2009 Legislative Session: Fifth Session, 38th Parliament
HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

official report of

Debates of the Legislative Assembly

(hansard)

Tuesday, February 17, 2009

Morning Sitting

Volume 38, Number 2

[ Page 13741 ]

TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 17, 2009

The House met at 10:03 a.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

Motions Without Notice

LEGISLATIVE SITTING HOURS

Hon. M. de Jong: First, by leave, I seek to move the sessional order that would see us operate on the same daily schedule that was in place for the last session — the last sitting of this session of the Legislative Assembly.

[That effective immediately, the Standing Orders of the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia be amended as follows for the duration of the Fifth Session of the Thirty-eighth Parliament, which commenced on February 16, 2009:

1. That Standing Order 2(1) is deleted and the following substituted:

Sittings

Daily sittings.

2. (1) The time for the ordinary meeting of the House shall, unless otherwise ordered, be as follows:

2. That Standing Order 3 be deleted and the following substituted:

Hour of interruption.

3. If at the hour of 6:30 p.m. on any Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday, the business of the day is not concluded and no other hour has been agreed on for the next sitting, the Speaker shall leave the Chair:

subject to the provisions of Standing Order 2(2)(b).]

I have provided a copy of that motion to my friend the Opposition House Leader.

M. Farnworth: We will be giving leave, but it shouldn't be construed as we agree to a permanent change.

Leave granted.

Motion approved.

Hon. M. de Jong: Mr. Speaker, I call throne speech debate.

Throne Speech Debate

J. Rustad: I move, seconded by the member for Chilliwack-Sumas, that:

[We, Her Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia in Session assembled, beg leave to thank Your Honour for the gracious Speech which Your Honour has addressed to us at the opening of the present session.]

Furthermore, it is my honour to stand here and represent my constituents of Prince George–Omineca.

The throne speech is about vision. It's about laying the course for the future, not only for this year but for the years to come.

[1005]

In this time of economic challenge and uncertainty it's more important than ever that we have the kind of vision and leadership that was laid out in the throne speech of yesterday. I think the throne speech also outlined the significant differences between the government side of the House and the opposition side of the House.

[K. Whittred in the chair.]

The throne speech focused almost exclusively on the economic engine and the exports and wealth creation that we need to have in this province for us to be able to provide the services and the support that we all need and we all want.

I think that past performance is also the best indicator of future success. When you look at what we have done over the last seven years and compare that to what was done in the previous decade, I think the answer is clear as to where our province should be going, where our province will be going and where our province needs to go after May 12.

In order to lay the foundation for good solid economic growth, you need to have good infrastructure. You need to be able to have the kind of investments in place that can create jobs today, that can create certainty and support today but that also lay the foundations for future generations so that in years to come we'll be able to build upon those investments and see the kind of growth that we want to see in our economy. The $14 billion that was talked about in accelerated investments, I believe, will do just that.

I want to talk for a short bit about my riding and about the north and in particular about some of the infrastructure that was included in the throne speech — infrastructure such as looking at investments in the Pine Pass, in the Cariboo connector, along Highway 16, the various resource roads, around Highway 37. All of these
[ Page 13742 ]
are there not only just to create opportunities for today in some of the areas that are challenged by the economic circumstances but also to lay the foundations for building for that future.

In my riding over the past seven years we have seen more than $85 million in infrastructure projects just for road investments alone — $85 million. Last year alone more than $18 million in work was performed, and next year there's projected to be another $19 million in work in the Nechako Lakes area.

I want to put this in contrast because, as I said, past performance is the best indicator of future success. Just a decade ago, during the reign of the NDP in this province, on the strip of highway from the Alberta border all the way to Burns Lake — and all the feeder roads and the connector and all the work that needed to be done on that important corridor that supports our industries — less than a million dollars was invested by the NDP.

Just last year alone throughout that corridor, more than $35 million was invested — investments that are sorely needed but are also showing a real difference when you try to move goods, when you try to drive, when you're talking about safety. I'll just give an example of that. On the road between Vanderhoof and Prince George a new passing lane was put in, something that both communities and the area have been looking for, for a long period of time. We were able to achieve that and actually deliver and have that put in place.

We cannot go back to the type of investment that the opposition thinks is appropriate for our important resource communities throughout northern and rural B.C.

It's not just about transportation. It's also about community infrastructure. I'm very pleased that since 2001 we have granted more than $1.5 billion to B.C. communities around the province. Out of that, that also includes $953 million which has gone towards rural communities. In other words, the lion's share of that money has gone towards our rural communities, which can be and are our economic engine for our exports and our industries in the province.

Programs like Towns for Tomorrow, LocalMotion, Building Canada, the municipal rural infrastructure investments — all of these have led to being able to promote projects throughout the north that will help sustain economic development as well as encourage economic activity today. Compare that to what was done in the '90s. There wasn't a lot to report from back in those days in terms of the investments.

I want to talk also about some projects that have been supported in my area, such as the Towns for Tomorrow project for the Murray Ridge ski hill in Fort St. James. It's a great project that's providing benefits. It's providing local employment, and it's providing tourism opportunities both for local people as well as for people to come in.

[1010]

In Vanderhoof, a water treatment facility. In Fraser Lake, a water treatment facility. Investments in the airport at Vanderhoof. The arena at Fraser Lake. The sports field complex in Vanderhoof. Flood mitigation investments. The list goes on. Significant investments over the years. Those are the types of investments that the throne speech speaks about — investments that we will continue to do in the future to lay that foundation so that we can have our strong economy.

It's interesting. When you think about the investments throughout B.C. over the last number of years, there has been more than $5 billion in capital projects in northern and rural communities, such as schools and health care facilities — $5 billion in the last seven years. Once again, look at our performance versus the performance of the opposition, and it's pretty clear to see who is talking the real talk about what needs to be done for rural B.C., what needs to be done for our province and for our economy.

In forestry the throne speech had a significant focus on the industry. Forestry has long been known to be the backbone of our economy in this province, and it's going through a very tough time. We recognize that, and the throne speech laid out a vision about the forest industry.

We talked about a new wood innovation design centre to be established in Prince George. We talked about having a wood-first policy in construction. We're talking about continuing to open up new markets in Asia. For example, last year alone we had more than $166 million in investment in wood products that were shipped to China. An example of that is also the recent announcement in Shanghai to renovate 10,000 apartment buildings and to utilize wood.

We have a very heavy focus on bioenergy through research dollars, and it continues to provide those kinds of opportunities to the forest industry. I want to talk about that, because when you think about the forest industry, often you think about the traditional 2-by-4s and pulp and those sorts of things. The forest industry of the future will be different from what it was in the past. Different does not mean that it will not diminish in its role, but it means that it'll expand in its capacity and opportunity.

Bioenergy and the opportunities around that provide a huge, huge potential for the forest industry, whether that's through using wood cellulose for producing ethanol…. There's a project that a company is looking to bring forward in my riding to look at producing high-octane gas from wood ethanol. Of course, we have the pellet industry.

All of those support the future of our forest industry, and those potentials to drive hundreds of millions of dollars of investment, to create hundreds of jobs, if
[ Page 13743 ]
not thousands of jobs over a number of years…. The opposition has come out and said they want to plow down the forests and replant.

All of that opportunity would be lost, and that's the difference between what we have laid out and talked about in the throne speech and what the opposition is talking about. They're talking about destroying opportunity and potentially devastating our forest industry, if they were to ever get in power and pull out of the softwood lumber agreement, versus what we're talking about — which is continuing to drive the investment, continuing to drive opportunities so that as we come out of this downturn our forest industry will be diversified and will continue to strengthen.

Recent announcements such as the mill opening in Conifex to take place here in March and other projects such as creating wood ethanol and using the by-product that comes out of it, the lignin, to be able to produce pellets or energy to be able to help feed the needs of our pulp industry…. Those are the kinds of projects that we want to be encouraging to invest in, not to plough under and to think about the way things used to be in the past.

One of the other huge engines, particularly for rural B.C. but for our province as well in terms of wealth generation, is our mining industry. Mining provides an enormous opportunity, and we have seen an incredible amount of increased investment in exploration dollars and in the work around the province.

It was a number of years ago now, standing in this House and having the opportunity to speak in this House, that I challenged the opposition to support just one mining project. The only project they said they could come out and support with us was one that was already approved, and that was Galore Creek. How about all the other ones that we want to move through the process, that we want to get on stream? Where is your support for those types of projects?

[1015]

On this side of the House, we want to see these projects move forward. We want to work with the federal government to try to streamline the environmental assessment process so that we can continue to have rigid standards but also so that we can reduce the time. We can get these mines on stream. We can get people to work through the process. That's what we've committed to do.

Along with the mining industry, a significant need of the industry is electricity and is the power that's required to run our province and, in particular, the transmission. The throne speech makes specific and very significant commitments to expanding our power grid, to investing in that grid, in particular along Highway 37 so that we can feed the mining industry, so that we can provide the kind of support and incentives that we need.

As chair of northern caucus, I've had the honour of doing that over the last four years. I've travelled extensively throughout the north and talked to many, many people. Whether it's in the Prince George region, in the northwest, in the Cariboo or even up in the northeast, people continually tell me it's a project that needs to be done. It's one of the reasons why our northern caucus has continued to keep it as one of our top two priorities for the development in the north, along with the continued expansion of the Port of Prince Rupert.

The excitement that you can feel in the mining industry…. Even though we are facing real challenges in terms of commodity prices, people are still excited about the opportunities of creating a mine. Mount Milligan, a project in my riding that is going through the EA process now….

Interjection.

J. Rustad: There's a slight dispute with the member for Prince George North, who seems to believe that it is in his riding. But we'll take that for another time.

However, this is a project that will continue to drive opportunities, particularly for the people of Fort St. James and, of course, the people in Mackenzie. Having said that, people are excited about mining. They want to see those opportunities. They know the jobs they create. They know the stability and diversification it can bring for the community and for the area.

It would be nice for just once for the opposition to come out in support of projects like that before they get their mining permit, to throw their weight behind it so that they can move as quickly as possible through the process rather than being the stumbling block, which they were in the 1990s.

Transportation is also a huge potential for an economic driver throughout the province. We're making huge investments in the Lower Mainland in port facilities but also through the Port of Prince Rupert, through inland facilities in Prince George and through the Prince George Airport and other regional airports around the province. We recognize that those are the types of activities that we want to see happening to be able to generate jobs and to be able to generate diversification.

I'll just talk about the expansion of the Prince George Airport for a second. Expanding that runway and having the opportunity to bring in air traffic is an enormous opportunity for diversification. We're seeing some economic challenges now, but it is projected that once we get through this, the growth that we saw in air transportation will continue. That could mean hundreds if not thousands of jobs, both direct and indirect, in the Prince George area and throughout the region in terms of transportation opportunities.

It's those kinds of investments that lay the foundation for the future. When that side had the opportunity, what did they do? They put $400 million into a project like Skeena Cellulose that was going nowhere, that nobody in the industry supported and that ultimately turned out to be a dismal project.
[ Page 13744 ]

Can you imagine, if that $400 million had been invested in our airports, in the Port of Prince Rupert and in the transportation infrastructure along that corridor, where the north would have been today in comparison to what that investment was? That's an example of past performance, and it's the reason why that side should never be allowed to be back on the government side.

Transportation and the economic benefits that can come from infrastructure investment are not restricted just to the resource industry and those types of things but also are for investments in things like health care. In Prince George we are putting in a northern cancer clinic — a $100 million northern cancer strategy.

This is something that we have wanted to do for a long time. It's been 20-plus years that we've wanted to see this happen. Once again, it's a project that we have started, that we will be moving forward, that we're going to drive and complete. That side of the House said they were going to look at doing it back in the early '90s, and what happened? Nothing. The cancer clinic went to another community.

[1020]

Past performance is the indication of success of the future. You can tell very clearly from their past performance that without the leadership that we have on our side, with the lack of leadership they have on their side, there's no way those types of important investments would come to fruition.

The cancer strategy is not just about one facility and providing that in the north. It needs a significant amount of support. Through UNBC we're going to be expanding training opportunities. We're going to be expanding the medical program. We've invested $12 million at UNBC at the health sciences centre, $29 million in the Teaching and Learning Centre. These are the types of things that are needed — infrastructure that's put in place to support programs. Along with that, the additional training that has been put in place has made a huge difference to health care in the north.

And what did that side of the House do? They didn't add a single seat in terms of doctor training, they virtually ignored the needs in nurse training, and they restricted health care by restricting the number of professionals that were available. That's not the way to do things. That's an example of past performance that will not lead to what we need in the north and throughout our province.

However, when you look at what we have done…. We have laid the foundations to be able to move forward, to be able to have the kind of health care systems that we need. All you need to do is look at the primary health care initiative that we're doing throughout Northern Health. Look at the work that is done in Vanderhoof. Look at the work that is being done in Fraser Lake through the echocardiology and the efforts there. Look at the example in Southside in the health clinic that is in there and the partnership between the health authority and first nations.

Those kinds of examples are where we need to be going with our health care in the future. Those are the types of things that we've been trying to foster, trying to support, trying to help, and those are what we need to have in place.

None of that, none of those roots, can be traced back to the opposition when they were in power. All of that has come through our government, through our policies in what we are trying to do.

When you look also at the other investments we had throughout the north, the list goes on and on. But I would like to close by talking about….

Interjections.

J. Rustad: Yes. I know that the opposition is excited to get on their feet and lay out their vision.

But I want to just mention that the NDP, in what they've come out with and when they talk about economic activity…. Their first major announcement coming into this campaign is talking about the James bond, talking about a green bond that is going to borrow a billion dollars a year to spend on operating expenses. They want to add $10 billion so that they can expend on operating expense investments.

That's exactly what they did in the 1990s. They rang up the credit card debt with absolutely no sense whatsoever as to how they're going to afford it. Past performance is the prime example of the success of the future — or, in the case of the opposition, of the failure of the future.

We stand for fiscal responsibility, and in the challenges we're facing, we understand that that means we may have to take some extraordinary steps over the next couple of years. Those are what the people have expected, and it is where we're going to go.

Once again, the throne speech is about vision. It's about leadership. It's about providing confidence to the people of the province that the province is in good hands, that we are going in the right direction, that people can build their future, that people can build their lives, that people can support families and that people will want to come and stay in this province. The throne speeches we've had over the last number of years, and this one in particular, continue with those efforts.

Once again, past example. People moved out of the province in the 1990s. They fled this province. We went from the best to the last place in economic activity.

With what we have done, people are moving back to the province. We've had net migration to the province. We've created jobs. We've had that stability. We're building that future. That's the kind of past performance that is going to lead to success and to opportunity in the future.

Madam Speaker, I am very proud to have had the opportunity to be the mover of the throne speech. I am very proud of the record that we have had, of what we
[ Page 13745 ]
have been able to achieve throughout the north and throughout this province, because it has laid those foundations so that going through this economic challenge, we will come out strong. We'll be one of the first to come out, and we will see the growth and the kind of support and stability that we need.

[1025]

I can't say that about the opposition and their record from the '90s. Many of them are in the House here today. The policies clearly…. From the examples that they brought forward, they haven't learned anything in their time in opposition, and quite frankly, they need to stay in opposition.

Thank you very much for this opportunity, and I look forward to hearing the rest of the continued debate on the throne speech.

J. Les: It's an honour and a privilege for me this morning to be able to rise and second the Speech from the Throne. It's not something I've done before in the previous eight years that we've had our opening throne speech, but it is something that I'm very honoured to do.

As I listened to His Honour reading the throne speech yesterday, I couldn't help but reflect in terms of the different circumstances that we find ourselves in today as opposed to only a year ago. Certainly, we have seen the deepening of an economic recession around the world, and that is the case in the United States, our most important trading partner.

As we said going into that economic experience, if I can call it that, we will not be immune from the effects of that global economic downturn, and it is our responsibility, I think, as government in the province of British Columbia to maintain a prudent fiscal posture.

But it also, I think, behooves us to ensure that we set the framework correctly so that when the economic recovery begins, as it most surely will, we can begin that process first here in British Columbia. British Columbia can position itself to lead the way in Canada, as we increasingly are doing together with our partners in western Canada and throughout the Pacific Northwest.

These are indeed challenging times, and I think the throne speech that we saw yesterday hit the right note in terms of what our government is going to do in the future and how we have positioned ourselves in the past to ensure that the people of British Columbia will be able to continue to thrive economically and in terms of all the important social programs that we have in place.

The economic challenges of today require us to be, perhaps, more integrated and more collaborative with our neighbours to the east and to the north and to the south. We have, I think, established a very credible track record in that regard. Over the last several years we have had a series of joint cabinet meetings with the province of Alberta. We've had joint cabinet meetings with the state of Washington. We have important initiatives underway with other American states. We have positive working relationships with Yukon territory.

These were all things that were absent from the political landscape in the 1990s. I'm not going to belabour the 1990s, because I know that the members opposite are very uncomfortable when I do so. But it is very important to contrast the record of the NDP versus the record of this government.

On May 12 of this year, now less than three months away, the people of this province will have a very important decision to make. That decision simply is: do we carry on with the constructive economic and financial policies that have been set in place by the B.C. Liberal government, or do we go back to the negative, destructive and pessimistic policies that were the hallmark of the NDP in the 1990s and, as I will show later in my remarks, would be the hallmark of the NDP were they to form government today again?

It's important that we don't take our eyes off the ball. Sometimes when economic challenges are presented to us, it can be attractive to lose sight of the principles that are, I think, so important to a healthy economic future.

One of those areas that I think has been so important in strengthening our economy is the tax relief that has been put in place by this government. Over 100 tax relief measures have been implemented by the B.C. Liberal government, and if my memory serves, I believe the NDP opposition was opposed to every one of those tax relief measures — every one of them.

Yesterday I heard an important spokesperson for the NDP. He was, I think, on The Bill Good Show as I was driving in yesterday morning. His name is Jim Sinclair. To my mind, I think he's actually the boss in terms of the NDP organization.

[1030]

I certainly heard lots from Jim Sinclair all day yesterday. I heard very little from the Leader of the Opposition.

Anyway, he said — I know that the members opposite are uncomfortable with this kind of thing, but I will quote Mr. Sinclair directly: "What I don't want to see is tax cuts. That would be a crime." Imagine that — comparing tax relief to crime.

Only the NDP, only the boss of the B.C. Federation of Labour would make that kind of analogy. Well, I'm here to say without reservation, Madam Speaker, that I am happy to support tax relief wherever we can do that.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Member. Could I remind members on this side of the House that they must be in their own seats if they wish to participate in the debate.

Continue, Member.

J. Les: I know sometimes these issues, when you bring them forward, make the members of the opposition very
[ Page 13746 ]
uncomfortable. But no apologies. I think it is important to draw these contrasts between our government and what they purport as an opposition.

I've just drawn attention to a quote from Mr. Sinclair, but the Leader of the Opposition agrees with Mr. Sinclair and his opposition to tax relief. She said: "It doesn't work to make tax cuts." Flat-out statement. She's against tax relief.

I would suggest that that is quite wrong-headed. The British Columbians that I talked to are actually very much in favour of tax relief, and there is certainly no doubt about it. It's not only here in British Columbia but in jurisdictions around the world. Typically when there's been tax relief, the net income to government actually increases. That's not an accident. That's simply people who are economically empowered by virtue of having more of their economic resources left in their pocket.

Jim Sinclair said yesterday on the program I was listening to that if you give people tax relief, they will just save the money. Well, isn't that somehow their God-given right, if that's what they choose to do with their money? Ought they not to be able to save it if that's what they wish to do? I know lots of people who are inclined that way.

But the NDP philosophy is simply this: a dollar in the hand of government is better than a dollar in the hand of the individual. That is simply their philosophy. I don't agree with that, and the majority of British Columbians do not agree with that either.

The minimum wage is something that the NDP has talked a lot about — and the need to increase that. The minimum wage, as we know, in British Columbia today is $8. We also know that the minimum wage is often the threshold or entry-level wage, especially for young people. Study after study after study has shown — and I know the member for Cariboo South is uncomfortable with this…. But that raising of the minimum wage would actually result in very significantly increased youth unemployment — especially unemployment amongst youth.

I would submit that an $8 minimum wage with a job is better than a $10 minimum wage without a job. I'm not sure what part of that the NDP does not get. These are often entry-level wages. People go on, as they gain work experience, to earn extra dollars. I think it would be a travesty if the youth of our province were denied entry-level opportunities that are so important to them.

We've also seen over the last number of weeks the assertion that somehow we have not properly invested in post-secondary education in this province. I want to just remind all members of the House and whoever may be watching on Hansard television this morning that we actually have 32,000 additional post-secondary education spaces in British Columbia today as opposed to 2001. That is the equivalent of adding more than one entire UBC to the post-secondary education infrastructure of this province over the last seven years.

[1035]

I think that is a magnificent accomplishment. Some of that I have seen in my own riding. Not only have we created the new University of the Fraser Valley; we're also developing a new campus for the University of the Fraser Valley in Chilliwack, in my riding. I think it was in September of last year the Minister of Advanced Education was there to open western Canada's largest trades-training facility at their campus in Chilliwack — a tremendous investment, a state-of-the-art facility.

Those are the kinds of places that, when the economy is taking a downturn, people are going to be accessing that facility to upgrade their training, and we're doing that throughout the province. Count them — 32,000 new post-secondary education seats. We're well positioned to help people with their retraining, which many people are going to be requiring.

Interjection.

J. Les: I know the member from the Sunshine Coast is uncomfortable with that fact as well, but it's the reality that our post-secondary education sector in British Columbia is in better shape than it's ever been.

We have seven additional universities, 32,000 new seats, opportunities for all kinds of people in British Columbia. If there's anything that's important in the kind of economy that we live in today, it's education opportunities. Education is key. It is fundamental to any successful economic development strategy that I know about.

The other thing that I think outlines or differentiates our position as opposed to that of the NDP is our reliance on partnerships of many different kinds and descriptions — partnerships, as I've already alluded to, with the province of Alberta, with the state of Washington, with the state of Idaho, with the Yukon territory, and working partnerships where we look to solve the problems of the day.

One of the real products that came from that was the Trade, Investment and Labour Mobility Agreement with the province of Alberta.

Interjection.

J. Les: Now, before I describe how that is so beneficial to all of us — and the heckling from members opposite has already started — I need to point out that the opposition was entirely, to a person, opposed to the adoption of the Trade, Investment and Labour Mobility Agreement.

Now, we know that the Conference Board of Canada pointed out that upon implementation, there would actually be created in British Columbia 78,000 additional jobs. The NDP pooh-poohed that when we had the bill in the House, and I would question: are they still going to carry on with their negative approach to that today — 78,000 additional jobs?

In my ears today, with the economic challenges that we're facing in this province, I am certainly pleased
[ Page 13747 ]
that we were able to implement that agreement with the province of Alberta and our Premier having taken a leadership role in implementing that kind of approach across Canada.

I have heard the Leader of the Opposition speak out in favour of international labour mobility, which I'm in favour of as well, by the way — no issues with that at all. But why would the Leader of the Opposition and her caucus not be in favour of national labour mobility? Why would it be that the members of the opposition would not be in favour of a nurse in Ontario, for example, wanting to move to British Columbia, to be able to do so freely? What would be the matter with that?

What would be wrong with a teacher trained in the province of Manitoba moving to British Columbia and being able to do so freely?

I do not understand the isolationist approach of the NDP. They want to shut B.C. off, as they did in 1990. Their rhetoric of the new millennium betrays the fact that they want to continue to be isolationist, cut themselves off from the rest of the world, stick their head in the sand and, in that way, stumble forward. We know where that will lead. That will lead to the decline, the decay and the have-not status that we came to know in the 1990s.

[1040]

Small business in British Columbia knows that the TILMA agreement will be good for them. Eighty-four percent of their surveyed members said that they were actually in favour of TILMA. Of course, again, the NDP is very dismissive of this, but small business is actually the job creation engine of any constructive economy.

I see the member for North Coast is here this morning. He certainly had some things to say….

Interjections.

J. Les: The member for North Coast is here. He's right behind the member opposite.

Interjections.

J. Les: The member for North Coast, of course, is doing his best to heckle me this morning, but he said that no sector is protected by this agreement.

Interjection.

Deputy Speaker: Member.

Point of Order

N. Simons: I might have this wrong, but I'm not sure the member is supposed to refer to whether or not members are present in the House. I'm just asking for clarification, because the Minister of Transportation is not helping.

J. Les: If I've in any way offended the members opposite by breaking the rules of this place, I'll see if I can do better. Of course, I may have been provoked by the heckling that seemed to come from the member for North Coast. I'll try not to refer to him again in the balance of my speech.

Debate Continued

J. Les: Several times over the last number of months the NDP have said that they were not in favour of the softwood lumber agreement, that they would want to renegotiate it, tear it up, scrap it and what have you. Again, a disastrous and wrong-headed position to take.

If the softwood lumber agreement had not been reached, today lumber production companies in B.C. would be paying a 40 percent duty, all of which would be going to the United States.

Now, the softwood lumber agreement, I would hasten to say, is not necessarily a perfect document. But it's a good sight better than what we had in place previously. Today lumber producers are paying a 15 percent duty, but the money all comes back to this government. The money does not go to the Americans. The money stays here in British Columbia.

For the members of the New Democratic Party to suggest that we should tear up that agreement…. They would immediately plunge what is left of the forest industry into complete shutdown. The members of the opposition should actually come clean with people in rural British Columbia and tell them how they have been advocating for the complete shutdown of the forest industry by virtue of their opposition to the softwood lumber agreement.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members, order.

Continue, Member.

J. Les: I am more comfortable when there is not a cacophony of heckling from the member from the Sunshine Coast. But I'll do my best. He can carry on if he likes. I actually find it energizing.

In any event, just before I leave the subject of the softwood lumber agreement, I'll quote the Leader of the Opposition. This is a very recent quote: "It's a bad deal. You need to look at renegotiating it. You have to go back to the table." And the forestry critic, the member for Cariboo North, said: "Is this a deal we can support? No, not on your life."

As I've already said, it's perhaps not the perfect deal, but at least the duties are much lower than they were under the previous circumstances, and all of the money stays here in the province of British Columbia. Plus, when the deal was ratified, $2.4 billion came back into the forestry sector here in British Columbia. Can you
[ Page 13748 ]
imagine? Had that not been the case, the entire industry today would be in a much more cash-poor situation.

[1045]

On the topic of reaching out and engaging in partnerships not only in this region — in the Pacific Northwest — but also around the world, there was mention in the throne speech about an open skies policy. It is actually high time that we open our airspace in Canada to foreign carriers. No jurisdiction in Canada would benefit more than us right here in British Columbia. Of that I am convinced. Now, there's been talk of this for years and years and years. I think it's time that we got on with it.

British Columbia is showing leadership on this file. We have a conference that's being called for in the throne speech this coming summer, and all British Columbians can very much benefit from an enlightened approach to opening our skies to many more carriers from around the world.

I'd be interested in hearing what the opposition thinks about an open skies policy. My suspicion is that they would probably be extremely reserved and raise all kinds of objections. No doubt, there are issues that will have to be negotiated and thought carefully about, but I'm wondering what their inclination is — whether they tend to be supportive of an open skies policy or whether they're going to be isolationist when it comes to that as well.

Now, the opposition over the last number of months have talked a pretty good game about supporting rural British Columbia. [Applause.] Well, they applaud too soon — the members opposite. They applaud too soon, because it's been just that — all talk. It's been all talk. Whenever the NDP has had an opportunity to do something for not only rural British Columbians, for all British Columbians, they've failed miserably.

Let me talk about the mining sector. Listen carefully, Member. Listen carefully. In 2001, the last year of the NDP government — $29 million of exploration investment. In the seven years since investment on mineral exploration has totalled $1.653 billion. Where has that money been spent? In rural British Columbia. Why was that money spent? Because people once again had confidence in coming to British Columbia to explore our mineral resources.

They knew they would be treated with respect. They knew that they would not be run out of the province with the policies that we put in place. They knew they would be welcomed not only to explore and invest but also to create mines. I would hasten to point out that these jobs are very good jobs. They pay, on average, $101,000 per year.

There is no question that $1.6 billion of mineral exploration in the province of British Columbia is most definitely going to lead to new mine openings in British Columbia. We've already seen several. We're going to see a lot more mines opening in British Columbia.

Because of a more welcoming environment for mineral investment and mining activity in British Columbia, revenues to government — and I'm sure members opposite would be interested in this; it's something that's always captured their attention — have increased from $44 million in 2001 to $224 million in 2008. So obviously the mining sector is thriving. It's doing well, and it's got a great future here in the province of British Columbia.

The other obviously very important industry in the province of British Columbia has historically been and still is and will be in the future…. That is the forest industry. Now, there is no question that we are going through terrible challenges today in that industry. So we are looking for many different ways of supporting that industry, of using their products, of encouraging trade — more trade to Japan, trade to China, to those other offshore locations that have historically not been large consumers of B.C. wood. There are major opportunities there.

[1050]

We've made not only those overtures to those jurisdictions, however. We've also made changes to B.C. building code in working with experts and encouraging the construction of residential buildings up to six storeys high, as opposed to the previous four-storey limit. I know that in quite a number of communities around the province that has been very positively received.

Without any input from me, the council in the city of Chilliwack wrote a letter to the minister responsible and suggested it was one of the most enlightened things that could have been done. They're looking forward to enabling that happening in the city of Chilliwack. Of course, at the same time, in so doing, we will encourage the consumption of wood.

The Premier has also mandated very clearly that whenever provincial funding is involved, we should be encouraging the use of wood and wood products in building this public infrastructure. I very much support that. There's a lot of creativity, there's a lot of innovation that can be gained, and the resulting benefits for the forestry sector in British Columbia will be considerable. So I think those changes in the regulatory structure are positive, but again, even that the NDP couldn't bring itself to support.

The member for Coquitlam–Maillardville — she's the critic for Housing for the NDP. She has said that this is a reckless initiative, that we should know everything is going to be okay before shovels go in the ground. It betrays, frankly, a complete lack of knowledge about how a large construction project is actually rolled out on the ground. But again, it's that instinctive recoil, that instinctive "Well, we don't want to see any changes."

Actually, if we want the world to stay the same as it's always been, we'll get the results we always got. We have to innovate. We have to be creative. We have to step outside of the box and try new things. In the world
[ Page 13749 ]
that we live in, in the times going forward, those who are prepared to innovate and those who are prepared to collaborate and those who are prepared to build relationships with others both in the region and around the globe are the economies that are actually going to succeed.

Madam Speaker, there are many other things that I could touch on as I review the throne speech that was presented to us yesterday. Later on today we will, of course, hear from the Finance Minister in terms of the budget for 2009-2010.

This will be a difficult budget, as we've already outlined. A year ago no one could have imagined even in their wildest imagination that we would be going into a deficit budget. But we will do so carefully. We will do so not by turning the spending spigots open. We will ensure that we protect funding for health care and education as outlined in the throne speech yesterday. Those commitments to British Columbians to provide the health care and the education that they need when they need it — those promises are going to be kept.

We are going through an unprecedented time of investment in the health infrastructure of this province. We have seen major new hospitals opened, such as the one in the Fraser Valley, the new Abbotsford Regional Hospital and Cancer Centre — very much appreciated, by the way, in my community — so that people can now access cancer care without having to go to Surrey or into Vancouver. They can now get it relatively next door in Abbotsford. That's been a great improvement for what is otherwise a pretty terrible experience, when people are dealing with cancer.

That's just one example of the health care infrastructure that's being improved in the province of British Columbia. We've seen major investments in the city of Vancouver, in the city of Surrey, in the city of Kelowna, in the city of Vernon, in the city of Victoria, and I've probably missed a few on the way through. There's major new infrastructure being put in place to ensure that British Columbians have the health care they need in the future.

The same is true in education, and maybe I'll make that my final point. Members opposite often talk about how there hasn't been enough funding in education. Well, there are a few things I should point out. First of all, there are 60,000 fewer students in K-to-12 today than there were in 2001.

[1055]

That's not a partisan statement. That's not rhetoric. That's just straight fact — 60,000 fewer students. Is there somehow a mystery attached to the fact that there are actually some schools that school boards have had to close? No, not at all. I think those are rational decisions by the various school boards involved.

We're certainly still investing in new school infrastructure as well. Here I can cite numerous examples in my own city of Chilliwack, where within the last four years we invested in a new middle school. It's now known as G.W. Graham Middle School, a $28 million investment. Just three months ago the member for Chilliwack-Kent and I were able to announce another $100 million investment in school construction in Chilliwack, a new Chilliwack senior secondary school, a new Rosedale elementary middle school and a new elementary school in Yarrow.

For members opposite to suggest that we are not investing in education in British Columbia is flat wrong. The evidence certainly leaves a completely different set of facts there for the members to reflect on.

As I already indicated earlier in my remarks, the post-secondary education sector has seen a level of growth in British Columbia today that we have not seen for 40 years in this province. We've seen direct benefits in all of our communities throughout the Lower Mainland and in places as far-flung as Prince George and in the northeast. All of these places across the province have seen the direct benefit from that increased post-secondary investment.

In closing, I think the throne speech yesterday sets a realistic road map ahead for the future. It builds on the strengths that we've been able to develop working with British Columbians over the last eight years. I think it also provides an opportunity to contrast the approach of this government to the proposals of the New Democratic Party. They had a policy announcement just last week where, in essence, they said: "We're going to take the province $10 billion deeper into debt. We're going to issue bonds."

I guess it's not simply because of the lethal effect that they immediately became referred to as James Bonds, but lethal to the economy they would be. No matter how you dress it up, it's additional debt for the province.

Deficit and debt are really only tomorrow's taxes. This is very important to me. As members of this House will know, I have a number of grandchildren. The legacy that I want to leave to them is not about additional debt, deficit and taxes. When we have our grandchildren over on the weekend, I sometimes look at them and see Brandon and Darrin and Stefan and Bryan and Danielle and Nathan and Tyler and Olivia and Airyn and Emily and Nicholas….

You know what? What we do in this place is really important for them and their peers. It's just critically important. What we do in this place has an awful lot to do with creating the future for our children and for our grandchildren. I think we always need to be mindful of that. It's not about, at the end of the day…. All of the partisan rhetoric and heckling in here is just that — so much rhetoric and so much heckling.

But when the rubber hits the road, history will record that our government policies from 2001 to the present have established a sound economic future for this
[ Page 13750 ]
province. On May 12 British Columbians will have an opportunity to cast their verdict, and I am very confident that they will say resoundingly that B.C. Liberal policies trump NDP policies anytime.

[1100]

S. Simpson: Hon. Speaker, I'm pleased to have the opportunity to stand and speak to the throne speech. Throne speeches, as we know, are supposed to be about governments delivering their vision. They're supposed to be the opportunity for government to tell us about the broad strokes, where they're going in the coming time. Then that is to be followed up by a budget that allows us to see whether there are actually any resources to keep the promises that are made in the throne speech.

Generally, that's what the expectation is, and I know that that's what the expectation was for this throne speech. Sadly, what we saw — and this is what has been reported by the commentators; this is what I heard repeatedly at the reception yesterday after the throne speech — is that the speech was more about having cobbled together the list of unkept promises that this government has had over the last couple of years.

[S. Hammell in the chair.]

They recobbled together those promises — nothing new — put them together and put them back on the table again, put the "trust me" comment out there again. They wrung their hands about the fact that while everybody else in British Columbia knew that we, like the rest of the world, were heading for challenging times, this Premier and this Finance Minister…. It was only two weeks before the budget, before we were coming back to this place, that the bell went off for them that in fact we were facing challenging times in British Columbia. That just really shows how out of touch this Premier is, how out of touch this government is with British Columbians — with their values, their aspirations and their challenges.

What we know is that throne speeches should provide a vision for people. They should demonstrate a level of leadership — on the part of government, in this case — that British Columbians can develop and have some hope in. Throne speeches should talk about where the government wants to take the province so that people can see that road map and be hopeful and look at a future they see for themselves and their kids that gives them the opportunity, hopefully, to be excited that they're on a good road.

Unfortunately, this throne speech offered British Columbians none of that. What it did do is it certainly increased the anxiety of British Columbians that they have a government that's rudderless, that is just careening from one issue to the other without a sense of a plan — a government that seems to have only one objective on its mind, and that's the desperate need for this Premier to be able to cut a ribbon in 2010 for the Olympics.

The only thing that matters to this government is to get that ribbon-cutting done in 2010, and whatever comes before or after really is not significant. That has created a level of uncertainty in this province about what our future holds and a desperate concern about the commitment of this government to the public interest of British Columbians, a commitment that we have not seen in seven years and that we certainly don't see today.

The most telling thing about this speech…

An Hon. Member: …is that he can afford it.

S. Simpson: I hope he's buying now.

The most telling thing about this really was that the speech was bereft of ideas. We saw no new ideas, to speak of, in this speech. We saw no new ideas at all. We saw a government that was trying to just recycle. Somebody said: "The greenest thing about this throne speech was all the recycling of old, unkept promises."

Yesterday when I talked to people before the speech about what their hopes were and then I spoke to people after the speech, I heard a number of things. Let me just make a couple of observations about the things that I did hear.

When I spoke to the environmental community about this…. You'll all remember, and you'll recollect, hon. Speaker, that last year was the green budget, the green throne speech. The government gave us a couple of cents on the gas tax and said that was a climate plan and that was a green plan and then moved on.

[1105]

Because this government had been so unsupportive of anything of an environmental nature over its history, it raised great hopes with people that there actually had been some kind of epiphany and some kind of change on the part of the government as it relates to the environment. A couple of cents of gas tax got people excited that maybe the government was moving in the right direction.

We get to this year, and in those same groups the disappointment is clear. What did they see in this throne speech? They saw references to accelerating the move on unconventional oil offshore. They saw a government that's prepared to compromise and jeopardize the environment by looking offshore and continuing to push an offshore oil and gas regime, something that British Columbians are not calling for.

We've seen a federal government that has already said they're walking away from the environmental assessment requirements and obligations around environmental assessment and are looking to, as they said, harmonize and turn that over to the provinces. What we see here is a government provincially that says that they support that view and that they believe it should all be harmonized. That's all good and fine.
[ Page 13751 ]

We've seen nothing. We'll wait, and in a few hours' time we'll get the answer. We'll see what their harmonization means in terms of resources for the environmental assessment office, resources for the environmental assessment regime.

We'll see whether in fact it is in a position to do things more quickly; whether it is in a position to handle more projects, to move on projects, to deal with issues around the complexities of environmental assessment that are not being dealt with today in this province — whether in fact the environmental assessment process is strengthened and there are resources there to allow it to pick up the responsibilities that will come with a single environmental assessment office.

My suspicion is that when we look at this budget in a few hours' time from now, we're going to see that in fact there are not significant resources to support the environmental assessment office. We may even see cuts — as we may even see cuts in the Ministry of Environment, as we will see cuts in ministry after ministry — that the government told us about yesterday in the throne speech, cuts that the government foreshadowed in the throne speech yesterday.

So there's a concern among the environmental community as to whether that's what the future faces. There is a concern about private power initiatives where the environmental impacts are not looked at, where the contribution to renewable energy is suspect at best and where the government, through B.C. Hydro, has been excluded from the process in any meaningful and substantive way — an exclusion that many of us suspect has a lot more to do with the ongoing efforts to privatize B.C. Hydro than it has to do with anything else.

As these projects or applications pop up across British Columbia, community after community gets more concerned about what the real impacts of those projects will be. They know that yes, there are construction jobs related to those projects, but there are more meaningful things we could do with creating those jobs. They know that there are very few jobs after the construction period is over, that these projects are not a job creator in any significant way after those projects are built.

We know, and the environmental community knows, that this is a government that slashed environmental spending and environmental resources when they eliminated the Ministry of Environment back when they came to power in 2001 — slashed those budgets by 25 to 30 percent at that time — and there's great anxiety that we're about to see that cut again this time out, that we're going to see more of those cuts this time out.

We also see environmentalists…. On the one issue that they hoped this government was moving forward on, which was the issue of climate, they have now seen that issue diminished.

[1110]

Believe me, hon. Speaker, it is lost on nobody that the responsibility for that is removed from the Premier's office and put into the Ministry of Environment, a ministry that, quite honestly, has failed time and again to influence government public policy. The only time the Ministry of Environment has had any influence at that cabinet table around policy has been when the matter has rested with the Premier, and it had everybody's attention. But that's over now.

As we know, because we can follow the record through children, health care, rural communities, seniors and forestry — and the list goes on — climate has just become the latest on a long list of policy initiatives that the Premier grabs onto, runs with for a period of months and then sets aside as he moves along to whatever is next. Climate has now been set aside. It has been diminished in its importance. The senior official who was heading up the file on climate has now moved on to other responsibilities.

The environmental organizations that have had subsequent meetings — it's my understanding, who have been meeting with the climate secretariat and talking about what the future holds — are now seeing very clearly that the future holds very little. So the concern and the disappointment are great there.

Also, there was hope that maybe the government would pick up on initiatives like the B.C. green bond that we have proposed and move forward with real green economy initiatives, but there is nothing. There is nothing in that throne speech that suggests in any way, shape or form that that's going to occur.

So that creates great concern as well, because we know we need to make those shifts around infrastructure, around helping people with their own energy efficiency in their homes, around transit, around new technologies and new initiatives, none of which the government offered us in this throne speech.

Other organizations and other aspects of society were equally disappointed with this cobbled-together speech that we heard yesterday. It is remarkable that at a time when — certainly in the Lower Mainland and in Metro Vancouver — without exception, the issue that is most pressing on people's minds today is gang violence…. The issue that is most pressing is the use of guns by gangsters, shootings in public places. We had another unfortunate incident yesterday morning, and this government didn't see fit to say one word in the throne speech about how they would deal with this matter.

What we know is that the day before — again, in the way that this government does most things — as public opinion and concern about this grew, as pressure grew from this side of the House to demand that the government do something, the Premier and the Attorney General and the Solicitor General cobbled together a plan at the last minute, without much thought. They cobbled together a plan and threw it on the table in the hopes that that might buy them some time to get through May 12.

Well, a cobbled-together plan there doesn't wash for most British Columbians. They know that's not going to
[ Page 13752 ]
begin to address this issue in a meaningful and substantive way, and they're shocked. They would have expected, in a throne speech that is looking to talk about the vision for this government for the next year, that community safety might have been of some concern to this Premier and this government. Not one word. Not one meaningful word about community safety in the whole throne speech.

The other piece that I know well — and I know it well because of my constituency — is the lack of support for those who are most vulnerable. We know — and it has been raised in this House — that Statistics Canada tells us that this government, through all those prosperous years when commodity prices were high, through all those years when the U.S. was buying our products, through all those years we had the highest levels of child poverty of any province in the country — almost one in four children living in poverty.

[1115]

What do we know? We know that kids don't get poor by themselves. We know that poor kids are about poor families, and we see nothing here to suggest support. It's particularly galling when the other thing we know is that half of those families with poor kids are not on welfare. There's a paycheque that comes into those households, but it is a minimum-wage paycheque. It is a low-income paycheque.

This government. Eight years — eight years — and no increase in the minimum wage. No increase for eight years.

It didn't take us a long time, all of us in this House, to find a way to increase our pay. It didn't take the Premier a long time to figure out how to increase the pay for his advisers and deputies. It certainly doesn't take corporate leaders to figure out how to increase their pay, even in tough times. And we can't deliver a minimum-wage increase in this province to the people who need it the most.

One of the members speaking earlier talked about people getting their money and spending it. Well, let me tell you. The people who spend all of their money are the people who don't have a whole lot. You give people a couple more dollars an hour for their hard work, and they will spend all of that money, and all of that money will go into the economy.

It's a good investment. It's a good investment in British Columbia; it's a good investment for small business; it's a good investment for our economy. And yet this government is so narrow-minded and shortsighted that it just cannot see the value in that.

We also saw very, very little in this throne speech to deal with the challenges around housing. In my community, housing, mental health issues and homelessness are issues. We know the government has bought some hotels and upgraded some SRO hotels. That's a good thing to do, but it does nothing to expand the available stock of housing for people who are desperate. It sustains and maintains some existing housing. It does nothing to expand that stock.

We know that we need to deal with that issue. But it is not an issue of importance to this government, and it's not an issue that this government is prepared to pay attention to.

The thing I hear most…. We heard it yesterday after the throne speech, we heard it before the throne speech, and I know we will hear it today after the budget. The worry and the concern for British Columbians — for rural British Columbians, for people living in the cities, for kids, for seniors, for people with health issues, for educators….

That concern is this. This is a government that did so little for British Columbians who are in need at a time when commodity prices were high and when prosperity was in this province. What on earth can we expect now that times aren't so good? We are heading for serious times, and there's no reason for anybody to believe that this government is going to step up and put the concerns of British Columbians at the head of the table. People are concerned.

We have a Premier who did not stand up for British Columbians when times were good. We know he won't stand up for them now that times are tough.

The only thing we got out of this speech…. We did get a raft of summit meetings. It appears we're going to have a number of summit meetings and gatherings in the province, or elsewhere, but not much more.

What did the government say? The government says that every other ministry is going to take a hit, and they're going to take a hit because the money is going to go into health and education. The member across the way, in his earlier comments, talked about education, advanced education.

Well, let's talk about advanced education a little bit. What do we know about advanced education? We know that per-student funding in B.C. dropped from just over $9,400 in '07-08 to about $8,800 in '08-09. This is the trend: a reduction in per-student funding. Last year, in 2008, when institutions expected a small increase, instead they got a 2.6 percent cut. That's where advanced education has gone in this province.

[1120]

The member across the way, in his comments, talked about the 32,000 new seats, talked about, in the 2006 throne speech, the government creating 25,000 new spaces. But what the member didn't tell us is that over half of those spaces aren't there yet. We're well into the last third now of this program, and we don't have over half of those spaces in place yet. So it was another empty promise, another unkept promise by the B.C. Liberals. That's what we get from B.C. Liberals — unkept promises.

What about health care? Are we talking about the status quo? The most remarkable thing around health
[ Page 13753 ]
care is that the throne speech didn't find the way to announce the Surrey Memorial Hospital again. They've announced it enough times. I'm surprised they didn't announce it again. They keep announcing it, but they don't actually move forward on it.

This is all cold comfort for British Columbians. We are facing challenging times, and we have challenges that we need to step up and meet. We need to increase the minimum wage for British Columbians to ensure that people do have money in their pockets for their groceries, for their rent — those who are most vulnerable. This government should be supporting those people, and a minimum-wage increase is where that comes from.

We need to address the issue of poverty. One in four kids, almost, in poverty. In my constituency one in two kids are vulnerable. We're not seeing anything. There is nothing in this throne speech, and I am very concerned that it will be confirmed by the budget that there will be nothing in the budget to help those who are living in poverty in this province. That simply is unacceptable.

We are a wealthy place. We have economic challenges. We need to meet those challenges in a prudent and responsible way, but we are not being prudent, and we are not being responsible if we leave those who are most vulnerable behind.

The member for Prince George–Omineca talked about forest and rural communities. His comment, and I'm sure he'd correct himself…. He said that the B.C. Liberals are good at talking the talk, and I would agree with him. The problem is there's hardly ever any action connected to that.

I know, going around and meeting with people in those communities…. I know my colleagues from the rural caucus on our side every day are talking to people in rural communities around British Columbia. The message they are hearing is that they have been left behind. They have been forgotten. They have been abandoned by this government. The government doesn't talk to them. The government simply leaves them behind.

In the coastal forest communities the response of this government to communities that are trying to stay afloat and trying to reinvigorate themselves is raw log exports and turning land over for condominium development. That's the response of this government.

Communities that face the beetle are in a desperate situation, and they are not confident. They are not confident that they see change. They don't hear this government talking about tenure reform. They don't hear this government talking about investments in communities. They don't hear this government talking about ensuring fibre supply for those mills that require it. That isn't part of this conversation.

We now have this government…. I read it today, and I'm sure I could read it from dozens and dozens of municipal leaders around this province who now have anxiety based on comments in that throne speech that this government is about to off-load more and more responsibilities on local governments without the resources to stand up and meet them. That's what we're hearing here.

This government is about to off-load on local government, as they do time and time again. And when they're not off-loading on local governments, they're tearing up those governments' democratic rights to represent their members, with things like Bill 30. That's how this government responds to local government.

In a few hours we're going to hear about the budget. Maybe after four months of silence…. The Premier makes an economic statement in October, and then we get four months of silence with no action. The Premier talks about the urgency of stepping up and taking action, and we get silence. We can only hope that maybe, maybe we might hear something this afternoon where there actually are some resources put into communities to help them rebuild, help them make it through these tough times and begin to put infrastructure and other pieces in place. Maybe there actually will be something.

[1125]

Unfortunately, we also are going to hear about significant cuts, and we're just going to have to look and see. The scrutiny will be there. Are these cuts that can be managed, or are these cuts that begin to hurt British Columbians at the time when they are least able to take another hit? Well, we're going to know that in a few hours. We're going to know that very shortly.

So we now have a situation where we need to move forward. From my constituents in Vancouver-Hastings — the conversations I have — I know what they want me to stand here and talk to this government about. I know what they expect from me after May 12, when we have responsible government back in British Columbia and this side is sitting on that side.

They're going to want to know that the most vulnerable are being helped in this province — that poverty is being addressed in a way that's meaningful; that homelessness and housing needs are being met; that transportation needs in terms of a meaningful transit system are being met; that kids in inner-city schools and special needs kids aren't being left behind in our school system and that their needs are being met; that those many, many people who suffer mental health and addiction issues in my constituency and across this province have services that will help them and have people who have the resources to reach out and give them a hand; that community safety is resourced; and that community safety is a priority, so that they feel safe in their homes, on their streets, going to work and so that they feel they can go out and take a walk in the evening.

All of those are the issues that the people of Vancouver-Hastings want to talk about. They expect us to weather this economic storm, and we will. They expect us to do it and find the opportunities. Those opportunities are in
[ Page 13754 ]
moving forward a green agenda, in moving forward and advancing a green economy, as we have proposed with the B.C. green bonds.

They are about meeting the needs of the most vulnerable and ensuring that people aren't being left behind. They are about retooling our economy. They are about looking at regulatory responsibilities and, unlike this government, not just turning your back on the regulatory initiatives that people want to have in place to protect them.

We've seen too much of that. The pendulum swings, and the pendulum has swung too far with this government and with governments like it around the world. We will now see changes are coming. We have seen those changes in the United States. We are seeing those changes elsewhere.

I am very confident that come May 12, the people of British Columbia will state their opinion, will make their decision, and they will bring change in British Columbia. It will be change that will bring responsible, compassionate, visionary government back to British Columbia — something we have been bereft of since 2001. It is time for change. Eight years of this government is too much, and it's too long. Thankfully, it's almost over.

R. Sultan: I must say that in these difficult times, sitting here listening to the member for Vancouver-Hastings tear a stripe here and there off this government, I find a sense of disappointment that members opposite have not risen to the occasion with a more imaginative, a smarter, a more directed response, as opposed to appealing to their traditional core supporters — rather blatant appeals, I might say, which don't really connect very well with the economic times that we're in. It is a foreboding hint of what would be in store should the persons opposite actually form the government of this great province.

[1130]

We've heard many accusations: the government is rudderless; it has unkept promises; it is struggling; it's out of touch; and perhaps, to paraphrase the Speech from the Throne itself, it lacked an underlying theme or slogan — which is a bit strange when juxtaposed with an immediate criticism that in the past there's been too much emphasis on themes and slogans and insufficient attention to detail.

I find it hard to connect the descriptions I've heard this morning — and indeed, for that matter, in the media — with the speech that I actually heard delivered yesterday by the representative of the Queen and that I read in the text later in my office, because I found it a creative, imaginative and very relevant statement of philosophy as to the guiding precepts of this government in the difficult times ahead.

Let me just repeat some of the phrases that particularly caught my attention. In the opening pages, page 3 of the printed text:

"It is a tumultuous time of uncertainty and shaken assumptions that has left families and businesses wondering what hit them. This new world requires a new mindset…. It's an entrepreneurial mindset that sees opportunity….

"The new economy must focus on smarter government, leveraged investment and constructive change founded on new partnerships.... The knowledge economy and the value it places on specialized skills and creativity is essential. The seismic shifts we are experiencing call for long-term thinking…fundamental change in human behaviour that can create the impetus for healthier living, and innovation in health delivery, new housing and job creation. These global challenges cannot be resolved by simply more government spending."

I find that an excellent and innovative statement of the direction that we must pursue in the immediate future in order to respond to the economic challenge we face.

The times we live in are indeed ominous. Jock Finlayson, for example, is cited in the government's economic update as having revised his economic forecast for 2009 for this province down significantly in merely 30 days, from December to January.

All the so-called economic experts are busy back-peddling from the somewhat optimistic outlook they had delivered for Canada and for British Columbia. But in this recalibration of the standard economic forecast, we have, I think, a unique phenomenon. That is to say that British Columbia is viewed by persons outside of this province — in Canada, North America and indeed around the world — as an island of success, of hope and of smart response, which they view with some wonderment.

I mean, by comparison to what's happening in the United States, this is a sea of calm and orderly good economic behaviour. Yes, people are losing their jobs. Yes, homelessness is far too high. Yes, business confidence has been shaken. But the degree of these impacts is really small in comparison to what other jurisdictions around the world are facing.

Our great friend and neighbour the United States is really suffering what I would call a great collapse in morale and confusion and the beginnings, perhaps, of some doubt that the new President has all the answers, certainly not answers that can be translated into economic success within a few months or the immediate future.

Since so much of what happens in British Columbia…. Virtually everything that happens in B.C. is so governed by what happens in the broader world due to our interconnectedness through trade and investment that the fact that we see these difficulties of far greater magnitude outside the province should be of no comfort to us and no source of self-satisfaction. As they live and die, so do we, eventually.

[1135]

In that context, yesterday in the reception after the Speech from the Throne one of my friends and supporters, a local president of an internationally based company who had just returned from visiting his colleagues in
[ Page 13755 ]
New York City — the headquarters — remarked that his colleagues in that centre of capitalism said: "What on earth are you people doing up there? We've just heard about a $3 billion bridge project going ahead. This isn't happening in the United States. What is British Columbia doing right, as opposed to what we're unable to achieve?"

They see us as a remarkable economic success story. When I listen to the member for Vancouver-Hastings describe this government as inept, incompetent, without vision, without a plan, unable to execute, I say: "Where has he been?" He doesn't seem to understand all that has been accomplished by this government in the last seven or eight years — the fact that it is held up as a model to be copied by other jurisdictions around the world, and it's one that we should be bragging about. Certainly, I do not hesitate to brag about it, because this government has done very, very well.

Now, the risks, of course, are huge. I'm not allowed to hold up props, so I will merely report to you that I'm looking at the cover of the London Economist of February 13. The headline on the cover says: "The Return of Economic Nationalism." It has, as we've seen in so many horror movies, the hand coming up from the graveyard.

The other tombstones in the graveyard list are described as "The Great Depression of the 1930s," "Here Lies Protectionism," and finally, "R. Smoot and W.G. Hawley," the two legislators in Washington who fathered the infamous Smoot-Hawley tariffs, which helped drive the world into global economic depression.

It's like a marquee billboard for a horror movie, and deliberately so. They're trying to point to the risks should, for example, movements in the Congress result in greater protectionism in that country, whether it will be a further stiffening of the rules on softwood lumber — which is possible, one would have to believe — to the quite draconian rules proposed on steel imports from Canada and elsewhere. The risks to the flow of free trade alone are large, particularly for a small trading economy such as British Columbia.

Faced with economic recession — some would say we have the risk of depression — the traditional economic response that we all learned from the Paul Samuelson textbooks when we were at school involved three policy levers on the part of government: tax cuts, increased spending on public works, and monetary policy — lowering interest rates and flooding the banking system with more liquidity so that they have greater capacity to make loans. Those are the three traditional policy levers.

Unfortunately, in the world which the preamble to the throne speech has described — the knowledge economy, the world in which entrepreneurial innovation is the determinant of success — these 1930s-era economic levers are not quite up to the job, not that they're not still very, very important.

[1140]

I think we might, instead of relying upon tax cuts, public works and monetary policy, think of the good advice given to the economic summit of about a week ago delivered by David Emerson, who has recently returned full-time to this province from his assignment in Ottawa. He talks about whatever we do, let's remember two things.

First of all, the destiny of British Columbia, at the end of the day, is determined by forces outside of our province over which we have no control. Let us not delude ourselves to think that we are masters of our own destiny when so much of our economic activity is governed by markets outside our province — our little province.

Secondly, yes, government must spend more, but it should spend not merely with the idea of a quick hit and the stimulation of demand and consumer and business economic activity, as important as that is. It should also be done with the intention of achieving long-term productivity growth. That should be the test of whether government spending in these emergency times is warranted. Will it add and contribute to productivity in this province in the long term?

The year-end economic statement of the government pointed out, in this regard, that over the last 20 years B.C. labour productivity has only grown slightly under three-quarters of 1 percent a year, whereas in Canada it's grown at about double that rate. This is worrisome, and I think David Emerson's advice is well worth taking into account.

On the bigger picture, I would cite Prof. Marty Feldstein, economics emeritus from Harvard, president of the National Bureau of Economic Research, probably the most respected private research organization in the United States. He criticizes the Obama package of $800 billion as perhaps getting off on the wrong foot because it is focusing on tax cuts that will put money into people's pockets, which they will use to strengthen their badly deteriorated balance sheets as opposed to spending it. And spending is what we need. We don't need balance sheet repair in the short term.

Secondly, on the spending side, about 20 percent of the total package will just be unfettered transfers to state governments — unrestricted — and state governments may well do the same thing. As far as public works are concerned, many of these are long-term projects and will take a good deal of time. He advocates a focus on maintenance as opposed to necessarily new construction as a more immediate economic kicker.

Well, a smart, very thoughtful guy leading one of the principal economic research agencies in that large economy. Again, advice we should listen to.

So what has been the response of the British Columbia government? As I said, if one reads pages 3 and 4 of the text, we see the creative response in terms of longer-term policy thinking that I've already read out to you.

What has already been done on the tax side of that treatise is worth reminding us all of again. The tax cuts,
[ Page 13756 ]
one might argue, have already been delivered — over 100 tax cuts in the last eight years. On page 8 it talks about another billion dollars of tax cuts delivered to this economy last year. On page 9 it refers to the tax relief on resource industries, particularly abatement of school taxes which have been unfairly — and in an unbalanced fashion — loaded on resource industries in certain communities.

I think the gist of the message is: on taxes, we've done an awful lot already. We do not really plan to do a lot more, and that is certainly consistent with Marty Feldstein's advice.

On the specifics of what the government will do, there's a long list of bullet points. Maybe the member for Vancouver-Hastings did not notice the detail. New capital spending: $14 billion, equal to about 7 percent of GDP. Some of that already announced. Much of it already announced — true enough.

[1145]

That is a big whack of economic stimulus to inject into any economy of this size, about equal to 7 percent of British Columbia's gross domestic product — about equal, in fact, to the Obama stimulus package in Washington at 6 or 7 percent of GDP in that country.

On education. Deferring, unfortunately, the kindergarten program, partly through the availability of resources but partly through availability of finance, I'm sure, which was a consideration. But I think the good news is to emphasize again that this is part of the government's program and agenda, and we can look forward to it as soon as we're better prepared fiscally and in terms of staffing.

Continuation of K-to-12 and advanced post-secondary education as a priority of the government — consistent with the theme enunciated at the beginning that these times call for a creative response in a knowledge-based world.

It would be worth reminding all of us again that this government has increased education spending in the K-to-12 realm by almost a quarter, despite falling enrolments in the last seven or eight years.

On the health side, the point is made — and we will hear more about it in the budget speech shortly — that 90 percent of incremental operating spending is going into the health sector. Few of us, if any, would disagree, I suspect, with the placing of the health sector as the number one priority of this or any government. Whatever funds are available for incremental spending, the health system is first in line.

Then ticking off a lot of other points which merit commentary, an emphasis on free trade. Talk about TILMA. Talk about further expansion of relationships with our sister jurisdictions in the western United States, denying and disputing the fear-mongering on the cover of the London Economist magazine — that fist coming up from the grave of protectionism.

Turning to the next bullet point, permitting — a strong statement about the foolishness of the dual two-stage permitting regime we have allowed to develop in this province and in this country. Once you're finished permitting a major project provincially, you go through the same hoops again with the federal government. In these times we cannot afford the luxury of doing things twice when doing it once will suffice. I find that very encouraging, and I think our resource industries and other proponents of major projects will be encouraged by that direction of the government.

Turning to the next bullet on electric power. Emphasis on the Highway 37 electrification, which has long been talked about as important to the first nations communities in that part of the province and also to the mining industry. The northeast electric corridor and finally the restoration of the core electricity grid of this province, which is in a sad state of repair. It's lumbering along with facilities that were put in place 30, 40 or even 50 years ago, and it is in dire need of replacement and upgrading. There will be emphasis on upgrading the electrical grid of this province, which is important.

Next bullet, the navigable waters act. How on earth did we ever create for ourselves a regime where if a body of water can be navigated by canoe — which has a draft, I suspect, of maybe one inch under somebody who is perhaps a little bit lighter than I am — it comes under federal jurisdiction. This is madness. This is true economic madness.

The navigable waters act certainly does need amending, and this government has set out to do so. Thank heaven for that.

Again on electrical, self-sufficiency in electrical energy supply by 2013 — a goal that members opposite denounce and renounce and say is unnecessary. They would much prefer to continue to rely on coal-generated electricity from Alberta and the United States — rather peculiar — and I sense some themes of that by the member of the opposition who is the environmental critic, which surprises me.

[1150]

On natural gas. A great emphasis on natural gas — which of course has been a great bonanza to this province's revenues — and the determination to stop unnecessary flaring of natural gas, which I think all of us find very, very hard to accept. Emphasis on the new Horn and Montney basins. Projections of $37 billion of potential natural gas royalties to the provincial coffers certainly merits continued development — a relatively carbon-benign source of energy.

What I find inspiring, in fact, is an emphasis on the creation of a culture of wood and the creation, affiliated with the University of Northern B.C., of a design and innovation centre for wood construction. By the way, taking a bit of an elbow jab at those members opposite who would tear up the softwood lumber agreement and
[ Page 13757 ]
immediately require our hardly flush forestry industry to repay $2.4 billion to the Americans…. They obviously have not talked to people in the forestry business.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

So there's a lot of good stuff here. It's too bad that the members opposite didn't really take time to read the speech.

Interjections.

R. Sultan: Finally, I hear some empty gourds rattling over there, but I will carry on nonetheless.

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Member. Member.

Member, just take your seat for a second.

Member, there's one person that has the floor at a time, and we could just take the time to listen to what each person says. Everybody's going to get a chance to speak to this. This is a throne. Everybody gets a chance to speak.

Continue, Member.

R. Sultan: Locally, I can't fail to address two or three points that are of particular interest to my own riding in North Vancouver and West Vancouver — and I represent both communities. The national maritime centre receives in the throne speech a strong statement of support, and I think all of us on the North Shore are delighted to see that important museum and centre for both the Arctic and Pacific maritime activity of our country get the support it needs to proceed from the provincial government.

A statement of focus on the film industry, another extremely important industry on the North Shore, and an emphasis on seismic upgrades, which are vital since much of our infrastructure is getting old and tired and was never really designed to accommodate the risk of a major seismic event.

So that's my take on the Speech from the Throne. We will see the fiscal implications fleshed out very shortly in the budget speech, but I cannot help but stand back and suggest to those who, as the member for Vancouver-Hastings properly pointed out…. We have huge concern in our communities over gangs, people firing machine guns in malls, shooting a mother who has a four-year-old in the back seat and murdering her out in Surrey, as I understand it, yesterday.

These are outrageous events. Unfortunately, without resources to tackle these social diseases, we're not going to get very far in dealing with them. I come back to the advice that Bill Clinton's adviser rather crudely said to his campaign team, if I'm allowed to use a rather unparliamentary expression: "It's the economy, stupid." All this stuff comes back to the economy. Social benefits. Minimum wage. What are we going to do about housing? It all takes money. It's the economy.

[1155]

There's no doubt in my mind, as we compare and contrast the reaction to what I consider to be an outstanding statement of intentions by this government on the guiding principles by which they would intend to carry on the affairs of state for British Columbia in the years ahead, and contrast that with the, I would have to say, rather traditional — in many cases, ideologically driven — criticisms emanating from benches opposite…. There's no doubt in my mind which side of the House I would vote for if I was concerned about the economic leadership of this province, and with that, I thank you.

R. Sultan moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. I. Chong moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1:30 this afternoon.

The House adjourned at 11:56 a.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

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

TV channel guide • Broadcast schedule

Copyright © 2009: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada

ISSN 1499-2175