2005 Legislative Session: First 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, SEPTEMBER 21, 2005

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 1, Number 12

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Page

Introductions by Members

Introduction and First

Reading of Bills

Northern Development Initiative

Trust Amendment Act, 2005 (Bill 6)

North Island-Coast Development

Initiative Trust Act (Bill 7)

Southern Interior Development

Initiative Trust Act (Bill 8)

Hon. C.

Hansen

Greater Vancouver Transportation

Authority Amendment Act, 2005 (Bill 9)

Hon. K.

Falcon

Statements (Standing Order

25 B )

Langley Family Services

M. Polak

First nations and mountain pine

beetle strategy

Simpson

Mining industry in B.C.

MacKay

Events in Maple Ridge–Pitt

Meadows area

Sather

Union of B.C. Municipalities

R. Hawes

International Day of Peace

Gentner

Oral Questions

Funding of aboriginal planning

committees for child and family services

C. James

Hon. S.

Hagen

Funding for aboriginal child

protection on Vancouver Island

Fraser

Hon. S.

Hagen

Review of death of Sherry Charlie

Horgan

Hon. W.

Oppal

Karagianis

Fleming

L. Krog

J. Kwan

Hon. S.

Hagen

Independence of child and youth

officer

Thorne

Hon. W.

Oppal

Farnworth

Aquaculture on north coast

G. Coons

Hon. P.

Bell

Tabling Documents

Property

Assessment Appeal Board, annual report, 2004

Second Reading of Bills

Supply Act (No. 2), 2005

(Bill 5)

Hon. C. Taylor

J. Kwan

J. Horgan

Budget Debate (continued)

J. Brar

G. Robertson

H. Bloy

S. Fraser

Hon. S. Bond

[ Page 223 ]

WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 21, 2005

The House met at 2:02 p.m.

Prayers.

Introductions by Members

C. James: It is my joy — no pun intended — to introduce our

guest here in the Legislature today — a guest that, in fact, needs no

introduction: a former leader of our party, a former MLA for Vancouver-Hastings,

and someone whose presence will always be felt in this House. I just want to

reassure the members on the other side — to let you know that I did talk to her

about the new kind of tone in the Legislature before she came in today. So I

would like all of us to please give a warm welcome to Joy MacPhail.

An Hon. Member: Exactly.

Hon. G. Campbell: Actually, that's exactly what I was going

to say to the Leader of the Opposition.

I recognize also that former Premier Dan Miller joins us today. It

is important for both Mr. Miller and Ms. MacPhail, who when they were sitting on

this side of the House were very aggressive, to know those are the quiet seats

for today.

I should say on behalf of this side of the House that in spite of

the fact that we often had disagreements, we recognize the contributions that

both of them have made, and we hope that they'll come back regularly.

B. Simpson: On behalf of my colleague the member for

Cariboo South, I would like to welcome Rob Taylor today. Rob is a grades four

and five teacher from Nesika Elementary in Williams Lake, and he's also a member

of the BCTF Professional Issues Advisory Committee. I would like the members of

the House to make Rob feel welcome.

[1405]

Hon. B. Bennett: In the House today there are approximately

95 representatives from B.C.'s mining industry. I won't introduce all of them.

From the Mining Association of B.C.: the chairman, Mr. Terry Lyons; the

president and CEO, Mr. Michael McPhie. We have some representatives from the

mining supply companies. There's Dave Sharples from Transwest Mining, Gerry West

of Molycop Canada and Penny Alms from B.C. Bearing.

We have also with us from mining communities Councillor Roy Grant

from Campbell River, Mayor Jack Peake from Lake Cowichan and some first nations

representatives: Chief Gerry Asp; Chief Robert Pollard; Jodie Dick, who's from

the Campbell River band; and Chief Stan Dixon from the Sechelt Indian band.

Please help me make all these folks welcome.

H. Lali: Visiting us in the gallery today is Rick Ferguson

from Merritt. Rick Ferguson is a good friend of mine. He's also been past

president of the Nicola Valley Teachers Union there. Presently he is teaching at

the directed studies school in Merritt. Would the House please give a warm

Victoria welcome to my friend Rick Ferguson.

Hon. G. Abbott: It's my pleasure today to introduce to the

House Dr. Don Nixdorf, who is the executive director of the B.C. Chiropractic

Association. I understand that Mr. Nixdorf has held that position for some 20

years, and I'd like the House to make him welcome.

D. Cubberley: With us today in the gallery is Ann-Louise

McFarland, who is a resident of my constituency, Saanich South. She is a French

immersion teacher and department head at Stelly's Secondary, which members know

was recently named as one of the top ten schools in Canada on the Maclean's

list. She is also a member of the BCTF Professional Issues Advisory Committee

and co-chair of the provincial specialist association. Would the House join me

in making her welcome today.

R. Lee : Today I would like to introduce the International

Presidents and Directors of ISE Cards. They have travelled from the U.S.A.,

Spain, Korea and Australia to be here with us today.

ISE Cards is an international student exchange identity card which

maintains membership with a variety of organizations dedicated to assisting

students and full-time faculty members in a variety of ways, including travel

and emergency medical support. Memberships include the Council for Advancement

and Support of Education, and it's a supporter of UNICEF.

Would the House please join me in welcoming Franz Jost, Cammi

Hawker, Niles Hawker, Shawnna Wishman, Sarah Horton, Ignazio Imaz, Richard

Weibelzahl, Allyson Weibelzahl, Joon Sung Han, Sunhee Kang and Andrew Piercey.

N. Macdonald: It's my pleasure to introduce to you a fellow

resident of Columbia River–Revelstoke and a fellow educator. Bob Wilson is here

to speak with members on education issues as a representative of the BCTF. I

know him as a long-time-serving member of the Golden Teachers Association

Professional Development Committee. Would the House join me in making him feel

welcome, please.

B. Lekstrom: It is certainly a day full of introductions. It's

my pleasure today to welcome a guest from the wonderful riding of Peace River

South and my hometown of Dawson Creek. Charlene Hodgson is down all the way from

the beautiful Peace country. Will the House please make her welcome.

D. Routley: Visiting us in the House today are members from

the Cowichan Valley Red Hat Belles Society. I would like the House to join me in

making them welcome.

[1410]

G. Hogg: We have two special guests in the House today. One

is special not just because he's from Surrey, but he's celebrating his birthday

today. What better way to celebrate your birthday than to come to the

[ Page 224 ]

House and to bring your mother? Would the House please welcome Kevin Wilson

and his mother Sherrill Wilson from Calgary.

D. Chudnovsky: I've noticed a number of other teachers in

the House today — three people who have given great service to the children of

B.C. and are also very good friends of mine. Would the House please welcome

Michael Schratter, Marion Runcie and Geoff Peters.

Hon. P. Bell: It's such a joy to see all of our friends

from the mining industry here today. It brings back many fond memories. But of

particular note, from Prince George, I'd like to welcome David Livingston to the

House. Would the House please join me in making him welcome.

C. Evans: On behalf of our leader and the opposition

caucus, I'd like to express our welcome to the members of the Mining

Association. Thanks for the visit we had earlier today. As a representative from

towns like Kaslo, Silverton, New Denver and Nelson, which would not exist

without the mining industry, I'd like to say thanks for helping me get a job.

Hon. M. de Jong: In the gallery today is a friend of mine,

Alice Ethier. Some 40 years ago she had the good fortune to give birth to a son

David and the misfortune to have to put up with his friends for the next 20 or

30 years. She's here with the Red Hatters group. I hope members will make her

and her group feel very welcome.

Also, I notice in the House today — he was here a couple of days

ago, and we neglected to draw that to members' attention — a certain legislative

officer, Mr. H.A.D. Oliver, the Conflict-of-Interest Commissioner. He is one

individual that none of us wants to offend. I would like to welcome him here and

thank him for his years of service and continued service to all members of the

House.

J. Horgan: I realize the Premier has already made this

introduction, but I didn't want to miss the opportunity to say that the first

time I was in this House, I was passing notes to the former member for North

Coast to make him look good. Now I see him here today, and I'm hopeful it's not

for him to pass me notes for the same reason. Good to see you.

Mr. Speaker: Anybody who failed to be introduced, I'd like

to welcome you.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT INITIATIVE

TRUST AMENDMENT ACT, 2005

Hon. C. Hansen presented a message from His Honour the

Administrator: a bill intituled Northern Development Initiative Trust Amendment

Act, 2005.

Hon. C. Hansen: Mr. Speaker, I move that Bill 6 be

introduced and read for a first time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. C. Hansen: I'm pleased to introduce Bill 6, the

Northern Development Initiative Trust Amendment Act, 2005. With this bill the

northern development initiative trust legislation is being amended to improve

the initiative's public accountability and governance. Provision is made to

include agriculture within the sectors eligible to receive development funding

through the initiative's cross-regional account. The bill also enables $50

million in additional northern development initiative funding, which includes

$30 million for recovery projects to help northern communities mitigate the

effects of the mountain pine beetle infestation and $20 million divided equally

amongst the four northern development initiative regional accounts located in

the Peace, Prince George, northwest and the Cariboo-Chilcotin-Lillooet regions

for development projects.

The government has made it a priority to help diversify the

economy of northern British Columbia through the northern development

initiative. The investments that northern British Columbians make with the

moneys will help to generate economic growth in northern B.C. for many

generations to come.

[1415]

I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second

reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 6, Northern Development Initiative Trust Amendment Act, 2005,

introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for

second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

NORTH ISLAND-COAST DEVELOPMENT

INITIATIVE TRUST ACT

Hon. C. Hansen presented a message from His Honour the

Administrator: a bill intituled North Island-Coast Development Initiative Trust

Act.

Hon. C. Hansen: I move that Bill 7 be introduced and read a

first time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. C. Hansen: I am pleased to introduce Bill 7, the North

Island-Coast Development Initiative Trust Act. The bill establishes a new $50

million trust independent of government for communities located north of the

Malahat on Vancouver Island and on the Sunshine Coast.

Its purpose is to support strategic investments in regional

priorities to increase economic growth and create more jobs for families. Under

the act the trust will function as a corporation with regional advisory

committees and a trust board to manage and administer the regional account to

support investment in the following areas: forestry, transportation, tourism,

mining, Olympic opportunities, small business, economic development, energy and

agriculture.

[ Page 225 ]

The government funding provision to the north island–coast

development initiative is a one-time allocation of $50 million. The new trust is

about giving communities the resources and tools they want to pursue their

priorities. The residents of Vancouver Island and the Sunshine Coast will have

control of the initiative. They will identify the opportunities and make

decisions, and they will reap the economic benefits with more jobs and a

stronger sustainable economy.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the bill be placed on orders of the day

for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 7, North Island-Coast Development Initiative Trust Act,

introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for

second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

SOUTHERN INTERIOR DEVELOPMENT

INITIATIVE TRUST ACT

Hon. C. Hansen presented a message from His Honour the

Administrator: a bill intituled Southern Interior Development Initiative Trust

Act.

Hon. C. Hansen: I move that Bill 8 be introduced and read a

first time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. C. Hansen: I'm pleased to introduce Bill 8, which is

the Southern Interior Development Initiative Trust Act.

With this bill we are delivering on our commitment to establish a

$50 million development initiative trust independent of government for

communities located in the southern interior. This government funding provision

is also a one-time allocation of $50 million to help the southern interior

create regional economic growth and jobs based on local priorities. It is the

southern interior communities who will invest in, manage and leverage the funds

to the benefit of their region.

Under the act, the trust will function free of political

interference as a corporation with regional advisory committees and a trust

board, as was the case in the other fund, and again, to provide support in

investments in the same areas: forestry, transportation, tourism, mining,

Olympic opportunities, small business, economic development, energy and

agriculture.

The southern interior development initiative is part of a series

of new measures to re-invest $300 million into opportunities across British

Columbia. The economic investments made by the southern interior communities

through the initiative trust will generate significant economic growth

throughout this region for many generations to come.

I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second

reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 8, Southern Interior Development Initiative Trust Act,

introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for

second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

[1420]

GREATER VANCOUVER TRANSPORTATION

AUTHORITY AMENDMENT ACT, 2005

Hon. K. Falcon presented a message from Her Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority

Amendment Act, 2005.

Hon. K. Falcon: Mr. Speaker, I move that the bill be

introduced and read a first time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. K. Falcon: Today I'm introducing Bill 9, the Greater

Vancouver Transportation Authority Amendment Act, 2005. Amendments contained in

this act help TransLink implement its strategic transportation plan. TransLink

was created in 1998 and is responsible for the provision of public

transportation infrastructure and services in the Greater Vancouver Regional

District. The Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority Act, which is

TransLink's enabling legislation, also introduced in 1998, provides for a

variety of revenue sources for TransLink, including a parking-area tax, all of

which support public transit operations and system improvements.

In 2003 TransLink approached the province and asked that the

parking-area tax provisions of the Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority

Act be amended to correct deficiencies in authority, structure and process

contained in the original act when enacted in 1998. To do this, certain

amendments were enacted last fall creating a parking site role for B.C.

Assessment. The remaining amendments contained in Bill 9 complete the legal

framework necessary for TransLink to proceed with the implementation of the

parking-area tax at their discretion.

I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second

reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 9, Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority

Amendment Act, 2005, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on

orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after

today.

Statements

(Standing Order 25

b) LANGLEY FAMILY SERVICES

M. Polak: Today I want to tell the members of the House

about a wonderful organization in the riding of Langley, which I serve, that has

had the opportunity to take a terrible tragedy in the summer, and by now, in the

fall, turn it into a real triumph.

[ Page 226 ]

On June 23 my cell phone went off about seven in the morning and a

very frazzled president of Langley Family Services advised me that the main

building in their complex was, at that moment, burning to the ground. I hopped

in my car, looking a little bit dishevelled, and made it out to find a group of

us standing around looking at the destruction and realizing that that morning

there would be a large number of families and other people in need who would be

looking for the continued services that Langley Family Services provides.

In fact, for the past 24 years Langley Family Services has been

providing counselling and support to families in the Langley area with a wide

range of services, such as ESL and multicultural programs, drug addiction

counselling and a very popular family place drop-in centre.

I'm pleased to report to the House that within a few short hours

the president, the board of directors and the executive director of Langley

Family Services had acted quickly enough that by the end of that day they had a

location where they could operate, and they were beginning to raise funds within

the community. Working together with the Ministry of Children and Family

Development, this government was able to step in with an emergency grant of

$37,928 to help with that recovery.

They have now launched a major fundraising drive for $500,000 by

selling bricks that they hope to resemble the rebuilding that will take place on

their site. I hope they have the best success possible with their fundraising

efforts. I'm confident the community of Langley is behind them and that they

will succeed. I hope the House would congratulate them on taking a tragedy and

indeed turning it into a triumph.

FIRST NATIONS AND

MOUNTAIN PINE BEETLE STRATEGY

B. Simpson: This past Monday the hon. member for

Alberni-Qualicum and I were privileged to attend the first nations conference on

the mountain pine beetle epidemic in Prince George. The major impetus for the

Carrier Sekani tribal council to convene this emergency forum was the provincial

government's failure to consult with them on the government's plan for the

spending of the $100 million in federal funds. Rather than consulting with them

on what the money might be used for, the provincial government came to the

tribal council with a draft plan which had little to offer first nations

communities in direct assistance.

Therefore, one of the major objectives of the first nations

emergency forum was to: "provide immediate recommendations on the provincial

government's draft plan for the $100 million in federal aid."

[1425]

Unfortunately for the 69 nations and eight first nations

organizations' representatives who gathered in good faith to develop these

recommendations, the government announced its plan for the federal $100 million

on Monday morning, a mere two hours into the forum.

B.C.'s first nations are deeply concerned about the spiritual,

economic and community impacts of the current mountain pine beetle infestation.

They have a unique perspective with which to frame an appropriate response, a

perspective steeped in history which takes a longer view of our relationship

with the ecosystems upon which we all depend, a perspective which must be heard

and must be incorporated into any actions we take to address the impacts of this

forest health challenge.

The emergency forum wrapped up yesterday with commitments from

members of this government that first nations will now be listened to and

supported in their endeavours to address the mountain pine beetles' impacts on

their communities. I was happy to attend this conference with my colleague from

Alberni-Qualicum and to be able to give those gathered our assurance that the

entire opposition caucus will be hearing their voices and echoing them back to

this government.

MINING INDUSTRY IN B.C.

D. MacKay: One of the five great goals of this B.C. Liberal

government is to create more jobs per capita than anywhere else in Canada. We

have done that. More jobs means a stronger B.C. economy to support our

communities and families. Under the NDP government during the '90s the mining

industry was decimated. During that time the number of mining jobs in the

province was cut in half, and for every mine that was opened in B.C., two

closed.

This government will not allow the mining industry to fall back to

such a deplorable state. To help the mining industry move forward, this Liberal

government unveiled the B.C. mining plan. The mining plan is based on four

cornerstones: a focus on aboriginals and communities, protection of workers and

the environment, and increasing both global competitiveness and access to land.

Mining is a $4.5 billion industry that employs 25,500 British

Columbians. For some small and rural towns the mining industry is a dominant

part of the local economies. Furthermore, mining is among the safest heavy

industries, having the best safety record in B.C. for eight of the past ten

years.

Today, Wednesday, September 21, is Mining Day. We will be meeting

with industry representatives later. I urge everyone to take advantage of this

opportunity to move the mining industry forward in British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker: I want to remind members that we want to be as

non-partisan as possible in these two-minute statements.

EVENTS IN MAPLE RIDGE–

PITT MEADOWS AREA

M. Sather: In a non-partisan vein, Maple Ridge and Pitt

Meadows are just wrapping up their 101 days of summer celebration. This

celebration, which is organized by Tourism Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadows,

features 101 events and ideas to do during June 17 to September 25. On September

17 the Meadow Ridge Rotary

[ Page 227 ]

Club held their tenth annual wine festival, featuring over 60 fine wines,

paired with cuisine from top local chefs. Included were wines from our very own

Blue Heron Winery.

Also on September 17 the Pitt Meadows Family Recreation Centre,

which is celebrating its fifth anniversary this year, held the first annual spin

relay for athletes in kind. This fundraiser goes to support families battling

cancer.

Like many communities around the nation, we, too, held our annual

Terry Fox Run on September 18. According to organizers, this year's run was the

most successful to date in terms of runners registered and money raised.

B.C. Rivers Day is a big celebration in our community. There are

celebrations taking place on September 25 at Elko and Kanaka Creek regional

parks. That day will also mark the official start of the Whonnock Fall Fair.

[1430]

Cranberry Day will be celebrated on October 8 at the Meadows Maze.

This celebration marks the gathering of the last berries of the season. The

Meadows Maze is a corn maze out in Pitt Meadows. It's a big tourist attraction.

Please do come out and see it.

Finally, fall would not be the same in Maple Ridge and Pitt

Meadows without our traditional pumpkin patch. The Laity pumpkin patch will be

open from October 1 to 31, and Heather and Don Laity do a great job. It's a

wonderful rural event that you can take advantage of, even if you live in the

city of Vancouver. We welcome you to all come out and get your pumpkin.

UNION OF B.C. MUNICIPALITIES

R. Hawes: This year marks the 100th anniversary of the

Union of B.C. Municipalities. There are many members on both sides of the House

who have served at the municipal level as mayors, councillors, regional district

chairs and regional district directors. Every single one of us knows the value

of UBCM to the people of this province. Our Premier served as the president of

UBCM in 1992-1993 and, along with all former presidents, has been honoured with

a lifetime membership.

Each year UBCM holds its annual convention, bringing together

elected officials from across the province to debate resolutions and share

ideas. Local issues are discussed in meetings between members of cabinet and

municipal officials, and there is a much broader exchange and discussion of

ideas and policy between provincial and municipal governments.

This year's convention will be held in Vancouver next week, during

which the 100th anniversary will be celebrated. For me personally, this is my

14th convention, and after attending from both the municipal and provincial

perspective, I understand firsthand the value of UBCM to both levels of

government.

Just a few of the achievements of UBCM are recognition of local

government as an order of government, a first in Canada; the Community Charter;

a variable tax rate system; MIA, or the Municipal Insurance Association of B.C.,

which was founded under UBCM; three-year election cycles; the Premier's

directive that Crown corporations will respect local zoning and land use bylaws;

and a 20-year RCMP contract renewal. Those are just a few of the many

accomplishments of UBCM.

I want to congratulate UBCM on its 100th anniversary, and I look

forward to meeting next week with many of my former municipal colleagues and

friends, just as many members in this House are. I know that this year, like

other years, will yield great progress in building a better British Columbia for

all the citizens of this province.

INTERNATIONAL DAY OF PEACE

G. Gentner: Today has been identified by the United Nations

as International Day of Peace. United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan is

calling for the worldwide observance of a 24-hour ceasefire and a day of

non-violence.

The International Day of Peace was first established in 1981 by

the UN to coincide with its opening session every September. Today observances

are being conducted by United Nations offices, general government and

non-governmental agencies worldwide, civil societies and religious groups to

promote the ideals of peace and non-violence.

In British Columbia we are somewhat detached from the horrors of

global violence. Yes, TV has brought home hostilities from abroad to our living

rooms, but we observe only a tiny broadcast of what really is happening. For

example, Africa, the forgotten continent, is undergoing atrocities of

nightmarish proportions. The Sudan, Nigeria, Somalia, Northern Uganda,

Mozambique, Malawi and Congo — one of the richest resource nations on earth, I

may add — all witness daily the carnage of villages, rapes, terrorized children

forced into camps and into battle, torture, unspeakable human rights violations

and yes, even western-supported assassinations.

I ask the members to indulge for just one moment in acknowledging

today as the International Day of Peace.

[1435]

Oral Questions

FUNDING OF ABORIGINAL

PLANNING COMMITTEES

FOR CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES

C. James: Can the Minister of Children and Family

Development tell us what impact a 66-percent reduction for the aboriginal

planning committees has had on their ability to oversee and plan for child

welfare in their communities?

Hon. S. Hagen: I'm very thankful that I have an excellent

aboriginal planning committee that offers me advice on all issues that we deal

with involving aboriginal children and their families. I can tell you that we

[ Page 228 ]

are working very closely with the regional authorities to make sure that they

have the resources they need. My deputy is in contact, as we speak, with the

authority that I'm sure the Leader of the Opposition is referring to, to see if

we can work out the differences that we have.

But having said that, I met just within the last two weeks with a

very senior level of advisory folks from the aboriginal community. I would like

to tell the House and the province of British Columbia that the relationship has

never been better.

C. James: I'd just like to provide more information to the

minister in case he's not aware of this. In March of last year your government

wrote to the aboriginal planning committee chairs and informed them that their

transition budget in 2004 would be "significantly reduced." How does that build

a good relationship? The effect was a 66-percent reduction for those planning

committees.

So again, I would like to ask the minister: was he aware that the

aboriginal planning committees had had their budgets cut by 66 percent?

Hon. S. Hagen: The budget increase for the family accord is

$105,000 for the year '05-06.

Mr. Speaker: Leader of the Opposition has a further

supplemental.

C. James: That doesn't make up for the cuts that that

minister, from his ministry, included in a letter to the aboriginal chairs. So

I'd like to try a different approach then.

In 2002 in September the Premier signed a memorandum of

understanding with aboriginal communities on child welfare. I certainly remember

that meeting, having been there. I'm sure the Premier remembers that meeting as

well. I'd like to quote from that agreement: "Aboriginal communities require

support, including the necessary capacity and resources to enable them to

develop and deliver a full range of child and family services."

As we heard in the letter to aboriginal planning committees, the

Premier has reneged on that commitment. So I'd like to ask the Premier: how can

he have confidence that the children won't be put at risk because of his

government's budget cuts?

Hon. S. Hagen: The accord that the Leader of the Opposition

is speaking about is one that we're now looking at renewing. But you know what?

We have a new relationship with first nations now and the aboriginal community

around the province, and that's what's driving us. We're totally committed to

working with the aboriginal community with regard to children and families and

all other issues — education, health care. We are working more closely with that

community than ever before.

We just announced a huge amount of money in the new budget for

working with first nations to help them build capacity. So that work is ongoing.

It's a work in progress; it's not a light switch you turn on and off. We're

working together with the aboriginal community to get to the goals that we've

set.

FUNDING FOR ABORIGINAL

CHILD PROTECTION ON

VANCOUVER ISLAND

S. Fraser: Again to the minister. The budget for the

aboriginal transition committee on Vancouver Island has been cut by two-thirds.

What evidence can the minister provide that shows the cuts won't hurt aboriginal

child welfare on Vancouver Island?

Hon. S. Hagen: As I've said previously, we're working

together with all of the regions to make sure that we have a plan and to make

sure that we have the resources to carry out that plan.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

[1440]

S. Fraser: Maybe I was not clear, Mr. Speaker.

To the minister: there is no evidence shown, because quality child

welfare is not a priority. On Vancouver Island the ministry's own budget,

including child protection, was hit very hard. Overall, a $90 million budget was

cut over the three years. We've just found out that on Vancouver Island we're

going to suffer another million-dollar loss in the next few months. That's

creating chaos. There are too few front-line workers, and there are too many

files.

Will the minister get his priorities straight and allow an

investigation into the impact that these cuts are having on the people in my

communities?

Hon. S. Hagen: I want to assure the people of British

Columbia that the item that's the top of mind for me and at the top of my agenda

is child protection for the children who I'm responsible for. This ministry's

budget over the next three years is being increased by $138 million. I would

draw the member's attention to our three-year moving service plan. We have a

plan in place. We have the resources to carry out that plan.

REVIEW OF DEATH OF SHERRY CHARLIE

J. Horgan: Yesterday the Attorney General said in question

period: "I'm completely satisfied that the terms of reference here are

exhaustive, they're thorough, and they will provide the appropriate answers and

recommendations." The Attorney General made that comment despite the fact that

the key question that was removed from the review investigation is not contained

in these terms of reference.

My question is to the Attorney General. Would he agree that this

review is more about political expediency than getting to the bottom of why this

system failed Sherry Charlie?

Hon. W. Oppal: I have, in addition to the letter — the

remarks, the directions that were given to the child

[ Page 229 ]

and youth officer — added another paragraph, and I did that after listening

to the debate here. I want to assure the hon. member that I'm interested here in

a full disclosure.

This is a terrible tragedy that's taken place. I think all members

of this House have to be interested in ensuring that something like this doesn't

happen again. I could assure the hon. member that as the chief law officer of

the province I want to make sure there is a full and comprehensive study, and a

review and recommendations by the officer.

What I've done, in addition to the remarks that you heard

yesterday, is included the following in the letter to the child and youth

office. That is: "If, in the course of conducting your investigation, you

determine that the time lines and the change in the terms of reference

materially affected the outcome of the director's case review, I would ask you

to review how the outcome was materially affected and make recommendations to

address any such impacts." The import of that is to give full and comprehensive

authority to the officer to give us a full report as to what took place so that

an incident of this proportion does not take place again.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

J. Horgan: Again to the Attorney General. I'm pleased that

he, after listening ad nauseam to the minister repeat his three-line message

box, has added some substance to the letter. We'd like to see that. I look

forward to reading the document.

My question is to the Attorney General. Was it after question

period yesterday that you resolved to get involved in this file? Did you take

the initiative on establishing this review, or were you taking direction from

somewhere else?

Hon. W. Oppal: I listened to all of the advice that I

received here in the House. I don't think, with the greatest of respect, that

this is a partisan issue. I think this is an issue that all of us ought to be

concerned with. Based on that, I took it upon myself, in full consultation with

the minister and with other members of my caucus, to include this in my

directions to the officer.

M. Karagianis: I think the previous member's question was

quite simple. It is the Attorney General's responsibility to take the initiative

under

section 6 of the act. My question is: who wrote the terms of reference?

Was it the Minister of Children and Family Development? Was it the Attorney

General? Or was it the Premier's office?

[1445]

Hon. W. Oppal:

Section 6 of the act empowers me to write

the letter and to give directions and ask for further clarifications. Pursuant

that statute, I have done that.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

M. Karagianis: If this review is about more than politics,

the child and family youth officer could be tasked with asking the question that

was removed from the investigation in the first place: the role of the ministry

and the budget cuts. Yesterday the Minister of Children and Family Development

told the media that he wrote the terms of reference for the new review. If the

Attorney General is the one with the legislative authority over the children and

youth officer, why did he, then, not set the terms of reference for this review?

Hon. W. Oppal: The statute empowers me to set the terms of

reference. The hon. member's point is well taken about political issues

involved, and that's why we've taken the unprecedented step here of inviting a

member of the opposition to take

part in the review.

R. Fleming: Let's go back to yesterday. I have a question

for the Attorney General, who was a guest on the Rafe Mair Show. Mr. Mair

asked the Attorney General about the Sherry Charlie case, and the Attorney

General said: "I'm sorry. You'll have to refresh my memory on that again." That

was his answer. The Attorney then apologized for avoiding questions about the

case because they were not in his area of responsibility. That was his answer.

That was yesterday at 9:30 in the morning, but by 2 p.m. the

Attorney General had ordered a review. My question is: what time of day did the

Attorney General get briefed on the proposed review? And who told him what the

questions would be?

Hon. W. Oppal: Nobody told me what the questions would be.

As a matter of fact, to be quite frank, I didn't hear Mr. Mair's question when

he first asked me that, and then I asked for a clarification. I didn't know the

full ambit of what was going on. Then I briefed myself, and no one told me what

to say. I'm fully capable of deciding these issues on my own.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

R. Fleming: The Minister of Children and Family Development

told this House yesterday several times that he wrote the guidelines for the

review. It's clear that the Attorney General did not create the guidelines for

the review — as is his responsibility. Did the Attorney General meet with the

Premier's issues management team, and what was their direction?

Hon. W. Oppal: I would suggest to the hon. member that he

read the act. If you read the act, it's the Attorney General who makes these

directions.

L. Krog: The Attorney General in British Columbia should

function with complete detachment and independence in matters of this nature.

What I've heard today is that there has been a great deal of consultation around

this issue. I would commend to the Attorney General a lecture given by a

predecessor, Brian Smith, QC, the former Attorney General and member from Oak

Bay. In this case it is evident that this review was created for political

purposes only. Where was the At-

[ Page 230 ]

torney General's detachment and independence when he took instructions from a

minister under political heat and the Premier's issues management team?

Hon. W. Oppal: I reviewed the file. I was asked, and as a

law enforcement officer I took the necessary steps. That was done in an

independent manner. I'll reiterate: this is not a partisan political issue. The

opposition may want to turn it into that to make points, but this is about a

child who died tragically. I want to get some of the answers, and I'm sure the

opposition does as well.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

[1450]

L. Krog: Everyone on this side of the House agrees with the

Attorney General. This is a non-partisan issue when it comes to the death of a

child. However, it is a serious issue as to how this government handled it and

what those budget cuts had to do with that issue.

It is even more important that the child and youth officer should

have complete independence from the Attorney General, without any interference

from any ministry. How can we have confidence in the words of the Attorney

General when the Attorney General himself wasn't free from political

interference in this matter? Why was this review created by an issues management

team and a minister under political heat and not by the detached and independent

Attorney General?

Hon. W. Oppal: I would recommend to the hon. member that he

read the act. If he read the terms and the workings of the child and youth

officer, the hon. member would know that that office is completely independent.

There is no suggestion at all of any type of interference. In fact, she has a

full and unfettered right to subpoena witnesses, to make recommendations and to

conduct any investigations that she so wishes.

Ms. Morley is a highly respected person in this field, well known

for her integrity and her independence. There is nothing anywhere in the

evidence to suggest that she is not independent or that her independence was

compromised in any way during this investigation or in any other investigation.

J. Kwan: It is not the case that the opposition is

questioning the integrity of Ms. Morley. The opposition is, however, questioning

the integrity of this government. If the Attorney General believes that we need

to get to the bottom of this issue and that it is a non-partisan issue, then

expand the scope of the review. We have just learned that the civil servant who

wrote the original terms of reference, and had altered the terms of reference,

had spoken to the media outlet.

He and the current assistant deputy minister may disagree on

whether the original terms of reference were broad enough to encompass ministry

cuts and their impact. But one thing is clear: he says a review of cuts is

critical for the protection of children in this province. Does the Minister of

Children and Family Development disagree with David Young, or will he now, in

light of this revelation, agree to expand the scope of the review? It was the

Minister of Children and Family Development yesterday who said he drew up the

terms of reference for this new review.

Hon. W. Oppal: The act is clear as to what the authority of

the Attorney General is. I have expanded the terms of reference so much that we

have included a member of the opposition. The opposition critic is involved, as

well as a member of the aboriginal community. If you look carefully at the

additional paragraph, one can easily see that the child and youth officer has

extremely wide parameters and a very wide discretion to do what she thinks ought

to be done for a full, proper and fair investigation.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

J. Kwan: Yes, the act is clear. But you know what? The

action taken by this government to date is as clear as mud. Let us be clear, and

let me quote David Young: "Should one do a review of the impact of all the

changes going on in the ministry and the budget reductions we were facing and

the impact that had on practice in general? I think that would be an excellent

idea." Again, to the Minister of Children and Family Development: will he just

stop this charade, accept responsibility for the chaos in his ministry and

expand the terms of reference like he should have done the first time around?

Hon. S. Hagen: First of all, I need to correct the Finance

critic from the other side of the House. In the year in question the budget for

child protection actually went up. We actually spent $57.4 million more than we

did the year before.

What we've set out to do here is to find the answers to the

questions…

[1455]

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. S. Hagen: …that are going to be asked. The role of the

child and youth officer has been expanded, as the Attorney General has pointed

out. It has been fully expanded to look at all aspects of this. We're looking

for the answers to the question. We're not afraid of asking the tough questions,

because we're not afraid of the answers. That's what the Attorney General has

asked the child and youth officer to do.

Let's not forget what we're talking about here. We're talking

about the tragic death of a child. I would

[ Page 231 ]

echo the Attorney General: please don't make this into a partisan issue just

to score political points.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. S. Hagen: This is a serious issue. We don't want to have

these things happening in British Columbia. Even though this happened three

years ago, we're still now engaged in it. We're still improving the practices of

the ministry. I might add that even though the terms of reference were changed

by a staff member in the Ministry of Children and Family Development, of the 12

recommendations brought forward in the director's review, nine of them pertained

to improvements that needed to be made in the ministry.

INDEPENDENCE OF

CHILD AND YOUTH OFFICER

D. Thorne: Everything the Minister of Children and Family

Development and the Attorney General have said so far today highlights the need

for the restoration of an independent children's commissioner with a mandate to

act independently.

The child and youth officer of British Columbia is bound by the

instructions of the Attorney General. We know that she does not have the mandate

to answer any questions except those that the minister writes for her. This

review is not independent. If it was, it would let this child and youth officer

define the scope of the review herself and address any issues in this case,

including budget cuts to the ministry. Why does this government refuse to

reinstate the fully independent Children's Commission of British Columbia?

Hon. W. Oppal: I can assure the hon. member that the officer

is independent. She operates completely independently. She has her own powers of

investigation. She can subpoena records; she can subpoena witnesses. She has an

unfettered right to do that. No one interferes in what she says, what her

recommendations are. She has that right.

Her objective is to find the truth. How can we make the system

better? That's what her objective is. I can assure the hon. member that nobody

from this side of the House has interfered in her investigation. Because of the

questions that were raised, we will order this expanded review.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

D. Thorne: Here's the reality. The former children's

commissioner would have done a truly independent investigation into Sherry

Charlie's death. The terms of reference would never have been changed. This

second review would never have been needed. If the child and youth officer of

British Columbia has an independent mandate, as the minister claims, why did he

set this narrow scope for this new review?

Hon. W. Oppal: Again I reiterate: the scope is not narrow.

If the hon. member would take the time to read the additional paragraph that I

read to the House today, one could easily see that it's not narrow. It has a

very wide scope. It gives the officer complete discretion to do practically what

she wants. You speak of a lack of independence. There's no interference.

I also want to assure the member that there's going to be a

coroner's review in this as well. A coroner will have an independent outlook and

an independent recommendation after conducting whatever review he or she will

do.

We are interested in finding out what happened. I can tell you

that I am passionately concerned about what happened in this particular case.

[1500]

M. Farnworth: The Attorney General has said some

interesting things. He says: "Practically anything that she wants." Earlier, he

said: "I want to get some of the answers." Well, the people of British Columbia

want all of the answers.

We have seen how yesterday the Minister of Children and Family

Development could not answer the questions directed at him. We have seen how the

Attorney General has said that there is independence but it deals with

practically anything. We have heard how he has said that they want some of the

answers. We have seen how the Premier's damage control unit stepped in to try

and get some control of the situation.

So our question is to the Premier. There is one way to resolve

this, and that is to restore a fully independent children's commissioner. Will

the Premier commit to that to this House today?

Hon. W. Oppal: I thought when I'd left the legal profession

that I'd left all the nitpickers behind. When I meant the word "practically," I

mean that within the ambit of the statute. Nobody can do whatever they want.

This is not a full royal commission. What I mean by "practically" is those

things that are feasible within the statute and within the meaning of our law.

When I said "some of the answers," what I meant by that — and I

would have thought any person would have logically construed it that way — is

that we have a lot of the answers. But there are certain issues that are

obviously unresolved and certain issues that need to be dealt with, and that's

the purpose of the review.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental?

M. Farnworth: Yes, hon. Speaker, I do.

To the Attorney General: I'm no lawyer, but I know law is about

language. It's about the specifics of lan-

[ Page 232 ]

guage, and words have specific meanings. "Practically" has a specific

meaning, and "some of the answers" has a specific meaning, and that is not "all

of the answers."

So my question again is: will the Premier restore a fully

independent children's commissioner that does not need to operate only under the

authority that is granted under the AG's direction?

Hon. W. Oppal: I think my words are clear, and a reasonable

interpretation of my words is clear. We do want all the answers. We want a full

review of it. That's why we put this extra paragraph in, so that the child and

youth officer can look at those words and decide what she wants in the fairness

of the investigation. I think that's quite clear in any logical

interpretation

of the words that I've sent to her.

AQUACULTURE ON NORTH COAST

G. Coons: My question is for the Minister of Agriculture.

Can the minister tell this House if there is a decision pending approval of a

finfish aquaculture site at the Strouts Point on the Ogden Channel on the North

Coast in the approaches of the Skeena River?

Hon. P. Bell: The member should know that there is a

decision pending. It is currently with the statutory decision-maker. It is a

fairly lengthy process that we go through. I can tell you that this government

is very proud of the role that we're taking in trying to be more innovative with

finfish aquaculture.

We've previously committed to the $5 million Pacific Salmon Forum

— a real innovation — with the hon. John Fraser. We've actually asked the

opposition to chair a special legislative committee to ensure that this

aquaculture file has a real thorough look and to bring forward innovative

approaches. This is unprecedented.

This is with a statutory decision-maker. We should be very clear

with that. It is a very lengthy process that we have to go through, and we think

we'll get the right decision at the end of it.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

[1505]

G. Coons: The vast majority of the residents of the North

Coast are strongly opposed to open-net farms because of the threats they pose to

our wild stocks. I'd like to ask the minister: why would he approve fish-farm

sites when so many people have valid concerns about the wild stocks?

Hon. P. Bell: The member should know that there are many

varied opinions on aquaculture in this province. In fact, his house leader, the

member for Port Coquitlam–Burke Mountain, said just a few days ago on CKNW that

he thinks the committee should do its work and report out before any final

decisions are made. I would suggest the member talk to his house leader.

[End of question period.]

Tabling Documents

Hon. R. Thorpe: As the Minister of Small Business and

Revenue, I'm pleased to table the 2004 annual report for the Property Assessment

Appeal Board.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: I call second reading of Bill 5.

Mr. Speaker: If the minister would just wait a second while

some other members attend to other business.

Second Reading of Bills

SUPPLY ACT (No. 2), 2005

Hon. C. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I move that the bill now be

read a second time.

This supply bill is in the general form of previous supply bills.

The first

section of the bill requests 2/12 of the voted expenses as presented

in the estimates to provide for the general programs of the government. The sum

requested is in addition to the amount authorized under

section 1 of the Supply

Act (No. 1), 2005, as we anticipate that the authority under the existing

interim supply will be exhausted before the estimates debate has been completed.

Section 2 of the supply bill requests two-thirds of the financing

transaction requirements set out in schedules C, D and E of the estimates. The

first interim supply also sought supply for two-thirds of the year's financing

transaction requirements for capital asset expenditures and loans and

investments. However, this bill seeks two-thirds of the requirements based on

the estimates tabled on September 14, 2005. This request also includes the

amount authorized under

section 2 of the Supply Act (No. 1), 2005.

The third

section repeals

section 3 of the Supply Act (No. 1),

2005, which authorized 100 percent of the disbursements related to revenue

collected for and transferred to other entities and replaces it with 100 percent

of the year's disbursements, which will appear in

schedule F of the September

14, 2005, estimates. Because we're repealing the authorization under Supply Act

(No. 1), 2005, this request includes any amounts paid under that section.

J. Kwan: I rise today to speak to Bill 5, the Supply Act.

As the Minister of Finance noted yesterday, this act will allow the government

to continue spending on government programs while the budget estimates are

debated and voted upon by this House. What the Minister of Finance neglected to

mention, however, is that

[ Page 233 ]

this is a significant departure from the way this House normally conducts its

business.

Now, I'll have to say this, and I will recognize that this process

was initiated by the former Minister of Finance, who is now the Minister of

Economic Development. It was the government prior to the election, many of whom

are sitting here today, who had every opportunity to debate the budget line by

line before the election. But that didn't happen. They simply chose not to do

that. We would not be debating this bill today. This bill would be completely

unnecessary, and we would not have interim supply for an unprecedented eight

months into the fiscal year had the government allowed for a full debate on the

budget before the provincial election.

[1510]

As members are no doubt aware, interim supply is traditionally

introduced prior to the end of the fiscal year so that government can carry out

its operations for the first two or three months of the coming fiscal year.

We're doing this backwards.

Members can then get on with their constitutional responsibility

of scrutinizing the spending plans of government; that is, they get on with the

very basis of our democratic system. Not a dime is to be collected through

taxation or spent through appropriation without the approval of the Legislature.

But this is not the first time some of the members sitting

opposite have avoided scrutiny of their budget by bringing in months — months, I

would say — of interim supply before an election. A couple of members opposite

will recall the end of the Social Credit government in 1991. No debate on the

budget, and months of an interim supply bill. In fact, they have the record on

it, and that's clear.

Some of them have returned to this Legislature with a different

name, wearing a different hat. They were there last spring as well. Sure enough,

no debate, and six months of an interim supply bill. Here we are now. If you add

up all of those months together, that's eight months. Eight months of interim

supply bill with no scrutiny from British Columbians of the spending priorities

of this government.

The first time an interim supply bill was introduced this year, as

members of this House well know, was before the provincial election and well

before the end of the previous fiscal year. It allowed for government spending

of public moneys for six months from April 1, 2005, until September 30, 2005, a

total amount of $13 billion. Not a small sum — and not just change in people's

pockets, I might add. This happened despite there being ample time, between the

budget being introduced on February 15 and the dissolution of parliament on

April 18, to fully scrutinize the budget estimates.

Indeed, the opposition members offered not once but twice to

ensure that the estimates pass before the election. We even offered to debate

the estimates and pass the budget by the end of the fiscal year on March 31,

completely eliminating the need to even have interim supply. The offer was made

time and again by this side of the House. That would have allowed British

Columbians to have full and complete scrutiny of the 2005-2006 budget before the

election.

Now we're in the situation of being six months into the fiscal

year with no scrutiny of government spending and no debate on what British

Columbians' priorities are. But I must say that's exactly what this government

wanted. They wanted to go into an election campaign with no scrutiny around

their spending.

Perhaps close scrutiny of the budget prior to the election would

have revealed that their election promise to build 5,000 new long-term care beds

was not fully funded in the budget. Perhaps a debate on the budget would have

forced this government to admit that they're not doing well enough, that they're

not doing enough to combat homelessness in our province, and that there's no

housing being built to help communities cope with staggering increases — a

doubling of homelessness in the Greater Vancouver area since 2002 alone.

[1515]

Perhaps during the estimates process, where members of this House

get an opportunity to ask questions of the ministers about spending in the

previous fiscal year, it would have been revealed that the government had

overspent its advertising budget by some $7 million in the lead-up to a

provincial election. A pre-election campaign paid for by the taxpayers, and

goodness forbid that that information should be reviewed by British Columbians

prior to the election. This government would have none of that. That's why they

shut down debate. That's why there was an interim supply bill that was

introduced. That's why we're here again with another interim supply bill.

Instead, British Columbians were told about massive government

overspending on pre-election advertising a full two months after the election,

in the middle of summer — exactly, I would say, what the government had hoped

for, what the government had planned for. They wanted to cover that up. They

don't want to shine the light on that. They don't want British Columbians to

know that their spending priority is their pre-election campaign paid for by

taxpayers.

By not allowing the members of this House to examine the budget

line by line, item by item, the government also got to keep goodies in the

amount of a $237 million pre-election slush fund, a secret until the dozen or so

press conferences that they held two weeks before the election writ was dropped.

How timely was that? Do you think there was planning in there? You bet. You bet,

hon. Speaker. I bet the crisis management people, the issue management people,

the spin doctors from the Premier's office where the budget was overspent, some

$7 million of advertising funds…. They hovered in a corner and talked about it

and actually came up with that scheme. Make no mistake about that.

What about debate on government spending priorities? If British

Columbians were given an opportunity to get the full details of the budget

before the election, they would have had a greater understanding of what

[ Page 234 ]

this Liberal government was really up to before the election. Of course, they

still wouldn't have known that a big tax cut for corporations was on the way.

But then again, nobody knew about the big election secret. The business

community didn't know that they were going to get a big bonus in the middle of

the year.

Here we are today being asked to extend interim supply until the

end of November, a full eight months into the fiscal year. That's two-thirds of

the fiscal year on interim supply. In plain language, that's two-thirds of the

government's budget, those dollars having been spent before taxpayers had the

opportunity to actually look, see, and ask questions on where those dollars were

spent, so that this government could avoid scrutiny on its budget during an

election campaign.

We're here today to debate a bill that would be completely

unnecessary had the government allowed the budget to be debated before the

election, had the Premier and the government decided that they wanted to honour

their commitment on openness and accountability. Every time any government tries

to hide from British Columbians, it always raises questions.

I have to say that it is an issue that does get me all riled up. I

was here in the last four years. I was here when the House shut down and

disallowed debate. There were three of us: my former colleague Joy MacPhail, my

colleague sitting next to me right now, the member for Surrey–Panorama Ridge….

There were three of us working hard to hold the government to account.

[S. Hawkins in the chair.]

This government ignored the opposition and shut down debate. The

previous Minister of Finance also told us before the election — and that was his

rationale — that they would change the budget after the election campaign once

they heard from British Columbians. That was his rationale for why debate could

not be completed on the budget, why we could not debate the budget prior to the

election.

[1520]

Now, notwithstanding, there's nothing that would prevent the

government from bringing in a new budget. But set that aside for one moment.

Indeed, the budget has been updated. We have an updated budget, the first budget

since the election. Unfortunately, there's little evidence in this budget update

that the Minister of Finance, the Premier or any of the other members of the

Liberal caucus have actually heard the message from British Columbians.

British Columbians did not tell us that a corporate tax cut was

their first priority. For that matter, the government did not campaign on the

notion that a corporate tax cut was their number-one priority. Nonetheless, in

this minibudget they took the lion's share of what was newly introduced in this

budget.

British Columbians told us what they want the government to do.

They told us they want ordinary British Columbians to have an opportunity to

share in the benefits of our growing economy. Citizens living in regions of

British Columbia told us very clearly that they, too, want to be part of our

province's success and that they want to share in the great wealth of our

natural resource sector that contributes to the economy. They told us that they

want government to be more caring and compassionate, that too many vulnerable

people are being left behind — seniors, children at risk, the homeless and the

poor.

As we saw in question period as the issues have been raised by our

critic on the Children and Family Development file, the children who need

protection are not getting the services they need. The Minister of Children and

Family Development seems to be oblivious to the notion that an aboriginal

authority actually got a 66-percent cut in their budget. He seems to think

that's okay. He seems to think that the Ministry of Children and Family

Development is doing just fine and that the ministry has done nothing wrong.

So far to date, all the evidence that we see before us tells a

different story — and a compelling different story. The Minister of Finance had

an opportunity, with the budget update, to show that they actually heard British

Columbians. But unfortunately, that did not happen. Seniors are still waiting

for long-term care beds. The Liberals made this promise in 2001. Today, more

than four years and five budgets and one budget update later, they are still

waiting.

The minister says that this budget is doing more to help

low-income seniors and has admitted that life has been very hard for them over

the last four years, that the seniors supplement they included in their budget

was cut in 2002, when it could have helped those same seniors — the same seniors

that the Minister of Finance has referred to — to have the resources they need.

The minister herself said that seniors had to choose between

buying chicken or paying rent. Let me say this, hon. Speaker. The small amount

of seniors supplement being put back by the government, which the government

took away in 2002, will not even cover the rising costs of heating bills come

this winter. The government should have, in this budget and in this interim

supply bill, made sure that there was some relief for British Columbians —

average British Columbians who desperately need the government to respond.

Despite Surrey residents asking over and over again for the

government to deal with the growing concerns about health care delivery at

Surrey Memorial Hospital, there is nothing in this budget to improve health care

in Surrey and in many other communities across British Columbia.

[1525]

The minister's budget update also doesn't respond to the concerns

of communities throughout the northern and interior regions of this province who

are coping with the pine beetle epidemic and want to prepare for the future,

once the cut decreases and jobs are lost. It's great that the federal government

finally came through with some dollars, but the province's commitment is

lacking. B.C.'s funding for the pine beetle next year is budgeted today at a

very small $7 million, keeping in mind that the Premier has asked for federal

[ Page 235 ]

help to the tune of $1 billion. You got to talk the talk; then you better

walk the walk. You better be there working with our partners to address the

issue and not just point a finger to someone else to say it's their

responsibility.

The government champions its commitment to preparing young people

for the future, but there is no commitment to making education more affordable.

Too many British Columbians have lost access to higher education because they

cannot afford the tuition fees. The Minister of Finance tells us her government

is listening to B.C.'s industries when they tell us they are in the midst of a

worsening skills shortage. Even the government-appointed independent economic

advisory council has told them that the skills shortage is one of the greatest

risks facing our economy today and in the future. Yet there is no commitment to

skills training in this budget, no action to deal with the skills shortage, and

nothing for young people who want opportunities to benefit from our growing

economy — young people who are on wait-lists for training and apprenticeship

programs.

Today we have received the final count for the Greater Vancouver

homeless survey, a report that was first released during the provincial

election. The government was told five months before the election and before the

budget update that homelessness in the GVRD has doubled, yet there is no

commitment to bringing housing for these people and no commitment to helping

communities deal with this growing social problem.

We're heading off to the UBCM next week. I wonder if the

government will hear the messages from local leaders — councillors and mayors

who are seeing the people who are homeless on their streets, who are seeing the

rise in people heading towards food banks because they can't make ends meet. The

government did not take the time between the budget being introduced in February

and the budget update that was introduced last week to really reflect on British

Columbians' priorities for spending and bringing in a budget that responds to

their concerns.

The government's reasons for not debating the budget before the

election, quite frankly, are wearing thin. The rationale that the former

Minister of Finance used simply reflects that this government chose not to

listen again. With the full cooperation of the opposition, we could have had a

full and complete debate. Their claim that they wanted to hear from British

Columbians before passing a final budget rings very hollow in light of this

budget update released last week.

To conclude, the bill we're debating today to extend interim

supply for an unprecedented eight months into the fiscal year could have been

avoided. It is not the way this House should be conducting its business.

Delaying the budget debate until now has not produced any different results for

British Columbians.

This government should know that British Columbians deserve

better. They deserve scrutiny on the budget. They deserve a response from the

government. They deserve, after this election, some indication from the

government that they really actually heard the message and that they want to

make sure economic successes are being shared with everyone. Because as we said

during the campaign, everyone matters.

[1530]

J. Horgan: It's a pleasure to stand and participate in the

debate on Bill 5. I'm a bit of a history buff. I enjoy historic moments. I'm

sure that the spin doctors over at the public affairs bureau will be checking

this for me, but I don't believe there has been a time in this Legislature where

we've debated two interim supply bills in the course of eight months. It's

staggering that a government that had a majority of 70-plus members could not

get their affairs together, with a fixed election date and a fixed parliamentary

calendar, well enough to pass a budget with three opposition members.

Those members, of course, were the current member for

Surrey–Panorama Ridge; the irrepressible and unstoppable member for

Vancouver–Mount Pleasant — who, even with a touch of a cold, was able to

continue debate; and lastly, our friend who joined us today on the floor, the

former hon. member for Vancouver-Hastings. Three members frightened a government

of 70-plus.

They tabled the budget in February. They said: "Look what we've

done. What good boys and girls are we." Then they ran to their constituencies

and said: "Look what we're going to give you, voters. We're going to give you a

slush fund of $238 million. We're not going to tell you what's in it until

closer to the election date, because we don't want to give any indication to the

opposition members what exactly our plan is."

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Seventy-plus members against three, and they ran away. So where we

are today, hon. Speaker and hon. friends around me, is we're having a debate on

a second interim supply bill. I remember well…. It's a shame I can't see the

Government House Leader at the moment; I know he's monitoring the debates. He

was the most vociferous opponent of our government during the 1990s. He

attacked, and he attacked, and he attacked. "How dare you spend money without

debate?" he would say. He would stand in his place, and he was quite eloquent,

quite enjoyable, quite entertaining.

Three members — the member for Surrey–Panorama Ridge, the member

for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant and the former member for Vancouver-Hastings —

frightened a government of 70-plus — absolutely staggering. What did that

government do? They went to the polls. They ignored the parliamentary calendar.

They focused on the fixed election date.

They had a desire to have a legacy of parliamentary reform, but

what they ended up doing is using the fixed election date to circumvent a

parliamentary calendar that they put in place on the argument that this sort of

thing will never happen again — the dark decade of the '90s. I've heard the

members talk about the dark decade of the '90s. "Never again will we have a

debate…." "Not a dime will be spent without debate." That's what they said.

That's what they planned to do.

[ Page 236 ]

They said a fixed election date and a fixed parliamentary calendar would

solve that. Yet here we find ourselves at the end of September with a second

interim supply bill.

I know that the Finance Minister was put in this situation by her

colleagues. I certainly don't expect her to answer for that. She's doing a

capable job. She said, as others did during the campaign, that she was going to

listen to British Columbians. I don't recall — certainly in Malahat–Juan de Fuca

— one soul saying to me: "You know what we need in this province? We need

another 500 million bucks for corporations. That's what's going to turn things

around for me. That's what's going to help with transportation in my community.

That's what's going to help with health care in my community. That's what's

going to help with education in my community. Another 500 million bucks to the

richest people in this province — that's going to make the big difference for

me."

The Finance Minister stood in her place, and she said that the

centrepiece of her budget was going to be seniors — $248 million. We've heard

that message box several times since the budget was tabled — $248 million for

seniors. That's good news. I applaud her in particular on amendments to the

SAFER program, particularly for rental fees for pads in mobile home parks.

That's very good news in my community, up and down the Island and across British

Columbia.

However, it's very difficult to have any credibility when you

stand and say: "The centre of my budget is seniors — $248 million. Oh, by the

way, 500 million bucks for my buddies — 500 million bucks for the people who

financed our election campaign, 500 million bucks for the people who financed

the campaign in 1996 and 1991 and back all the way through history and the

Social Credit parties before them."

I wanted to participate in this debate because it's historic, as I

said — two interim supply bills in one year. It speaks to incompetence, if you

ask me. If 70-plus members could not pass a budget against three opposition

members, what are you going to do now? That's the question people in British

Columbia are asking: "What are they going to do now?" Thirty-three on this side,

and we're all armed, loaded and ready to go. We've demonstrated last week and

demonstrated again this week. Over the coming weeks the members on the opposite

side are going to hear a lot of noise — 33, not three. Good luck to you.

[1535]

Mr. Speaker: The Minister of Finance closes debate.

Hon. C. Taylor: I move second reading of Bill 5.

Motion approved.

Hon. C. Taylor: I move that the bill be referred to a

Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting after today.

Bill 5, Supply Act (No. 2), 2005, read a second time and referred

to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the

House after today.

Hon. B. Penner: That debate went quicker than I

anticipated. I now call continued debate on the budget.

Budget Debate

(continued)

Mr. Speaker: The member for Surrey–Panorama Ridge continues

where he left off.

J. Brar: My response to the budget speech is a bit unique.

Half of my speech was yesterday, and the remaining part of the speech is today,

because, as you know, I had to stop because of the adjournment of the House last

evening.

Yesterday I talked about the important issues related to the

budget in my community. Just briefly, to touch upon what I said on the issue of

Surrey Memorial — there was no funding for it in this budget. I also spoke about

the gateway plan, about transportation, about the promise made by this

government that was not delivered on in this budget.

The third important factor or issue in my community is education.

As you know, Surrey is the fastest-growing community in the country. We receive

almost a thousand people every month. The majority of the people we have in the

city are average families. A significant number of people in the city are new

immigrants. They want affordable, accessible education for their children, and

this government made a promise to the people of British Columbia during the last

election that they would provide the best education system so that no child is

left behind. But, in fact, they did the opposite.

They cut grant programs, and the tuition fee has gone up 300

percent in some cases. Subsequently, in the last election this government made

another promise on education, and that was to cap the tuition fee,

whereas we

were saying that we should freeze the tuition fee right away because it's too

high for average families. This budget does not offer any money for those

students and parents of Surrey and British Columbia.

The other issue which is very important is gas prices. As we know,

the gas price has been going up very fast during the last few years. It has gone

up to the extent that it has impacted the budget of each and every family, and

particularly average families, in every city of this province as well as in my

city. Not only that, it has also impacted, big time, the small business

industry, particularly the taxi industry and the trucking industry.

We have seen during the last few months a couple of strikes

related to business. This government is very big when teachers talk about

strikes. But we have seen strikes of small business people here in this province

just a few months ago — that was the container truckers, and then it was dump

truckers — because of oil and gas prices. This budget does not offer anything to

[ Page 237 ]

those small business people. It only offered support to corporations, when 60

percent of job creation is actually created by small business people.

[1540]

There are a few things I want to mention from my portfolio, and

one of them is gambling. In 2001 during the election this government made a

promise to the people of British Columbia that they were going to stop expansion

of gambling as soon as they came into power. But in fact they did the opposite.

The number of slot machines has gone up. There used to be a cap on

the number of slot machines in the past in every casino, and that was 300

machines per casino to the maximum. But in one casino in Richmond the number of

slot machines is now 1,000. When the former Minister of Public Safety and

Solicitor General was asked whether this was an expansion or not, his answer

was: "It is not expansion. It is just adjustment." That's the language this

government has been using about the expansion of gambling. Now, the new minister

came in, and he decided to install 500 new machines, electronic horse

racetracks, in pubs and bars, and when the minister was asked the question

whether this was an expansion or not, he said: "No, it's not expansion. It is

modernization of gambling."

British Columbians want accurate and right answers. As a Time

reporter stated just recently: British Columbians are getting tired of the

government's verbal gymnastics on gambling. What will it take to get someone in

the government party to admit that they love the money from gambling? For them

it is the profit, not the people of British Columbia, which is the priority.

They don't care about average families, average people in this province.

The revenue from gambling has gone up $260 million since the

Liberal government took over in 2001. It is shocking to know that the B.C.

Lottery Corporation spent $14 million on advertisements, but they spent only $4

million on treating people who have addictions in gambling. This budget does not

provide any financial support and hope to the families of those people who are

troubled gamblers.

The other very important issue in my community is youth gang

violence. The South Asian community has lost over 70 young men during the last

six or seven years who became targets of youth gang violence. This government,

after constant pressure from the community, finally came and established a B.C.

Integrated Youth Gang Task Force, which, in my opinion, is probably a step in a

positive direction. But the task force is mainly responsible for investigations,

arrests and prosecution. It doesn't do much for educating the community and for

prevention. This budget does not offer any additional money or hope to my

community. I'm talking about 70 murders during the last six, seven years.

[1545]

The other issue is crystal meth. During the last few days I've

seen statements from members on the other side as to how dangerous crystal meth

is, how it has taken over all the other serious drugs, whether it's cocaine or

other things. I have also heard that they are very serious about it. I also

heard from the other side that something needs to be done, but the answer which

I hear from the other side is that it is the community which should look after

this very serious issue that the community is facing.

I agree, to the extent that we have to involve the community to

deal with crystal meth because the community is part of the solution. At the

same time, we cannot leave this very challenging, very fast-growing drug — which

is making our youth vulnerable — just to the people. We need to provide

leadership. We need to provide resources to the people who are coming forward to

deal with this issue.

I just met yesterday with people who are part of the task force in

Victoria, and they're looking for support. They want a place where they can do

their volunteer work. They want telephone lines. They need help. But this

government is saying that the community should take a lead. You have to take

your responsibility, providing leadership and resources to the people to deal

with this very serious, fast-growing disease in the community.

Mr. Speaker, every day I hear…. Although, I appreciate that you

indicated today that statements should be non-political, non-partisan. I hope it

will be that way. Every day until today I have heard statement after statement

talking about the five great goals of this government. I appreciate a positive

vision, and I wish this government well for those very ambitious five goals.

Well, let me tell you about the five great holes that the budget

of this government has created in my community. I hope the members sitting on

the other side of the House are going to listen to it and pay attention to it.

Let's compare the five great goals versus five great holes which I'm talking

about in this budget and the four other budgets presented by this government.

The first hole. There's no funding for the expansion of Surrey

Memorial emergency room or for a new hospital. That's a huge, huge hole in that

community, in the heart of the community.

Number two, there's no funding for the improvement of

transportation. Particularly, we're talking about the south perimeter road,

where we and the government agree that this needs to be done. But there's no

money in this budget for that commitment. That creates a serious traffic

challenge to us. That's the second hole we have in the community.

Third, there's no funding to stop or reduce post-secondary tuition

fees, and that is the third big hole we have in the hearts of young people in my

community, whose future probably is under question because of that.

Number four, there's no funding for assisting troubled gamblers,

and there's no stop to the expansion of gambling.

Number five, and the fifth hole, is that there's no funding for

detox beds, particularly for youth who are addicted by crystal meth. We see a

lot of talk.

[ Page 238 ]

I would like to conclude by saying: yes, we appreciate the five

great goals, but please, look into the five great holes that my community tells

us about every day. Listen to them. Talk to them. Go to Surrey.

Mr. Speaker: Time is up, member.

[1550]

J. Brar: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

G. Robertson: Mr. Speaker, it is a great honour to be here

on behalf of the people of Vancouver-Fairview, and I salute you and all of our

colleagues here for serving the citizens of B.C.

I recognize and honour, first and foremost, the Songhees Nation,

whose traditional territory we stand on, and just across the Salish Sea, the

Musqueam, Squamish, Tsleil-Waututh, Stó:lô and Hul'qumi'num nations who have

lived along the south shore of False Creek and up the slopes rising to Little

Mountain, in what is now the riding I represent, Vancouver-Fairview.

I want to express my deepest gratitude to my wife Amy and my kids

Hanna, Satchel and Terra for all their love and their support, and the rest of

my family and my many close friends who really made it possible for me to stand

here today. I want to thank the people of Vancouver-Fairview for their

incredible support, for wanting to see balance in this Legislature, for wanting

meaningful representation. I thank my many volunteers in the community and

beyond, whose dedication and moxie made the difference in a hard-fought election

campaign.

I am here to represent the people of my community. I am here to

work for the people of B.C. I am here for my children and, I hope, my

grandchildren and the future generations that our decisions in this House must

respect.

I didn't have great expectations that this government would have

the vision and backbone to dramatically change course and make the people of

B.C. and the abundance of this province that sustains us their number one

priority. This has very clearly not been their priority over the past four and a

half years.

I felt a glimmer of hope from some of the new members across the

floor who bring valuable experience and new perspective to their party, and I

suggest that they are the reason the government was re-elected by a narrow

margin. I had sincere hopes that the election campaign and close result would

mean that the Liberal government would wake up to the resounding voice of B.C.

citizens. The status quo was not acceptable. A strong majority of British

Columbians voted against this government, voted against the four years of broken

promises, of severe cuts to our schools, health care and social services. We

voted against four years of selling off public assets, deregulating

environmental standards and catering first and foremost to the corporations that

funded their election campaigns.

I am terribly disappointed in this budget and its primary focus on

a corporate income tax break. I'm not surprised, with almost $8 million in

corporate donations to the B.C. Liberals in this last election, but this piece

of corporate welfare is beyond belief — $8 million in donations, somewhere

between $400 million and $500 million in tax breaks over the next three years.

That is an 1,810 percent return on investment for those big corporate funders —

this, from a Premier who relentlessly called for an end to corporate subsidies

when he was in opposition.

This corporate welfare smacks of deceit and absolute disregard for

the people of B.C. who sent a message for more balance; more action on health

care, the environment and education; and more support for the people of this

province who need it most. Another surprise tax break for big corporations

didn't even make the Liberals' own campaign platform, which should have been

titled: "Five great tax breaks for those who don't need them."

I stand here on behalf of democracy and for the people of this

province and our common wealth and firmly against the special interests that

play this government like a puppet show, liquidating public assets and

mismanaging the public service. This is why I now move the motion standing in my

name and seconded by the hon. member for Port Coquitlam–Burke Mountain.

[Be it resolved that the motion "That the Speaker do now leave the

Chair" for the House to go into Committee of Supply be amended by adding the

following: "But the House regrets that the Finance Minister's choice to

provide a significant tax cut to large corporations at a time when corporate

savings are at historically high levels and at the same time families are

spending more than they earn to simply get by and

whereas the government could

have made the choice to provide more relief to families through fee reductions

and program enhancements."]

[1555]

On the amendment.

G. Robertson: Mr. Speaker, I now want to speak to this

motion. I want to talk about the big picture, something we human beings don't

spend enough time doing. We all know what happens when you stickhandle up the

ice in the big leagues with your head down.

Do we live in a just and sustainable province? Do the priorities

of this government focus on what's really most important? I stand here because I

believe the answer to both of those questions is no. We can and must do far

better than this.

In this budget, we didn't hear a peep about homelessness or the

care and education of our kids. Nothing about sustainable new forest and

agricultural practices, waiting list reductions, emergency rooms, clean air and

clean water — nada. What we heard first and foremost was more rhetoric about

competitiveness and putting business first.

Where's the financial security in a world grappling with climate

change? Where in the throne speech and budget was a mention or one word about

the problem that has rapidly emerged as the most perilous issue that we face on

this planet? If this government doesn't yet understand the direct connection

between climate

[ Page 239 ]

change and the mountain pine beetle epidemic or with the increasing frequency

of natural disasters, those members opposite should have gone back to school

this fall, not come here to manage our province.

Let's talk big picture. We human beings have veered out of balance

with our natural world since developing the means to harvest resources and

concentrate wealth. It's been a while. The migration of people across this

planet with our commerce and our consumptive ways has meant, unfortunately, that

almost all intact ecosystems have been significantly impacted or destroyed. Like

a two-legged tsunami, we have levelled the most productive forests, prairies,

estuaries, savannahs and vast marine habitats.

This past century has been literally explosive. Our population has

grown exponentially. There are 4.8 billion more people on earth than there were

100 years ago. Every day the global economy burns an amount of energy on our

planet that required 10,000 days to create. We burn it into the air we breathe.

Every natural system on the planet today is in decline. In just the past 20

years, another 120 million hectares of the world's forests have been cleared.

According to the UN environment program, we've been losing 108 million acres of

productive agricultural land a year to degradation and development, and 25

billion tonnes of topsoil.

A few problems are racking up here. We're losing upwards of 30,000

species a year, which is one every 20 minutes. We're likely to lose 20 percent

of the species on the planet within this next generation.

Inequities on our planet are staggering. The 20 percent of the

population that we have the privilege of being part of consumes almost 90

percent of the resources. Billions go hungry each day. Tens of thousands die

every week because they don't have access to clean drinking water.

All this is to say that we have a staggering set of challenges on

this planet, and there are very real limits to growth. We are the first

generation to have a very clear understanding of all this, thanks to our own

ingenuity. The real test is doing something about it. If we aren't prioritizing

this, we are in a whole heap of trouble.

As optimistic and hopeful as I am, deep in my bones, we face

challenges that boggle our collective brains and call into question the future

that our children and their children will face. But wait; all is not lost. As

the rising tide of humanity's exponential growth and insatiable consumption

floods in and threatens to wipe out all of our sources of life and prosperity,

there is a glimmer of hope, a patch of high ground that stands tall and

resilient right here in B.C.

[1600]

We are blessed to live on this ground, blessed to have a wealth of

resources that haven't quite collapsed under extractive pressure. We are blessed

to have a society that is peaceful, that had the foresight to invest in taking

care of each other, in education, in creating good jobs and labour standards.

We live in a place that the rest of the world looks at and thinks:

"If they can't figure out how to live in balance, then it must not be possible."

This may be the last place on earth where human ingenuity, combined with the

wisdom to focus it on social and environmental challenges, can turn the tide.

My vision of B.C. It's the place where people figure out how to

live in balance with each other and the planet and cause a ripple effect

outward, back across the continents to the lands of our earliest civilizations,

restoring the natural systems that provide for us, developing evermore

innovative and efficient ways of stewarding precious resources, figuring out how

to take care of all people in our societies, and reversing the crash course of

our civilization. If anyone wants to discuss that later, feel free.

Do we have the courage and wisdom to turn the tide here? Do we

have our priorities straight? Do we recognize that this is also the biggest

economic opportunity going?

Mr. Speaker, speaking to the motion, I want to talk about business

and economic opportunity — something I've spent a good chunk of my life immersed

in and something that the government has again made its first priority in this

budget. Beyond the words of both my colleagues and the business community, who

have all been surprised by the government's largesse, I want to question the

unswerving ideology that the taxpayers of B.C. should not only willingly give up

some of our most valuable public assets but also subsidize large corporations.

Yes to business. No to corporate welfare.

Small business around this province has fought tooth and nail to

compete, without any help from this government. Big business and industry must

adapt to meet the people of B.C.'s needs, not the other way around. Yes, we are

open to business, but not at any cost. Big business believes that if it doesn't

continue to grow robustly, it will be destroyed. Ecologists, on the other hand,

believe that if big business continues on its robust growth curve, the planet

will be destroyed.

But there are many of us sitting on this side of the room who now

believe in a third way, one that restores natural communities while using the

most efficient and pragmatic management and market techniques of free

enterprise. I'm talking about a restorative economy. The economics of

restoration stand in stark contrast to those of industrialization. It's about a

prosperous commercial culture that is intelligently designed, which integrates

communities, businesses and resources in ways that are mutually beneficial for

the long term.

Nowhere on the planet is there a more compelling opportunity to do

that than here in B.C. We have a huge advantage, a wealth of resources, a

well-educated and hard-working multicultural population, and a global brand that

is associated with the natural environment and social responsibility. But it

means that the priorities of our government must change, which is why I move

this motion.

A critical piece for leading the world and building a restorative

economy here in B.C. is with post-

[ Page 240 ]

secondary education. I'm honoured to be the critic for advanced education.

For our new economy, education is like the railroad of the 21st century. This

government's record of ignoring apprenticeship and training programs, of

freezing core funding to institutions, of doubling tuition, of eliminating grant

programs and now cutting student financial assistance is reprehensible and

shortsighted.

Post-secondary education is critical to cranking up the skills and

brain power to keep our economy leading on innovation and entrepreneurial

success. Access is paramount. Nobody should face barriers to pursue education

and training. That means affordability is crucial. Tuition must be affordable

and capped. Grants programs must be reinstated to ensure that advanced education

is available to all. We've got to invest in programs that match up with our

community's needs, addressing the skills shortage that threatens to cripple our

economy and supporting cutting-edge programs at our amazingly diverse array of

colleges, institutes, university colleges and universities.

I look forward to working with the minister and staff on all of

these fronts, which must be an economic priority for this government. I want to

come back to priorities. The hurricane in the southern states taught us a few

things about priorities, as have other tragic world events — the crisis in

Darfur, the Indian Ocean tsunami. Priorities must start with the essentials.

[1605]

Where does all our food come from? This government has largely

ignored food security and failed to support the vitality of B.C.'s agriculture

and fisheries. We are truly blessed with an incredibly diverse and productive

food system, and it needs diligent care and attention, not the scandalous

removal of land from the ALR and the atrocious mismanagement of fish farms.

How about drinking water? This government has eroded standards and

failed to protect watersheds and aquifers. This must change. Remember Walkerton.

The air we breathe. Subsidizing the oil and gas industry and

relaxing pollution standards completely contradict your fifth golden goal, bar

none.

This budget does not prioritize these essentials. It prioritizes

big business. Here I am back to talking about business. With so many of the

colossal problems pressing on the world, corporations and business are part of

the problem and must be part of the solution. Let's focus on businesses being

part of the solution in B.C. and developing our restorative economy.

Corporate tax breaks with no targeted incentive to create

good-paying jobs, minimize environmental impact, eliminate waste or improve

efficiency are a waste of taxpayers' money. Creating incentives for small- and

medium-sized businesses must be a priority, especially those businesses that are

focused on building the social and resource capital of B.C., not liquidating it.

Carefully targeted tax cuts do make sense, and the targeted cut on

intellectual property is a good example, a tiny example in a sea of regressive

taxation and huge subsidies to corporations. We need to incentivize the leading

lights and the entrepreneurs of the new economy. This includes sustainable

forestry and agriculture, zero waste manufacturing, clean biotech, sustainable

fisheries and aquaculture, green technologies, green design and building

supplies, carbon-neutral business practices, renewable energy and demand-side

efficiencies and fossil fuel–free transportation. This also includes the social

economy: arts, culture and tourism. These are the emerging non-polluting engines

of a restorative economy and a brighter future for B.C. and the planet.

I want to go from the provincial to the local. I want to take it

back home now, to Vancouver-Fairview. Fairview is one of the smallest and

therefore densest ridings of B.C. It includes the western side of Mount

Pleasant, the south side of False Creek, Granville Island, Fairview slopes,

south Granville, some healthy parts of Shaughnessy and Kitsilano. Diverse by

every definition, eclectic, bustling with small business and the arts — Fairview

is the beating heart of Vancouver, one of the world's great cosmopolitan cities.

Despite our relative affluence, we face great challenges.

Health care is front and centre in Fairview with our extensive

hospital and research centre complex around VGH and the children's and women's

hospital. Many of my constituents who work hard in health care have endured the

mismanagement of our public health care under this government, with

privatization and brutal cuts to hospital workers and enormous pressure on

nurses and emergency room staff in particular. We should be going the opposite

direction in places like Fairview where we have a world-class cluster of health

care delivery and research. With this concentration of talent and facilities, we

have a unique opportunity to create an economic powerhouse, integrating the

diverse expertise and collaborating on innovation and excellence in patient care

and medical research.

[1610]

Homelessness in Vancouver has doubled under this government,

driven by their savage cuts to social services and health care, for those

suffering from mental illnesses and addictions. This has led to a troubling rise

in crime and real concerns about public safety in Vancouver. Services must be

restored to support these people with treatment, housing and education. My

community calls out for action on serious crime. Affordable housing is scarce as

rents have skyrocketed in Vancouver, and support for housing from both the

provincial and federal government has dwindled. It's time for all levels of

government to work together on a comprehensive action plan on housing in B.C.,

revitalizing communities in the process.

Tuition again has almost doubled due to the policies of this

Liberal government, putting huge stress on the thousands of post-secondary

students in Fairview. Many have been forced to reduce their course load or even

drop out of school, which will have profound consequences on our economy over

time. I will call for this government to immediately use B.C.'s share of the

$1.5 billion that the NDP secured in the federal budget for improving access to

higher education.

[ Page 241 ]

The arts community has had very little support from this

government, despite playing a vital role in the city and the province both

culturally and economically. Support for the arts needs to reach deep into the

community, from studios and film businesses to the entrepreneurs and

self-employed artists. I do hope that the new minister, urged on by her worthy

critic, will champion the importance of investing in the arts and culture in

this province.

Liveability is declining due to intensifying traffic and the

failure of this government to strengthen air and water standards. Fairview is

smack dab in the middle of Vancouver. That means residents are subjected to an

enormous flow of commuter traffic passing through. More investment in public

transit is badly needed to prevent further declines in liveability, and these

investments warrant good public consultation. An example of how not to do that

is the infamous RAV line, which neglected due community process. Only a

government as insensitive to communities as this one could turn something as

positive as an investment in rapid transit into a source of anger, frustration

and division.

The conditional funding and push for a P3 with the lowest-cost

contractor has meant that Cambie Street will be disembowelled with cut-and-cover

construction for several years to come, ravaging Cambie village and the many

small businesses there. It will put huge traffic pressures on Main and Granville

streets as well, so residents in my constituency will endure noise, pollution

and extra travel time for the next four years. The many small businesses along

Cambie Street must be consulted in a forthright manner, which, to this day, is

not happening, and mitigating the devastating impact of cut-and-cover on local

businesses is necessary.

We've been fortunate, very fortunate, to have a city government

that's been committed to an aggressive agenda on sustainability and improving

our urban environment. I applaud the work of Mayor Larry Campbell, council,

staff, the park board and school board for so capably serving the citizens of

Vancouver in their years of service. In particular, their vision and direct

action on sustainability is inspiring — from the 2010 games' commitments to the

development of southeast False Creek to the green building standards and

sustainable energy precinct, which brings me back to sustainability and a vision

of a restorative economy.

Many people live and work in the city, but our hearts are in the

wilds of British Columbia. We get our bodies there for recreation and renewal at

every opportunity. We place huge importance on our parks and wilderness and

understand that the health of our forests, rivers, grasslands and ocean is

directly connected to the health of our cities, our neighbourhoods and our own

bodies. We are also people that use transit, bicycles or walk where we need to

go. We seek out the locally grown and organic foods at the Riley Park farmers'

market and Granville Island Market.

We are very lucky in Fairview to have all these options, and the

provincial government should be championing healthier lifestyles like these with

more than words. They have made some baby steps, but giant leaps of action are

needed around the province to support local farmers, sustainable agricultural

practices, healthy food choices, recreational options, and to massively reduce

our dependence on cars. From the wilderness to the dense urban jungle, we need a

systematic approach to good health. And of course, we need an economy that's

based on good health, not one that strips it away.

[1615]

I am pleased to see that the importance of social innovators is

beginning to be noted by my colleagues across the floor with their support of

the centre for social innovation. Fairview is home to many of the province's

headquarters for the not-for-profit sector, which is a hugely important part of

our economy and our society.

Initiating the process of electoral reform was commendable.

Continuing to support that prior to the 2009 election is equally so. Let's hope

that with the expanded scope and options and educating citizens on these

options, we will end up with a significant improvement in our democratic

process. Even more important — as our federal government realized and acted on,

and many other democratic governments on this planet have — is campaign finance

reform. Fundamental to democracy is the equal voice of all people. It is a

travesty that our system is undermined by funding from special interests. This

needs to change. I call on the government to take the big money out of politics.

There are enormous opportunities stemming from tackling the real

challenges here and dealing with the real priorities. How this government steps

up to the plate and addresses the monumental crisis in B.C.'s forests of

overharvesting and mountain pine beetle will speak volumes. From the budget, it

looks grim.

How this government protects our energy resources and deals with

the sale of Terasen to an American corporation with a horrific environmental

record will clarify whether they're in cahoots with George W. Bush and his

energy policy or are being responsible to the people of this province, who need

natural gas to survive the winter. How this government follows through on their

voluminous promises to the first nations will tell all. Writing cheques is

different from recognizing aboriginal rights and title and addressing

self-governance in a meaningful way.

The government has spent a good deal of energy on marketing this

province, rebranding B.C. Nice job on the logo; it's a good improvement. But

what really counts in branding — and I know a little about this — is the reality

behind the brand. B.C. will be on centre stage in 2010. We have an incredible

opportunity to show the world what the future can look like: an engaged,

prosperous, multicultural province that is living in balance with each other and

with our environment. We've got a lot of work to do to get there, and actions

speak louder than words.

Mr. Speaker: Speaking to the amendment, the member for

Burquitlam.

H. Bloy: Mr. Speaker, it's a pleasure to stand up here

today. I guess I'm speaking to the amendment.

[ Page 242 ]

First, I would like to congratulate you on your election as Speaker. Having

worked with you and known you for a number of years now, I know that you'll be

fair and allow debate to take place in this House, because debate is very

important.

I would like to thank the constituents of Burquitlam, who

re-elected me. It's an honour to serve them. I want to say that I will continue

to be open and accessible to everybody in my constituency. It's a diverse

constituency, and we represent many people.

I also would like to thank my family: my wife Anita and my

children Jeremy, Katie and Candice; and my dad, who's 91 years old and who

encourages me to come out. We don't always agree on things, but he encourages me

every day to go out and do what I'm doing.

I would also like to thank my staff, who have worked with me over

the past years and helped: Leslie Techy, Jennifer Duke and Annesse Kim. I'd like

to thank three staff members who have now left. Two of them have gone back to

school and one on to better things: Julie Park, Kevin Lee and Dan Baxter. I have

had a lot of great support staff over the last four years, which has made my job

enjoyable.

I don't always get to talk to the residents of the community as

often as I would like when we're in Victoria, and they're in talking to my

staff. I know they get many compliments. I see flowers sent to the office for

the staff for the work they've done, so I know that they're doing a good job

representing me and assisting me in this important job.

[1620]

Looking at the election results, I think my riding is a microcosm

of all of British Columbia. While I was elected with a close margin, I do not

look at this as a negative but rather as a message to deliver our message

better, to get our message out, to be able to communicate better. That's how I

look at the message from the constituents of my riding of Burquitlam.

There is no question the policies of the B.C. Liberal government

were instrumental in restoring dignity to our province. But again, in the middle

of the election a lot of my constituents said: "But we didn't know that. That's

not what we heard on the radio advertising by the BCTF, or by CUPE or by any of

the other unions." They said: "You have to communicate the good things." If I

could talk to every person one-on-one in my riding, I know that they would

understand the great things we have done as a government in restoring dignity to

all people of this great province.

I know I and my colleagues will take this on as a challenge, to be

out there communicating the work of the government that we're doing over the

next four years and to let them know of the work that we've done over the past

four years.

Just before I go on, I wanted to mention something. The last

speaker from Vancouver-Fairview…. I know that he wants…. He's really looking

forward to working to make this a better province to live in, but what really

gets me is when he talks about some of the negatives. That's the old style of

politics. When he talks about post-secondary education, one of the finest

institutions in the province of British Columbia, Simon Fraser University, in

the riding of Burquitlam….

I want to tell you some of the things we did with the former

Minister of Advanced Education for all of British Columbia. It's a bonus. You

know, students aren't spending seven years waiting to get the courses they

wanted. Advanced education was decaying in this province because there was no

money, because of an ineffective government that froze expenses and didn't even

keep up with inflation for universities. They were deteriorating in this

province.

[S. Hammell in the chair.]

We have the new UBC Okanagan and Okanagan College, the new Simon

Fraser University campus in Surrey, the new medical schools at UNBC and UVic,

the new Life Sciences Centre at UBC and 25,000 new post-secondary spaces in

addition to the nearly 6,000 spaces we have added since 2001.

K. Krueger: Thompson Rivers University.

H. Bloy: Thompson Rivers University.

And $800 million for capital improvements in post-secondary

institutions and new student spaces — it's just amazing. Right across the

province is where we're doing this. I just wanted to mention that in regards to

the last speaker.

Before I go on, there was also the speaker earlier who was from

Malahat–Juan de Fuca. He stated today that this is the only time in history with

two interim supply bills in one year. He stated that earlier today. Well, he was

wrong. In 1996 the Glen Clark government introduced a budget and went into the

election. In 1996 the NDP Glen Clark government operated under special warrants

for April, May and June and then introduced interim supply covering those months

plus up to the end of August. Two interim supply bills were introduced by the

NDP in the years 1997, 1998, 1999 and the year 2000. In every case, the NDP

invoked Standing Order 81 to rush interim supply bills through the House in one

day.

[1625]

As we know, this election was the proverbial fork in the road.

Voters had a clear choice. The first choice was to keep the province moving

forward under a B.C. Liberal government, building on the strengthening economy;

increased investment towards priority areas such as health care, public

education; maintaining a sound and fiscally responsible economic plan.

The second choice was to return to the era of scandals, fudge-it

budgets, a mass exodus from the province, skyrocketing deficits, poor fiscal

management, punishing and punitive taxation rates, mass labour disruptions in

this province, fast ferry fiascos, high unemployment rates, broken-down

education and health systems. The unchecked power of special interest groups was

a big factor in the last government of the '90s. Low investor confidence and a

have-not status were the hallmarks and legacies of the NDP party.

[ Page 243 ]

They were narrow-minded and ideologically driven during their ten years in

power.

Thankfully, the voters opted for their first choice.

In Burquitlam the past four years were good. You can see the

positive changes, travelling throughout the riding. We've brought light rapid

transit, which is in the midst of coming into the northeast sector. Construction

is at an all-time high.

Simon Fraser University is undergoing a great deal of expansion.

Our government is contributing $34.5 million toward the construction of SFU's

new $41 million Health Sciences building, dedicated to the study of public

health. The new facility will accommodate 800 new student spaces at the

university's Burnaby campus. This is important. We announced 25,000 new seats

between two years ago and 2010, but we're also providing the capital to build

the buildings so the students actually have a seat in the house. This isn't just

one of those promises of $125 million for mental health that was never even in

their budget but was announced so many times. We announced 25,000 new seats, and

we're providing the capital and the buildings so the students have the space to

sit and get the education in British Columbia.

We gave Simon Fraser University $23 million towards the

construction of a technology and science complex capital expansion project. Two

years ago we built new student residences at the university with a new

cafeteria. We delivered $20 million for a new sports complex and stadium at

Simon Fraser University, and on top of all of that, they're developing their own

endowment fund with UniverCity. It's a great retail and housing development.

There's going to be about 4,500 units completed within the next five years —

4,500 units housing 10,000 people. It's going to be a whole city up there on its

own. It's just a great place. I hope that everybody will get a chance to travel

up there and see that.

We have invested over $2 million towards a knowledge development

fund to advance research in the fields of high technology and health.

On a personal level, I've been able to help a number of my

constituents' businesses, societies and associations over the last four years.

One of the ones that I was extremely pleased to help was the Red Cross in

securing a $500,000 grant for their Burnaby-based emergency response centre.

This $500,000 was matched by the national Red Cross, so it equalled a million.

Telus came in and produced $1.5 million and, when our government put in the

$500,000, they were able to get the rest of the money for their building. That

was for emergency upgrades, making sure it's earthquake-proof.

It's really exciting to know that this is the national response

centre for all of Canada. When we had those terrific storms last Christmas in

southeast Asia, they were the ones that were collecting money. When we had the

fires two years ago, they were the ones that were coordinating and putting

people together. The Katrina catastrophe in the United States — they're the ones

that are coordinating for Canada. They are just such a great group of people up

there, and they're volunteers — they're incredible, how hard they work.

[1630]

Another accomplishment of mine over the last four years. Children

are number one. I always say that the best part of my job is dealing with

children and seniors. The other stuff you have to do because that's your job,

but they tell you the truth. I'm a strong proponent for after-school programs,

and at Mountain View Elementary school I was able to get a $50,000 grant to help

them restart their after-school drop-in program. But by the work you do…. I

don't do any of this work alone. You do it with such great people. I was able to

leverage that into another grant for $58,000, a grant for $20,000 from United

Way and a grant from the federal government for $43,000 so that these children

in this low-income area had a place to go after school. The school board has

been tremendously supportive — and the principal at the school, Mrs. Bawa. For

many of these children it's their second language, and this is a true benefit to

them.

All of us know that we wouldn't have communities here if it wasn't

for the volunteers that make our communities. One of the biggest groups of

supporters and volunteers is firefighters all over British Columbia. They're an

integral source of pride in all communities throughout British Columbia. That is

why our government announced changes last spring to the Workers Compensation Act

to recognize increased cancers, presumption of cancer in firefighters. This was

a team effort. I can tell you I worked really closely with the B.C. Professional

Firefighters Association; with the Burnaby Fire Fighters Association; with

Michael Hurley; and with the Coquitlam Fire Fighters Association to get this

legislation. I know that it'll be introduced soon.

Firemen do the burn camp. You see them shaking cans, collecting

money for muscular dystrophy. But there are two special firemen from th