2009 Legislative Session: First Session, 39th 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)

Thursday, August 27, 2009

Morning Sitting

Volume 1, Number 4

[ Page 49 ]

THURSDAY, AUGUST 27, 2009

The House met at 10:03 a.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

Government Motions on Notice

MOTION 1 — LEGISLATIVE CALENDAR

Hon. M. de Jong: I call firstly Motion 1 from the order paper standing there in my name.

[That effective immediately, the Standing Orders of the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia be amended as follows for the duration of the First Session of the Thirty-ninth Parliament, which commenced on August 25, 2009:

That section 2 (2) (a) (ii) be amended to read “from August 25, 2009 to November 26, 2009 inclusive.”

That section 2 (2) (b) be amended to read “The House shall stand adjourned during the weeks of September 7, September 28, October 12, and November 9, 2009.”

That section 2 (2) (c) be amended to read “As soon as possible after the passing of this motion the Clerk of the House shall publish a calendar which shows the days on which the House shall meet, according to the Standing Orders.]

Dealing firstly with Motion 1 which, for the benefit of hon. members, is that sessional order which sets the days of sitting for this present session of the Legislative Assembly…. Distinguish a sessional order from a permanent amendment to the standing orders, which is how to properly characterize Motion 2.

I don't want to prolong my comments except to perhaps make this point, particularly for new members. We actually have come some ways in this chamber over the last number of years, where a motion of this sort can be introduced and members will actually know when the House is going to sit. Normally, that's not required, because the standing orders provide for a calendar for the year which sets out, in combination with legislation, when throne speeches and budgets are to be introduced.

[1005]

This, of course, is somewhat of an anomaly this year, with the election in the spring and the need to reconvene — unusually, in fact — in August, somewhat earlier than is normally the case in the fall.

In any event, roughly speaking, the motion is there for members. We will sit starting on August 25 through to the end of November, as set out. The four weeks that the House will not be sitting, when members will have the opportunity to be back in their constituencies or attending to other business, are laid out in the motion as well: the Labour Day week, the week that the UBCM convenes in Vancouver, Thanksgiving Day week in October and Remembrance Day week in November.

Those would be my comments on Motion 1.

M. Farnworth: We'll be supporting this motion. As the Government House Leader said, it does set out the sitting dates from August 25 to November 26. It is somewhat unusual. I think it reflects the fact that we have had the election in the spring, and that results in a truncated process in terms of budgetary estimates debate, which did not take place in the spring, amongst other things. But I also think that what it does is point out the need for looking at….

If we are to continue with a fixed election date, I think it points out the need to revisit that in terms of moving it to the fall, because in another four years from now and an election, we could be back. In fact, we would be back. Given the nature of government and how the political and legislative calendar cycles work in British Columbia, we would be again back — maybe not in August but certainly the beginning of September. It was the same way in 2005.

We'll be supporting this, but I do think it indicates that we need to think long and hard about whether or not we maintain the fixed election date in the spring or move it to where I think it would be more appropriate: a fall date. With that, I will conclude my remarks, and we will do the vote.

Mr. Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, Government House Leader closes debate.

Hon. M. de Jong: To my friend the Opposition House Leader, my only comment would be that I think there might be surprising agreement on the principle he has enunciated. I will be interested, though, to know whether he proposes moving the date forward to the fall or moving it back to the fall.

I move the motion.

Motion approved.

motion 2 — LEGISLATIVE SITTING HOURS

Hon. M. de Jong: That brings us to Motion 2, which I also call standing in my name on the order paper.

[That effective immediately, the Standing Orders of the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia be amended as follows:

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

[ Page 50 ]

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

Hour of interruption.

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

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

This one has proven, over the last three years, to be a little bit more vexing, and it's fair to say that something of a difference of opinion has arisen between the government and opposition. I note that I looked back at some of the comments that were made in the past about the hours of operation for this House.

I should say, as I mentioned a moment ago, that this is distinguished from Motion 1 on the basis that while we have done this in the past as a sessional order, this presents itself on the floor of the chamber today as a proposal to permanently change the standing orders of the House and remove the need, on a session-by-session basis, to revisit the issue.

The significant change here that presented itself to the House at the government's initiative a number of years ago related to the practice of night sittings. It's fair to say that the government took the view a number of years ago that members deserved to have an opportunity to be with their families — and not just the members, the people that work in this place.

[1010]

There were really two guiding principles at the time in proposing the change that would not see this chamber sit into the evening — that is, the desire to provide a healthier working environment for not just the members but all of the support people who are responsible for being here and assisting us when the House is in session and the fact that a number of members had made clear their desire to have the opportunity in the evenings to be with their families or, in the case of many members where families are not here, to attend to other matters, to engage in a healthier lifestyle, sporting or recreational activities.

The other guiding principle was that the number of hours available for debate in the chamber could not be adversely affected. That gave rise to the calculations and the attempt to settle on an hourly schedule that would preserve those numbers of hours of debate time.

I have to say candidly that not just for the chamber as a whole but even within a single caucus — and I can only speak for one, but it is perhaps true for others as well — everyone's got their own ideas on what the perfect schedule is. What we eventually settled on and proposed to the House, the change that was proposed, was to start half an hour earlier in the afternoons and end half an hour later.

Over the last number of years, I think I have made the point and extended the invitation to members to provide feedback and thoughts on how that has worked. I can't say that a lot of members have made their views known — some have. In fairness, I should share with members of the House that most of the attention has focused, quite frankly, on the Thursday adjournment time at 6:30.

If there is a way to address that, a way that will enjoy fairly universal support and, again, won't compromise the number of hours available for debate, believe me, I and the government are certainly amenable to examining that. I haven't found or heard a way that would address everyone's interests or everyone's preference.

So I think there is some value in certainty. I understand as well the challenges that face opposition, and I am also reminded of some of the comments that the Opposition House Leader has made in the past about the challenges that derive from the need to prepare, for example, for question period, and that 1:30 may present different challenges than two o'clock. I'm not blind. I spent a number of years in opposition, and I understand those challenges.

However, I'm hopeful that, based on the feedback I've heard over the last three years, and if there is a way to address the Thursday late afternoon–evening issue…. If we can find a solution, there's no hesitation on my or the government's part to reopen that and address it. My dilemma thus far, quite frankly, is every time I've heard a proposal from one quarter, there has been another group who suggests that that is a ridiculous or outlandish suggestion.

We strive in vain for perfection, but this is the schedule that has been in place for the last three years. I recognize that it is not perfect. I recognize as well that my friend the Opposition House Leader has pointed out some of the difficulties and challenges that it has presented, and as I say, if there is a way to fine-tune it going forward, I'm certainly open to having those discussions.

M. Farnworth: This particular issue has indeed been vexing and problematic over the last number of years because it deals with the rights of all members in this chamber. It deals with the rights of government members, and it deals with the rights of members in the opposition because it's around the hours in which we sit and the hours in which we debate and the hours in which we work.

[1015]

[ Page 51 ]
How does that take place? How is that decision made? Is it a decision that is made unilaterally, or is it a decision that is made jointly? Our concern has been that in the past and when this was first done, it was very one-sided in its implementation. We argued vigorously against that. We have maintained that the best way to change the hours is through a joint consultative approach. I understand the concern around, for example, the Thursday hours. But we need to recognize that both sides of this House have legitimate and important roles.

The government's role in terms of introducing legislation is important. It's key. It's why we're here. But so is the opposition's role to question and to hold the government to account, and part of that is the preparation that takes place in the beginning of the session. Each day a lot of that preparatory work takes place in the first hours of the morning. So when you move a calendar to accommodate desire for individuals to enjoy time walking on Dallas Road or attending to other business or doing other things, that comes out of time that we would be taking for preparation. That backs us up.

For many who are involved, it means that they're not getting lunch or they're going straight through. So as you push down one end, it comes up at another end. That's why it's important that if you are going to make changes, it's done on the basis of both sides coming to something that works for everybody.

What we've seen so far…. You know, we have said that if that's not taking place, then we have standing orders that are currently in place. There are standing orders that have been in place in this Legislature for quite some time, and they have worked. They have worked.

We also in this chamber talk about the need to reach out and to make our deliberations here more accessible to the public. We hear from our constituents that — not that people make a regular habit of tuning into the legislative channel — people do watch. People do watch. It's amazing when you talk to your constituents that they are flipping the channel, and they go: "Ah, there's my MLA." They tune in to see and hear what's going on.

For many people, it's quite enlightening. For many people, for a short amount of time, they do watch, and they find it enlightening. They find it interesting. Those people come home from work at five o'clock, and it's at seven or eight o'clock when they're flipping around to see what else is on, and they stumble upon this. They find it educational.

Well, when we're sitting Mondays, when we have those evening sittings on a Monday and we have those evening sittings on a Wednesday, under the existing sitting orders, we're able to do that. We're able to expand and reach out to the audience of British Columbia who get to see their legislators at work, get to see how this place functions, and they get to see some of the issues being discussed and debated.

That is one of the advantages of the current standing orders. With this change, that doesn't take place. But more importantly, what we are concerned about is ensuring that we have the time — the opposition has the time — necessary, that it has the ability to hold this government to account, that there is not a reduction in hours, particularly on estimates debate — that we have the time available to us.

That's one of the reasons why we have voted against this particular piece of legislation in the past or this motion in the past, and we have said that we want to see that any changes should be done in a bipartisan way.

So we will be voting against this motion. We will not be supporting it. We think, in the absence of a jointly arrived at schedule, that we would rather stick with the existing standing orders.

So with that, I will take my place, and we'll call the vote.

Mr. Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, Government House Leader closes debate.

[1020]

Hon. M. de Jong: Thanks to the Opposition House Leader for his thoughtful commentary. I get the argument. I get the hesitation, and there may yet be ways for us to address some of the concerns that he has pointed out around the question of estimates.

The roles are very important. The role of scrutiny, ensuring that the means exist, the time exists on a schedule that works for the opposition to perform its fundamentally important duties in this chamber. So I'm hopeful — in fact, I'm certain — that those conversations will continue, and I am hopeful will have relevance for the session ahead.

I again emphasize to all members of the chamber that if they have thoughts on this that they would like to channel through either the Opposition House Leader or to me directly, they remain very welcome, and I appreciate the contribution of the Opposition House Leader to the debate and move the motion accordingly.

Motion approved on division.

Hon. M. de Jong: I call continued debate on the reply to the throne speech.

Throne Speech Debate

(continued)

Hon. R. Hawes: I'll just take a moment while people are leaving here.

I'd just like to take a moment and recap some of the things. I know when I left off yesterday I suggested that members of the opposition might want to go home and sleep on their position and perhaps rethink some of the things they're saying that are so far over the top, and maybe, maybe they would come back in a more enlightened mood and at least accept the facts that have been laid out.
[ Page 52 ]

[L. Reid in the chair.]

So I just want to recap for a moment some of the facts that I did lay out yesterday, and I know the Finance Minister did, and the Premier as well, and others.

First, with respect to the budget numbers. Anyone sitting saying that someone should have looked forward and understood where the economy was going and how revenues were going to get lost, not just to government but to businesses all over the world…. The global meltdown has been profound. It was unforeseen, and it in some ways may be continuing. No one is yet certain that we've hit bottom. We hope we've hit the bottom. We think we're starting to move up. But even some of the leading economists in the world are saying we might be looking at what they call a W, where we have a little bounce up and then it falls back down.

This is a very uncertain thing, so to say that we should have known or someone should have known — well, I guess the world should have known — and then we might not have faced the problems that we're facing…. But the world didn't know, and we didn't know.

But we did rely on the best minds that are out there, unlike what the NDP did in the '90s, when they got their recommendations in 1996 and discarded them and said: "Let's go with a much more conservative…." That's why they called it the fudge-it budget.

We in fact took the estimates of the best minds out there, and then we went more conservative, which we have done for a number of years. In fact, that opposition for years has said that we were underestimating revenues deliberately so that we would have bigger surpluses and it would look better. You can't have it both ways, Members.

We do the best job we can. I think we do an excellent job. We rely on not just the fully professional staff that work for government but, as I said, the best minds in the country.

The HST was something that came upon us after the election. The rationale has been laid out. It's very clear why we had to do what we had to do in terms of putting in the HST. The interesting thing is that members, including the Leader of the Opposition, have said we don't consult with the forestry industry; we haven't done anything to help them. Yet the forestry industry is out there saying the HST is the best thing that could possibly have been done for them at this time. So I would suggest that if the opposition wants to do some consultation, go out and talk to business.

Now, they always talk about big business — we're helping big business — as though big business is the enemy. Well, actually, business includes big and small — the business sectors. And you know, big business also employs people. There are people who get their paycheques…. Ordinary people get their paycheques from what your enemy seems to be, which is business. Shame on you for that.

[1025]

I also want to straighten out the comments that…. I made them yesterday. But just to make sure, just to reiterate, the Mission hospital in my riding. The member for Vancouver-Kingsway has repeatedly said that, first, the emergency room was closing. That's what he came to my community and said. I think that was an absolutely abysmal thing for him to do — fearmongering, scaring seniors.

Then he came back and actually expanded it to "perhaps that would lead to the hospital closing" and all kinds of dreadful things. Then it became downgrading, and he started to talk about the fact that it would be an urgent care centre instead of an emergency room.

Well, the fact is there are no specialists in Mission hospital. When you come into a hospital like that and you have a serious problem and you need a specialist, what should happen? You should be sent to the closest hospital that has the specialists you need. That's been going on in Mission for years and years. That, folks — just for your edification — is the definition of an urgent care centre.

So in fact we have been, de facto, an urgent care centre for years, but why let facts get in the way of a good scaremongering? You know, for me, the member for Vancouver-Kingsway…. Forever now, I will know him as medi-scare — the member for medi-scare. That would be him.

I do want to talk about the BCUC decision and where the government is moving. BCUC has said we should use Burrard Thermal. The member for Juan de Fuca has been out, even as late as yesterday, saying we should rebuild Burrard Thermal, that we should sink a lot of money into it and modernize Burrard Thermal.

I live in the Fraser Valley, the most challenged airshed in British Columbia. In the 1990s — and I'll just go from recollection; if I'm wrong, I'll apologize — they refitted three of the six generators in Burrard Thermal, and they put scrubbers on them. It's sort of like putting a catalytic converter on a 1956 Cadillac. This is antiquated generation equipment.

They put some scrubbers on three of the generators, and they bypassed the environmental assessment process when they did it. They knew this wouldn't pass the smell test of environmental assessment, so they bypassed that. Then….

Interjection.

Hon. R. Hawes: I notice that the member for Juan de Fuca continues to talk, although he doesn't live in that airshed. If he did, he would have been part — maybe…. Well, he wouldn't because the government of the day didn't help us when we were fighting SE2, which was a gas generation facility in Washington State that would have pumped all kinds of air into the Fraser Valley.

I would like those members opposite to go back and read the New Era document that we put out in 2001 as
[ Page 53 ]
part of our election. We made an election promise in 2001 that we were going to phase out Burrard Thermal. I would like to just reiterate this. In 2001, in an election promise, in a written platform, we said: "We are phasing out Burrard Thermal." We didn't say we're rebuilding it. We didn't say we're going to fire it up.

But here are some facts for you. The members opposite don't like facts, but this is the fact. In 2000 Burrard Thermal was burned and created 3,000 gigawatts of power. Where did the power go? It was sold to California. Oh, by the way, we never got paid for that either, did we? We never got paid for that power.

Last year it was burned for 300 gigawatts instead of the 3,000 under that group. They now want to rebuild that facility, sink in $350 million. That's what it would cost to rebuild it. And for what purpose? We have said we're phasing it out. That has been a standing election promise. We were waiting to make sure that we have sufficient power that we can phase it out, and it will be phased out.

When the BCUC says to rely on it for backup power, they're ignoring an election promise that we made in 2001. We intend to keep that election promise, so it will be phased out. So much for that decision. That's just the way it….

But the member opposite for Juan de Fuca doesn't seem to care about the folks in the Fraser Valley. Perhaps he should come out and consult. Ask the people in the Fraser Valley if they want Burrard Thermal to continue.

[1030]

Now, I understand that the mayor of Port Moody would like to continue to get a million and a half dollars in property taxes or property tax equivalent from that facility. However, I don't think that we should be putting people's lives, people's health ahead of the tax for Port Moody. Port Moody will continue to collect taxes on that property. It will continue to be there. But Burrard Thermal will be phased out. It will be a happy day for the folks in the Fraser Valley because it is the most challenged airshed in British Columbia.

Now, I know that clean, green power seems to mean nothing to these folks opposite, but it does to us on this side of the House. I believe that my constituents want green power. We are going to provide them with green power regardless of what you people want — gas-fired power or coal and dirty power bought from offshore. We're not going to be doing that.

In conclusion, we have a great throne speech. I'm happy to have been able to speak to it, and I'm very proud of the steps this government is taking to rebuild the economy.

D. Routley: It's always an honour to rise to speak in this House. This being the first opportunity since the election, I'd like to bring thanks to the people of Nanaimo–North Cowichan for entrusting me to represent them here in this House in the tradition that they expect.

I'd also like to thank my daughter Madeline, who makes my life so wonderful. I was a stay-at-home dad with Madeline, and she is the light of my life. Those, indeed, were the best days of my life when I would go hiking with her every morning and watch her hair swing across her back in the light and think that these were the days that really meant something, that meant more than anything could in life. I think that all people who are parents and appreciate the renewal of youth will appreciate that.

Also, I would like to thank my partner, Leanne Finlayson, for her love and support, and her children Matthew and Brooklyn for their friendship.

I just spoke about kids. I play a game with my daughter and with Leanne's kids sometimes. We call it "opposites day." Opposites day, for those of you who aren't familiar with that game, is a day when my daughter loves spinach and hates ice cream. That's the day when she turns on the light to go to sleep and turns off the light to read. You get my drift; everything is opposite.

Well, for the Premier and the B.C. Liberals, opposites day is election day. On election day the Premier promises not to privatize B.C. Rail. He promises not to tear up HEU contracts. He promises not to harmonize the provincial sales tax with the GST. Do you see? It's opposites day.

It's just that those of us in British Columbia who were casting votes didn't know it was opposites day. My mother has another word for that practice when it's not opposites day. It's another word, and it can be paraphrased or summed up by using the words "deception," "misleading," "showing contempt," "false promises," "not telling the truth." That indeed is what was offered to British Columbians during the recent provincial election campaign: false promises, untruths and deception.

The people of B.C. expect more from this place and from us and, indeed, from their government. It's not a game. It's not opposites day. They expect, when the Premier makes solemn promises to the seniors of this province, that those promises will be kept. They expect, when our Premier promises that there will not be cuts to services — health services, education services — that those promises will be kept.

Perhaps the promises broken to our seniors are the most serious promises, for they are the people who built this province, for they are the people who handed us these tools of democracy which we take up in this House. The seniors at Cowichan Lodge, the seniors at Zion Park and the seniors displaced by this government's policies expect us to maintain those tools as hand tools — not power tools, hand tools — that their children can take up to affect the futures of their communities. But this government has disarmed us of those tools.

[1035]

It's our job on this side of the House to encourage the public, to encourage the voters of B.C. to continue to have faith in this place, in this process, and feel that they
[ Page 54 ]
can indeed pick up those tools again in their own hands and affect the future of their communities.

One of the booming elements of the recent past in B.C. has been cynicism. Cynicism is a booming commodity in B.C., based on these deceptions. We look to young people to be engaged. We're discouraged when they're apathetic. We look at them through a lens often of crime and drugs and violence. Well, switch that lens around, and there is optimism, idealism, hope and renewal. How can we in this House break promises made to them and not expect that 50 percent of the people of this province will refuse to show up and vote on election day because election day has just become opposites day? How can we expect anything else?

I work with young people who come to this House. I bring them on job-shadowing. I'm most impressed by bringing them to Mr. MacMinn, who's been here for 50 years and still maintains a passionate faith in parliamentary democracy. He warns them that we go into question period and it's very heated; it's very angry. There's a purpose to that. It's angry and it's heated in the chambers of democracy so that it isn't angry and heated on our streets.

There is anger, there is animosity, and there is passion in this House so that there isn't blood on our streets. As long as we maintain the function of this parliament, which is this opposition holding this government to account for misleading the people of B.C., they can have some faith.

What do they expect? What do they expect when they send us here? They expect — number one, most basically — truth. They expect democracy to be run in a truthful way. They know that their wallet isn't perhaps as thick as the Premier's, that their power isn't going to equal his, that their influence won't equal his, but they know they have one equitable element, and that is their vote. He can't spend any more votes than they can. Their vote matters just as much as his. His promise is to them, and it was broken.

Previous throne speeches have been full of metaphors, and metaphors are essential elements in communicating ideas, translating thought. We've heard budgets and throne speeches entitled children's or seniors budget. We have the worst rate of child poverty in this country for the sixth year running — not looking like it's going to improve anytime soon under this B.C. Liberal government with its metaphorical, thematic statements that have become nothing but opposites day exercises in deception.

Seniors budget. Well, seniors are denied care and displaced from their homes. The fastest-growing group among the homeless by percentage are seniors in the province of British Columbia. That is a disgrace.

Housing. We had the housing budget, and yet homelessness has increased by over 300 percent under this government's watch. Deception and metaphors that are empty of meaning are leading to more and more cynicism and apathy from the people of the province of B.C., and who could blame them? What do they expect of the potential of this place? They expect their priorities to reign at this House. Their priorities are not cutbacks to health care, cutbacks to education, hurting those who can least afford to be hurt. Their priorities are not giveaways to insiders. Their priorities are not a vision without mandate, the HST betrayal, the shifting of burden to ordinary people.

That's not the priority of British Columbians. They have different expectations. The promises that were made to them and the promise that they hold for their children of this province are being unfulfilled by that government.

Let's go through a few of the broken promises. It's opposites day, remember. The HEU. "Oh, the HEU contracts are safe, should this government be elected in 2001" — safe to be torn, safe to be rended. Bill 27 led to the largest mass firing of women in Canadian history. The largest mass firing of women — that's how safe they were under our Premier and the B.C. Liberal government.

[1040]

Olympic costs. Our Finance Minister stood in this House, and at least a hundred times it passed through his lips: "$600 million and not a penny more." Can you blame any British Columbian for becoming cynical listening to that and then learning that the security costs alone were $895 million?

We can't just offer up words and hope that that creates a reality or avoids a reality. We have to deal with what's in front of us. British Columbians are prepared for that task. They're ready. They have the energy, the commitment, the faith in their province to rebuild the services that this government has torn down — the forest industry that they hold dear and our environment that has been so besmirched by these B.C. Liberal policies.

They're ready for that, but they need leadership that is credible. They need leadership that doesn't amount to a stack of broken promises and deceptions, and that's what they've got.

B.C. Place Stadium. I'm sure those Whitecap players who stood in the campaign event and were so happy with the potential of getting a new team because the Premier was going to put the roof on their stadium — a roof that I don't agree with the cost of…. But still, isn't that a deception? Isn't it a deception? Isn't it somehow a broken promise?

B.C. Rail. You know the double green — pale green, dark green — gold and white of the old B.C. Rail colour scheme? Those were the two sides of the dogwood leaf. The underside was light green, pale green, and the top side was dark. It was a symbol. It was a symbol of an investment that the predecessors of that party made. They've even betrayed their own legacies. It was leased for 999 years. It's funny how 999 comes up. Wasn't the weekly limit on Internet gambling raised to $999 per week recently? Funny coincidence, isn't it?
[ Page 55 ]

But it was a broken promise. The speaker before said: "How could they have predicted that the deficit would be as large as it is or the recession as deep?" Well, they only had to look around at the rest of the world. They only had to drop the denial: "Oh, B.C., the best place to live. We're going to avoid it all, no problem. No problem. No story here."

Economists throughout this province were telling them that their deficit numbers were wrong. No one believed them. Yet that's what they offered to British Columbians.

Another example of economic mismanagement by this government: the reckless deregulation of our forest industry that has led to unprecedented levels of raw log exports, the loss of our manufacturing base, the loss of the very elements that it will take to recover from this recession.

The convention centre with its billion-dollar overrun over its budget.

Their denial of the downturn. It is either inexcusable incompetence or unacceptable deceit to not have seen this and offered the truth to British Columbia voters in May. They knew, or they should have known. Either way, it's inexcusable.

If you think government's role is just to pander to those who need government's help the least and pay the most for it, all of this might make sense to you. If you believe, as I do, that the government's role is to manage the resources of this province in the public interest, in the interests of the people and the future of our province, then this makes no sense at all — this auctioning of our common wealth, this liquidating of our future.

Is it survival of the fittest or those who happen to be — by birth, luck or whatever circumstance — those who have? Are they the only ones who have the attention of this government? What about those seniors? What about those people living in poverty? What about the future of British Columbia, those children living in poverty in this province? What about them?

[1045]

The throne speech said nothing about them. No investment in the future. We've seen literacy programs cut. The executive director of Literacy B.C. told our Education Committee three years ago that a 1 percent gain in literacy rates in B.C. equals a $1.6 billion increase to our GDP, yet those are the kinds of programs that this government cuts. No.

What are their values? What are our values? What are the values of British Columbia historically? Well, ours, I can tell you, are investing in the strong fundamentals of this province: education, supporting small business and entrepreneurialism, using the resources of this province to benefit its people and its future. Those are our values. We value empathy. We value empathy for each other, and so do British Columbians. We value independence, and so do British Columbians.

Their values? They seem to be to distribute the benefit of this province to those who need it the least, to shift the burdens of that to those who can afford it the least, to deregulate those protections for workers and for communities that made this province a place of leadership in policy.

B.C.'s hard-working, independent people have a different set of values. They are empathetic. They don't appreciate the homelessness, the seniors displaced. They put their province first, and they expect us to do the same. They are collective and inclusive. They're considerate people. They do not endorse policies that hurt people — B.C. Liberal policies. They believe in a community-based approach to the economy, one that supports us, not takes away from us.

We would be mistaken if we assumed that these things were happening by mistake. It's not by mistake. It's quite purposeful. In fact, they're doing exactly what they need to do to implement their ideology, their program. It's not that they don't get it; they do. They do.

They are working on a set of ideas that are worn out, a set of principles set for them by extremists like the Fraser Institute. These are ideas that have been proven failures throughout the world, and yet they remain entrenched on that side of the House. The rest of the world is moving on while the B.C. Liberals are stuck, and we're stuck with them because of the deception they offered during the election campaign.

Does any member on that side, particularly those who won by narrow margins, believe that they would be sitting in this House if their government had been honest about the HST? Does any one of them believe that? Does any one of you members who were elected by narrow margins believe that you would have been elected had the government — had our Premier — been honest about the size of the deficit? Do you? Worn-out ideas that deserve to be cast in amber like things of the past.

This government, disciples of the Fraser Institute…. They're trapped by this faith, a commitment to deregulation and privatization. They're not sharing the real agenda because they know that if they did, they wouldn't be elected because it doesn't suit that set of values that British Columbians believe in — because by sharing it, they know they wouldn't be elected.

The HST. It's the ultimate in hidden taxes. Not only is it hidden from the price; it's hidden from us. The idea that they just came to that conclusion weeks after the election is ludicrous and is incredible.

No one in British Columbia believes you, Member shaking your head. No one believes you. Not even your own supporters believe you. No. It's an impossibility.

Deputy Speaker: Member. Member, direct your comments through the Chair, please.
[ Page 56 ]

D. Routley: Yes, Madam Speaker. It's an impossibility, Madam Speaker, to that member. It's an impossibility.

If they only came to that conclusion after the election, it's an inexcusable incompetence not to have known what was happening in the rest of this country. It's inexcusable that they wouldn't consult the people affected and tell them: "This is what it will mean to you. This is how we will cushion the blow. This is how we will take care of your interests, your public interest." But no.

[1050]

Those members who were narrowly elected know that they wouldn't be here, and that government wouldn't be that government. They'd be sitting here, and we'd be sitting there, and the interests of British Columbia, the public interest, would finally be guarded in a real way.

The environmental hypocrisy of this government that so damages the lungs of this planet with forest policies that damage our forest land base, that destroy our forests — the best contribution that British Columbia could make to climate change is to maintain the healthy lungs of this planet. But no.

They cancelled the LiveSmart B.C. program after running on its benefits — another deception, another element of cynicism offered to British Columbians. The young people that come here on job-shadow hear these words and expect them to actually mean something.

They abandoned the Vancouver Island marmot, an endangered species — cut the funding to protect it and its habitat. How can someone who has painted themselves green, who has painted their policies green, possibly do such a thing? Their fish farm policies, their ruin-of-our-river policies — all of these are offered up as green solutions.

The HST itself cancels exemptions from provincial sales tax on bicycles, on energy-efficient appliances. That's a green effort for you right there, I'll tell you. Yes, deception, misleading the voters — that's what we have seen. "We won't harmonize the PST with the GST" — deception. "We won't sell B.C. Rail." Whoops. No, Madam Speaker.

We've seen promises in health care. We were promised there would be no cuts. They would protect our health care services. We see service cuts. We see surgery cuts. We see service delays. We see seniors denied care.

The provincial health officer said that, regarding H1N1, the most effective defence would be to clean our schools effectively. I used to do that job. The people doing it now clean twice the area that I had to clean. Our hospitals have privatized contracts that have led to accusations from throughout this province that our hospitals are dirtier. How is that protecting the public interest? "Oh well, we couldn't have seen the deficit coming, and we couldn't possibly have seen H1N1 coming, so never mind."

You know, we're becoming the laughingstock through these measures. The HEU contracts being torn up. Imagine a government that would tear up contracts. The B.C. Rail scandal, the loss of the e-mails. Whoops. Which ones? Oh, the ones leading right up to the sale. Oh, they're gone. Sorry. Richard Nixon was defeated over 18 minutes of missing audio tape. This government erases years of e-mails essential to the biggest political scandal in this province's history — in the country. It's amazing.

The Tourism B.C. shock. Even those who supported this government are shocked by that betrayal. This mismanagement of our economy — these misleading and broken promises, false promises — has led us to a place where we have the second-worst economy in the country, only 0.1 percent better performing than Ontario. We have the worst job loss record in the country, and still they stand and wave flags. Worst of all, we have the highest level of child poverty — worst of all. The throne speech offered nothing to those children and their families.

These are policies that have been condemned. Our own Auditor General condemned their forestry policies, the removal of TFLs. You know what the Auditor General referred to that as? A failure to protect the public interest — the most core job of any government.

The apprenticeship program — chaos. The same thing. The Auditor General: failure. Their energy policy. The BCUC decision — what phrase did it use? "Not in the public interest." We're telling them, BCUC is telling them, and the Auditor General is telling them.

What did they do when the Auditor General told them that the TFL removals were not in the public interest? They picked a fight with the Auditor General. They accused him of not knowing his stuff. It's done differently here in B.C. Well, certainly it is done differently. It's opposites day in B.C. He didn't know that. Oh, well, neither did the voters.

[1055]

This is the opposite, in fact, of what's required in this province right now. What is required in this province is a program and set of policies that will offer employment, not an unemployment strategy, which is what this government is offering to our families and communities. They need stability, not shock after shock immediately following an election and in the middle of a deep recession. They need stability. They need to know that the promises made by their government are going to be upheld. In fact, Madam Speaker, opposites day.

I am sure that from their ideology, it makes sense, but surely not even this government would endorse misleading the public. But apparently they do. Apparently they do. So again, they're guilty of either gross and inexcusable incompetence or an unacceptable dishonesty.

Viewed from the position of the Fraser Institute, this is no mistake, and you might even applaud these policies. But viewed from the set of principles that I detailed — that most British Columbians, I believe, hold — this is an abject failure. This is a betrayal.
[ Page 57 ]

What's missing from this throne speech? Something to give hope to our forest-dependent communities, something to give hope to the forest workers displaced by the deregulation policies of this government. Nothing was offered. Those workers at Harmac in my constituency, at Catalyst pulp mill, needed hope. They got none.

A crime strategy. The streets of our communities reflect the disparities that we see brought about by Liberal policies.

Class size and composition in our schools. They made a law about that, only to break it dozens and dozens of times. It was missing.

Homelessness. Something for the people of B.C. who struggle to meet the basic demand of finding a home. Was there one word? No, Member, there wasn't one word.

A poverty strategy. I know that you members see those people come through the offices of your constituency, your constituency office doors.

[C. Trevena in the chair.]

I know you see them. I know that they come and they ask for help that you can't give them because the programs they needed have been cut, long abandoned, and their circumstances only worsened by your government's policies.

Those are not the values this province was built on. This province, in fact, owes apologies. It owes apologies to the tens of thousands of forest workers displaced by their failed policies. It owes apologies to the tens of thousands of children living in poverty unnecessarily, to the tens of thousands of HEU workers displaced by their illegal Bill 27, to the hundreds of thousands of seniors displaced and inadequately cared for. This government owes an apology to every British Columbian for a campaign waged on false and misleading information.

This government deceived the people of B.C. This government broke the public trust in an unprecedented way. This B.C. Liberal government, through their false promises and deception, have crowned this as the decade of deceit.

Don't get me wrong. They have a right to their opinion, and if their opinion is based in ancient and proven failures offered up by the Fraser Institute, so be it. But they know if they offered that up as a campaign platform, they'd never get elected.

What our province needs is real leadership that puts the public interest first. We need real leadership that is open and consults with the people of B.C. The people of B.C. are ready for the task in front of them. They are ready for the job of rebuilding their public services, their forest industry, their environment.

[1100]

The Premier and the B.C. Liberal government have forgotten that it is not their health care system. It is not their public education system. Indeed, it is not their province. It belongs to all of us as British Columbians — all of us. We manage it here in the public trust. That's what's been betrayed by this government.

The unparalleled breaking of public trust we have witnessed has left a stain of apathy and cynicism in this province. The most toxic element in democracy is cynicism. Under this B.C. Liberal government we have seen a boom in cynicism. British Columbians, I think, could be forgiven if they gave up, but they haven't given up. They haven't. They're still ready for that task.

We on this side of the House are ready to provide the leadership that will work across the lines of division in this province, unite British Columbians in all regions. We will unite British Columbians in the great project of rebuilding this province for the future of our children and our communities. Opposites day again will be nothing but a game, and again the people of this province can have respect in the political process.

This government's discrediting has been long coming and is quickly reaching a climax this summer. The people of B.C. will not unite behind this leadership that has so deceived them. This government has bankrupted itself of political capital and credit, and it's time for us to restore faith in the process and this province.

Hon. M. McNeil: It is my honour to rise today to deliver my maiden speech as the MLA for Vancouver–False Creek and the Minister of State for the Olympics and ActNow B.C.

I would first like to thank my family for their unending support. Many of you who have spoken before me have mentioned the impact of a political career on your families, and I want to echo that. I have been blessed with a large family and an incredibly supportive husband, Rod McNeil. Throughout my entire career he has given me the support that has enabled me to achieve what I have, and I want to thank him publicly for that.

My four daughters, Molly, Megan, Kate and Beth, their spouses and my 11 grandchildren have given me the reason to stand here today. They are all living in British Columbia, and for that I am thankful. Their future is why I decided to leave the so-called real world for the political one. They are the reason I will be able to work with all of my colleagues and make the tough choices we will need to, to get us through these challenging economic times. Their future depends on it.

I want to thank my parents, Arne and Peggy, and my siblings for giving me their interest in the political process and the importance of getting involved. But most of all, I want to thank all of my volunteers, and the residents of Vancouver–False Creek for electing me as their MLA. I am honoured to represent them, and that includes my breakfast club.

Not only is this my maiden speech, but it is also the maiden speech for the newly formed riding of Vancouver–
[ Page 58 ]
False Creek. When I say new, I actually mean new; 64 percent of the housing in this riding has been constructed in the last 18 years. In fact, 29 percent of the riding has been built since 2001. Think of that. More than one-quarter of the riding has been built in the last eight years.

In the 12 years since my husband and I first moved into the riding, it has doubled in size. Its population has gone from 23,000 to 43,000 in those 12 years, and it's expected to grow by another 29 percent over the next five. The number of families has gone from 4,300 to almost 12,000 families. This makes for a wonderful neighbourhood but creates many challenges, as these families need services. What we have found is many have come to the neighbourhood as singles. They have married, had children and stayed on in the riding. It is a vibrant neighbourhood because of this.

Vancouver–False Creek is a prime example of why B.C. is the best place to live, work, play and invest. In this riding we have Kits Point, Granville Island, Citygate, Yaletown, much of the downtown business core and a portion of Coal Harbour. And soon we'll be welcoming the new Millennium Water neighbourhood, otherwise known as Olympic village.

[1105]

We have the planetarium, Science World, B.C. Place, GM Place, the new convention centre, Arts Club Theatre, Vancouver Art Gallery, Queen Elizabeth Theatre and more.

My riding is also the heart of what will be one of the most exciting events ever to happen in British Columbia. Madam Speaker, in 169 days the Olympic cauldron will be lit at B.C. Place Stadium, and the 2010 Winter Olympic Games will begin. Over three billion viewers will be watching British Columbia. This will be an unparalleled opportunity as well as a huge economic opportunity for our province's economy, with an estimated benefit of $4 billion.

For the first time in Olympic history, all sports venues have been completed one year ahead of schedule. The Vancouver Olympic/Paralympic Centre will be the largest curling venue at any winter games to date. It's fully accessible for athletes and spectators, and that's a legacy that will continue as the facility is modified for community use after the games are over.

The UBC Thunderbird Arena, recently renamed the Doug Mitchell Thunderbird Sports Arena, hosted the 2009 Hockey Canada Cup Sledge Hockey tournament, where Canada claimed the gold medal in a shootout over our American neighbours. With a storied history, this venue will play an important role in the upcoming Olympic Games and will be a recreational, high-performance, multi-sport sports legacy facility moving forward.

The same accomplishments have been met for Whistler's venues. The Whistler Olympic Park will host, for the first time in Olympic history, all four Nordic disciplines: biathlon, ski-jumping, Nordic combined and cross-country skiing. Not bad, especially when you consider this venue will host 30 percent of the Olympic medal events and 50 percent of the Paralympic medal events. The Whistler Olympic Park will continue to showcase Nordic sports by hosting international competitions as well as providing significant opportunities for recreational use.

Successful test events in many of these venues are a testament to our preparation. Our Canadian athletes are training on the surfaces where they will be competing. They have had extra time to prepare and have gained tremendous training advantage as a result of the construction efficiencies taking place for these games.

We should not only be proud of these fantastic venues during the Olympic Games; we should be proud of what they will continue to offer to our communities and for tourism in years to follow. This has been our goal from day one. I have had a chance to see these venues, and yesterday when the IOC said they were spectacular, they were right. From the Richmond Oval to the sliding centre in Whistler, we are creating a legacy in British Columbia that will put B.C. on the map as the go-to destination for international sporting events.

There is no doubt that the games, as His Honour said in the throne speech, will be the largest-ever single promotion of our future and what our province offers. People will watch and cheer as over 5,500 Olympic Games athletes and 1,350 Paralympic Games athletes compete on the world's largest athletic stage. They will demonstrate remarkable levels of athletic ability, healthy living, passion and perseverance. They will demonstrate a commitment to their sport, their country and a much deserved place in the 2010 Winter Games.

As host of the 2010 Winter Games, our Canadian athletes will be front and centre. We will have many highlights and sports competitions to enjoy. In total, the Olympic Games program includes seven sports with 15 disciplines, resulting in 86 medal events. The Paralympic Games will support five sports with 14 disciplines, with a total of 64 medal events.

[1110]

For the first time ever, the men's and women's hockey tournaments will take place on an NHL-size rink, and we all know that it's more than just hockey. The 2010 games will also be the first to welcome ski-cross to the Olympic program.

Through initiatives like the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic live sites program, we are bringing the spirit of 2010 to the communities around British Columbia. The province provided $20 million towards 123 legacy initiatives, from upgrades of recreation centres and sports equipment to revitalizations of 2010 Winter Games community celebration sites. The 2010 live sites program was a true example of our commitment to building a lasting legacy of opportunity, achievement and celebration in communities all across British Columbia.
[ Page 59 ]

As I mentioned, these games are about the future as much as they are about the present. A major area of our planning was focused on running the most sustainable games in modern history. These games will be green. They will be the first in history to have an official supplier of carbon offsets, with a target to neutralize up to 300,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions from the games.

In another Olympic first, the 2010 Winter Games will utilize Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design — otherwise known as LEED — criteria and environmental standards. Even the Olympic rings at YVR, which were designed and built here in B.C., are green. With these initiatives we are well positioned to deliver the first carbon-neutral Olympic event in history.

I have said so much already, and I've not even talked about one of the most anticipated events ahead. Before the opening ceremonies, before the sports begin, before Canada wins our first gold medal, we will be celebrating. We have already witnessed the passion this province is feeling during Spirit Week, where 120 communities celebrated the one-year countdown to the Olympics.

This fall the festivities will be even greater, celebrating as the Olympic flame passes through our communities in British Columbia and across the rest of Canada. Following the ceremonial lighting of the Olympic flame in Olympia, Greece, where the first Olympic Games were held, the Vancouver 2010 Olympic torch relay will begin right here in Victoria on October 30, where it will touch down and start its journey across our great country. Think about it: 106 days, travelling over 45,000 kilometres, carried by 12,000 torchbearers. The torch relay will connect Canadians and British Columbians, and it will be an inspirational journey for us all.

Communities in every corner of the province will soon share in the enthusiasm and excitement as we prepare to welcome the world for the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games. We will host the largest domestic torch relay in Olympic history. In British Columbia alone the Olympic flame will travel 9,750 kilometres over a total of 27 days and be carried by 3,500 torchbearers. The flame will visit 268 B.C. communities and places of interest in every corner of our province. In fact, more than 90 percent of B.C.'s population will be within one hour's drive of the torch relay route. Fifty celebration communities are currently busy planning their own unique local event to celebrate the Olympic Games, bringing community members together to mark an incredible moment in B.C.'s history.

We are so fortunate that 50 aboriginal communities will host a special welcome and blessing ceremony for the flame. These ceremonies are a testament to the partnership of the 2010 Winter Games with the four host first nations. It is a great honour that for the first time in Olympic and Paralympic history, indigenous people have been recognized as an official games partner.

[1115]

It will touch us all, whether we live in the Okanagan, the Peace, the Cariboo, the Kootenays, the Columbia, the Bulkley Valley, the Sunshine Coast or the Fraser Valley, culminating with the lighting of the Olympic cauldron in B.C. Place on February 12, 2010.

Welcoming the Olympic flame and the message of hope, goodwill and togetherness that it brings is only the beginning of the greatness that we will all share in 2010 — an opportunity for us to showcase our province, our people and our culture to the rest of the world, providing British Columbians with enduring memories for a lifetime. It is truly an opportunity for all of us to support and be proud of the role we will play as the host of the best winter games ever.

When the Olympic flame is extinguished on February 28, it marks the beginning of the excitement of the Paralympic Games. I am so proud that Vancouver 2010 marks the first time Canada will host the Paralympic Winter Games. What an honour.

On March 12 we will proudly welcome over 1,300 athletes and officials from more than 40 countries to B.C. for the tenth Paralympic Games. I know British Columbians will embrace the opportunity to welcome the flame to our province and cheer on all of our Paralympic athletes. There will also be unprecedented exposure for the games and Paralympic athletes through a record of 50 hours of television coverage in both English and French.

As the excitement begins towards 2010, our goal is to be the healthiest region ever to host an Olympic and Paralympic Games. Since its inception, ActNow B.C. has helped British Columbians make healthy lifestyle choices by helping them remember that every move is a good move and the healthy choice can be the easy choice.

Through the Road to Health and the Road to 2010 Community Tours and through our ActNow B.C. athlete ambassadors, we have taken the healthy living message directly to British Columbians across the province, and we have taken our message even further. In February we challenged all British Columbians and people around the world to lead a healthier lifestyle with the launch of the world healthy living challenge. To date, more than 50,000 British Columbians have taken the challenge, as have people from nine provinces and 37 countries.

Hosting the Olympic and Paralympic Games also provides the perfect opportunity to continue to spread the message of good health and physical activity. Of course, most of us aren't Olympic athletes, but each of us can take steps that we need to lead healthier and more active lives.

We've recently launched a series of opportunities to give all B.C. kids a chance to experience sports activities and events at venues and training centres leading up to the games. Through fun events such as Got Game, Let's Play, ActNow B.C. free skates and coaches' days, kids from around B.C. can meet athletes and mascots and experience the excitement of sport.
[ Page 60 ]

Earlier this year we also launched the GamesTown 2010 competition to bring the spirit of the games to the people of British Columbia. In January the competition will award cash prizes to the top three communities that show us they have the most Olympic and healthy living spirit. One lucky community will be crowned GamesTown 2010, and we now have more than 90 communities already vying for the title. I encourage all other communities to show their spirit.

The 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Games are a 27-day celebration that will have a profound effect on our province. We will watch proudly as the Olympic and Paralympic torch relays travel through our communities. We will be inspired by the passion of our athletes as they strive for gold. Our Olympic and Paralympic legacy will be built by our province's unrivalled community spirit, along with our pursuit for excellence in sport and our commitment to healthy living.

[1120]

I know the 2010 winter games will create enduring memories of pride and excitement for all us British Columbians. We must take full advantage of this once in a lifetime opportunity to showcase British Columbia to the world as the best place on earth to live, work, play and invest.

N. Macdonald: The first words I want to say in this new session, in this new parliament, are about the paramedics and about a strike that has gone on for far, far too long.

I'll just speak for a moment on it. It's a strike that needs to be settled. It is something that has been dealt with by this government with a complete lack of respect, in my view. One of the most troubling things I saw during the election process was the decision by the Premier to flick a coin at striking paramedics. These are people that do an incredibly important job. It is a file that has been mishandled repeatedly by this government over an extended period of time, and it's something that rural people, I know, want settled.

All of us have an interest in making sure that paramedic and ambulance services are in place and that they are done properly, and to do that, you have to retain trained people. What we have and what we have had for a number of years is a situation where you cannot retain the people that we need to do what is an incredibly difficult job.

I spent six years in Africa altogether, four years more recently between '99 and 2003. It was a place where you did not have an ambulance coming if there was an accident. Even an accident or even something like a broken leg, when there is not a trained professional to come and deal with a broken leg — the trauma, the difficulty that is there for people trying to manage that themselves is incredible. Yet we ask people to get trained and to take on far, far more difficult situations, and then we don't treat them with the respect that they deserve.

So one of the things I want to do first here, given the first opportunity, is say that I feel strongly and I think my colleagues feel strongly that that is something that needs to be dealt with quickly by this government and settled in a respectful way. I ask them to move on that as quickly as possible.

I want to thank the communities and the voters of Columbia River–Revelstoke for the re-election. It's something I think all members go through — that process. It is a process where you come to appreciate the efforts that you have to go through to get here, and you know that you are coming here in a very privileged position and with an obligation to speak for the people that sent you here. I think part of what is important in the process that I went through is how the campaign was set up and how it worked.

We focused again, as we did in 2005, in a very low-cost, volunteer-driven election. I think the reason it's important to do that is because it reminds you of the faces of the people that have put in extraordinary hours and made an incredible effort to get you here. You remember those faces when you come here to make decisions or to speak on their behalf, and it gives you the passion and the drive to make sure that the things that people in your community care about are put forward.

In our area, and I bet you in a number of the NDP areas, the fight was really between volunteers — people — and money. We spent $33,000 on our campaign, with an incredible number of very dedicated volunteers. The B.C. Liberal candidate spent $117,000, and yet in each of the communities, we ran campaigns that were more effective. Ultimately we won in each of the communities, the major communities in Columbia River–Revelstoke. That was based on the efforts of those people.

I can tell you that when you make a decision or you say something here or you come forward, you remember those people and the faith that they had in you, and it's a personal thing. It's something that drives the work that you do here. The commitment that I made was a simple one. I would use all of the skill, experience and energy I had to make sure that their voice was heard here and that the values that come from Columbia River–Revelstoke would be reflected in the work that is done here.

[1125]

Even if we have a government that chooses to ignore or show contempt for many of those values, we will do everything we can to remind and drive the government to make decisions that not only are to the benefit of those that finance them but will have positive impacts for the people of this province.

The other thing that was critically important during the election — one of the things that I talked about a great deal and something that people talked to me about a great deal — was the importance of making decisions locally, the importance of empowering people on the ground in areas that are often far removed from Victoria.
[ Page 61 ]

The trip to Columbia River–Revelstoke is a long one. If you drive, it easily takes ten, 11 or 12 hours. That is a distance that is not very often covered. I mean, yesterday I had two people that came and visited me from Golden. They came from Nicholson Elementary School. It was an exception. It is not very often that I will get a school group that makes that trip, and it's not very often that I will get visitors that will come. If you're going to fly, you need to find an airport that's close by. For me, the closest airport is three hours away, so it is not a place that feels closely connected to Victoria.

The reality is that people in Victoria, the government, are isolated from understanding the realities in a community like Columbia River–Revelstoke — very isolated. And they reinforce that isolation with the way that they move through the communities when ministers come or when the Premier comes. There is no natural interaction between the people who live in communities and ministers or the Premier.

During the election, during regular times, if the Premier is to come to town, he will make a point of not letting local media know so that there's no story ahead of time. He will come to a very controlled place where he will meet only B.C. Liberals or local government — very controlled — and then poof! — straight out of there before anybody in the community knows he's there.

Most ministers do much the same thing — very controlled, don't meet any normal people. What it means is that very often the ideas that people have, they're not able to share with government directly.

Over the past four years, having an opportunity to speak to many of the people that come from the communities that I represent, like Revelstoke, Golden, Field, Nicholson, Edgewater, Radium, Invermere, Canal Flats, Kimberley…. These communities share certain values and talk about the same issues again and again. At the top of that list — and I can tell you that I think, for most of our communities, it would be this way because of the cuts to many of the senior facilities and the cuts to health — will be seniors care.

There is a strong desire for communities to be communities where we can not only have young people — that's difficult when you're closing schools — and have working people — that's difficult when a government is making it difficult to keep jobs — but have our seniors, where you have a full range of people able to live in the community. At the top of the list, for most people, is to make sure that we look after our seniors with the respect and the dignity that they deserve.

As I come here, I'm constantly reminded of the importance of that. It's one of the things that I committed to do in 2005 — to make sure that seniors issues and the issues that are important to our communities are things that I'm going to fight for. We did, and I did, over the past four years, and that's a commitment that I will keep as we go into the next four years.

[1130]

The other very important thing about the election…. This is something that Corky Evans mentioned when I was first elected here. Maybe I'll just take a minute to talk about some of the people that aren't here: David Chudnovsky, David Cubberley, Corky Evans, Jenn McGinn and, most importantly, Charlie Wyse and Chuck Puchmayr.

These are people that did a tremendous job in here and I think will really, really be missed. You could not have had harder working MLAs than the people that I've listed. They just worked so hard and were so committed. Chuck Puchmayr spent a week in Kimberley during the inquest that he helped fight for, following the Sullivan mine disaster. All of these other members spent time as well.

With Corky Evans, one of the things that he told me was that after an election you know a tremendous amount about what people think. It's because of the way New Democrats do elections. We go door to door. If you're only spending $33,000, you better meet as many people as you can, face to face.

This past election I was fortunate to have my wife, Karen, with me, and we went to a lot of doors. It's very nice to have her. People are always polite in Columbia River–Revelstoke, but especially so when you show up with your wife. The dogs aren't always friendly, but the people certainly are.

Again, it has reinforced what people are thinking about. Seniors care is one, certainly. The other is around the giveaway of our back country. People live in these communities because they care a tremendous amount about the land that surrounds them, and they know it very, very well. This is where we hunt. For many people, this is where they work. This is where we go hiking. This is where we ski in the winter. This is where people snowmobile. It is a land that people know very, very well and feel passionately about.

The initiatives, the things, that the B.C. Liberals have done to take away our ability to make decisions on the land is profoundly disturbing. It was one of the main issues that came up again and again in the election. It was an issue that concerned young people. We had a very active group of young people in each of the communities. They cared about it, all the way up to seniors who have been fighting for land-based issues their whole lives.

We have some of the most spectacular wilderness areas, I think, in the world. The Columbia Valley wetlands are incredible. The valleys, the mountains that surround us — incredible country.

The issue of Jumbo Glacier resort came up again and again. It's a resort that's been proposed for 18 years. For those 18 years, in every measurement that has been taken, locals that live in the area, that know the area best, have said that it's an inappropriate development that's proposed and it should not happen.

What I can commit to here today, and what I committed to in 2005 is that that is a resort that will not go ahead, that will not proceed, if there is anything that I can do
[ Page 62 ]
to make sure that it doesn't go ahead, to make sure that the public will for people who know that area best is respected. That's a commitment that I've made and a commitment that I will work hard to keep.

As well, you have the giveaway of our rivers — the private-power diversions. This is another issue that people feel passionately about. The idea, with section 56 — I think it's changed now — from Bill 30…. The idea that we would have no say in our area about whether a private diversion of our rivers is appropriate or not is incredibly offensive. If we lose that ability to have a say, then we have lost everything.

In the area that I represent, there are 26, 27 of these projects that are proposed, and many of them are not small or inconsequential. The one that many people are looking at right now is the Glacier-Howser. Now, the Glacier-Howser is a project that would take five rivers, permanently divert them into a tunnel that is 16 kilometres long. This tunnel — you could drive a truck down it.

[1135]

Then it would take that water, and it would never return it to the streams. It instead goes directly into Duncan reservoir. Even though there are rights-of-way for power lines, transmission lines fairly close by, they would then take the transmission line 90 kilometres over the Purcells to connect near Invermere.

Now, in three meetings during the summer…. My colleague from Nelson-Creston, the newly elected member for Nelson-Creston, did a tremendous job in representing her area. In one of the three meetings in Invermere, overwhelmingly, of the people that came out, there was strong opposition. The local regional district has spoken against it; the local mayors have spoken against it.

It is a project that does not meet the test of public good. The idea that you would have 26, 27 of these imposed on the communities that have already taken on a tremendous burden for providing energy for the rest of the province is just completely out of the question. There is no public good that flows to us from it, and I think you can make a strong argument that there is simply no public good that comes overall from the B.C. energy plan. It is a giveaway of wealth to private interests, pure and simple.

Private interests, by the way, are awfully closely connected to B.C. Liberals. It's more than a coincidence that those rivers that were grabbed for $5,000 and $10,000 very often seem to be by B.C. Liberals or those connected. So that's something that was talked about a lot, concern about that loss of local decision-making.

People talk about the devastation, of course, of the forest industry. As you go door to door, specifically in Canal Flats, where the mill was down…. Despite the fact Canfor wrote a letter saying that if the NDP were elected, there would be job losses, as soon as the election finished, three mills went down, including Radium — Canfor mills.

But during the election it was Canal Flats where most people were deeply impacted by the devastation that's hit this industry. What you saw is that you had house after house where people were reaching the end of the benefits that were available to them, and they were starting to look at: "Well, if the mill doesn't open soon, there are all sorts of problems that I never thought I would have to face."

So there are clearly problems with EI. It's not a provincial issue, but you sure heard that a lot. Back in the '90s when a federal government decided to take $56 billion out of EI…. People have an issue with the fact that that money is not there now, but they also look to the province to provide some sort of transition.

The question came up again: "What is the province doing for workers and resource communities?" And the answer is nothing. They have done nothing. They sure tried to take credit for some of the federal money that came in. But not a bit of provincial money.

And the programs have been put forward in a haphazard and inconsistent way. First, if you heard about it, there was a transition program for 55- to 65-year-old workers, many who've worked for a long 30, 35 years in the forest industry. A transition program. Some people heard about it. Some people got it. Money went pretty quickly because there was no provincial money. It was all federal money.

Now, the next time it's introduced, it's changed. Now it's 60 to 65. Tough luck if you didn't expect that. Why would you expect it? You were told the program was going to be reintroduced. You thought it might be in the same form. What does the province do? Other than change the rules, nothing. Not a penny. So forest workers — left on their own. Forest communities — nothing, zero.

People had a lot to say about that, and very obviously, when the Premier spent his two days in Columbia River–Revelstoke, he steered well clear of Canal Flats. In fact, most of the time he either rushed off to some golf course where he could keep everything nice and tight and just amongst his buddies. Stay well away from any real people.

You also have questions of integrity that come up again and again. They were prescient, I have to say. I can't stand here and say that an awful lot of people in the communities that I represent were fooled. There were some. Certainly anybody who runs a resort, who runs a restaurant. I've got the letters, and I'm sure the minister has the letters too.

[1140]

They feel pretty disappointed in what has turned out to be a complete reversal, a very purposeful change on the HST policy.

But Kimberley. They learned in 2005 what a B.C. Liberal promise means. Health care closer to home — health care when you need it, where you need it — means your hospital gets closed. So they understand the B.C. Liberal Orwellian language about commitments. Golden knows, Revelstoke knows, and this time Invermere knows that those promises mean nothing.

But there are parts of this province where commitments that this government made may have been a factor. I
[ Page 63 ]
cannot imagine that Cariboo South would have turned out the way that it did if there was honesty about the HST. I cannot imagine that would be the case. There are other ridings that were awfully close, where if the HST had been honestly put forward, things would have changed.

There was an interesting term used in the throne speech. In describing economic trends, the government used the term "brutally deceiving." The first time you hear it, you think that that's a far better description of B.C. Liberal election promises — brutally deceiving.

What were some of the things the throne speech talked about? Well, it certainly didn't talk about rural B.C. The only time a rural community was mentioned is in relation to the Olympics, as if there's a huge connection there. What were the issues that we cared about? Were they talked about at all?

Part of the problem is that…. Philosophically, I and my colleagues think that the wisdom in British Columbia sits with the people of British Columbia and that our job is to take that wisdom and bring it to a place where we can use that collective wisdom to come up with policies that make sense for British Columbia.

On the other side, you have this centralized, top-down, corporate model where the Premier, who moves around the province in isolation, gets to make all of the decisions and where, essentially, the function of the MLAs is to bang on the desk.

When I sat in a room in Invermere, I looked out — and there are exceptional people on both sides here, there's no question — at a room that had the second Canadian on the top of Mount Everest, the first to climb all seven mountains, the highest mountains in each of the continents. He sat there. Sitting next to him was an Olympic gold medallist from 1956. As you went around the room, you saw authors and people that were exceptional and knew a tremendous amount about items that would have been beneficial.

One of the things that we need to do is figure out how we get a system that empowers those people and enables them to bring those good ideas forward. I can tell you that you cannot do that with the way this government sets itself up, where ministers and the Premier sit in isolation and he keeps himself behind a wall away from many of the people that have the ideas that are needed to take British Columbia forward.

So rural B.C. — nowhere to be seen. This is an area that experienced massive cuts in 2002-2003. Hospitals closed, schools closed disproportionately to the rest of the province.

By the way, there was a previous speaker talking about power. Columbia River–Revelstoke, as it stands with the B.C. Hydro facilities that we have, produces an incredible amount of the power that the Lower Mainland gets. Just because it is out of sight does not mean that these power facilities don't have an impact on communities. They have massive impacts.

In coming back to the IPP ideas, any idea that you can impose those without further impacts is just wrong. They will simply be out of sight from the Lower Mainland.

[1145]

On the economy. Well, the idea that all of these changes are so seismic and couldn't be seen is not believable. I'm not going to spend a lot of time trying to make that case, because if you ask British Columbians, they don't believe that the government didn't know that the deficit was going to be higher than they claimed. So that's a case that I think has already been won. British Columbians are there already.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

On the HST. Well, at a time when we need a real plan to strengthen the economy, the B.C. Liberals are introducing the new tax that they claim is the most significant economic development that B.C. can undertake, a tax that is going to devastate tourism. There's no question that it's going to devastate tourism, especially in areas along the Alberta border.

You look at ski resorts, where one item after another — whether it's lift tickets, ski rentals, restaurant foods…. One thing after another for the ski resorts that are there…. It's going to cost more — significantly more. You have heli-ski operators where the GST rebate is going to go, and all of a sudden, there's a PST. The prices have already been set and often booked.

You have all of these impacts that are bound to have incredibly negative effects on the tourist industry, and particularly so to those that are close to the border. Has any of that been thought through? Was that presented in any honest way to the electorate? It wasn't. All of those things are going to be problematic.

There's been some argument that somehow this is going to benefit forestry. Well, it will put more money in forest companies' pockets, but the suggestion that that will lead to jobs is dubious at best, because we've heard this argument before. We've heard the argument about…. "If you make one change after another," back in 2003 with revitalization, "you'll get a billion dollars of investment," said the forest company. You'll get a billion dollars if you do this shopping list of things we want you to do. Well, the shopping list was done. The investment didn't come.

We heard the same argument made about the section A lands. Break this contract and give us section A lands. This is something that the Auditor General has said the government did despite the fact that it contravened the public interest. But the company's argument was: "Give us that, and we'll create jobs." Did that happen? No, it did not happen.

To make any argument about this being somehow a forestry plan that's going to create jobs is incredibly dubious, and if your forestry plan…. The best you got is a tax hike a year from now. That's your forestry plan. That's pathetic with a capital "p."

Private power. The last three years I have had a letter to the editor by the…. What's the name of the company, the
[ Page 64 ]
front group, that the energy companies try to pretend is some grassroots? What's the name of it? Citizens for Green Rights.

They write these letters saying: "Your suggestion that these river diversion projects are for export is atrocious. You're wrong." Ministers, too. They write that. It's not for export. How dare you suggest it? Here we have in this throne speech…. It's absolutely clear. All of those objections, all of those things that were written in…. It's clear in the throne speech that that's exactly what this energy is for. It's for export.

So 26 of the rivers, including the Kicking Horse…. It's been grabbed right through Golden. The Illecillewaet, right through Revelstoke…. All of these rivers grabbed for $5,000 to $10,000, and all that you're going to do is send the power to California for how many jobs? Two, three, five in some cases, of the permanent jobs? But incredible amounts of money for very well-connected, often private, interests.

[1150]

There are so many things that I want to talk about in this session. The commitment that I made to the people of Columbia River–Revelstoke is that their voice would be heard here. It would be heard loud and clear. We will hold this government to account. We will point out the duplicity that recurs again and again with this government, and we will push them to look at the public interest, and we will expose them when they look instead to reward the private interest.

Hon. G. Abbott: Noting the hour — we're very close — I thought I'd just take a few moments to begin my discussion of the throne speech and then move adjournment of the debate.

I want to begin, though, Mr. Speaker, by saying to you personally: "Congratulations on your re-election as the Speaker." It has been a long while, if not unprecedented, to see a Speaker after four years of capable service be re-elected by acclamation by all members of the House. I must say that I was not surprised by that. I think you have won the universal respect of this House in the very fair and even-handed way that you've conducted your debate. On occasion I did sense that perhaps I didn't get the fulsome opportunity I required for a comprehensive question period answer, but that's really a challenge with the rules rather than with your even-handed administration of them.

I do also want to congratulate the new Deputy Speakers on their appointments. I'm sure they will do a remarkably capable job as well. And I want to congratulate all of the MLAs, particularly the new MLAs, on both sides of the House and welcome them to the House.

I've had the good fortune now to serve in this Legislature since 1996. It is a remarkable experience to every day have the opportunity to be a part of this chamber. The very important work that's undertaken in this chamber is a very special opportunity and responsibility indeed. I want to congratulate all of the members on that.

I think that this chamber and this Legislature could be an even better place. I think often some of the things that we learn in local government about working together, getting along, collaborating, have not been a part of the political culture in this Legislature.

As an example, my friend who just spoke from Columbia River–Revelstoke. He and I probably would have enjoyed a remarkable degree of collaboration and consensus on issues when we served together in local government, but because we are of different partisan orientation, those differences tend to get magnified in this chamber. I do think as legislators we need to find some ways that we can bridge the partisan gap that I think too often characterizes our discussions in the Legislature.

I also want to begin at the outset to thank the electors of the Shuswap constituency for my opportunity to return to this Legislature for a fourth term. I very much appreciate the honour of being their representative in Victoria. It's something that I'll never take for granted, and it's something that I'm very appreciative of.

With the now 12 years that I've served in this Legislature and the 17 years that I served in local government prior to election to this Legislature, I'm now in my 30th year of elected office — at the district of Sicamous, Columbia-Shuswap regional district and now the Legislature of British Columbia.

It's important if one's going to serve that long, as you know, Mr. Speaker, to start young, which I did. It's also important to ignore those occasional concerns that are expressed about term limits for elected representatives. I do hope that I can continue to offer good representation to the citizens of the Shuswap and to make a contribution to this Legislature as well.

[1155]

I've had the opportunity since 2001 to serve in a variety of capacities on executive council. I wanted today to reflect on a couple of those areas: Health and Health Services, where I had the opportunity to be a minister for four years until the recent election, and now the new ministerial responsibility which I have in terms of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation.

So before I launch into those areas, and given the very close proximity now to the lunch hour, I reserve my place in this debate.

Hon. G. Abbott moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. G. Abbott moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

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

The House adjourned at 11:56 a.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

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

TV channel guide • Broadcast schedule

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

ISSN 1499-2175