource for parents and caregivers who wish to give their preschool-age children the opportunity to be comfortable in a school setting. As we all know, the school is the centre of the community in many areas of our province.

Qualified early childhood educators lead activities — including stories, music and crafts — to help children grow linguistically, physically and socially and to become more comfortable in a school-like environment.

In Coquitlam, StrongStart centres at Roy Stibbs and Riverview Park have been awarded $50,000 to prepare an in-school space and fund the first year of operating costs, including staff and supplies and healthy snacks. The centres will receive another $30,000 each in the next two years. StrongStart B.C. centres are being funded in my riding at Forest Grove Elementary School, and there are many more coming on the Burnaby side.

Our government's commitment in the 2007 throne speech was to open 80 centres. There are currently 86 centres operating in the province. The initial centres that are up and running around B.C. have been a true success, with positive feedback being given from school districts and parents and caregivers alike. Because these centres have been so successful, the government is committed to creating 400 centres and having them operating by 2010.

B.C.'s Balanced Budget 2008 includes an additional $38 million to make these centres a reality for B.C. children and families. At the beginning of April the Ministry of Employment and Income Assistance announced that it will spend up to $150,000 to provide approximately 700 parents on income assistance with preschool-age children with a bus pass for three months to encourage families to utilize the StrongStart B.C. centre in their neighbourhood.

Another extremely positive early learning program in our province that deserves recognition is B.C. Books for Babies. This initiative promotes the concept of lifelong learning. It is a community-based literacy program that focuses on the value of reading to newborns. Through the program, every baby born in British Columbia will receive a book bag containing a board book, a CD and information about libraries in their community and other services. Bag distribution is coordinated by the public library in each community.

Research clearly shows the importance of talking, singing and reading to newborn babies. Books for Babies helps create connections between B.C. libraries and families at a very early stage.

Parents, caregivers and families want options and choice for their children. This government is committed to exploring options and making more early learning choices available to families.

For a number of years now, for six years, I've been visiting every kindergarten class in my riding. I give a book to every kindergarten child. It is really important to me because I remember when Anita and I read to our children when they were very young. When they got to be about kindergarten age, they would start to read to us. Even though some of it was from memory, they were learning the words, and they could point them out.

This is what I tell all the kindergarten children that I visit — how we as parents read to our children and how they started to read to us. So they each get a book to take home. I've met some great teachers while I've been in the schools. The teachers encourage all the children to come back and tell her about the books that they received.

In British Columbia, in our 2008 throne speech, it was announced that a new early childhood learning agency will be established to assess the feasibility and cost of full-time kindergarten for five-year-olds. It will also undertake a feasibility study for providing parents

with a choice of day-long kindergarten for four-year-olds by 2010 and for three-year-olds by 2012. The report will be completed later this year. I look forward to this report and this study so that there's more choice for parents for early childhood care.

I am proud to see the initiatives that this government is taking to provide for children of British Columbia. This government recognizes the importance of providing options for families and exploring new avenues for early childhood education.

B.C. is moving forward from the StrongStart B.C. centres initiatives to the Books for Babies programs. Children in British Columbia are reaping the benefits of early learning programs, and our province can only gain by providing more options for caregivers.

D. Chudnovsky: I'd like to thank the member for Burquitlam, I think it is, for bringing forward the issue of child care to us today. I think that it's worthwhile talking about the breadth of child care programs and the need for a diversity of child care.

The member and the government have focused on the StrongStart program. There are important benefits to the StrongStart program, and we support the StrongStart program as one of a range of child care programs. [Applause.]

I would encourage the members opposite to have patience before they get too excited.

The StrongStart program, as we know, is a program that requires an adult to accompany the child to the child care. That is a problem for thousands of my constituents. My constituents are working people. Most of them are families where two adults work.

To focus the government's resources and ideas on only one of a possible range of child care programs — the result being that the preponderance of new resources go to a child care program which, in the end, is available only to those who have the ability to go with their child to the programs — is certainly a problem.

It is, in fact, discrimination against those who need to work, who are at work. It's discrimination against single-parent families where one person has to work. It's discrimination against dual-parent families where both are working. It's discrimination against those people who are isolated in our communities and don't have an adult who can accompany the child to the child care.

What I would put forward in response is that the diversity of child care programs that are available…. Preschools, parent participation preschools, group day cares — all of these are programs that should and could be supported by government.

We know from the messages that we've gotten and from the response of the child care community over the last couple of years that there is a disappointment and a frustration and, in fact, a bitterness in the province with respect to the other types of child care, the incredibly important range of child care experiences which many, many children across the province need and want and deserve.

I would encourage the member for Burquitlam to be broader in his understanding and broader in his support for resources for a range of child care experiences which young people in this province need and deserve.

I call the member's attention, for instance, to the reductions that were introduced by government over the last couple of years for the child care resource facilities across the province. I know that in my constituency the information, the help and the support that was derived from those facilities was and is incredibly important. A reduction in its availability is something that has a concrete impact on the ability of my constituents to access and to use a range of child care experiences for their children.

H. Bloy: I'd like to thank the member for Vancouver-Kensington for his support of the StrongStart programs, but from there it seemed to go downhill. No matter what the opposition thinks of what we've done as a government and about a broader range of support, I believe that this government has stood up for children and brought more to British Columbia than ever over the last number of years.

The government's priorities for 2008 include partnerships to increase child care options; increasing spaces; recruitment and retention of early childhood educators; supporting vulnerable children and families; and developing a policy on early-years strategy. The province is investing close to $300 million for child care services in 2008 and 2009, an increase of $212 million from 2001. Provincial operating funding of more than $62 million a year supports over 4,600 child care facilities, including more than 87,000 child care spaces.

Creating child care spaces is a key priority of this government. Since 2001, capital funding has created more than 3,300 new licensed child care spaces in the province of British Columbia. The ministry has set out even more ambitious guideposts for the years ahead, allocating $12.5 million in 2007-08 with the goal of creating approximately 2,000 new spaces by the end of 2010.

I know that this program is well on the way. It's been extremely successful. A lot of people were working on developing these spaces. Child care partnerships like the social housing–child care partnerships with B.C. Housing and the school spaces initiative are effectively bringing together a wide range of government and community contributors, families and service providers.

This government has made child care subsidies available to the families of almost 50,000 individual children each year. Last fall we increased the maximum subsidy rate for out-of-school child care to the benefit of more than 13,000 children in the province. We've extended higher subsidy rates for young children to carry on throughout a child's entire kindergarten year.

Let's not forget that these latest improvements follow a major expansion of the program. In October 2005 it made subsidies available to about 65 additional children, while an additional 6,000 children saw an increase in their existing subsidy. We're supporting recruitment and retention of qualified staff through two exciting new pilot programs: the early childhood educators loan assistance program and the early childhood educators incentive grant program. Across….

There's a lot going on in the minds of citizens in the Fraser Valley. If it's not the health care services that they worry about, they worry about the safety of their families in their neighbourhoods or whether their children will get the required resources in their schools. These are some of the concerns that they live through on a daily basis in Surrey, in other Lower Mainland communities and in Fraser Valley communities.

The biggest worry that is increasingly on their minds recently is whether the family-supporting jobs that they hold will be there when they show up for work in the morning. When they see what is going on around them and what is happening to their neighbours, it is real enough to lose sleep at night. They know that this is becoming reality in their communities.

I will try to put together some numbers that reflect the reality in this region going back to 2001, when this government took power. Here's the list of forest industry jobs that once belonged to steelworkers and are no longer there: Weyerhaeuser's Canadian White Pine mill in Vancouver was one of the first casualties, shutting its doors to close to 400 family-supporting jobs.

The minister said he could do nothing, despite the fact that the company was required to operate this mill at that time under the appurtenancy clause and despite the fact that this mill was one of the two most profitable mills in the company. The minister went on to say that it is their business decision and that they would not be able to help the workers.

Then came the turn for their two other value-added mills next door. K3 and a specialty board mill went down soon after, throwing another 100 jobs in the waste bin. Vancouver local 1-2171 has seen the Squamish mill permanently shut down, laying off over 200 family-supporting jobs. This was despite the fact that the workers, the community and the local management team gave everything they could to keep the mill running.

Then Silvertree sawmill shut its doors permanently, laying off close to 200 jobs. The same company, another division — the Vancouver division — shut down its only remaining mill in south Vancouver, throwing another 200 workers on the streets. Howe Sound sawmill on Kent Avenue shut its doors, costing another 150 jobs. Sawarne Lumber, a remanufacturing plant on Mitchell Island has not operated for over six months — another 100 jobs on indefinite layoff.

This is the story of members in one of the locals of steelworkers in the Lower Mainland. Although all these plants were located in Vancouver, most of them live in Surrey and surrounding areas, for a total loss in the last five years of…. Over 1300 well-paying, family-supporting jobs are no longer there.

The same trend exists in the Fraser Valley local of the steelworkers. Here's a list: Fraser Mills, shut down December 2001, 200 jobs; McDonald Cedar, 50 jobs; Westminster Wood, Interfor, 50 jobs; Canfor Harrison Logging, 70 jobs; Interfor Specialty Division, 50 jobs. Ellison Pass logging, 50 jobs; Interfor Hope logging, 40 jobs; J.S. Jones, Boston Bar, 180 jobs; Lineham Logging, 40 jobs; Meeker Cedar, 60 jobs; Western Forest, New Westminster division, 300 jobs; Mission Ridge Enterprise, seven jobs; Interfor Queensboro, 110 jobs; Marine Way Independent Industries, 20 jobs; Lytton Lumber, 50 jobs; Interfor Elgin, 25 jobs; and most recently Canfor panel and fibre, 100 jobs, for a total of 1,372.

It's a total in these two locals of over 2,700 jobs. When these mills were going down because of lack of fibre — one of the reasons, as most mills will tell you — the log exports from this province continued at a record level.

One of the greenest operations, panel and fibre, as I mentioned, shut its doors in New Westminster, giving pink slips to over 100 jobs. According to the steelworkers, not a word in response from the Premier, who has pledged about $1 billion in gas and oil subsidies by 2010, and nothing back from the Forest Minister — who thought, as one Panel Fibre employee found out, that Canfor made 2-by-4s at this mill. Imagine that — a Forest Minister who does not even know what a major facility in the Lower Mainland produces.

All the job losses, this government would like you to believe, are due to market conditions.

R. Hawes: Standing orders for private members time state that statements are not to be overtly political, nor are they to cast aspersion on individual members of the House. I believe that's what this member is doing, and I would ask that you ask him to refrain doing so.

A reality check shows that many of these job losses in the forest industry are as a direct result of this government's forest policies and of this government's inaction to help the industry and the workers to overcome some of the difficult times that they face today.

It is a direct result of the government's removal of the social contract that existed between the people of the province — the real owners of our forests — that required the forest company to harvest logs from Crown land and manufacture them in B.C. to create jobs for British Columbians.

Now, thanks to this government, that social contract does not exist, and the major industry has become log brokers. As a result, there's a record level of raw log exports, while the local mills are starved of the logs. Mackenzie sawmill is pleading with this minister at

this time not to approve an OIC that sits on the minister's desk for approval to allow their log source to export logs. This minister is non-committal.

R. Hawes: Again, I rise on a point of order. Standing order 25a(5)(b) states that in private members' time: "Statements and discussions…shall not revive discussion on a matter which has been discussed in the same session."

On Thursday of last week this issue was canvassed in question period. Madam Speaker, I would ask that you ask that member to refrain from getting specific on items that have been already discussed in this session.

Member, because something has been brought up in question period does not preclude it from being discussed in this forum. Private members' statements state difference of opinions and controversy, not a problem, but debate is not within the spirit or intent if they are highly partisan remarks that reflect negatively on individual members or groups of members within the spirit or intent.

Members, all just refrain in terms of that general rule that we have all agreed upon.

H. Bains: When I brought all those stats reflecting what went on in the last five years, I think this also is in the view that the industry made a pledge to reinvest in this industry close to $1 billion so that they could make this industry competitive.

What happened since? Rather than investing back into the industry, Interfor — that was one of the operations who made that pledge — shut its mills down here in the Lower Mainland, but they invested in Washington and Oregon, purchasing mill after mill.

That was a betrayal to the province of British Columbia by the industry, and I think the government stood by and allowed that to happen. I think the citizens of this province, especially citizens of the Fraser Valley…. Many of those mills that I talked about that have shut their doors…. Those members live in the Fraser Valley and Surrey area.

R. Hawes: That was an interesting litany of job loss. Everyone feels badly any time a job is lost in forestry or any other industry in British Columbia.

As the member knows and perhaps doesn't want to think about, first, the American economy, which is the major place that our manufactured products are sold, is in a huge recession, and the market is all but dead to the United States.

Second, the Canadian dollar is absolutely crucifying our forestry manufacturers right now. The combination of those two things really has had a horrible impact on the forestry industry.

The third item that perhaps the member doesn't want to talk about — and the one that many of us sit and try to figure out — is that last year, steelworkers and the coastal forest industry went on strike at the worst possible time, asking for more money and better conditions when the industry was in a state of collapse. It was falling on its knees because the markets were drying up in terms of log exports.

There are fewer log exports today than there were a decade ago in British Columbia. The big thing is that today there is no market for the logs in the United States or elsewhere. There's a very narrow market in some Asian countries for certain species. But for the most part, there is no market for raw logs or manufactured product for us.

One of the problems we have is that our manufactured products actually are having difficulty competing on the world stage because our costs of production are too high. We have logging groups who want to ask for export permits to send logs out of the country because the price is a little bit better. We have manufacturing and mills that want to buy those logs at a domestic price that's much lower and is lower than the cost of bringing the logs out of the bush. So what we have is one side of the industry who wants to have basically a subsidized price from the other side of the industry, and it's driving people out of the bush.

Our loggers now are beginning to shut down. Our milling operations can't sell their product because there's no market. The limited market that there is, and a very limited market for some, is only there if you can buy the logs at a price that's lower than it costs to bring them out of the bush. Now, how do we survive in that kind of a climate?

It's easy to point fingers and say: "Oh, fix this and fix that." The bottom line is that there is no easy fix. I know that the minister is working hard with industry to try to find a way out of this morass, but overly simplistic solutions put forward actually don't help anyone here.

The bottom line is that by saying that there will be no log exports, and there's precious little now…. No log exports means no jobs in the bush. No logs coming out. No logs supplied domestically.

Mills have the right to block any log that goes on the surplus list. Any log that goes on the surplus list can be blocked and can be purchased by a local mill. The fact is that they're not buying them because, firstly, they can't afford to pay the price for the logs and then manufacture and sell at a profit, and secondly, there is no market even when they have logs to manufacture.

We have some major mills in this province that have lost…. Canfor lost almost a million dollars a day over the last quarter. They both log and manufacture, and they can't make money. There is no one in the industry making money. In the job losses cited by the member earlier….

I'm familiar with some of those mills. Some are in my community. Some of those mills have nothing whatsoever to do with the state of forestry in British Columbia. They were a matter of management within the mill. I know for a fact that one of them is. I'm very familiar with the entire operation, and I worked hard to try to save that mill. But, in fact, Meeker Cedar went bankrupt because it wasn't running properly.

The member or any member can sit and put names on a list, but it means nothing. It means nothing if you don't recognize the state of the industry in this province today. By holding out any kind of hope that there's a quick fix is actually giving false hope, and I think it's irresponsible. The minister has said that it's going to take some time.

Everyone knows that right now our main market is the United States. They're not buying, obviously, with seven million homes in foreclosure. We're trying to open up Asia and new markets for manufactured products, but frankly, it's tough to compete when your wage structure here is so high.

If the investment the member had talked about had happened, we would have mechanized mills, and job loss would have occurred due to modernization.

H. Bains: You know, listening to the responses from the government side, it's no wonder that we find no solutions. We have no solutions because the members on that side and that government believe there's nothing wrong in the industry, that everything…. "Let's blame the Americans. Let's blame somebody else."

Well, let's talk about the American market, if that's the only reason. Let me remind the members on the other side. Where do you think all those logs are going? They are going to the United States. They are now being processed in United States mills rather than being processed in B.C. That's where they should be being manufactured in the first place, to create jobs here.

That was the intent of the social contract that this member and everyone on that side allowed to be written off — gave everything to the industry that they wanted plus some but got nothing back from the industry for British Columbians or for the province of British Columbia. I think that is a shame, and that's what we need to talk about.

Let's talk about what a log export was ten years ago. It was 250,000 cubic metres a year. Most of that was from the private lands. Let me tell you what went on during the tenure of this government: over 4.5 million cubic metres a year. That's the equivalent of ten good-sized mills running two shifts that would employ close to 2,500 members. Those are the numbers that I talk about that we have lost in the Fraser Valley alone, and those would be the direct jobs.

When you add that and multiply it by four, you're looking at close to 10,000 jobs that are no longer there — thanks to the policies of their government and thanks to the inaction of their government — that we need at this time, when the industry is going through tough times, when the workers are losing sleep because they know that they may not have a job to go back to tomorrow. The minister on the other side says: "Well, you know, everything is fine. You don't have to worry about it. Allow the industry to come out of this.…"

H. Bains: Through the Chair, Madam Speaker. And the minister is saying: "Leave everything alone, and the industry will look after itself." Well, guess what. In the last seven years they gave everything to the industry and nothing got back from the industry to the workers or to the province. I think that is a clear case of abdication of this government and this minister's duty to the province and to the citizens of this province.

They talk about simplistic solutions. Well, sometimes simplistic solutions could work. But what you have coming from their government is no solutions at all, no solution whatsoever.

So what happened to the pledge by the industry? The industry got everything that they wanted, and they made a pledge that they would reinvest in the industry to make this industry a competitor around the globe. One billion dollars was pledged. Where is that minister…

L. Mayencourt: I'm glad to be here this morning and to be able to talk about a shot in the arm. The shot in the arm in this case is really good news. It's good news for our arts community in British Columbia. Never before in the history of this province has a province ever invested as much as it has in this particular year to ensure that we have a vibrant and important and relevant arts and cultural community here in British Columbia.

You know, the arts for me is a couple of things. It's a conversation. The arts, in my view, allow us to see the world through other people's eyes. It gives us a chance to deal with taboo subjects. It gives us an opportunity to talk about things that are important culturally, between one nation and another, to be able to reflect on our first nations history, to be able to explore how other people deal with the challenges that they face in their community. The arts community is something very, very important to me, and it gives me the opportunity to look at the world through different eyes and to allow us all to be able to see what the differences are and why they're so beautiful.

The arts are also a walk. They are a walk through our lives. They are an opportunity to see and work and

see other people's lives and have an opportunity to participate in that. The simple fact that we have an arts and culture community in Vancouver-Burrard, for example, is something that attracts a lot of people to Vancouver.

I know that Microsoft thought that our arts and culture scene, Sierra Wireless thought that our arts and culture scene…. Many, many others have come to British Columbia because there is this vibrant arts community. It's not just important to people that live here, but it's also for people that are visiting, and it's also for people that are going to be moving here.

In British Columbia the arts and culture community employs over 63,000 individuals. That's very impressive, and it contributes almost $3 billion to the economy in British Columbia. That means people going to plays; that means people buying popcorn; that means people are going to see the ballet; or what have you.

We have many different opportunities in British Columbia for the visual arts — to be able to see someone that has drawn something or painted or perhaps someone that is involved in photography. Photography has been around for a long time, but it's only been in the last five to ten years that it's really been recognized in British Columbia as a true art form. I know many people that worked in that area, and to see that visual art coming forward as a way of provoking thought, as a way of provoking conversations, is important.

We have a vibrant performing arts community as well. We have theatre where anyone can go and watch a play. I just love going to the Arts Club Theatre or to the Stanley and being able to watch a live performance and see the kind of talent that British Columbia offers. We have magnificent actors and actresses. We have wonderful people that work in dance.

Last week I had the opportunity to go to the dance centre. The dance centre is on the corner of Burrard and Davie. It's a great place that was built as a collaboration between all of the dance community in British Columbia to bring some focus, to create some synergies, to create conversations, to create an opportunity for dance companies from around this province to work together, to learn from each other, to observe. It was very exciting for me to be there.

If I could just plug one thing. My good friend Linda Blankstein, who is really involved in the dance centre, turned 50. Happy birthday, Linda.

The arts are also an opportunity to educate people. It's an opportunity for kids to be able to become involved in the arts and see a way to be creative. Something that comes to mind immediately when I think about kids and art is the Arts Umbrella, a great organization that's located on Granville Island and that's doing amazing work at helping kids experience art on all of the various levels. It's really exciting to see that kind of thing happening.

Two weeks ago I was in my riding, and I went to a place called ArtStarts. ArtStarts is a gallery on Richards Street, I think, where the entire art gallery is dedicated to children's art. I can remember when I was really little, drawing this wonderful painting of a ship and how great it was. It ended up on the refrigerator, and then it ended up somewhere else, and before long it was gone.

Well, at ArtStarts they actually sit down and they say: "Hey, this is so great that we're going to actually frame it. We'll matte it. We'll frame it. We'll hang it. We'll have a card that tells about the artist and all that sort of stuff."

When I saw that, I went: wow, what quality. What an exciting time we live in that kids can understand that what they're contributing to the arts is appreciated and valued and honoured by being hung in a gallery.

The arts is also about business. We have a wonderful film business here in British Columbia. We have opportunities for sound stages, for people that work in camera work, to driving rigs from one movie set to another. It's a wonderful opportunity for us to see art in action, and I'm very, very proud of the work that we've done in British Columbia.

I will spend a little bit more time. I want to talk about some of the investments that British Columbia has made in the last several years towards the arts community, to the point that we are working with organizations to create Arts and Culture weeks. I know that members here, in whatever ridings they were in, were celebrating Arts and Culture Week in their own ridings towards the end of April.

It's really a great opportunity for us to say to the arts community: "Hey, you know what? You're doing great work, and we want to help you. We're going to help you by bringing you some exposure. We're going to help you by giving you some money. We're going to help you by supporting you as sponsors. We're going to help you by making sure that your work is valued, whether you are a grade 3 student or a senior that's living at the performing arts lodge in Coal Harbour, and that the arts community is valued in British Columbia in a way that it has not been for many, many years."

Arts and Culture Week was an excellent time for us to reflect on the important role that artists have in our life. We were very, very happy to see people travelling throughout their communities and going and seeing a play, going and seeing some photographic work and becoming part of the arts and culture in British Columbia.

There are many, many other opportunities that we have, and I'm going to talk about one of those coming up in education with the Emily Carr Institute of Art and Design.

C. Evans: Thank you to the member for his contribution on the subject of the arts. I was utterly unaware that he was going to talk about the arts, but I am pleased, because it gives me a chance to respond.

I come from Nelson. In the community of Nelson we did an economic analysis a few years ago and found out that there was a higher percentage of people who self-proclaimed themselves as working in the arts in Nelson than there was in Stratford, Ontario, which is essentially just about the theatre company. Therefore,

it's a subject that matters a great deal where I live. The member is absolutely correct that the assistance of the Crown is necessary and desirable in the growth of the arts.

I want to say, though, what I think is really going on, and I'm going to do it in a completely non-partisan way by denigrating or critiquing the party I belong to as well as the government. It seems to me that for the last quarter century we have essentially abandoned arts and culture as part of our communities and have begun to reflect only on that part of the arts that makes money and employs people. I haven't seen a minister of arts and culture in this building in 20 years.

Historically, it was an important portfolio. It's now an add-on to the Ministry of Labour or whomever at the time. Once it was the Minister of Municipal Affairs. It is added onto whomever the Premier of the day and whatever party governs think might have some interest. Once upon a time it was actually a part of how we lived.

When I first moved to the community I live in, there were six softball teams, twelve choirs — especially Doukhobor choirs — and there were two little theatre companies. There was theatre in New Denver and in Vallican in every single year. There were square dances on Friday night. There were museums in every community.

All those things are just about gone. Why is that? It's because we have defined the arts as business. We have abandoned culture. We have abandoned assisting people where they live to get together to have cultural events. Essentially, this House under all governments — Social Credit, New Democrat, and Liberal — has allowed television and electronic communication to replace culture in our lives.

The chief medical health officer of British Columbia told me one time that the plague of our times was alienation. We have become alienated from one another, from our history, from where we're going. All those things are related to culture — culture in big cities, culture in neighbourhoods, culture in villages. We have abandoned one another and relate to a box from somewhere else, providing us with information to define who we are.

The chief medical health officer said that most of the diseases and troubles that people die of in British Columbia are actually self-medicating to fill the hole that culture used to provide when we cared — before we decided to allow television to tell us who we are.

To whomever governs, I would say: let's put arts and culture back into the cabinet portfolio. Let's see if we can't define ourselves to ourselves and not just see the arts as business and the economy, but see it as the investment in the community to allow the community to express itself, wherever it is — not just in the big city where it makes money, in the big city where the TV and the movie theatres want to be, in the big city where the ballet company wants to be, in the big city where the big museums are. Let's see it as our ability to invest in ourselves, to be ourselves.

L. Mayencourt: I apologize to the member if, by mentioning that it's a $3 billion industry, I touched a raw nerve.

The arts is not just a business, and I quite agree with the passion that was put on display just a moment ago by the member. There are times when it's very important to put some form of measurement into whether an industry is doing well or not. So in that context, I do believe it's important that we recognize that the arts are not just about the arts. There is some economic benefit, and that can be used as a lever to generate more revenue or more support for the arts.

The neighbourhood that I live in, as the member from Nelson was saying…. I've been really blessed. I've got the opera. I've got the symphony. I've got the playhouse. I've got the QE Theatre. I've got the cultural precinct that's being planned by the Premier. I've even got a community centre that is dedicated to the arts called the Round House.

But what I see happening right now is not just buildings and that sort of stuff. I see a new commitment to the arts community here in British Columbia, and that is demonstrated by some of the ways in which we have put money into it.

I mentioned that the Emily Carr Institute of Design is now becoming a university, subject to the vote in the House, of course. Right now we're saying that it's a serious enough business that we want to dedicate a university to it. I think that's a good move for British Columbia.

There are times when you do have to use numbers, because numbers can tell a little bit of the story. In British Columbia, as I said, we're putting an unprecedented amount of dollars into the arts and culture. We're not telling them what they should do with the arts. We're telling them: "Here's the support so that you can pay the rent on your dance centre or pay the rent on your studio, or what have you, so that you can support the artists as they're growing."

This year we put $13.8 million into the arts through the B.C. Arts Council. We furthered that with another $12 million that was going to be distributed by others. We've also, in March, announced $209 million for the arts in British Columbia; $150 million of that is for the BC150. We're celebrating our 150th birthday. That's something that's going to generate artistic efforts in communities like Nelson, Castlegar and Prince George and all of the places in British Columbia.

We also put aside $50 million to support the cultural precinct, to make sure that the Vancouver Art Gallery remains a place that is relevant and has the opportunity to display British Columbia art. We've put $9 million into a really nice little project, the Vancouver East Cultural Centre — a great, great place in our neighbourhood, something that's worthy of support.

D. Cubberley: Thank you to the House for the opportunity to speak to the theme of health and equality for all B.C. children.

The matter of playgrounds for kids and investments to support the development and renewal of those playgrounds has been a very hot topic of late. It's not my intent to discuss that topic. I want to look beyond the controversy surrounding grants and their distribution to something which I think emerged out of that controversy, which all members of the House will be aware of. That's the intense interests of parents and communities in giving children of all ages access to playgrounds at neighbourhood schools, and in parks as well.

I've had the chance, as this has unfolded over the last couple of weeks, to talk with lots of parents who've been involved in advisory councils at schools. A couple of things are common to all the contacts I've had. The first of those is the conviction that all kids at every age need to have access to inducements to play — access to an apparatus that actually invites them into safe physical play, where they can burn off some of their superabundant energy and do what kids love most, which is simply to get caught up and lost in the sheer pleasure of using their bodies just for fun.

Anyone raising a child knows this. Anyone who has raised a child can bring it back to mind immediately. Kids need to move, and they need inducements to play. Parents understand it, I think, instinctively as they find themselves rearing kids in circumstances that, from generation to generation, are only becoming more confining for children.

There simply isn't the physical freedom available to our kids today that you and I, Madam Speaker, may have enjoyed when we were young. The run of the neighbourhood or, indeed, of the whole local area or the town that I grew up in was open to me. That opportunity to roam is now severely shackled. Kids are, in effect, hobbled, and we face the entirely novel risk of kids being absorbed into physically passive electronic worlds.

There are, if anything, more barriers to kids being active, so a playground with enough apparatus to draw kids in, in ways that vary with their age and their inclination, is a basic necessity for healthy, active living and for a calm and happy state of mind for kids. As the parent of a school-age child, I get this conviction that all parents engaged in raising children share, which is that kids need to have access to playgrounds in order to flourish.

Like the parents who populate PACs at the schools in catchments fortunate enough to have active PACs — which is far from all — I often wonder: well, where do playgrounds come from? Who's responsible for creating playgrounds, upgrading playgrounds, renewing playgrounds?

What those PAC parents learn — and that's the other thing I get from conversation with them — is that no one's ultimately responsible today in the sense that if a playground hasn't been made to appear, there really isn't any window you can go to, to formulate the demand and say: "Hey, we didn't get one. We need to have a playground here."

What PAC parents learn is that they've, in fact, inherited the responsibility, and this leaves them scratching their heads in confusion, if not frustration, because they consider — and they are right in this — functioning playgrounds to be part of the fundamental equipment the school should come with, no less important than the gym — even more vital, in fact, because playgrounds serve the function of play, which is broader than the idea of organized sports use.

It's all about healthy physical expression, daily physical activity, and most importantly, about play that catches kids up and keeps them moving. But for reasons that I don't comprehend entirely — and I do not seek to lay blame here — playgrounds seem to fall off the side of whatever desk investments in them are being directed from. They become a kind of luxury instead of the primary equipment for active living that they should be.

One consequence of this is that access to playgrounds varies dramatically. It's virtually assured in better-off neighbourhoods, at local schools and parks. But in less well-off neighbourhoods access to playgrounds may be much more restricted — in some cases, non-existent. In those same neighbourhoods parents struggle more frequently to put the basics together for their families, have less inclination and time to participate in the endless meetings of PACs and the ongoing efforts to raise small amounts of money through bake sales, book sales, and the like.

This very fact disadvantages those neighbourhoods where, for the very same reasons, there are higher incidences of children who are inactive, overweight and obese; higher incidences of the metabolic syndrome, which is a precursor to type 2 diabetes; higher incidences of those not developmentally ready for kindergarten — higher incidences, in fact, of all the risk factors for poor health, physical inactivity and failure to perform at grade level.

It is, I would submit, both unjust and shortsighted to further marginalize struggling communities by not establishing a fair and equitable access to playground funding. Indeed, targeting those very communities for funding for playgrounds is precisely the policy direction and the program direction we should be taking, because if for no other reason, lack of opportunity to be physically active breeds much more expensive problems down the line.

We know exactly where the neighbourhoods with the greatest need are, because we have the B.C. early development index to rely upon. We know that our boards of education have the means to rate the needs at schools and to ensure that funding is prioritized towards the areas of greatest need.

Personally, I think it's a shame that we have to consider rationing funding so that needs actually do have to be ranked rather than…. I think it would be better if every child could have access to playground spaces within walking distance of where they live. Every single child. I believe that's a goal that's as worthy as that of any athletic undertaking, and that it should be and it could be reached if we made an Olympic-sized commitment

similar to all the other Olympic-sized commitments that government feels it has the wherewithal to make.

Imagine if we said that we'll commit ourselves to putting a playground within easy reach of every child in British Columbia. That would, I would submit, be a very fitting Olympic legacy for us to tackle.

R. Cantelon: I want to thank the member opposite from Saanich South for his comments, and I intend to respond in the same non-partisan vein he expressed his opinions, and I think, perhaps, in sharp contrast to how the morning was going this morning.

I think when he mentioned earlier that in a different generation children had the free rein of the streets and road hockey was king…. Where I grew up, I can recall, we used to have baseball games at the end of the street. We weren't organized; we just picked teams. We were very grateful when some caring parent put up a chicken wire fence for our baseball backstop. That was the way it was in those days. There were no real organized sports.

Perhaps a continuation of his thought — we maybe overorganize all our children. Today too often you have to be in some sort of organized sports. Kids aren't allowed just to organize themselves, which they actually could do quite well, and play in the schools.

I think it is a broader concern, as the member expressed, than just schools, though I'll touch briefly on that too.

The community that I grew up in…. I'll relate it specifically to where I live now, not where I grew up. I came there as an adult of course. The city was very far-thinking, and every subdivision created tot lots for children to play in that were accessible and near the neighbourhoods. That was a good idea, but they didn't have any budgets for equipment.

That is changing, and I think it really is a fact that as our society becomes more affluent, communities can get together and respond and receive matching grants from the city to develop playgrounds, which I think is very useful. Also, lately, with the advent of the B.C. Gaming, many communities and individual groups are responding — rotary clubs and service clubs and community groups — to matching grants to develop play areas. I think it's very important that we have a wide variety of play areas within the communities and also within the schools.

So it became a recognition that, indeed, the schools were on the short end of the stick, in that the schools receive capital funding when the schools are built, but after that they're on their own. I'm afraid, very often for school districts, it's a higher priority to put money into programming and other situations, and the schools haven't been renewed.

It was quite encouraging when, basically, the B.C. Gaming opened up the opportunity for schools, with PACs, to apply for funding, and it's been very well received. A total of $7 million has either gone into or is going into funding for playgrounds within schools, and 182 schools have achieved or are having new playgrounds being built in their school. This is certainly a good thing for all the children there, and I think it's important.

Our government has recognized the importance of physical activities in other ways, and I'll briefly mention those. I think, certainly, the member opposite would endorse the ActNow programs that we have. It was on the lawn of the Legislature last week, and we all had a go at it, and it was a pretty challenging thing. I think these kinds of things to focus on activity are good, broadly speaking.

Also, getting junk food out of the schools is a very, very vital thing that, again, I'm sure both sides of this House would agree on and endorse that this is a good thing. We need to teach our children to eat healthier, and going along with that, to be more active in our communities.

Getting back to and, finally, briefly commenting on the playgrounds in schools, it was a good start, a very good start. I think the member opposite raises issues that are valid with respect to equality. I know and I'm confident that the Minister of Education will be re-evaluating this approach, because we recognize that it's a very beneficial thing to have our children active and alert. It improves their performance in schools as well.

So I think we'll look at that now to see how we can expand it more broadly within the school system, more fairly and equitably, certainly as we have. We've been very sensitive to socioeconomic scales with programs such as StrongStart, which, again, in my city and the community of Nanaimo has focused on those areas that need the most. We've then supported them with bus passes to make sure they can get to it. I think this is a very equitable approach.

It was a good plan. It was a good start to start these school playgrounds, but as with many plans there are occasionally, what are I'm sure both members would consider, unintended consequences. Those unintended consequences are now being addressed and reconsidered in ministry policy, and I'm sure we'll see a more broadly based approach in the future.

D. Cubberley: I appreciate the opportunity to respond to the member. Apart from one or two comments I'm going to make, I'm going to sidestep the issue of whether the existing grant initiatives were successful or not.

What I would say is this, which I think we would have to agree on. If 182 schools got grants — grants for a maximum of $20,000 each, I believe, which would be no more than a quarter, and perhaps as little as one-fifth, of the cost of fully equipping a playground today — there were 700 schools that did not, among those that applied.

The scale of activity, I think, is what needs to be looked at. To come back to ActNow B.C., the gist of what

I'm talking about is that yes, we would definitely support the principles of ActNow B.C., the direction of ActNow B.C., but we would make the point to members opposite that physical activity needs an infrastructure. It will not happen without opportunities being created for kids to get themselves into playgrounds on a daily basis and enjoy that physical activity.

We need to look more closely at the scale of the problem, because the problem is large. While access to grants from the Gaming Commission is good — and in fact, that opportunity was there throughout the '90s in the form of parents participating directly in local activities in order to generate revenue to their organization for things like playground grants — the problem today is, in fact, larger than it has ever been before.

One of the reasons for that is that the entire infrastructure that was in place up until the late '90s was of a certain design. It was put together in a certain way. It reflected a certain understanding of the need on the part of the agencies providing it to ensure that kids could play safely.

All of the standards around risk and safe play for children on school grounds have now shifted, especially in the schoolground apparatus affecting the youngest children. Therefore, schools and municipalities are struggling everywhere because they literally have to replace the whole stock. This requires much more attention on our part than we've given it. I'm speaking in the most non-partisan manner I can. This is a much larger problem.

We need to get an infrastructure in place for those kids. We can't take 20 years to do it. It has huge consequences in all kinds of lives — that we're not doing that. I would mention just one. If you think about the standards of licensing for child care, they do not allow children to play in the standard playground equipment that was provided in the '90s. That means on those sites that have co-located child care, those kids can't play on a playground even if the other kids at the school are allowed to because they're that much older.

Hon. C. Richmond: I call Motion 15, in the hands of the member for North Vancouver–Seymour.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, unanimous consent of the House is required to proceed with Motion 15 without disturbing the priorities of motions preceding it on the order paper.

A few weeks ago, the members for Prince George–Omineca and Surrey–White Rock informed me that there are hundreds of veterans from our past wars that have been buried in unmarked graves without the honour that they so deserve. Operation Remembrance was implemented in order to honour our veterans, and I'm pleased that it has been so successful, even in my own riding of North Vancouver.

I began at that time to think further of how Canadian soldiers have helped to make this country what it is today — a great country — and that the many sacrifices are sometimes not as respected as they should be.

To explain further, I would preface it with a few stories of our men and women in service, who have, over the years, served this country and the world.

Some 84 years ago, for example, the world was locked in a war of devastating proportions. It was 1914, and Canada — or as we called it at that time the Dominion of Canada — entered the European theatre with a purely volunteer contribution to the cause of freedom.

I will try and give you a brief sketch of some of the encounters in order to give you some idea of the enormity and the horrors and the heroics that those people went through and also that surrounded all of the combatants, and why the basis for this motion. The battles of the Somme, Passchendaele and Vimy Ridge were perhaps the most remembered engagements, but they do not take away from the equally terrifying events such as Ypres, Verdun and the yellow gas.

The major Battle of the Somme in 1916 lasted 109 days between the United Kingdom and their volunteers from Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Newfoundland, France and, I guess, the German professional army. The casualties over the first seven days were: the Allies 900,000 and the Germans 500,000. The Allies gained five miles of land.

By the way, Newfoundland was not part of Canada at that time, but its regiment suffered 91 percent casualties at the Somme. Over 800 young men from Newfoundland marched into battle that first day, and only 68 made it out unharmed. With over 500 dead, nearly an entire generation of Newfoundland's future was killed that one day.

The Battle of Passchendaele was equally as tragic. Men and boys charged across no man's land on duckboards, and the liquid mud was so thick that many of the fallen soldiers just simply drowned. The Allied powers lost 448,000 lives, and 16,000 of those were Canadians. Hundreds and thousands were injured for life, all for a few hectares of land.

In 1917 the combined Allied armies had tried to take the ridges of Vimy, but the German army had been ensconced there since the start and controlled the

entire front, which had just resulted in a basic stalemate. Thousands and thousands had already died, and it was at that point that the Allied command decided the Canadians were to be the next to be thrown up against an impenetrable force on hills called Vimy Ridge. Just weeks before that, the French army had lost 150,000 men.

So it was in the early dawn of Easter Monday of April 1917 when 97,184 Canadians from all across our country charged across no man's land and onto the ridges. In less than two hours, three of the four divisions of Canadian soldiers had taken their objectives. The fourth division, whilst assaulting the highest point of the ridge, had over 50 percent casualties.

After that, the British and French generals said: "In what we had seen in the past day in those few minutes of time, we witnessed the birth of a nation." The battle for Vimy was a great victory but with staggering costs in the dead and wounded — some 800,000 casualties. Many soldiers just disappeared.

Today our country still volunteers our young men and women to make the sacrifice for a country that will always contribute in times of strife in order to aid its world neighbours. Canada has actually spearheaded all the great victories in the 1914-18 war, as 10 percent — Canada's entire population of that time being seven million — served in the First World War, and nearly 60,000 were killed.

The Second World War was no different, with the Dieppe raid where 5,000 Canadian boys hit the beaches that morning. By noontime 4,000 were dead.

Time makes me cut back on a few of the stories, but I'll just say that Canada has 1 percent of the world's population and has provided 10 percent of the world's peacekeeping forces. We are credited as being the greatest peacekeepers on this earth. We have had 39 missions on UN mandates and six non-UN duties from Vietnam to East Timor, from Sinai to Bosnia and now in Afghanistan.

I conclude by saying that Canadians should be proud and be made aware that our ideals and freedoms do come at a high cost. We should honour our fallen soldiers and, at the very least, mark their graves respectfully.

I ask you all to treat and support my motion with that respect. I would encourage all parties to participate in Operation Remembrance and to honour those who gave their lives to this great nation. I'd ask you all to acknowledge our fallen soldiers through Operation Remembrance so that their sacrifices can be remembered for years to come.

For further information, if they want — and it's quite an easy task — you can contact either the Prince George–Omineca member or the Surrey–White Rock member or my office as well.

M. Karagianis: Hon. Speaker, it's an honour today to stand and speak to this motion, particularly because, as you mentioned, I'm the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin. Just across the blue bridge not far from here is the CFB, Canadian Forces Base Esquimalt, also known as MARPAC, which is the Maritime Forces Pacific base.

It goes without saying that not only as a representative for Esquimalt-Metchosin but, in fact, having really strong ties to the Armed Forces, it's easy for me to stand here and talk about recognizing the contributions of our Armed Forces.

My father-in-law was the lieutenant commander here in the navy — Lt. Cdr. Aubrey Karagianis. His two brothers Jack Karagianis and Les Karagianis were also career navy. My uncle Les is now 92 years old and is currently living in the Maritimes too, where he joined his family but came out here recently for a visit. So I have these very strong family ties. The generation that came after them, their sons…. Many of them served in the navy for a time, none with quite the same commitment as those three brothers who were career naval officers.

My ties to my community and to Esquimalt are very strong. You actually can't go anywhere in Esquimalt, and anywhere in my constituency as well, without finding some reminder of the important role that MARPAC and those people who serve in the Armed Forces have, both in this community and across the world.

Currently, CFB Esquimalt has 4,200 military and 2,000 civilians working on the base. That constitutes a significant number of members of my constituency and also of the member for Malahat–Juan de Fuca's, where many of these military individuals live. The base is one of the largest economic employers here in the lower Island and contributes about $650 million to the local economy. So they are in fact a significant component of what the south Island is all about and certainly the city of greater Victoria.

At any given time we have members deployed all over the world. Currently, we have four ships that are deployed overseas, some of them in very dangerous situations. I appreciate the member bringing forward the motion about Operation Remembrance and the veterans, but I'd also like to talk about recognizing the contributions of those supports for our armed services. Those are the families of the Armed Forces.

When the member talked about the history of veterans in the wars and many of the battles that they've served in, at all times we must remember there were families at home, as there are today, supporting these members wherever they are.

The families in my constituency are unsung heroes. The member for Malahat–Juan de Fuca and I attended a very interesting event here last year in the spring, which was Red Shirt Day. This was in recognition of all the families who stay at home and are the support base for those members who are involved in the Armed Forces — whether they're serving here, overseas, in the air force, in the navy or in the army, because our Armed Forces combine all of those disciplines.

The men and women who are here raising their families, raising their children while their partner or

spouse is away representing our safety and our peacekeeping efforts around the world, I'd also like to recognize them because I think their contributions are significant. For the mom or dad who is away serving, they spend a great deal of time away from their children. All of us here know how important it is that the nucleus of the family is held together and continues to function very well in communities while a loved one is away making a sacrifice on behalf of the safety for all of us.

Thank goodness there are resources such as the family resource centre here. My friend Gaynor Jackson has done a terrific job with the staff and volunteers she works with, who assist the families who are moving in at any given time, settling into the community, or moving out. Often those significant life-changing events such as moving across the country occur while a member is still serving.

I've known families who've come here and had their mother or father — whoever is serving in the Armed Forces — deployed immediately either out on exercise, or perhaps someplace in a peacekeeping mission or perhaps deployed in some place more dangerous. At home the families have to find a way to settle in, make themselves part of a new community and find their way in raising their families under significant duress and stress.

I would say, also, that significant change in how our Canadian government deploys peacekeeping and peacemaking and the subtleties between those two methods of representation around the world…. That's also caused an additional strain on families. So it's really important when we look at a motion like this that recognizes the contribution, that we also recognize the shift that we have made — as a country, as a nation in response to the war on terrorism, in response to pressures from our neighbours to the south — to actually subtly change the way we deploy our troops.

For all those veterans who remember and continue to help us remember all the time the sacrifices that they have made, I think it's important, as well, for us to really look strongly at the future of our Armed Forces deployment and how we view our role worldwide. In fact, we have more members at risk now and more of our Armed Forces personnel coming home here draped in a flag. That is certainly not a situation, I believe, that we anticipated seeing as we came out of several world wars.

As we sit and talk to veterans, as I talk to my uncle Les, who is 92…. He said how heartbreaking it is for him to think that we are now once again deploying young men out in the world and bringing them home draped in a flag and having funerals rather than celebrations for their return.

All of those things cause enormous duress to the families who sit at home waiting. In fact, their contribution is often unrecognized. So I would like to remind all members that while we are recognizing the contributions of our veterans — and a great honour to continue to remember and to recognize them and certainly to support the Operation Remembrance — I also think it's important for us to think about the families who are at home and about what it is, intrinsically, that we want out of our troops in the future.

I think that all of us want exactly what the families wanted back in the First and Second World Wars and any of the other really dangerous missions that our veterans have participated in. We all want our Armed Forces members to come home safe and sound. We want them to come back and pick up the reins of raising their families, supporting their spouses, contributing again to the community. We want their peacekeeping to be something that keeps all of us safe and secure, but we want them to come home and to continue to contribute that way to our community.

I'm happy to say that we are in support of recognition of the contribution of our Armed Forces — kudos to the member for bringing forward this motion — but I want all of us to reflect on not just the past and the work of veterans. In talking to veterans, I know they want us to concentrate, as well, on what's happening now both to our people who are deployed overseas in dangerous circumstances and to the families who wait at home for their member to be returned safe and sound to them. So we're happy to stand in support of this motion.

Hon. C. Richmond: Since neither of the members moved to adjourn the debate, I will do so.

Hon. C. Richmond: I now call Motion 53, in the hands of the member for Maple Ridge–Mission.

Deputy Speaker: Hon. Members, unanimous consent of the House is required to proceed with Motion 53 without disturbing the priorities of the motions preceding it on the order paper.

Madam Speaker, in putting that motion forward, I deliberately said "for two decades," because through the 1990s, under the previous government, there was an IPP process, an initiative, as reflected…. I'll just read quickly from B.C. Hydro's 1994 annual report: "The IPP initiative was undertaken in 1991 to encourage the

private sector to develop small electricity projects, allowing Hydro to defer the construction of major projects."

The previous government did support the IPP process, as do we. We are now caught in an energy crunch in this province, and I don't think that there are too many who would deny that in most years we are net importers of power and that we do need to develop new sources as our province develops. Certainly, over the past few years the rate of growth in our economy indicates, and is reflected in, a huge growth in the use of power and the need for power in this province.

Hydro didn't embark on run-of-the-river projects themselves because they don't really have the expertise for that type of project. Hydro's expertise does lie in the big projects, and that's where it always has been. These small projects take a huge amount of time and a huge amount of expertise to put together. Hydro doesn't have the staff to run a whole number of these projects and put them together. So it is left to the private sector, as it should be and as it has been in the past.

Over the last few weeks there has been a lot of discussion around a proposal in the Pitt River area in my own riding, and there were meetings that were attended by lots of people. The bottom line, and through those…. I'll just paraphrase what Joe Foy from the Western Canada Wilderness Committee had to say on The Bill Good Show a few weeks ago. He said: "I could support run-of-the-river projects in certain places, providing they're public versus private." In other words, what… [Applause.]

So really what they're saying is that this isn't about whether or not a run-of-the-river project is environmentally proper. It's about an ideology — a political ideology. It's about: should we look at private investment, or should we only have public investment? Should the government be the only ones who take money from taxpayers' pockets — because that's where government gets its money, from taxpayers — and then should the government be the ones who invest it, or should we let private industry? Should we partner with private industry and leverage the funding that can come from private investment?

Through the '90s that was the strategy followed by Hydro. We've continued with that strategy. We think that the leveraging of private funds and the leveraging of the expertise that comes from private industry make a lot of sense, and so we have continued with it.

This is about a political ideology. But to me, it's also about leadership. When we talk about leadership, there is a process in place for developing a run-of-the-river project. There is a huge amount of work that has to be done: the scientific work, the scientific information — engineering, hydrological information, biological, biodiversity.

There are all kinds of studies that must be done on every one of these proposals before they can move on to an approval stage. DFO, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, has a lot to say about it, as does the Ministry of Environment. Finally, there is the environmental assessment office that takes all of the scientific information, does an assessment and makes a recommendation.

At the beginning of the process there is a meeting held that will involve the public, and when that meeting is held, it's to set the terms of reference. It allows the public to have some say in the terms of reference that will follow for the studies that must be undertaken.

R. Hawes: I'm just going to speak for a second about what political leadership is. When you hold a public hearing, political leaders do understand…. Real leaders understand that oftentimes when you hold a public meeting, you will pack an auditorium quite easily with protesters and those that are opposed.

People who are in favour of something rarely show up to a public meeting. You don't see people waving banners saying: "I support a new bus line," or "I support a new store being built on the corner of my block." They don't do that. Protesters come. But real political leaders understand…

R. Hawes: They'll have their turn, but the truth hurts sometimes, and I understand. When they heckle, that means they're listening, and that's a good thing. Maybe they'll learn something.

Real leaders understand that it is not the quantity of the argument that comes at a public meeting. It's not the volume and how loud people yell. It's the quality of the argument. That's what should count.

They know that if there are a thousand people in a meeting, there are probably 20,000 people at home who actually haven't said anything. Any political leader that makes their decision based purely on what is said at a public meeting is, I think, lacking in leadership.

Now, what happened in Pitt Meadows in my riding is a good example of that. First, the public hearing that was held was about a power line through a park. The minister dealt with that, and I think he dealt appropriately. The other part of that meeting, though, was about setting the terms of reference for that proponent to

move ahead, if they wished to move ahead, to say: "These are the studies that you must undertake, and no decision can be made until the science is in." Let's do the science.

That, to me, makes some sense. That's the process we have in place, and frankly, for these sorts of things, we should honour process. Instead, we had the Leader of the Opposition and some members from the other side, from the NDP, get up at that public meeting and extol the terrible, terrible toll this would take on the environment somehow, with no.… [Applause.] And there they are clapping.

With absolutely no science whatsoever, these people somehow are able to make a decision, because they don't need science. This is a "fly by the seat of your pants" type of government that they propose. That's what we had in the '90s. That's how we wound up with fast ferries.

This is the problem with that group. We have a scientific process that works in place. We say: "Let's honour the process. Let's not jump the gun and say no or yes to any proposal. Let's get the science and honour the process." But the Leader of the Opposition doesn't understand process. Obviously, the members here don't understand process. They understand two busloads of protesters advertised for and put on the bus and probably offered a free lunch to show up and protest. That's how they would form government.

Frankly, I don't want to live in a province that has a government that would make all of their decisions based on the number of protesters that show up at a meeting. It makes no sense. That's the kind of government we saw from these folks in the '90s. Really, very clearly we are going to see, if they were ever — and God forbid it should happen…. If they ever got an inkling of power again in this province, that's exactly what we would see — a more seat-of-the-pants type of government. Horrible, horrible way to govern anything.

The IPP process is in place. It's going to provide us with energy self-sufficiency by 2016 when combined with the other works that B.C. Hydro is conducting.

The IPP process is a proper process. It's environmentally friendly, and it works. It has worked for actually 50 years in British Columbia. It worked through the '90s when this group was in power. Now they want to say: "Oh no. It's the private sector. Oh, it's bad."

We happen to believe that people in the private sector are honest. They are reliable, and we don't have a fear. I actually am ashamed of them for the kind of aspersions that they cast on the honourable people who make investments in this province. They should be ashamed of themselves.

S. Simpson: If the member wanted to show how much this is based on science, maybe he and his party could send back the hundreds of thousands of dollars in cheques from the people who are getting these contracts, who they're allowing to get these contracts.

The member talks about the 1980s and 1990s. Well, let's talk about that. Between 1980 and 2000 there were about 90 water licences let in this province for energy purposes. Since this government has come to power, under the private power we currently have 730 projects that have either been licensed or are in the application process over that period of time — 90 projects; 730 projects. We have 8,200 projects that have been identified by this government as being there, as being potential problems.

So what we have here is what's been called quite appropriately the gold rush. This has nothing to do with meeting the interests of British Columbians around power. It has nothing to do with trying to develop a green alternative. It has everything to do with the gutting of B.C. Hydro. It has everything to do with selling B.C. Hydro by stealth because this government doesn't have the courage to stand up and say that's their objective.

This member and, more importantly, his leader know that. They're trying to undermine B.C. Hydro. That's what they're doing. That's why it's not a couple of busloads. It's thousands and thousands of people across this province saying: "Enough, and stop now." That's what we have.

What are people asking for? People are saying at least do some kind of planning, but planning is foreign to this government. We saw how they planned for the convention centre — $450 million overrun. We're seeing how they're running for the roof of B.C. Place, another embarrassment of incompetence.

So people are saying: "Let's do some regional planning. Let's move forward with some regional planning. Let's look at cumulative impact in environmental terms." Cumulative impact is not allowed by this government — can't do that. When did that happen? It happened when this government gutted the environmental assessment process in 2002. There are a lot of good people who work in that office, but this government ensured that environmental assessment would not be effective in British Columbia when they gutted the process in 2002.

That's the one thing they're good at planning for. I'm sure that in 2002 when they were saying, "How do we sell off B.C.'s natural resources…?" I'm sure in 2002 they were saying: "How do we sell our rivers or give them away to our friends so they can make a profit? How do we do that? Well, jeez, if they have to go through an effective environmental assessment process, this will never work. I guess we better gut the environmental assessment process first." So they did.

Here's what happened. I mean, this is the government that when they got elected, first of all, abolished the Ministry of Environment. Then they said: "Well, we got rid of it, so we better cut its budget." So they cut its budget by 30 percent, laid off 300 people, got rid of the scientists, got rid of the biologists and got rid of the conservation officers.

There has never been a government that has been more prepared to sell and give away to their friends

the legacy inherited by British Columbians than this one. It's a shock, and it's embarrassing.

People want power. People want renewable energy. There's no doubt about it. There are lots of options for that. There are options for conservation, but it's not about filling the coffers of your friends so they'll give you cheques at election time, and that's all this government cares about — that and its inane ideological bent to privatize everything that moves in this province, including B.C. Hydro.

It's an embarrassment to the public interest. The member is an embarrassment to the public interest. His whole government is. It's a sad, sad day for British Columbia. It's upsetting that they would bring this kind of drivel forward in this House.

J. McIntyre: I thought I would begin my remarks this morning with reading a letter into the record. It was a letter to the editor in The Province on April 14. It's from John Winter, the B.C. Chamber of Commerce. I think it's very succinct, and it sums up exactly the nub of a lot of this argument.

Politicized bunk is exactly what it is, and you just heard it from the Environment critic.

I'd like to talk a little bit about the myth, because I agree. The NDP has really hit their stride in politicizing this issue with many myths and fearmongering. Let me just start with one of them. I've heard the Energy critic, the member for Malahat–Juan de Fuca, talk about this all the time. "B.C. doesn't need to be electricity self-sufficient by 2016." No, he thinks that the B.C. Liberals are moving way too fast on this file.

So let me just say that right now we're consuming more electricity than we produce. We're right now net importers. We're importing from other jurisdictions. We're importing carbon-intense sources from coal, from national energy…. We're not producing enough.

No, nothing happened under the NDP in the '90s. They didn't invest in infrastructure.

Deputy Speaker: Members. Members, to participate, it is necessary to be in your seat.

J. McIntyre: Anyway, our critics, whom you heard from this morning, would have us purchase power from these carbon-intense sources rather than being able to produce from clean, green, natural abundance of sources that we have in water and small hydro and large hydro.

They also talk about us undermining B.C. Hydro and not having B.C. Hydro have a role in this. That's also bunk. B.C. Hydro is already at stage 2 of the feasibility looking at Site C project. They're looking at expanding generation at the Revelstoke and Mica dams. B.C. Hydro's specialty is these large projects.

This government has found a role for smaller independent power producers in alternate sources — in wind, in thermal, in the small run of the river. But of course, the NDP doesn't want any part of that at all. They're ideologically opposed, as the member on our side of the government spoke. They're completely opposed to us being able to use our natural resource and produce hydro here in our own province. Instead, they subject us to significant price increases and volatility by importing.

I'm not having any part of that, thanks very much. Where we can be self-sufficient, I support it.

Let me talk about something else too. I heard the Environment critic talking again. Now the number has gone from 500-something to, all of a sudden, 730 licences. The NDP talks about it as if those were projects that are all happening, all on the go. Well, guess what. There are about 59,000-plus mining claims in the province too. Do we think there are going to be 59,000 new mines in the province in the next short while? I don't think so.

Let's talk about what really happened. What's happened is that there are about 80 water licences that have been approved, and only about 40 of those have resulted in projects. Madam Speaker, guess what. More than half of the 40 were built under the NDP. So I'm sorry; they kinda can't have it both ways. Let's make sure the public gets the facts instead of the fearmongering and running around about a gold rush. It's absolute bunk.

They also say that all of the private sector — and worse than that, the U.S. — is going to own all of our rivers and streams. They're trying to create fear in the public. No, it was actually the NDP that was preparing for the privatization of B.C. Hydro in the late '90s, not our government. Our government in 2003 brought in legislation that put all the heritage assets — the dams, the water, everything — in public hands.

Madam Speaker, I want to say that any opportunity I can get to debunk those NDP myths and fears, I welcome. I'm sorry. In the interests of other people who also want to speak on this, I will wind down. I want to put on the record that I support the efforts to return this province to electricity self-sufficiency, reducing greenhouse gas emissions and creating jobs here in B.C.

N. Macdonald: The week before last I attended a number of gatherings in the Kootenays. We had a gathering in Nelson of 200 people at seven o'clock in the morning. We had meetings in Field, Invermere, Kimberley and Golden, and there was a total of over 500 people that came out to talk about the B.C. energy plan. I can tell you that the things that were said were pretty negative, as they should be.

The implementation of this disastrous energy plan depends entirely on escaping the scrutiny of an informed public and by removing the rights of local government to make decisions. I can tell you that the people in the Kootenays do not accept the denial of their democratic rights. Let's be clear on that. This B.C. energy plan can go ahead only if it is implemented by the one person that the member for Maple Ridge–Mission thinks should be making all decisions in this province. If it is up to the people, they are going to look at this policy and see it for the destructive policy that it is.

It has been described as the worst piece of public policy in the history of this province by the Toronto Globe and Mail. If members want to become informed on this, they can have a look at Liquid Gold by Dr. Calvert. They can look at Lost in Transmission by Dr. Schaffer. Read those, and see if you can come to any sort of conclusion.

If this government is able to stand in front of a group and convince them that it is the right thing to do, then they should come and try to do that. The Minister of Energy can come to the Kootenays. He can get in front of a crowd there and explain to them how it makes any sense at all.

He will not be able to do it. He won't do it. This House very deliberately removed the rights of local government so that he wouldn't have to. It is because the member that represents the riding that has the Ashlu could not stand up in a meeting and convince the people in that area or convince their own local government that they were on the right track, because they were not. They were not on the right track. Local government said no.

N. Macdonald: In each and every case, local government will say no, and that is why this government…

The member for Maple Ridge–Mission voted to remove democratic rights. There was one B.C. Liberal that understood what was going on here and stood up and did the right thing. Every single NDP MLA believes in democratic rights for rural people, but the B.C. Liberals don't. As that member says, everything gets decided by one person — by the Premier. If any local people have anything to say, that's the rabble that shows up at meetings just because — what did you say? — they want a lunch. How dismissive of local democracy.

I only have four minutes. This is a disastrous policy. It will only go ahead if local people are removed from decision-making. With that, I turn it over to the next speaker.

J. Horgan: It's as always a delight to participate on a Monday morning ramble here in the Legislature — a little bit of cut-and-thrust, a little bit of back-and-forth, a little bit of fun with members on both sides of this Legislature.

I was very, very pleased to see that the member for Maple Ridge–Mission or out the valley way had the courage to bring this motion before the House, because he withdrew it not that long ago. It was a couple of Mondays ago that we were expecting to have this debate, but a funny thing happened on the way to the circus. The Pitt River project was spiked by someone in the Premier's office, and the Minister of Environment had to stand up the day after saying that it was a good project and say: "Well, we've decided it's not a good project anymore."

Following that, we missed the opportunity to hear the eloquent words of the government Whip and his steadfast embrace of private sector ingenuity and the profit motive as being vital to the people of British Columbia.

I'd like to say pish posh, hon. Speaker, but I'm certain that someone will call that out of order. I heard "bunk" earlier on; I can use "bunk." Apparently, that's acceptable in this place.

The challenge we have, as we gather here on a Monday to share our views and ideas and talk about democratic representation, is that we hear the government Whip, the guy who keeps discipline on that side of the House, the guy who says: "No discouraging words, or you're out the door — save and except our good friend from Peace River South…." When we hear the government Whip say that a thousand people at a public meeting is insignificant and nothing and worthy only of a sandwich and a bowl of soup, how outrageous can you be?

Seventy-nine of us elected to this place to represent the people in our community, and the government Whip, Mr. Totalitarian over there, says: "Not on my watch. A thousand people are nothing; that's nothing. I

get them out to a barbecue on a Saturday afternoon to give donations to the B.C. Liberal Party. That's nothing. I could get a thousand people under the sails without even batting an eyelash."

But I know my colleague from Pitt Meadows had a few things to say. This is clearly not a debate of substance. It's not a debate of anything other than style. We on this side of the House are in favour of public power, as W.A.C. Bennett was, as Bill Bennett was, as — dare I say — Bill Vander Zalm was, as were Mike Harcourt, Glen Clark and every Premier since the 1960s except the one on that side of the House now.

Everyone in this place has been in favour of public power except for the member for Vancouver–Point Grey, and I think that's very important to get on the record. Everyone in this place has supported public power until the guy from Point Grey and his corporate limousine pulled into the parking lot.

J. Rustad: I'm glad to have an opportunity to rise and have a few words on Motion 53. I recognize that we are close in time, but I want to get a few things on record.

In particular, when I think about independent power production, what is it that it conjures up in my mind about independent power? I see that we need to have billions of dollars of investment. The last number I heard was $4 billion or more of private investment that's going to go into this province. If we were to take that on ourselves, first of all, we don't have the staff to go through 80 or a hundred different small proposals like that. The private sector is far better at doing these small projects. It's the large projects that the public sector is far better at doing and that B.C. Hydro is able to deliver, but I also want to say this.

Think about this: $4 billion of investment and counting. What would happen if that was added onto our debt? What would happen if we were to do that instead of driving that investment? Even at 5 percent interest, you're talking about $200 million a year in interest charged just to service that debt, not to mention the other side. Where would those dollars come from, which the members opposite seem to think the public sector should be investing in?

When you look at that kind of investment, when you look at those opportunities, particularly…. Those are going to be happening in rural B.C. Those are going to be happening outside of the urban areas. Those are going to be driving some job opportunities and that kind of investment. We welcome that kind of investment. In Prince George–Omineca we welcome the idea of being able to drive some independent power production, to drive some of those opportunities. As a matter of fact, many of my constituents are looking at that and wondering how those can be done.

When I hear the opposition stand up and rail away about independent power production, when I hear them say that it's bad and it's going to create all kinds of challenges in this province, all I can say is this. This is private investment we're attracting in this province. We are building opportunities. We're building jobs. We're going to help meet the need that we have for power in this province instead of importing it from places like the United States and Alberta, which that opposition seems to be perfectly happy suggesting.

Independent power production, run-of-the-river projects — these are green projects. They are good investment projects. They're the kinds of things that we need to see happen in this province. As my colleagues have all said, we welcome that kind of investment. We welcome the opportunity for the private sector to be able to bring those dollars, create those jobs and help build this province to stop its being a have-not province in terms of electricity.

It's shameful what that government over there did in the 1990s. We had tremendous assets in this province, which we still have, but there was no foresight. They refused to make the kind of investment needed to make sure we had that competitive advantage and self-sustainability that we want to have in this province.

People in this province don't want to be relying on coal power generated from the United States or power imported from Alberta. People in this province are proud, and they want to see us being self-sustainable.

Independent power production is a very important part of meeting that need. It drives that investment. It's going to meet those needs, and the spinoff benefit of that is that this technology, as things develop, is something we can also export to other places in the world. We can become a leader in that kind of generation.

That is why I am supporting this motion. It is exactly what we need to see in this province. It is exactly the right direction that we need in this province, instead of a group over there that seems to be muttering around trying to figure out how they even take a position or a policy on things.

I note that we're close to the time, so I just want to close with a few more comments. Independent power production is something that has been around in this province. Even that opposition, when they were in power, recognized that it was a need. But we also recognize that it is absolutely critical for our province to be able to drive those kinds of investment opportunities and to bring those investment dollars into the province.

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.