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)

Monday, March 23, 2009

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 40, Number 5

[ Page 14531 ]

MONDAY, MARCH 23, 2009

The House met at 1:34 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Introductions by Members

Hon. M. Coell: I have five guests in the precinct today and had the privilege of having lunch with them: Anne Allen, Vivi Heppell, Bea Russell, Lynn Urquhart and my mother Norma Coell. Would the House please make them welcome.

G. Coons: On behalf of the member for Skeena, I'd like to introduce three constituents from Kitimat: Kathleen Cherry and her two daughters, Rosemary Reschke, age seven, and Jennifer, age 11. Also with Kathleen is her father Douglas Cherry, who was an official court reporter for 31 years under the Attorney General in Vancouver and who currently resides in Victoria.

Kathleen is a district counsellor with the Coast Mountain school district. Jennifer has studied the Legislature in school and is here today to see the buildings and politicians in action. Please make them all welcome.

[1335]

Hon. J. McIntyre: I would like to introduce a very special delegation from Mexico here up in the gallery today. They're here to discuss gang violence and other related justice issues between B.C. and Mexico. For all, I understand, it's the very first visit to beautiful B.C.

We have with us today Mr. Rommel Moreno Manjarrez, Attorney General of Baja California, Mexico; Mr. Eduardo Martinez Silva, deputy clerk and private secretary to the Attorney General; Mr. Aniver Pina Hernandez, executive secretary of the Attorney General; Mr. Hugo Salinas, general coordinator of advisers; Mr. Jose Manuel Yepis, director of communications; and Mrs. Cecilia Navarro, the director of training.

Also, there are three gentlemen along from the media from Mexico: Said Betanzos, Rafael Morales and Juan Galvan. I'd like the House to make them please feel very welcome.

C. Trevena: In the gallery today are a group of grade 6 students from Ecole des Deux Mondes in Campbell River. As the name suggests, it's French immersion. They're with their teacher Georgina Wood, and parents Lyn Logan and Duncan Devlin.

Earlier I talked to them about the behaviour that they may see in the House and hoped they weren't going to learn anything from it, and I hope that we actually are going to show them that we can behave as we should be doing in this House. I hope the House will make them all feel very welcome.

Hon. M. Polak: Today in the House I am fortunate to have six guests to see us in action, four of whom are from British Columbia: Jake Letkemann and Linda Letkemann, David Rutsch and Rose Rutsch. We are also joined by Gary Thack and Girarda Thack, who are visiting us from Michigan. Would the House please make them very welcome.

C. Evans: Hon. Speaker, we have some guests here today. They're my friends, but they're your constituents. So with your permission, I'll introduce your constituents: Pete and Cindie Simonsen and their daughter Anna-Lisa. I can't quite see from here if their son Anders is here. Cindie is, I think, a third- or fourth-generation farmer from Naramata. Pete is an organic grower, growing fruit and carrots and stuff, proving that grapes aren't the only thing you can still grow in Naramata. They've come to watch their Legislature. Will the House please make them welcome.

Hon. W. Oppal: Today in the gallery are two new legislative council assistants who are here to get a better understanding of how their work preparing bills and amendments is put into action. They are Diane Tyler and Elizabeth Flather. Would you all make them welcome.

I'd also like to introduce two members who are integrally involved in Law Courts Education Society, an organization that does stellar work in conveying the meaning of legal education to the public. They are Rick Craig, the executive director, and Mason Loh, who is a board member. May the House please make them welcome.

Statements

Anniversary of
queen of the north sinking

G. Coons: I'd like to acknowledge a sad day in B.C. history. Yesterday, March 22, was the third anniversary of the sinking of the Queen of the North. Lives were lost that fateful night. The Foisy and Rosette families lost their loved ones. Passengers and crew are forever having nightmares, and the public still wonders what happened.

Those in Hartley Bay are still dealing with the upwelling of diesel and the impacts on their harvesting grounds. Eight times in the final report of the Transportation Safety Board it said that B.C. Ferry Services' actions placed the vessel, its passengers and its crew at risk. After three years it's time for closure and time to have a full and thorough inquiry into this marine disaster, as promised on the day that we lost the Queen.
[ Page 14532 ]

Tributes

university of northern b.c.
men's basketball team

Hon. S. Bond: Certainly, a different tone to my comments this afternoon. On behalf of my colleagues from Prince George–Omineca and Prince George North, we want to recognize the Canadian College Association's Men's National Basketball Championship, held in Prince George this past weekend.

I should say that our UNBC Timberwolves did us very proud. They were the lowest seed in the tournament. In fact, they were only there because they were the host team. But they did a phenomenal job, finishing fourth in the country.

[1340]

One of our players, Inderbir Gill, was actually named to the all-Canadian team, and I can tell you that there were over 2,000 fans cheering them on. Congratulations to our Timberwolves, Coach Mike Raimbault and also to Len McNamara and everyone. Fantastic job. We're very proud of you.

Introductions by Members

R. Hawes: Compared to our Whip, our Deputy Whip is a real tyrant. But even tyrants deserve to have a happy birthday. I'd like to ask all members of the House to please join me in wishing the member for Bulkley Valley–Stikine a very happy birthday. By the way, it's his birthday number….

Hon. B. Bennett: In November 2008, grade 12 students across the province were invited to submit a short video, up to three minutes in length, representing "What B.C. Means to Me."

The following students have each won $2,500 for themselves and an additional $2,000 for their school: Dustin Brons, Lord Byng Secondary School, from Vancouver; Amy Wang, Lord Tweedsmuir Secondary in Surrey; Kelcie Hudson, Wellington Secondary in Nanaimo; Tchadas Leo, Carihi Secondary in Campbell River; and Josh Havelka, Reynolds Secondary in Victoria.

Those winning videos are available on the government website. Everyone should take a look at them. They're just fantastic.

Introduction and
First Reading of Bills

Strata Property Amendment Act, 2009

Hon. C. Hansen presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill intituled Strata Property Amendment Act, 2009.

Hon. C. Hansen: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. C. Hansen: I am pleased to introduce amendments to the Strata Property Act that will improve dispute resolution processes available to strata corporations and strata owners to enhance consumer protection and to clarify the act.

The most significant amendments will improve dispute resolution by allowing small claims court to hear strata property disputes so that they can be resolved in a more timely and cost-effective manner, rather than proceeding through the Supreme Court as they do now.

In addition, the amendments will authorize regulations for new arbitration and mediation processes, including the ability to require mediation for certain types of disputes. Allowing for these frameworks will enable the development of more economic, expedient and accessible dispute resolution models.

These amendments respond to our commitment to review dispute resolution processes in light of the numerous concerns received from strata organizations and individuals. Other technical amendments will contribute to better strata relations by addressing requests for greater clarity, flexibility and accountability. For example, new requirements for strata corporations to obtain depreciation reports and audited financial statements will ensure that owners and purchasers are better informed and may help prevent disputes from arising in the first place.

These changes are the result of consultations with key stakeholders, including condominium associations, strata managers, developers and lawyers.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 12, Strata Property Amendment Act, 2009, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Pension Benefits Standards
Amendment Act, 2009

Hon. C. Hansen presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill intituled Pension Benefits Standards Amendment Act, 2009.

Hon. C. Hansen: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion approved.
[ Page 14533 ]

Hon. C. Hansen: I am pleased to introduce amendments to the Pension Benefits Standards Act. Most of these amendments are intended to enable B.C.'s pension standards to apply to the new private sector pension plan announced by the Premier in last fall's economic statement.

While the new pension plan will be established in legislation next year, it will be operated at arm's length from government as a voluntary, defined contribution plan. The plan will allow all B.C. workers, including the self-employed, to enjoy the financial security of pension income after retirement.

[1345]

These technical amendments will permit the new plan to be registered under the Pension Benefits Standards Act. The act's minimum standards for the registered pension plans would apply to the new plan for the protection of plan members.

The bill will allow greater scope for the unlocking of pension funds in the case of shortened life expectancy. This is in addition to the initial measures that I outlined. As in Alberta, a person with any disability or with a terminal illness can qualify for unlocking in certain circumstances, if the pension plan contains that provision.

I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 11, Pension Benefits Standards Amendment Act, 2009, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Statements
(Standing Order 25b)

Canadian red cross

R. Lee: I stand in the House today to recognize an invaluable organization to every community in B.C. March is Red Cross Month, but this year it is also the 100th anniversary of the Canadian Red Cross. The symbol of a red cross on a white background is recognized worldwide as one of neutrality, peace and aid. For anyone who has ever had the misfortune to be affected by a disaster, be it a natural or personal tragedy, they probably have had the benefit of the Red Cross and its volunteers.

There are countless services offered by the Red Cross, such as first aid and water safety training, disaster management and RespectED, a program for violence and abuse prevention.

I had the opportunity to attend a fundraising gala for the Telus Red Cross Call Centre on Friday night at the Michael J. Fox Theatre in Burnaby organized by the Cantonese Opera Association of Canada, which was founded by Anita Lee, Glynnis Chan, Helen Chu, Shiu Ling Leung, Christina Ho, Eric Szeto, Margaret Koh, Betty Shiao, Bing Wu and Patsy Bo Sai Kwong.

This excellent performance deserved all of the applause the audience gave. The Telus Call Centre is one of the most critical components of the Red Cross's response during times of disaster. It can handle over 10,000 calls per day for disasters of any size, domestically, nationally or internationally. This event was also supported by Red Cross Regional Director Susan Borthwick; Acting Regional Manager Amtul Siddiqui; and Chinese advisory group member James Shieh.

The hard work of the Red Cross volunteers, including Rose He, Stanley Wong, Taz Noor, Debra Molesworth, Mona Cheng, Libo Kong and Doug Nesbitt, were very much appreciated. I congratulate all the many people who make the Red Cross a success. I wish them a happy 100th anniversary and wish them 100 more.

BREAD OF LIFE CENTRE

S. Fraser: On Saturday evening it was chilly and clear in Port Alberni. I put on shorts and a gaudy Hawaiian shirt and a lovely yellow lei and went to a fundraiser and auction at the Bread of Life in Port Alberni. The theme was tacky tourist, so I was in good company.

The Bread of Life has been around since 1988 and draws its support from the people of Port Alberni. According to its mission statement, the Bread of Life exists to serve the needs of the poor and the homeless, to treat all people with dignity and respect and to encourage and help facilitate their social, personal and spiritual growth.

I donate personally to the wonderful organization, and I support their work to bring food and shelter to those who need it most. That's a situation we're seeing much too much of in later years. With one in four children growing up in poverty in this province and the lacking identified by the Auditor General's report on homelessness, organizations like the Bread of Life are attempting to deal with increasing needs, and they do so against great odds.

The Port Alberni Bread of Life Centre gets no provincial or federal funding. The people of Port Alberni step up to the plate and ensure that those who need help in the community get it through the Bread of Life. The Bread of Life is about people — yes, people that need help but also the special people that make that organization tick.

[1350]

As the chair of the organization, Roy GunterSmith brings an infectious and positive energy to the Port Alberni Bread of Life Centre, and that has certainly been evident and was on Saturday at the event. The director, Cindy Sjoholm, is there every day to make sure that those who need hot meals, blankets, clothing get them. Port Alberni Bread of Life Centre provides about 60 to 80 meals per day, every day, and the cuisine is excellent. I applaud the Bread of Life for all that they do, and I applaud the people of Port Alberni for supporting them.
[ Page 14534 ]

CAMPAIGN FOR MRI equipment
AT BURNABY HOSPITAL

H. Bloy: Last Tuesday I had the pleasure of attending the open house and ribbon-cutting ceremony for Burnaby's new MRI at Burnaby Hospital. Thanks to the tireless efforts of the Burnaby Hospital Foundation's $4.8 million Because Life Can't Wait campaign, Burnaby Hospital is getting an MRI. From $2 million provided by the province through the Fraser Health Authority, the space will be renovated and will maintain operating funding for this new equipment.

Without a strong community like Burnaby and its generous citizens, advancements like this would not be possible. Each and every contribution made helped bring this MRI to Burnaby Hospital. By continuing to support the Burnaby Hospital Foundation, we're able to continue to support the hospital and its staff with top-quality equipment and technology.

I need to single out one family who spearheaded this. That was Keith and Betty Beedie, who provided $1.3 million of their own money in matching funds to help launch the campaign.

The people of Burnaby know the hospital is crucial to the welfare of our community, and MRI services are a much-needed element of care that can help support many physicians. Burnaby patients will now be able to get their services done in their home community instead of travelling to other areas.

There are many people to acknowledge who made this campaign successful: Robert Bosa, chair of the fundraising committee; Rahim Rajan, foundation chair; Cathie Heritage; Dr. Henry Huey; Savik Sidhu; Cheryl Bosley; and Cheryl Blondin; plus the whole Burnaby Hospital Foundation board of trustees. Together we are making a difference in the health of our community and our province.

Congratulations to the Burnaby Hospital Foundation for the completion of this very successful campaign, and I wish them all the best as they continue to work to make Burnaby Hospital the best hospital there is.

QUEEN VICTORIA SCHOOL WATER PROJECT
FOR TANZANIAN VILLAGE

S. Simpson: March 22 was World Water Day. Across the globe people were busy advancing public awareness and initiatives that further our understanding of our critical and complex relationship with water and the desperate situation many people face, particularly in developing countries, to simply have access to clean drinking water.

Among those initiatives is a remarkable project by the students of Queen Victoria, an inner-city elementary school in my constituency. The Queen Victoria School water project began as an interdisciplinary exploration of water, which led to an original musical that was presented in May 2007.

While this was originally intended to be the entire project, much more was ahead for Queen Victoria — the drilling of a well in the village of Cheku in Tanzania. Through a local family, contact was made with Moshi Changai, who had a vision of supplying clean water to the village where he grew up.

With his assistance, the school established a sister-community relationship with the village. Pen pal letters and pictures were exchanged. Research was done on the feasibility of digging a well. A business plan was developed, and the task of raising $25,000 began. Awareness and fundraising efforts moved forward, including the walk for water, where students carried buckets of water from Trout Lake to the school to learn about the realities facing people in Tanzania every day to get clean drinking water.

Other activities included students forgoing their birthday celebrations, choosing instead to donate to the effort; setting up lemonade stands; and strangers, hearing of the project on the CBC, choosing to donate. After two years of learning, planning and fundraising, the drilling of the well in Cheku will commence this week.

This is a remarkable achievement by a group of elementary students, their parents, teachers and supporters. I'm very proud of the students of Queen Victoria School and their efforts to build this well and, equally important, to teach us all a lesson that when you put your mind to a worthwhile project and have the determination to stick with it, you can achieve wonderful results, regardless of your age or circumstances. Congratulations and thank you to Queen Victoria School.

[1355]

STEELHEAD PROTECTION

R. Sultan: I stand to recognize the efforts of the government steelhead caucus as they work to preserve and protect our steelhead population and all of the waterways they call home.

Recently I helped organize a steelhead summit involving participation by one-third of the government caucus, biologists, environmentalists, anglers, industry experts and leaders, such as John Fraser, Al Lill and Rod Clapton, at an all-day conference involving 65 people in total at BCIT. We analyzed in-depth — or heard analysis from the experts — the situation of our steelhead population in five critically important regions of the province, and the complexity of the situation has been brought home to us. Some of the challenges steelhead face include climate change, ocean predators of unknown magnitude, unsound commercial fishing practices in some parts of B.C., competition for our freshwater resources ashore, the quality of the water and habitat degradation.

Vital to the survival of these fish and the health of our waterways is the $21 million government living rivers trust, which is dedicated to ensuring the sustainability of
[ Page 14535 ]
our fish populations and the rivers in which they reside. The steelhead caucus is dedicated to making sure that this magnificent icon of British Columbia is around a long time for our children, grandchildren and great grandchildren to enjoy.

CHINESE HERITAGE
IN NEW WESTMINSTER

J. Kwan: I want to tell all members about the attempts being made to preserve what's been called the last piece of Chinese heritage in New Westminster. It is not commonly known that New West once had a bustling Chinatown area, that there were 1,600 Chinese residents by the late 1800s. Those who died were often buried in a number of cemeteries near an old public cemetery. This is currently the site of New Westminster Secondary School, which was built in 1948, largely on top of the various burial grounds.

There is now very little trace of New West's Chinatown after demolitions over the years that were ordered by the city, which saw the buildings as fire hazards. The new plan to demolish the high school and build a new one could disturb the Chinese cemetery and destroy one of the last links to the New Westminster Chinatown.

Bill Chu, the founder of Canadians for Reconciliation, is active in seeking to preserve the history of the Chinese communities in British Columbia along with the Chinese Benevolent Association. Bill has made some concrete suggestions to deal with the issues, including that Chinese communities should be consulted on the planning, construction, methodology and demolition of any part of the entire site.

With the exception of a memorial park, the use of the area of the cemeteries should be restricted to service parking and landscaping only.

Apart from adding both Chinese cemeteries to the database under the Heritage Conservation Act, a restrictive covenant that no building or structure is to be built, to be added to the title of the parcels containing both Chinese cemeteries.

A portion of the area should be developed for a properly designated memorial park. As a minimum, such should contain a monument or plaque to commemorate the contributions of the Chinese in New Westminster from the 1800s until now.

A permanent display of the detailed history of the Chinese in New Westminster, including all racist laws and measures passed to limit the rights of Chinese in voting, migration, work, etc.

A permanent map and photos showing details of former Chinatown before and after the great fire of 1898, with locations of significant Chinese community groups and businesses.

A religious shrine that pays tribute can also be made so that we can acknowledge our forefathers.

Bill also proposed the history of the Chinese community be incorporated into the school curriculum so that the children in New West will grow up learning this history.

I ask all members of this House to support this proposal so that we, too, can learn about this history of racism.

Oral Questions

B.C. RAIL CONTRACT WITH
PATRICK KINSELLA

C. James: On March 12, 2009, B.C. Rail issued a letter stating that Mr. Kinsella had been retained between August 2001 and September 2005 to provide strategic advice "specific to the core review process which government was undertaking during that period." We know the core review finished in 2003. We know the decision to privatize and sell B.C. Rail was made in 2003, but the cheques to Mr. Kinsella didn't stop in 2003. Mr. Kinsella continued to get $6,000 a month for two more years from B.C. Rail.

[1400]

My question is to the Finance Minister. Why didn't Mr. Kinsella's payments stop in 2003 when the core review had finished and B.C. Rail was sold?

Hon. W. Oppal: This matter is obviously before the courts. We're not going to comment on anything before the courts.

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has a supplemental.

C. James: It's extraordinary. B.C. Rail, a Crown corporation, can certainly comment on Mr. Kinsella's contract. In fact, they did comment on Mr. Kinsella's contract. And the government says that they can't?

We know that the B.C. Liberal Party campaign co-chair and one of the Premier's closest friends was paid $300,000, not of Liberal money but of taxpayer dollars, including $6,000 a month for two years without any job description.

Again my question is to the Finance Minister. Was he aware that B.C. Rail paid the Premier's friend tens of thousands of dollars for two years for doing absolutely nothing?

Hon. W. Oppal: You know, I don't know if the members opposite realize this or not, but if enough comments are made in this chamber about what's happening in the Supreme Court of British Columbia…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. W. Oppal: …there's a very distinct possibility that a defence lawyer can raise the argument that his clients
[ Page 14536 ]
could no longer get a fair trial in view of the comments that have been made here, because they'll be unable to get a jury that can hear the case in an unbiased manner.

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has a further supplemental.

C. James: The Attorney General and everyone on that side of the House seem to forget that these are public dollars. The public has a right to know where that money was spent and for what. We see it over and over again. This government will do anything to avoid accountability. These are public dollars.

My question to the Finance Minister, who is in charge of the public purse: will he admit that the Premier's closest friend got $6,000 a month for two years for doing nothing, and if he knew it, why didn't he stop it?

Hon. W. Oppal: The Leader of the Opposition has once again shown that she has no understanding of the rule of law and no understanding of the independence of the courts.

B. Ralston: For a contract of $6,000 a month, ordinary accounting rules would require that the contract be authorized, recorded and reported properly.

My question is to the Minister of Finance. Will he agree to produce the bills Mr. Kinsella sent to B.C. Rail and let the public judge for themselves what he did?

Hon. W. Oppal: You know, we can do this for the whole 30 minutes, because I'm going to give the same answers. If they're going to raise issues that are now before the court, I'm not going to answer them.

Mr. Speaker: Member has a supplemental.

B. Ralston: My question to the Minister of Finance is the same. Will he agree to release the bills that Mr. Kinsella submitted to B.C. Rail so the public can judge for themselves what he did for $6,000 a month?

Hon. W. Oppal: My answer is the same.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

[1405]

J. Horgan: I think that the member will find out that the people in Delta South are keen on accountability, just like everyone on this side of the House.

On March 12 Mr. Kinsella said the following: "He was engaged by B.C. Rail to assist in understanding and interpreting the core review process as to its potential impacts on the corporation."

That's interesting, because the last time we heard about accountability from the Premier, it was on May 20, 2003, when he was addressing the handpicked board members at B.C. Rail, and he said the following. This is the Premier speaking. "The establishment of the shareholders letter is one mechanism that we feel helps to clarify your relationship with government." "The core services review was designed to redefine the mandate of the company." "The shareholders letter is intended to clearly articulate your mandate to ensure that your role and the government's role is very clear."

Again my question is to the Minister of Transportation, who would have been responsible for B.C. Rail at some point in his life. What do you do when you've got a clear letter that tells you what your role and responsibility is? Why would you hire the Premier's friend for $6,000 a month?

Hon. W. Oppal: You know, there are three people charged in the Supreme Court of British Columbia in matters relating to B.C. Rail.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. W. Oppal: I'm not going to comment on it, because it's not proper for me to comment on it.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

J. Horgan: Perhaps I'll address the single shareholder, the Minister of Finance. I have in my hand a copy of the shareholders' letter that was provided by the Premier to his handpicked board in 2003. It's not written in Sanskrit. It's not written in Greek. It's written in English. I'm sure that the articulate and learned people on the board of B.C. Rail could have understood this without some interpretation services from Mr. Kinsella.

Again to the prime shareholder, the Minister of Finance: what did we get for 6,000 bucks a month?

Hon. W. Oppal: I'm not going to answer the question.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

L. Krog: Well, I acknowledge that the minister might be getting a little tired of hearing the questions, but it's not nearly as tiresome as hearing his complete lack of answers to legitimate questions the people of British Columbia….

Interjections.

L. Krog: Yesterday the Attorney General was asked if he'd hold an independent investigation into Mr. Kinsella's
[ Page 14537 ]
activities. His response: "We don't just hold public inquiries just for the sake of having them. If there is something to be learned from an inquiry or probe, then we hold it."

My question to the Attorney General — very simple: will he today take the opportunity to reconsider those comments, and will he now agree to hold an independent investigation into the activities of Mr. Kinsella?

Hon. W. Oppal: Commissions of inquiry are held under the Public Inquiry Act. They are not held where there are matters before the courts. So if there's a trial going on, we don't hold commissions of inquiry, for reasons that are obvious. Evidence that's admissible on a commission of inquiry is not admissible in a courtroom often, so those are the reasons we don't hold anything of a concurrent nature.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Take your seat for a second, Member.

The member has a supplemental.

L. Krog: B.C. Rail has no trouble commenting on this matter — a Crown corporation. And yet the Attorney General can't open his mouth to give one small scintilla of an answer to this.

[1410]

This has nothing to do with the integrity of the courts. That's very clear. It is entirely about protecting this Premier's political hide just prior to an election.

The Attorney General refuses to say why the Premier's close friend was paid $300,000 by a Crown corporation, and he believes there is no need for any independent investigation.

So my question to him, simply, today is: when is he going to stop protecting the Premier and his friends and finally tell this Legislature the truth?

Hon. W. Oppal: We do have an independent hearing going on. It's called a trial.

S. Simpson: What the Attorney General clearly does not understand is that he has a responsibility to the people of British Columbia and that responsibility starts with being accountable and transparent about the public interest, not about secrecy and arrogance on his part and his government's part. Unless we have full disclosure here as to what Mr. Kinsella, the first among Liberal insiders, received this money for, the people of British Columbia will continue to have those questions.

Will the Attorney General stand up, do his job and tell British Columbians what that money was for?

Hon. W. Oppal: My job as the chief law officer of the province is to adhere to the rule of law, and….

An Hon. Member: You're failing your job.

Hon. W. Oppal: That was clever.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Continue, Attorney.

Hon. W. Oppal: Our courts are independent. People here ought not to be commenting on matters that are before the courts. It's called "the right to have a fair trial," and it's about time that member learned something about democracy.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

S. Simpson: And what this minister should learn is…. He should learn what this place is about. He should learn about the Legislature. He should learn about accountability to the people of British Columbia. He should learn that he and his friends on that front bench have a bigger obligation than covering up for the Premier.

The Premier's friend, the chair of your campaigns, $300,000 — no explanation here. The performance is shameful. Tell the British Columbians what that money was for, and produce the documents.

Hon. W. Oppal: I'm not going to answer the question.

M. Farnworth: Well, that's a new one. Every answer to date has been: "It's before the courts." In fact, that's going to be the epitaph of this government: "It's before the courts."

[1415]

What would be really clever of the Attorney General, if he's so concerned about being clever, is if he'd stop acting as a human shield for the Premier and start answering the questions the public of British Columbia deserves answers to.

Mr. Kinsella has commented on the contract. B.C. Rail has commented on the contract. We know that the Premier's letter to the railway was for a core review which lasted only two years, yet the payments continued year after year after that core review ended. So the public has a right to know: what was that money for, why was that money given to Mr. Kinsella, and what did he do for it? Three simple questions.

If the Attorney General won't answer those questions, will the Minister of Finance at least stand up and show that he was doing his job and tell the people where that money went for and what it was for?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.
[ Page 14538 ]

Hon. W. Oppal: Well, the melodramatic bluster keeps getting larger and larger in volume.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Attorney, just take your seat for a second.

Attorney.

Hon. W. Oppal: The public will have every opportunity and every right to know what happened in the B.C. Rail dispute in the Supreme Court of British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker: Member has a supplemental.

M. Farnworth: Actually, I think maybe the answers might be forthcoming after May 12.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Continue, Member.

M. Farnworth: What has been clear right from the beginning is that these documents from the library are in the public domain. Mr. Kinsella has commented on them. B.C. Rail has commented on them. People directly involved have commented on them — except this government, which issued the cheques, gave the money to Mr. Kinsella. It won't comment on it, and that is a disgrace.

The Attorney General has a dual role under our system. One is the independent officer, and the other is a political one, and it's time that he recognized his duty to the people of this province. The public wants to know: what did Mr. Kinsella do for $300,000, and why did those payments continue long after the core review was over?

Hon. W. Oppal: I might add that both roles of the Attorney General involve the respecting of the courts.

IMPACT OF OLYMPIC SECURITY ON
AIR TRAVEL FROM RURAL B.C.

S. Fraser: Many people in rural B.C. are rightfully skeptical about claims by this government that the Olympics will benefit all.

Air carriers, in particular, in rural communities and the communities that they service have a big problem right now with this government. K.D. Air in Qualicum Beach, my constituency, is being told, with no consultation, that for security reasons their flights from Qualicum Beach to Vancouver — their direct flights — will have to divert to Nanaimo Airport, deplane the passengers and the baggage, go through security, reboard, reload and await clearance before continuing on to Vancouver.

The 20-minute flight, the convenient flight that makes their business viable, turns into hours. This will do anything but benefit the region and the people, and it will take away tourism opportunities and take away the vital services that are needed locally.

[1420]

Will the Tourism Minister explain how he plans to protect carriers like K.D. Air and the regions that they service?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Okay, let's try this again. Minister of Finance.

Hon. C. Hansen: As someone who was born in Port Alberni and keeps in touch with family and friends in that member's riding, I know how excited people are in that member's constituency about the fact that…. In fact, as I've travelled around British Columbia, I know how excited British Columbians are generally about the torch coming to their communities and the fact that the world spotlight is going to be on these communities.

When it comes to the security plan for the Olympics, it is the RCMP and the federal government that are in charge of that security plan. They have responsibility for making sure that not only the 250,000 visitors from around the world who come to British Columbia at that time are safe, but that British Columbians, as well, are safe and secure.

I know that the RCMP are working with various affected organizations around the province. It is my hope that they will find measures that will ensure that everybody can be appropriately accommodated.

Mr. Speaker: Member has a supplemental.

S. Fraser: I was knocking on doors in Port Alberni this weekend. What they're excited about is May 12. You guys biting the dust is what they're excited about.

Last week I spoke with Lars and Diana Banke. They own and operate K.D. Air out of Qualicum Beach. They estimate that they're going to lose a quarter of a million dollars. That could put them out of business. They have 15 employees. What are they — collateral damage with this government?

Again to the minister: how many air carriers and communities are being hung out to dry, and will he commit today to this House to ensuring that all small, vital air carriers like K.D. Air out of Qualicum Beach will not be forced out of business because of the Olympics?

Hon. C. Hansen: I think that we see a growing excitement about the Olympics. I know that in October, when the torch lands in Canada, it's going to land right here on Vancouver Island, and it's going to carry on up. I
[ Page 14539 ]
think we're going to see that excitement start to ignite in community after community after community, including in that member's constituency.

I can tell the member, or at least I would suggest to the member, that everybody in this House on both sides wants to make sure that the games are held in a safe and secure way. When it comes to air travel in and out of Vancouver International Airport, those are decisions and calls that are made by the RCMP, working with Transport Canada.

I'm sure that the member wants to ensure that all the measures are taken to ensure that everybody is safe and secure and that we can all celebrate one of the best Winter Olympic Games that this planet has ever seen.

G. Coons: The minister doesn't get it. Thousands of people and tourists from small B.C. communities will likely not be able to fly into YVR or downtown Vancouver.

I have one question for the minister, or whatever minister wants to stand up. I'm surprised that they aren't saying that this is before the courts. They aren't saying: "This is up in the air" or "We don't know what's happening." Can the minister confirm that the Boundary Bay, Langley, Pemberton and Squamish airports will be provided with passenger screening security equipment for the duration of the heightened Olympic security period?

[1425]

Hon. C. Hansen: Actually, I was in Prince Rupert just yesterday, enjoying the sunshine. I had a chance to chat to….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. C. Hansen: I had a chance to talk to many of this member's constituents. I know how excited they are about the Olympics and how excited they are about the torch coming through their communities in the months and weeks leading up to the opening ceremonies of the Olympic and Paralympic Games.

I can reiterate that the RCMP and Transport Canada are working with the communities, working with affected organizations, to make sure that, first of all, we have safe and secure games, and we do it in the way that is the most accommodating to all concerned.

Mr. Speaker: Member has a supplemental.

G. Coons: The minister talks about working with communities. They're being told: "You're on your own." How can the minister justify the double standard of providing security for some airports and neglecting our small regional airports, who are being told: "You're on your own"? Who is looking after the interest of residents, of businesses, especially the tourism dollars that these rural regions rely on?

Hon. C. Hansen: There are a small number of airports in British Columbia that do not have security measures for passengers that are boarding air flights flying into YVR currently.

I know that the Department of Transport federally and the RCMP are putting in place a security plan that will ensure that visitors to British Columbia, athletes, officials and our fellow Canadians are kept safe and secure during those games and that they're doing that in a way to develop measures that will ensure that affected organizations have opportunities that can be mitigated. There are opportunities for dialogue to make sure that all of those measures are met and done so in a way that we can have the best Winter Olympics that we have ever seen.

N. Macdonald: A question on the same theme but this time to the Minister of Tourism. He loves to talk about airports. We'll give him a very clear question. Why do Langley and Boundary Bay airports get a solution, but Powell River and dozens of other rural airports are abandoned with no solution? Why is it that, consistently, rural British Columbia issues are ignored by this government?

Hon. C. Hansen: Actually, as I've gone around British Columbia, I've found that rural communities are excited as anybody about the fact the Olympics are coming. We've actually seen the excitement in communities when we rolled out $20 million worth of projects in rural communities, including in that member's riding.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Just take your seat. Minister, just take your seat for a second.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. C. Hansen: I know how excited constituents in that member's riding were when we not only announced the expansion of the Cranbrook Airport, but we delivered on the expansion of the Cranbrook Airport. That's true in airports around British Columbia that have opened up British Columbia to international tourism.

When you look at what this government has done for rural British Columbia over the last eight years, it is hands above what had happened during the ten years of NDP government when we saw rural communities decline. We saw jobs leave this province.

Once again, we're actually seeing, under this government, rural British Columbia being supported.
[ Page 14540 ]

Mr. Speaker: Member has a supplemental.

N. Macdonald: There is no government that has so consistently failed rural British Columbia than the one that sits over there — and on this issue as well.

Let's look at the airlines that are affected: Pacific Coastal, Northern Hawk, Oscar Airways, Tofino Air. There are solutions to the screening issue. You have temporary screening sites.

[1430]

I'll just read where the situation's been taken care of: Vancouver Harbour, Vancouver Harbour floatplane, Vancouver Harbour helicopter, Vancouver south side, Vancouver south side river. Vancouver, Vancouver, Vancouver.

The communities that are not helped — and these will be familiar, as the minister travelled around: Bella Bella, Bella Coola, Fort Nelson, Grand Forks, Mackenzie, Powell River, Qualicum Beach. Rural issues consistently ignored.

Why does this minister not give a specific commitment to fix this issue and do something for once for rural British Columbia?

Hon. C. Hansen: As I have said, I know that the RCMP and the federal Department of Transport are working on issues around airport security for the small number of airports that are affected.

But I can remind the member that it is this government that put $185 million into the Northern Development Initiative Trust. It is this government that put $50 million each into the Island Coastal Economic Trust and in the southern Interior economic trust for rural economic development.

It is this government that has rolled out literally billions of dollars of highway and other infrastructure construction projects in every single corner of British Columbia. It is this government that in the latest budget, on top of everything else we've done, has put another $30 million into the rural economic development secretariat.

[End of question period.]

R. Chouhan: Seeking leave to table a petition.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

Petitions

R. Chouhan: I have 4,663 residents of Burnaby who have signed this petition asking the government to cancel its decision to build a prison at the corner of Willingdon Avenue and Canada Way. This is not a complete list. We will be collecting 4,000 signatures in the next couple of weeks.

C. Trevena: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

Introductions by Members

C. Trevena: At the beginning of question period, I introduced a group of students from Ecole des Deux Mondes in Campbell River. Well, there were two groups that came through. One came to see question period, and one is going to be here for part of the budget speech.

I'd like the House to welcome the second group, who are joined by Nancy Hwong and Francois Charron. They're here to observe how a debate goes. I hope the House will make them very welcome.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: I call continued debate on the budget.

Budget Debate

(continued)

B. Simpson: It's my pleasure and privilege to stand in the House and give my response to the budget. Before I do that, I would like to give some thanks to some folks who have really been a major contribution to the last four years that I've had an opportunity to serve Cariboo North.

First and foremost, my thanks to my family for putting up with this crazy life of politics and a life of service to the people in the Cariboo. I know that my family have learned much along the way, as I have, as we've had discussions about what politics is all about and as I've learned so much about the Cariboo. I lived there for 25 years. It was not until the last four years that I've really begun to appreciate what that part of the world is all about.

[H. Bloy in the chair.]

I'd also like to thank my staff, my two CAs back in my community office, Angie Sandve and Adam Schaan, who make sure that while I'm down here, I still have a presence up there.

[1435]

They serve the constituents on a daily basis, and it always amazes me how much they are able to assist people by walking them through the system, helping them to get past barriers, helping them to get their needs met. I think all of our CAs deserve gratitude. I know that many members of this House have made a point of that in their responses to the throne and to the budget.

The staff that we have here as well…. The person who helps me make sure that at least most of my facts are straight is Tracey Janes down in research. Tim Renneberg assists me with communications, and that's
[ Page 14541 ]
a thankless task sometimes, because I've asked him to redraft his communications so many times. I thank both of them for all of their hard work.

Of course, Heidi Reid, my legislative assistant, has learned over the last couple of years how to be as flexible as she possibly can, as my schedule continues to change and as she continues to adjust that based on demand throughout the province and the demand for travel back and forth here in Victoria.

Before I talk about the budget in general, though, I'd also like to thank the people of the Cariboo. It has been a real learning experience over the last four years, understanding the significance of the Cariboo in the province of British Columbia. We were the area that actually contributed to the development of this province.

We have some of the oldest towns in British Columbia in the Cariboo region. Quesnel Forks is a phenomenal place to visit. It is really quite remarkable, as long as you can stomach the drive down into it, because you basically have to drive down what feels like a riverbed to get down into where Quesnel Forks is.

The folks of Likely — Jim Gibson, Robin Hood, the chamber of commerce, the volunteer firefighters — have kept Quesnel Forks alive despite the fact that it doesn't have any recognition either in British Columbia or by the federal government as a heritage site. Those folks have kept Quesnel Forks alive over the years, and it is truly an amazing place to visit and read about.

Of course, we have Barkerville, Cottonwood House, Wells and all of those historic sites that have built this province through the gold rush and through the various mineral activities that occurred before logging and forestry became the mainstay of the economy in that region.

I've learned much from a particular group of people who have spent a lot of time educating me over the years, and that's the placer miners. They go back in those historic roots of when we first went after the gold in the Cariboo. Again, they're quite an interesting group of people.

Most of them live off the grid. They mostly choose to live back in the bush in small cabins and cottages and continue to have a relationship with the land that few of us could even begin to understand. They have spent a lot of time with me over the last number of years, educating me about their issues and trying to get me to understand the continual role they play in the economy of the Cariboo and the economy of the province.

The first nations in our area are a very diverse group. They have a range of needs, and they have a range of interests in the Cariboo. I've had a really interesting time learning from them about where they are at in the continuum of the treaty negotiations, where they are at with land claims, where they're at in trying to make sure they secure a future for the generations of first nations that are going to be coming into that region of the province over the next few years, because that is a population that is growing.

The current leadership is really trying to capture some of the earth's resources that are available to them to make sure that those future generations have a robust and viable economy that they can participate in.

The arts and culture sector in my riding is very robust. It's a phenomenal sector. Every community I go to — Likely, Horsefly, Big Lake, Nazko…. The artisans that choose to live there — the painters, the sculptors, the photographers — do an incredible job of representing the Cariboo through various media. I've had a great opportunity to work with those folks to make sure they do get the representation that they need, both in the Cariboo and here in this House.

Then, of course, the heart and soul of the Cariboo right now is the forest industry, in particular the small-scale side of that industry. I think we're learning over time how much of a contribution small-scale forestry plays in the broader economy of the province — the small-scale salvage operators, the logging contractors and harvesters, the truckers.

[1440]

Over the last few months in particular, I've been spending a lot of time with those folks, trying to understand what their needs are, because they are being missed in this global economic meltdown.

We have some resources for employees. We have some resources for communities, but these logging contractors and independent businesses do not have resources available to them to help them through this time period. I've raised their issues in this House and will continue to do so.

Then the agriculture sector. I've had the pleasure to visit many farms in the Cariboo and really get to know what agriculture is all about. I'm a city boy. I was born and raised in Glasgow, Scotland, and have lived in cities all my life.

Quesnel really is the city in the Cariboo. To get out onto the land base to visit these farms, to see what the potential is for agriculture in the Cariboo, has been a real pleasure as well. I thank all of those folks for the time and energy they've taken to make sure that I represent their interests, because that's what they believe they elected me to do.

I'm standing today to speak to the budget, and I think it's interesting for folks at home to understand the context for that. In the spring session of the Legislature, the government comes forward with a throne speech that normally gives that forward look. It's normally the way that the government sees the province just now and projects into the future what the province could be and presents a vision.

As many of my colleagues on this side of the House have pointed out, in successive throne speeches under this government and this Premier, we have had these sweeping visions of what British Columbia might be. But we have never seen the delivery or the execution of
[ Page 14542 ]
those visions. This throne speech and budget are very interesting, because I think that for the most part, that vision seems to be absent.

The second thing that the government does is present a budget, and the budget speaks to what the government believes is the way it will realize the vision in the throne speech.

As I sat and thought about what I wanted to say about the budget, I thought it would be interesting to try and put some filters on it. How do people make sense out of a budget that has document after document full of numbers and tables of numbers? How do you make sense out of it? So I tried to apply three filters to this budget to see if it's one that's reasonable.

The first filter is: does the budget clearly articulate a vision and strategy for the province of British Columbia? Does it have a forward-looking vision that's appealing to people, which gets people to roll up their sleeves and participate in something that we're all going to work towards to try and make sure that British Columbia moves forward? And does it have a strategy to achieve that?

Second, what does the budget say about the future? In particular in this case, does it have numbers that people can have some surety in and have confidence in — that the numbers actually do make sense and that the government does seem to have an understanding of what the future holds for British Columbia?

I think in particular these days: does it speak to young people? Does it speak to the youth? Does it engage them in a meaningful way with respect to both the government and what the government is going to do to make sure they can participate in our economy and in the culture of British Columbia?

Third, how does it distribute tax dollars? That's really what the heart of a budget is. As was spoken to in question period today, in particular, does it distribute the provincial tax dollars in a way that's equitable for the geography of the province of British Columbia?

I stand with the member from the Kootenays, Columbia River–Revelstoke, when he says that we have a government in power that has really lost sight of rural British Columbia. I think that is a very true statement. I hear it every day as I travel this province in my role as the Forests critic.

One of the things we need to look at in this budget is: does it redress that issue? Are there significant resources going to be put into the rural part of British Columbia? The answer, quite frankly, is no.

[1445]

How does the budget distribute dollars among the capital, programs, services? Does it achieve the vision? Does it maximize the return to all British Columbians, and where are the investments going to be put? Do they represent the geography?

So vision and strategy, defensible numbers, and whether or not we have an equitable distribution and maximizing the investment of British Columbia's tax dollars. Let me speak to those three briefly. Then I want to concentrate a little bit on forestry while I still have time.

First off, vision and strategy. As I said before, this throne speech in particular, if you look back at all the other throne speeches under this Premier, seems to be absolutely absent of any vision or strategy. The throne speech and the budget together do not give a clear indication of where this Premier would take this province in the next three years.

While the whole world is looking at a global meltdown of our economy and while, as other members on this side have pointed out, we have a unique opportunity to redefine ourselves with respect to the earth, with respect to each other, with respect to how our economy works, with respect to the growing disparity between the rich and the poor that we see all over the world — the loss of the middle class and their loss of buying power and earning power — in this budget there's nothing that speaks to that. There's nothing that speaks about grabbing that opportunity to redefine British Columbia.

Mr. Obama in the United States is struggling with that very question, and we see day after day his struggles to try and address that. We see the same with Prime Minister Brown in Britain. We even see Mr. Harper sort of talking about this, although sometimes it's hard to make sense of what it is he actually thinks is going on. But in this particular budget, there is no indication that we're going to grab this opportunity.

Yet it is a unique opportunity. As the member for Nelson-Creston so eloquently pointed out in his speech, we have an opportunity to redefine our economic system. We have an opportunity to redefine where we're going to invest for a viable future. One aspect of that which I find interesting, as I listen to the dialogue all around this issue of the economic situation, is the discussion of prosperity — that we have to somehow re-ignite the engine of prosperity. I guess I would say: "Not the old way of doing that."

What we don't have is a dialogue. Unfortunately, this House does not allow us to get into meaningful debates and dialogues around these things, but I think it's an opportunity for us to define a new prosperity.

What is it that we need to do to change our economic system so that we do not depend on extinguishing the Earth's natural resources in order to enjoy our daily lives, so that we do not have to undermine employment standards, so that we do not have to bring wages down in order to have a competitive environment in the world, so that we don't have to undermine safety, so that we don't have to undermine the environment in order to achieve prosperity?

I don't hear that dialogue out there, and it's unfortunate because what it means is that we're still trapped in the old thinking. We're still trapped in that world that says in order for us to be able to sustain our economic
[ Page 14543 ]
system, we have to extinguish the Earth's resources, we have to do it on the backs of people and we have to continue this move towards a growing disparity between the rich and the poor. In this budget speech, there is no inkling whatsoever that there's an understanding that we have an opportunity to do that redefinition.

We live in a strange situation where all of a sudden the taxpayers, who for decades since the Reagan and Thatcher eras of the 1970s, have been told that the best place for taxes is in their back pocket. "We need to get corporate taxes down in order to be competitive. We have to get all of our environmental employment standards down in order to be competitive. Government has to be small, and somehow CEOs are the ones who ought to decide what's good for all of society."

All of that now has proved to be bankrupt — both morally and economically bankrupt — and what we need to do is to find the replacement.

The other side talks about us being socialists. Well, the reality is that that side and the ideologues that they listen to are corporate socialists. That's the difference. They believe that corporations are the ones that should get all the handouts, that CEOs should be able to suck companies dry, that we should actually not charge them anything to operate on our land base and not charge them anything to use our infrastructure, and that somehow that will create competitiveness. Yet all you have to do is look at the statistics.

We have lost good, family-paying jobs decade over decade since we've been putting this kind of corporate socialism in place.

[1450]

Now that has been brought into question. As we heard on the radio today, there are people taking to the streets over what's happening with AIG down in the United States, where an effectively bankrupt corporation that is living off of taxpayer handouts gives all of its senior employees exorbitant stipends. Finally people are waking up to that, and they are taking to the streets today. I hope that more people actually pay attention to what's going on and take to the streets as well.

Next, the stimulus package that's in this budget, which is all part of the vision and strategy, is one of the weakest, I think, in any jurisdiction that I've seen. Again, it gives us no sense of direction. Where is it that the Premier wants to take us? If you look at where the major points of the stimulus package are put to, as we understand it, they're put to roads, bridges and the normative infrastructure. There's nothing new and interesting in that stimulus package as well.

In terms of vision and strategy, all that this budget is, really, is an attempt by the Premier to make the deficit as small as he possibly can on paper going into an election. It isn't about a vision for British Columbia. It isn't about a strategy for British Columbia. It isn't about addressing the real issues of British Columbia or repositioning it for the future. It's simply an attempt, on paper, to make the deficit as small as possible before we go into the May 12 election.

That brings me to the second filter, and that is: can you trust the numbers? Well, as the member for Surrey-Whalley and our Finance critic has pointed out many, many times, the answer to that is flat-out no. Since this budget has been put forward, we have had more information about the falldown in the economy and particularly information that calls into question whether or not Canada is truly better positioned than the rest of the world, which is what the Prime Minister tries to claim and what the Premier tries to claim about British Columbia.

Two weeks ago the International Monetary Fund came out and talked about the Canadian economy and stated that the downside risks to the Canadian economy predominate, mostly because we're still so dependent on natural resource extraction and trade that "we're in for a shock in the next few months."

At the same time that the IMF came out and said that we're in for a shock, Kevin Page, the parliamentary budget officer for the federal government, came out and said that Canada is actually performing significantly worse than even the United States and that if you look at gross domestic product, GDP, which is what most people use, we look as if we're on par.

But he argues that what we need to look at is a thing called the gross domestic income, which is a better indicator of what's happening with wage-earning jobs, a better indicator of what's happening in the economy in general. Canada, over the second half of last year, plunged 15.3 percent in real GDI versus a 1.5 percent decline in the U.S.

So we are already in significant decline relative to the U.S., which is in a full meltdown. My point in raising this is that this budget is predicated on the fact that B.C. is going to be okay, that we'll somehow ride this out and that we'll be untouched. Whereas the reality is that we are going to be worse hit than many other jurisdictions because we're a small, open economy based on resource extraction and selling those resources to the world. Our trade deficit is going to grow. We're already seeing the job losses, and it's only going to get worse.

I'd like to talk about forestry in particular, because it's interesting how dramatically this is all changing. One of the briefings that the credit union put out in January talks about the forest sector declining significantly over the next little while. It actually has a statement in it, and I'll read it for the record.

This is January 30 of this year — the Central 1 Credit Union document. It says: "The Central 1 Credit Union forecasts lumber production in B.C. will drop a further 5 percent this year, following year-over-year declines of 23 percent in 2008 and 11 percent in 2007. Sawmills in the central Interior forest region — Williams Lake, Quesnel — will continue to avoid most of the production cuts."

[1455]
[ Page 14544 ]

Now, to illustrate how little economists have predictive capacity…. The member for Cariboo South and I were at a meeting on Saturday night. Williams Lake has one small remanufacturing facility that's still running today, and they are mostly family members who are working in that mill. The plywood plant is down. The remanufacturing facility is down and bankrupt. The sawmill is down. Everything is down.

Quesnel. We've got all of the sawmills effectively down or in curtailment. The plywood plant is down. One of our pulp mills is now on half-time, our medium-density fibreboard plant is on a day-to-day, and it is a bloodbath with respect to the workers and their families.

Yet on January 30, less than a month and a half ago, the credit union said we would be relatively untouched. That's how bad the situation is getting.

We have a weakness in our legislative process, and that is that the government can't keep coming back and changing the budget. I get that. They can't keep coming back and saying: "Okay, revisit it and revisit it and revisit it."

However, when they did put this budget together, we still believe and maintain — and I stand with the Finance critic on this side — that there was a rosy picture chosen for British Columbia that does not reflect or give any real sense of what's going to happen to B.C. in the future. So we can't have confidence in these numbers.

The third filter that I put on is the distribution of tax dollars. Is the distribution fair and equitable? Is it generational? Does it address the needs of the young as well as the needs of the old, and does it address the geography of the province?

With respect to the demographic equity, I believe that this budget really fails us, because there's nothing here for our young people who are struggling with significant debt loads as they go on to college and university. We should have a major program to allow those young people to get in while this market is so poor.

I haven't seen the latest figures on our youth unemployment rate, but I know they're 20 percent plus and in some regions even much higher than that. We should have those young people able to get into our post-secondary institutions in droves and not be saddling them with enormous debt burdens.

I sat on the Finance Committee for two years. I know what the message was from the post-secondary institutions about addressing that issue, and this budget doesn't address that. We don't have a comprehensive strategy in this budget to address that need and make sure that those young people are in getting the skills we need for our future economy.

Does it address the seniors? Again, my answer is no. We really have retracted services to seniors over the last eight years. In my community we desperately need a major infusion into home care for seniors. It's a significant investment that will actually save the government millions of dollars from avoidance costs as these seniors have to go from home to institutional care.

If we can keep them in their homes by an investment in home care for seniors, then I think it's a good investment for the seniors. It meets their needs, and we get all kinds of opportunities to avoid costs as the seniors are forced to go more quickly into institutional care.

So does the budget address the issue of distribution of dollars on a demographic basis? The answer to that is no. Secondly, does it address geographically? All one has to do is take a good hard look at the numbers for all the land-based ministries. All the land-based ministries over the next three years get significant cuts.

What seems to be missing in all of this — I think we miss it sometimes on this side, and I've had these discussions in our caucus as well — is that the land is our infrastructure — not the roads, not the bridges, not the buildings. British Columbians are the shareholders in 94 percent of the land base in British Columbia. That's our true infrastructure. That's our true resource. That's where real wealth comes from.

Real wealth doesn't come from Wall Street. Real wealth doesn't come from people who manipulate paper. Real wealth comes from clean air, clean water, good soil and the ability of people to use our natural resources to generate economic activity in a sustainable fashion.

[1500]

Yet under this government, over the next three years we will cut significantly the budgets for all the ministries that actually are involved in our land base and involved in that true source of wealth.

As a consequence, I think, we're losing sight of the fact that we will have to keep shoring up our health care system, our social system and our education system, with less and less economic activity and the taxes that we derive from that activity to generate the kind of revenue we need to shore those social services up.

We cannot sustain health care, education, the infrastructure — the roads and bridges — and all the things that make this a progressive society if we de-invest in the land base. In this budget we do that. The cuts to all the line agencies….

There's no incremental funding for the mountain pine beetle. I ask all members of the House and people at home to grab the most recent version of British Columbia Magazine and turn to the centre page. You will see a picture of devastation that will give you a sense of what the mountain pine beetle is all about. It's a picture of a person standing at an outlook on the Llgitiyuz Mountains looking over the Chilcotin plain to the Coast Mountains, and all you see to the horizon and to the north and south is a dead forest.

Yet there's no additional money in here for the mountain pine beetle, and this government also lost the federal mountain pine beetle money. We've canvassed that in question period. They lost it because they did not put
[ Page 14545 ]
a concerted plan forward, year over year, of what they were going to do with that money. So we lost $100 million this year and next — and, most likely, the rest of that promised $1 billion as well.

There is also no additional money for the community development trust, for worker transition. There's no support for our contracting community throughout the province who work on that land base. None of that is there that shows that this government really understands the true nature of the economy in British Columbia.

On the infrastructure issue, I find it quite interesting that the Premier indicates in the throne speech that he is going to cap the ability of municipalities to raise taxes, yet both the federal and provincial governments are forcing these municipalities to come to the table with one-third of the costs for infrastructure. I think that they have put such uncertainty into the local governments that they will not be able to participate in any stimulus packages federally or provincially. That's a shame, because we have lots of people we need to put back to work. We need to regrow these communities.

With that, I would say that the three filters that I would use to look at this budget…. Does it have a vision and strategy? No, not one that I can discern. Does it have numbers that can be trusted, that really are a reflection of reality? That is a definite no. Finally, does it disburse the taxpayers' dollars in an equitable fashion both demographically, in age classification, and geographically? The answer to that is no.

That's why today I stand and say that this is a budget that ought not to be supported. I believe that the government should go back to the drawing board and do something that is based more on the reality of our fiscal situation and the reality of how the B.C. economy really works and where true wealth comes from.

D. MacKay: First of all, before I get into my budget response, I would like to thank the members from both sides of this House for the warm birthday greetings that they have extended to me today. I have to tell you that getting old sure beats the alternative.

The budget speech, as most of us will recall, was delivered on Tuesday, the 17th of February, 2009. Since I'm not seeking re-election, this will be the last opportunity I have as a member of this chamber to stand up and respond to a budget or throne speech.

It's been an honour for the past eight years to have represented the large riding of Bulkley Valley–Stikine. That is a huge riding with a fair number of people, but the land mass is absolutely phenomenal. It takes in about one-quarter of the province of British Columbia, and it's been an honour for the past eight years to have represented those people.

I sometimes wonder if any of us sitting in this chamber actually look back at the length of time that it has taken us to get up to a thousand members in this chamber — and I don't think we've got there yet — since B.C. became a province. So those of us who sit in this chamber sit here with a great deal of pride representing the many constituents throughout our province, and we are a select few that have had the opportunity and the privilege of sitting in this chamber representing people throughout our province.

[1505]

I was first elected in 2001, and I just want to go back to the member for Nelson-Creston, when he talked about the fact that what we need in this chamber is debate. We need some different views.

Actually, in 2001 — if everybody recalls, puts on their thinking cap — we were elected with a majority of 77 members to two. Now, we didn't get there by ourselves. The people of this province elected 77 B.C. Liberal legislators to this chamber and two opposition members.

He forgot to mention that when he talked about how important it was that we need debate and different views. Well, we actually did have a meaningful debate back in 2001 to 2005, because we as B.C. Liberals were allowed to have opposing views, and we debated in our caucus meetings and in this chamber. We had free votes in this chamber, unlike the members from the opposition, who at times were chastised for voting against party lines. Sometimes they wouldn't even show up to vote on issues.

I remember all too well what happened when a member actually voted against a piece of legislation from the opposition side and some of them didn't show up. I recall that all too well. But we were allowed in our party to stand up and vote our conscience and vote on behalf of the constituents that we represent. I remember that well.

Well, we were re-elected in 2005 with a smaller majority, and here we are on the eve of another provincial election. I have to ask myself: do you think for a moment that the population of British Columbia has forgotten the dark days of the 1990s? They're going to tell us on May 12, and I have a very strong feeling that on May 12 they're going to tell this Legislature once again. They're going to send a very strong message. They're going to say that the opposition members belong where they are today, and that is in opposition.

As I said, this is my last budget speech. In order to recognize many people around our province and throughout the riding, I'm going to take a few minutes now and wander from the budget speech to say a few thank-yous. The riding, as I said, is absolutely huge. I'm going to have to read this because there are so many communities in the riding of Bulkley Valley–Stikine that I'm sure I'll forget some of them if I don't read them.

I'd like to thank the people from Burns Lake; Southside; Decker Lake; Granisle; Topley; Houston; Quick; Telkwa; Smithers; old town, new town and Hazelton — the three Hazeltons; the many Indian reserves throughout the riding; Kispiox; as well as those who live along the Highway 37 corridor; the Bell II people; Iskut; Dease
[ Page 14546 ]
Lake; Telegraph Creek; Glenora; Good Hope Lake; Lower Post; Pleasant Camp; and my favourite spot of all, Atlin. As I said, there are lots of communities and lots of miles to travel.

I'd also like to take this opportunity to publicly thank my two constituency assistants, Sharon Eastabrook and Judy van der Mulen. I'd like to thank them for all that they have done over the past two terms to help me deal with the many issues that were brought to my office. Lest I forget, I should also thank Bev Davidson. A special thank-you to Bev Davidson.

I'd also like at this time to thank the legislative assistants that work in this building for government as well as opposition members; the staff in the Legislature; the Clerks; the young students that are in here — I believe they're called pages, and I see one wandering around as I'm speaking; the security staff; the cleaning staff that keep our offices clean and keep this chamber clean; the kitchen staff, who do a great job of providing us with a great variety of food; and those who take our food orders.

Of course, we shouldn't forget the Hansard staff, who record our words with clarity so that what is said in the moments of heated debate comes back and bites us. I should also like to thank the members of the staff who work in our great library, which is contained in this building.

As I get ready to leave this chamber and speak for my last time, I have a lot of mixed emotions as I leave. There were some good times. There were some exciting times. The first time I was in this chamber was after I was elected in 2001. I'd never been in here before, and it was an honour and a privilege to come into this chamber as an elected representative, representing the riding of Bulkley Valley–Stikine.

[1510]

But you know, there were some not good times that I recall as well. I have to tell you that I'm embarrassed at times to sit in this chamber when members get worked up and start yelling, to the stage where I can't hear any answers. Of course, I'm talking about question period. I'm embarrassed as I watch people get up from the gallery, who are sitting upstairs watching this chamber in action. They get up and leave because of the noise level, shaking their heads.

I actually know of a constituent in Bulkley Valley–Stikine, and I won't mention the community, who will not allow her children to watch the legislative channel during question period, but she will allow her children to watch horror movies. Now, what does that say about the behaviour of grown men and women in this chamber as we are tasked with the job of legislating the best we can be in our province?

If you recall, Mr. Speaker, some time ago I read a two-minute statement in this chamber, and I talked about bark collars. I thought that might be a way of controlling the behaviour of members in this chamber. Actually, I wasn't kidding.

As I sat in here today, I saw several people get up and leave during question period. Once again, I'm embarrassed for them. As I sit in this corner of the building down here, I can't hear the answers that are being given by the members. It may not be an answer that they're satisfied with, but at least I would like to know what the answer is without having to go back to Hansard to read what the answer was to the question that was put to them.

So as I was sitting here in question period today, because I find it so embarrassing, I was actually reading the public affairs bureau's Today's News. While I was reading it, I ran across an editorial from the Times Colonist. This is dated today, March 23. It talks about the fact that the Speaker in the provincial Legislature has plenty of experience dealing with juvenile behaviour. It talked about him coaching a basketball team at Southern Okanagan Secondary School in Oliver.

Then it goes on to compare those young people that the Speaker coached while they were in school…. It would be an embarrassment, or it would be an insult for them to be compared with the MLAs who govern this province. You know, Mr. Speaker, there are times when I agree with that comment.

It also goes on to say: "It's disappointing to see this kind of behaviour from the people we have elected to run this province, and it's sad that they see the need for it. But the Speaker is ultimately facing a losing battle. These childish ways have been going on for years in our Legislature, and in every single chamber across Canada."

It talks about the advantage of being an incumbent or somebody new running for the provincial Legislature who wants to become an MLA and represent a constituency. It goes on to say: "For one thing, being an incumbent would no longer be an advantage. British Columbians might start to think that anyone would be better than the crew in this chamber right now." I echo those words. As I get ready to leave this chamber, I have to say that I agree wholeheartedly with that.

It is so discouraging to sit in this chamber and watch grown men and women behave as we do during question period. When I see school children sitting up in the gallery watching the behaviour of the people in this chamber, I am embarrassed.

When I talk about the behaviour of the members in this chamber, I have to think back to the member for Yale-Lillooet. One day in this chamber I was speaking, and he was heckling me. I thought: "Well, I'm going to get back at him because he was heckling me." He was yelling so loud that I could hardly hear myself speak.

I took it upon myself to heckle him, because I knew he was going to be speaking, and I made a point of being in this chamber when he stood up to speak. I tried heckling him, but you know, Mr. Speaker, I could not bring myself down to his level. I cannot bring myself down to the level to heckle somebody when they're speaking.
[ Page 14547 ]
I find it offensive. My grandparents would be embarrassed, as would my parents, if they saw me behave the way some of our members in this Legislature behave.

[1515]

Another not so good thing, as I get ready to leave this chamber for the last time, is the accountability issue with the aboriginal file. This issue has been going on for so long. Moneys are given to the aboriginal communities, and a lot of it doesn't get to those that are in need of it. It seems to disappear before it gets down to the level of those people that need it.

When we deal with aboriginal files, I have to wonder. I went back to the Nisga'a treaty — January 13, 1999, was when the second reading debate took place — and I found out that the second reading of the Nisga'a treaty had 38 yeas and 33 nays. So the NDP of the day who were in power supported the Nisga'a treaty, and the 33 B.C. Liberal members who were sitting in this chamber voted against the Nisga'a treaty.

Now, when I think about the aboriginal file, it's remarkable how it's turned around. Our party supports, with a few exceptions, the treaty process. I'm not one to say that we shouldn't be moving ahead and trying to make life better for our aboriginal people. We need to do that. But it's funny how the balance shifts when you're either sitting in opposition or whether you're in government.

I'd like to thank the member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast for making an issue out of a comment I made during the child and youth representative's meeting, where I made the comment that some aboriginal people have actually told me that the residential school system was the best thing that happened to them.

That thing got blown up into a bit of a media event for a short time, but I can tell you that comment resonated across Canada. I had phone calls and e-mails from every province in this country, and I had it from a lot of older people who had actually taught in residential schools. They thanked me for bringing that issue up. They said they felt like they had been ostracized by the Canadian people for having dared teach in a residential school. They said they felt they were all vultures sitting in trees waiting for aboriginal children to come into the residential school system. That wasn't the case.

It just broke my heart in some cases, listening to some of these older people who told me they had given their lives to educate young aboriginal children. So I'd like to thank the member from Sunshine Coast for his comments that generated so much positive comment for me from people across Canada.

The friendships that have been developed over the past years on both sides of this House will be missed, and I say, "missed" and "at times" — not all the time. But they will be missed. It's okay to disagree in spite of our differences. The type of government that we have…. You know, it's interesting, given the type of government we have, we have accomplished a lot for the people of British Columbia, the very people that elect us on their behalf to serve in this great building. It has been an honour.

Now, there's one person that I haven't mentioned yet and that I owe so much to, and of course, I saved her for the last. There are many others who deserve a special thanks but none more than my wife, who has made sure that I got on the plane on Sunday mornings to get to Victoria on time and who met me when I came home Friday mornings. After 43 years of married life — I was only four years old when I got married — to the same woman, I owe a very special thank-you to my wife Edith.

You're popular down here, Edith, and you're popular at home.

I also want to thank my children and grandchildren, who had to schedule appointments to see me when I came home on Fridays, when I was home.

Now I want to get into just a couple of things on the budget before my time runs out. In 2001 when we formed government, we saw our province go from a have province to a have-not province. We went from first place to tenth. When we were first elected in 2001 we were actually on the receiving end of the balance of payments that the federal government makes out, because our economy had dropped so dramatically. This is in spite of dramatic growth through the rest of Canada. We inherited a structural deficit of $4 billion.

[1520]

We saw mineral exploration at the lowest ever — $29 million a year. We saw moving trucks. The only people that were making money, of course, were people involved in the moving industry who were moving people from B.C. and coming back empty.

We had an unemployment rate of 9.7 percent. We saw the youth unemployment rate at 17.4 percent in 1998 and drop to 13.7 percent in 2000, all under the previous government.

Budgets were presented under the previous government, promises made, but no money was budgeted to pay for some of the programs. I think of the mental health issue that was around for a long time, where they budgeted $125 million but didn't put any money aside.

I think back to the forestry promise under the jobs and timber accord, where forest companies were ordered…. Not: "Can you do it?" They were ordered to create 32,000 jobs. Not one job was created, but new regulations were added, and they added a billion dollars to the cost of production of the forest industry.

We saw training spaces for our nurses cut, in spite of an aging population. I'm a great example for that, as are others in this chamber. If you looked forward, you could see the demand that was going to be placed on our health care system as we grew older. We did not see one new training space for doctors or other health care professionals, in spite of an aging population.

Let's spend just the next couple of minutes and go over the last eight years under the leadership of Premier
[ Page 14548 ]
Gordon Campbell and the B.C. Liberal government. In eight short years we took our province from tenth place up to first place. People look to our province for leadership. They wanted to know what we were doing here that worked so well. In spite of the $4 billion structural deficit left by the NDP, the challenges of SARS, forest fires, flooding, BSE and 9/11, our government moved the province to be a leader in Canada.

We saw mineral exploration at a phenomenal rate. We saw an increase of 1,300 percent in mineral exploration. We saw $416 million spent on mineral exploration in our province in 2007. There were 98 projects with budgets in excess of $1 million. Only the NDP would say a 1,300 percent increase in mineral exploration is a cut.

We actually saw people moving back to our province. In seven and a half years, we saw 400,000 jobs created in our province. We saw the unemployment rate drop to 4.5 percent. We saw the youth unemployment rate drop to 8.4 percent. That's almost half of what it was under the previous government. We saw increases in training spaces for nurses and double the number of training spaces to train and replace our doctors. We eliminated red tape to reduce costs to private sector investors, to create jobs in our province.

We introduced over 100 tax cuts for the people of our province, and the members of the opposition voted against every one of them. Does that mean we're going to see some tax increases if they ever, God forbid, form government again? Do tax cuts work? Yes, they do. There were lots of naysayers years ago, but I think we can stand here with pride today and say that tax cuts did work in our province with the number of jobs that we created. That's what happens when you have a strong economy.

Our health care. When we came to power in 2001, health care was spending around $9 billion a year. In a few short years we'll be spending over $14 billion, and the opposition members call that a cut. I don't know how they figure out their math, but I'm glad I'm past my stage where I have to learn math anymore, especially from the opposition members.

In spite of a declining student population through the K-to-12…. We've lost over 50,000 students provincewide, and yet we've seen an increase in education funding every year. Every year, there's been an increase in education funding, and the NDP call that a cut.

A little closer to home in the Bulkley Valley–Stikine where I was elected, we have seen a decline of 3,100 students, yet block funding to the four school districts has increased by over $10½ million, and the NDP call that a cut. Let's not forget the $12 million for replacement of the Lakes District Secondary School in Burns Lake. We've opened up three StrongStart centres in Smithers, Burns Lake and Houston.

Infrastructure and grants are kind of interesting, because in 2001 direct access grants amounted to $76,000 for non-profit organizations. That didn't seem like an awful lot of money, because I heard members from the large urban ridings talking about the large sums of money that were available through these direct access grants.

[1525]

We held four grant seminars throughout the large riding, and in 2007-2008 the non-profits received $710,000. That's a tenfold increase. Over the past eight years those non-profits have seen $3 million directed their way.

The Northern Health Connections bus was a commitment we made in 2001 to help provide some much-needed transportation for people who need to travel for health care. In the first two years 16,000 people have used that bus, which runs through from Prince Rupert to Prince George to Vancouver — 16,000 people. It's been well received.

We also saw $2.7 million for our airport runway extension, which is now completed. That was a big bonus for the community of Smithers and the residents of Bulkley Valley–Stikine. Burns Lake also received a quarter of a million dollars for their airport upgrades.

I think Houston has received in excess of $5 million for different projects. The last, of course, was $2.8 million to renovate health care centres and relocate the ambulance.

We've spent millions of dollars on flood control for Houston, Smithers and Telkwa.

Now, Highway 37 electrification is an issue that is very dear and close to my heart, because I want to see that happen. I want to see it happen for the people that live up in that area, and I want to see it happen for the mining industry, who spend almost half of their dollars that are spent in the province of British Columbia along the Highway 37 corridor.

The fact that we've moved into the environmental assessment process for Highway 37 has got to be great news. That's something that has to be done. Why not do it now, while we're going through this downturn in our economy?

I just want to wander here for a moment. We keep talking about the economy and how bad it is right now. I wonder how many people remember the decision that was made by that three-person panel on the Kemess North project. That had been approved, and the aboriginal community were upset about it. So we went through a second hearing stage on the Kemess North project — 450 jobs.

The decision of that three-person panel was that the aboriginal cultural and spiritual benefits outweighed the benefits of economic activity in the Kemess North. It was just an extension of an existing mine. So in a few short years we're going to see 450 people without work because of this decision made by the three-person panel. I wonder what the decision would have been in today's economic situation that we find ourselves in. Do you think they might have said that we should retain
[ Page 14549 ]
those jobs, that we should keep those jobs for the 450 families that depend on the mining industry for their livelihood?

As I close my comments, I don't think it will come as a surprise that I will be supporting the budget. I'd like to thank all of you in this chamber for making the last eight years, at this time in my life, such an honour to have served as an MLA for the residents of Bulkley Valley–Stikine. When I arrived in British Columbia in 1962 as a young, 19-year-old policeman from the province of Alberta, I never thought I'd be retiring for the third time as a member of the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia.

S. Fraser: As I rise today to speak to Budget 2009, and just as I start, I'd like to acknowledge my constituents in Alberni-Qualicum and the Pacific Rim. It is a varied group of people and communities throughout my constituency, and it has been a pleasure and an honour to represent them for the last four years. I have learned much from those members and my constituents, have made many friends, have got lots of advice and have learned to be humble.

You know, when we get elected to this place, as I did almost four years ago now, there seems to be an expectation, initially, that you will be bestowed some great wisdom on all the issues. We all know that is not true. There are so many issues, and they come at us fast and furious.

I have relied on my staff. I have a great constituency staff. Brenda McLean is an excellent CA. I am honoured to be working with her.

[1530]

Patty Edwards is also excellent, and they're a great tag team. Colm Harty is also a wonderful constituent and constituency assistant who helps people, and that's what we're all about in the constituency. I know we all try to strive for that.

Returning to the budget. I will not be supporting this budget, and I do so on behalf of my constituents. My constituents are skeptical of this budget. I spent quite a bit of time this weekend on the doorstep, and I've heard concerns about priorities from this government and certainly concerns about what this budget might mean.

I will comment somewhat ad lib, but I will comment on the previous speaker's couple of statements. I find it hard to listen to statements that refute the good Office of the Auditor General, and I know it's a matter of course for this government. It's part of their messaging, but this government inherited a surplus of almost $1.5 billion. That was in 2001, and in a blink it was turned into a deficit. It went from a record surplus to record deficit overnight largely to accommodate tax breaks. Then the gutting and looting of this province began.

I know they did some creative bookkeeping to try to change what the Auditor General had concluded. We've already seen how this government handles the Auditor General's reports whether it's dealing with skills and trades, where this government has made a great failure to so many people, or the ghastly removal of land from public control of tree farm licences and the failure to protect the public interest, which I submit would be the mandate of any government regardless of political stripes. This government does not take it as such.

Correcting for the record the fact that the Auditor General will affirm that, indeed, this government took a record surplus and turned it into a record deficit. They brought in legislation and stuff to say that you couldn't have a deficit again, but then this government proceeded to run three or four back-to-back deficits. I've lost track now. We're back to deficit financing, which is the mainstream of this government's plans, regardless of legislation which was just overturned to accommodate a deficit. Quite a symbolic thing and, I think, quite misleading.

It's with that in mind that my constituents and, I think, most people of British Columbia are greatly skeptical about this budget. We know that if this government is re-elected, a real budget will probably come out, I would guess, in September, which will have some hard realities.

[K. Whittred in the chair.]

The scary truth is that this government has squandered the times when there was a surplus. Of course this government — maybe all governments — likes to take credit for surpluses, but this was a world phenomenon and national phenomenon. Record-high commodity prices along with a housing boom in the States along with very low interest rates, all of those things — sort of the perfect storm for a surplus.

Even though this government had driven us into record deficits, the province came out….

Interjections.

S. Fraser: I hear the laughs.

At the Auditor General's results, 2003, it was over a $3 billion deficit just in the one year.

An Hon. Member: Three billion.

S. Fraser: Yeah, $3 billion.

Again, for those in the audience who don't know — and that seems to get laughter out of the government members — the Auditor General is basically the watchdog of the public purse. This government — I know if they could do away with one office, it would be that one. So I don't think more needs to be said.

Because of the derisiveness of this government toward things like the Auditor General and the Auditor General's accounting in the public interest, that is what has bred
[ Page 14550 ]
the skepticism of my constituents in Alberni-Qualicum and certainly those across the province when they see this budget.

[1535]

During the surplus years — which this government likes to take credit for but, as I pointed out, had nothing to do with them — there was a great deal of damage done in this province. The policies that were brought in place with the surplus did not prioritize children, even though we had a children's budget.

When this government brought up children as a priority, it was a slogan in a previous budget speech and a previous throne speech. The harsh reality for one in four children in this province — it's the fourth or fifth or sixth year in a row, and again I lose track, and it's something I shouldn't lose track of; none of us should — is that one in four children grows up in poverty. That happened under this government during record surpluses due to commodity prices around the world.

I believe that all governments must put children first. We had a speech earlier today talking about Jordan's principle, and that is a principle to put children first — first nations children first — and to not let them suffer because of government indecision.

When British Columbia became the worst place in Canada for child poverty during the good years, it showed a clear lack of interest by this government in protecting the most vulnerable. We saw cuts to children and families, and cuts during a time when new policies were being implemented. The results were disastrous to children in care — again, the most vulnerable in our society — abandoned for different priorities that trickle down — the sort of Reaganomics that we see or the George W. Bush stuff down in the States.

The deregulation that has caused so much damage in the world today is the policy of this government. It is the legacy of this government. I know that in my constituency of Alberni-Qualicum, we saw the direct results of such deregulation. It was with the forest industry.

The 2003 forest devitalization. I cannot say revitalization. I'll be accurate here for the interests of Hansard. It was devitalization. It was a deregulation of the industry. It was everything that the corporate sector wanted in forestry. It abandoned forest communities and jobs in favour of short-term gain for corporate interests which happened to donate to the government, and that seems to be the main criterion for the policy decision-making of the B.C. Liberals — who will pay, and whoever it is will get what they want.

When those lands were removed from the tree farm licence, TFL 44, in my constituency, it was devastating, and the legacy has carried on.

I must note that we're looking at about a half-billion-dollar deficit in this budget. I've already referred to the skepticism of everybody I've talked to about that budget, based on the past history of this government and their failure to even honour and recognize the reports from the Auditors General.

The forest industry deregulation, when the lands were removed from TFL 44…. This government, against their own staff's advice, waived all requirements to pay back to the Crown, to the taxpayers, to the community, to the workers in Port Alberni hundreds of millions of dollars. They waived that and gave land out of public control — 80,000 hectares from TFL 44 — and completely ringed the Alberni Valley with private forest land that led to the Private Managed Forest Land Act by this government, which has led to a massive increase in raw log exports — all at the expense of jobs in my constituency.

That policy of deregulation is a policy and a legacy of this government. I note that south of the border, the public has cottoned on to that. Certainly, the George W. Bush model of deregulation is seen for what it is. This government is stuck in that model.

We had a young man at a forest policy committee meeting last week, and he quoted Einstein. He said that you can't fix the problems — I'm paraphrasing — with the same mindset that created the problems. That's a big problem for the people of British Columbia, with this government and this budget.

[1540]

I've touched on what happened when this government prioritized children and the devastating effect that has had on children in British Columbia. The same thing happened in 2007 with a housing budget, I believe it was, and it was nothing more than a tax break.

Again, I'll refer to the Auditor General's recent report on poverty and homelessness, which plants the responsibility of that directly at the feet of this government and this Premier. It's a 385 percent increase in homelessness under this government following their 2007 budget speech that talked about housing and homelessness.

So it seems there is a pattern. Whatever this government and this Premier prioritize in a throne speech and a budget — watch out. It's the opposite that happens.

Seniors care — remember that? Well, under this government — and I hear this on the doorstep time and again — seniors have been cut loose. Under this government we've seen seniors on fixed incomes having to face the spectre of higher fees for everything and no recognition of the problems that causes for our seniors in this province.

I fought long and hard along with the community of Port Alberni to try to bring about proper quality end-of-life care through a hospice, a palliative care facility known as Ty Watson House. The community had been fighting for that with VIHA and this government for years.

The building was built; the furniture was in place. The community had rallied to deliver a building, a legacy of the late Ty Watson. The community built fountains and provided the proper facilities such as elevators in this
[ Page 14551 ]
beautiful character heritage home, which could provide quality end-of-life care that VIHA and this government were not providing. All we got were stalls, and people died in the Alberni Valley not receiving the quality end-of-life care that they should have because this government refused to listen to the community.

I believe it would be at every government's peril to not listen to communities. That is where the true wisdom is. That is what we must learn and represent here in this House — what the people of our communities say. That is where true wisdom rests.

There's a good-news story here. We did get the doors of Ty Watson House open. But the battle continues, and this government and the health authority refuse to provide even the basic core funding for quality end-of-life care in this province and certainly on Vancouver Island.

There are nine stand-alone hospices outside of the Victoria region. They provided a budget for this government — a very lean and mean budget — to provide all the administrative needs for nine stand-alone hospices on Vancouver Island for $450,000 — $50,000 per facility, an incredible deal. We have nothing in this budget that even addresses that.

It's the best value you can find. It's the communities coming together. They can get no better value than that, and this government fails to recognize it. The health authority fails to recognize it. We see no leadership at all from the Liberal government, the minister responsible or the Premier.

I was at a fundraiser — I spoke about that earlier today in a two-minute statement — on Saturday for the Bread of Life in Port Alberni. It's a facility that's been around since the '80s, and it helps try to address the needs for those who can't take care of themselves. No matter what we think or how great we're doing in our own personal lives, nobody in this province is very far from needing help, and this government has been anything but the help-giver that they should be.

So the Bread of Life does fundraising, and they ask community members to come forward and help. Sometimes community members that can't afford to help still donate. I donate. I don't want to see people going without meals or children without clothes, without warmth, without blankets, without housing.

[1545]

That should not be a political thing. That should be something for all of us in this House to address. Instead, this government has exacerbated homelessness, poverty, child poverty. It's shameful, and this budget does nothing to address that.

The West Coast General Hospital in Port Alberni. Well, when there was a surplus, they stripped that facility, the hospital in Port Alberni, of its psych ward — an incredibly important facility in the West Coast General Hospital to deal with psychiatric needs and those people who need help. This was done without any consultation with the community. This was done without any consultation with emergency services, the police, the RCMP or the ambulance services, which would then be required to transport people that need appropriate psychiatric care out of the valley.

Remember the other slogan from this government? "Health care when you need it, where you need it" — another slogan, an empty slogan, a vacuum.

The Tofino Hospital on the west coast of Vancouver Island services the entire Pacific Rim region — Ucluelet, Tofino, five Nuu-chah-nulth communities and up to 20,000 tourists and travelling public on any day during the summer. The hospital has not been getting more services. It's being stripped of services.

When there was a surplus, this government stripped away obstetrics at the Tofino Hospital. A pregnant woman now living in Tofino — a better example, living in Hesquiat, a Nuu-chah-nulth community in the north part of the region serviced by that hospital, at least an hour's boat ride to Tofino, often a perilous boat ride…. A pregnant woman from Hesquiat now has to travel by boat for at least an hour to get to Tofino, and the hospital has been stripped of its ability to deal with obstetrics.

She now has to move on to Port Alberni, to West Coast General. It's another two hours of twisty road after an hour of open ocean, in some places, to get to Tofino. Now there's the trip to West Coast General. Again, health care when you need it, where you need it.

That woman may have to spend the last month of her pregnancy away from her family, far distant from her community, to give birth to a child. That should not be. That happened when there was a surplus. This government did that when there was a surplus.

The fear in my constituency from my constituents is palpable. What will this government do with the real budget next September if they get re-elected? When they stripped these valuable and vital services from our communities when there's a surplus, my god, what will they do with a deficit? And this deficit, the half-billion, is based on smoke-and-mirrors accounting, just as the accounting that they claimed when they came in, which is refuted by the Auditor General of British Columbia, was smoke and mirrors.

That's why the public knows this budget is false. The half-billion-dollar deficit, I would suggest, is not even in the ballpark. We have that based on an increase in sales tax revenues, an increase in income tax revenues.

Well, the last I looked, travelling around the coast and the province, there were 30,000 forestry jobs lost — just that long ago. Over 60,000 jobs lost in the province just that long ago.

I don't know anyone who buys the fact that we're going to have any significant increase in income tax revenue. It just doesn't wash. People know that. They see this for what it is. This is a pre-election budget that will
[ Page 14552 ]
be altered if this government gets re-elected, and the truth will come out.

Promises made by this government and this Premier are certainly suspect anyway. We've all heard and remember: "We won't tear up legally negotiated contracts." On that one, when the HEU took this Premier to court, the court not only found in favour of the HEU; they found that the Premier had defiled the Charter of Rights and Freedoms of this country.

[1550]

Whatever political stripe, any Premier who actually brings in policies to take away rights and freedoms that have been fought for and people have died for in this country doesn't deserve to be a Premier.

Fir Park/Echo Village is a very big part of the community in Port Alberni, a seniors complex care facility. When there was a surplus, this government, this health authority stripped that facility of its secure wing designed for people who wandered — seniors with dementia, Alzheimer's — and took that away. It's been in place for years.

I've spoken with the residents there, their families, the staff and the administration. There was no consultation with them. There was no consultation with the community. They stripped our community of that vital service when there was a surplus. What will they do with the real budget if they get re-elected? What will they strip under those conditions, Madam Speaker?

When times were good, this government stripped students of student grants. They have increased the debt load of post-secondary students. They've doubled. This government is charging usury fees, interest rates for student loans. When times were good, they did that.

This is a time to retrain. There are challenges in the world now. There are challenges in B.C. now, with the economic problems we're seeing around the world. This is a time, which we know from history, to retrain and reinvest in our future, our students, and we've seen a cut instead. The five-year plans came forward for the last fiscal weeks before the budgets had to be finalized by the post-secondary institutions. This government pulled out 2 or almost 3 percent of that budget. Courses were reduced; staff were fired.

In a time when we should be investing in education — when there was still a surplus, at least on the books — this government took away, and this budget does nothing to address that.

The Auditor General's report again. I know this Liberal government hates the Auditor General, but I respect Mr. Doyle. Look at what he just said, Madam Speaker, about skills training, trades training — that this government failed. They brought in changes to help their business buddies, those that sponsor this government, this party that has driven the trades and skills training into the ground in this province. Disgrace.

Take away the ability and don't even consult with those people that would be mentors in any industry. No, instead of making a carpenter that can have a living wage, let's bring it down to somebody who nails up drywall, who may live below the poverty level, based on this government's failure to address minimum-wage issues. Well, they did address minimum-wage issues. They dropped it to six bucks an hour. Disgraceful.

I'm the critic for aboriginal affairs. Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation is the minister that I shadow. There's an 18 percent reduction in the budget. This government and this Premier were just negotiating legislation on recognition and reconciliation — all the right words. We heard those words before. It's called the new relationship.

It was this government and this Premier's failure to deliver on the new relationship that forced the Premier into a negotiation kicking and screaming, with the spectre of action on the ground by first nations who would take no more platitudes and slogans about a new relationship that was never even meant to be.

[1555]

This government, the Premier, was never going to sign it and never did sign it — never implemented it, never provided a budget to implement it. And he was going to do it again, because this legislation, which has just been put on hold, has not been accounted for in any budget. There's a reduction in the budget — 18 percent reduction in the budget.

That legislation was supposed to apply to the dirt ministries, if you will, specifically — not exclusively, but specifically — Mines and Forests and, I would submit, Environment. There are a number of ministries that would be involved with this. By my estimation, those ministries have also had cuts. There was no ability to implement any new legislation. Worse, there was no intent to do so. This was another attempt by this Premier and this government to mislead first nations in this province, and that's a disgrace.

First nations will not stand for it any longer. I've brought in motions in this House demanding the empowerment of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs — for all the right reasons, because the first nations communities, first nations leaders and first nations people in this province do not want to be sold a slogan again. We need to address first nations issues. Yes. We need to do it openly, because we've learned that we cannot trust this Premier and this government to do it behind closed doors.

As I wind down here, I want to affirm to this House, in case they haven't got my message yet, that I will not be supporting this budget. This government and this Premier have let down the people of British Columbia. The people of British Columbia have watched their piece of the pie in this great province we call British Columbia being whittled away. It gets smaller and smaller — a looting of the province to benefit a few at the expense of the whole, of the public interest.

In closing, I'll reiterate the words of the Auditor General when he was referring to the disastrous removal
[ Page 14553 ]
of more land from tree farm licences in public control — that the government failed to take into account the public interest.

Hon. M. Coell: I'm pleased today, as Minister of Advanced Education and Labour Market Development, to rise to speak in support of the budget.

We are living in a world radically different than just seven months ago. It's a time of uncertainty. Our province has been impacted by economic events beyond our control, and we've seen unprecedented drops in provincial revenues. Never has our knowledge economy and the value it places on specialized skills been more essential, and never has a vibrant post-secondary system been more crucial to the economic well-being of our province.

We know that in times of economic hardship, post-secondary enrolment goes up as students enter and stay in school, waiting for a more favourable time to enter the workforce. Workers return to school for new skills training or upgrading. Colleges and universities around the province are already reporting large increases in enrolment. Never has it been more important to support post-secondary education, and as we approach 2010 with the optimism of the current economic crisis waning, we must also plan ahead to look at addressing B.C.'s potential labour market shortages caused by a retiring workforce.

That's why our government is welcoming immigrants to B.C. communities with a view to working with educators, industry and partners to help them settle into their new lives with the support they need. That's also why we'll welcome workers from other provinces by reducing barriers that interfere with the recognition of their credentials in our province.

[1600]

There are no easy solutions to the challenges we are facing as a province, but there are some carefully measured approaches we can take to help us through these tough times. In order to ensure that British Columbians continue to have access to quality education and health care, the government is running a temporary deficit. Recently this government also took steps to amend legislation that will allow the implementation of a series of economic measures to help support families and businesses across British Columbia.

What we're doing as government is helping individuals, families and businesses get through the tough times so that when they end, B.C. will continue to be well positioned for success. We will be one of the first jurisdictions out of the gates as new opportunities return.

Despite facing economic challenges, we are honouring our commitment to protect and enhance access to post-secondary institutions, expand health education programs and fulfil the commitment to increase the number of trained physicians in British Columbia. In fact, we're investing more in post-secondary education than ever before.

Budget 2009 will provide a $228 million increase in funding for public post-secondary institutions over the next three years. The budget for post-secondary education will be 56 percent higher in 2012 than it was in 2001. Operational funding to institutions will increase by $131 million this year alone. Every single public post-secondary institution in British Columbia will see an increase in funding. This includes $165 million over the next three years directed towards helping institutions respond to the potential enrolment increases.

Forty million dollars has been earmarked to expand health education programs to address shortages in the health care sector, and beginning next year $23 million will fulfil the government's commitment to increase the number of doctors trained to address the growing demands of our aging population.

We're committed to providing British Columbians with the post-secondary education and skills training they need to succeed. We will continue to invest wisely in our post-secondary system and training opportunities for British Columbians while we weather this economic crisis. We followed through on that commitment with investment that provides students and their families with more access to post-secondary education closer to home.

In 2008 we saw an unprecedented expansion of new universities in British Columbia. Capilano University, Kwantlen Polytechnic University, the University of the Fraser Valley, Vancouver Island University and Emily Carr University of Art and Design were all created thanks to the hard work and support of their communities. The five new universities opened in 2008 bolstered access already provided by two other new universities created since 2001, which include UBC Okanagan and the Thompson Rivers University.

Government was thrilled to announce in Monday's throne speech that a new law school will be created at Thompson Rivers University that will build capacity for access to legal services in rural communities in the Interior and the Peace River region of B.C. and Alberta.

Since 2001 the province has also invested more than $1.5 billion in capital expansion to modernize and extend our campuses with over 700 projects, including a new life sciences building at the University of British Columbia, a new engineering and computer science building at UVic, a $24 million addition to the Pacific Sport Institute for Camosun College, a new BCIT Aerospace and Technology Campus in Richmond and many, many others.

As part of the $2 billion Canada-B.C. stimulus plan, we will work with our partners, with the federal government, on new projects in the post-secondary sector. These new capital investments will create jobs and provide essential upgrades and new space for our colleges and universities. These new projects will be ready to go very soon,
[ Page 14554 ]
and I know that members of all parts of this province will join us in welcoming the very real jobs that they will create.

We've also expanded access to the post-secondary education system through the development of new degrees. Since 2001 we've approved or given consent to more than 240 new undergraduate and graduate programs at British Columbia's public and private post-secondary institutions.

[1605]

An important percentage of those new degrees are in the medical field. We've added 24 new nursing programs across the province for RNs, nurse practitioners, licensed practical nurses and nurses with MAs and PhDs. Our government has also increased nursing seats by 93 percent since 2001, helping to meet the growing demand for nurses in B.C.'s health sector. The new degrees are helping B.C. improve its competitiveness and productivity through education and skills training.

We've also steadily expanded and built the capacity for the training of medical students in our province. This year B.C. is funding 256 spaces for first-year medical students, up from 128 in 2003-2004. In only four years we've doubled the number of seats for first-year students by expanding the University of British Columbia's medical program to the University of Victoria and to the University of Northern British Columbia in Prince George. A fourth medical program site at UBC Okanagan is also well underway.

UBC now has the highest number of seats of any English-speaking medical school in Canada. By doubling the seats and adding the use of new information technology, B.C. is training more doctors in more regions than ever before.

In addition to expanding medical student spaces, we've also provided for an overall potential enrolment increase in B.C.'s 11 universities, 11 colleges and two provincial institutes as well as the Industry Training Authority. Since 2001 we've added 36,700 new post-secondary student spaces, including 5,700 spaces for 2009-2010.

Meantime, the number of trades apprenticeships and trainees in B.C. has more than doubled to 45,000 since 2004-2005. We've supported this through a 42 percent increase in annual funding to the Industry Training Authority, from $74 million in 2001 to $105 million this year. That includes a $4.4 million increase over last year. New apprenticeship spaces continue to be added, and an additional 2,000 apprenticeships will be learning trade skills in B.C. by the end of 2009-2010.

We've also invested $6 million in a new e-apprenticeship program to develop flexible options such as on-line learning to further increase trades training and accessibility. This means with a portion of their training accomplished on line, apprenticeships will spend less time away from home and work to receive the training that they need, benefiting both their families and their employers.

This spring we will also be supporting a number of projects that will increase the participation of aboriginal women, people and immigrants in trades training through a federal-provincial labour market agreement. Projects include linking women interested in a career in the trades with employers and providing pre-employment training to prepare women for a career in the trades along with job placement assistance.

Our government is committed to providing full access to post-secondary education for all British Columbians, whether they be in B.C. trades or in undergraduate or graduate systems, regardless of where those students reside.

Valued contributors to the landscape in B.C. are aboriginal students. Since 2001 the province has provided more than $18 million for 309 special projects, specially benefiting over 6,500 aboriginal students, which help meet special needs and facilitate aboriginal participation in our post-secondary institutions.

We have also committed an additional $15 million between 2007-08 and 2009-10 for aboriginal gathering places to help public post-secondary institutions develop and enhance infrastructure that reflects the cultural characteristics of the aboriginal students and communities and traditions where they live. For example, we have provided approximately $600,000 each to the Northern Lights College and to Kwantlen Polytechnic University, Surrey campus, to develop gathering places that enhance support services for a growing number of aboriginal students.

In addition, we're investing $14 million to create three three-year service plans that are being developed through partnerships between 11 of our post-secondary institutions and aboriginal communities directly. These will assist over 10,000 aboriginal students attending the institutions by offering tailored programs of assistance and support to help them build a strong foundation for future successes.

[1610]

Through the Industry Training Authority, we're also working to double aboriginal participation in trades training from 5 to 10 percent between now and 2010.

In other measures, we've increased funding to the Native Education College to support student success in moving on to other post-secondary education institutions in our province, and we've created the aboriginal youth internship program to introduce and attract talented aboriginal youth to the B.C. public service. We know if B.C. is to emerge even stronger from the challenges that we face today, all our citizens must be able to be fully engaged in our economy.

Other valued contributors to B.C.'s cultural, educational and economic outlook are new British Columbians. Immigrants to our province provide a rich tapestry of talents and resources to help us build and enhance our futures together. Though our economy has slowed, it is a
[ Page 14555 ]
reality that the skilled-labour shortages remain a critical issue for some B.C. employers.

Despite our challenges with the economy, we expect that by the year 2018 there will be over one million new job openings, mainly due to retirements. With only 650,000 students in our K-to-12 system, that leaves 350,000 extra jobs to be filled. To continue to remain competitive and to address the potential skills shortages, B.C. must attract and retain a highly skilled workforce from other countries and provinces.

In order to address this challenge, Budget 2009 includes new investments of $16 million over the next three years for programs to remove barriers to employment from B.C.'s immigrant workforce. This is in addition to over $125 million in combined federal-provincial funding already invested in settlement services, English-as-a-second-language training and employment initiatives for immigrants.

Many B.C. immigrants possess skills and occupations where there are shortages but face challenges in navigating the complex labour market entry system that include language barriers, credential recognition issues and the lack of employment networks. Our Skills Connect for Immigrants program helps new immigrants secure jobs that fully use their pre-arrival skills, knowledge and experience. Since services began in 2006 approximately 4,000 skilled immigrants have benefited from this program, which has an 80 percent success rate.

We've also developed welcomebc.ca, a one-stop website offering easy-to-access information for every stage of the immigration journey to British Columbia. Until about a year ago there was no single on-line service for authoritative information on how to emigrate to B.C., settle into a new community and join the provincial market. Now this very successful website boasts an average of 14,000 visitors a month. We will continue to invest to ensure newcomers and their families are provided with the necessary supports to fully integrate into B.C.'s welcoming and inclusive communities and workplaces.

To assist other British Columbians seeking employment, $66 million in annual funding over the next five years has been allocated under the federal-provincial labour market agreement. The agreement ensures unemployed British Columbians are able to update their skills through programs and services to fulfil their potential in B.C.'s labour market. For example, a recent $1 million investment in the return to work employability program provides individual and group training to improve skills and readiness to work as well as the support for post-training job searches in rural areas in B.C.

B.C. has also led the way in breaking down credential barriers to welcome skilled workers from across Canada to our province. Under chapter 7 of the agreement on internal trade, we have committed to support the labour mobility agreement by April 1, 2009, so that a worker who is already licensed and practising in another province or territory can move to B.C. and work in the occupation or trade that they have. This is an important step to take full advantage of job opportunities and to meet potential labour shortages as we move forward.

Our government is committed to providing British Columbians with the post-secondary education and skills training that they need to succeed, and to investing in a commonsense, unified approach to future workforce needs necessary to keep B.C. strong.

We are committed to ensuring that B.C. students are getting the best possible post-secondary education with more choices, more access closer to home, so they have the best chance of a successful working life. That's why we are making large investments in post-secondary education in our province and why we are supporting post-secondary institutions as they respond to the increase in enrolment across this province.

[1615]

We're committed to ensuring that B.C. employers have a permanent, reliable and stable workforce and that B.C. employees can also develop and respond positively to the changing workplace demands and economic challenges. That's why we're working with educators, with industry and with our partners to ensure that British Columbians have the skills employers are looking for. That's why we are welcoming immigrants to B.C. communities, helping them to fulfil the use of their skills, their knowledge and their experience in areas that complement B.C.'s economic outlook.

Our greatest resource is our people, and our government is committed to making sure that during this economic downturn, training and education are more accessible, more affordable and closer to home for all British Columbians.

N. Macdonald: I am always very pleased to have the opportunity to stand in the House and to participate in debate, especially with the budget debate, where you have quite a wide range of issues that you can talk about.

The job that we play as an opposition, I find, of course, is an important one. I'm always pleased to stand up and take the role that I've been given, to take it and do the best that I can. I think we need to recognize that when a government asserts something, that assertion needs to be tested, and in the 30 minutes that I have, I intend to test those assertions with as much vigour as possible.

This building is the site of an institution that is built on 500 years of British parliamentary system, and it is based on the premise of adversarial contact and making sure that we test everything that the government says. This government has over 300 people that work in communication to put out their message. They have, as well, tens of millions that they use for advertising. It's important that all of the things that the government says are tested, and I'm proud to do that today.
[ Page 14556 ]

We had a speech that was made to explain this year's proposed budget. In that budget we saw confirmation, I feel, of the fundamental disconnect between this Premier, this government and rural British Columbia. I would assert that there has been no government that has more consistently failed rural British Columbia than this government and this Premier.

I would go on to say that the things that were talked about in that speech simply do not hold up to the record that we have seen over the past eight years, and I'll just remind people what the government talked about in the budget speech.

They talked about, and the Premier would have us believe this, that somehow they are going to protect health care, when over the past eight years the exact opposite has happened. I would point to this: simply the record of what the Premier and the government say, and what actually follows after that.

I go back to the original document that was put forward in 2001 and that this Premier ran on and that members of the government ran on: the New Era document. Just look at some of the language that was used then and compare it to what is being said now and see if any reasonable British Columbian would accept what is said now as the way the government is going to move forward.

In 2001 the New Era document talked about the following: health care where you need it, when you need it. What the people in Columbia River–Revelstoke remember is that following that promise, that clear promise, what we saw in a very short period of time, from 2001 to 2005, was the following. We saw two hospitals significantly downgraded — Golden and Invermere district hospitals. Beds closed.

There were consequences to that. There were consequences for people who lived in Golden and surrounding areas, and there were consequences for people who lived in Invermere. Those consequences are still being felt.

[1620]

Kimberley had the hospital closed altogether. So the idea that health care where you need it, when you need it…. It was a cruel joke, what followed. This is a hospital that was closed in approximately three weeks, with all of the consequences that you would expect for people in the area. It was closed, and people in Kimberley had to deal with that decision.

This is after the government set up a process with the health authorities that made it impossible for people to have any say on decisions that impacted them on health care — a deliberate government decision to keep local people from having a say in their health care needs, a deliberate decision to not follow through on a clear commitment during the election and a deliberate decision to move quickly on a decision that would impact people's lives profoundly, without doing the proper management of that change.

So even if you accept that that was the direction you were going to go, clearly there would have been a need to do it properly, and that did not take place.

We had a so-called regional hospital that was going to replace the hospitals that were closed not only in Kimberley but other parts of the Elk Valley. That was a regional hospital in name only. You changed the sign, but everything else stayed the same. For years since, there's been catch-up that still has not happened in the way that it needs to. You have those fundamental issues that still remain eight years later.

When the government and the Premier talk about doing this for health care and that's their number one objective, it simply lacks credibility. People look at that and say: "Well, in 2001 what did you say, and what happened? In 2005 what did you say, and what happened?"

There's a massive disconnect going back to 2001. The New Era document talks about better home support and home care services. That raises a certain expectation amongst people who depend on home support and home care services. It's what the Premier said repeatedly as he ran for election back in 2001. It's what he put in the New Era document.

But what did we get? We had cuts. We had cuts to the number of hours that were available to seniors. We had cuts to the scope of services that were provided. The impacts were profound. It impacted my neighbour. I had to go over to her house and hear how it impacted her. All of us must have heard these stories. I heard it about the shutting down of beds. I heard it with the cuts to home care support. These profoundly impact real people.

So the words are one thing. To make a promise and to not follow through, that's a problem. Then to actually cut services that are needed, that's a problem. To talk about seniors as being important and going to be treated with dignity and then not follow through on the means that we need to follow through, that's a problem.

Another thing, and this is again directly out of the New Era document, back to 2001. It reads like this. "We will work with non-profit societies to build and operate 5,000 new intermediate and long-term care beds by 2006."

Now, this government has 300 people at their disposal to try to twist that promise around to make it sound like somehow it happened. They have all this advertising they can throw out, including advertisement in the health budget, but the fact that remains is this. Instead of that action, we saw beds closed.

We saw facilities that communities had built, closed with no replacement beds ready. People in the community met, and they said clearly that you are going to force couples to be separated. You are going to cause problems that are completely predictable. But none of that sparked any response from government. They had a way of making sure that they did not have to listen to those issues, to those problems.
[ Page 14557 ]

What you had was another promise that simply was not kept. We did not get 5,000 intermediate and long-term care beds. That didn't happen. We did not get non-profit societies building them. Instead, they're private. And it sure didn't happen by 2006. So three strikes, you're out on that one.

[1625]

What I would say, and I think what everyone knows, is that seniors have been repeatedly treated very poorly. I know that from what you hear in this House, and I know that from going door to door in my area. There have been fundamental shortfalls for seniors care that simply should not happen. Seniors should be treated properly and with respect. The way we show that is through the services that we provide and through our actions, and they have failed.

I'll just finish with one last story — Hilda Baltakis. This goes back to 2005. Hilda worked with me when I was mayor, and we were getting a seniors centre built. Her husband not only gave money to a seniors facility but also physically built the facility so that when they needed the services, it would be there. But when Hilda needed the services, she was moved to Salmon Arm because there were beds closed, and there were people that should have been in the hospital that were in a facility that wasn't designed for them.

That was predictable. We had community meetings where we said that would happen, but the government, through its health authority, was able to just push ahead and go in the direction that they wanted with no thought for the consequences on people that, we would all agree, are who we should be thinking of.

So she passed away — her last 30 days away from her husband, away from her community. Those are predictable things that we should have some mechanism for dealing with. Certainly, if we make a commitment as we go into election to do something properly, we need to meet that commitment. That has not happened over the past eight years in the way that it needs to.

I realize it's a challenge for every government to try to meet needs and meet expectations. There is a huge temptation during an election campaign to make promises that are going to be difficult to keep. But with seniors care, with children, these are things that we need to think very carefully about and make sure that we get it right.

Now, the good news is that with health care, despite the fact that there are challenges, there are opportunities, and that much of what we do in the province, as everyone here would know, is done very, very well. That we can celebrate. But with each one of those that we have done well, we have pushed for them. People have pushed for them and fought for them within their communities and here in this Legislature on both sides. They have fought for them.

It is an important thing to identify where we fail. It is important to identify that, to identify the problem and to push for the solution. That's the job that we have here. That's the job that we have in our communities. What needs to happen is making sure that we treat seniors with the respect that they deserve and making sure that when we fail it is identified — the failure — and that we talk about making the improvements that are clearly needed.

The other thing that I want to say very clearly is that what I have heard consistently from people that have family in long-term care facilities is that we need to do a better job with the staffing ratios and making sure that the level of care that we say is acceptable in all facilities is care that is of the standard that British Columbians would expect for seniors.

It is clear to me that more time needs to be given for each senior that is in those facilities. That means that there are implications for cost, and there are implications across the budget.

I don't underestimate the complexity of trying to bring in a budget that is reasonable in terms of taxation, reasonable on all of these things, but it is clear to me that we need to make improvements — improvements in how we treat seniors in long-term facilities, whether they are private or public or not-for-profit. There needs to be a higher standard, and we need to make sure that those higher standards are in place.

I mean, there are examples. I had a letter that was written, but there are many of these. This is from a health care worker just talking about the need for improvements. They talk about their own frustration, and they identify very clearly where the system needs to be improved. But there are not the mechanisms for making that happen. So with seniors care, there's no question that we need to do better.

[S. Hammell in the chair.]

The Premier also says that this is a budget that is about education. But what is clear…. Going back to 2001, the Premier said that education is their top priority. So he has talked about this before. But we should not confuse a good communication strategy with the realities that are on the ground. People look at the system, and they know that there are things that need improvement, and they want them improved.

[1630]

There have been 177 schools closed, 11 in my area. That's 177 schools closed. There have been school districts that are on four-day school weeks. That is for purely budgetary reasons. I don't think any British Columbians would argue that that is a reasonable way to proceed.

There have been special ed cuts. Everybody who is involved with the education system knows that. There have been issues around learning conditions based on class size and composition.

The legal standards that this government has set have not been met in 11,000 classrooms. So that basic standard
[ Page 14558 ]
for class size and composition has not been met in over 11,000 classrooms.

What is clear from this budget, and boards of education are all saying it…. They received this week the amounts of money that they will need to work with. It is clear that the budget does not provide enough money to cover the predictable cost increases for boards of education.

They have been told already that they are going to need to make cuts, and what is clear is that more cuts will come after that. You look at Saanich, what they're saying; you look at Vancouver school board; you look across the province — Prince George. One district after another is saying as clearly as possible — as they have said over years, but incredibly clearly this year — that the budget that is presented here in this House will lead to cuts. That is predictable. From a system that has already endured cut after cut, that's just not acceptable.

Again, if we say seniors care and health care is the most important, there have to be actions that follow from that, and they have not over the past eight years. If the Premier stands up and says, as he does again this year, that education is somehow a priority, there need to be resources that follow that. Otherwise, they're just empty words, which are consistently what we get — empty words repeated again and again as if somehow that makes any difference at all to children in classrooms or their families.

This Premier, this government, has not had, does not now and never will have public education as its priority. It simply is not what this government is all about, and for them to stand up in the budget speech and to somehow suggest that they're doing this for public education is just ludicrous. It is not what their priorities truly are.

At a recent trustees' meeting, the trustees passed a motion. It was just a couple of weekends ago. It said that they want funding to cover the costs related to the salary increments, the benefits, the transportation inflation and the expanded mandate that boards of education have been given. They just want the money so that they are able to meet the mandate that they've been given by the government.

A proper budget, if we'd had one here, would have provided funds so that class-size limits could be met. When we met here about two years ago and passed Bill 33, where there were class-size limits laid out, clearly there should have been funding for it, but there wasn't.

There are 3,336 classes that do not meet that legal standard because the province has not provided the funds that they need. A proper budget would provide funds so that special education standards that have been legally set would actually be met. This year there are 10,985 classes that don't meet that standard. That's a problem.

If this was a government that cared about public education, there would have been funding for special ed, for ESL, and that would have included a gifted program. That's clearly what you would see if the words used in the budget speech actually matched the budget.

There also needs to be a plan for special education. As the critic, since I took over in the summer, I've met with many parents. I've been phoned by many parents. They have ideas around how a special education plan should work, but they're especially clear on the need for a special education plan that is actually properly funded.

[1635]

We need assessments done in a timely way, and we need intervention early. As it stands now, students wait an inordinate amount of time, and the parents as well, for the psychoeducational testing that is needed to set up a proper intervention for students.

What is clear is that the wisest investment that we can make is in the education of our children. Everyone agrees with that statement, I would think, but you need to have the resources and the action that follow from that. In this budget there clearly are not the resources. It is trustees that are saying that. It is educators. It is principals, superintendents. It simply is not there. This budget is a deliberate decision to make a poor situation in classrooms worse. It is deliberate.

The other thing that is notable about the budget is that rural issues are nowhere in sight. It seems that the Premier can no longer even bother to pretend by putting forward something like the heartlands propaganda piece. They can't even be bothered to mention….

In rural areas, what people talk to me about is child care. The College of the Rockies in Golden recently had a forum about issues that related to women in the workforce and what was stopping them. What came up again and again was child care — the need for affordable, accessible, high-quality child care. People have been talking about this for a long, long time, and many that you would expect, but it also is the chambers of commerce now that are talking about it, because there's an economic need as well as the clear social need for appropriate child care. Yet in this budget there is nothing to meet that need.

In rural areas private power is a big issue. The fact is that it is a bit of a complex issue. The language that the government used around private power is something that most people hear and they find appealing, but the reality when it comes is something very, very different. For me and for many people, the difficulty came for us around the IPP issue, the private power issue with Bill 30, section 56, which removed rural communities from having any say in where these developments go on. That is the fundamental weakness that I would identify with this plan, with the B.C. energy plan.

It points to the fact that the B.C. Liberals cannot come into a community and explain this plan and get the acceptance of the local community. In my area we have 26, 27, 28 proposed projects in places that make no sense often. You have to remember that Crown land
[ Page 14559 ]
has gone through a long period of planning, and a lot of trade-offs have been made. What you see very often with these projects is a completely inconsistent approach to where they go and how they go ahead. I'll give you just a couple of examples.

Thompson Falls near Golden. Within three weeks of people hearing that there was a proposal there…. The site was grabbed for $5,000. Within three weeks of that proposal being something that the community was aware of, Dan Lavoie, a volunteer from the area, got 1,000 signatures saying that they had a problem with that site, that there were other things that needed to be considered other than that project moving ahead. That was within three weeks.

Why is it that those people are completely cut out of the system and have no say, cannot even get the proponent or those that push this plan to come to the community and explain to them what's going on? So that's one of 26 projects.

You have another one up in the Wood Arm. If you knew this area, you'd question how it makes any sense at all. It's an area where the local forest company, because of caribou issues and other issues, doesn't operate and where trade-offs have been made. You have a local snowmobile operator agreeing not to go into an area. After all that work is done, to leave an area that has not only environmental issues around it but also our historical heritage issues around it….

[1640]

With all of that knowledge locally about where these projects may or may not go, we're cut out of the system. Instead, they propose to put in a private power development in a place that is so clearly inappropriate in many people's eyes.

If you had a process where people could properly discuss these things and then decide whether it goes ahead or not, well, people that were in favour of the project could come and make the case and explain how it was an appropriate project to go ahead. In rural areas we're used to those discussions.

You know, my relatives, my friends, my neighbours…. We do logging. We do mining. All of these things we're used to, but we also hike and hunt and appreciate the natural beauty that's around us, and we want things done properly. In rural areas we should be having a key say in any of the land use decisions that are being made.

I'll just leave with one other decision, one other part of the private power issue. It's the Glacier-Howser project. There was a news story today where the river system that is identified as the third most threatened is the Glacier-Howser. That's a project that is going to take all of the water from five streams. It is going to put it into a 16-kilometre tunnel, never return it to the watershed, dump it into the Duncan reservoir. Then it's going to take a power line and take it over the Purcells, cutting a swath as it puts the power line through, and connecting in Invermere.

It goes through a valley that Canfor, the local forest company, negotiated with hunters and with environmental groups and decided that they would log more intensively in one valley and leave this valley alone. Having made that decision and living with it, you have an arbitrary decision to put a power line through it, which negates all of the effort that's been made and is a slap in the face to local knowledge.

If these are to go ahead, they would be improved with the debate and the real discussion that would take place within a community, which Bill 30, section 56, deliberately removed. That's a problem.

Another land use decision that to anyone in the area is obvious is around the Jumbo Glacier resort. There are strong feelings on that project. It is absolutely clear that a government that was dealing with rural issues would leave these sorts of decisions to people in the area. It's a simple process. There are zoning processes in place that would allow that local say. "Leave it alone. Just stay out of it and allow the proper process to take place."

Instead, this government passed legislation that would allow resort municipalities to be put in place without any local say, and that's fundamentally wrong as well. People in the Kootenays aren't going to accept it, nor should they. It's just wrong.

I want to talk about the arts and culture cuts that were in this budget. In rural British Columbia, in community after community, there's recognition that some of the most cost-effective economic drivers that you get within Golden, Revelstoke, Invermere and Kimberley is with investments in arts and culture. These are people that, for the most part, are volunteering tremendous skills and tremendous energy. To make cuts there just fundamentally does not make sense. It is a wise investment that has to continue — and be expanded, frankly.

What we also saw in rural British Columbia, despite promises to do something differently…. You had over the past eight years significant cuts to our courthouses, most recently to probation officers. All of these complicate life for communities and are things that have implications.

We also come from an area — and I represent an area — where the meat inspection regulations have been an issue. Agriculture is something, my colleague from Nelson-Creston has made clear, that governments over the past 20 years, of many stripes, have tended to ignore. To have done that was clearly a mistake.

[1645]

The meat inspection regulations are an example of where government has not listened carefully to what was an issue made unnecessarily complex by the government. They have either forced people underground, or they have forced them out of business, at the same time talking about the need to reduce our carbon footprint. It just fundamentally did not make sense.
[ Page 14560 ]

We do not have in this budget the sort of supports that you need for agriculture, and that's a problem. That's something that rural British Columbians feel strongly about. We have within our communities — within Golden, certainly, and within Invermere; well, actually, in Revelstoke and Kimberley as well — very active groups talking about where we get our food from, how we support local produce, making sure that there are farmers' markets that are going to work.

These are things that people care about, yet within this budget you see no attempt to deal properly with fixing the meat inspection regulation debacle or with adequately supporting agriculture.

The other thing that I need to mention is that within our communities we see poverty issues that didn't used to be there. That is going to very dramatically grow as we go through what is an unprecedented problem for forestry and other issues.

The minimum-wage issue. I don't understand how we're not moving on that. It makes no sense to me. Every other jurisdiction raises it. Why you would brag in the budget that you're not going to increase the minimum wage is absolutely mind-boggling to me, especially at a time when wages in this House have increased so dramatically.

Well, there's so much more that I wanted to speak about, but as always, I thank you for the opportunity. With that, I take my seat.

Hon. L. Reid: I've just come today from an event. It was an appreciation event, and it was at Rosario Gardens. Members in this House may recall that it was in October of 2007 that an aircraft went into an apartment building in Richmond. Today was an opportunity to say thanks and to appreciate the first responders in Richmond, an amazing group of individuals — firefighters, paramedics, front-line staff, city of Richmond response teams — who truly came out today and were thanked by the residents of Rosario Gardens.

For me, it's the tenor for my speech today. It's about resiliency. It's about communities coming together. It's about people fighting back for what they believe in. Truly, I take my hat off to the residents of Rosario Gardens, because they indeed did an amazing job on October 19, 2007 — and, frankly, ever since. They have rebuilt that building — $4 million worth of investment in terms of the repair that was required.

The strength of spirit — the notion that they could rebuild and do something incredible in terms of what was indeed a traumatic event, the aftermath of a plane coming into your apartment building — their resiliency, their resourcefulness, the ability of that community to come together make me proud to represent Richmond East — and the notion that we can have that discussion today as we indeed entertain discussion on the budget.

So I'm pleased to rise in the House today and respond to the 2009 provincial budget, a budget that will help keep British Columbia's economy on track while protecting and maintaining critical services to our province's most vulnerable children, youth and families.

This was a challenging budget for the province of British Columbia. Six months ago our Premier came forward with a plan. It was in October, so many months ago in terms of how we might respond. Concrete, tangible, well understood by the public at large, and it made great sense for those who had issues around, as an example, credit union deposits.

We as a province took the step to provide unlimited deposit insurance for deposits held at credit unions. It was hugely important in terms of stabilizing what indeed was traumatic for British Columbians — the notion that because of this economic downturn, because of this dramatic shift in where the world's finances were going, they would be suffering unduly. This insurance provided that stability, and frankly, I'm very proud as a government that that step was taken.

The pension opportunity introduced earlier today before us by the Minister of Finance — hugely important. I can't imagine that there's a member in this chamber who would not support a pension plan for all British Columbians — absolutely critical, insightful, responsive, helpful to folks who have concerns about stability and security for their families. So that debate will happen in this chamber — hugely important. The idea came forward as a dialogue of British Columbians, if you will, more than six months ago.

[1650]

An accelerated retroactive personal income tax cut — hugely important in terms of how we stabilize the communities and the economy as we go forward. It is a healthy economy that allows us to make the decisions we take and provide the services we believe to be important.

What we can do to bolster that economy in times of unprecedented financial downturn — not just in British Columbia, not just in Canada but across the globe…. The steps that we can take are hugely important for British Columbians, hugely important for their families. You will find, I think, tremendous support as we go forward.

School property tax rebates for industry are, again, hugely important, because they're all measures that are about stability. They're all measures that we put in place to ease some of the stress, some of the trauma of this economic downturn — hugely important. Accelerated tax relief for small business is equally important. Those are the individuals in British Columbia today who provide employment. Those are the individuals who ensure that there are jobs for people to take care of their families — hugely important.

The commissions paid for PST. Accelerated public infrastructure. Infrastructure spending is about jobs. Every job matters in British Columbia. You will see my
[ Page 14561 ]
ministerial colleagues taking steps to put in place programs, plans and projects that are all about keeping British Columbians employed. They're about building the economy. When there is building underway in the province of British Columbia, it translates to jobs — hugely important. In my view, that is what responsible government does. It creates economic opportunity, and it creates jobs.

Indeed, you will know that all ministries were asked to take a hard look at their operations, review their spending and ensure that we were delivering the best value for the dollar. I believe in that. I do believe in accountability. I do believe that public service is the rent we pay for our time on this earth.

The people of Richmond matter to me. The people of Richmond East matter to me. British Columbians matter to me in terms of what they expect from their government. They expect a solid climate from which to aspire for their dreams, their wishes for their families. This unprecedented economic downturn is, again, not unique to British Columbia, not unique to Canada. It is global today.

How we respond to that. Do I believe that we in British Columbia have a very good response in place? I think we have opportunities that far exceed many of the other provinces today. We have an enormous infrastructure plan underway — $14 billion worth of infrastructure spending. We have building underway in the province of British Columbia. Each time that level of investment comes to life, it translates to a job. That, to me, is hugely important.

The current economic climate demanded that we show restraint and be conservative in our fiscal plan — again, a historic financial downturn — but the needs of British Columbia demanded that we maintain spending on the vital programs and services that support our families, protect our children and enhance our communities. Hon. Members, this government delivered a budget that balances all of these needs. This is a budget that will contribute to a healthy economy and healthy families. This is a budget that will protect vital public services that matter to British Columbians.

Over the last few years British Columbia has seen extraordinary growth and remarkable prosperity. We have benefited from significant budget surpluses that this government has returned to our communities through projects that invested in B.C.'s future. We renewed an aging infrastructure in the education, health and social service sectors and established a strong foundation to help see us through these challenging days.

Supporting safe, affordable child care is a priority for this government. Child care is important to families, allowing them to pursue employment and educational opportunities, knowing that their little ones are well cared for. Over the last few years we have invested heavily in child care programs and services. We have provided over $34 million in direct capital investment to support the creation of more than 6,500 new spaces since 2001 — more than 3,000 of those in the last two years alone.

We have increased operational funding by more than 25 percent since 2001 to support child care providers in delivering high-quality, affordable care. We expanded the child care subsidy program, increasing a qualifying family's income threshold from $21,000 to $38,000. This increase in the number of eligible families benefited more than 12,000 children. The child care subsidy program now supports around 50,000 children and their families each year.

[1655]

We have planned well and invested wisely. The result is that the B.C. government now funds approximately 90,000 child care spaces in communities throughout British Columbia — 90,000 licensed and funded spaces, an increase of more than 40 percent since 2003.

Of course, the story is not just about the number of spaces, but it is about how child care has changed in the last few years and how we have responded. Child care has no one-size-fits-all solution. Child care options must meet the diverse needs of B.C.'s families and the needs of communities at large. So we've taken measures to increase choice and flexibility.

Since 2003 we have added approximately 7,000 child care spaces for children aged five and under, an increase of more than 35 percent. We have increased the number of out-of-school spaces by 29 percent. We have also created more than 1,000 spaces in family child care settings, which for many families is the preferred option. You think about that, particularly around special needs youngsters.

Oftentimes you're going to have, as an example, a youngster with Down syndrome. That family may believe and it may well be in that child's best interests to be in a setting of five or seven children, rather than in a setting of 20 or 24 or 16 children. We as a government said that what the family would wish for their child is the choice we need to respect. We have done our best to balance the funding available for family child care providers and the funding available for group child care, because again, family choice is something we take into consideration and consider very seriously as a government.

We have developed innovative partnerships with other ministries to combine our resources and allow us to accomplish more with the dollars we have by building on what already exists in our communities. I'll give an example.

The Down syndrome research facility was, frankly, a community hub. It had an array of parental services. It had an array of research activity. It had an array of speech language intervention, occupational therapy, physical therapy. The piece that was missing was child care. We took an existing hub, inserted child care into that program, and it is a full-service opportunity for families today, and it is a glorious opportunity for youngsters and for parents to be mentored by each other as they go forward.
[ Page 14562 ]

There are some great examples of co-located integrated service that make wonderful sense for communities. These partnerships include joint ventures with the Ministry of Education to put more than 500 new licensed spaces in public and independent schools during the '08-09 school year as well as creating an additional 30 neighbourhood hubs.

The Ministry of Children and Family Development also has a partnership with B.C. Housing to co-locate child care facilities in six social housing projects across the province. I am pleased to tell this House that very recently I had the opportunity to be at the opening of Victoria Heights, which is located in New Westminster — an amazing opportunity: 59 units of assisted living above, and on the first floor, a child care centre. Youngsters going upstairs to be in the presence of and to interact with the grandparents, and the grandparents coming down to visit with the youngsters in the child care centre — an amazingly useful partnership.

Lots of those seniors in that community have no access to their grandchildren. Their grandchildren may live in other provinces. And lots of those youngsters don't have access to their own grandparents. So the notion that we can co-locate different generations together, frankly, benefits both generations. So I take my hat off to the Good Samaritan housing society who run that facility and to the community who believed in it. New Westminster has a glorious addition to their housing opportunities as we go forward.

Our child care programs encompass a broad scope of supports, from operating funding to support quality care, to subsidies to assist low- and middle-income families with the cost of child care, to grants for capital projects, to supports for early childhood educators. Here in British Columbia we are guided by five principles that convey our vision for child care and help inform the decisions we take each day.

The first is accessibility: increasing the number of child care spaces while improving access to existing services; providing a variety of child care options in order to give families access to child care services that meet the needs of their family and their children.

The second is quality: to create safe, stimulating environments that support the emotional, social, cognitive and physical skills that are necessary for healthy child development and learning.

The third principle is human resource development: supporting recruitment and retention of high-quality care providers and supporting their professional development opportunities. There are educational incentives and bursaries, grants to providers and updated licensing regulations, because a high-quality child care system starts with the people that work in and support our system.

[1700]

The principle of integration, co-location, partnership and community. The ministry has sought out opportunities to develop unique partnerships with other ministries, agencies and community groups to provide an integrated continuum of child development services. Co-locating services benefits families and builds on the ideas that community takes many forms and that what we can achieve together is always more than we can achieve alone.

The fifth principle, and one that is top of mind in these times of fiscal restraint, is sustainability. Our investment focuses on community strengths. They are sustainable, and most importantly, they can meet the changing needs and priorities of the families they serve, both today and tomorrow. In building for tomorrow, safe, high-quality child care is a key component of a healthy province and a key element in a healthy economy.

Hon. Speaker, hon. Members, I am pleased to provide you with details on child care spending in Budget 2009 and how we will protect this important resource for B.C. families. The budget protects what we have built. It protects child care programs in British Columbia with a budget of $300 million for this fiscal year, an increase of more than $9 million over fiscal '08-09.

As I mentioned before, in putting together this year's budget, all ministries were asked to look at administrative and operational efficiencies in order to direct more money into programs and services. The ministry responded, and we will redirect a total of $25 million over the next three years to the child care subsidy program to help keep child care affordable for working families. The subsidy budget of approximately $139.9 million in '08-09 will lift to in excess of $148 million in '09-10, an increase of $8.3 million in this fiscal year alone.

In addition to the increased subsidy budget, operating funding will be maintained for the 90,000 licensed child care spaces. As indicated in our service plan, our goal is to add an additional 1,000 licensed and funded spaces over the next year.

As the Minister of State for Childcare, I believe strongly in my role, and I'm honoured to help make sure that quality child care services and programs are in place to support families throughout British Columbia. It is my good fortune to work closely with extraordinary individuals throughout British Columbia who contribute to the social, cultural and economic fabric of this province.

I have had the absolute privilege to meet with many, many fine early childhood educators, many family care providers, many licensing officials from the Ministry of Health, many leaders in community, many mayors and councils, many individuals who have said: "This baby, this young child lives in my community. I will do all I can to ensure that we form partnerships with the provincial government, with the municipal government as we go forward."

To those folks…. I applaud them. They absolutely understand that a citizen, a resident in their community, whether that little person is two or 12, deserves equal
[ Page 14563 ]
consideration as they go forward and should in fact form the basis of discussion in community. It is all about the kind of communities we want to live in, and for me it's about the babies. If we remember and put that small person at the centre of the discussion, we will enhance the types of service we deliver, and we will, frankly, create livable communities across British Columbia that are safe for young children.

We will co-locate and integrate better services as we go forward if we remember that government exists to care for citizens, to care for residents, to care for British Columbians. What people expect a government to deliver, government can partner effectively to deliver if indeed they keep the child and the family at the centre of that discussion. I fundamentally believe that.

I enjoy very much the role I have, representing the constituency of Richmond East, and I am grateful for the opportunity to be part of the positive impact that quality child care and family programs have on a child's success in life and on the well-being of B.C. families.

Budget 2009 was ultimately about leadership in challenging times. It was about making difficult choices to secure our commitment to the healthy development of children and families and fulfilling our work to support quality child care in every region of British Columbia.

We are prepared. We set challenging targets, and we've exceeded them. We've built a strong and sustainable child care system in British Columbia — one that we will continue to develop to support working families. There is no better investment and no finer return than investing in the future of our children.

Those who assist me in the riding to do this very important work deserve our accolades as well. I would like to take a moment to thank Laurie Sewell, who is my constituency assistant, and to thank Kelly Reitveld, now Dominick, who is on maternity leave, and my newest constituent, Robert Dylan Dominick, who she is caring for prior to her return to my Richmond East constituency office. To those three, I thank you most sincerely. The work will continue.

[1705]

R. Chouhan: I'm pleased to rise in the House today to talk about Budget 2009. It provides me a great opportunity to talk about my record in Burnaby-Edmonds since 2005.

In the last four years I have had the privilege to serve my constituents, a very diverse community with almost 100 different languages spoken in Burnaby and Burnaby-Edmonds. I want to thank my constituents for their trust in me, for their faith in me and my work, and for their help to make my work easy, because without their help I could not have done this job.

In Burnaby when we talk about Burnaby-Edmonds, we are talking about people who are not only the seniors who are struggling to make a living there. We are also talking about many new immigrants, refugees who have decided to make Burnaby-Edmonds their home. They're struggling with the many, many challenges when they arrived in Canada.

Many of these refugees are government-sponsored refugees. When they were brought here, they were promised that they would be provided all the resources to make their life easy here in Canada, but when they came here, they realized that they were to continue to struggle as they did in some of the situations where they came from.

Many of these people who have arrived in Canada from different countries are very educated, skilled people, but unfortunately, when they arrived here, they found out that their credentials were not recognized in Canada. They ended up doing jobs which they were not trained for. As a result, not only they but the Canadian society is also losing, because they were unable to make a contribution based on their skills, experience and education.

I also would like to thank many of the people in Burnaby-Edmonds who helped me to get elected in 2005. My constituency executive — not only have they worked hard, but they have been my friends.

In 2005 the person who really helped — I want to thank him for his hard work, his perseverance, his dedication, his commitment, his passion — is Paul MacDonnell. Paul MacDonnell in Burnaby is also known as Mr. Burnaby. He has dedicated his life to work for others. Endless hours, seven days a week, you will see him everywhere — working, helping people, standing up for those who could not help themselves. Similarly, the rest of my executive has also done a tremendous job to represent people in Burnaby-Edmonds.

I also want to thank people in the labour movement for helping not only those who are organized but those who are unorganized, like farmworkers. As many of the constituents would know, I'm the founding president of Canadian Farmworkers Union.

[1710]

In the '70s the farmworkers were not even deemed as workers. They were not covered under the Employment Standards Act or health and safety regulations of the Workers Compensation Act. With a great deal of help from people in the labour movement, community organizations and some of my colleagues here in the House — one of them is the member for Surrey-Newton — we worked together, and we worked hard to represent farmworkers.

Those farmworkers, after a long struggle, were able to achieve some legislative protection, and they continued to enjoy and gain more protection and recognition in the 1990s. In '91 when Moe Sihota became the Minister of Labour, he immediately passed law to make sure that farmworkers were covered under all aspects of the legislative protection enjoyed by other workers.

Unfortunately, in 2001 they lost many of those legislative protections the farmworkers had, because the government
[ Page 14564 ]
decided not to protect the farmworkers who produce food for everybody. They didn't have that protection like others.

I also want to talk about the two recent accidents — or incidents, as you want to call them. There were three farmworkers who were killed in a roadside accident, and since then the B.C. Federation of Labour, the Canadian Labour Congress, the progressive intercultural association and other labour movements have helped farmworkers raise that issue. I was pleased to raise that issue in the House, along with my colleagues on this side of the House, so we can have had some coverage for them.

Then later on there was another accident on a mushroom farm. I want to thank my colleagues the member for New Westminster and the member for Vancouver-Kingsway for their hard work in meeting with those families, helping those families, raising funds, because there was not much that those workers had, working at a mushroom farm. There was no money, and the families were totally devastated.

Along the same line, I would like to thank the Hospital Employees Union, my union, where I worked 18 years. I don't think the Minister of Labour is so pleased with that, but I'm very proud to be associated with the Hospital Employees Union.

Interjections.

R. Chouhan: Thank you.

The Hospital Employees Union, since 1944, has worked hard to represent its members. The collective agreement that they negotiated to protect the rights of health care workers was the best. It took, though, 30 years for the hospital employees union and its members to come to a point where they could clearly say that that collective agreement was their collective agreement, and they were proud of it.

In 2000-2001, before that election, the Premier — at that time the opposition leader — met with the Hospital Employees Union and promised that he would not touch their collective agreement. Everybody remembers that. He did say that, and it was recorded. The statements made by the Premier — the opposition leader at that time — were published in the newspaper called The Guardian.

[1715]

However, when the B.C. Liberals formed the government in 2001, they broke that promise shamelessly. And not only that. By introducing Bill 29, they forced almost 9,000 women to lose their jobs, many of them women of colour, who had worked all their lives in the health care industry, working hard. Their wages were rolled back, and they lost their seniority. The families were split. It was devastating, and the government took pride in doing so.

Today I'm here because of Bill 29. I promised that one day I'd go seek public office, get elected and speak against that action of this government in the House. I'm pleased to say that today I am standing here with my colleagues to do that.

I worked 18 years with the Hospital Employees Union. During that time I was very honoured to work with five leaders: Jack Gerow; Carmela Allevato; Chris Allnutt; and Judy Darcy, who is currently the secretary–business manager of the Hospital Employees Union. As of the last annual general meeting, we have now a new president of the Hospital Employees Union, Ken Robinson. I want to welcome him and thank him for his leadership, and also the secretary-treasurer, Donisa Bernardo, for her leadership to continue to fight for the rights of health care workers.

In Budget 2009, government took pride to mention that they are not going to increase the minimum wage. Yet they have had so much money for everything else but nothing for ordinary people, people who are….

Hon. K. Krueger: That's not our money. That's the businesses' money.

R. Chouhan: Right. The people from the B.C. Liberal side — their members are so proud to attack the workers of British Columbia.

Also, you know, what we have seen since then…. The workers at Hastings Park are under attack because the government has failed to represent them, failed to protect them, and that attack continues day in and day out.

But I want to share good news with you today. I have found out that the workers at GM Place last night achieved their collective agreement. Their leadership…. I want to congratulate UNITE HERE Local 40 and their members for working so hard to achieve that collective agreement.

Before I make some comments about the economy and what's happening in Burnaby-Edmonds and how they're being hurt under the B.C. Liberal government, let me also make one other comment to thank the more than 500 people who came to my fundraiser last night. Those people came to support me because they understand. They understand that they have to work together. They have to work hard to make sure that this government is defeated on May 12 and that we have a real government to represent people.

The B.C. Liberal government claims that they have done everything to make sure the economy is booming and doing this. But let me tell you….

Interjection.

R. Chouhan: Why don't you also tell those 20,000 forest workers who have lost their jobs under this government? Why don't you applaud that now too, Minister? Under the watch of this government, 20,000 forest workers have lost jobs, and that devastation still continues.

[1720]
[ Page 14565 ]

It's not only 20,000 workers we are talking about. We are talking about 20,000 families. Yet you're so proud that you are providing this good government, and you have failed them — completely failed them.

When the world economy was so good, this government took credit as if it was because of their policy that the economy in British Columbia was booming. Now the economy is going down, and suddenly they're quiet. They don't want to talk about it. If their policies were so good, why is the economy in B.C. not good at this time? Because they're hypocrites. That's why.

You know, they don't want to let the public know the truth. The question to be asked — and it's being asked by the average families of British Columbia, as my colleagues have been asking about — is: if the B.C. Liberals could not make life affordable for average families during the good times, how can they make life affordable during the bad times?

They are not going to increase the minimum wage. Come on. Every other jurisdiction is doing it. Those workers who receive minimum wage are not going to go to the Cayman Islands or somewhere else to spend their money. They will be spending that money in their neighbourhood. Just have some common sense. Look at that. Who will be benefiting from that?

But no, this government is not interested in helping those poor people, hard-working workers. In the last eight years, what have we seen? An increase in homelessness many times, many folds. Child poverty — what have we seen in this province? The leader in this nation in child poverty under the watch of this government. Incredible. The tuition fees for the students have gone up by what percentage — 200 percent, 300 percent?

If that's not enough, even the parking fees have gone up under this government. We encourage people to go enjoy the beauty of this province, go to the parks, but now they have to pay fees. You know, they can't even enjoy their own province. MSP has gone up; transit costs have gone up. The cost to ride on ferries has gone up. If that's not enough, let's talk about the gas tax. The most stupid policy of this government. On July 1, it's going to be doubled.

The government takes great pride in continuing to attack poor people, their social programs, yet we have seen year after year billions of dollars for the rich corporations but nothing for the poor people of British Columbia. More money for banks and oil companies but no money to increase the minimum wage.

That's the legacy of this government. But on May 12 we are going to put an end to that government, that mismanagement of our resources.

This government is so disconnected from the community. Let me give you an example. In Burnaby we have a Burnaby seniors wellness program, which only cost $35,000 a year. Fraser Health refused to fund it. Then after lots of pressure from the community, from the seniors, Fraser Health decided to fund $30,000 for one year.

I hope the Minister of Health through his good office will tell Fraser Health to keep that funding going so the seniors can continue to get the help. It's very important, but the government doesn't care. They have to listen to those seniors.

[1725]

We have no money to increase the minimum wage, but we have $365 million for the B.C. Place roof — a retractable roof when we have snow, rain, you know, everything else. I don't know how many days in a year we will be able to enjoy that. So $365 million for B.C. Place roof, yet there's no roof for the homeless people.

About four weeks ago I was attending a function in Burnaby-Edmonds organized by the Eritrean community. I and my colleague Peter Julian were there. We went there and were talking to people. When we came out, we saw the sign for an extreme weather shelter. That's at a church. So Peter and I decided to go there and to see how people were doing. It was freezing temperature outside. The organizers told us they had 39 people in that small room, and they were running out of food.

I had to go back to the Eritrean community function asking for leftovers so I could take that food to those people who were in that church trying to sleep but hungry. This government has no money for programs like that and people like that. What a shame.

Cost overruns. It's a daily story. Convention centre — a half-a-billion-dollar cost overrun.

Now, we are going to have Olympics. Olympics are for everyone to enjoy. However, what we have seen is that we are now finding out that many of these communities are going to be shut out. They won't be able to come to Vancouver, the Lower Mainland, because their community local airports are not going to be functioning. People won't be allowed to fly because of those security reasons.

Before I finish, let me also talk about the so-called new ferries. This government, rather than helping the local shipbuilding industry, went all the way to Germany to get those ferries built — Germany. Spending thousands and thousands of dollars giving a party to workers in Germany, yet our workers don't have jobs. They are losing jobs.

Interjections.

R. Chouhan: This is what they're talking about. Just think about those workers here. Think about the workers of British Columbia. You are so arrogant and out of touch you don't understand that. You are so out of touch, totally.

We are talking about this Budget 2009 and a deficit. The government continued to paint a rosy picture. "That's okay. Don't worry about it. Everything will be fine." When the budget came down, we saw a deficit. The
[ Page 14566 ]
surplus the NDP left in 2001, they blew big time. Now they have broken their own promise to have….

You know, in this budget there's nothing for the seniors. There's nothing for the students in this budget. SFU is seeing huge cutbacks — those teaching aides and other resources they are losing. That's what we are talking about.

Yet there's lots of money available. The government gave senior staff aides a 43 percent increase, but no money to increase minimum wage. The Premier himself got a 57 percent increase in wages, but no money to increase the minimum wage.

[1730]

When this government decided to increase the MLAs' pay and the Premier's pay by 57 percent, my colleagues and I decided to donate that money to the community. The New Democratic Party members, 33 or 34 members now, have donated a quarter of a million dollars to the community.

I am proud to work with many community organizations in the Burnaby-Edmonds area. I'm going to read a list of people that we have been enjoying an association with: Afghan Women's Sewing and Crafts Cooperative; Afghan Together; Burnaby Multicultural Society; Immigrant Services Society; Portuguese-Canadian Seniors Foundation; Burnaby Association for Community Inclusion; Burnaby Community Connections Society; Burnaby Early Child Development Community Table; Burnaby Family Life Institute; Burnaby Hospice Society; Burnaby Task Force on Homelessness; Burnaby Mental Wealth Society; Community Action Coalition of Burnaby; Helping Families in Need Society; L'Arche Greater Vancouver; Mainstream Association for Proactive Community Living; Marguerite Dixon Transition Society; MOSAIC Burnaby; My Artist's Corner; Pacific Assistance Dogs Society; South Burnaby Neighbourhood House; St. Leonard's Youth and Family Services Society; SUCCESS Burnaby; Vancouver and Lower Mainland Multicultural Family Support Services Society; Volunteer Burnaby; Burnaby Intercultural Planning Table; Kingsway Imperial Neighbourhood Association; and Edmonds Town Centre Business and Community Association.

[H. Bloy in the chair.]

There are many other organizations such as the Sierra Leone, Eritrean, Ethiopian, Sudanese, Serbian and Scandinavian communities, not to forget the faith groups.

This is just a sample of the many organizations that are trying to make a difference in Burnaby. I'm very proud to say that I have a very close, very friendly relationship with these organizations that are doing a wonderful job, and I want to say thank you to all of those volunteers and community organizations who are working hard in the Burnaby-Edmonds area.

In closing, I want to say that the constituents in Burnaby, my constituents, gave me this opportunity to represent them. I look forward to another opportunity on May 12 to continue to help them and to represent them in this House to make sure that we have in Burnaby-Edmonds the resources that we need to protect people. With that, I say thank you for this opportunity.

J. Les: It's a pleasure this afternoon to rise to address the provincial budget that was tabled a few weeks ago by the Minister of Finance. As I reviewed the budget over the several weeks that have passed since, the conclusion I've come to is that this is a very responsible budget in very challenging times.

It's clear that we face many challenges in common with governments around the world today. I think our approach here in British Columbia is the correct one, but it's also able to move forward in the way that it has because in the last seven and a half years we've actually put the conditions in place that allow us to more successfully meet some of the challenges that we find ourselves in today.

When you look around the world, there are certainly many governments that have not been in the same condition that we have found ourselves in, with relatively low debt levels, with very low taxation levels, which will enable us to actually come through this economic downturn more quickly and more successfully than many other locations.

There are perhaps a number of reasons why across the world today we find ourselves in an economic downturn. I've heard members opposite sometimes almost celebrate the fact that in their minds the era of capitalism is over, and we're now going to see a resurgence of socialism.

[1735]

Personally, I certainly do not subscribe to that. Socialism has proven itself to be a completely failed philosophy. I would hope that, as various leaders around the world deal with this economic situation, they wouldn't go looking for solutions in that particular area. Wherever it's been tried, socialism has simply not worked, and it has limited the potential of people wherever it has been tried.

Here in British Columbia we're building for the future. We have laid out a clear plan over seven and a half years now, and seven weeks and one day from now, we will be looking to the people to pass judgment on the record of this government. I strongly believe that the people will, again, endorse this government and its policies, that we're on the right track and that we have the correct vision as to how this province needs to move forward.

We are an optimistic government. We feel that there is tremendous potential in British Columbia — potential in the people, potential in the resources, potential in the industry of British Columbians — and if we correctly harness
[ Page 14567 ]
all of those resources, the future in British Columbia is essentially almost unlimited.

As I was listening to some comments of members opposite, I guess I couldn't help but think that they are caught in some kind of a pessimistic rut that frankly is pretty surprising. I hear from British Columbians all the time who are excited, who are optimistic, who are enthusiastic and, along with this government, fully believe and firmly believe that we have a great future ahead of us.

The member for Malahat–Juan de Fuca just a few days ago on a radio program essentially said that we don't need to develop any more electrical resources in the province. He said: "I don't believe we need the energy from Site C at this time. The industrial load has dropped by 50 percent in the past two years as mills have closed down." What that says is that that member doesn't believe that the demand is going to come back and that we should just throw up our hands and say: "It's over. Turn out whatever lights are left, and let's sit down and bemoan our fate in a spate of pessimism."

I don't believe that that member has made a correct assessment at all of what the future holds in British Columbia. Along with most British Columbians, I believe that the difficulties in the forest industry, for example, are very temporary in nature. There is essentially no new housing market in the United States at all at this point. So it's no secret that Americans are not buying lumber. You can't sell lumber to people who aren't building things.

On the other hand, we're quickly developing markets in China and in other places, and I commend our government's efforts in that part. We've had some notable successes, and we need to continue to pursue those successes in the future. But to take the position that, you know, we're experiencing a downturn in power consumption and that somehow is going to manifest itself in a permanent condition is simply wrong-headed and I think is indicative of the pessimism that pervades the New Democratic Party. I guess if I were them, with an outdated philosophy and no real plan as to how to move forward, I would be fairly pessimistic as well.

It's simply wrong to suggest that, for example, the independent power production industry should be shut down. There are over a thousand direct jobs in that industry today with hundreds of millions of dollars of investment going into place. I can't believe. It really defies logic for me how any member in this House could stand up and suggest that that is an industry that should not be on the landscape of British Columbia, that it should be shut down.

[1740]

Actually, the New Democratic Party has committed to shutting down that industry should they form the government at some point. I can't imagine anything being more wrong-headed. Here we have a thriving industry doing a great job in British Columbia, being very careful with the environment, at no risk to government. And here the NDP would flat out shut it down. Again, you know, if it isn't being done by government, they sure don't trust the private sector to do it, no matter how well regulated an industry might be.

So I commend those British Columbians who are moving forward, who are investing in our province, who are taking the risks, who are providing something that is of significant value to British Columbians and who share with our government a real optimism in terms of the future.

We're also, of course, going through a temporary downturn in demand for commodities, but I would suggest that even though there's a downturn in demand at this time, we're not going to see the same disastrous results that we saw in the years when the NDP was in government. I can recall in 2001, at the end of the NDP administration, only $29 million was spent that year on mining exploration in the province of British Columbia.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members, please allow the speaker to have the floor.

Continue.

J. Les: Since that time, in the last seven and a half years, there has been an expenditure of $1.6 billion in mining exploration in British Columbia. Again, that compares to the $29 million that was spent in 2001. So it's clear that with the election of the B.C. Liberal government, the mining industry found renewed optimism, found a more supportive environment, and they responded quite clearly.

Now, the NDP would suggest, of course, that it all had to do with rising commodity prices, but I have this funny suspicion in my gut that if the NDP were still government today, we would not have seen $1.6 billion spent on exploration and mining across this province. It just simply wouldn't have happened. We know that the NDP is not favourable to the mining industry — never was. And I suspect that, unless they change their philosophy, they never will be.

So as I said, in seven weeks and one day the people of British Columbia will be casting judgment on the record of this government, and I will be happily promoting the fact, of course, that we have been a very good and responsible government. We have reduced the debt. We've reduced taxes over a hundred times. We believe firmly that a dollar in the hand of the individual is better than a dollar in the hand of government.

But at the same time, even in today's rather restricted financial environment, we have still taken care to ensure that the extra dollars that we find in this budget are going to the right places, and in particular, those are the areas of health care and education. I fully support that.
[ Page 14568 ]

It is clear that although we're in difficult times, we must not take that out on our youngsters who are trying to get an education. We must also protect health care for all British Columbians. Those are two fundamental values that we're upholding in this budget, and I think that is entirely as it should be.

When I look at education in my riding in Chilliwack…. The Chilliwack school district happens to be one of, I believe, only three school districts, at this point, where there is still a growth in the school-age population. It's marginal, but it's at least still a positive growth. The allocation of funding to my school district has been increasing every year, as it has been across the province.

Not only have we been allocating dollars on the operating side, but also on the capital side. A couple of years ago we built a new middle school, the G.W. Graham Middle School. It was built using a design-build procurement process which was very successfully done. It was, at the end of the day, a $28 million school that will serve that Vedder Crossing community very well for a long time to come.

[1745]

Just last December the member for Chilliwack-Kent and I were able to announce almost a hundred million dollars that will be spent in the rebuilding of three schools — new schools at Yarrow Elementary, Chilliwack senior secondary and Rosedale elementary and middle, three new schools that are going to replace aging schools. In the case of Rosedale Elementary, I believe that parts of that school are over a hundred years old. It's high time, certainly in that case, that that school is replaced.

For the others, the issue, of course, was seismic upgrade. It became clear as those schools were evaluated that new construction was actually going to be more cost-efficient than attempting to retrofit and seismically upgrade the existing schools.

That work will be getting underway in the next number of months. Of course, it comes at a welcome time in terms of the construction workers, who are finding the job environment a little bit more challenging at the moment. They are going to very much welcome the new jobs that are available as these schools are constructed.

The construction of the Evans flyover and interchange is well underway. I visited there just last Saturday. Again, it's a design-build procurement process, and lots of people are at work there every week as they construct what's quite a significant project to help with the traffic circulation situation throughout the city of Chilliwack.

One of the major successes in the Fraser Valley, and certainly in Chilliwack, has been the designation of the University of the Fraser Valley. That's been a particular joy to me as I've watched the evolution of what was once night school in Chilliwack become Fraser Valley College, which then became the University College of the Fraser Valley and is now the University of the Fraser Valley.

I'm not sure if I've ever seen a public announcement in Chilliwack that was greeted with more applause than the designation of that university. It's been embraced by the entire Fraser Valley community. People understand that this is an important new education facility that we now have in our community. They have built and they are building on a great record of success.

The university designation has led to a 30 percent increase in terms of the number of applications for admission to the next year. That's actually quite astounding when you think about it — a 30 percent increase in admission applications. The university staff are certainly challenged to try and deal with that kind of a surge of applications, but it's a challenge that they are happy to entertain.

One of the major initiatives that I was able to assist in, in the last two years, was the acquisition of a new campus in Chilliwack on the grounds of what used to be the Canadian Forces Base Chilliwack. The Chilliwack campus now has 85 acres there, on which they've already established a trades and technology centre. In the future they will be moving the rest of their Chilliwack north campus to that location. We're working together with the federal government to try and attract some of the grants that were recently announced by the federal government and to place them in that facility as well.

So there are lots of exciting things going on in terms of education, both K-to-12 and post-secondary, in the Chilliwack area. There's lots of work still to be done — the construction of the three schools that I already mentioned, the very significant construction that needs to be undertaken on the new Chilliwack campus of the University of the Fraser Valley.

All in all, there's a lot of positive feeling in the community that our education sector is really coming of age, and what a difference that is from years gone by. I can recall that when I graduated from high school in Chilliwack many years ago, there were no post-secondary opportunities available whatsoever.

Just as a bit of a side note here, in 1972 the then government had actually designated about 90 acres of land at the corner of Lickman Road and the No. 1 Highway in Chilliwack, but a new government was elected in 1972, and those plans went absolutely nowhere. I sometimes still think of what might have been, but unfortunately, it never happened then.

[1750]

Interjection.

An Hon. Member: What party was that?

J. Les: Well, I'll leave members of the House to speculate as to what party that was, but my constituents know very well what types of governments have worked for them and what types of governments have not worked for them.
[ Page 14569 ]

It was the same situation in 1991, where the then provincial government had actually purchased about 12 acres of land in Chilliwack for a new justice centre, including a new Provincial and Supreme Court facility. In 1991 a new provincial government was elected, and those plans, too, went off the rails, not to be revived until ten years later when a new court facility was built by this government in the downtown area of Chilliwack.

You know, my constituents are pretty aware of what happened when NDP governments have been elected in the past. These have been consistently grim times for my constituents, and I suspect that on May 12 people are going to be mindful of that.

It's always been a pleasure for me and the member for Chilliwack-Kent to work very closely with our municipal council. They're a very progressive group and are always a great pleasure to work with. We're currently, of course, working with them to see how they can maximize their grant opportunities, not only from the provincial government but also from the federal government. I think it's necessary for us to attract as many of those federal dollars as possible to our communities because there is such a significant focus on developing infrastructure.

British Columbians have an important decision to make in just 50 days from today — a very important decision. They will need to decide whether to re-elect a government that has significantly reduced the debt, a government that has very significantly reduced tax rates, a government that understands that free enterprise is actually a force for good and a government that takes great pride in having produced almost 400,000 new jobs in British Columbia over the last seven years, in spite of some adversity from time to time.

That is compared to a party that has already promised to take us $10 billion further into debt, a party that wants to shut down the private sector in the production of electrical power, a party that wants to take another $450 million out of the pockets of small business people in this province.

Those are just a few of the things that we already know. I suspect that, were we unfortunate enough to elect an NDP government, there would be an awful lot more of that type of thing that the NDP would invent to drag our province back into last place in this country, as we were in the 1990s under their administration.

I'm going to wind up my remarks at this point. I just want to say that I am very confident as to what will happen on the 12th of May, and I look forward to continuing to be able to serve the residents of my riding and the people of British Columbia.

J. Horgan: It's remarkably a pleasure to rise today at the blood sugar hour. It seems I always have the good fortune of following a member, either my friend from Westside or my friend from Chilliwack, at the point when I should be having a sandwich rather than standing in this place and having a reasoned and rational debate, which is what I would hope most of our constituents would like to see as we discuss Budget 2009.

Interjection.

J. Horgan: Again, my good friend from Moose Jaw is also up to have some comments, so I look forward to a rousing 30 minutes, hon. Speaker. I hope that you enjoy it as much as I'm going to.

[1755]

As we start, I want to acknowledge a couple of people. I'm very grateful for the Chair, because I know he keeps some sanity in this place at this late hour. He recognizes that we're not all at our best at this time.

But I know that my friend from Shuswap…. We've exchanged our collective disappointment at the level of discourse when we come to this place, when our constituents, quite frankly, would prefer that we try and grapple with the problems that we face in our communities.

Before I begin my remarks on Budget 2009, I just want to take a moment and thank my staff in my constituency of Malahat–Juan de Fuca. Fifty days from now the Malahatians and the Juan de Fucans will be broken apart, and there will be only one riding, Juan de Fuca, and another separate riding in the Cowichan Valley.

It has been truly a pleasure to represent Malahat–Juan de Fuca. I know that my friend from Oak Bay knows it well, and from Saanich North, as Islanders. It's a diverse constituency that includes the beauty and splendour of the Cowichan Valley as well as the rugged west coast of Vancouver Island and the dynamic and free-enterprise…. I know that'll shock the devil out of the member from Chilliwack.

Hon. K. Krueger: There's no devil in him.

J. Horgan: Yeah. Well, hallelujah, brother. Hallelujah.

Deputy Speaker: Please direct all comments through the Chair. Thank you.

J. Horgan: I will, hon. Speaker. I will.

The dynamic community of Langford, which is growing in leaps and bounds…. At least it was until last November. Certainly, members on this side of the House, economists, commentators — those who have been observing the world economy — recognized that there was a profound shift and a profound downturn at that time. It took a while for the Finance Minister here to come to that conclusion.

I recall — members will remember — that the Premier lost sleep at the prospect of a red balance sheet rather than losing sleep over child poverty or losing sleep over some of the profound social challenges we have. We had them in the '70s; we had them in the '80s; we had them
[ Page 14570 ]
in the '90s; we have them today. This is not the result of government policy. It's the result of a society and a civilization that's not keeping pace. It's not providing services for the weakest in our community.

That goes not just in Malahat–Juan de Fuca, but right across the board. I think all members would acknowledge that we all have an awful lot of work to do on that front. It's with that in mind that I begin my remarks on this year's budget with a focus on my constituency, currently still Malahat–Juan de Fuca.

There are a number of issues in terms of stimulus. I mentioned Langford, a dynamic community driven by housing starts, primarily, but also a burgeoning commercial sector. The big-box store was shunned in communities throughout the south Island but embraced in Langford, and the result has been an economic whirlwind here in the capital regional district, undeniably driving the local economy beyond those service sector jobs that we find in all of our communities from Sidney to Sooke and up to Nanaimo.

Langford has been unique in that the construction sector has been just on fire. We have large-scale developments. Certainly, the members on the other side will know from massive fundraising events at Bear Mountain that there's a lot of activity on the housing front in my community — some affordable housing, some lavish housing, a golf course or two on what could have been a place to grow some carrots. I know that my friend from Nelson-Creston is big on growing the carrots. Rather than putting in another 18 holes, we could have maybe planted some fruit and vegetables.

Nonetheless, we've had a lot of economic activity focused on the construction sector, and now that we're in a downturn, people in my community are looking for some sort of a stimulus package from their governments, whether they be federal or provincial. It's interesting to note that as we get ten-lane bridges in the Lower Mainland, we get portions of sidewalks here in the south Island.

I know that the ribbon-cutting ceremonies are going to be around for the next 50 days or so, and in my community there was some excitement about a couple of hundred-thousand dollars' worth of community grants. Certainly, that money will be well used. The minister will know that. The former and the current will know that that's money that my constituents are grateful for.

However, when you put those several-hundred-thousand-dollar grants up beside the multi-billion dollars invested in other parts of British Columbia, there does seem to be a disparity and an inequity that one would have hoped in an election period….

[1800]

If the government was genuine about trying to demonstrate to all British Columbians its magnanimous approach to sharing the wealth, they would have maybe looked at the Malahat Drive, which I've been talking about for four years in this place. They might have looked at commuter rail, which I've been talking about for four years in this place.

They might have looked, heaven forbid, at Highway 14, which I was on last week on my way to Port Renfrew. Just as I came around the corner, that's when the divide for the road, which had just fallen into the sea, changed from two lanes to one lane. That's a big problem. Thankfully, it was at high noon on a rainy day, so it was still visible. But if you had been out of town for a couple of months and came back and were on your way to Renfrew, you'd come around the corner at Lost Creek and, all of a sudden, there's only one lane where there used to be two.

I've talked to the highways people. The Minister of Transportation is always able to allow me to speak to district staff. We have a very good relationship. But the road has fallen into the sea. It's not like it needs a little bit of asphalt on the shoulder. It's gone. It has fallen away. It's a significant undertaking to fix that, but did we hear anything about that from my good friend, the Minister of Community Development? No. Did we hear anything from the Minister of Transportation when he was doling out 20 million bucks just last week? No.

This isn't a pothole; it's a big chunk out of the side of the road. It's like Pac-Man has come along and just bitten into the middle of the lane, and it has fallen into the sea — and nothing from the government. It's a safety issue, they maintain.

Well, absolutely it's a safety issue. There used to be two lanes; now there's one. The gravel just keeps sloughing away, and maybe we will have no lanes soon enough. Again, I would think that while we're building ten-lane bridges — for what purpose is not clear to me at this point in time — we'd want to save a couple of bucks to keep the people in Port Renfrew linked and connected to the capital regional district.

One of the other issues that was raised when I was in Port Renfrew…. This is an important one, and I'm glad that my friends, the senior cabinet ministers for the south Island, are receptive to this message. It's the north Island–coast development trust, which was established some five years ago.

At that time, in debate in this place, I said: "What about Port Renfrew?" It couldn't be more rural. It couldn't be more remote, but it was excluded from the trust because it was within the capital regional district. An artificial administrative line drawn on a map in south Vancouver Island excluded the people of Port Renfrew from accessing this fund, which is available to other communities and outside the capital regional district.

I raised that with the minister at the time. It was the current Minister of Finance, and he said he would look into it. If the debate warranted it, he would amend that legislation. Unfortunately, that hasn't happened. I encourage the Minister of Advanced Education and the minister of everything else, the member from Oak
[ Page 14571 ]
Bay, to keep in mind, as they're reviewing their submissions and final presentations for election lolly in the next couple of weeks, that they might want to consider Port Renfrew as a community that can access the northern development initiative trust.

Also, first and foremost, try and get two lanes on that road instead of just the one. If you're not going to at least put the second lane back, put a sign up a little bit bigger than the one that's around the corner.

These are issues, I know. As I see my rural colleagues from Yale-Lillooet and from Nelson-Creston always anxious to discuss highway issues in this place, they'll know that it's not an insignificant thing to rebuild a road. I understand that. The people in Port Renfrew understand that. But when they see ten lanes…. Thank goodness, they're not being built in Germany. These are ten lanes that will be built right here in British Columbia — which is a good thing, I suppose. They're wondering in Port Renfrew: "What about us? What about us?"

I also hear the "what about us" in a number of other places. I've been surveying my constituents recently, asking them what their priorities are as I entered into this budget debate. It seemed important to me that rather than come in with the gold-plated pompoms, as some of the members from the government side do, and talk about how grand and wonderful everything is, that we maybe go and ask those people that pay our salaries, the people that send us here, the people who have an expectation that their tax money will somehow be spent on good public purposes.

You'd be surprised at some of the responses I've been getting on the surveys and also when I ride the bus, the No. 61 bus to Sooke once a month to have a town hall meeting on the double-decker buses, to hear directly from my constituents what their concerns are. You know what? They're not terribly concerned about what goes on in this place, hon. Speaker.

[1805]

I know you're shocked to hear that. You're shocked to hear that the people in my constituency care little about the back-and-forth in this House, and I think a large measure of that is the result of the unbridled enthusiasm and the cheerleading on the one side and the so-called negativity on the other side.

I've said it in this place before. An effective opposition makes for a good government. The government doesn't like an effective opposition. Thankfully, this budget is not before the courts, so we've had an opportunity to actually have a discussion about the key elements contained in it. But the notion that only goodness comes from that side and only hardship comes from the other side, I believe, is part of the problem with the body politic in British Columbia.

I was born and raised here. I've been around for several governments. I was here for Social Credit governments, NDP governments, more Social Credit governments, more NDP governments and now this hybrid that we have now.

Hon. K. Krueger: At last.

J. Horgan: At last. Again, it's that very…. You personify the problem, hon. Member, and I thank you for that.

The notion that somehow only goodness and light comes from that side is just wrong. It's wrong, and you know it's wrong.

Interjection.

J. Horgan: I'm corrected by my friend from Saanich.

Again, I'm trying to speak on behalf of my constituents, and I realize that that's of little consequence to people in this House today. The notion that somehow you have all the right answers, hon. Speaker, on that side and that we just don't have a clue is just not true.

Hon. G. Abbott: You're getting it. You're getting it.

J. Horgan: It's just not true, and Shuswap knows that. He knows that.

We're going into an election, so we're going to say: "My dad can beat up your dad. I'm smarter than you. My deficit will be smaller than your deficit. My tax cuts are bigger than your tax cuts." But all of that is just white noise. It's just white noise to our constituents, and everybody knows that. Every single person in this place knows that.

The one problem we have with these half-hour dissertations, hon. Speaker, through you to my colleagues on the other side, is that we don't get the opportunity to have the to-and-fro. I regret that we won't have an estimates process this year, and I also regret that my good friend from the way, way north, Senator Neufeld, won't be here to go on about the crazy socialists. Thank goodness the member from Chilliwack is still here to talk about the crazy socialists.

Ideology is dead, folks. We all know that. The notion is who do you trust. "Who do you trust?" That's what people say to me on the bus. They don't care whether I subscribe to 18th-century liberalism or if I'm a neoconservative or if I'm a dogmatic Marxist-Leninist. Can they trust me? Can they trust their member of the Legislature? That's the concern people have.

I think that we've diminished the place and that we diminish ourselves when we constantly get into "if you sit over there, you have all the answers, and if you sit over here, you're stupid as a post," because it's not true. There are a lot of bright people on this side, and there are a lot of posts on that side, hon. Speaker. That's just the way it goes. We all have our equal measure of posts and smart people.
[ Page 14572 ]

I think the wisest words ever spoken by the former Premier, Dave Barrett, were: "No party has a monopoly on geniuses, and no party has a monopoly on stupidity. It's equal measure on both sides of the place." And I think he was right. I think that members on that side acknowledge it. They know that. They know that to be true. Not everybody over there is a rocket scientist. I wouldn't want to name names — because that just would be wrong, and I won't do that — but I can look at some of them right now, if that will make them happier. [Laughter.]

Again, hon. Speaker, I apologize for the blood sugar. I had some remarks I wanted to stay to, but I can't help but be jocular and frivolous when my friend from Shuswap engages in the heckling. I'd like to move, then….

[1810]

I've tried to establish for both sides of the place that no one has a monopoly on truth; nobody has a monopoly on the right answers. But as we go into the next 50 days and as we start to beat each other over the head with our particular points of view, I'm hopeful that we'll all survive and live to be better and stronger as a result of it.

I am hopeful that there will be fewer people sitting over on that side, hon. Speaker, yourself excepted. But I do genuinely, for those that are listening, generally wish the best for all of you, and that's always been the case.

The member from Chilliwack was raising some issues. I was on the radio program, and I learned a very valuable lesson. There are 275,000 people working in the public affairs bureau, and everything I've ever said is written down on a piece of paper. I bet you that everyone over there has got it. I'm getting nods from my friend from East Kootenay.

This also, I believe, diminishes the debate, and it diminishes our ability to communicate with people.

Interjection.

J. Horgan: Scattered applause. I'm sure that the members on the government side would have applauded, but they've been told they're not allowed to.

Interjection.

J. Horgan: Off the record. Yeah, they'll applaud off the record.

The point I'm trying to make, if my colleagues will stop heckling me, is that if we're going to communicate the challenges that we have…. Goodness knows, there are challenges in our communities, in our province, in our country, in our world.

If we're going to not leave it to those idiots on Fox News to talk about our military as they did…. I know that members have accessed that YouTube section of some dim-wit in the United States disparaging our Armed Forces. If that's the level of communication that our communities are stuck with…. All of us in this place, regardless of where we come from, regardless of our passions, are muted because we're not allowed to speak for fear that someone will repeat back what we said.

Hon. B. Bennett: You mean, like e-mails?

J. Horgan: Like e-mails. The member brings up a good point. The current minister, who was a former minister, the day he….

Interjection.

J. Horgan: No, I think I want to expand on this riff, because he's absolutely right. The day the member for East Kootenay resigned from cabinet the first time, I was asked by the media — I was the critic for his portfolio — to beat him up. I said no, because there but for the grace of the Maker go I, and I said it to him at the time as well.

An Hon. Member: Were you sick that day?

J. Horgan: No, I wasn't sick that day.

The minister at the time was heated. He went over the top. I don't know about this knife fight business that's gone on afterwards, but the day that he resigned the first time, I had sent an intemperate e-mail to someone in another constituency. So I'm certainly not about to go on the radio and complain about that guy when I also was frustrated by an inability to communicate with constituents. It's a challenging job. We all know that, both sides of the House.

Getting back to the main point, it's not being intemperate with your constituents. It's being silent and saying absolutely nothing except the gold-plated pompoms. "Hurray for us. We're going to have the Olympics. Everything's going to be great." Well, it's not. There are going to be a lot of challenges.

The Minister of Finance today in question period got up and said that everyone in the world is just delighted that we're going to have the Olympics. I'm excited about watching some hockey games. I'm looking forward to that. I'm looking forward to some gold medals and all of that, but there are going to be problems.

There are going to be security problems. There are going to be disruptions to commerce. People are going to be inconvenienced. Our health care system will be strained. Lots of problems will happen, but the government will not hear it. They cover their eyes, they cover their ears, and most importantly, the Premier covers their mouths.

The Premier covers their mouths and says: "Not a discouraging word, not on my watch. I'm the top dog here, and I'm just not going to let you say a bad thing." It's just
[ Page 14573 ]
that, though, that creates the cynicism that I was talking about in my community.

"The Olympics are going to cost 600 million bucks." How long did we hear that? How many years did we hear that? Year after year after year: "It's 600 million bucks. That's it. Not a dime more. But don't count the Olympic secretariat. That doesn't count. That's not part of the Olympics."

[1815]

That one issue…. Put aside the security. Put aside, maybe, the overruns here and the overruns there. The notion that you could say that the Olympic Games secretariat was not an Olympic cost is just dumb. It's just dumb, and the public gets that.

When the public starts to be cynical about things like that, is it little wonder…? It is little wonder, when the government says: "We're going to have a $495 million deficit, but don't worry. Even though we didn't see this coming, even though we're just guessing, even though our revenue numbers are way more optimistic than they should be, two years from now it's all going to be good. Everything's going to be fine."

I know that the members on the other side have constituents that are very, very concerned about their future. They may have lost their jobs. They may not be able to meet their mortgage payments. Their investments have disappeared; they've been halved. Conservative investments have dropped by 30 percent, 40 percent.

People who were expecting to retire are now wondering. Thank goodness they eliminated mandatory retirement, because they're going to have to be working until they're 85. People are concerned. They're genuinely concerned, and both sides of the House know that.

Now we go into an election campaign, and the member from Chilliwack says: "You know, it's so bright in here that I've got to wear shades. Things are so good everywhere. There's not a waiting list in any hospital. There are more care beds than we could possibly fill in a month of Sundays. But I've got a quote here for the member for Malahat–Juan de Fuca. I'm just going to rattle it off, and that'll make something happen."

I don't know what. Do you think I've not been embarrassed in my life? Do you think reading back a quote, something that I said, is somehow going to knock me over? Somehow I'm going to be knocked over by someone repeating back to me what I once said. I never shut up. You might have noticed this. I never stop talking.

You repeat back two lines that I might have said on a radio show, and all of a sudden it's: "Holy cow, we've got him now. We got him on the run." No wonder people tune out.

No wonder people tune out. "What are you doing in this place?" they say. "Why are you not worrying about stimulating jobs in our community?"

Why are they not building a new secondary school in Langford, hon. Speaker? It's a 55-year-old building. It was built for a thousand people. There are 1,400 in it, and I haven't heard the Minister of Education talk about replacing that school. The school board has had a plan in place for three years. It's been before the government for the past three years. Nothing. Bubkes. I love that word, "bubkes." Yeah, bubkes. Nothing.

An Hon. Member: Is that parliamentary?

J. Horgan: Is it parliamentary? Well, someone should call me on that. The Clerk's not jumping up, so it should be okay.

I can't say crock, hon. Speaker, so catch me if I'm…. Yeah, I got a finger wag for that. Do not say "crock" unless you're a government member. You know, it's true. I went through Hansard. New Democrats have been brought to order for the word "crock," but government members have not.

An Hon. Member: It's the tone.

J. Horgan: It's the tone.

Deputy Speaker: Member, please continue on the debate.

J. Horgan: I will continue. I'm delighted to continue. Absolutely, thanks very much, through you to my colleagues on the other side and those people who are paying attention in radio land.

Belmont high school. My kids graduated from Belmont high school, a 55-year-old building. It needs to be replaced. The government has committed $26 million to seismic-upgrade it — $26 million. It would cost $50 million to build a new school.

They've got a plan to sell the existing site, move it to a former elementary school site and almost break even. The actual capital cost for two schools — not one but two schools — would come in at around 50 million bucks. You take away the $26 million for the seismic upgrade, and you're getting two schools for $25 million. Nothing back from the government on this. It's been before them for three years.

I've sat down with the minister. I've talked to her about it privately. I've talked to her about it in estimates. I've met with her staff. Nothing.

I'm hopeful. I'm hopeful that the government will try and buy votes in my constituency by allowing the Liberal candidate to stand up and say: "Oh, look. I just found 50 million bucks on the side of the road. What a good boy am I. Vote for me." I'll vote for him, absolutely. He'll get one vote. Me and his wife — that'll be two votes. He'll get two votes if you build a school in my constituency.

The other issue I want to talk about…. I know we're pressed for time here, and I certainly don't want to leave the members here without talking a little bit about
[ Page 14574 ]
other infrastructure in my constituency. We've talked about Highway 14. We've talked about the importance of putting the road back — finding the rest of the cliff and pushing it back up so people in Port Renfrew can get back and forth to do their business in Sooke and in Victoria.

[1820]

We've talked about Belmont School and the importance of getting those two schools, one in Royal Bay and one at the Belmont site or the Glen Lake site, up and running. But we haven't really touched upon transportation, and I think this is crucial. Again, we get sidewalks, and the Lower Mainland gets multilevel highways and bridges. It's just not right.

A modest investment in commuter rail service on southern Vancouver Island will remove cars from the highway. It will save taxpayers money. They'll be leaving their cars at home. There won't be the greenhouse gas ramifications. They'll be comfortable, they'll be less stressed, and they'll be happier when they get home — all the benefits from public transportation. Members on both sides of the House understand what that's all about. Why not in Malahat–Juan de Fuca?

Why in the world wouldn't you want to do the right thing? Buy some votes in my town, government. I implore you. I beseech you. Spend some of your largesse in Malahat–Juan de Fuca. Not the pennies off the side, as the member from Oak Bay often brings along, but how about some big-ticket dollars, some real Chilliwack-type dollars?

The member from Chilliwack was spouting off about the hundreds of millions, and we over here talk about the hundreds of thousands. Happy to have them.

An Hon. Member: Do you need a convention centre?

J. Horgan: If only. If only we could take a portion of the convention centre overrun and put it towards commuter rail on southern Vancouver Island, the net benefit….

Interjection.

J. Horgan: I think I'm being heckled by the member from Port Moody. I'm surprised, but nonetheless….

Hon. Speaker, it's been delightful having you in the chair.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

And I see we've got new company. Welcome. I'm the member for Malahat–Juan de Fuca for another 50 days. Good to see you. Thanks for coming out.

Transportation on the south Island. As I was just saying, it's vital to me. It's vital to my constituents. Again, Ministers on the other side, if you want to buy votes in the next 50 days, buy them in my constituency. Spend some money on Highway 14, spend some money on commuter rail, and for goodness' sake, let's replace Belmont high school.

J. Horgan moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. G. Abbott moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow morning.

The House adjourned at 6:22 p.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