2010 Legislative Session: Second 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, March 1, 2010

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 10, Number 6

[ Page 3025 ]

MONDAY, MARCH 1, 2010

The House met at 1:36 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Introductions by Members

J. Les: There was a lot of celebration going on yesterday across the province and across our country, but my wife and I had another reason to celebrate, and that was the arrival of another granddaughter. Katelyn Nicole Strong arrived yesterday morning at four o'clock. She clocked in at 9 pounds and 1 ounce. My daughter Diane and her husband, Mike, are thrilled, as are the grandparents. Her little brother Nathan is still trying to figure out what's going on.

Hon. K. Krueger: We have in the House with us today a relatively new constituency assistant of mine. I'm very glad to have her on our team, and she's been really looking forward to seeing the Legislature in action. Would you please join me in welcoming Gabrielle Price.

Tributes

JACK EBBELS

Hon. G. Abbott: It's with great sadness that I acknowledge the passing of an exceptional British Columbian and an exceptional public servant. Mr. Jack Ebbels — who, I think, many of us in this House know, on both sides of the House — passed away last Thursday after suffering a heart attack while skiing in Alberta.

Jack joined the Attorney General's ministry in 1981. He worked his way up through the B.C. public service and in 1990 became the chief counsel for the Nisga'a land claim negotiations. He also served, again with great distinction, as the deputy minister in various areas such as Aboriginal Affairs and Energy and Mines.

I know the House would like to join with me in recognizing Jack's enormous contribution to this province, and I ask that all members join me in sending our prayers and our best wishes to Jack's family at this extraordinarily difficult time in their lives.

J. Horgan: It's with great sadness that I rise and join with the Minister of Aboriginal Relations in marking the passing of Jack Ebbels, who was a colleague of mine. I had the good fortune of working with Jack, not only on his triumphant work on the Nisga'a treaty but also within the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources.

I want to echo the words of the minister that Jack was a real gentleman and a really outstanding deputy minister. He planned the work, and he worked the plan. That was his credo, and he was one of the best deal-makers in government as well. I know many ministers over there would desperately love to have a good, solid deputy minister to get those things done, and that's what Jack did.

He was a solid guy. He never took credit himself. He always deferred that glory, whenever there was any in the public service, to those below him — a quality guy, a class act — and he will be desperately missed by his family and those who knew him.

Introductions by Members

Hon. B. Penner: I have the pleasure this afternoon of introducing a group of Washington State legislative interns whom I had the opportunity to speak to a couple of hours ago this morning. They're here as part of an annual internship exchange between the Washington State Legislature and our Legislature here in Victoria.

This exchange, I think, is a great opportunity to share ideas and to learn from each other about our mutual systems and to understand how they're similar on the outside but can be quite different on the inside in terms of their day-to-day workings. I know that our Minister of Aboriginal Relations as a past intern has a particular interest, as do I as a former intern, in the ongoing success of the legislative internship programs generally, and I ask that the House would please make them all welcome.

[1340]

Tabling Documents

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, I have the honour to present the Auditor General's report No. 9, 2009-2010, Electronic Health Record Implementation in British Columbia.

Ministerial Statements

2010 OLYMPIC AND PARALYMPIC GAMES

Hon. G. Campbell: I rise to make a ministerial statement. The last time that we gathered in this House we were about to embark on a great Canadian undertaking, the 2010 Winter Olympic Games. Today we can say together and we can say with pride that the 2010 Winter Olympic Games were a Canadian triumph.

It was a triumph of partnerships. It was a triumph that erased borders and brought us together as a country as never before in my memory. Millions of Canadians held this Olympic dream in their hearts. We were together as one nation as Alex Bilodeau crossed the finish line, won gold and embraced his brother Frederic. We rose as one as Maëlle Ricker won B.C.'s first gold medal at home in an Olympic Games and helped set the pace for a record-breaking performance.
[ Page 3026 ]

Hon. Speaker, this was a team effort. It was a country's effort. It was the effort of every province. It was the effort of the cities of Vancouver and Whistler and Richmond. It was the effort of all Canadians. Our Olympians, our games organizers, volunteers and host communities set the bar high for themselves, and they have now set the Olympic standard for all to follow in the future.

Families from all walks of life, of all places of origin came together in Vancouver and Whistler and Richmond. They celebrated the success of our athletes. They celebrated the community of one another, and most importantly, they celebrated being Canadian with spontaneous outbreaks of the national anthem at one in the afternoon, at one in the evening and, some say, at four in the morning.

As President Rogge of the IOC said today, he has never seen the kind of exuberance, excitement and embracing of the Olympic spirit that he saw in British Columbia, Canada. Whether you were there in person or one of the 3.5 billion people that was introduced to B.C., Canada and the communities that we all live in, you all actually got to share in the joy and the exuberance of the Olympic Games.

We all embraced the power of sport to unify us all, not just as Canadians but as a human family. Through the power of sport and seemingly impossible feats of human strength, agility, endurance, artistry, perseverance and dedication, our athletes have inspired generations with the power of the human heart and the performances for the ages.

When we see what our athletes have done and, more importantly, overcome to achieve their true potential, we know there is no goal too great if we believe in ourselves as British Columbians and as Canadians. As we watched, we learned the power of hope, the importance of family, the strength of team, the coaches and all who supported them in their quest for excellence. Their journeys are Canadian journeys. They're Canadian stories. They speak to the essence of who we are as Canadians and the force of national purpose.

The greatest triumph of the 2010 Winter Olympic Games is the intangible bond that strengthens us as the Canadian family and the indelible pride and confidence that we will all share forever and can spark our national purpose as we reach into the future. For us, these games will always be a defining moment for British Columbia and for Canada.

British Columbia has always imagined these were Canada's games, that we could contribute to our country, and we have through the efforts of literally thousands and thousands of volunteers who said to the world: "Bienvenue en Colombie-Britannique. Welcome to British Columbia. Welcome to Canada."

[1345]

These were the most watched games in Olympic history. They celebrated the Winter Olympics as never before. This was Canada's team. As we walked through the streets of Whistler and Richmond and Vancouver, as we walked through Vancouver Airport as athletes from around the world were welcomed, we saw blue-jacketed volunteers who were putting the best face they could on Canada's games. What a superb job every single one of those people did.

This was the culmination of years of effort by thousands of people — people from every territory, from every province and indeed from around the world. They were inspired by the vision and the mission that Jack Poole set for them as the chair of VANOC.

They have been encouraged and prompted and energized by the leadership and the example of John Furlong. Our VANOC team is one that the IOC looks to as the standard-bearers for future international Olympic Games, and to all of them we owe our heartfelt thanks.

It was the people behind the scenes that really lifted this Olympics up and made it something exceptional. Our security forces. I met with the executive producer of NBC's Olympic coverage. He said to me that he had never felt safer in an Olympic venue, and he remarked upon the fact that he felt safe in spite of the fact that he saw no weaponry and he saw no automatic weapons. He saw police officers and security officers who were taking care of the public good, the public interest. To all of those security officers, I say thank you for putting such a proud face on Canada.

The medical team that we had. In the Turin Olympics of 2006 over 1,100 patients had to be admitted to Turin's hospitals. In British Columbia in 2010, because of the excellence of our medical team, because of the dedication of them, we only had to put 22 people in hospital. That speaks to their professionalism, to their expertise and, again, to their commitment to the Olympic spirit. I say thank you to all of them also, hon. Speaker.

This was an Olympics of many firsts. It was the longest torch relay in the history of the Olympic movement — in-country torch relay. Twelve thousand Canadians carried the Olympic torch, but equally importantly, 15 million Canadians had their hearts touched as that flame crossed their community and over a thousand communities in this country.

We set our sights on gold-medal performances, and we had so many firsts. For the first time ever, a Canadian athlete won an Olympic gold medal at home when we hosted the games, when Alex Bilodeau received his mogul medal early in the sport.

For the first time ever, a British Columbian won at home in the women's snowboard cross when Maëlle Ricker crossed the finish line. For the first time ever in the Winter Olympics at any time, a British Columbian won a gold medal when Ashleigh McIvor won her ladies' ski cross championship.

For the first time ever, Canadians, Americans and people around the world were awestruck at the excep-
[ Page 3027 ]
tional precision of both the incredible Scott Moir and Tessa Virtue as they won the skate dancing gold for the Olympics.

For the first time ever, we won a gold medal in men's skeleton when Jon Montgomery won at Whistler. Let us not forget the gold-medal performance of Christine Nesbitt in the 1,000-metre speed skating. It was electric to watch the gold-medal performance of Heather Moyse and Kaillie Humphries as, for the first time ever, women crossed the bobsled finish line, coming in first in an Olympic Games. Right behind them were silver medallists Shelley-Ann Brown and Helen Upperton.

[1350]

For the third straight time, the women led the way, and they won a gold medal in Olympic hockey.

There was not a British Columbian this weekend who didn't rise to their feet and cheer as Fort St. John's own Denny Morrison and his team gave us a gold in the men's team pursuit. Charles Hamelin gave us a gold in men's short track 500 metre, and not content with that, he and his team got us a gold in the men's 5,000-metre relay.

Then imagine the performance of Jasey Jay Anderson, who came from 20th place to a gold medal in the parallel giant slalom in snowboarding. For the first time ever, a Canadian rink, Kevin Martin and his team, went undefeated through 11 games in an Olympic Games to win gold for Canadian men's curling.

As if that wasn't enough, yesterday we were all sitting around, minding our own business on a Sunday afternoon. There we were, thinking to ourselves, "They're going to do it; they're going to do it," until there were 24 seconds left, when it was a tie. I have never heard the country so quiet until that lad from Nova Scotia put the puck in the net, and Canada's men won gold. This was Canada's team. People from every province and territory joined in making sure that they would lift our entire country up with their performance.

You know, it wasn't just our gold medallists who made us proud. I can recall — I think it was the second day of the games — as Jennifer Heil won silver after an incredible race, she looked in the camera and said: "I won this. It's Canada's silver medal." She had performed exquisitely.

I can recall Clara Hughes at the end of her exceptional Olympic career, knowing that she had skated the skate of her life and set an Olympic record not just for Canada, but for the world, as the first multi-medal winner in both Summer and Winter Olympic Games. What an example she has set for all of us.

We won more silver medals at the 21st Winter Olympic Games than has ever been won before in a Canadian-held Olympics. We saw the incomparable Kristina Groves win both a silver and a bronze. We saw the entire women's speed skating team win silver in the 3,000-metre relay. We saw Mike Robertson, who won the silver in snowboard cross, and Marianne St-Gelais, who won silver in short track. We saw Francois-Louis Tremblay win a bronze in the 500-metre men's short track and our four-man bobsled team come third.

We were all moved, we were all inspired, by the incredible performance of Joannie Rochette. How can you top that? Her courage and performance epitomized the strength of her resolve and the resolve of the entire Canadian Olympic team. It also epitomized the strength of family, as her father watched her perform in the performance of her life.

It has been an incredible 17 days, and on behalf of all British Columbians I want to say thank you to everyone who brought the 2010 Winter Olympic and Paralympic Games to us here in our province, in our country, and who made us so proud.

Within days we are going to see another round of exceptional athletic performances. On March 12 the Paralympics will open in Vancouver, B.C. Just as we set the standard for others to follow, we will do the same in the Paralympics.

[1355]

Our Paralympians are ready. They are prepared. They are determined, and we are all looking forward to their gold-medal performances as we host them here in 2010.

The spirit of 2010 is one that I hope will last for a lifetime. I hope it will touch the hearts of our children across this country. I hope it will remind us of what we can do as Canadians when we act as one nation with common purpose and a common commitment to one another.

I am very proud of the work that VANOC did, that the volunteers did. I am proud of the partnerships we've had. But mostly I am proud of British Columbians, the people that cleaned the streets, that kept our hotels clean, that provided the service to our international visitors. There's not one person that visited Vancouver for 2010 — or Whistler, or Richmond — who did not go away knowing the warmth of the Canadian heart, the warmth of Canadian hospitality and our commitment to one another as well as to our guests.

Four host First Nations, for the first time in history, welcomed the world's international athletes to an Olympic Games. We have learned from them. We welcomed the world as well. We were inspired by the performances of our athletes, but mostly I have been inspired by the performances of Canadians from coast to coast.

It was an honour for British Columbia to host these games. It will be an honour to host the Paralympics.

[The members sang O Canada.]

C. James: I want to rise to speak as well about the extraordinary games, and I think they really will be known not simply as the 2010 Winter Olympics but the extraordinary games of Canada, because that's really what we saw over the last number of weeks.
[ Page 3028 ]

I want to offer on behalf of the opposition a huge thank-you to everyone involved, from start to finish. Politicians of all levels of government — federal, provincial, municipal, First Nations — were all involved in making sure that these games were a huge success.

I want to express our appreciation to John Furlong. If there's anyone who deserves a vacation and a rest, it's John right now.

I also want to say that I'm certain that Jack Poole was smiling down on all of these games during those weeks. I know he would have been incredibly proud. Knowing Jack, I know he also would have said that it was a team effort and that we need to make sure we supported the team and said a huge thank-you to VANOC and the entire team that put together such an extraordinary performance over the last while.

I want to express a huge appreciation to the athletes, both successful and not, because every athlete was successful regardless of whether there was a medal performance or not. Those performances kept us on the edge of our seats, and not just the hockey game but performance after performance where you saw athletes standing up a second and a half behind, the difference between a medal and not a medal.

[1400]

It was extraordinary to watch people who had spent years and years building up to the Olympics, to express that kind of emotion and that kind of performance. I think every one of our athletes deserves our huge awe and appreciation for the performance that they did over the Olympics.

It was also, for many of our athletes, an incredibly emotional time — personal stories. I think all of us send our prayers and our thoughts to the luge tragedy at the start of the Olympics, to Nodar Kumaritashvili and his family and his country. It was a huge tragedy, and it really shows the emotions that occur in the Olympics. I think all of us in this House would send along our thoughts.

It was also an emotional time for many of the athletes. We saw that with Joannie Rochette in the performance, as the Premier mentioned — to watch her father in the audience and to watch Joannie, as she received the Terry Fox Award a couple of days later, talk about the emotions of that time, about the fact that she knew her mom was there with her while she was performing. It's those kinds of personal stories.

Alexandre Bilodeau. I don't think any one of us will forget him or his family in these games. That was an extraordinary measure of the emotion and the support of a family. I think it was a lesson to all of us to hear Alexandre talk about the fact that he never complained when he performed because all he did was think of his brother and the physical struggles that his brother had every single day to know that he had nothing to complain about. On that day he didn't feel like going out and training, he thought of his brother, and he remembered that story and the personal support that his brother provided for him.

I think it was those kinds of life lessons from the athletes that we will always remember, and the personal support of family that was so evident in performer after performer — husband, wife, family, children — who were all there to be able to celebrate. I think it really was a huge strength.

The volunteers. I don't think there were any of us who spent time down at the Olympics, whether it was out on the streets or at events, that didn't see those blue jackets and that didn't know that the people who were there were so proud. I spent time at each of the venues that I visited, and at each of the opportunities I had, to stop and ask volunteers how they were enjoying their experience. There wasn't one that didn't say to me that it was the best time they've ever had — how terrific it was.

At one of the games I went to, I sat next to someone who had come here from Australia to volunteer, who had volunteered in their games and wanted to be involved in the next Olympics because they were so excited. He talked about the amazing experience that he was having here in British Columbia. He'd taken some time off on his one day off as a volunteer to come down to go to a game. It showed the kind of involvement, and I don't think any of this would have been the kind of experience we had if it wasn't for those 25,000 volunteers.

The sites and the free events. Again, I think that many of us took part in those free events: the visits to Surrey, to the O Zone, down to Granville Island, to Robson Street. They were extraordinary. It was amazing to see people gathering, to see that kind of excitement. For me, that's the real pride of these games — the people. What really will be the pride of these Olympics will be the people.

You saw security officers and police and RCMP and seniors and families all out on the street together celebrating, showing pride. I think that really will be, in my mind, the real pride of the Olympics — the people of British Columbia and the people of Canada, the people of our country who really came together.

My hope is that that's the legacy we leave from this Olympics. The legacy really is pride in our province and in our country, and that remains strong for all of us — pride and community spirit. These games proved that if you pull together events like this, people will come out from the community. They will gather together.

A community is safer and healthier when people are out celebrating together, when people get to know each other, when we break down those barriers and bring people together. That community spirit should be a legacy from these games.

The last piece is support for one another. I saw that every day of the games — athletes supporting each other, families supporting each other, visitors being supported by British Columbians who were helping them get to where they needed to get to. Again, if we leave anything
[ Page 3029 ]
from these games, a legacy of support for one another is a true legacy coming from these Olympics.

On behalf of the opposition, I add our support and our thanks and our appreciation for an extraordinary time. I'm really looking forward to participating and seeing the events at the Paralympics. I know it'll be another great show that we'll all be proud of. [Applause.]

[1405]

Mr. Speaker: Thank you, British Columbia. Thank you, Canada, for a job well done.

Introductions by Members

D. McRae: I'd like to introduce some students from G.P. Vanier who are visiting us here today. The students are in grade 11 and participate in the Explore program at Vanier. They're here due to the hard work of their teachers, Ilene Yeomans, Dave Neill and Grayson Pettigrew, who could not be with us here today because of a sports injury. I'd like this House to make them welcome.

Statements
(Standing Order 25B)

RICHMOND OLYMPIC
STUDENT BAND AND choir

L. Reid: From laid-back to laying it down, for Canada, for British Columbia and for Richmond, this exhilaration is embedded in the spirit of the Richmond O Zone and sparkled during the February 12 performance of the Richmond Olympic Oval school choir and band under the direction of Mr. Tim Braund, musician extraordinaire.

One year ago 600 students performed at Richmond Winter Fest. Richmond's music teachers were energized by the possibilities, and discussions centred around an Olympic band and choir performance by 3,000 students. Meetings were held, and five Canadian songs were taught including "Canada, We Love You" to all students in grades 3 through 7 attending 37 schools — an enormous undertaking.

Choirs were then created with elementary and secondary students. During this time David Wong, a grade 9 student at MacNeill Secondary, talked to his band teacher and to his mom, Lily Pang of LY Enterprises, about jackets for the choir. Mrs. Pang embraced the idea, brought her designers home from New York, and they crafted glorious Canadian jackets and pants for more than 4,000 students, teachers and volunteers representing 47 Richmond schools.

February 11 saw all the students perform together for the first time. The very next day, February 12, saw the Richmond Olympic Oval school choir and band give an amazing, unifying performance. It was my pleasure to share in the celebration, thanking Lily Pang, her family and her companies for their wonderful gift. To the students, the 100-plus teachers, the volunteers, the parents: you have made us better, and we thank you.

The legacy is a music program strengthened and young people thrilled by their performances. The Olympics are about building dreams, and the Cultural Olympiad was a brilliant contributor. My dream is that we keep our flags flying high over the Paralympics yet to come.

DENNIS BAPTISTE

B. Simpson: Every community has its quiet, unassuming heroes, people who serve their community without expectation of reward or recognition. Dennis Baptiste is one of these people.

Dennis and his broom are a familiar sight on the streets of Quesnel. His contribution to the cleanliness of the city is quite literally legendary. Dennis has been a city of Quesnel employee since 1974. His work ethic and commitment to keeping Quesnel clean is well recognized by his co-workers and by residents alike; so are his perpetual smile and the enthusiastic wave you get when you call out his name.

When Dennis isn't pushing a broom or shovelling snow, he's an active member of the community. He joined the Quesnel volunteer fire department in 1989 and in 1996 was awarded the Jack Allison Memorial Award as firefighter of the year by his peers. In 1997 he attained the highest attendance record during practice sessions — 100 percent.

Dennis also spent many years in local athletics. He was a stick boy for the Quesnel Kangaroos hockey team. He fetched water, tape and pucks for them and kept their dressing room clean, all with a giant smile. He was also active with the local men's senior baseball team as a bat boy.

Dennis Baptiste recently celebrated his 60th birthday and continues to work as hard as ever and always with that smile. This year Quesnel celebrated Dennis's dedication. He was named Employee of the Year by the Quesnel and District Chamber of Commerce, and then Dennis got to bask in the loud and enthusiastic recognition of his years of selfless service when he mounted the stage as the community torchbearer and lit the flame in Quesnel.

I ask the House to help me add to the recognition Dennis Baptiste deserves. If you're in Quesnel and see a little guy enthusiastically pushing a broom, yell, "Hey, Dennis, keep up the good work," and you'll see that smile.

OLYMPIC GAMES EVENTS AND
LEGACY IN RICHMOND

R. Howard: It is my pleasure to rise in the House to recognize the many Olympic legacies that have been established in my riding of Richmond Centre. The last two
[ Page 3030 ]
weeks were a wonderful time in the city of Richmond as we proudly welcomed the world. Hundreds of thousands flocked to the Richmond O Zone where they saw many attractions, visited Holland Heineken House and were taken on a tour of our great province via B.C. Street.

[1410]

I must say it was especially exciting to hear our very own Richmond Olympic Oval receive such acclaim from national and international media. It was by many considered the crown jewel of these great Olympic Games. Even though the games may be finished, the oval is still looking to serve the city of Richmond. With ice rinks, sporting courts, a rowing tank, fitness and training facilities and the adjacent Spirit Square park, the oval will be an excellent place for community sport, providing our city with recreation for generations to come.

The new Canada Line was also used well, as up to 250,000 people used the service on a single day.

These Olympics were enjoyed by everyone, and in most cases the best ticket was not always one for a sporting event. In fact, it was not a ticket at all. It was just walking on the street and seeing the amazing spirit that was alive during the games.

Of course, on the street were the Blue Jackets. One of the best legacies to come from the games is the invaluable volunteer framework that will be in place for years to come. So much of the success of these games is because of the thousands of people who offered their time and enthusiasm. In Richmond alone over 800 volunteers made these games the best ever, including Jim Korjima, Hans Havas and Julie Halfnights, just to name a few.

Their blue jackets and remarkable helping and positive attitude made them a big part of the feel of the games. Please let us thank them and congratulate them.

NISGA'A NEW YEAR CELEBRATION

R. Austin: Last Friday I had the privilege, along with my colleague from the north coast, of attending the Nisga'a new year celebration, or Hobiyee as it is known. In the last 17 days we have witnessed a wonderful outpouring and demonstration of aboriginal culture for the entire world to see, as a consequence of the Winter Olympics.

I am delighted to say that Olympics or no Olympics, this province has a wealth of incredibly diverse First Nations celebrations to share with the world, and Hobiyee is a perfect example. This event takes place at the end of February to signal the beginning of the food harvesting year and usually signals the forthcoming arrival of the oolichan, a small fish akin to a sardine that is a rich source of protein and oil, or oolichan grease, which has sustained First Nations of the northwest for thousands of years.

This year's celebrations were held in Prince Rupert and not in the Nass Valley, but of course, people travelled from all over to witness the drumming and singing that is an important part of Hobiyee. The highlight on Friday was the grand entrance, when all the dancers who attend the weekend come together to dance and drum.

Aside from representation of the four Nisga'a communities, there were also dancers from other nations in the northwest, such as the Tsimshian and Haisla and, for the first time, the Kwe Unglis Haida Dancers from Haida Gwaii.

I hope that any British Columbian who wishes to see Hobiyee will decide to make the journey up north in person, as listening to huge numbers of drummers and singers in a large hall is, frankly, a spiritual experience. But for those who would like to get a taste of this incredible celebration, I encourage them in the future to visit CFNR First Nations radio, as this year they included for the first time a live webstream from the hall, which gives people an opportunity to see an example of aboriginal culture up close.

There were more people this year than attended even the All-Native Basketball Tournament, which is another very popular event that finished just a week ago in Prince Rupert. The atmosphere, as always, was jubilant and raucous, and I want to thank all the organizers for a job well done, in particular the Gitmaxmak'ay Nisga'a Dancers, who sponsored the event.

All that remains is for me to wish everyone a happy Nisga'a new year — Hobiyee.

OLYMPIC AND PARALYMPIC GAMES

P. Pimm: Olympic pride and legacy. I'm so proud to be Canadian. If I wasn't sure before these Olympics, I certainly am now. I've just spent two fantastic weeks, from the events of the opening ceremonies right through the closing ceremonies. As I watched the opening ceremonies, awaiting who was going to be the final torchbearer — and then came four — I thought that would be okay.

But no, it wasn't over. The Great One, Wayne Gretzky, got to do the final honours and lit up the outdoor cauldron. What a moment — my all-time favourite Canadian being our final torchbearer.

But wait. That was just the start of what would be the greatest two weeks of my life. Waiting for our first gold medal. We knew it would come. We knew there would be many, and then there it was. Alex Bilodeau, the name we'll all remember for the rest of our lives.

I was fortunate enough to be at some of the events and to be part of the crowds and part of the daily excitement. I was part of the huge crowds at downtown Robson Street, part of the excitement, and what a thrill to see so many proud Canadians. I have never seen our country so patriotic.

[1415]

The anticipation of each event, the results for our athletes, the huge celebrations of each one of the results
[ Page 3031 ]
were amazing. These games were truly Canada's games, and I'm truly proud to be Canadian.

For the first time in my life, I believe we all came together to celebrate all of Canada's successes. I heard everybody talking about our athletes, our events and our anticipation of the end results. Whether it be an athlete from Quebec or one from British Columbia, the anticipation levels and celebrations were the same.

When I wasn't in attendance, I was definitely in front of my television anxiously awaiting each result and fighting back the many tears as the proud results kept coming in. Our athletes were fabulous. Our country was fabulous, and I, for one, will remember forever. I think many will remember forever. Whether it's Canada Line when you ride on it or a drive on the Sea to Sky Highway or when you're part of a big conference in the new convention centre, these are all legacies that will trigger the memory.

In my area, every time I enter our new covered speed skating oval called the Enerplex, I will remember Denny Morrison and his gold medal.

HOSPICE CARE IN DELTA

V. Huntington: "In the normal course of our days, we tend not to think about death — not, that is, until the imminent threat to a loved one's life. Then we are barely able to think about anything else." Those words on the hospice movement were delivered in this House by my esteemed predecessor Fred Gingell over 12 years ago.

I am proud that Delta South has always been a leader in hospice care in this province, both by helping people live until they die and by supporting their loved ones through the stages of grieving and healing.

Today I proudly announce to this House a great milestone, the opening of Delta's freestanding hospice facility. Named the Irene Thomas Hospice to honour a $1 million donation from Delta's Thomas family, it provides ten comfortable suites in a beautiful building adjacent to Delta Hospital in Ladner. The generosity of our entire community has helped build the Irene Thomas Hospice, led by the determined, dedicated focus of Nancy Macey, longtime executive director of Delta Hospice.

Connected to the hospice is the Harold and Veronica Savage Centre for Supportive Care, which provides medical support and outreach services. The ongoing work of the Delta Hospice Society is supported by generous private and corporate donations, proceeds from a successful thrift store, government funding and countless hours of volunteer activity.

The Delta Hospice Society steps in when care replaces cure. For decades it has been helping people in care homes, in hospital and in the community. Now the Irene Thomas Hospice offers a special place for those whose time left may be limited, but whose right to dignity, comfort and hope is protected through this amazing community resource.

Oral Questions

SCHOOL DISTRICT COSTS AND FUNDING

C. James: Today we have more evidence of this government's broken promise to protect education. I have a report from the North Van school district that lists what they'll have to cut to deal with the $6 million deficit. The results will be devastating for students and their families: increased class sizes, increased fees for music and outdoor programs, school closures, cuts to supports for children with special needs.

My question is to the Minister of Education. How do these cuts protect education for children in B.C.?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: Thank you for the question. I would like to remind the Leader of the Opposition that we have actually substantially increased education funding over the last number of years. I don't think any of us can be unaware that while we've had an enrolment decline of over 56,000 students, funding for education has gone up $1.3 billion since 2001.

Last year in particular, in the face of significant budgetary challenges that were not unique to British Columbia but in fact were found across all jurisdictions around the world, we managed to increase per-pupil funding in British Columbia.

[1420]

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

C. James: Every day this minister stands up and gives answers that are completely removed from reality. Well, the reality is that the B.C. Liberals have failed students in British Columbia. That's the reality. The reality is that school boards across British Columbia are coping with an avalanche of downloaded and unfunded costs from this government.

I'll just give you a few examples: cancellation of facilities grants, $110 million cost; MSP premiums, $2.8 million; higher hydro rates, $2.4 million; teacher salary increases, $43.5 million. The list goes on and on.

This North Van district budget document tells us exactly who pays the price: "Any reduction to services will have a direct impact on students, parents and our community."

Again, my question is to the minister. How does cutting programs for B.C. students support children and their future?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: The government was, and remains, completely committed to our students' learning around this province, and that is exactly why we increased our funding last year by $84 million. We had the highest per-pupil funding grant last year: over $8,000 —
[ Page 3032 ]
over $2,000 higher than it was in 2001. We have made every effort to ensure that funding remains in the classroom in difficult economic times.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: Last year certainly was an extraordinarily challenging time around British Columbia and around the world. We did make changes last year. But we remain committed, in particular, to early learning. We're continuing to invest in that.

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

C. James: One thing is clear. It's very clear that the B.C. Liberals misled the public when they said they were going to protect education, in this last election. This budget document is very clear: class sizes increased; student fees increased; in fact, a 13 percent fee increase for any students who may want to be involved in music programs — 13 percent.

Schools closed. Four schools slated for closure in North Vancouver. Support staff reduced — 12 full-time-equivalents for students with autism and other special needs, who are going to lose their services. That's the legacy of this Liberal government. Tomorrow's budget could bring even more cuts.

Again, my question is to the minister. Why are B.C. students being made to pay the price for this government's broken promise on education?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: You know, I had the opportunity to tour some schools a month ago in this province, in the Kootenays. Nothing that the members opposite can say can take away from me the feeling of incredible optimism I had when I left those schools. The students I met in those schools are clearly global citizens. They, at the age of seven and eight, were planning their savings.…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: They're planning their savings that they could pass on to people who were devastated in Haiti. Wonderful young people are out there in whom we continue to invest, with StrongStart B.C. centres, with our investment in early education and full-day kindergarten starting next year.

I could go on and on, but suffice to say that we are continuing to invest in education, in spite of what the member opposite would like people to believe.

R. Austin: To deal with their $6 million deficit, the North Vancouver school board is looking at increasing the average class size for students in grades 4 to 12.

[1425]

The consequence…. I quote from the district's budget document. "This will likely result in more classes with 30 students or more," adding to the growing number of B.C. classrooms that break the government's own class-size and composition laws. Last year North Vancouver saw a 45 percent increase in classrooms with 30-plus students. These cuts will push that number even higher. So how do overcrowded classrooms support quality public education in British Columbia?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: Specifically talking about the North Vancouver school district. Enrolment in this district has gone down by 15.7 percent since 2001, and in spite of that enrolment decline, their per-pupil funding is almost $2,000 higher than it was in that year.

With respect to class size and composition, may I remind the members opposite that we are the government who actually brought in legislation with respect to this. We thought that this was too important to leave to be a bargaining chip with unions, and we've brought it into legislation.

Again, in spite of what the members opposite…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Just take your seat, Minister.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: …would like all of us to believe, in fact, the legislation has been a success. Since the legislation came into place, 99 percent of classes have 32 or fewer students, and 95 have 30 or fewer — Mr. Speaker, successful.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

The member has a supplemental.

R. Austin: Yes, this is the government that brings in the law and then allows it to be broken with 10,000 classrooms that break that law every single day.

School boards are doing everything they can to protect students from the cuts, clawbacks and broken promises of this government, but they can't do it all, and today support for students with special needs is on the chopping block. In fact, the North Vancouver school district is in such dire straits that they're asking bus drivers to work as special education aides to help ease the cuts.

To the Minister of Education: how can British Columbians have any faith that your government will
[ Page 3033 ]
protect education when it's so clear that your cuts are hurting students in need?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: Two points I'd like to make. One is that funding for students with special needs is at an all-time high in this province — over three-quarters of a billion dollars.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Continue, Minister.

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: With respect to our class-size legislation, we need to be really clear about this legislation. All of our educational partners, with the exception of the Teachers Federation, said to us: "We want to have flexibility in this legislation." Every school district is different. Every class is different, and that is why the built-in flexibility is there. They requested it, and we provided it, and the legislation is being upheld.

D. Thorne: Last year the number of classrooms with four or more special needs children increased by almost 1,000 across this province. That's a 10 percent increase in classes where vulnerable children are not getting the support they need to succeed.

In my own district of Coquitlam — a district, by the way, that is facing a $14.3 million shortfall next year — the number of classes with four or more special needs children has gone from 539 to 1,075 in just one year.

[1430]

My question to the Minister of Education. I would like to know how heaping more costs on school districts will improve the situation for all these special needs children.

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: We have and we continue to invest in our students with special needs, without question. The funding has gone up every year since 2001. We have more classes with educational assistants. It's gone up almost 16 percent around the province since 2005-2006. We do have classes where there are more than three students with individual educational plans, but as I previously mentioned, we've been asked for this flexibility.

Not all students with individual plans are the same, and in many cases teachers tell us the classes are functioning well. They are not requiring extra resources. There are examples of students with special needs, such as the student who has diabetes, and there is no extra need in that classroom. So what we've been told by our partners is that the needs are different. Allow us this flexibility, and that's exactly what we've done.

D. Thorne: I'd just like to point out to the House and to the Minister of Education that the download costs to school districts have increased tremendously over the past couple of years. Last Thursday the Coquitlam school district, my school district, said that they expect this government to cut facilities grants again this year. For my district, that will amount to a $12 million additional cut.

When buildings break down, they still must be fixed. Without facilities grants, schools have to take those costs out of the classroom. There is nowhere else. I would like the Education Minister to commit today to restore facilities grants this year.

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: I'm sure we are all eagerly anticipating tomorrow's budget and what it will bring. I know for myself, from the throne speech, and for all our educational partners for school districts…. Everyone is very excited about the prospect of full-day kindergarten starting in half of our schools this year and in all of our schools next year and in further investments in early education in our continuing with StrongStart B.C. centres.

I am not in a position to give you the details of the budget for tomorrow, only to say that we are going to continue to invest in education as we have in the past. It is a priority for government.

H. Bains: The growing district of Surrey is facing a similar crisis. Last fall alone 1,100 new additional students entered our district, but the district is facing a $19 million shortfall in budget. This is a district that has already experienced $9 million the previous year for deficit. So the services are cut to the bare-bone minimum.

My question to the minister is this: what other services does the minister suggest the Surrey district cut now?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: It's certainly true that Surrey is one of our few growing districts, where enrolment is 13.1 percent higher in Surrey than it was in 2001. The funding has increased. They received a $17.8 million increase just last year in their funding. Per-pupil funding is up by 34 percent since 2001.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

The member has a supplemental.

[1435]

H. Bains: If the Minister of Health had any backbone, he would be standing in this House and protecting the students of Surrey rather than heckling us. This is what the superintendent of Surrey district, Mike McKay, has to say. He said that at the end of the day, it's going to affect the classroom. This is what the superintendent, Mr. McKay, says.

There are already more than 1,200 classrooms in Surrey that broke this government's own class-size and class-composition law, as the minister mentioned earlier. So much for that law. Now the district is looking at cutting
[ Page 3034 ]
almost 200 staff, including teachers, despite the increased number of students.

My question again is to the Minister of Education. Can she explain to the parents in Surrey why their children are bearing the burden of this government's gross mismanagement in the education system?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: Again, I'm happy to say what government has done. It has been a priority for us this year. We have invested record amounts in education, including an $84 million increase this year over last year that's going to classrooms. That's going to students in classrooms around this province.

In the case of Surrey, they've had increases. Not only have they had increases in the per-pupil funding, but we've been investing, in fact, since 2001 over $200 million for new projects — new schools.

CAMPING RESERVATIONS PHONE SERVICE

B. Simpson: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Tourism. If I want to enjoy a camping experience in Super, Natural British Columbia, I wonder if the minister could tell the House where I have to phone to make a reservation.

Hon. K. Krueger: I would recommend that the member have a look at our website, hellobc.com. British Columbia is full of tourism opportunities, and he is going to be very excited about the plans that we're rolling out following our wonderful Olympic opportunity.

Mr. Speaker: Member has a supplemental.

B. Simpson: Well, we heard a lot about Hello B.C. during the Olympics, but if you call….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Just take your seat, Member.

Members.

Continue, Member.

B. Simpson: Somehow I thought that would get an applause.

You see, when you phone to make a reservation, it's Hello Guelph, Ontario. And for the Minister of Health, it's right on the ministry website if you care to check it out.

Hello Guelph, Ontario, doesn't accept MasterCard or even Visa — cash only — and they say the address for B.C. parks reservations is on Stone Road, Guelph, Ontario. Yet the Minister of Tourism has in his own town people who are losing their jobs in a call centre — a call centre that will be closed permanently shortly.

How does the minister rationalize to this House the transfer of B.C. tax money to the Ontario economy while people in the minister's own town are losing their jobs today? How does he justify that?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. K. Krueger: How quickly the love has fled from the room. This is sad. We just had the most wonderful marketing opportunity any jurisdiction could dream of in the world — 3½ billion people looking at British Columbia in the opening ceremony, millions of people watching all through the Olympics.

[1440]

We have implementation teams who are rolling out the plans to capitalize on this economic opportunity. The member has come to my office for assistance before, and he's absolutely welcome to come this afternoon. We'll show him around the website. We'll help him make his phone calls.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Just take your seat, Member.

S. Herbert: I don't think we look to that minister or that government for leadership in tourism. They've already decimated the industry-led Tourism B.C., and they're threatening the industry with the HST, which could cost the industry up to 10,000 jobs.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

S. Herbert: It could cost the tourism industry up to 10,000 jobs.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Member, take your seat for a second.

Members.

Continue, Member.

S. Herbert: Sensitive over there. It hurts when you tell the truth.

Will the minister tell me why now, instead of "Hello B.C.," he's saying we should say "Hello Ontario" when booking camping spots.

Hon. K. Krueger: "Decimated" is a word I don't think anybody else would use for what's been happening in British Columbia the last 17 days.

British Columbia has just lived through a time of absolute joy, the largest cultural event that we've ever seen in our province. People are elated. I didn't see the member
[ Page 3035 ]
there. Invited to some things that he didn't come to…. I can tell him that we're the opposite of being decimated in British Columbia. The province is alive with excitement.

I'm going to share a phone number with the members: 1-800-435-5622. And our travel counsellors are standing by to assist you.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Member has a supplemental.

S. Herbert: I'm glad that the minister can have joy, but there's not a lot of joy in that call centre in his own riding right now with the loss of jobs going on there.

This is a serious issue for this industry. When they talk about the loss of up to 10,000 jobs because of the HST, the minister should be paying attention, not pirouetting and trying to change the question to talk about something else.

So again, will the minister tell me, instead of "Hello B.C.," why he's saying we should call "Hello Ontario" on discovercamping.ca's website and also when you make that call to Discover Camping.

Hon. K. Krueger: British Columbia is leading the country in economic opportunities and in economic growth. If the member had found the time to come to the Olympics, I would have been delighted to introduce him to the wonderful people of Aboriginal Tourism B.C. Aboriginal tourism is the fastest-growing segment of our tourism industry. They have incredible venues for people to enjoy.

They long ago embraced cultural tourism as a part of tourism, which they offer to the people of the world that are coming to our doorstep, and we're bringing them together. We co-funded the pavilions that they had. We took part with them in all of their opportunities to host Olympic guests, and they took part with us in ours.

We are finding that tourists are far more interested in aboriginal tourism than many of the other venues that have been offered in the past. We are not just on the threshold; we're rolling ahead with the most fabulous opportunity we've ever had, economically, for tourism investment and every other economic opportunity in British Columbia.

[1445]

HALALT FIRST NATION
CONSULTATION ON WATER PROJECT

D. Routley: The Halalt people of the Crofton area are raising legitimate concerns over a plan to drill water wells in their traditional territory. They're worried that this proposal will affect their own drinking water and will harm fish habitat in the Chemainus River aquifer.

Again, typical for this government, they've waited for things to reach a crisis moment before acting. Consultations could have averted problems here, but now the Halalt have been forced to take action to be heard.

I'm wondering if the Environment Minister could commit today to meaningful consultation with the Halalt people and reassure them that they will have a measure of control over the water resources in their territory.

Hon. G. Abbott: The project that the member references is a project that has been undertaken by the district of North Cowichan. I think the member knows that. The project is a substantial one. It was the object of attention by the provincial environmental assessment office — as well as a harmonized federal assessment of the project. The Halalt First Nation was consulted extensively during that EAO process, and I'm pleased to say that changes were made with respect to the scope of the project as a consequence of the concerns that were raised by the Halalt First Nation.

If the member is somehow suggesting that the process was flawed, I think that's unfortunate. It was a comprehensive process. I know the Halalt First Nation has launched a judicial review with respect to this, and I'm sure all parties will look forward to the adjudication from the Supreme Court with respect to that matter.

UBC ROLE IN PURCHASE OF
FOREST LANDS ON VANCOUVER ISLAND

J. Horgan: Three years ago, without consultation or compensation, the Minister of Forests allowed Western Forest Products to remove 28,000 hectares of land from a public tree farm licence. For the past three years community groups, First Nations, environmental organizations and other members on this side of the House have been trying to get the attention of a distracted government.

What a surprise last night to see that Bill Shatner is able to say "Juan de Fuca," but the government on that side of the House doesn't recognize the travesty of the decision made by the member from Langley back in 2007.

My question now to the Premier, who knows where Juan de Fuca is: will he intervene today, seven days before these lands go up for public sale, to ensure that the University of British Columbia has fair access and opportunity to participate in the purchase?

Hon. B. Bennett: Well, ironically enough, I just spoke to the member in the dining room before we came up here, about this very issue. I guess he's forgotten that, but I'll repeat what I said to the member at the time, that I intend to work closely with the member, because I know he's representing the interests of his constituents.

I will continue to work with rural director Mike Hicks, who I think has shown tremendous leadership
[ Page 3036 ]
as an electoral area director. Mike and I have talked several times on the telephone. I've talked to the chair of the CRD several times about this, and we're going to try to be as constructive in this situation as we possibly can.

[End of question period.]

Reports from Committees

J. Les: I have the honour to present the report of the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services for the first session of the 39th parliament, respecting the annual review of the independent officers of the Legislative Assembly, and I move that the report be taken as read and received.

Motion approved.

V. Huntington: I seek leave to present a petition.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

Petitions

V. Huntington: I have a petition here from the people of Delta South requesting members of the Legislative Assembly to not support implementation of the HST.

D. Routley: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

Introductions by Members

D. Routley: I'd like to welcome to the House many of the peoples of the Halalt Nation, including their Chief, Robert Thomas, one of their Councillors, Tyler George, and their consultant Georgia Dixon. Would the House and, perhaps, the Aboriginal Relations Minister please make them welcome.

[1450]

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: I call throne speech debate.

Throne Speech Debate

(continued)

Hon. M. Polak: It's a pleasure to rise to continue my remarks with respect to responding to the throne speech. Actually, it works out rather nicely to be able to share along the lines of the theme I had begun, and that is to recognize some of the remarkable experiences that we have all been able to enjoy in British Columbia over the last year, but especially with respect to the Olympics this past two weeks.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

I had the distinct privilege of being able to take my 80-year-old father along with me to a medal presentation at B.C. Place. My father had never even seen B.C. Place. He'd never been inside it, and I have to tell you that he just has not stopped talking about how amazing that event was — for him in particular.

He was and is a veteran of the Korean War, and sitting very closely behind us were about a half a dozen Korean young people in their Samsung jackets. There was a Korean athlete who won gold, and these young people just went crazy. For my dad to be there and observe something that might have seemed only like an Olympic moment….

But what truly brought together for him the reality that something he was a part of so many years ago had an impact that stretched out into the future to now bring us to a place where a country that was so troubled was now able to be standing proud on a podium in front of the world with a gold medal…. It just speaks to the kind of hope, optimism, inspiration that the Olympics has provided not only for us but for the world.

Throne speeches are similar in nature. They're not nearly as exciting. They don't draw nearly as much attention. But philosophically, they are there to provide the hope, the inspiration, the optimism for the future that government takes forward.

I know that in Langley, in my growing community, we have benefited greatly over the last number of years through the support of our government here in Victoria.

In this past year we welcomed the opening of the Gateway of Hope. It's a transition homeless shelter that provides services for people in need as well as a warm place to stay. It was the result of a partnership between the federal government, our provincial government and local governments, a partnership that really, I think, is unique in terms of all the types of provisions for homeless shelters that have been made across the province. Very proud of that investment that we've made into the most vulnerable people in Langley.

This past year we also welcomed the opening of the Langley Events Centre. This is a tremendous facility. As a result of the Olympics coming to Langley, we were able to enjoy, in Langley, the Vancouver Giants. We offered them a second home in our Langley Events Centre, so for those of us living in Langley, we were privileged to be able to enjoy WHL hockey at its finest right there in our own backyard.

We also opened a new 20-bed, state-of-the-art pediatric surgical unit at Langley Memorial Hospital this past year. That was a dream come true and, especially, was
[ Page 3037 ]
important in providing that commitment of support to a hospital that has often felt as though it was sometimes forgotten in and amongst the larger centres in our province. But Langley Memorial Hospital received that support, and it has meant so much to our community.

[1455]

We're also seeing now the completion of the new tower at Langley Lodge, and I want to commend my colleagues who assisted many times when that project was ready to go off the rails. There was assistance from the Minister of Health. There was assistance from the Minister of Housing. It's a result of that collaborative work that we now see the tower at Langley Lodge almost completed. That is going to be just a tremendous asset to our growing community, but a community that also has quite a large seniors population and quite a large population who call Langley Lodge home and who will in the future.

We have challenges facing us, though, in Langley, and they are challenges that I'm proud to say our government has recognized. First and foremost, if you're from Langley, if you're from the valley, the biggest thing on your mind in terms of an upcoming challenge is usually transportation.

I can give you an illustration of that. My own daughter was attempting to work a job in Surrey not that many years ago — a couple — and to try and get bus service that was appropriate for her to be able to keep that job was basically impossible. She ended up having to let that job go and retain a job in Langley.

In turn, she's recently taken a job in downtown Vancouver, and she ended up moving to downtown Vancouver. Very proud of her. She's got a great job, a cute little place, but one of the main reasons she was faced with having to move to downtown Vancouver was because the transit for her travelling from Langley all the way into downtown Vancouver meant usually a two-hour commute each way. It was becoming next to impossible for her to do her job and continue to use transit.

Fortunately, the cries of those of us who have been living in the valley and asking for recognition for the transit challenges we have, have been heard by this government. We're seeing an expansion of the SkyTrain that will bring the SkyTrain out to Langley by 2030. We've got the express bus network, which is going to be key to our transportation needs when the Port Mann corridor is finally open to transit again for the first time in 20 years. We've seen in Langley itself an investment of $54.6 million announced for our park-and-ride transit exchange at 200th Street.

These are just amazing investments that are going to make such a difference to Langley. The express bus alone is going to allow people to travel from downtown Langley to downtown Burnaby in 23 minutes. I'll tell you, right now that's a trip that if I was to drive it would probably take me a good hour, maybe more on a bad day of traffic.

All of this kind of support that we've received from the provincial government has really aligned well with our own community's plans for development — developments in the Willoughby area, Walnut Grove area. These have all been recognized in the way in which TransLink and the provincial government have begun to plan out what is going to happen for transportation and infrastructure needs in Langley going into the future.

This also aligns with Langley city's plans for their downtown. I have to compliment our Langley city mayor, His Worship Peter Fassbender, and our Langley city council. They really do punch above their weight in the region, and they are really leading the way with respect to their plans for their downtown city core. They are looking at increasing densities. They are looking at mixed residential and commercial such that they're going to be able to take advantage of the expanding transit opportunities out to the valley.

Truly they have a forward-looking view, and we're very proud not only of the work they've done in Langley but also in leading the region. I know they, too, feel that tremendous support that we've had from the provincial government as we've moved forward with our infrastructure plans — infrastructure like the Nicomekl Bridge replacement. We have a 208th Street upgrade. This is an example of where we got to — a one-project, one-process approach, and it really did help to speed things up.

Support for families. Langley is a community that's growing, and we have very young families. I'm excited to hear about the families-with-children property tax deferral program. I think that that is going to be an amazing boost for those who are struggling to try and make ends meet to raise a family. There are so many pressures on families these days, and I think this is going to be a welcome support to them.

Of course, supporting families is something that the ministry I am privileged to be a part of is all about — the Ministry of Children and Family Development. It certainly can be a challenging ministry, but it's also a ministry where there are tremendous opportunities to make a difference for people who are the most vulnerable in our community.

[1500]

We depend on the work of more than 4,000 dedicated employees across the province. I want to thank them once again this year for their work in protecting our children, protecting our communities, supporting families — certainly the protection that they provide in critical front-line services. I want them to know how much we appreciate their dedication and hard work and how hard we are working to ensure that we protect those critical front-line services.

There are positive developments in our ministry that we should all be feeling proud of — in particular, in the
[ Page 3038 ]
area of service to aboriginal children and their families. I want to compliment First Nations for their willingness to collaborate with us to improve the outcomes for their children. First Nations take the responsibility of caring for their children very seriously. In fact, I think in many cases our mainstream community could learn an awful lot from aboriginal culture around the importance and significance of children.

I remember being at a ceremony where there was a very special song sung in welcome, and one of the most meaningful lines in the song was "Our children are our medicine." Imagine that. Our children are our medicine. They are not just small adults that we look after. They recognize a tremendous spiritual and community significance to their children.

These are their children. We need to not lose sight of that. As we move forward, one of our key pillars in our Strong, Safe and Supported document is that of the aboriginal approach. We are going to continue over the coming years to work to support aboriginal communities in enacting jurisdiction over their own children.

We have made some progress. The number of aboriginal children served by a delegated agency has tripled since 2001. It still needs to go much further, but that is tremendous progress.

There are important changes, too, to what's happening in the field of child protection — good news there as well. We're moving away from what is, or has been, an investigative response to a family development response. We've had now 601 family group conferences that were held in the first nine months of the '09-10 fiscal year, compared with only 199 in the first year that we offered this, in '08.

That's tremendous growth in an area of work with child protection that we have hoped to encourage. We've seen it expanding at a rate that is certainly encouraging to us — encouraging to think that we can finally be moving forward with best practice.

Mediations is another area where we're seeing tremendous progress in the ministry. Some 570 mediations have been conducted in the first nine months of '09-10, compared with only 221 in the first full year of 2008 — again, tremendous progress as we try to work toward really utilizing the best of research, the best of practice, and encouraging our social workers, our front-line people, to be able to truly use the expertise they have rather than having to engage in only a risk-management type of approach.

We want to keep families together. We know that the outcomes for children are so much better when we work to keep them in their family home and when we work to support and empower those families. We have to change the relationship that we have with families. Our goal is to be the first place that a family thinks to contact when they need support. We know that is going to take significant effort, but it is what we have to do for children.

We've seen continued downward trends in terms of children in care. There are 1,600 fewer children in care than in the year 2000 when the figure was almost 10,500. We've also worked across government to build a foundation for families to support those who are finding it difficult to provide for themselves on a day-to-day basis.

Since 2001, by any measure, the rates of low income in British Columbia have declined such that we now have the lowest rate of child poverty in 20 years. According to the market basket measure report produced by Human Resources and Skills Development Canada, the rate fell 30 percent between 2000 and 2007. One of the most dramatic decreases actually came in 2006-2007, when the rate dropped 17 percent in that year alone — again, significant progress in areas that are important to all of us.

[1505]

We know that an effective poverty reduction strategy must include more than just financial supports. It needs to include affordable housing, literacy and education, training and employment, child care and effective income security altogether. This year alone our province will invest more than $1 billion in child care, early childhood development and services for children with special needs and their families.

Our investment in housing support over the past eight years totals more than $2 billion. This year alone we'll spend more than $450 million on housing support — three times the level of funding that was there in 2001. We've increased shelter rates for income assistance such that they are now the second-highest in the country, and families with children now have the third-highest shelter rates in all of Canada.

Due to tax cuts since 2001, an additional 325,000 low-income British Columbians now pay no taxes at all. Equally important to this equation is an economy that makes it possible for families to increase their ability to earn a living and be independent of government. Through our efforts to rebuild B.C.'s economy, we've seen hundreds of thousands of jobs created, 80 percent of which are full time.

I know that as we look at this throne speech, which we will put in front of us to guide us in the coming year as we work to go through difficult budgetary times and to manage through to a recovery…. We know that the secret is not just in trying to support people with government assistance; it's trying to provide them the empowerment to have a job, to have that support for themselves independent of government.

More than 55,000 people on income assistance have been placed in jobs since 2001. Real average disposable income is still at its highest level in 20 years, growing 24 percent since 2000 and 13 percent between 2005 and 2008.

All of these factors have meaning not just for economic departments in governments but for ministries
[ Page 3039 ]
like mine, in Children and Family Development. We as a government are recognizing the need to bring to bear all types of supports across ministries, across government, because we know it is in supporting the various economic and social needs and supports of families that we are truly going to make a difference to empower them to be able to support their own households and their own children.

This year marks the beginning of the implementation of Strong, Safe and Supported, our ministry's action plan that guides our work and our decisions not only in the coming year but in the years to come.

With an emphasis on prevention and early intervention, the five pillars contained in the action plan are based on a holistic approach to planning and delivering services and the best possible outcomes for children and families. We are focused on helping to build healthy families through investments in early childhood development, quality child care, supports for children and youth with special needs, services for youth and intervention services for families in need.

We're also focused on supporting an aboriginal approach that is more inclusive and reflective of aboriginal cultures and traditions. We have seen success, and despite the challenges presented by the current fiscal climate, we will continue to build on what we have accomplished with our community partners. Over the next year we will find better ways to support family connections, deliver healthy outcomes and continue on our journey with aboriginal people, supporting them in developing and delivering services that reflect their culture and their identity.

We are faced now with a choice: to wait for economic recovery and rebuild the old world or to continue to advance and build a new one. For the sake of B.C.'s children and families, we choose to advance.

Success does not come by taking a linear path but rather through a confluence of new ideas, proven methods, strong partnerships and sound planning. While we have the courage to correct our course when needed, the end goal remains — a province where children and families are strong, safe and supported to reach their full potential.

C. Trevena: It's always an honour to stand in this place to represent the people of North Island, and it's an honour to be the Assistant Deputy Speaker and play a day-to-day role in the running of this place — like yourself, Madam Speaker.

Before I start I would like, as many have had the opportunity to do today, to acknowledge the athletes — all the athletes — who took part in the Olympics. It's an amazing feat, whether or not you win a medal, just to be one of the world's best, to get to the Olympics and to represent your country in such an important event. I'd also like to recognize all the volunteers who played such a part in making all the thousands and thousands of people so welcome to B.C.

[1510]

In this start to my response to the throne speech, I would also like to thank and acknowledge the staff at my office who make it possible for me to do my job: in the constituency Lynne Stone, Kathy Smail and Norm Prince, as well as Sandra Doren, who stepped in for immediate assistance in the autumn; Monique Games, who is a very regular and much appreciated volunteer in the Campbell River office; here in Victoria, Teresa Scambler, whose organizational capabilities I share with two other MLAs; and, of course, the very helpful and very willing staff in the Speaker's office.

I take my place here today to respond to the Speech from the Throne. This was really an opportunity for the government to set out its agenda and for us in the opposition to question that agenda for the coming legislative session. It gives an indication of the direction that the government will take in the coming months and its perspectives on the future of B.C. Of course, we will see in tomorrow's budget how these plans will be paid for, how much of the vision will become a reality rooted in investment.

In the last few years we've had various themes within the throne speeches. We've had the five great goals or the golden decade, but I've got to say these are increasingly sounding like headlines crafted by people who are using a large typeface to cover an empty front page and seem to be more the hollow cries of a government bereft of ideas but definitely very full of ideology.

We've had a children's throne speech, a seniors throne speech, a green throne speech, and these themes are, I find, full of sound and fury and signify very little. Talking to people who are involved with our children, whether educators or child care workers, social workers and others, they don't see that there's been an ongoing commitment. Likewise for seniors. The reality for seniors in this province, the seniors that I've talked to, is increased costs for care, downloading of costs for prescriptions and a very fragile future if they are able to stay in their own homes.

The green speech inched along with some remedies for a few individual problems but lacked the conviction needed to ensure that a green revolution would start here in B.C., as I think was promised. This year, somehow, I think the throne speech really, if anything, is a families throne speech. It's been hard to define, but I'm sure over the year we will hear references to it, and we will see reflections of it in tomorrow's budget.

I think that on this side of the House we're aware that we are in for hard times. We know that the government wants to bring us out of deficit swiftly, and we know it will be a year of cuts. We've been warned through the throne speech that the financial underpinning is the private sector rather than continued government funding.
[ Page 3040 ]

Determining the vision that drives the agenda isn't difficult. I've got to say that we are confronted with a neoconservative philosophy. It's the philosophy that I've got to say drove me into politics. I grew up, as I mentioned in the past, with Margaret Thatcher in Britain. It was her philosophy. It was the philosophy of Mike Harris's Conservatives in Ontario and now the Harper Conservatives in Ottawa, and this neoconservatism is the philosophy of this B.C. Liberal government.

It's a philosophy that believes in the individual rather than depending on society. It's a belief that everyone should pay their own way, without recognizing that many cannot. We hear often that people are being given a choice — I think six times in this last throne speech. But what that choice often means is that people can either pay for it or not have it.

It's a philosophy which clearly sets out in this throne speech…. What's clearly shown in this throne speech is a philosophy of privatization, taking from public hands and turning to the private sector for money and for governance. It's a philosophy which allows for the sale or the very long-term lease of our public assets. Those are our public assets.

Our rivers. I've talked many times in this House about the proposed mammoth private power project being planned for Bute Inlet, which involves 17 dams and the mass industrialization of that inlet. Our water. Licences are being sought for water bottling from up Knight Inlet and other freshwater sources.

Our hydro, by allowing the independent power projects to bloom like algae. According to the throne speech, this is going to be speeded up and codified by an act. Our forests, by allowing single monolithic companies to harvest and leave all but high-quality trees to lie and rot, and by not ensuring there's anything available for local manufacturing.

[1515]

Our ferries, by selling off our ship-building skills to Germany and letting the coastal communities, which rely on the marine highway, pay their own way. Our future, by refusing to invest in public education and, according to this speech, turning to the private sector for educational development. And our touchstone, public health care, being turned over to public-private partnerships for health care delivery.

That is the B.C. Liberal vision, a vision which created, I think, a cold and callous government that doesn't care about the people of B.C. But that really doesn't have to be the only vision for our province.

The world has changed. We are back in a time of deficit budgets where it should be good for a government to spend, where people are looking for investment in the fabric of society by our governments, not by the private sector.

We're at a time where the latest recession is still being felt across the province, where jobs are gone and may not come back. It's a year since the Catalyst mill closed in Campbell River, and people are now being asked to say whether they want to accept severance. It's almost 18 months since the Elk Falls sawmill shut its doors and was dismantled, and there isn't that much there for people.

We're also facing climate change, and this is likely the single most serious issue that our generations will have to try to deal with. It's not just whether we'll be able to grow peaches in Prince George or rice in the rising waters of the Lower Mainland. It's what's happening to such fragile places as Bangladesh and the Maldives, what's happening in a fragile, failing state such as Haiti.

We need to deal with climate change not only for our own well-being, not only for our children's or our grandchildren's well-being, but for the survival of ecosystems around this planet. These are some of the big-picture problems we need to be dealing with as legislators here in this House, as do politicians in every jurisdiction the world over.

We need to realize the interconnectedness of our actions and that A leads to B leads to C and leads to Z. If we build more roads, increase taxes on bicycles — with the introduction of the harmonized sales tax — and don't build public transportation, more people are going to be driving.

The Minister of Children and Family Development has just told the story about the difficulty of commuting and the importance of public transportation. I can't agree with her more. We need to be having more public transportation. We can't be carrying on adding to our carbon footprint. We can't be carrying on building the roads and the bridges that are going to add to that footprint.

Likewise, if we don't stop subsidizing the oil and gas sector, any green initiatives we may undertake will be insignificant because they are diminished by the continued reliance on the fossil fuel industries.

Now, I would say, is the time for brave action, for a new way of approaching our communities, our economy, our industries and our environmental obligations — now, because of climate change, because of our changing economy, because of insecurity and uncertainty in our communities.

I think "sustainability" has to be the most overworked word in the English language this decade. However, I'd like to talk to you about how we can make an honest move forward, provide a really different approach by using that lens of sustainability on everything we do, from social planning, developing child care or education policy, looking at our energy policy, our industrial development or our economic foundation.

It's something which has been part of the policy on this side of the House for a good few years. I and a number of other colleagues have talked about Sustainable B.C., which is "the vision for our province in which dedication to a sustainable future supports healthy
[ Page 3041 ]
people and communities; a clean, productive environment; and a vibrant, diversified economy." It is "a vision for our province where dedication to the principles of sustainability secures for present and future generations the benefits of a healthy environment and a decent, just and sustaining society."

So what is it? Well, it's not a magic bullet. It's not the wand that will make everything better.

[1520]

Last year all MLAs received a copy of Thomas Friedman's book Hot, Flat and Crowded. Those of you who read it may remember his references to the quick ways to fix the planet — the list of 365 ways to be green, how to be green in seven days and so on. It isn't, as Mr. Friedman points out, that easy. It is a revolution — a revolution in the way we think and the way that we act.

Sustainable B.C. — this framework that we refer to on this side of the House occasionally — is one tool that can be used to change the way we do things. It helps us to change our mindset and our way of dealing with basic problems and practical issues.

It has four core characteristics: environmental stewardship through public, corporate and personal actions that restore and maintain ecosystem health; a diversified economy that serves the needs and aspirations of people and their communities within the environmental carrying capacity; equity — to share the wealth of our province fairly among all British Columbians while recognizing our obligation to future generations; and individual and community well-being built on mutual respect, cooperation and economic and social political democracy.

So far, it seems — at least from the perspective of people in North Island, the constituency that I am so proud to represent — to be something which is desperately needed. People are sorely aware of the need for environmental stewardship, of a diversified economy. They want to see some equity and have a resilient community that survives through economic vicissitudes.

The principles on which this vision of sustainability is based likewise have resonance in my constituency and, I would say, in almost all constituencies in this province. They can be attained if there is political will. These principles are…. I'll run through them. There are a number of them, but I think it's worth running through them.

Ecosystem protection. This is becoming an issue for an increasing number of people. It's no longer the territory of so-called tree-huggers. Loggers in my community are worried about the rate of the cut and the amount of waste left in the bush. Sport fishers are concerned about plans to industrialize the inlets of the central coast for private power projects. We need to protect the ecosystem for all species, including humankind.

Resource conservation. When we talk about energy, one of the things which is too rarely mentioned but is so important is the old adage of reduce, reuse and recycle — the three Rs. That's as true today as when it was first coined, but it should be the first point in planning, rather than an afterthought. So if the B.C. government ever wanted to do an accurate plan of hydro needs and possibilities, the first thing it should do would be to estimate how much can be saved from conservation.

Another principle is biodiversity. This is an obligation we all have to ensure that we are not harming the biodiversity of our small patch of the planet. It means, for example, looking again at alternatives to open-net fish farms, examining ocean ranches or forms of closed containment to protect the many species that rely on salmon. It means not fast-tracking the environmental assessment process for the ease of developers.

Resilience. We have to ensure that our communities can survive, that they are diverse economically and socially, that where possible there is local food production and local power production so that we can have truly resilient communities — communities that can face risks and can adapt.

The principle of the protection of the commons. We have shared public trusts: water, air, Crown lands, health care, education. Yet apart from air, much of this is en route for privatization. Our rivers are being leased by private power companies and water bottlers. Single companies, often based in central Canada or in the U.S., control our Crown lands.

[H. Bloy in the chair.]

We pay our way for health care through MSP, and the services covered under that diminish. Education is a darn sight better if your parents can pay your way. This is, in my sights, simply wrong. But I think that, looking at the way the throne speech is written, it's going to get worse.

[1525]

Public health care and public education are rights and should not be cheapened or chiselled. We need to ensure that public provision exceeds the private alternatives and that public funds stay in public services. We need to protect our public lands, to ensure our Crown lands are managed for our communities, not for corporate profits, and that our rivers and our water remain ours and are not turned into a commodity for sale to the highest bidder.

Another principle is food security. Living on an island in the North Island, we are aware of our distance from the food sources of the Lower Mainland and how quickly things run out if there's an emergency. We have to really work hard to protect our agricultural land reserves. They are a jewel, and they need to be protected to ensure that there is local food production.

The principle of social equity, the resources and benefits derived from our social and economic activities as well as from our natural environment, must be shared
[ Page 3042 ]
equitably. This isn't revolutionary; it's basic human rights. Every person should have the right to clean air and water, to adequate shelter, to quality education and health care, to a sustainable livelihood and be able to participate in the economy.

Full-cost economics. This means that the bottom line isn't the way Dickens's Mr. Micawber did his math. "Annual income £20, annual expenditure £19.96, result happiness. Annual income £20, annual expenditure £20.06, result misery." It's not just the money earned against the money spent. It means including in planning the long- and short-term social and environmental impacts of production. By ensuring these costs are reflected in the price of goods and services, it should discourage waste and encourage innovation.

The precautionary principle. This is often ignored but so basic. It means that when we're making a decision, we should err on the side of caution if there's a potential that specific actions may pose a threat to environmental or human health. It's a bit like not using a drug until it's been thoroughly tested. Again, I see this being undermined by the government's proposed plan of action set out in the throne speech.

The principle of adaptive management. We've got to be continually looking at how we work, what we do to make sure we are attaining our sustainable objectives and democracy and due process. People need to have access to full and accurate information about public policy, which means opening up freedom-of-information policies once again. And it means respecting this House, which is why I am truly honoured to hold the office of Assistant Deputy Speaker. The role of this House is fundamental in our democratic process and our due process.

As I said earlier, none of this is easy. These are difficult principles, and none will be done overnight. A surprising amount of what is here is in our charter rights and in the UN declaration of human rights, which is a wonderful document. I urge every member to reread it on occasion.

The final principle acknowledges this and acknowledges that there should be a just transition. This is so that mechanisms are in place to manage the transition through a green revolution so that everyone takes responsibility, and no one bears an unfair burden.

Saying that we will start to make a shift is not good enough. We have to realize that the time for small steps may have passed, and now is the time to embrace major changes.

I sometimes look back to the Second World War, where countries came together to fight a common enemy. People knew they were at war and made sacrifices. Industrial and agricultural production was geared to the war effort. People left home to fight. Those at home lived with rationing for many years after the war in Britain.

[1530]

We now have another common enemy. It's climate change. To fight it will mean making sacrifices. It may mean rationing of fossil fuels, for instance. It will mean changing the ways we approach our society, including reducing consumption.

But if we're serious about what we do in this place — trying to make our communities better places to work and go to school, trying to leave a better B.C. to our children and our grandchildren, making those difficult decisions about when we should spend and who we should ask to pay — we have to take a lead.

We have got to make that leap and start to do things differently. We have to embrace a vision of sustainability and resilience and make it work in an equitable and just way for our people and for our province.

Hon. P. Bell: It's a real pleasure for me to rise and speak to the Speech from the Throne today. This is, I think, my 11th or 12th response to various speeches from the throne since I was first elected in 2001. I think this one is really characterized by its focus on building the economy — the strength of our economy — and our competitiveness in a variety of sectors, but especially as it relates to some of the natural resource sectors and particularly with regards to the energy sector and bioenergy being a key element of that particular business.

I think this Speech from the Throne absolutely hits the mark in terms of establishing priorities for our government in a very challenging time. We need to continue to stay focused on the economy and the health of our economy in order to make sure that we have a sustainable recovery, despite the fact that we've started to see some positive trends. Certainly the Conference Board of Canada has indicated that B.C. is likely to lead the nation this year in terms of overall economic growth — led, I might add, as a result of two primary areas.

First of all is, of course, the Olympics, which has been just a wonderful experience for our province and for our country over the last few days. Interestingly, the Conference Board of Canada also identifies forestry as one of the key initiatives that will help support and lead our economy to a new level in 2010, approaching 4 percent. I believe 3.7 percent was the Conference Board of Canada's number — so a very positive direction.

When I think about some of the key elements of the throne speech for 2010, I immediately turn my mind to investment attraction and what this throne speech commits to in terms of developing strategies to support investment attraction — probably none more important than the coordination of the environmental assessment processes so that we have a single process for a single project, working with our federal colleagues in developing a new model for environmental assessments.

There are billions and billions of dollars tied up right now, billions and billions of investment dollars tied up in the federal environmental assessment processes even
[ Page 3043 ]
though the information that they're looking for and the consultation processes they go through exactly parallel the provincial environmental assessment processes.

It just makes no sense from a business perspective or from a protection-of-environment perspective to have two separate processes when they are pursuing the same end objective: making sure we have an environmentally sustainable model that ensures we have a minimal impact on the landscape, that we respect First Nations rights, that we respect the needs and desires of the local community in delivering these projects. Yet we put proponents through an incredibly complex series of processes in order to accomplish that.

You know, when I often think about what it is that we need to do to be the most competitive jurisdiction anywhere in the world, I think it's providing certainty to the investment community. So if someone wants to come and invest in a new project, when they look at British Columbia and they look at Alberta and they look at Ontario and they look at Quebec and they look at Washington, Oregon, California or another jurisdiction somewhere around the world, they see B.C.'s processes as being the leader in terms of providing definition to their project goals and objectives.

They know that when they submit to that project, they know what the timelines are, they know what is expected of them, and they know what they get out of the end of the process — that they have a very predictable outcome and they can clearly understand that. No one is asking for us to reduce our environmental standards or look in any way at moving projects through a process that would have a significant impact on the rights and title of First Nations or on the environment.

[1535]

We want to make sure that we do have the highest standards anywhere in the world, but what's absolutely critical is that proponents understand the way you get to that end objective, understand the way that the process flows and that they have a high degree of predictability when the end decision is made on the project — whether it's a yes or a no, either way.

That's absolutely critical. I think the first initiative, certainly, that I wanted to highlight today was our commitment to work with our federal partners to amend the Canadian environmental assessment process to have a unified federal-provincial project that eliminates that redundancy and unnecessary costs.

The second point I'd like to make is our commitment to launch a new investment process review in terms of how we ensure that we have expedited approvals across government, single-window approaches to various sorts of environmental approvals. I have a certain amount of responsibility for this through the integrated land management bureau and, particularly, FrontCounter B.C. — the work that we've done with small and medium-sized businesses across this province over the last number of years.

What businesses, again, are looking for is a simplified process that allows them to engage with government, that allows them to acquire the necessary permits, go through the appropriate legal processes that are necessary to achieve an end outcome in a reasonable period of time.

I recall a few years ago, when I was in Cranbrook opening the FrontCounter B.C. office in Cranbrook, being approached by a couple of individuals who are involved in the helicat industry — so heli-skiing and cat-skiing. They were in the business of helping support the acquisition of the necessary permits for that business. A very complex business it is, because there's a broad-ranging variety of permits that are necessary.

These two individuals said it used to take them three days and they had to travel to four different communities to acquire all the necessary permits in order to do their business, but as a result of FrontCounter B.C., they were able to receive all of those permits through a single entity, that being the FrontCounter B.C. office. We acted as a virtual single window that allowed them to apply in, and then we would take and go out and acquire the necessary permit information from our colleagues across government.

It's been a very successful initiative and one that we hope we'll be able to expand upon. It also goes beyond that. I spoke earlier about the federal government processes, the provincial government processes. It also includes municipal government processes. Is it necessary to have a different business permit for each of the communities that you want to operate in? You know, when you go from Surrey to Langley, is it necessary to have that different permitting process? Or when you go from Quesnel to Williams Lake, should you have different permits?

We all operate in communities across this province. Particularly in the natural resource sector, companies that are located in Prince George work in the Peace, they work in the Cariboo, and they work in the west. Companies that are located in Terrace work all the way up Highway 37, they work out into Prince George, and they work down into the Cariboo, up into the Peace region. It makes sense to have a more coordinated effort. The new investment process review that we will be launching will really help support that overall economic direction of providing for a simpler way of doing business — again intended to increase investment in the province.

The third item I wanted to touch on is the joint committee on municipal property tax reform. Clearly we've heard a strong message from communities, but also from industry, that the property tax system that we have on heavy industrial usage at this point is unsustainable.

There is a significant cost burden to our major employers, and these are employers that produce some of
[ Page 3044 ]
the highest-paying jobs that we have in this province. Whether they're large pulp mills, whether they're large sawmills, whether they're smaller businesses, they all are carrying a significant tax burden right now and one that we need to weave our way through and find a more effective way of doing business.

Catalyst we've all heard of. We know the implications of their taxation regime and the, literally, well over $20 million in annual tax that they're paying in four different communities across this province. But the same holds true in other parts of the province.

I will say, though, there are communities that have led the way in terms of property tax reform and have worked hard to make sure their property taxes are as reasonable as they possibly can be.

I was in the Interfor Adams Lake division sawmill celebrating the opening of a brand-new sawmill — a $100 million-plus investment in that particular operation — a little while ago. The senior vice-president of Interfor took the time to acknowledge the community of Chase, British Columbia, just outside Kamloops, and acknowledged that they had made a really sincere effort to maintain reasonable levels of property taxation.

[1540]

I think they had a ratio of about 3½ to 1. Interfor indicated that one of the reasons they chose to make the investment in the Adams Lake division of that particular sawmill was because of the efforts Chase had made in attracting business to their community.

I think that's a real testament, and it tells us a lot. We should look at that and understand that Interfor's decision to make that investment was reflective of the commitment that the local community had made. So I think that again is a very important piece of the equation.

Although there are many others in terms of investment attraction, three of the very important elements that this government intends to take on in the coming months are developing a harmonized environmental assessment process with our federal government partners; looking at an investment process review — how we can expedite permits through the various processes; and then a joint committee on municipal tax reform.

I think those are three very, very strong policy pieces that need to be done that will help support investment attraction and really increase the opportunities, as we see it, for high-paying industrial jobs in this province, which are absolutely necessary to continue to support the economy of British Columbia.

The second area I wanted to touch on that I think was particularly important in this year's throne speech is the Asia-Pacific. Clearly, the Asia-Pacific is developing a whole new strength of economy. When you travel — whether it's in Japan, Korea, China, which are three of the areas that certainly we do a lot of business with — throughout the Asia-Pacific, the global economy is shifting further to the west again.

It shifted post–World War II from Europe and Britain into the United States. Of course, they built this massive economy and led the world in economic growth for many, many decades, almost a century or perhaps a century. Now I think that continues to shift further to the west into Asia and particularly China.

We need to develop those strategic linkages between British Columbia and China, whether it's our energy industry, whether it's our mining industry, whether it's our forest industry, whether it's our green technologies industry. In all of those different industries, it's absolutely critical that we develop those linkages into China at this point, build on the strong linkages that we already have in Japan and continue to work with our Korean friends to help develop their businesses over time as well.

There are a number of key initiatives that we're moving forward that I wanted to touch on. One of the really interesting ones for me is the new wood and innovation design centre. This is something that's intended to help support the development of wood construction, not just here in British Columbia, not just across Canada, not just in North America but around the world.

Nowhere is there more potential for this than in China. When I was in China last fall I had some very interesting information provided by the Canadian ambassador. He said that between now and 2030 half of the world's construction will take place in China — half of the world's construction. Yet much of the work historically over there has been done in concrete and steel despite the fact that we've made significant headway. It really has been dramatic what we have accomplished in terms of having more wood construction in the Chinese marketplace.

The potential for us to grow that business over there is dramatic. But it's also dramatic to grow the green energy business in China. It's also dramatic to create the potential for LNG exports into the Chinese marketplace. Our mineral exports are another dramatic opportunity that we have. So all of our natural resource sectors.

The wood innovation and design centre is about helping support not just British Columbia, not just Canada but the world in terms of their capacity around building larger structures. We need to continue to develop the technologies that are necessary but also the architectural and engineering skills, and we're looking forward to moving forward aggressively on that.

Another one of the major new announcements was the expansion of the International Financial Centre. We believe that we can play a major role in terms of international finance here in British Columbia. We have an attractive taxation regime. Again, this is moving significant capital into British Columbia, creating a large number of jobs but also helping investment. When you have that sort of capacity in a financial sector here in British Columbia, it creates the opportunity to invest closer to home.

[1545]
[ Page 3045 ]

I once heard that a common rule for deploying capital in businesses is that people would like to see the location from their office of where this investment is being made. No better place to have large financial institutions than here in British Columbia. So again, I think that is a really significant opportunity.

In terms of building infrastructure and connecting the Asia-Pacific, I think there's a huge lesson to be learned in terms of interconnection to China and China shipping lines and Korea and Japan and building that port infrastructure in places like Prince Rupert, building the port infrastructure throughout the Lower Mainland and really creating significant capacity that allows us to get our products to market.

As we see, potentially, new mines coming on stream, the Milligan mine being one of them…. That's going to require increased port infrastructure and allow us to move those goods through to market.

When I was Minister of State for Mining about five years ago I remember the Port of Prince Rupert at the time had not been moving any coal for a number of years. There hadn't been any coal movement out of the Port of Prince Rupert at all. I understand now that they're approaching about five million or six million tonnes of coal per year. That's a significant amount of coal moving out of that Prince Rupert port. They have the capacity to double that internally.

But as we start moving more minerals, as we start moving pellets, as we start moving green bioenergy out of that port as well as, certainly, moving lumber through either break-bulk or containerization, it's something that we want to build on. So the gateway proposition, I think, is one that's very important to build on. The port opportunities that we have all create that interconnection. Again, it's about building our capacity to move products through to the Asian marketplace.

I've touched on the green economy and clean and green energy a bit, but I want to talk about that because that's another key initiative that was spoken to in the throne speech that I think is very important and creates a huge opportunity. When you look around the world, there is no question that the world has turned its mind to the opportunities associated with green energy. When I look at the most rapidly expanding part of the forest sector right now, it has specifically been in the wood pellet industry.

In fact, over the last 90 days or so there have been three new pellet plants announced in this province, all creating significant investment — in the neighbourhood of $60 million worth of investment — additional jobs, employment and utilizing a low-value wood material that previously was being discarded. I think it's a very, very good story, and we need to continue to build on that.

The climate action plan that the government is going to continue to build on…. We had a great submission from the Green Energy Advisory Task Force, and that's going to allow us to build a comprehensive strategy going forward around green and clean energy.

My colleague the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources and I have been working aggressively on a strategy for bioenergy. Although it has taken time, I think that there is a dramatic opportunity available to us out there to better utilize our undervalued species of fibre, to create this green energy that is in such demand internationally right now.

A new clean energy act will be introduced, and that new clean energy act will provide for fair, predictable, clean power calls on a regular basis, and I think that's absolutely critical. As the world competes for the investment dollars provided by the international green energy industry, B.C. needs to position itself in a way to attract the majority of that investment.

I often say that the way I measure our success is by the percentage of investment that we get from our international forest products companies. Here in B.C. we're head office to three of the world's top five softwood lumber manufacturers. The No. 1, No. 3 and No. 5 largest softwood lumber manufacturers in the world have their head offices here in British Columbia — one in Vancouver, one in Quesnel. The largest one, actually, in the world is in Quesnel, British Columbia. The third-largest is in Vancouver. The fifth-largest is in Vernon, British Columbia.

Those companies have provided a significant number of high-value jobs to our economy over the years, and we have to make sure that when those companies think about investing, they think about investing here in British Columbia, because every one of them has operations outside of British Columbia.

[1550]

Every one of them has operations either in Alberta or Washington or Oregon or into the U.S. or in Quebec or Ontario. You look at companies like Tembec. Although they're not the largest forest softwood lumber manufacturers in the world, they're still significant companies with operations outside of British Columbia.

When the CEO of each one of those companies goes to their board to recommend a capital investment, I want them to make that investment in British Columbia, because that means higher-paying jobs in British Columbia. It means our mills will be more efficient, more effectively run, and they'll withstand the test of very difficult economic circumstances.

It's key from my perspective that we continue to attract a high percentage of the capital being invested, whether it's in the forest industry or whether it's in the clean energy industry, by having a new clean energy act that will provide for fair, predictable, clean power calls in a simplified procurement process. I think that's a huge step towards attracting that investment in British Columbia in terms of new energy opportunities, whether it be bioenergy or other initiatives.
[ Page 3046 ]

Another key investment that needs to be made is in transmission infrastructure, and that's also mentioned in the throne speech. Transmission infrastructure can be a limiting factor in terms of building capacity for a green energy industry. We are blessed in this province with significant resources around clean and green energy, but we have to get that to market.

We've made a very specific commitment in this, certainly on the Highway 37 project — to make sure that we have power lines up and down Highway 37 that can capture new green energy opportunities as well as service new mines in that region — but also new transmission capacity in the northeast part of British Columbia, which will help interconnect into Alberta and the northern Rockies region.

We'll also work south of the border as well to create that interlink, to allow people in the United States to tap into our clean and green energy opportunities. I think that's a very, very positive thing as well.

Also mentioned in the throne speech was that government will have a report out on Site C and that that will be reviewed this spring. I know my colleague the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources has spoken to this already, but I also think it's important with regard to Site C that we have all the information that's necessary and that we put ourselves in a position where we can make a decision on the viability of that project. I'm looking forward to seeing that information come forward.

On the forestry side we have, I think, probably one of the more dramatic pieces of tenure reform that we've seen in some time, and that's a new form of licence. It's called a receiving licence. A receiving licence can be made available to bioenergy producers that will give them the security of tenure that they need to negotiate business-to-business relationships with existing tenure holders and existing licensees.

It'll take the lower form of biomass, make that available to the bioenergy producer and ensure that the sawmill or the solid-wood manufacturer has the ability to acquire the necessary logs that they need for their operation. This has been very, very well received regardless of whether it's the bioenergy industry…. But also, the primary manufacturing industry has been very supportive of this new initiative, and I'm very much looking forward to getting on with it.

Another key element with regard to the bioenergy industry that I think will help is the new stand-as-a-whole pricing model. This model places a value on a stand of timber that the company then pays a stumpage rate for, as opposed to paying stumpage on each and every tree within that stand. It encourages full utilization of the stand because 100 percent of the stumpage is paid on that stand when the decision is made to harvest.

So it's 100 percent sunk costs in that stand, and the company is highly incented to try and get as much value as they possibly can out of that stand. It also eliminates a lot of effort around scaling, around scale site designations, around the processes that are associated with that.

When you use those two elements together, when you have the new receiving licence and stand-as-a-whole pricing, I think we'll see much better utilization of our resource and a rapidly expanding bioenergy industry. I think, again, it's a very, very positive step forward.

[1555]

When I look at the initiatives from this throne speech and I think about investment attraction, about the Asia-Pacific and about the new opportunities around energy, I am absolutely supportive of the direction that we're taking.

Now is not a time for us to move on and run business as usual for government. We need to be aggressive in terms of attracting international capital and investment. It is the only way that we as a jurisdiction can be successful and continue to fund important initiatives in health care and education, in the environment, in services to people who need them the most in this province.

It's the strength of economy that allows you to do that, and I think we need to be very much focused on our ability to compete internationally. We need to be the most productive economy in the world.

When I look at the opportunities that are associated with British Columbia's economy, I immediately turn my mind to the resource sectors. The Asian marketplace — China, India, Japan, Korea — has a huge need, a real need for our resources. We need to support those economies, build trading relationships with those countries in a way that will sustain our economy long into the future. We need to be smart in how we do that.

One of the things that I often find interesting is the reputation that Canadians have in the Chinese marketplace, particularly as a result of Dr. Bethune. Dr. Bethune is probably the best-known foreign individual in China. In fact, Bethune's legacy carries on throughout the Chinese health care system. He's seen as someone that was a true hero in the Chinese marketplace, in the Chinese end of the world. They know him as the Canadian.

I think that's a very, very exciting opportunity that we need to capitalize on and utilize. Canadians are seen as individuals who are reliable trading partners, who look for solutions, who are constructive. When they make a commitment, you can shake their hand and you know that they're going to be good to their word.

Coming off of the Olympics and the last 17 days — and what an exciting period of time for all of us — I think we enhanced our international image that much more. I can tell you that through the Olympic Games, and particularly the second week of the Olympic Games, I had an opportunity to host a number of large Chinese businesses, large Chinese importers as well as large Korean companies and Japanese companies.
[ Page 3047 ]

That relationship continues to build, because it's building on a solid foundation. It's building on a foundation that was laid by the two Ministers of Forests prior to me taking over responsibility for this portfolio. It's built on a lot of effort and work by our Premier, someone who's been committed to the Chinese marketplace, the Japanese marketplace, who's made many, many trips over to those jurisdictions.

The results that we are seeing are dramatic. As of the end of November, for softwood lumber exports into the Chinese marketplace, the numbers looked like we were going to certainly exceed 1.6 billion board feet of lumber into China in 2009. That was up from 720 million board feet in 2008 and about 320 million board feet of lumber into China in 2007.

That market is growing exponentially. In fact, if we achieve that 1.6-plus billion board feet in 2009, as we think we will have achieved, we're going to see that 17 percent, 18 percent, perhaps 19 percent of our total lumber exports out of British Columbia will have gone into China. That's a dramatic impact.

If you think about that number — an average sawmill produces about 250 million board feet in the province — with 1.6 billion, 1.7 billion board feet, you're talking about six or seven sawmills that are operating as a direct result of the Chinese marketplace.

Whether it's investment attraction, whether it's focusing on the Asian marketplace, whether it's focusing on green energy and the opportunities that are associated with that, this throne speech absolutely hits the mark. It will build our economy. It will make sure that we're leaders globally in terms of building our relationships across this world, and British Columbia is going to have a much brighter future as a result of this.

B. Routley: I'm thankful for this opportunity to respond to the throne speech and to speak out for the incredible and amazing people of the Cowichan Valley. All Canadians have had plenty to cheer about the last couple of weeks, and wow, what a wonderful hockey game that was. I share in the excitement over that.

[1600]

I know we all share in the Canadian pride and patriotism for our athletes and for our country. While I share that pride for our medal winners, I also know that every day throughout British Columbia amazing people are doing incredible things virtually unnoticed — for example, doctors, nurses, firefighters, policemen, paramedics and health care workers, to name just a few of the folks out there every day protecting and saving lives. As far as I'm concerned, they're all gold-medal winners to me.

I think today of the many moms who are out there, too many single moms out there, every day helping kids grow up to be healthy and strong. They're out there doing selfless acts of kindness to make things better for their children. While they may not get to be at the podium and stand on the podium, we all know, however, that without those moms, many of these medal winners would never have had the opportunity to become what they are today.

Right now as I speak there are brave British Columbians, B.C. citizens and their caregivers, out there battling diseases like cancer and heart disease and many other life-threatening diseases. These brave battles go on behind the scenes. However, they are also doing gold-medal battling as far as I'm concerned. So many people every day are doing incredible things, and I for one wish we could give them all special recognition.

It's time now, however, to refocus government on the important work of helping British Columbians with their basic and critical needs, to give all British Columbians the supports that they need to enable them to succeed. It is my hope that government will put the same kind of exuberance that we have seen to work to help all British Columbians and allow them all to have the opportunity to realize their hopes and dreams and to be the best that they can be.

I find it tragic and unacceptable that once again British Columbia has the highest number of children living in poverty in this country, now for the sixth year in a row. This throne speech completely ignores the plight of these B.C. children and their families — not one word of concern, no plan, no help, not one mention in the whole speech. It's shameful. One in five children — our most vulnerable citizens — is completely ignored by this government yet again. They should be sent to more than just the penalty box for this omission.

However, when you see that this government plans to add the HST onto the cost of living for these already poor children and their families with no help and no mention in this throne speech while giving a further $2 billion in tax cuts to corporations, it is just heartless and mean-spirited behaviour, in my opinion. To be putting $2 billion in the pockets of some of the richest companies in the province while this government does nothing for these poor children who have the very least is simply deplorable and unacceptable.

This throne speech is clearly not in the running for any medals, unless recycling ideas becomes some kind of new sport. I read recently that the mayor of Prince George is hoping the third time may be lucky for the facility that was promised once again in this throne speech. There's far too much talk and not enough action in yet another Liberal throne speech. All too often British Columbians hear this government say one thing and do just the opposite.

[1605]

In this throne speech they now suggest that there's nothing more important than the harmonized sales tax. It would be more appropriate to call it what it is: the harm tax — harm for B.C.'s children, harm for seniors
[ Page 3048 ]
living on a fixed income, harm for restaurants, harm for the tourism sector, and harm for all consumers and citizens in British Columbia.

Before the election this same bunch said that this harmful tax was not a good thing. In fact, they told the B.C. Restaurant and Foodservices Association and the home builders association that the HST was not on, that it was a bad idea, and they even went on to explain why it was not a good idea.

Sadly, British Columbians are seeing this government do the flip-flop thing once again, saying one thing during the election and then doing a complete 180 after the election. If political flip-flopping was an Olympic sport, this government would surely win first prize hands down.

Let's recount some of the ways they said that they won't…. Back in 2001 they said they won't sell B.C. Rail, and they did. Then they said they wouldn't rip up health care contracts, and they did. And here we go once again. Just before the election they were saying that this was not a good thing, and now with no consultation, with no transparency for the electorate of British Columbia…. They didn't bother telling the people of B.C. No debate.

If it was the single most important thing, as they say now, why didn't they come clean with the people of British Columbia before the election? I think we all know the real reason why they didn't come clean — because they know British Columbians would not support a transfer of tax from ordinary consumers over to big corporations. That's why, and they know it's simply more of the same jiggery-pokery that we've learned to expect from this government.

Another major issue that's missing completely from this throne speech is the crisis in senior care. In the Cowichan Valley seniors and senior care workers are feeling under attack, the result of this government's policy directions. First we had Cowichan Lodge, a closure with no consultation. Seniors were given 30 days to get out. There was so much stress and protest in the community.

Then they moved the 30 days to 60 days, and then with continuing community anger and pressure mounting, just two days before an appeal hearing this government and their group, VIHA, announced that they were going to give in and give one year's closure notice that the community was entitled to in the first place. However, they closed the lodge against the wishes of the people in the Cowichan Valley.

Just to show that I can actually say some good things about what's gone on with the VIHA. Recently, during the two weeks back in the Cowichan Valley, I had the opportunity to meet with constituents who were concerned about the fire that occurred at our Kiwanis centre that houses a lot of seniors. A third of them are dealing with challenges, and they needed a place to stay. They're all 65 to 90 years of age, and they needed a place to stay. I was hearing from constituents.

I wrote a letter to VIHA, and I have to say that VIHA did respond with the right answer, I understand, a week ago today. It was announced in the paper that they were going to listen to the people of the Cowichan Valley and open up the Cowichan Lodge to provide emergency care for those seniors that really need help. So they are to be congratulated for getting one thing right. I certainly want to add that.

[1610]

However, now we have a very serious shortage in the Cowichan Valley of senior care beds, and it's putting stress on emergency rooms and resulting in the cancellation of many surgeries.

In November of 2009 the Sunridge seniors care employees voted to be represented by a union, something that we still have the freedom to do in the province of British Columbia. But only two days later, after this was announced, the seniors care bosses told the workers they would all be terminated and their positions contracted out.

This government completely supports these anti–seniors care, anti–quality care activities. They have set the stage for a revolving-door approach to seniors care where for-profit foreign companies reap their profits from our seniors and our communities and then run off with that revenue — revenue that ought to be kept in our communities.

This throne speech promotes a continuation of the policies that encourage the exploitation of health care and other workers and undermine community-supporting and family-supporting jobs. These policy choices clearly impact the community and even the province's bottom line.

Recently, as a result of this government's policies, more hardship has been put onto the senior citizens living in the Cowichan Valley with a further announcement just a few weeks ago that the Cerwydden seniors care facilities — the seniors and the workers and their families — were once again thrown into unnecessary distress and uncertainty.

I have here a letter from this fellow. His mother is staying there, and his wife works there. He wrote in. He talked to me and expressed his outrage first, and then he put it in writing and sent it to me. He says:

"I am writing this letter to express my outrage with regards to the recent decision to issue pink slips to the staff of Cerwydden care with the ultimate intention of contracting out their jobs.

"I seem to recall that this Liberal government, in defence of lucrative pay raises awarded to bureaucrats and themselves, stated: 'If we want to attract the best and the brightest, then we need to pay them a competitive wage.'

"One would certainly hope that a statement like that would be applied to those that care for us when we're sick, injured or infirm. However, recent events such as the closure of the Cowichan Lodge and the pink-slipping of employees at Sunridge Place immediately after they voted to unionize call any hope of that into question.

"This is all about profit, pure and simple. It's amply demonstrated by their unwillingness to negotiate with the workers' representatives in good faith. It's unmistakably apparent that con-
[ Page 3049 ]
tracting out has been the plan all along. I believe that the contracting out of health care services is the contracting out of the lives of our loved ones."

Imagine that, hon. Speaker. He goes on to say:

"I can unequivocally say that the lives of our seniors are not out for tender, particularly not through shadowy backroom dealings with those who seek to profit from the misfortune of the seniors and health care workers.

"I am doubly affected when it comes to this issue. Not only is my wife a nurse at Cerwydden, but I am also the son of a resident. It pains me to see my wife, an incredibly dedicated health care professional, face this prospect of working in an environment where she is being devalued.

"Additionally, I see my mother, who has been bedridden for several years after having suffered a massive stroke — and other seniors in similar situations, for that matter — being further marginalized and facing the prospect of being cared for by those contracted employees, who are just going to go through the motions to collect a paycheque.

"As has been amply demonstrated in the case of Cowichan Lodge, change is extremely difficult for seniors, and contracting out of these services will just be yet another disruption in the already difficult lives of our loved ones.

[1615]

"The fact of the matter is simply this: the staff that are currently at Cerwydden are our family. It has taken, in some cases, years for them to develop a rapport with those whom they care for. This is not something that should ever be put at risk and that we should risk losing. Our seniors are the very people who worked hard to help build British Columbia, to pay their taxes. Are they not owed a little respect in their time of need?"

That's from Mike Hart, a fellow whose wife and mother are affected by what's going on.

These continuing terminations of senior care employees in communities throughout B.C. threaten the future ability of our communities and our province to attract and retain workers to health care, right at a time when we need to attract new health care workers the most.

When you think about the baby boomers and what's about to happen, there's going to be tremendous need for health care workers, and we should be valuing them, not treating them with disrespect and terminating them the way that this is going on today.

In this government's own B.C. statistics' wage and salary survey report for 2009, they report that while two-thirds of B.C. occupations are only having 10 percent of the employers reporting vacancies unfilled for four months or longer, that number rises to more than 30 percent who have serious problems filling health care occupations. That's four months or more that these positions go unfilled. We've got government policies still allowing seniors care workers to be terminated and their work contracted out.

The warning signs are clearly there. B.C. has a worsening health care crisis, huge numbers of baby boomers are only just starting to retire, and this government has no plan to prepare for the coming demand. These inadequacies will also result in more cuts to services and more cuts to the number of surgeries that are able to be performed.

This report recently came to me about our region's health care problems. "Currently, all the publicly funded residential care facilities in the Cowichan Valley are full. Our hospital's acute care beds and the transition care beds at Cairnsmore Place are filled with seniors awaiting long-term care placements, even though the cost of an acute care bed is more than three times that of a residential care bed, and the quality of life differences are incomparable."

So we've got people taking up beds, and it's three times the cost. That's the kind of situation this government supports.

"Hospital patients are waiting for transition care beds. There is an ongoing crisis in the emergency room of the Duncan Hospital. Elective surgeries are continuing to be cancelled because acute care beds are full, some of them with seniors waiting for residential care placement or transition care placement. Because of the chronic rates of surgery cancellations, the chief of surgery has resigned. We've lost two specialists and an anesthesiologist, and two newly recruited specialists have decided not to come to the Cowichan Valley."

On the psychiatric floor of the Cowichan District Hospital, eight of the psychiatry in-patient beds are currently occupied by seniors waiting for long-term care placement. As a result of this chronic scenario, the psych department is now refusing to accept any patients that they cannot safely manage on the unit.

It's unbelievable that the care in the province of British Columbia continues to deteriorate, and this government does nothing. There's no plan to help whatsoever.

[1620]

To make matters worse for seniors, this government, in just October of 2009, chose to impose fee increases totalling $54 million on frail and elderly people living in B.C.'s residential seniors care — $54 million. They're picking the pockets of seniors. The government increased the cost by taking an additional 10 percent of their net income. This takes more money from seniors already struggling with cost increases like the 18 percent increase in MSP fees, and now this government takes from seniors to give to their big corporate pals.

The Liberal government says in this throne speech: "Time is money." That's what they say: "Time is money." Are these the best and loftiest ideas that they can come up with? I'm sure their corporate pals enjoy such lofty principles. However, at the same time, in this speech they brag about tax cuts — all the tax cuts while they're introducing a new tax, I might add. That's real cute, isn't it, hon. Speaker?

Recently I heard the Premier over at the Truck Loggers bragging that we have the lowest corporate tax of the G8 nations — my, my. [Applause.]

And they clap. They clap. I wish the folks at home could hear them clapping that they're giving corporate tax breaks, the lowest in the G8 nations. There's no evidence that it's helping British Columbia and in what way. Not one shred of evidence. No studies done. There's no big avalanche of investment at all, but thank you for your applause because it got me all fired up.

Well, here they are giving more tax breaks to the big corporations while those at the very bottom, living on
[ Page 3050 ]
fixed income, are going to pay more in this harmful tax. They're introducing a harmful tax that's going to affect those people at the very bottom.

More than half a million people in British Columbia are living in abject poverty, and this government just looks the other way. No help for them, no plan. Just lofty advice and big applause for the corporations having the lowest corporate tax rate of the G8 nations. Don't I get applause this time? Come on.

This government is even cutting funding to community groups. That's what they've been up to — cutting funding for community groups that help generate revenue into our province.

For example, the Cowichan Folk Guild is one of the groups in our community that has done all kinds of revenue-producing, community-supported volunteer activities. All they require is a little money from the gaming and bingo money, and it's being cut by this government. This is activity that actually supports revenue coming into the community.

So it's not forward thinking to be giving…. You might as well be taking $2 billion and running down the hall to give it to your corporate friends while you're cutting all these arts groups and you're cutting seniors.

A couple of weeks ago when I was here, I had the unfortunate time to go outside and run into somebody who had to be out there. Why? Because his child with autism is one of the kids suffering as a result of autism cuts — cuts to programs that help autistic children.

You know, I had to stop because I have a grandson, Gabriel, that has autism. He's now nine years old. Back in his younger years, there was a lot of support available. I was thankful for the support that was available because he needed it in order to get on with the speech pathologists and all of the necessary things that helped him improve in life.

[1625]

But to find a grandfather standing out on the steps of the Legislature who has to stand out there because that's the only thing he can do to try to do something for this grandson of his…. And his name is Cooper. I think they've got a website somewhere.

Cooper's grandfather, if you're out there somewhere, I want you to know that there are people like myself who are here to defend your rights. We care about what's going on with autistic and special needs kids. We want to see improvements made, not cuts to those kinds of programs.

When I look at what's going on in day cares and child care, I had one of the teachers from the day care in…. Kaatza Day Care has been around a long time in Lake Cowichan and helps a lot of kids get a jump-start on their education through providing child care services.

Now, as a result of the continuing cuts of this government, they're going to have to double the amount of money that these parents are going to pay for child care. They're going to have to go up to $100 more per child per month, and many parents are in an already hard-hit area — more than 9 percent unemployment. This government talks about all of the things that they're doing. The facts are that more and more people in British Columbia are out of jobs.

All this corporate money isn't doing a thing to help all those hundreds of thousands of people who have lost their jobs during the period of time that this government has been in power — not a thing. Where are all the thousands of jobs that ought to be created? They just aren't there. They don't exist, and there's no justification for what this government continues to do — none whatsoever. The best they can do….

They talk about more P3s. They want to talk about giving away more of our children's future — the future of children throughout British Columbia, hon. Speaker. Do you know that right now in British Columbia, the debt is well over $38 billion? But worse than that, there's more than $50 billion, most of it in these long-term secret deals that are done in P3s that are a contractual form of debt. And I got a lecture by one of the members over there about how that's not debt.

Well, I'm going to be real interested in hearing how much of that debt they can just walk away from. How much of that contractual obligation do they plan on just saying: "We're not going to pay those bills"? I don't think the answer is that they have any intention of walking away from those commitments. In fact, all too often, built right into the deal is some trigger mechanism to give more money at the end of the day.

They've got to be the worst bargainers I've ever seen. Who goes and bargains a deal with a P3 with an escalator clause to give more money to the contractor? That's what we've got going on, and it's all done in secret behind closed doors. It's unacceptable that so much waste is happening with this government by running behind closed doors and cutting deals that the public has no knowledge of. It's absolutely unacceptable.

They're adhering to the "spend now and let the people of British Columbia pay later" plan. Well, that's not acceptable. They shouldn't be out there. They want to turn new shovels and pass on the debt in a hidden way. We've asked for transparency, for this government to come clean and show us what's going on. If it's all so good and clean and lovely, why don't they share the books with the people of British Columbia and share with us exactly what's going on in all of those contracts?

That's what ought to happen, hon. Speaker, and thank you for the opportunity to speak out on these important issues. I know that I have my right to rise in the House, and I'm glad to take that opportunity and speak out for people who are being wounded right now in British Columbia. We care about what's happening. We're frustrated by what we see happening to ordinary people. It's unacceptable.
[ Page 3051 ]

Hon. R. Hawes: After listening to that, the only word that comes to my mind is "drivel." Unbelievable.

[1630]

[C. Trevena in the chair.]

However, I just wanted to start by talking, as many of my colleagues have, about the Olympic experience. Mine really started in Abbotsford with the torch run. When the torch run came through the Fraser Valley the last week of the Olympics, as it entered the Lower Mainland on a cold and rainy night in Abbotsford, about 20,000 people came out.

As the cauldron was lit, it was a very emotional evening, and I think people for the first time really got into the Olympic spirit. I don't think it really had touched a lot of people until they actually saw the torch coming into Rotary Stadium in Abbotsford. But the following morning — that's the one that got me, in Mission.

The torch was not going to stop in Mission, just to pass through. But 9,000 people showed up on the main street of Mission at five o'clock in the morning just to watch the torch go down Main Street in Mission. That's unbelievable. But what was even — I think for me, anyway — a more emotional moment was that it was Jack Poole Day in Mission. Jack Poole was a resident of Mission, and he loved Mission and his wife, Darlene.

They were there, but John Furlong — who, as I think was even mentioned by the Leader of the Opposition earlier today, was just a tireless worker all the way through the Olympic process — was there at five o'clock in the morning to talk about his friend Jack Poole, which frankly for me was very, very emotional. The Premier was there at five o'clock in the morning to talk about Jack Poole. It was just an absolutely incredible day, and it really brought the spirit of the Olympics home to the people who live in my riding.

When the Olympics started on the 12th, that was the first day they had extra trains on the West Coast Express. And I just wanted to talk for a second about the transportation system in the Lower Mainland. It was incredible all the way through the Olympics, whether it be the West Coast Express, the SkyTrain, the Canada Line — all of it was incredible and made getting around really, really easy. And I know our visitors from other provinces and other countries found the same experience. Although the trains were absolutely full — the SkyTrain was full — everybody on board had a good time and no problems.

The volunteers. Everyone has talked about the volunteers in blue jackets, and my own experience was that a woman from out of British Columbia, from another province, came to me and was talking about the blue-jacketed volunteers.

She said she was sending an e-mail to somebody on her BlackBerry and was looking up at the sky thinking of what to say, and she heard a voice coming down from a walkway above her just yelling down: "Are you lost? Do you need help?" It was one of the blue-jacketed volunteers. They were everywhere, and they just looked for people who might need a hand, and I think that's terrific. Good on them.

So the Olympics are over. Many of us have talked about that today. It was a tremendous success. The Paralympics are going to be the same. But now what I wanted to talk about for a moment was the accounting for the Olympics. On the other side of the House, we've heard just a litany of things about how much the Olympics are going to cost. The member for Surrey-Newton went on and on and on for months about the costs and the Auditor General's report that outlined some costs.

When you look at the infrastructure, whether it be the Richmond Oval — there's a new curling rink — the Olympic village, Callaghan Valley improvements, the Whistler Sliding Centre, the Sea to Sky Highway, all of these things…. The opposition seems to say, "Those are all costs, all of it attributable to the Olympics — billions of dollars in cost," as though, with the Olympics over, we would just tear them up.

They have a residual value, a very large residual value. When you go to communities like Richmond and ask, "Is there any value left now that the Olympics are ending? Is there any value in the oval?" well, of course there is. They're happy to pay for it, because it is really worth something. So as the opposition gets into calculating what the costs are, if they want to continue with their fairy tale, I wish they would just sit down and say: "Look, let's apply a residual value to the Sea to Sky Highway."

Some members in the opposition have said in their speeches to the throne that somehow the Sea to Sky Highway was a pet project, a pet infrastructure project, and the money could have been better spent somewhere else. The number one death highway in British Columbia — number one death highway.

[1635]

Some people on the other side say: "Well, it's only rich people." Well, (1) it's not only rich people, and (2) a person who dies is a tragedy. I don't care how much money they have. It is a tragedy. So I believe that building that highway was the number one highway priority in this province. It was addressed, and it should have been addressed.

If you look at the car transportation on that highway during the Olympics — and the opposition seemed to say that it was being done for the Olympics — it was buses on the highway. It had nothing to do with cars. In fact, there were lots of comments about the parking lots in Whistler being pretty much empty because people went there on buses.

I'm hoping that as we now move through the final summation and we work through what the costs of the
[ Page 3052 ]
Olympics are, let's be real about this. Let's be saying that there is a very high residual value to the infrastructure investments — and I'll use that key word "investments" — that were made.

I want to also talk a little bit about…. In the throne speech and in recent expenditures there's been a lot of talk — I'll go back there — about homelessness and about those who are on our streets. I just want to talk for a minute about a project. It's like a lot of projects, but one that's in Mission.

Recently Grand Street Lodge, which was a seniors home, closed. It's a privately operated lodge. The owner decided he didn't want to run it anymore, so it was purchased by the provincial government and is being converted into second-stage housing for those that are homeless or who have moved out of homelessness — gone through first stage. It will be a supported housing project for those with addictions and mental illness.

It's causing a lot of problem in my community because, of course, people are phoning and yelling. They don't want it near them. Nobody wants a facility near their home, but frankly, this is exactly the kind of project that's needed, and it's moving ahead.

I'm quite proud to support it in my community and will support it and have supported it in my community because those that are on our streets do need to be reintegrated back into society. There's only one way we're going to get them that way, and that's when they've gone through their treatment process, to have to go through a recovery process. That recovery process really is assisted with things like supportive housing, and that's what this project is going to do.

Frankly, I don't think that there's a danger to the community. I think it's exactly the right thing to do in my community, and I want to thank the minister for ensuring that that project does go ahead in my community.

I want to talk, too, for a second about what I hear the opposition saying. They keep talking about — every day we hear in question period, and they're out there in the media talking about — cuts to this, cuts to that. I never hear them say: "Well, you know, if we ever" — God forbid — "formed a government, this is what we would do." So they're going to….

What I hear them saying is that they want more money in health care, seniors care, education, arts funding, children and families. They want to cut tuition in the universities, universal day care. They've said that the carbon tax funds would be taken and put into a "green bond," but the taxes that the carbon tax has offset, the decreased income taxes, of course, "we wouldn't touch those. Personal income taxes wouldn't go up. We'll tax big corporations because, of course, big corporations don't hire people. Nobody works for them. That wouldn't cost jobs" — I guess they think.

The bottom line here is that I have never heard the opposition say: "This is where we're going to get this huge amount of money, and this is how, as we apply it across the system without increasing taxes." I don't know where the money would come from. They never seem to say. It's like a chicken in every pot but no talk about where the money's coming from.

Frankly, when you're in opposition, you don't have to have a plan and you don't have to be truthful about anything. You don't have to, in fact, do anything except criticize, and that's what they're doing, and I understand that process. But I think it would be helpful if they would at least say: "Look, here's where the money should come from." It shouldn't — frankly, in my view, unlike what the previous member speaking said — come at the expense of taxing business, which provides the jobs that actually build an economy.

[1640]

This morning in private members' time the member for Juan de Fuca talked about mining, and that's the area that I'm interested in at the moment. He said that there have been no metal mines for the past 12 years. That was the statement that he made.

Let me just give you a little list of the metal mines that have opened or reopened in the past number of years. Myra Falls reopened in 2002. Roca Mines. A MAX moly mine, which I believe is south of Revelstoke, opened in 2007. Merritt Mining opened in 2008. Compliance Energy opened in 2003. Peace River Coal — 2006. Western Coal — 2004. Western Coal again, the Wolverine mine — 2006. The list goes on.

So there have been mines opened. I'm sure that the member for Juan de Fuca didn't mean to mislead anyone, but there have been mines that have opened in the past 12 years, or the past eight years that we've been in government — or nine years now. However, the one fact does remain. A major mine, a big mine, is a rare, rare commodity.

To get a new mine opened in British Columbia today is a tremendous accomplishment. It takes a long, long time. The environmental assessment process, which, frankly, on the B.C. side is extremely rigorous and has…. But it has timelines.

The members on the other side laugh, but when you talk to the mining industry, one of the biggest reasons that we hadn't seen mines is because of the tremendous amount of red tape in British Columbia versus other jurisdictions — for example, the Yukon — that you have to go through in this province. The biggest one, of course, is the dual environmental assessment process.

When you have the B.C. government running an assessment process that is rigorous and very complete…. By the way, when we say environmental assessment in British Columbia, it doesn't mean just looking at the physical environment. It means also looking at the social environment. It means looking at aboriginal consultation and engagement. It is a very comprehensive process. Once the proponent enters, there's a six-month timeline.
[ Page 3053 ]
Then there is a month and a half at the end of that process for decisions to be made and for the information that comes out to be digested.

The federal government runs a similar program, but there are no timelines, and it is an absolute duplication of what's being done by the British Columbia assessment office. When you get into that process without a timeline that goes on and on, sometimes it can take years longer.

What happens is something the members opposite probably don't really understand. That's how you finance these things, how the world of higher finance works. When we hear speech after speech about big corporations, etc., "Tax them," and "They're evil," quite clearly, you don't quite get it.

The bottom line is that the money that's raised — internationally, usually — to fund these big mines doesn't wait around for years and years. They've looked for certainty, and you can't get certainty when you have an environmental review process that's going to take an undetermined amount of time. Sometimes it's many, many years. So it's very difficult to fund a new mine. A new mine, a major new mine, can cost as much as a billion dollars. So one of the mines….

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Minister, would you bear one moment.

Members, if you want to participate in the debate, can you wait until it's your turn to participate and give the minister the courtesy to continue with his remarks.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. R. Hawes: One of the mines in British Columbia that's currently in the process — has gone through our environmental review process and passed; is still stuck in the federal one — is Prosperity mine near Williams Lake. Prosperity has been in a process. They have been trying to get a permit to mine there for 16 years — 16 years.

Now, they're carrying on because it's a very valuable metal deposit, and they know that it's going to produce, well, profit, obviously. That's an evil thing, though. We should be careful of that. But it's going to produce huge jobs, big jobs, for an area that has been devastated by the pine beetle epidemic. They need those jobs in the Williams Lake area. I know that the people there — I've been there, and I've talked to people there — want those jobs.

[1645]

Now, the environmental review process that the federal government has embarked on has not really yet commenced. There are some public hearings slated for, I think, later this month. That's how far behind they are. There is no definitive timeline as to when they might be finished.

The only lucky thing as we go through the process is that Taseko Mines, the proponent, also is operating Gibraltar mines and has a mining presence in the area. They're not really going anywhere. They have been very, very patient, and they have invested literally millions of dollars to date in getting their application to the stage that it got through the B.C. environmental process and into the federal one. Hopefully, it's going to come out of that process and provide the kind of prosperity that that area really does require.

You know, the member for Columbia River–Revelstoke seemed to imply that the process shouldn't take longer than eight years, that any mine application that has not happened now must have started and that it was us that delayed it. I think that's what he was implying, but the bottom line is that these things take a long time, and it's because we have too much bureaucracy.

Let me just read for a second what the CGA, the Certified General Accountants of British Columbia, says about it — it's not just the throne speech — as it talks about the environmental review process and unifying our process. That's what we want to do. We want one process for each project; we don't want two. We think that we should be able to delegate from Canada to British Columbia, just as we could delegate from British Columbia back to Canada, and we have done that in the Prince Rupert area on one project.

I know the federal government has now said that we could look after the electrification of Highway 37, but we want all mining projects in British Columbia to have one process run by the British Columbia government, because we know our process is very stringent, and it does meet all of the causes and the purposes for which it's intended.

It really bothers me, you know, that the members in the opposition talk about saving the environment as though those of us on this side of the House don't care about the environment. They talk so often about all kinds of things as though they're the only ones in the world that care, and really, it's offensive. It's very offensive.

You know, whether it be about children or whether it be about seniors, we have kids over here. We care about the environment. We want our kids to grow up in a world that is environmentally pure, but we want our kids to grow up in a world that has jobs and has an economy that allows them to stay here rather than having to go to Alberta, like they were driven to do in the 1990s when the NDP were in power — God forbid, never again. You know, as has been said many times, moving companies were the biggest employers in British Columbia during the 1990s, moving people out to Alberta.

"One project, one process is just common sense," said Mr. Pankratz. He's the president of the Certified General Accountants. "So long as the environmental processing and permitting is based on science and conducted openly by people of integrity, we should be able to reduce the costs and time required to gain government approvals."
[ Page 3054 ]

M. Sather: You have two problems right there.

Hon. R. Hawes: Well, we do have, and I hope that members of the opposition are not denigrating the civil service that we have in British Columbia. This is a politically hands-off process. It is an environmental process that is run by professional civil servants who have done a great job, not just under the current administration. Many of them were also employed under the NDP regime. They are professional civil servants that are doing a great job.

Madam Speaker, I hope the opposition isn't somehow saying that the people that we have working for us in British Columbia have something wrong with them. That's what they seem to be implying.

"Multiple government reviews of projects in mining, forestry, oil and gas exploration and other industries don't just add superfluous costs. They introduce uncertainty, scare off investment and ultimately cost us opportunities and jobs to other jurisdictions." That's exactly what has been happening. Because we have too much bureaucracy in some areas, overlaps that are not necessary, it drives investment to other places.

[1650]

British Columbia is a great place to invest money. There is a super, super future in the mining and mineral exploration business in British Columbia. But if we have a jurisdiction that is overly regimented, that has duplications that are costly, that investment will not come here.

I suggest that probably not one member of the opposition has sat down with people in the industry to ask them what they think. They often talk about how they're going to tax people, but they never, never talk to the people who write the paycheques, who actually make a difference.

Here's the difference. We value the people in this province who take often their life savings and invest it in businesses so that they can employ people, at great risks to themselves. Without them, we don't have those jobs. We respect that on this side of the House. We really respect and nurture the people who would take that kind of a risk, who would invest in our province, who would provide jobs that really are for families.

On that side of the House all I hear from the rhetoric is: "Let's have the government build it. Let's just take money off people, and we'll do it ourselves." That's just so ridiculous, and it proved through the '90s to be so absolutely fallacious. We drove our economy into last place.

Then I hear members opposite talking about the current situation in British Columbia, why there aren't any jobs, as though they don't understand we have had a worldwide recession. But luckily, British Columbia will be first out, and we will come out strong.

You know, I don't know whether you respect the Conference Board of Canada, for example, who are some of the leading financial brains in our country, who say that because of the Olympics and the policies of this government we will be the first out of the recession. We have positioned ourselves to be that, and we will be.

What do they say? I hear a lot over there about the HST. It's going to cost thousands of jobs in tourism, for example — 10,000 jobs, a couple of people have said. I wonder how much tourism has faded in Europe, where the combined taxes are about 20 percent in most of the countries in Europe. How much has tourism faded there? Gosh, no. It hasn't. In Ontario it's going to be a 13 percent HST. Let's get real here.

The other thing is that in the restaurant industry, luckily, many of the restaurant owners have come to the conclusion that when they're out there saying, "Oh, the HST will kill our business. No one will come. It'll cost too much money…." They've suddenly come to the realization that this could be a self-fulfilling prophecy. If we keep telling people they won't be able to afford our restaurants — guess what? — they won't. The fact is that there will be very little impact on the restaurant industry. There will be very little impact — frankly, negligible — on any of these industries.

But what there will be…. Here's the positive side of this, and this is the side that the people on the other side don't get.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Order, Members. Order.

Hon. R. Hawes: What they don't understand is that the HST does build competitiveness. When all of the other jurisdictions move to HST — and the world, actually, is moving to an add-on tax — the only way that we can remain competitive is to also move to that type of a tax.

But here's also where they don't get it. They keep talking about the transfer of the tax from corporations to ordinary citizens. Well, the bottom line is that any corporation that's paying a tax passes it on. Do you not get it? The consumer's already paying the taxes. Bottom line is that the businesses can now reclaim all of their input taxes.

The prices they charge. Their costs will go down, and so frankly, their prices will go down. But you folks over there seem to always say: "Oh no, they'll just gouge for more profit."

That is not what happened with the GST. That is not what will happen with the HST. In fact, the cost to the average British Columbian as projected by Don Drummond…. Of course, he's just the chief economist of the Toronto-Dominion Bank. What would he know? He says that it's going to be about 0.4 of 1 percent, which is not a lot of money.

Interjections.
[ Page 3055 ]

Deputy Speaker: Order, Members, please.

[1655]

Hon. R. Hawes: The opposition, frankly, have talked about the carbon tax and what they would do with that. They've talked about the HST. I know that the HST is going to provide jobs, and it's going to help retain jobs.

But why listen to the industries that really provide jobs? Why listen to forestry? Why listen to mining? Why listen to the manufacturing industry? Why listen to small business, the majority of which is saying that the HST actually is going to be very helpful? Why listen to the Chartered Accountants of British Columbia or the leading economists from coast to coast, who all say that the HST is the right way to go? Or people, like in the forestry industry, who say that the one thing that you could do above all other things that will help recovery in forestry is to put the HST in place?

Why listen to them? What would they know? They just write paycheques. We on the other side who have never written a paycheque in our lives, mostly, seem to know better.

Come on, folks. Why don't we listen to the people who are actually providing the bulk of the jobs? The people who are providing the bulk of the jobs are saying: "Get the HST in. It's the best thing that you can do to help us keep the jobs that we now have and make more investments in our businesses."

But why listen to them? You never have before. You never have listened to business, which is why they left in the 90s, which is why they come out and support a free enterprise government year after year after year. It's not for any reason other than that they know that assistance to the people who provide the paycheques — or even just recognizing that they are the ones who write the paycheques — is beneficial to them, and it helps them provide the jobs, and it makes them financially viable.

Your regime in the 1990s had no conception of what it was to write a paycheque and to be financially viable. It was all about: "Let's just tax more." If you take a look at the tax relief that we have provided over the past eight or nine years — over a hundred tax cuts — we have provided tax relief to every individual in British Columbia, to small business, to big corporations across the board.

We believe, unlike the members opposite, that leaving money in people's pockets, where they make the choice on where they want to spend the money, makes a heck of a lot more sense than taking the money from their pockets and building all kinds of bureaucratic regimes. That's where, unfortunately, you seem to want to see us go.

We've said that we need to streamline all of our processes across the board. We have also said that we need to be talking to our friends at the municipal level to have them do the same. One of the biggest impediments to people owning houses is cost. I can tell you.

I suppose none of you have been in the housing business, building homes. I certainly have. I can tell you that one of the biggest costs out there is the delays you face as you're going through the city hall to get permits and rezonings. It is hugely expensive, and it adds tremendous costs. Then you start looking at development cost charges and all of the other charges imposed at the local level. Frankly, that adds so much to the cost of a house that it's incredible.

We're looking at ways to streamline the kind of regulation. I know we are going to be working with our friends in the municipalities to try to streamline some of that regulation and needless red tape to get to a place where we can have an impact on the cost of housing.

The throne speech, for me, tells me that we are heading in exactly the place we should be heading. We're going to streamline government. We're going to streamline regulation and red tape — needless regulation and red tape.

As I've said earlier, we on this side all have families. We all have kids. We all want to see the environment protected. We all want to see the right kind of education. We're working towards it. We'll get there, unlike the folks on that side and their antiquated socialistic ideals.

[1700]

K. Corrigan: I have a few notes, but I really have to respond to a couple of things that were said by the previous member.

First of all, the previous speaker said that we didn't have any kind of plan. We did have a plan, and it was called a platform. It was fully costed. So I can say that at least we told the truth about what the projected deficit was going to be. At least we told the truth about what our plan was going to cost. At least we did not swear that the deficit was going to be no more than $495 million at exactly the same time as we had advisers telling us that it was going to be substantially more than that.

The member talks about listening to business. Business was trying to tell this government about how much that deficit was going to be. This government chose to ignore that, and we ended up with a false mandate as a result of that. Government also said that there was not going to be any HST. So we had a platform, and we were honest about what our platform was.

The member also said that we do not talk to business. Well, I can tell you that we have been talking to business, and part of what we've been hearing from business is the devastating impact of the failed policies of this government for business in British Columbia.

The member also said that we've never run businesses. Well, I know that I've run a business. I ran a small business for years. We, in our family, had to, as they say, eat what we killed, and we were successful in running that business. I also was the chair of the Burnaby board of education and on the Burnaby board for nine years.
[ Page 3056 ]
That was a $200 million business, and we ran it effectively and efficiently. We were known as a leading-edge district in education, and we had the second-lowest administrative costs in the province. I hope the members will not continue to suggest that we are incapable of running businesses.

The member also said — complained about, perhaps — that the impression was that we were being disparaging towards the public servants in this province. Well, I don't think there's anything more disparaging than the member saying disparagingly to us about taking money off of people, and we'll just do it ourselves. Where's the lack of respect for the public service in a statement like that? As if there is something the matter with collecting taxes from people and providing an effectively run public service. What is the matter with that?

Public services are the most efficiently run services in this province. You cannot do in the private sector what we do effectively with our health care dollars and what we do with our education dollars. And if the member says anything differently than that, what they are doing is disparaging our public service, which I happen to have a great deal of respect for.

The member previously also talked about the costs of the Olympics. We have done nothing but say that what government needs to do is to be honest about the cost of the Olympics. The government needs to be transparent and to let us know what all the costs of the Olympics are. As the critic for the Olympics, I can tell you that it has been like pulling teeth. There are costs hidden that we will probably never see. It is absolutely fallacious to say that the cost to government, which is the continuing line of this government, is $765 million. What? I do not understand how this government can continue on to say that.

To suggest that we should trust the management skills, to trust this government, to me is close to pathetic when you look at how costs have been hidden with respect to the Olympics. We have asked question after question in question period and in estimates, and it's apparent that the government continues to hide the costs.

[1705]

For example, the Olympic secretariat is not considered by this government to be part of those Olympic costs. How can that possibly be? Nor are the free tickets that the MLAs from the other side of the House got. That was not an Olympic cost. If that's not an Olympic cost, I don't know what is.

I'm going to go back to my written notes now that I've gotten that off my chest.

The spending choices made by the provincial government, as outlined in the throne speech and in tomorrow's budget, will directly affect the quality of life for British Columbians. On this side of the House, we have said that the focus of this and future budgets should be on public investments that stimulate the economy and support those that are vulnerable. We also need to ensure a sustainable future.

That is a starting point, and I will speak about several different areas in this response to the throne speech. But I wanted first to highlight what I see as a recurring theme, not only in this throne speech but in the continuing actions of this government, and that is a complete lack of respect for the autonomy of municipalities, regional districts and school boards.

Sometimes this lack of respect for local government is wrapped up in what I would call Liberal doublespeak. This throne speech provides an example of that. Government says — and the member was just referring to that — that "a new investment process review will be launched to identify opportunities for simplifying and expediting approval processes across government. Local government will be asked to partner in this endeavour that requires us to look at all impediments to reasonable investments, including zoning, licensing and permitting requirements."

In other words, the provincial government, in its ongoing kowtowing to big business, wants to interfere with the ability of local governments to shape their communities — for example, through control of where they put big-box stores or if they refuse to have massage parlours or what kind of requirements they put in place to allow a business to operate in their community or what kind of environmental or practising or inspection standards they require in order to operate a business in their community.

The member spoke previously about unnecessary red tape. Well, I don't think it is unnecessary red tape for a local government to make a decision about what they think the best way is to shape their community. That's not unnecessary red tape.

I know that in the city of Burnaby, where I am from, they have been repeatedly honoured as having the most effective process for permits for developers. That's, by the way, a New Democrat government, which has also been named the best-run city in Canada by Maclean's magazine.

This government does not consult. It does not ask. It simply imposes its will on local government. And it increasingly is interfering with the ability of local governments to make decisions that they think are in the best interests of their community. Invariably, they are replacing the rights of local governments to set standards for their community with the rights of businesses to do whatever they want.

As I mentioned, last summer my city, the city of Burnaby, was named the best-run city in Canada by Maclean's magazine. It's in great financial shape. But at the same time, it's making clear and sound decisions about the shaping of the community for the interests of its residents.

For example, it has a fair wage policy that says businesses that have contracts with the city must pay their
[ Page 3057 ]
workers a reasonable wage. I know the Phil Hochsteins of the world hate it. I think they and many members on the other side of this House hate it because it hasn't stopped government from being effective at the same time as it treats workers fairly.

Personally, I trust my local government to make good decisions much more than I trust this provincial government in making decisions for the welfare of the people of this province. And I don't want to lose the ability for my local government to set standards and make zoning decisions.

The throne speech also announces that "a joint committee on municipal property tax reform will identify specific steps to make property taxes more conducive to investment while ensuring municipal services are fairly provided for all taxpayers."

[1710]

Again, interference by the provincial government in the business of municipalities, and, again, interfering in municipal taxation because business told them to do it. This is the government of big business. We're not talking about small business. These are big businesses, and mostly ones that have exploited our resources.

How much revenue are we talking about for these companies that are screaming about paying too much tax? It's a very small percentage. I think it's somewhere in the range of 1 percent. People who are railing about this forget about the fact that the taxes that these companies are paying are all tax deductible. Taxes are not as much in many cases as the CEOs of these companies. So if these businesses are in such bad shape, why are they compensating their CEOs so lavishly?

Again, a review of municipal elections — who asked for that? Certainly municipalities didn't ask for that. This government is also continuing to download onto municipalities and school boards, and I'm going to give you one example that I've recently heard about.

Without consultation, without any kind of discussion, without opening up the books, the provincial government announced that municipalities are going to have a 100 percent increase in the cost of PRIME. PRIME is the program that municipalities all use and are required to use to provide information to the police. It tells municipalities or RCMP or municipal police forces what criminals are doing, contacts that they may have had with the police and so on.

The provincial government was the one that ordered that all municipalities take PRIME and use that system. Nobody is suggesting that PRIME has not been an asset, but it was the provincial government that required that. Without any consultation, the provincial government said that the cost of PRIME was going to increase from $500 per policeman to $1,000 per officer.

Municipalities throughout the province are outraged. Nobody was told in advance. In Burnaby, my community, there are 300 officers, so this is equivalent to $150,000 of arbitrary increase after budgets have been set — absolutely no transparency, no warning. How can we check on it? We can't. We can't, because it's a company that we can't get any information about. No reasons. Nothing.

Transit is another example of where the provincial government simply imposed themselves on municipalities and said: "We're taking TransLink away from you. You're going to have to continue to pay for transit, but you're not going to have it anymore." No ability to review decisions. No ability to look behind decisions. No ability for local politicians to take a look at the budgets of TransLink, but at the same time having to pay the piper in that case, and look what kind of shape the transit system is in now. It's essentially bankrupt as a result of the decisions and the imposition by this provincial government of a new form of governance.

I want to talk about education. I've been a three-term Burnaby school trustee. I know that my community is fiercely proud of its excellent public education system. In addition, we have two of the finest post-secondary institutions in the province in BCIT and SFU. We certainly understand in our community the social and economic benefits that flow from educational investments.

Before the election, this government vowed to protect education. Then, just weeks after the election, it eliminated $110 million of funding to maintain and upgrade B.C. schools, and cut parent advisory council grants in half. Again, promises betrayed.

[1715]

My school district, the Burnaby school district, was forced to make up $4.3 million in cuts. That was the amount that the elimination of the facilities grant meant to Burnaby. That was in an announcement that was made just two weeks before school started and after the budget had been set and after most of the work had already been done during the summer when the work does get done.

Now we have cuts, and essential maintenance and upgrades aimed at reducing the carbon footprint of our schools have been put on hold indefinitely. The end result will be less energy efficient buildings, higher hydro bills and more money that should be spent in the classroom sent back to the province to pay for carbon offsets. In the upcoming budget, things are going to get far worse.

Last week I went to a budget presentation by my district, the Burnaby school district, and I already knew that the district is faced for this coming fiscal year with cuts to services of up to $10 million. I also learned that the cuts at the present projected funding that it's going to get…. There will be a further close to $10 million of cuts next year and the following year as well — a total of, I think it was, in the range of $25 million or $26 million worth of cuts that Burnaby is going to have to make.

I know I've heard the Education Minister stand up in this House and talk about how there could be administrative savings and how there is enrolment going down
[ Page 3058 ]
and that that would be an explanation for why cuts are having to be made. My school district is already one of the leanest districts in the province. There is no fat to cut. I already said that we have the second-lowest administrative costs in the province.

As well, we have been called a leading-edge district provincially, nationally and internationally. That's what our last provincial review said. So we are an effective and lean deliverer of a public service. This is not a community that is not doing a good job, and I would challenge anybody who suggests that there is anything that could be done more effectively or efficiently or better than it's done in this school district of Burnaby. And I know that's true of school districts around the province — that they are very well run.

This district is saying that with the cost increases that are not funded, with the cuts and downloads of this government, they are going to have to cut $10 million in services this year and more to come in the following two years. Of course, direct educational services and supports will necessarily suffer.

A couple of weeks ago my colleague from Burnaby-Edmonds and I asked the Education Minister to visit Burnaby to see our excellent public schools in action, schools that continue to deliver a superior education to students despite some unique challenges that face this district.

For example, we have many refugees who have come to call that community home, and often their children need extra help to make up for years of instability in their home countries. Districts need to have the means to give every possible support to students that need an extra helping hand and enough resources to also invest in the many students who excel in sports and sciences, in humanities, the arts and the trades.

Districts have no control over 90 percent of their costs and no control over the resources provided by the government, yet the minister continues to blame cash-strapped school districts for cuts to the classroom that are the direct result of provincial decisions about their priorities.

The member and I just received a response from the Minister of Education. The minister said that she wasn't going to come to Burnaby, that she didn't have the time in her schedule.

[1720]

I think that's a shameful and arrogant disregard, particularly considering that our school district is about a ten- or 15-minute drive from the minister's constituency.

I also wanted to express concern about something else that was in the throne speech, and that is an announcement that new partnerships with the private sector and parents will enable the establishment of neighbourhood preschools for four-year-olds and three-year-olds over the next five years. Certainly, I'm very supportive of this government's move, and I have to give credit here for all-day kindergarten. I think it's a good move. Congratulations to the government for doing that, moving ahead with that.

I certainly am supportive of preschools for four-year-olds, and I applaud that initiative. But I do not applaud that initiative if it's going to involve privatization of our education system. I certainly will not support that option if it's going to mean bringing in big-box day care solutions like has happened in other jurisdictions around the world.

Privatization is a favourite avenue for this government, and it is not good for public services. Privatized services are more expensive, they are less transparent, and they are not the way that we should be delivering public services. The people of British Columbia agree that privatization is not a good idea.

I also want to talk about some of the cuts that have happened in kids' sport, and I talked about this earlier today. But it is, to me, an alarming thing to see. After supposedly wanting to support healthy communities, wanting to support child sports, we've seen such deep cuts. Now that the Olympics have come and gone, we are seeing great, deep cuts projected for next year to ActNow B.C. — a 31 percent cut for this fiscal year already in the update, 16 percent next year and 13.5 percent in the fiscal years after.

Cuts to gaming grants, which means that there are cuts to sports groups that were funded by those gaming grants — up to $14 million. I know that in my community, for example, the Burnaby Minor Hockey Association has had very deep cuts to its programs. One of the things that they have done in the past is they have subsidized young people who want to come and play hockey in Burnaby. They are faced with not being able to do that anymore because they don't have the funding to do it.

Cuts to the Ministry of Education sports program — we saw that. High school sports — cuts to that as well. Cuts to the Ministry of Healthy Living and Sport as well. Cuts to the Special Olympics. The government has cut direct-access gaming grants to regional Special Olympic teams by up to two-thirds this year.

There are lots of cuts, but there's no mention of a poverty reduction plan or any anti-violence programming here. As has been mentioned before, B.C. has had the highest level of child poverty in the country for the last six years. How can a government with that record of dealing with child poverty during a boom time suggest that strengthening families is at the centre of our economic and social agenda? To the contrary, families have been and continue to be pummelled by the actions and inactions of this government.

I heard a member from the other side saying a little while ago that we need to build a strong economy in order to support social services. Well, this government has had a decade to do all that. All we see is that
[ Page 3059 ]
the gap between rich and poor is widening. The average family is hurting, while well-paying jobs are fleeing this province.

We are woefully lacking in capital investment, despite ten years of this government. We have a trade deficit, a terrible trade deficit, which is mitigated only partially by the fact that we have such an influx of immigrants.

[1725]

I want to talk for just a minute or two about community social services. We have so many organizations providing social services in Burnaby: Burnaby Community Connections, the Dixon Transition Society, Immigrant Services Society, MOSAIC, Parent Support Services Society, South Burnaby Neighbourhood House, SUCCESS, Burnaby Association for Community Inclusion, seniors societies and so on and so on.

Funding from the Ministry of Children and Family Development accounts for about half the funding to many social service agencies. Many of those, including these organizations in my community that provide such great service, are bracing for cuts in the budget. The Federation of Community Social Services of B.C. said that these cuts come after almost a decade of zero-increased budgets and reductions that amount to a cumulative cut of 28 percent.

I'd like to finally talk about the importance of supporting public services instead of privatizing services. We have in this province now a $38 billion debt, approximately, but at the same time we have taken on $52 billion worth of contractual obligations, some of which run for decades and decades. A large part of those contractual obligations that our kids will be paying for are for public-private partnerships.

Partnerships B.C., the wholly owned subsidiary of the Ministry of Finance, is a leading proponent for the use of P3s for the financing, construction and management of public assets and has been involved with about $10 billion worth of such projects. I know that in the throne speech there was a suggestion that we needed to do more, to privatize more.

Over approximately the last year a number of reports have been published that raise serious questions about the value for money that citizens in British Columbia have achieved from these projects. Auditors General in both Ontario and Quebec have issued reports raising very serious questions about the methodology used in evaluating individual P3 projects.

In Ontario, for example, the Auditor General found that if the province financed the design and construction costs under the same terms as a private sector partner but used its borrowing power at its lower rate…. He estimated that the savings in financing costs would have been approximately $200 million over the term of the agreement.

In British Columbia both academic accountants and forensic auditors have challenged the claims being made in support of these projects. Last autumn Partnerships B.C. published the methodology, finally, by which it chooses between using P3s or traditional procurement. The published methodology makes clear that all of the problems identified by other Auditors General and by reports in British Columbia are present in B.C. public-private partnerships. These amount to a systemic bias in favour of using P3s despite the fact that other options would provide better value for money.

I'm encouraged by the fact that our Auditor General, in Public Accounts Committee, has said that he is going to take a look at some of the projects. I hope that that will — and I certainly will be pushing for that — include a look at the methodology that is being used, because I do not believe that public-private partnerships are an effective use of our tax dollars. I don't believe they're good for British Columbians, and this is not a road that we should be going any further down. [Applause.]

G. Hogg: The Zen sound of one hand clapping amongst others.

As many of my colleagues have talked about, the Olympics and the comments that came out of those as the result of our exceptional past 2½ weeks….

[1730]

I believe the real power of the Olympics is found in their ability to strengthen bonds between people and communities — doing that both locally and globally, doing that by bringing people together to do something and to experience something that they had not done or experienced before.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

Certainly, many of my most valued memories from the Olympics occurred whilst I was on public transit, whether it was on the Canada Line or the 351 bus, talking and sitting with families who were dressed in their Olympic gear, who were dressed in the red of our country.

A woman police officer from England who I sat beside on a bus trip to White Rock had the Canadian flag painted on her face. She talked about her experiences in England as a police officer walking a beat and how amazed she was with the character and tenor of the people who were in Vancouver and in British Columbia celebrating throughout the Olympics and what an impression it had made on her, and her thought that perhaps she wanted to come back and be a police officer in our community and in our province.

Visiting Holland Park in Surrey at their celebration site, the multicultural nature of our province was so proudly evident in the food and on the faces of so many people there. The impact of the torch coming through our community in South Surrey and White Rock at 6:30 in the morning. The Semiahmoo First Nations people out there greeting and dancing with them.
[ Page 3060 ]

And the torch. It visited the Peace Arch with the Governor of Washington, and thousands of people gathered to watch the torch make its one short foray into the United States and come back through the Peace Arch — the symbolism of crossing the border and what that meant. The young women in the choir so early in the morning in their t-shirts, freezing cold yet bellowing out our national anthem and the American national anthem.

The work of the spirit committees in Surrey and in White Rock and across the province, the way those were celebrated in local communities. The ceremonies that were held, in particular the one that was held in White Rock city centre, where they had 15 restaurants providing food free of charge to people as they watched the opening ceremonies and celebrated. And the way so many cultures came forward representing the great diversity and great strength of our community.

The hosting of so many people throughout the course of the Olympics — the First Nations, business people, tourists, fans. I know some people have questioned with respect to the value or the import of having that type of interaction, and I'm reminded of the story that David Asper told as he gave the eulogy for his father, Izzy Asper, in Winnipeg. David said that for years he was saying to his dad: "Dad, I want to understand how business works. I want to be involved in it. When are you going to let me be involved in some important meetings?"

The meeting came up where Izzy Asper, as head of CanWest, was meeting with Global. The president of Global was flying out from Toronto to Winnipeg to meet with him. Izzy said to his son David: "You can come with me to this meeting." As David tells it, they drove out to the airport and picked up this gentleman, the president of Global, for this great meeting of great minds and great businesses in our country.

They drove to downtown Winnipeg to the Fort Garry Hotel, where they sat and drank beer and ate hamburgers and talked about sports. David was waiting for this magical moment that was going to occur when he was going to find out how business works, how these relationships exist. After a little while, the president of Global looked at his watch and said: "Well, Izzy, my plane leaves at 5:30. I've got to get back to the airport." Izzy said: "No problem. I'll drive you back." Into the car they climbed, back out to the airport, and he flew back to Toronto.

David says: "As I was driving back with dad in the car, I was so upset because I hadn't heard any of these pithy comments. I said to dad: 'Dad, you said I could come along. I thought I was going to learn something. All we did was talk about sports and drink beer and eat hamburgers.' My dad slowly moved off to the side of the car and stopped and turned and looked me in the face with his finger and said: 'Son, it's all business.'"

In that way he was talking about the relationships that we have with people and, in fact, what happens when we engage people in meaningful ways. Whether that's in business or in sports or in social services, it's so important that we look at and understand what that means in terms of volunteerism, in terms of social capital and what that does for the strength of our communities.

I was honoured to participate and support a number of volunteers who carried the Olympic torch, one of them being a 90-year-old senior citizen from White Rock by the name of Alfred Bennett. Alfred was the oldest finisher and champion of his age class at the Sun Run last year. I believe he's 91 today, or this week.

[1735]

He was so proud to carry the torch, and they had a wonderful reception for him at the Mann Park lawn bowling centre. He's donated his torch to a school, because all of the students at that school were out to cheer him on. He said to me: "I feel like a rock star. I feel like I was a rock star. My grandchildren were so proud of me." Seeing that type of engagement, that type of sense of growth and feeling, is so wonderful.

Another was a friend of mine by the name of Ferg Hawke. I think he's probably Canada's top ultramarathoner right now. He's finished second twice in the Badwater Ultramarathon in Death Valley, which is deemed to be the most difficult foot race in the world. I've had years of playing fastball with him and saw his incredible determination. He proudly carried the torch in Salmo, and he was describing to me how he was in the van with nine others who were being dropped off at their various points along the way.

The person who was organizing this had said that he had carried the torch in Ontario. He said: "I don't know what you're going to do with your torch when you take it home, but I looked at it, and I thought I was going to clean the soot off it. I decided that I didn't want that to happen. I thought maybe I was going put another canister in it and light it again, but I didn't want that to happen. When I realized that that torch had been lit as a result of a flame that came from Greece, I said that I'm not going to do that."

I remember having a phone call from Ferg shortly after he had run it, saying: "I feel that way now. I've been so overwhelmed emotionally by the impact of carrying the torch, of understanding where it came from and what it meant, that I'm never going to clean that soot off it. That soot is an important part of what it is."

As we look forward, we're looking forward to the Paralympics coming forward. We have an exceptional young woman in South Surrey by the name of Sarah Hunter. Sarah was, if not the first, certainly one of the very first girls to play Little League baseball in Canada. She was able to go to court and get that established. Subsequent to that she became a very good hockey player. She was hit from behind playing hockey and became a paraplegic as a result of that. The signs on the back of hockey jerseys that say "Stop" are largely attributable to Sarah.
[ Page 3061 ]

I had the privilege of working with her when I was director of the youth detention centre and she was one of our staff members there. Since she has become a paraplegic, she has become a wonderful Paralympian as well. She will be carrying the torch in the Paralympic relay. She is, I think, ranked third in the world in Paralympic tennis now. She is a remarkable young woman who is very inspirational. When the White Rock Little League team won the Canadian Little League championships two years in a row, she came out and provided words of inspiration to them. They were very touched by her words and the way she said those.

All these things, I think, are reflective of the notion of social capital, the relationships we have with people and the ability of relationships to effect change. Certainly that's an important and a powerful thing that has happened through the course of the Olympics.

The Olympics are about relationships, they're about athletes, and they're about the things that we learn through the process of play. I think that many of the relationships that we have are learned through the processes of play. The processes of play are used in all cultures and all societies to teach values and mores and beliefs. I think at their very best we find our spontaneous sense of joy that comes out of the processes of play.

Certainly, the Right to Play program was a phenomenal program which is now providing opportunities for children in developing countries to play. Listening to the founder — I believe Johann Koss is his name — talk about how he started…. He talked about visiting Africa. He said, "I was wearing a long-sleeved shirt, and people were hovering around me. I didn't realize the importance of a long-sleeved shirt until I realized that anybody who had a long-sleeved shirt made a much better soccer ball, and they would hold it up and tie it in a knot. For so many people wearing T-shirts, that didn't work," and how touched he was by that and how he came back and brought soccer balls back.

When he saw the joy on the faces of the children, he realized that that was going to be his passion. That was his calling. He started Right to Play, and now they are providing a number of services all over the world. In many ways the Right to Play…. A little version of that is KidSport in British Columbia, which started right in British Columbia and has now spread across Canada. It provides an opportunity for those who might have financial impediments to participate in sport so that they can participate and be engaged in it.

[1740]

Another important part, I think, that comes out of the throne speech for me is the whole notion of education, and talking about looking at education. I think the quote is something like "to take steps to review and to revitalize education and looking at ways that we can manage that, to focus on the individual and the unique needs of children," the creation of master teacher positions.

Certainly, in the reading that I've been doing around education and looking at the development of our educational systems…. They were probably developed roughly 200 years ago and largely in the model of the industrial age. They were developed in that response so that they would be able to train people to participate in an industrial revolution, an industrial revolution which is now over. We're looking much more at postmodern days and the issues that are being dealt with. There are new issues we have to deal with.

All countries are now exploring their educational system. They're reviewing their education systems. All of them have math and languages at the top of the hierarchy, and down lower in the system, at the bottom of the system, are the arts, and the bottom of the arts tends to be the performing arts. In many ways there are arguments that some of us are kinesthetic and that some of us see the world and understand and learn and find our passion in different ways, yet our structure is not laid out that way.

I think, as one observer said, that if somebody were to come from outer space to look at our education system and see what it was there for, they'd say that it appears to be designed to create university professors. I think he went on to comment that of course, university professors function only from the head up and that they see their bodies as only a vehicle for taking them off to meetings — "Take me to the next meeting" — where they go and engage in things. They can hardly wait to get out of the meeting so that they can write a paper on what took place. That type of impression is what we look at when we start to look more broadly at our educational system.

No educational system in the world teaches the arts every day like math is taught every day. It's different in the hierarchy, so we have to look at what we're going to do to find ways for every student to find that point where their passion and their aptitude and their attitude come together in that nexus so that it starts to pull things together and make that happen.

I've talked a little bit about one of the anecdotes that I heard given, which was about a six-year-old girl in the back of an arts class. She was in grade 1, and the teacher said that she was always active and never seemed to be participating or paying any attention.

This one day in the art class she was working very hard, so the teacher strolled down to see what was going on and said to the little girl: "What are you doing?" The little girl had her head down and was colouring away. She said: "Well, I'm drawing a picture of God." The teacher said, "But nobody knows what God looks like," and the little girl said, "They will in a minute," as she was working away with that sense of creativity and the passion that comes with it.

There's a wonderful story of Gillian Lynne. Gillian Lynne is a choreographer in England. She did the chor-
[ Page 3062 ]
eography for Cats and for The Phantom of the Opera. She tells a story of being about nine years old and being ADHD, if we had that terminology in those days, which we didn't. I guess she didn't know that was available to her.

She was referred to a psychologist by the teacher, and she describes sitting in the psychologist's office on a leather couch while her mother was over in the distance meeting with a psychologist at the desk. After a while the psychologist got up and came over to her and said: "Gillian, your mother and I are just going to go outside for a few moments. We have to speak." They went outside. She said the psychologist and my mother watched me through a one-way mirror, but the psychologist turned the radio on just as he went out of the office.

She said: "There was music, and I got up and danced. I was dancing. They came back in, and I quickly sat down. But they were watching through this one-way mirror." She said, "The psychologist said to my mother: 'There's nothing wrong with Gillian. She's a dancer. She's a kinesthetic person. She needs to learn in a different way.'"

She was registered for dance classes. She said: "It was the first time I was with people that were just like me, and I felt so empowered and so excited about that type of relationship and what that meant." She was finding her passion. Her passion and her aptitude had met, and she had that positive attitude for that.

I believe that from my years as a foster parent and my years as a youth probation officer and sitting on the board of some 20 non-profit societies and committees, and certainly as being director of the youth detention centre, there are those points in everyone that we work with. There are those points in terms of where their passion and their aptitude come together, and it's being able to find it.

[1745]

I remember reading about Paul McCartney saying: "I went all through school and all the music classes, and I never found…. I didn't know I was any good at music." And Richard Branson, telling the same types of stories: "I didn't know I was good at business. I didn't find it in school." There are no school systems in the world that are finding that, but they're all struggling to.

Certainly, in British Columbia we have one of the best education systems in the world. Instead of addressing that bell-shaped curve, we can find ways that we can address and look at the aptitude, to start to look at and what we're able to find within that. I think that that is one of the optimistic approaches that we have as we develop a throne speech that talks about how we might look at that.

Another area that was talked about in the throne speech and that has been referred to is the notion of one project, one process. Certainly, mining has the potential to provide $20 billion or more to our economy if we're able to move it through the environmental standards, move it through the environmental processes. Certainly, the federal process, which does not have any timelines, is always a challenge for the people who invest money in our province.

The Yukon was delegated authority and responsibility for the environmental process, and certainly, if we were to have the same level of delegation, I'm sure we could handle that as well. But our environmental standards are very high and very rigorous. If we want to have clean energy and a clean environment and want to look at solar power and wind power and the development of computers and a new age, then we need mining and the products of mining to be able to ensure that that occurs.

We often forget that just about everything we use we either grow or mine. In order for our society to continue to grow and to progress and for people to have a sense of the joy and happiness that ultimately, I think, we're trying to create the environment for, then we certainly need to have and to work through both mining and forestry.

Probably the three most important decisions each one of us makes in our lives are where we're going to live, what we're going to do and who we're going to live with. It's just about two generations since we've actually had the freedom to start making some of those choices. Prior to that the choices didn't exist because we lived where our parents lived, and we, in many ways, did what our parents did — the millers milled — and we lived with whom our parents suggested we should live with.

Things have changed dramatically with agricultural, industrial and technological advances. Things have really changed. We now have choices, and we can live where we want to live. We can do what we want to do. Part of the new reality, the new focus, is: how do we plan for that? How do we adjust to deal with that? I think that being more creative in the notion of social innovation and how we leverage the opportunities that exist for us socially is an important part of addressing that.

Daniel Bernoulli said that what we objectively get — namely, our wealth — is not the same as what we subjectively experience or the utility of that and that we must measure how much goodness the dollars can provide us. There's always a diminishing utility that comes out of that. We've seen in many bits of research that after we reach about $50,000, there is a declining level of value or happiness that comes with that.

How can we best take care of each other? In these times of great change and budgetary constraint, we need to find ways of addressing our problems as our existing solutions and solutions across society and the world become more and more obsolete.

Harvard psychologist Daniel Gilbert said that our ability to project ourselves forward into time and experience events before they happen enables us to learn from mistakes without making them and to evaluate
[ Page 3063 ]
actions without taking them. He argues that if nature has given us a greater gift than that, he does not know what it is, that our ability to use our minds, unlike any other creature, gives us an opportunity to look at and to understand and to project those.

It's not surprising that in this House we often disagree personally and politically. New research — actually, in research found out through the functional MRIs and telling us and watching blood flows, as we try to confirm what we're saying and what we're believing — is giving us new ways of looking at the assumptions we make about reason.

[1750]

We talk about evidence-based practice and about reason and the 200-year-old beliefs around reason. We have believed that reason is conscious, yet research is telling us now that the cognitive unconscious…. About 98 percent of our thought is not conscious. We believe that reason is universal, yet we're finding that it's not universal, that it's disembodied, that it's not connected to the body.

We're finding that it's very visceral in terms of knowledge, that it's logical. We're finding that our thoughts of logic are not consistent with that. We're finding we believe that it's unemotional — yet it is very much emotional, the research is telling us — that it's value neutral — and it's clearly not, based on the research — that it's interest-based and that it's literal.

All of these assumptions we've had since the Age of Reason are now being thrown at us in ways that are telling us that they're not real. If these assumptions that we've had for so long were true, then politics would be universally rational. If we were made aware of the facts and figures, we should reason to the correct and same conclusions, but we know that in this House and in politics around the world that doesn't happen. We don't reason ourselves to the same types of conclusions.

As many researchers have shown, when data comes in conflict with desire, desire wins, because most thought, or a lot of thought, is reflexive. A lot of the interesting research over the last presidential election…. They would take a Republican and put them into the functional MRI and say to them: "Obama said last week that three and three was six. How do you rate that on a ten-point scale for honesty?" They would put it at a ten. Do you know what? "A week later he said that three and three was four. How do you rate that?"

Of course, all of the Republicans would rate that as a ten in terms of being really bad, and all the Democrats would rate it as two or three, or it's not so bad. The reverse happened, which tells us that even with very simplistic, objective pieces of work we find ways to disagree on them.

I think we have to look at the ways that we create mass, that we create synergy, that we create ways of working together. One of the things we've been able to do in South Surrey and White Rock is create a centre for healthy living, which has engaged the curling club, the hospital foundation, the South Surrey foundation, the city of White Rock, and Rotary clubs.

As a province we have created something called the Healthy Living Alliance and gave $30 million to look at it, because they realized that the demands we have on health care, so many of them are the social determinant of health.

Cancer, diabetes, heart and stroke, B.C. Lung all realized it and came together and said: "The precursors to our diseases are all the same. Instead of competing with each other to try to find cures, why don't we look at how we can reduce the incidence?" They've been working quite effectively to do that and have been recognized in a number of jurisdictions for the work that they've done in that.

We've been able to create a similar facility in White Rock that is going into the ground in about two months where we're going to have space for diabetes, heart and stroke, and B.C. Lung locally so that they'll be able to replicate that. They'll have a space. They spend between $800 and $2,200 a month renting space across our community, but they're not together, and they are run basically by volunteers. They will be able to collectively hire a staff member to answer the phone, to assist them and to work with them in ensuring that they are able to have the synergies necessary.

We know that they will be able to take those messages, those bigger messages in terms of healthy living, and be able to apply them at a local level in a meaningful way.

We know that they are working with chronic diseases. The Fraser Health Authority has now gone into a contract with them to provide work for chronic diseases, particularly for those people who have had heart attacks and who are dealing with the challenges that come with that, with the physical activity that they need to be engaged and to ensure that their world is a little more effective in terms of the things they do.

I think, as we look at things, that it's the theory or the assumption that we address it with. I remember Einstein said that it was nonsense, absolute nonsense, to found a theory on observable facts alone. He said: "In reality, the very opposite is true. It is a theory which decides what we can observe."

I remember him telling a story about Pablo Picasso. He was on a train, and a fellow saw him and thought: "I'm going to go talk to him." So he went up to Picasso and said: "Do you know what? Why don't you paint people the way they really are?" And Picasso said: "Well, I don't understand what you are saying. That doesn't make sense to me."

So this gentleman took out his wallet and showed him a picture of his wife and said: "This is what I mean." Picasso looked at it and said: "Oh, she's rather small and flat, isn't she?" All he saw was the photograph, and he
[ Page 3064 ]
was trying to interpret it that way. He talked about a culture, the Mayan culture, who cannot see people in photographs. They just see the reflection rather than the reality that exists in those.

[1755]

So the theory of how we understand the world is so important in terms of what we can observe. Certainly, the theories that we've presented in terms of the throne speech and the ideas that come through that are, from my perspective….

Those theories and beliefs allow me to see the opportunity laid out in the future through this throne speech and an opportunity for people of this province to be able to realize their futures, to have the opportunities to create the kind of world that they want to create with the kinds of assumptions that they want to make and do make. Because people make assumptions that are different from each other doesn't mean that there has to be a battle or a war of some sort but an agreement and an understanding that there are a whole bunch of ways to be in this world and that they're neither right nor wrong, but different.

As we approach our democratic society and engage in and understand how fortunate we are to have not just the presence of so many different cultures but so many different points of view and opinions, then I think that's what really does make our province and our country unique and special. I think that was really evidenced by the attendance of so many people so joyously engaged in what occurred over the Olympics of the past two weeks.

H. Bains: It is always a pleasure to stand here and speak on behalf of the constituents of Surrey-Newton, who put their faith in me to bring those issues they have in my constituency here to Victoria, hoping that the government will listen and pay attention to those concerns and hoping to have some resolve.

Responding in my seventh, I believe, throne speech since I was first elected in 2005, I must say that I am quite disappointed that despite the fact that many issues are brought here by myself and my colleagues from Surrey and South Fraser, the other NDP MLAs, this government chose to continue to ignore those issues, whether they are to deal with health care delivery, education, crime issues or transportation.

Now we're facing many cuts as a result of this government's misleading the public about the budget numbers before the last election. Now the ordinary people, the families who depend on these services, are suffering as a result of this.

As an opposition MLA, I see every day people coming to my office that are affected by this government's cuts, neglect and lack of respect. It breaks your heart to see people who built this province suffer. Those who continue to work hard to make this province a better place for our children to grow and excel in their fields and to prepare them for the challenges for the new economy are held back due to the continuous downloading, offloading onto their living on a daily basis.

It makes you angry that this government is restricting the ability of our youth to get higher education, post-secondary education, because of the tuition fees that are so exorbitant that many students cannot even dream about going to colleges or universities for a post-secondary education. The post-secondary education tuition fees used to be second-lowest in the country. Today you're looking at either the highest or the second-highest in the country.

On one hand, their cost to get the post-secondary education has gone higher and higher under this government. But on the other hand, this is a government that has refused to raise the minimum wage for them to go and get a job to support themselves when they're going to school, to attend college and university. That minimum wage, I think, makes you actually embarrassed. It embarrasses us as British Columbians that we have the lowest minimum wage in the country now. That just shows how this government's priorities are completely misplaced.

[1800]

They are doing a fine job, on the other hand, also insulating themselves from the responsibility of the decisions that are made by our Crown corporations and the executives there. If they choose to give themselves a 55 percent wage increase, salary increase, that's fine by this government. Then they will throw their hands in the air and say: "Look, we have nothing to do with it. We cannot control them. It's up to them to decide however they want to run those Crown corporations."

They fail to understand that these Crown corporations are set up for the people of this province, and they must be accountable and transparent in doing their business, in reporting their salaries and how they are actually spending the tax dollars.

Madam Speaker, they are also doing a great job of cutting funding for programs that really help ordinary people and families so that they can bring their corporate buddies to the big parties and entertain them in those luxury suites during the last two or three weeks. That just shows how misplaced all of their priorities are, this government's priorities are.

They didn't even learn from their cousins from Ottawa who decided that if they are going to attend any of these events, the minister or the MPs will be paying out of their own pockets to attend. They recognized that people in this country have suffered enough. There is no way that the MP or the MLA or the minister should be putting any further burden on them by using their tax dollars to entertain our friends in those luxury suites.

I think that is a shameful act. They should have learned from it. Obviously, going back the last eight or nine years that I've watched the government here, they
[ Page 3065 ]
will not learn. I think they have become so arrogant that they think this is a sense of entitlement. They will continue to use tax dollars as if it's their own money. That actually makes you angry.

They did a really fine job in misleading the public before the last election, when they said that the budget numbers will be and the maximum deficit will be $495 million — not a penny more. That's what was repeated by the Premier on down, by every minister on the other side. They all sang the same song — $495 million, not a penny more.

At the same time, all of the experts, the economists, some of the people that they appointed on the boards were telling this government that this is not realistic, that the budget deficit would be three or four or maybe five times higher than what they were projecting. But they said: "No, they're all wrong."

Soon the election was over. Guess what. All of their predictions came true, and this government was proven to be telling the people a bunch of information that was totally misleading.

Now, after the election, when the budget was revealed…. If you take away $1.6 billion that they are actually including in the budget calculations, the real deficit would be $3.6 billion — $2.8 billion plus $800 million that they're using out of the $1.6 billion in the first year. So $3.6 billion, and this government was saying it was $495 million and not a penny more.

The second biggest thing that they hid from the people was the HST. They said in writing to the Tourism Ministry, to the restaurant industry, that they will not bring in HST. That was before the election. Soon after the election, what do you hear from the Minister of Finance and the Premier? That the HST is the single best thing they could do and bring in to turn the economy around. If this was the single best thing to turn the economy around….

The economy was suffering six to eight months or a year before the election. Why didn't they talk about the HST at that time — that that was the single best thing that we would be considering to turn the economy around? Why? Because they didn't want to tell the public. They knew that if they told the public the true story that the public would not vote for them. So they misled the public on those two accounts.

[1805]

Now the public is paying for their attempt to hide the information from the public. People all across this province, especially the people in Surrey that I talk to on a regular basis, are fed up with this government's smoke-and-mirror tactics, and they want those services restored.

If you just look at some of the cuts that our community is facing, it makes you wonder: why are they doing this? Why would any minister make these decisions, such as cutting $161 million from the come share program, a program that needed one coordinator, and is mostly done by volunteers?

As those folks who ran this program told us, it cost about 68 cents per senior to run that program, but this government decided to cut that program. Now those seniors who are living alone do not have anyone to phone them, do not have anyone to rely on to go and take them for grocery shopping. And for what? Under the reasoning of economic downturn in the economy and under the reasoning that we need to tighten our belt.

On one hand, that's what's happening. They're hurting our seniors who rely on these programs. On the other hand, they think money comes free and they can spend as they like to entertain their friends in those luxury suites and during the Olympics.

On the other hand, there's a program called Art Inspirations Studio, a facility that helps people with mental health and addiction issues. Funding cut. It will close the studio, and my understanding is that on March 31, 2010, that office, that studio, will be closed. Now there's no help for mental health and addiction folks who wanted to go and turn their lives around and do something really productive in their lives and live a normal life. That's what this government is doing.

The other one, South Fraser Community Services — 30 percent of the funding cut is in the needle exchange program in the clinic. A seven-day operation is now reduced to 5.2 days if you really calculate the numbers that they're doing. This is a program that served 8,800 people per year in Surrey. The clinic for the street-entrenched people will be cut to a half-hour per day. That program itself is serving 3,300 people per year.

These are the programs that cost thousands of dollars, only thousands of dollars, but in the meantime, a million dollars was spent — a million dollars— by the Liberal MLAs and by the ministers to entertain their friends in those luxury suites. That just shows the misplaced priorities by this government completely.

I want to talk about some of the big issues also, big-ticket items that cost quite a bit of money. It takes the desire and will of a government to make sure that those are the services that actually are needed and that those are services that we actually promised to the city of Surrey.

I go back to 2005 when the Minister of Health and the Premier came to Surrey — finally woke up after four years in power. "By the way, we need to expand Surrey Memorial Hospital. Now we are asking the Fraser Health Authority to fast-track that plan and fast-track the construction so that we will have an expanded Surrey Memorial Hospital to meet the needs of an expanding community."

That was then. In 2005 they said that two things would happen. Five months later they came back to Surrey again. I vividly remember the Minister of Health at that time coming to Surrey Memorial Hospital.

[1810]
[ Page 3066 ]

He said that two things would happen. "The ambulatory unit will be built. It will start construction in 2007, and it will be completed in 2009." Now we're sitting in 2010, at the end of February. That building is still in the building stage, and there is no timeline for when it will be completed. You know, you are lucky if this is completed by 2011. So 2009 to 2011 — two years' delay.

This is in a region where people are suffering on a daily basis in the ER department. They're waiting six, seven, eight hours. Many of the people, actually, who come from Surrey, sitting on that side of the House — they must have experienced that personally. I have, and I know many of my friends and relatives have. Many people who have phoned our office — they have. Where people have to wait seven hours in the hallway, because their grandfather is waiting to have a doctor come in and check him out….

Seven hours — and two years' delay. When I asked in the 2007 estimates the minister said: "What is a delay of two months or three months or a few months? You're making a big deal out of this, so to speak." Now we're talking about two years later — not months. Two years.

The other part that I talked about — the minister made the announcement at that time — was that the emergency room will be expanded. "The construction will start 2008. It will be completed 2010" — this year. Since that time, they have come to Surrey and made more announcements. Every time they come to Surrey they make an announcement of the same, but at the same time they slip in that the projects will be delayed further.

Lately, according to the government announcements, the emergency ward will be completed by 2014. The minister, in 2007, in this House told me: "You shouldn't be complaining about a few months' delay." We're talking about years of delay now — four years to expand the Surrey Memorial Hospital's emergency ward.

I challenged that minister at that time to come and sit in that emergency ward for a few hours and see what is going on in that hospital. I challenge the current Minister of Health to come and sit in the emergency ward of Surrey Memorial Hospital and see what is going on in there — how long people have to wait.

My hat goes off to the workers — the doctors, the nurses, the support staff — that actually have to put up with the resources that are so limited, provided by this government to them. They do their utmost best to look after the patients who walk into that emergency ward.

The community, on the other side, have done remarkably well in raising funds, trying to wake up this government. "We're doing our part. You come to the table. We need these services. We need to have this construction fast-tracked so the people can have the services that they deserve and that they need." But this government continues to ignore them. Radio ReD FM and many other organizations have raised millions of dollars for Surrey Memorial Hospital.

So the community are playing their part, but this government is not coming to the table. They continue to ignore their health care needs in Surrey.

We will continue to push, and I know the community is pushing. Hopefully the current minister, who comes from that region, will listen. One day he will wake up and say: "Yes, you know, this region has been neglected by our government. Yes, I need to actually move in and use my influence on the cabinet table and say that we need to bring some money into Surrey and fast-track that construction." I hope that this minister will do that.

That's on the health care issues. Families in my constituency, not only just the hospital side, if you really look at and listen to their stories….

[1815]

A family has a son with autism. The mother applied for the at-home program and was approved. The at-home program provides medical services for the child and respite for his mom. Even though they have been approved for this program, they have been told there's no money for respite for this mother. It's been approved, but there's no money.

Day after day the minister on that side of the House, when we ask these questions, repeats the same…. As if, you know, they rewind the same tape recording and stand up in here: "We put more money in health care than ever before. We put more money in education than ever before." People in the regions out there, people who are actually busy trying to manage their lives, are fed up. They're fed up, and they're hoping that one day this government will listen to their issues and pay attention to this.

Families are waiting longer now — longer procedures such as MRIs, joint replacements and those kinds of surgeries — and now they will actually be waiting even more so because of the cuts to the operating rooms in Surrey Memorial Hospital.

There's a 72-year-old runner who has torn ligaments. By the time that person receives the initial consultation with a specialist and waits again for surgery, it could be three years or more. At that time this person is 75 years old. That is not to mention the pain and immobility this person has gone through for the past three years.

These are real people. These are not numbers, and this government has failed to recognize that.

We have a fellow who wrote to us. He's off work because of an injured leg. He got hurt in December 2009 and saw his doctor right away. He's on weekly indemnity. His doctor called him and said an MRI appointment was for September 2010, almost a year later. And this government will continue to play from their message box and try to say how much money they are spending. They are spending money, but on the wrong priorities, not on the priorities that are actually to deal with public and people's issues.

On one hand, they complain that we don't have doctors and nurses. We have a neurologist who came to my
[ Page 3067 ]
office the other day — educated in the United States. He's practising in Manitoba. He's licensed to practice in Alberta, Ontario. He's actually got a job offer letter from the Mayo Clinic in the United States, but he cannot practise here, in Surrey or in the Lower Mainland, because the system is so flawed and outdated. This government failed to deal with it. Despite the request and demand from many of those foreign-trained professionals that they need to look at this issue, this government continues to ignore that.

I want to talk about what we talked about earlier today — the other major issue that our children and their parents are facing in Surrey right now. It's about the education of our children. Since 2005 and 2006 the Surrey district has seen 2,700 new students. This year alone 1,100 students are entering the Surrey school board. Since 2005 not a single dollar has been given by this government in capital funding to increase the classroom capacity — not a single dollar.

So what is happening? They are ending up buying more portables, portables that we got rid of in the 1990s. In the 1990s, when this government took power, you could hardly see any portables. Every 19 days a school was built in this province. Come around and take a look in Surrey. Come around and take a look. There wasn't any portable in Surrey. Today, eight years later, we have 215 portables right now sitting in Surrey schools, and they're adding another 20. Another 20.

[1820]

That's just the one side of it. Now, the operating money — $19 million they are facing as a deficit this year. That's 1,100 new students and a $19 million deficit. This is a school district that has already seen a $9 million deficit last year.

Somebody explain it to me from their side: how do you cut $19 million with 1,100 new students? They keep on repeating the same…. "Well, we are spending more money than ever." Well, that is no comfort to those parents who will see their children going to schools this year, but there's no classroom. The services will be cut, so they will be ending up in the portables.

Now, next year they will have all-day kindergarten coming in. I actually applaud the minister and this government for bringing that program in, but I hope that they'll fund that program so that the school districts don't have to add more portables to accommodate our all-day kindergarten program.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Mr. Speaker, I'm going to read you a letter that was sent to me from this very concerned parent in Surrey, who said:

"Mr. Bains, I am writing as a mother of a child in grade 4 in Surrey. I have been informed of the upcoming funding cuts to Surrey schools. I cannot imagine sending my child to a class that is bigger than it already is.

"As it is, in my child's short time in the education system she has been stabbed by a pen, a wound that required medical attention. The teacher was too busy to notice or to take the complaint seriously. She has been repeatedly spat in the face by a special needs student in the class, his SEA obviously overwhelmed with dealing with several students in that class.

"The resources are such that she cannot write in her notebooks but has to copy the questions and answers, which means that homework sometimes takes two hours plus. To this day she has not had the opportunity to look into a school microscope. There are too few in the school. There are not enough computers in the school, and so she has not had the opportunity to learn to type.

"The washrooms are so dirty that she refuses to use them or to even touch the sink to wash her hands. The school cannot afford janitorial staff during the day. On more than one occasion she and her friends have found condoms and needles on the school ground. The PAC had to fundraise for the playground.

"The teacher is so busy with needy students that the average child doing well and not being disruptive gets lost and unchallenged. My concerns are not only for my child, whom I feel is not even getting an average education, but also for the fact that this generation of children will one day be our workforce and our leaders. If we cannot educate them properly, we are doomed."

The end of the letter goes on to identify some of the problems in the school system because of the lack of resources given by this government to the Surrey school district.

The Surrey school district is in dire need of resources. The board of trustees has written to the minister — the minister has that letter — and they have identified all those issues.

Then we have…. I raised this issue before, and the school board also has raised the issue with the minister and the previous minister. It's about the CommunityLINK program. Surrey gets one of the lowest per-student…. Right now, because of the increase in the last few years, it's $58 per student, whereas some of the other districts are getting to the tune of $200 per student.

The current Minister of Transportation, when I spoke to her when she was in that capacity, recognized that there was a problem, and she actually agreed with me that we need to find solutions during the estimates. She recognized that we needed to deal with it prior to the last budget that was brought in. She's not there heading that ministry right now, but certainly the other minister knows. She's sitting right next to the previous minister and can talk to that minister and agree that the needs of the Surrey school children have not been met when it comes to the CommunityLINK program.

[1825]

I want to talk about the crime issue as well. Statistics Canada actually came up with these numbers. Surrey, actually, per 100,000 residents, is at 140 police officers, and the national average is 199. In Vancouver they have 211 officers on a per-capita basis. But the workload as a result of that for Surrey officers is almost double that of Vancouver — double. So when people are complaining in Surrey that they're not being an-
[ Page 3068 ]
swered to when they need police services, those are the reasons. Resources haven't been given.

We talked about it in this House before, and the previous Attorney General agreed and promised that there will be a community court in Surrey after Vancouver. That has, it looks like, since been forgotten by this government. In Vancouver I understand it is working well. I understand many other jurisdictions have these community courts working well to deal with people with addictions so that they can have the treatment that they need, so they don't have to go through the same revolving door time and time again. There will be some help available to them.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you, Member, and noting the hour.

H. Bains: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It was a pleasure. Thank you so much.

H. Bains moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. G. Abbott moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

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

The House adjourned at 6:27 p.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

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

TV channel guide • Broadcast schedule

Copyright © 2010: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada

ISSN 1499-2175