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)

Monday, August 31, 2009

Morning Sitting

Volume 1, Number 6

[ Page 107 ]

MONDAY, AUGUST 31, 2009

The House met at 10:03 a.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

Private Members' Statements

Natural Strengths of
Cariboo-Chilcotin

D. Barnett: Sharply divided by the Fraser River, the Cariboo-Chilcotin encompasses the Lakes District in the southeast, the Fraser Plateau in the west and sparsely populated wilderness areas throughout. The Cariboo-Chilcotin is the Interior. It is the heart of the province of British Columbia.

The region is dotted with first nation communities, towns and villages ranging in size from the city of Williams Lake to the small centre of Anahim Lake, located on the far reaches of the plateau. The Cariboo-Chilcotin stretches across 43,295 kilometres of grasslands, forest and lakes, with a population of 31,805 people. That equals a land mass of 1.36 square kilometres per person. It is truly big sky country.

[C. Trevena in the chair.]

As a province we must never forget our environmental responsibility to our large, unpopulated regions. If we don't take care of our land and the environment, we have no future as a people.

[1005]

The greatest natural strengths of the Cariboo-Chilcotin have always been found in its people. It is the people of the Cariboo-Chilcotin and their strength in the face of adversity that gives the Cariboo-Chilcotin its character — from the original first nation occupants who learned how to survive and adapt to the scorching hot summers and deadly cold winters, to the pioneers who came here seeking a new way of life in this vast, unforgiving….

To those who were born and raised here, to more recent residents who have come from all over B.C., Canada and the world, bringing their hopes and dreams…. I have the greatest respect for the people of the Cariboo-Chilcotin. I value their vote, whether it was for me or not, and I will do my best to represent them.

I plan on standing before you on a regular basis to remind you of the portion of the province located north of Hope. Historically, the economy of British Columbia has relied heavily on the revenues produced by its resource base of mining, forestry, agriculture and tourism. Much has come from the Cariboo-Chilcotin.

These industries are the backbone of British Columbia, and if they do not prosper, the revenue stream generated by them will dry up, and B.C. will not prosper. Industry and business are the backbone of our economy, while economic development is key to job creation.

Government is doing what it can to bolster the economy by introducing the HST, implementing stimulus packages, tax cuts and infrastructure spending. But government can't pay bills, and jobs just don't appear out of thin air. They need to be created. It must be recognized that everyone in the province benefits when resource industries are strong — not just the front-line workers.

We need to ensure that the people of the Cariboo-Chilcotin have jobs to go to when they get up in the morning and that our communities are vibrant and strong. We must also work closely with our first nations. We all are here for the same reason: to live, work and play in harmony.

The current economic base of the Cariboo-Chilcotin is a mix of forestry, mining, tourism, log home building and many small businesses. We need to encourage new economic diversity through innovation and positive thinking. We need to be able to offer the opportunities and services that encourage our young people to stay and raise their families in our communities.

People of the Cariboo-Chilcotin are people of common sense, independent, with a great sense of family, friends and community. Hit by the mountain pine beetle natural catastrophe, citizens of the Cariboo-Chilcotin came together with support from this provincial government and their belief that communities should chart their own future and formed the Cariboo-Chilcotin Beetle Action Coalition.

First nations communities, conservation communities, forest communities, local government and citizens spent over three years building a long-term economic, environmental and social mitigation plan so they could still have and will have a stronger, healthy region due to the effects of the pine beetle devastation. Some have confused the long-term pine beetle mitigation plan with the existing global recession, but fortunately, common sense still prevails with many.

The CCBAC's mitigation plan has already made a difference in our region. People are coming together with a common goal, turning a negative into a positive, charting the future. I am proud to be the Parliamentary Secretary for Pine Beetle Community Recovery and look forward to helping the communities affected by this natural devastation move forward.

In this time of global financial crisis and economic uncertainty, we can't afford to get mixed up in outdated dogma. We need new and different solutions to our problems. I believe that we as a government have made the right decision in harmonizing the PST and GST. The
[ Page 108 ]
implementation of the HST will help our resource industry recover and entice new investors to the Cariboo-Chilcotin.

In the interim, we will still need to be able to pay for the programs and services provided and funded by our provincial government that we all depend on. Somehow we all must share in the burden of paying for health care, education and social programs.

[1010]

I believe there is a commonsense approach to every problem. I believe that the key to our economic future as a province is to target positive action to trigger positive reaction. If the people of the Cariboo-Chilcotin are our greatest natural resource, then it is my responsibility as their representative and our job as a government to ensure that there are jobs in place to enable them to thrive.

I look forward to the challenges ahead and to a bright future for the Cariboo-Chilcotin and all of British Columbia.

B. Simpson: I do want to, first off, recognize the absence of former MLA Charlie Wyse. It's my first time in the House to be able to recognize that Charlie is not here with us. He did a yeoman's job of representing the people of Cariboo South, and we will miss him.

With respect to the member's statements today, I agree wholeheartedly with the potential that exists in the heart of the province of British Columbia. As the member well knows, it is actually where British Columbia got its start with the gold rush. It is the heart in terms of our economy with respect to mining and forestry; agriculture; and of course, now tourism, culture and the arts. However, that potential will not be realized unless we have a government that actually will partner with the entrepreneurs, with the first nations, with the business community and the arts and culture community in the Cariboo to make that potential a reality.

As the member should know — and she has indicated that she has a responsibility to be here as a representative of the Cariboo — we are experiencing the highest unemployment rate in the province right now, at 14.2 percent. The rest of the province is at 7.8 percent. We have 14.2 percent.

The member also knows that the economic uncertainty in our region is the highest it has ever been, with mill closures; indefinite closures; rumours of closures; of course, the continued weakness in the U.S. housing market; and with what's going to happen in Japan. Because in Japan are our margins. It's what makes our industry make the kind of money to keep its mills open, particularly when the U.S. housing market is down.

The member should go back and have a conversation with the forest consultants about the lack of investment that we have in our land base. We are not planting enough trees to replant the forest.

The member mentions the mountain pine beetle. That is devastating. Well, we're in the heart of the mountain pine beetle. Fourteen million hectares of B.C.'s Crown forest have been devastated by that. And it's not the only pest — Douglas fir beetle, spruce bark beetle. All of the pests and diseases are on the rise, and yet, we do not have a strategy in this province to deal with that. If we don't have a forest, we don't have a forest industry. That truth has been lost on this government.

I was just up in the Cariboo. I was camping at Green Lake this weekend with friends and family. That's why my voice is hoarse — because of the smoke. Our forests are burning all over this province. I drove from Hope to Lac la Hache in smoke the whole way. I talked to my mom and dad down in the Okanagan, and they're actually going south for a little while to get out of the smoke. Yet, we don't have an interface fire management plan to protect our communities or a strategic fire plan for the province to protect our forests so that, again, we have forests to run a forest industry.

The member mentioned CCBAC, and the member does know that I have asked the Auditor General on a number of occasions to investigate that group for how they have used the government's resources. I look forward to the member, as parliamentary secretary, coming forward with a plan, because as she knows, the government has said no to the Cariboo-Chilcotin Beetle Action Coalition's request for funding. The documentation is on the Cariboo-Chilcotin Beetle Action Coalition's website.

The member speaks of first nations. We have huge potential in our first nations community within the Cariboo-Chilcotin and throughout the province, but as we found out on Friday, the first nations are finally clearly speaking out about this government's lack of partnership with them.

This is from a press release from Friday from the All Chiefs Assembly, in which the press release states: "Clearly, the Premier and his government have not acted honourably through the course of the so-called new relationship. Indigenous communities demand substance, not empty platitudes." Not my words; the words of the chiefs of British Columbia with respect to the lack of partnership they have from this government.

[1015]

Agriculture. The member for Saanich South, as our opposition Agriculture critic, and I attended a livestock sale in Williams Lake, where people were forced to sell their cattle in advance of the fall sale because of the drought conditions and the lack of productivity that's occurring on the land base. They were selling that at a very cut rate. Agriculture needs a partner.

Tourism and arts need a partner. We're looking at the gaming funding cuts. We're looking at the impact of HST. The member says she supports HST. I'd like her to join me at a town hall meeting and talk to the tourism and restaurant people about HST. And of course, Tourism B.C. has been cut.

We have huge potential. What we need is a partner from government, and as a councillor from Quesnel
[ Page 109 ]
has said: "This government is no partner to rural British Columbia."

D. Barnett: In response to the representative from Cariboo North, I wish to make some statements. First of all, we do have a high unemployment rate in the Cariboo-Chilcotin at present due to the lack of the economy in the world, not because of the province of British Columbia.

Speaking of agriculture, BSE started the downfall of our beef industry in the Cariboo-Chilcotin. Drought is caused by climate change. May I say, Madam Speaker, that climate change has not been accepted by many people, and I will admit that my Cariboo North colleague has spoken against the climate change carbon tax, which is there for the future to help our industries grow.

The HST. I am not an economist, but I am a business person who has struggled through life to support my family with my husband. I know the difference between black and red ink. This HST will only help our forest industry and other industries in our resource community.

The speaker from Cariboo North talks about no funding for the Cariboo-Chilcotin Beetle Action Committee's plan. We have a bit of money. We are working together, and good things have come to date from that plan. Due to the global recession, the federal government pulled back on their billion-dollar commitment to the province to help mitigate the pine beetle for communities. Two years from now…. They have made a commitment to restore it.

I know that these beetle action coalitions had the audacity and the courage to put together something built in their communities, for their communities, with no support from the opposition. I have letters on file, where I as chair wrote to meet with the members of the opposition party to put our plan together, and we were refused.

The Cariboo-Chilcotin is strong — strong in spirit and strong in people. With a strong government leadership, we will move forward in the next few years. We will be strong. But it takes positive thinking, not negative thinking.

Point of Privilege
(Reservation of Right)

B. Simpson: Madam Speaker, I rise to reserve a right of privilege.

Private Members' Statements

Positive Public Participation

M. Mungall: This morning it's my pleasure to rise in the House today to bring attention to the importance of public participation in land use and water management activities. Presently, in the Nelson-Creston constituency, Axor corporation has a proposal to produce private power on four creeks: Glacier, Howser, Birnam and Suck creeks.

Glacier and Howser creeks. According to the West Kootenay EcoSociety's technical assessment of the area: "These two creeks represent some of the last free-flowing, low-gradient rivers feeding the Duncan reservoir and as such play a critical role in an already heavily-impacted fishery." Of particular concern in these two creeks, of course, is the blue-listed bull trout.

[1020]

This proposal by Axor also includes a transmission line reaching from the base of Howser Creek along the Duncan reservoir and moving over the Purcell Mountains, finally ending in Invermere.

The line, if implemented, will run through the habitat of a dwindling grizzly bear population, endangered mountain caribou and the threatened wolverine. Additionally, the line would impact locally protected wilderness areas, an old-growth management area, that are home to rare and endangered plant species.

I'd like to mention that when I say "locally protected," it's not just local citizens, but it's also some of the large forestry corporations that work in our rural areas and benefit our local communities.

In return for these negative environmental impacts that many people have identified, the Axor corporation says they intend to hire about 60 percent, maybe, of their temporary workforce from the local area — that is, if our local labour force has the necessary skills. After construction, however, we may be left with a big, whopping, six full-time jobs.

This summer Axor was required by the environmental assessment office to conduct the public input phase of its application. The EAO, the environmental assessment office, can assign a public comment period. Now, they can do this, and it can start from as few as 30 days to a complete 75 days, but they decided to go with 45 days, rather than the full 75. In those 45 days the public has the opportunity to review a 7,000-page document. They've got 45 days to review that 7,000-page document, then provide informed commentary about their concerns regarding the applications.

There are also meetings. They held meetings in Kaslo, Meadow Creek and Invermere, but not Nelson — regardless of the overwhelming public demand coming from local government, from citizens, from community groups to have that public meeting in Nelson because it's centrally located for the entire region.

So with 45 days to review 7,000 pages, no meeting in the central hub of the region, people felt like it was a bit of a setup to curtail any meaningful public input, as very few average citizens have the time and skill to assess the 7,000-page document to provide input in the way that the EAO wants, nor do rural residents necessarily have the ability to travel great distances along narrow mountain roads to get to these public meetings.
[ Page 110 ]

But luckily, residents in the East and West Kootenays got together to review the application and discuss the proposed plans, and they made their voices heard. They refused to be daunted by what they saw as a sham of a public process.

Over 1,000 people attended the Kaslo public information session, filling the local school gym to capacity. Over 200 people in Meadow Creek — again, filling the room to capacity. Invermere saw 300 participants. Of those who spoke at the meetings, not one person commented that they were satisfied with the environmental mitigation strategies or analysis provided by the proponent.

I attended two of the meetings, and if any member from the government had attended, they would have heard from one young woman, a lifetime resident in Meadow Creek. She felt insulted that Axor, a large Montreal-based corporation, was going to come into her home, destroy beautiful back country and only offer a few jobs in return — for an area that has lost hundreds of jobs in the last few years with the downturn in the forestry sector.

This back country, I may add, is also the cornerstone of our growing tourism sector, as residents from Saskatchewan, as well as Surrey-Panorama, have written to remind me.

Finally, despite the refusal to have a Nelson meeting, we had one. To ensure the public's voice was heard, I hosted a meeting where 500 people attended to comment and learn about this project.

On top of the massive public participation at these meetings, residents of the East and West Kootenays made their voices heard on paper. Over 1,000 people have written in their comments about the process, with the EAO noting that the vast majority have significant concerns about the project and are opposed to it.

[1025]

These concerns come from average, everyday citizens, the regional district of Central Kootenay, Ktunaxa Nation Council and Okanagan Nation Alliance. Many community groups have also commented, including Wildsight, the West Kootenay EcoSociety and the West Kootenay Outdoorsmen. They all note that Axor has neglected to provide appropriate mitigation strategies to protect endangered wildlife, particularly the bull trout found in both creeks. Axor, they contend, has not done due diligence.

With such overwhelming opposition to this project, with such sharp analysis of its impacts on our area, despite a short time frame to do so, the residents of the West and East Kootenays do expect to be heard on this.

J. McIntyre: I was delighted to jump ahead and volunteer to speak in response to the member's statement on positive public participation. I actually got excited for a moment and thought that the NDP had finally seen the light about the merits of triple-P projects. Through public-private partnerships, the projects that have enjoyed such great success in the province, like the Sea to Sky Highway and the Britannia remediation mine in my own constituency and, of course, megaprojects like the Canada line and the Abbotsford hospital — all the things where we've actually enjoyed P3s….

I thought I would also take the opportunity today to maybe give a little bit of a history lesson and talk about an example of negative public participation, and that would be on the Ashlu green power project in my constituency several years ago. It went through years and years of permitting, of licensing — hundreds of thousands of dollars.

They set up a community office. They had, obviously, an environmental assessment. They had a power purchase agreement with B.C. Hydro, only to be stopped dead in their tracks at the end of the process by some of those who I think could accurately be described as NIMBYists, some of those people who listened to extreme whitewater recreationalists from the U.S. — dead in their tracks. They were local politicians and the public, some of whom — the vocal minority, I will say — were willing to override the provincial interests for green, renewable power on a river that had been identified by B.C. Hydro 20 years ago as one of the top five rivers in this province that would be beneficial for power generation.

Instead, they chose to override economic opportunities for the first nations. Squamish Nation was a partner in this project. It would give them jobs. It would give them economic opportunity, and at the end of the licence — that would be water licence — at the end of the lease, the project would revert to the Squamish first nations. But no, the ideological opposition, CUPE 378, the NDP and all those people reared up because they wanted to stop this project.

Let me tell you that we changed that process, and we now have a process where public participation is at the beginning of the project. I can give you examples, again in my own constituency. Ryan River. They're in either the preapplication or application stages now. They've had open houses in Pemberton and the areas surrounding, where the public — just as you described, Member — do have an opportunity. She talked about hundreds of people out at her project in her region.

That's why we have an EA process. That's why the public is engaged. But it's at the beginning of the process, not five years down the road, when everybody has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars and hours and hours looking at this. The public has to be engaged at the beginning of the project.

I'll give you another example in my constituency. Garibaldi at Squamish is a proponent proposing a very large ski hill project. There's lots of concern in the communities — very legitimate questions and concerns raised about water source and about the size and scope of the project. I've been urging my constituents to participate.
[ Page 111 ]

Like the member described, a similar process. During the EAO process, in this case, there were several 30-day comment periods. The proponent was on the pin, really, to produce and answer the questions that were being raised. If they didn't, the clock was stopped, and the public then had another opportunity to comment. So they've been allowed to comment as new information feeds into the process. The clock's been stopped several times.

There are examples where public participation needs to be at the beginning, and it needs to genuinely be taken into account. The public are raising very legitimate questions.

I just shake my head in disbelief when I see this member. She was quoted as praising the BCUC decision recently in her own local paper, saying: "I think it goes to show that the NDP has been on the right path since the beginning, when we called for a moratorium on private power production." This is a member who belongs to a team who is in favour of going backwards in time, a retrogressive thing, to support an aging Burrard Thermal plant. Everyone knows it's completely out of touch with the public. The public is looking at us to produce clean, green, renewable power, not to add to GHG emissions.

[1030]

So once again the NDP is taking us back in time. This government is progressive. We're moving forward, and we're moving in tune with the public for clean, green power production in this province.

Interjection.

Deputy Speaker: I would remind members that this is private members' statements. It's the opportunity for private members to discuss issues that are important to their constituencies without heckling.

M. Mungall: I find it absolutely fascinating that the member from across the way has brought up the recent BCUC decision. As we heard in the Speech from the Throne, it is very clear that this government has every intention to interfere with BCUC, an independent public body only interested in public interests.

They have every intention to interfere with it using their Astroturf green guise of getting involved to make sure that we have green power. Well, we know their version of green; it's Astroturf green. It's not real green, and we're looking for the real deal, like the leaves in my constituency.

Not only do we know that they're going to intervene in BCUC, but we know it because of their past history. Ashlu — the member across the way talked about what happened in Ashlu. Let's talk about that. Let's talk about their version of public participation. The member across the way has clearly said that she finds it negative.

How on earth can public participation ever be considered negative? When people get up and get heard, that is a positive thing every single time. Thank goodness they do, because if they don't, they're not going to show up to vote. Oh, wait. But they didn't this last election, because they got tired of being ignored, and they find no outlet to positively be heard. Well, thank goodness it's different in my constituency.

This government thinks public participation is negative. So how did they deal with that in the Ashlu? Bill 30. They decided to stop local government's input into private power development with Bill 30. That is how they address public participation. That's how this government views it. Public input into these private power projects — they stop it at every step that they can. They stop it with Bill 30 and now with their Astroturf green advisory task force to BCUC.

In fact, we're very tired of being lectured in Nelson-Creston. We're very tired of it. We know hydro development. We live it every single day. Between my house and the member for Kootenay West's house, there are nine dams. Thank goodness we have the Columbia Power Corporation and the Columbia Basin Trust so that we can realize the benefits of many of those dams, not all.

Some of them are Nelson Hydro, for instance, but they're all publicly owned, and we all get to have a say over them. The dams that are being proposed now on creeks throughout the entire province — we don't get to have a say on them. We only get to have a say on them during the application process. That's not acceptable. That's not acceptable to us. We expect the government to listen to our concerns, not to lecture us.

Sky's the Limit

R. Howard: On September 25 a major summit will be held in Vancouver. What will be discussed is of fundamental importance to the future competitiveness of Canada and British Columbia. This Open Skies Summit will see the Premier gathering leaders from government, business and the aviation industry from Canada and around the world, as well as academics who specialize in international aviation.

These leaders will explore issues and opportunities related to Open Skies agreements, which would provide us with direct and less restricted air access to our key markets. I am optimistic that this summit will build on the progress already seen with the great work the federal government has done with the recently announced Open Skies agreement between Canada and South Korea.

British Columbia and Richmond, the home of the Vancouver International Airport, are fortunate to have significant geographical advantage in relation to access to Asian nations. We are closer than any other significant airport on the west coast of North America, giving us an advantage over the competition for Asia-Pacific tourism, business and trade.

[1035]
[ Page 112 ]

We are in danger of losing this advantage, however. Our lack of Open Skies agreements with Asian nations means we could lose out to other west coast locations such as Seattle, Los Angeles and other major centres. It would be a serious mistake to let this happen. Open Skies agreements are important to B.C. for the jobs they create. To seize the opportunity of increased trade and investment with Asia-Pacific, we must ensure efficient and greater access to our major ports and airports.

B.C. is blessed with a natural geographic advantage, and this strategic advantage benefits us all. But to do business in B.C., it needs to be easy to get here. YVR and B.C.'s regional airports are ready to take advantage of this opportunity. YVR, B.C. and Canada have partnered to build and expand world-class airports across the province, and with the Olympics just months away, now is the time to seize the opportunity.

Of course, Canada's economic and social development has always gone hand in hand with the development of our transportation system. We need to focus on air liberalization in B.C., which means we must build on the excellent progress we have made recently with South Korea.

Where implemented, Open Skies agreements have brought significant and positive benefits to the economies of all nations involved. Traffic growth has averaged between 12 to 35 percent. Think, Madam Speaker, of how large the economies of China and India alone have become and how quickly they are growing now, with the extraordinary benefits that significantly increased traffic growth would bring to Canada and British Columbia in tourism, business and trade with these two emerging economic powerhouses.

Also consider that the International Institute of Transport and Logistics estimates the benefits of some possible agreements to be for Canada. Open Skies with Japan would see an estimated 15 percent increase in the passenger volume, with airfare decreases of approximately 10 percent. The boost to Canadian tourism would be in the $54-million-per-year range with a single Open Skies agreement with Japan.

Open Skies with Korea will bring an estimated 37 percent increase in passenger volume in just the first few years. Airfares will be reduced by a projected 15 percent in the first year. The impact on Canada's tourism industry will be $200 million every year with the bulk of that money coming to B.C. In fact, this is estimated at 75 percent of these new tourism dollars coming into the B.C. economy. Madam Speaker, just think of that — an extra $150 million into our economy every year just from tourism.

Since 2001 our government has partnered with the federal government and private sector to improve our borders, ports and airports. An integral component of our Pacific gateway strategy has been improving international access to our major and regional airports. To maximize these investments, Canada needs more Open Skies agreements in concert with the infrastructure upgrades underway.

Perhaps not everyone will be enthusiastic about modernizing and opening up in this way. There are always vested interests who have a preference in the status quo and seeing it maintained.

We need Open Skies agreements with our emerging markets so that we can truly live up to our responsibilities and potential as the Asia-Pacific gateway. That is why the Open Skies Summit on September 25 is so vitally important. This summit will provide the economic benefits of Open Skies and increase awareness for public and business community.

I am confident that once the benefits are fully explained, support will build. I am sure that once the costs of doing nothing — of sticking with the status quo and continuing to lose ground to the United States — are made clear, the imperative to act will also be clear.

[1040]

H. Bains: I am really honoured and delighted to respond to the statement by the member for Richmond Centre. I think no one can disagree if any new policies, any new initiative government is taking, with keeping people and people's needs at heart. If any decision is being made to make sure that it will benefit the local people and the local businesses — yes, this side of the House will also agree with that.

But the track record of this government is to deregulate for the benefit of the multinationals. That approach has not worked in the United States. President Bush pushed that strategy all of his eight-year tenure. Look where that got us. Look where the United States is leading to today. Look at the effect their mismanagement of that economy has led the rest of the world to.

We are facing some of those challenges because of those policies of the United States. It seems to me that this government has not learned from the mistakes of Mr. Bush, and they are in fact continuing on with the status quo of "deregulate, deregulate" to the benefit of their friends in high places.

They need to start to look inward as well. The Olympics are coming. Our local airlines are suffering as a result of that. Airlines such as Pacific Coastal Airlines, which will have to absorb millions of dollars, even if they are able to survive through the Olympics, because now they will be asked to land in other places where they will be…. They have to basically unload, go through security and reload again so that they can come to Vancouver.

No help from the local government. No help from this government at all. In fact, they have made these lofty statements for the last eight years –– unachievable goals that they have set. The forest industry — we were told that if we deregulated the forest industry, they will be reinvesting $2 billion into the industry, if they were given all of the stuff they needed in the forest industry, deregulate everything, untie their hands and take all the responsibility that they have in the current social
[ Page 113 ]
contract that we have so that they would be harvesting those logs and be processing them in B.C. to create jobs in British Columbia.

Guess what happened. They have invested money, but they have invested on the other side of the border, not here in B.C. As a result, we have lost over 50 sawmills since they took over power. That's the legacy of this government, and when every time any member of theirs stands up and says that what we are doing is good for British Columbia, I start to cringe and people start to worry because that means they are getting deeper and deeper into their pockets. They're taking more money out of their pocket so that they can shift that over to their friends in the multinationals and their friends in high places.

Give more to the CEOs. Give more to the big companies. That somehow has a trickle-down effect, and British Columbians somehow will benefit from it. It hasn't helped. Take a look at their record. And you know, before they leave this office, I predict they will be a government known for the highest and the most deficit that this government brought in than any other government in the history of this province.

That's the legacy they will be leaving behind. Guess who will be paying for that — the working people, the ordinary folks. Their friends, the CEOs, the multinationals will be running all the way to the world banks, all the way to the international communities in the markets and spending their money in Brazil, Mexico and other places in Asia — at our cost.

I would ask that if they are to talk about Open Skies and if they are to represent us in that summit, keep people's needs in mind. Make sure any policy you make is going to benefit British Columbians — all British Columbians; not the select few, the top ten percent, as has been the record of this government.

I think, as a new member to the House, I actually applaud him standing up and speaking on such important issues as this. I would support these types of summits. I would make sure that we are presenting our case to these folks so that we can expand our trade to Asia. We can expand our trade to other places because we do need to diversify our economy, which they failed to do in the last eight years.

[1045]

R. Howard: You know, I want to be clear. This is about new services, new routes, beyond what is currently provided. Open Skies agreements are about providing more options for travellers, more affordable fares for travellers, and I have every confidence that we will be competitive enough to thrive in this environment.

It sounds to me as though the member from the opposition does not have confidence in the ability of Canadian workers. The member seems reluctant to allow our Canadian workers the opportunity to compete for jobs.

Well, the members of this government have every confidence in British Columbian workers, in Canadian workers. We have every confidence that we can compete for jobs and win those jobs, win jobs for themselves and their families.

Open Skies with our important markets in Asia will help us create new jobs through opportunities that new routes by our carriers will bring.

I want just to highlight, as well, the investments that governments have made in infrastructure, getting ready to fully live up to the Asia-Pacific gateway opportunities. We've completed improvements in Prince George, Kamloops, Cranbrook, Fort Nelson, Langley, Valemount, Terrace, Kitimat, Campbell River, Courtenay-Comox, Castlegar, Kelowna, Smithers, Princeton and Merritt. This government has acted, and it's positioned itself very favourably to accommodate the growth of Asia-Pacific and the Asia-Pacific gateway.

In closing, the member for Surrey-Newton talked about legacy. I am amused that from the party whose legacy was a mountain of debt, where debt-to-GDP in this province was up at 22½ percent and that this government had to work tirelessly to pull down and to pay down that debt…. This government is leaving a legacy of infrastructure and of positive things for the British Columbia economy.

Innovation

S. Herbert: I rise today to speak about innovation — innovation in tourism, culture and the arts. I will also address this government's recent innovations in bad public policy and new, innovative ways of throwing people out of work and destroying their livelihoods.

So where do we begin? Well, let's start with the tourism industry. With cross-border traffic at lows we haven't seen since 1972, the current economic challenges, the axing of Tourism B.C. and the planned introduction of the HST, which will add much higher costs onto domestic flights, restaurants and other tourism events, the government is putting tens of thousands of jobs at risk in the tourism and hospitality sectors.

In speaking with tourism operators, I have heard their feelings of betrayal and real anger that this government is putting their jobs and their companies at huge risk. They are angry because they know their customers are already hit hard by this recession and that this government is only making it worse. They are especially angry because the government did not tell the truth about its plans to introduce the HST.

Tourism accounts for about $6.6 billion in our provincial GDP and accounts for 131,000 jobs across B.C. As legislators, I believe we should be working with the tourism sector to grow this industry, not take an axe to it when it's already struggling.

This government has been truly innovative in making moves in such a short time and so many moves that will
[ Page 114 ]
destroy so many jobs and businesses across B.C. With six months until the Olympics, this government's decision to axe Tourism B.C. has only added to the problems facing our province's tourism sector. It has thrown Olympic marketing plans into disarray and destroyed our province's innovative, award-winning marketer. Instead it'll be replaced by a politician and a few handpicked friends.

Tourism B.C. was created to take the politics out of marketing our province. It's an innovative model which uses the expertise of people whose livelihoods rely on an effective and efficient use of tourism dollars to grow that tourism industry. It allowed for long-term planning and was seen by jurisdictions around the world as the model that they wanted to emulate if they were going to be able to expand their tourism markets.

[1050]

Tourism B.C. led the way. It expanded our markets, and it led the way to the creation of the second-biggest industry in B.C. — our tourism sector. At the Council of Tourism Associations recent meeting, nearly 100 B.C. tourism leaders were united in telling this government that they believe this is a grave mistake. They also spoke about how the HST would be catastrophic, devastating and ruinous to tourism businesses.

Some of the people who spoke out in support of Tourism B.C. are now sitting on that side of the House quietly while Tourism B.C. has been killed. I think of the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head, who said when the NDP created Tourism B.C. with the assistance of tourism leaders: "We would have to look for this legislation to provide the permanence and the security that it says it will so that when hotel tax revenue increases, there will be no capping in that area. That is the only way this agency will be assured they have a free hand and arm's-length approach in dealing with tourism marketing."

Or the member for Saanich North and the Islands: "I can assure you that tourism will be a disaster if it becomes part of this government's controlling mechanism, so we want to see that this board" — referring to Tourism B.C. — "is independent of this government's manipulation and this government's continual desire to control everything." It seems that the member for Saanich North and the Islands now feels it's okay for his government to create tourism to be the disaster it is now because it is now part of this government's controlling mechanism.

These moves are not innovative unless you look at them as innovative ways to destroy jobs. They are job killers and will take our province backwards.

Some latest innovation — and I'll speak more about it — is the government's job-killing strategy in the creative sector. One month before the election campaign kicked off, I asked the minister responsible about the province's commitments to arts and culture. He said that there's no reason for me to suggest that funding that has taken place in the past is somehow or other in jeopardy in this next fiscal year. It is not in jeopardy. This is assured funding during very, very challenging times. This is what the member assured me right before the election and assured the provincial arts community.

He also said, in response to my first letter to the arts community about the government's plans to cut arts funding by 50 percent…. After the election what I alleged at the time was that this government planned on cutting budgets to arts and culture by 50 percent after the election. The minister said that I was wrong and that "the member has no substantiation for saying that."

Now we learn that the money that the government froze in April from gaming is gone and won't be going to arts groups, as far as we can see. That's approximately $20 million taken away from arts and culture organizations, another surefire job killer. That's a real innovation. So now we see that the statement was deliberate deception, which cost us all — and will cost us all — economically, socially and culturally.

So we've been misled about the deficit, the HST, protecting health care, protecting education, and now it's just devastating arts and culture charities provincewide. They promised assured funding to arts and culture organizations and now are shown to be untruthful and contract breakers.

I'll sit down now at this place and resume after I hear from the member opposite.

J. Les: I am pleased to take my place this morning and respond to the member opposite. I was somewhat hopeful, when I learned of his topic, that it had something to do with innovation, but I've heard very little that was actually innovative this morning. Perhaps in his reply later on, we might hear some innovative ideas.

There is no question — and I agree with the member — that tourism is a very important sector of our provincial economy. It always has been. It is today, and it certainly will be in the future. Why do I say that? Well, we are on the threshold of one of the greatest tourism marketing opportunities that this province will ever see. I think we can say that quite confidently. The Olympics are just five months away. It is going to be the greatest opportunity we've ever had.

Now, I would point out to members of this House that the Leader of the Opposition, that member's leader, was actually opposed to us hosting the Olympics, so he may want to check with her as to exactly why that was. But we carried on. We were successful in 2003 in attracting that opportunity to the province, and five months from now, I think we will excel, and we will distinguish ourselves as having the most successful Winter Olympics ever in the history of the Olympic movement.

The spinoff from that will be absolutely enormous. It is true that there have been capital expenditures that were necessary to ensure that we could host the Olympics properly, but those investments are going to pay off in spades.

[1055]
[ Page 115 ]

I'm really excited that we have this tremendous opportunity and that we have all of the venues in place, all of them produced on time and on budget. Some of the processes used to produce those venues were actually very innovative. I think people from around the world have already come, and many others will be coming, to view those facilities and also to learn from us as to how those facilities were brought about.

Another very important asset that we now have in the Lower Mainland is the new trade and convention centre — much talked about, actually, for several decades. Previous governments had tried and failed to produce new convention facilities.

Today we have a world-class new convention facility on the waterfront in Vancouver, a magnificent addition to our ability to host conventions. We have 208 events that have already been booked for that new facility. Some 61 of those would not have been able to be scheduled without the new facility.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Now, as everyone knows, the convention business itself is very important. But where it really comes into play is that when people come to conventions, particularly in British Columbia, they tend to stay awhile. They travel around the province. They spend some additional dollars. So the spinoff from this trade and convention centre expansion in Vancouver will be enormous.

We've seen other major investments in convention centres across the province. I'm thinking, for example, Mr. Speaker, of your home riding of Penticton. Major new facilities were built there to enable that community to better host major conventions, to add something to their ability to stimulate their economy in the off-season.

We know it's a great sunny place to go to in the summertime. Now, on a year-round basis, the city of Penticton — and the Okanagan generally — will be able to see this stimulative effect of people visiting for conventions and then perhaps going on to visit the ski slopes in the general area.

It is also no question, speaking about arts funding for a moment, that in the 2008-2009 fiscal year, arts funding by this government was at record levels never before seen in this province. I could go through an entire list of all of those grants that have been bestowed upon the arts community over the last several years.

It is true that there aren't as many dollars around right now to fund a whole host of activities across government. But sometimes — and everybody knows it; there's an economic recession that has been going on — choices have to be made. I challenge the member opposite to suggest what choices he would make. If he were to increase funding in one area — such as arts funding, for example — where would he then make the cuts?

S. Herbert: It was interesting for me. The member opposite said that he heard very little innovative in my speech. Well, maybe I was being cheeky. I guess it's not really innovative to be cancelling programs which are proven to be good business sense, like Tourism B.C. On that point maybe he is right, and maybe he is agreeing with me that cutting Tourism B.C. is the wrong move at this time — or introducing the HST, which will hobble the very tourism industry that he's been speaking about.

Interestingly, he also mentioned the convention centre as well as talked about on time and on budget. As we know, the convention centre was not on budget and I guess had to be really innovatively bookkeeped so that it could be shown to be within budget, as we also heard the government announce, at numerous occasions, its spiralling deficit figures.

I don't think it's innovative, either, to cut 40 percent of the tourism budget, as this government plans to do over the next couple of years. As we've seen, those investments in direct marketing work and bring those tours, bring those conventions, bring those things to B.C.

Now we're hearing, because of the HST, some international media saying: "Well, you know, if you're coming to B.C. next year, hold on to your wallets and hold on to your purses, because you're going to be hit hard with higher taxes." Somehow that doesn't lead me to believe that that's an innovative approach to attract new business, when you're taking on those challenges.

[1100]

The member also suggested that in '08-09 they had record levels of funding for arts and culture. In that, he is correct. But he also stated that this was a great thing, and he neglected to state his minister's assurance to the arts community that this would continue for this fiscal year, '09-10.

What we're seeing now is record lows in terms of support for the arts. So they're taking an economic generator — for every dollar spent, they get $1.38 back in taxes; this is the government's own study — and they're eviscerating it.

They're eviscerating charities. They say they will not honour their contracts. Apply again when the next application period happens, which happens to be next year, not this year. So they can't. It's an innovative way to destroy arts and culture organizations — retroactively cut their funding. That's a new low for this government, and it cannot stand.

They spent the money as required under their contracts with government, producing festivals and events. They put the government logo on their posters. They had the ministers come and stand with them at their organizations and be praised. They thanked the government publicly, these charities, and now the government won't pay them for the work that they did on behalf of this government.

The B.C. government, I believe, is picking the pockets of charities. Some groups are now $100,000 in debt because of this government's trickery. They tore up the contract,
[ Page 116 ]
and they are now throwing artists, technicians and administrators out of work, all because of the budget untruths and fabrications.

Hon. I. Chong: I call private member's Motion 4.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, unanimous consent of the House is required to proceed with Motion 4 without disturbing the priorities of the motions preceding it on the order paper.

Leave granted.

Private Members' Motions

MOTION 4 — EARLY LEARNING
OPPORTUNITIES IN B.C.

D. McRae: Mr. Speaker:

[Be it resolved that this House recognize the importance of early learning opportunities and acknowledge this government’s establishment of StrongStart BC Early Learning Centres across British Columbia and celebrate its renewed commitment to deliver full-day kindergarten for five-year-olds throughout the province by September 2010.]

[L. Reid in the chair.]

This government has made the commitment to continually improve the access by parents and students to quality education in British Columbia. This government has allocated $43 million to establish StrongStart early learning centres across the province. At these centres, parents and preschool-age children get to experience stories, music, art and play to help them get ready for success in kindergarten.

In 2008 there were over 91,000 visits by children to these StrongStart facilities in the province. In 2009 these visits increased to over 278,000 visits across the province. This government recognizes the importance of investing in the benefits of early learning.

This investment continues with the government introducing this motion to deliver voluntary full-day kindergarten. It must be noted that delivery of the full-day kindergarten program will be a phased approach beginning in September 2010. Presently the province is consulting with parents, kindergarten teachers and educational experts to best bring about this full-day kindergarten.

I'm also very pleased to see the wide range of people who support full-day kindergarten. I have some quotes. Gary Rupert, who works at UBC as an educational expert, states: "I don't believe the goal of the full, all-day kindergarten is just to have kids do better in math and reading. It's about trying to create a better learning and growing situation where we will have fewer children at risk."

We have one of my former professors at UBC, Charles Ungerleider, who states: "All-day kindergarten for five-year-olds is good social policy. Helping youngsters to get off to a good start with their education is very important, and it returns for those individuals, for their parents and for the larger community."

Lastly, Irene Lanzinger, president of the BCTF. Wow. "Well, we have been supportive of all-day kindergarten for five-year-olds. That's been our policy. We certainly support the concept of all-day kindergarten."

It seems we have a lot of support for this concept, and I'm proud the government is moving forward with it.

I'm proud of this government's support for improving educational opportunities for parents and children in this province. The move towards full-day kindergarten will be a lasting legacy that the people of this province and this government can be proud of.

We all look back on our own lives, and we think back to our kindergarten teachers. Mine was Mrs. Webber at Tsolum Elementary in 1975, and she made us learn some really important lessons, things like sharing. Playing with blocks was always exciting. I did okay with clay but failed pâpier-maché. But at the end of the day, kindergarten set me up for my future educational successes and the opportunities I have today.

[1105]

With this, I wish this program very much success, and it will be a lasting legacy for the province of British Columbia.

D. Thorne: It's a pleasure for me to rise today and respond to this motion. It's a concept that I definitely support. My own children were in all-day kindergarten, and that was many, many years ago.

However, I think the Liberal government has a very strange way of encouraging educational excellence. I think that the parents in British Columbia must be reeling from the constant promises that seem to go poof and turn into cuts overnight. In February '08 in the throne speech, one of the five great goals was educational excellence, followed by February '09 when the comment was: "Education is the best economic development and health promotion program ever invented."

I couldn't agree more, but this speech goes on to say, "In tight economic times it is only smart to maintain and expand educational investments" — again, a perfect example of what I'm talking about with these promises that go poof. Following on that comment, there was another comment about the cancellation of all-day kindergarten for this September — September '09.

The Liberal platform in the May election talked about increasing funding for schools. They specified special needs, playground expansion, ESL, literacy, seismic upgrading. Since the election — in the past few weeks, in fact — we have seen literacy cut. We have seen libraries lose many of their crucial grants. I would think those
[ Page 117 ]
blows will be very, very hard for both of those entities to recover from and will affect all kinds of children going into kindergarten. So you know, it's fine to have all-day kindergarten, but one hopes that they will be able to at least take advantage of programs that have been set up in the past few years and over the past few decades.

Now we have seen school facility grants cancelled and clawback of holdback dollars, which will really affect many of those districts that have already spent their facility money doing work over the summer. Finding out at the end of August about these things is a little horrendous, really, when one thinks about it. Most work is done in the summertime, particularly north of the greater Vancouver and Victoria regional districts, where weather makes a big difference.

Today we read in the newspaper about possible amalgamation, whatever that's all about. I mean, I know for a fact that schools and school districts and cities are already sharing services and buying and all of that. So one wonders what this is — if it's just a smokescreen so that we won't be concentrating too much on the other cuts and the other problems like the class size and composition, where the Dorsey report accuses the government of breaking its own laws.

One wonders how we can even talk about all-day kindergarten in a political context where there isn't enough funding in the system right now for the government to follow its own laws around the class size and composition.

One wonders how long parents in this province will take this constant up-and-down, up-and-down with their children's lives and their own lives without accusing this government of crying wolf. It's bound to happen. Even though I do support — I think it's a commendable goal to do this — you know, I just think that this lack of funding, the fact that there is no space….

We've closed 177 schools. I think that's the most current number. Heaven only knows. There may be more than that. My district, school district 43, I believe was the leader in per-capita loss of schools over the past couple of years. So it's been quite a blow.

The Minister of Education has been quoted on the radio and talking to the media about new money — that this system will be funded by new money. Now, that's very exciting to me. If I thought there was really a way to get new money, I would assume that means not federal dollars, not provincial dollars or municipal dollars, where the taxpayer is the same person. I mean, this new money…. I can't wait to hear more about that.

[1110]

She also talked a bit about phasing-in. No talk about criteria. No talk about which districts would be phased in. Would they be the "richer" school districts, where they're likely to get their act together faster than school districts where, heaven only knows, we really need all-day kindergarten because they are less fortunate school districts? So the criteria for phasing-in — I look forward to seeing that. That can't come too soon for me; I can only imagine it won't come too soon for the parents of British Columbia.

I'm looking forward to the way the minister is going to deal with the underfunding around class size and composition, and I'm hoping that she will get this under control, make some announcements about how they're going to deal with that, so they stop breaking the law on that before…. Maybe we could use some of this new money to handle that.

So I look forward to many things, as you can see. The day can't come soon enough for us on this side of the House to hear all about that new money, so that we, too, can get excited about the possibility of all-day kindergarten.

M. Elmore: I look forward also to hearing about the plans to implement the timeline, the budget and also the logistics of implementing all-day kindergarten. Certainly, I've heard from constituents about the pressing need for child care in B.C.

Reports I hear are that child care is in crisis in this province. I've heard it from parents who are seeking spaces for children — after-school care and all phases of child care — parents who are needing care for their children while they go to work, and also in our school system — parents seeking their bachelor's and master's degrees and doctorate degrees in universities.

I think one of the problems is the lack of a comprehensive child care system here in B.C. and the lack of action by the government to implement this. There was a cut to child care facilities for basic safety and quality repairs — the cut of minor capital grants to child care centres. This is something that I've heard is going to put a lot of pressure on child care centres.

These are grants that are cut from a maximum of $5,000 a year down to $2,000. These are grants that are used to cover the costs of meeting provincial licensing requirements for basic health, safety and quality standards. That's going to put more pressure on parents to cover these costs, as child care facilities will be transferring the costs for these on to families.

Currently child care fees account for 20 percent of families' monthly expenditures and are the second-highest cost after housing. The numbers are: in 2008 a Metro Vancouver family with a four-year-old in full-time child care and a seven-year-old in after-school care paid over $12,000 a year for child care. This is a substantial amount.

It's quite shocking and just points to the crisis, the high cost and also the lack of spaces available — the lack of spaces and affordable child care for families across B.C. Parents face a severe lack of spaces, long waiting lists and unreasonably high fees.

On the other hand, child care staff are also working for low wages. This happens within the context of the gov-
[ Page 118 ]
ernment refusing to meet the needs of B.C. families and the lack of a commitment to developing a comprehensive child care system.

In terms of the StrongStart programs — certainly, beneficial programs that are offered and available for families that are able to access the programs.

[1115]

Recognizing the importance of early learning programs is important. What's needed to complement the StrongStart programs is an overall strategy in terms of child care. There is a need to provide programs that offer an opportunity for families to access similar types of programs without bringing a caregiver to these programs. StrongStart programs offer early learning programs for families that have to have a caregiver accompany their child.

There is a need for families to…. We need to have equity for working families, for their preschool children. We need a policy that ensures that the same number of free hours for these early learning experiences — very valuable — are also provided to children in licensed care.

In B.C. the majority of families have young children from working families, and there's a need to provide opportunities for working families, for working parents, to access these programs, to receive quality child care together with having access to early learning and, in addition, to accessing StrongStart programs.

D. Barnett: I'm thrilled at this great announcement today.

I'm one of those people that are senior citizens. I come from the Cariboo-Chilcotin, which I have said before is rural B.C., where we have schools that you must travel to for many, many miles. We have schools that are closing — yes, schools that are closing, that have closed.

But with this great new initiative, it will give our rural communities the opportunity to have young children have a place to go to learn the social skills that they need to carry them through their school years. They will have a place where parents can take them that is warm and that is friendly.

I'm also thrilled at the fact that Williams Lake, a town within my constituency, is a successful town that will be having a new neighbourhood learning facility built. The community has come together — the city council, the regional district, the early childhood learning facility, health care givers. The community is so excited about the new initiative. I cannot believe that anybody would be negative about it.

We talk about dollars and cents. We talk about spending money smarter. We talk about technology. We talk about all those things. I look at grandchildren today, who are one, two, three, four and five years old. I cannot believe the knowledge that they have learned today through technology skills.

I have two of those little darlings. When they were four years old, I said to myself: "You will be going next year, when you are five, to kindergarten." Then this initiative came along, and I said to their mother: "Do you not think that all-day kindergarten is too much for Emily?" She looked back at me, and she said: "It may be, but I thank everyone for the opportunity that she will have. If she is not able to, it is not mandatory."

We have to look at youth today. Every time you pick up a newspaper, that's all we hear about. We have to encourage youth. What a better way to start when they're young. What a better way to help our educators when they get to grade 1, where there's discipline, where they understand what it takes to sit in a classroom all day.

[1120]

I keep hearing everyone talk about cutbacks, cutbacks, cutbacks. Where I come from in rural B.C., we've had that. We had that in the '90s. We had major cutbacks in the '90s. I was mayor of a rural community, and since then we have worked together to become innovative. We have been talking in my community, where I come from, in other communities that I work with, talking to other councils…. It is time that we work together with our school boards. It's time that we shared facilities. It's time that we shared lawnmowers. It's time that we shared staff. To get the costs down.

There is no tree out there that you can pick dollars and cents off. You have to be responsible with dollars and with cents.

Back in the 1990s there was a school closure in my area — not made by this government; made by a previous government. So I don't believe we should sit here and say that you closed a school; I didn't. I think that we have to look at fiscal responsibility and why these schools are closing. Populations change. But new initiatives will help our doors stay open, and new initiatives like this will certainly help rural B.C.

You know, I'd like to read you a quote here, for those on the opposite side of the floor that don't believe this is a good initiative. This was a press release by the Minister of Education on April 8, 2009: "Williams Lake School to Host Neighbourhood of Learning."

"Williams Lake. Education and community services will be brought together in a single hub as Marie Sharpe Elementary becomes part of the neighbourhoods of learning initiative, Finance Minister Colin Hansen announced today.

"Marie Sharpe Elementary will become a model school that districts can look to as an example of the successful partnerships that can be achieved between districts and their communities. Schools are important community assets that everyone should have the opportunity to use and enjoy.

"Under the Neighbourhoods of Learning concept, schools become community facilities as well as learning spaces. Possible uses: early learning or child care programs, space for non-profit organizations, health clinics, sports programs, family resource or seniors centres" — and, you know, what's greater than seniors and children? — "industry training or branch libraries. The Cariboo-Chilcotin school district will consult with community and education partners to determine which services can be offered on site to benefit students and the community.
[ Page 119 ]

"'I am very happy to see the Neighbourhoods of Learning initiatives come to our district,' said Cariboo-Chilcotin board chair Pete Penner. 'The opportunity seems to be a win-win for all those involved. The inner-city nature of the school we are replacing, Marie Sharpe, makes it an ideal candidate for providing many services to our students. We hope to see the whole community involved in education and services to the neighbourhood children.'"

This is called innovation, initiative, working together and providing the social skills that our young people will be able to obtain to help them with the future of their education. So I am thrilled at this announcement. I am pleased, and I thank the government for this great initiative.

[1125]

D. Routley: The parents of B.C. might be forgiven their cynicism, just as the voters would be forgiven their cynicism, given all of the broken promises and failed promises of this government. All-day kindergarten was an old promise broken.

The only green thing about this government is that they recycle their commitments. They constantly bring forward a new vacuous statement. The member for Coquitlam-Maillardville referred to previous throne speeches and budget speeches where so many commitments have been made to the children of B.C., none of which have been realized except in that we continue to lead this country with the highest child poverty rates for six years running.

Hypocrisy is a dangerous commodity. Examining the record of the B.C. Liberals, it's hard to see how they could stand a celebrance of any commitment to learning — early or otherwise. The positions of the Liberal government have been Orwellian at best. Their effect on early education — education broadly — has been devastating. They say "the most funding per student ever," but meanwhile they download huge costs onto districts.

I've asked the Education Minister to manage my daughter's allowance. Then I could download costs from my household onto her. At the end of the week, when she comes to me and says, "Dad, I don't have enough money for this," I can simply send her to the Education Minister, who can say: "Sorry, Madeline. You've got the most allowance you've ever had." It just doesn't make sense. It doesn't make sense to the parents of children affected by the cutbacks that this government has brought.

The post-secondary seat mythology. The number of seats. It doesn't even keep up to inflation of the population — post-secondary student age to population. The AG's report referred to that as a chaos — "an unmeasurable chaos."

Cuts to literacy programs before and current. How can that be an investment in education in any case? Child poverty. As I referred to before, children do not learn well when they're hungry. That's what our teachers face.

Class size and class composition limits. Placed into law by this government and then promptly broken, while they still wave those flags — more vacuous statements. Literacy is bringing meaning to words. This government needs a lesson in literacy.

It's about values and about truth. These are the tired policies of a right-wing government that have been proven failures throughout this world. We've seen the cutbacks, the privatization, the degradation to services and the wreckage that's left behind. Those people who serve our students — the teachers, the trustees — are the ones expected to pick it up and put it all back together again.

The public health officer referred to H1N1 last week and said: "You know what? The biggest deterrence to H1N1 would be to clean our schools more thoroughly." Well, I used to do that, and the people doing that job today are cleaning twice the area that was required ten years ago. So how can that be a deterrent, and how can that support the healthy learning conditions for our children?

No, we need more than vacuous statements. We need commitments that equal action. We need investment in literacy programs, not cuts. We need investment in libraries, not cuts. We need facility grants that keep our schools clean, that keep our schools well maintained, not cuts. We need class size and composition that allow teachers to do their job, that allow our students to learn in a healthy environment, instead of cuts and overcrowded classrooms and unhealthy learning conditions.

That's what this government has delivered, and the students who can least afford this are the ones who are paying the price: the students with special needs, the students with special demands on learning conditions. It's unfortunate. As we look to our schools, as we examine this Orwellian truth-making, we know that parents need more.

We know that they complain outside their schools, and on a cold morning you can see the vapour of their breath, and it disappears. It disappears because no one's listening on that side. No one's hearing them. No one's hearing about their children. This side is.

We want this government to make commitment, to make action equal these vacuous statements and vacuous promises they've made in their throne and budget speeches. That would bring healthy learning conditions not only to early learners but to adult learners, to all the people of British Columbia, and be a true investment in our future.

[1130]

J. Rustad: I'm pleased today to stand to support Motion 4. As I start, Madam Speaker, I just want to comment about the motion. This is about recognizing the importance of early learning opportunities, to recognize the importance of StrongStart B.C. and the efforts of all-day kindergarten. All we have heard from the other side is rhetoric. Children don't need rhetoric. They need action.
[ Page 120 ]

The member for Nanaimo–North Cowichan just stood up and said he wants to see "commitments that equal action." We have opened 202 StrongStart centres across the province to help the kids, to help the parents and to engage the kids in early literacy. That is action. We have committed $43 million to this program, because we understand the importance of that early learning opportunity for children.

I have had a great opportunity of going and opening several StrongStarts within my riding. When I think about the parents and the caregivers and the students at Fraser Lake and also in Fort St. James, when I watch them when they come into the classroom and I watch the eagerness that the kids have coming in through this program, there is no question that this is making a huge difference in those children's lives and the education that follows.

But the opposition just talks about cuts. I suggest that perhaps they take a literacy program, because when you increase funding every year for education and call that a cut…. I'm sorry. I don't understand their math, but that's okay. Everyone isn't exactly the best at all things. I just wish they would somehow square that equation as to how you can add funding every year to the highest level of funding that we have ever seen for kids in this province and still call that a cut.

I also wanted to say that in our education system since 2005 the number of classes with educational assistants has increased by 30 percent. At the same time, when we brought in the importance of having classes under 30 — they go on and on talking about classes over 30 — we have seen a 64 percent reduction in the number of classes over 30 since we brought in the legislation in 2005-06. That's making progress. That's going in the right direction. That is action that has been taken and that is showing results.

One other component of this motion talks about all-day kindergarten. When I was a school trustee prior to running for provincial politics, we had an early learning initiative that we undertook in our district. What we did was we took three schools, the inner-city schools, and we dedicated additional funding so that we could have all-day kindergarten for these kids.

The difference that has made…. That was quite a few years ago now. We have tracked the results over that time. The school district — of course, I'm not still there — tracked the difference that has made for those kids, and they have shown marked success for those kids because of all-day kindergarten, because of what that can do.

I am proud that we are going to be introducing all-day kindergarten. It is going to make a difference, particularly for those kids that need it most. All we hear from the opposition is nothing but rhetoric. Here's an opportunity to stand up and to say, "Yes, this is the right thing; this is moving in the right direction," and all we get is pure rhetoric. It's very unfortunate, because quite frankly, when I look at the kids that go to those schools, when I look at the first nation kids that have gone to those all-day kindergartens, when I look at the non–first nation kids and when I look at the difference it is making for them, there is no question that this is moving things in the right direction.

I went on a tour through the school district in my area, and I went to a number of schools. I have to tell you that the whole idea of the early learning literacy has really been embraced by the teachers and by the staff in the schools. I always find it quite amazing when you go in there and see just how much extra support they are throwing in and how much they appreciate StrongStarts and Ready, Set, Learn and the things we are trying to do in the school system, because they work with these kids every day. They see the differences it makes, and they're happy about where we're going with this and how it's going.

I just want to close by also talking about the fact that…. You know, when I think about StrongStarts and I think about my district, I wanted to recognize that over 91,000 visits by children to the StrongStart centres in B.C. have already taken place. Since 2008-09 this has increased to over 278,000 visits, with more than 14,900 students participating.

[1135]

It's clear that the caregivers and students appreciate this effort and that they are taking full advantage of this effort. I would ask the opposition in their comments to recognize what a great benefit this is.

I'll just close with a couple of comments. For example, Karen Hamling, the mayor of Nakusp, from the Arrow Lakes News on January 17, 2009: "I think StrongStart B.C. is probably one of the smartest things that's been done, bringing young children and parents together, and I think it's really important that when we put programs like this on that the families do participate."

People around the province, whether they're parents, school trustees or other individuals in the communities, are recognizing the importance of this, of early learning. They're recognizing the importance of all-day kindergarten, of StrongStart centres, of really giving students that head start. That's why I'm proud today to be able to stand and support this motion and to be able to see this move forward.

I invite the opposition to add some comments to that component and to maybe stand up and tell us about the StrongStart centres that you visited, tell us about the parents that you've talked to in those centres. I'm sure that if you do, you will hear the stories and you will hear the great news around this and be able to maybe bring some truth to this debate.

M. Sather: The member for Nechako Lakes wants us to stand up and affirm the early learning programs of that government when they're in complete disarray.
[ Page 121 ]
How can anybody take their program announcement seriously?

We'll remember back to the last budget when they were going to bring in three- to five-year-old all-day kindergarten. That's when the budget deficit supposedly was $495 million. Now, as we'll find out tomorrow, it's like six times that amount.

That program was going to come in like next week. Now it's: "No, no, we'll do the five-year-olds, and it'll come in next year." Well, that can't be taken seriously.

How's the government going to pay for this? Is it the $1.6 billion transfer from the HST that they're going to use to pay for it? I think columnist Vaughn Palmer had the best line on that one, and he said that transfer is fiscal prostitution. Well, it is a bad trick, indeed, but it's a bad trick on the people of British Columbia. That's all that one is.

We remember also on this side hearing on and on about how we were going to be the most literate jurisdiction in North America. How does this government follow up with that? What have they done recently to boost literacy? Well, they cancelled the programs in the libraries. The summer program for kids and the Books for Babies program are down the tube. A great way to support literacy. So how on earth do the members opposite expect us to take their announcement in the throne speech seriously?

The minister can't say how many schools this is going to go into next year. Is it five? Is it ten? Who knows?

When the government was formulating the three- to five-year-old all-day kindergarten, they formed the Early Childhood Learning Agency, which said that program was going to cost more than $600 million. More than $600 million was the price. They said that in addition to that, you have to renovate the schools to accommodate these children.

So what does this government do? They cancel the facility grants to renovate schools. Good move. Down the tube. How can we possibly take this government seriously when their actions from one ministry to the next do not back up their words about early learning, or anything else, for that matter?

Now, the minister cancelled, shortly after the election, and all the ballyhoo we heard about the all-day kindergarten during and before the election…. She cancelled it not long after that election. She said: "There are not enough spaces in the schools." Not enough spaces.

Could that possibly be because this government closed 177 schools during their tenure? I would say that had something to do with the lack of spaces.

Now what do we hear? They're going to review the boards of education. Well, we can only tremble with wondering what the next cut is going to be for education.

[1140]

You know, it's unbelievable. The member for Nechako Lakes and the other members opposite talk about: "How can you talk about cuts?" Well, we're just seeing them one after another. We're seeing them, and we're going to see more, unfortunately, and it's not going to be good for kids and not going to be good for education.

The all-day kindergarten is not going to help one of the problems that this government has exacerbated terribly, and that's the issue of child care in this province. This government cut $400 million from child care in 2002, and they have never replaced that money.

In 2006 the Prime Minister cancelled the child care transfer agreement, and our province in British Columbia — this government — was the only one that passed that cut onto the parents of our province. People will remember the child care resource and referral centres and the struggles that they had to try to deliver services to a government that clearly just doesn't care and, again, is pulling the wool over the eyes of the people of this province.

What did they do, though, with that federal money that was left from the transfer? Well, they did things like they bought booster seats. Remember the booster seats for Liberal-only constituencies? That was a good one.

In all of this nonsense from this government, another program that will not happen…. They ought to really think seriously. I understand that they don't have much to talk about, but for goodness' sake, let's not hear more nonsense from this government.

Deputy Speaker: I recognize the member for North Vancouver–Seymour.

J. Thornthwaite: Thank you, Madam Speaker, very much. It's good to have you in front right now. I missed you the last time.

As a former school trustee and parent of three children, I am well aware of the importance of early learning and know that investment in education for our young people is one of the most important priorities a government can undertake.

Each StrongStart centre gets $30,000 a year for operating expenses and services. So far in North Vancouver over 300 children in our four centres — that doesn't sound like a cut to me.

Quite simply, the idea of school readiness for three- to four-year-olds in the form of the StrongStart centres is good social policy that will serve the citizens of British Columbia well, creating a better learning and growing environment for our youngest citizens, and will be well received by parents, teachers, support staff and administrators alike.

The StrongStart centres contribute not only to the education and learning environment of our youngest citizens but to the employment of high-paying jobs for skilled child care workers.

Full-day kindergarten. Educators have supported the concept of universal full-day kindergarten for five-year-olds for quite some time. In today's world of two-income
[ Page 122 ]
families, the half-day kindergarten has become cumbersome and impractical for many working families.

I note that in a quote from the member for Coquitlam-Maillardville earlier on this year, she has said: "Ultimately, we support all-day kindergarten."

The voluntary aspects will allow parents the choice of whether the all-day model is right for their individual child and their family circumstances. There are currently over a thousand kindergarten students in school district 44, North Vancouver, that could potentially take advantage of the full-day kindergarten once it is fully implemented.

The phasing-in aspect will allow school districts to determine which facilities have the room and will help them plan and organize for the increased staffing that full-day kindergarten will require.

I'm sure that the implementation of full-day kindergarten will be welcomed by parents and staff alike, as it will offer choice for parents and more jobs for teachers and support workers. I would think that that would be an advantage for the other side as well — more jobs for teachers and support workers.

I look forward to working with the North Vancouver board of education. As a school trustee and chair of the board previous to my life in the provincial Legislature, I enjoyed a very good relationship with our MLAs, and I will continue to do so in my role as the MLA for North Vancouver–Seymour.

[1145]

I will work with the board of education in order to provide the best programs in the best-suited facilities to fit the needs of all of our children, parents and staff in North Vancouver–Seymour. It is school boards and the school board staff that should be able to decide where the best facilities are and how and where those children will be housed in all-day kindergarten and StrongStart centres. They're doing it now, and they will continue to do it in the future for all of our children, our young learners, in the province of British Columbia.

So I'm definitely in support of all-day kindergarten, as well as the StrongStart centres.

K. Corrigan: I don't think that anybody on this side of the House is opposed to the idea of StrongStart centres or that they're opposed to the idea of all-day kindergarten. In fact, we've expressed a lot of support. What we are concerned about is that the government makes a promise, makes a commitment, makes an announcement, and then a year and a half later essentially makes a new promise and a commitment and an announcement again.

You know, when I read this resolution that the government had renewed its commitment to deliver full-day kindergarten for five-year-olds throughout the province by September, I had actually written notes saying that I was going to have to support the government. I'd said: "I will probably stand up and oppose many motions the government brings, but I do need to support the government on this one."

Imagine my disappointment when I read Janet Steffenhagen's blog and found out what really was going on here — that the number of sites is expected to be announced soon; that she can't guarantee it, but government will aim to have some in every school district; and that there is some discussion with education deans about the need for more kindergarten teachers.

This announcement was made in 2008 already, in the throne speech. Here is what was announced in 2008. On the StrongStarts — that there were going to be 316 centres in the next two years for a total of 400 StrongStart centres by 2010. Apparently, I've just heard that we have 200. And in 2008 it said that there was a feasibility study for providing parents with a choice of day-long kindergarten for four-year-olds by 2010 and for three-year-olds by 2012.

So please forgive those of us on this side of the House who are cynical about the announcements that are being made. I am a strong supporter of StrongStart centres, and in fact, these centres started off –– when we hear about innovation…. These started off with districts like my district — where I was a school trustee for nine years and the chair for two years — with the family literacy centres.

Yes, there is innovation. It is coming largely from the school districts. I certainly support this program, but I'm sick of hearing announcements that aren't followed through on.

G. Coons: Speaking to this motion, again, I recognize the importance of early learning programs, and I don't think there's any question about the importance of them. But again, I just think that this is another diversion from the Premier's real agenda on the HST and the budget. As we move along, we're going to see broken promises, and we're going to see the impact on students.

Now, I find…. We all know that the education system is not adequately funded as it is. It requires a lot of resources and significant money. Boards are strained, and no prep work is done. I haven't heard anybody in this room on the other side talk about the Early Childhood Learning Agency's report that specifically comments on what we need to do. It hasn't been done.

This government has not done their homework. This is just written on the back of a napkin. What the report said is they had to carry out a detailed facilities analysis and start to prepare space. Not done. Some districts have space, but it needs to be re-evaluated to accommodate kindergarten needs, and this has not been done.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Creating a human resource strategy. There's been no strategy developed. The Education Minister says we'll find hundreds of kindergarten teachers from the laid-off ones. So the grade 7 teacher in Chilliwack is going to teach
[ Page 123 ]
kindergarten? Out of touch. She doesn't know what she's talking about and has no credibility. How many kindergarten teachers are there? And if not an adequate supply, what are we going to do? Will the funding be there?

[1150]

The third thing that the report said: they need to develop program standards for kindergarten. In Prince Rupert they've had all-day kindergarten in two schools for the last three years funded by the aboriginal education. They need adequate funding, and they need support in special needs. Is that going to be there?

There are a lot of questions that this government hasn't answered, and again, this is just a diversion. This is just another deceitful diversion in their decade of deceit. The key with this is child poverty. In Prince Rupert we have the highest levels of child poverty….

Mr. Speaker: Member, could you be careful in the choice of your language.

G. Coons: Thank you, hon. Speaker.

We have to remember what this province has done. For the fifth year in a row we've been the leader in Canada in child poverty. We need a poverty reduction strategy, we need to look at social assistance rates, and we need to raise the minimum wage. We will have the dubious honour — the B.C. Liberal honour — of being the lowest minimum wage in Canada, and that's shameful.

On that, I will pass it on.

M. Dalton: I am pleased to support this motion.

I've been a teacher at the secondary and elementary levels for a good number of years, and I've had the experience of observing the growth and development of our students. The best way for students to succeed is by giving them the proper attention and help that they need during their schooling.

If you're able to assist a student in a particular subject that they are struggling with, they are far likelier to show interest in improving in that area, whether it be sciences or math or reading or whatever the subject matter. The earlier a student adopts this learning pattern, the more success they will have in studies as they mature.

One of the joys of teaching is seeing the lights go on in students' eyes as they begin to understand and comprehend a subject matter. This is especially true for struggling students. I've taught from kindergarten to grade 12, and I note that it is especially important for kids at a very young age to get on track, because their difficulties just carry right along. So it's important. This is one reason why I'm supporting this motion.

They will also be learning valuable life skills that will benefit them outside of the classroom as well. In many cases, once a child has had the opportunity to have a head start in their studies, they are able to benefit greatly from this. The StrongStart program is a wonderful example of how we can give our students the opportunity for success in their future studies. They work on building and developing the skills that they need for the next 12 or 13 years.

StrongStart B.C. centres build on the success of Ready, Set, Learn kindergarten, a kindergarten-readiness program. There are seven StrongStart programs that run in my riding. They include Eric Langton Elementary, Hammond Elementary, Blue Mountain Elementary, Glenwood Elementary, West Heights Elementary, Mission Central Elementary, Cherry Hill Elementary, and StrongStart B.C. outreach sites in these smaller communities: Deroche, Silverdale and Dewdney elementaries. Aside from these ten programs, there are currently 202 StrongStart B.C. centres operating in British Columbia.

The government is committed to, and recognizes the need to invest in, early child education. As outlined in the throne speech, we will start by delivering voluntary full-day kindergarten for five-year-olds in B.C. schools. This delivery will be a phased-in approach, beginning in September 2010.

Another advantage of this is that it will help us to retain even more teachers. We're in a time in most school districts of declining enrolment. I know that in my community our population is going up, but the enrolment is still going down by hundreds of students. This impacts our teachers — well-trained teachers — and quite often these are the teachers that get laid off.

We're trying to do the most possible to hold on to these teachers, and these are new, well-trained teachers that have a lot of enthusiasm. We're trying to provide a way to keep these teachers — their expertise in working with kids. So this is great for students, and it's great for teachers.

[1155]

M. Dalton moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. I. Chong moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

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

The House adjourned at 11:56 a.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

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

TV channel guide • Broadcast schedule

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

ISSN 1499-2175