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 29, 2010

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 12, Number 7

[ Page 3785 ]

MONDAY, MARCH 29, 2010

The House met at 1:34 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

L. Popham: I have the pleasure of introducing eight very special guests today. The Girl Guides are visiting us.

We have Joanne Stregger, deputy provincial commissioner for the B.C. Girl Guides for her fifth year; Marsha Richie, the area co-commissioner for southern Vancouver Island area Girl Guides; Wendy Smylitopoulos, the area co-commissioner for southern Vancouver Island Girl Guides; Lynda Ireland, the public relations adviser for southern Vancouver Island area Girl Guides.

Tanya Wyllie is a young adult member, brave and district guider, a member of 2010 events committee and PR committee, and she has been a guiding member since she was five; Danita Duguay, a youth member with Trex and Rangers, a junior leader with Guides and a guiding member since she was five; Chloe Faught, a youth adult member. She is a Pathfinder and Trex leader, newly appointed caretaker of Kingswood campsite, and she has been a guiding member since five.

We also have Holly Reist, a youth member with Portage Inlet Pathfinders, an active Girl Guide since five, and she has been awarded the Lady Baden-Powell Award. I'd like you to make them welcome in the House.

[1335]

Hon. B. Bennett: It's my pleasure to introduce to the House today my constituency assistant, Jennifer Osmar. She's up there somewhere in the balcony. Could you please help me make Jennifer welcome here today.

Statements

CRANBROOK AND
HOCKEYVILLE COMPETITION

Hon. B. Bennett: The city of Cranbrook just made the final five in the Kraft Hockeyville contest here in this great country. We are the only community west of Ontario to still be in the competition, and we would definitely like to follow in the footsteps of that other great B.C. community that won last year — great city of Terrace. It's a high standard. Maybe the powers that be will think that it ought to go to the east, but we think it should stay in the west, where it belongs.

Cranbrook, of course, is the hometown of Scott Niedermayer, the captain of the gold medal–winning Olympic men's hockey team. There's actually way too much to say here, but Steve Yzerman was born in Cranbrook. The Murdoch brothers. Donny Murdoch scored five goals in his first rookie game playing for the New York Rangers. He sells cars in Cranbrook today. There's the Dupont family. There are the Murdochs. There's Jon Klemm.

There was a point just a couple of years ago where there were seven players in the NHL who hailed from Cranbrook. I mean, Don Cherry himself said that if you didn't have a player from Cranbrook on your NHL team, the chances of you winning the Stanley Cup were greatly diminished. It truly is Hockeyville.

Please vote. Go to the website for Kraft Hockeyville before midnight Wednesday, and make sure that B.C. wins this again.

Introductions by Members

M. Mungall: It is my great pleasure today to introduce nine fine people from the Cariboo-Chilcotin who have made a long trek here to have their voices heard on the HST. We have Charlie Wyse, Eric Freeston, Jackie Turner, Gerd Braune, Connie Braune, Larry Day, Bob McNair, Stacey Comeau and Rick Gulbransen. Will the House please make them very welcome.

Hon. J. Yap: We have two visitors from Richmond who join us today. I met them for lunch at the dining room with my colleague the member for Richmond Centre: Aileen Cormack and Alison Cormack, a dynamic mother-daughter team, both active in the Richmond community. Aileen is a longstanding member of the Richmond Seniors Advisory Council and a longtime proponent of seniors issues in our community. They're here to take in the Legislature and question period, and I ask all members of the House to give them a warm welcome.

Tributes

POWELL RIVER KINGS

N. Simons: I rise today to draw attention to the victory of the Powell River Kings over the mighty Alberni Bulldogs over this weekend to win the coastal conference. I'd like to just congratulate Kent Lewis and his excellent team on their come-from-behind. They were down 3-1 in the series, and they persevered in enemy territory in game 7. Congratulations, and keep going, Powell River Kings.

Introductions by Members

M. Elmore: It's my pleasure to introduce and welcome a constituent from Vancouver-Kensington. Edward
[ Page 3786 ]
Almoite is here. He's a recent graduate from the UBC teaching program. He's very active in the community. He's a leader with the youth, and I'm very fortunate to work with him in my office. He's one of the coordinators with the Youth in Action group. I ask you to please make him very welcome.

Tributes

GEORGE HAWKSWORTH

V. Huntington: The people of Delta, both north and south, were shocked last week to learn of the sudden and so very sad death of Coun. George Hawksworth. George served on Delta council for close to 20 years, earning the respect and fondness of everyone who crossed his path. Councillor Hawksworth was first and foremost an educator who could be relied upon to demystify the complexities of a discussion or a budget or a report. His great skill at finding compromise saved the day and the debate many a time.

The loss of this gentle and principled man will be felt throughout Delta for a very long time, and I ask members to join me in extending the condolences of this House to his wife and family.

[1340]

Introductions by Members

M. Sather: I would also like to introduce my good friend Charlie Wyse, who is a former member of this House and is here with us today with a group of citizens from his community that came here to talk to the government and all concerned about their concerns with the HST.

Tributes

GEORGE HAWKSWORTH

G. Gentner: I'd like to concur and share the grieving that the member for Delta South has expressed here today. I knew George Hawksworth when I sat on council for many years in Delta. He was a New Democrat, and he was a consensus builder. He was referred to in Delta as the Teddy Bear. He was the most lovable politician you'd ever want to meet, and he certainly was a man who would do everything he could to bring us together.

Our hearts go to his wife, Noreen, and of course his children. I believe his funeral is this Thursday.

Introductions by Members

B. Routley: I have with me today four guests that came for lunch. Helen Nation and her husband, Bob, are here. Helen is having a birthday and chose this place to come and visit. I'm not quite sure why, but good for her.

Helen and Bob Nation are two amazing constituents in the Cowichan Valley who not only interface with Cowichan Tribes and participate in things like their spirit drummers and work with Cowichan First Nations on salmon enhancement in the Cowichan River…. When they're not doing that, they're preparing to go to Tanzania to help the folks there in a community with good, clean drinking water.

I'm delighted to have them as guests today, along with Doug Morgan and Debra Toporowski, who are both constituency assistants in my office. I'm very thankful for the work they do. Would the House please join me in welcoming these fine guests.

S. Herbert: I'd like to take this opportunity to thank and acknowledge my partner, Romi Chandra Herbert, my new husband, after ten years of being together. I'd like to assure the House that this is not our honeymoon. That will come soon enough.

Introduction and
First Reading of Bills

Bill 7 — FORESTS AND RANGE STATUtES
AMENDMENT ACT, 2010

Hon. M. de Jong presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Forests and Range Statutes Amendment Act, 2010.

Hon. M. de Jong: I move that Bill 7 be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. M. de Jong: Bill 7 proposes various amendments to the Forest Act, the Wildfire Act and consequential amendments to other legislation. Amendments to the Forest Act encourage utilization of low-quality timber for bioenergy purposes, providing flexibility and scaling requirements — which is also part of this bill — and allows harvested fibre to travel more directly from the harvest site to places in the marketplace.

Other amendments to the Forest Act include extending the timelines for innovative forest practices agreements, allowing government and licensees to further explore these agreements' potential for increasing the timber supply; clarifying rules for redetermining stumpage rates, ensuring that those rules operate as intended; and clarifying the mechanism to be used for partitioning allowable annual cuts.

Today's bill also amends the Wildfire Act to improve fire protection by extending the timeline for fire investigations and improving provisions against those who may cause fires.
[ Page 3787 ]

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

Bill 7, Forests and Range Statutes Amendment Act, 2010, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 8 — ENERGY, MINES AND
PETROLEUM RESOURCES STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT, 2010

Hon. B. Lekstrom presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources Statutes Amendment Act, 2010.

Hon. B. Lekstrom: I move that Bill 8, Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources Statutes Amendment Act, be introduced and read time a first time now.

[1345]

Motion approved.

Hon. B. Lekstrom: Hon. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce into the House today amendments to two acts of the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources — the Oil and Gas Activities Act and Petroleum and Natural Gas Act.

The Oil and Gas Activities Act received royal assent in the spring of 2008. Through this act, significant enhancements were made to the regulation of the oil and gas sector by creating new compliance and enforcement tools for the regulator, the Oil and Gas Commission, and new authorities in government to manage and protect the environment from impacts of oil and gas development.

The changes proposed in this bill reflect a considerable amount of dialogue with local stakeholders, and this is a positive step forward toward a more balanced approach between industry and the affected landowners in the region.

Through this work, some gaps in the regulatory powers and areas in which the regulatory language could be improved were identified. The amendments being introduced to the act will ensure that there is a robust and comprehensive regulatory structure applicable to the oil and gas sector when the Oil and Gas Activities Act is brought into force this year.

The second act being amended under this bill is the Petroleum and Natural Gas Act. The Mediation and Arbitration Board is an administrative tribunal created under the act to assist industry and landowners in resolving access to private land. Under this bill, the mandate and authorities of that board are expanded to improve access to the board processes for landowners.

The board is also being renamed to become the surface rights board. The proposed amendments to the Petroleum and Natural Gas Act were developed following consultations with the Northeast Energy and Mines Advisory Committee, an advisory committee of landowners, industry and other stakeholder groups which looks at the impacts of subsurface development on landowners, other interest groups and communities in northeast B.C.

The improvements to the mandate and authorities of the board under this bill include giving landowners the right to request mediation for surface access, giving the board the authority to deal with issues related to compliance by either party with obligations under a surface lease, extending the board's authority over compensation claims for damage arising from an oil and gas activity to include claims made by a neighbour and tenants, and empowering the board to include the time and real costs incurred by the landowner in award of costs at the end of the process.

With these amendments, the dispute resolution process before the board will be balanced and more effective for both landowners and industry.

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

Bill 8, Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources Statutes Amendment Act, 2010, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Statements
(Standing Order 25B)

EARTH HOUR AND ENVIRONMENTAL
INITIATIVES IN SURREY

S. Cadieux: This past Saturday evening at 8:30 you may have noticed the lights in your city went out. It wasn't a massive power failure, but it was a very powerful statement. It was Earth Hour, and all across the globe over a billion people from more than 100 countries participated in this initiative to increase awareness on environmental issues and the growing need for sustainability.

Starting as a small grassroots movement in Sydney, Australia, in 2007, Earth Hour quickly spread to become the largest environmental action in human history. In the city of Surrey, we demonstrated our commitment and participation — both individuals and large companies — by reducing our electricity consumption by 2 percent.

One Surrey temple led by example. The Guru Nanak Sikh gurdwara not only participated by shutting off its lights and praying for guidance from the Guru to help preserve the environment, but they also declared
[ Page 3788 ]
the month of April Environment Month. During this month, the temple will highlight ways individuals in the community can help reduce their environmental impact. This is just one of the many ways this forward-thinking organization continues to improve the well-being of our community.

Environmental awareness is nothing new to my riding of Surrey-Panorama. Jeff Vaughan is an exceptional teacher from Sullivan Heights Secondary School, who was this year one of the recipients of the B.C. Community Achievement Awards. He was recognized for inspiring students, his fellow teachers and the community of Sullivan Heights to live healthy lives and be responsible stewards of the environment.

It's the initiative of individuals like Jeff and organizations like the Guru Nanak Sikh gurdwara that show us the way to a healthier, greener way of life.

[1350]

GIRL GUIDES OF CANADA

L. Popham: I rise today to pay tribute to one of the most recognizable and, I dare say, most beloved organization in our country, and it's not just for the cookies. But you should still know that this group sells 9.006 million cookies in B.C. per year, and it's the tenth-best-selling cookie in Canada.

So 2010 marks the 100-year anniversary of the Girl Guides of Canada. Since 1910 the Girl Guides of Canada have been among the best of community organizations. From coast to coast, generation after generation, thousands of young girls have entered Girl Guides, only to leave years later as strong young women. Through a diverse range of activities, Girl Guides provides a caring, inclusive environment for young women with a host of different interests.

Beyond the three C's — crafts, camping and cookies — Girl Guides are a proving ground for future community leaders, who over time earn badges for a wide range of skills. Examples of these milestone badges are environmental stewardship; career awareness; streetwise; saving water; fashion; cultural awareness; inventing; money talk; business communications; and my personal favourite, which I'm hoping they'll give me an opportunity to earn, a badge in eating locally.

The Girl Guides are so much more than cookies. For a century they have been a bastion of good community values and stewards of young women, engaged citizens and future leaders.

KWIKWETLEM FIRST NATION
CANOE PROJECT

D. Horne: In 2008 the Kwikwetlem First Nation, in partnership with the city of Coquitlam and the government of Canada, set out to build a dugout 60-foot cedar war canoe and teach the skills of canoe-building. The giant cedar logs for the canoe were found near Coquitlam Lake, located in my riding. After considerable effort, the suitable fallen logs were chosen, transported and set up next to the Coquitlam administration office, and the work began.

The canoe builders, Mark Point and his son Keith Point of the Skowkale First Nation near Chilliwack, worked on the canoe and taught the members the theory and art of canoe-building. The work was a truly impressive feat, and a video of the entire process was produced. This video was also highlighted at the Four Host First Nations pavilion for the Olympics held recently.

Finally, on Friday, March 19, Chief Ron Giesbrecht, Couns. Fred Hulbert and Ed Hall and many others of the Kwikwetlem First Nation — the local officials — held a ceremony for the canoe. This was truly a special occasion, and I am sad that I was unable to attend, as it marked the first time in a hundred years that a dugout 60-foot war canoe was completed by the nation. I look forward to the opportunity to see it next week.

ANGEL MAGNUSSEN AND
COOKBOOK FOR CHILDREN'S CHARITIES

S. Fraser: Angel Magnussen is a constituent of mine. She and her family live in Port Alberni, and I would like to recognize this 14-year-old as a hero in the true sense of the word. There are few of us who have had to overcome the challenges the likes of which Angel faces every day.

Angel has numerous problems, including Down syndrome, thyroid disorder, autism, sleep apnea, gastroesophageal reflux, back problems and more. She needs one-on-one supervision and assistance for the basics of daily life and in case of medical emergency, as Angel is prone to life-threatening choking episodes.

Despite these significant problems, she is working to make life better for other children. In the last four years she has raised over $65,000. If that were not enough, available just this year and hot off the press is Angel's Celebrity Charity Cookbook. This is to raise money benefiting Variety, the children's charity, and pediatric care at West Coast General, Nanaimo Regional General and Victoria General hospitals.

The book is a who's who of celebrity recipes. People like Olympic wrestler Travis Cross, Man in Motion Rick Hansen, acclaimed family entertainer Fred Penner, famous wildlife artist Robert Bateman, columnist and national TV host Catherine Clark, and news anchors Steve Darling and Anne Drewa are but a few of the many supporters of Angel, providing their personal recipes in her cookbook.

Even the Premier is represented. Page 116 and page 117 have his contributions for his favourite peanut butter cookie recipe.
[ Page 3789 ]

The books are available at various locations, including Pharmasave outlets provincewide. I ask everyone who can afford $35 to grab one. It's for the kids.

I think Fred Penner put it best in Angel's cookbook. He said: "Never underestimate your ability to make a difference in the life of a child."

[1355]

B.C. COMMUNITY ACHIEVEMENT AWARD
RECIPIENTS IN CARIBOO-CHILCOTIN

D. Barnett: On March 16 the seventh annual B.C. Community Achievement Awards were announced by our Premier. Of the 45 remarkable recipients of these awards, two of them hail from the Cariboo-Chilcotin. Alan Boyd and Audrey MacLise are prominent and involved members of their communities. I am proud of their impressive accomplishments and unwavering commitment to the causes in which they believe.

Alan Boyd of Lone Butte has a long career of making the world around him a better place. He received his award dedicated to health care. He served on the 100 Mile District Hospital Society and the South Cariboo Health Council. As chair of Cariboo health, he was instrumental in the construction of the South Cariboo health centre.

Alan also has been a champion of volunteer firefighters in the region. His work is seen in the Lone Butte, Watch Lake and north Green Lake fire halls. His love for heritage led him to become part of the Lone Butte historical society, and he was a leader in refurbishing the local water tower.

Audrey MacLise was acknowledged for her commitment to the elderly in and around Williams Lake. She has championed the cause of making Williams Lake more accessible for those who need walkers and wheelchairs to get around. She is the chair of the seniors advisory council for the Cariboo-Chilcotin. In 1990 Audrey also pioneered the region's first Alzheimer's support and resource centre.

These fine individuals and their co-recipients were selected by this year's independent advisory council for B.C. Achievement Foundation. Awards will be formally presented to the winners at Government House on April 28.

Congratulations to Audrey, Alan and all of the 2010 British Columbia Community Achievement Award recipients.

THEATRE COMMUNITY IN B.C.

S. Herbert:

Empty spaces. What are we living for?

Abandoned places. I guess we know the score.

On and on.

Does anybody know what we are looking for?

Another hero, another mindless crime

Behind the curtain, in the pantomime.

Hold the line.

Does anybody want to take it anymore?

The show must go on.

As Freddie Mercury so memorably sang, so it goes. And on it went this Saturday with World Theatre Day, a celebration of theatre in all its many forms. B.C.'s theatre scene is vital, creative and provides answers for so many of the difficult issues we face in our province today.

But there has been a rumble in B.C.'s theatre community lately. There is the challenge of a recession, reduced donations, large budget cuts to gaming funds in the Arts Council, amongst other challenges, all making it more difficult for that show to go on.

Few have argued it's a tempest in a teacup. Most wonder if what's going on is a theatre scam dreamed up far off-Broadway, worried the hive of activity we've seen with the Cultural Olympiad will be hit down with an anti-arts club. It has been a bumpy carousel ride for many, but the theatre community isn't playing house. The show will go on.

From those in the community theatre worlds to Shameless Hussies to Screaming Weenies to theatres like Green Thumb, supporting artistic growth with our youth, every one of them give their pound of flesh, making headlines and bringing our communities together. Whether it's in an old fire hall, a caravan, in the community hall or even further out on the fringe, theatre lives in our community, and our lives are better for it.

However, many companies are struggling, as a recent survey by the Vancouver Foundation has shown. But as the saying goes, the show isn't over until the fat lady sings. As the Minister of Culture has decided to call me Little Guy, I guess he knows it won't be me singing that song to end the show in our theatres. And I hope he won't be singing either, because although this House has its share of bad actors, drama, farce and whodunits, I'd say that it would be a very poor theatre replacement.

The theatre community will continue to say that the show must go on, and they hope this House will do so as well.

Oral Questions

VANCOUVER SCHOOL DISTRICT
COSTS AND FUNDING

C. James: While the B.C. Liberal government continues to ignore the crisis in our education system, school boards are forced to make cuts that will have a direct impact on children and classrooms. Just this week the Vancouver school board announced it's looking at shutting schools for ten days a year. That's just to find a million dollars of their $18 million deficit.

[1400]

My question is to the Minister of Education. How can she possibly claim to support education in this province when she's forcing school districts to make these cuts?
[ Page 3790 ]

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: It's springtime in Victoria, and as usual, we have beautiful blossoms on trees, azaleas bursting into bloom. We have a budget with record increases in education funding, and we have the members opposite saying that we're reducing spending. This year we will be increasing spending to a record level. We have 112 million new dollars for programs. In particular, we have $58 million for full-day kindergarten, which is coming to school districts next fall.

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

C. James: The minister can play all the numbers games she wants, but the reality is this government is downloading costs onto school boards, and children will be paying the price of this government's neglect of education.

The chair of the Vancouver school board has been clear. This ten-day closure isn't being looked at because it's good for education. It's being looked at simply as a cost-saving measure. This is about cutting costs.

Again, my question is to the minister. When will she admit that her government's chronic underfunding of education is leading to cuts to the classroom?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: The Leader of the Opposition is incorrect. We have record funding for education in this province. The Vancouver school board faces what many of the school districts face. Fifty-two of our 60 school districts will have declining enrolment coming into their schools this fall. If it were not for full-day kindergarten, the majority of school districts have declining enrolment.

We've increased funding. In fact, the per-pupil funding in Vancouver is up 33 percent coming this fall. The funding that we're including this year for schools across this province includes $110 million for annual facilities grants, $54 million for teachers' raises and $58 million for full-day kindergarten.

We've heard what school districts have to say, and they will not be incurring any additional costs from the HST. We've listened to what they've had to say, and they are receiving additional funding this year.

Education is a priority for us. It remains a priority for us, and it's very clear from our ongoing investments in education.

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

C. James: This school district is looking at shutting schools for ten days — ten days — and this minister says that everything's fine in education? This government is ignoring the crisis in education. Our students deserve better than they're getting from this government.

This government has constantly downloaded costs onto school boards. MSP premiums, carbon offsets, pension issues — those are costs the boards are expected to pick up because this government has pushed the costs onto them.

So my question is again to the minister. When will she drop the numbers game and acknowledge that her government has downloaded costs, which means cuts to the classrooms for kids?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: The Vancouver school board, we heard two years ago from their former chair, has about 10,000 empty spaces in classrooms around that school board. We've heard from the Vancouver school board year after year that they are going to have massive deficits. Last year was no different. They predicted an $8 million to $12 million deficit, but this school board finished with a $16.7 million surplus.

In Vancouver we're investing in new schools, in seismic upgrading, in StrongStart B.C. centres. We're committed to working with this district and with all the districts as we continue to invest in education for the students who are the future of our province.

[1405]

R. Austin: The options facing school boards across B.C. are clear. They can close schools, lay off staff, cut classroom supports for students. Those are the options. Perhaps the Minister of Education can help the Vancouver school board. Tell them which cuts they should make in order to cover their $18 million deficit this year.

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: In our current system school boards have a tremendous amount of autonomy and decision-making ability. The Vancouver school board is able to make decisions, and I expect them to make decisions, as all the school boards will, which are in the best interests of the students in their district.

Across the province school boards have made such decisions. They have reconfigured schools, they've changed their school calendar, and they've done these kinds of things looking always at what is in the best interests of the students in that district. But the facts remain. This is a school district that will be receiving 33 percent more per student this year than they did ten years ago.

Mr. Speaker: Member has a supplemental.

R. Austin: It's true that the school districts do have enough autonomy. They don't have enough funding, though, to fulfil their mandate. That's the problem, and it's this government that created this funding crisis.

They clawed back funding, downloaded costs and announced new programs without fully funding them. But then when deficits arise, the minister won't lift a finger
[ Page 3791 ]
to help school boards. Again to the minister: what cuts should the Vancouver school board make?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: I really must challenge the member opposite. We have provided substantial increased funding and in particular, this year, for full-day kindergarten. School districts around the province are receiving an additional $58 million. Over the next three years we have identified $250 million for this important program.

I'll tell you what we're not going to do. We're not going to continue with the status quo in this province. The reality is that by this fall we'll have 60,000 fewer students in classrooms around this province than we did ten years ago, and we need to do things differently.

We've said to school districts that we must find administrative savings, and we must reinvest them in the classroom. But we are bound that we will invest in full-day kindergarten. Beginning this fall, half the students in this province will be attending this funded program around the province.

S. Simpson: The rhetoric in the minister's message box is doing nothing to help address these critical issues in Vancouver schools and elsewhere. Will the minister step out of the message box long enough to deal with these questions?

The board chair in Vancouver has been very clear. The scheduling changes that are being made are not about improving the educational experience and opportunity for our children. They are about Vancouver surviving Liberal underfunding.

So what is the minister prepared to do to support our children by helping boards like Vancouver to deal with these provincially driven cost pressures?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: What we are doing this year is providing a record level of funding in British Columbia schools. As we committed to do, we've provided $54 million in this budget for the teachers' salary increase, $58 million for full-day kindergarten and an additional $110 million for annual facilities grants.

We are investing, this year, $43 million in StrongStart B.C. centres around this province. Our investments in early education in particular are going to make a difference for the children in this province, and we'll continue to make those investments.

Mr. Speaker: Member has a supplemental.

S. Simpson: The Vancouver board and the Vancouver board chair have told us that they are facing over $18 million in shortfalls. This isn't going to be dealt with by tweaking the school day.

Either the minister doesn't believe those numbers…. Let her stand up and say that, or let her accept the fact that that $18 million means real cuts to programs for children, fewer teachers, fewer staff, less opportunity for our children, and it will mean that our inner-city schools will have less capacity to support the challenges of our most vulnerable kids.

[1410]

The minister has an obligation to get out of the message box and help these districts like Vancouver to find solutions that work for kids. Will she stand up for education and start doing that today?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: I think that our government's record is very clear. We are committed….

Interjections.

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: I do appreciate the acknowledgment….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Just take your seat, Minister.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: I do appreciate the acknowledgment of our investment in education — $1.3 billion in the system. There is a challenge that faces Vancouver, that faces many of the school districts, which is a significant decline in enrolment. In Vancouver this year they'll have approximately 10 percent fewer students than they did ten years ago, and this does pose a challenge.

Declining enrolment is difficult. It's difficult in all of the 52 jurisdictions of the school districts around the province where that is happening, but we have continued to increase funding. This is about the pupils who are in our system today and their needs — the students that remain. The per-pupil funding is up this year 33 percent from the previous year.

CHILD CARE SPACES IN
MAPLE RIDGE SCHOOLS

M. Sather: Four day cares in schools in Maple Ridge are closing. A hundred kids and their parents are going to be left without day care. Two of those schools are closing. The other two are kicking the day cares out to make room for all-day kindergarten. Can the minister responsible for child care explain to this House why her government is forcing families to lose their day care?

Hon. M. Polak: The member has answered part of the question. We have school buildings that are closing, and therefore, the day cares will not be there. We continue to
[ Page 3792 ]
invest in child care in record amounts. We are investing this year. We have now more licensed spaces than we have ever had in this province — 90,000.

We are spending this year upwards of $300 million to support child care in British Columbia. I'm not going to make any apologies for the fact that, with an investment of $35 million, we've increased the number of spaces by 6,500 since 2001.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

M. Sather: I'm glad the minister acknowledged the problem. Schools are closing.

Paul Marsden's three-year-old daughter goes to day care at Riverside Elementary. That school is closing. She's losing her day care. The day care provider says: "The future is bleak."

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

M. Sather: "We may not have a business. There's no place for these kids to go to."

I want to know what the minister is going to do to assist Paul and the other parents who are losing their day care under the watch of this government.

Hon. M. Polak: Unlike the member opposite, we choose to invest in children, not in empty classrooms. With an investment of $35 million….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Minister, just take your seat for a second.

Continue, Minister.

[1415]

Hon. M. Polak: With an investment of $35 million, we have increased the number of child care spaces in British Columbia by 6,500 since 2001, and 500 of those were created in the 2008-2009 year alone.

Now we're expanding to have StrongStart centres in 300 different schools across the province. StrongStart centres didn't even exist when that government was in power, but we've brought them in to invest in children, and $58 million in full-day kindergarten.

Across government we're going to spend a billion dollars this year on early childhood development, child care and services for children and youth with special needs, an investment that is unprecedented in the history of the province.

M. Elmore: The story here is that 100 spaces are being lost in Maple Ridge. That's the story and the record of this government in day care.

Two of the affected day cares are being evicted because of this government's mismanagement of the expansion to all-day kindergarten. School districts have been left wondering for too long and are having to make decisions too late in the game. If the day cares are even able to find a new space to operate, these evictions will put a great deal of stress on the care providers and certainly on the children and their parents.

Again to the minister: what is she doing to make sure these centres don't have to shut their doors on parents?

Hon. M. Polak: We continue to expand our investment in child care. This budget year our budget has announced another $26 million to expand the amount in our budget for child care subsidies across this province to help low- and middle-income families be able to afford child care.

In addition to that, over the years we've also increased the amount of funding we provide to support special needs children in child care. Our supported child development funding has gone up from $37 million in '04-05 to $58 million this year.

We are investing record amounts in the support of early childhood development and child care, and the fact of the matter is that that side votes against every initiative that we've got underway.

TAXPAYER COSTS FOR SALE OF HOMES
NEAR TSAWWASSEN POWER LINE

V. Huntington: I know the Minister of Energy and Mines must have anticipated this question today, so I know he'll have the answers right at his fingertips.

The good people of Tsawwassen woke up to two jarring news items yesterday. Their community is now labelled a ghost town, and the minister is "quite happy with the results so far." The Vancouver Island transmission line is a hideous scar through Delta South. Now the 104 houses that B.C. Hydro purchased under the power lines have cost an additional $23 million to carry, upgrade and resell, over and above the purchase price.

Can the minister defend his proclaimed happiness about this government's catastrophic mishandling of the entire power line issue, and in particular, can he provide us with the total anticipated carrying costs by the time all 104 homes are sold?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: Certainly, I enjoy the opportunity to address this issue, and no less, I thought you may raise it. We should actually put into context what I was happy about — the 28 homes that had already been sold. In no way, Member — and I know that you would accept this, unlike the opposition — was I referring that I would be happy about any town experiencing difficulty.

We have 28 homes that have been sold. We have another two that have been sold as well, which are closing, I believe, this week. There are four with conditions set
[ Page 3793 ]
on them. So what I said I was happy about is that yes, it's progressing, and it's moving forward.

These challenges that many would have you believe…. Am I happy? I'm actually satisfied with the progress that's been made. I'm happy for the individuals that have purchased these homes and have decided to call this their home. The real estate market — in the spring, hopefully — will pick up again, and more of these homes will move. But a decision was made to follow through with this process. I'm quite happy with the point we're at in the selling of these homes, in the movement of them, and I look forward to the future, where more homes will sell.

Mr. Speaker: Member has a supplemental.

[1420]

V. Huntington: I'd remind the minister that only four homes have sold since December, so it was a grand gold rush before December, but things have slowed down since. Here's the math. B.C. Hydro — in other words, the taxpayers in every member's riding — has already paid almost $23 million in carrying cost on the homes, on top of the $58 million purchase price, a total of $81 million so far.

This whole debacle is appalling. Just think. If the government had buried the lines and left the people in their homes, it would have cost a total of $24 million and would even have prevented the loss of a safe government seat.

Could the minister tell us when he expects Hydro to recoup that loss from the ratepayers, as they're authorized to do? Will that rate increase be over and above the one already about to hit the taxpayers?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: Carrying on with a very similar question, certainly I can't speak to which street and how many houses on each street. I can speak to the global situation, where 28 homes have been sold to date. As I said, we have two others with pending sales this week, four others with conditions on them.

We expect to recoup that as quickly as we can. We would like to think that we could do it over about a two-year period from start to finish. There's no guarantee in that, but we're optimistic. We made a commitment that we would take these homes and that we would put them back onto the market in numbers that would not flood the market and jeopardize the housing situation.

I do want to talk briefly about the underground lines that the member refers to. That issue was put before the B.C. Utilities Commission. The B.C. Utilities Commission turned it down, and there was opposition to the burying of those lines from your very constituents as well.

LIABILITY INSURANCE FUNDING FOR
SEARCH AND RESCUE ORGANIZATIONS

M. Farnworth: As we've seen this past winter in the Kootenays, search and rescue organizations have saved numerous lives in British Columbia this past winter, saving taxpayers tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands and millions of dollars in costs. Yet many search and rescue organizations may well pull back their services because of lack of long-term, stable funding to deal with the liability issues that they face.

Will the Solicitor General commit to putting in place long-term, stable liability funding so search and rescue organizations can continue to do the valuable work they do?

Hon. K. Heed: Certainly, these members do an incredible amount of work, as demonstrated in the recent avalanche circumstances that we've been in, in this province over this past season. They continue to do good work. As a matter of fact, they've just had a meeting with respect to how they could even serve a lot better than they have.

These are volunteer organizations. We are committed to ensuring that they have funding in place in order for them to carry on with their good work. We're certainly working towards that, and we're committed to ensure that they are viable and operating in the province of British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

M. Farnworth: Well, I can tell you, hon. Speaker, what will ensure their long-term viability to continue doing the work that they're doing. That's long-term, stable funding to deal with their liability insurance issues. What they don't need is a months-long or years-long gabfest when nothing happens.

Alberta has solved the problem. Yesterday they passed legislation that pays for the liability funding for search and rescue organizations in that province. Will the minister commit to following Alberta's lead and institute long-term, stable funding for search and rescue organizations in the province of B.C.?

Hon. K. Heed: We've addressed this issue. We have committed funding to ensure that their liability is covered in the province of British Columbia. We will continue to work in that direction, to work with search and rescue teams so that they can continue on with the great work that they do in British Columbia.

[1425]

OLYMPIC EVENTS ATTENDANCE BY
SMALL BUSINESS MINISTER

J. Kwan: During estimates debate last Thursday the Minister of Small Business dodged every question on which sporting events he attended during the Olympic and Paralympic Games. Surely the minister is not suffering from self-induced amnesia. He must remember which
[ Page 3794 ]
sporting event he went to. Did he attend a hockey game, a curling game, figure skating?

Will the minister tell British Columbians today: which sporting event did he go to during the Olympic and Paralympic Games?

Hon. I. Black: I think it is astonishing that on the heels of the biggest, successful, most spectacular event that British Columbia is likely to see this century, the NDP has already shown once again which side of the Olympics they are truly on. It has been said in this House many times by my hon. colleague that there is a report coming out on the ticketing around the Olympic Games, which will be released in the spring. Within that document will be a full accounting of tickets used by members of this House.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

J. Kwan: Taxpayers of British Columbia paid for those tickets, and the minister didn't. Taxpayers have every right to know now which sporting event they paid for, for the minister to attend. They don't want to get a sanitized report a year from now. What's astonishing is what the minister is not telling British Columbians today.

The Minister of Labour didn't have any trouble whatsoever telling the public which event he went to and which event he didn't go to, so surely the Minister of Small Business can come clean and tell British Columbians today. Will he end this embarrassing display of arrogance and tell British Columbians which Olympic and Paralympic sporting event he went to on the taxpayers' dime?

Hon. I. Black: In the days leading up to the Olympics, we made it very clear that on this side of the House we were very proud to host the Olympic Games. We spoke of the incredible amount of work….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Take your seat.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. I. Black: During the lead-up to the Olympic Games we spoke about the work that lay ahead, as we ended up hosting 11,000 participants in our integrated-hosting program. We spoke about the focused public servants who were going to assist us in hosting over a hundred different events during the Olympics on the integrated-hosting program.

We said at that point in time and we continue to say now that we will report out on the use of tickets around the Olympic Games in the spring. That is the commitment made by this government. It is a commitment we will keep.

J. Horgan: If only dodge ball was an Olympic event, the minister would be on the podium. He'd own the podium — absolutely.

My question is a very simple one. The minister has multiple office staff that manage his schedule. There are half a dozen ministers that don't have much to do other than manage a schedule. Perhaps they can come and give him some help. Will he stand up and be proud of the events that he went to for nothing? Stand here today, and tell the people of B.C.: where did you go, and why did you do it?

[1430]

Hon. I. Black: I appreciate the fact that the on-again, off-again love affair that the opposition has with the Olympics has to continue after the Olympic cauldron has gone out. But the fact of the matter is that events there that were run during the Olympic Games, involving all those countries from around the world who came to British Columbia and who saw us at our best, are just over.

We made a commitment to report out on them. We will fulfil that commitment as we said we would with respect to use of tickets around Olympic and Paralympic Games.

[End of question period.]

C. James: I rise to present a petition.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

Petitions

C. James: I am presenting a petition with over 3,000…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

C. James: …signatures from the Cariboo-Chilcotin area, asking for the government — including their own MLA — to say no to the HST.

D. Barnett: I have a petition here delivered on March 19, 2010 — two petitions — from the past member for the Cariboo-Chilcotin, asking that we vote against the HST legislation.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Continue, Member.

D. Barnett: Could I finish, please? I have two petitions from two HST rallies in the amount of 95 signatures.
[ Page 3795 ]

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: In Committee A, Committee of Supply — for the information of members, the continuing estimates of the Minister of Small Business, Technology and Economic Development — and, in this chamber, second reading debate on Bill 6, Finance Statutes Amendment Act, 2010.

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 6 — finance statutes
amendment act, 2010

Hon. C. Hansen: I move that Bill 6, the Finance Statutes Amendment Act, 2010, be read a second time.

The bill proposes a number of amendments to statutes administered by the Ministry of Finance. The amendments in this bill reflect our commitment to support the province's financial and corporate sector, streamline and simplify legislation and promote fair and efficient financial administration for British Columbians.

The Financial Administration Act amendments will enable the issuance of electronic securities, which is consistent with the direction of current domestic market practice. The CDS, Clearing and Depository Services, has initiated a move towards uncertificated securities and has requested all issuers in Canada to contribute to a more efficient Canadian securities market by eliminating certificated securities.

After the proposed amendment, the province will be in a position to issue uncertificated securities. Currently the Financial Administration Act requires a physical security to be signed. The amendment will eliminate this requirement while maintaining the current authorization process. As an incentive for issuers to switch to uncertificated securities, CDS will implement a new fee schedule starting in July, which will increase the cost to issuers of physical securities. The administrative cost associated with the storage of a physical certificate is far greater than for an electronic certificate. Therefore, CDS has tailored their fees accordingly.

Although highly unlikely, the potential loss, theft or fraud associated with physical certificates also poses an inherent liability to the province. Replacement of a lost or stolen security can be expensive and carries a degree of risk that the certificate could be presented for payment in a fraudulent manner.

[1435]

Amendments to the Financial Institutions Act will provide enhanced regulatory tools and framework for the financial services sector. The amendments include new enforcement tools to expressly permit the sharing of information between financial service sector regulators, to permit the B.C. regulator to order the production of information on request of another regulator and to permit FICOM to order remedial action if a financial institution has been convicted of an offence in another jurisdiction.

The amendments also adopt modern legal frameworks governing actuaries and actuarial requirements for provincial insurers which are benchmarked on federal and Alberta rules.

Amendments to the Home Owner Grant Act will replace the requirement for forms under the act to be prescribed in regulation with the requirement that they be approved by the Minister of Finance. In the 1950s, when the Home Owner Grant Act first came into force, it was the norm to prescribe forms, but today most forms require the approval of a minister rather than cabinet.

The amendment will provide more flexibility in upgrading forms when the homeowner grant provisions change and when the technologies involved in applying for and processing homeowner grants change. For example, the on-line forms have been updated over the years to allow for electronic filing. Multiple changes are required on almost all of the prescribed forms to accommodate the changes required for electronic filing. Increasing the flexibility to update existing forms will also make it easier to incorporate changes when they are suggested by municipalities and administrators.

Amendments to the Personal Property Security Act will increase harmonization in personal property security law across Canada and between Canada and the United States. British Columbia will adopt the rule from the U.S. commercial code that governs which jurisdiction's law applies to certain determinations involving security interest in intangible and mobile goods.

Parties applying the new rule will be able to determine that a single jurisdiction's law applies after confirming the debtor's location of incorporation according to a public record. Their costs will be reduced because the multiple registry searches and accompanying legal opinions necessary under the indeterminate chief executive office rule will no longer be needed.

This change is a national uniform law initiative intended to become law only once all provinces adopt it. To date the amendment has been enacted in Ontario and has been introduced in the Legislature in Saskatchewan.

Secondly, the process for removing false or inaccurate registrations from the personal property registry will be shortened to the same as Alberta's and be more similar to other provinces' processes. The current two-step, 75-day process will change to a single-step process and will take no longer than 50 days. British Columbia is the only province to require a two-step process.

To balance the interests of persons applying to discharge a registration with the interests of secured parties who wish to claim that the debt is unpaid, the number of days was not reduced beyond 50 days. The secured party will have sufficient time to obtain a court order to maintain the registration if necessary.
[ Page 3796 ]

Amendments to the Securities Act will enable the B.C. Securities Commission to regulate, oversee and take enforcement action against credit-rating agencies and adapt disclosure requirements to allow for regulations requiring simple, comparable point-of-sale disclosure for mutual funds. Changes will facilitate Canada's move to international financial reporting standards.

In addition, the Securities Act amendments will clarify the commission's power to prohibit disclosure of information about an investigation and to exempt persons from takeover bid and issuer bid requirements.

Finally, amendments to the Tobacco Tax Act will define the term "cigar" under the act, clarifying which tobacco products to be taxed as cigars support government's enforcement of tax assessments. The new definition is consistent with the federal legislation that regulates duties on tobacco products, resulting in more consistency and greater ease of compliance between jurisdictions.

B. Ralston: As one might readily gather from the recitation that the Minister of Finance has given, these are technical amendments and are best scrutinized in the committee stage of the bill, which we will do. In terms of general remarks, I don't have a great deal to add to what the minister has said.

[1440]

Certainly, by looking at the amendments themselves, the focus on the Financial Institutions Act seems to preoccupy much of the bill. We will be scrutinizing those particular provisions, particularly where they relate to increased disclosure and the requirement of actuarial evidence in the operation of certain financial companies in the province.

I suppose the issue that might be of most concern or broad relevance to the public would be the regulation of credit-rating agencies. These days most people have credit cards and seek, through that process, a credit rating in order to qualify for credit, whether for a mortgage or for a credit card. Certainly, members will be familiar in their constituency work with complaints that do sometimes arise from the carrying of inaccurate information and the process that's required to go through correcting inaccurate information.

In an era when identity theft is becoming increasingly a problem, the information that credit-rating agencies hold is information that requires safe care and consumer protection. So certainly, that section will be of interest.

The concern about the Personal Property Security Act — again, a technical amendment — and the homeowner grant, changes in forms…. I don't expect we will delay long in those matters.

We look forward to the committee stage debate of this bill in which the work of the Legislature will be apparent.

Mr. Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, the Minister of Finance closes debate.

Hon. C. Hansen: I move second reading of Bill 6.

Motion approved.

Hon. C. Hansen: I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 6, Finance Statutes Amendment Act, 2010, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. B. Penner: I'd like to now call continued debate on the Speech from the Throne.

Throne Speech Debate

(continued)

R. Chouhan: When I started my speech last Monday, just before we adjourned, I think I was talking about the HST. I'm going to spend a few more minutes on the issue of HST today before I talk about a few other issues.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

Before the last election the B.C. Liberals were asked very clearly by the restaurant industry and by others: "Will the HST be introduced? Is government going to do anything about HST?" They said: "No, clearly, it wasn't on the radar." They promised British Columbians that they would not bring the HST, and they put that in writing. A few weeks after the election the B.C. Liberals betrayed British Columbians and broke that promise. Now we have to look at the implications of that.

The HST transfers $1.9 billion in taxes paid by big business to the consumer. That's the direct implication of the HST — the betrayal the B.C. Liberals bestowed upon British Columbians. That means that big business pays less and that people pay more. How could that be fair?

Then we heard that they were saying now after the election: "It's really good for the economy." If that was so good for the economy, then why was it not discussed and implemented or at least introduced before the election? It's simple. It's very clear. The B.C. Liberals were afraid. They knew people were not going to like the HST. People were not going to like the transfer of $1.9 billion, the tax shift, onto the consumer. That's what they were afraid of. Now, it's going to hurt the small business. It's also going to cost jobs. That's the reality of this HST that we are now looking at.

When I heard the throne speech, I was hoping that the Liberals would say: "HST, yes, we said that we were
[ Page 3797 ]
going to do it, but now we have realized it's a mistake, because it's going to hurt small business and it's going to cost jobs. Therefore, we are going to back off."

[1445]

Instead, what we saw in the throne speech was nothing but huge praise of the HST. Now, everybody knows that 82 percent of British Columbians are opposed to the HST. Many small businesses will have to charge 7 percent more for a range of goods and services which they never did before. The restaurant industry itself is forecasting that the HST will cost them up to 12,000 jobs, and the tourism industry predicts that it will cost them up to 10,000 jobs.

Now, it doesn't matter from which angle you look at it, it doesn't make any sense to have the HST in British Columbia when everybody's saying it's going to cost jobs, it's going to hurt the economy, and it's going to drive up the prices of the housing market. So I don't know why they're doing it.

When we look at it, the 7 percent tax to many consumers is going to cost average British Columbians up to $430 per year extra just for that. Many services previously PST-exempt, such as restaurant meals, energy-efficient appliances, gym memberships, personal care services, accountants, contractors, taxi rides, parking outside Metro Vancouver, and more — all of these on which people did not pay any taxes before in British Columbia…. Now they would be subject to paying 7 percent extra every time they use those services. The services will face the biggest impact, since they were generally exempt from the PST.

Since the B.C. Liberals have said that the HST was a good thing, we have been going around British Columbia to different towns and communities. We were holding town hall meetings, community meetings. All kinds of people came there and participated in the debate.

I'm pleased to say that it wasn't just NDP supporters or just the working people who came to those meetings. There were Liberals — actually, card-carrying Liberals — that came to those meetings. They stood up and spoke against that decision of the B.C. government.

We have had many of the small businesses…. For example, in Burnaby-Edmonds I can tell you that there's a bike shop. They're against it. They're asking their customers to do whatever they could, and they signed petitions or called their Members of the Legislative Assembly.

We have a roofing company in the Burnaby–New Westminster area. They're now actually putting ads in the paper saying: "No HST. Get your roofs done before the HST comes into effect." Those are the kinds of people who are now talking about it, because they know it's going to hurt people. It's going to hurt their business.

Again, just to talk a few more minutes about the Liberals' justification of bringing in the HST after the election. They're saying it wasn't on the radar. Let's look at the record. Let's look at the facts — what happened then.

The Finance Minister claims that he did not read the Ontario budget that brought in the HST. How could that be possible? That cannot be. That is just not credible, and the Premier's own Progress Board recommended the HST before the election.

All of these things, if you look at them carefully, one would make the assumption that they knew. They were contemplating it. They knew that they were going to do it, but they deliberately were not being truthful with the B.C. electors.

Now, again, the B.C. Liberals are saying that if you look at the experience in other provinces, the HST brought down the prices. Is that true? Let's see. Let's find out.

[1450]

The evidence shows…. Even if you look at the statement made by TD Bank of Canada, they estimated that 20.4 percent of the goods and services that British Columbians buy will be newly subject to the HST and that, on average, consumer prices will rise by 1.5 percent. That's the TD Bank forecasting.

Even if businesses reduce prices, as the B.C. Liberals are saying —"Oh, when you have this, B.C. businesses are going to make sure that consumers are not charged too much" — according to TD Bank, as they are saying, prices will rise by 1.5 percent. Then the statement continues. It says that B.C.'s PST applies to a smaller base of goods and services than the sales tax of other provinces, so the effect on consumers will be larger here. The businesses themselves are analyzing and sharing with the public that it's no good.

If you look at the other parts of the throne speech…. I was hoping that it would have some good, positive story for my constituents in Burnaby-Edmonds. Burnaby-Edmonds, as I have described many times before, is a very diverse community. It ranges from some very rich people to the extreme, very poor people. That's the kind of community it is. I have close to 100 different languages spoken in Burnaby-Edmonds area. It's a very diverse community.

Now, many of the new immigrants who come, like in other parts of British Columbia, also choose to live in Burnaby-Edmonds area. One-third of the government-sponsored refugees who come to British Columbia also live in and come to Burnaby-Edmonds area. They're experiencing a huge amount of challenge.

Housing is a huge problem for them. The families who are now coming under that classification to Canada, when they come here, are not the typical family that, Madam Speaker, you and I and others are familiar with. It's not husband, wife and two children. I'm talking about a single mother with six kids. That's the kind of situation. We are the ones who are sponsoring them. They come to Canada. We invite them, but when they come here, we don't take care of their situation.

Now, the housing units that we have are typically two bedrooms, three bedrooms. I'm sure the other MLAs
[ Page 3798 ]
probably have the same problem as I have. I was hoping that in the throne speech we would talk about, at least indicate, something — that we are going to address that situation, the housing situation that these people face. Nothing. I have seen and heard nothing in the throne speech, and the B.C. Liberal government is not talking about addressing that situation at all.

As a result of all these policies, it has become more difficult for ordinary people, especially the new immigrants who come to B.C. to live here. Then, I thought at least we would have something in the budget that would address that situation. Again, I was very much disappointed that I did not see and find anything in the budget that would help these poor immigrants who have made their homes in Burnaby-Edmonds.

A few weeks ago I met with this wonderful woman. Her first name is Beata — a fabulous human being. She assists about 70 families, and they're all government-assisted refugees. They're all very unfamiliar with how the Canadian system works, and she helps guide them through it. She told the story to me — when she came and we sat down and talked about it — of one of the women whose child needed to go to the dentist.

[1455]

The woman speaks almost no English. She was told that the cost of the dentist would be covered under B.C. Healthy Kids and got the work done. She then got a bill for $300. When she went to the dentist, she was told to pay up or have the bill sent to a collection agency.

Another woman told Beata that she knows how to survive in a jungle, but finding help from a government in British Columbia or any agency of the B.C. government is an impossible task for her.

Those are the kinds of stories that we hear in our community. These people, when they come here, need help. Somebody needs to have some sort of program so they can get assistance and can get familiar with the system here. In fact, they're left out. There's no help for them.

Lack of medical services for a growing immigrant community is another huge issue. We don't have enough doctors to fulfil the needs of diverse ethnic communities, yet we have heard so many stories of doctors trained in the other countries. We don't recognize the foreign credentials — that's a huge issue.

We have heard the stories that many people, when they take a taxi, meet a doctor. Some people say that if you really want to see a doctor, it's best to take a taxi in British Columbia, because many of them are now driving taxis. They can't work in the medical field. Their credentials are not recognized.

On one hand, we have this immigrant population which is really asking for help. On the other, we have immigrant doctors who are willing to participate and contribute to the society, but they are not recognized. Something is fundamentally wrong here, and we need to really pay attention to this whole mess that we have.

When we're talking about poverty, these poor immigrant people, they're not the only ones who are poor and who are suffering and who need help. I have many other people in Burnaby-Edmonds and Burnaby in general — those who have lived all their lives there. Now they're hurting. They're hurting because they lost jobs. Their mill was shut down, and they moved to Burnaby. They came here. They thought that in the Lower Mainland, they probably would have a better chance to get a job. In fact, they did not. They did not have a better chance here.

Many of those people are now working on minimum wage, if they're lucky to get a job. You know, to make a living for a husband and wife with two kids…. Even if they both work at minimum wage, they will still be under the poverty line set by our society, our government in B.C.

It's $8 an hour for the last ten years. That's the minimum wage that we have. Nobody can make a living on that if that's all they have. In fact, when the B.C. Liberals came to power, they decreased the minimum wage from $8 to $6, saying: "Well, you know, those who are just starting, this is their training wage." We know that for the first 500 hours, when somebody starts a job, they will have be paid just $6 an hour. That's shameful. That's very shameful. Nobody can survive on that.

The story that I have heard and many have also heard — my colleagues, I'm sure, on both sides — is that when somebody works 499 hours, they are let go. They lose that job. Then they go somewhere else, and even though they say, "Look, I have already spent that much time in a previous job, so I should at least be getting $8 an hour," many of them did not get that. They're still not getting it.

Now, the minimum wage in British Columbia is the lowest in Canada. That, again, is a very shameful record we have here. More than 183,000 people in B.C. earn less than $10 an hour. A single person working 40 hours a week for 52 weeks would have to earn $10.80 per hour to reach the estimated poverty line in Vancouver. That was in 2009.

[1500]

Other calculations also show that a two-earner family of four with two adults would require a living wage of around $17 per hour if they lived in Metro Vancouver or the greater Victoria area. That's the reality people are faced with.

According to this organization, First Call B.C. Child and Youth Advocacy Coalition, the real value of the B.C. minimum wage since 1976 has dropped nearly 19 percent, the largest drop of all provinces. Despite all the campaigns, despite all the pleas, despite all the petitions, despite all the convincing arguments made by many people across B.C. over the years, the B.C. Liberal government is still adamant that they're not going to change the minimum wage.
[ Page 3799 ]

You know, they stand here in the House. They go outside and claim that they have done everything to assist and help these people, but the record shows otherwise. Totally they have failed. The B.C. Liberals have failed these people everywhere in British Columbia. They have not assisted a single person who is in that situation.

When they are working in a situation with minimum wage, that's not the only difficulty they face. These working couples, when they have children, also experience a lack of child care and an increasing rate of MSP. Hydro rates are going up. Their transit is going up. You know, it's just pushing them into poverty deeper and deeper. I don't know when the B.C. Liberal government will wake up and do something about it. It's so disappointing. It's so frustrating.

Now, when we're talking about lack of child care, when we're talking about the training wage, when we're talking about poverty, child poverty comes to mind again. Six years in a row child poverty in B.C. is the highest in Canada — the highest in Canada, the child poverty we talk about. Was there anything in the throne speech to address that? No. Was there anything in the budget speech to address that? No. So what were you doing?

I was really hoping that the throne speech would admit or at least recognize that child poverty is the highest, that it's a problem and that the government is working on some kind of strategy or plan which will address it in the near future. But like many other people, I was very disappointed.

In Burnaby 32.2 percent of kindergarten students are vulnerable on at least one measure of development. That report, which came out a couple of weeks ago actually, was the study done by the University of British Columbia. It has found out that almost one out of every three children entering kindergarten in the province is developmentally unprepared and considered vulnerable in terms of child development, a situation which is both avoidable and preventable. That's what the study says.

When they made the comparison, when you look at the charts, the two schools that came up at the top of the vulnerability chart are in Burnaby-Edmonds — Edmonds Community School and Twelfth Avenue. That really concerns me. It really concerns all those people in Burnaby. They really are asking a question of this government: is there anything — any plan, any strategy — in the near future that would help or address this situation? No.

[1505]

The highest proportion of vulnerable five-year-old children was in Burnaby-Edmonds, with 53.2 percent. A Middlegate school had more than 49 percent of kindergarten children vulnerable on at least one scale of development.

When I was listening to the throne speech, I thought the government would at least do something about job creation. Again, I was disappointed. There was nothing. When the Liberals talk about jobs, they conveniently skip the facts. You know, according to B.C. Stats, since July 2008, B.C. has lost 41,000 jobs. There was a decrease of 5.5 percent in full-time jobs in that time. That's the B.C. Liberal record.

The unemployment rate has increased from 4.5 percent to 8.1 percent. Nobody should be proud of that. In January this year all of the new jobs created were part-time, and we lost over 4,000 full-time jobs in January. That's the Liberal record here in B.C. What will the B.C. Liberal throne speech or budget do? Nothing.

When they talk about labour and labour issues, we also cannot forget about the farmworkers. We know the situation that they are in. Farmworkers — we have seen people dying on the road. We have seen people being injured in the fields. We have seen that people are poisoned by those pesticides. Again, we were hoping that something would be done to protect those. Nothing.

Three mushroom farm workers were killed in that accident almost two years ago. We are still waiting to get a final report from WorkSafe B.C. Three farmworkers were killed in a roadside accident in March 2007, and 33 criminal charges were recommended by the police. None of those charges were accepted by the Crown.

The new harvesting season is around the corner. I hope the government will wake up and do something about it, because we have to not leave these workers in a very difficult, unsafe situation. We must do something to protect these workers.

With that, I'll take my seat.

Hon. S. Thomson: It's a real pleasure for me to be able to rise and provide a response to the Speech from the Throne and provide some perspective on the benefits and the direction of the throne speech to the residents and the constituents of Kelowna-Mission.

Before I do start, I would again like to take this opportunity to thank my family for all their support. I think we need to take every opportunity we have to be able to do that as we spend our time here in Victoria working for the people of British Columbia. It's your families that take part of the sacrifice in the work that we do here, and we should never miss that opportunity to recognize them and thank our loved ones for all their support. I'd like to again thank my wife and family for all their continued support.

Also, I need to again recognize the tremendous work that our constituency assistants do in our offices. The more time I spend here in Victoria, the greater appreciation I have for the great work that they do.

So to Nan and Rebecca in the office in Kelowna-Mission, thank you very much for your tremendous work on behalf of all the residents of Kelowna-Mission.

The throne speech clearly stated our government's focus and shows British Columbians that we're dedicated to creating jobs, economic development activity,
[ Page 3800 ]
improving the environment and supporting families with children. This support is verified by the action we are taking in Budget 2010.

We're fortunate in Kelowna-Mission to see the direct results of the government's commitment to jobs, education and health care, particularly with the continued expansion of Kelowna General Hospital. Since 2001 this government has increased health care spending by over 70 percent from $9.8 billion to $15.9 billion this year. We continue to increase our spending on health care, and British Columbians are better for it.

[1510]

We have increased the number of training spaces for doctors and nurses in our province, and we will commit to increased access to residencies for Canadians who have received their medical training outside of Canada. Through these measures we will continue to increase the number of medical professionals practising in our province, and that's happening right here in Kelowna.

Kelowna General Hospital is growing, with a new approximately 360,000-square-foot patient care tower, including modernizing and quadrupling the size of our emergency department. The capital cost of this project, combined with the Vernon Jubilee Hospital expansion and improvements in Vernon, is over $432 million.

As well, a new University of British Columbia medical school clinical academic campus will be also be built on the KGH site, giving students access to the latest technology while they study. The success of the expanded cardiac care unit has already surpassed expectations with numerous angioplasties performed here in my community, and the further investment to the resources at KGH will only further benefit Okanagan residents.

I was pleased to join the Premier and my colleagues from Kelowna–Lake Country and Westside-Kelowna earlier this year to confirm the commitment of over $440 million in capital investment for the new cardiac care centre at Kelowna General Hospital, providing a level of service and benefit not just for the Okanagan but for the entire province.

When you combine the early investment in our emergency centre and the expansion of KGH and Vernon general hospital along with this investment, that's nearly $1 billion in investment in our community in health care for the region, for the Okanagan and for the entire province. This is only possible with the solid economic foundation that this throne speech and the 2010 budget are providing for this province.

The UBC medical school academic campus is only part of the investment in education we are seeing in Kelowna. This past September marked the beginning of the fifth academic year at the University of British Columbia Okanagan. The Okanagan campus of UBC has expanded continually since its doors opened and is anticipating the arrival of the faculty of medicine in 2011.

Last June more than 750 students graduated, including UBC Okanagan's first doctoral candidate. This academic year more than 6,000 students have enrolled in the various programs, including a record 375 graduate students. The vision and the foresight of this government to establish UBCO allow us to educate our students closer to home and, in many cases, will result in those students staying and working in the Okanagan.

I know, as parents, how much of a benefit it was to have that option. My son has completed first-year university at UBC Okanagan, and I know, as a parent, the great benefit in having him at home while he did that first year at university. He's off taking a bit of an adventure and a gap year, this year, with some travels, but I know he anticipates coming back. I'm hoping that he will continue his education at UBC Okanagan, closer to home.

Hon. K. Krueger: No pressure.

Hon. S. Thomson: No, but I would support him in whatever decision and wherever he decides he wants to take his further education. I do know, as parents — and I've talked to many parents in the riding — the great benefit of having that facility, an expanded facility, in the Okanagan.

As well, we've seen the Kelowna campus of Okanagan College continue to grow. It's now home to a variety of university studies, trades, technology, business, vocational health and adult education programs. The campus is proud to offer a comprehensive array of first- and second-year university transfer courses as well as two bachelor degree programs in business and computer information systems.

Okanagan College has grown dramatically since 2005, more than 62 percent over five years in terms of the number of students educated and trained. It's estimated over 8,300 full-time-equivalents in 2009 and 2010, up from 5,162 in '05-06. This is tremendous growth of educational opportunities right here in the Okanagan. Over the past year alone the student population has grown almost 10 percent, and applications for next year are up approximately 11 percent from last year's record levels.

One of the most important areas of growth in Okanagan College has been providing services for aboriginal students. In the last academic year alone over 1,000 aboriginal students attended Okanagan College, an increase of 18 percent over the previous year. Aboriginal students now account for approximately 5 percent of the student body at Okanagan College. In real terms, the college was a learning destination last year for more than 19,000 people.

[1515]

Also, in the past year the college opened its five-storey Centre for Learning on the KLO campus, a LEED gold building which continues to impress those who need
[ Page 3801 ]
real examples of how the idea of being green can come to life in exciting and dynamic learning spaces. This space has over 700 instructional seats and 20 state-of-the-art learning classrooms.

The college growth has had such great growth that it's meant it has had to lease another trades-training space in Kelowna. It's the second new off-campus space that has had to open in Kelowna and joins new off-campus facilities that have opened in Vernon, Salmon Arm and two locations in Penticton over the past five years. Not only is the college providing more spaces in trades training, it is providing access to training closer to home in a host of communities throughout the Okanagan.

The continuing studies department offers a wide variety of training programs such as first aid and safety training, along with specialized certificate programs designed to meet the needs of industry in our community.

The Kelowna campus is also pleased to have a growing and diverse international program that welcomes students from 15 different countries each year to the Okanagan Valley, as well as an extensive summer school program each year for students who want to upgrade or get a head start on their programs for the fall.

We're working to ensure a thriving economy so that our students will have the jobs in our community when they're ready to enter the workforce.

In my riding agriculture is also a very vital part of the riding, especially in Kelowna-Mission. We have tree fruits, cherries, cherry-packing plants, wineries, grape production, vegetables, market gardens, cideries and an artisan cheesemaker. I'm aware of the significant challenges facing the sector both in our riding and throughout the province, but with the throne speech direction to build our economic foundation and jobs, our local industries will benefit.

Last week I had the opportunity to attend the B.C. Association of Farmers Markets annual meeting in Penticton to celebrate the tremendous growth of farmers' markets in British Columbia. This will be the 15th year for the Kelowna Farmers and Crafters Market, growing from the humble beginnings to be now one of British Columbia's largest farmers' markets, which is quite an accomplishment.

I can remember supporting my wife when she was first a vendor at the Kelowna farmers' market many years ago, when there were only ten or 12 vendors, and it was on the sidewalk in front of the Safeway parking lot on the main street in Kelowna. Now they've grown to a full facility near the Orchard Park Shopping Centre with hundreds of vendors and thousands of people attending the farmers' market. They've expanded to three days a week now, where they have a Wednesday market, a Saturday market and a Thursday evening market.

Part of the success of the farmers' markets can be attributed to the ongoing concerns over our food sources, our environment and increased awareness of local food production and systems. Each year attendance is increasing with more and more people willing to support and encourage our local farmers and artisans. I would like to thank both the vendors and the visitors who are making this market in Kelowna one of Kelowna's most exciting ongoing community events.

The concern about the environment and ensuring that future development occurs in a responsible and sustainable manner is also a priority for this government, and to help achieve that, we are working to become a leader in clean energy. Through programs like our innovative clean energy fund, we're actively supporting developments in bioenergy, run of the river, wind, geothermal, tidal and solar energy.

To help facilitate new projects, I strongly support the direction that's outlined in the throne speech to work for one project, one process for environmental assessment, which is so important to help expedite approximately $3 billion in provincially approved projects that are tied up in that federal assessment review process.

We need to work strongly together and collectively to move to that one-project, one-process system so that we can help move these projects forward, create the jobs and investment in all parts of our province and in all parts of the economy.

The initiative for Open Skies that's referenced in the throne speech will enable international carriers to bring new businesses to the Okanagan. The Kelowna International Airport is one of the fastest-growing airports in Canada, and enhanced direct international services will create economic and tourism opportunities in our region.

I'm also pleased that the city of Kelowna has signed on to B.C.'s climate action charter to join many local governments from around the province who are finding ways to tackle the challenges posed by climate change and pledging to significantly cut greenhouse gas emissions by 2012.

[1520]

The Okanagan has a growing technology sector with a significant focus on green technology. Recently a new business magazine that highlights the economic outlook of British Columbia and the investment opportunities it offers gives considerable profile to several central Okanagan companies. Invest in B.C., an official magazine of the Economic Development Association of British Columbia, the leading provincial association of economic development practitioners in communities throughout our province, was the magazine that profiled those companies.

The magazine is intended to assist in investment decisions by providing economic snapshots of the province's regions and communities while showcasing our key economic drivers. Kelowna's Element Four Technologies and VeriCorder Technology Inc. are among the local companies profiled in an article on some of B.C.'s best technologies.
[ Page 3802 ]
In addition, Vineyard Networks, Disney Online Studios — formerly Club Penguin — and RackForce Networks Inc. are noted as examples of growing companies in the Thompson-Okanagan's technology hub.

One of the other key issues that we need to continue to address and look forward to, which is referenced in the throne speech, is the importance of water and working towards water conservation in the province. This is a critical issue for the Okanagan, critical in terms of making sure that we focus on conservation, critical in ensuring that we address infrastructure requirements for water, and of critical importance for the agriculture sector in our region as we look to the irrigation needs of the industry.

I'm looking very much forward to the continuing work in the process of modernizing the Water Act and the key directions in the throne speech that support that initiative.

We've also got a strong focus on healthy living. Last summer I was honoured to participate in the official opening of the H2O Adventure and Fitness Centre, the largest publicly owned water park in Canada and funded in part by the province. Now residents in Kelowna have a great new facility to help stay fit, and athletes can develop their sport, thanks to the Olympic-length 50-metre pool, wave pool, river run, three water slides, children's water area and an ocean wave surf simulator.

In addition to this new facility, people can also enjoy the outdoor ActNow B.C. seniors park at the Parkinson Rec Centre. This park was developed as a result of a Healthy Living and Sport initiative to help keep seniors active and engaged in our community. The free-access fitness equipment will help our elders spend more time outside to build and maintain good health for life. As the weather keeps improving, I'm sure many seniors will be enjoying this facility.

We are working to keep our province competitive internationally and interprovincially, and to help make our processes more efficient, we are shifting from the old-fashioned provincial sales tax to the harmonized sales tax. Shifting to a value-added tax will help level the playing field in our province as we join Ontario and more than 130 countries that have shifted or are shifting to the value-added tax.

The harmonized sales tax will cut the effective tax on new business investment by 40 percent. This will help create jobs in our communities and support new investment. The harmonized sales tax will also remove $2 billion in costs that are restricting growth in sectors like forestry, construction, mining, oil and gas, transportation, manufacturing, agriculture and small business. That means it will save British Columbia taxpayers $150 million in annual compliance costs. It will also remove some $30 million a year in administrative costs to further streamline the tax process.

I want to again reiterate that this will provide significant benefit to the agriculture and food processing sector, something the opposition continues to be silent on. In a recent local commentary, a supporter of the opposition party said: "The Kelowna-Mission MLA and Minister of Agriculture should recognize that agriculture is going to be really hard hit — hit right from production to goods in stores."

I know that this just continues to show the lack of understanding of the economic benefit of this important measure if they can't recognize the real benefit that this will have for the agriculture sector. I'm sure they haven't been out to talk to cherry growers in my riding who are investing in new packing equipment to meet international market requirements and new food safety equipment to meet international markets and food safety requirements for consumers.

[1525]

I'm sure they haven't talked to small-scale food processors who are investing in additional packing equipment and packing lines to provide value-added opportunities for agriculture and value-added production. I'm sure they haven't talked to greenhouse growers, who also are investing in packing lines to meet new market requirements in international export markets. All of these producers and small-scale processors and food processors will benefit from the introduction of the harmonized sales tax.

The estimate is that it's between $15 million and $16 million in direct benefit to the primary sector. When you add the small-scale and the food-processing sector to that, that direct benefit to the bottom line is somewhere in the neighbourhood of $24 million to $26 million to producers. This will mean that our agriculture industry will be more competitive nationally, interprovincially and internationally.

As I said, the fact that the opposition continues to remain silent on the benefits of this harmonized sales tax, particularly to the agriculture sector, just shows their continued lack of understanding of the economic benefit of this important measure. As stated by the leading economist Jack Mintz, B.C.'s sales tax harmonization will be a game changer promoting capital investment in the province and providing the opportunity for the private sector to create jobs.

When combined with the most competitive personal income tax rates and our commitment to move the small business tax rate to zero by 2012, B.C. will have one of the most competitive economies in the world, creating over 140,000 net new jobs by 2020.

The throne speech also provides for continued investment in transportation infrastructure. We are continuing to invest in improvements in the Okanagan: the four-laning of Highway 33, the passing lane on Walker Hill, the Gordon Drive improvements and the new bridge at Mission Creek — $15.6 million; trails, bike lanes, the active transportation network — $11.5 million of investment. All of these investments help improve the flow of goods and services in our riding and in our region.
[ Page 3803 ]

Our region is also going to benefit from the unparalleled success of the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Games. The Okanagan figured prominently, from athletes, training, tourism, our agriculture and wine industry, and our business development opportunities that were provided to us as the eyes of the world were on British Columbia. I know that our local tourism associations and businesses look forward to working with the province as we build on the momentum of this great opportunity and experience.

This event provided great economic opportunity, but it also provided great engagement and motivation for our young people as they got to witness and participate in this tremendous experience. In my riding 25 students from Okanagan Mission Secondary led by their teacher, Michael Ross, were one of the 16 schools chosen to participate in the torch run. They were supported by over 200 students and many more families and friends as they led off the relay from the southern event centre in Penticton.

As Mr. Ross said: "In terms of the effects on the school community at our Olympic torch celebration assembly, the audience heard firsthand about Olympic trials and triumphs from a Canadian aerial team freestyle skier. The ripple effects are hard to see at this point, but the impact of the experience on the school community will be vast."

I don't think Mr. Ross ever contemplated at that point just how prophetic his words would be as he said: "The torch will stand in the school as a constant reminder of excellence for future generations of Huskies." I had the opportunity to meet with those students, and I can tell you that the excitement, the impact of the experience that they had in carrying the torch and being part of the Olympics is something that will live with them forever and will guide their development, particularly as they move forward in their sporting careers.

Building on the legacy of sport and community achievement, next winter Kelowna is going to have the opportunity to host the 2011 International Children's winter games. This event will attract about a thousand athletes from ages 12 to 15 in sports including skiing, skating, curling, hockey and speed skating.

This will be the first time that the games will be held outside of Europe and the first time that they include hockey and speed skating. We are really looking forward, as a community, to being able to host those International Children's Games, and it continues to build on the legacy of sport, healthy living and activity in our community.

[1530]

We're also one of the three communities bidding for the 2015 Canada Winter Games, along with Prince George and Kamloops. I know that whichever community gets the opportunity to host those 2015 Winter Games — and we hope it's going to be Kelowna — this will be another event that will continue to build on that legacy of sport and healthy living in our communities.

Also, while the Paralympic Games were on in Vancouver and Whistler, we had the opportunity, or the honour, in Kelowna of hosting the Canadian Wheelchair Curling Championships. In an exciting final, host team B.C. beat the B.C. provincial champions in a great week that we had with the Canadian Wheelchair Curling Championships in Kelowna. Great focus was on that event because of the great interest that curling had both during the Olympics and the Paralympic Games.

It's interesting that I was talking to the manager of our local curling club. He said that right now they can't keep up with the interest and the inquiries about learn-to-curl programs, open houses. Everybody seems to be interested in it. It just shows the benefit that having that focus on sport and sport activity contributes to people's goals and desires for healthy living and physical activity.

Our government is stepping up to ensure citizens have quality of life in our region, and so are volunteer organizations supported by the private sector. I was pleased to be invited to participate recently in a Habitat for Humanity official opening and in handing over keys to new residents for a new eightplex just off Highway 33 in Rutland. This project helps more people to have a home and was a result of tremendous community effort and support.

Our government has also invested in improved access to housing with the Willowbridge project, a LEED gold sustainable, supportive housing project providing 40 studio suites for people on limited incomes and who are experiencing barriers to finding housing. We also have a 39-unit supportive housing project on Tutt Street, with the New Opportunities for Women, providing additional supportive housing for meeting that critical need within our community.

Our government, through the throne speech, is also doing all it can to support early learning in our communities and recognizes that this time in child development is essential for success later in life. We have committed to introducing full-day kindergarten for five-year-olds and to increasing the number of StrongStart programs throughout the province.

We are working to support families with a new family-with-children property tax deferral option for all B.C. families with children under the age of 18. Under this program, these families will be able to defer their property taxes, similar to the program already available to seniors and those facing financial hardships.

The throne speech sets out a positive plan and direction for the future of the province, creating jobs, creating the most competitive foundation for economic growth, and I will be pleased to support it. It will provide a positive long-term future for the residents of Kelowna-Mission and for the province.

M. Farnworth: It's a pleasure to rise and make some comments on the throne speech, which was delivered
[ Page 3804 ]
back in February, and to outline, I think, some of the differences between this side of the House and that side of the House when it comes to the throne speech.

Interjection.

M. Farnworth: My colleague from Surrey-Tynehead says yes, and I'm glad that he said yes, because quite frankly, I do think it's important to acknowledge the differences on the throne speech. Particularly, I see that despite his years here, he still hasn't learned the rules — that if he wants to heckle, he should do so from his own seat. But that may explain a few things.

Anyway, back to the throne speech. You know, throne speeches, historically, are about laying out a vision of where the government is going to go, what the government wants to do. Sometimes they're long; sometimes they're short. They're often accused of being short on specifics, but that doesn't matter. A good throne speech can overcome those if it lays out a vision.

Unfortunately, this throne speech fails to do that. It doesn't lay out a vision. It in fact just re-announces some programs that were announced in previous throne speeches, which were never acted upon, so just a lot of it is recycled.

[1535]

What the vision does is repudiate some things in other throne speeches which at the time were applauded by people as being a positive step forward for British Columbia and the people of British Columbia. Instead, this throne speech does away with those things. I'll talk about that in a minute.

It failed to capture an imagination on: where do we go? How do we build on the success after the Olympics? We are seeing that with this government. Here we are now, three weeks into a session, and we're getting legislation that…. "We're going to do something in 2015" and "We're passing a bill that is basically just regulatory — regulations to be determined by cabinet." That's not a vision.

That says to me that we've got a third-term government that's running out of gas and running out of ideas and that really doesn't know what to bring to the future.

Interjection.

M. Farnworth: I can always count on my colleague from Kamloops.

I have to touch…. The Minister of Agriculture made some statements, and I just want to address those for a minute, because I know he'd be very interested. He said: "A big part of this government's vision is about HST." He said that the opposition doesn't understand the importance of the HST, this value-added tax, to the economy, that once again the opposition has demonstrated it doesn't understand how important this is to the economy.

Well, you know what? We do understand the importance of what business expects. I can tell you that they expected from this government that if they were going to introduce something like an HST….

The restaurant and hospitality industry would have expected that it would have been upfront with them before the election so that they could make business decisions on what they know and what they expect a government to do, not on a government saying one thing and then doing something else. They would have expected that the Agriculture Minister would have done an analysis within his ministry on the impact of an HST. That was not done.

They would have expected the Minister of Tourism to have done an analysis on what the HST means to the tourism sector, to the sector under his purview. The minister failed to do that.

They would have expected the Ministry of Small Business to have done an analysis on the impact of the HST on small businesses in this province, at a time when the minister himself told small business, "Well, if we're going to do an HST, we'll do some analysis," and then four days later in comes the HST. It's pretty clear that no analysis was done on the impact on small business.

That's what business would have expected this government to do, and instead, it failed every step of the way. It failed to be upfront with the voters. It failed to do analysis. That's what they would have expected.

That is a government that is doing things on the spur of the moment, without looking at proper public policy analysis, without doing work, and it's indicative of a government that has run out of ideas and is literally flying by the seat of its pants.

We understand all too well the failure of this government and the economy when it comes to implementing the HST and to its impact on business. One only has to look at what is happening in tourism, what is happening to the restaurant industry and how their concerns and their complaints have fallen on deaf ears. They have not seen any of their concerns addressed in either the throne speech or the budget — not a one. It is another indication of how this government has been here too long.

Now, I'd like to comment. I wanted to do that because I really did want the Minister of Agriculture to hear those comments. I do know that my friend from Kamloops is also here, and I know how much he is a fan of the HST. He has trumpeted in this House and outside this House how important he thinks it is.

[1540]

To me, the government's approach to the HST shows a lack of understanding of the pressures that everyday families in this province face. It shows a lack of understanding of the impact of the downloading from this government onto everyday families in this province, whether it is an increase in MSP premiums, which have just gone up; whether it's an increase in their hydro rates,
[ Page 3805 ]
which will be taking place; whether it is an increase because of the carbon tax coming into effect on July 1.

All of those things have added up directly on families, and when you start to add to that the downloaded costs to schools and the resulting cuts in services that happen, the day-to-day costs to everyday families in this province go up and up and up — in no small part from the actions of this government. It shows a complete lack of understanding of their decision-making process and the impact of their decisions on everyday families.

They may think that $10 here, $20 there, $50 there every month is small change, but it's not. It adds up. And that's not even talking about the HST. That's just things like fee increases and rate increases. So when you add all those things up over the course of a year, that starts to become burdensome.

Then on top of that you throw in place the HST, the largest tax shift in the history of British Columbia — $1.9 billion — onto the backs of British Columbia families. You can see why people are upset. You can see why people don't believe that this government has a vision, and you can see why they feel that this government has a lack of understanding of the realities that everyday families in this province face.

Let's just look at some of those for a minute. As I said a few moments ago, the government said in their throne speech that the HST is the cornerstone. Well, a few throne speeches before that they talked about their green budget. They talked about green tax breaks. Under the HST those tax breaks disappear, including some that have been in place since 1983 on bicycles.

The speaker before me made a big deal about how much the people in his constituency, in the Okanagan, for example, are really into curling, that they've seen community centres filled up with people going and wanting to take up curling — an interest in curling — and people interested in other sporting activities and how it's great that they've got this facility now in Kelowna.

It is good to see people get inspired by the Olympics to go and to become more physically active, to get involved in sports and athletic competition at whatever level. Trouble is, this government's making it more expensive all the time for them to do that.

If you want to take up cycling…. There didn't used to be a tax on a bike. Now, thanks to the vision of this government, there will be. So if you as a family of four decide that you want to engage in healthy, wholesome family activities together and, you know, "We're going to have bikes," well, you just added 12 percent to the cost of each one of those bicycles — 12 percent.

Now, of course, it may not sound much to the members across the way, but to everyday British Columbians that's a cost. That's money out of their pocket that they could have used to take the family out for a meal at one of B.C.'s many fine restaurants and eating establishments.

Trouble is, if a family wants to do that, let's say to go to…. In my constituency White Spot is very popular, or the Bombay if you want some really good Indian food. Trouble is, you've just jacked up the cost there by another 7 percent. That's got to come out of somebody's pocket. It comes out of a family's pocket.

[1545]

The impact on that is you've charged a family more if they want to engage in a healthy activity like bike-riding. They've got to come up with more money for that. Then, if they were going to go out for dinner, they have less money to spend in a more expensive restaurant, because they're having to pay to buy the bikes which they wanted to do some family activity with in the first place.

That's not vision. That's a government with blinkers on, a government that doesn't realize the impact its decisions have on ordinary families. It's a government that's blinded by ideology instead of looking at the impact of its actions on individuals and families and putting forward a vision that talks and speaks to the reality that people face every day in this province.

They announce cuts for the sake of cuts, without doing an analysis on the impact of those cuts, without looking at who is being impacted. How else could you explain the callous and cold-hearted decision to attempt to evict World War II veterans from their legion here in Victoria? How else could one explain that?

If something like that came to cabinet, saying, "Oh, we're going to cut $26,000," you'd think you might ask: "Okay, so who's going to be impacted by this?"

I mean, if someone said…. You know, average age of 87, World War II veterans — some of them survivors of the prisoner-of-war camps for Hong Kong, in the defence and fall of Hong Kong. "We're going to kick them out because they can't pay $26,000." You would expect that any reasonable person would go: "Are you nuts? Why are we doing this? What on earth are we hoping to gain?"

That's what you would think any reasonable person that was thinking about the impact of their expenditures would do. But oh no, not this government. They blindly, blinkered, went ahead and made that cut.

Many people may say: "That's not a true story. That can't be true." The truth is, hon. Speaker, it is true. Just to refresh the memories — or to remind people who may be watching at home, and I know that people do watch this station — there is a legion here, just out back of this building.

It's been there since 1934, at the height of the Great Depression when Duff Pattullo…. At that time the legion members corresponded with him, asking for some help in being able to stay there. The response from the government of the day at the height of the depression was: "Absolutely you can stay there, from now ever into the future."

That agreement had been honoured by every Premier and every government of every political stripe since
[ Page 3806 ]
1934 except this government — this government that's so in tune with people, that's so sensitive to the needs of British Columbian families and individuals and those who fought and sacrificed their lives so we can be here today. It's so sensitive and in tune to them that it sends an e-mail that says: "Pay up $26,000, or that's it. Hit the street — by summer."

As I said, veterans of POW camps in Hong Kong, veterans of D-Day and the liberation of Holland…. That's the respect you give people? Well, they may not have been in tune with the needs of those legion members, just as they're not in tune with the needs of families in British Columbia, but the public was certainly in tune with those legion members. The public was certainly in tune with what is right.

Even though it took press conferences, questions in here and a number of scrums, eventually the government caved. The public spoke loud and clear that what was taking place was unacceptable.

[1550]

That is what's wrong with this. That is one of the symbolic decisions that says to me everything that is wrong with this government. It was the wrong throne speech with the wrong choices. It's on the wrong track, because this is the wrong party and the wrong government with a wrong vision.

Hon. K. Krueger: That's not what the people said last May.

M. Farnworth: Ah. My colleague the member from Kamloops just said: "That's not what the people said last May." Well, that's true, but I guess you would expect that outcome if you misled the people prior to an election.

Hon. K. Krueger: Did you ever raise the HST?

M. Farnworth: The issue of HST has been raised. They were asked about it, and they said they wouldn't do it. They misled the public of British Columbia.

The member wants to talk about the election. I will tell you this. Had the government been upfront, had it had the courage of its convictions that they have now, now that an election is safely over, I guarantee you that we would have had a much more vigorous debate, and I would not be surprised — in fact, I know — that the results would've been quite different, and that member wouldn't even be sitting in this chamber.

Hon. K. Krueger: You're dreaming, big guy.

M. Farnworth: The member says that I'm dreaming. You know what? On this side of the House, we are dreaming. We're dreaming of being able to present a government — and will present a government — to British Columbia that is upfront with them and that will tell them the same thing before an election as after an election and will not mislead the public of British Columbia during an election campaign.

That's what we're dreaming about: getting rid of a government that says one thing before an election and another thing after an election. That's what we're dreaming of, and that's what the public of British Columbia are dreaming about, and we can't wait to do it.

Interjection.

M. Farnworth: The hon. member gives me an opportunity to talk about one of my favourite things, and this is what I want to talk about: vision — the vision of a government for a constituency like mine in Port Coquitlam. They said: "You know what? We've got some serious transportation issues that have got to be dealt with."

I remember a young MLA, along with a government, that had a vision of extending commuter rail service up the north side of the Fraser — something that had been ignored and neglected by previous governments, and nothing was done. And you know what? That vision came to fruition, and we built commuter rail, and it serves every community up the north side of the Fraser all the way out to Mission. That's vision. That's accomplishment, and that's what happens when you have a government that's upfront with the people and knows the direction it wants to go.

Contrast with this government. This is a government that has been in power now for nine long years, a decade of deception. What advances have been made on the Evergreen line to the north side of the Fraser? Nothing.

When they got in, it went from being the top priority to back-of-the-bus priority. They put up a fancy hut with a nice roof and a big shiny sign saying: "Evergreen line is coming." It's still there. No cement in the ground, nothing. Still no funding. Still no funding arrangements have been made in terms of how it's going to be operated. Instead we get fights with local government from the current Minister of Transportation.

J. Horgan: Nevergreen line.

M. Farnworth: As my colleague so eloquently put it, the Nevergreen line, or as people out my way are saying, the never-to-be-built line, as long as this government's in power.

Look at education. We have downloaded costs.

Interjection.

M. Farnworth: Ah. The member says….

An Hon. Member: Abracadabra.

[1555]

M. Farnworth: Exactly. Abracadabra.
[ Page 3807 ]

Schools facing downloaded costs. We have school boards asking to meet for public meetings or to meet with their MLAs.

Interjection.

M. Farnworth: Hang on. I'll deal with that comment in a minute, hon. Member.

[C. Trevena in the chair.]

You know what? The MLAs, the government ones, never really want to meet with them. They want to meet with them in private, and they accuse school boards of being in collusion with the opposition.

No. What they want is some straight answers. What they want is a government that takes their concerns seriously and recognizes that you can't continue to download costs without having an impact on the services that you can provide.

Now, my colleague made a comment a moment ago. It was so profound that I can't remember what it was. I'm quite sure it was truly enlightening, but it's like the throne speech. It was obviously extremely forgettable.

He said the highest per-capita funding in history. Well, it's called inflation. So every year you end up spending more than you spent last year. The question is: what do you get for the dollars that you're putting in? If the costs you're inputting are greater than the inflationary increase or decrease, you've got a problem, and that's what this government doesn't seem to understand.

They're stuck behind a mantra, a message box, a spin box, going: "Oh, we have the highest education funding ever in the history of the province."

J. Horgan: Well, we heard that just today.

M. Farnworth: Exactly. We heard it just today. In fact, we heard it just a few moments ago from the hon. member. Trouble is, hon. Member, you've been downloading cost after cost onto school boards, just like you've been doing to everyday families in my constituency and throughout this province, without taking that into account. The result, in the case of school boards, is that they have to make cuts to programs. They have to close schools.

In the case of families, they have to decide that they're not going to eat out this week. They can't afford it because of the increased costs being downloaded onto them because of the HST. They have to think twice about whether or not they should go to a campground in this province, because this government's jacked up the cost of that, made a basic family vacation more expensive. They have to think twice about whether or not they're going to buy a new bicycle or something like that, because before where it was tax-free, now they've increased the cost of that by 12 percent.

The list goes on and on, all of it taking place without one shred of analysis by a minister on that side of the House in any ministry that relates to how everyday people cope with their situation and the cost of living in the province of British Columbia. Not one shred of analysis.

No wonder this throne speech is devoid of vision. No wonder this throne speech deserves to be voted against, which is exactly what we will do. No wonder I look forward to the day where we can tell the public that they have the choice to get rid of a government that is lacking in vision, that is making the wrong choices, that is on the wrong track…

Hon. K. Krueger: They could have chosen you on May 12. They didn't want you.

M. Farnworth: As a matter of fact, hon. Member, they did choose me on May 12, with the largest majority out my way since 1979.

…or they can start to look at an alternative with a vision that isn't going to say one thing before an election and another thing after an election. People aren't stupid. People know that governments have to make tough decisions. People know that government is about making choices. They just want their representatives and their governments to be upfront with them — to be upfront, to answer the questions.

[1600]

We saw it today in this House in question period, you know. "What events did you go to during the Olympic Games that were paid for by the taxpayer?" It's a pretty straightforward question. If you'd answered that question the first time it was asked, no one would have said anything, because the public expects you to do things. They know you're a minister. They expect you to attend the games in your ministerial capacity. They don't have an issue with that. But when you stand and go, "Oh, I'm not answering that. I'm not going to. No, no, no, that's outside this budget estimates," that is just patent nonsense.

"I have no intentions of answering that. You're going to have to wait till a report comes out in late spring." We know what "late spring" means, hon. Speaker. Late spring means June 18 — two weeks after we're out of here. Instead, we have to painfully extract….

Hon. K. Krueger: That's the early spring.

M. Farnworth: No, June 18 is at the end of spring. Summer comes June 21.

Interjection.

M. Farnworth: That explains a lot, hon. Member.

The point I'm making is that had you just been upfront and straightforward with the public, it would have been
[ Page 3808 ]
a lot less painful. Again, it's symbolic of the approach this government takes to the sharing of information in terms of being transparent and in terms of respecting the people who paid for you to go to those events — the public, the taxpayer.

We understand that to tell us how many staff and who all the staff were…. Hey, it's perfectly legitimate to say: "There's going to be a report coming out, and you'll know all then." But it's a pretty straightforward question when you say: "Hey, Minister, which events did you go to?" You expect a straightforward answer on that, and to me that is symbolic of what's wrong with this government, in the same way as how they treated legionnaires. Again, it's symbolic of their approach to their cuts on ordinary people.

I see that my time is almost up for this throne speech. There is a lot more that I could say, but as I said, it's been a great privilege to represent my constituency of Port Coquitlam, to raise issues that are of concern to them — the HST. My great staff that work for me in my offices….

Hon. K. Krueger: This isn't goodbye, is it?

M. Farnworth: No, Member. I'm sorry to disappoint you, but no, it is not goodbye. It's just recognizing that the green light is on, so my comments on the throne speech are almost finished, probably much to his delight.

Along with the rest of my colleagues on this side of the House, I will be standing to vote against this throne speech. We look forward to being able to present a throne speech after the next election with a true vision that's upfront for the people of British Columbia.

Hon. M. McNeil: It's my honour to rise today in reply to the Speech from the Throne. I won't get quite as excited as the member opposite, but I'd like to talk to you about what is part of my passion and what I feel about this Speech from the Throne.

Before I start, I want to say at this time that I'd like to thank all of my constituents in the riding of Vancouver–False Creek not only for giving me an opportunity to represent them but also for being such tremendous hosts throughout the entire Olympic and Paralympic Games, as this riding was really the centre for so much of the action right in the downtown core.

I also want to thank my constituency staff. As we all know, we could not do a job such as ours…. Especially if you have a portfolio such as I did, you cannot run your constituency without strong leadership, and that I have with Cris Garvey and Craig Jangula. I'd like to thank them for all of their ongoing support to the residents of Vancouver–False Creek but also to me personally.

Madam Speaker, as you are also aware, our families are very impacted by our decision to seek public office. Because of that, I want to thank my husband of almost 39 years next month, Rod McNeil, and my four daughters — Molly, Megan, Kate and Beth — for being so incredibly patient with me. I also want to acknowledge my 11 grandchildren and even my 12th that's on the way in July, which I'm thrilled about.

[1605]

Unfortunately, they see a lot less of grandma these days, but they are still very much on my mind. That's exactly why I want to speak in support of the Speech from the Throne — because of my grandchildren and my own children. The future opportunities for these four young families — the O'Callaghans, the Zanstras, the Montgomeries and the Turners — are important to me, and the focus of this government is critical to their success in life and their ability to remain in this province.

As the member opposite just finished saying, he felt that we had a lack of understanding of families, and that's exactly wrong. It's because of my family and my understanding of these young families and what they need to do to remain here in the province; that is, they need strong jobs.

A strong economy and job creation are the keys to keeping our families here in this province. As Dr. Jack Mintz said, an $11.5 billion increase in capital investment and a net increase of 113,000 jobs — that's important. Families need jobs. So I am speaking in favour of this.

Many of my colleagues have also spoken about the Olympic and Paralympic Games, but as the Minister of State for the Olympics and ActNow B.C., I want to focus some of my comments on these games in the last couple of months, from the province's point of view.

We've come to the end of an incredible journey, an amazing journey. This province just hosted games that we should all be proud of, of what we've accomplished. I know we've heard from many members of the opposition on how incredibly impressed they were with the games, and I think we all share those feelings.

I especially want to give special thanks to all our provincial volunteers. We had over 400 volunteers supporting Robson Square. That was the province's signature celebration site during the games, and that included roles at the B.C. Pavilion, the B.C. Showcase, the B.C. International Media Centre and, of course, the G.E. Plaza skating rink and the entertainment stages. Our volunteers are in addition to the thousands of VANOC volunteers and tens of thousands of other employees who supported the Winter Games right from the very beginning.

The games put B.C. onto the world stage like never before. We had an unprecedented reach around the world. Some 3.5 billion people are said to have either watched or followed on the Internet, and I cannot believe that staggering number. We talked, leading up to it, of 3 billion, but 3.5 billion is a huge number — half the world's population — and that made our 2010 Olympic Winter Games the most watched Winter Games in history. That is something we need to be proud of.
[ Page 3809 ]

On top of that, an incredible 99 percent of the Canadian population, that's 33.1 million Canadians, viewed some coverage of the Olympic Winter Games through television, on line, print or radio. The Team Canada men's gold hockey game win became the most-watched television broadcast in Canadian history. CTV reported that approximately 1.4 million viewers tuned into the broadcast of the Paralympic opening ceremonies, and we should be hugely proud of those numbers, because what that means is those are hours where direct focus was on our province and what it is that we were doing.

I want to take a moment, also, to reflect on the incredible journey of the Olympic flame that truly ignited the hearts of Canadians. The Olympic Torch Relay connected Canadians and British Columbians in more ways than we'll ever know. I believe this is one of the key reasons that Canadians fully embraced the games, because 90 percent of Canadians were within one hour's drive of this torch relay, and that allowed a huge number of Canadians the opportunity to celebrate their games.

There were moments during this relay that brought people together like never before to celebrate the amazing journey that we were on as a country, and I think the Paralympic Torch Relay did exactly that as well. It was an inspirational and unforgettable journey on its own. I was fortunate enough to have been in Ottawa, Quebec City and Toronto to help launch the Paralympic Torch Relay. I stood in Quebec City with many Quebecers, singing O Canada — all together. I think that's a treasured moment I will never forget.

[1610]

The Paralympic torch journey was concluded by an exciting 24-hour torch relay around Robson Square, all night. If you remember that night, it was the night before the opening of the Paralympic Games. It poured all night. At three in the morning it was pouring. At four in the morning it was pouring, but that didn't stop the pride and the focus of everybody that was there that evening. I was there at 10:30 at night watching the folks come in, and they were just thrilled to be part of it.

Robson Square. I had mentioned that. That was the province's signature celebration site, and it was a pretty incredible place. There wasn't one day where we didn't have many visuals of that location, and I think that's something we should be proud of. It was in the heartbeat of the city of Vancouver.

It's estimated that 1.5 million people visited Robson Square during the games to enjoy concerts; skating; Ignite the Dream, our pyrotechnics show; and, of course, the zip line, which I never did do. I will admit it. I tried, but I couldn't do it. But 15,000 people did do the zip line, and there was even one proposal of marriage over the zip line. He's very lucky she said yes.

Over 30,000 skaters at GE Plaza since November 23 — I think that's pretty incredible. There were 450 concerts, performances and shows for visitors to enjoy, including, as I mentioned, the Ignite the Dream show and Mascots on Ice. There wasn't a child on location that didn't have a huge smile on their face when the mascots took to the ice.

So 140,000 people visited our B.C. Pavilion, and that was pretty incredible, as well, as you went through that incredible art gallery and saw the tremendous works of art and a showcase of what B.C. does best.

The B.C. Media Centre was a huge success. This was an unaccredited media centre that we put together as a province. It was in the University of British Columbia space at Robson Square — hugely successful. Some 3,900 domestic and international media were there, and they represented a cross-section of media unparalleled in any previous Winter Olympic Games — 23 media groups representing 400 newspapers, radios, TV stations and Internet portals. We had CBS, ABC, CTV, Citytv and Global TV, just to mention a few.

Thanks to this media centre, Robson Square, as I mentioned earlier, was the image during the games with live shots being used and broadcast all around the world. People saw our province all around the world. On any given morning we had millions of viewers across North America tuned into the backdrop and the stories of Robson Square, thanks to the live morning broadcasts.

B.C. hosted over 80 events and press conferences at the B.C. Media Centre during the Olympic Games, including athlete availabilities, a series of B.C. wine tastings, a visit by the Stanley Cup and more.

The province, as you know, had a hosting program designed to build on our marketing efforts during the Beijing and Torino Olympic Games. This government had an aggressive hosting strategy aimed at people who could make a difference for British Columbia long after the games are over. We highlighted our competitive advantages with international business decision-makers, leading to trade, investment and other economic partnerships. The success of our hosting program surpassed our expectation, and now the follow-up is about to begin. We will continue to build on these relationships made during the games.

One of the best moments for me is when I had an opportunity to host a U.S. delegation. The Secretary of Health for the Obama cabinet happened to be there, and the first thing she said to me when she met me was not, "Hi, how are you?" and chatting about just generalities. It was to ask me about ActNow B.C. She had heard about it, and she wanted to talk about it because it's very much along the lines of the programs that they would like to have happen down in the U.S. Those are the kinds of relationships that we built and I think are very important that we continue.

The Conference Board of Canada has forecast that the Winter Games will inject about $770 million into B.C.'s economy in 2010 alone, and I invite all members
[ Page 3810 ]
to help us make even more happen. We've already seen economic benefits of these games here in this province with over 800 new companies established in Canada because of the games, and aboriginal-owned companies benefited greatly with over $54 million in games-related contracts going to them.

[1615]

There's no doubt that we were given and have taken full advantage of an unprecedented opportunity to gain international exposure and yield even more relationships. We need to continue those with many of the different countries.

I also met with the Italians to talk about the lessons they learned after Torino in the post-games period. Again, I think this is an important period for us to make sure that we maximize the opportunity that we have just experienced. The United Kingdom wanted to talk about their upcoming games — and Russia, as well, two years after that. In fact, we also met with the Germans, who are looking to bid for the 2018 Olympic Winter Games. These relationships all matter.

Relationships that also matter are those that we built within the province. I specifically want to mention probably one of the best legacies I found throughout these entire games, and that was our relationship with the Four Host First Nations. I can't tell you how many close friends I now have that I hadn't met before. I tell you, they worked so hard to make sure that their story got out, that their art and their talents got out, and they did an incredible job.

The Olympics and Paralympics also provided us with an incredible elite-level exhibition of sports, but we also know that sport is truly rooted at the community level. We have long been committed to growing sport and encouraging all British Columbians in all communities to lead healthier and more active lives. This is where we chose to focus our healthy living efforts during the last five years, by making a difference in the communities and for individuals.

Our healthy living initiative, ActNow B.C., was launched five years ago to help us attain one of our great goals — to make B.C. a model for healthy living and physical fitness. The success of ActNow has been clearly reflected in the health of people living in communities across our province, and our statistics show that we do lead the country. We have the lowest smoking rate in the country, the highest physical activity rate for youth and adults. As well, we are among the highest consumers of fruit and vegetables and have the lowest self-reported obesity rates in Canada.

ActNow B.C.'s whole-of-government approach to health promotion has been recognized nationally and internationally as a model for other jurisdictions to follow. As I mentioned earlier, the U.S. Secretary of Health mentioned to me that she wanted to talk to me about our ActNow B.C. program as an initiative that she is launching with the first lady. I tell you, the amount that she knew about our program impressed me incredibly. We have since communicated via correspondence and are going to continue our discussion, because I think we can continue to learn from each other.

The World Health Organization recently released a report dedicated to ActNow B.C., which showcases its successes. I think that's something, again, that we should be incredibly proud of.

Are we there yet? No. We do have an opportunity, I feel, right now to take advantage of the post-Olympic high that we are on. There are many youngsters across this province that watched many, many idols and athletes do incredible things not just in the Olympic Games but in the Paralympic Games. I think we owe it to those kids to keep that feeling alive and the spirit alive and to chat with our Olympic athletes and get out there to all of the schools all around our province to encourage them to keep fit so that they, too, can possibly reach the Olympics or the Paralympic Games.

I have reflected on the amazing journey that British Columbia and British Columbians have undergone these past two months. The journey may now be complete, but the legacy of our shared experiences, the relationships and the worldwide respect that B.C. has garnered will live on. It was an amazing time.

The total number of countries at the games — 82. The total number of athletes and officials — 7,850. The total number of visitors to our province — 300,000. The total number of medals won by Canada — 45. The total number of media showcasing B.C. — 14,600. The total number of viewers — 3.5 billion people.

[1620]

A strong economy so that we have the resources to continue and increase support to our families and children as outlined in the throne speech — priceless.

J. Horgan: Hi. How are you, hon. Speaker? It's a delight to take to my feet and speak on behalf of the people of Juan de Fuca to the 2010 edition of "promises, promises, everywhere promises," commonly known as the throne speech. This happens in legislatures, as you know, hon. Speaker, a student of parliamentary democracy in legislatures all around the Commonwealth. But nowhere do they happen with more regularity, it seems to me, than in the province of British Columbia.

This is my third opportunity in just over 12 months to speak to a throne speech, and that of course is a result of an election campaign that ended the 38th parliament — I'm looking at the Clerk. We're in the 39th parliament. Thank you very much. This is the second opportunity I've had to speak to a throne speech since the election in May of 2009. I also was the last speaker.

No, correct me, hon. Chair. I was the second-to-last speaker on last year's throne speech. It was the last day of the session in November. I was followed by the
[ Page 3811 ]
Premier, who took an opportunity to roust the troops, to get some desk-thumping going and spoke in vague generalities, which is consistent with what we usually see in a throne speech.

I'm delighted to stand here today, and I have a copy of the document. It was thin gruel this year — only 24 pages — but that, of course, is good news for the Hon. Steven Point, who had to stand and deliver it here in this place not that long ago.

I want to start by speaking, of course…. Many members will know my sainted spouse Ellie. Without her constant support, especially with ties and shirts and such like that for a colour-blind member, I wouldn't be able to do the job. But, of course, we all know that it's not just making sure that I've got all my clothes on when I leave the house in the morning; it's also making sure that I'm at appointments, I've got all my carrots and my fresh fruits and I'm ready for the day. Without Ellie, I couldn't do it, and anyone who knows me from this side of the House is absolutely certain of that.

I have two children, and I think I would be remiss and also chastised if I didn't mention them. Of course, we know my good son Nate, who is studying in Freiburg, Germany, at present, learning multiple languages so he can come here and be pleasant and inoffensive in multiple languages, and my gooder son Evan, who is staying in Victoria to ensure that I don't have to bend over and pick up heavy stuff.

I appreciate that very much, Evan, and thank you for sticking around. The members will want to know, though. He is going off to Finland, of all places — the Helsinki School of Economics in September — so we'll be without both of our kids — in continental Europe learning things to come back and stimulate the economy.

Of course, people come and go from British Columbia all the time. I left B.C. as a young man to find my fame and fortune and my education outside the borders of this place. But sometimes members on that side of the House speak about leaving B.C. as if it was some sort of a crime brought upon by economic destitution.

In fact, people move around all the time, and that is one of the beauties of British Columbia and Canada. We have mobility, and we're able to go wherever we wish and come and rest where we want to be. I know my friend from Panorama Ridge is certainly an adherent of that view — that you can go and be whatever you possibly can be with the help and support of family, friends and, in some cases, political institutions.

There are a lot of things to commend in the throne speech. As I said earlier, it was short. That was a good thing. It also spoke about vision. My colleague from Port Coquitlam was speaking quite eloquently earlier on. I hate to take any leads from him, but he spoke about an absence of vision. Of course, you can have vision or not vision. In this instance, my friend from West End will, I think, concur that we're a little bit shy on vision.

We had a review of the five great goals that were brought up some years ago — five or six years ago. They were brought back for a command performance in this edition of the throne speech. There was also a reference…. I see the Minister of Advanced Education here, and I'm going to be speaking shortly about UBC and about the Western Forest Products lands in my constituency.

There was a section in the throne speech that really caught my attention. It was the clanger, as you know. You're listening to the Lieutenant-Governor go on and on, and every now and again there will be something that will catch your attention.

[1625]

What caught my attention was a reference to the generally accepted accounting principles with respect to post-secondary institutions. Why that caught my attention is that the current government made it a virtue when they came to power that they were going to move to generally accepted accounting principles — the GAAP principles.

This was a fundamental plank in their campaign in 2001, but yet here we were in 2010, and they make reference in the throne speech to how we can't hold back financial institutions by forcing them to be part of the reporting entity. This caught my attention, because it was a direct contradiction to what was a fundamental tenet of the so-called good managers on the other side of the House. This was just prior to running the largest deficit in B.C. history back in 2001, followed last year by the second largest. This year is, I think, the fourth largest.

So we've got a whole bunch of opportunities to look at their management skills and fiscal prowess. I'm thumbing through here looking for the section. I know my colleague would probably be able to tell me what page it is on because it is, I think, the single thing that her ministry will be focusing on as we come to the end of the throne speech and move on to other business in this place.

Why I wanted to bring this up was that the University of British Columbia had an interest in purchasing lands, private lands, that were released in 2007 from a tree farm licence on Vancouver Island. Members have heard me talk about this almost ad nauseam, I think, over the past three years. The University of British Columbia saw an opportunity to use this land base for forest research, to use it for economic development, and an opportunity to encourage and increase activity on the land base.

I'm advised that the reason this didn't go forward was because there was a borrowing limit at UBC — their ability to incur debt to undertake this activity. They came to government. Government said: "No, you can't increase your debt limit. We're going to be changing the reporting relationship as outlined in the throne speech, and the generally accepted accounting principles will be put aside so you can partner with whoever you want."

Now, when I heard this clang, I thought: "Gee, that would be ideal for the University of British Columbia
[ Page 3812 ]
with respect to the Western Forest Products lands." I haven't heard more about it. I see a steady, firm view on the face of the minister, and I'm hopeful that she'll be able to, after I finish my remarks, explain to me just what the intention was in the throne speech to jettison the GAAP and move to removing these post-secondary institutions from the reporting entity.

With that, I want to just touch on a few things in my constituency. This is one of the things that we do — my colleague for Columbia River–Revelstoke will know: we talk about things that are going on in our neighbourhood, or not going on in our neighbourhood, with respect to funding — usually during the budget debate. But also, we look in the throne speech for some sense of what the government's plan is for our area.

I live on Vancouver Island — proudly born and raised here. I did leave for a period of time and came back, and I know that members will want to take note of that. When I did return in the 1990s — a very prosperous time for me. Apparently, other members came here. The member from East Kootenay came here at that time. The member for Kamloops–North Thompson came to British Columbia in the 1990s. I'm sure other people in this place came to British Columbia in the 1990s. It was probably a good thing to do. It certainly was for me, returning home.

In my constituency there are a couple of fundamental issues that I was hoping to see raised in the throne speech. I saw a lot of discussion about how, in general terms, the government was going to proceed in the areas of education, child care, transportation and also governance, which is an issue that is very close to my heart. I'd like to think of myself as a bit of a student of government. I have a couple of degrees.

There's a life cycle to a government, and most of us have seen it. Some members on that side of the House have endured the various stages.

We've got the early stages, the early actions. When governments come to power, they claim that everything that happened before they arrived was appalling and would never be repeated. They cast out any of the good policies — in fact, all of the policies of previous administrations — and say: "From this point forward only goodness shall come forward from the cabinet room, and all backbenchers will clap heartily when the minister of this or that stands in this place and says: 'Nothing has ever been as great as what I'm about to say right now.'"

It's that hubris….

[1630]

Interjection.

J. Horgan: My friend from Saanich North is helping me along, and I appreciate that.

It's the hubris that really kind of dials people out. And I know that the new members on that side of the House, and new members on this side of the House, probably came here with an expectation that we were going to work together cooperatively on initiatives that we had a mutual interest in. I don't disagree with everything the B.C. Liberals do — far from it.

I support the Minister of Health's initiatives on anti-smoking, for example. I can't do enough to support those initiatives. I support issues that are brought forward by my friend from West Vancouver–Capilano, the convener of the Crown Corporations Committee — which has not yet been convened, but I'm hopeful.

I'm hopeful that as we look at a new plan for our Crown corporations, as articulated in the throne speech…. Perhaps as members on both sides of the House we'll have an opportunity to convene, to congregate, to come together — these are all "c" words, so it'll be easy for the member for Kamloops–South Thompson to understand; it's early on in the alphabet — and discuss cooperatively, reach consensus and bring forward policies that are in the interests of all British Columbians.

That's why we came here. That was the objective when people put Xs in boxes beside our names. They thought we would come here — Liberal, New Democrat, independent — and we would find common ground. In fact, I heard the Premier, the member for Vancouver–Point Grey, say in this place not that long ago that when we come together, we can do anything.

I thought: "Well, gee. Wouldn't it be nice if he did that with the people that are in this place?" I don't know who he was talking to when he stood and said that. He wasn't talking to me. He hasn't talked to me in five years — nodded at me the other day. I got a two-paragraph letter back from him. I wrote a two-page letter and got two paragraphs back saying: "Thank you very much." I guess I should be grateful for that.

He said that we should work together, and if we do, we can accomplish anything. That's what we say to our kids. That's what our parents said to us. That's what we try to espouse when we're in our communities. When we're in this Legislature, however, inexplicably, the consensus and cooperation that normal human beings expect goes out the door, out the window, flies away. Inconceivable.

If we work together, we can accomplish anything. Well, I suggest to the Premier, the member for Vancouver–Point Grey, if he wants to see that sort of collegiality and consensus and cooperation, that he take the first step. That's what leadership's about. Be a leader. Take a risk. Take a flyer that the guy from Juan de Fuca is not out of his mind and he might actually be able to help out on something.

I suggest that he talk to the member for Surrey-Newton. He's got good ideas. He understands what's going on, on the other side of the river. My friend from Vancouver-Hastings — no one knows his community better than he does.

If the Premier wanted to work with members of this House, why don't you talk to them? Call them up, Mr.
[ Page 3813 ]
Premier: 686-7916. Give me a call. Happy to give you advice on any number of issues. You name it. I'll be happy to talk to you about it.

One of the things I talk about is primary care in my community of Sooke. Sooke is at the end of Highway 14. The Minister of Transportation is becoming quite familiar with Highway 14. It's the ribbon of road that runs from Langford out to Port Renfrew. Usually, at this time of the year, we've had a lot of rain, and there's been a mudslide, and the road is closed.

Her able staff in the Ministry of Transportation rush to the scene, resolve the problem, and we hope beyond hope that there will be sufficient funding to fix the problem — not just until the next mudslide, but maybe for a couple of seasons. Maybe we'll try and come to terms with the fact that we live in a rainforest, and water comes from the sky on a fairly regular basis and washes out the road.

I've been working cooperatively with that minister to try and see that happen. If the Premier called me at 686-7916, I'd talk about transportation. I'd talk about health care. I'd talk about the emerging issues in Sooke: primary health care; child care, so that families can get that second job or third job to pay for their increased hydro fees, to pay for their increased MSP premiums, to pay for the harmonized sales tax that's been visited upon them by the Minister of Finance without any consultation, without any forethought, without any sense whatsoever what the impacts would be.

It's the single most important thing, so he says, that he could do for the economy. Well, if he had called me up and he had asked me what I thought, I would have probably given him a little bit of a different answer. Smart taxation might have been where I would have started from. He's rolling his eyes, I'm certain, at the thought of that.

Of course he wants smart taxation. We all want that. But why don't we talk about it? The ministry has very capable people in it. I've worked with some of them. There are new people since I left, I'm sure. I hope — I really hope — that there are new people since I left.

[1635]

When I was working in government, I didn't fear opposition members. I saw opposition members as an opportunity. I saw them as an opportunity to better understand the communities that were not represented in the government caucus room or not represented at the cabinet table. I would think that after the Premier experienced the joy and the celebration of the world coming to Vancouver that he would take that goodwill and bring it into this chamber. Wouldn't that be an Olympic event? Goodwill from the government to the opposition. Imagine that.

My friend from Columbia River–Revelstoke says: "Wouldn't that be wonderful?" Imagine taking the skill and ability of people on this side of the House and putting it to good effect for the people not just in their communities but right across B.C.

There are 85 of us in here, hon. Speaker — 85 men and women coming here with the best of intentions, coming here to listen, sadly, to three throne speeches in 14 months, all of them talking about the Olympics and the Olympic opportunity and the Olympic aftermath and the glow and everything that was going to come beyond that.

Well, the party is over, hon. Speaker, and it was a great party. No one will dispute that. The athletes performed true to form. They had read the script. They were going to come here and give it their level best, give everything they had for one moment of heroic human achievement. I don't know anyone who could be against that.

I've been an advocate for athletics and sport since I was a young person. Were it not for sport, I don't believe I'd be standing here today. In fact, I'm absolutely certain of it. Were I not dragged out of the trouble I was in, in high school to play basketball and lacrosse and other sports, I wouldn't be standing here today. I will not at any time criticize the decision to bring the Olympics to Vancouver and to British Columbia.

However, the symbolism and the examples that we saw of men and women going beyond themselves, going beyond what they had ever done before should have been, surely to goodness for the Premier who was there with his mittens the whole time…. Surely to goodness that would have been motivation and inspiration for him to come here and have an Olympic moment of his own. Get outside of your partisanship and your bitter resentment of New Democrats. Get away from that for just a minute and embrace the possibilities of us working together in this place.

I know that's what the people of my community want, and I know that because I go and see them. I like people. People are fun, and the world is inhabited with billions of them. So why not get to know a few of them?

I take the bus in my community. I talk to people regularly. I have the good fortune of being on the local radio show once or twice a month, where people phone in and give me their views. I try in every way possible to reach out to the people in my community because that's not just what they expect. It's what they should demand and what they demand of all of us in all of our communities across B.C.

We come here with high hopes and high expectations, and after a few minutes…. We've got some young people in the gallery. I hate to dash your high hopes and expectations. But it's not always thus, hon. Speaker. Quite often there's animosity in this place; there's tension. It's an adversarial thing we've got here. Yeah, it's true, hon. Member. This is an adversarial system. It's designed that way, but it doesn't have to be that way 24 hours a day.

The committee system. Again, I go back to the three stages of government — the early action, open cabinet meetings. The Premier — I was going to say his name;
[ Page 3814 ]
I certainly wouldn't want to do that — the fellow from Vancouver–Point Grey, the president of the executive council: "We're going to have open cabinet meetings. We're going to blow the doors open."

That's what governments do at the start of their mandate. Let the sun shine in. Let the ideas grow. Let us all see what we can do to make the world a better place. Well, that just stopped in 2005. There were no more open cabinet meetings. As soon as there was a functioning, articulate opposition, we can't possibly have open cabinet meetings. That would be wrong.

Committee meetings. When there were 77 Liberals on that side and only two members on this side, they had committee meetings all over the place, because they had to keep people busy. Nothing worse than having 50 backbenchers. Holy cow, how are we going to keep them busy? Idle hands, hon. Speaker. You can't have that. So their committees met all the time. They had government caucus committee meetings. They had committees for this and committees for that, and it was a good idea. It wasn't just keeping those idle hands busy. There were ideas percolating in those rooms.

Those committee members invited the public in to give their thoughts and views on various issues of the day, whether they be health care, education, child care or public safety. These are issues of importance to the people that we represent. Why wouldn't we come together, both sides of the House, and hear what our publics have to say, hear what the people who elected us have to say? It makes sense to me.

[1640]

In fact, I defy anyone in this place to stand here in this debate and say that they're against working with their colleagues. I mean, that's almost as bad as saying that you're not going to introduce a tax before an election and then introducing one afterwards.

I don't think there's a person in here that would stand and say: "I'm not prepared to work with the member for Juan de Fuca because he's a New Democrat, because he lives on southern Vancouver Island, because he's 6 foot 2, because his kids go to school in Europe." I mean, pick your reason. Pick your excuse for not working with me, but be honest about it.

The Premier stood and said: "If we all work together, we can accomplish anything." Well, hear, hear. How about a handclap for that? How about a hallelujah for: "Let's all work together in the interests of the people that we represent." [Applause.]

My friend from White Rock is always with me. That's on tape now. They're going to come and visit you, Member. Be careful.

Interjection.

J. Horgan: Yeah, the member for Surrey–White Rock supporting the member for Juan de Fuca. It is on record now. A visit from the PAB bureau. A reorientation is in order. "Don't be nice to the other people — only in your speeches but never in reality."

So that's the first stage of government, the first couple of years, where anything is possible. Ideas grow. People are invited and encouraged to come and contribute and pay attention to what's going on.

Then there's the midterm malaise, which I think we had in 2008-2009, for sure. The government was kind of running out of steam. They were just looking to the election campaign. "We'll just spend another 30 days pretending that we're in charge of everything and there's no deficit. There's going to be no tax increases. Everything is going to be great. Hip replacements…? You name it. You want a hip replacement? Come on in. Two, three days — we'll have it done for you." That's the hubris and the mischief that happens in that malaise period.

Then we come to the end-of-life stage, and this is where you need government hospice services, and sadly, I believe that we're at that point now in the mandate. That's a shame, because we're less than 12 months into the term of the government. It's a shame that we have to call the paddles in. We have to give them a bit of a boost.

My suggestion to those paying attention on the other side…. My suggestion to invigorate and revive your moribund government would be to encourage the opposition to participate with you. Co-opt us. Make us part of the problem and, therefore, part of the solution. Good politics.

I hope you're paying attention in the Premier's office. Write that down. Or phone me — 686-7916. Operators are standing by. I'm ready to take your calls, government members. How can I help you?

I've had a discussion with the Minister of Aboriginal Relations just recently. We had a golden opportunity in my community, three First Nations at treaty tables — the Pacheenaht, in Port Renfrew; the T'Sou-ke Nation, in Sooke; and the Scia'new, or the Beecher Bay people in Metchosin. When the government made the bad decision to allow Western Forest Products to remove private lands from their tree farm licence, they could have, at that moment, said: "But, wait a second. Let's take some of those lands, those private lands, and put them towards treaty resolution."

I've talked to the Minister of Aboriginal Relations about that. The opportunity continues to exist. The lands are on the real estate market. It would be an opportunity if the University of British Columbia doesn't want to participate, if the Minister of Community and Rural Development doesn't want to get in the game to help out the people in my community. Perhaps the Minister of Aboriginal Relations will do that, to try and resolve unresolved treaty issues on lands within the constituency of Juan de Fuca — golden opportunity.

I've already talked about transportation and how I'm very anxious for the Minister of Transportation to take a
[ Page 3815 ]
good, hard look at how we can try and resolve the issues on Highway 14. But there's also a thing called the E&N corridor.

For those on Vancouver Island, that's the Esquimalt and Nanaimo corridor. It was part of the terms of federation. British Columbia would not join Canada without a commitment from the federal government that there would be train service on Vancouver Island. That's how long this railway line has been there, and that's how integral it is to the fabric of Vancouver Island and, in fact, British Columbia and, indeed, Canada.

This line has a train that leaves Victoria at eight in the morning and goes north. While all of the commuters are coming from the Cowichan Valley or coming from the Western Communities of Victoria into town, the train is chug, chug, chugging along up the Island, the wrong way, to deliver visitors, whether they be there for recreation or tourism or just going up to see family members in the Comox Valley. But it's going in the wrong direction.

Then at night, when everybody's vacating town — they're getting onto Highway 1, getting onto the Old Island Highway — heading back to their communities, the train comes chugging down the other way.

[1645]

At a minimum, you would think that a government concerned about climate change, about the number of single-occupancy vehicles on the roads, about transportation networks and efficient movement of people, goods and services would see this as a golden opportunity. But here I am, five years after my first election, continuing to talk about the E&N rail corridor as an opportunity for transportation — end the gridlock on Highway 1 during the commute periods.

The government is studying it. Well, that's good, I suppose. It's better than ignoring it. I'm anxiously awaiting the results of that study so that we can look at other transportation challenges in the south Island.

Members from both sides of the House…. I've already mentioned my friend from Saanich North. There are significant transportation improvements happening in his constituency.

I know they're repaving Beach Drive in the member from Oak Bay's riding. Goodness knows we need to do that. Got to be able to get back to Oak Bay from downtown Victoria in five and a half minutes on a perfectly smooth road. Forget about all those working people who are coming back and forth to keep this place operating, to keep other businesses and government services going in Victoria. They're making their way up to lower-cost real estate in the Cowichan Valley and in the Western Communities.

They deserve the same access to transportation dollars as other people in this community and other people in British Columbia. I'm hopeful, and in fact I'm quite optimistic that the Minister of Transportation recognizes that challenge, and she would be prepared in a heartbeat to give me a call. She's got my number. I'm sure she wrote it down when I gave it out a moment ago, and at any time I'm happy to talk to her about that — 686-7916 for those who are keeping track. It's buzzing in my pocket right now.

I'm running short on time. My colleague's going to tell me just how much time I have left in a minute, but I want to talk about some of the reductions in services that we've seen over the past 12 months.

None are more important in my mind than cuts to autism services here in British Columbia, particularly in my constituency. I have had the pleasure and privilege of meeting parents with children with autism, and the challenges that they face, day in and day out, are just extraordinary. If anyone listening at home or in the gallery or in the chamber today has any exposure to children with autism and just the enormous challenges that these families face, it would be very, very hard to justify the cuts that we've seen in budgets in the past 24 months in that area.

Cuts to gaming grants. Again, we're going to be getting into that in estimates. Little tiny pieces of money, little tiny chunks of change — 5,000 bucks here, 60,000 bucks there. We're building a casino in downtown Vancouver right beside a brand-spanking-new roof on B.C. Place Stadium. We're into the multi-hundreds of millions of dollars in excess, in my opinion. Absolute excess for eight or nine football games — and I love football — and a soccer team that says: "Well, we'd really rather be somewhere else."

Why in the world would we spend that kind of money…?

Interjection.

J. Horgan: Why in the world…? Not even close, but we can talk about that, if you'd like, too. I'm happy to talk to you about that anytime, and you know it.

The challenge for me is that they take $5,000 here, $10,000 there, and they yank it away from communities and people. Where are the people in your equation, Mr. Finance Minister? Do they live in Quilchena? Do they care about these things? Do they care? Do the people in your community want to have a new lid on the stadium? I wouldn't think so. Not for $500 million they wouldn't. It's grotesque, is what it is.

I think that when you give me a call, the first thing I'll say, Mr. Premier, is: "Don't put a new lid on B.C. Place Stadium." Now that might be inconsistent with the views of my colleagues on this side of the House, but that's my view. I was elected and sent here by the people in Juan de Fuca to put on the table what I think. They elected me for my judgment, and in my judgment, that is an abuse and a grotesque expenditure of public moneys. I don't think I can be any clearer than that.

Did that come through clear, hon. Chair? I'm hopeful it did. Grotesque is what that is.
[ Page 3816 ]

I'm running out of time. I wanted to talk about education. I wanted to talk about a whole host of other things in my community. Regrettably, we're coming to the end of the 30 minutes I'm given to do that, but I am encouraged and optimistic that my phone has been ringing. It might well be the Premier. He might have a job for me to do to help the people in my community.

With that, I thank you all for the time, and I'll see you again next throne speech.

[1650]

Hon. S. Bond: I'm delighted to be able to take my place in this legislative building to actually speak in favour of the throne speech. It seems like quite some time ago that we actually heard the Speech from the Throne.

One of the important things that is placed in the throne speech is always the opportunity to remember important and tremendous British Columbians who we have lost during the course of time from the previous throne speech. I was just moved by a number of people whose names are reflected there in the throne speech, people with whom we have relationships that vary, whether they're colleagues or people who have served our country. I wanted to begin by just reflecting on that for a moment.

The throne speech lays out government's agenda and plan for the province, but I think it's so fitting that at the beginning of that process it lays out and recognizes people who have made significant contributions. There were three in particular that I wanted to just reference that were captured in this particular throne speech.

Someone who was a colleague of ours was the former mayor of Whistler. He was a critical part of the bid for the 2010 Olympics. That's Ted Nebbeling. As I thought about that, I thought how fitting that he be recognized at a time when we were looking forward to the Olympics and looking forward to the promise that they brought. I can honestly say — we sat beside each other for a while in the Legislature — that it was hard to read his name on that list, but I'm glad that he was recognized and remembered.

Someone else who was recognized was a young woman who I had the pleasure of working with when I was on the school board and school board chair in Prince George, and that was the young reporter Michelle Lang, who was actually killed in Afghanistan.

I remember she started her career as an intern at the Prince George Free Press in 1995. I could hardly believe my eyes when I saw the screen and knew that this young woman's life had ended. She was so full of promise and energy. It was so important that she's reflected, captured here in the throne speech. I know how shocking it was for many of us and for some of my other colleagues who knew her as well.

Finally, Dr. Don Rix. He died in November of 2009. I can tell you that he was an amazing British Columbian. One of the things that I appreciated so much about him was the fact that while he was very much a key part of the Vancouver scene, he actually had a deep passion for northern British Columbia.

I wanted to certainly pay tribute to him today because he did remarkable things when it came to the medical program at the University of Northern British Columbia. In fact, because of his generosity and his support for that program, the building there is named the Dr. Donald Rix Northern Health Sciences Centre. It opened in the fall of 2004. He was also a former member of the board of governors of UNBC.

I just thought it was so fitting that these incredible people are recognized in the throne speech. Dr. Don Rix made a difference in British Columbia, and I wanted to just pay tribute to him today. I know that he is deeply missed, not only by his family but by many British Columbians who appreciate the contribution that he made.

As we as a government look to the future of this province, it's British Columbians like that that motivate us and inspire us to look at doing our best and make sure that as we position British Columbia for the future, we do that in a way that maintains an incredibly important status for this province both across the country and around the world.

As we looked at the throne speech, it seems almost impossible that just weeks ago the throne speech talked about our Olympic opportunity. I can hardly believe as we stand here today that the Olympics and the Paralympics have come and gone in Vancouver and Whistler and in the province of British Columbia. I know that in my home constituency in the northern part of British Columbia it was universal. People in British Columbia recognized the magnificence of the athletes in particular, who did an exceptional job in representing our country.

[1655]

Whether they were Paralympians, whether they were Olympians, they made all of us proud. When you think about the absolutely astonishing accomplishments of someone like Lauren Woolstencroft, who was a multiple-medal-winner in the Paralympics…. Whether you think about Alexandre Bilodeau and his brother Frédéric…. Who would have known about that relationship before they were showcased here in British Columbia? I think that all of us will carry a piece of those Olympics, a part of those, with us as we move through the future.

But we know that — while they were a magnificent sporting event, and while there was a cultural component attached to it — the Olympics mean much more than that for the people of British Columbia. The throne speech tried to capture that by saying that while it is an event and it will take place during a certain period of days, it is also an unprecedented opportunity for British Columbia.

When we think about it, when you turned on your television set during that period of time, every single
[ Page 3817 ]
morning broadcasters from around the globe were talking about what a spectacular place British Columbia is, not just because of its physical beauty but because of the people who live here. It's our responsibility as the government of British Columbia to be able to capitalize on an opportunity that a lot of people worked very hard to ensure happened in British Columbia.

We heard the cynics. We heard the naysayers. In fact, no one today, I am certain, could look back and suggest that this was not an absolutely unbelievable success for the province. Now we need to make sure that we continue to capitalize on the things that we learned, on the relationships that we made, on the events that were held. There are a large number of connections that were made during that period of time.

I want to speak just for a minute, and I want to say thank you to a group of people who took on one of the most difficult logistical challenges of the Olympics. That's the team that put together the transportation strategy. I can tell you this. It was complex. It took literally years of planning.

It was done by a team of people that brought together resources in the province, including organizations like TransLink, like B.C. Transit, like B.C. Ferries. It ensured that the Ministry of Transportation, the city of Vancouver, Whistler…. All of these organizations had to come together to ensure that the transportation component of the Olympics was successful and efficient, because we'd been told that if any of those things caused issues, they could have an enormous impact on the success of the Olympic Games and the Paralympic Games. Well, I want to tell you that the work that was done by those organizations and those individuals, the work that they did, was absolutely phenomenal and an unqualified success.

When you look at the kinds of statistics that we've seen, in fact, as a result of the Olympic Games, they are absolutely staggering. When I heard the numbers that we looked at, as we looked at our transportation summary, it was unbelievable — the number of people who actually used public transit options during that period of time.

If I look at boardings, for example, related to people who used the bus, they were actually 8 percent higher than they were on average, as a percentage change from the normal weekday. The Expo and Millennium lines had a 64 percent increase from what was a normal weekday.

The Canada Line was an unbelievable success — something that as a government we'd insisted that we move forward with, that project. The Canada Line was an unprecedented success — 118 percent more riders than you'd see on a normal weekday; the SeaBus, 119 percent. And the list just goes on. When you look at an average of the increase of riders and transit users during that period of time, it was a 31 percent increase.

I can tell you that it would not have taken place without incredible expertise, partnership, communication and collaboration between the integrated transportation team. Today on behalf of British Columbians and certainly my colleagues, I want to say thank you very much to all of those organizations and individuals for a job extraordinarily well done. You made the Olympics, your part of it, an enormous success. Without you, we certainly would have had many more issues than we had in that area. So thank you very much to all those people who worked so very hard.

Also, as the throne speech laid out for us, there were so many things that are important to the constituents that I represent. I think it's so ironic. The member opposite that spoke before me stood up and talked about his connections with his constituency and his willingness to reach out, you know, and made that sound somewhat unique.

I can assure you, Madam Speaker, that every MLA that's represented to this House — and, certainly, the members on this side of the House — works equally as hard. They work to connect with their constituents. They work to listen to their constituents. They work to bring those issues to this place, to Victoria.

[1700]

I just want to assure British Columbians that it's not about what one MLA does. It's a matter of what every single person who's elected to public office in British Columbia, particularly in this place, does to represent their constituents. I can tell you this. To a person on this side of the Legislature, I am proud of every single one of my colleagues who work endlessly and tirelessly to ensure that they represent their constituencies right here in the Legislature in Victoria.

We just want to make sure we recognize that it's not unique to an MLA or certainly to one side of the House. In fact, every single member on this side of the House works very hard to ensure that that takes place.

When we talk about having input and listening to our constituents, one of the things that I hear most consistently from my constituents…. I live in northern British Columbia and am very proud to call it home. For my lifetime, in fact, I have lived there. We've raised our children there and now our grandson there.

One of the things that people talk about consistently is the lack of a one-step, integrated environmental assessment process in this province, and that is absolutely essential. When we're looking at a time when we want to diversify the economy both in northern British Columbia and across the province, one of the things we need to do is make sure that we have one project and one process. The throne speech commits to continuing to work with the federal government to establish that very process.

In fact, as the throne speech says, there is no time to waste. Canadian taxpayers cannot afford the extra costs,
[ Page 3818 ]
the uncertainties and the lost jobs that are products of the current system. We are committed to continuing to work in the very positive relationship that we've developed with the federal government and with many other jurisdictions to talk about how we can actually streamline those processes.

Now, make no mistake about it. We're not for a moment suggesting that we water down the important, rigorous environmental processes that are necessary. We are going to continue to make sure that we have the most significant set of standards in the country.

Perhaps unlike the members opposite, we actually believe that getting to a streamlined environmental assessment process is essential. Why does that matter? Currently we have literally billions of dollars of potential investment locked up in a duplicated environmental process, and I can tell you that I know what my constituents want.

My constituents want jobs, and that means it's time for us to work collaboratively, to make sure that the standards are rigorous and to make sure that in British Columbia we're able to move projects forward so that people in this province can actually work. That's what matters. We need to make sure that we're looking at increasing jobs. In fact, we've seen very, very positive signals from the federal government that they are interested in partnering with us and looking at exactly how that will impact the process.

I can tell you that the members opposite can't have it both ways. You can't say, "Go out and talk to your constituents," and then ignore the important directions that they give you. I can tell you this. In northern British Columbia my constituents want a single, streamlined environmental assessment project at….

Interjections.

Hon. S. Bond: That's exactly what we're going to do in British Columbia. Unfortunately, the members opposite will disagree with that, but let's be very clear. We're going to make sure that we remove the duplication of environmental processes, which will allow projects to move forward so that British Columbians can actually get jobs in this province.

There's nothing more important for families than to actually have the opportunity to work, to be able to care for their families and be able to take care of those things that all the rest of us may take for granted. I can assure you that we're going to work positively and constructively with our federal colleagues to ensure that that process is streamlined.

[1705]

Another area that I just want touch on briefly in the throne speech is something else that's absolutely critical. Again, my constituents have said clearly that it's important to them that we actually move forward and look at the potential of a broader open skies agreement for the province of British Columbia and for our country. That's really important because when you look at a time when there is significant fiscal challenge, you need to look for policy issues that actually can create momentum and benefit us economically, which don't take a lot of resources to do that.

The Open Skies policy is one of those things. As a government, we've made the enhancement of regional airports an incredible priority for us. In fact, I think that over the last nine years we've actually brought enhancements and investments to 33 regional airports. We did that for a reason, because you can utilize that airport to actually diversify your economy and bring new investments.

When you look at why Open Skies is important…. In fact, if you do an economic analysis of looking at a more broad open skies policy which would allow air carriers to actually make choices about where they land, whether it's for cargo or for passenger traffic…. If you look at a study that was done recently, the step of creating an open skies policy in and of itself would potentially add $800 million to the provincial economy and create thousands of jobs.

So once again, we need to work constructively and in a positive way with our federal colleagues to say: "Here's an opportunity for us to create a stimulus in the economy without actually having to use the dollars that have been used in previous stimulus programs."

Certainly, one of the things that I concentrated on during the recent Olympics was the opportunity to meet with numerous international air carriers. We were very, very lucky to be able to meet with carriers from around the world who are very interested in coming to British Columbia to be able to capture part of the market here, to be able to make more frequent landings in Vancouver. But, in fact, they're looking at other communities, including my own community in Prince George.

We've just recently, as a government, expanded the Prince George Airport runway. We did that in partnership with the federal government. One of the things I know is that we are strategically positioned to be very competitive with our airport. We have strategic geographic positioning. We have a 24-hour, congestion-free airport. We, in fact, could provide a lower cost structure for tech stops. The list goes on.

One of the most important things is that we have the opportunity to potentially capture air cargo that we are on the flight path for right now. That cargo is landing in Alaska instead of in British Columbia. By freeing up some of the regulations related to an open skies policy, we hope to be able to attract those aircraft to land for fuelling stops in Prince George. It was thrilling not long ago to actually see the first 747 rumble down that runway in Prince George. That's only the beginning of the potential of investing in regional airports.
[ Page 3819 ]

So we make a commitment in the throne speech to continue to look at how we can partner with our federal colleagues to expand that open skies access. A number of my colleagues are very actively involved on that file, and it's been fantastic to see the way that we've had a response from communities, from mayors, from municipalities and certainly from those also involved in the tourism industry. As you can imagine, if people can choose to land in a variety of places in British Columbia — or in Canada, for that matter — we're going to be able to attract and increase tourism as well.

Another thing absolutely critical in the throne speech and also to the part of the province that I live in is looking at how we deal with wood in this province. We all recognize that we've had an absolutely unprecedented downturn in terms of the economy, and no industry, perhaps, has been as deeply impacted as the forest sector.

We all know that the forest sector will continue to play a major role in the economy of British Columbia. It may not look the same, but certainly, I'm confident. I live in the heart of the area that has been most deeply affected, but I'm confident. I have constituents who are resilient, who are looking to the future, who are saying: "How can we capitalize on what's been an extremely negative circumstance?"

When you look at the devastation that the pine beetle has created, maybe some people are willing to just hunker down in their lives and say: "Well, you know what? It's all over. The world's coming to an end." Heaven knows, the last speaker certainly spent a lot of time giving that impression. We're not prepared to do that in northern British Columbia, and I know that the rest of British Columbia wants to face this in a positive and optimistic way as well.

One of the things we are doing that, I think, has seen incredibly positive results is looking at how we deal with marketing wood, how we create a broader wood culture — not just in British Columbia but, of course, across our country, we hope, as we continue to talk about our wood culture.

[1710]

Once again, the Olympics provided a fantastic opportunity to showcase wood products. I can tell you that I was very proud of some of the initiatives, which included the creation of the podiums. I thought that was fantastic. Those podiums, when you think about the medal presentation podiums, were created with wood that was gifted from community forests across British Columbia.

I know about that because I represent McBride, and I want you to know that we were proud of the fact that the McBride Community Forest contributed to the Olympics by providing wood for one of those medal presentation podiums. It may seem like a small thing, but I can assure you that it's one of the ways we can demonstrate that there are a variety of approaches that we can take to the use of wood.

We've talked about showcasing wood, and that's exactly what we did. But who could say anything but how spectacular the Richmond Oval is. I know that many, many people who were watching the speed skating events that took place there spent a lot of time looking up. They may have enjoyed the activity that was going on, on the oval, but I can assure you that the roof that is there is absolutely spectacular.

When you think about it, it is technically amazing as well. It has a system of 15 laminated beams and 452 unique panels of WoodWave. They are V-shaped panels, and they are made from a million board feet — a million board feet — of two-by-four dimensional lumber, primarily from lumber that was actually affected by the mountain pine beetle in the British Columbia Interior.

So I guess it's just a difference of approach. We could sit back and we could say: "Everything is disastrous. The world's coming to an end." And yes, it was hard on communities. I live there. I know. Instead, the people who live there decided they were going to roll up their sleeves and they were going to figure out how to take advantage of what was a devastating circumstance. The Richmond Oval's roof is just, to me, symbolic of the possibility that exists when we look beyond the negative and actually say to ourselves: "This is what we're faced with. What are we going to do about it?"

To be candid, Madam Speaker, that's exactly what the throne speech does. It lays out that plan. It says that despite the tough financial circumstances, despite the challenging things that British Columbians today are facing, as a government we are going to provide leadership. Yes, it's about making choices, and the throne speech clearly outlines the choices that we've decided to make.

When I think about the wood-first bill and the agenda that we have in place, we can ask ourselves: "Let's measure success. We've said we're going to do some things. We've said, in fact, that we're going to ensure that not only are we expanding our domestic market when we look at things like building public buildings, contemplating the use of wood first, but we're also going to talk about that with our partners in Alberta and Saskatchewan."

Eventually we'd love to see the federal government actually look at that type of policy, because what that means is jobs for British Columbians. It means taking a resource that we have in this province and finding creative and new ways to encourage other people to use that product.

How's it going outside of our country — if you look to China, for example? I can tell you that whether it's the current Forest Minister or the ones previous, they have done an outstanding job of actually connecting with China. If you look just recently, in March actually, the latest statistics were outlined for 2009, and what a good news story that was. The final trade statistics for 2009 show that British Columbia's softwood exports to China hit 1.63 billion board feet, more than twice the record 784 million shipped the previous year.
[ Page 3820 ]

The plan is working. We're talking about tough economic times. We're talking about a new and innovative forest industry. We're talking about policy that changes to reflect the circumstances that we're facing. That's exactly what we've done. We've seen our wood exports to China double over the previous year.

[1715]

That takes planning. It takes an aggressive strategy to deal with those issues as we look at our markets in China and elsewhere, and that's what the throne speech says we're going to do. It lays out the broad brush strokes, and then it follows up with action. We've certainly seen incredible results, and I can assure you that, as we speak, the Forest Minister and his team and others will continue to look at this market, to be aggressive, to find ways to see the wood exports next year significantly higher than they were even this year.

When we think about other advantages that British Columbia has…. We have amazing resources that we need to be good stewards of. We need to be thoughtful about how we use them. But it is an advantage in British Columbia. It's one of the things that is actually helping us manage through difficult economic circumstances.

The other thing that we have is our physical location. We are Canada's Pacific Gateway. We are the only Pacific province. What it means is that we need to find ways to capitalize on that. That's why we've brought together our Pacific Gateway Executive, which is a unique organization. It actually brings industry together; it brings governments together. We have the federal and the provincial government involved in that particular organization.

What we've decided to do is be collaborative. We recognize the value of being Canada's Pacific Gateway, and we need to promote that. We spent countless hours during the Olympics talking to partners who were interested in making sure that they were able to connect with us, specifically related to Canada's Pacific Gateway.

When you think about it, why is that important to us? British Columbia's ports in Vancouver and Prince Rupert are Asia's closest ports of entry on the west coast of North America. So what it means is that we have to capitalize on that geographic advantage. We are up to 58 hours closer, and in this world, just-in-time delivery and making sure that we can see goods move as quickly as possible, particularly to the heart of the U.S., is absolutely a critical factor in the decisions that people make about where they're going to ship their goods to.

British Columbia has the most competitive port system on the west coast of the Americas. That's something that we need to capitalize on, that we need to take advantage of, and I can assure you that as we continue to work, we will continue to emphasize the importance of our Pacific Gateway.

What is really unique and what's so wonderful is the opportunity to work together with other partners in a collaborative way. Our goal is simple. We want our Pacific Gateway to be a world-class transportation network. What that means is that it needs to be seamless and integrated. It means that our supply chain has to connect together airports, seaports, roadways, railways and border crossings — essential.

Also, what we want to do is make sure that we provide the best opportunity, that people will choose this gateway so that we can see those goods enter in Canada and connect Canada to the North American market, to Asia and to the rest of the world.

Our throne speech outlines a series of broad, important principles. In fact, what we can do is take each one of those principles and then build an action plan around them. There isn't enough time today to go on to talk about some of the things that I am most passionate about. That includes education and early childhood education.

I am extremely proud of programs like StrongStart. I can't begin to tell you the difference that those centres are making in communities right across British Columbia. We're going to expand those possibilities over the next year as we look at all-day kindergarten. We're talking about preschools in neighbourhoods.

I can assure you that those investments are some of the most important that we will make as a government. But I'm proud today to stand in support of the throne speech, those principles that see us listening to our constituents, moving forward on things that matter. We have one goal. We want British Columbia to be better positioned than any other jurisdiction to emerge from the economic uncertainty that Canada and the rest of the world has faced. We want to be positioned better than anyone else, and I am confident that the throne speech lays out the principles that will allow us to do just that.

R. Austin: It's a privilege to rise and take my place in this response to the throne speech of February.

It was nice to listen to the Minister of Transportation end on a high note, speaking about her passion for education and early childhood education, something that I certainly share and that I think most members of this House have in common.

[1720]

I'd like to begin my comments by looking at something that, again, the Minister of Transportation was referring to, and this is to do with aboriginal relations in this province, the First Nations rights to consultation, the issue of whether we move to a joint review panel on environmental issues, environmental assessment, and to link this with some of the projects that are taking place in northern B.C. — not just in my riding but in the north in general.

The minister mentioned that it would be a wonderful thing if we were to streamline our environmental assessment process. Of course, the First Nations have some
[ Page 3821 ]
concerns about this. In fact, they ended up taking this to court recently.

The Red Chris mine decision was an interesting one, because in the Red Chris mine decision, the courts basically said: "Yes, the First Nations had not had all of their rights accommodated or consulted properly." In this case, they would let this one pass for Red Chris, but in the future they would like to see, if there is one assessment put into place, that all players have an important role.

I think this is a really important thing to understand. In rural parts of B.C., such as the one that I represent, we have a large First Nations population. It's no surprise to people here — they've heard it lots of times before — that there are chronic shortages of work on these reserves, particularly the remote ones.

So how is it, then, that so many First Nations groups — I'm thinking particularly of the Tahltan and others who are up in those areas of northwest B.C. where there are multiple mining operations in potential there — with all this unemployment and all the social conditions they've got, still hold out to make sure that any project that takes place is one that is sustainable, one that will not damage the land or will not damage it beyond what is necessary in terms of the benefits they get back for it?

It's a very interesting thing. You'd imagine that if people were in such dire straits and someone came along and said, "Well, we're going to put a mine here, and it's going to have 450 jobs for 25 years," you'd think that every aboriginal group would be just going: "Way. That's fantastic."

But the reality is that most First Nations take a very long view as to what happens on their land base. They recognize that the things that we, with our western ideals, who have come here think of as progress is very different from their idea of what progress is.

What they're looking for is jobs that don't destroy water, that don't destroy rivers, that allow them to still live a traditional lifestyle. It's for that reason that you see so many First Nations groups, in spite of the fact that they have very low employment and very poor social conditions…. It's that reason why they want to make sure that they are part of the process in making these big decisions, particularly ones that have long-term effects on the environment.

It's very interesting. Last week we saw something, I think, quite unique in British Columbia, and that was a large number of aboriginal groups — these ones not just specific to the coast but certainly many coastal First Nations as well as some inland — coming out and taking a position after many years of consulting with Enbridge on the gateway project.

You know, when this was brought up in the House, the other side said…. In fact, the Premier stood up here and said: "Well, let's wait. Let's consult. Let's listen to them." Well, Enbridge has been consulting with First Nations groups up and down the coast and inland for about four and a half years now. They've made many presentations, both community presentations…. Certainly they've been to Terrace and Kitimat. I know they've been all over northern B.C.

They've met with First Nations groups in the hopes of persuading them that in the evaluation of the jobs, the benefit versus the risk, maybe they would like to consider a pipeline that would end up with huge crude oil tankers going down the west coast of British Columbia.

After four years of consulting, they took a full-page ad out in the Vancouver Sun, the Globe and Mail and other newspapers, and they, as a group, came together and said: "You know what? We don't think that the risks are worth it to us. We have lived here for thousands of years on the coast. We essentially get our bounty from the ocean. We figured out if the risks of a tanker going aground was to destroy our food and our habitat, that's not worth it for the jobs that would be created both in building the pipeline and for those jobs that would be created long term in moving oil."

[1725]

It's not good enough to say, "Well, we want to have a good relationship with First Nations people," when they spend years and years being consulted and come out with a decision and say no to something, and then it just gets turned aside by this government that says: "No, no, no. We want to still look at it again." It's a very complicated thing, but I think that those people who work on these issues have spent years making these decisions, and they have been consulted, and they've come out.

It's not as though the government doesn't always listen. The throne speech mentioned something that got huge support, not just on this side of the House but throughout British Columbia. The throne speech said that mining, oil and gas development and coalbed gas extraction will not be permitted in British Columbia's Flathead Valley.

It's interesting that if you make enough noise and if you spend enough time and energy and also listen to what our U.S. cousins south of us said about the Flathead, there is a recognition, in certain cases, that there are certain values on the land base that are so precious that it isn't worth having any kind of activity in that particular area in order to maintain those values.

I would say to the government that if you can do this with the Flathead Valley…. Of course, there was a lot of pressure from the United States, because the other side of the border had been conserved and had been created as an area that would not have industrial development. So if the government can do it in the Flathead Valley, I think it's interesting that the government doesn't want to listen to some First Nations up in my neck of the woods who are suggesting that maybe the Enbridge project is not one where the risks are worth taking.

In referring to coalbed gas extraction, I'd like to maybe make the link between that and the Sacred Headwaters.
[ Page 3822 ]
You know, if the Columbia Flathead Valley…. I have not been into the Flathead Valley myself, but I understand it's a beautiful and pristine environment. But I have been up and around the Dease Lake area and all over northwest B.C. The First Nations up there are saying: "Well, we don't want coalbed methane development up here either for the very same reasons that those who were trying to protect the Flathead came out so strongly."

It's a risk to their water supply. It's a risk to the rivers that service all of northwest B.C. — the Nass, the Skeena rivers. There's huge fish and economic value that come out of these rivers. For that to be put at risk with potential development of coalbed methane gas is not something that any of the First Nations in northwest B.C. want. So I would hope that the government will listen to those people, just as they listened to all those in the Flathead, and recognize that there are important things, important places and important values that need to be protected.

I'd like to take a few minutes now just to address some of the issues around education that came out of this throne speech. There is some interesting talk, using words like "modernize" and "choice" and "fairness." Of course, we all want choice. We all want fairness. But I don't really know exactly what is in store in terms of there being changes. I'm looking forward to our next few weeks here and seeing what legislation comes forward from the Minister of Education, but I would say this.

Clearly, there are a number of school districts in this province that are undergoing challenges, and that's something that the Minister of Education acknowledges every day in question period. Those challenges lead to decisions that have to be made — some of them very difficult decisions — mostly around money. I'm hoping that whatever changes are brought forward in this legislative session recognize that we don't want to destabilize our education system and challenge it any more than it already is.

I'll be honest with you, Madam Speaker. Even some of the positive steps that are happening create huge challenges. Let me give you an example. The introduction of all-day kindergarten this year and in next fiscal year has created some great difficulties for some school districts.

The government recognized that it needed to increase funding for all-day K and to cover the teacher salary increase that was negotiated. But every school district is different, and in some school districts such as mine, school district 82, they have spaces, empty classrooms, which can easily accommodate the introduction of all-day kindergarten.

[1730]

But I am hearing from lots of other school districts that don't have those extra spaces, even though the money may be there to introduce it in terms of paying the salaries of the teachers who have to teach it or the support staff that have to come in to help all-day K. If you've got a school district that's jam-packed and is increasing in population or specific schools, where you recognize you want to bring in all-day K because that might be in an area of greater social vulnerability….

Therefore, that's obviously the school where the district decides to put all-day K in first, before going to all-day K throughout their district. If that school happens not to have any empty classrooms, that creates a problem. Then the school district doesn't just have to figure out how they pay for the instruction. They have to figure out: "Do we bring in a portable?" or "How do we move kids from this grade to another school in order to create the space?"

It's a very complicated process to be bringing in all-day K, when you consider that schools and districts are already challenged trying to make big decisions within their budgets. I would hope that the government recognizes this and that they think long and hard before bringing in legislation that will bring further changes to a system that maybe can't cope with it at this time.

I want to be clear. It's not that we on this side of the House don't want to see the introduction of new programs like all-day kindergarten. It's just that we want it done in such a way that recognizes that school districts have challenges that go beyond just the salaries and recognizes that funding it, and fully funding it, means sometimes creating actual physical spaces. If you don't do that, then each school district has to actually take money out of their operating system, cut someplace else in order to bring in a new program that has been mandated by the government. These things are very complicated.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

As you know, we bring this up in question period quite frequently, in terms of parents, school trustees, support staff — and teachers, of course — making constant complaints that there simply isn't enough money in the system to do all that is asked of them and in terms of providing a quality public education. We've gone back and forth with the government on this on many an occasion.

The challenge is simply this. While the government has increased the per-pupil student funding this year and is covering the teacher salary increases and the introduction of all-day K — although, as I've said, it's not necessarily covering all the costs there — there are many other costs that are not being covered in this year's budget. The throne speech doesn't seem to recognize that there are lots and lots of problems with our funding problem.

I think the difficulty is that when this government decided to move the bulk of funding to the per-pupil student-funding model and close down some of the envelopes that previously had been created to take care of
[ Page 3823 ]
specific needs in a school system, it has maybe made a decision that has created a lot of problems in the school system.

The per-pupil student funding. Even though there have been increases each and every year for a number of years, if you look at the envelopes that were there previous to per-pupil student funding and do the math, you'll find out that actually, many school districts would have gotten far more money if they had stayed under the other model of having larger envelopes.

Let me give you a specific example. Let's take one of the big areas of school funding that's creating a huge bunch of challenges, and that is the funding for special needs. The throne speech says very clearly that they want to tailor our education system to "each child's individual needs, interests and passions." What could sound better than that? The problem is that many children are entering our school system now with very, very complex needs — in many cases, needs that weren't there ten, 15, 20 years ago.

Let me give a few examples. Fifteen years ago we didn't have as many new immigrants arriving in this province from all parts of the world. People who have arrived here, in some cases, have spent years in a refugee camp. Their children may never even have attended a school. They arrive here and find themselves in — let's pick — New Westminster. They've never been to school.

[1735]

Chronologically, when they arrive in British Columbia, they're old enough, say, to be put into grade 9. Yet they've never been in school. They don't speak the language. It's not their primary language at home. They arrive in Westminster, and the local school district now has to come up with all of the supports in place necessary to help that child succeed.

Prior to our school system being funded mostly by per-pupil student funding, there would have been envelopes that took care of a child who was arriving, say, with trauma or with ESL challenges. What's happened in the last ten years under this government is that some of those envelopes have been decreased, and the money's gone into per-pupil student funding. But that increase in per-pupil student funding does not cover those huge costs that a school district has to cover when, say, a child shows up with the kinds of needs that I've mentioned.

I'd also suggest that there are school districts around the province that have a much higher aboriginal population than others. As we all know, the social conditions and the historical consequences of colonialization and other situations — taking them away from their parents — which create so many problems down the generations…. We now see school districts that have large First Nations populations with greater needs in terms of them needing supports.

The government is trying to help First Nations by setting up extra programs to help kids be ready for school, but what I'm hearing…. I live in an area that has a school district with a very high First Nations population. The kindergarten teachers and grade 1 teachers are telling me: "You know, the kids are arriving…. In spite of the programs we have in place, they are arriving simply not ready for the rigours of even a basic kindergarten and grade 1 program."

What do I mean by that? Well, there are many homes where children are growing up, and they don't even have a book. So when they arrive, they don't know the basics of letters or whether you open the book from left to right or right to left. They don't necessarily have the structures in place to have spent time with other kids while they were going through their early childhood years, so there are challenges in terms of them knowing the basic social skills to get ahead in the school system.

All of these indicators suggest that in spite of the things that this government is doing, we still need a heck of a lot more supports to help our young people when they arrive in the school system. What I'm hearing is that when you have a school system and many districts that are challenged, they end up not having the adequate resources to support all of these kids.

As we all know, if a child arrives in the school system and doesn't find a place where it can gain success very quickly, then almost by grade 3 we've lost that child. It's very, very hard to make up for the fact that they arrive in kindergarten or grade 1 and 2 and don't find success there. By then they sort of switch off from education, and by doing that, they are literally switching off from human development and being a part of the economy and being a part of our social system. So it is really, really important that we take extra effort to spend dollars in the early years.

We heard — and today we heard it in question period again — the challenges that our day care system is having. This throne speech doesn't recognize anywhere the fact that we still, in this province, don't put adequate resources into helping every child in early learning years to get the supports necessary. We see so many parents who are challenged even finding day care in their home communities, and the cost of day care in their home communities is prohibitive.

So what happens? What happens is that parents who are economically challenged then go and take whatever day care they can find. That may be a relative, or that may be a friend down the street. Essentially, that child's day care might be as poor as spending six hours a day sitting with an adult who turns on a television and says: "Well, at least the child is being taken care of."

[1740]

What that results in, when we don't support and have a quality early childhood day care program, is that those are the children who, when they arrive in school, don't have all the skills necessary to succeed.

I would have hoped that in this 2010, with all of the research that is out there…. I mean, this province is a
[ Page 3824 ]
world leader in doing research on the early years. In spite of all of that research…. There are people here at the human early learning partnership that go around the world, taking the models that have been developed here in British Columbia and helping other countries, whether they be developed countries or undeveloped countries, to figure out what it is that they need to do to support their citizens, especially their young citizens, in getting to the right place so that they can take advantage of a formal education system.

Here's the great irony. We have a province with probably the best academic brains in this field, and they've been telling us for years what to do. Yet in spite of that, we don't do it.

I understand that politics is all about making tough decisions and tough choices. It's about setting priorities. But I have to tell you that when you look at a province that is in the midst of a recession and can figure out how to come up with the necessary dollars to put a new roof on B.C. Place, while at the same time it cannot come up with the necessary dollars to ensure that every child gets adequate early learning, that to me is a choice, and it speaks to our values.

What it tells me is that we don't care enough in this province. We don't have a government that cares enough in this province to support those citizens who need it, so I would hope that we certainly see a turnaround, because I tell you that there are lots and lots of families who are struggling.

We heard today — I think it was in Maple Ridge — of four day cares that are going to be closing down. This goes back to my comments around bringing in all-day kindergarten. What's the point of bringing in all-day kindergarten, a benefit to the community, if at the same time as one is doing that, one is shutting down day care centres?

We all know that in order for a child to succeed, there needs be a continuum of care. There needs to be an understanding that children get high-quality day care. Then they can go and access all-day kindergarten, and once that is over, they can then be ready for grade 1 and succeed.

Here we have a situation in the Lower Mainland where all-day kindergarten, which is a program that is being put on by this government and has been mandated by this government, is actually going to hurt many families who already have quality child care within the school system. So there are so many issues here to think about before the government goes ahead and makes decisions like this.

I'd like to comment on the forestry situation in my neck of the woods. The minister who just finished speaking spoke about the new wood initiative and creating a culture of the use of wood. I had a great conversation here last week with the Minister of Forests, who was leaving the day after I had this conversation with him to go to China.

He assured me that this was a trip not just to promote the use of wood in China, but it was specific to my area. It was a northwest initiative. He was going specifically with staff from the Ministry of Forests and with executives from West Fraser and others to push the northwest, because he recognizes — as we all do, those of us who live in northwest B.C. — that we have a sizeable amount of wood that has not been cut, and yet we have lost most of our manufacturing capacity.

What I said to him was: "It's not enough just to go and sign up and sell raw logs." Obviously, we want to export and find new markets, especially as our major market for the last 35 years, the United States, has essentially collapsed and probably will never return to the housing starts that we saw in the last 30 years.

What we need to do is ensure that as we try to find new markets, they don't just want to take our wood as a raw product but that they also recognize that we need to be able to add value to it here in British Columbia. For us simply to cut down trees and send them to China for them to process them, turn them into wood products and send them back to us is not going to create the kinds of jobs that we need in northwest B.C.

[1745]

You know, in my communities right now…. It's been a number of years since we had the mills operating in Terrace. In fact, they're now basically dismantled in one case and shut down in the other. We're in a situation that is very tentative in my own community of Kitimat, where if something doesn't happen very big in the next six to eight weeks, we could see the last large manufacturing mill in northwest B.C. go down. That would be a tragedy.

I am really hopeful that this Minister of Forests' trip to China will see not just the signing of some new contracts to sell wood but will, hopefully, see a company from that part of the world interested in coming to British Columbia and investing in British Columbia and actually starting up a mill, taking over a mill — not the kind of situation that happened, unfortunately, for the citizens of Prince Rupert, where you had a company that said it was going to open up a mill, got tax rebates from the city of Prince Rupert, said a lot of good things and then did nothing.

I'm hoping that in the next six weeks we can see something substantive happen with the mill, the Eurocan mill in Kitimat. If something doesn't happen, West Fraser will open the doors and will simply ask other people to come in and say: "What pieces of equipment do you want to take out of here?" That would be a tragedy, and it would be the end of 600 direct jobs in my riding. It would be the end of probably a thousand jobs in total. So I'm hoping that the Minister of Forests will succeed in his goal to try and get a major investment coming out of China.

The government talks about how we can use wood more. In my area there are a large number of groups that
[ Page 3825 ]
recognize that maybe we won't always have large mills running, but maybe what we can do with all of the wood that we have in northwest B.C. is figure out how to get small or medium-sized manufacturers. These might be companies as little as ten people, because there are all kinds of other values we can add to wood that aren't necessarily the commodity-based type.

I know there are entrepreneurs in B.C. living right in my home community who would like to take advantage of the fact that we have this huge fibre base. While it was impossible for them to compete with the lumber industry, because they had the big tenures and basically took all the wood and turned it into 2-by-4s, there are niche manufacturers who are looking to access wood in my area, who can add huge value — way more value than comes from just taking a tree and turning it into a 2-by-4.

I'm hoping that the Minister of Forests will succeed not just in helping us to get a large facility going but will also recognize that the plan for forestry in northwest B.C. gives access to the small players to enable them to set up businesses and create jobs and add value to wood.

Hon. Speaker, at that point I would like to thank you for the opportunity to speak to the throne, and now I will cede my place.

Hon. N. Yamamoto: Madam Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to rise today to speak in support of the Speech from the Throne. It's a privilege for me and an honour to represent the riding of North Vancouver–Lonsdale. Like my colleagues before me — we've all thanked our constituency assistants — I'd like to acknowledge my constituency assistant, Krista Bunskoek, for taking care of our constituents of North Vancouver–Lonsdale while I'm in Victoria.

[1750]

My riding is located on Vancouver's North Shore and provided a spectacular backdrop for the world during the 2010 Winter and Paralympic Games. If Woolstencroft was a country, it would have tied for fourth place for gold-medal standings at the Paralympic Games. But good thing for us: Woolstencroft is a Canadian. Lauren Woolstencroft is a Canadian. She's a UVic grad and a North Vancouver resident. She's North Vancouver's golden girl and dominated the games with five gold medals.

Her performance at these games vaulted Canada to a third-place finish in total medals, and ten of those 19 medals were gold — a new medals record for Canada and, for Lauren, a new record for the most gold medals won by a woman at a single Paralympic Winter Games.

When she's not tearing down the slopes, Lauren is an electrical engineer at B.C. Hydro and had a hand in the design of the distribution infrastructure used to power the Whistler Mountain venues.

For 17 straight days during the Winter Olympics I headed to Vancouver on the SeaBus, usually returning to my constituency or my apartment halfway through the afternoon, only to head back a couple of hours later. Some of my days started at 6:30 in the morning on the SeaBus to Vancouver, returning at one o'clock in the morning, 16 hours later, with a chorus of O Canada and chants of "Go, Canada, go!" from excited transit riders and proud Canadians.

Transit ridership soared during the Olympics. It was 31 percent higher than normal weekday traffic, and the total ridership for the 17 days of the games was over 26 million. That's almost 1.6 million daily boardings, so special thanks should go to TransLink for increasing transit services like the SeaBus, the SkyTrain and the West Coast Express.

During the games the SeaBus service was increased to three vessels, with departures leaving every ten minutes and with service extended till two in the morning. This resulted in a 119 percent increase in boardings, and right in step was the Canada Line, where we saw an increase of 118 percent.

TransLink's Olympic transportation plan, in particular the TravelSmart program, was successful because we had the major games site next to high-capacity rapid transit. This is a clear signal that we need to continue to locate housing, our shopping centres, our entertainment and sporting venues, our retail services and workplaces near corridors that have or are projected to have rapid transit.

I believe that the great transit experience during the Olympics will increase the regular use of our public transportation system, and we need to really build on this momentum. Transit is a green, user-friendly, convenient and less expensive choice for Lower Mainland residents, and it's a foundation for the development of sustainable communities.

I'm really amazed at the number of people that I see on the SeaBus with their luggage, and it's clear where they're heading. They're going on the SeaBus, and they're taking the Canada Line to the airport.

Now, many constituents have told me that they no longer have to pick up their relatives and friends at YVR, the Vancouver airport in Richmond. What they do is tell their visitors to take the Canada Line — it's a 26-minute ride — board the SeaBus on the Vancouver side and, when they board the SeaBus, to give them a call. That gives the North Van residents 15 minutes to get down to Lonsdale Quay to pick up their visitor.

The success of the Canada Line reflects our commitment to invest in public transit and get on with the Evergreen line. We committed to that in this throne speech.

The throne speech also acknowledges that high-speed rail may be a reality between Vancouver and Seattle. We will capitalize on the good relationship that we've developed with Washington State to move this forward. Our participation in PNWER, which stands for the Pacific NorthWest Economic Region, the Western
[ Page 3826 ]
Climate Initiative and the Pacific Coast Collaborative are partnerships that have produced excellent results for British Columbians.

Just last week our Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure, along with Washington State Department of Transportation Secretary Paula Hammond, announced an extension of the second Amtrak Cascades train service between Vancouver and Seattle. What does this mean? British Columbians will have another viable travel option to our neighbour in the south. This is the first big step in developing a long-term vision of high-speed rail between our two cities. This will inevitably result in greater social, cultural and economic cohesion within this region.

With the support of PNWER and through the cooperation of the Canadian Border Services Agency, the second daily train service — 11,000 passengers — enjoyed stress-free travel during the Olympic Games.

[1755]

My colleagues the MLA for Surrey–White Rock, the Minister of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation and former Attorney General Wally Oppal were recent passengers on the Amtrak train to Portland. Amtrak, I'm told, may never be the same.

The throne speech acknowledges that one of our greatest strategic advantages is our unique position as Canada's Pacific Gateway.

During the Olympics I had the opportunity to tour the Neptune Bulk Terminals operation in my riding. Neptune Terminals capitalized on the opportunity presented by the Olympics to invite key stakeholders and their clients to tour their facility.

Neptune Bulk Terminals is a very large, multicommodity bulk handling facility on our west coast. They can handle up to three container ships at one time, each loading a different product. They receive coal, potash and canola oil by rail from points east. Their stakeholders, during this Olympic visit, represented exports from Saskatchewan, and their clients were from major markets in China, Brazil and southeast Asia. The Asia-Pacific gateway is of strategic importance to the business of exports and the capacity to grow exports from B.C. and Canada.

Neptune, while I was there, also pointed out to their clients that they're committed to environmental wellness and have spent millions on state-of-the-art systems that allow the terminal to operate sustainably and with very, very low environmental impacts.

Last year the federal and provincial governments, along with various public and private stakeholders, announced an ambitious package of transportation infrastructure projects along the north shore of Burrard Inlet. The Lynn Creek rail bridge stimulus project and the Brooksbank underpass-widening project will allow for greater rail capacity, which is a core requirement for growth in the Asia-Pacific gateway trade opportunities.

North Vancouver companies generate over $10 billion of Asia-Pacific trade annually. The North Shore trade area provides a critical connection to overseas markets for export products and handles over 35 percent of all cargo volume through the Port of Vancouver. North Shore terminals generate about 12,300 direct and indirect jobs throughout the province, so this province's interest and focus on the Asia-Pacific trade are reassuring to customers and are really welcome by port users.

B.C.'s strategy to diversify our economy is one of the key reasons why B.C. has fared better than most jurisdictions in North America during this global financial meltdown. We haven't just relied on our exports to the U.S., which is our largest trading partner; we've developed new export markets that have allowed us to recover from these challenging economic times much faster than most.

A good example of this is the final trade statistics for 2009, which show that British Columbia softwood exports to China hit 1.6 billion board feet, more than twice the record of 784 million shipped the previous year.

Winning the Olympic bid attracted investment and stimulated new infrastructure and transportation links that will support our economic recovery. The Olympic Games have increased tourism and retail sales dramatically already this year. Foreign visitors used their Visa card and spent $117 million during the games — $117 million. Remember, that's just what was charged on their Visa cards by foreign visitors. That does not include cash and any other major credit cards, and it doesn't also include what Canadians spent on their own Visa cards or other forms of payment.

We're not immune to the effects of the global financial challenges, but thanks to the Olympics and our diverse economy, we will come out of this recession faster and stronger than most jurisdictions in North America. The Olympic Games were not just about the tremendous opportunity for economic benefits. They were also an opportunity for building relationships abroad and at home.

"New partnerships in progress" is one of the themes of the Speech from the Throne. Building a new relationship with First Nations is something we're working hard on. New reconciliation protocols have been concluded with the Haida and six other coastal First Nations.

In my riding I have both the Squamish and the Tsleil-Waututh, two of the Four Host First Nations of our Olympic Games. We've come a long way in developing new relationships with our First Nations partners through their participation and involvement in these games.

If the long lineups in the rain are any indication of its popularity, the Aboriginal Pavilion was a huge success. An estimated quarter-million people experienced the unique culture, history and pride of our aboriginal peoples. A quote from Tewanee Joseph, who was
[ Page 3827 ]
the CEO of the Four Host First Nations, says it best. He said: "Aboriginal people are saying they're proud to be Canadian. I've heard that over and over again."

[1800]

Tsleil-Waututh Chief Justin George said: "We will see this as a model of how we can collectively come to the table. Rather than focus on problems, focus on solutions. It's not going to happen overnight, but this can be seen as a building block for the future."

Chief Justin George also referenced the late Chief Dan George, his grandfather, and other First Nation leaders on the North Shore. He said: "They are the ones that everything they worked for put us together today. People of my generation are now seeing the benefits of that. I know that my grandfather is smiling down with nothing but pride."

The Speech from the Throne also speaks to a new partnership with Montana — a partnership that will sustain the environmental values of the Flathead River basin, a partnership that recognizes the current sustainable forestry practices, recreation, guide-outfitting and trapping uses. The Speech from the Throne announced our commitment to remove mining and oil and gas development from the B.C. portion of the Flathead Valley.

During the Olympic Games our Premier and the Governor of Montana signed a memorandum of understanding of cooperation on environmental protection, climate action and energy. Among other things, this will ensure reciprocal action by Montana on their portion of the Flathead Valley. Just as importantly, it creates a framework for cooperation in fighting climate change, building wood culture and pursuing clean energy development.

We have set environmental standards in this province of which I'm very proud. We have resource management practices in this province that are world-class. Thanks to the stewardship of this government, B.C.'s portion of the Flathead Valley is in great shape. It's in better shape than it was a decade ago.

Many people were watching this unfold, and I'm very pleased with the reactions expressed to me and my office. We got it right.

Doing what is right for British Columbians and the environment is a legacy of this government. Starting with the carbon tax, which is internationally recognized as world-leading climate policy, this government consistently shows it's willing to do what is right, not what is easy.

Once again in 2009 this government was elected to manage the economy, and according to leading economists in Canada, HST is good policy. I've lobbied for the harmonization of our regressive provincial sales tax with the GST for many years. I opened my graphic design business in 1988, and the following year the B.C. chamber first advocated the harmonization of the two taxes. A couple of years later it was adopted as a formal policy by chambers throughout British Columbia.

As chamber members, we lobbied the provincial government of the day to remove the unnecessary negative impacts of the dual sales tax on business and the B.C. economy, and we asked for full harmonization of the PST and GST.

The switch to a value-added tax instead of the provincial sales tax will be very beneficial to consumers. PST is currently an embedded cost in most of our purchases. Businesses have paid the PST and then passed it on to consumers. This doesn't just happen once. It can occur repeatedly, depending on how many businesses are involved in the manufacturing or the supply chain of the product.

While we end up paying the PST as an embedded cost, these accumulated costs aren't actually explained on our receipts. As consumers, we should know what we've paid for.

Why did the chamber pursue harmonization? It would give B.C. a competitive edge with regard to exporting goods, saving nearly $2 billion due to a reduction in administrative and operational costs — $2 billion, but that's not all. We can also add now $11.5 billion in capital investment and 113,000 jobs by the end of the decade, according to Jack Mintz.

Jack Mintz, a noted tax expert and economist, released a report that states that every industrial sector in British Columbia will benefit from the implementation of the HST. Construction, business, communications and household services sectors will benefit the most. They will see their effective tax rate drop by more than one-third on new investment.

Because small businesses are heavy users of equipment and machinery in production, they will see a huge decline of the marginal effective tax rate on investment — a reduction from 24.7 percent in 2009 to 11.5 percent in 2010, mainly due to the harmonization of the sales tax.

What does this mean? My esteemed colleague from West Vancouver–Capilano could probably use his Harvard teaching skills to explain this to us better than I could, but what it boils down to is that the elimination of sales taxes on business inputs will more than halve the small business tax burden on new investments.

[1805]

What does that do? It means businesses will have more money to spend growing their business. This will allow some to hire more employees. Some will elect to pay their employees more, and others will pass the savings onto the customer. So in the end we all win, one way or the other.

NDP assertions that the business community doesn't support the HST are simply not true. Businesses are saying that this progressive tax will increase productivity, attract greater investment to the province, create jobs, increase competitiveness and reduce business costs in B.C.
[ Page 3828 ]

Business is the economic engine of this province. When this engine runs well, it helps us pay for the services we've come to expect in British Columbia — quality health care and world-class education. Our arts and culture sector will thrive. But right now the reality is that we need to do more with less to improve the economy. That's why the Speech from the Throne reassures me that we're on the right track to recovery.

The Speech from the Throne is all about improving the economy and setting us up for a recovery. Every sector in B.C. will benefit from a healthy economy. We're supporting families and increasing funding to health care and education.

The Speech from the Throne defines a realistic approach to difficult economic times. Difficult economic times require us to make tough choices. We need to ensure that jobs are created and investment continues. B.C. must be competitive in order to thrive, and lowering taxes is key. Personal income taxes in British Columbia are the lowest of any province in Canada. This government will, beyond a doubt, lead British Columbia out of this period of difficulty. The Speech from the Throne positions us to seize the opportunity for growth as we climb out of this recession.

I continue to witness the patient and steadfast explanations from the Minister of Finance in this House, and I continue to be inspired by the integrity shown by him in the face of this global economic challenge.

A great example of this same spirit was shown by our courageous Kristi Richards from Summerland, B.C., who crashed halfway through her Olympic moguls run. Who can forget that look on her face as she picked herself up, put her skis back on and then paused to compose herself before attacking the rest of the course and nailing that final jump, to roars from the crowd?

B.C. is doing the same during this period of unprecedented economic challenge. I'm going to quote Kristi, because I think what she said is very important: "I've been working on that trick for four years, so I'm happy to have been able to have stuck it out there. Unfortunately, I had to have it with a crash, but I'm really proud of myself. I pushed my limit. I did everything I could to be in the best place possible."

I'm proud to say: "So have we." We've withstood the worst global recession since World War II, and like Kristi Richards, we are doing everything we can to be in the best place possible. We've picked ourselves up, we've taken a moment to collect ourselves, and we're ready to show the world that we're still able to dream large and exceed our expectations.

S. Hammell: It's always delightful to stand in this House and respond to the Speech from the Throne for a number of reasons. The first reason is the tradition of talking about the people in our constituencies and those that make our work so worthwhile. Oftentimes we take this moment just to note the passing of a few of those people. With permission, I would like to do so also.

I want to mention Albert and Mae Taves. They were lifetime members of the CCF and the New Democratic Party. They came out of the depression and learned from that experience how important it was to have an economy and a country that cared about ordinary people. They learned that to have a country that cared about those that made up the fabric of the nation made all the difference in the world.

[1810]

Both of these people died last year — Albert a few months after Mae. That often happens, they say. I know that my father died and, within six months after him dying, my mother died also.

The other person I'd like to mention who has also left us was Gurdev Singh Grewal. Gurdev Singh was just an amazing and remarkable man, and I say that with every bit of conviction that I can muster. He had a stroke early in his senior years and was partially paralyzed as a result. He had limited use of one arm and dragged one of his legs slightly, but this did not stop him from living his life to the fullest, and after that stroke, he lived another 25 years. He would walk upstairs if it took him an hour. He knew that to live, he had to push himself and never give in.

He flew from here to India every year and, while at home in India, helped build a temple in his home village. It was on his way home to Canada that he caught a virus that he could not throw, and he left us just last week. He was in his 80s and lived what I believe to be a remarkable life, and I will miss him always.

I also can take up the time…. The second reason where throne speeches are so delightful is where I can sing the praises of the people who work in my constituency office, as I have two great CAs.

Brett Barden is my senior CA and an amazing support. He's multitalented, bright and a disciplined taskmaster. He was one of the youngest accredited skating photographers at the past Olympics and took many unbelievable pictures. He may, in fact, have been one of the youngest photographers, period. He keeps my office humming, and I'm lucky to have such a talented person to work with.

My second CA, Kuldip Ardawa, has joined me this year and has brought to my office unbelievable strength in terms of community. There is not an organization and the people within it in Surrey that Kuldip does not know. She is an amazing problem-solver and works with those people who need assistance, with skill and talent.

I am incredibly lucky to have both of these people working with me. Together they make serving my community a delight.

I do have a delightful constituency, and although it has shrunk considerably since the 1990s, it still is an amazing place. It has within it Surrey Green Timbers,
[ Page 3829 ]
from which it gets its name — a large urban forest that was dedicated to the people of Surrey in the '80s. It also houses Surrey Memorial, Bear Creek Park and the Surrey Arts Centre, so it's kind of a hub in the middle of this large and magnificent city.

But I should get on with the essence of the speech and back to the point of the response to the throne. This throne speech, unfortunately, is a big disappointment to the people of B.C. Like this government has done so many times before, the speech is long in flowery phrases and vague concepts, but it is short on any real vision. In previous years the government has been in the habit of giving their agenda, as laid out in this throne speech, a name or a theme, but this year they're so lacking in ideas or vision to make life better for British Columbians that they have not even done that.

I think I can help, because I could call this throne speech the "Throne Speech of the Year of Misleading Statements." I'd just like to take a minute to kind of demonstrate why that title fits.

[1815]

The saddest thing is that there are many, many examples where this government, in the throne speech, has made numerous and serious misleading statements, and their consequences are so profound for the people of my constituency that it is disturbing. Perhaps the most telling is the case of the harmonized sales tax. We are told that the HST is more transparent and less regressive than any current tax regime, and several times in the speech we were told that the HST would create jobs.

Let's take a look at the statement, because there are suggestions in the throne speech that it will remove $2 billion in costs that are hampering growth. If we take a look at that statement, and you put it together with many of the other statements that have come around the throne speech and the consequences of the HST, it is true that expenses are being removed from big business, but what is not mentioned is where those expenses are going.

We will all acknowledge that there is $1.9 billion or $2 billion being taken away from big business, but they are being shifted, and it's a classic tax shift. Taxes are being removed from big business and shifted to every individual in this province.

What the government neglects to tell people is that this HST is not just a removal of tax but is a tax shift and that the ordinary people of British Columbia will be picking up that $2 billion in increased taxation on nearly every single thing they do, almost every hour of the day. From weddings to funerals, there will be an additional tax to the people of British Columbia — so from tax removal to a tax shift that comes out of ordinary people's pockets.

Well, British Columbians are upset. They are angry with the government for its misleading behaviour related to the HST. They have not been told the truth, but they get it. They understand that the government signed a letter during the election last year stating that they would not introduce the HST. They get that. I mean, there's been enough information around the fact that there was a letter sent out during the election that the current government would not bring in the HST.

Then a mere two months later, the government announced that the HST will be brought in on July 1 of this year, and 82 percent of people currently — and for all I know, it's getting more — say that they oppose the imposition of this very unfair tax. They don't believe that what's good for B.C. is a tax shift from big business shifted downstream into their pockets. They know that during challenging economic times such as these, the worst thing you can do is to add new taxes on to people who are struggling to get by.

People are not fooled also when the government tries to say to them that the HST will be less regressive. Like many statements in the throne speech, that would be funny if it wasn't so sad. Surely it's not necessary to explain to the members opposite that a sales tax like the HST actually is part of the definition of what a regressive tax is.

When a low-income person goes to purchase vitamins or takes a car to be repaired or pays for the funeral of a loved one, if they have to pay a higher proportion of their income than a middle- or high-income person for those items due to a tax and it hurts them more, it is regressive. So unless they intend to continue to mislead the people of B.C., why would they say the HST would be less regressive, when clearly the basic definition of sales tax is that it is a regressive tax?

The simplest way to determine what items or services will go up by 7 percent on July 1 is to look to see if you pay GST on it now. If you are, then with a few exceptions, it's going up.

[1820]

It's worthwhile to take a minute or two to examine some of the things on that long list that will cost rich and poor people alike 7 percent more on July 1.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

There is a huge list of things that will cost ordinary people more. In fact, there are some suggestions that every person in British Columbia will pay at least another $430 more per person for this tax.

Interjection.

S. Hammell: Okay, let's have the list. A member across is saying I'm not telling the truth. I'm shocked — actually shocked and appalled — but I do think, for your benefit, I'll just go through the list. Maybe you can have a little calculator and add up the 7 percent.

Haircuts. Every haircut will have 7 percent added. Appliance repairs, car repairs, vitamins and other supplements, funerals, phone and cable bills. I bet you get
[ Page 3830 ]
a phone and cable bill every single month. Up it goes 7 percent.

Restaurants, meals and takeout. Movie, concert and theatre tickets. Bus, train and airplane tickets. Taxi fares. I bet the hon. member takes a taxi the odd time. Dry cleaning, massage therapy, acupuncture treatments, homeopathy and naturopathic services. Sports clubs. So if you're insisting or putting into your daily routine the need to go to a gym, up goes the gym membership by 7 percent.

Residential care services, home care, home renovation services provided by electricians, plumbers, roofers, carpenters and so on. Services provided by building inspectors, appraisers, architects, engineers, surveyors, accountants, real estate agents, and things that are good for the environment like bicycles, electric scooters, fuel-efficient cars, pipes and hot water tank insulation, and clean home energy technologies.

I don't know. Do you think I got to 430 bucks per person?

Interjection.

S. Hammell: Oh, I'm sure. We could go through it all again, and I think you better get that calculator out, because this is just a partial list. The repercussions from paying more for them are apparent to many analysts and business groups across B.C.

The throne speech repeats the claim that the HST will create jobs, but let's look and see what people are saying about jobs and the HST. I'll make some quotes because I know there was reference to business by the last member, but I thought I would take the opportunity to actually quote some of the business response to the HST. I know that you're just waiting with bated breath to hear.

This is a quote from one of the business groups. "Here we are getting brought to our knees again potentially with something that's going to hurt our bottom line. We work extremely hard in an industry that only has a small profit to begin with, and to hit us again after the last 18 months, or however long it's been, recession-wise, is going to hurt." That's Ned Bell, head chef of the Cabana Bar and Grille on 1150 radio in Kelowna.

[1825]

Here's another one. "Not exempting restaurant food from the HST will be devastating to our industry and our employees, just as the implementation of GST was in 1991." So the restaurant industry already has experience with a regressive tax like the sales tax, GST or HST.

I'm not making this up; I'm quoting. I can give you the references. "The new tax comes in at the worst time for any struggling food service industry. The drop in sales resulting from a new 7 percent tax, while competitive food products in grocery stores remain completely tax-free, will have an enormous job-loss effect." Not me. "Enormous job-loss effect."

"Our low-margin food industry will have to reduce work hours or lay off thousands of our 173,000 employees. This includes 80,000 young people, who rely on their jobs to help pay for their education. With a youth unemployment rate at 15.8 percent, we can't afford to jeopardize the jobs of the largest employer of youth in this province."

That's Garth Whyte, president, Canadian Restaurant and Foodservices Association, during his January announcement that his association had so far collected 20,000 signatures on their no-meal-tax petitions.

"Sales…." I'm quoting again because I'm hearing a little restlessness over there. I mean, these are not my words. I'm quoting from members in the business community. This says: "Sales in restaurants in B.C. are predicted to fall 7 percent as a result of an additional 7 percent tax on meals. When sales in restaurants fall, the only way the business owner can adjust for falling revenues is to cut labour costs. As a result, our forecasts indicate a potential job loss of between 8,000 and 12,000 restaurant workers."

Mr. Speaker: Noting the hour, Member.

S. Hammell: I do note the hour, so hearing that, I move adjournment of the debate.

S. Hammell moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Committee of Supply (Section A), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

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.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
SMALL BUSINESS, TECHNOLOGY
AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

(continued)

The House in Committee of Supply (Section A); H. Bloy in the chair.
[ Page 3831 ]

The committee met at 2:46 p.m.

On Vote 43: ministry operations, $47,426,000 (continued).

Hon. I. Black: Last week I shared some opening remarks which went to describe in some detail what our ministry does and how it serves the people of British Columbia. I don't have much to add to those opening remarks other than to turn it over to the members opposite to continue from where we left off last Thursday.

J. Kwan: We'll pick right up from where we left off on Thursday. I was, along with my colleague the critic for the Olympics, asking the minister about which event he attended during the Olympic and Paralympic Games. The minister was less than forthcoming. To quote my good colleague in question period today, "I guess the minister is engaged in a game of dodge ball," and most certainly, he's playing that sport very well in this set of estimates.

Having said that, that does not deter us from asking the questions that we should be asking on behalf of British Columbians, especially related to the expenditure of this ministry in terms of what was done related to the activity and work by the minister specifically in this instance, compared to last year's budget in terms of what events he might have attended in terms of the Olympic and Paralympic Games.

The minister won't say which event he attended, so let me try a different tack. On February 12, 2010, there is an event, the ski-jumping individual qualification round. Could the minister please tell us whether or not he attended that event during the Paralympic and Olympic Games?

How does that relate to this set of estimates, Mr. Chair, you might ask. Let's just compare it to a set of activities, events, which the minister might have attended last year in the fiscal year of '09-10 versus the events that he might be attending this year in the '10-11.

Hon. I. Black: It's perhaps a little bit of an imperfect science, but I did spend the weekend reviewing the text of the exchange that we had in this House on the estimates of the approximate $60 million spent in this ministry on behalf of the people of British Columbia. In reviewing the remarks there, I noted there were approximately 22 questions that asked about tickets and ticketed events during the Olympic and Paralympic Games.

[1450]

During the course of my answers I touched on the great successes of the business-hosting program, as I had multiple chances to do so. I don't think it's necessary for me to repeat all of that yet again today, hon. Chair.

I would repeat the two basic tenets of my answers. Subsequent answers can be shorter, to the benefit of the Chair, so he can exhaust the line of questioning. As I stated very clearly and for the benefit of those asking at home, the financial transactions involved in obtaining Olympic tickets was owned by another ministry. It was not owned by this ministry, not in '09-10 and not in '10-11.

That is one element that is worth noting, but it's actually a little bit more of a footnote, a technicality if you will, although that does beg the question of why they would be asked in this session. The fact of the matter is that we have, in the near future, the commitment on the part of government to publish a report on all events surrounding the use of tickets at the Olympic Games.

I have stated both here and in subsequent conversations in the hallways and in the larger House that I was at the Olympic Games. I had a very important role to play within our hosting program. I played that role to the best of my ability over very, very long hours for, I believe, 19 consecutive days. In the course of executing those responsibilities I did attend Olympic events. It was part of my job, and I was very proud to do that job.

I won't apologize for that element of my responsibility in the slightest, but I am not going to pre-empt the release of that report by divulging on an event-by-event basis, sport-by-sport basis or day-by-day basis what events I attended. I will defer to the commitment of government to release that information at once, not on a piecemeal basis, in a report that is expected later this spring.

J. Kwan: The minister claims that he's very proud, but clearly not proud enough to actually provide the information to the public now. One has to wonder why the minister is not proud enough to provide that information to the public now. And the minister says: "Oh, but hey, you know, the minister responsible, the secretariat, will be providing that information, or the government somewhere down the road will be providing that information."

But guess what, Mr. Chair. We're in the estimates of this minister. I'm not in the estimates of the other ministries. I'm not asking about what other ministries have engaged in, activities related to their budget spending last year in comparison to this year. I'm asking this minister in his set of estimates, Mr. Chair, so it's the responsibility of this very minister to answer those very questions.

As much as he wants to evade all he wants, there is a thing called accountability. The buck actually stops with the taxpayers, who want to know, and they have every right to know about what activities this minister engaged in during the Olympic and Paralympic Games — not just some glossed-over, airy-fairy words about how proud he's been and all the different things he's done in those 90 days, but the details.

The details of: what did he do? What events did he go to? With whom did he go to these events? What delegations did he meet up with? What economic and business
[ Page 3832 ]
investment discussions did he engage in with these delegations? Did he spend an entire day at one particular event there? Did he stop for meals as well? Did he feed the hungry delegations? Was that paid for by this ministry?

All of these questions are relevant to this set of estimates. It is a comparison between what happened in the last fiscal year to that of this fiscal year. All the minister has to do is bring his calendar forward and compare it, 2009-10 and 2010-11: "February 12, what did I do? Oh, attended an Olympic event, or not." It will show up. The minister can choose to answer that question, or he can choose to hide that information from the public. Unfortunately, he's chosen the latter.

But you know what? I'm not accepting that, Mr. Chair. I'm not accepting that as an adequate response. It's far from being adequate. His other colleagues don't have any trouble whatsoever in answering those questions. Perhaps they have nothing to hide. Perhaps that's the reason. But not this minister, not so.

According to this minister, he cannot tell this information. It has to be somehow spun, I guess, by the public affairs bureau or something. Somewhere down the road somebody is going to compile that information and put it forward. But guess what. The minister's own attendance at these events…. He knows very well which events he attended. He can tell the public now.

[1455]

He doesn't need someone else to compile that information. He doesn't need the public affairs bureau to spin that information a year from now, to tell the public about what event he attended or what event he didn't attend.

If he's truly proud of the hosting activities that he did, tell the public now. Which events did he attend? Which sporting event did he attend during the Olympic and Paralympic Games? Again, I ask the minister: did he actually go to the ski-jumping event, the individual qualification round, on February 12?

Hon. I. Black: I'll take your guidance on this, Chair, but that question has been asked and answered.

J. Kwan: Sure, the minister will say that the question has been answered already. I suppose that's been the approach from this entire government for pretty well every set of questions that has been put to the government on the principle of accountability. They give no information, do not answer the question and then turn around and say: "Oh, I answered the question already."

Wow. Try that with a four-year-old. Maybe that would work. But it wouldn't work with the taxpayers of British Columbia, and they shouldn't accept such a lame answer from the minister — not at all. It is actually embarrassing for the minister to continue to dodge these questions, continue to evade. Maybe he's the minister of evasion or something, so that he doesn't have to answer any questions.

If the minister is not prepared to answer the questions, then let someone else do the job who is prepared to answer the questions, Mr. Chair.

On February 12 there were two events that occurred: ski jumping, individual qualification round, and the general opening ceremony. Did the minister attend these events in his capacity as the minister? That compared to this year, in terms of his scheduling — what is the difference?

Hon. I. Black: Asked and answered.

J. Kwan: Opening ceremony, ski jumping — two events on the first day of the Olympic Games. The minister says he's proud to have attended as part of the hosting program put on by this government. Did the minister host any events during the ski-jumping qualification round or during the opening ceremony?

Hon. I. Black: Asked and answered.

The Chair: Before we continue, Member, I would like to note that this line of questioning was explored extensively last Thursday. Although the member may not be fully satisfied with the minister's responses, these questions have been responded to. In order to avoid delaying the debate and becoming repetitive, I would encourage the member to move on to a new line of questioning.

J. Kwan: Thank you. Yes, Mr. Chair, along with my colleague, I did ask the minister a series of questions about what events the minister attended during the Olympic and Paralympic Games. The minister did not answer those questions.

I suppose it's his prerogative, as it is the prerogative of this government, to not answer any questions for the taxpayers — or for the opposition, for that matter — on issues that they have the right to know about, because taxpayers paid for those tickets and paid for that program. They have the right to know what the minister did and what this ministry did relating to that — every right to know that. But what I did not ask the minister last week were the events specifically. Which event did he attend or didn't he attend?

Therefore, I'm going to go through each and every one of them down the line, Mr. Chair — each event is different — and whether or not the minister attended these events as the minister responsible, what sort of hosting activities took place at these events, if any, and whether or not the ministry paid for them. I'm going to go through these line by line.

The minister avoided the question, so let me try again. Did the ministry host any events on February 12 at the ski-jumping individual qualification round?

[1500]

Hon. I. Black: The work that is done in this ministry is being undermined by this line of questioning, and I think the member actually may appreciate my answer if she wishes to listen.

The fact of the matter is that government has been very clear about what it plans to do. The role that I had in hosting the integrated program, particularly the business side of the hosting, was a substantive effort. It involved the work of many, many people over many, many months as we prepared, with some trepidation, to deliver on the promise of these Olympic Games with respect to the future of British Columbians and some of the investment opportunities that could come from them.

Whether I attended specific sporting events is actually not part of that focus. But I understand the infatuation of the members opposite, because…. As I said late last week, the questions are not unreasonable.

So what I would suggest, hon. Chair, is this. I would suggest that we take a five-minute recess. I will provide a list of the events I attended, and we can move on to items that I believe are more pertinent to this ministry.

We will at that point resume these discussions and perhaps focus on the $60 million spent within this ministry to the benefit of British Columbians, trying to take advantage of that business-hosting program and the variety of successes that it represented.

The committee recessed from 3:02 p.m. to 3:25 p.m.

[H. Bloy in the chair.]

Hon. I. Black: For the benefit of those at home who are wondering about the recess, I took the opportunity to answer the specifics about the seven Olympic events I was attending, out in the hallways, and the member opposite who asked the question was in attendance during the discussion with the media on that point as well.

J. Kwan: Well, now, that wasn't so painful, was it?

I know that the minister said that he would provide a list. I would still like to have the list, so let's put that list on the public record here.

Hon. I. Black: I certainly don't mind that, and as I said earlier, I think it's important to get the focus on these discussions back where they need to be.

The seven events that I attended included women's preliminary hockey on February 13; February 17, Czech Republic and Slovakia hockey game — very good game, incidentally; men's figure skating on February 18; ice dance on the 19th; on the 23rd, men's quarter-final hockey; the men's semifinal hockey on the 26th; and men's bronze hockey on the 27th.

J. Kwan: Now that we have the list, that's good. We can take it from there. Can the minister please tell this House, then, what is the stated purpose of him attending these events? What delegations did he meet with?

Hon. I. Black: The first half of the question I can answer; the second half is contained in the report. The first, to answer the question, is: the purpose of my attending any Olympic events was to fulfil my responsibilities as minister as we hosted the estimated 11,000 participants in our business-hosting program and to further the economic development interests of the province of B.C. That was the business hosting piece of it.

We had our broader integrated hosting program, of which our business hosting program was a part. As the job of the host province for the Olympic Games, for many of our events we'd be hosting athletes and dignitaries — and prominent British Columbians, in some cases. That's a general statement.

Then, as I mentioned, within the context of the specific business-hosting program, there would be the alignment wherever possible with international business leaders, investors and individuals who have an interest, or who should have an interest, in British Columbia going forward. Our purpose, of course, in meeting with them both inside and outside of sporting events was to further those interests on behalf of the people of British Columbia.

With respect to the specifics around that, that is the information that will be included in the report that I've referenced several times during this estimates process.

J. Kwan: So the delegation of people which the minister met with during these events will be listed in a report that will be posted, I guess, next year and made available to the public, according to the minister. No, he's shaking his head.

So when can we expect that information on who the minister met with at these events?

Hon. I. Black: I'm not sure where the reference to next year came from. If I've given that impression, that certainly wasn't the intent. My reference to the report that is expected is a report out of the Olympic Games secretariat on ticketing, which will identify the users of the Olympic tickets. That report is expected — the phrase that I've heard used is — late spring. I understand that it is under development right now.

J. Kwan: Did the minister say "late spring," or did he say "next spring"?

Hon. I. Black: Late spring, not next spring. Late spring.

J. Kwan: Has the ministry submitted that list of information in terms of the delegations that his ministry selected to meet with at these Olympic events? Has that been compiled and submitted to the secretariat?
[ Page 3834 ]

Hon. I. Black: In actual fact, the secretariat controlled that from the word go. They controlled the distribution of tickets, etc. So the information repository began and ended within the ministry of the Olympic Games secretariat.

[1530]

J. Kwan: So who gets selected to go to these events? From the delegation's perspective, beyond the minister, it's selected, then, by the minister responsible for the secretariat. Is that what the minister is saying?

So his ministry had nothing to do with submitting a list of businesses, business operators, business owners, potential investors, etc., to the government for consideration? That was all done by someone else?

Hon. I. Black: The decisions around who was extended an offer of participation in the sporting venues themselves were actually brought forward by three deputy ministers. It was on their recommendations that the ministers would be presented with a proposed schedule of who would attend the various events. It is my understanding that the three deputies brought forward that information to the ministers based on the RSVPs as they came in from invited guests from across Canada, within the United States and, indeed, from around the world.

J. Kwan: Three deputies of which ministry? Did it include this ministry?

Hon. I. Black: Yes. The ministries involved in the Olympic Games. The ministry of the Olympic Games secretariat; IGRs are in there — Intergovernmental Relations; and this ministry, our ministry.

J. Kwan: Has this ministry submitted their list of information to the secretariat's office?

Hon. I. Black: No. Again, for the benefit of the member…. The process worked in the way that the Olympic Games secretariat acts as secretary, if you will, of this process. It's not so much an issue of information being given by our ministry to OGS after decisions were made. The conversations with the three deputies were brought to the ministers, and OGS — the Olympic Games secretariat, for the benefit of those watching — is the repository of that information.

So there was nothing, in effect, for us to submit. The meetings when these were discussed and the decisions made…. Those were chaired, if you will, by the Olympic Games secretariat, which is why they are the repository of that information and, indeed, is why they are authoring the anticipated report.

J. Kwan: So is the minister saying that this ministry will not be submitting any written information to the secretariat's office? Because that differs from what the minister said on Thursday, although I must admit his answers on Thursday were wide-ranging. It went from, "Sorry, we can't talk about this, because it's not this fiscal year," to the fact that this is the responsibility of some other ministry — namely, the secretariat's office.

Then it went to, "We don't have the information compiled, and we don't know what that is, so there is, therefore, nothing to submit," to: "Sorry, we can't provide that information to you because it's cherry-picking." And that's actually a quote from the minister in terms of his own words.

So it was far-ranging in terms of all the reasons why the minister can't provide that information. Is he now saying that there is nothing being prepared in writing by this ministry related to all the hosting activities for the Olympic and Paralympic Games for this ministry to the secretariat?

[1535]

Hon. I. Black: There's a distinction here between the two types of information. There's consistency here, for the member.

What I was referring to last week with respect to compiling information was pertaining to questions around the broader costs of the business-hosting program and the fact that that information was still being compiled for the purposes of producing a report on the broader business-hosting program. But in the area specifically of ticketing, the Olympic Games secretariat was the repository of that information.

If I left the impression last week that there was specific information from us to go to the Olympic Games secretariat specifically around the topic of ticketing, then that was not intentional on my part. It was around the other elements of the hosting program, the costs associated with it. That is being compiled for a report that is being released at the same time. It's part of the same report, actually, but it's not specifically in the area of ticketing that I was referring to when I was referencing compiling information.

J. Kwan: At these events that the minister attended, were there any other expenditures associated with these events beyond the tickets themselves for the minister to attend, or were there other expenditures that were expended at these events on the taxpayers' dime?

Hon. I. Black: In the various hosting events that we did during the course of the Olympic Games, there would be costs for things like catering. Those are the types of costs that are being compiled and being prepared for release through the report.

J. Kwan: The catering expenses, like for meals, presumably, and for drinks, including alcoholic drinks and
[ Page 3835 ]
so on at these events — were those paid for by this ministry for the events that the minister attended, or were they paid for by some other ministry?

Hon. I. Black: Yes, for the sporting events at the various venues, those catering costs would be paid by this ministry.

J. Kwan: Does the ministry have that information now, or is that being compiled?

Hon. I. Black: That's the information that's being compiled at present for inclusion in the report.

J. Kwan: When does the minister expect to have that information ready for submission to the secretariat's office?

[1540]

Hon. I. Black: Some of that is dependent upon third-party vendors and whatnot submitting invoices, so some of that is not within our control. But as I mentioned last week on a similar line of questioning, government has up until mid-April — I think April 14 is the actual deadline from an accounting standpoint — to gather all the information and close the fiscal year-end, which is actually two weeks earlier, oddly enough — March 31. If you will, the longest period of time that we would expect to not have certainty on this would be to the 14th of April.

J. Kwan: Could the minister please tell us: where is it budgeted and listed in the budget books?

Hon. I. Black: Sorry, hon. Chair. I just need clarity. Where is what listed? We've covered a few different topics here. I'm not trying to be obtuse; I just want to make sure I'm answering the right question.

J. Kwan: The minister said that the hosting activities that took place with these delegations came out of the ministry's budget. What is the ministry's budget for these activities, and where is it listed in the budget books?

Hon. I. Black: As I mentioned last week under a similar line of questioning, one of the focuses of this ministry is actually to do a lot of hosting-type programs on an ongoing basis, year in, year out. It's been doing that for an awfully long time.

The part of our ministry within which such expenses, including these ones, is identified is within the Asia-Pacific trade and investment part of our ministry. That's whether we are doing outbound trade missions to the United States of America, to Europe or to Asia itself or whether we are actually hosting delegations. In the case of the Olympic Games, that was a very large example of that and a highly focused one for the fiscal '09-10 year. But it is in that part of our ministry where this would show up as a business expense.

J. Kwan: What's the budgeted amount set aside for this purpose?

[1545]

[J. Thornthwaite in the chair.]

Hon. I. Black: Apologies to the member for the delay in this particular answer. We're trying to find something perhaps more meaningful for the member with what we have available here.

What I have in front of me is a total budget number for the Asia Pacific, trade and investment division of our ministry of just shy of $12 million — $11.953 million — which includes all of our international efforts, both inbound and outbound. That would certainly include budgets which in years like '10-11 will be focused on in- and outbound trade missions around the world and in '09-10 would have a concentration focused on the inbound side of that, as the world came to us instead of us going to the world.

We're seeing if we can get something a little bit more meaningful, but that's a starting point for the member.

J. Kwan: Yes, that's exactly what it says in the budget books — $11.709 million for '09-10, and then, of course, in the '10-11 budget year we're looking at about $20 million.

Within that $11 million, almost $12 million, which was budgeted under the title of "Asia Pacific Trade and Investment," how much of that was budgeted for Olympic-related hosting activities?

[1550]

Hon. I. Black: The difficulty in this question is that the specific line items associated with the one event known as the Olympic Games don't feature in the budget lines per se. What I have is a further breakdown of the $11 million and change down to about $9.4 million, which is made up of about seven or eight line items ranging from…. Well, there's one at $3,000, but the others are, like, half a million dollars and range up to $2.3 million or $3.9 million, none of which provide particularly meaningful information for the member opposite.

My suggestion is that given that we do have a report coming out, I think that's where you're going to see how that particular endeavour played out with respect to the costs within our ministry — i.e., the costs to the Ministry of Small Business, Technology and Economic Development pertaining to the hosting program of the Olympic Games, which was spread across a variety of ministries and will be identified in the report that's coming out in the late spring.
[ Page 3836 ]

Within the context of the '09-10 numbers, there isn't a line item here that I think is particularly of use to the member opposite, because they're in very, very large chunks.

J. Kwan: The purpose of estimates is to actually find out where the money went and what was budgeted for it. The minister has said for a long, long time that they've been anticipating the Olympic and Paralympic Games. Surely, in preparing the budget for 2009-10, the minister and the ministry would have known how much they were going to budget for hosting events, seeing as this ministry was one key component to the hosting program of the Olympics and Paralympics.

Surely the minister must have some information that he could tell the public today. Out of that $11 million, almost $12 million — $11.7 million — how much was budgeted for hosting activities? Just a global figure should suffice at this point, then. Is it $9 million, $10 million — whatever?

Then I have some follow-up questions around details.

[1555]

Hon. I. Black: We don't have the information here that's going to satisfy the member today. My suggestion is that we wait for the report that comes out and deal with the details associated with the cost breakdown of the business hosting program of the Olympic Games once that report comes out, if it's not satisfactory to the member opposite.

J. Kwan: No, I'm not in the estimates for the ministry responsible for the secretariat; I'm in the estimates of this minister for the Ministry of Small Business, Technology and Economic Development. The expenditures took place here, within this ministry, not somewhere else, so I'd like to find out that information.

The minister says he doesn't have the information here that will satisfy me. I have to say that's not an acceptable answer for me. I'd like to get that information. So can the minister commit that he can ask his staff to compile this information?

Give us a ballpark figure. Surely there are very competent people in the ministry's office. I have no doubt of it. I see them before my very eyes right now. Surely they can figure this information out.

Surely they went to submit it to Treasury Board for allocation of his budget for this ministry. It would have had line items to say: "We want X amount for hosting activities. We want X amount for economic" — what do you call it? — "Asia Pacific trade and investment activities and so on."

Is the minister seriously telling me that they actually did not budget for that and that they just sort of had a free-for-all and said: "Hey, 12 million bucks. The treasury is wide open. Come and get it"? Surely that's not the process.

[1600]

Hon. I. Black: I think we're making the progress that will please the member.

I'm advised that about 6 percent to 7 percent of the annual budget of the Asia-Pacific trade and investment part of our ministry goes towards hosting activities and that this year was no exception to that.

To the member's comment about Treasury Board, it's an important note that that actually doesn't go to Treasury Board as a line item for approval. So the reason for the delays in these answers is that we're trying to kind of retrofit the kind of accounting that gets done within the ministry back into the format of a very specific question.

If one does the math on that, at 6 percent to 7 percent of $11 million to $12 million, you're in the $600,000 to $800,000 range for the entire ministry's function in this area for the year. Out of that amount of money would come the expenditures that would be our contribution towards the business hosting program — hosting efforts that, again, are running parallel with what we normally do in our ministry — specifically focused on the Olympic and Paralympic Games.

I'm advised that as that information is being compiled at this point based on incomplete information…. At this stage, anyway, it does not appear that there is jeopardy of going over budget in that area.

One could from that conclude logically that the Olympic Games per se, for that concentrated period of time and inasmuch as they ate up part of that allocation of money, did so within the budget allocation accordingly.

J. Kwan: So there was a budget allocated. The minister can only say that and explain that it would be within that budget allocation when there is a budget allocated within those spending authorities — right? Otherwise, how could you say that you stayed within budget, if you don't have a budget allocated?

[1605]

So (a) to clarify that piece, and second…. It's kind of quite incredible, really. The minister says he doesn't really know. One has to ask the question…. The minister said earlier in this set of estimates that he's been in business all his life. Is this kind of accounting acceptable to the minister as a business person?

Of course, we're playing with taxpayers' money here, though I note that we're two days from the end of the fiscal year and we still don't know. Somehow we're still sort of trying to figure that out. That is astounding to me. I have to be frank. I find that quite astounding as well.

Aside from my comments around that, the expenditures that the ministry expended on hosting activities for the Olympic and Paralympic Games in terms of the information that would be submitted to the secretariat…. When the minister has that information available for submission to the secretariat, will he commit to providing a copy of that information to the opposition at the same time?
[ Page 3837 ]

Hon. I. Black: I'm going to revert to the answer I gave the member last week on this topic, which is that we've committed to put out this report. If the information contained within it is not to the satisfaction of the member, then she can write and request more information.

J. Kwan: Yes, I heard the minister's answer on that. Again, it's not acceptable. We're in the estimates debate. This is the detailed information around the ministry spending in this area. The minister should have had this information available for the House and for the people. He does not. He says: "But that information will be given to another ministry, who will then provide the information to the public."

I'm not asking for the other ministry's information; I'm asking for this minister's information pertaining to his expenditures within his ministry. I expect the information to come from the minister. So when he has that information ready to submit to the secretariat, I expect that he has that information ready to make public for taxpayers as well. He should have nothing to hide.

It kind of goes back to this whole thing about what events he attended. He wouldn't answer that question for the longest time, until he was pushed to the wall and then until all sorts of other interests became apparent. Then the minister kind of, sort of, said: "Okay, here it is, so we can get on with it." So let's please get on with it. Provide the information in a forthright, upfront, transparent manner. That's all that I'm asking.

I'm not even suggesting that there's anything wrong, necessarily, with these expenditures, but that's the whole point — that I want to see them. The public has the right to see them. These are taxpayers' moneys. They have the right to know what was expended and for what — the details of it.

If you put it in, I guess, a business context, taxpayers would sort of be like the shareholders — yeah? They should be able to access this information — no? Would the minister accept this if he were the business shareholder? So why can't the minister commit to providing that information?

The fiscal year ends in two days — two days. Now the minister says: "Oh well, we don't have that information ready. We're compiling it right now, and it will be April 14 when we submit that." It's the final, final drop-dead date to submit the information to the secretariat.

[1610]

Then provide a copy of that information to us as well and to the public, as well, so that they can look at it. They don't need the interpretation of someone else to look at that information. I'd much rather that I interpret that information for myself and not just trust this government.

Hon. I. Black: I'm trying not to respond to each and every piece of the member's preamble to the question, but I will note that if the member wishes to wait for the public accounts, that information comes out in July.

What I have proposed to the member is that that's not necessary, that indeed there is a report that is forthcoming, which we have said will be in the late spring time frame. That information would mean that the member would not have to wait until late July to get that information.

It is our intent to complete the compiling of that information and report it accordingly. If the information contained in that report is not to the member's satisfaction, then she can advise me of that fact at that point in time.

J. Kwan: Is the minister saying that the information will be provided while the House is still sitting — that the report will be released while the House is still sitting? I mean this session.

Hon. I. Black: As I have mentioned to the member, I'm not in a position to declare the specific date of that report being released. There have been press releases that have gone out jointly with our ministry and other ministries where the phrase "late spring" has been used. It is my expectation that…. What that means to me is that it would indeed be before the House rises at the end of this session.

J. Kwan: We've had some experience — my colleague did — with the Minister Responsible for the Olympics on a report that the government itself had commissioned relating to promotional activities to capture tourism opportunities, for example, or other opportunities related to the Olympics. That report was supposed to have been done and released by the minister…. Gosh, how long ago was it? About a year and a half ago it was finally released.

I hate to say it. The record so far is not so good, once again, on that account, in terms of releasing of that information.

[1615]

Supposedly, it's going to come out sometime while the House is sitting. I sure hope so. I hope that the information doesn't get released in the dead of summer or something when everybody has gone on their vacation and when families and British Columbians and taxpayers who have paid for these expenses would be at campgrounds and so on.

The minister says, "Well, the report will come out," and if we're not satisfied with that information, we can write to him. Let me ask the minister this question in terms of that report. I know he's going to say that he's not going to be the person writing the report, but can he tell this House that the information that his ministry is submitting to the secretariat's office…?

Would it list the expenses on a line-by-line basis — for example, meals, hotels, travel, catering, etc.? Would it actually list those costs on a line-by-line item? Would it also list the delegation of who attended, the names that were submitted for the secretariat's consideration? Let's start from there.
[ Page 3838 ]

Hon. I. Black: The information is actually still being compiled, so I cannot answer the question with the degree of accuracy that the member would like. I don't expect that it's going to be one number passed into a report. I expect that it'll be broken down into some topic areas, but I don't know beyond that at this stage.

As I've reminded this House many, many times last week, the Olympics just ended. We're not talking about an event that happened in September of last year; we're talking about an event that quite literally only a matter of days ago concluded with the extinguishing of the cauldron.

The information is still being compiled; invoices are still being paid. Once it's all compiled, then I'll be able to determine what is being…. Then it'll be determined what information gets forwarded — and the format of that forwarding — to create the report that's being discussed for release later this spring.

J. Kwan: What format did the secretariat ask for the information to be passed along in?

Hon. I. Black: I'm advised that the Olympic Games secretariat, like the members of our ministry — and, I imagine, like the members and the staff in the ministry of intergovernmental relations — are still at the data-gathering stage and that there has been no request that's actually come in yet specific to a format. My suspicion is that conversations will take place to figure out how to best present the information to the taxpayers of British Columbia, but at this stage we are at the data-gathering stage.

J. Kwan: What format is the ministry, then, gathering this information in?

[1620]

Hon. I. Black: The Olympics. While it was, obviously, a huge, huge event and a very, very complex one, the types of work that were done by our ministry were not a lot different than what we would normally do when one's hosting something. There are two parts to the specific question of the member.

The first is, as I've mentioned, that we still have invoices going out and bills being paid, all that kind of stuff, so there isn't the absolute clarity yet as to where all the matters stand. But it is expected that when you look at what's involved in doing a hosting program of some kind, there would be brochures that you would go through and there would be the catering side of things and there would probably be some travel expenses involved.

Also, when you're doing international hosting, it's not unusual to have gifting as a program as well. I'm advised that it is very likely that the information will be grouped for the Olympics from an accounting standpoint, the same way that it is grouped for the other programs like this that our ministry might run, albeit on a much smaller scale, on an annual basis as we do our work of both hosting people from around the world and taking trade delegations to other parts of the world.

J. Kwan: What I heard were gifts — right? — and hosting, in terms of catering. I heard the minister talk about travel. I presume that accommodation would be involved in that. Maybe I can ask the minister this question: would accommodation be part of the hosting activities?

Hon. I. Black: When we do events like this and we travel around the world, accommodations actually could be quite a meaningful part of a trade mission that we went on if we're going to Asia, to Europe, to the United States or whatever. In this particular case, the accommodation element isn't particularly large. The case of our business VIP guests is an example. All the business VIPs paid their own. We block booked rooms on their behalf, but anyone who slept in a bed paid for it.

[1625]

What I'd suggest to the member is this. If the actual staff accommodation is sufficiently small that it doesn't factor into the report, I'll commit to getting that as a stand-alone line item to the member after the report comes out, if indeed it is not considered material enough to be included in the report itself.

J. Kwan: Can I assume that that extends to other items as well? The minister said he will provide that information if it's not listed separately in the secretariat's report that's soon to be released for accommodations, but would he also release other information as well? Will he also make that commitment? It will expedite this set of estimates a whole lot faster and a lot more efficiently if he would just make that commitment, because then I have the assurance of the minister's word on the public record that he will provide that information.

I'm not suggesting, Madam Chair, that there's anything untoward about this. I just want to know. Part of our job as opposition members is to scrutinize this information. And if the minister doesn't provide it and evades it, as he has done with his own attendance of sporting events, it creates a problem. It creates suspicion. It's not good for anyone.

And that's not the purpose here. The purpose here is just to get at the information, find out what it is, and then let us, the public, be the judge of whether or not that's money well spent. And it may very well be. I'm not prejudging anything. I just want to know.

So will the minister commit to providing the information if it is not in the sufficiently detailed format in which we wish to have it when the information is released to the secretariat? That's all I ask.
[ Page 3839 ]

Hon. I. Black: Our job is to assemble this information in enough detail that satisfies the public. That's the objective of the exercise, and there's a reason…. I mean, the reason we feel comfortable doing what we're doing, to the member's point, is that we're very proud of what just happened here. If we weren't, I imagine that, per a question of three or four questions ago, we'd actually wait till June, July, August — whenever the Public Accounts finally come out — but we're not doing that. We're putting this information out earlier, and we committed to that a long time ago.

[1630]

So we're not trying in any way to prevent the issuing of information. I believe that I'd extended the offer, and I'm extending it again to the member, that when the report comes out, we're going to put the detail into it that we think makes the report very meaningful for the people of British Columbia.

If there's additional information there that the member doesn't want, I've asked her to advise me of that fact. I asked the other member the same question or offered the same thing to the other member late last week. There is certainly willingness on my end to receive a request for more information and to deal with it appropriately at that time.

J. Kwan: You know, I guess we can keep doing this. It doesn't matter to me. I can keep going sort of like that Energizer Bunny thing, and we can do estimates for a long, long time. That's okay for this set of ministry….

The minister had said last week, where the questions were put to him around the detailed information, if it's not sufficient…. At one point he said: "Yeah, you could ask for the information, and we'll see what we can do." Then at the same time, he also said: "You can FOI that information as well." Then earlier today he did actually reference Public Accounts, talking about actually going to look at that information when that comes out.

So frankly, the minister's own answers have been all over the place. In the meantime — and so typical of this government — they're saying: "Trust us. Trust us. It's all going to be good." Oh really? How's it going on the HST, when you said "trust us" that you weren't going to bring it in, and then right after the election, they're bringing it in. So far not so good, if you know what I mean, on the government's "trust us" record of what they say, of doing one thing and then following through versus saying one thing and then doing another.

Sorry, it doesn't give me the level of comfort that I need. What the minister needs to do, if he truly believes in the job that he's done — that it's a job well done and he's proud of that record — is put the information before the public and let them scrutinize it.

[D. Hayer in the chair.]

I'm sure it's going to be bulletproof if it is as great as the minister says it is, if it is half as great as the minister says it is. That's all. Provide that information. Don't use slimy words around how this is being framed and around access to that information, because that's what I keep on hearing. It gives me no comfort whatsoever when the minister goes down this road. It's not useful, I have to say, for anyone — not for the minister, to say the least, and most certainly not for the public, who should have access to this information in a forthright manner.

Let me ask again of the minister — a simple answer of yes or no would be greatly appreciated — will the minister commit to providing the information and answering the questions related to the detailed expenditures of his ministry's hosting activities for the Olympic and Paralympic Games if the secretariat's report that is soon to be released, at some point in the spring, is not sufficient enough in the detailed information that I am seeking and that the opposition is seeking.

Hon. I. Black: The government has committed to pulling together a report. The report is going to be an analysis and breakdown of the costs associated with the successful hosting program surrounding the Olympic Games, which includes the international hosting element for business and for our diplomats and for the other elements associated with fulfilling our responsibilities as the host province for the Olympic Games.

The member is asking me to commit to a document I haven't seen yet and commit to a course of action around a document I haven't seen yet. It is not a reasonable request to make. I have said that the report is being prepared. It's being prepared ahead of schedule when other government information gets publicly released. That is a gesture that seems lost on the member. It is a document that….

[1635]

I've already said several times here that I'm willing to receive correspondence from members opposite if there are items in there that are not to their satisfaction with respect to level of detail. But it is not reasonable for me to stand here and commit to a course of action pertaining to a document that I have not seen yet.

I've made the gesture in good faith. I'm not trying to frustrate the member, but surely it is seen as reasonable. Asking me to commit to a course of action around the unknown is not something that is a reasonable request to make of anybody, never mind a minister of the government.

J. Kwan: The minister said he won't commit himself and hold himself accountable to the report that is going to be released through the secretariat's office. He says that it's some other minister's responsibility. But at the same time, he will not commit to providing that information, through his own ministry, in the report that his own ministry is going to submit to the secretariat.
[ Page 3840 ]

He can't have it both ways. At some point in time the buck stops somewhere with the minister in terms of accountability. You can't say, "I can't tell you what I'm going to do with a report that I haven't seen that I'm not responsible for compiling together…." That's what he's just saying — that he cannot be responsible for that. And then, when asked the question on his own ministry's report, his own ministry's information that they're going to present to the secretariat — will he provide that information to us in that format? — he says: "Oh no. No can do. Can't do that either."

Well, which is it? You can't have it both ways. You can't say: "You have to go and ask the secretariat, and if they don't have that detailed information, you can come back, and then I'll decide whether to give you that information or not." Maybe it's going to be an FOI process or some other process, or maybe it will be next spring.

Likely, at this rate, with this minister, at the rate that he's going, the ministry's estimates will be over, and guess what will happen. Then we'll be back next year for this set of estimates, and the minister is going to try that whole thing all over again and say: "Hey, guess what. What the member is asking is estimates relating to the old '09-10 budget fiscal year, and it has nothing to do with the '11-12 fiscal year."

I can see it coming. It's exactly the playbook that the minister is going to go down, and guess what. It doesn't cut it. It's not good enough.

The minister can either commit to providing that information to us with the report that his staff is going to compile and submit to the secretariat's office and be accountable for that information and answer those questions in that format, or I suppose we can do estimates continuously until we get that information — supposedly April 14, then — and we can carry it through.

Hon. I. Black: Is there a question anywhere in there?

The Chair: On Vote 43 — can we ask the question?

J. Kwan: Well, that's really interesting and funny. The minister doesn't want to answer that request.

The Chair: Member. Member.

J. Kwan: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Interesting approach. So April 14 it is. So be it, because that's what we'll do. The minister will not commit to providing that information. Is that correct?

Hon. I. Black: I have stated here several times now that a report is forthcoming. It is to the people of British Columbia. It is their interest that I'm serving, not the members opposite.

I've also made it clear that if there is information that is not contained within that report that the member would like to know or a level of detail that is not provided within that report that the member would like to know, I would certainly be willing to receive an indication of that from the member so that we can respond accordingly.

By everything I can see, that's a reasonable course of action for data that is still being compiled as we stand here today listening to the speeches.

J. Kwan: Is the minister — just to be clear — now saying he will commit to providing the information to the level of detail that we're asking for if it is not provided under the secretariat's report? Is that what he's saying — yes or no?

Hon. I. Black: As I've said many times, I'm not providing commentary on a report I have not seen yet.

J. Kwan: My lord, Mr. Chair.

[1640]

Points of Order

Hon. I. Black: Point of order.

The Chair: Members, a point of order.

Members in the House, I have a reminder at this time. I think we should try to keep the tone or the voice and decorum as is expected in this House and this chamber. If I can ask all sides and everybody in the House to respect that, we will continue with the estimates.

Member, through the Chair, please.

J. Kwan: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Absolutely — but I've got to tell you this is just incredulous. It took how many hours? Thursday all afternoon and then in question period and then more questioning for, finally, the minister to say: "Oh yes, I will release to you the sporting events that I attended during the Olympic/Paralympic period."

Somehow, it was a big top secret up until this afternoon, until the pressure was brought on to bear. Then the minister is trying to skate all over the place, so not only does he want to own the podium for dodge ball, but he also wants to own the podium, apparently, in using weasel words, in flipping all over the place and not answering the question, in not committing and then pushing it over to different places.

The Chair: On a point of order, hon. Member.

J. Kwan: Really?

The Chair: Member, "weasel words" is not acceptable in the House. Can you withdraw those?

J. Kwan: Slimy words, then. I withdraw.
[ Page 3841 ]

The Chair: Member, that is not acceptable either.

Debate Continued

J. Kwan: Oh, not slimy either? Then I withdraw that, but certainly one that actually won't stick on the wall in terms of the slippery movement of the commitment by this minister. It is a pattern of this minister in wanting to push his responsibility and accountability off to someone else. It's a pattern that he has established for himself. Maybe the minister's proud of that.

So I repeat the request. I would like either a confirmation or commitment from this minister of his willingness to provide the detailed information that we're requesting of the spending of this ministry in hosting activities related to the Olympic/Paralympic Games. Will he commit to that if that information is not provided in the secretariat's report?

Hon. I. Black: It's unfortunate that the timing of the release of a public document is not conducive to the political agenda of the members opposite. That, however, is not going to accelerate the release of this report.

The information, as I have stated many times, is still being compiled. We don't know the format of the report. I've tried to assist the member by referencing the types of information that are likely going to be included in the report, the categories of information that might be included in the report. I've tried to illustrate some of the level of detail that might be in the report. But it is all speculative.

It is, you know…. To the extent that I can predict what a report's going to look like…. I've stated on the record, and I'll state it again here: I have not seen a draft of the information. It's not like I'm playing peekaboo with a piece of paper. I've not seen it.

It's difficult for me to try to come up with measured and reasonable answers to the tirades that we've been witnessing this afternoon, when I have, to the best of my ability, answered questions about a document that I've not yet seen and comment on the content of that document when I've not yet seen it or the degree of detail that's within it when I've not yet seen it.

[1645]

I think that I've tried to explain to the members who have asked questions about the document that inasmuch as if there is a level of detail requested or a type of information requested that is not contained within the document, I would be willing to receive communication to that effect and try to deal with it.

J. Kwan: Yeah, in receiving that communication, it could be: "Yeah, thanks very much, and we'll file that in a drawer for next year — memo to file — and we'll take a look at it next year." Or we can send it off with a response that says: "Oh great. Wait for public accounts, or alternatively, you can use the FOI format." By the way, I did FOI the minister's office for contracts that were signed related to hosting activities.

Guess what. I came back with a bill for over $10,000 to access that information — so much for openness and transparency. Somehow, magically though, within that package, through ongoing discussions with the ministry, we got three contracts — small ones albeit — that were released without charging money to the opposition or myself.

I should say that that should be the approach that should be taken in terms of standard release of these contracts, but not so, not for this ministry, not for this minister. Because the other contracts, of which I presume there are many others…. Even how many others there are I don't know, because the minister won't provide that information without us having to pay a $10,000 bill. That's just absurd.

So here we are asking the minister for information, and he wants to have it both ways. He says: "Oh, but hey, I haven't seen the report from the secretariat. How will I know what format and detail the information will be listed in that report pertaining to this set of questions?"

So I said: "Okay then, if the minister is not responsible for that, I accept that." The minister is not responsible for the secretariat's report. Then provide the public and the opposition the information that they are going to submit, that the ministry is going to submit to the secretariat related to the hosting activities and his costs and so on.

"No can do," the minister said. "Can't provide that either." What exactly can the minister do then? "Wait for the report," he says. "When it comes out, if you're not satisfied with it, write me, and I'll see and think about what we're going to do." In that process my colleague asked the questions about that exactly. He said: "Yeah, you can go through FOI. That's one way of dealing with it."

Well, no thanks very much, because I predict that's going to come in with a bill worth tens of thousands of dollars. Is that in the interests of the public? Is that the way in which the minister wants to show that he's proud of his hosting activities within his ministry? What is he trying to hide? Why is he not providing this information to the public? Why do we have to spend hours questioning the minister for it?

If the minister wants it this way, then, to say that the information is not available, because I haven't even seen it…. It is only two days to the year-end in the fiscal year and another two weeks before all the work has to be submitted, and since I haven't seen it, and I don't know what it is, and my eyes are closed, and I don't know what I'm talking about, well then, let's wait.

Let's wait, then, until the material is available, and we can resume the estimates of this ministry at that time. I'd be happy to comply with that approach. Then we'll see where we go from there.

The minister cannot have it both ways. So which way would he have? Would he stand up and say, "I'll be open
[ Page 3842 ]
and accountable and provide that information to the public," or will he commit, in the very least, to say: "I will provide that information to you without asking you to go through FOI, without asking you to go to public accounts, and then I will be accountable for the expenditure of this ministry and provide the detailed information to the public through to the opposition." Will he commit to that?

[1650]

Hon. I. Black: The member opposite is correct when she points out that we're a couple of days away from the fiscal year-end. That's not been in dispute through these discussions. That, however, does not change the end point of the Olympic Games, and the Paralympic Games in particular, which is a matter of mere days ago at this point.

[H. Bloy in the chair.]

In the realm of such a complex event, it is not unreasonable that we are still gathering together information on this. I believe we have made it clear that to release information to the public at the earliest opportunity, once it's gathered, is what we're endeavouring to do. That is the purpose of the report.

That's why we're not waiting until the public accounts are released so that the information comes out in binders and binders of information that people have to sift through in July. That is why we're doing the report that we are. It'll be across different ministries. It will be in a report that describes what were the expenditures associated with the Olympics Games on the hosting program and will give detailed breakdowns on the ticketing strategy that was deployed and the uses of those tickets.

That is the vehicle that we've decided to use. The information, as I mentioned, is still being compiled. I don't have the ability to answer the specific questions today, and I've already commented on my willingness to accept requests for additional information once that report is released to the public.

J. Kwan: Will the minister commit to releasing the information that his ministry is going to provide to the secretariat's office?

[1655]

Hon. I. Black: I really don't have anything new to offer on this line of questioning. I've identified that a report is coming out. I've identified the type of information that's going to be in the report. I've identified that information is still being compiled in the report because of the recency of the event just being completed.

It is not possible for me to give a newer answer than those that I've already given on this particular line of questioning, so asked and answered.

J. Kwan: Can the minister tell us again: when does he expect his ministry staff to have completed compiling this information for the secretariat's office, and when would it be submitted to the secretariat's office?

Hon. I. Black: This is a question I did answer earlier this afternoon, but I'll repeat the answer for the member. The latest that invoices can be submitted into our accounting system, I am advised, is the 14th of April. That is for the fiscal year-end that we are currently in.

In order to have our accounting staff across every ministry and every subdepartment of government lock in on the year-end numbers, all invoices and whatnot have to be submitted and booked, if you will, by April 14. That says to me that starting on April 15, reports could start to be compiled, the caveat being that there are various reports being generated across government all the time.

There is nothing saying that that information can be done sooner, but if you're looking for kind of goalposts to put around this exercise, it seems to me that April 14 and 15 represent one where there's a degree of certainty, just because of the rules of closing the books on the fiscal '09-10 process, as it has just been explained to me.

J. Kwan: At the latest the information would be submitted to the secretariat's office by April 14, so the ministry and the minister would have access to that information. Would the minister care to take a look at that document before it's passed on to the secretariat's office by April 14?

Hon. I. Black: Sorry. Just a quick point of correction. That is the point where one could, with certainty — if one did not have certainty prior — start compiling information to prepare reports and forward them on. I didn't state that that was a point where our efforts would be complete. That is actually a point where one could take the information available and look at it as being final vis-à-vis the fiscal '09-10 year.

I want to give the member a chance just to re-ask the question in case that actually changes the question that she then asks.

J. Kwan: Tell me this, then. On what date does the minister himself expect to lay his eyes on this report? The report that I'm talking about, to be clear, is the information that his ministry is compiling and putting together related to the hosting activities from his ministry to be submitted to the secretariat's office. When does the minister himself expect to see that information from his own ministry?

Hon. I. Black: There's a complexity here on the accounting side which has just been explained to me. Effectively, sometime after the 15th of April is when we can, with confidence — if we don't reach a state of
[ Page 3843 ]
confidence sooner than that — basically compile the information, once we understand the format that has been agreed upon for the report and once the request for that information has come from OGS.

[1700]

Those trigger points aren't necessarily contained within my ministry, but my expectation, if I can use that word, is that…. We made a commitment to release this report in late spring, and in order to achieve that, I would think that I would need to see this information certainly no later than the last half of April.

J. Kwan: Okay, so the minister says that he expects to see the information by the last half of April, which, in my estimation, would be late spring; we're getting there. That's when the secretariat is supposed to release that report.

Good thing that we have an extended session that goes till June. That will give the minister ample time to review that information and for us to ask questions then. So no worries there, I guess, on my part about being able to get accountability from this minister on his own ministry's expenditures related to the Olympic and Paralympic hosting activities.

Let me ask the minister this question. He says that there are negotiations going on between the various parties related to the format in which the report, or information, is being requested. So there is discussion amongst ministry staff on that. Is his ministry participating in that discussion?

Hon. I. Black: I want to very quickly correct the word that was just used. I think that the word was "negotiation," and it caused my brow to furrow. There is no negotiation taking place between the different ministries pertaining to the release of the joint report in the late spring. The suggestion that the format is somehow being negotiated is just not accurate.

The member then went on and used the word "discussing." It will not surprise me that there would be discussions, because we understand our line of business particularly well. I mean, outside of the Olympic Games event itself, as I've mentioned several times now, the economic development side of this ministry, particularly the Asia-Pacific trade initiative, has an enormous number of events like this that we do on an annual basis — obviously, on a much smaller scale in terms of trade delegations coming and going.

There is an understanding there that I think would be helpful, so I would be surprised if our input was not solicited as to how you make sense out of this information and how you present it in a manner that makes sense to the taxpayer. So I wouldn't be surprised to see those discussions taking place. But again, there's no sense of negotiation here. We're quite anxious to get this information into the public realm.

J. Kwan: The word "negotiations" was actually used by the minister about the format of the report. So thank goodness we have Hansard, because that will show that on Hansard. Thanks to Dave Barrett, the former NDP Premier who put forward Hansard. That was the word used by the minister himself.

So there are negotiations and discussions going on about the format of the information being put forward to the secretariat's office. Who within his ministry is delegated that responsibility, to engage in these discussions with the secretariat's office and others across government?

[1705]

Hon. I. Black: The various ADMs and other senior members of our staff who are involved in executing the hosting program would, I think, have their input solicited, all of it coordinated by my deputy.

J. Kwan: So is it the deputy who is going to be engaging in these negotiations and discussions with the secretariat's office about what format the information is required in for their report?

Hon. I. Black: My deputy advises that yes, he anticipates that he would be involved, as would other senior members of our team who are involved in the execution of the business hosting program and the integrated hosting program on behalf of the people of B.C.

J. Kwan: Will the deputy be engaging in those discussions with the minister about what format is required for that report?

Hon. I. Black: I would hope that my deputy would keep me apprised as to how the report is coming together. To the extent that that would probably include giving me updates on what it's likely to look like, I guess that the answer to that question is yes, notwithstanding the fact that I have always been and will always be very comfortable that if the report has my name on it, I'm responsible for it.

J. Kwan: Does the minister's deputy have an upcoming meeting scheduled with the other government representatives on this issue, and if so, when is that date?

Hon. I. Black: I'm advised that there is no scheduled meeting at this point, as all the ministries involved are still compiling the data from the conclusion of the very recently extinguished flame of the Paralympic Games and the events associated with it.

J. Kwan: Does the minister's deputy know in what format his ministry is compiling this information at this moment?
[ Page 3844 ]

Hon. I. Black: I'm advised that my deputy has not started compiling information in one format or another. He is instructing his team to continue on the important path of gathering the information in a timely fashion such that the report can be issued according to the government-committed schedule of late spring.

J. Kwan: Interesting. So we're two days to the end of the fiscal year, two weeks before all the information has to be submitted, and we still don't know in what format we're going to compile this information. Oh, that gives me a whole lot of confidence — eh? — on the operations of government across the board. Wow. Interesting.

[1710]

Not to say that it's the staff who won't have that information compiled. I suspect that somewhere along the line someone doesn't want to release that information in terms of what the format is for the information to be compiled, because I don't believe for a minute that the ministry is not doing its due diligence right now at this minute and may have already done a lot of that work.

Nevertheless, estimates and this whole session won't end until June 3. We have lots of time to come back to it, so I'm not worried. And so we'll come back to that.

Let me ask the minister this question: whatever the amount of dollars that it comes out to be after the information is compiled for this ministry's hosting activities for the Olympic and Paralympic Games, is that part of the $765 million for the hosting of the Olympics?

Hon. I. Black: I actually was asked this question twice, I believe, last week as well. I will confirm once again first of all that $600 million and then an additional $176 million associated with security costs were associated with the staging of the Olympic Games themselves — that is, the athletic venues and the athletic endeavours around that — and that indeed the business hosting program is separate from that. So I can confirm that answer for the member.

The Chair: Committee A will recess for five minutes. We will return at exactly 5:30 this time. Thank you.

The committee recessed from 5:12 p.m. to 5:16 p.m.

[H. Bloy in the chair.]

J. Kwan: I just got confirmation that we will end estimates today, so we'll come back, and there will be lots of time to canvass that other information. I have to say that I expect to get the information around the detailed spending and line-item expenditures from this ministry related to the hosting activities. We'll do it through the estimates process for as long as we need to in order to obtain that information.

Hopefully, June 14 will come sooner for the minister than not, and that information will be available. Then we can sort of take our estimates from there, but in the meantime we've got a whole host of other questions that we can canvass. I'm going to stand down that set of questions until the information is made available, until the ministry has gathered information, and then we'll take it from there.

Let me just turn for a minute, then, to this set of questions that my colleague asked and did not get a clear answer on. I'd like to recanvass this for a minute. Could the minister please tell us: what is the cost of the employee loan program for this ministry?

Hon. I. Black: The member for Burnaby–Deer Lake requested this information last week. I'm advised that that information was sent to her office by close of business on Friday, as I committed. If that's not the case, please do let me know because we will get you another copy immediately.

My understanding is that that was…. I committed to get it to you by close of business Friday, and it was sent. I had a phone call towards the end of the day that confirmed that fact. If you don't have it, please do let me know. I want to make sure you get that, but I'll repeat it here, as the question has been re-asked.

The Chair: If I can remind all members to direct their comments through the Chair.

Hon. I. Black: Pardon me, through the Chair.

To the member, through the Chair, there were a total of three employees involved from our ministry: one of them as a volunteer for VANOC and the others as secondees by VANOC. That distinction is drawn, apparently.

In the case of the two employees who were secondees, the total, including salaries and benefits for the time frames of the employees, was — the member has a full copy of this, but I'll round; if the member wants specifics, I can read all the specifics — just shy of $6,400 for one of them and just shy of $35,000 for another of them. That was over a longer period of time, for what it's worth.

Then in the case of the VANOC volunteer, we had one of our employees who was involved, for a total cost of salaries and benefits of just over $2,600.

[1720]

J. Kwan: My colleague has not seen that document, so we'll go in search of it — sort of like the former document that the minister said had been provided to my office. We hadn't seen that either. Even in searching for it, we couldn't find a copy of it, so the minister did provide that documentation.

Just on that, then. The information that the minister provided — is that going to be submitted to the secretariat? Would that be part of the accounting of the secretariat's report?
[ Page 3845 ]

Hon. I. Black: The three individuals I just referenced actually weren't involved in the business-hosting program themselves. They were involved in VANOC and its operations.

Our report is not reporting out on VANOC-based activities. Our report is specifically focused on the integrated hosting program, of which specific business hosting is a subset. It is focused on that area, so we would not include in that report, as an example, the three individuals that I just referenced here, because their efforts were not at all associated with the business-hosting program of the government of British Columbia.

J. Kwan: Could the minister repeat for me what the total cost was of the employee loan program for this ministry, then?

Hon. I. Black: I want to make sure we don't get caught up in our terminology here. My understanding is that the loan program is different from secondees. I didn't make this stuff up. I'm just repeating it.

The loan program associated with our ministry was just over…. I'll give the exact number, for the record: $2,629.55 for the loan program, which was the VANOC volunteer I referenced in my previous answer.

J. Kwan: So $2,629.55

Hon. I. Black: Yeah, $2,629.55

J. Kwan: And the secondment was $35,000. Did I hear the minister say that correctly?

Hon. I. Black: Again, we had two employees under the secondee program with VANOC. One of them, total salaries and benefits, was…. Again, I'll just read the specific number into the record for the member, for accuracy: $6,393.48. The other employee was a total of $34,877.88.

J. Kwan: The loan program and the secondment program, then, with the expenditure from this ministry — is that part of the $765 million for hosting of the Olympic Games?

[1725]

Hon. I. Black: I certainly stand to be corrected on this point, but I do not believe that the $760 million for staging the games and the additional security costs would include the costs I just articulated. That would be a question, with respect, that I'd suggest be asked of the minister associated with the Olympics. I don't believe that's the case, but again, I stand to be corrected.

J. Kwan: Can the minister tell me also, then, what expenditures were incurred by the ministry for the two-for-one volunteer program?

Hon. I. Black: Again, I think it's the terminology that is tripping up both myself and the member opposite. The two-for-one…. I've heard the phrase two-for-one used before. That is what I referred to previously as the VANOC volunteer, so I've already cited that number. That was the number that was $2,629.55.

J. Kwan: Could the minister please tell me what other expenditures were there, if any, from the ministry that are not part of the accounting for the report that's going to the secretariat but Olympic-related that was spent within his ministry?

Hon. I. Black: If I understood the question correctly — and I would ask the member to advise if that's not the case — it was: are there any other Olympic costs outside the hosting program costs within our ministry? Beyond, that is, the volunteer staff that we were just referring to. I'm advised that there are no other costs of that kind.

I am holding in my hand, however — it says "hand-delivered," and it is dated last Friday — a letter signed by myself to the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant that specifically has the information that I just cited and read into the record. The note says hand-delivered, so it was delivered here within the building. So I cannot, nor would I profess to, blame this on the good people at Canada Post.

This is hand-delivered, March 26, 2010, reference 81108, for the member's reference. I could get a copy to the members almost immediately.

J. Kwan: I didn't get anything from the minister's office except for the minutes that were given to me on the round table, and that was hand-delivered to me by his staff. Beyond that, I didn't receive anything else. Maybe there's a double running around the office that looks just like me. Was it delivered to me? I didn't get it. This — sorry, no props. I only got round-table meeting minutes, which were requested at the last set of estimates that were hand-delivered to me last Thursday.

I don't know who might have received it. Gosh, that's kind of scary. I hope that there isn't anyone else that looks just like me that received it and may be receiving all sorts of other information that I don't know about.

Hon. I. Black: No, it is my understanding that it was delivered to the member's office within the Legislature building by hand by one of the staff of my office before the close of business on Friday. Again, I'll furnish a copy immediately to the member.

J. Kwan: Sorry, just to clarify: is it to me or my staff, or is it to my colleague, the critic for the Olympics — to her or her staff? Well, neither one of us got it, so I guess it doesn't really matter. Maybe there are all sorts of doubles running around.

[1730]

Hon. I. Black: The copy that I'm holding in my hand right now with my signature on it…. It actually carbon copies the member for Burnaby–Deer Lake as well. It is my understanding that a copy was delivered to each of the offices of the members opposite, here in the building, by the close of business on Friday.

Again, I'm holding a copy in my hand, and I'd be pleased to give it to them right away.

J. Kwan: Well, okay then. We'll check with our staff, because neither one of us has received anything. Anyway, we'll try to see if we can track that down. In any event, we have that information, and we'll be sure to track that down as well.

So there are no other expenditures related to the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Games from this ministry, beyond what has been identified in terms of the employee loan program, the secondment program, and then also what information is going to be submitted to the secretariat. Likely, for that set of information, the dollar figure would come to somewhere in the neighbourhood of $600,000 to $700,000, it sounded like from the minister. There are no other expenditures related.

Then let me ask this question. It was reported that the government directly awarded a contract worth up to $650,000 to host business leaders and foreign dignitaries at the Terminal City Club during the 2010 Winter Olympic and Paralympic Games. Could the minister tell me how much that contract was worth, and what expenditure does that fall under? Is it going to be part of the information that's going to be compiled and submitted to the secretariat, or does it fall somewhere else?

Hon. I. Black: First, by way of, perhaps, some clarity to the members. According to a note that I've been handed, the letter dated March 26, 2010 pertaining to the employees that I've referenced — the three employees on the secondee and the volunteer side of the Olympic Games — was hand-delivered to somebody named Angela Giuliano. My apologies to Angela if I've mispronounced her name; I don't do well with longer last names. If that's not the correct person, then that will be a note that we'll take away from the members opposite.

Pertaining to the contract that was just asked about, that is not a contract actually held within our ministry. I mentioned that the integrated hosting program is across three ministries. That contract is actually held within the Ministry of Intergovernmental Relations.

J. Kwan: Well, the explanation that the minister provided in terms of who the information was delivered to…. Actually, that individual is not either one of our legislative assistants. So she's probably sitting there wondering what to do with that document — perhaps. I don't know. But she's not our legislative assistant, so perhaps that explains why we didn't get the documentation.

For future reference for the minister, my legislative assistant is Susan Farmer. The member for Burnaby–Deer Lake, the Olympic critic — her legislative assistant is somebody by the name of Brian Kowalski.

Interjection.

J. Kwan: Yup. So that, hopefully, will clarify future references in terms of documentation flying here and there.

Okay, so the minister says that the Terminal City Club contract was not let by this minister's office. Did I hear the minister correctly — that it was actually let by IGR? They let that contract out.

Actually, in fact, there was no proposal call. The Terminal City Club, as I understand it, was just selected to do this work for $650,000. So none of the activities that took place in securing this venue were conducted by this ministry?

Hon. I. Black: In the ongoing saga of the documentation from Friday afternoon, I'm advised…. First of all, apologies to both members if their legislative assistants weren't directly involved in the handing over of the envelope. The envelope was addressed to the members. It was a sealed envelope addressed to both the members opposite, as I understand it.

[1735]

Nonetheless, we'll take note of the legislative assistants — through you, Chair, to the members — for any future correspondence requirements, to make sure that we're making sure things don't go astray. I can certainly empathize with the frustration of not getting information that would otherwise have been delivered.

To the member's question about the Terminal City Club, I can answer in the affirmative that the intergovernmental relations ministry was responsible — to my knowledge, wholly responsible — and I can say, to this extent anyway, that our ministry was not involved in that particular procurement of the facility. It was handled, as was discussed, by intergovernmental relations.

J. Kwan: There were other contracts that I'm interested in from the ministry. I mentioned earlier that I had sent freedom-of-information requests to the ministry for contracts related to hosting activities. In that process, only….

Well, we got a bill — a bill for $10,000 for us to pay an instalment towards in order to obtain that information. Then after much discussion back and forth, to and fro, three contracts were released by the ministry free of charge, and they were relatively small in terms of the contracts themselves.

I wonder if the minister can tell me: how many other contracts are there within the ministry for hosting activities — beyond those three?

[1740]

Hon. I. Black: The contracts involved in the business-hosting program, of course, are the basis of the report that we have coming out shortly.

My suggestion is that we will await the release of our report and that we will also be able to entertain specific questions on the contracts associated with that if the information within that is not to the member's satisfaction. The member has said that we'll continue canvassing this issue once the report comes out, and it might provide the context necessary at that point in time to help us both.

J. Kwan: Can the minister tell me: how many contracts did the Ministry of Small Business enter into with hosting activities, and were all those contracts tendered out or were they selected by the ministry?

Hon. I. Black: That is not information that the staff have with me, so I can't begin to go down that path. But I can say with certainty, to the member's last part of her question, that this minister was not involved in the awarding of any contracts pertaining to the hosting program in the Olympic Games.

[1745]

J. Kwan: Well, I have with me three contracts, at least, that the ministry…. It was a joint contract Citizens' Services and this ministry had entered into. So there were some contracts that were entered into by this minister, purchasing services from companies outside of government.

Maybe the minister can clarify that, because that seems to be contradictory information in terms of some contracts being entered into. If the minister says that he doesn't have that information here today, maybe he could see if that information could be provided to us tomorrow, because as I understand, we'll be back here on Small Business estimates tomorrow as well.

Hon. I. Black: I'm not sure. Perhaps I misheard the member, but at the tail end of the preamble to the previous question to the one that was just asked, I believe I heard — and I stand to be corrected by our good friends at Hansard — the member allude to or make a suggestion that perhaps I, at a very personal level as a minister, was involved in contracts.

She made reference, as well, to a procurement process and a commentary on a procurement process. And my response back was that as the minister, as the individual, I was personally not involved in awarding contracts.

My ministry, however, will of course — to undertake an endeavour such as the business-hosting program, part of the Olympic Games — have had agreements in place, including the ones that the member has obtained through freedom-of-information requests.

Just for the record, I was not suggesting that our ministry did not have agreements. Certainly, our ministry would have to have some agreements to pull off what we just did in the impressive way in which we just did. But I, as minister, did not have a personal involvement in that process.

Pertaining to the member's next question, which — if I understood it correctly — was a repeat of the previous one, which is: if you don't have a list of the contracts, can you get us one? My previous answer is the one that I turn to at this point, which is that those contracts form the basis of a report which is being released by the late spring.

To that extent, I would keep the focus on that report in terms of that being the vehicle for divulging the information to the taxpayers of British Columbia about how money was spent around the hosting program. If there are questions pertaining to specific contracts around that information, then I would certainly obtain them for the member at that point in time.

J. Kwan: I'm pretty sure that I didn't ask what contracts the minister entered into in terms of securing companies in providing services related to the Olympic and Paralympic Games. Of course, I don't expect the minister to be entering into contracts, and if he did, he would be doing this on behalf of his ministry. Most certainly, he wouldn't be doing this on his own accord on a personal level.

Having said that, the minister now says that the ministry has had contractual agreements with various organizations regarding the hosting program related to the Olympic and Paralympic events. The minister says that will be part of the release of the document in late June from the secretariat.

Is it the minister's anticipation that a full list of all the organizations, companies and corporations that have entered into a contract with the Ministry of Small Business would be released to the secretariat's office for their dissemination and put into a final report released to the public? And in that process, would it also contain which organizations entered into the contracts, what were they for and how much?

[1750]

Hon. I. Black: The phrasing used by the member opposite was "the anticipation." I don't have an anticipation yet, as I've referenced a few times this afternoon. I have not yet seen anything resembling a draft of the report to know whether it would include that or not.

As I've mentioned on other similar topics, however, I would certainly be willing to see requests from the member if the information contained within that report is not to her satisfaction.

J. Kwan: Did the ministry tender out these contracts that they entered into agreements with organizations, corporations, etc., for the hosting program within their own ministry?
[ Page 3848 ]

Hon. I. Black: Any contracts that our ministry will have entered into in and around any element of our ministry will follow the procurement guidelines of the government of British Columbia pertaining to whether they are direct, awarded or go through a formal or full-blown RFP.

J. Kwan: Yeah, great. So how many of those contracts would have been directly awarded, and how many of those would have gone out to tender?

Hon. I. Black: I believe that I've answered the question about the contracts surrounding the Olympic Games and our plans for addressing the member's question.

J. Kwan: So in other words, the minister won't provide that information at this time, even though it's entirely within his ministry in terms of those expenditures. An interesting approach, once again, from the minister's perspective — don't provide any information until you really have to, I guess, and then when you're forced into the corner. But fortunately, the estimates will go on until June, and hopefully, that report will be released before that time, before estimates end, so that we can continue on these discussions at that time.

I do want to canvass one piece though. The minister said that information would be provided to the secretariat in terms of the contracts that were entered into by this ministry for hosting activities and that if I was not satisfied with the information provided through that report that I could go to him.

I'd like to ask the minister: is the minister then going to refer me to the FOI process to access the information if the detail is not sufficient related to the release of that set of documentation?

Hon. I. Black: Again, it's a speculative question. In one circumstance, there would be nothing that I could do to help the member unless she went down that path, and in other circumstances, it would be information that would be quite easily given, so it's not a question that…. It's a very theoretical question that is difficult for me to answer in context of the proceedings that we are going through today.

[1755]

J. Kwan: Okay. Well, we'll wait for the information, and we will take it from there. The House will still be sitting, so not a problem on that front.

The minister said earlier that the event at Terminal City Club, that contract was let through IGR.

The people who attended that event. Could the minister please advise: did the ministry draw up that list of invitees for the Terminal City Club event, and was the Terminal City Club event part of the hosting activities of this ministry?

Hon. I. Black: I'd need the member opposite to be a little more specific. What event, specifically, at the Terminal City Club is she referring to? She asked about the event at the Terminal City Club. I'm afraid I need the member to be a little bit more specific.

J. Kwan: Just how many events were held at the Terminal City Club? I was referring to the one for which a contract was awarded, worth up to $650,000, to host business leaders and foreign dignitaries at the Terminal City Club during the 2010 Winter Olympic and Paralympic Games.

The minister said that that contract was not let by this ministry, that it was done through IGR and that his ministry had nothing to do with the awarding of that contract whatsoever. If I'm wrong on that information, I ask the minister to correct me, but that's what I heard the minister say — that all of that was done through IGR.

For that event, did the ministry submit a list of business people, dignitaries, etc., to the IGR, I guess, or the secretariat for consideration on who to invite to attend this event? And did this ministry have anything to do with the hosting activities at the Terminal City Club event being referenced here?

Hon. I. Black: When this question was first canvassed, it was actually first canvassed in question period in the House.

At that time I was very pleased to stand up and identify that the Terminal City Club was a venue that had been booked by government for the Olympic and Paralympic Games for a period of 2½ months approximately — it is my understanding. I believe the contract indicates that. That contract would secure that facility — a flagship and highly centralized and a central facility in the city of Vancouver — which would be used for purposes including for the Lieutenant-Governor and the diplomatic responsibilities that he holds in his esteemed office.

[1800]

It would also be used for various Olympic-related events that were going beyond the hosting responsibilities of the Lieutenant-Governor. It would also include hosting functions through that same period of time within the program for which I was responsible — which was the business-hosting program of government — functions and events that carried us through the Paralympic Games as well as the Olympic Games.

So when the member asks the question about an event, I can only assume that the member was reading the contract to read that there was a single event associated with the contract. That is not the case.

The contract — as I understand it, signed by the intergovernmental relations ministry — was to secure that facility for the purposes of the integrated hosting program across the various ministries of government that
[ Page 3849 ]
touched the Olympic Games in that fashion and also extended it to the likes of the Lieutenant-Governor and the responsibilities that he would have on the international stage, as heads of state and senior diplomats from around the world came to British Columbia as well during the Olympic Games.

So there is not a single event that one can tie the contract to, as I understand it. Again, it's perhaps, in some respects, a question best put to another ministry, but not being the author of the contract nor the signatory on the contract, I can't say that with certainty. Again, there was a vast program that took place. Over 100 events took place during the course of the Olympic Games that were attributed to the business-hosting program, and the Terminal City Club was one of the venues that was used to help deliver on the successes of that program.

J. Kwan: I thank the minister for that information. Could the minister tell me and confirm for me that the $650,000 contract with the Terminal City Club for 2½ months' worth of using that facility…? Did the Ministry of Small Business contribute any dollars towards that $650,000 or was that paid for entirely through IGR, then?

Hon. I. Black: That question, perhaps more than any other asked in the last number of days, illustrates precisely why it is advisable to wait for the report published by government, because the fact of the matter, as I've mentioned quite a few times, is that there's a variety of ministries who are contributing to this contract.

The ministry of intergovernmental relations is the one responsible for that contract. I don't profess to know the details of that contract. I won't stand here and represent that fact. I'm advised by my staff that no transfers or bills or costs associated with that contract were paid by our ministry, based on the information we have here.

[1805]

However, as I said in the House when I addressed this in question period, and as I said to the media in the considerable amount of attention that this contract got back in early February, the Terminal City Club is a venue that we were very, very…. I've used the word proud. It's a gorgeous facility that helped us show off our city to the rest of the world. There were hosting events that took place at that venue.

That's precisely the reason why it makes sense — for all the members opposite but, more importantly, frankly, to the public at large — to wait for the document that is going to be released that articulates the costs of the business-hosting program.

They come from different sources of ministries, and to that extent it would be most logical, most easily read and, frankly, most fulsome to have a document that has put all in one place the costs associated with the fantastic job done by the men and women of the public service of British Columbia, as we quite literally hosted the world.

J. Kwan: Well, we'll we wait for that report. I'm not too worried about that.

At this juncture my good colleague the member for Nanaimo–North Cowichan has been waiting patiently and wanting to enter into debate, so I'm going to yield the floor to him at this time. We'll carry on with questions on this ministry's set of estimates tomorrow.

Thanks, everyone.

D. Routley: I'd like to ask the minister what services have been transferred from his ministry to Shared Services B.C.

Hon. I. Black: Thank you to the member for his question on Budget 2010-2011.

I can advise the member opposite that funding was provided for office space, computers and IT infrastructure, corporate accounting systems and a category referred to as minor centrally managed services — i.e., payroll, ASD secretariat, etc.

The Chair: Member, and noting the hour.

D. Routley: With these transfers, I wonder what the cost of those might be and how they figure into the doubling of the professional services budget within the ministry.

Hon. I. Black: I can advise the member that the money that was transferred associated with the items that I listed in my previous answer was on a basis that was independent of us. There is no relationship whatsoever with the services line item within our ministry expenditures.

[1810]

Noting the hour, as you prodded me a moment ago, I would…. No, I am not going to note the hour. I'm going to take my chair.

D. Routley: Actually, the implication of the question was that perhaps the professional services budget wouldn't have been impacted in terms of doubling when so many services have been transferred to Shared Services B.C. But I'll move on to my last question, noting the hour.

I would like the minister to answer for me how much public affairs bureau activity spending there was during the Olympic hosting program — how much STOB 67 and STOB 68 advertising his ministry has done.

Hon. I. Black: I am now going to note the hour.

First of all, I want to circle back briefly on the member's question and re-emphasize that there was no impact at all by the transfers that he asked about a moment ago, so there was no impact at all on the services expenditure of our ministry.
[ Page 3850 ]

Pertaining to the member's recent question about the STOBs 67 and 68, I can confirm that there were no expenditures by my ministry in fiscal '09-10 of the kind that he described.

On that, and allowing for considerable interpretation as to the word "progress," I would like to move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 6:13 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