2008 Legislative Session: Fourth Session, 38th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 14, 2008

Morning Sitting

Volume 26, Number 3

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Page

Motions without Notice

Legislative sitting hours

Hon. M. de Jong

M. Farnworth

Appointment of Deputy Speaker

Throne Speech Debate (continued)

Hon. M. Coell

D. Routley

D. Hayer

S. Simpson

D. Jarvis

[ Page 9665 ]

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 14, 2008

The House met at 10:02 a.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

Motions without Notice

LEGISLATIVE SITTING HOURS

Hon. M. de Jong: I move, with leave, the following

sessional order, which I have provided to my friend the Opposition House Leader

and which the Table has a copy of.

The sessional order relates to the hours of operation for the

duration of the fourth session of the 38th parliament and deals with the

schedule for daily sittings as follows. I could summarize as well. It is

consistent with what took place in 2007 during the third session. Monday

sittings would be 10 a.m. to 12 noon, 1:30 p.m. to 6:30; Tuesday from 10 a.m. to

12 noon, 1:30 to 6:30; Wednesday from 1:30 to 6:30 p.m.; and Thursday from 10

a.m. to 12 noon and 1:30 p.m. to 6:30.

I do move that by leave.

Leave granted.

Hon. M. de Jong: We have leave, so I'll continue quickly

with the motion, Mr. Speaker.

[That effective Monday, February 18, 2008, the Standing

Orders of the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia be amended as follows for

the duration of the Fourth Session of the Thirty-eighth Parliament, which

commenced on February 12, 2008:

1. That Standing Order 2(1) is deleted and the

following

substituted:

Sittings

Daily sittings.

(1) The time for the ordinary meeting of

the

House shall, unless otherwise ordered, be as follows:

Monday:

Two distinct sittings:

10 a.m. to 12 noon

1:30 p.m. to 6:30 p.m.

Tuesday:

Two distinct sittings:

10 a.m. to 12 noon

1:30 p.m. to 6:30 p.m.

Wednesday:

1:30 p.m. to 6:30 p.m.

Thursday:

Two distinct sittings:

10 a.m. to 12 noon

1:30 p.m. to 6:30 p.m.

2. That Standing Order 3 be deleted and the following

substituted:

Hour of interruption.

3. If at the hour of 6:30 p.m. on any

Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday, the business of the day is not

concluded and no other hour has been agreed on for the next sitting, the Speaker

shall leave the Chair:

On Monday

until 10 a.m. Tuesday

On Tuesday

until 1:30 p.m.

on Wednesday

On Wednesday

until 10 a.m.

on Thursday

On Thursday

until 10 a.m.

on Monday

subject to the provisions of Standing Order 2(2)(b).]

As I indicated, they are the same hours that we operated

under for the third session. Briefly put, its effect is to replace the night

sittings that are contemplated in the standing orders with extended afternoon

sittings.

[1005]

I should say this. I don't intend to prolong my

part in the

discussion I've initiated here. I know there's no unanimity around this. I know

that virtually every member in the chamber has their own view of what the

perfect

schedule would be.

I can also say this. When we tried this last year, I made it clear

that we would give it a try and that I'd try to canvass, or get a sense at

least, of what people's response was to it. I've had favourable responses. I've

had people talk about how it hasn't worked as well for them. On balance, people

seem to react positively to the replacement of the night sittings with the

prolonged afternoon sittings.

There were two rationales at the time, and there are two

rationales again today. One relates to the promotion of a healthier lifestyle

for not just the members of the assembly but also the people that support us and

work with us here in the precincts.

The former practices in this chamber weren't what anyone would

characterize as being healthy. I've been here for almost 15 years now, and in

the past — even though night sittings weren't actually contemplated in the

standing orders, ironically, until 2001 — the standard practice at the beginning

of the session or shortly thereafter was to sit until nine, and then later it

got until ten and 11. As you got towards the end of the session, midnight and

beyond was not uncommon. Not a satisfactory state of affairs.

We've come a long way in terms of having the legislative calendar.

We do think that people, whether they're MLAs or support staff here, should have

an opportunity to spend time with their families, to get some exercise, to do

some things. I know that some members take advantage of that. Some don't, and

fill up their evenings with meetings. I guess that's their choice. That wasn't

the intention when we made the adjustment on a trial basis last year.

Some people arrive here — again, not just members but staff — at

seven or 7:30 in the morning. Asking them to stay until nine or ten at night,

again, doesn't coincide with what I think most of us would consider a healthy

work regimen. The demographic in this chamber has changed, happily. It is more

diverse. It's not quite to where we hope it will be, any of us, but we're

getting there. Hopefully, changes of this sort will assist in that respect.

The second principle that guided the introduction of the change

and remains very much at play today is the notion that there shouldn't be any

reductions in the amount of time available for debate. Here's the math for the

2008 spring session. Night sittings would have begun on March 3, pursuant to the

standing rules.

[ Page 9666 ]

They would have added four and a half hours a week over nine weeks — so 40½

hours of debate time.

Adding the one hour per day starting on Monday — the motion, I

should have said, is effective Monday next, February 18 — would generate an

additional four hours per week or, over the course of 11 weeks, 44 hours. So

there is a slight net gain in terms of the number of hours available for debate.

Mr. Speaker, we tried something different in 2007. On balance, I

thought it was well received — again, I concede, not universally or unanimously.

But it was, I think, positively received by sufficient numbers.

It's still a sessional order. Future parliaments will have an

opportunity, if they so wish, to consider whether a permanent change should be

made to the standing orders. This is proposed purely for the duration of the

fourth session of this parliament. Future parliaments can take their stab at

trying to craft the perfect

schedule as the members of that parliament deem it

to be.

In the meantime, I hope members will accept this for what it's

intended to be, which is a reasonable attempt to ensure that there is equivalent

or slightly more time available for debate, but that the promotion of a healthy

lifestyle and the opportunity for people to carry on in some semblance of

normalcy with their families and otherwise is there for them.

With that, I commend the sessional order to members of the

chamber, and it is so moved.

[1010]

M. Farnworth: Well, I rise to respond and to say that, you

know, as the last time the sessional order was put in place, we on the

opposition side do have some concerns — considerable concerns, in some cases —

that, as the Government House Leader said, it's not been universally well

received.

Many members are down here, and they're down here to do the

people's business. Night sittings was a way in which that was extremely

productive and allowed for not only members here to be doing work in the evening

because they're down here and they're not going anywhere else, but also an

opportunity for people outside or people at home who are interested in the work

that we do here to see what we do and to see how we do it. That's also an

important function of this particular chamber. So we're very concerned about

that.

The other issue, from an opposition perspective, that the

sessional order impacts on, is that it shifts everything forward. In terms of

doing our job of holding government to account, in terms of us doing our work,

in terms of preparing for question period and preparing for the sessions in the

afternoon, it increases and compresses the time that we have available to us.

We were opposed to it last time. We felt it was arbitrary on the

part of the government to bring it in. We understand that it was a sessional

order and that we would evaluate it. We're still not happy with it, and so we

will be voting against the motion and hope that at the end of this session we

look at it again and that we recognize and take into account, I think, the

feelings of members of both sides of the House as to how best we can

schedule

our work.

As it stands right now, we're not in favour of this sessional

order. We will be voting against it. We believe that it's arbitrary in terms of

the government's decision to put this in place, and the bottom line is that it

makes it more difficult for the opposition. It takes away an educational

component, as I said, from the public in terms of people who come home from work

and are interested in the work we do.

So for those two reasons alone, we will be voting against this

sessional order.

Mr. Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, Government House

Leader closes debate.

Hon. M. de Jong: As always, I thank the Opposition House

Leader for his thoughtful comments and move the motion.

Motion approved on division.

APPOINTMENT OF DEPUTY SPEAKER

Hon. M. de Jong:

[I move, seconded by the Member for Port Coquitlam–Burke

Mountain Electoral District, that Katherine Whittred, Member for North

Vancouver–Lonsdale Electoral District, be appointed a Deputy Speaker for this

Session of the Legislative Assembly.]

Motion approved.

Hon. M. de Jong: I call continued debate on the throne

speech.

Throne Speech Debate

(continued)

Hon. M. Coell: Last evening I was speaking to the throne

and adjourned debate, so I'm pleased to have this opportunity to continue

discussion of the throne speech.

I would first like to ask the House to welcome a good friend of

mine, Margaret Vickers, who has joined me here today in the Legislature, and

she's lent me some support, as well, for my speech. Would the House please make

her welcome.

I wanted to talk about investing in first nations. We need to

support first nations and to build our relationships and to continue to build

those relationships. It is important for our society and important also for the

post-secondary system.

We've committed to improving first nations students access to

education, and since 2002 participation in post-secondary education by

aboriginal students has increased by 22 percent. We've invested $65 million in

the aboriginal post-secondary strategy that will stand behind that commitment.

[1015]

The strategy includes $15 million to make our campuses more

welcoming and relevant to first nations

[ Page 9667 ]

learners and to ensure that they believe that the post-secondary institutions

are a place of comfort to them, where unique cultures and respect are reflected.

This government wants aboriginal students to see B.C.'s post-secondary

institutions as places where they can pursue their dreams and learn skills to

help their communities.

[K. Whittred in the chair.]

Since 2001 we've invested more than $1.46 billion in student

financial aid to help British Columbians pursue their dreams and prepare their

future. Last year the province forgave $77 million in student loans to over

24,000 students. That, of course, is equivalent to the size of a small city.

Government also pays 100 percent of the interest on student loans

for up to ten years while they are enrolled in full-time studies. Last year the

province paid $38 million in interest on behalf of students, while recovering

only $26 million in interest payments. Taxpayers subsidized the other moneys.

Half of B.C.'s graduates graduate without debt, and 90 percent of

those students who have borrowed are making payments on time. We thank them for

that.

We contributed $38 million to three new scholarship programs in

the province. These scholarships will be provided in perpetuity, a B.C. first: a

$15 million scholarship endowment with 150 Irvine K. Barber scholarships, worth

$5,000 each, awarded to students who are transferring from the public

post-secondary system to complete a university degree; a $10 million aboriginal

scholarship fund for first nations students; and the Premier's One World

Scholarship, in which up to five B.C. undergraduate students will be awarded

$20,000 each to study overseas and to gain international experience.

These are all in addition to other programs we've created to

increase the number of students who will go on to graduate studies. We have

allocated $10 million to the Pacific Century Graduate Scholarships over the next

four years. A thousand scholarships worth $10,000 each will be awarded to

graduate students in B.C.'s four large research universities.

We've also allocated $10 million to Accelerate B.C., a

graduate-student internship program that will create 650 intern opportunities

over the next four years at MITACS, a national research network that brings

together university researchers and companies in a collaborative effort to solve

some of the industry challenges.

Research and innovation are critically important to B.C.'s future.

New technologies and solutions researchers develop will enable B.C. to remain at

the forefront of the global marketplace.

Since 2001 we've allocated over $1.5 billion to research, higher

than any previous administration in B.C. history. Our investment has also

leveraged more than $900 million in additional research funding from other

sources, including the federal government.

I believe our commitment to research is unmatched in any previous

government in B.C. Under the B.C. knowledge development fund, we've also

provided $329 million in research infrastructure since 2001.

Some of the major BCKDF projects include $38.5 million for project

NEPTUNE, a cable-link seafloor laboratory that will let researchers study fish

stocks, earthquakes, climate change and offshore petroleum extraction; $6.5

million towards the $49 million biodiverse research centre which will research

agriculture, forestry, fisheries and environmental change; $12.9 million towards

ICORD research centre at Vancouver General Hospital, where researchers hope to

discover and develop new therapies for spinal cord injuries; $5 million towards

UBC's laboratory for spectroscopy and image research; and $4 million towards the

lattice project located in Geneva. This project will investigate the fundamental

nature of matter and the basic forces that shape our universe.

[1020]

We also created $56.25 million in the leading-edge endowment fund

that established 20 research chairs and nine regional innovation chairs. So far,

ten of the leadership and three of the regional chairs have been established.

Other related initiatives that we have been providing for are $75

million for Genome B.C. to support genome-related research in the province; $50

million to help create the natural resources and applied sciences endowment

fund; $25 million at UBC's Centre for Drug Research and Development to advance

new drug therapies and medicines and also to help with commercialization; $15

million for the Pacific Alzheimer Research Foundation to establish a research

program aimed at eliminating the diseases related to dementia; $10 million

towards the mental health research at UBC, including research chairs in child

and adolescent psychology, geriatric psychology, depression and psychotherapy;

$5 million for Wavefront, B.C.'s first wireless technology centre, which will

help B.C.'s wireless businesses test new software and products and help bring

them to market; and $4 million for the Canadian Cancer Society to establish a

research chair in primary cancer prevention.

B.C.'s future is expanding our horizons, taking our place on the

international stage. We are developing an education quality assurance

designation that will let students around the world see which B.C. institutions,

both public and private, are recognized and meeting the established standards —

building partnerships with institutions of higher learning around the world.

From academic exchange to research coordination and exporting our

expertise in designing and delivering training programs, I'm proud of our

government's progress in post-secondary education. We're eager to build on our

success. We need to focus on needs of today and tomorrow. We need to start

looking at future needs of generations on a long-term basis.

It's important to think ahead, just as businesses and first nation

elders must, because we're here to make a difference. We're here to make a

positive difference in the best place on earth. That's British Columbia.

D. Routley: Madam Speaker, it's so nice to return to this

House. Having been through, I guess, most of my

[ Page 9668 ]

first term, I have to tell you that whenever I'm out of this place, I think

that every minute I get to speak in here is a cherishable moment, and it's

important to the people I represent. So you tend to want to cram a lot of ideas

into a narrow space.

Maybe I should have a little more sympathy for this throne speech,

because it's been described as the kitchen-sink throne speech. I think I would

call it the new B.C. Liberal austerity, the austerity of no more than two

sentences per idea and no more than four months' concentration on an epiphany of

principle.

We've seen this cycle over and over and over again. It's quite

amazing to imagine that so many announcements can be re-announced. I guess it's

part of the new awareness in recycling and reusing and all of that new

awareness. It's surprising that the throne speech isn't printed on green paper

that will disappear after we read it. That would be more appropriate, I think.

I guess that's less than respectful of the Speaker, but I'm sure

no more respect than is deserved of this throne speech because there's no theme.

Perhaps the government arrived at the conclusion that the themes weren't quite

working when the themes were never followed through on.

We've gone back from that hard-learned lesson to a throne speech

of no leadership, which becomes a hard-worn reality for British Columbians.

There was nothing in this throne speech for our number one industry, forestry —

our number one industry that supports this entire province. There is nothing

here, and yet we've seen the intentional mismanagement of that industry, an

effort to break down the structures that had grown, an obvious attempt to

de-unionize our industry, and a quite successful effort at decoupling our

communities from the benefits to be gained from their own resources. That, Madam

Speaker, is a crying shame.

[1025]

There was nothing for our public education system. In my own

constituency I'm struggling against the closure of several small schools. My

neighbour, the member for Malahat–Juan de Fuca, and I share the same school

district in which I served as a school trustee. It's a school district that has

been driven into a corner by B.C. Liberal funding policies — cutting programs,

closing schools and cutting services to its small communities and small

neighbourhoods, all in complete disregard to commitments made by this government

to children, to environment and to community.

Our children. Tens of thousands of them are labouring in

overstuffed classrooms overladen with special needs. Our environment. As we

close neighbourhood schools and bus…. Well, no, the busing is about to be cut.

We drive our kids into other neighbourhoods and other communities. It runs

completely contrary to the notions of reconciliation.

In my neighbour for Malahat–Juan de Fuca's constituency there is a

school called Koksilah Elementary, which has been targeted for closure. Most of

the students come from my constituency, and 98 percent of the students are first

nations.

This school, with its groundbreaking cultural and language

programs, is a beautiful portal from a very bad past into a more hopeful future.

It's a portal through which our aboriginal children can pass and enjoy the

support of their elders. It's a place where elders, harmed, wounded, affected by

residential school experiences, feel safe, accommodated and comfortable enough

to go into the school in goodwill and help with those programs.

All of that is about to be cast aside because of the

discriminatory funding formula of the B.C. Liberal government, which has

penalized small communities in the worst way. This government knew

demographically that there would be a pothole of enrolment, where enrolment

numbers would decline, and it used that in order to carry out a vicious agenda

of attack on small communities.

It is absolutely true. We see it all the way around this province

— small communities affected by this funding formula. At the very moment when

this government knew there would be a slight decline — was it 4 percent? — in

student enrolment is when they chose to attach the funding to the student. This

cynical choice has led to small communities not being able to offer up the

economies of scale demanded by this government, and so they lose their schools.

It's atrocious. This is policy being used against British Columbians.

When I was a student in Cowichan school district, we were moved

all over the district. Grades were reconfigured; buildings were changed.

Interjection.

D. Routley: You know why, Member? You know why they did

that? They did that in order to keep schools open.

I was born in 1961. This was also a depressed enrolment period,

but the school districts used all the tools available to them to spread the

population out and keep schools open in community interest. What does this

member's government do? This member's government cynically applies policy in

ways that force districts to close those schools in order not to cut programs.

Reconfiguration is now used as a tool to close schools. You can

use a hammer to build a house, or you can use a hammer to tear it down. That's

what this government has done with education policy and forest policy. They've

used the tools available to them to tear the house of British Columbia down and

dissolve the common wealth. That is the biggest atrocious crime that this

government has committed repeatedly. It is repeatedly announced in this

kitchen-sink throne speech that lacks theme.

Let's look at theme in some of the areas that I would have applied

to this speech. Locally, forestry. Cowichan Valley — the birthplace of the

international woodworkers union. The first wage parity movement ever in this

province was in Cowichan Valley, when the workers imported from Asia were…. The

IWA fought for equal rights and equal pay for those people. I'm very proud to

represent that heritage in our valley. But we have seen that foundation of our

community broken.

[1030]

We have seen truckload after truckload of logs exported from our

community without benefit to our

[ Page 9669 ]

citizens. That is directly accountable to this government's forest policies

that have driven away our jobs. One by one, now, our contractors are falling

into bankruptcy, and job after job is lost.

Safety. Safety is another casualty of the B.C. Liberal forest

policy. Safety in the woods. Safety for our truck drivers. That's a secondary

consideration for this government and its corporatist agenda that puts those

corporate benefits to their supporters ahead of community interests in

communities like mine. I'm here to say how sad that is and to appeal to this

government to take another look at what defines this province.

To me, what defines this province is maybe, perhaps, a naive

notion that British Columbia would always work for British Columbians, that B.C.

would work for us. All of its splendour — all of its wealth, its water, its

forests, all of it — would be turned to our benefit. But that has not happened.

That has changed under this government. Now other people are benefiting. Jobs

are being created south of the border and Asia with our logs, and everyone is

paying the price.

Worker safety. We see the records. We see the numbers killed. We

see the deaths continuing in the woods. We had promises from this Premier. I

want to refer back to some promises made by the Premier around forestry. "The

industry of the future will be one where no one gets hurt, and no one gets

killed. All workers will go home safely, all the time."

How's that going? Hey, folks, how's it going? Is it going pretty

well? No, I don't think so. I knew a few of them. I sat through the inquests.

The inquest into the death of the faller Ted Gramlich in Duncan,

B.C., and its results pointed directly to the forest policies of this B.C.

Liberal government and the severing of the chain of responsibility for the

safety of our workers. It pointed directly at your government. Do you wear it

well? Not in this speech. There's no mention of those workers. There's no

mention of that industry. It's our number one industry that's being managed into

the gutter.

We just went through the biggest boom in housing in U.S. history.

During that time dozens and dozens of mills were closed in this province, and we

were laid to our back for the fight we now have to engage in for our industry.

We were made vulnerable by B.C. Liberal policies to the dollar now and to the

slowdown in the U.S. Now we'll see the result looking at the futures in terms of

lumber prices. Hundreds and hundreds more operations won't be able to survive

over the next two years.

This throne speech basically amounts to admissions of failure and

exemptions of responsibility. But I will tell you that on page 11 there is an

adequate description of Liberal policies and the history of their responsibility

to this province, and it is that it's avoiding responsibility and being

generally selfish. That is exactly what we've seen.

We've seen the interests of children put behind the interests of

this government. We've seen the interests of small communities betrayed to the

interests of their corporate donors and friends. That is a tragedy. There was

zero for fishing and zero for forestry — our two main natural resource

industries. A healthy B.C. depends on healthy natural resources, yet there's

nothing.

[1035]

Madam Speaker, I know that you share this with me. We often don't

get a lot of time to be with our families. I don't get a lot of chances to do

homework with my daughters, but I did have some time to do some homework with my

daughter when she was in grade 12, two years ago when I was first elected. She

was doing a report where she was asked to compare the fortunes, economy and

general well-being of Newfoundland to British Columbia. We worked through this

project. At the end of it, it really occurred to both of us, I think at the same

time, that the loss of their natural resource in Newfoundland led to but one

choice: the huge expansion of offshore exploration and drilling.

I say that the loss of our fishing industry — which this

government is mismanaging through its refusal to live up to the recommendations

of the aquaculture report, its refusal to protect our natural salmon, its

refusal to acknowledge its responsibility to our forests — amounts to the same

thing. We, like Newfoundland, will be like the person who's shopping when

they're hungry. Not the best choices get made.

That government's responsibility is to British Columbia, to its

people, to its forests, to its water, to its fish — all of which it has

abandoned piece by piece. We hear about no-net-loss forestry. No net loss from

when — today?

Go take a look at my constituency, Madam Speaker. I'll take you up

there, and we'll take a look at some river valleys that have been denuded by the

lack of oversight that this government allowed on private lands.

Hon. K. Falcon: Boo hoo.

D. Routley: The Transportation Minister says: "Boo hoo." He

says: "Yeah, boo hoo." Will the minister say "boo hoo" to my constituents? The

minister says yes, he'll say "boo hoo" to my constituents, who have suffered the

loss of their schools, their trees, their sawmills and their jobs under this

government and that minister.

Let's take a look at their record. The Premier said that in ten

years, there would be four to six new small-log mills on the coast. As well, a

revitalized coastal industry will help secure the needs of the pulp and paper

sector and leverage additional investment in these facilities — none of which

has happened. The opposite has occurred. That is a failure of policy.

The people who supported them were their donors, who had donated

over $1.2 million to their party. That was Interfor, TimberWest and

Weyerhaeuser. In 2003 Interfor had 38 logging operations. Now they're all

contracted out. They had six sawmills. Now they have two mills. They had TFLs

and forest lands. They've sold most of that. TimberWest had six logging

operations. They're all contracted out. They had one mill. Now they have one TFL.

They had two TFLs. Now they have no sawmills.

[ Page 9670 ]

This is an abandonment of trust, and it extends throughout our

communities into our schools, into our hospitals and onto our streets.

Poverty issues. This province, four years running, leads the

country as the province…. Well, it follows the country as the country's province

with the most children living in poverty. Twenty-five percent of our children in

British Columbia live in poverty, and that is a crying shame.

You know, the government seems to think that homeless shelter beds

are housing spaces. They count them when they count their efforts in housing, in

social housing. So we have more shelter beds. That amounts to a bigger mop and a

bigger pail to mop up a bigger mess made by the failed social policies of this

same government.

So many people cut off of assistance. We see the results in our

aboriginal population throughout the province — devastating results that I'll

refer to in a moment.

The environment. It's a "you choose, you save." Who pays? Ordinary

people will pay. British Columbians will pay. In fact, on page 13 it says that

all British Columbians will pay. Maybe that explains why Mr. David Hahn, the

American controller of B.C. Ferries, has been exempted along with that huge

corporation with its huge output of carbon. Perhaps that explains it, but it

doesn't explain the devastation in my constituency due to the failure of this

government to properly monitor the practices in our woods.

[1040]

Relying on the companies to self-monitor is not fair to them and,

above all, not fair to British Columbians. It's not fair to the companies,

because basically we're saying: "You write your own speeding tickets." Be

forthright, all of you as members. How many of us would write ourselves speeding

tickets? Well, the speeding tickets that would be written in the forest industry

would be to the tune of millions, so no speeding tickets were written by those

companies for themselves.

There was no forest service, no environmental assessment, no

control whatsoever, and now we see the results. We see the results in the

flooding in Honeymoon Bay in my constituency, the flooding in Youbou, the

devastation in our woods, the helicopters flying into our neighbourhoods to log

down to the townsites, complaints from the constituents about the thunderous

noise of logging operations basically in their back yard.

You know what? In fact, when I look at the throne speech, there is

one hopeful moment here for me, and that is the Trees for Tomorrow, because

they're going to plant all these trees in urban areas. Perhaps my constituency

can look forward to a future where the export of raw logs comes from the city

rather than our community. Perhaps the government is preparing for a time when

they've denuded completely my constituency and others or when all of those

forest lands have been converted to condos and sprawl, as is about to happen on

Vancouver Island.

All of these things are interconnected. They should all have been

mentioned in our throne speech, but they weren't.

What else wasn't mentioned in the throne speech, one might ask.

Well, I'll answer: ferries. Ferry fares. Can you imagine a government that over

four years could oversee more than 100 percent increases in ferry fares on our

small runs? This is unbelievable.

Hon. K. Falcon: Boo hoo.

D. Routley: Unbelievable. A Transportation Minister who

does his boo hoo act again. Maybe the Transportation Minister could come to

Kuper Island and say boo hoo to the elder on Kuper Island who collects pop

bottles to get back on the ferry. You know, Mr. Transportation Minister, that

elder cried when the ferry staff wouldn't let her on. She didn't have enough

money. In fact, the RCMP were called to pull her from the ferry.

How does that measure up to the new relationship and

reconciliation and mutual respect in the Transportation Minister's eyes, which

obviously are clouded by the same Liberal fog that has allowed this province to

be ruined?

Hon. K. Falcon: Would you prefer a bankrupted company?

D. Routley: No, I would prefer a ferry service that

honoured its public purpose, that served its communities ahead of the corporate

goals of this….

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Member, would you take your seat for a

moment, please.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Order, Members. Order.

Continue, Member.

D. Routley: Maybe the Transportation Minister gets a little

bit excited when the failings of his own ministry are exposed, especially

through real stories.

Generally, I think British Columbians like to multiply rather than

divide. When they find that there is an injustice to one and they multiply it by

a larger number, the responsibility will be placed there with the government,

where it's deserved. This government's advertisement of a surplus is sad in the

face of all of these deficits in our communities.

Let's look at their history with reconciliation. Basic health

indicators. Aboriginal people, on average, live seven years less than the rest

of the population.

You know, Madam Speaker, the throne speech in its conclusion

reminds us that two years from now the whole world will be watching us. The

whole world watched Australia. They tried to reconcile in a mere two years

before their Olympics, and the stories didn't go well for them, because the

truth was that life on the ground didn't change. Life on the ground won't change

here either in those two years.

[1045]

[ Page 9671 ]

This world will come to see that the facts of life for aboriginal

people are that they live seven years less than the rest of us, that infant

mortality rates run between two and four times the average for non-aboriginals.

Interjection.

D. Routley: Are you proud of that, Member from North

Vancouver? Are you proud?

HIV and AIDS rates are twice as high as the general population,

triple the rest of the population. Alcohol-related deaths are four to nine times

higher. The rate of aboriginal teenage mothers is almost six times the rate

amongst the rest of the population.

The poverty rate amongst aboriginal children is twice the rate of

the non-aboriginal population. From '97 to 2005 the number of aboriginal

children in care increased by more than 50 percent. Some 50 percent of the

children in care are aboriginal. Only 16 percent of those children graduate.

Aboriginal youth are seven times more likely to be in prison. Only

47 percent of aboriginal students complete high school compared to 82 percent

for the rest of the population. That is the truth the world will come to see two

years from now unless this government reverses its course and puts communities

ahead of its own goals and the goals of its corporate donors.

Health care. What did this throne speech offer? I'd like to talk

about some of the people who've come through my doors — seniors who have been

denied care, families of seniors, couples about to be separated — and their

treatment. Yet all this slim document could offer those people is a George

Bush–style savings plan which amounts to an admission of failure to serve the

seniors of this province.

If you can't meet the bar now, wait until the demographic ball

really hits you and us in British Columbia, because there are going to be a lot

more seniors. We should be able to expect that this province will care for those

people who built it, but they are failing to do that.

My constituent Bill Cross, who has since passed away…. When he

came to my office or called my office, he told us that he had not had a bath in

108 days.

Interjections.

D. Routley: A nonsense story? He was placed in one of their

assisted-living buildings inappropriately because that minister and his

government made a promise to this province that they would build 5,000 long-term

beds, and they broke that promise.

Now that's been changed. "Oh, we'll make 5,000 assisted-living

beds." In fact, there are seniors all over this province warehoused in those

buildings without adequate care.

Interjections.

D. Routley: The deficit you're leaving is in our

communities. Your government….

This government, Madam Speaker, ran the two highest deficits in

the history of this province, and even now they let the debt of this province

grow at 5.2 percent, more than double the rate of inflation. That's the legacy

of this government. That's the legacy, not the Olympic legacy. The Olympic

legacy of this government will be debt, homelessness and deficit in the rest of

B.C.

Rural B.C. has been cut out. We are the revenue pump of this

province, and the pump needs to be maintained, but this government failed. Now

we demand to be cut back in to the benefit from our resources.

We demand, from rural B.C., that this government recognize that

those trees are for British Columbians, that that water is for British

Columbians, that its purpose is to protect all of it — not to auction it off,

not to fraction it, not to liquidate the common wealth of this province, as they

have done. That's the legacy, and it's sad, I think. You know, we're not able to

use names, but Ritchie Bros Auctioneers comes to mind.

[1050]

I look at health care in my own riding and the emergency room in

Cowichan District Hospital. There are generally three nurses in the ER. If one

of those nurses is on a transport, that leaves two for 16 beds. If one of the

other two gets assigned to a cardiac bed, that's a one-on-one, and it will leave

one nurse in charge of 15 beds.

We have more emergency room visits and more acuity than Victoria

General, yet they have two-thirds more staff. We have just slightly less than

Nanaimo general hospital, and they have double the staff — another example of

rural communities being left out.

There used to be a notion of equity in this province — that there

would be an equitable service to citizens. We all knew that in Horsefly, or even

in Youbou in my riding, it's always going to cost more to deliver public

services. Our schools. We don't have as many children. Our hospitals — all of

that.

But that has never stopped British Columbians in the past,

including previous Socred governments and NDP governments. It has never

encouraged them to abandon the notion of equitable service. I think that the

ratepayers associations in my community are very effective, because they bring

up the notion of value for their tax dollar. They want service, and they ain't

getting it.

We've been cut out. Our schools are closed. Our hospitals are

downgraded. That's the legacy. That's the way I sliced the bread, the way it

looks. It's all about outcomes, yet what characterizes this document? "We will.

We're going to. We will. We're going to." Promises, promises, promises by a

government that has repeatedly broken its promises over and over and over again.

My critic area is training. They've devastated the training

system. It's just now coming to the Red Seal completions that were at their

height in '96-97 — just now. They pushed labour and workers from the table.

There's no strategic vision.

We need child care for those programs to work. They cut that. The

real immigration picture is one of discrimination, exploitation and unhappiness

as we see workers return to their countries in numbers.

[ Page 9672 ]

When they say things like, "It's the highest-ever amount," well,

the population is going up and inflation is going up. It better be the most.

They haven't kept pace. I've shown you the evidence. The surplus the government

has alluded to is not real. The deficits are in our communities, and they belong

with that government.

D. Hayer: Madam Speaker, Happy Valentine's Day to you and

to the other members of the House who are not here, and to my wife.

An Hon. Member: And to Doug Routley.

D. Hayer: And to Doug.

Anyway, before I start, I just want to say that our member for

Cowichan-Ladysmith has a different vision of our province and our throne speech.

I remember living through the 1990s, and he was here too, when he saw the

economy go from the best place to the worst place in Canada.

My colleague sitting beside him, from Lillooet — he was also here

and the Minister of Transportation — used to say that we need more money for

twinning of the Port Mann Bridge, and you know, nobody brought it. We see that

we need to widen the Highway 1 from Langley to there, but money wasn't coming

in.

Actually, in the last seven years, when I travel around the

province and I take a look, our educational system, our health care system, our

transportation system have received more funding than they have ever received

because of a strong economy. I remember going to all of these towns in 2001, and

they were saying: "There are no jobs here. We have to go to Alberta. We have to

go to Ontario, and we have to go to United States to look for jobs for our kids.

Can you do us a favour, if you know somebody who might hire somebody?"

Nowadays I go all over this province and all of the small towns,

especially with the Finance Committee, and basically all of the employers are

saying: "Do you know anybody who wants to work, because we have so many jobs but

not enough people?" — even though our population is growing. We have more

immigrants coming in, and there are more jobs than people in British Columbia.

That is because of the change of policies of this government, which is much

different than that of 1990s.

[1055]

Each government has their own way of dealing with how they want to

improve our economy, how they want to govern. They tried. I'm sure that they had

good intentions. On the other hand, some of the results…. You can only talk

about what happened, at the end of the day. We went from the best economy to the

worst economy. I think that with some of the policies and everything else that

we work with, we have gone from the worst economy to the best economy in the

last seven years. I mean, that's very good news.

Some of these members from the opposition don't want to live in

it. They don't want to live in there. Look at education. Basically, the funding

has never been so much, even when the children's population has gone down. We

still have more money per student provided. Transportation is the same way. Look

at health care. It's the same way, and I think it's going to continue.

It is a very special day for me. It is my honour to speak to the

throne speech. You know, when I come in here and I listen to the throne speech,

when I look at the importance it has given to the long-term vision for British

Columbia's constituencies and communities, I feel really excited about it, which

is much different than the opposition.

The throne speech was very broad. It touched on every aspect of

our life, and I think the government is looking not just at the short term; it's

looking at the very long term.

One of the things that's important to my constituency is the

environment. Environment is one of the first and foremost in this throne speech.

The vision this shows and the plans the government has outlined that talk about

the environment are far-reaching. It's going to help us. The plans are designed

to not only create a livable world today but for long term into future for our

children, our grandchildren and their children.

It is well known that residents of Fraser Valley and Surrey are

constantly faced with environment issues and air quality issues, particularly in

my constituency of Surrey-Tynehead, which suffers greatly from the vehicle

emissions caused by traffic stuck idling in jams on Highway 1 leading up to the

Port Mann Bridge.

Interjection.

D. Hayer: I know my colleagues from Surrey don't want to

twin the Port Mann Bridge or widen Highway 1, because their leader doesn't

support it. They have never once stood up in the House to say: "Let's go twin

the Port Mann Bridge and widen the highway. Let's start to eliminate some of the

pollution we have with vehicles stuck in there."

This throne speech looks long into the future, as far out as 2050.

The detailed plan to control emissions on high-emitting vehicles is great news.

It calls for a greening of British Columbia to clean the air that we all breathe

and the air that the whole world breathes.

Another issue that holds great promise, for Surrey residents in

particular and for British Columbia as a whole, is the review of court

sentencing to determine why sentences in the province appear to be shorter than

those handed down in the other parts of Canada.

Crime is one of the invasions of the sanctity of life. Anything to

reduce crime, from violence to petty theft, is very good news. One of the

concerns my constituents talk about is: "Can you talk about crime in here?" You

know, I have brought those issues to our Solicitor General, our Attorney

General, our Premier and our caucus, and they have really listened.

One of the concerns of my constituents is to have the sentences of

the criminals reflect the crimes they commit and make sure criminals' rights

should not supersede the rights of the victims. Sadly enough, over the last

little while there seem to be more rights for the criminals than the victims or

our society at large, and that has to change.

[ Page 9673 ]

In order to reduce crime, in order to put deterrence, we have to

make sure that we have stronger sentences. Deterrence is a good thing to have so

that criminals who are constantly repeat offenders are not allowed to do that.

We need to make sure long-term jail sentences are given to the repeat offenders

and the violent criminals.

We also want to make sure that something needs to be done from

both sides of the House. They should talk about supporting the rights of the

society and the rights of victims and not just the rights of the criminals.

I am happy, and I know my constituents are happy, to see that our

government recognizes these concerns, and our government is actually acting on

it. This is particularly important as we march quickly towards our 2010, when

the whole world's eyes will be upon us. We want to demonstrate to the world that

British Columbia is "The best place on earth," the most welcoming place on

earth, the most beautiful and the safest place on earth.

[1100]

I know the excitement is building for the 2010 Olympics. So many

people are enthusiastic and willing to work hard to focus the attention of the

world. So many people are excited when the attention of the world is on us. They

want to make sure our province gets the coverage it gets to make sure when the

world…. Over one billion people will watch it. It's going to help our economy,

even though some members of the opposition don't want to focus on that.

Even today, when I listened and heard on the news that the website

for the volunteer sign-up for Surrey, the lower mainland, British Columbia and

Canada are really excited about it…. The website is overwhelmed by the people

who want to go out and help and volunteer for the Olympic Games. So many people

want to help, want to ensure that British Columbia puts its best foot forward

when every aspect of our province, our people and our success will be under the

scrutiny of the world's media. It never fails to amaze me the way British

Columbians are coming together in this great event. Why not showcase the great

strength we have in this province?

I know my colleagues from the opposition want to make sure that we

don't have a good economy, want to make sure we don't talk about all the great

news, all the great stories we have changed in the last little while.

[S. Hammell in the chair.]

Anyway, I want to make sure when we talk about our economy, when

we talk about the changes we have made in the last seven years, it is something

that everybody understands. Even the opposition wants to forget about it. All

they want to remind us about is their days when they brought this economy from

the best one to the worst one.

Over the last 150 years this province was built on the backbone of

our immigrants. It is pioneers who worked so hard to make sure that we have hope

and prosperity and that we make sure we keep on enjoying the hope and prosperity

our pioneers have built.

I want to make sure that our province continues to go the same

way. We want to make sure that we keep on relying on the immigration that we

need to fill all those jobs that are coming open today. Without having the full

strength of our economy behind us, we will not able to make sure that our job

creation situation is filled by the people from British Columbia.

When I talk to people, one of the things they say is that many,

many decades ago there were not many immigrants here. These immigrants that came

from all parts of Canada worked hard. They looked at it. They wanted to have a

positive vision and a strong vision. They made sure that we had railroads coming

in, connecting from east to west. They made sure that we had roads connecting

from east to west.

If some of the opposition look at it today…. If they were to think

negatively today, we would not have those roads. We would not have all of the

hope and prosperity we have today.

We want to make sure our students are looked after. We want to

make sure that our high school students who are going to school keep on getting

the best education we're providing them today. Also they want to make sure that

our economy….

If every high school student graduates from school now and over

ten years, we will still have over 350,000 vacant jobs to fill. That is because

of a strong economy, because of the policies of this government. That is why we

are not only encouraging immigration, we are also counting on immigration,

because we have to make sure to fill the jobs. We will not have enough people in

British Columbia to fill them.

As the Parliamentary Secretary for Multiculturalism and

Immigration, I am proud of the efforts this government is making to ease

immigration, the plans and programs it has to make immigrants welcome and to

make their entry into the workforce and business as seamless and simple as

possible.

adjust to their new life, to make the transition easier from their native

language to the language of work, commerce and life in British Columbia. This

program that is so vital to making people feel comfortable, to feel at ease and

to help them be safe at the worksite and workplace has been expanded by more

than $20 million to provide adult-oriented settlement and support services.

[1105]

those immigrants that we need so badly will continue the prosperity and

workforce demand that will enable them to pursue employment opportunities more

easily and more quickly. This program will assist not only the new immigrant job

seekers but the employers who need them and the communities these newcomers will

call home.

The throne speech also speaks of expansion of the provincial

nominee program, which will help address the skill shortage created by our

strong economy. Without such a program, we will see the skill shortage grow in

the future. The provincial nominee program

[ Page 9674 ]

now has the additional focus on entry-level and semi-skilled-level workers.

It will help those workers and their families obtain permanent residency much

more quickly.

Among the goals of this new pilot program is offsetting the

serious labour shortages in the tourism and hospitality industry along with the

trucking industry, both of which are expecting huge growth in labour demands

over the next decades and more.

Both of these industries will play a critical role in our

expert-oriented economy. Both will play a significant role during our 2010

Winter Olympic Games. Based on the growth patterns, the hospitality and tourism

industry will need 84,000 more workers in the next decade — an average of one

new job created every hour over the next ten years.

To service our rapidly expanding port system in B.C. and the

increasing demand of Pacific Rim projects by consumers of North America, we need

across Canada more than 37,000 new professional truck drivers each year. In B.C.

alone, at least 4,500 new truck operators are needed each year.

Right now we are relying more and more on temporary foreign

workers to meet the demands, but that does not create stability. It does not

create the kind of lifestyle and economy that we value so highly in British

Columbia. What we need is a permanent workforce and the families who will grow,

who will contribute and who will become part of this amazing diverse culture

that we have in British Columbia, which has existed here in our province since

our province began more than 150 years ago.

Over that time, racism has occasionally reared its ugly head. To

ensure that never happens again, to ensure that everyone here feels welcome,

feels comfortable and feels at home in our diversity, we have — with the

participation of the federal government — increased funding to combat racism and

provide settlement and immigration services to our new residents.

Under our Premier's initiative WelcomeBC, this year and through

2009, funding from those programs has increased to $104 million, up from $75

million last year. These funds will be bringing the total spent over the next

two years to support newcomers and immigrants to $246 million.

This is especially important because British Columbia must attract

30,000 skilled workers every year to meet the job demands. As early as 2011, the

majority of our labour force growth will be from immigrants. While the variety

and the skill level of all those jobs will be widely different, it is especially

important that we attract foreign-trained professionals. Though there has been

some concern that many of those professionals who come to British Columbia

cannot find work in their chosen profession due to credentialing, our government

has taken steps to fix it.

We have invested half a million dollars in funding to improve this

dilemma. Under the Ministry of Economic Development, this government is

providing those funds to 17 regulatory bodies to improve credentialing

assessment and licensing practices to reduce the barriers that skilled

professionals face when attempting to find positions suited to their

professions, suited to the positions they held before they immigrated to Canada.

These changes will see more engineers available to build and

create our infrastructure and more doctors and health care professionals to

provide the services that our growing population will need. This funding is

welcome news, not only to professional new immigrants but to the economic future

and well-being of the entire province.

[1110]

Through the Ministry of Attorney General we are providing about

$1.5 million in bridging programs to help youth and the children of immigrants

better adapt to our educational system, to our school system and to our

communities so that they can feel welcome, find friendship and feel comfortable

in their new homeland. This is especially important, since it is our children

and youth and those of our new immigrants who will set the course of our

province in the decades to come.

The ministry also has the Safe Harbour program, which encourages

businesses in many of our communities to display signs offering sanctuary for

people who experience discrimination or harassment and briefly need a place to

go.

There are, through Welcome BC, so many venues and different

programs available for encouragement of our current and future immigrants, who

we depend on more and more to address our future and create the future for those

new immigrants and new workers, and to ensure that British Columbia will always

be the best place on earth.

The throne speech includes much more, Madam Speaker. There is much

in this vision for the future of British Columbia, but time will not allow me to

go into more detail.

I would be remiss if I didn't mention the strong action planned

for our educational system. The speech detailed a new program leading to

certification in leadership for teachers. New powers will be given to the

College of Teachers to eliminate incompetence in education in some of the

teachers. New steps will expand our public university system, which will

certainly interest my constituents in Surrey, and the provision of new clarity

of purpose for our post-secondary institutions and new opportunities for higher

learning.

Post-secondary students will be given new consumer protection as

institutional accountability is strengthened under the new educational quality

assurance program. Funding will be targeted for such things as added training

for skilled workers to meet demand. Our successful Skills Connect for Immigrants

program will be expanded.

For youth and children, another 316 StrongStart B.C. centres will

be added over the next two years for a total of 400 in B.C. by 2010. This

program gives young children, particularly those who are immigrants, an

excellent basis on which to enter our regular school system.

Also included is a new early childhood learning agency to be

established to assess the feasibility of a

[ Page 9675 ]

full-school-day kindergarten for five-year-olds. It will look at expanding to

include four-year-olds by 2010 and three-year-olds by 2012.

Madam Speaker, the vision this government has for our province is

wonderful. When I talk about the throne speech, many of my constituents have

said that this is excellent. I have received many calls on that. The throne

speech encompasses everyone at every age level regardless of colour, creed,

heritage or political leaning.

In closing, I want to repeat my steadfast support for this throne

speech, for the path this government has chosen to take and for the vision of

the future over both the short term and the long term, which our Premier has

detailed so eloquently. I am proud of what we have accomplished so far since

first being elected in 2001. I am excited about what we and our new immigrants

to the province will accomplish over the decades to come.

I know that in the opposition, because their job is to oppose us,

they always speak negatively about the throne speech, but I know in their hearts

they see the great things this government has done in the last seven years. They

can see in their hearts that many of their friends and constituents have jobs in

British Columbia now. They also know that without our strong economy, we would

not be able to have the lifestyles we have today.

Our economy is the best economy in Canada, and it will continue

that way. We want to make sure the economy grows, so we can keep on putting more

money into education, into our health care, into our social programs and looking

after everybody who needs help, making sure that British Columbia remains the

best place on earth.

[1115]

S. Simpson: Hon. Speaker, I am very pleased to have the

opportunity to stand again and respond to the throne speech. At the time when we

have this opportunity, probably more than at any other time in this place, it

gets me reflecting back to the role that we have here and the role that I play

for my constituents in Vancouver-Hastings. It's a great honour for me to have

the opportunity to take my place in this chamber on their behalf, and I feel

very privileged to do that.

My constituency is very diverse in many ways. It's a constituency

with a very large and significant Asian population — about 40 percent. Also,

what is probably the largest urban aboriginal population in British Columbia is

in Vancouver-Hastings. A large number of our first nations people living there,

particularly young people — with the challenges that they face living in

Vancouver — are looking to have their aspirations met, and sometimes feel left

out of the mix.

I meet with the organizations in my constituency that deal with

aboriginal issues — the friendship centre, United Native Youth, Native Health

and other groups like that. I hear from my constituents a lot that they feel

frustrated and left out, and their desire is to have their aspirations met as

well. Of course, that's not exclusive to the aboriginal people in the

constituency.

Vancouver-Hastings is probably the second-poorest constituency in

British Columbia. Of course, that means an awful lot of poor kids. We know, as

has been pointed out here, that for four years in a row now British Columbia has

had the highest levels of child poverty in the nation. Sadly, those levels are

even higher in constituencies like mine.

As we all know, kids don't get poor by themselves. Poor kids are

all about poor families, and those families don't feel that their issues are

being addressed by this government. Certainly, there's nothing in this throne

speech that will make them feel any more confident that the government is paying

attention to their interests.

Also — and there's a little bit of discussion of this in the

throne speech — I'm pleased that I have probably the largest single industrial

sector in the city of Vancouver, having most of the working port located in my

constituency. It's a very important job creator and economic generator for

British Columbia and for Canada, and I'm pleased it's there. There are obviously

always challenges when you abut a large industrial operation up against

residential neighbourhoods, which is what we've done. But people are working

hard on both sides to try to ensure that those relationships are successful.

The thing about my community is that it is a community that's

active. There are lots and lots of community interests who are working in the

best interests of the people who live in Vancouver-Hastings. It's a

compassionate community where people do look after each other and look to take

care of each other.

There are real concerns that we all have to be lifted up when the

opportunities arise. There shouldn't be winners and losers. Unfortunately this

government — probably more than anything else, except maybe its ideologically

driven privatization schemes — thinks it's okay that there be winners and losers

in British Columbia. What we need to do is find a way to raise everybody up.

There's a real consciousness about that in Vancouver-Hastings.

That's a frustration they feel, and that would probably explain the reason why

Vancouver-Hastings is one of those constituencies that has never chosen to elect

a B.C. Liberal.

There are many issues in my community and certainly not exclusive

to my community. I know they're across the city. I know they're across the

province. Probably more than any other issue that comes into my constituency is

the issue of housing and housing affordability. It's not exclusively an issue of

the homeless.

This is really much more an issue of young families, families on

modest or moderate incomes trying to be able to live in the city, mostly in the

city where they grew up, and trying to make things work. Very often they are

working poor, minimum-wage or close-to-minimum-wage workers, and they're finding

it very, very challenging to find rental accommodation that they can afford and

that is appropriate. They're seeing very little assistance from the government.

There is the rent subsidies program, but many of those people, for a variety of

reasons, are not able to avail themselves of that program. It doesn't work for

them.

[1120]

[ Page 9676 ]

The government has chosen not to be innovative to look for ways

to deal with those issues, to look for ways to increase affordable rental

housing stock in our communities, whether it be market or non-market rental

housing stock. We've seen little of anything from the minister that suggests

that he's thinking about that or that he's looking to deal with those issues.

In my constituency there are significant issues around mental

health. Many of my constituents, a large number, suffer from mental health

issues. They come into my office every day looking for support, looking for

opportunities to be able to improve their lives, and often just looking for help

to cope. If they're not homeless, many of them are right on the bubble, and next

month they could be. There's always that pressure and that strain.

For people who are already suffering from health issues to have

that uncertainty about where you hang your hat at the end of the day and not

knowing if it's going to continue is a very challenging situation. It makes it

extremely difficult for these people to be able to cope and deal with the other

issues that are in their lives.

Those issues include, in many instances, addictions. We know that

— whether the addictions are to drugs, to alcohol, but addictions. Being able to

try to deal with those addiction issues, the health issues, uncertainty about

housing, and general poverty…. That's a pretty challenging mix. We put far too

many of the people, certainly in my community and I know in communities around

this province….

These people are in this situation where they have all of these

pressures facing them. It's a very, very challenging situation, and we really

have to ask ourselves whether we do enough here to help our most vulnerable

citizens — many of our most vulnerable citizens — to meet those challenges. I'm

afraid we don't.

The work doesn't get done here. The initiatives don't come forward

to meet those challenges. Certainly, I haven't seen those initiatives in a

substantive way in this throne speech. So there isn't the progress that needs to

be made here, and the throne speech has failed us in that area.

I know that crime and safety is an issue. I'm sure it's an issue

in many communities around the province. It certainly is an issue in my

constituency and in Vancouver. Clearly, there's a growing concern around gang

violence. I'm sure that every member in this House is very concerned about the

ever-rising number of murders in the city that seem to have a direct

relationship to gang violence and drugs.

While the police have put together some coordinated effort in an

effort to deal with that, I don't see the confidence yet, in terms of the

electorate, that those issues are being addressed or that people feel we're

getting a handle on that. It is an issue that's very, very big for people in the

community.

On the other side of that, an issue…. Certainly, property crime is

always a concern — people's assets, the things they own. They get very concerned

when those get stolen, and rightly so. But most people understand that a lot of

the perpetrators of that crime fall into that category that I spoke about

earlier — people with mental health issues, with addictions, who are living in

poverty, who aren't sure about their housing status.

The people I talk to, many of the people in my constituency,

absolutely want this addressed in a way that protects their property. But they

also know that it has to be addressed in a way that recognizes the health

implications for those people who are perpetrating many of those crimes and that

makes sure they get the support they need.

This isn't just people wanting to be punitive. They're looking for

real supports to be provided to people so that they can, in fact, move forward

with their lives and don't feel the need to engage in those kinds of criminal

activities.

[1125]

A big issue and a growing issue in Vancouver and East Vancouver is

around education. It's around school closures. We all know that the school

population in Vancouver is reducing; it's going down. There are fewer students.

There are a number of reasons for that. Some of it is the housing affordability

issue, but there certainly are other reasons as well.

I know — having talked to people at the board of education and

knowing what some of their thinking is as they review facilities — that there

are a significant number of schools in my constituency that potentially are on

the block. It's primarily annexes, but schools in my constituency are on the

block and face possible closure. I have a great concern about that.

Not that it may not be necessary at some point to do some

closures, but I have a concern that the ministry here and the minister are not

getting past the rhetoric of some of her comments around issues in our schools.

I've heard the minister talk about schools being neighbourhood

hubs. I think that's true, and I think that that's a good aspiration to have.

But if you do that, then you need to be prepared to allow for space in schools

to be used for things other than strict academics — whether it's parent spaces,

child care spaces or other community uses.

The member across the way talks about StrongStart, and StrongStart

is a fine program. It meets one need, but there is a whole array of other things

that can happen in schools that legitimately enhance the opportunities for kids

and their families, particularly in some of the inner-city schools.

Unfortunately, to this point in time the minister is not willing to acknowledge

and recognize those as legitimate activities and to allow that space to be

factored out of the calculation on capacity so that we start to look at how we

may best use those spaces.

Also — just one other reference that relates to education — I've

had the opportunity to meet with an organization that is in my constituency, the

Learning Disabilities Association. All members, I'm sure, have heard from

members of the LDA who are concerned about the lack of support for children with

learning disabilities, the lack of any additional funding for kids with learning

disabilities.

I know that this organization is looking — and I certainly support

the initiatives — to have much better

[ Page 9677 ]

assessment of children at a younger age so that we can identify those

disabilities, learning disabilities or learning challenges and be able to put

individual education plans in place to meet those challenges.

What I'm told by people in the field, by parents and by educators

who specialize in learning disabilities, is that if we capture them early, we

have great opportunities for these kids to go on and be successful in school and

have successful lives. If we allow this to fester for periods of time, we create

a different situation where behaviour issues and other issues come to the fore.

I would hope that the government would invest the resources for

the assessments and education plans, and additional resources to the schools and

classrooms so that these kids can get their needs met, whether it's with

education assistance or special training for teachers around how it affects

class size.

We've talked here about poverty issues. We know poverty is a

significant issue, and it's one of the issues that certainly creates the "us and

them" in our society. We on this side, of course, have encouraged small measures

— a small measure like the increase in the minimum wage from $8 to $10. The

government, clearly, has rejected that.

If things are to be believed, this question about not being able

to be successful at getting even a modest minimum wage increase at this point is

one of the factors that has the current Minister of Labour announcing her

intention not to seek another term. In fact she's been frustrated, I know, by

her desire to increase the minimum wage and to get it up. She knows it should be

raised, but the Premier and the cabinet have no interest in raising minimum

wage, and it's unfortunate.

[1130]

I want to talk a little bit about the environment area. Clearly,

environment was a significant piece of the throne speech. The issue that

concerns me the most around this is the question of climate justice — that this

be fair and balanced, that our plans look to incorporate a scope that has

everybody involved in trying to find solutions, and that it recognize those who

are most vulnerable and protect them.

It's about engagement and beginning to engage British Columbians

in this discussion. It's more than a year since the 2007 throne speech, when

most of the things announced in this throne speech were announced for the first

time. We've had most of them repeated again this time, but that's what happens.

I guess it's particularly easy to do if you haven't actually done anything on

them, and then it's almost like they're new.

It's around the contradictions. There's a whole series of public

policy and programs that this government is advancing in one silo, and then

there's the whole climate change initiative that's coming out of the Premier's

office in another. In too many cases, there seems to be no correlation between

those activities, and that's becoming increasingly evident to people who watch

and observe this process.

I'm hearing more and more from people who are expressing their

concern that the government isn't looking at this in a holistic way but is

scrambling to put its shopping list together of things that will show it's

taking action on this.

The other thing the government is doing, and we saw a lot of this

in the throne speech, is this discussion of individual and personal

responsibility. Very little, I think, other than a passing reference in relation

to cap-and-trade…. There is no reference to large greenhouse gas emitters other

than a passing reference there. That's of concern — that the government is going

to download responsibility for dealing with this issue increasingly onto

individuals and not look at a broader scope of where the responsibility lies.

We also see, and I think it's of no surprise to the people on this

side of the House, that there's a big focus on local governments and the desire

to download onto local governments, with no references in here that there will

be resources that come along with that.

There is also a concern that the Premier has announced that the

climate action plan will come sometime after the budget. Now, last year's throne

speech…. We had the throne speech, and then we had the budget with no dollars in

it, but we were told: "Don't worry about it. It will all be in the 2008 budget.

That will be the green budget." So we were all expecting that those dollars

would be in this budget, but now the Premier's giving us indications that

actually the climate plan will come some time after that.

It begins to raise questions. Will there be dollars in the budget

to deal with these climate change initiatives, or will we have to wait for 2009

for those dollars? Will we be waiting another year? This is all of interest.

We'll get to see next week what it is the government does, whether it just puts

it all off for another year or whether in fact we're going to be looking at

things this year.

There is a concern growing that this speech, like previous

speeches, is full of big dreams but no real plans. That concern is growing with

British Columbians, and we see that. We have a Premier here who, on the issue of

climate change — certainly one of the focuses of this plan — is not talking to

the citizens of British Columbia. He's not talking to our communities, and he's

not talking to business. We know now that that frustration is bubbling up across

the way as well.

Reading comments yesterday in the media …. This is quite

remarkable, because the one thing that people have always said about this

government is that it's very disciplined. Things don't leak out. Those concerns

don't get raised. Things get buried. However, we're now seeing something very

different on this issue, and the issue is around engaging people and involving

people in the conversations.

In this case, we have members like the member for East Kootenay,

who was talking about business concerns in relation to climate change. He is

quoted in the Globe and Mail as saying: "I acknowledge their concern. It

comes from a lack of certainty about what the government is going to do. It's a

year ago that we first laid out some broad themes, and business doesn't know a

whole lot more now about how we intend to get there." He's right. The member is

right.

[1135]

[ Page 9678 ]

The member for West Vancouver–Capilano was quoted as saying: "I

ask what the cost of this is going to be" — talking about the climate change

initiatives — "and I'm still waiting for an answer." Presumably, members of the

Liberal caucus should be better connected to get some answers than the rest of

us. Clearly, it's not working very well for them either.

The problem here…. I understand that these members, and other

members from the Liberal caucus who have been referenced or quoted as well, are

raising exactly those same kinds of frustrations. It's not just business.

They've raised them in relation to business because they've got representations

from business interests who are concerned. But we're hearing this from local

communities, from individual citizens, from people in the environmental

movement, from first nations, from many who are saying: "We are shut out of this

discussion for all intents and purposes."

Why is it that this climate change discussion is going on without

talking to British Columbians, without talking to the legitimate interests? As

long as this continues to be the Premier's practice and the climate change

cabinet committee's practice and the secretariat's practice, I'm very, very

concerned that we're not going to make progress we need to make on this issue.

If we know anything, it's that the bottom line is that this is an

issue so big and so complex in its ways that if we want to make real progress,

citizens and communities have to take ownership of those solutions. It means

they have to be part of that discussion and then take that ownership, as do

business and others. Then we have a chance to make the progress we need to make.

But I just don't believe, if it all comes on high and if it's pronouncements in

a budget, in a throne speech or a press conference of the Premier saying, "This

is what you shall do, British Columbia," that we're going to get there.

Those concerns are mine, and clearly, those concerns are shared by

a growing number of members of the Liberal caucus. I'm glad they are starting to

speak out, and, hopefully, they will speak out loudly that the Premier needs to

begin talking to British Columbians — something he has chosen not to do on this

issue.

What we need is a plan that is fair around the climate change

initiative and that is fair for everybody in this province and for business in

this province. We need a plan that has a broad scope to it and that incorporates

large emitters, individual citizens and our communities. We need, if we're going

to talk about emission pricing….

There's a lot of speculation about what will be in the budget next

week around emission pricing — i.e., carbon taxes. We need for those taxes to

prove out to be revenue-neutral. They need to be really revenue-neutral. Not the

interpretation that the Minister of Finance has been spinning lately about what

constitutes revenue-neutral, but really revenue-neutral so that it begins to

give…. People who, in fact, take initiatives to reduce their emissions will see

some benefit from doing that.

We need to link, as I said before, to other government action. The

government needs to be able to show us where the linkages are between the

climate initiatives and between the other programs that it has moving forward. I

think that we need to get past the rhetoric here and be a whole lot more honest

both about what the challenges are to accomplish effective climate change

initiatives and about what those initiatives might look like.

As an example, we hear a lot about California tailpipe. It was in

the throne speech here. But the reality is that we know that as long as the

number of vehicles on the road continues to grow — in the numbers that they are

now, based on ICBC 's projections — we're not talking about reducing emissions

through California tailpipe. We're talking about putting some limits — which is

not a bad thing — on the rate of growth, but we will continue to grow our

emissions from vehicles simply because of the volumes of vehicles that are on

the road.

I'd be the first one to say that if you don't do anything, it

becomes a much more serious problem. So I don't want to disparage the need to

take action like California tailpipe, but it's not being honest with people to

suggest that it's going to dramatically cut our emissions. What it will do is

slow the growth down because of the increase in number of vehicles. It doesn't

begin to get us there.

[1140]

We're having a very tough time seeing how we get to the Premier's

number and what we do to get there. Again, it was a comment that was referenced

to the member for East Kootenay, when he said he had echoed concerns that the

government has created uncertainty by announcing carbon-cutting targets before

the planning has taken place. There's certainly something to those comments by

the member.

We need to engage citizens in developing solutions rather than

telling them after the fact what we're going to do. That's one of the biggest

failures of the Premier's plan, other than making announcements before there was

a plan and then having to have the bureaucrats and others scramble to try to

make up a plan that fits the targets announced by the Premier.

We now have a situation, though, where the Premier, the

government, would be much better off to simply come clean and say: "We've been

winging it for a year. We know we have to get at this. Let's actually sit down

and start figuring out how to deal with this in a more thoughtful way that

involves us all." I'm not going to hold my breath, but I think that would be a

good thing.

It's particularly important, I think, because British Columbians

are feeling increasingly disenfranchised by the government. We see that on the

climate change file that I've just talked about. We see it and I hear it in

terms of the makeup of the new TransLink, the privatized planning for TransLink,

where we have this board that is put in place that meets in secret and that no

longer has the accountability of having elected officials on it.

If you want to exacerbate that, in its first meeting it goes out

and embraces what I understand was maybe a government directive. It's hard to

say where the directive came from. We hear mixed messages. They give themselves

a 500 percent pay raise at their first meeting. As somebody said, they probably

deserve some more money,

[ Page 9679 ]

but it might have been a good thing if they'd actually done something before

they gave themselves a 500 percent pay raise.

Part of this as well — and it's a concern that I hear — is that

the government announced recently, of course, its transit plan, the $14 billion

wish list. We're not quite sure how it all gets paid for yet, but we'll see as

that unfolds. The challenge that now comes is that I have people saying to me:

"Well, if the government has told TransLink what, largely, will be most of that

$14 billion coming of development if these projects all go ahead, falling under

the auspices of TransLink…. What exactly are they supposed to plan and do around

our transportation system when the government has given them a directive that

they can't afford as it is?"

There becomes this question about what the real role of this board

will be. Of course, the biggest concerns about what that role might be are

around notions of property taxation and around other questions.

Then we have Bill 30 which, of course, has frustrated a whole

number of people in our province who want to talk about land use planning in

their communities and have been told they can't when it comes to private power.

So this government, which seems to distrust British Columbians…. It's becoming

an increasingly mutual distrust with our British Columbians.

While the Premier, I know, likes throne speeches better than

budgets because they get to be flowery and they don't have to have a lot of

substance and he gets to be rhetorical in them, it is the budget that we will

wait for next week. We'll look for housing initiatives, for climate change, for

dealing with species at risk, for education dollars, for money to fight poverty

and for looking at the future of our forests and rural communities. We'll see

next week if the Premier's words are worth any more than the paper they were

written on in this throne speech.

I look forward to engaging in that debate, hon. Speaker, after

next Tuesday, when we actually get to see if there's any meat on the bones of

all of these soup-to-nuts commitments in the throne speech.

D. Jarvis: It's my honour to rise in what is now my 17th

year in this great House. I rise to address the 17th or, someone said, possibly

the 18th, as one year in the mid-'90s we had two throne speeches.

[1145]

Nevertheless, certainly over the last 17 years I can say that

every throne speech I have heard and have addressed has made me proud to stand

with all my colleagues in support of the Speech from the Throne.

This year is no different, as we are a forward-thinking government

and a world leader when it comes to issues such as environmental stewardship and

literacy initiatives. When I was in the U.S.A. last December, I picked up a

magazine published in San Francisco stating that Vancouver was the greenest city

in all North America. So even the Americans realize what a great government we

have.

The electorate needs to know that government is listening to them

and that we hear what is important to the people of this province. This throne

speech reflects what I hear my constituents say, what the people of North

Vancouver–Seymour say, and it is important to them on a daily basis.

For example, they want to feel safe in their own communities. They

want to review the review of sentencing guidelines for certain types of criminal

offences, and this speech reflects that wish.

To the people in North Vancouver–Seymour, I want to say that I'm

still very honoured to be your representative. The fact that they increased my

vote in the last election is quite humbling.

Over the past 150 years that we have been a province, there have

only been 884 MLAs in this House. So we should all, both sides of the House, be

proud to be the representatives of B.C. It has been a privilege for me to do so.

There are many aspects in this throne speech that I want to….

There are so many that I can't possibly speak to all of them, so I've pulled off

a few items that pertain to my riding.

This throne speech addresses the commitment of British Columbia to

help reduce greenhouse gas emissions in an effort to combat climate change. The

North Shore schools are helping to achieve the climate change goals and have

gone green to help address the implication of greenhouse gases.

In October '07 the province of British Columbia launched the B.C.

green schools program, in which North Shore schools will take part. This program

aims to educate students about the effects of global warming and will help

reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 33 percent by 2020.

A lot of discussion is out there on the greenhouse gas aspect —

the cost and how to achieve it, etc. But regardless of this, regardless of these

discussions, it is imperative and only proper that we have clean air and clean

water. We owe it to our children and our grandchildren to do so. So let's get on

with it, politics aside.

Madam Speaker, the building blocks of any society are education

and literacy. Education is the medium that will allow our children to possess

the appropriate tools to one day run this province. It is for reasons such as

this that the province has invested so heavily in education.

It is evident that the literacy programs have always been strongly

supported by this government, and the North Shore has certainly played its part.

Last year I sat on the all-party Education Committee, and literacy was the main

concern for both adults and youth. The North Shore has some of the highest

literary usage in the country. In a recent competition British Columbia came

fourth in the world for literacy. Both of these particular statistics are

something for all North Shore residents to be proud of.

Institutions such as Capilano College have stepped in to help the

adult literacy. Our provincial reading now, with StrongStart and North Vancouver

school district's reading 44, go a long way towards making sure that we can

continue to hold the bragging rights to being the most literate jurisdiction in

Canada.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

[ Page 9680 ]

Furthermore, the new Lynn Valley Library opened its doors in

November of '07. This facility supports this government's commitment to

education and literacy by providing an expanded collection and updated

resources. This is truly a marvellous building in the centre of Lynn Valley in

my riding.

[1150]

Mr. Speaker, this province has shown innovation in investing more

on health care than ever before, than any other government. Issues with

wait-lists and shortages of health care workers in our hospitals and health care

facilities are being addressed through our recruitment campaign that brings

experienced and qualified nurses into British Columbia. So 520 nurses from the

United Kingdom have been hired over the last two years.

In 2007 the province of B.C. invested $28 million to help recruit

and retain qualified nurses. B.C. has also increased the number of education

spaces by 82 percent, which has led to the graduation of 7,500 nurses in the

past five years. We said this was being done in previous throne speeches, and it

now has happened. I acknowledge that this recruitment program is an excellent

beginning to the continued plan for improvement.

However, I'd like to address that we also need a helicopter pad in

North Vancouver for the air ambulance to have a greater access to the Lions Gate

Hospital, which is our designated trauma centre. Presently it lands in the West

Vancouver works yard, and we have to then re-ambulance them over to North

Vancouver. We have the availability of land to build the pad, but financially we

are looking to all governments for some support there.

Mr. Speaker, noting the time, I move adjournment of the debate and

reserve the right to speak further when we continue.

D. Jarvis moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. C. Richmond moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until two o'clock

this afternoon.

The House adjourned at 11:52 a.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Hansard Services publishes transcripts both in print and on the Internet.

Chamber debates are broadcast on television and webcast on the Internet.

Question Period podcasts are available on the Internet.

TV channel guide • Broadcast

schedule

Copyright © 2008: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada

ISSN: 1499-2175