2008 Legislative Session: Fourth Session, 38th 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)

Wednesday, February 11, 2009

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 37, Number 4

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Page

Introductions by Members

Tributes

Jim Fulton

G. Coons

Statements (Standing Order 25 b )

Expansion of Ridge Meadows Hospital

R. Hawes

Henry Nedergard

S. Fraser

Diabetes

H. Bloy

A. Dix

Canada Education Park

J. Les

Elizabeth Kelliher

J. Kwan

Oral Questions

Olympic Games contract with Fortress Investment Group

C. James

Hon. C. Hansen

A. Dix

Olympic Games security costs

H. Bains

Hon. C. Hansen

J. Horgan

Staffing of integrated child protection teams

M. Farnworth

Hon. J. van Dongen

Redeployment of police and justice system resources

M. Farnworth

Hon. J. van Dongen

S. Simpson

Hon. W. Oppal

Public release of report on gun violence

R. Fleming

Hon. J. van Dongen

Redeployment of police and justice system resources

J. Kwan

Hon. M. de Jong

Petitions

C. Trevena

Reports from Committees

Special Committee to Appoint a Police Complaint Commissioner, report for the fourth session of the 38th Parliament

J. Rustad

L. Krog

Hon. W. Oppal

Second Reading of Bills

Finance Statutes (Deficit Authorization and Debt Elimination) Amendment Act, 2009 (Bill 48) (continued)

J. Yap

S. Fraser

Hon. K. Falcon

N. Simons

H. Bloy

H. Lali

J. Les

J. Horgan

R. Thorpe

[ Page 13627 ]

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 11, 2009

The House met at 1:33 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Prayers.

Introductions by Members

J. Horgan: Although it's delightful to see the Canucks on a three-game winning streak, if they ever need a backup goalie, I see in the gallery today Bill Goodacre, a former member of this place from Bulkley Valley–Stikine. If Luongo goes down, next time I'm certain Bill will get the call.

Hon. G. Abbott: As members of the assembly know, we have been graced today in the Legislature and in the precincts and in Victoria by many volunteers and leaders from the Canadian Diabetes Association. I wasn't able to attend the breakfast this morning, but I know a number of members were and were very pleased by that opportunity. I want to take an opportunity to introduce some of the guests we have in the gallery today from the Canadian Diabetes Association. I know other members will be introducing guests as well.

[1335]

I want to begin by introducing a constituent who is a volunteer extraordinaire and has been recognized as such by the Canadian Diabetes Association. She regularly attends my constituency office and is a relentless and fearless advocate on behalf of the Canadian Diabetes Association. Nel Peach is from Salmon Arm. She's the president of the Salmon Arm branch of the Canadian Diabetes Association. Welcome, Nel.

Also from the Canadian Diabetes Association, Jean Blake, the executive director for the Pacific region, is here. We are also joined by a number of B.C.'s regional directors for the CDA, including Julie Holder, Tom Orie, Donna van Welligan, Jane Glenn and Fiona Knight. I'd ask the House to please make them all welcome and thank them for their great work.

M. Karagianis: I have some guests I'd like to introduce today in the House. They are here again to help promote the Canadian Diabetes initiative that's taking place in the Legislature. From my constituency I have the Bleseki family: Maureen, her husband Mark and their daughter Rachel. I'd like the House to give them a warm welcome.

I see my friend Des McCambridge is here as well. He's been a tireless advocate on behalf of diabetes and solutions to help especially young people. I'd like the House to make him especially welcome as well.

Hon. S. Bond: We're always delighted to have northern constituents join us here in the precinct. On behalf of my colleagues from Prince George North and Prince George–Omineca, we want to welcome three guests to the Legislature today. They're also here celebrating the good news about insulin pumps in the province.

We want to welcome Darwin Cassidy and his daughter Dezirai, a young woman who uses an insulin pump, and also Paula Bass. Paula is the mother of a child who has type 1 diabetes and recently received an insulin pump. So on behalf of my colleagues, welcome to the precinct today.

S. Fraser: Similarly, from Port Alberni today we have Rudi van den Broek and his son William, who also lives with diabetes and is using an insulin pump himself. I'd like everyone to help them feel welcome.

I notice the member from Nanaimo is not here, so I will take the liberty of also welcoming Brian Petit and his son Ian, who are here today. Brian is a well-known Nanaimo writer and avid history buff. They're also here because of the issues of diabetes awareness. Please make them all feel very welcome.

Hon. W. Oppal: Also with the Diabetes Association are three people from my riding: Lesley Lopez and her two daughters Mya and Marissa. I want to thank them for what they're doing in the Diabetes Association. I very much appreciate you attending and all that you're doing. Would the House please make them welcome.

C. Wyse: Via modern technology, friends of Gloria Loewen, who was a longtime employee in the Williams Lake forestry office, are joining us today, along with Gloria's mother Helen in Prince George, to celebrate Gloria's life. I would ask the House to join with them in recognizing this longtime employee of government services, and do make them welcome.

Hon. J. McIntyre: It's not too often that I have visitors here in the precincts from the Sea to Sky corridor. Today, by coincidence, I have two visitors I'd like to introduce and hope that the House will make them feel welcome.

First is William Roberts, who is an acquaintance of mine from Whistler. He leads the Whistler Forum for Dialogue, affiliated with the Aspen Institute in Colorado. William has made some very interesting links with China, among other activities, but is really helping to support our Asia-Pacific gateway.

Welcome, William.

Peter Gordon from Cascadia Consulting is also joining us today from Squamish. Peter's daughter Heather worked briefly here at the Leg., I think, one summer and is now a teacher in Squamish. I'm delighted to have them both join us today.

[1340]

[ Page 13628 ]

Hon. M. Polak: I am pleased to be joined in this House by a visitor from Langley. Like previous guests who have been introduced, Sheila Jack is here to help raise awareness about diabetes, and I'd like us to thank Sheila for her efforts and those of the group around her. Will the House please make Sheila welcome.

R. Hawes: Well, not to be outdone by those who have already made introductions, I, too, would like to make some from the group that was here today. This morning in our caucus we had a number of very, very moving presentations. One that was particularly, I think, meaningful — all of them were meaningful — was one from Catherine Turner, who is the chair of the board of directors for the National Aboriginal Diabetes Association. She did point out how diabetes among the aboriginal community is a particularly troubling disease.

Also, there are two children here that were introduced to caucus this morning. Fiona Kern, age 7, whose life has been dramatically improved because of the insulin pump, is here with her siblings and her mom. And at the expense of a double introduction, William van den Broek made an unbelievable speech to our group — very, very moving. This is a young man who, I think, is going to be sitting in this chamber maybe ten years from now. He is an unbelievable young man whose life has been changed also through the use of an insulin pump. With that, please make them welcome.

J. Nuraney: I, too, want to add my welcome to the members who are visiting us today. We have in the gallery Nigel Terrett. Nigel Terrett is the senior vice-president and the interim general manager of LifeLabs, which was formerly known as MDS, British Columbia's largest medical lab. With 85 collection sites around the province, LifeLabs does more than three million blood lab tests every year.

LifeLabs is also working with the Canadian Diabetes Association to draw awareness to the struggle against this global disease. Mr. Terrett is here today with the Canadian Diabetes Association delegation, which has done blood testing and measuring of sugar levels in the blood for all MLAs. I ask the members of this Legislature to please accord him a very warm welcome.

Hon. R. Cantelon: I was apparently 24 hours early in my introduction yesterday. However, that should not diminish our welcome to these people who I'm about to introduce. They have been mentioned, as well, by the member from Port Alberni-Qualicum. But let me further extend our welcome to Rudi van den Broek and his son William from Port Alberni, and Brian Petit and his son Ian from Nanaimo. These two families know firsthand the challenges with diabetes.

I would also like to welcome Catherine Turner, chair of the National Aboriginal Diabetes Association, who is joining us from Courtenay. I've been to one of her presentations. She's done such excellent work in promoting diabetes awareness among first nations.

I'd like to thank these individuals for being with us today and for creating awareness of diabetes. I'd like to add my welcome to those in the House, and I invite you to join us in welcoming them.

Hon. I. Chong: I, too, would like to join with others in welcoming a number of individuals from greater Victoria with the Canadian Diabetes Association — certainly a very active

chapter here in greater Victoria. I've met with them a number of times and personally know people who have benefited from the use of insulin pumps. So it's a very good initiative, and I'm sure one that all in the Canadian Diabetes Association families appreciate.

From greater Victoria, I would like to introduce and have the House welcome Zoe MacDonald, Rowan MacDonald, Kerry Walsh, Erin Thorpe, Art Penson and Genie Wright. Would the House please make them all very welcome.

Hon. M. Coell: I, too, would like to welcome two guests to the Legislature from the Canadian Diabetes Association: Meredith Scroggins, who is a youth volunteer; and Susan Lui, who is a pharmacist and diabetes educator from Sidney. Would the House please make them welcome.

[1345]

R. Lee: I, too, would like to recognize Norma Page, a volunteer from the Diabetes Association. She is from Burnaby North. Actually, she took my glucose meter reading and also my blood pressure.

Tributes

JIM FULTON

G. Coons: It's an honour for me today to rise and pay tribute to a friend, a distinguished man and a great parliamentarian: Jim Fulton.

Jim, who was 58, passed away just before Christmas on December 20 after a three-year battle with cancer. He was Skeena's Member of Parliament from 1979 until retiring from politics in 1993. In his 14 years, Jim was shocking but always fearless. He was an environmental activist and a huge advocate for first nations rights. The outspoken former NDP MP will always be remembered when he threw a dead salmon on then Prime Minister Brian Mulroney's desk during a debate about the sockeye fishery in the Skeena Valley in 1985. I'm sure he'd be throwing more than that these days in the House in Ottawa.

Jim had a deep sense of humanity. He was respected by all, and he will be truly missed.

[ Page 13629 ]

Statements

(Standing Order 25

b) EXPANSION OF

RIDGE MEADOWS HOSPITAL

R. Hawes: On Thursday, January 29, the Premier and the Minister of Health were on hand in Maple Ridge for the official opening of the new Greg Moore emergency department and the Betsy Bilodeau Ambulatory Care Centre in the Ridge Meadows Hospital.

This wonderful 45,000-square-foot addition to the hospital is already making a tremendous positive difference to patient care in the Fraser Valley. It was made possible thanks to the incredible work of the Ridge Meadows Hospital Foundation and the many donors, big and small, who raised $3 million towards the overall $21 million cost of the project.

Of particular note are the extremely generous donations from Rick Moore on behalf of his son Greg and from the estate of Betsy Bilodeau. Each donated $500,000. What's particularly noteworthy about this new addition is the planning process that went into its construction.

As noted by Shauna Archibald, patient care coordinator in the ambulatory care centre, and by Sandra Chosevelt, emergency room RN, there was complete consultation at the ground level to ensure the new space would be as functional as possible. "If we said a wall switch should be in a certain place, it quickly appeared there," Sandra told me. It was like that through the whole process.

I'm told that morale is up, patient flows are much better and overall care is improved. The Ridge Meadows area has much to be proud of, from its generous community-minded citizens to its dedicated hospital staff. This is a community that has it together. Watch for the soon to be opened expansion of the psychiatric department that's made possible through an incredible $1 million donation from Mr. Ron Antalek.

Congratulations, Ridge Meadows, and I'm extremely proud to have represented you for the last eight years.

HENRY NEDErGARD

S. Fraser: On January 8 the Alberni Valley suffered a tremendous loss. Henry Nedergard passed away, survived by his wife of 50 years, Gunber; two daughters, Brigit and Glenda; two grandchildren, Matthew and Sarah; two brothers, Elmer in Vancouver and Herbert in Finland. Henry Nedergard will be dearly missed but never forgotten.

Henry moved to the Alberni Valley from Finland in 1951, where he worked in the forest industry. Henry served as a union officer with the IWA, as president of the Port Alberni and District Labour Council. He also served on city council and as a representative on the central Vancouver Island health authority. Public health care was a passionate cause for Henry. He fought hard when local representation was being diluted at the time when VIHA was taking over from the central Vancouver Island health authority. Henry Nedergard helped bring us the new hospital in Port Alberni, although he would never take credit for that. It just wasn't his style.

Henry was recognized two years ago as a lifetime member of the NDP. And putting aside politics, that sort of dedication — lifetime — for any political cause is rare. Henry was a founding member with Wolfgang Zimmerman of the National Institute for Disability Management and Research, or NIDMAR. Last year Henry was able to see NIDMAR receive formal recognition and university status through this Legislative Assembly in one of the few bipartisan efforts that I've seen or been involved in, in this House. I know Henry was very pleased to see that happen and witness it.

[1350]

Henry Nedergard set the bar to its highest level when it came to community activism, and his efforts shine far above and beyond the Port Alberni area. Henry Nedergard will be missed but never, ever forgotten.

DIABETES

H. Bloy: I was diagnosed with type 2 diabetes about 15 years ago. It's a daily challenge to keep your blood sugar regulated and stay healthy. I don't shy away from talking about it. I believe my experiences help a lot of other people. I have a very simple solution to this: eat less food, eat better food and exercise every day.

But today I and other members of the House had the pleasure of having a healthy breakfast with members of the Canadian Diabetes Association. We had the opportunity to hear about what they are doing in communities across our province. I met a young man, William van den Broek — type 1 diabetes — who spoke about his experiences. He's already been mentioned as a great speaker, and I was very impressed with his composure.

In November of 2008 our government provided $1.5 million to B.C. Pharmacare to enable 200 children like William to have access to insulin pumps and supplies. The Canadian Diabetes Association has quite the legacy of providing healthy living and delivering programs and services for people affected by diabetes.

I also had the opportunity this morning to speak with Jean Blake, executive director of the Canadian Diabetes Association. I appreciate all the hard work that she, her volunteers and staff do for all people of our province. At the meeting this morning, at the breakfast, a number of our members had the opportunity to have their blood sugar tested, courtesy of Nigel Terrett of LifeLabs, a company from my home city of Burnaby.

I'd like to leave you with one final thought from a fellow diabetic: life is not over because you have diabetes. Make most of what you have and be grateful.

[ Page 13630 ]

A. Dix: Like many members…. And I think we heard it during introductions today. We just heard it from my colleague from Burquitlam. Many members have been impressed by the extraordinary advocacy of parents of children with diabetes and of children with diabetes today.

A quarter of a million British Columbians are like the member for Burquitlam and myself. We suffer from this disease, and I think it's an extraordinary thing when parents and children who struggle with it themselves come and speak to us and advocate for others. The lead advocates to get insulin pump coverage in British Columbia were parents who themselves had provided the insulin pump to their children and felt that that shouldn't be based on income, just as it should not be based on income for adults and other people.

I think it's an extraordinary thing. We witnessed an extraordinary thing this morning and over the past several years, as parents and children and people in the community have advocated to extend coverage. So we celebrate that today.

This morning members on our side of the House and on the government side of the House heard from Brian Petit, who's one of those advocates, from Nanaimo. His son Ian was diagnosed with type 1 diabetes, he says, on July 27, 2007. He remembers the day; he'll remember it his entire life. He asked himself that day: who will advocate for children such as my son? And then he became one of the leading advocates on Vancouver Island in the last two years, painting Nanaimo blue during diabetes month. He does an extraordinary job.

We heard, as the member for Burquitlam said, from William van den Broek, who is in grade 6 — he's 11 years old — and who also uses the insulin pump and talked eloquently about his daily struggles with diabetes. It almost cost him his life in a drowning accident, and the insulin pump makes him able to live a life like all his friends.

Catherine, Brian, Ian, William and all the advocates we heard today suffering from type 1 and type 2 diabetes remind us that the equipment, the nutrition and the supplies that children with diabetes need should not be based on income. We thank them for what they told us today.

[1355]

CANADA EDUCATION PARK

J. Les: Today I would like to update members of the House of the progress that's being made in the development of the Canada education park in Chilliwack. As members may know, the property I'm referring to was once known as Canadian Forces Base Chillwack. However, today it is becoming a major centre for education, but in a way and perhaps of a scale that we had not dared hope for at the time.

The RCMP have established their Pacific regional training centre on approximately 60 acres of the land. Every day many hundreds of RCMP officers from across Canada receive their in-service training at this facility, which includes classroom space, tactical training facilities, hotel accommodation buildings and other facilities.

Recently the federal Treasury Board has advanced $15 million for the construction of a new indoor firing range. The University of the Fraser Valley was next on site, as it acquired 85 acres of land with some of the excellent buildings that were there for their new Chilliwack campus. They immediately converted what had been a massive storage facility into western Canada's largest trades training facility, which opened in September. The university's long-term plans indicate the potential for approximately a million square feet of classroom space at this campus.

Next on board was the Justice Institute of British Columbia, when they recently purchased six acres of land at the park. They will be building in the near future and, as with all other users at the park, availing themselves of the significant collaborative opportunities that exist between themselves and the other agencies on campus.

More recently the Canadian Border Services Agency has established their western Canadian learning centre there. Already they are accommodating 10,000 student days per year, and they, too, have opportunities to collaborate with other campus agencies.

As well, discussions are underway to attract a foreign university to the campus in conjunction with the University of the Fraser Valley, building on our province's gateway initiatives and Asia-Pacific economic opportunities.

Ultimately, it's anticipated that as many as 10,000 students will be receiving education on this campus on a daily basis. The Canada education park represents the opportunity of a lifetime for students of all ages from across the province, the country and abroad.

ELIZABETH KELLIHER

J. Kwan: Last Sunday at a small Catholic church in the Downtown Eastside on Cordova Street, the organ music that filled the room for the congregation was played by a very special woman.

Sister Elizabeth Kelliher, an 85-year-old nun with the Franciscan Sisters of the Atonement, was about to end her hunger strike calling for the re-establishment of a national housing program. She had just gone through seven days on a liquid diet as part of the 2010 Homelessness Hunger Strike Relay.

Sister Elizabeth is a pillar in the Downtown Eastside, where she tirelessly gives of her time and continues to be a source of inspiration for many, many people. She operates a soup kitchen that feeds between 300 and 500 of the city's most poverty-stricken people each day.

[ Page 13631 ]

The Franciscan Sisters of the Atonement have been living in and serving the people of the Downtown Eastside for over 80 years. The sisters first arrived to serve the Japanese community, which was then living around Powell Street. When the internment of their neighbours occurred, the sisters opened their convent for safe storage of goods and possessions belonging to those families being sent to the prison camps. Some of the sisters accompanied the internees to Greenwood, B.C., and stayed with them.

After the service on Sunday, Sister Elizabeth took time to eat and then marched over to the second annual Poverty Olympics at the Japanese language school, where she was recognized by her community. Some of those in attendance included Itchy the bedbug and Chewy the rat.

Asked privately how she felt during her fast, she said: "I didn't even get hungry." In the Downtown Eastside we're now calling this a miracle. We will hold off calling for the beatification of Sister Elizabeth and everyone else at the Franciscan Sisters of the Atonement while she's still performing miracles right here in British Columbia.

I ask all members of the House to join me in recognizing Sister Elizabeth, an inspiring woman who continues to be a trail-blazer in her 80s.

Oral Questions

OLYMPIC GAMES CONTRACT

WITH FORTRESS INVESTMENT GROUP

C. James: B.C. taxpayers are demanding that the B.C. Liberals finally come clean with the real cost of the Olympics. In Vancouver, as we all know, city taxpayers are paying hundreds of millions to get out of a bad deal with a New York hedge fund. That same hedge fund owns Intrawest, and Intrawest controls the use of Whistler and Blackcomb mountains.

[1400]

To the minister responsible: with a year to go until the first competitor skis down the face of Whistler, why is the deal with Fortress still incomplete, and why has the government once again put B.C. taxpayers at the mercy of Fortress Investment Group, the troubled New York hedge fund that is behind the athletes village fiasco?

Hon. C. Hansen: You know, we all understand that the Leader of the Opposition did not support the Olympics from day one. But I think it is unfortunate when the Leader of the Opposition continues to denigrate the good work that's being done to organize the Olympics by spreading the kind of misinformation that she spread just now in her question.

We gathered in this House. We sat around the clock to pass emergency legislation to empower the city of Vancouver to actually go out and borrow money to ensure that the taxpayers of the city of Vancouver were not put at risk to any extent that would be otherwise necessary.

I can tell you that….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Minister, take your seat. Sit down.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. C. Hansen: I can tell you that John Furlong and his team at VANOC are doing a first-class job of organizing what will be the most successful Winter Olympics ever.

That team at VANOC has responsibility for making arrangements with all of the partners, including Intrawest, and I have every confidence that they will do that in the best interests of all.

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

C. James: This sounds familiar. It's the same answer we keep getting from this minister and this government, which is: "Trust us. Everything will be fine."

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

C. James: "Don't worry, taxpayer. It's only $600 million."

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Please take your seat.

Members.

Continue, Member.

C. James: We hear it again and again and again from this minister — whether it's security costs, whether it's the Olympic village. Now it's the rental of the mountains.

My question again to the minister: is the agreement in place, and if not, why not? And how much will it cost the taxpayers?

Hon. C. Hansen: VANOC just recently released their latest budget, their latest financial report. I would suggest that the Leader of the Opposition actually read it, because what she will discover is that out of a budget of $1.7 billion, there is a very small portion that is funded by the taxpayers either federally or provincially. The vast majority of the revenues that flow into the operating

[ Page 13632 ]

budget for VANOC come from ticket sales, from the international broadcast rights and from private sector sponsorships that VANOC has lined up.

VANOC is doing a first-class job of managing their budget and delivering on what will be the best Winter Olympics ever.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

The Leader of the Opposition has a further supplemental.

C. James: Well, the minister either knows and won't tell, or he doesn't know. Either way the taxpayers are on the hook, and they want to know the truth from this minister.

We're talking about negotiating with Fortress, a troubled New York hedge fund in desperate need of cash. Their ownership of Intrawest is at risk. They're laying off employees. Their stock value has hit bottom, and the minister is saying to us today: "Don't worry. The negotiations are ongoing."

Well, they now have taxpayers over a barrel because of this government's incompetence. So tell us today: what is the cost of that contract, and when will it be completed?

Hon. C. Hansen: VANOC has responsibility for negotiating with all of their partners and all of their suppliers that will be tapping into their operating budget.

[1405]

What we have committed to as a provincial government, for the obligations that we have to deliver on, on the staging of the games…. First of all, we are providing half of a $580 million budget for venues around the province, and I can tell you that every single one of those sports venues is now finished and complete and ready for the celebration. That is the first time in the history of the Olympic movement that we have actually seen the sports venues finished so far ahead of the official opening ceremonies of games.

The Olympics are going to be a tremendous economic generator for British Columbia. There is not a jurisdiction in the world that wouldn't give their eye teeth to be hosting the Olympic and Paralympic Games in 2010.

A. Dix: So what the minister is telling us today is that he's been Minister Responsible for the Olympics for, oh, the last three years — and I use the term "responsible" loosely…. Is the minister saying to us today that there's no deal on the mountain? Is that what he's saying today?

This is the minister who said, until a couple of months ago, that Olympic security costs were $175 million. That's what he said until a few months ago. Now here he is today. This is the minister who says that Olympic secretariat costs are not an Olympic cost. If South Korea had won the bid, presumably we'd still have an Olympic secretariat.

The question is very simple to the minister. Is there a deal on the mountain, and how much does it cost?

Hon. C. Hansen: As I have indicated, VANOC is a federally incorporated, not-for-profit corporation. They have responsibility for negotiating with all of their suppliers, including the mountain at Intrawest, including other facilities that they are negotiating with or have contracts in place with.

But I think it's incumbent on this opposition to actually state for once: are you in favour of the Olympics, or are you opposed to the Olympics? Are you in favour of the jobs, or are you opposed to the jobs?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Sit.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. C. Hansen: We know where the Leader of the Opposition stood in 2002. She opposed the games. On this side of the House we support the games, because it will be the best shot in the arm that this province has ever seen and a great economic stimulus for British Columbia.

OLYMPIC GAMES SECURITY COSTS

H. Bains: Wow, a year to go, and we still don't have…. It's very clear right now, listening to the minister, that we don't have any clue how much it's going to cost us to rent the mountains. It's clear.

It's very clear that we don't know what the total security cost is going to be. It's very clear. We don't know how much we're going to get fleeced on the Vancouver village deal.

On Monday the minister said that the security budget will likely go below the Olympic budget. Yesterday he backed away and said it was very complicated and couldn't say.

My question is very simple to the minister. Can the minister assure this House that when he finally comes clean on the security budget, it will include every security-related cost in that budget?

Hon. C. Hansen: I find that question both troubling and surprising, because this member purports to be the Olympic critic for the official opposition, and I would have thought that by now he would know that it is the RCMP and the federal government that have responsibility for the security budget. If he would like a briefing, I will arrange it for him.

[1410]

But the member is right on one thing. It's one year to go. It's one year to go until 8,000 of the world's best athletes are going to be descending on British Columbia. It's one year to go until 10,000 journalists from around the

[ Page 13633 ]

world are going to be coming to British Columbia. It's one year to go until 250,000 visitors are going to come to British Columbia to help us celebrate, and it's one year to go until approximately three billion people will be watching the British Columbia winter games.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

The member has a supplemental.

H. Bains: You know, with answers like those, no wonder people are worried sick about the total Olympic costs. They're worried sick out there. They continue to get surprises after surprises on the Olympic costs from this minister. It's a complete B.C. Liberal runaround. It's about time that that stopped.

Again to the minister, and I'll be a bit more specific this time. This is a clear question. Will B.C. Gas customers pay more to cover the security costs — yes or no?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. C. Hansen: I think the question was: will B.C. Gas customers pay more for the Olympic Games? I have no idea what he means by that question.

J. Horgan: Hon. Speaker, let me help out the minister a little bit on this one...

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Member.

J. Horgan: …because goodness knows, he needs it.

In October Terasen Gas applied to the B.C. Utilities Commission to create a deferral account to cover unknown security costs as a result of the Paralympic and Olympic Games. They said: "Large-scale events such as the 2010 Winter Olympics and Paralympic Games present unusual and discrete challenges over and above the normal level of security and reliability for our utilities." The commission said, "Create a deferral account for $3.8 million" — at a bottom, at a base of $3.8 million.

What that says is that the commission has approved security costs to the ratepayers of B.C. Gas or Terasen Gas, and this minister didn't even know about it. When is it going to be B.C. Hydro? When is it going to be TransLink? It's $3.8 million and counting for customers in this province.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. C. Hansen: Let me share with the member some of the benefits that are going to flow from the games. You're going to have 250,000 visitors coming to British Columbia. It is estimated that the winter games in 2010 will pump about $6 billion worth of economic activity into the B.C. economy. We also know that this is going to be a tremendous showcase, as we broadcast British Columbia to the television sets of three billion viewers around the world to showcase what British Columbia can offer.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

J. Horgan: I know that will be cold comfort to those who have to increase their gas bills as a result of Olympic security costs.

Terasen further wrote to the commission in response to the approval for the deferred account, saying: "Terasen Gas has confirmed that there is no likelihood of recovering these costs from any external agency. VANOC has advised that it does not have any financial resources to contribute to the utility provider's games operational costs."

My question, again, is to the minister. When he finally comes clean and tells us the honest cost of security, will it include the cost to Terasen Gas? Will it include the cost to B.C. Hydro? Will it include the cost to TransLink? When will he be honest with the people of British Columbia? What's the bill?

Hon. C. Hansen: If the opposition critic wants to have a briefing arranged for him, I'd be pleased to include the member as well. I think, as I explained earlier, the security plan and the security budget for the Olympics are the responsibility….

[1415]

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Minister, just take your seat again.

Continue.

Hon. C. Hansen: The security plan and the security budget for the Olympics and Paralympic Games are the responsibility of the RCMP and the federal government. The provincial government, under the security agreement that we have signed with the federal government, has a 50 percent responsibility for a small portion of those costs. I invite the member to go onto the website and read the security agreement, and he will see exactly the provisions that are provided therein.

STAFFING OF INTEGRATED

CHILD PROTECTION TEAMS

M. Farnworth: Can the Solicitor General confirm that the integrated child exploitation team, which was planned to have 54 members working for it, actually

[ Page 13634 ]

only has seven people working for it? And can he also confirm that the integrated sexual predator observation team, which is supposed to have 16 positions filled, only has eight positions filled?

Hon. J. van Dongen: I don't know the details. I'll take the question on notice.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

REDEPLOYMENT OF POLICE

AND JUSTICE SYSTEM RESOURCES

M. Farnworth: The government announced those programs with great fanfare over a year ago.

Mr. Speaker: Member, just to remind you that the minister did take the question on notice.

M. Farnworth: This is a new question, hon. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Okay.

M. Farnworth: The government announced these programs with great fanfare over a year ago — resources to protect children from exploitation in Internet pornography, resources to be able to monitor sexual predators. They are failing in that commitment.

Yesterday the Premier stood in this House and said that he was going to redeploy police resources to fight gang warfare. If they can't honour that commitment that was announced last year, how can the public have faith that they're able to honour this commitment that the Premier said yesterday?

My question to the minister is this. What other areas of public safety are going to be affected by the Premier's redeployment comments of yesterday?

Hon. J. van Dongen: When it comes to policing, let's look at the record. Our government since 2001 has increased provincial policing by 89 percent. Since 2001 we've put 950 additional police officers on the street. We have invested $66 million in integrated police teams. And all of these increases the NDP opposed.

S. Simpson: This minister and this government can't even honour the commitments they made a year ago to protect children. How can we believe they can honour these commitments now?

Before the last election the government made a number of promises on crime. What we know now is that they don't amount to much — over the last ten years from ten gangs to 129 gangs in this province. Now the Premier is talking about redeployment that will draw away from already understaffed policing and prosecutorial services.

My question is to the Attorney General. Which prosecutions will be dropped so that staff can redeploy for the Premier's plan?

Hon. W. Oppal: You know, I've listened to some of the questions and some of the rhetoric that's taken place in this House the last three days. In my previous life I prosecuted probably 40 to 50 murder cases. I sat on the Supreme Court, and I heard that many or more. I was on the Supreme Court in the 1990s, which was a decade that saw incredible violence take place on our streets.

[1420]

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Continue, Attorney.

Hon. W. Oppal: The 1990s saw the infamous Dosanjh-Johal murders take place in broad daylight. There were shootings taking place at 33rd and Victoria, 33rd and Main.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Continue, Attorney.

Hon. W. Oppal: There was an innocent man walking his dog, who was killed.

You know, I listen to the puffery from the other side, and I wonder where they were in the 1990s, particularly the member for Port Coquitlam–Burke Mountain who huffs and puffs here every day. He was a member of that cabinet. If he has that expertise now, where was the expertise then?

Mr. Speaker: Member has a supplemental.

S. Simpson: Hon. Speaker, 129 gangs in this province today, weekly if not almost daily occurrences of gang violence on the streets.

Maybe this Attorney General, since he doesn't seem to be prepared to do this job, could go help out with prosecutions, because he's not acting as an Attorney General to protect British Columbians. Our communities deserve to know that they're safe from dangerous, violent criminals, but all this government has offered to do is shift resources that are inadequate today.

My question to the Attorney General is this. Was there any research done at all into the effects of the Premier's so-called redeployment plan? If there was research, release it to this House today. Or is this another fly-by-the-seat-of-the-pants exercise of the Premier that he does on every issue of significance?

[ Page 13635 ]

Hon. W. Oppal: I'll tell the House about the research. In the mid-1990s, that government….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Continue, Attorney.

Hon. W. Oppal: The government of the day asked me to conduct a commission of inquiry into policing. At the conclusion of that we made 222 recommendations. Some of the recommendations dealt with deployment of policing, regional policing and integration of policing. That government of the '90s ignored those recommendations. They ignored the recommendations on regional policing.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: We're not going to continue until we have some silence. Your choice, Members.

PUBLIC RELEASE OF

REPORT ON GUN VIOLENCE

R. Fleming: You know, a year ago we were standing in this very House demanding answers from the government on criminal gangs. Since then, this crisis has gone from bad to worse.

There's a report on gun violence that's gone before cabinet. The minister said he'd release it. What possible reason can he offer to keep sitting on that report, given the current daily crisis that's going on in British Columbia on gun violence?

My question is to the Solicitor General. Will he table that report today?

Hon. J. van Dongen: I said I would release the report this week, and that's what I will do.

[1425]

Mr. Speaker: Member has a supplemental.

R. Fleming: Mr. Speaker, you know what?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

R. Fleming: What this government doesn't get is that when the Premier stood up in the hallway the other day and said, "The answer to gang violence is redeployment," we the public of British Columbia deserve to know if a report that the government has in its possession agrees with that or whether that's something that the Premier made up on the fly.

So my question again. It's not good enough for the Solicitor General…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

R. Fleming: …to keep delaying on this. The public deserves to know. The Premier has outlined a plan. Let's see if the Premier's plan that he made up in the hallway, which he blurted outside these walls, agrees with the recommendations of the report's authors. Let's have that report tabled today so the public can know.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. J. van Dongen: The Premier has made it clear that our government will invest whatever dollars are necessary to deal with the serious gang and illegal gun crime issue that we have.

We have put more money into policing, Member. We intend to put more money into policing. We have put money into specialized Crown prosecutors, and we have put significant new money into prisons — $185 million.

But if the opposition is to have any credibility on the crime issue, they better get their position straight on the construction of new prisons in appropriate locations such as the Willingdon facility in Burnaby.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

REDEPLOYMENT of Police

AND justice system resources

J. Kwan: The Premier has said that there would be redeployment. My question to the minister is this. How many people would be redeployed, from what sector, and where are they going to come from?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Hon. M. de Jong: It's because I know the importance that all members attach to this question that perhaps I can be very clear about how the government intends to respond and how it has been responding — a recipe that includes more police, more prosecutors and more jails to put the unsavoury characters that engage in illegal activities in British Columbia streets in jail.

I have also seen the theatrics in this place. I know a thing or two about theatrics. It's easy to come here and talk the talk. Sometimes it's tougher to walk the walk. I have trouble reconciling what I hear from this opposition and this opposition leader with what the member

[ Page 13636 ]

for Burnaby-Edmonds says when he writes to his paper: "As the MLA for Burnaby, I will continue to fight against the plans for a new jail."

You can't have it one way out there and one way in here. More police, more prosecutors and more jails will get this done.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

J. Kwan: Coming from a government that closed ten correctional centres, that closed 24 courthouses, it is just a bit much for them to suggest that they're on top of the game.

Let us be clear. The Premier said that he was going to redeploy the resources. So my question is this to the Solicitor General, who supposedly is on top of this file. Where are the deployments going to come from?

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Member.

J. Kwan: Is it going to be from the local police force? Is it from school liaison officers? Is it from the theft department? Is it from traffic? Is it from community crime? Is it from property crime?

[1430]

Which sector are those officers going to come from to address the gang violence problem that's happening right under this government's nose?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. M. de Jong: It actually speaks volumes that for nothing more than theatrical reasons, members opposite would try to equate a minimum security work camp with the kind of maximum security facilities that are required to put these characters away in. This component of a complex problem is actually pretty simple. If you want to talk the talk, walk the walk.

Will this Leader of the Opposition say to her member of caucus that the time for talk is over and end his opposition to the facility we need to put unsavoury criminal elements away in British Columbia? That's what we're going to do. That's what we have been doing, and we're going to continue doing it.

[End of question period.]

Petitions

C. Trevena: I'd like to table a petition from 220 people from Malcolm Island and other north Island communities, who are requesting a change in the B.C. Ferries

schedule so that Malcolm, Cormorant and Vancouver Islanders have access to early morning employment opportunities and early morning medical transportation supports.

Reports from Committees

J. Rustad: I have the honour to present the report of the Special Committee to Appoint a Police Complaint Commissioner for the fourth session of the 38th parliament.

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

Motion approved.

J. Rustad: I ask leave of the House to permit the moving of a motion to adopt the report.

Leave granted.

J. Rustad: I move that the report be adopted. In moving this motion, I'd like to make a few brief comments.

It was a great pleasure to chair the Special Committee to Appoint a Police Complaint Commissioner. I'd like to take this opportunity to thank the committee members for their work and commitment. I'd also like to thank the Clerk's office for the work that they did. It was outstanding. I'd also like to thank all of those who had submitted their resumés and applied for the position.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, it's really hard to hear.

Continue, Member.

J. Rustad: We had a great field of candidates that applied, and I'd like to thank all of those who did apply. Lastly, I'd also like to thank Dirk Ryneveld, who did an outstanding job as our current Police Complaint Commissioner for a number of years.

With that, I'm also very pleased to say that Mr. Stan Lowe, who is the candidate we have selected, is an outstanding candidate. He comes with a great background, and I think he'll make a great Police Complaint Commissioner.

L. Krog: I just want to rise to support the motion. As vice-Chair of the committee, I think it's also appropriate to thank the Chair who conducted the hearings in an efficient and timely manner. I think British Columbians, who were very well served by Mr. Ryneveld, will be equally well served by Mr. Lowe. He has an outstanding record of public service in British Columbia, and we are fortunate to have him in this position.

[ Page 13637 ]

Hon. W. Oppal: I just want to thank Stan Lowe for his service to the Ministry of Attorney General. He joined the Crown office in 1991. He was involved in some major criminal cases. He worked with the public. He was a communications officer. Many members of the public have grown accustomed to seeing Stan over the years.

[1435]

I want to congratulate him and thank him for the many years of service that he gave to the ministry.

J. Rustad: Mr. Speaker, I believe the motion is to adopt the report.

Motion approved.

J. Rustad: By leave I move that this House recommend to the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, pursuant to

section 47.1 of the Police Act, RSBC 1996 , c. 367, the appointment of Mr. Stan T. Lowe as the Police Complaint Commissioner in the province of British Columbia.

Leave granted.

Motion approved.

J. Rustad: I ask for leave to do an introduction.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

Introductions by Members

J. Rustad: I would ask that the House please welcome our new Police Complaint Commissioner, Mr. Stan Lowe.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: I call continued second reading on Bill 48.

Second Reading of Bills

Finance Statutes (Deficit

Authorization and Debt Elimination)

Amendment Act, 2009

(continued)

J. Yap: I rise to take my place in this debate on Bill 48, the Finance Statutes (Deficit Authorization and Debt Elimination) Amendment Act, 2009. To say that we live these days in extraordinary global economic times is probably an understatement. Terms and words like Lehman Brothers, credit crunch, financial meltdown, sub-prime mortgages, stimulus package…. These are words that are now in the common lexicon for British Columbians and all Canadians who follow the news.

[K. Whittred in the chair.]

We're in an economic recession globally, and as a country, as Canada, British Columbia as an open trading province is not immune. This is a serious global economic downturn, which no one — no experts, no prognosticators — predicted would have the scale, the severity and the synchronicity that it has. We've heard how quickly and sharply revenues have fallen. We've heard, for example, that in one day the revenues for the province shifted downward by a scale of $300 million — something unheard of in our history.

While the economic measures, the statistics and indicators can seem the focus, we're really talking about people, about families. People are worried. They're concerned about their jobs, about meeting their mortgage payments and looking after their families. As other members have, I'm sure, I've heard from my constituents as I travel through my riding, as I talk to the people of Richmond-Steveston. At the doorstep with constituents, the number one issue that's on people's minds when they have the opportunity to talk directly to their MLA is the economy and concern about their jobs.

Our government is responding to reassure British Columbians. With Bill 48, the provincial budget will be allowed to run at an operating deficit for two fiscal years. This, as has been noted by my colleagues who have spoken, is a departure from our traditional approach. This is an exceptional change for our B.C. Liberal government.

Generally, our philosophy is to abhor, to not accept operating deficits. But now with exceptional times calling for exceptional policies and leadership, we find that we have to make this change. Hence, we are here to debate Bill 48, which I support.

During this period of economic uncertainty our government will protect the programs that people need, which people have come to rely on — whether it's health care, education or public safety, to name a few.

[1440]

B.C. Liberals are not turning away from our commitment to fiscal prudence. We will balance the budget again when the economy strengthens, but right now the economy and jobs are what my constituents and most British Columbians are concerned about.

We will create jobs with our plan. We will invest in infrastructure. We have a $14 billion plan to invest in needed infrastructure throughout the province — infrastructure projects like the ten-lane Port Mann Bridge, which will produce 8,000 jobs; like the South Fraser perimeter road, which will produce 7,000 jobs; like the Sea to Sky Highway, which has produced 6,000 jobs — projects, by the way, which the NDP unfortunately oppose.

[ Page 13638 ]

B.C. is well positioned. We have the borrowing capacity, whether it's for capital or for operations. Thanks to the fiscal management of the past few years and the hard work of British Columbians, we have regained a triple-A credit rating, the best possible, as a province. This high credit rating will ensure that we will be able to get good terms when we go to the capital markets.

We will continue to ensure that B.C.'s economy is well managed and competitive. As my colleague from Maple Ridge–Mission talked about yesterday, we have a great professional public service that has really worked hard to try and rein in controllable expenses, to trim discretionary spending, to generate efficiencies and fiscal savings to the province. With all of these efforts, unfortunately, with the serious decline in revenues to the province, any further changes to our expenditures would affect needed program spending.

Now, another way to balance the budget is, of course, to hope for higher revenues, to forecast higher revenues than are realistic, but we will not provide a budget that fudges the truth. We will provide a truthful budget. Above all, people know that they can rely on the B.C. Liberal government on commitments to the economy. We have the proven record. We will get through this economic downturn. Trade will recover. The U.S. economy will recover. Canada's and our own economy will recover. It is a matter of getting through this time.

In fact, I understand that just yesterday the Bank of Canada's Governor Carney predicted, with all of the expertise available to the governor, that we may see a recovery in 2010. That was his prediction. I believe many economists and forecasters also expect a recovery in 2010.

We also have, in 2010, the Olympic and Paralympic Games to help our economy at just the precise time when we need, as a province, an economic boost. Now the opposition, we hear almost on a daily basis, is negative on the Olympics, which is a shame. They should know better.

The 2010 games are generating investments and will continue to generate investments and positively impact our economy these next 12 months. The spinoff benefits will be felt throughout the province for years to come.

Now, what about the NDP government record? What about that record, Madam Speaker? Let's not forget that after ten years of NDP rule, the NDP left a $4 billion structural operating deficit to the province of British Columbia. They governed British Columbia with eight consecutive deficit budgets. The NDP had five debt management plans and missed every single one of them.

[1445]

The NDP doubled the province's debt between 1991 and 2001. They managed to mismanage the economy so badly that B.C. became a have-not province. During this time there were two credit rating downgrades.

Of course, as my colleagues have reminded and we should continue to remind British Columbians, the NDP were responsible for that most deceitful and shameful act, that fudge-it budget, when the NDP misled British Columbians when they knew they could not deliver a surplus. But on the eve of the 1996 election they put forward that fictional budget only to bring in another one, the real one, after the election.

What have the NDP planned, if they should form government? Well, it'll be equally disastrous. We know that the NDP want to raise the cost of doing business with a new wage policy, a $450 million impact. We know they want to scrap the softwood lumber agreement, which would cost members of the industry $2.4 billion.

They want to ban independent power projects, which will cost $4½ billion in investments throughout the province. They want to increase royalties on the oil and gas sector at a cost of a billion dollars in revenues. They want to tear up the TILMA agreement, costing up to 78,000 jobs.

I know that British Columbians will reject the NDP platform, which is a recipe for economic failure. With our B.C. Liberal government British Columbians can have confidence that the budget, which the Minister of Finance will bring in next Tuesday, will be credible.

Bill 48 will allow B.C. to get through these difficult economic times while preserving the programs that our citizens need. Bill 48 will require government to maintain fiscal prudence and, when the economy recovers, eliminate the operating deficit.

Bill 48 is principled and is right for the times. We will get through these economic times, just as we got through the economic challenges that were brought on our province by such crises as the tech meltdown, 9/11, SARS, forest fires…

R. Hawes: The NDP in the '90s.

J. Yap: …and the NDP in the '90s. We got through that.

In closing, British Columbians can be assured that our government will continue to be the proven, steady stewards of their economy, and Bill 48 is part of our strategy to move B.C. forward. It has my support, and I will be voting in favour of Bill 48.

S. Fraser: I am rising today to speak to Bill 48, the Finance Statutes Amendment Act, 2009. I notice in brackets it has to say "deficit authorization." That's got to be ironic and something of a bitter pill for the government members who have been preaching the evils of deficit financing. I understand the turmoil and the volatility of this House during this debate, which I have been watching closely.

Well, we're here, back finally in the Legislature, after the Premier cancelled the democratic parliamentary process known as the fall session during arguably the worst economic meltdown that we have seen in recent history. The Premier cancelled the Legislative Assembly,

[ Page 13639 ]

ducked the responsibility and accountability while the world alarm bells were ringing. They were ringing on the economic front, and it seemed that up till just a few weeks ago deficits were considered evil, even though all over the world we were hearing warning bells ringing.

Throughout this economic meltdown this House did not sit — well, we did; we sat for five days since the end of May — at a time, I believe, when all constituents, regardless of political affiliation, would expect us as legislators to be here addressing the economic crisis that was looming on the horizon and was being warned about by all kinds of indicators and all kinds of experts.

[1450]

Throughout, the Premier and the minister responsible, the Minister of Finance, kept it simple for British Columbians. They denied the impending storm cloud.

Interjection.

S. Fraser: Head went in the sand, I guess. This was happening while alarm bells were ringing all over the place in local media. All over the province, media outlets were blowing the alarms on this one.

On CKNW in early January, when there was still denial that there was a problem in the province and still denial that a deficit budget may be necessary, it says — this was a Christy Clark show, an interview: "There may have been a thought that British Columbia would be exempt from a severe downturn in the economy. We're not that much better off these days than the U.S. I wouldn't use the language 'good fundamentals' when we're probably in a recession. The days when the west was sort of riding on the coattails of a global commodity boom have definitely ended."

On the radio we were hearing this sort of thing daily. The alarm bells were ringing loud and clear, but all was well according to the Premier, the minister and this government.

The Globe and Mail — again, early January: "It is very conceivable B.C. could be in recession. Forecasters are gloomier today. That tells you how quickly things are shifting." These are quotes from the Globe and Mail . "The economy has slowed. It is a bit academic if it is a zero or a bit below that. The export sector is struggling, and the pillars that kept us growing, housing starts and consumer spending, are weakening and stalling."

These are pretty stark reminders of a potential problem in the province of British Columbia, but we had no session, except for five days. There was denial from this Premier and the minister and this government, and no planning that took place to address this at all, because there can be no planning when there's denial of an impending disaster.

The Vancouver Sun , January 24: "Given the extraordinary rapid deterioration of the economic outlook for all countries, the synchronized nature of a full-scale global recession and all the lingering problems in the financial systems and credit markets, there is nothing that can be done to forestall a recession in Canada over the next 12 to 18 months."

"Jock Finlayson, chief economist for the B.C. Business Council, said the B.C. Liberal government is just catching up with what business has been coming to terms with for weeks. He questioned if the province can really rebound in just two years' time."

So we in the province, the people of British Columbia, had plenty of warning and time to plan — a time when we should have been called back to this place, to this Legislative Assembly, to address the economic crisis. We've been playing catch-up ever since, according to Jock Finlayson.

With Bill 48 it's about deficit authorization. It's a colossal deficit in leadership. That's really what this bill is about, and the hallmark of this Liberal government. Bill 48 is legislation that allows the Premier to break his own law. It kind of reminds me of Stephen Harper bringing in, if you recall, legislation on fixed election dates, the rationale so that Prime Ministers could not call an election based on crass political opportunism, and then the Prime Minister turns around and calls an election based on crass political opportunism.

I think we're heading down the same road. There seems to be a parallel there between the B.C. Liberals and a flip-flop on positions, and that was certainly made by the Prime Minister recently.

So let's just recap, because we certainly heard some other versions of history here that I'd like to address. This Bill 48 is a Liberal bill to undo a Liberal bill that made it illegal for the province to run a deficit.

[1455]

This is actually hard to grasp — a Liberal bill to undo a Liberal bill that would do away with deficits. I guess it didn't work, the first bill. How absurd is it that we're standing here this week debating a bill to undo a bill brought in by the same government? How absurd is that?

Just weeks ago this Premier considered a deficit…. Well, it sounded like it was evil. Now, I understand that he lost sleep over this, twisting and turning in bed, because he had to do a complete and hypocritical back flip.

He didn't mention losing sleep over engineering the worst child poverty rate in the country five years —the sixth year, this year — in a row, according to StatsCan. He never mentioned twisting and turning at night over 20,000 forestry jobs lost in this province and the families that have to figure out what to do next without any government leadership, and denial from this Premier.

He never mentioned any personal insomnia, Madam Speaker, over the quadrupling of homelessness in this Liberal golden decade. I note that the Liberal members and ministers and Premier no longer use that slogan very much at all anymore: this golden decade.

[ Page 13640 ]

Let's look back a bit, Madam Speaker. The previous Liberal bill, which Bill 48 is designed to overturn, the bill to forbid Liberal deficits, actually had a loophole when the Liberals brought it in. It was a loophole, a pretty big loophole. It may be a misnomer, but I'll use the term "loophole" because I can't think of another one.

The Liberal government brought in a bill to make it illegal to run deficits, but the loophole allowed them to run back-to-back-to-back deficits. This was a promo stunt at taxpayers' expense, and it was greatly misleading to taxpayers, because it did not prevent this government from running back-to-back-to-back deficits, the highest in history. I believe it was the 2002-2003 budget that was over a $3 billion deficit.

So now we are here with Bill 48 to bring in the fourth, by my count, Liberal deficit — maybe the fifth, if you take the next year they're planning on a massive deficit. So it appears that the Liberal legacy — the norm, if you will — is running deficit budgets. This government's been in…. This is the eighth year. This would make four deficit budgets, despite the fact that this government, to much fanfare, brought in legislation, which we are now working to overturn, to make it illegal to run deficits. Didn't work very well.

You know, I know people that are very cynical of this place, the political process in the province, of politicians of all of stripes. I think that's unfortunate, because I believe many of us are here, regardless of political stripes, in an attempt to do something good for this province.

But when you bring in vacuous bills to much fanfare which are designed to mislead the public — which have no teeth, which have no meaning — in fact, that leads to not just public apathy but to distrust. I believe that type of action dishonours all of us in this place and the role that we all try to play as MLAs and, I daresay, as ministers. It doesn't serve any of us very well, Madam Speaker.

[1500]

We're here debating a Liberal bill that overturns a Liberal bill that says it forbids deficits. How ironic. How absolutely ludicrous. Where was this government when there was a surplus? Because there was a surplus; there were surplus budgets. By my estimation, with this bill and a deficit budget, that would mean that half of the Liberal budgets were arguably surpluses.

We remember when world commodity prices went through the roof, and royalties did roll into the treasury, into the government vault. There is no question. But this government and this Premier were pompously taking credit for international market conditions that they had absolutely no control for. No wonder this government's credibility is shot.

If the Liberals took credit for their few surpluses that they had nothing to do with, then they should take responsibility for deficits too. Instead, they portrayed them as evil. Yet they have engineered four or five deficit budgets in the last…. Well, that'll be eight or nine years.

What did the Liberal government do to prepare us in British Columbia for this economic turmoil? Well, since the minister and the Premier denied that we were going to have a problem, denied that we would even consider a deficit budget, we haven't been preparing at all. If there's denial that there's a problem, that there may be need for a deficit, then that's admission that there was no planning, because you'd have to acknowledge that there was a problem looming on the horizon.

This government set us up to wear…. This is what they did with surpluses. They set us up — the public, the taxpayer — to wear the massive costs of botched megaprojects. Wouldn't $500 million for a building…? It's the overruns on the Vancouver Convention Centre. Wouldn't that go a long way towards helping the needs of British Columbians now?

Now, as we saw in question period, we'll probably never get a straight answer out of this government about the massive cost overruns associated with the Olympics. They're in denial there too. They have disagreed with three consecutive Auditors General on that front. The Auditor General, for those who don't know, is the independent, non-political body that oversees public spending and protects the taxpayer of British Columbia.

So the only response we get — three Auditors General in a row — about massive cost overruns, and I would dare say misleading the public about those…. The only response we've got from the Premier and the minister and this government was denial. Again, the same sort of denial that denied the impending storm of this economic crisis and the potential need for deficit financing.

This government, when there was a surplus, was spending and mismanaging like drunken sailors, guzzling from the glass of self-delusion and arrogance.

Interjections.

S. Fraser: I see I have got the attention of the ministers and members opposite, the government members.

That is out of line, I would suggest, but understanding that there are sensitivities, I will qualify that. I meant that, unqualified, with absolutely no disrespect to drunken sailors everywhere.

During the surpluses, this government brought B.C. the dubious and shameful distinction and legacy of having the worst child poverty rate in the country for six years in a row. A complete misuse, I believe, of their public role to protect those that are the most vulnerable in this province.

[1505]

When there were surpluses, homelessness increased almost 400 percent under this government's priorities — skewed priorities that are not the priorities of British Columbians.

When there were surpluses, this government led us to a position where we have some of the worst crime on

[ Page 13641 ]

the streets that we're seeing today — shootings, gangs.Nothing to prepare us for that. When this government had surpluses they brought us new terms like "hallway medicine," and these are not things to be proud of. These are shameful legacies of this government: skewed priorities, mismanagement and spending on pet megaprojects instead of protecting the public interest, which is the job of any government.

Now, I remember the statement from — I guess I can use her name, Madam Speaker — Carole Taylor, the previous Liberal Finance Minister. Last year she told the media that when it comes to the forest sector, forestry, the Liberal government have been spectators. I always thought that was odd coming from a minister of the Crown, making an admission like that. But that, I think, was the best she could come up with. That was an optimistic view of how this government handled that sector. They orchestrated and engineered the worst crisis in forestry in the history of this province.

So last year she told the media that the Liberal government were spectators when it came to forestry, as the crisis for those families that made a living in this supposedly renewable resource were losing their jobs and got no support from this government — not even an admission that there was a crisis. They were spectators, according to the Finance Minister.

Well, I submit that the Finance Minister stopped short, that she never finished the statement. I submit that she meant that the Liberal government has been watching from the bleachers as spectators since they were elected to office instead of protecting the public interest. They have been cheering with slogans rather than acting with substance. When they do act, it is to the detriment of the people of British Columbia.

The fear of British Columbians that I'm hearing all over the province, certainly in Alberni-Qualicum, in my constituency, is palpable. When this government had surpluses that had nothing to do…. An orangutan could have been in office and would have had surpluses when commodity prices were through the roof, but they took credit — fair enough.

When this government had surpluses, they did anything and everything but protect the public interest. So the great fear of the public today in Alberni-Qualicum, in the Pacific Rim and across the province, is what will this government do with the authorization of Bill 48?

I acknowledge that there are times when governments must go into deficit, but this government…. How will they manage a deficit budget when, with a surplus, they helped dismantle this great province? That's shameful, and it causes great fear for most people in this province.

What will they do? How will they manage a deficit when they did so much damage trying to manage or sitting in the bleachers while they had a surplus? In Port Alberni, in the Alberni Valley in 2004 — this is when there was a surplus; I think it was the first surplus of this government — the Forest Minister of the day, now the House Leader of the government, gave away 80,000 hectares out of tree farm licence 44, completely ringing the Alberni Valley with private managed forest land against his own staff's advice. And he waived, against his staff's advice, the requirement to pay the Crown, the community, back, that that company should have done at the time.

[1510]

Hundreds of millions of dollars squandered that could have helped the people of Port Alberni, the industry in the Alberni Valley and the workers of Port Alberni. So when there was a surplus, they gave it away to friends that paid B.C. Liberals, well, about $500,000.

I hope whoever negotiated that great deal for Weyerhaeuser and their shareholders got a bonus for that deal. So $500,000 bought them hundreds of millions of dollars at taxpayers' expense and at the expense of my constituents. That's what this government did when they had a surplus, instead of preparing us for an inevitable downturn in the economy, which has become a storm cloud of unprecedented measure.

When there was a surplus, this government pulled funding from Fir Park, Echo Village, a seniors facility in a complex care facility in Port Alberni. It's a non-profit facility. It's part of the community. That facility, Fir Park, Echo Village…. I met with the residents, the families, the staff, the administration, the community on this. We are losing — what do they call it? — the pink wing, the secure wing for people with dementia, people that wander, people that need that security. We've lost that in the Alberni Valley.

This happened when there was a surplus. They took that away from the people that needed it the most. They abandoned our seniors that helped build the health care system of this great country and this great province. They cancelled the psych ward at the West Coast General Hospital when they had a surplus. What will they do when they have a deficit? It sends shivers up my spine.

I fought hard to get a hospice, a palliative care facility, in Port Alberni open, and I fought hard on behalf of all hospices on Vancouver Island. There are nine stand-alone hospices on Vancouver Island — ten if you include Victoria, which has its own separate organizational setup. But this government, when they had a surplus, failed to even provide core funding for hospice, for quality end-of-life care on Vancouver Island, for the people that need it most. That core funding — I think it amounted to $450,000 for all the stand-alone hospices on Vancouver Island — would have covered all their core costs.

This government, when they had a surplus, didn't even provide that amount of money. That's about the amount of money that the CEO for the Vancouver Island Health Authority makes. One wage would fund all nine of those stand-alone hospices on Vancouver Island and allow

[ Page 13642 ]

them to not spend their time fundraising but actually help them to provide the quality end-of-life care that our residents and our seniors deserve.

When times were good, this government failed to provide even a primary health care facility in Qualicum Beach, in Oceanside, on the east side of Vancouver Island. The highest percentage of population of seniors in Canada, and there's no primary health care. It's 40 minutes in any direction. I don't know how many times I've raised that in estimates in this House — and nothing. We've got no investment when the times showed a surplus. Under this government, they abandoned those that needed it most. That's shameful.

What will they do with Bill 48 and this deficit? Now, most people understand the need to run a deficit in trying times. The question is: how will this government manage it when they've mismanaged and they've botched so many things while there was a surplus that they had, that they take credit for and that they had nothing to do with?

They took away obstetrics in the Tofino hospital. Clayoquot Sound. The Tofino hospital is the only public health facility on the west coast. That includes all the Nuu-chah-nulth communities and, in the summer, sometimes 20,000 tourists. This government wouldn't put enough funds in that hospital so that they could keep obstetrics.

[1515]

There is some consistency under this government's lack of consideration for public interest. They won't support those that need it most with end-of-life care, and on the other end of the spectrum, they take away the services needed for the beginning-of-life care. And that's when they had a surplus. What will they do with a deficit? It's terrifying.

In a time of economic downturn it is so important to invest in our future, in education, in post-secondary education. Now, this government, when the times were good, made an art form of taking away the availability of that post-secondary education. They gutted skill-training programs — a scathing report from the Auditor General, which will just be denied by this government, just like they denied the Auditor General's reports on other issues, like the cost overruns on the Olympics.

In my constituency there's a college known as North Island College, in Port Alberni. As they prepare to train and retrain people for their future education or retraining opportunities that must happen during this time — this economic downturn, with the high rates of unemployment that are being created by this economic catastrophe, by some estimations…. This is the time to retrain them.

This government and the minister, who seems to be smiling over there, pulled the 2009-2010 budget of North Island College. They pulled 2.6 percent out of their budget, based on the five-year plan, weeks before North Island College had to have its budget in last year. How does that help with retraining? It does not. They're doing the exact opposite. They did that with a surplus. What will they do with a deficit?

They need to restore that funding to North Island College, and they need to provide additional funds. I know North Island is looking for an additional 5 percent to help address the economic needs of this unprecedented time we're going through, and it's not happening. It didn't happen when they had a surplus. My God, what are they going to do next, when they're authorized for a deficit?

North Island College needs a $1.75 million bump-up, and that'd be the best investment that this government can make in retraining in the Alberni Valley.

The Alberni Valley industrial review. This government's own report said that retraining was essential, and the response from the minister and the ministry was to cut their budget when they had a surplus. My God, what will they do when they have a deficit?

Now, I would normally be able to support Bill 48. I may well vote in favour of it. The great fear is what they will do with that deficit.

Hon. K. Falcon: I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to Bill 48. I can tell you, Madam Speaker, as I've sat here and I've listened to NDP speaker after NDP speaker talk about issues that have absolutely nothing to do with the bill that is before this House…. It is rather extraordinary, because once again I find myself in this bizarre situation in this House. It is rather historically extraordinary that once again we are going to be here listening to the NDP spout off for hours and hours on a bill that they're going to support.

You know, we just went through this recently to deal with the situation with the city of Vancouver. We just went through this in November, when we were talking about the Premier's ten-point economic plan to give a shot in the arm to the economy to make sure that British Columbia will have the resources and tools it needs to ride out the economic storm. The NDP went on for, I think it was, about 16 hours, and then they voted for it.

Even going back to the Tsawwassen treaty, for goodness' sake, I remember we listened to about 30 or 40 hours of nonsense. Apparently, it was the worst treaty in the world. What did they do? They ended up voting for it.

This is just bizarre. I thought that this chamber was supposed to be about people speaking against something and then following through and voting against it, but apparently, that doesn't work in the NDP world.

[1520]

So what are we doing here today? We are listening to speeches. We just heard the member for Alberni-Qualicum, on the one hand, say that this was a government that was spending like drunken sailors and then, on the

[ Page 13643 ]

other hand, give the Minister of Advanced Education heck because he dared to have a 2½ percent reduction in some dollars that went to a college he mentioned.

It is truly incredible. On the one hand, spending too much. On the other hand, "My God, you're not spending enough," and then he listed off a bunch of projects that he thought we should have been spending like crazy on.

That is classic NDP, and that's one of the reasons why we're here today. We're here today to talk about the Finance Statutes (Deficit Authorization and Debt Elimination) Amendment Act, and why is that?

Well, it's because in 2001 our government brought in a bill called the Balanced Budget and Ministerial Accountability Act. We brought in a bill to replace a bill that the NDP, in the dying days of their government back in 2000…. They decided, after a decade of some of the most reckless, irresponsible spending deficits, that they had to pretend that they had suddenly found religion. So on death's door they introduced what they called — what did they call it? — the Balanced Budget Act.

The problem with the Balanced Budget Act was you could have driven a truck through all the exemptions that were in that act.

Our government said: "No. We're going to restore financial credibility to this province. We're going to introduce a balanced budget and ministerial accountability act that is actually and specifically designed to be difficult and tough.

If a government faces a situation as our government does today, where we are going to have to say to the public of British Columbia that the situation and circumstances that our province and our country find ourselves in are so significant that we are going to be forced to go before the House and the public and say that we are not going to be able to balance it, we're not going to be able to fiddle with the budget as they did in the 1996 fudge-it budget fiasco. We're not going to lie to the public and bring forward something that there's no chance on earth that it's going to be honest or going to be balanced.

We are going to be forced to come forward and make a very difficult declaration about how we're going to deal with it."

We did that because we were trying to restore credibility, especially financial credibility, in the province of British Columbia. You know, financial credibility is important. You'll remember in the 1990s; most people remember the Clinton years. The economy was booming. It was booming around the world. It was booming everywhere except this one little economic black hole called British Columbia.

Amazingly enough, in a time of economic expansion everywhere else, where President Clinton was able to balance his budget…. He was able to talk about the great strength of the American economy. Europe was doing well. All around the world everything was doing well. Suddenly, in British Columbia what happened? What was the record?

The record was that in spite of the fact that in 1991, when the NDP ran for office…. Remember they ran those commercials that said, "We won't spend one nickel more than we take in," and they had a little piggy bank that they dropped that nickel in. And what happened? Every single year, deficit budgets. Every single year. It was embarrassing in the scale and the scope of that.

Then what did they do? Then they said: "Well, okay." They were getting embarrassed because they were having all these deficits. So then they brought in what they called debt management plans. They missed every single financial target they set in five debt management plans. And you know what they did after that? They just stopped. They scrapped the whole debt management plan completely, as it was becoming so embarrassing for the government.

They had two credit downgrades. The triple-A credit that they inherited they managed to downgrade on a number of occasions through the '90s.

We also in British Columbia faced a situation where, rather extraordinarily, if you think about it, because British Columbia is where everyone wants to move to…. This is the province that everyone really wants to be part of. They actually managed the feat of singularly driving more people out of the province than were coming to the province.

Some of our best and brightest were fleeing the province — net out-migration in the province of British Columbia year after year. They managed to put into place…. British Columbia had the highest marginal personal income tax rate in North America. Ladies and gentlemen, if you wanted to pay the highest rate, almost 54 percent, move to British Columbia under the NDP, and you were paying it.

[1525]

That was the situation that we inherited in 2001. So what did we do? Well, the first thing we did was we introduced the Balanced Budget and Ministerial Accountability Act. The second thing we did is we said we were going to balance the budget within the first three years. Now….

Interjections.

Hon. K. Falcon: Is there an echo in here?

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Minister, would you sit down for a moment, please.

Members, order. Order, Member.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. K. Falcon: I'm going to address the comments that the member keeps piping up about over there. But I think the critical thing to recognize is that when

[ Page 13644 ]

we brought in the Balanced Budget and Ministerial Accountability Act, we said we would balance our budget within the first three years.

Now, we faced unexpected circumstances. That actually happens in government. As some other speakers have pointed out, we started out with 9/11. That wasn't an easy experience for the economies across North America. Then we had the SARS situation, a rather extraordinary health crisis that was facing British Columbia. We had the avian flu, and then we had forest fires ravaging one end of the province to the other. It was a challenging time.

We heard the NDP for the entire time saying: "Oh, my God, how dare you think about balancing the budget." I'll even say, in fairness to the NDP, that there were even members of the business community suggesting that they weren't sure we would be able to balance the budget. But I'll tell you this. The Premier stayed committed to that goal. He stayed committed to the goal, because it's always going to be easy to find excuses not to do the right thing. We balanced the budget in our first three years, exactly like we said we were going do. That was the start of rebuilding financial credibility in this province.

The other thing we did on our first day in office was we cut personal income taxes 25 percent. We did a further 10 percent tax cut two years later. We just did, most recently, another 5 percent tax cut in the Premier's ten-point plan.

For five years I listened to the NDP in this House talk about how we were gutting all the revenues of the province, and we wouldn't have any money for public education. We wouldn't have any money for health care. I listened to that chant continuously across there. You know what? They were wrong. Once again, they were wrong. They only have to go and look at the audited financial statements of this province and look under personal income tax revenues, and they will find that today they are far greater than they were in 2001.

I get that that's a challenge, because they still haven't figured out how to read financial statements. I've offered to give a course. I've offered to do it in crayon, if that's helpful. But the point is that they still don't understand basic finances.

So what did we hear? We heard that we needed to spend more. We had to spend on this; we had to spend on that. What have we done? Health care. When we were elected, an $8.2 billion budget. Today it's over $14 billion. And what do I hear from the NDP? That apparently, in NDP finance, is a cut.

Then we've got K-to-12 education, the highest level of funding today than ever in the history of K-to-12 education funding. And what do the NDP…? That's in spite of the fact that there are 60,000 fewer kids in the system. They still talk about cuts to education.

Then we've got post-secondary. If you travel to my old university, Simon Fraser University, you don't even recognize it today with all the new buildings, all the new programs. A 40 percent post-secondary increase in the budget from when we were elected in 2001, and still we'll hear the NDP talk about how there is a cut to post-secondary education. It is rather extraordinary.

After we balanced the budget like we said we would do within our first three years, we then started running up surplus budgets. What happened when we were running up the surplus budgets? Well, the hue and the cry from the opposition was that we ought to be spending it. "We should be spending it here. We should be spending it there. We should be spending it everywhere." That's what we heard from the NDP.

There was never any talk from the NDP…. Not once did we ever hear them say: "Maybe we ought to pay down some debt. Maybe we should put some aside for a rainy day." There was none of that. It was all about how we weren't spending enough — not fast enough, not big enough, not soon enough. That's all we heard from the NDP.

So what did we do? We reduced the operating debt….

Interjections.

[1530]

Hon. K. Falcon: The members opposite should know that they will get their time. I've sat and I've listened to them go on with their drivel hour after hour, and I'm afraid they're going to have to listen to facts. I know that the facts are uncomfortable to the NDP. But these are actual facts, because when the government talks about this, we know we're going to be held to account, we know that it's going to be in Hansard , and we'll say what is exactly a fact.

I know it's uncomfortable for the NDP. I know in the dour, negative, unhappy world of the socialists, this is a difficult message to hear. But they're going to have to hear it, because it's actual facts.

[S. Hammell in the chair.]

So what did we do? We had surplus budgets. We paid down the operating debt 47 percent. That's $7.4 billion over the last five years. The NDP wanted us to spend all that. They didn't say that was a good thing. They didn't say: "Congratulations, government, for paying down that operating debt we ran up." They said we should be spending more on every other thing that they could dream up.

We created 400,000 new jobs in the province of British Columbia. We restored British Columbia's credit rating to triple-A. B.C., Alberta and the federal government are the only governments with triple-A credit rating in the country today. We are proud of that record.

Remember, when the NDP were in power, in addition to having the highest personal income tax rates in North America, they also thought it made sense to tax

[ Page 13645 ]

the lowest-income people in the province. One of the things we did was eliminate all taxes for those earning $16,000 and less.

In the NDP government days they thought it was appropriate to tax a single mother earning $13,000 or $14,000 a year. They felt it was important that they take money out of her pocket and spend it on their wild spending plans that drove this economy into debt and deficit. We decided that didn't make any sense, and we eliminated all provincial tax for those earning $16,000 and less.

As we go forward, the challenges that we face as a province are real, and they are significant. What is happening around the world today is very, very challenging for governments — not just here, not just in Canada, but in the United States, in Europe and around the world.

But I am amazed to find, as I've listened to the debate, that nothing has changed on the NDP side of the benches. They're still talking about imposing a billion dollars of new taxes on the oil and gas sector, thereby bringing to the knees one of the great revenue generators for the province of British Columbia. They're still talking about imposing over $400 million in new costs on small business, therefore just wiping out — chopping off at the knees — a sector that is so responsible for instilling confidence and for hiring people.

Just last week I heard their ferry critics, in the wake of our 33 percent fare reduction that we had in place for two months as part of the Premier's economic stimulus plan to try and put a shot in the arm for ferry-dependent communities over the holidays….

Interjection.

Hon. K. Falcon: Well, we've got a member…. The member from the Sunshine Coast is yammering away over there. This is a member that was coming to me complaining about the fact about fares….

Deputy Speaker: Minister, we don't refer to people whether they're in or out of the House.

Hon. K. Falcon: Some of the coastal ferry-dependent community MLAs have been whining about the fact that as part of the Premier's ten-point plan, we had a 33 percent fare reduction for two months. When the 33 percent fare promotion ended, there was a further 5 percent reduction in fares — quite happily — on the minor routes, including those from which some of the members heckle. Not only have all the fuel surcharges been taken off, but there was a further reduction of 5 percent for the benefit of the minor routes.

But I heard the ferry critic — in the midst, remind yourselves, of one of the most challenging economic circumstances we've faced — criticizing us for taking it off and saying that it should stay in place permanently. So in the drop of a hat the NDP ferries critic just made a spending commitment that will be at least $150 million a year.

It's like the NDP have their foot stuck on the spending accelerator, and they just don't know how to lift it. They don't understand that the world has changed 100 percent from just the last few months. Yet that was only a week ago that we heard the NDP talking about how the government should commit itself to $150 million more annually for years on end. It's just incredible.

[1535]

So what are we going to do? We're going to invest wisely. We're going to invest in projects that are going to have medium- and long-term economic impact positively for the province of British Columbia. That's why we're moving forward with investments in the Cariboo connector to open up that important corridor from Cache Creek to Prince George — over $100 million worth of projects underway this year alone. We are going to continue investing in the Kicking Horse Canyon — over $200 million to date, opening up that critical transportation corridor from British Columbia to the rest of Canada.

Again, projects that the NDP have opposed. The William Bennett Bridge, the new bridge again opening up ahead of

schedule on budget — very important for the communities of the Interior. Again, a project that we heard consistent opposition….

The Sea to Sky Highway, a project I just visited for the 80 percent milestone in terms of the completion. They're going to be finished ahead of

schedule on budget — again, a project that has employed thousands of British Columbians, one of the most successful major complex transportation projects ever being delivered in this province, and the NDP continue to oppose the Sea to Sky Highway.

But there are three others I want to mention, because I think what distinguishes this government from the opposition is that when we say we're going to do something, we actually do it. Whether it's saying that we're going to balance the budget within our first three years of our term and doing it or whether it's when we say we're going to build a piece of infrastructure — a road and a bridge — we will actually do it.

Under the NDP, they promised multiple promises. They promised on multiple occasions a new Pitt River bridge for the northeast sector of the Lower Mainland. They never delivered on it. Today we said we would do it. It is under construction. It is ahead of schedule. It's a $200 million seven-lane bridge that's going to open up opportunities for the northeastern part of the Lower Mainland for many decades to come.

Then there's the Port Mann Bridge. The NDP promised a new Port Mann bridge multiple times in the 1990s. I could read the quotes right into Hansard . Multiple times. And whatever happened to that? They did not deliver at

[ Page 13646 ]

all. So what did we say we're going to do? We said we're going to do it. The NDP opposed it. In fact, the Leader of the Official Opposition, for the first time that I can recall, actually took a position on a major project, and she said: "Wrong bridge, wrong plan."

I was excited about that because that's the first time I'd ever seen her take a position. But that position is now, I guess you would say in political terms, evolving. It would appear that maybe the Leader of the Opposition isn't quite so steadfast in her opposition to building this bridge.

But you know what? That isn't leadership. That's not leadership. That's just putting your finger up in the wind and saying: "Uh-oh. I realize everyone in the Lower Mainland wants this done. Maybe I'd better change my position on that." But I'll tell you this. We're building the Port Mann Bridge. Those 8,000 jobs are going to be important for the Lower Mainland. That corridor is important for the province of British Columbia. It's important to the Pacific gateway, and that's why we're moving forward.

On the South Fraser perimeter road, another project the NDP promised in the '90s…. It's been called for, for over 20 years as part of all the local and regional plans that have been in the Lower Mainland for many, many years, and we've got the member for Delta North in the NDP just in the last couple of months leading a protest against it. They're against that project.

Well, I can tell you today that it is under construction. There are hundreds of British Columbians at work because we said we're getting it done. We didn't waver in the opposition that the NDP had against that project and every other economic development project, and ladies and gentlemen, right now is exactly the right time we should be building those projects.

We need the jobs. We need those jobs. We need that economic development. Thankfully, we have a Premier who is a leader, who actually does have a vision, who says when he lays out that vision that he follows that vision, which builds the projects that we say we're going to build. When the Premier says that we're going to get a project like the South Fraser perimeter road or the Port Mann or the Cariboo connector or the William Bennett Bridge or the Kicking Horse Canyon, we get it done in spite of the opposition of that NDP.

I sit in this House, and I listened to the previous speaker, the NDP member for Alberni-Qualicum. He mocks the fact that the Premier was losing sleep over the decision we had to make to come forward before the House and say to the people of British Columbia that we are going to have to incur deficits for the next two years. He mocks that. He says he can't believe the Premier would lose sleep over that.

Well, I get that the NDP would never lose sleep about debt and deficits. They proved that more than enough in their decade of disastrous management in the 1990s when they doubled debt and ran up deficits every year but one. I totally understand that. But you know, it is important that the public know that it should be difficult. We designed the Balanced Budget and Ministerial Accountability Act to make it difficult for government.

[1540]

We wanted to make sure that if a government was going to make a decision to be bringing forward a bill like this, they would have to do it transparently and openly, and they would have to do it in the Legislature in front of the people of the province of British Columbia.

That is what we are doing today. With the Finance Statutes (Deficit Authorization and Debt Elimination) Amendment Act, we are doing that. I am proud of the fact that we are doing that. It is not an easy decision, but it is the right decision because it follows in a long tradition of our belief in government that there has to be a restoration of financial credibility in this province after the decade we saw in the 1990s.

The fact that we have to move forward over the next couple of years with temporary deficits is not something we are proud of, but it is something that we have said to the public of B.C. is necessary. It is necessary for us to maintain the services that we've put in place. It's necessary for us as we go forward as a province because we need to make very strategic investments now more than ever to invest in the economy, to invest in jobs and to invest in the future of the province of British Columbia.

We said we would come out of this within two years. Now, the NDP — and I heard them — have talked about: "Oh, oh." They're mocking that. "They say they'll come back in two years. They never will."

Well, that might have some resonance if we weren't the government that said we would balance the budget in our first term within three years and did it. It might have some resonance if we weren't the government that said we were going to build major projects, and we did them. It might have some resonance if we weren't the government that on occasion after occasion after occasion have said we were going to do things and have followed through and got them done.

I know it's an uncomfortable message for the members opposite, but right now in British Columbia what we really do need is leadership. We need economic stewardship of this province and leadership that will get us through these difficult times and will move us forward as we go forward to the good times when they return.

I can only think of the Olympics and the benefit that that is going to be at the most unbelievable time for British Columbia. Here is a time when we have an event taking place in British Columbia that is going to be celebrated as one of the great successes.

Interjection.

Hon. K. Falcon: I hear a voice over there saying: "What is the cost?" Well, Member, why don't we just take a look

[ Page 13647 ]

at that for a moment? Actually, the cost is $580 million for all the venues, and this is one of the only jurisdictions hosting an Olympics to have the venues in place, built a year ahead of

schedule in place for the Olympics.

They hang their hat on the fact that we've acknowledged a long time ago, at least a year ago, that the security costs are going to be more. Oh, they just wring, and they cry, and they talk about how the end of the world is coming. They can't deal with the fact that we are going to host an incredible event.

It's not just that we're hosting an incredible event. It just is that the timing of this event could not be better for the province of British Columbia. At a time when the economy could use a real shot in the arm, we will be seeing investments on a daily basis of about $3 million to $4 million every single day in British Columbia as we lead up to those Olympics.

The $4 billion that's being invested in this province is going to generate jobs and confidence. It's going to give us exposure around the world like we could never, ever possibly have imagined that British Columbia could have. It's Expo times one hundred.

Ironically enough, the NDP opposed Expo 86 too. Not a great surprise. They opposed the Olympics too. But they oppose every significant project that is an economic generator for the province of British Columbia.

Ladies and gentlemen, now is the time for leadership. It is a time in British Columbia where we do need strong leadership, where we've got a Premier who's not afraid to lead, who has stayed focused on the economy during the times when the opposition was telling us that we need to spend on every last-minute thought that popped into their head without any plan, without any vision, without any economic plan.

We have an economic plan. We're going to continue to follow that plan. We're going to deal with the challenges that we're facing now. British Columbia, of all the jurisdictions across North America, is the best-positioned to deal with this as we go forward.

Madam Speaker, as I conclude, let me just say that we are at a time that is challenging all of us as British Columbians. It is going to be a very difficult and challenging time. I think it's at a time like this, actually, when records do become very important. It is important for the public to look at records — the record of this government and our commitments, how we followed through, the financial discipline, the financial management, the paying down of debt, the restoration of a triple-A credit rating and surplus budgets.

Then there's the record of the NDP in the '90s — a record of deficits every single year during some of the greatest economic times around the world, a doubling of the debt, financial mismanagement from fast ferries to you know what. It just went on and on. That is the record that British Columbians are going to be thinking about.

[1545]

That is their economic record that we're going to oppose and make sure we continue to steer the ship of British Columbia through these stormy waters and make sure that we go forward in a confident position so that we can challenge the best in British Columbians and that as the economy recovers, British Columbia will be there leading the country as we move forward.

N. Simons: I thank the minister for his comments — some of them reasoned, some of them based on fact, some of them entertaining, some of them less so.

I think it's important to start by pointing out some of the hypocrisy of his statements, but those will probably come up as I speak. He said that when they say they're going to do something, they're going to do it. But we're here debating a bill that says: "We're not going to do what we said we were going to do."

In fact, it's the complete opposite of what that minister just told the House and told the people of British Columbia — that, in fact, we're going to pass a law because it sounds like good public relations, that we're never going to have a deficit, and then make a big brouhaha over that. When the time comes, when the people of British Columbia need to be protected by some of the economic forces that exist in this world, then you have to change the law.

I think some of the affront that is felt by the people of British Columbia is due to the fact that they so confidently, so arrogantly said that they would be good financial managers, and we've seen a litany of examples where that is just simply not the case.

The discomfort we have with this particular session is due to the fact that we shouldn't really be here. We're here only because we have to change a bad law that they made six years ago, which they broke every year in a row by allowing every single minister to overspend when they were told…. What part of the ministerial accountability part?

Every single year they came into this House and changed the rules. The law was bad when they passed it, and the people of British Columbia were reminded year after year that it was bad legislation in the first place.

So here we are again making another excuse. I remember pitching a ball to my little sister, playing ball — you know, strike one, strike two. You give them an extra few, you know. But this is a government that's giving themselves an extra few. We're here. We're in a difficult economic time. We all recognize that. We all recognize that we have to protect the people of British Columbia from the forces that are stronger than this government is able to handle, and that's understandable.

But let me ask this: how is it that we've emerged at this time in this province in such a terrible state after having gone through a period of time when our economy was doing well due to circumstances that are far beyond not only the control but the understanding of this government?

[ Page 13648 ]

My suggestion to this government is that they stop doing this public relations exercise and start thinking about what's important for the people of British Columbia. We're in this session today and talking about Bill 48 today because their previous legislation was bad legislation to start with. It was public relations. It was based on the fact that they wanted to do style over substance, and the minister proudly talks about the cuts that he had to make in 2001-2002.

Deputy Speaker: Member, through the Speaker.

N. Simons: Madam Speaker, I know the acoustics in this place are good, and I know that the sound bounces around, but I should make eye contact with you. Thank you for the reminder.

What we have in front of us is Bill 48. Actually, I would like to correct the previous speaker. The reason that we're here is that we're pointing out to the people of British Columbia the fundamental hypocrisy of this government in its most pure and obvious form.

The legislation they passed back in 2003, I believe it was, which we are now changing completely for two years, was simply based on trying to endear themselves to the people of the province — mostly their friends in the province.

We remember the core review. We remember what this government did to the services, to the people of British Columbia. He can proudly state that he was the minister responsible for deregulation and that the deregulation sprint award was given to the Ministry of Children and Families.

[1550]

Despite the fact that we have example after example of how children's lives were not just badly affected, but worse than that, the government has shown no contrition. In fact, they spent three years arguing that everything they did was okay when we know, and the people of British Columbia know, that they were irresponsible with the cuts that they made. Those cuts were made simply to please their friends and try and endear themselves to a British Columbia population who knows better — thankfully, who knows better.

We're here because we're fixing some bad legislation, albeit temporarily. Their public relations exercise was a bad public relations exercise, and I hope that in the future they recognize that — that they stop themselves from touting legislation that purports to serve British Columbians. They should think into the future that perhaps one day they might have to come back here and hang their heads down and recognize that really all they're doing is trying to address something that was absolutely hypocritical in the first place.

We do talk about the Premier recently saying that he was going to lose sleep over the fact that we were going to run a deficit. Let's recognize one thing. There are children in the province who lose sleep because they know that their government has essentially abandoned their needs. They've abandoned their needs when they're taking an hour and a half to get to school and back. They've abandoned their needs when they're sitting on waiting lists to get assessments for special needs.

They've abandoned the children in this province when they've cut social services to such a degree that it's almost impossible for social workers to keep up with the demand. They've abandoned children in this province because we lead the country again — for the sixth year, mind you — in child poverty in Canada. You know, I take no pride in saying this. I am not glad that this is the case, but I'm saying it's the responsibility of government to address these issues.

Why don't you lose sleep? Why don't you lose sleep when you know for a fact that children in this province are suffering? They're suffering not because they're hungry, but partly because they're hungry because they can't afford healthy food, because they're living in mouldy houses, because they're living without support to their parents who need it.

Addictions services have been cut. Services for mental health have been cut. People who live on the street are relatives of these children. We are all responsible, but nobody loses sleep over that. That's why we bring it up. We're not mocking the fact that he's losing sleep. It's too bad he's losing sleep. If he had more sleep, maybe he'd be able to think more appropriately about the needs of British Columbians.

I don't want him to lose sleep. I don't want the Premier to lose sleep, but I would like him to at least — instead of pretending and instead of shedding alligator tears over the fact that he has to come back and fix a problem that he created for himself — deal with the issues facing British Columbians. We are already….

Interjection.

N. Simons: The member from somewhere on my left here is deciding that he's got something to say. I heard what he had to say, and all it was, was justifying his government's position — his untenable position — to change a law on a whim instead of actually thinking about the legislation before it came before the House in the first place.

I think we need to do what we have to do to protect British Columbians, because for the last number of years their needs have been put second. Their needs have been subservient to the needs of the friends of this government, the people who they gave corporate tax breaks to, the banks that got deals from them.

Meanwhile all across this province we've seen courthouses close, we've seen elementary schools close, we've seen classes overcrowded, and we've seen hospital beds that are full. The list is almost…. It's too long to say

[ Page 13649 ]

in the half hour that I've got, but the people of British Columbia know that this government's priorities have not included them.

They've included the people who pay them to get elected, the people who pay them to be part of the inside circle, the inner circle where regular British Columbians don't belong. I'm sorry, but Bill 48 should be just that. It should be a sign that says this government is all about public relations and not about substance.

[1555]

Unfortunately, that's the message that people have to put up with, but they know there are better days coming. There are better days coming, when a government will be in place in this province that actually cares about the people first. That shouldn't be a dream. That should be something we all attempted to achieve.

There are a number of things that concern me about this legislation because of the fact that it shouldn't have to be before our House today. We should be talking about how to address the needs of the population and not have to be fixing the mistakes, coming back and rewriting an exam. They should have studied the first time.

How many chances do they get? I think they've struck out. I don't think I'm going to pitch them another softball so they can try to hit it. I think they're out. They should go back to the dugout. They should go back to their dugout or maybe even to their showers.

I say it's time to call in a pinch-hitter. It's time to call in a whole new team, and that whole new team will not include members from this government.

If you want to look at government waste, we can look no further than the Minister of Children and Families and the mess that's been created in that ministry, the mess that started the first day they decided to deregulate everything. We know of the tragedies that occurred due to that, but we also have to recognize that a lot of money has been spent going after vainglorious titles and new relationship shimmer.

The truth of the matter is that first nations are in no better position today because of this government in terms of child welfare. They are in no better condition today, nor are any other children in this province.

They spent $30 million regionalizing services, and then they stopped that dead in its track. Thirty million dollars — I know that would go a long way to reduce wait-lists for children with special needs who need to have an assessment in order to access services.

Those are children that I meet on a daily basis. Those are parents who are worried for their children. Parents and their families know that it's this government's priorities that have left them at the back of the bus. It's this government's priorities that have left their children at the back of the bus, and it's this government's priorities that are continuing to cause hardship to people all across this province.

Interjection.

N. Simons: Oh, and the Minister of Transportation also mentioned something earlier, and I know I put him off….

Deputy Speaker: Member, you don't allude to whether somebody is in the House or out.

N. Simons: Madam Speaker, I apologize if I made any allusion to that. I don't know whether he's in this House or not.

The Minister of Transportation earlier stated that this 33 percent cut in ferry costs for two months…. Let's put that into perspective. For years and years this minister has been telling people in my community: "If you've got a problem with ferries, go to the commissioner." The commissioner says: "If you've got a problem with ferries, go to the CEO of B.C. Ferries." The CEO says: "Go back to the minister." It's like we're running around in circles, because nobody took responsibility until last year, when there was an economic downturn and they decided to give us a present for two months — a 33 percent reduction.

The minister should also know this. The people of Powell River–Sunshine Coast and the retailers of Powell River–Sunshine Coast would have liked to have been consulted. They would have liked to have been consulted. You wouldn't do it at the time of the highest retail sales, when you were encouraging people to shop in the Lower Mainland or on the Island.

The minister should know that, if he only asked. But did he? No, because he's got nothing to do with ferries until it's some sort of particular opportunity to make himself look good. Well, good luck, because that ain't going to do it — a 33 percent reduction.

Part of that ten-point economic plan, I might add, included the restoration of two sailings. Oh, that'll do. Yeah, that'll really help us in this economic time. Oh, are we finished with the economic crisis? Is that two-month shot in the arm going to do anything for any lasting period of time? I don't think so.

If the minister can intervene in B.C. Ferries for two months, he should be able to do it for a little bit longer. But he's failed not only coastal communities. He hasn't just failed the people of British Columbia. He's failed, specifically, the people of the coastal communities. And you know what? If he bothered to ask the community members, they would have said: "If you're going to encourage people to shop off the coast, don't do it at our most important time. We get a lot of our revenue during the Christmas period."

[1600]

He reduced fares by 33 percent. I'm sure that it encouraged people to visit their families, and there's nothing I would have encouraged more. But it also encouraged them to do their Christmas shopping off the coast, and I don't think that the retailers who have spoken to me

[ Page 13650 ]

or the chambers of commerce or the people in business said that that was a good idea, because they didn't talk to the people of Powell River–Sunshine Coast.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Order, order.

N. Simons: Instead of offering a discount during the most important time of the retail cycle….

Interjections.

N. Simons: If the members opposite would maybe stop and listen for a moment, they would understand.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members. Members.

Interjection.

Deputy Speaker: Minister.

N. Simons: I'm not in any way suggesting telling the minister what he should and shouldn't do. I'm suggesting that when he makes decisions that have a huge impact on the people of