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)

MONDAY, MARCH 3, 2008

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 27, Number 7

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Page

Tributes

Dempsey Collinson

Hon. G.

Campbell

Introductions by Members

Statements (Standing Order

25 B )

Colorectal cancer

A. Dix

International Women's Week

M. Polak

Nile Creek Enhancement Society

Fraser

Festival du Bois

H. Bloy

Kootenay Lake ferry initiative

C. Evans

Coalmining in East Kootenays

Bennett

Oral Questions

Forest industry jobs in B.C.

C. James

Hon. R.

Coleman

C. Evans

Forest land sales in Kamloops

area

Conroy

Hon. R.

Coleman

Government support for forest

workers

Simpson

Hon. R.

Coleman

Haisla First Nation and B.C. Utilities Commission

decision-making process

Austin

Hon. R.

Neufeld

Fraser

Horgan

Private resort in Purcell

Wilderness Conservancy Park

Macdonald

Hon. S.

Hagen

Petitions

S. Fraser

G. Coons

J. Horgan

Tabling Documents

Public Service Benefit Plan Act,

annual report for year ending of March 31, 2007

Budget Debate (continued)

G. Robertson

Hon. R. Neufeld

S. Hammell

Hon. G. Abbott

A. Dix

R. Lee

C. Evans

Hon. C. Taylor

[ Page 10133 ]

MONDAY, MARCH 3, 2008

The House met at 1:33 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Tributes

DEMPSEY COLLINSON

Hon. G. Campbell: Today it's with great sadness that I

inform the House of the passing of Dempsey Collinson, a hereditary chief of the

Haida First Nation, Chief Skidegate. Dempsey was 78 years old. He lost his life

in the waters off the Queen Charlotte Islands while preparing to go by boat to

the ghow fishery this past weekend.

For all of us who know the Haida, he was a strong and a passionate

defender of their culture and their people. He was one of the elders who went

dressed in Haida garb to New York City to retrieve and reclaim Haida human

remains that were there. At that time he said: "Now we have all of them home,

and I'm happy they're all here."

I know, for all of us, our thoughts go to the Haida First Nation,

who are wrestling with this loss. I would ask that the House send their

condolences to the first nation and to the members of the family of Chief

Skidegate.

Introductions by Members

G. Gentner: It is a pleasure to introduce to the House

today a long-term friend of mine, Gwen Swecter and her husband Norman. Gwen and

I go back to the heritage days. She took a more lofty position and stayed with

heritage, and I got involved with politics. Gwen has been a known historian,

well-renowned in her work with women's histories. She's rewritten histories of

Ladner and many other stories in Delta, and of course, she's a strong advocate

of heritage.

Her husband is a world-famous helicopter pilot. He takes us around

and shows us what's going on in Burns Bog once in a while. Could the House

please give them a very warm welcome.

[1335]

Hon. G. Campbell: I am pleased today to recognize here in

the precincts the recipients of the first Premier's awards for teaching

excellence: Margaret Penny from Strawberry Vale Elementary School in Victoria,

Elaine Jaltema from Confederation Park Elementary in Burnaby, Deborah Koehn from

Glenview Elementary in Prince George, Sandra Santarossa from Cleveland

Elementary in North Vancouver, Elizabeth Blake from Winston Churchill Secondary

in Vancouver, Lyn Daniels from Burnaby Mountain Secondary in Burnaby, Nellie

Dionne from David Hoy Elementary in Fort St. James, John Harris from the Lochiel

U-Connect Education Centre in Langley, Denise Milne of the EBUS Academy in

Vanderhoof, Maye Davis from the Lake Trail Middle School in Courtenay.

There's Jennifer Murdie from Irwin Park Elementary in West

Vancouver, Linda Firbank from Howe Sound Secondary in Squamish, Gary Wall from

Sardis Secondary in Chilliwack, Joanne De Guevara from Sensisyusten House of

Learning in Westbank, Jeffery Weaver from Central Middle School in Victoria,

Dale Kerr from Tatla Elementary–Junior Secondary in Tatla Lake, Nader Mirhady

from Vancouver Technical Secondary School in Vancouver, Russell Stasiuk from

Penticton Secondary in Penticton and Peter Vogel from Notre Dame Regional

Secondary in Vancouver.

They are joined by the members of the selection committee, who are

in attendance today: Geoff Jopson, the president of the B.C. school

superintendents; Doug Lauson, the president of the Federation of Independent

Schools; Kim Howland, the president of the B.C. Confederation of Parent Advisory

Councils; and Sabine Lague, who is a student representative.

They are also joined by someone who is not a member of the

selection committee, Les Dukowski, who is the president of B.C. Principals and

Vice-Principals Association. I hope the House will make them all welcome and

give them our thanks.

R. Chouhan: Today we have Job Pozos-Avila in the gallery.

Job has been working since January as an intern at the Washington State Senate.

He's a student at the Evergreen State College in Olympia. He's a great supporter

of the cause of farmworkers. He's travelling today with the other 15 interns

from Washington State. Please join me in welcoming him and the others.

Hon. S. Bond: Two things today. Joining us in the gallery

are two students from the Vancouver Island North school district. They are here

in Victoria to attend our Interactive Innovations conference. We want to give a

warm welcome to Shawn Cowan from Sointula and Kerry Anne Stouffer from Alert

Bay. Welcome to the Legislative Assembly today.

September 21, a historic day in Prince George, was when northern

residents opened the Charles Jago Northern Sport Centre at UNBC. There were

thousands of people in that building for the opening.

On Saturday, March 1, more than 2,000 of us packed the sports

centre to cheer on the UNBC women's basketball team, our Timberwolves. I want

you to know that we are delighted. That building has been open for less than six

months, but we already have our first championship banner. It was an exciting

game.

On behalf of my colleagues from Prince George North and Prince

George–Omineca, I want to congratulate tournament MVP Laurel Wallace and

tournament all-star Jaclyn Nazareno. They're both fourth-year arts major

students at UNBC. But special congratulations to coach Loralyn Murdoch. She's

been involved in the UNBC women's program since 1997. Our first banner, with

many more to come. Congratulations, UNBC Timberwolves.

C. Wyse: Today I would ask the House to join with me to

make welcome John Kerr, along with my wife,

[ Page 10134 ]

Sheila Wyse, who have joined us here today, partly in celebration and

recognition of Dale Kerr's award, which the Premier has already referred to. At

times I think that they may be here to check to make sure that I'm still doing

my job. I would ask the House to join me in making them both welcome.

[1340]

Hon. G. Campbell: I'm pleased to say today that we have 40

students visiting us from University Hill Secondary School, a place where I

spent six years of my life. It is in my constituency of Vancouver–Point Grey.

They're grade 11 students travelling with some parents and their

teacher, Mr. Louis. They're here to experience the history of the buildings and

to see what really happens in the Legislature. I hope we'll all make them feel

welcome, because I'm sure many of them are going to want to sit here someday

themselves.

D. Routley: Six years in high school is pretty impressive,

I must say. [Laughter.] My apologies.

I'm hoping that the House, after that remark, will help me welcome

a friend of mine, a constituent, Harry Brerbreyer. Harry is a library technician

devoted to lifelong learning and a terrific guy. We all hope that people will be

engaged in our communities. Harry is one who shows up at all the community

meetings and has a very good point of view to offer. He's very engaged, and I

celebrate any constituent who participates the way Harry does.

Hon. G. Campbell: Mr. Speaker….

Interjections.

Hon. G. Campbell: I know you're all pleased to have me here

today. I wanted to explain, though, to the member opposite that actually when I

went to school, it wasn't just 50 miles uphill both to school and home from

school, but secondary school went from grade 7 to grade 12.

Hon. L. Reid: I would like the House to welcome Iain

MacDonald today. Iain is my work experience student this week. He'll be in this

building with us Monday to Friday. He's from Gulf Islands Secondary School on

Saltspring Island, a constituent of my hon. colleague. His teacher is Carol

Arnold, and the work experience coordinator is Maggie Allison. I would ask the

House and the members particularly, when you see him in the halls, to give him a

very warm welcome.

C. Evans: Visiting us today for lunch and I hope in the

gallery…

I can't see him, so maybe he's over my head.

Interjection.

C. Evans: Yeah, like much of what happens here.

…is Gerald Rotering. Gerald was the mayor of Nelson in 1982.

You'll remember that the sawmill went broke, the plywood plant closed, the

university closed, the town fell apart. Gerald as mayor invented the heritage

program and mortgaged the town's electrical system to work with the business

community and the province to build the heritage theme that has made the town so

successful today that I don't think Gerald can afford to buy a home there.

Would everybody please welcome Gerald Rotering, the guy that saved

Nelson.

Hon. G. Abbott: In the gallery today are the parents of my

ministerial assistant in Health, Joanna Richards. They are Bonnie and Stuart

Ellis, and they are visiting here from Port McNeill. I ask the House to please

make them welcome.

Hon. R. Thorpe: I'm pleased to introduce Mike De Guevara.

Mike is a councillor with the Westbank First Nation, and he's here to celebrate

with Joanne. Welcome to the House.

Hon. J. van Dongen: Visiting us in the Legislature today

are 22 Washington State legislative interns, and they are here to learn more

about our system of government in British Columbia. We told them that question

period was a very important part of governance in British Columbia. They had

meetings today with yourself, Mr. Speaker, with the Deputy Premier, with the

Minister of Environment and with me. I ask the House to please make them all

very welcome.

[1345]

J. Rustad: Today I'm also very pleased, along with Denise

Milne from the EBUS program who was introduced earlier…. Her husband Gordon

Milne has travelled down and is with us here today. Recently he retired from his

position as the superintendent of school district 91. I would ask the House to

please make him welcome.

Hon. P. Bell: Not to be outdone by my colleague, I guess I

should also be introducing Kim Koehn, who is husband to Deb Koehn, who is down

visiting us today as part of the teacher awards. Welcome, Kim.

Statements

(Standing Order 25

B) COLORECTAL CANCER

A. Dix: March is Colorectal Cancer Awareness Month. I think

members of the House will know, because many people have come and advocated to

many of us in recent times on the subject — that an estimated 1,100 British

Columbians will die of colorectal cancer this year. It's the second leading

cause of cancer death among men, and the third leading cause among women.

I wanted to pay tribute today to some of the people I've met. I

know that the advocates I've met — I know that the Minister of Health would

agree with this — do an extraordinary job in bringing this issue to government's

attention and to the public's attention. I think of

[ Page 10135 ]

Ruth Tremblay of Vancouver, who says: "Early detection" — because 90 percent

of colorectal cancer deaths are preventable — "would have saved me 14 months of

surgery, tests, radiation, surgical complications and chemotherapy."

Lynn Newbury from New Hazelton talked movingly to me about her 50

percent chance of survival, and yet she is spending so much of that time talking

to other people, helping them to take the prevention steps they need to take to

prevent colorectal cancer.

Ten years ago last week my mom was diagnosed with colorectal

cancer. Through a combination of really good primary health care and advocacy,

through surgery, and through good luck, she survived. Now ten years later, at

72, she's putting in a longer day at work than I am. I know there's a lot of

talk about the costs of health care, but how I feel about it…. The savings to

me, to the family, to her clients, to people in her network, and the fact that

she survived, are incalculable.

To everyone in the House, particularly those people over 50: get

tested. Take the FOBT test now. Get it done. To all of us as legislators: listen

to advocates for colon cancer, and put in place, if we can do it collectively, a

provincewide program that will help eliminate, or limit, anyway, the number of

deaths from colorectal cancer in British Columbia. This is a great month to do

it. It's Colorectal Cancer Awareness Month, and I ask all members of the House

to take the opportunity to get this done now.

INTERNATIONAL WOMEN'S WEEK

M. Polak: In its early days the women's movement, with its

focus on female suffrage, sought to advance the role of women in society as a

means of strengthening communities and the world at large. Women who engaged in

those early struggles did so because they believed the world would be a better

place if women were given a voice. While embracing their roles as caregivers,

homemakers, mothers and wives, these women recognized that the world needed to

hear the voice of women in work, in government, as entrepreneurs and as leaders.

As we recognize International Women's Week, I think of my

daughter's generation. To them, women's rights are simply human rights. They see

women and men working together to ensure that families around the world can have

the same opportunities as those fortunate enough to live in a developed western

democracy.

As women in British Columbia, we are fortunate indeed. Since 2001,

43 percent of the new jobs created in B.C. have been filled by women, and 76

percent of those jobs are full-time. The number of women working in B.C. is at

its highest level ever, and B.C. boasts the highest percentage of women

entrepreneurs in the west.

Yet for many women around the world, the opportunities we take for

granted are only a dream. International Women's Week is a time to reflect on the

many positive changes that have improved the lives of women and girls in North

America and around the world. It is also a time to remember that by continuing

to advance the role of women, we are building a brighter future for ourselves,

men and women alike. Strong women make a strong world.

[1350]

NILE CREEK ENHANCEMENT SOCIETY

S. Fraser: The Nile Creek Enhancement Society in my

constituency has the right formula. Founded by Rod Allan and currently led by

the acclaimed artist Ken Kirkby, the Nile Creek Enhancement Society took charge

to rehabilitate their own local watercourse.

I should mention that Mr. Kirkby is the recipient of the Governor

General's Commemorative Medal for the 125th Anniversary of Confederation, and

this was due to his nation-building work in the Arctic. He has taken on his

newer role with the same zeal, and we should all be happy for that.

Nile Creek was once a hyperabundant salmon stream but was

essentially killed by human activity. The Nile Creek Enhancement Society took

the bull by the horns — the salmon by the gills, I guess, would be more

appropriate — and boldly restored Nile Creek to its former glory. The Nile Creek

Enhancement Society is continuing with the restoration of other streams and the

restoration of kelp beds along the inner coast of Vancouver Island. As Ken

explained to me, it's about having the wisdom and the will.

We in this province are often fixated on two mighty rivers, the

mighty Fraser and the mighty Skeena. They are vital, of course. However, the

great fishery that sustained our entire economy relies also on a multitude of

smaller streams.

The Nile Creek Enhancement Society have offered their vision and

experience to train others and to involve students in their exciting

rehabilitation work. The Nile Creek Enhancement Society has partnered with Trout

Unlimited in a five-year project to ensure a vibrant future for pink salmon and

sea-run cutthroat trout, the precursor to all salmon that remains the ultimate

indicator species. Ken describes this cutthroat trout as the holy grail of fish.

The Nile Creek Enhancement Society has won the prestigious

Canadian environmental stewardship award. Through their restoration projects,

they are in the business of manufacturing hope for future sustainable

generations, and we all owe them our congratulations and our support.

FESTIVAL DU BOIS

H. Bloy: Bonjour, hon. Speaker. It is a great

privilege to speak in the House today and at an event I attended this past

weekend in Coquitlam. It was the Festival du Bois, put on every year by the

Société francophone de Maillardville. I have always enjoyed attending

this event. It is a great opportunity for families across the Tri-Cities and all

of British Columbia to enjoy good music and good food.

This year was different. We were able to support the festival with

a provincial grant of $50,000 to the city

[ Page 10136 ]

of Coquitlam and the Festival du Bois organizers. I am so pleased with this

government's ongoing support for francophone programs and for events like the

festival, which exhibits our province's unique francophone heritage. The

festival is a special event unlike many others in B.C. At the Festival du Bois

you can taste a variety of new and different foods, like I did, and listen to

some of the best folk music in British Columbia.

Once again at the festival, francophone Scouts put on an

incredible display of history, as they've done for many years. This year they

built a boat, they had period costumes for fairgoers to dress in, and they were

taking pictures. Also, the francophone Scouts built a geographical map of

British Columbia, complete with water running down the Fraser. It was very

competitive, and I entered the boat race and lost to Monique Powers. I can tell

you, the display was so impressive that the Burnaby heritage museum wants the

display so that they can use it in their facilities.

I am very proud of my community's Franco-Columbian heritage. In

case the House isn't familiar with the "Franco-Columbian" term, let me explain.

Franco-Columbian is a unique term which describes French speakers in British

Columbia. British Columbia's vibrant and dynamic French Canadian presence is

proudly represented in Maillardville.

The French community at Maillardville and events like the Festival

du Bois only further show how varied and multicultural we are in British

Columbia. Please join me in congratulating them for a great event.

KOOTENAY LAKE FERRY INITIATIVE

C. Evans: I rise to inform the House of a wonderful

initiative in my constituency, an initiative to reduce atmospheric carbon by 800

tonnes a year and at the same time benefit business and citizens and public

transportation.

The story begins over a year ago, when workers — from deckhands to

engineers to captains — on the Kootenay Lake ferry began to think about how they

might reduce their carbon output in keeping with the province's reduction

targets. The workers experimented with various engine speeds, and they

calculated that they could cut their fuel consumption by 23 percent and fuel

costs by $340,000 a year by marginally reducing their operational speed.

[1355]

The crew's proposal, essentially, would slow down a crossing of

Kootenay Lake so that instead of every 50 minutes it would leave every hour. The

operational hours would be extended every day so that the ferry made the same

number of crossings, just at a lesser speed.

The proposals met with massive public support. Environmental

groups love it because of the reduction in greenhouse gas production. Loggers

and commuters love it because it gets them to work earlier in the morning.

Chambers of commerce like the hourly

schedule because every hour on the hour is

something tourists can actually understand and remember. Regional district

directors like the plan because their citizens like the proposed

schedule and

love the green outcome. All in all, I have yet to find a single citizen who does

not endorse this environmental initiative.

We in the region, though, can't build a complete business case for

the changes without help to determine total environmental, social and fiscal

costs and benefits. So we request assistance and/or support from all members and

ministers to advance our community's carbon-reduction objectives.

COALMINING IN EAST KOOTENAYS

B. Bennett: The previous member talks about a very good

idea. I'm pretty sure in the East Kootenay we would have thought of that quite a

while ago.

Today I'm talking about something here that I've talked about many

times before, but not recently, and that is coal and coalmining. Although

coalmining in B.C. is currently a bit like that crazy uncle in the attic that we

don't like to talk about, I'm actually proud to speak about it here today. We

wouldn't have our hybrid cars or our low-fat lattes or our laptops, for that

matter, if it weren't for metallurgical coal. B.C. has been receiving benefits

from coalmining in the East Kootenay for over a hundred years. Today the coal

industry up there pumps over a billion dollars a year into the B.C. economy.

Today Elk Valley Coal accounts for one-half a percent of Canada's

total GDP. It directly employs 2,800 people at an average salary of $94,000. It

accounts for 32 percent of rail traffic in B.C. and 30 percent of B.C.'s total

port activity. Elk Valley Coal is the world's second-largest exporter of

metallurgical coal, which is a low-sulphur coal. It's metallurgical coal. It's

not used for generating electricity.

I've said all this in this House before, Mr. Speaker, so why am I

talking about it today? Well, I'm glad that you asked. Last Thursday in

Cranbrook the Mining Association of B.C. presented Elk Valley Coal's Fording

River mine with the annual sustainable mining award. Fording River mine is the

second-largest met coalmine in the world. It makes a huge effort to ensure the

surrounding water and land are separate from the mining operation, and they do

pull that off.

The coal industry in the southeast does a superb job of reclaiming

the land that is mined. Fording River mine has its own greenhouse and its own

tree nursery for planting the reclaimed slopes that support large populations of

elk, deer, grizzly bear, moose and Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep. I've been

there. I can attest to that.

The Fording River, which runs right through the mine site,

supports a healthy population of Westslope cutthroat trout. The Fording River

mine and their employees take great pride in how environmentally responsible the

operation is. Coal is washed with water. It's not washed with the challenging

chemicals that are often used in the refining of minerals.

I've got more. I see the red light on. It's always a pleasure to

stand up and talk about a great industry in the southeastern part of this

province.

Mr. Speaker: Just a reminder, Members, that it is

two-minute statements.

[ Page 10137 ]

Oral Questions

FOREST INDUSTRY JOBS IN B.C.

C. James: Ten thousand — that's the number of jobs that

have been lost or scaled back in B.C.'s forest industry in just this past year.

One year, 10,000 jobs. And we know there are thousands more jobs at stake in

communities across this province who are losing their mills. From the south

coast to the interior to the north, families and communities are suffering. What

was the response from this government and this Premier? No plan, just a round

table that hasn't met.

My question is to the Premier: when is he going to admit that he's

failed B.C.'s forest-dependent communities and that his only plan is to stand by

and watch as more mills go down and more jobs are lost?

[1400]

Hon. R. Coleman: The member knows, and we all know, that

right now B.C.'s forest industry is facing one of the most difficult times

probably in the history of our province. Prices are at 1991 levels. The dollar

is at par with the United States. The market in the United States has collapsed.

The reality, hon. Member, is that I guess you can get up and

politicize this, but what we're doing with forest communities is trying to find

long-term solutions with them today. We've put together the $129 million fund

for transition and bridging to pension and working with communities day to day.

It's an ongoing, 24-hour-a-day relationship that's going on between communities

and us every single day to try and find solutions.

Sitting down with industry executives and companies and unions in

the last couple of weeks…. They all know one thing. They know we can't control

the marketplace. If you wish to think that we can, all you do is undersell the

hopes and the future of B.C.'s forest sector and the workers.

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has a

supplemental.

C. James: If playing politics means standing up for the

forest industry and for jobs and for communities, then the people on this side

are going to continue to play politics with this issue.

A round table is no plan. A round table isn't going to stop mills

from closing. It isn't going to help workers get their jobs back. The round

table is simply a knee-jerk reaction from a Premier who was attending the

conference and didn't have anything to say about this industry.

It's been seven weeks since that announcement was made, and so

far, we have no terms of reference, we have no membership, and we have no

meetings. Their first report is due out in a few weeks. Meanwhile, the industry

is facing the worst crisis in our province's history — 10,000 jobs in one year.

My question, again, is to the Premier: if the round table is

something more than a knee-jerk reaction, then why won't he put out the terms of

reference, the membership, and when they're going to meet?

Hon. R. Coleman: The people that let down the forest sector

in British Columbia with bad forest policy were the NDP in the 1990s. You put a

billion dollars of additional cost on our industry during that time with all

your forest practice and code. You had a phony jobs and timber accord promising

21,000 jobs that it never delivered. And you went out and did a number of other

silly things with regards to our sector.

We actually modernized this in 2003, and today we're the only

competitive forest sector in Canada — in British Columbia.

With regards to the round table, the terms of reference are done,

and the phone calls are actually being made to ask the people to serve right

now. By the end of this week, the members of that round table will be announced.

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

supplemental.

C. James: That really shows the urgency that the other side

takes about the forest industry. Forty-six days and they're starting to make the

phone calls now. What happened to urgency? What happened to actually doing

something for those communities? The minister says that everything's fine.

Well, let's take a look: 34 mills down, 23 with scaled-back

operations. Prince George, Mackenzie, Terrace, Port Alberni, Campbell River,

Kamloops, Midway, Castlegar and Cranbrook. Those are just some of the

communities that are hurting, some of the communities that have faced huge job

losses, and all the Premier is doing is making those communities wait while he's

making phone calls for a round table. Seven weeks and nothing has happened.

Again, my question is to the Premier. Will he stand up and admit

that his stalled round table is an admission of failure and that he has no plan

to help B.C.'s forest-dependent communities and workers?

Hon. R. Coleman: Nonsense. You know what? When you have

over a hundred people who actually submit their names because they have an

interest in the future of the forest sector, you owe them the courtesy to vet

them in order to see who can be at the round table — who might have time, whose

resumé might fit with certain skill sets you might want to have at the round

table, and do the work so that the round table works for the future of the

forest in British Columbia.

I know you don't like it, and I know you're going to sit there and

say that the 10,000 jobs out there are the fault of a government, which is

absolutely wrong.

[1405]

The fact of the matter is there were 2.1 million housing starts in

the United States a year ago. It's expected to be between 700,000 and 900,000

housing starts in the U.S. in 2008. Do you think we can make them build more

houses in the United States? Do you understand that 85 percent of your forest

products in B.C. are shipped to the United States?

Mr. Speaker: Thank you, Minister.

[ Page 10138 ]

Hon. R. Coleman: Do you understand the market? I suspect

you don't, and you don't care about forest sector workers, because you simply

ignore them when it comes to us working with communities.

Mr. Speaker: I remind members: through the Chair,

please.

C. Evans: I would imagine that it is the easiest job in the

world to be in charge of something which you don't actually have to do anything

about, because no matter what happens, you blame it on events in a previous

century. There is no moment of accountability. There's no moment of

responsibility. There's no moment where you actually have to take charge,

because no matter what happens, no matter who loses their job, you blame it on a

previous century.

When the loggers in my community were going bust, I asked the

minister to take charge and come and see them, and he didn't go. When the

workers in Midway were losing their jobs, the member for West Kootenay–Boundary

said: "Could you come?" And he didn't go. When it was out here in Sooke, the

member from Sooke — whatever you call that — got up and said: "Would you come

and talk to my people?" He didn't go. It's my understanding that when Canfor

calls or West Fraser calls, he goes.

My question is: what is the matrix by which the minister actually

does his job? How does he pick those communities or corporations that he will

show up and assist and those that are written off and on their own and go down?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. R. Coleman: I'm sure this answer will send the member for

Nelson-Creston into even more high-flying rhetoric in a second. Last fall he was

demanding that we take back a forest licence before it could be sold to a

company that wanted to continue to open and operate two mills in the Kootenays.

If I followed his advice at that time, Interfor would not have

bought the company, would not have saved the jobs. The mayors of the communities

affected actually phoned me and asked me not to listen to the member for

Nelson-Creston, because they wanted an opportunity for Interfor to actually make

an investment in the Kootenay for the future, for the forestry of the Kootenays.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

C. Evans: Hon. Speaker, is "balderdash" parliamentary? How

about "horse puckey"? Everything the minister just said isn't true.

Mr. Speaker: Member.

C. Evans: Okay, it's balderdash. Is that nicer?

Mr. Speaker: Member, use your choice of words carefully,

please.

C. Evans: What the minister said about my position six

months ago is confused, hon. Speaker. What I actually said is: "Would the

minister stop the sale of private land out of tree farm licence 23?" I actually

said: "Would the minister see to it that the TFL didn't transfer until the

loggers who put the wood in the lake got paid?" If that's wrong, then I don't

know how to do my job.

Is there anybody that works here that's not here to stand up for

the people who live in their constituency — who do work, get up in the morning,

put the wood in the water? Is there anybody who wouldn't say: "Why not pay the

workers before the corporation?"

It is my understanding that when the minister won't come and talk

to the workers who live in Nakusp, he will go to visit the owners of Canfor and

West Fraser and change their stumpage. Hon. Speaker, you know, because you live

in Boundary, that when he changes their stumpage, it goes up everywhere else. We

call that the waterbed.

Mr. Speaker: Question, Member.

C. Evans: Will the minister please explain, so everyone

will understand, how the waterbed works and how, when he meets with a

corporation that's in his favour, it assists to bankrupt all the other, littler

companies that everybody in this room represents?

Hon. R. Coleman: Well, thanks, and that's rich.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

[1410]

Hon. R. Coleman: Let's be clear, hon. Members. Who was it

that intervened in the courts on behalf of the contractors in the Kootenays in

the issue with the CCAA with regards to Pope and Talbot? The government of

British Columbia intervened, hon. Member. The courts ruled against it. The

courts….

Interjections.

Hon. R. Coleman: No, that's not…. See, you can't….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. R. Coleman: You haven't even got the right sync, my

friend. But that's okay. Recently they looked at the contractors. We intervened

on behalf of the contractors. The courts ruled no — not us. We had no control of

it. It's federal statute, as you know, not under our control.

[ Page 10139 ]

But we've been there in the Kootenays working with the company and

trying to find solutions so that…. You know what? The mill in Grand Forks will

still operate. The mill in Castlegar would still operate. The chips would still

be there for the pulp mill in the future, because you know what? You still need

forestry in the Kootenays. We're hoping, quite frankly, that the arrangements

are being made and that the company that has purchased is going to commit to

that area so that you'll have a sustainable forest sector in that area of the

province.

FOREST LAND SALES IN KAMLOOPS AREA

K. Conroy: Those mills in the West Kootenay are still

struggling today and are not opening. I'd love to talk about that, but I want to

talk about another part of the province.

Of the 10,000 forestry jobs that have been lost, 200 of them were

lost in Kamloops when Weyerhaeuser announced the permanent closure of its mill

there.

However, in this case, the company also announced that they sold

their public forest licences to West Fraser who then turned around and sold them

to Interfor. The people of Kamloops and especially the Shuswap First Nation were

not consulted prior to the sale, and West Fraser won't reveal the terms of the

sale to the public.

To the Minister of Forests: when did public forest lands become

private holdings that can be bought and sold behind closed doors with no

requirement to consult with impacted communities?

Hon. R. Coleman: That sale has not been approved as yet. As

a matter of fact, I have to take into consideration the log supply, the markets,

the competitive nature…. And if there's a subdivision, it also has to go to

first nations consultation and accommodation. None of that has taken place; none

of that has been completed yet. So you're precluding a decision that the

minister has not made as yet.

Mr. Speaker: Member has a supplemental.

K. Conroy: With the track record in the Kootenays, when we

look at the CCAA on the website, all those lands…. There are millions of dollars

that say they've been sold. People have put out big money to buy land, so

they're all assuming it's going to be approved. So I think these people are just

assuming that it's also going to be approved because you don't put out millions

and millions of dollars to buy land if you don't think you're going to get

approval.

These are public lands, and one of the roles of the Minister of

Forests is supposed to be to protect public lands, protect the public interest.

Yet when asked what he will do, he's been told that his hands were tied. He said

he was hamstrung. That's simply proof that this government and this Premier have

privatized B.C.'s forests.

If I'm wrong, will the Minister of Forests commit today that he

will make the terms of the deal with West Fraser public, and will he commit to

conduct full public hearings so that the people of Kamloops and the first

nations groups can come and put in their two cents' worth and be heard?

Hon. R. Coleman: The first nations get consulted. That

process is going to be ongoing. It has not come to me as yet. The measurements

will be in a number of areas, and I'm actually in discussions with the companies

that could be affected by chip supplier logs right now. They're making

submissions to the minister, and we'll deal with that in due course.

GOVERNMENT SUPPORT

FOR FOREST WORKERS

B. Simpson: We're talking about 10,000 workers who have

been impacted. The spinoff of that on any calculation is about 40,000 B.C.

workers who have been impacted by this fundamental restructuring in the forest

sector.

[1415]

These are real workers. I met with a millwright on the weekend who

was in tears. He's having to leave the community that he grew up in and wants

his kids to grow up in, to move down to Vancouver, because he cannot sustain the

uncertainty right now in the industry. That's bad for the company that he's

leaving, because he's a skilled worker, and it's not good for his family,

because they don't want to go.

I talked to a young logging contractor who has $10,000-plus in

equipment payments per month and cannot work. He has five young children, and

he's quickly becoming a very angry young man.

My question to the minister is very simple. Where's the website

that I can direct them to, to apply for support from this government to get them

through this tough time?

Hon. R. Coleman: The member opposite is well aware that the

$129 million that he alleged has already arrived in the province has not. He

knows that we're working on an MOU with the federal government on the program.

We've identified the people in government and how we're going to deliver that,

and we would expect within the next couple weeks to have that entire program in

place.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

B. Simpson: Well, the minister talks about phony programs

in one of his first answers today and said in that same answer — and I think he

should go check the Hansard — that this program has already been defined,

that there's going to be pension bridging and that there's going to be

retraining and all of that. Now he's telling us that he's still working on it.

He's still working on the memorandum of understanding.

What is it? All we get from this government is a round table,

which is an excuse not to act. We get ad

[ Page 10140 ]

hoc forest policy from this minister that impacts other areas of the

province, that causes this structural change to go deeper than it has to because

he doesn't do his homework before he makes the changes, and we get this bombast

in here when we're talking about real people and real communities.

A year and a half this restructuring has been going on. Two months

we've known that this money is on its way. By the way, where's the provincial

money? These are provincial people. These are people of the province of British

Columbia, citizens that have paid their taxes here. Where is that money?

So again to the minister: where is this program, and why after two

months do you not have something that we can give as answers to these people

that are losing their jobs today?

Hon. R. Coleman: If the member would read Hansard , I

did say pension bridging. I did say retraining. I did say those things because

that's the intent of the plan. That's the work we've done internal to

government. We're just finalizing the MOU for the transfer of the funds. Maybe

you can't put the two together, but I certainly can.

Through to the members opposite, though, it's not about…. I mean,

the members are getting up and saying: "It's your fault, your fault, your

fault." I get the fact that you don't like the fact that the market has gone in

the tank, and the dollar is up and all of those things. I've sat down with

industry over the last number of months, and you know what they say to me? They

tell me…. The member opposite who actually claims to have some knowledge of the

forest sector should know where the markets are, where the price is, when you

can operate and when you can't operate.

When you're down around $200 a thousand, you know darn well that

you've got to take some product out of the marketplace because the market isn't

buying your product at a price you can make a profit at. This means you do have

to actually have some layoff and adjustments. And I don't like it. It's not fun

being the Minister of Forests and having to deal with situations that affect

people. But know full well that everything we can do, we are doing to protect

the long-term form of forestry in the province of British Columbia.

HAISLA FIRST NATION AND

B.C. UTILITIES COMMISSION

DECISION-MAKING PROCESS

R. Austin: Last December Chief Steve Wilson of the Haisla

First Nation wrote to the Premier. Chief Wilson states in his letter: "I have

more than lived up to my promise, and I expect the province to live up to what

it has promised me."

So my question is to the Minister of Energy and Mines. What did he

promise to Chief Wilson?

Hon. R. Neufeld: You ought to ask Chief Wilson.

Mr. Speaker: Member has a supplemental.

R. Austin: This letter contains serious allegations,

allegations that were made not by an enemy of the government but by one of their

friends.

[1420]

Chief Wilson states, and I'll continue to quote from the letter:

"I have more than lived up to my promise, and I expect the province to live up

to what it has promised me." He goes on to say: "That includes what B.C. Hydro

has promised for the Haisla, to take a neutral position on the electricity

purchase agreement at the British Columbia Utilities Commission oral hearings."

My question to the minister is: why did the minister and this

government try to subvert the B.C. Utilities Commission process?

Hon. R. Neufeld: If anybody tried to subvert the BCUC it

was the NDP when they were in power, when they removed B.C. Hydro from its

responsibility. We have never interfered with the BCUC process. In fact, we

strengthened the BCUC process many times in this House to make sure they were

back in charge of B.C. Hydro.

As far as the Haisla is concerned, we've worked with Chief Wilson

a lot. I worked with Chief Wilson to make sure the LNG project actually happened

on their reserve so that they received the taxation for it. This government has

done a lot of things with Chief Wilson to make things happen for that band as we

move forward and as we will continue to do. We have never done anything to

subvert the BCUC's decisions.

S. Fraser: Well, I think bluster understates it, so I'm

going to go with the bombast term also.

The minister didn't answer the question. The quote is specific. "I

have more than lived up to my promise, and I expect the province to live up to

what it has promised me. That includes what B.C. Hydro has promised for the

Haisla, to take a neutral position on the EPA at the BCUC oral hearings."

The question again — it's very specific: what did the minister

promise Chief Wilson so that he would support the government and Alcan in their

position at the B.C. Utilities Commission hearings?

Hon. R. Neufeld: I think the members should actually start

being a little careful here with accusations that they're making about this

government and the B.C. Utilities Commission.

We have worked with the first nations across the province. We've

worked with Chief Wilson closely. Chief Wilson has an opinion. He's quite

welcome to that opinion, but at no time did this government — like the previous

government, the NDP — subvert any decision from the B.C. Utilities Commission on

any decision that the B.C. Utilities Commission has made at all. We will not do

that.

We have said we won't do that. We'll empower the BCUC. We continue

to empower the BCUC, and they will make their decisions on merit and what's

based in the Utilities Commission Act for the best result for all British

Columbians, regardless of who they are.

[ Page 10141 ]

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

S. Fraser: I do. I want to read another quote. I have the

letter right here. "In particular, Minister Neufeld has not been helpful to move

B.C. Hydro where they need to go. I thought that when I went out of my way to

support the province by travelling to Alaska we made progress, but that is

definitely not the case."

Now, there's consistency here. This is a bit of an omen. The

minister isn't being helpful right now either. The question: what exactly did

the minister promise Chief Wilson?

Hon. R. Neufeld: I don't know how many times I have to tell

the member opposite that we have committed to work with Chief Wilson closely on

a number of issues. One was the LNG project, which we have. One is the energy

corridor, which he came to government with, which we have. There are other

issues, I'm sure, that MARR has worked with Chief Wilson on, on many occasions.

Chief Wilson is a leader in his own right in the northwest. We

appreciate that, and we understand that. That's great. But at no time — and I'll

say it again so this person, this MLA, gets it if he can — did this government

have intention to, or did before or will in the future, subvert any decision

that the B.C. Utilities Commission makes on behalf of British Columbians for the

betterment of all British Columbians.

[1425]

J. Horgan: Well, Chief Wilson's letter was addressed to the

Premier, and we've heard the quotes. I'll read it again for the record. "I have

more than lived up to my promise, and I expect the province to live up to what

it has promised me." This is a letter from a senior first nations representative

in the northwest of British Columbia to the Premier of this province. The Alcan

deal has been contentious. It was overturned once by the Utilities Commission

and not a second time, as Mr. Wilson points out in his correspondence.

My question is to the Premier. If these allegations are false,

will he stand in this place and say so today? Did this happen, or did it not?

Hon. R. Neufeld: You know, Chief Wilson can have opinions

of his own, as I said before, and should have opinions of his own and should

state his opinions of his own when he writes to the Premier or to a minister or

anyone else from the Crown about issues that he or his band feel should happen.

We have met the requests of Mr. Wilson, in relationship to the LNG

plant…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. R. Neufeld: …to working with them on the energy

corridor through the northwest part of the province of British Columbia. We have

done many other things. But in no way have we ever…. And the accusation — it's

actually just a little bit hard for me to take, coming from these members across

the way, about the B.C. Utilities Commission.

Never have we ever subverted any decision made by the B.C.

Utilities Commission, whether it was the Alcan agreement or anything. We

actually depend on the B.C. Utilities Commission to make decisions for us — all

of us, regardless of who we are in the British Columbia — for the best interests

of everyone in the province. We will continue that. We have empowered the BCUC

to do that, and they will continue that process.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

J. Horgan: It says here — delivered by hand: "Dear Gordon."

It goes on to say: "That includes what B.C. Hydro has promised for the Haisla,

to take a neutral position on the energy purchase agreement at the B.C.

Utilities Commission oral hearings."

Again, a very straightforward question. If this was delivered by

hand to the Premier, what is the Premier's response? Will he tell this House

now? Will he protect the integrity of the Utilities Commission and flatly deny

these allegations from Chief Wilson? Will he do that right now?

Hon. R. Neufeld: Again, I know the member has a problem

listening. He has a problem understanding some of these things, but we have

worked with first nations. You know, we're the first government that decided

we'd work with first nations for the positive outcomes of first nations in the

province of British Columbia. It was this Premier that actually put out the

first nations trust. A hundred million dollars….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Just take your seat for a second, Minister.

Continue.

Hon. R. Neufeld: The $100 million to recognize first

nations across the province of British Columbia, to help them with

capacity-building — we have done that. We've worked with many first nations. I

know my ministry has personally worked with an awful lot of first nations across

the province of British Columbia.

You know what? We're darn proud of it. That was one thing that

that government never did, but we will not subvert any decision made or

influence any decision made by the BCUC in regards to anything in favour of

anyone.

PRIVATE RESORT IN PURCELL

WILDERNESS CONSERVANCY PARK

N. Macdonald: I only get one question, and it'll be this. I

asked the Minister of Tourism five days ago whether a ski operation was moving

into the Purcell Wilderness Conservancy Park. If that's the case — and I believe

it is the case — then there are big problems

[ Page 10142 ]

with that. The people of the Columbia Valley have been clear. They do not

support the Jumbo project.

The reason this would be moved is to move ahead on the Jumbo

project. So I have three questions. The minister rarely answers one of them, so

I'll give him three not to answer. And if any one of them….

Does this minister intend to ignore the wishes of the people of

the area, who voted 79 percent against this project? Does the government intend

to break their word of October 4, 2004, and remove locals from decision-making?

Does the government intend to contravene the master plan for a Kootenay

treasure, the Purcell Wilderness Conservancy Park?

I can tell you…

[1430]

Mr. Speaker: Member, questions.

N. Macdonald: …if any one of those are yes, then you have a

fight on your hands.

Hon. S. Hagen: There's been no application made.

[End of question period.]

S. Fraser: Permission to seek leave to submit a petition.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

Petitions

S. Fraser: I have petitions from hundreds of residents of

British Columbia asking for support on the safe antifreeze bill.

G. Coons: I have a petition.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

G. Coons: It's a petition from close to a thousand

businesses and residents on Queen Charlotte Islands, Haida Gwaii, expressing

concerns about dramatic increases to ferry fares and requesting a moratorium

against fares until a committee is enacted to review the Coastal Ferry Act.

J. Horgan: I seek to present a petition.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

J. Horgan: I have a petition here signed by 182 members of

the community of Malahat–Juan de Fuca calling on the provincial government to

amend the education funding formula and ensure that Glenlake Elementary School

remains open.

Tabling Documents

Hon. I. Chong: I have the honour to present the annual

report of the business done pursuant to the Public Service Benefit Plan Act for

the year-end of March 31, 2007.

C. Evans: I ask leave to make an introduction.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

Introductions by Members

C. Evans: Everybody heard me introduce Gerald Rotering and

tell you how cool he was and everything he ever did for Nelson. Now he's

actually sitting there.

Thank you for coming here.

Orders of the Day

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

Budget Debate

(continued)

G. Robertson: I rise today to respond to the budget speech

as put forward from the government. I would like to start by recognizing that

we're on the traditional territory of the Songhees First Nation and by giving

respect to the first nations of B.C. for welcoming us all to their traditional

territory.

[K. Whittred in the chair.]

I just want to start by a warm thanks to all the people that make

it possible for me to represent Vancouver-Fairview, starting with my family — my

wife Amy and my kids Johanna, Satchel, Terra and Jinagh and the rest of my

family — who has been great support for me over these past years.

I want to really send a sincere thanks out to my staff in

Vancouver-Fairview, Maria Dobrinskaya and Joni Sherman, working hard for the

community in Vancouver-Fairview; and here in Victoria, Anne Paxton, Jeff Dean

and Cara McGregor. Great support for me in the job that I do.

All of the opposition caucus staff here in Victoria do a

phenomenal job in supporting us and helping us hold this government accountable,

despite the challenges we have with resources and the challenges that we have in

looking over the vast detail of business that this government looks after. We

have incredible support from our staff here in Victoria and in our constituency

offices, and here's a big shout-out to all those people that make it possible.

I also want to say thanks to my constituents in Vancouver, who

have for almost three years now flooded me with their ideas, input and critiques

by e-mail, phone, town hall meetings — never hesitant to contribute and support

me in my work and ensure that I'm hearing the voices of the community. I do

appreciate that and take my responsibilities as their representative very

seriously and couldn't do my job without that.

With regards to this budget, government at its core must be

dedicated to sustainability, which means

[ Page 10143 ]

balancing social, environmental and economic needs. A balanced budget should

be balancing these needs, and this budget is not. Despite the merit in a few of

the initiatives in this budget, I cannot support a budget that doesn't deliver

on balance and sustainability.

[1435]

I want to address the nickname of this budget, the so-called green

budget. As with previous budgets we've seen in these recent years, the names

given to the budgets have been a lot more about spin than about substance. With

regards to this budget, the so-called green budget, I just want to start by

addressing the green that supposedly pervades this budget, starting with the

cover and materials. Once you crack that open, you see one step forward on green

measures and two steps back.

We have the beginnings of a carbon tax. It's a fuel tax. It is a

good step, but it'll have minimal impact on the emissions that we so desperately

need to reduce here in B.C. Part of this is the fact that it's starting out so

small — a very small increment of what we already charge as a provincial fuel

tax of about 30 cents a litre. Partly, its failure is resulting from failing to

tax emissions. It's taxing fuel consumption, not emissions. This is a fuel tax.

It shouldn't be confused with a true emissions or carbon tax.

The other sources of emissions that are not affected by a fuel tax

— and what this government hopes will be a reduction in the consumption of fuel

— are getting off scot-free. The big emitters, big industry, that are pumping

emissions into the atmosphere from smokestacks…. I'm talking about the oil and

gas plants, the pulp and paper plants, aluminum, cement industry. They don't

pay. They will continue to use the atmosphere as a free dumping ground.

This tax, the so-called tax, only applies to fuels as a gas tax. A

billion dollars is forecast in this budget each year for the three years. That's

just about a billion dollars in the fuel tax forecast. That's revenue flowing

from the 30-cent fuel tax.

There's no decline built into this budget for the revenues flowing

from that fuel tax. Therefore, we can put a fuel tax in place at 2.4 cents a

litre to start with. Clearly, the government doesn't believe it's going to do

any good. It's not going to reduce the revenues that flow from the consumption

of fuel. Go figure.

If we look at what is necessary here, the big question is: where

are the programs to reduce emissions dramatically? Both sides of the House agree

in setting significant and challenging targets to reduce our emissions — 33

percent by 2020 and 80 percent of 2007 emissions by 2050. But this carbon tax or

fuel tax is only projected to reduce emissions by three million tonnes at best.

That's about 14 percent of the way to the goal, to the big goal.

It's an insignificant investment in environmental measures that

would actually dramatically reduce emissions. That's the problem here. There is

no significant investment in measures that will reduce emissions.

So what does this tax achieve? This tax achieves a transfer of

funds into the pockets of British Columbia without any support, as the Finance

Minister had said, on the education side or on the incentive side to actually

target that funding into measures that will reduce emissions. We may even see

increases in emissions resulting from the hundred-dollar climate action

dividend. That won't be doing anything to achieve the goals that we're setting

out for ourselves.

More details that are challenging here. Revenue-neutral. We on

this side of the House agree in principle with revenue-neutral. We've stated

that. But since this proposal has come forward in the budget, we're hearing from

the people of B.C. saying: "Revenue-neutral. We need to take on these emissions.

We need programs. We need incentives. We need some help reducing our emissions.

We don't just want some cash coming back in a so-called revenue-neutral

transfer. We want help reducing our emissions and minimizing our impact on the

environment." The budget doesn't deliver on that help.

[1440]

Beyond the revenue-neutral issue, we see this gas tax unfairly

punishing residents in rural B.C. who have no alternative, in many cases —

whether they're in business, in the resource industry or in agriculture. At this

point they rely on fuel to do their work, to live their lives the way they're

living them. The gas tax, in the absence of measures that would help people

reduce their emissions and their impact, is effectively punishing people in

rural B.C. who rely on fuel for their livelihoods. They don't have choices, and

that's a big failing within this budget.

An additional challenge here — and this affects all the people in

the province — is the fact that this whole process for over a year now has been

shrouded in secrecy. The people of B.C. have this so-called carbon tax thrust

upon them. They've heard lots of promises. They've seen legislation come through

to set targets. But where's the buy-in? Where's the inclusion? Where's the

process that actually brings the people of B.C. to the table in a meaningful way

to talk about what impact this will have on their lives and how they can make

the changes they need to make?

That's not happening from this government. It's not happening

within this budget. There are no measures laid out in this budget to take the

process public and make sure that people are heard from and that people

understand and embrace the changes we need to make. That's a failing within this

budget as well.

Two steps back. The contradictions in this budget are massive. The

contradictions of $327 million in subsidies to the oil and gas industry — almost

a billion dollars in subsidy to the oil and gas industry over the next three

years. At the same time, no responsibility for whatever increase in emissions

results from the oil and gas accelerating in terms of extraction.

If we put that much money in subsidies to the oil and gas

industry, one would expect they'll increase their output. One would expect that

when they increase their output, they will increase their emissions. How does

that jibe with a 33 percent reduction over the next 13 years?

It doesn't jibe. Here's the massive contradiction. Add to that a

billion dollars in the sale of shale gas

[ Page 10144 ]

leases last year, and we see…. I can't wait to see the next result from the

Minister of Energy here and can't wait to see how significant these sales

continue to be in the early part of this year.

There's effectively a shale gas rush happening in B.C. Do we know

what it's worth? Do we know what the impact on climate change is going to be? Do

we know what the impact on our emissions is going to be? Are we comfortable

taking no responsibility for the emissions from our fossil fuel extraction for

the rest of the planet? They don't count? They don't go into the balance of this

budget? Apparently not.

We'll do everything we can to sell that stuff off at whatever

price we can get for it today. That seems to be the strategy that really

punctuates the contradiction of this budget. How can you say one thing out of

one side of your mouth and then deny it with actions — with a billion dollars in

taxpayers' money over the next three years — to undo the goals that are being

set?

There are a lot of other environmental measures to complement this

budget that are missing — the so-called green budget. We're not seeing

significant funding for community transition. What are these great communities

going to do when the oil and gas, the shale gas, is gone? What are they going to

do next, once their source of revenue and their economies are on the line?

What are we going to do about the fish-farming industry? This

Legislature had a special committee to look at the future of fish farming and

sustainable aquaculture in this province. A thorough report was made with

massive input from the coastal communities of B.C. We've seen no action on it.

We've seen no funding flowing for closed-containment projects, for really

helping to transition the aquaculture industry into sustainability.

What do we see for wilderness protection? Minimal. In

contradiction to what is there, we see huge impacts from the small hydro

projects all around the province — power plants, roads, transmission lines —

that are going to carve up wilderness around this province, and impacts on the

fish and all those creeks and small rivers from the over 500 that have been

leased out now and sold off. The impact on the fish and wildlife and those

rivers is not taken into consideration here.

[1445]

Species at risk. Well, there's a pretty short list. Some good

movement on caribou in this last year. What about the rest of the roster? We've

got species at risk not being factored into this budget in a meaningful way.

B.C. parks — the proudest legacy that we have in protected areas

in B.C. What do we see to support parks in this so-called green budget? Pretty

much zilch. It's a thin gruel for the legacy of B.C. parks.

I'm disappointed that the green is splashed all over in the

promotional materials and the spin. Really, it is effectively greenwashing. This

was a huge opportunity to do more — to be holistic, comprehensive and visionary

on the environment. Compared to the early years of this B.C. Liberal

administration where they were bashing Kyoto and denying climate change, there

has been progress here. We'll give you some credit for that, but much more is

needed, and this budget falls short.

In terms of balance, I want to move to talking about the social

side of this budget. We have a brutal record as a province when compared to the

rest of our country. We're among the worst in Canada on many of the metrics on

social condition. This budget somehow, shockingly, when you're in last place on

a number of fronts….

To ignore it for another year is atrocious, and that starts with

child poverty. It starts with the kids in general. How can you ignore a problem

as critical as the highest child poverty rate in the country? There are no

meaningful steps here, from child supports to addressing welfare rates and

increasing minimum wage.

Beyond this unbelievable failing on child poverty, we see our

education system continue to be strained, especially for kids with special

out, moving slowly. Kids are not safe in many schools of this province. School

boards are under enormous budgetary pressure, and this government continues to

play games with the school boards and their funding.

Child care is grossly underfunded. The province has failed to take

serious steps to address the federal dollars shortfall. Clearly, child care is

not even on the radar. It is not a priority of this government and certainly

doesn't show up in this budget as a priority.

Kids are worth the investment. It astounds me that any government

in this day and age can take an approach that actually undervalues, undercuts

and undermines our kids. Our kids are our future. From child care to education

to eradicating child poverty, we need to significantly improve the prospects and

potential for our kids, and this budget does not do that.

Tragically, this budget ignores the homelessness crisis. Some $39

million is labelled in this budget for homelessness, dropping to $31 million

next year. You compare that to $38.5 billion in revenues coming into this

treasury. That's Z\z/// of a percent; Z\z/// of the revenues are being dedicated

to deal with homelessness. When we have, by best estimates, well over 10,000

citizens in this province without a home — thousands of them are in my city

alone…. These people need permanent housing.

They don't need a tiny dollop of funding to address emergency

shelter funding. It does not address the problem. It is absolutely disrespectful

of what's happening on the streets and in the towns around this province. It's a

band-aid — a band-aid that ain't going to stick for long. I understand that in

the city of Vancouver, the minister has had challenges working with the city of

Vancouver, and it's very disappointing that the city is not cooperating on

identifying sites as readily as they might.

It is an administration — and perhaps there are others around the

province — that is not wholly committed to ending homelessness. Clearly, there

needs to be a stronger commitment from both the city and the province to achieve

the goal of ending homelessness.

[1450]

[ Page 10145 ]

Affordable housing is a big piece of that, and the province is not

coming to the table with anything significant to address affordable housing. The

social housing programs cancelled by this government in 2002 have failed to

re-emerge despite the crisis in housing and affordability.

The $375-a-month shelter allowance doesn't cut it, doesn't even

begin to cut it in a city like Vancouver. Rent supplements, while they're a

piece of the puzzle, don't cut it either. They don't help when the vacancy rate

is almost zero in the city of Vancouver.

Rents continue to skyrocket. People continue to get pushed out.

The bottom line is that to end homelessness and deal with the affordable housing

crisis, we need housing — bricks and mortar — and this budget does not deliver.

Keeping in the frame of social bottom lines here, I can't not

address the challenges that we're seeing in health care. My riding is home to

Vancouver General Hospital, Children's and Women's hospital, and many of the

exceptional organizations and services that provide health care to the people of

British Columbia. People come from all over the province to Vancouver-Fairview

for health care and support. Given the unbelievable strains on the system that I

see in my community and that I hear echoed by others here in this House, it's

very disappointing that there isn't more in this budget to support our health

care system.

The staff that work in our health care system have an unreasonable

workload and have incredible stress on them to keep the system going. The

inadequate funding and the government's management of our health care system

clearly isn't working. Clearly, there's huge room for improvement. The public is

forced to deal with unreasonable wait times, backups in emergency rooms,

inadequate home care and long-term care. Clearly, much more needs to be done.

Given the stories that we hear every day and that the members

bring into this House on a regular basis, why doesn't this budget address health

care in a meaningful way? It's like a footnote in this budget.

Moving to the economy and the third piece within what should be a

balanced budget, again we see in small business some very minimal steps. Small

business, I think everyone in this House will acknowledge, is the foundation of

our economy with a majority of the jobs and a significant contribution to GDP.

Over 95 percent of the businesses in this province are small business. There are

minimal steps here.

Again, there's been some movement. At last the small business tax

rate is being reduced. It's taken seven years for this government to step up and

give small business a break in terms of tax. But if you contrast the tax break —

$255 million over three years to small business — with the $415 million to big

business and the corporate income tax, you see…. How does small business end up

getting the short straw again?

I mean, small business is dominant in this province and deserves a

lot more support from this government. Basically this government gets lip

service for small business, and we'd like to see a lot more support on this side

of the House flowing to small business. The budget doesn't deliver on that.

The forest sector in this province, the biggest sector of our

economy, now in turmoil as we heard again today in question period — there's no

action coming from this government. There's no uptake of a very well-designed

plan put forward by the Leader of the Opposition. There's no uptake there, and

there's nothing in the budget to address an unbelievable challenge that the

forest industry faces right now.

I could say the similar gap occurs here with agriculture — the

lowest funding per capita in Canada here in B.C. It's a huge piece for the

agriculture sector to adapt to climate change, to reduce emissions, to continue

to grow more food locally and make a difference in terms of our carbon footprint

as a province. It's a crucial sector for our economy. This budget doesn't answer

for the agriculture industry and does not really deliver anything in a

meaningful way to help the agricultural sector transform and continue to

contribute in a bigger way to the province's economy.

[1455]

So if you contrast going AWOL on forestry, going AWOL on

agriculture, short-changing small business with, as I mentioned before, massive

subsidies to the oil and gas sector and shale gas sales — like, blow it out with

fossil fuels, give away the fixed assets at an unbelievable rate right now — it

doesn't add up. Is this the vision for our economy — take it from the balance

sheet, blow it out the income statement in one year and forget about all the

industries that are renewable year after year? They grow product. Every year, if

they're managed carefully and sustainably, they will continue to deliver, and

they will continue to contribute to our economy.

Green energy — again, another missed opportunity on the economic

side here. The government is relentlessly pursuing privatized power. We're not

seeing wind turbines. It's 2008 now, and we don't have a wind turbine in the

province of British Columbia. Yeah, they're coming; they're coming. We see it in

the power call, but we do not have one. It is an international embarrassment.

This government has had seven years to deliver on wind power, and where is it?

It doesn't exist.

Run of the river. Look at the impact on the over 500 rivers sold

for a song. Look at the impact. Due to Bill 30 that this government rammed

through, local communities have no input on what energy is developed in their

jurisdictions. It's been slow motion — slow motion on renewable energy more

broadly. We've got little bits and little bites here and there, but we're not

seeing a massive shift into renewable energy — one that could readily be funded

by the huge flow of royalties from non-renewable resources.

More broadly on the economy, where is the significant investment

in the knowledge-based economy? We all recognize that resources, particularly

non-renewable ones, have a limited ability to contribute to our economy here. We

have to be investing in the knowledge-based economy. That is the future of this

province; it's the future of this world.

[ Page 10146 ]

We're not seeing a significant investment to incubate, to

cultivate, to grow rapidly our knowledge-based economy in B.C. We contrast the

investment in the knowledge-based economy to the oil and gas sector. Again, are

we putting a billion dollars in the next three years into the knowledge-based

economy? Not according to this budget.

We're seeing $220 million going into the banks, the financial

institutions. Is this more critical than child poverty? As an economic measure,

who's going to contribute more to the future of B.C. — the banks and financial

institutions or the kids of this next generation? Again, it's a failing in terms

of big picture for this government on the economy.

Post-secondary education. It's shoved to the side again. In this

budget there's no significant deliverable on post-secondary. Despite the funding

that was invested in Campus 2020 and a new look at where post-secondary

education is headed in this province, and despite huge workforce needs and big

challenges in the system, with the highest student debt in the country and

families, post-secondary education is clearly not a priority for this

government.

Extend that into the broader sphere of literacy. Literacy, which

was a pet project of the Premier, doesn't even show up here. It's critical to

economic growth. There's demonstrable proof that literacy rates are directly

tied to economic growth. Another botched priority in this budget for the economy

of B.C.

Clearly, this government with this budget is not focused on the

fundamentals of our economic health and the future of B.C.'s economy. This

budget is based on a big sell-off of hard assets, of non-renewable resources

with an inadequate focus on the key drivers of our current economy and the key

steps required to build our knowledge-based economy.

The big question is: what does this budget mean to

Vancouver-Fairview? As the representative for Fairview, we have a real crunch

here in housing in Vancouver. Affordability is an issue. I spoke about

homelessness and housing and the lack of support in this budget for it. It will

continue to be a problem for my constituents in Fairview.

There's nothing in this budget to address the unbelievable impact

of the Canada line on the small businesses along the Cambie corridor. Again, we

have over 60 businesses now closed along that corridor. There's nothing in the

budget here to address it.

[1500]

There are big expectations that this government has put forward in

their transit plan to run a rapid transit line out Broadway to UBC. A huge

budget is being built into that for tunnelling, saying that it won't have any

impact on those small businesses in the Broadway corridor. The Broadway corridor

is the second biggest so-called downtown in the province, and there are

thousands of businesses along the Broadway corridor that could be affected here.

I don't think the businesses on Broadway are going to take it too

lightly when promises were broken on Cambie, no compensation has been delivered

and now this government is proposing: "Oh, don't worry. We'll run it your way,

but it won't even affect you." There's no way to not affect the small businesses

along a megaproject corridor. Something needs to be delivered on Cambie. The

budget doesn't do that, and clearly, there have to be significant consultations

and a mitigation plan in place for Broadway.

Transit needs continue to be high in my riding. Service is not

keeping up with the demand. We need to have U-passes for students at Emily Carr

Institute of Art and Design, for VCC, for the other campuses in Vancouver.

Affordability is a really critical issue, and this budget is not strong on that.

In closing, we're living in very tumultuous times. We live in

great affluence and, at the same time, with intolerable poverty. We have a

growing gap between rich and poor that undermines us as a province. We have

unsustainable consumption and emissions to deal with — ecosystems under siege,

extinctions spiking, erosion, loss of forest cover, an epic challenge of climate

change — and a significant transformation of our economy that's needed.

This budget doesn't address the colossal challenges that are

facing us. For every positive step, there are two backward steps, with the

contradictions and with no resolve to address the social, environmental and

economic needs. In the big picture, this is not a balanced budget. Therefore, I

cannot support it.

Hon. O. Ilich: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Deputy Speaker: Proceed.

Introductions by Members

Hon. O. Ilich: I have a friend in the gallery who has just

joined us. He's from Richmond. His name is Peter Raju. Peter is president of the

Rotary Club. This next month he's putting on a tribute to seniors in Richmond.

He's very active in our community and is a great asset to our community. He is

joined today by Len da Silva and Susan Stein from YVR, who I used to work with

many years ago. So please make them feel welcome today.

Debate Continued

Hon. R. Neufeld: I take my place in the House to speak to

what I think is a great budget. Again, a budget which, contrary to what the last

member talked about — not being balanced — is fully balanced. In fact, three

years hence, we'll be balanced every year. We have a law in British Columbia

that says we must balance the budgets.

[H. Bloy in the chair.]

I know the member opposite probably wouldn't recognize a balanced

budget if it landed in his lap in front of him, but that's to be expected. They

never had

[ Page 10147 ]

the benefit of having a balanced budget for ten years while they were in

opposition. All they were able to do was drive up expenses.

I'm proud to stand up and support a budget, again, that's got an

estimated 1.8 percent growth annually, each year forward. We have revenue of

$38.5 billion this year, with expenditures at $37.7 billion. I think, in

anybody's arithmetic, that that would add up to a balanced budget, one with some

surplus.

Before I go too far, I want to take the opportunity to thank the

people in Peace River North for electing me to this fourth term here in this

Legislature. When one looks around the Legislature and the work that is entailed

in the Legislature, one has to be in awe when you sit in this particular room

thinking that you're one of the people that can actually help make changes, help

those people in need, help those people that need jobs and to actually help the

province become self-sufficient and self-supporting again. We are proud of that.

[1505]

We have a strong economy. We inherited an economy that was at the

bottom of the basket in jurisdictions across Canada and in this year, this

budget, finally bring — or have brought, for a number of years now — a balanced

budget and an economy that's second to none across Canada.

When you look at 400,000 jobs, I believe, created in British

Columbia — with 85 percent of those being full-time, permanent jobs — it's

remarkable. In fact, that's better than any other jurisdiction around. If the

member chooses to vote against it, he can do that. I would vote for it, and so

would the people that actually have jobs in this economy we have.

The expenditures are prudent. Our Finance Minister since 2001 has

brought us to a place with a triple-A credit rating. That is much better than

the credit rating we got when we were elected in 2001 — and what a difference

from the 1990s. Having been elected here since 1991, I sat in those ten

miserable years, that decade of decline in the province while we went downhill.

In jurisdictions around us their economies were rising and they were moving

forward. Alberta was moving forward at a pace where we were as fast going

downhill as they were going uphill.

It's not a matter of just British Columbia. It was, in fact, a

matter of the government and the policies of the day that drove us there. But I

would much rather have this budget today, this expected growth, than what we

received in the 1990s. This is a bold move on the climate. It's a bold move,

because this province has moved ahead under the leadership of our Premier to

deal with greenhouse gas emissions in British Columbia. Someone had to do it,

and when you look around across Canada or even in the Pacific Northwest, the

states that we trade with a lot will tell you the same thing. It is a bold move,

and we're leading. They will be following in many ways as we move forward.

We have to think of not just today, not just a few months out and

not just a few years out. We need to think about our children and our

grandchildren, those that are not yet here. I remember clearly that when we

released the energy plan in February 2007 — and I went back and took a clip of

what I said, just one small short piece — I said: "Climate change is real. What

effect human activity is having is, I believe, in part real. We need to do our

part for those yet to come."

I think those are serious words. Those are words that we have to

actually embrace in British Columbia. I understand the member for

Vancouver-Fairview doesn't want to embrace climate change. He talks about it all

the time. He doesn't want to embrace ideas about how we can deal with climate

change in the province. He would rather have business as usual, and I mean

business as usual as it was in the 1990s. If you don't have enough money, just

go out and borrow it and create more programs. Who cares?

That's what they were very good at, and that's what I would assume

the member for Vancouver-Fairview was talking about when he said he couldn't

support a budget that actually deals with climate change and the economy, that

deals with those that need a hand up, that deals with health care and education.

He clearly said, as many of them on that side of the House have said, that he's

opposed to it.

It's interesting; they all approved the supplementary estimates.

You know, when the vote came, when those in favour were called and there was a

division, who stood? Everyone that was in the House, including the NDP. But the

next day all they could do was badmouth it, just like today. He can't support

it. So it's understandable that they're not sure what they can support and what

they can't support. That shouldn't surprise us at all.

[1510]

When we look at the leadership on that side of the House, one has

to wonder, because one day the leadership says, "I support climate change; I

would actually not do things much different; I would not change the cost of it,"

and then comes in the House and talks about how terrible it is. You just never

know what they're going to be in favour of or what they're going to be opposed

to.

I just want to read a few things from the backgrounder. It was

pretty easy reading, even for those people across the way in opposition. If they

don't have good research, they could actually remove those documents and have a

look at it. We'll just go through a few of them, and I'll remind everyone that

the people who say they don't want to support the budget, they're opposed to

these things.

I know we are in support of a billion dollars in operating and

capital expenditures over four years to support a comprehensive approach to

reducing B.C.'s greenhouse gas emissions. We're for it. They're against it.

We heard a member just talk a while ago about how we should be

doing it. Well, we're for doing it. They're against it.

An estimated $1.8 billion in personal and business tax reductions

over three years to return revenue generated by a carbon tax. That's

revenue-neutral. We're for it. They're against it.

[ Page 10148 ]

They stood before the budget was even laid down before the House.

They said: "We want a revenue-neutral carbon tax if it's going to come." We

brought it. Now they're against it.

An additional $2.9 billion — $2.9 billion additional — for

enhancing health care, for a total funding increase of $4.9 billion or 19

percent over three years and an additional $543 million in capital spending over

four years to be provided for major health facilities expansion. I'm for it.

They're against it.

In that number is a new hospital plan for Fort St. John, a new

seniors care complex. I'm for it. This government's for it. They're against it.

Absolutely unbelievable.

Now, $144 million over three years for K-to-12 education funding

and StrongStart centres. This side of the House, we're for it. That side of the

House, they're against funding for schools.

And $346 million over four years for new investments in the

economy and communities. We're for that. They're against it.

An additional tax reduction of $481 million over three years.

We're for it. We have the lowest personal income taxes for below $110,000

earnings of any jurisdiction in Canada. We're for it. They're against it.

I could — in fact, I am going to — go on with a number of other

things: $1 billion for climate action; $98 million for a new LiveSmart B.C.

efficiency incentive program and other initiatives to encourage individuals and

communities to make more energy-efficient choices in their homes, businesses and

vehicles — $98 million. We're for it. They're against it.

Now, $370 million for capital and operating expenses to improve

and expand public transportation in British Columbia. We're for it. They're

against it.

And $57 million for bioenergy and alternative energy solutions

such as establishing a bioenergy network, introducing a biodiesel production

incentive, expanding solar thermal energy systems and supporting the innovative

clean energy fund. We're for it. They're against it.

Ten million dollars over three years for incentives to actually

build a biodiesel plant likely will happen in the Peace. It was brought forward

by the Minister of Agriculture and Minister of Forests and myself, by this

government of British Columbia. Again, they don't want a hospital built in the

northeast. They don't want a biodiesel plant built in the northeast. They don't

want an ethanol plant in British Columbia, but they all want to talk green.

The only thing green about them is that they don't understand

anything about how you actually get an economy to be green. You have to invest

some dollars in that economy to make sure it happens. We're investing in spades.

We're for it. They're against it.

[1515]

Then I listened to the Wizard of Oz over there talk — the fellow

that's planning to move over to lead Vancouver. Vancouver-Fairview — I forgot

his constituency name. I'm sorry; I had to use another acronym. The member for

Vancouver-Fairview who talks about…. The small business guru of that group — he

never came forward with a solid suggestion yet. Nothing, nothing but complaints.

He can't support a balanced budget, can't support health spending, can't support

looking at how you actually make an economy green and will look at keeping

economic competitiveness. You need that.

So $112 million to enhance the basic and regional film tax credits

to support B.C.'s film industry. That means giving credits out in the rural part

of B.C. to actually encourage filming in the rural part of B.C., not just

Vancouver. We're for it. They're against it.

Twelve million dollars for Geoscience B.C. for oil, gas and

mineral exploration and to further develop geoscience data to support the

mineral exploration, I should say, in the mountain pine beetle–affected regions.

That's something that has been a standard around British Columbia. In fact, when

they were in office, although they cut down the geoscientists' funding

dramatically… That's something that's kin to all of us.

Anybody that knows anything about minerals, or oil and gas…. You

actually have to do some in-ground work. This helps. This is mainly going in the

Nechako and the Bowser basin and those areas hard hit by pine beetle to actually

create jobs, wealth and investment in the province of British Columbia rather

than some other place. We're for it. They're against it.

They're against jobs in their communities that they represent by

saying no to this kind of investment — each and every one of them. Now, I can

see the folks in Vancouver Island saying no, but I cannot see the people in the

Cariboo and those regions saying no to this. I would expect the two members from

Cariboo are going to stand up and vote for this budget just for that $12 million

in their region.

The list goes on and on of great benefits for the province,

regardless of where you live. Some $30 million to endow the Terry Fox research

centre to be headquartered in B.C. for transitional research to help the fight

against cancer. What's the matter with that? You're against it. You'll vote

against it. We're for it. We're for more research into cancer. We're for those

kinds of things in health care. The NDP is completely opposed.

In fact, the other day the member for North Island said she was

elected to oppose everything. I was astounded at that statement. There must be

some things that she can find in her little, old heart that she could actually

support for some of the people she represents on Vancouver Island. You would

think there would be a few things that she could find in her heart to say: "My

goodness, I think that's not bad for the people I represent. I ought to be there

to support that so I can have jobs and economic activity happening in my area."

I'm disillusioned and disappointed at how some of these members

actually rail against the budget, when it's probably one of the better budgets

we've had for all across British Columbia.

Let's also look at some of the things that are coming around now

in regards to…. I want to deal with electricity, IPPs, rates, oil and gas, some

of the mainstays of the province, some of the things that we would like to

actually keep operating, and I guess I can only

[ Page 10149 ]

understand that the NDP does not want to see continue to operate.

I read the newspapers, and I see members opposite, from the NDP,

talking about the rate increases that took place. I won't go into the rate

increases, but I'm going to go around them a little bit, because those rate

increases are right now before the B.C. Utilities Commission for their decision.

But to say they're attributable only to independent power producers or purchases

is entirely incorrect.

[1520]

There is an awful lot of work going around in British Columbia.

B.C. Hydro is working on its own systems to upgrade a system that was left to

die on a vine for ten years so it could return money to the NDP so that they

could come in here and expand it. Or, heaven forbid….

They built a couple of plants — one of them was in Pakistan — when

we needed electricity in British Columbia. But I guess that's NDP logic. It's a

way to go. They're still trying to figure out the undersea cables to get it over

to Vancouver Island. We'll let them continue to figure that out.

Do you know what's sad? During the ten years that the NDP were

here, with the increase in consumption in British Columbia, the new

electricity…. They did create some new electricity. They were in favour of IPPs

at one time. It was when they were doing it, though. No one else can do it,

because only they can do it. For the growth in consumption of Hydro customers in

the province, the NDP managed to build just 11 percent of that new consumption.

Is it any wonder that we have to go out now and build an awful lot

of electricity generation in British Columbia, when you take ten years that they

didn't build enough generation to look after only 11 percent of the growth? We

have to build that today, and we have to build it for a thriving economy.

They had a lousy economy, driven by them — not by anyone else, by

them. I remember that Ralph Klein, when he was the Premier of Alberta, used to

say, and I'd read it quite often in the newspaper: "I don't need an economic

development ministry at all. I just have to keep the NDP in power in British

Columbia, and they'll drive all the investment over to me."

That's all that was built. What we're doing is embarking on

getting British Columbia back to being self-sufficient, as we once proudly were

and as we will proudly be again.

I'm just going to read a number of the things that are happening

in the…. When Hydro put out the press release about asking for a rate increase.

They said, "Here are some of the things that we're doing in the province to

upgrade the public system," which was driven into the ground during the 1990s.

What they're doing at Revelstoke generating station unit No. 5 is

installing a new unit. It's a $280 million to $350 million investment in the

province. You know, that money has to be retrieved some way, and that's through

rate increases. The people, the ratepayers, actually have to pay for that.

Peace Canyon generating station, $141 million. That means

upgrading so that it can actually generate more electricity in British Columbia.

Gordon M. Shrum generating station, the largest one we have in the province, is

receiving $100 million in upgrades — $91 million, to be exact — to redo the

stators so that it can actually generate more electricity in an economy that

grows daily, weekly, monthly and yearly in British Columbia. It's so good to my

ears, compared to an economy in the 1990s that went down, down, down and down.

What a difference.

Mica generating station, another $97 million. Aberfield generating

station, $95 million. Coquitlam dam seismic improvement project, $66 million.

Interior lower mainland transmission project, $600 million. Vancouver Island

transmission reinforcement, $287 million.

The new control centre for BCTC is state of the art. It's

something that the world would love to have, and we should be proud of that.

That technology was developed here in British Columbia for the benefit of

British Columbians. It's another $130 million. The project is on time and on

budget and we ought to be darn proud of those kinds of things.

That's what's happening to rates in the province.

Interjection.

Hon. R. Neufeld: Yeah.

They're against it, and we're for it. We think we need it. We need

to upgrade the systems. B.C. Hydro agrees with us. The BCUC agrees with it. An

independent, quasi-judicial body says: "Yes, you should upgrade those facilities

for the benefit of all the people in the province." We're for it; they're

against it.

[1525]

IPPs. It's a great philosophical debate. I just want to clarify a

few things. I mean, it depends what day of the week, what afternoon, what

evening, or where you're at when you hear some of the quotes come from some of

the NDP members opposite about IPPs.

There are now a total of 43 — not thousands, just 43. A few of

those were built while the NDP were here. In fact, the largest natural gas–fired

generating plant in British Columbia was built by the NDP. Actually, not by the

NDP. As much as they rail against the private sector, they had an American

company — a good American company, nothing wrong with that — come to British

Columbia and build that on Vancouver Island. It's 250 megawatts.

Then they said: "You know what? We're so good at this." You know,

the fuel cost, natural gas, is probably the most volatile thing in that project.

What did they say? They said: "Oh, you're from a big company from the U.S. We

can't expect you to take that kind of risk. You know what? We'll make Fred and

Martha, the ratepayers in British Columbia, take on the largest risk in that

plant, which is buying the natural gas to keep it fired up."

That's how much they cared about greenhouse gases. That's how much

they understood about business. It's a sad legacy for them, for me to even sit

here and listen to them talk about IPPs in the province.

[ Page 10150 ]

A while ago they talked about wind generators. Well, nobody was

even talking about wind generators in the province when that sorry group was

here, because they were all leaving for Alberta. Like I said earlier, Mr. Klein

had them coming across the border steady, and they built them all over the

southern part of Alberta — wind towers all over.

Well, we have some wind towers happening in British Columbia, in

the Peace River country. They're being commissioned and built now. We will have

some wind energy for the first time in the province — renewable green power —

and that group opposed it. When I read in the paper when they talked about it….

In fact, my critic said we shouldn't be doing it because they're not

environmentally sensitive. Then you hear the member for Vancouver-Fairview say:

"We don't have any yet; we should have some."

Is it any wonder the public is confused? Is it any wonder that

anybody would be confused with that kind of an attitude? Depends what day, what

time. The critic for Environment from the other side is exactly the same. One

day he's in support of green projects. The next day he says that we shouldn't

have them in British Columbia and that we don't need any renewable power.

When you look at IPPs across the province, the ones that have been

built — 43 of them…. The investment is about $2 billion. It's created 4,000

person-years of construction employment since 1990. Is there anything wrong with

that? I guess it was okay in the 1990s, even though they picked the largest

gas-fired plant in the province. I guess it's okay. People were employed.

Investment was made, and there we are. But there's nothing wrong with IPPs.

In fact, I believe 34 of those plants are built on small rivers,

small run-of-the-river projects. If you listen to the members opposite or read

the newspaper, you would see the numbers go by hundreds. Some of them even talk

about thousands and talk about how terrible they are. Well, I can tell you that

at one time they were okay. Here's my critic, and he says: "We should pay a

premium for renewables." Now, does that mean he's in favour of IPPs, or is he

opposed?

So it's a little bit grey. So is he. Not his hair. He's a little

bit grey once in a while when he speaks. Here's another quote. On some radio

programs he's opposed to the same thing, and he's for the same thing. No wonder

people are confused. Here he says on CKNW in November of '06: "Well, certainly

there is a role for IPPs in B.C. Hydro's energy mix."

[1530]

One day they're for it. One day they're against it. I can tell you

they ought to take the position: "We're for energy generated in British

Columbia. We're for jobs created in British Columbia. We're for energy

self-sufficiency in British Columbia." All of those members are totally against

it. They're totally against it, and it's bloody shameful that that's what has

happened in the province.

Last year I was proud that Hydro was able to sign some contracts

with people for 36 projects across the province. They will be 29 hydro, three

wind, two biomass and two waste heat. What's the matter with that? That's all

renewable electricity, if you believe what the member said earlier about

renewable electricity.

Let's read them again. On October 5 of '07: "There are IPP

proposals, and I think the Toba Inlet one is a reasonably good example of where

you would want to buy from the private sector." That's the same member who will

say — and I'll quote him a few times here later on — that he's totally against

them. So you hear him, on the same programs, talk about how he's for it and then

how he's against.

Here's one. One has to wonder. This is a quote. This is from CKNW

in November of '06. My critic says: "I went to visit a little place just outside

of Squamish called Furry Creek. It's a fantastic project, ideal for the private

sector, but Hydro could have done it for half the price." Have you ever heard of

anything so ridiculous? It's unbelievable.

Here's another one. This is the same member. Let's see. It's the

same show. He was for it on the same show and against it on the same show. He

said: "It is responsible for distribution but not the billing component of

distribution" — he's talking about BCTC — "and now it is just a clearinghouse

for private power on the marketplace, which is going at a rate of almost twice

what they could do it if they went for a project such as Site C in the Peace

country." Interesting.

The Leader of the Opposition says: "We haven't made a decision on

Site C." So one day he wants Site C; one day he doesn't want Site C. One day he

wants an IPP; one day he doesn't want an IPP.

The next thing you hear from the member across the way is that

there's no wind power generation. Actually, you know, for ten years it's a

wonder that they got anything done, with that kind of agreement on that side of

the House.

But I want to go back in history a little bit too, because they

talk about how water rates were slashed for IPPs.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Member.

S. Hammell: Such a hard act to follow.

It gives me great pleasure to rise in this House and give, on

behalf of my constituents, a response to the budget. Before I begin, I would

like to acknowledge the three people who have worked hard with me this year:

Shirley-Anne Williams here in Victoria and Kimberly Arab and Heather Bould in

the Surrey constituency office. Most of us, when we get up to do our speeches,

acknowledge the hard work our staff does on our behalf at home, especially when

we're here in the House.

I know that work is very complex and complicated. They deal with

three levels of government, often school boards. They deal with an ever-changing

calendar. They deal with policy issues as well as providing information on

casework to constituents who have come in with serious problems. So I'd like to

join those who have, at the top of their speech, talked about those people who

are so important to us in being able to do our job effectively.

[ Page 10151 ]

I also, like many other members have done, want to acknowledge the

deep debt of gratitude that I do feel towards the constituents of Surrey–Green

Timbers for sending me here. When I think about being one of 854 people who have

ever had the honour to sit in this Legislature…. It makes you pause.

[1535]

I was just trying to think of it the other day — how many people

have lived in this province and participated in elections. To be part of that

small number who've come here to represent their constituency is truly an

honour.

I often say when I'm talking to the students who come to Victoria

that we as a community, we as a society, have a form of government that chooses

its leaders from their friends, their neighbours and their family. We don't have

a government that is of a military nature, nor do we have a government that is

based on some kind of royalty or lineage that's passed down from one to another.

We in fact come here on behalf of our neighbours, people who are like us, and we

are here to be their voice and to be sure that their concerns are heard in this

House.

The constituency that I live in is a suburban community and one

that is very, very multicultural in nature. I have a very strong contingent of

people from the Sikh community in my constituency, and I have made the attempt

to learn a little of the language, however difficult that has been. I have a few

phrases down pat. We also have a huge number of people from the Asian community

as well as people from Africa and, of course, the sprinkling of people from

northern and eastern Europe.

When I come here, I try to think of the things that are important

to them and how they would want me to speak on their behalf. When I do that, I

think of the Thind family, this magnificent Indo-Canadian extended family that

works hard, contributes to our community and wants me to be here making sure

that health care and education are a priority for government.

I also think of Janice and Ross, two constituents of mine who have

raised two children who are now in post-secondary institutions in the province —

one in UBC and one at BCIT. I know they have worked hard to ensure that their

kids have the opportunity to go on with their education and go to a

post-secondary institution. I know that when we talk about the cost of

post-secondary and that when I speak, I speak on their behalf. I think of

Nenang, a woman who is now participating in an international business after

losing her livelihood in the health care industry.

These are very ordinary people. They come from around the globe,

like many of the people in our province. They are hard-working people who have

found a place in our country, where they want to prosper.

Before I leave the kind of people that are in my constituency, I

just want to acknowledge one person that we lost last year. His name was Bill

Buchanan. To me, he is symbolic of the people that I represent.

He was a strong, hard-working man. He loved work and always had a

project on the go. We all knew where to find Bill. If he wasn't at work, he was

in his shop doing something. He was creative in many ways. He would make you

anything you wanted with some steel and the right tools. He loved his hobbies.

He would make stained glass pieces and share them with his family and community.

The last two years Bill was enjoying retirement, and if there ever was a guy who

deserved to be off, it was him. For 35 years Bill worked at Lafarge cement. He

drove a truck and poured cement and loved it.

[1540]

Hon. Speaker, I take that moment because I just want people to

understand the nature of the person or the type of person that I represent. They

are average working people. They do not have a great sense of entitlement but do

want a government that is on their side and understands their needs. They do not

want to be marginalized and the needs of their family dismissed. They know they

must work hard and contribute to a society they live in, and they want to

support a public health care system that does not bankrupt them in time of need.

They want to support an education system that allows their children to

participate, to grow and to learn without burdening their future with a

staggering amount of debt.

They want to know that the future of this province has a place for

them and for their family, a place that values their economic contribution and

hard work. They are an incredible group of people, which I am very honoured to

represent.

I was born in Vancouver and grew up on Sea Island within walking

distance of the Fraser River. The mighty Fraser at the bottom of the subdivision

was always a negative and a positive presence. We as a family caught oolichans

when they ran in the river, and they were so plentiful at that time that we

caught them in buckets.

But the river was also feared, deeply feared, for the river,

especially at low tide, ran fast and had a very powerful undertow. It was the

undertow that frightened us kids most, and our parents were always warning us of

its danger.

The undertow could not be seen and lurked somewhere beneath the

surface of the water, waiting for an unsuspecting paddler or swimmer to be

caught in its grip. Then the power of the water could pull you down despite how

hard you struggled. We were taught to fear the undertow.

I feel that many members and families in my community of

Surrey–Green Timbers are feeling the power of that undertow. They and their

families are being pulled down economically by something they cannot see and do

not have the power as individuals to fight.

Everything they need and must buy daily or weekly or yearly for

their family is increasing in cost, and their wage package has not expanded in

kind. There is an undercurrent of deep concern and desperation from members of

my community and sometimes deep frustration.

As I read this budget, I am not sure that the constituents of

Surrey–Green Timbers are on the government's radar at all. This budget fails to

recognize the

[ Page 10152 ]

economic pressures facing the families of Surrey–Green Timbers and fails to

provide relief.

It is average families that are struggling today and see a

difficult future for their families. Rents are increasing. Housing prices are

being driven out of reach. Hydro prices are increasing. Transit prices have just

increased. Ferry prices are increasing, as is ICBC, and they are now faced by a

government-imposed gas tax.

The question to ask is: are ordinary people better off today than

they were a few years ago? Not if you measure their wages, which have not

increased for a decade. The government steadily refuses to raise the minimum

wage.

I know the government will claim the credit for the low

unemployment rate, and that is to be expected. But the government did not

magically wave a wand or with political will drive the prices of commodities to

a record high. I think it had more to do with the emerging economies of India

and China than it did with political expertise.

The members across the way may also have realized that this

phenomenon of high job demand and low unemployment occurred across the country.

But really, who am I to question? But then, I have to assume that if you're

responsible for the upturn, you're also responsible for the downturn. I have to

conclude, therefore, that the collapse of the forest industry is also a

consequence of the government's prowess in economic management.

[1545]

Clearly, they have some responsibility for the bad times if they

lay credit for the good times. Unfortunately, it is the workers who have

suffered the loss of jobs and the wages that keep their families secure.

Unfortunately, the wages of the average worker have not increased. In fact, over

the last decade, wages have experienced virtually no change or growth for the

average worker.

A recent Statistics Canada study found that the hourly earnings in

B.C. rose by only 3 percent between 1997 and 2007, compared to the national

average of 6 percent over the same decade. They found in the study that in B.C.,

most workers' average real wage had literally no change while the average real

wage of those in managerial occupations rose by 15 percent.

Many of the members of Surrey–Green Timbers have lost their jobs

as a consequence of the collapse of the forest industry and the government's

decision to view this collapse of one of our major industries as merely a

spectator sport. The budget does nothing to address the crisis in our forest

industry. There have been 16 mill closures announced in the last four months in

communities like Kamloops, Mackenzie, Fort Nelson, Campbell River and New

Westminster, with little or no action by this government.

I'd just like to talk a few more minutes about this undertow that

I've been describing, and I'd like to start with the basics.

Shelter. According to an

article I read recently, the cost of

buying a home in the lower mainland increased $21,000 last year — to purchase a

home in our city, an average increase of $21,000 year over end. Wow — good

grief. So on average, the home you looked at a year ago is now $21,000 more.

Other than those of us in this hallowed hall, who else got a wage increase of

$21,000 last year?

Let me be clear. There may be the odd person in my constituency

who hit the jackpot, won a lottery, flipped a property and tucked that kind of

increase into their back pocket, but believe me, they were very few and far

between.

Clearly, there are those who have not been caught in the undertow

— those in managerial occupations and those of us who own property. We're the

winners, and I count myself in that crowd twofold. But my daughter will never

own a house without my help. She works hard and contributes to this society, but

you must have an income or combined income of significantly over $100,000 to

qualify for a mortgage. Even then, you'll be paying more over a longer period of

time.

Property prices are increasing, with a following spinoff into the

rental market and the inevitable spinoff into the working poor onto the streets

and the consequences of that tough life.

I made my case a year ago, and it is worth reiterating. The

difference between now and years ago, when we did not have the number of people

on the streets, is the political will of senior governments. Through the '50s,

'60s, '70s and into the '80s, the federal government and the provincial

governments engaged in social housing. But not only social housing, they also

engaged in low-market housing.

You could get an AHOP house in the '70s, and there were many AHOPs

made available to low-income families in Surrey during the '70s. The governments

of the day were engaged in housing in the marketplace. In 1993 the federal

government abandoned the field, and in 2001 the provincial government did

likewise.

The consequences are clear. We have a huge problem with housing,

and it's not getting better. This budget will not solve the problem of housing.

[1550]

We have to find solutions to housing affordability, and I think

sitting on the sidelines again, as a spectator, doesn't cut it. Increasing the

forgiveness of the property tax to the purchase of a new home is a good move,

but not one that will fix the problem. We must stop that downward pull. The cost

of housing has gone beyond the reach of our next generation, and that is

unacceptable.

This government should be capable of some solutions. If we as a

society do not want people on the streets, and we believe that people who work

hard and contribute to our world should have a reasonable home and not be

paying, in many cases, over 60 percent of their income on keeping a roof over

their head, then we should become a significant leader in a solution to this

problem.

I want to slip to transportation for a minute. Now, the people in

my community are going to pay a new gas tax of seven cents, while the oil and

gas sector gets an additional $225 million in tax relief. The price of gas at

the pump, which is set by the oil companies, is going up, to boot. Not bad — a

subsidy and an increase for the product. One of the oil companies — I can't

remember which one; I was trying to remember — had

[ Page 10153 ]

profits of over $30 billion last year, profits pretty close to the total

provincial budget.

Where does that put the average person who is faced with the high

cost of housing, the increasing cost of food — because we know there is pressure

on the food supply, especially wheat, as we look at biofuel instead of fossil

fuel — and increased costs of transportation not only in transit but in gas? And

there are more increases coming in hydro and ICBC. Where does that put the

average person trying to make ends meet?

I agree that we must do everything we can to fight climate change,

but there is no logic in a gas tax and an increase in transit fares and further

subsidies to the oil and gas companies. If you want people to reduce greenhouse

gas emissions by driving less, provide cost-effective alternatives, reduce the

cost of transit and increase service.

Average people should not bear the burden of climate change. It

should be shared with all of us who are affected by the problem. Big industry —

those who produce oil and gas, aluminum and other commodities — will not be

subject to this new tax. The only conclusion is that it is not something that is

targeted and should be embraced by ordinary people.

Hon. Speaker, before I close, because I'm very aware that I have

to replace you shortly, I would like to mention health care. First off, I want

to talk a little bit from a bit of a more broad perspective. I look at health

care as a way that we as a community have decided to pool our resources. We have

put them in the hands, through taxes, of our government. Therefore, we have the

peace of mind to know that if a medical catastrophe hit anyone in our family, we

would be covered.

My husband has had cancer, and precisely that worked. Precisely

what we want for everyone worked. He was treated very, very well. He has come

out at the end of that treatment free of cancer, and our medical system did

precisely what we wanted it to do.

[1555]

In Surrey we have had a particularly difficult problem. Surrey

Memorial Hospital is situated in the constituency of Surrey–Green Timbers, and

this hospital did feature rather predominantly in the last election.

There was significant difficulty with a flood as well as some

issues around the care as the hospital was straining to deliver the health care

needed for its catchment area. The hospital needed further funding and expansion

of the emergency ward, and it needed additional acute care and long-term care

beds. The newly expanded emergency ward remains a promise with a done date

moving further and further into the future.

The government's attention for their capital expenditures is not

on the delivery of facilities where it's needed, but more on the bells and

whistles for the Olympic Games, including a crab-like roof over Robson Square.

There are still not enough emergency beds, acute care beds or

long-term beds in the South Fraser region. After seven years in office, almost

two terms, the health care south of the Fraser is not a testament to the

competence of this provincial government.

The number one concern of the constituents in my community, as

seen through the front door of my constituency office, is the health care system

and the lack of services south of the Fraser. We need action, not rhetoric. We

need solutions now, not in the next two, four or ten years.

Noting the time, I will conclude just by saying this budget does

spend money, but not where I believe the priorities of the people of this

province are. I believe….

Interjection.

S. Hammell: I didn't say anything, actually.

Deputy Speaker: Members, please, all comments through the

Chair.

S. Hammell: What I think the people of my constituency —

and I certainly am not going to speak for anybody else's constituency…. They do

not want the priorities of the budget that they see from this budget.

What I believe the people in my constituency want is to see less

poverty and fewer children in poverty. They want to see shorter hospital waiting

lists and fewer homeless. They do not want to see their police spending

significant amounts of time dealing with the homeless and the mentally ill

instead of the significant gang violence that is claiming innocent lives. In my

constituency in the last four to five months, seven people have been killed —

two of them innocently.

Governments, in my world, are the instruments of the people. They

can be effective tools in creating a just society. This government's budget does

not address the incredible economic pressure on average people and instead adds

to their burden. For those reasons, I wil