2005 Legislative Session: 6th Session, 37th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 17, 2005

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 27, Number 11

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Page

Introductions by Members

Statements (Standing Order 25 B )

Investment Dealers Association comments

on 2005-06 budget

R. Hawes

Trade with Asia

D. Hayer

Spirit of B.C. Week

Halsey-Brandt

Oral Questions

Long-term care beds

J. MacPhail

Hon. C. Hansen

J. Kwan

Acute care services at Surrey Memorial

Hospital

J. Brar

Hon. C. Hansen

Lease of B.C. Rail to CN Rail

P. Nettleton

Hon. K. Falcon

Petitions

J. Kwan

Tabling Documents

Making Every Vote Count: The Case

for Electoral Reform in British Columbia , Citizens' Assembly on

Electoral Reform final report

Reports from Committees

Special Committee on the Citizens'

Assembly on Electoral Reform

J. Bray

Committee of the Whole House

Attorney General Statutes Amendment

Act, 2005 (Bill 4) (continued)

J. Kwan

Hon. G. Plant

Report and Third Reading of Bills

Attorney General Statutes Amendment

Act, 2005 (Bill 4)

Committee of the Whole House

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act,

2005 (Bill 3)

J. MacPhail

Hon. G. Plant

Hon. G. Abbott

Report and Third Reading of Bills

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act,

2005 (Bill 3)

Budget Debate (continued)

Hon. G. Plant

M. Hunter

R. Hawes

B. Kerr

J. Bray

[ Page 11947 ]

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 17, 2005

The House met at 2:04 p.m.

Introductions by Members

Hon. C. Hansen: When I wore the hat of Minister of Health

Services in this House, I had the pleasure of working with a very talented young

lady by the name of Alex Dutton, who was my executive assistant at the time.

There are actually two of her friends here to join us in the gallery today, both

of whom are benefiting from some great new opportunities in our post-secondary

education system. Diana Kuhr is finishing nursing at UBC and hopes to specialize

in pediatrics. Anne Marie Colwill is interviewing…. She hopes to get into the

UBC medical school and, hopefully, will be able to benefit from the almost

doubling of the number of seats we have at the UBC medical school. Would the

House please make them welcome.

Also, it gives me great pleasure to welcome, on behalf of the

Premier today, a grade 5 class from West Point Grey Academy in the riding of

Vancouver–Point Grey. They're accompanied by their teachers Ms. Jennifer

Gunasekera and Mr. Harley Rollins. Will the House please make them very welcome

as well.

[1405]

J. MacPhail: Today visiting us in the gallery is a young

woman named Natalia Heilke. Natalia is from Kansas, but she's currently living

here while she, too, is doing her studies at UVic. She is on a reading break

this week, and she decided to come and see for herself what goes on here. She is

fortunate enough to be the niece of one of our researchers, Paula Gunn. She's

here because she actually doesn't quite believe the stories that Paula Gunn

brings home from the Legislature, so she's here to see whether they're actually

true. Would the House please make her welcome.

Hon. G. Plant: Visiting in the gallery today is Tim

d'Estrube, who is visiting from England, where he works for the National Health

Service. Apparently, if pressed, he will admit to a relationship with a member

at the Table. Notwithstanding that, I hope the House will please make him very

welcome.

R. Hawes: I have two introductions today. The first is with

the group from West Point Grey Academy, and that is Logan Graham, who is ten

years old. A number of us met Logan this morning at the arthritis awareness

breakfast. Logan is very active in the Children's Arthritis Foundation and is

here today hoping to see a big fight at question period. We've assured him that

that doesn't happen here and that you, Mr. Speaker, will ensure we are on our

best behaviour. Could I ask the House to please make Logan welcome.

Second, Mary McNeil, the president and CEO of the B.C. Cancer

Foundation — who are the big fundraisers for the Cancer Agency that operates the

genome centre — is here and has been talking to members of government to try to

ensure that the funding to keep the genome centre going is going to be at hand.

I would like the House to please make Mary welcome and to recognize the great

work she does on behalf of all of us.

Hon. L. Reid: In the precincts today — actually, he just

drifted by that door over there — is my son. Will Nicholas Ivan Donnelly

Reid-Friesen is here. He's turning one, and actually, Mr. Speaker, at this very

moment he's visiting in your office. I trust it's all going well. I'd ask the

House to please make him welcome.

J. Kwan: Don't worry, Mr. Speaker. My daughter, who's

almost two, is actually at home in Vancouver at a day care centre, so she won't

be terrorizing your office. You need not worry.

Today I'd like to introduce the Keep Five Alive Coalition. They

are a coalition that is fighting to save the public education system in British

Columbia. Particularly, they're working hard to try and restore the five-day

school week in school district 64. The Keep Five Alive Coalition consists of

parents, educators, students, workers and generally concerned citizens on the

Gulf Islands. I had the great pleasure to meet with them today to hear about

their concerns, and I would ask the House to please welcome these dedicated

individuals.

G. Halsey-Brandt: Today we have three special guests in the

visitors' gallery. They are John and Mary Horton of Richmond and Runa Fiander of

Victoria. I have known John Horton for many, many years. John was active

originally in the Coast Guard Auxiliary and the Royal Lifeboat Society in

Steveston.

As the members know, the mouth of the Fraser River at Steveston is

a very dangerous waterway, and he's been active in patrolling and rescuing both

commercial fishermen and pleasure boaters as well. He is also a world-renowned

marine artist who has served with our army and naval forces overseas in his role

as an artist. Would the members please make them all welcome.

G. Hogg: We have with us in the galleries today Aman Dodd

and Kelsey Dukelow, who are both government staff members. Kelsey will be

leaving us tomorrow, as she's moving on to work with a local investment firm.

Kelsey is one of the proud recipients of one of the awards of excellence which

have been granted in the east block of this wonderful establishment. I hope the

House would wish her all the very best in her new endeavours.

[1410]

Statements

(Standing Order 25

b) INVESTMENT DEALERS ASSOCIATION

COMMENTS ON 2005-06 BUDGET

R. Hawes: On budget day and yesterday, many of us had an

opportunity to meet with the Investment

[ Page 11948 ]

Dealers Association to hear not just their comments on the budget but also

their advice for attracting further investment to continue with the rebuilding

of our province. These are the people who underwrite investment, manage

significant portfolios and assist investment to find a safe home. They pay acute

attention to the financial and regulatory operations of governments from coast

to coast and at the federal level. They know investment always flees where it is

not welcome. With it go jobs, prosperity and ultimately the government's ability

to fund social programs, health care and education. That's the lesson of the

dismal decade of the nineties.

What does the Investment Dealers Association say about Budget

2005? First, they say it is the most transparent of any they have ever seen in

any province and at the federal level in this country — ever, bar none. They say

that the move to generally accepted accounting principles produces total

confidence in the numbers. They say the debt reduction planned this year and the

strategic borrowing in subsequent years to fund infrastructure improvements will

enhance economic development and increase our attractiveness to investors.

They say our substantial decrease in the debt-to-GDP ratio,

resulting from prudent debt management, combined with economic growth should

result in a further credit rating improvement from the bond-rating agencies.

That's good news.

They say that while reaction to the tax cuts tabled in 2001 was

not immediate, the current surge in investment and the tremendous turnaround in

our economy were largely due to government initiatives such as this. They

applaud our deregulation success, as they know the needless red tape and

administrative roadblocks put in place by the NDP made every other province,

including Newfoundland, more attractive as an investment destination.

To the Investment Dealers Association: thank you for your advice,

your support and for helping us make our province the best place in the world to

work, play and invest.

Lastly, to Jim Sinclair: we're not going back to 2001.

TRADE WITH ASIA

D. Hayer: British Columbia's continued economic prosperity

is tied directly to building bridges to the world. If this province is to

prosper over the decades, we must build on our trading relations with Europe and

create new relationships with Southeast Asia, reaching far beyond our borders

and our current reliance on the United States as the market for our products.

This government is taking aggressive steps to develop markets in

the rapidly expanding economies of Asia. We are now seeing growing interest in

China for our wood products. Our mining sector is seeing renewed activity,

particularly in coal production for our Chinese market.

We have to look beyond our base resources and develop a huge flow

of goods not just to China but to India, Korea, Indonesia, Philippines and all

other Asia–Pacific Rim countries. As vice-chair of the Asian Economic

Development Committee created by the Premier, I will be focusing a great deal of

time and effort to assist in establishing these long-term trade relationships,

working toward building bridges that will see products flowing both ways. We

will see people from many diverse communities coming here to work, to learn and

to help us grow.

It is fitting that I rise today during Multiculturalism Week to

talk about building links with the world. Our strength in global trading

networks will come from the knowledge, the expertise and the ties to home of our

large and diverse ethnic communities. Our immigrant communities will be the key

players in our Asia-Pacific initiative. I know they and their families will be

among the key beneficiaries as we embark on a golden decade of endless

opportunities.

[1415]

SPIRIT OF B.C. WEEK

G. Halsey-Brandt: It will be five years from last Saturday

when Canada, British Columbia and Vancouver-Whistler will welcome the world to

the 2010 Winter Olympics and Paralympic Games. The opening ceremony, to be held

in B.C. Place, will be watched by hundreds of millions of viewers around the

world on February 12, 2010.

To kick off the five-year countdown, this week was proclaimed

Spirit of B.C. Week in our province. Last weekend in over 78 cities, towns and

villages around British Columbia, residents participated in a wide variety of

events to mark that date. Spirit of British Columbia committees organized a

cornucopia of community events. In my community of Richmond, over 500 residents

led by a host of children turned out for an ice-skating afternoon at Minoru

Arena. As Richmond is a venue for the long-track speed-skating competition and a

new oval, the choice of activity was appropriate.

Events held around the province ranged from Spirit of B.C.

flag-raising ceremonies to curling bonspiels, charity hockey games, first

nations entertainment, fireworks, snowshoeing and snowmobile races — and in

several communities, walk, run and jog, going-to-Whistler fitness challenges.

It seems only yesterday when we were all on the edge of our seats

waiting to hear if Vancouver would be awarded the 2010 games. Now it's less than

five years away. Spirit of B.C. communities around our province working with

Marion Lay and 2010 LegaciesNow are going to highlight arts and culture

opportunities, literacy initiatives, volunteer recruitment and training, sports

and recreation, and economic opportunities over the next five years as we build

to 2010.

Thank you to all the community volunteers and even the MLAs who

participated over the last weekend. The momentum has begun.

Mr. Speaker: That concludes members' statements.

[ Page 11949 ]

Oral Questions

LONG-TERM CARE BEDS

J. MacPhail: Although the government refuses to have a

line-by-line debate on the budget, the B.C. Liberals can't completely hide from

this House. So let me ask the Minister of Finance a question about the budget.

According to the government's own documents, it spent $100 million to create 140

additional beds in long-term care over the last four years. That works out to a

total of $700,000 per new bed. That seems very expensive.

To the Minister of Finance: can he explain why the government says

it spent $100 million on new beds but only managed to build an additional 140 of

them?

Hon. C. Hansen: There have been a tremendous number of new

beds and renovated beds that meet the needs of seniors in a much more modern and

contemporary way, compared to the stock of beds we were faced with in 2001.

There is a recognition…. We hear from seniors all over the province that they

want options other than just going into what we used to refer to as the nursing

home with its total loss of independence. The new models of assisted living

provide medical supports, they provide independence, and they provide for real

quality of life for our seniors. That's what they've been asking for.

There have been over 4,000 new beds opened in British Columbia. It

is towards our net increase of 5,000 beds. We obviously still have a ways to go

to achieve that goal, but we will get there by 2008.

Mr. Speaker: Leader of the Opposition has a supplementary

question.

J. MacPhail: Here's the story the government is trying to

spin. It's that, oops, they didn't know how bad the conditions were when they

got into government, and therefore they couldn't add those 5,000 new beds.

Well, here is what happened when the B.C. Liberal long-term care

bed plan was released. When was that released? A full year after they took

power. That was released in 2002, and the then Minister of State for Long Term

Care said that the decommissioned beds would be replaced and that another 5,000

beds would be added — a full year after this government took office. She was

very clear. Replacing the beds was part of an ongoing process that was going to

happen anyway.

Can the Minister of Finance explain what's going on here? How come

he's now saying that they had to decommission and replace those beds? How come

the taxpayers got stuck with a $100 million bill to build only 140 additional

beds? Or was that money just used to maintain the existing level of beds,

despite the promise his government made in 2002?

[1420]

Hon. C. Hansen: Let's be very clear what the commitment was

that we made. That was for a net increase in the number of beds that are

available in the province for intermediate and long-term care from what was

there as a base number when we formed government in 2001. We were going to add a

net increase of 5,000 beds. So when we talk about beds that have been phased out

and we talk about the beds that have been renovated, that doesn't increase the

net amount. The commitment stands that there will be a net increase of 5,000

beds. We had hoped to get there by 2006. It's going to take us until 2008, but

we are making sure that the needs of seniors in the province are being met.

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

supplementary.

J. MacPhail: Every time a question gets asked about their

broken promise to seniors about adding 5,000 new beds, we get a new answer.

There was a new answer right there. Okay. Here's why we need….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Please, hon. members. The Leader of the

Opposition has the floor.

J. MacPhail: Here's why we actually need a full debate in

the House. Here's a quote: "There will be 5,000 beds in addition to what we

would have had otherwise, because the decommissioning process would have taken

place on an ongoing basis anyway." That was in 2002 when the government was

under the gun for not telling the accurate facts about what their promise was.

There they restated it in 2002. That was the answer then.

To the Minister of Finance: why hasn't that happened? What went

wrong since March of 2002?

Hon. C. Hansen: The commitment that we made is the same

today as it was in 2001, except we know it's going to take two years longer than

we had originally planned. I think the question that needs to be asked, the

question that we need to ask — and maybe we can have this debate out on the

hustings — is: what did they do? What did that government do when they were in

office? What did that member for Vancouver-Hastings do when she was the Minister

of Health?

We saw during the whole decade of the 1990s a government that was

locked in an old style of care for seniors, putting them in nursing homes when

in fact they wanted their independence. We are actually developing, and we have

been doing this…. There have been thousands of new beds opened in the province,

which actually provide for that independence. Let me tell….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The Minister of Finance has the

floor.

Hon. C. Hansen: I had the pleasure of meeting an elderly

lady in Williams Lake just last fall. She was

[ Page 11950 ]

actually a lady that led the protest in Williams Lake about the closure of

the old Cariboo Lodge facility, because they wanted it maintained. They wanted

it to stay open. She moved into the new assisted-living facility. Do you know

what her words to me were? She said: "If I'd only known how nice it was going to

be." That is a testimony from a senior.

J. Kwan: Seniors are now saying that if they only knew in

2001 what this government would do…. They promised to replace the old beds and

add an additional 5,000 new intermediate and long-term care beds. This an

important question, because this budget only allocates $200 million for new beds

over three years, and it does not…. That's not just for seniors beds; it is also

for mental health beds and for addiction services as well.

Can the Minister of Finance tell us the allocation of the $200

million? How many additional residential care beds will be built? How many

palliative care beds will be built? How many mental health care units will be

built? And how many detox treatment beds will be built?

Hon. C. Hansen: One of the things that needs to be

underscored is that from the time we formed government to the budget that's been

brought down this week, we will see a net increase in health spending in this

province of $3.8 billion. We're making sure that the needs of seniors….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please, hon. members. Let us hear the

answer.

Hon. C. Hansen: We're making sure that the needs of seniors

are getting met — whether it's Pharmacare, whether it's their home support or

whether it's their needs for hospitalization.

To answer the member's specific question yet again, we are

increasing — a net increase from 2001 — the number of intermediate and long-term

care beds in the province by a net increase of 5,000 beds by the end of 2008.

That's the commitment we made, and that's the net increase in the number of

beds. The commitment stands.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The member for Vancouver–Mount

Pleasant has a supplementary question.

[1425]

J. Kwan: It is fine to make promises over and over and over

again, but British Columbians have learned the hard way. Promises don't mean

anything if they are not real.

This government's track record suggests that they will use that

money to replace old beds with no plan or budget for the new ones. We see in the

budget $200 million not just for long-term care beds but for a whole slew of

others. How can the minister promise that there would be 5,000 new long-term and

intermediate care beds by 2008 when his budget only allocates $200 million for

those beds? How could he make that commitment, and how can he show British

Columbians that he would actually keep that commitment?

Hon. C. Hansen: This is, I think, a classic example of how

the NDP are locked in an old style of thinking. Our seniors today want to

maximize their independence. We want to make sure they are in environments where

they can have their own space, their own apartment-like environments.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. You asked the question; let's

hear the answer.

Hon. C. Hansen: The other thing I think the NDP make a big

mistake about is that when they think of care for our seniors, they want to

stick them into health facilities. We want them to be able to move into homelike

environments. One of the mistakes they make is that they look only at the budget

of the Ministry of Health Services. They should also be looking at the budget of

Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services where they will find, for example,

$153 million a year dedicated to seniors housing in British Columbia as well.

Across ministries we're making sure those needs get met.

ACUTE CARE SERVICES AT

SURREY MEMORIAL HOSPITAL

J. Brar: The broken promise on new beds has resulted in a

growing backlog in hospitals as long-term care patients take up acute care beds.

Interjection.

J. Brar: Listen to the question and then laugh.

Last Friday Baljit Bains was taken to Surrey Memorial Hospital by

ambulance. He was sick, coughing blood and displaying other serious symptoms.

After four hours he was sent home, where he had a massive heart attack. There

was no bed for him at Surrey Memorial Hospital — no bed. After two days in the

emergency room rather than in the intensive care unit, where he should have

been, Mr. Bains died.

My question is: can the Minister of Health explain why the people

of my community cannot count on good care when they're sick?

Hon. C. Hansen: First of all, I extend my condolences to the

family. It's obviously a very stressful time. We have first-class doctors and

nurses and other medi-

[ Page 11951 ]

cal professions that work at our hospitals in this province. I know they do

their utmost to make sure that every citizen who comes into an emergency room is

properly diagnosed and properly treated.

I would, in addition, point out to the member that the number of

blocked beds we have in our hospital — what they refer to as alternate level

care beds…. These are patients in acute care facilities who should be in some

other level of care. Those numbers….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Let's hear the answer, please.

Hon. C. Hansen: Those numbers, in terms of absolute

percentage and in terms of absolute numbers, have come down each and every year

that we've been in office.

When the NDP were in office, it would take over a year to get

access to a long-term care facility. Today that wait time is about 60 to 90

days.

[1430]

Mr. Speaker: The member for Surrey–Panorama Ridge has a

supplementary.

J. Brar: That's not the answer….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. members, the member for Surrey–Panorama

Ridge has the floor.

J. Brar: That's not the answer the Bains family wants from

you, Minister of Finance.

Interjection.

J. Brar: Who is exploiting?

An Hon. Member: You are.

J. Brar: Listen to the question again. I have spoken to the

members of the Bains family. I have spoken at length to Mr. Bains's family

members. They are very, very upset with the level of care Mr. Bains received

before his death.

My question to the Minister of Health is: how can we trust that

the Minister of Health is taking actions to improve care for patients like Mr.

Bains when the government refuses to put its health care budget up for scrutiny

in this House?

Hon. C. Hansen: The budget for the Ministry of Health

Services was set out in the budget documents on Tuesday. It is there for

everyone to see. They can go on the website and see. What they will see from the

budget is that in each and every year…

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. C. Hansen: …since we formed government we have

increased the budget considerably. There is more money going to the health

authorities, and they are actually doing a pretty good job of trying to make

sure that the health care system improves.

We're clearly not there. There is clearly room for improvement in

the health care system, but I can say unequivocally that it is a heck of a lot

better today than it was four years ago.

LEASE OF B.C. RAIL TO CN RAIL

P. Nettleton: Hunter Harrison, CEO of Canadian National

Railways, is quoted as saying that his company has experienced a 68 percent

increase in its fourth-quarter profits for the year 2004. To what does Mr.

Harrison attribute this unprecedented profit surge at CN? CN executives say that

the prime factor for this remarkable increase in profit is their recent

acquisition of B.C. Rail.

Mr. Harrison knows a good deal when he sees it. This is the same

B.C. Rail that the Premier said was a loser and would continue to be a loser and

that B.C. should get rid of it.

Interjection.

P. Nettleton: I see that the Minister of Transportation

thinks this is amusing. In any event, perhaps he will answer my question. Will

the minister…?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Order, please. Will the hon.

member please put his question.

P. Nettleton: Will the minister now admit that he made a

mistake in judgment by virtually giving away a profitable railroad, or does he

really believe that everything Hunter Harrison touches turns to gold overnight?

Hon. K. Falcon: Actually, I'm very pleased to answer that

question. What I will remind the member of is that under government ownership

over the last ten years taxpayers had to write down over $1 billion in losses on

B.C. Rail. I would remind the member of that.

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. K. Falcon: Actually, it is interesting. I hear the

Leader of the Opposition heckling from the other side. That's the same

opposition which, while in government, was forcing B.C. Rail to pay dividends to

the government when they were losing money. I mean, that's the kind of silly

behaviour that took place in the province.

[ Page 11952 ]

I will say to the member that under the lease arrangement it is

not just the province saying that a billion dollars is good value. It includes

J.P. Morgan, it includes Deutsche Bank, it includes Prudential Financial, and it

includes many other firms like Merrill Lynch, which all said that the government

got exceptional value for the partnership relationship.

[End of question period.]

Petitions

J. Kwan: I rise to table a petition. The Gulf Islands

parents and their supporters, members of the Keep Five Alive Coalition, rented a

school bus. They've come to Victoria to deliver an over 1,000–signature petition

to the B.C. Legislature. They're calling for the restoration of the five-day

school week in school district No. 64, and they're protesting cuts to education

in B.C. that have not been rectified by the recent much-publicized pre-election

spending.

[1435]

Tabling Documents

Hon. G. Plant: I have the great pleasure and the honour to

table the final report of the British Columbia Citizens' Assembly on Electoral

Reform entitled Making Every Vote Count: The Case for Electoral Reform in

British Columbia .

Reports from Committees

J. Bray: I have the honour to present the report of the

Special Committee on the Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform for the fifth

session of the thirty-seventh parliament.

I move that the report be taken as read and received.

Motion approved.

J. Bray: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave of the House to permit

the moving of a motion to adopt the report.

Leave granted.

J. Bray: I move the report be adopted, and in moving the

adoption of the report I would like to make a few comments.

One year ago 160 British Columbians embarked on the most ambitious

exercise in deliberative democracy in the history of the Commonwealth. The

Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform was created to allow ordinary British

Columbians to review electoral systems, and if it decided on a different method

of electing MLAs, it would put that system directly to voters in the May general

election.

From January to March of 2004 members of the citizens' assembly

learned about the diversity of electoral systems used throughout the world. In

May and June of 2004 the assembly conducted its public consultation phase. Fifty

public hearings were held across the entire province. In addition, the citizens'

assembly received more than 1,600 written submissions on various aspects of

electoral reform. From September to November the citizens' assembly reconvened

to review what they'd heard during the public hearings.

On December 10, 2004, the Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform

released its final report entitled Making Every Vote Count: The Case for

Electoral Reform in British Columbia . In the report the citizens' assembly

recommended that the province adopt a single transferable voting system

customized for British Columbia called the BC-STV.

The special committee was struck to act as a link between the

fully independent citizens' assembly and this Legislature. We received regular

public briefings from the chair and staff of the citizens' assembly. In

addition, the special committee confirmed the chair of the citizens' assembly,

Dr. Jack Blaney, as well as senior staff.

On behalf of the special committee I would like to thank Dr.

Blaney for his tireless dedication and commitment to the process of deliberative

democracy. I'd also like to acknowledge the work of senior staff of the

citizens' assembly: Dr. Ken Carty, Dr. Campbell Sharman, Dr. Leo Perra, Marilyn

Jacobson, Don MacLachlan, Susanna Haas and Christina Wong. I'd also like to

thank Craig James, the Clerk of Committees, and his staff for their assistance.

Finally, we would like to thank the 160 British Columbians who

volunteered their time and commitment to advance electoral reform in British

Columbia. Collectively they exemplified respect, dignity, intelligence and a

common desire to make British Columbia a better place to live.

Motion approved.

Orders of the Day

Hon. G. Bruce: I call committee stage on Bill 4.

Committee of the Whole House

ATTORNEY GENERAL STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT, 2005

(continued)

The House in committee on Bill 4; J. Weisbeck in the chair.

The committee met at 2:40 p.m.

section 5 (continued) .

J. Kwan: I'll close with these remarks around this

section

of the bill.

[ Page 11953 ]

The Attorney General tries to insinuate that the opposition is not

in support of legal aid getting the $2 million or so surplus. That is simply not

true. The reality is this: the opposition has criticized and continues to

criticize the government on its legal aid cuts — some $36 million worth of cuts

in the area of legal aid. We have called on the government to reinstate those

dollars to ensure that the people who actually need legal services get the

services they need.

It is this government that actually made those cuts and, in my

view, inflicted tremendous damage in the broader community and particularly for

women who need services. We know that with services such as these that when the

government makes these cuts, they tend to go against the women who need the

services. The government made these cuts, and for the first time in the history

of British Columbia, the Attorney General was censored by his own profession as

a result of these legal aid cuts.

I want to be very clear that we do support this

section of the

bill, which calls for the surplus to be put back into the legal aid budget. More

than that, we're calling on the government to reinstate the funding for legal

aid.

[1445]

Section 5 approved unanimously on a division. [See Votes

and Proceedings .]

Section 6 approved.

section 7.

J. Kwan:

Section 7 deals with the Offence Act. We

understand that the purpose of these changes is to remove the requirement that

the Attorney General must consult with the Chief Judge of the Provincial Court

before recommending a fine with respect to violation tickets. Given that the

minister may no longer be consulting with the Chief Judge on these issues, what

process will be followed in order to come to a decision in those matters?

Hon. G. Plant: Cabinet will make a decision based on the

best advice it gets. My ministry staff regularly deal with these issues by

undertaking the examination of fine levels that may already be in the statute

books through similar matters. Sometimes, depending on the nature of the issue,

they may look comparatively at other provinces, if we're talking about something

that is a brand-new offence, and get a sense of what other provinces might be

doing in the area. Then there is a recommendation that is made to cabinet, just

as is the case now. Just as is the case now, cabinet will be the decision-maker.

[1450]

J. Kwan: It is unclear to me what types of offences would

actually apply, which would trigger this

section of the act. Does the Attorney

General have a specific list of the circumstances under which this

section of

the act would actually apply?

Hon. G. Plant: I said in second reading debate that there

are over 350 separate fine amounts for violations of the Motor Vehicle Act and

motor vehicle regulations, and a similar number for the other statutes for which

violation tickets may be issued under the Offence Act. I'm also told that when

the federal Contraventions Act comes into force in British Columbia, as we

expect it to do later in 2005, the total number of separate fine amounts will

increase to over 2,500.

J. Kwan: Yes, I read the minister's second reading debate

as well, but that actually didn't give you a whole lot of information. I

understand from that passage that traffic violations will be incorporated into

it. What other offences are we talking about?

I understand the volume issue the Attorney General talks about,

but I'm unclear in understanding the nature of the offences which will trigger

this

section of the act. That's what I'm interested in. Under violations around

traffic items, with things like warning issues around drinking and driving would

that apply? To what extent would this provision apply, and for what offences?

Hon. G. Plant: I'm advised it is primarily motor

vehicle–related matters. The Contraventions Act probably…. The main subject

there will be boating infractions.

J. Kwan: I'm willing to let this go if the minister will

commit in writing the areas which this

section of the act would apply to — if it

is motor vehicle and running traffic lights or speeding, or whatever. If it is

boating issues, is it about violations of boating regulations? If that's all,

that's one thing. If there are other things that apply, I would like to know

what they are.

Hon. G. Plant: The answer is: all of the offences which are

the subject of

section 132(2)(

d) of the Offence Act. It's not a matter of

debate; it's simply the consequence.

If the member seriously wants to know the entire range of

offences, I'd be happy to entertain a letter from her making that request. We

will certainly point her and her researchers in the direction of the Offence Act

and identify all of the issues here.

I don't mean for a moment to discount the member's sincere

interest here. This is a mere procedural change. It's a process that I frankly

thought was inappropriate and unnecessary when I first looked at it.

Unfortunately, it took a couple of years to get around to actually making the

change. I don't think it's appropriate that we involve the judiciary in setting

fine limits, and that is really what is happening here.

[1455]

[ Page 11954 ]

We made the change in the Community Charter as it related to

municipal bylaws at the time. We probably should have taken the step that's

contemplated here further, and we didn't do it. Frankly, we are pretty busy most

of the time in the ministry, so we weren't able to get this one up above the

radar screen until now. It's not doing anything to the law except in respect to

this one aspect of the requirement to consult with the Chief Judge, and the

office of the Chief Judge is perfectly delighted to be relieved of this

administrative burden.

I get that the member is interested in knowing what this applies

to. Generally speaking, it applies to motor vehicle matters. If she wants to

write a letter to me making a request for further information, I would be happy

to provide it to her.

J. Kwan: I'm making that request right now, in the

Legislature, to the Attorney General. The Attorney General doesn't have all of

the information he says generally applies to the motor vehicle provisions, and I

said: "Hey, you know what? I'll take your word for it." If the minister can

provide us with the information around that, I will accept that too. We won't

have to go through that list here in the Legislature at this moment.

The minister says that well, you know, he's been busy. Yeah, he

has been very busy — making cuts to legal aid, no doubt. The minister says that

well, this is just a procedural change. This government says that kind of stuff

all the time. We know that when the government made changes to the income

assistance act, they actually changed the rules around the two out of five years

in qualification. They said that was procedural as well, with a whole host of

others. You will pardon me, Mr. Chair, if I don't take the minister's word for

it when he says it is just procedural.

Hon. G. Plant: Did you ask for a briefing?

J. Kwan: This is what this debate is about. The Attorney

General is sitting in his chair going: "Oh, and did you ask for a briefing?" You

know what? For the minister's information…

Interjection.

The Chair: Order, please.

J. Kwan: …debate in this Legislature is about opposition

members — and government members too — putting questions to the ministers about

their bills. They are to answer those questions, Mr. Chair. That's exactly what

I'm doing.

The arrogance of this Attorney General knows no bounds. Let

me ask this question.

Interjection.

The Chair: Order, please. Members, let's get back on track

here —

section 7, please.

Interjection.

The Chair: Keep your remarks confined to

section 7, please.

J. Kwan: The Attorney General can heckle me all he wants

and make claims all he wants. The question that I put to him was a completely

legitimate question to which he could not provide a full answer. I said, granted

their track record, that I would be prepared to take something in writing from

the Attorney General. Then he went on to accuse me of actually not asking a

question related to the bill. Where is he? Earth to the Attorney General: pay

attention to what we're doing here. The arrogance knows no bounds.

Interjection.

The Chair: Order, please. Order, please. Let's have….

Interjection.

J. Kwan: The Attorney General says I have no position on

issues. We just dealt with a legal aid issue. Didn't the opposition put clearly

on the record what our position is on legal aid? Didn't the Attorney General…

The Chair: Order, please. Member, take your seat,

please.

J. Kwan: …by cutting legal aid, put their position on the

record?

The Chair: Take your seat, please.

Everybody, just take a deep breath here, please, and let's get

back on track. We are dealing now with

section 7 of Bill 4. Let's confine our

questions to that section, please.

J. Kwan: I'm sure that the House Leader would be helpful.

Interjection.

J. Kwan: Yeah, saying that relevance…. Well, then, answer

the question.

Mr. Chair, maybe the members in this House think it's funny when

the opposition puts questions to them, and maybe they think they don't need to

answer any of the questions.

I would like to know: what is the maximum fine that could be

applied here?

Hon. G. Plant: I probably should have had the list.

Unfortunately, I'm told there are hundreds of them. That was the point. There

are hundreds of them. I will get the list, and we will probably have an

opportunity

[ Page 11955 ]

to put it on the record, because I know the member is interested.

[1500]

The general principle is that I think every provincial offence

where enforcement proceeds by way of ticket as opposed to information…. That is

what I am told is probably the scope and range of this. We're getting a list

faxed over here of the several hundred matters that are of interest to the

member.

J. Kwan: That would have been the answer for my previous

question. The question I just asked of the Attorney General, which he did not

answer, is this: what is the maximum fine that could be applied here?

Hon. G. Plant: It varies. I don't have the answer. There

are hundreds of these fines. This is a procedural change in the process for

getting a recommendation to cabinet around fine levels.

If the member wants me to engage my staff to identify the fine

levels of the several hundred fines that we're talking about, I certainly can do

that. It may mean a brief adjournment. But if the member wants that information,

I'm sure we can make it available to her.

J. Kwan: Yes, I would. I would have thought the minister

would know the information in terms of the maximum fine, but he doesn't. Yes, we

will be expecting that information.

I know the government would like to minimize all of the actions as

though it's somehow just procedural. Maybe it is, but it is the opposition's job

to find out exactly what it is that the government is doing and what they're

proposing to do. It is the government's job to provide answers to those

questions, and I would appreciate the list of information when the minister is

able to provide it.

The Chair: Hon. member, do you prefer to stand down the

section so that you get this information?

J. Kwan: No, I don't need to stand down the section, Mr.

Chair. In theory, we're all hon. members, and I'm prepared in this chamber to

accept the word of the minister when he says he'll provide that information to

us. I will take that as the hon. member's word.

Section 7 approved.

section 8.

J. Kwan: Provincial Court Act. We understand that the

purpose of these changes is to remove the sunset provision from the senior

judges' part-time program. Could the minister please advise how many judges have

participated in this program since its inception?

Hon. G. Plant: I'm advised that there are currently 16

part-time judges.

J. Kwan: Sixteen court judges. With this change, would it

then take away…? In essence, will this become a permanent program? Is that what

this does, or is this extending the initial pilot program?

Hon. G. Plant: The intention of the amendments is to make

what has been sort of a pilot project initiative a permanent arrangement.

J. Kwan: So this is to continue it, to make it into a

permanent program. The pilot program, in essence, has now ended and has now

become a permanent program. I'm assuming that's the purpose here.

Could the minister please advise: is there a maximum age that

applies for the judges that may continue to work under this program?

Hon. G. Plant: There is no change to the statutory

provision, which is in the Provincial Court Act, in respect of retirement age. I

believe the age is 70.

J. Kwan: How are the salaries of these senior part-time

judges determined?

[1505]

Hon. G. Plant: I believe the way the participants in this

program are paid is that they get half of the salary of a provincial court

judge. The difference between that and the full salary of a provincial court

judge is made up by a portion of their pension entitlement. The government does

not pay any benefits associated with those who enrol in this program.

J. Kwan: Are there requirements in terms of hours of work

from these part-time judges?

Hon. G. Plant: My understanding is that they work with the

Chief Judge on matters related to scheduling and how many hours they're sitting

and where.

J. Kwan: Are there minimum hours in terms of requirements?

I understand the whole scheduling thing. That's not what I'm asking about. For a

person to be a part-time judge, does that mean a person has to work a certain

number of hours? I need some clarification on that.

Hon. G. Plant: We're not aware that there is any minimum

number of hours. I think it's up to the judge in question and the Chief Judge to

arrange to make the best use of the available time of the senior judge.

J. Kwan: I would say that may be problematic, but then

again, maybe not. I'm willing to receive further information on that. Does the

minister have any sense with the 16 judges that are now in this program, though,

what their work hours are like?

Hon. G. Plant: I don't have that information with me. I

think the issue of making sure we get some value from this is a good issue. I

stand to be corrected on this,

[ Page 11956 ]

but I also think it's fair to say that we actually get this for free. That's

because there is a pension issue here — the relationship between the pension and

the salary commitment. I believe the way it works is that what we do is

implement this so there's no double dipping, but we're getting the advantage of

some services from these individuals that we might not otherwise get.

I'm pretty sure it is a program that operates with value for the

taxpayers. It has certainly been talked about for a number of years. The program

was introduced as a pilot project following a joint submission made by

government and the Provincial Court judges to the 2001 Judicial Compensation

Committee.

The submissions made to this year's compensation committee contain

more details, I think, but I do know this: an evaluation of the program was

conducted jointly by the Ministry of Attorney General and the office of the

Chief Judge. The evaluation indicated that there is a high level of satisfaction

amongst judges participating in the program and that the program results in some

cost savings to government, although these savings could not be quantified.

The evaluation did not uncover any significant administrative

problems with the program in its present form. Therefore, the province and the

Provincial Court Judges Association, along with the office of the Chief Judge,

recommended to the 2004 Judges Compensation Commission that the program continue

in its present form. That was a joint submission made to the Judges Compensation

Commission.

Yesterday that portion of the Judicial Compensation Commission was

approved unanimously by the House, so I know it enjoys the support of the

opposition. All this legislation is doing is putting in place, mechanically and

legislatively, the arrangement that was referred to in the judicial compensation

report and that was approved yesterday.

[1510]

J. Kwan: Yes, I recall what was passed yesterday, but the

question with this bill, of course, is a little bit more specific around this

section of the bill in terms of the salary range and the range of work hours

that apply to the part-time judges.

It would be interesting, I think, for the public to know what that

looks like versus a full-time judge, for example. That's why I ask these

questions. I appreciate that the minister doesn't have the information, but if

at a later time, he can gather the information and provide it, I would certainly

appreciate that.

One last question. There are 16 judges, as I understand from the

Attorney, that are participating in this program. Is it the anticipation of the

government that there will be more folks joining this program now that it's

going to be permanent, or is it just to allow for the 16 to continue? I suppose

if, over time, those numbers roll over and there's change within that roster of

individuals, this would actually allow for that to happen.

Hon. G. Plant: The 16 number that we used earlier is just a

snapshot. The number may go up and down from time to time depending on the

individual decisions of part-time judges made by way of an election under

section 9.1(1) of the Provincial Court Act. I don't think, frankly, that we have

any particular expectations about those numbers one way or the other. I'm sure

the Chief Judge has a sense of what she thinks the members of her court are

likely to do generally, but these are decisions made by individual judges, not

by the court as a whole.

Really all we're doing here, I think, is removing the sunset

provisions that exist in

section 9.1 of the Provincial Court Act. I don't think

this legislative change will precipitate any significant change in the number of

elections that are made by those who want to become part-time judges.

Sections 8 and 9 approved.

Title approved.

Hon. G. Plant: I move that the committee rise and report

the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 3:13 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

Bill 4, Attorney General Statutes Amendment Act, 2005, reported

complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. G. Plant: I call committee stage debate of Bill 3.

[1515]

Committee of the Whole House

MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT, 2005

The House in committee on Bill 3; J. Weisbeck in the chair.

The committee met at 3:17 p.m.

section 1.

J. MacPhail: This amends the Crime Victim Assistance Act. I

understand that the purpose of the change is to expand retroactively the

application of crime victim assistance so that it will now include people who

have been injured or killed in the course of their employment, so long as they

weren't covered by the Workers Compensation Act or the Government Employees

Compensation Act.

[ Page 11957 ]

My question is: what has happened with people who have been

injured or killed at work in the past who have not been covered by the Workers

Compensation Act?

Hon. G. Plant: Under the Criminal Injury Compensation Act,

these individuals were eligible for benefits. When the Crime Victim Assistance

Act came into force, the effect of the act was to deny those people benefits.

Since the coming into force of the Crime Victim Assistance Act, which was

apparently June 30, 2002, anyone who would have applied for these benefits who

fell into that category would have been denied them.

I don't know how many such applications there were. Staff may have

the answer to that. The intention behind making the amendment retroactive would

be to ensure that any of those individuals would, in fact, be entitled to

benefits under the Crime Victim Assistance Act.

J. MacPhail: As I understand it, there was a group of

people who were adversely affected in June 2002. Does this amendment make them

now whole?

Hon. G. Plant: Yes, but only to the extent that they now

have the right to make claims under the Crime Victim Assistance Act.

J. MacPhail: Yes, I meant whole in terms of being eligible

to apply.

Are there any exceptions that one knows of in terms of the people

who were denied?

Hon. G. Plant: We know of no exceptions.

Section 1 approved.

section 2.

J. MacPhail: On

section 2, we have amendments to the

Expropriation Amendment Act, 2004. I understand that the purpose of these

changes is to allow regulations to be made to overcome any transitional

difficulties arising from the amendments to the Expropriation Act affected by

the Expropriation Amendment Act, 2004.

Can the minister explain what types of transitional difficulties

may arise from the amendments to the Expropriation Amendment?

[1520]

Hon. G. Plant: What we are trying to do is wind up the

Expropriation Compensation Board, and what we would like to do is transfer as

many of the cases that were on the waiting list before the board to…. Let me

back up a second.

I think what we're trying to do is wind up as many of the cases

that are before the board as we can so that the transition away from the board

into the Supreme Court is as seamless and smooth as possible. I think there were

a couple of issues that have been identified along the way where there was some

concern that the language of

section 21 wasn't quite broad enough to achieve the

efficient transfer of cases that have to be transferred to overcome any

transitional difficulties that might arise.

One of the things I think we discovered was that while we knew

about some parts of the caseload in the Expropriation Compensation Board — we

thought we had a pretty good handle on that number, and it was a manageable

number — it turns out that upon going into the files at the board a little more

thoroughly, there is a much bigger volume of cases that were never properly

closed. They were adjourned or were in some way held in limbo.

I know that one of the challenges around transition is to make

sure we have the power to deal effectively with those cases. I think there was

just a concern that

section 21 of the Expropriation Amendment Act, 2004, didn't

create quite enough space to deal with all of the potential transition problems

that could arise, and so we're trying here to give cabinet the regulation-making

power that will ensure that we can wind up the board as quickly as possible.

Those cases that arise will be transferred to and heard by the Supreme Court.

J. MacPhail: The Attorney General refers to giving cabinet

regulation-making power. Exactly what the legislation says is that cabinet can

make regulations to prevent, minimize, resolve or otherwise address these

transitional difficulties, and then cabinet is given a two-year period to make

these regulations.

Can the minister state exactly what the two-year period is and why

a two-year period was chosen?

Hon. G. Plant: The point of the two-year period is to make

sure the job is done so that we don't drag this out. The ability to assist in

transition through these regulations has, if you will, a little sting in the

tail that says: "Better get the job done within two years." I'm not sure that

there's any particular science to why it's two years or one year or three years.

I do know, as I said earlier, that there's a bit more involved in

this transition than had originally been thought, so that probably explains why

it's longer than three months, six months or nine months. I guess two years is

an attempt to strike a balance, to make sure that people have the time to get

the job done properly but that they're not squeezed so unreasonably they don't

do an effective job.

Section 2 approved.

section 3.

J. MacPhail:

Section 3 is a very interesting section. It

extends the time for which the new Forest and Range Practices Act will come into

force. It was supposed to come into force on January 1, 2006, and now the

government is extending that until January 1, 2007 — a full year's delay.

[ Page 11958 ]

Other than Health budget estimates, I have spent the most time

debating laws affecting the Forest and Range Practices Act, either through

changes to the Forest Practices Code or changes to this legislation. We've had

law upon law upon law to bring in this new system, and now we see that it's

going to be delayed by a full year.

[1525]

In December of last year, December 2004, the Sierra Club put

forward a report called Axing the Forest Service . It was released, and

here's what we learned from that. Here's what we learned on the record of this

government since they came to power in 2001. Eight hundred jobs have been lost

in British Columbia's forest service since the Liberals came in and started

cutting. On average now, each B.C. Forest Service employee is responsible for

18,000 hectares of forest land, an area equal to 45…. I used Vancouver's Stanley

Park.

There we are. That's what the government's record is. Their

promise in the New Era document, which has been completely discredited….

But let's look at what their promise was: "A B.C. Liberal government will

streamline the Forest Practices Code to establish a workable, results-based code

with tough penalties for non-compliance." Here we are 90 days before an election

— 90 days — and we have this government extending for a full year their

regulatory and environmental compliance changes in the forest sector. Just 90

days before an election: "Oops. Sorry, we can't deliver on that promise."

Now, Mr. Chair, I have to tell you: I'm not disappointed that they

can't deliver on their promise, because the previous system certainly has proven

effective compared to their new proposed system. We see why. We see that. The

proof is in the pudding: it's delayed by a year.

Let me ask the minister. I'm not sure which minister is going to

answer these questions — but whatever. I see the Minister of Water, Land and Air

Protection here.

Is that you, or is that…?

Interjection.

J. MacPhail: Sustainable Resource Management. I'm sorry.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

What I do know is that here's what the president of the

Association of B.C. Forest Professionals recently wrote to the Premier. He wrote

to voice his concerns about the lack of resources that this government has set

aside for forest research, inventory and forest health.

Oh, and government made a big announcement about what they're

going to do about all of those in the budget earlier this week — a hollow

promise, we now see. A hollow promise because they've now introduced legislation

to delay the whole thing by a year anyway.

Let me quote Rick Sommer, the president of the Association of B.C.

Forest Professionals:

"As your government enters the final months of its

mandate and as you consider priorities for a possible second term, we urge you

to carefully consider the concerns raised by the Sierra Club" — that's the

report I mentioned before — "and ourselves and to critically examine whether,

in terms of its impact on forest stewardship, the level of resources is

appropriate to continue to support good forest stewardship."

To the Minister of Sustainable Resource Management:

doesn't he agree that it's a bit ridiculous for a government to be making such

important changes on issues that are of such critical importance 90 days before

an election?

Hon. G. Abbott: I think what's ridiculous, actually, is the

Leader of the Opposition depending on highly questionable sources for her

information. I think what's ridiculous here is the suggestion being made that

somehow this is a piece of legislation that she's not going to embrace at the

end of the day, because I'm sure she will.

There is nothing nefarious occurring here in this section.

Interjection.

Hon. G. Abbott: There is nothing nefarious occurring here.

In fairness to the Ministry of Forests and its personnel, who are working very

hard to deal with some very difficult situations, I think what's being proposed

here makes a lot of sense. What we are dealing with in this province, among

other things, is an unprecedented mountain pine beetle situation, on which the

Minister of Forests and the Minister of State for Forest Operations — the entire

Ministry of Forests — are working mightily to try to keep in hand.

[1530]

I know this is a situation that almost defies management in its

magnitude. Clearly, that has stretched the resources of licensees. It has

stretched the resources of the ministry as they try to cope with the extra — and

there are many extra — cutting authorities that are required to try to meet the

mountain pine beetle epidemic.

It is literally spreading in all directions. The only way to deal

with it, apart from hoping for a protracted period of 30-degree-below weather

back in November-December, is to try to get in front of it, try to catch up to

it and try to manage the edges of the epidemic. That is what the Ministry of

Forests is striving mightily to do, and I think they're doing the very best job

they can.

Clearly, to try to deal with that unprecedented and unique

situation in the context of the policy change that's contained in

section 3 and

in the other shift from the code to the new Forest and Range Practices Act is a

difficult one. They have had to cope at the ministerial level and at the

licensee level with not only mountain pine beetle. That's the principal

challenge. Also, of course, there are forest revitalization changes that are

occurring in terms of the 20 percent takeback for first nations and communities

and woodlots, and so on. Again, that is a challenge.

[H. Long in the chair.]

[ Page 11959 ]

There is no incompetence here. There is no nefarious activity

here. This is a responsible response to a very difficult, unique, unprecedented

situation that is facing the ministry and facing licensees. This will ensure

that we do, in fact, get the very best protection and the very best management

of our forests in the province.

J. MacPhail: Once again the minister manages to insult

professionals in the field. He just insulted Rick Sommer, the president of the

Association of B.C. Forest Professionals, by calling him a nefarious source. In

fact, Mr. Chair, it is typical of this government to insult anyone who disagrees

with them.

Let me tell you what the incompetence is. Yes, we have an

unprecedented pine beetle infestation — a pandemic. The incompetence is that in

a crisis time this government can't cope with anything, because in the early

days of its office it slashed to the bone any public service resources to deal

with situations. The forest revitalization is a situation of their own making.

The remaking of the market pricing system is of their making entirely.

Because they slashed to the bone and took away 800 jobs in the

Forest Service — the average work area for one Forest Service employee is now

18,000 hectares — this government has to delay the reforms by one year. The

ministry is in absolute chaos. They have no resources to deal with the problem

of the pine beetle. They're in complete chaos, and they threaten our industry by

their incompetence.

That's what people are saying, and that's why they're forced to

delay their own legislation from being implemented by one year. It is shameful.

I guess if anybody was actually looking at the debate in this Legislature, this

would be a front-page story — but not this government. Because of their own

disregard for public accountability, they're not subject to scrutiny. In any

other jurisdiction this would be a front-page story of gross incompetence.

Hon. G. Abbott: I'm disappointed, Mr. Chair, that the….

Interjection.

Hon. G. Abbott: Can I not respond, Mr. Chair?

Interjection.

The Chair: The minister has been recognized.

Hon. G. Abbott: First of all, for the member to suggest

somehow that the Ministry of Forests has not done the best they can to manage

the mountain pine beetle situation…. If her argument — and I think she has

abandoned the argument; it appears so now — is that somehow under the NDP this

situation with the mountain pine beetle was being effectively managed, she is

absolutely wrong. This is an epidemic that got out of hand during the NDP's

tenure, because they were unable to come to grips politically with dealing with

that very difficult situation.

[1535]

Further, I have had the opportunity on a number of occasions to

meet with the Association of B.C. Forest Professionals. I have great respect for

them. I am certain they will understand, given the unique situation we face,

that this in fact is the right step to take. I suspect they would be very

supportive of the change here.

If anyone is being insulting, it is — as is so typical of the

Leader of the Opposition — that Leader of the Opposition herself who, during her

time in government and during the time in government of a number of NDP Forests

ministers, never took the opportunity to sit down with the Association of B.C.

Forest Professionals to learn about their concerns and help move the policy

framework forward. This is, as is typical of the NDP opposition, a typical

drive-by shooting in the public policy field.

Sections 3 to 19 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

Hon. G. Plant: I move that the committee rise and report

the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 3:37 p.m.

[1540]

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

Bill 3, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2005, reported

complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. G. Plant: I call budget debate.

Budget Debate

(continued)

Hon. G. Plant: I am absolutely delighted to have the

opportunity to speak this afternoon in support of, I think, a groundbreaking and

truly wonderful step forward in the history of our province: the balanced budget

for 2005. It's a great tribute to the hard work of the Finance minister and,

frankly, I think a great tribute to the hard work of the Premier, cabinet and

government caucus members over the last three and a half years. We have taken

the great ship of government and have turned it around so that it is charging

ahead with speed and gusto.

We have also, I think, helped put in place the ingredients of a

sound economic recovery in British Columbia that truly is realizing on the

promise that we made to the people of British Columbia in the spring of

[ Page 11960 ]

2001 when we said: "Elect us and we will deliver a new era for British

Columbia." We promised a vision for hope and prosperity for the next decade and

beyond. British Columbians have hope and they are enjoying prosperity.

I sat in this room for five years as an opposition member of the

Legislature — sat and listened while the former government, the NDP, tabled

budget after budget. Every year it seemed to me that they came up with a new

idea for a new plan. They threw out the plan they had introduced the year

before. They cooked up some new plan. They called it something else. They set

new targets. But what you saw year after year under the old regime was a

consistent failure to meet targets, a consistent failure to stick to a plan and,

frankly, legislation and initiatives that were more designed to throttle

initiative than to empower citizens — legislation, programs and policies that

treated the entrepreneurial spirit like a whipping boy, that said government

expansion for incomprehensible purposes knew no limits.

We saw a government that couldn't manage the projects it

undertook. It sold the people of British Columbia on ideas that it then

proceeded to manage into the ash bucket of incompetence and overspending, with

the result that, as others of my colleagues have said in the course of this

debate, the people of British Columbia were starting to feel a bit low when we

got to the end of the decade of the 1990s. They were starting to wonder if there

was in fact a future in this province. They were wondering why it was that we

were no longer leading the nation.

The answer was, in my view, pretty clear. It was because we were

badly governed. We were badly governed throughout the 1990s, and it is a subject

of some astonishment to me that when I look at the landscape of what is promised

by the NDP for their pursuit of electoral success in the spring of 2005, I see a

whole bunch of the same people that drove this economy into the tank for the

1990s standing for office once again.

[1545]

People who said that balanced budgets were a crime against

humanity are now running for office on behalf of the NDP. People who supported

the fact that the former government made commitments they had no intention to

fund are now running for office. I ask myself why. Presumably so they can enjoy

the thrill of once again making promises they have no intention of fulfilling.

I sure know in my heart of hearts that when we get to the polls in

May of 2005, the people of British Columbia are going to see through that.

They're going to realize that what has helped turn this province around is

discipline, making a plan and sticking to it and putting in place the key

elements of economic renewal and prosperity. That's what we're enjoying today in

British Columbia.

For the first time in a long time, over the last year or so, I

have felt a great sense of excitement around this province. I think that great

sense of excitement is given wings by this budget. This budget, I think, is a

great signal to the investment community that British Columbia is a place to

come and invest. It's a great signal to the citizens of British Columbia that

this is a government that cares about the public interest; that cares about

those who need our help the most; that's willing to make the investments in the

critically important public services like health care, education and public

safety; that's willing to rethink how we deliver those services so that we focus

on outcomes and we don't just worry about hiring more public servants to do

things the same old way.

This has been the recipe. This has been the plan. It's working,

and I am really just absolutely thrilled that I get the opportunity to stand

here and support this budget as a vision document and a plan that will take us

through and into the next years, the years that the Premier calls — and I think

rightly so — the golden decade that lies ahead just on the doorstep for all of

us as British Columbians.

We know what it's like to be governed by a government that has no

plan, no discipline, no sense of commitment, no sense of an idea beyond their

reaction to the nightly news. That was the dismal decade. We've now seen for

four years a government that does know what it means to have a plan, that's

willing to make tough decisions and willing to actually do what's in the public

interest for British Columbia today and tomorrow. This budget, I think, shows

that when you have a plan and you stick to it, all kinds of things become

possible.

This budget also shows that the power of a strong economy lies in

the choices that it gives us all as citizens. It gives us, as government, the

opportunity to actually put in place programs and services that will help make a

difference where a difference is most needed to be made.

I was listening to the radio a couple of nights ago in the first

aftermath of the budget speech here in the House and listening to people argue

and debate about aspects of the budget. I turned to the person I was with and

said: "You know, it's hard to understand what could be wrong about a budget that

says we're going to have the largest one-time reduction in provincial debt in

the history of the province — step one. Step two, we're going to take 330,000

British Columbians who now pay provincial income tax and remove them from the

provincial income tax payment rolls — period. Then it says to another 400,000

British Columbians — those of the lower income brackets — that we're going to

reduce their taxes."

We've paid down debt. We've lowered the tax burden on those

British Columbians who can use the help the most. Then across the spectrum in

health care and education, in public safety, in the environment — in area after

area — we've got the opportunity to make, and we are making, strategic choices

and investments to ensure that programs are there, that programs can grow and do

the work that they have to do, that health authorities have the tools they need

to ensure that they deliver strong health outcomes for all British Columbians,

that school districts have the resources they need

[ Page 11961 ]

to continue to do the good work of improving education outcomes across the

province, that the advanced educational institutions and colleges can work with

us as we continue to implement our promise of putting in place 25,000 new

post-secondary spaces in British Columbia. Again, on issue after issue, this is

a budget that I think delivers what British Columbians need and want and

deserve.

[1550]

When the Minister of Finance stood up to begin his budget speech,

he said something that I thought was pretty important and powerful then and that

needs to be said again. He stood up and introduced the budget as a balanced

budget, and he said that it's balanced in more ways than one. I think that's

important for a couple of reasons. First of all, it actually takes tough work to

be able to manage the demands and expectations that exist on the part of people,

who will always have great ideas for how government should make money, in a way

that ensures that for two years running you balance your budget with the

prospect — in fact, the virtual certainty; I'm convinced of it — that we can

deliver balanced budgets into the foreseeable future.

Balanced budgets are good for the economy. When government lives

within its means, government sends a message to the private sector that this is

a place to invest. Government sends a message to citizens that we won't tax your

children to pay for today's programs.

Balanced budgets are a great start for any government. In fact,

they're not just a start; they're an essential precondition, in my view, for

maintaining responsible government in British Columbia. It's a fact that you

could lose sight of if you sat here, as I did, year after year in the 1990s,

watching as the former NDP government introduced deficit budget after deficit

budget. It was as though deficit budgets were, somehow or other, a good part of

our economic system. I think the reverse is so.

I think it's hugely important for government to balance its

budget, to maintain discipline on what it does — knowing that that's not easy,

knowing that in fact that means making tough choices, but also knowing that if

governments can live within their means, then governments are doing a lot. That

sends a tremendous message to the economy that helps encourage and empower

investment and initiative and entrepreneurialism around the province.

The Finance minister said that this budget was balanced in more

than one way. It's those other ways that are equally important, because the

fruits of our labours in this House over the last three and a half years and the

fruits of the hard work of four million British Columbians day after day are the

increased revenues in the government. Those fruits are an economy that's humming

along at growth rates that promise consistent prosperity in the years to come.

The revenues that we get as government give us choices and opportunities. I

think the decisions that the Finance minister and the government have made here

with respect to how to take advantage of those opportunities show real balance.

What we did in 2001 as the inaugural act of our term in office by

implementing a 25 percent across-the-board income tax cut with as much as a 28

percent reduction in income taxes for low-income citizens was a great step

forward in encouraging the economy of British Columbia. I'm really delighted,

having now seen the results of that investment in a stronger economy three and a

half years down the road, that we're able to actually take this next step and

say to low-income British Columbians that we think we can lighten your tax

burden even further.

The initiative in this budget that will essentially reduce to zero

income taxes payable by all taxpayers earning up to $15,600 a year is a great

message about the possibilities that I think we all should be excited about —

the possibilities that are there for us when we are prosperous, when we are

strong, when we are disciplined. The fact that we can offer tax relief to

400,000 more British Columbians to lighten the load of government in their lives

is, I think, also a great step forward.

[1555]

I asked myself over the last couple of days: who is opposed to

this? What is the nature of their opposition? I was asking myself that question

yesterday afternoon when I came into the House. Shortly after the commencement

of proceedings yesterday afternoon the Opposition House Leader had the

opportunity to stand up and make her contribution to the budget debate. I was

particularly interested in hearing the Opposition House Leader's contribution to

the budget debate yesterday afternoon. The NDP went out of their way yesterday

to kind of fertilize the air of the public debate in British Columbia with

powerful allegations about stifling debate and all that great stuff that

oppositions are good at doing. The NDP were masters at doing all that stuff

themselves when they were in government, but now that they're in opposition

they've discovered new virtues that were hitherto unknown to them when they sat

on the government benches.

Nonetheless, there it was. The airwaves of British Columbia were

full of lonesome, woe-filled complaints about having our intentions to deny a

voice to the opposition on the budget. I came into the chamber yesterday

afternoon and got my rules of procedure out. I know I probably shouldn't need to

do that, but I wanted to be sure. Yes, there it was. I found that the Opposition

House Leader gets to speak for two hours on the budget. That's quite a

remarkable opportunity — two hours to stand up and offer her views to British

Columbians about the budget that had just been tabled.

I could tell you that no one is occupationally more suited to fill

the air with the sound of her voice for two hours than the Opposition House

Leader. It would not be a stretch of her abilities as a legislator to find words

that would occupy a two-hour slot in the Legislature. Knowing that this was a

matter of great importance to her, knowing that she was out there pounding away,

lamenting about the fact that we were stifling her opportunity to debate, I

thought: I'm going to come in here, sit down, settle myself down, and just

listen and

[ Page 11962 ]

learn for two hours while the Opposition House Leader tells me about what's

wrong with the budget and offers the NDP vision for a new decade of whatever it

is they're going to offer when they finally get around to putting some kind of a

platform out for public display weeks and weeks and weeks from now — or maybe

they'll break that promise too.

After all, we should trust Carole James. I know that she really,

really desperately wants to end union and corporate donations to her political

party, but that's about the only thing I think I've heard her say. But I pause.

I apologize for that digression.

I sat there, I waited, and I watched. I sat there, and I got ready

for what was going to be a two-hour exhortation — I was sure of it — but it

ended after 30 minutes. It ended after 30 minutes. I wondered. I was startled.

Here's an opposition that says we're denying them the right to

speak about the budget when the rules give them — give the opposition leader —

two hours. As I said, I think if she really had a lot to say about the budget,

she could have filled two hours. She could only speak for 30 minutes before she

ran out of things to say about the budget. She ran out of anything to say about

the budget.

During the 30 minutes I listened and I listened. Where is their

sense of vision and hope for British Columbia? Nothing — absolutely nothing. I

heard nothing from the opposition about what their ideas are for British

Columbia. In fact, I didn't even hear them criticize anything that's in our

budget. All they can do is lament about cynicism or impute motives.

The reason the opposition can't oppose this budget is because it's

a powerful, strong statement of vision for British Columbia. It's got good

ideas, good program initiatives. It's based on a sound framework of fiscal

principles. It's a great budget. The surest evidence that it's a great budget is

that when the NDP were actually given a chance to speak in this chamber for two

hours about it, they ran out of gas after 30 minutes. Boy, it's sure kind of

strange to watch the media buzz around the province for hours and hours

yesterday — "Opposition complains about being shut out of budget debate" — when

they had a chance.

Actually, maybe it was more in their interest to rail about things

outside the House than to do it inside the House. Inside the House we actually

get to listen up close. We get to test what they're saying, whether there's

anything to it. Outside there in the court of public opinion it's a different

world. Maybe they're actually the ones who want to get out there in the court of

public opinion and debate the programs and policies of this government. That may

be so. I look forward to that debate. We will have that debate soon enough.

[1600]

For me right here, right now in this chamber it is a great delight

to speak to a budget that I think does offer the promise to British Columbians

of a golden decade of opportunity. It organizes that promise around goals that,

as the throne speech calls them, are great goals. They are truly ambitious

goals. They cause us as citizens, as legislators, to reach out just a little

past where we can touch. They give us a sense of what the road ahead might look

like if only we had the courage to seize the opportunities that lie before us

and to actually make them real.

As citizens we all have hopes. All of us have hopes. Too often we

keep our hopes shovelled away in our pockets. We're afraid to bring them out for

public inspection. We're afraid to kind of hold them out in our hands and say

that these are our hopes, because we know that we live in a world full of

cynics. Cynics never built roads. Cynics never learned how to do heart surgery.

Cynics never reached out to help a student with their homework. Cynics never

amounted to much.

This budget and this throne speech are built on foundations of

goals that cause us to think about what our hopes are as citizens — our hopes

for the society that we live in, this place called British Columbia. Why not

hope that we could be the most literate jurisdiction in North America? Why not

say that we will work to realize that hope just a few years down the road?

Why not make promises and commitments about our ability to manage

our resources in a way that leads with standards of environmental

sustainability? Why not make those commitments to ourselves and set those goals?

We have set those goals for ourselves. Why not commit ourselves to be as healthy

as we know we can be? Why not make those sorts of commitments and set those

sorts of goals?

This budget builds on that framework and foundation of those five

great goals for a golden decade and begins to put in place a framework of

programs and to establish priorities that will allow us to reach those goals. I

think it's going to be an amazing journey for us in the years to come, as we in

this chamber set those compass points and do what we can as legislators to help

all of us as British Columbians to reach the goals of that golden decade.

As a minister responsible for the treaty process, I think that the

years to come hold out the promise of a truly new relationship with first

nations in British Columbia founded on trust. We can work together, knowing that

when we work together, there is no limit to what we can achieve. The treaty

process, the idea of building certainty through relationships and the idea of

reconciliation are not just about a project where we take resources from one

party and assign or transfer them to another. With a shrinking pie it is about

realizing that if we work together, we will open up access to stranded assets.

We will create economic opportunities that will benefit first nations, and they

will benefit all British Columbians.

We are seeing the signs that that is so in communities around the

province — communities like Yekooche, for example. The members of that community

— surrounded as they are by a traditional territory that is beset by beetle

infestation and knowing that just half a dozen years down the road there will be

very little in the way of economic value in the forest resources around them —

have actually decided to turn their attention to prospecting, because there are

mineral

[ Page 11963 ]

resources surrounding them in their communities. They've decided to become

engaged in that work to learn how to exploit and ultimately, we hope, to

explore, develop and discover mineral resources and to create economic hope and

opportunity for their communities and for the region.

Yekooche is just one example. It's a small example, but it's a

concrete example of what can be done when first nations, governments and the

private sector all decide they've got to work together and build trust, build

relationships and create opportunities by working together rather than by

shouting at each other across walls.

[1605]

The treaty process is fraught with challenge. It's complex for

reasons that were built into its original design. It has created inflated

expectations that are almost impossible to realize for the parties to the

negotiations, particularly for first nations.

But we're very close to success. We're very close to success at

four tables in the province, where final agreements are within reach. The coming

weeks will certainly test the resolve of the negotiators for all of the parties

at those tables. But I think there is a shared willingness to try to make and

reach agreements.

This budget makes sure that the treaty negotiations office has the

negotiation resources it needs to do the work to get success. We will certainly

do everything we can in the treaty negotiations office to cross the finish line

and to get agreements as soon as we possibly can.

commitment to community safety. Financial resources are being given to

communities to increase policing — through the 100 percent return of traffic

fine revenues, through the maintenance of grants to municipalities for policing,

and through the $122 million committed over three years to enhance policing with

new resources for courts and corrections — to ensure that we really can respond

effectively to the reality of crime in British Columbia and to the reality of

the concern that we need to do more to keep our communities safe. In the

Ministry of Attorney General we have new resources to help ensure that if the

police get out there in communities and investigate the bad guys and get the

evidence needed to prosecute, we will have the resources in my ministry to

undertake those prosecutions.

We've made a significant step forward in enhancing access to

justice for people in British Columbia who are experiencing conflict or who need

help resolving legal issues in the family law area. With this budget, the

government of British Columbia will now spend $35 million a year providing

family justice services across the province to low-income British Columbians. We

actually will spend $10 million a year more on family justice and family law

initiatives than we spend on criminal legal aid, but we are doing it in a way

that is smarter and more effective than it had been in the past. We're doing it

in a way that focuses on helping people get the outcomes they want, rather than

simply by funding processes that encourage adversariality and breed unhappiness

and misery more often than they create satisfactory solutions.

We're doing it by recognizing that sometimes you can help somebody

solve their legal problems just by giving them some information about what their

rights are. Sometimes you can do it by giving them a road map for how to

undertake the process steps that they need to take to get a remedy or to enforce

a claim. Sometimes they can get the result they want by undertaking mediation or

by engaging in other forms of alternate dispute resolution. There are certainly

cases where the best way to resolve the problem — perhaps it's the choice of

last resort but the necessary choice — is to take the problem into a courtroom.

The spectrum of assistance that we now provide with the $35

million we spend a year on family justice is a spectrum that encompasses all of

those things. It includes parenting after separation. It includes a family

maintenance enforcement program that actually delivers on the promise of

ensuring that child support orders are enforced to thousands of British

Columbians. We do it by providing, through the agency at the Legal Services

Society, family court duty counsel, which we're now going to be able to install

on an ongoing basis in 44 courthouses around the province.

With the money this budget promises, we're going to be able to

take that program and expand it into the Supreme Court. We're going to make sure

that we have the resources there to help those who are in severe conflict get

the help, advice and representation they need in order to protect the interests

of their children or to protect themselves if they're at risk of harm.

There is more that we can do. I know there is. But this budget

takes great steps forward. They are progressive steps. They are ways that say

that the old way of doing things is not necessarily the right way. We need to

focus on how we can achieve the results that people want and think about new

ways of achieving those results.

[1610]

That's true. That's true of the treaty process and what we've

tried to do over the last three years in the treaty process. It's true of what

we're trying to do across the range of services that constitute the justice

system in British Columbia. It's true across the range of services encompassed

by a budget that reaches into families and helps families across this province

in all kinds of ways.

This is a budget that's a forward-looking document — a visionary

document founded on bedrock principles and on the certainty that we are turning

the corner, that British Columbia truly is on the verge, the threshold, of a

golden decade. It's a great moment to be British Columbians. It's a great moment

to be part of a government leading this vision. I'm delighted to be standing

here supporting this budget, and I look forward to the continued comments of my

colleagues.

M. Hunter: I always seem to get to speak after people who

have a real gift of the gab — eloquence, I

[ Page 11964 ]

would call it. But I will try, at least in substance, to match what the

Attorney General has just offered to this budget debate. I, like he, stand very

proud to support the budget introduced by the Minister of Finance just a couple

of days ago.

What a wonderful place to live, work and play. That's not what I

say. That's what the world thinks about this province today, and what a change

that is from just four short years ago. We must keep telling ourselves and

telling the people of British Columbia how bad it was. The NDP drove families

away from this province. They drove investment away from this province. Their

tax-and-spend policies reduced personal incomes of people in British Columbia by

an average of over $1,800 in the dismal decade of the 1990s. That's how bad it

was, and that's why people left.

Worse than the personal hurt and disruption that their policies

and that government caused, this province missed out on the most rapid and

sustained period of economic growth that the western world has ever seen. Just

think about that for a moment. Here we are, located where we are, with links to

Europe, to the Asia-Pacific, to the United States and beyond. And here we were

in British Columbia, the only place in the western world that went backwards

through the 1990s. Well, we're changing that. That's what the Minister of

Finance showed in his budget.

What a change we see now from four short years ago. This is a

government that keeps its promises. The opposition likes to try to tell people

how we have broken our promises. Mr. Speaker, I'm here to tell you that this

government keeps its promises. Promises made by this member and by my colleagues

in this government caucus are promises that are kept. We made 202 promises to

the people of British Columbia in the New Era document. We have actually

acted on and completed 193 of those promises — 97 percent — and the other 3

percent are being worked on.

It is the party opposite that can't keep its promises. Why do I

say that? What evidence do I have for that? Let's look at what they did to

seniors during their dismal decade, because they're pretty active trying to tell

people that we're ignoring seniors or that we're not dealing with them in a way

that is sensitive and appropriate. I reject that.

Their own think tank, the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives

— and I use the words "think tank" very judiciously, because I'm pretty sure

it's a contradiction in terms for that organization…. Nevertheless, the CCPA

said about the NDP: "Community and continuing care has been seriously eroded

over the past decade." They're talking about the 1990s. "Hospital stays declined

by almost half in the 1990s, with no parallel investment in community and

continuing care. Between 1994 and 1999 the number of public long-term care beds

fell by 18 percent."

Even the NDP's friends in the CCPA could not believe how badly

that government treated our seniors during their decade of misused power, and

they have the temerity to stand in this House and outside it and accuse this

government of mistreating seniors. I think that's an argument that does not

stand the test of even a very distant microscope.

It was under this government that the first-ever review of seniors

care facilities in this province was conducted in the year 2002. That review

found that the average age of seniors facilities was more than 30 years old.

Many were overcrowded; many had poor security. Some could not accommodate modern

wheelchairs and other equipment that is used to help make seniors' lives

comfortable.

[1615]

Did the NDP have a plan to fix this? Did the NDP have a plan to

deal with an aging population that they knew about? This is not new. This has

been around since 1946. These questions are rhetorical. I know that. We all know

the answers.

What a change in four short years, because this is a government

that does have a plan. It's a plan we set out in 2001. It was then, and it is

today, a plan to rebuild and energize the British Columbia economy. It was then,

and it is today, a plan to maintain, build and improve important public services

including health care and education, because those are priorities that the

public of B.C. demands we pay attention to. It was and is a plan to be

accountable to the public for their money.

In my opinion, how a government treats their citizens' money is

the acid test of openness and accountability, and this government is the most

open in that respect in the country. Every penny of revenue and every penny of

expenditure is open to public review. The Opposition House Leader knows this.

She knows, from her own experience in a government that deliberately fudged

public budgets, how open and transparent this government is. So pardon me if I

doubt her sincerity in her meanderings on this matter of how open the debate is

about this budget.

Let me move on to what this budget does. Let's look at how it

builds on the progress of the past four years. This budget reduces or eliminates

income taxes for three-quarters of a million of our neighbours — people who live

in our communities, people who work in our communities, seniors who are on fixed

incomes. Three-quarters of a million people are going to benefit from this

latest reduction in British Columbia personal income tax.

That is hugely good news. That means that people are going to be

able to spend money that they don't have today. The same is true with Medical

Services Plan premiums. Another almost quarter-million people are going to have

their Medical Services Plan premiums reduced or eliminated. What does that mean

to a senior couple living in my community, in Nanaimo, who might be earning

through their pensions or through a combination of income sources $30,000?

In the coming year, that couple is going to pay $2,400 less in

British Columbia income tax than they did when we came to office. That's $200 a

month to cover their expenses, to provide maybe a little bit of the odd treat

they have not been able to afford. On the MSP front, senior couples earning less

than $29,000 a

[ Page 11965 ]

year will pay nothing for medical coverage in this province.

This is a government that cares very much about seniors and about

families. These tax changes are just another indication of that commitment to

our senior citizens and to the working families of this province.

This government cares about our children. That's why we are making

the largest single attack on the public debt of this province ever. The $1.7

billion that will be applied to our debt is to reduce the charges on our

children's future, because this government believes that our children's future

cannot be mortgaged to cover current operating costs. That's what the NDP did

through the 1990s. That's why the debt of British Columbia grew from $17 billion

to $34 billion in ten short years. That government wrote off Crown corporation

debt at B.C. Rail and B.C. Ferries. They covered operating costs by creating

debt that costs us money today and into the future. From $17 billion to $34

billion of debt in a decade — they dragged us down. But in four short years,

what a change.

There is more money in this budget to meet the educational needs

of our province. In the kindergarten-to-grade-12 school system, we are seeing an

$863 increase in per-capita student funding over the term of this government.

The $150 million committed in this budget this year to K-to-12 education is the

largest single increase toward education spending ever in British Columbia. This

government cares about our kids. It cares about our education system, and these

investments are being made at a time when the student population is in decline.

[1620]

Everybody in the province, except the B.C. Teachers Federation and

their public advertising, knows there are fewer students. Perhaps people don't

know that there are 29,000 fewer students in our grade school system, in our

public education system, than there were in 2001. The students that are there

are benefiting from more resources in a system that not only provides more

financial support and more resources but also welcomes their parents and

volunteers into their schools.

At the post-secondary level we're meeting the challenges of a

society that is demanding more and more education services in order to function

in a world that we all know is becoming increasingly complex. In my own

community, at Malaspina University College in Nanaimo — which I am confident,

Mr. Speaker, will be taking up the challenge of seeing how it too, like the

university in your community, can become a special purpose university in the

months to come — there is significant investment by this government and by the

private sector in improving the facilities that exist there. We have new

research facilities in shellfish, a first in Canada. We have a library that is

going to improve services not just to the student body at Malaspina University

College but to the entire community. We have private sector investment at

Malaspina that has built an international studies centre without a single cent

of taxpayers' dollars.

Our investment in children, our investment in education, is not

all. This is a government that is determined to improve community services and

to improve public safety. Balanced Budget 2005 contains significant spending

increases in these areas. Not least — in an area to which I would like to draw

attention — is the largest increase in contributions to women's transition

houses in 15 years. And $37 million is going to improve our ability to offer

services to women who are fleeing violence, to children who witness abuse and to

programs that are associated with those unfortunate facts in our society.

It is regrettable that the demand for these services seems to be

growing. I don't have an answer to it. I don't know if anybody has an answer to

it. What I do know is that the experts in the field — the people who are

spending their lives and their professions dealing with women and families, and

men, who are having problems in coping with violence and aggressive behaviour —

deserve our support. I think our response is appropriate and necessary if we are

ever to break the cycle of violence that is an unfortunate feature of our

society here in B.C. I want to congratulate the Haven Society in Nanaimo for its

work and innovation in finding ways to stretch resources and to get community

help to supplement the public investment in their services.

There are more resources in this budget for children's services,

for policing and for infrastructure around the province. It provides more

resources for community living services, services which look after the needs of

adults with disabilities. This budget supports the largest increase in B.C.

history in social assistance benefits to people with disabilities. This budget

funds those increases, which are the first of their kind in these benefits to

people with disabilities in ten years.

I submit that despite the blather from the opposition about how

this government doesn't care about people with disabilities, the evidence in

this budget is quite the opposite. If they didn't fund increases in disability

assistance, they don't really have much of a ground to stand on, because they

didn't do an awful lot for this deserving and needy group of citizens. This

budget starts to make a change in the ability of those people to live fulfilling

lives.

As well, I think it's worth noting that this budget responds to

all of those people across this beautiful province who took the time to offer

their thoughts to the standing committee of this Legislature and to the Minister

of Finance last fall. You know, we have heard a lot about openness in the last

few hours from the opposition members. Not one of them has made the observation

— so I will — that this budget is a process of not just the machinations of the

mind of the Minister of Finance or his predecessor or his cabinet colleagues or

this caucus. It is the product of a consultation process that invited every

citizen of this province to participate, to tell us what they thought their

resources should be applied to.

[1625]

This budget addresses those priorities that were identified by

British Columbians, and I want to thank

[ Page 11966 ]

all of those people who took the time, the effort and the brainpower to

contribute to helping us decide where those resources would go.

Our plan for British Columbia is once again clearly laid out in

this balanced budget for 2005. Like the budgets that have come before it, it

presents a plan that we intend to follow. It presents promises that we intend to

keep.

There's not much difference between public finances and household

or personal finances, except the numbers are much bigger. But just like in

balancing your own budget in your household or your own chequebook, you have a

financial plan. At least, if you are successful in managing those accounts, you

have a financial plan. We all know from personal experience that a financial

plan only works if you stick to it.

The opposition, however, wants us to believe that everything was

doing fine in British Columbia until we came along and had the temerity to

reduce taxes — personal taxes and business taxes. You know, that proposition is

so full of holes that it barely bears repeating, but it needs repeating because

it's the same balderdash that gets repeated week after week, day after day.

The people of British Columbia, at least the ones that live in my

community, know they're better off today than they were in 2001. They know

things aren't perfect. I'm the last person to suggest that they are. But my

constituents know their jobs are more secure than they were.

Let's look at one example: Madill engineering. Madill is a

worldwide-known manufacturer of forestry equipment in my community. I had the

opportunity to visit their facility back in 2001. I saw a manufacturing facility

that was almost a ghost town — hardly anybody working there, nothing going on,

no investment, no innovation. The place was just getting by. There was barely

enough energy to put grease on the machinery's wheels. Well, that has changed.

Today Madill employs twice as many people as it did just a short year ago. It is

a success story. It is bringing young people from across Canada to work in my

city of Nanaimo.

[H. Long in the chair.]

I had the fortune to visit again, with the Minister of Forests,

just a few short weeks ago. We walked on the shop floor. I didn't meet a single

employee who had been there more than six months. That's how dynamic that

company has become in taking advantage of the new economic opportunities across

our province. Those people in that manufacturing company, I would submit, are

more secure than they were in 2001. In fact, most of them weren't even there in

2001. But they are more secure; they have more choices.

You know, people in this province, and again in my community, know

that the value of their houses increased. They know that the NDP has no plan to

move this province forward. They know that the real leader of the NDP, Jim

Sinclair, wants to take us back to 2001. How do they know that? Well, because he

said so.

In my own constituency the NDP candidate is focusing on personal

attacks on me, because he has nothing and his party has nothing to offer the

people of Nanaimo except the past. The person who claims to be leader of the

NDP, Carole James, promised no personal attacks. I guess she can't keep her

promises — just like her broken promise to tell B.C. what her platform is,

because I haven't heard it yet. All I've heard is that she wants to take us back

too. "I wish we were four years back," she said on CKNW yesterday. Well, I for

one don't share that wish. I'm glad we are where we are, I'm glad we've left

that dismal decade behind, and I'm glad I'm part of a government that is working

hard to help the people of British Columbia turn this place around.

My opponent in Nanaimo from the NDP says the citizens of my region

deserve a government that will bring economic prosperity to all citizens, not

just their wealthy friends. He's right. That's this government, and that's this

budget that's going to do that.

Never in the modern history of my community have more people been

at work. Unemployment rates are at generational lows. As for the allegation that

the benefits of B.C.'s economic recovery are only for the wealthy, I suggest

that people who believe that go tell the 4,400 people in my community who have

left income assistance benefits in the last four years for the workplace that

things aren't better. Tell the 1,600 people who have obtained employment through

the efforts of the Job Wave program, all of whom are now able, all of whom are

now able to build their resources and their families' future. Tell them that the

benefits of this economic recovery are only for the wealthy.

[1630]

It simply isn't true. It's time for the NDP, for my opponent, to

cut the Marxist rhetoric, take a look at the facts and observe what is really

going on in the city he thinks he should represent.

I can tell you that, like other areas of the province, residents

of Nanaimo are seeing improvements to their health care facilities that were

promised and never built by the NDP. Seniors in Nanaimo are benefiting from a

combination of private and public investment in seniors housing that I'm sure

others in the province must envy.

The Leader of the Opposition and the sometime president of the

B.C. Federation of Labour, Jim Sinclair, want you to believe that B.C.'s

economic recovery has everything to do with commodity prices and low interest

rates. I'm well aware and the people I represent are well aware that low

interest rates are, of course, a benefit to them. They also know, however, that

low interest rates benefit friends and family in other provinces of Canada,

because it's the Bank of Canada that deals with interest rates in this country,

not the provinces.

Why is B.C. doing so much better than Nova Scotia or New Brunswick

or Quebec or Newfoundland and Labrador? Or Ontario or Saskatchewan or Manitoba?

Only one province remains ahead of us, and we're going to get them too.

[ Page 11967 ]

Could it be that the recovery in British Columbia has something to

do with a government that has reduced taxes and red tape? Could it be something

to do with a government that has outlined a plan for the province and followed

it — a government that has met its financial targets and beaten its own

financial targets year after year after year? Could it have something to do with

making B.C. competitive for investors to the point where British Columbia today

is the most attractive location for foreign investment in this whole country?

Could our economic recovery have something to do with a government

that encourages small business with competitive small business tax rates? This

budget makes another step in that direction with a $400,000 exemption for small

businesses. Small business in this province is so confident that its small

business confidence index tops the nation.

Could our economic recovery have something to do with a government

that has created the environment that has allowed the private sector to create

some 200,000 new jobs in British Columbia since December 2001? There are over 2

million people working in this province for the first time in its history.

The NDP and its union bosses say: "No, it can't be that. It's

commodity prices." Well, that's not supported by the facts either, but what else

is new?

With the help of the member for West Vancouver–Capilano, I did a

little bit of research on commodity prices. It would be interesting to this

House, perhaps, to know that back in 1995, in the good old days of Mike Harcourt

and the NDP, the industrial materials index of the Bank of Canada, which

includes things like copper and coal, stood at 132.17. In 2004 the index stood

at 129.93. The commodity price monitor of the Royal Bank of Canada Financial

Group shows similar data. The venerable magazine the Economist actually

says that commodity prices have been going down since 1854. I don't remember

that long ago, but I do remember 1995.

I do recall that in 1995 investment was leaving this province,

that investment in mining and fishing and forestry was leaving the province to

the point where one in two miners lost their jobs. I know that in 1995 the NDP

was talking about the jobs and timber accord, which promised 22,000 new jobs and

resulted in the loss of 10,000 jobs. Talk about false promises to people and

breaking promises. That was at a time when commodity prices, according to the

Bank of Canada index, were higher than they were in 2004.

[1635]

This economic recovery is certainly assisted by low interest

rates. Nobody in their right mind would deny that. But it is also about the way

this government has acted to change the economic and regulatory environment of

this province. You see it in the confidence that people have around your

community. You see it in the confidence that people in my community express.

As in all aspects of life, continuous improvement should be our

guideline. We have much more to do. Not one of us on this side of this House is

satisfied that B.C.'s potential has been reached. In fact, many of us, I suspect

all of us, think we've barely scratched the surface.

One of the things this budget talks about and the throne speech

talked about was a new focus on the Asia-Pacific, and I fully support the notion

that B.C., as Canada's gateway to the Asia-Pacific, has a huge role in lots of

development.

I hope that as we explore and exploit those opportunities, we

don't turn our back on the United States out of frustration over its trade

practices which, frankly, are not appropriate. I hope we don't forget our ties —

cultural, historic and trade — to Europe. I regret that Canada has allowed those

roots to wither over the last decade or two, and I think British Columbia, with

its rich and diverse background of people from all over the world, can offer a

lot to Canada in re-creating and re-energizing some of those cultural and trade

ties with Europe. I know that the European Union is a tough place to do

business. I understand that. But we in British Columbia need to remember that

London is closer by air than is Tokyo. Frankfurt is closer by air than is

Shanghai. We need to remember that as we go about reconstructing this province.

Not one of us on this side of the House is satisfied that the

challenges of an aging population, in housing or in medical services, are

overcome. In fact, I think we know what the other side does not appear to know,

and that is that these are going to be lifelong challenges for all of us. We are

all getting older. There are fewer people working to support folks who are

aging, who are on pensions and who need the expensive medical care that,

unfortunately, comes with an aging population.

What we do know is that we have a plan to address these issues. We

have a plan represented by Budget 2005 — Balanced Budget 2005 — to distribute

the benefits of a strong economy as and when we can afford to do so. This

budget, most importantly of all at this time in our history, outlines a clear

choice for British Columbians in the weeks and months ahead.

We can go forward. We can build on the positive changes we have

made since 2001. Or we can choose the Jim Sinclair path, which, in his words, is

to go back to 2001. We can choose between a government that is investing in

services for the people of British Columbia or a party that is controlled by the

private interests of public sector union bosses.

I know where I stand. I know that I'm proud to support this budget

and to run on a record of promises made, promises kept and a plan for a bright

and exciting future for my province.

R. Hawes: Like my colleagues before me, I'm very proud to

stand up and speak to this budget, which I think is a culmination of the four

years of hard work all British Columbians have put in and which has completely

vindicated the position we took when we were first elected, found the cupboards

bare and embarked on a program to restore our economy. We said from

[ Page 11968 ]

early days that it was going to be a road with lots of bumps but that we were

going to arrive at a place where we would have a better province.

I just want to go back in history, just briefly, and cover some of

the revisionist history that the NDP would now be putting out and wanting people

to believe and what actually has happened.

[1640]

If you listen to the rhetoric that comes from the NDP — from

Carole James to the people in here, to Jim Sinclair and the other NDP leaders —

you would think that the world was perfect until 2001 and that in 2001 all kinds

of ills befell this province. But in 2001 the people of this province, in

unprecedented numbers, repudiated the leadership and the management style of the

NDP and said in huge numbers that they were not satisfied and that our province

was in just terrible trouble.

Now the NDP are praying that in the intervening four years

people's memories will be very short. They're trying to put themselves out as a

government that was sound, fiscally responsible and friendly to business. That's

the revisionist history.

The facts are that when we took government, the first thing we did

was make a tax cut, because we knew we were in tenth place out of all provinces.

We were last place for economic growth, and one of the biggest reasons was that

we were grossly out of step with our tax rates. Our neighbours had much lower

tax rates, and that was attracting the kinds of businesses and the kinds of

skilled people that we needed in this province to build an economy. They were

leaving for a friendlier tax climate.

We did make the tax cut very early in our four-year tenure and

shortly afterwards completed a real in-depth assessment of where we stood. What

we found was that our economy and our fiscal situation was actually in far worse

condition than we had thought — not so much that the bottom line was worse,

although it was. We found we were facing a structural deficit of nearly $4

billion.

We found that the budget that the NDP claimed to have been

balanced and that the auditor general confirmed was balanced — the budget that

was left to us — was actually balanced on some one-time revenues and with a

whole bunch of unfunded liabilities that were going to carry forward and that we

inherited, such as the…. At the time of the election in 2001 there was a pending

settlement with nurses that was very expensive and one with doctors that was

very expensive. There was even, among other things, a mental health plan they

had announced for $125 million that was desperately needed in this province, and

not a penny in their budget for it.

All of their rhetoric around a balanced budget…. When you look at

it, what we inherited was a mess, so the cleanup had to start. It was not so

much that it was a huge deficit we were facing, but the spending trends were out

of control.

I remember our Health minister saying in the fairly early days….

He stood up and, I thought at the time, made a very brave statement for a

minister, saying: "My ministry's spending is completely out of control." That

was the legacy he was left, and he spoke the truth when he said it. He embarked

on a tough program to bring spending under control.

All through the health care revision and the changes that were

made, no cuts were ever made in health care spending. The whole objective was to

get spending — the increase in spending — to a controllable, sustainable level.

We have been very successful with that in a complete restructuring of health

care, but it hasn't been without pain.

The pain is actually going to continue for some time, because you

can't restructure a system overnight that was as broken as the health care

system was. You can't do it in four years. There's still some heavy lifting to

do. There still has got to be more work done within the health care sector

because of the aging population. Our baby-boomers, as we move through, are going

to create such pressure on our health care system over the next few years that

we can't possibly support it without just a complete restructuring of how we

deliver services.

What we inherited wasn't working. We had a litany of promises. As

Corky Evans — one of the venerable NDP stalwarts who is running again, who wants

to come back and deliver his homespun rhetoric — said: "We promised things we

never intended to build."

The Abbotsford hospital, the MSA Hospital, is a really good

example. Through the entire reign of the NDP, that hospital was promised year

after year. There were announcements made, and they were out w