British Columbia Hansard — Wednesday, February 28, 2007 p.m. — Vol. 15, No. 3 (HTML) (38th Parliament, 3rd Session)

20070228pm-Hansard-v15n3

British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)

2007 Legislative Session: Third Session, 38th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 28, 2007

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 15, Number 3

Routine Proceedings

Page

Introductions by Members

Statements (Standing Order 25 b )

Peter Rolston

S. Hammell

Surrey firefighters

D. Hayer

Cowichan Valley community kitchens

society

D. Routley

Sea to Sky Community Services Society

J. McIntyre

Eating disorders

R. Chouhan

Zajac Foundation

R. Hawes

Oral Questions

Call for public inquiry into sale of

B.C. Rail

L. Krog

Hon. W. Oppal

J. Kwan

M. Farnworth

Audit of medical on-call availability

program

C. James

Hon. G. Abbott

A. Dix

R. Fleming

Funding for Burnaby General Hospital

R. Chouhan

Hon. G. Abbott

Government plans for achievement of

energy conservation targets

J. Horgan

Hon. R.

Neufeld

Greenhouse gas–reduction targets for

oil and gas sector

S. Simpson

Hon. R.

Neufeld

Petitions

C. Trevena

Tabling Documents

Office of the Auditor General,

Service Plan 2007-08 – 2009-10

Committee of Supply

Supplementary Estimates (No. 1)

Hon. C. Taylor

B. Ralston

Introduction and First Reading of

Bills

Supply Act, 2006-2007 (Supplementary

Estimates No. 1) (Bill 4)

Hon. C. Taylor

Second Reading of Bills

Supply Act, 2006-2007 (Supplementary

Estimates No. 1) (Bill 4)

Hon. C. Taylor

Committee of the Whole House

Supply Act, 2006-2007 (Supplementary

Estimates No. 1) (Bill 4)

Report and Third Reading of Bills

Supply Act, 2006-2007 (Supplementary

Estimates No. 1) (Bill 4)

Budget Debate (continued)

R. Lee

C. Wyse

Hon. K. Krueger

M. Farnworth

A. Horning

K. Conroy

L. Mayencourt

A. Dix

[ Page 5625 ]

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 28, 2007

The House met at 1:33 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Prayers.

Introductions by Members

Hon. G. Campbell: I'd like to welcome Sgt. Mike Davidson, a

military policeman from Esquimalt who just returned from a six-month deployment

in Kandahar. I know all British Columbians are happy to see our soldiers come

home safely. In my office Sergeant Davidson's return is especially welcomed by

my scheduling clerk, his wife Tamara Davidson. I ask that the House welcome him

and thank him and his family for his service to our country.

S. Hammell: I would like to take this opportunity to

introduce 29 public servants seated in the gallery who are participating in a

full-day parliamentary procedure workshop. Offered by the Legislative Assembly,

this workshop provides a firsthand opportunity for the public service to gain a

greater understanding of the relationship between the work of their ministries

and how that work affects this Legislature. Would the House please make them

welcome.

[1335]

V. Roddick: In the gallery today is a constituent from

Delta South, Judith Watt, who is a field officer with the Duke of Edinburgh's

Award. She oversees youth at risk, which includes special needs and aboriginal

children for the province. Will the House please make her very welcome.

D. Hayer: I have some very special guests here today.

First, Peter Van Der Zalm and his daughter Courtney Van Der Zalm, who went to

school with my daughter Sonia, and Jordan Belton from my riding of

Surrey-Tynehead are here visiting Victoria and the Legislature. Would the House

please make them very welcome.

I also have some additional guests. They are Baljit Samra and his

wife Jaswinder Samra, who live in Surrey. Along with Mr. and Mrs. Samra, we have

Bawa Singh, a research scientist from New York state, and his wife Narinder

Kaur, who are visiting our province from New York state. Would the House please

make them very welcome too.

J. Rustad: Today it's a great pleasure…. We don't often

have visitors come down from my riding, but in the crowd today we have Vic

Bowman, who is a constituent and a friend of mine. He is a person who has

contributed much to the community of Prince George as well as throughout the

north. Would the House please make him welcome.

Hon. T. Christensen: Today I am pleased to introduce two

constituents from the North Okanagan. It's rare that people leave the Okanagan,

because it's such a beautiful place, but today we're joined by Val and Diane

Spearing. They're visiting the Legislature. They have also recently celebrated

their 46th wedding anniversary. So congratulations to them, and please help me

in welcoming them.

Statements

(Standing Order 25

b) PETER ROLSTON

S. Hammell: We meet people every day of our lives, people

who make a difference. Then, on occasion, you meet that exceptional person, the

person that leaves you a little bit in awe because they are larger than life in

their intellect or compassion or humanity.

Peter Rolston was one of these people. Peter died on November 3,

2006, after a five-month battle with lymphoma. Peter was a United Church

minister, ordained in 1965, and was elected as a member of this Legislature for

the Dewdney constituency between 1972 and 1975.

Hon. Speaker, Peter called himself a true conservative, despite

being a staunch New Democrat. His conservative roots were nourished by his

grandmother, Tilly Jean Rolston, who formed the Social Credit Party with W.A.C.

Bennett. He called himself a conservative because he wanted to protect. When he

talked about protection, he talked about the means of safeguarding farmland,

forests and the natural resources for future use.

Peter's passion for life was boundless. As well as being an

environmentalist, he was a promoter of good relations among the faiths of the

world and a spokesman for justice and reconciliation with our first nations

people, and he worked to eliminate poverty and homelessness.

It was inside Peter that was so special. He was without guile and

was a consummate optimist. His positions were held passionately, whether he was

railing against gambling or pondering the incongruity of unionizing the

ministry. But his positions were held without malice to those who opposed.

Peter died at home with his wife Louise and family, enjoying a

birthday party with their grandchildren. He faced death like he faced life, by

embracing the inevitable through dialogue with his family and loved ones and by

optimistically looking forward to the future through his faith. I'm sure that

chariot swung low, and he is at home. He will be missed.

SURREY FIREFIGHTERS

D. Hayer: On February 20, along with British Columbia's

Lieutenant-Governor the Hon. Iona Campagnolo and other dignitaries, I had the

honour of attending the city of Surrey's Fire Service awards. These awards pay

tribute to the men and women who make up the largest composite fire department

in Canada.

Not only do the 370 career and 200 volunteer firefighters protect

our lives and the homes of Surrey residents; they provide support to many other

small

[ Page 5626 ]

fire units in communities across B.C. In addition, these exceptionally brave

men and women fill rescue and first-response capacities and regularly attend

many kinds of emergencies, including fire, auto accidents, electrical

emergencies, environmental accidents and hazardous spills. As the

Lieutenant-Governor noted, working firefighters often hold human lives in their

hands.

[1340]

As well, Surrey's firefighters greatly contribute their time as

volunteers to support many community charities. They have raised millions of

dollars for many commendable projects, such as the exceptional Surrey Memorial

Hospital, the Simon Fraser University–Surrey campus and the Fire Fighters Burn

Fund.

It was with great pride that I watched Surrey's exceptional

firefighters receive the federal Fire Services Exemplary Service Medals and the

provincial fire service Long Service Medals. These medals also identify Surrey

and British Columbia's thanks and gratitude for our firefighters' exceptional

role in coming to the aid of people. I would ask the House to join me in

congratulating Surrey's outstanding firefighters and to express our thanks and

appreciation to all the firefighters in every community represented in this

Legislature.

COWICHAN VALLEY

COMMUNITY KITCHENS SOCIETY

D. Routley: I rise today to speak of some incredible

volunteers in my community, in my riding. These amazing people operate the

community kitchens society in the Cowichan Valley. One person in particular,

Lori Iannidinardo, I'd like to bring to your attention, and I acknowledge that

she's a constituent of the member for Malahat–Juan de Fuca.

Our community benefits greatly from the service of community

kitchens. This group of people work with underprivileged or struggling families

to build life skills. The people contribute $2 per meal each. They shop

collectively. They learn the skills of budgeting their food and of planning

diet. This service is incredible because it adds so much to the lives of those

it serves. It enables them. It empowers them.

Just as an example, in November the kitchens — there are eight of

them altogether — produced 160, 114, 88, 164, 124, 114 and 100 meals

respectively in a two-month period. In October and November they produced over

2,000 meals for the people in my riding. They cooked over 3,000 cookies, which

they distributed to people, as well as 300 thank-you and help platters. They

give a great service to the community, and all of this is done by Lori

Iannidinardo from her garage — one person coordinating this entire service.

They are looking for core funding. They are looking for support.

I'm sure they'll find it. In the meantime, I just want to celebrate what they

do. They're amazing people who add something to the lives of individuals. They

collectively raise the circumstances of the people in my riding, and I thank

them from the bottom of my heart, as do all those they serve.

SEA TO SKY COMMUNITY

SERVICES SOCIETY

J. McIntyre: I rise today to pay tribute to an important

organization in my riding. The Sea to Sky Community Services Society, a

non-profit organization that was formed in 1978, is now headed by executive

director Lois Wynne. With offices in Squamish, Whistler and Pemberton, the Sea

to Sky Community Services Society offers valuable support services to

individuals and families throughout the entire Sea to Sky corridor.

The organization provides early childhood development services,

including a healthy pregnancy program, parenting programs such as Mother Goose

and parent-and-tot drop-in, a toy-lending library and drop-in play groups. They

also provide outreach and counselling services for women, youth, families and

those suffering from addiction, as well as offering a Stopping the Violence

outreach program. Via their community living services, the society runs a

residential group home in Squamish and offers supports for persons with

developmental disabilities and children with special needs.

In November, I had the pleasure of attending the Sea to Sky

Community Services Society's inaugural advocacy fundraiser at the new Adventure

Centre in Squamish. This organization has taken a lead role in bringing together

stakeholders, partners and other supportive agencies to engage in dialogue about

increasing cooperation and collaboration to better serve the communities in the

corridor. I think that this will ideally develop efficiencies and maximize

shared resources.

[1345]

We know that social support at the local, community level is vital

to enhancing our quality of life, and I'm proud to have an organization in our

midst with dedicated, caring workers that is committed to providing individuals

and families with opportunities to grow, develop and lead productive, healthy

lives and, perhaps most importantly, to lend a helping hand to those in need.

I'd like the House to join me in thanking Sea to Sky Community Services for the

good work they perform every day.

EATING DISORDERS

R. Chouhan: Members of the Legislative Assembly may know

that Eating Disorder Awareness Week was February 4 through 10. Today I am rising

to speak about the seriousness of this issue that affects so many in our

society.

Attitudes towards body image portrayed on television, in fashion

magazines and elsewhere idolize an unrealistic and unhealthy body image,

especially for young women. The social pressure to be unreasonably and

unachievably thin is enormous. Reflecting these pressures, research conducted

across Canada has shown that 71 percent of teenage girls want to be thinner, and

as many as half of the female students in a given Canadian high school will be

dieting at one time.

Eating disorders are now the third most common chronic illness in

teenage girls. The fear of being fat is so overwhelming that young girls have

indicated in

[ Page 5627 ]

surveys that they are more afraid of becoming fat than they are of cancer,

nuclear war or losing their parents. Tragically, the death rate associated with

anorexia nervosa alone is more than 12 times higher than the overall death rate

among young women in the general population.

Recently, some celebrities have been pushing back against media

industry expectations and have started to advance and advocate for healthy body

weight and acceptance of healthy body image in the industry. This kind of

positive role-modelling should be applauded. We need everybody to understand

that there's no conflict between being healthy and being beautiful or glamorous.

Our assembly and the minister opposite have taken attention to the

need to curb obesity, but we also need to be aware that there is a downward

limit to healthy weight. For some people, their health will be improved by

gaining weight, and the health risks of being seriously underweight are no less

dangerous than the risk of being seriously overweight.

ZAJAC FOUNDATION

R. Hawes: For almost 40 years, since the tragic deaths of

both of his sons in separate sporting accidents, Mel Zajac has worked tirelessly

on behalf of children with special needs and seniors with disabilities to make

their lives better in British Columbia.

Almost 40 years ago he formed the Zajac Foundation — the Mel Jr.

and Marty Zajac Foundation — which has, for those 40 years, worked to build such

amenities in British Columbia as a house in North Vancouver for seniors with

disabilities or the Sandcastle Developmental Preschool for children with special

needs in Mission.

His latest venture is the Zajac Ranch in Mission, which is a

facility for camping opportunities for children with debilitating disease. This

is a magical place where children who are in terrible circumstances are brought

together and can have a camp experience where they mingle with others with the

same problems. Life is normal for them at the camp.

There's horseback riding, swimming. There are all kinds of

climbing walls and rope, adventure playgrounds. These children have the time of

their lives there, and there is no charge to any participant that goes. All of

the funds are raised through the foundation, which has a board of directors that

works tirelessly to make this happen, along with Mr. Zajac and his remaining

children — his three daughters.

British Columbia is a richer place because we have people like Mel

Zajac, and I'd ask the House to give a great round of applause for Mel and for

everyone in B.C. that works on this wonderful project.

[1350]

Oral Questions

CALL FOR PUBLIC INQUIRY

INTO SALE OF B.C. RAIL

L. Krog: Yesterday the Attorney General refused to answer

questions about the role his government played in the B.C. Rail scandal

investigation. We know that there were leaks of confidential commercial

information. We know that the Roberts Bank spur line deal was cancelled and

taxpayer dollars were wasted. We know that criminal charges have been laid

against B.C. Liberal political staffers. We know that the B.C. Liberals took

massive political donations from CN. We know that several cabinet ministers sat

on the committee charged with overseeing negotiations, but now none of those

cabinet ministers will talk about their role and what they knew.

Will the Attorney General commit today to hold a public inquiry

into the sell-off of B.C. Rail as soon as the criminal proceedings conclude so

that B.C. taxpayers can finally get the answers they deserve?

Hon. W. Oppal: I'll reiterate the advice given to us by the

special prosecutor through the Deputy Attorney General, and that is: it is not

appropriate to comment publicly on any allegations made in this case that is

before the court.

As a former judge of the Supreme Court, I can tell you, the

members of this House, that there is a very grave danger of prejudice to a fair

trial by continually discussing this issue, and the member there well knows

that. The member who asked that question is a member of the bar, and he should

know better than to ask that question.

Mr. Speaker: Before we continue, Member, yesterday the

member for Malahat–Juan de Fuca was advised of the sub judice of the proceedings

which are taking place, so I am going to advise you of the same.

Member continues with a supplemental.

L. Krog: Yes, thank you, hon. Speaker. I won't ask the

question directly, but I will say, through you to the Attorney General, that

this is a situation that cries out for a public inquiry. The taxpayers of

British Columbia deserve a public inquiry, and I am again asking the Attorney

General to commit to this House that as soon as the criminal proceedings are

concluded, there will be a public inquiry held so that B.C. taxpayers get the

answers they deserve about this matter.

Hon. W. Oppal: It would be totally inappropriate for me to

comment and speculate as to what may take place in the future after a trial.

Mr. Speaker: Member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant. Is this a

new line of questioning?

J. Kwan: It's a question for the Premier.

Mr. Speaker: Continue.

J. Kwan: I am sorry to hear that the Attorney General

doesn't understand that a public inquiry into this matter is essential for

everyone in British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker: Member, we have to be very careful where we're

going here. I think, with the advice of the

[ Page 5628 ]

Attorney General, that we have to be very, very careful, and I'm advising you

once again.

Continue.

J. Kwan: I fully understand that. My question is not about

the court case. My question to the Premier is: will the Premier not show some

leadership? Will he not commit to a full public inquiry after the court case

into the B.C. Rail scandal? Or does the issue or the principle of double

standard apply, and that trumps public interest?

Mr. Speaker: Member, this is the same line of questioning.

I think we have to take a certain amount of advice from the Attorney General, in

the fact that he was a Supreme Court judge and in the fact of where we're going.

We can't go down the same line of questioning, because we are in an area that I

think is going to cause some grief, as the Attorney General has said.

Does the member have something different that doesn't infer

anything to do with the court case?

M. Farnworth: To the Premier: will he call a public

inquiry, once all court cases and proceedings are over, into this matter?

Mr. Speaker: Next question.

[1355]

AUDIT OF MEDICAL ON-CALL

AVAILABILITY PROGRAM

C. James: My question is for the Minister of Health. Can he

confirm that significant irregularities have occurred in the government's

medical on-call program, including inappropriate billings, and can he confirm

that there is currently an investigation into the program by law enforcement?

Hon. G. Abbott: No, I cannot confirm that. What I can tell

the member is that we have very rigorous auditing processes in this province in

relation to medical billing. If there are complaints or allegations that are

made, we follow up on those with all of the due processes through the

appropriate authorities.

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has a

supplemental.

C. James: I'm happy to provide some information, then, to

the Minister of Health, who appears unaware of this. The medical on-call

program, as we know, is funded to the tune of $125 million annually by this

government. An internal audit by the Ministry of Finance was submitted to this

government last September.

The audit found that the program was plagued by unclear

accountability, non-compliant billings and inconsistent approvals. It now

appears that law enforcement may be involved. Can the minister explain why his

government allowed the administration of this program to go so far off the

rails?

Hon. G. Abbott: If there's a problem, it rests with members

of the House who form their conclusions before they have all of the facts. That

is the grave failing that we so often see in this opposition — that they, as

legislators, try and convict people before there is ever any due process

involved.

The issue at hand is one which is being undertaken appropriately

by the appropriate authorities. I think it would be unfair and unfortunate for

the Leader of the Opposition to draw conclusions before that's completed.

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

supplemental?

C. James: I do. The only problem here is the problem that

this government has with actually telling the public the truth about what's

going on in the Ministry of Health. This audit was delivered to government five

months ago, and this minister has kept it under wraps. The Legislature is about

to head into estimates, where we'll be voting once again on this program's $125

million budget. But if it was up to the Minister of Health and the Minister of

Finance, we'd be voting on this budget without knowing the real issues.

Can the Minister of Health please explain why he sat on this

report, and will he table it now in the Legislature?

Hon. G. Abbott: I very much look forward to the estimates

process. Perhaps we'll get some decent questions from the opposition during that

process. They have certainly failed miserably in the question period portion of

this legislative session thus far.

We have a great health care system in this province. We have over

8,000 dedicated doctors. We have tens of thousands of dedicated nurses.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. G. Abbott: We have people who commit themselves each

and every day to provide the very best of service to British Columbians.

On those occasions when there are questions with respect to

whether a billing is appropriate, those questions are thoroughly examined. We

report out appropriately when all of those issues are resolved. We are not,

unlike the opposition, going to form our conclusions prematurely, and we are not

going to form them in a way that proves unfair or inappropriate to some of the

parties to that.

[1400]

A. Dix: The Minister of Health has had in his possession

for five months a devastating report about the administration of an important

part of his ministry, and he has nothing to say about it today? That's the

problem in this House. It isn't the questions; it's the answers.

The version of the report released under FOI has 32 separate

severed sections under

section 15 of the Freedom

[ Page 5629 ]

of Information Act. That's the

section that provides severing of information

if disclosure is "harmful to law enforcement."

Can the Minister of Health explain those 32 severed sections and

why he has nothing to say about a devastating report into the administration of

his own ministry?

Hon. G. Abbott: I think the last member of this House who

ought to be making suggestions about cover-up is this member over here — the

opposition Health critic.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Hon. G. Abbott: I find it deeply ironic that this member

says to ignore the Freedom of Information Act and ignore the Protection of

Privacy Act. It was an NDP government that brought in the Freedom of Information

and Protection of Privacy Act.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. G. Abbott: Now, apparently, they want us to ignore

that act, quite against the law. It is entirely typical of this opposition that

they say: "Here we have a law. Let's ignore it at our convenience." That is so

typical of this opposition. It is so typical of their contempt for the Freedom

of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: As soon as we get some quiet, we'll continue.

Member has a supplemental.

A. Dix: It's true that it was an NDP government that

brought in the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act, and it's the B.C. Liberal

government's five years of systematically not following the law that has

undermined that act and put it in the position it's at. It's this minister who

covered up a letter from the chair of the Fraser Health Authority, who's

currently being investigated by the Freedom of Information and Privacy

Commissioner.

My question to the minister is this. This report says "unclear

accountability" in the minister's ministry. This report says "non-compliance

with contract terms." It's not me who says it. It's the Ministry of Finance that

says it, and I think the Minister of Health should stand in this House and

explain why the administration of his ministry under his command has so failed

that the Ministry of Finance is condemning his ministry's administration.

Hon. G. Abbott: What a load of absolute nonsense from that

member. What a load of nonsense.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. G. Abbott: Now, I don't know how ministry offices

operated when that government was in power. When that member was chief political

adviser to the NDP government, perhaps the minister's office actually did the

severing of FOI releases. I doubt it, but perhaps they did.

But I can tell the member here right now that when he makes the

attack that he does in the House today, he is attacking the integrity of

lifelong public officials who are doing their very best job to interpret the

provisions of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

[1405]

It is so typical, again, of this opposition that they recklessly

attack public officials who are following the rules of the Freedom of

Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

R. Fleming: The Minister of Health rejects the question as

"utter nonsense." Can he tell the House whether he's read the report, in fact?

If so, will he release the report to the House today?

Hon. G. Abbott: If the member or the members opposite have

allegations that they wish to make, they should have the guts to make those

allegations. What they should not do is stand back and attack public officials

who are appropriately attempting to ensure that the provisions of a provincial

act, the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy act, are

inappropriate.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Minister, take your chair. Until I can hear

the answer, we're not going to continue.

Minister, continue.

Hon. G. Abbott: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Freedom of

Information and Protection of Privacy Act exists for a number of purposes. If

the member is suggesting that in some way public officials have breached that

act, he should say so. If he has a concern, he should file a complaint with the

commissioner responsible for the Freedom of Information and Protection of

Privacy Act. They should not sit back, I think, and take an entirely cowardly

route of attacking public officials in this province.

FUNDING FOR

BURNABY GENERAL HOSPITAL

R. Chouhan: Let's see if I can get a straight answer from

the Minister of Health on this question. Mr. Minister, will you ensure the

continuation of funding for the 19 overflow beds at the Burnaby General Hospital

which are scheduled to be closed on March 31, 2007?

Hon. G. Abbott: I'm pleased to look into the matter for the

member. What I can tell the member is that British Columbia's health care system

is better funded than it ever has been in the history of British Columbia —

[ Page 5630 ]

$13.1 billion for the operation of the health care delivery system. That is

almost $5 billion more than it was when we took office in 2001 — from $8.4

billion to $13.1 billion.

We are doing more surgeries than ever before in British Columbia,

we're providing better services than ever before in British Columbia, and we

look forward to continuing to work with health care practitioners in this

province to continue to have a great health care system in British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

R. Chouhan: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I think there will be more

funding available if you are not dumping the money in the black hole called the

Trade and Convention Centre.

The situation at Burnaby General Hospital is so bad that the

front-line nurses are opting for early retirement because they no longer can

cope with the critical conditions created by the lack of funding. The 19

overflow beds will receive funding only until the end of March of this year.

Instead of spending money on political spin doctors and lecturing

us standing here, will the minister help the people of Burnaby, at the very

minimum by funding the 19 overflow beds currently open, and ideally by providing

necessary funding to open the currently unfunded beds?

[1410]

Hon. G. Abbott: I've had the opportunity, thankfully, to

visit Burnaby General Hospital. It's an outstanding facility. I think they do an

excellent job there, and I know that Burnaby General Hospital benefits from the

fact that in British Columbia today we have more doctors, better paid, than ever

in the history of British Columbia. We have more nurses, better paid, than ever

before in the history of British Columbia, and that's thankfully because our

government invested in educating more nurses after a decade of neglect under the

former government.

We do more diagnostic procedures than ever before in the history

of the province, including at Burnaby General Hospital. We do a great job. They

do a great job. We do a great job because of the great nurses, doctors, care

aides and paramedics that do such a good job for us.

GOVERNMENT PLANS FOR ACHIEVEMENT

OF ENERGY CONSERVATION TARGETS

J. Horgan: As much as I'd like to pose my question to the

Minister for Mining, it's to the Minister of Energy.

Yesterday the government announced that it has directed B.C. Hydro

to meet a target of 50 percent of new load to come from conservation measures.

Reviewing the materials provided at the press briefing, we realize that there

are no new programs, no new initiatives and no new supports for Hydro customers

to meet those targets. The result of the announcement will mean that the

equivalent of one in five customers will be unplugged, unless the government

provides supports for consumers.

My question is very simple: absent any new ideas from the

government, how is it possible for British Columbians to meet those targets?

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Minister. Minister.

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Minister. Minister.

Hon. R. Neufeld: I'm excited. This is good news.

Mr. Speaker: I know you're excited.

Hon. R. Neufeld: This is great news. We just tabled a plan

yesterday that a cross-section of British Columbians and people that generally

oppose what we do has come out in total favour of it, and all we can do is get a

negative from the opposition.

Are they against ensuring that clean, renewable electricity

generation continues to account for at least 90 percent of total generation? Are

they opposed to maintaining our competitive electricity advantage in British

Columbia? Are they opposed to zero greenhouse gas–emissions from thermal plants?

Mr. Speaker: Thank you, Minister.

Hon. R. Neufeld: One more point, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: No. Thank you, Minister.

Hon. R. Neufeld: Have a look in the back of the book, and

it'll tell you. Do your research, Member.

Mr. Speaker: Before we continue….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Before we continue, I want to remind the minister not to use props

in the House.

The member has a supplemental.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

J. Horgan: I know most British Columbians prefer the

minister unplugged.

Many of us on this side of the House assumed that absent any

substance in the throne speech and absent any substance in the budget, we might

see some substance in the energy plan.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

J. Horgan: Now we know we may have enough spin from this

side to turn a turbine, but we've got no programs in place for British

Columbians to meet those targets.

[ Page 5631 ]

It's, again, a very simple question. Besides putting a surcharge

on hydro rates, what plan do you have to help consumers meet these challenges?

[1415]

Hon. R. Neufeld: Well, the B.C. Sustainable Energy

Association says…. When they say this is one of the best energy plans in the

world, I'm willing to say yes, and that's about where it is. Or when Joe Foy

says all sorts of compliments to the provincial government, for gosh sakes,

let's bury Site C. Maybe we can get an opinion from the member on that.

I would encourage him to go to the back of the energy plan, have a

read of the back page, actually read the whole plan. If you can't get it from

there, go to www.bchydro.com…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. R. Neufeld: …for Power Smart things to do at home. You

could go to www.gov.bc.ca. Go to the Ministry of Energy, and go to "Alternate

Energy." You can find out all kinds of things. One thing you could do, although

it's pretty dark on that side of the House most of the time, is turn your lights

out at home, Member.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, let's listen to the next question.

GREENHOUSE GAS–REDUCTION TARGETS

FOR OIL AND GAS SECTOR

S. Simpson: The energy plan calls for a significant

expansion about the oil and gas sector, including Nechako and offshore oil and

gas. In the budget that was released, there's $265 million of credits and

subsidies for that sector — a sector that, as the minister and the Premier will

know, produces about 20 percent of the greenhouse gas emissions in this

province. In the energy plan there's quite a bit of discussion about alternative

energy. However, in the press conference yesterday, we heard the minister be

very clear that there would be no initiatives in the plan for supporting the

growth of alternative energy like wind.

My question to the minister is: can he explain why, if we're going

green, the oil and gas sector is getting $265 million in subsidies and credits

and the alternative energy sector gets nothing?

Hon. R. Neufeld: Again, they haven't done their homework.

They just haven't done their homework. You know, Mr. Speaker, it reminds me of

the time when they were in government, when they actually chose different

companies to give subsidies to, when they chose some of the largest oil and gas

companies in the world to give subsidies to, and now they say we're giving

subsidies. We give incentives to actually create the environment so that people

can make the investment and live in the northeast and have a job year-round, and

that's exactly what's happening in British Columbia.

As for the wind energy, they get a subsidy from the federal

government. There is no sales tax on any equipment for wind energy. There is no

sales tax on solar panels, on all sorts of generation from clean sources. The

tax has been removed. There are huge incentives in the province to actually move

forward. You know what, Mr. Speaker? Under this administration, we've signed

energy purchase agreements for 325 megawatts of wind. That didn't happen under

that government.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Vancouver-Hastings has a

supplemental.

S. Simpson: This minister might call them incentives. It's

$265 million of subsidy. You've got a government that talked about going green

and doesn't put ten cents — not ten cents — into true alternative energy

incentives. That's what this government's about: talk and no action.

This energy plan talks about a number of initiatives to be adopted

by 2010 and by 2016. When the throne speech came out, it talked about climate

change announcements but said we'd have to wait for the budget and then for the

energy plan to get details. We now have the energy plan.

[1420]

My question is that the throne speech talked about interim

sectoral targets for greenhouse gas emissions for 2012 and 2016. Now that we

have this plan, can this minister tell us what this plan will achieve in terms

of meeting those targets? What can we reasonably expect the reduction in

greenhouse gas emissions to be from this sector in 2012 and 2016?

Hon. R. Neufeld: Interesting. Just this last summer B.C.

Hydro signed energy purchase agreements that amounted to $3.6 billion of

investment in the province in clean energy. Just a year before that they signed

contracts for hundreds of millions of dollars for clean energy in the province.

Mr. Speaker, when we listen to that opposition, they oppose every

clean energy project in the province. That member opposes Ashlu — a clean energy

producer — by letter to his constituents and then stands here and talks about

it. We have actually instituted zero greenhouse gas emissions and no flaring in

ten years — something that you have never thought of or probably don't know

anything about.

[End of question period.]

C. Puchmayr: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

C. Puchmayr: Mr. Speaker, we have in our gallery today the

mayor of New Westminster, Mayor Wayne Wright; Councillor Betty McIntosh;

Councillor Bill Harper;

[ Page 5632 ]

and Paul Daminato, the city administrator. They're all here to talk to the

Health Minister.

C. Trevena: I seek to present a petition.

Mr. Speaker: Member, proceed.

Petitions

C. Trevena: It's a petition with about a hundred signatures

protesting cuts in child care by the province.

Orders of the Day

Supplementary Estimates

Hon. C. Taylor presented a message from Her Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor: supplementary estimates (No. 1) for the fiscal year ending

March 31, 2007.

Hon. C. Taylor moved that the said message and the estimates

accompanying the same be referred to the Committee of Supply.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, I think they're going to

distribute the estimates, so if you just remain in your seats.

Hon. M. de Jong: Mr. Speaker, why don't we…? I move the

House recess for ten minutes so that members can read the brief bill that's

making its way through for the supplementary estimate that is being distributed.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, this House stands in recess

until 25 to three.

The House recessed from 2:24 p.m. to 2:37 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Tabling Documents

Mr. Speaker: Just before we get started, I have the honour

to present the report of the Auditor General: Service Plan 2007-08 – 2009-10 .

Hon. M. de Jong: I'm calling continuation of Committee of

Supply.

Committee of Supply

SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES

The House in Committee of Supply; H. Bloy in the chair.

The committee met at 2:38 p.m.

On Vote 43(S): other appropriations, contingencies (all

ministries) and new programs, $290,000,000.

B. Ralston: This amount of $290 million, I understand,

comprises part of the government's negotiating framework that provided for

signing bonuses for union members. Is that correct?

Hon. C. Taylor: May I begin by introducing Tamara Vrooman,

Deputy Minister of Finance, and Dave Stewart, who are with me today.

Yes, that is correct.

B. Ralston: Can the minister advise the House whether that

$290 million includes bonuses for non-union public employees?

Hon. C. Taylor: Yes.

B. Ralston: Are there any non-union public employees who

are not receiving a signing bonus?

Hon. C. Taylor: Yes, there might be, because this bill is,

of course, covering our public sector negotiations and management exclusions.

B. Ralston: I'm sure the minister has received — and I've

received, as have many members — representations from, particularly, employees

in the community care sector.

Can the minister confirm that non-union employees in the community

care sector will not be receiving the bonus this year or in the future?

[1440]

Hon. C. Taylor: I included in Budget 2007, which was

introduced last week, a sum of $109 million that is set aside for the specific

sector the member mentioned, and we recognize that those social service

agencies…. Many of them hadn't actually had a contract lift since 2000 — 2001,

some of them. There have been many pressures in terms of the service they

provide, so that $109 million is in the budget and is for the negotiations that

will go on between the ministries and those services.

B. Ralston: Is that $109 million, then, specifically

allocated for bonuses in that sector, or is that for the individual executive

directors of those agencies to decide how those funds increase so that they

maybe will be allocated?

Hon. C. Taylor: We do not do the wage negotiations with

these social service agencies. They have a contract with government. So this is

to recognize that there have been some pressures on those agencies and to allow

the ministers who are responsible to provide lifts if they feel them necessary.

B. Ralston: Can the minister advise if, for example,

political staff who are order-in-council appointees, such as members of the

public affairs bureau…? Did they receive the bonus, and is that included in this

$290 million?

[ Page 5633 ]

Hon. C. Taylor: Yes, they did. But of course, that was last

year. It was not this money. This money is focusing on the teachers. This is the

bonus for our teachers. As well, there is an allowance in there for some of our

outstanding contracts that remain.

B. Ralston: Can the minister advise which outstanding

contracts she's referring to?

Hon. C. Taylor: Mr. Chair, I wonder if the member opposite

could speak a little louder. I couldn't hear what he said.

B. Ralston: Could the minister advise what outstanding

contracts she's referring to?

Hon. C. Taylor: Yes. There are 28 agreements still

outstanding. I'm happy to provide the list, but it's primarily colleges and

faculties.

B. Ralston: Last year in debate the minister said,

referring to the billion dollars which was part of the supplementary estimates

debate last year, that if the agreement wasn't reached, that $1 billion "will go

immediately to paying down the debt of British Columbia. So that money is not

lost to the people of British Columbia. It just goes to a different area. It's

no longer a signing bonus because the contracts haven't been signed, and

therefore, it will go to paying down the debt for British Columbians." Does the

minister stand by that position?

Hon. C. Taylor: Yes, I certainly do. These labour

negotiations have really been an important, I hope, turning point for British

Columbia. Because so many of them actually came due on the same day last year,

March 31, we had the opportunity to concentrate on those negotiations. It was a

very heavy and demanding time for everyone.

Over 300,000 employees — our doctors, our nurses, people who work

in the public sector and many others — were involved. We were very pleased to be

able to say that there was a signing bonus that was available for those unions

and their employees who signed their contracts either before or by March 31. By

March 31, 100 percent of the contracts that were due at that time in fact were

signed.

The member will remember that we had put extra dollars into that

billion so that should the teachers, for instance, have decided to settle early,

the money would have been there for them. We ended up using $710 million, and

the remainder did go towards paying down the debt.

[1445]

B. Ralston: Can the minister advise what statutory

provision she's referring to that authorizes these surplus funds to go to paying

down the debt as opposed to simply remaining as financial assets on the balance

sheet?

Hon. C. Taylor: It is GAAP accounting policy that we follow

very closely. We're pleased that we do, and it is the way that we carry out this

policy.

B. Ralston: Perhaps the minister, then, could explain the

GAAP policy. As I understand it, to say that the money went to the repayment of

debt is not accurate. The assets would remain on the balance sheet as just that

— assets — and would reduce the net liabilities by that amount, but they would

not be directed to paying down outstanding debt. Perhaps the minister could

clarify that.

Hon. C. Taylor: The option that the member is providing — I

think he's saying you would leave it as cash instead of paying down your debt —

would not solve what I think the member is trying to say. If the member is

trying to say that in fact that money would have been available for people after

March 31 to offer as a bonus, it would not have been available.

B. Ralston: What I'm suggesting to the minister is that

that money did indeed remain as cash on the balance sheet. It did not go into

paying down debt, as the minister has previously stated. I'm wondering if the

minister agrees with me or whether she disagrees.

Hon. C. Taylor: I think we're into some technicalities that

are very interesting for the accountants. To say that you would have cash there,

which reduces your future borrowing needs because the cash is ready to go out to

capital, or whether you say that we took that particular dollar and put it

towards paying down the debt, so that we could borrow some more for capital, is

something that I'm not sure why the member would have an issue with either way.

The point is that it moves onto the balance sheet. It is there so

that we can build more capital, as we've been able to do. In fact, our past two

years of surplus have been so large that we have been able to bring forward much

of our capital spending so that this year in the budget we can include new

hospitals, which are now mentioned in Victoria, Kelowna, Vernon and Fort St.

John.

B. Ralston: The minister didn't answer the question. Did

that cash remain on the balance sheet as cash, or did it go to paying down the

debt? It is a point of some difference because the minister publicly stated last

year that if the bonuses weren't expended, they would go towards paying down the

debt. That was the express public statement of the minister. If that isn't

accurate, then I think the public has a right to know.

Hon. C. Taylor: I stand behind my public statement, and I

will continue to say that we had a billion dollars which under GAAP accounting

had to be spent by March 31. We used it for the 100 percent of our public sector

workers who signed contracts before or on March 31. That was $710 million. There

was $290 million left out of that billion which then went over to the balance

sheet, and I stand by my statements.

[1450]

B. Ralston: Just to summarize, then: the $290 million went

over to the balance sheet, remained as cash and was not used to pay down debt.

Is that correct?

[ Page 5634 ]

Hon. C. Taylor: I will say the same thing over again. When

the cash moves over onto the balance sheet, it can be used to reduce future

borrowing; it can be used to immediately pay down the debt. Either way, it is

used on the balance sheet so that we are allowed to do more capital spending and

still keep our debt affordable.

We have the pleasure of saying that we have Moody's triple-A

rating, only the third government in all of Canada — the federal government, the

Alberta government and B.C. It's because they watch how we're doing our debt

management, and this is a big part of it. We follow GAAP in doing it, and by

reducing our borrowing in this way with our surpluses, we are able to keep our

debt affordable for the people of B.C.

B. Ralston: If I might then summarize what I take from the

minister's answer: the remaining cash was, to quote her words, "used on the

balance sheet," but it was not used to pay down debt.

Hon. C. Taylor: I will say again: when you move dollars

over to the balance sheet, then you enable yourself to reduce your borrowing or

pay down your debt, so that capital in fact can be spent on all the projects

that we want to build in our province. By having these dollars on the balance

sheet, we are able to reduce our borrowing so that we can keep our debt

affordable and still build the hospitals, schools and roads that we need.

B. Ralston: I'll have one more go at this. I understand

clearly what the minister is saying, but it is different, I would suggest, from

saying publicly that if the money wasn't spent it would go to paying down debt.

That wasn't the intended use, and that wasn't the actual use. Does the minister

agree with me or not?

Hon. C. Taylor: When we move the dollars on March 31 over

onto our balance sheet, it reduces our borrowing requirements. By definition,

that reduces the debt.

B. Ralston: Well, with respect, doesn't it reduce net

liabilities but not debt?

Hon. C. Taylor: Hon. Chair, I've come forward with a

supplementary estimate for this year. It's for $290 million to pay the bonuses

for our teachers who settled their contract. We're very pleased to see the first

negotiated contract by the teachers in British Columbia in recent years. I would

hope that the debate and the questions would be about this $290 million that

I've come forward with today.

B. Ralston: I think the record clearly shows that the

minister has refused to answer that question. So I'll leave that for the public.

Hon. C. Hansen: You don't know what you're talking about.

B. Ralston: The Minister of Economic Development is

offering his opinion on financial matters. Fortunately, for the province, he's

not the Finance Minister at this point.

The further question that I have…. I wish to return to the

community care sector. When does the minister expect or when is it anticipated

that those negotiations will commence?

Hon. C. Taylor: Mr. Chair, that question, in fact, relates

to the budget, not to the supplementary estimates.

Vote 43(S): other appropriations, contingencies (all ministries)

and new programs, $290,000,000 — approved.

Hon. C. Taylor: Hon. Chair, I move that the committee rise

and report the resolution.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 2:55 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

The Committee of Supply reported resolution.

Mr. Speaker: When shall the report be considered?

Hon. C. Taylor: Forthwith. I move that the report of the

resolution from the Committee of Supply on February 28 be now received, taken as

read and agreed to.

Motion approved.

Hon. C. Taylor: I move that there be granted from and out

of the consolidated revenue fund the sum of $290 million. This sum is in

addition to that authorized to be paid under

section 1 of the Supply Act,

2006-2007, and is granted to Her Majesty towards defraying the charges and

expenses of the public service of the province for the fiscal year ending March

31, 2007.

Motion approved.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

SUPPLY ACT, 2006-2007(SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES No. 1)

Hon. C. Taylor presented a message from Her Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Supply Act, 2006-2007 (Supplementary

Estimates No. 1).

Hon. C. Taylor: I move that the bill be introduced and read

a first time now.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: Minister of Finance, can we just have a short

break while we distribute the bill for everybody to see? Just take a few

minutes' break while we get the bill out for everybody.

[ Page 5635 ]

Hon. C. Taylor: The use of supplementary estimates is

consistent with the spirit of the Budget Transparency and Accountability Act.

This supply bill is introduced to provide supply for the operation of government

programs for the 2006-2007 fiscal year, as outlined in the Supplementary

Estimates No. 1 tabled earlier. The bill will provide the additional funds

required to defray the charges and expenses of the public service of the

province for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2007.

Mr. Speaker, in accordance with established practice, the

government seeks to move this bill through all stages this day.

Mr. Speaker: In keeping with the practice of this House,

the bill will be permitted to advance through all stages in one sitting.

Bill 4, Supply Act, 2006-2007 (Supplementary Estimates No. 1),

introduced, read a first time and ordered to proceed to second reading

forthwith.

[1500]

Second Reading of Bills

SUPPLY ACT, 2006-2007

(SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES No. 1)

Hon. C. Taylor: I move that Bill 4 now be read a second

time.

Motion approved.

Hon. C. Taylor: I move that the bill be now referred to a

Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

Bill 4, Supply Act, 2006-2007 (Supplementary Estimates No. 1),

read a second time and ordered to proceed to a Committee of the Whole House for

consideration forthwith.

Committee of the Whole House

SUPPLY ACT, 2006-2007

(SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES No. 1)

The House in Committee of the Whole on Bill 4; H. Bloy in the

chair.

The committee met at 3:01 p.m.

Sections 1 and 2 approved.

Schedule approved.

Preamble approved.

Title approved.

Hon. C. Taylor: Hon. Chair, I move that the committee rise

and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 3:02 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

SUPPLY ACT, 2006-2007

(SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES No. 1)

Bill 4, Supply Act, 2006-2007 (Supplementary Estimates No. 1),

reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

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

Budget Debate

(continued)

R. Lee: It's an honour for me to stand up again in the

House to respond to the budget speech, as well as taking a closer look at the

throne speech. The riding I serve, Burnaby North, in the city of Burnaby is

located in one of the most beautiful areas in British Columbia. We have

mountains, parks, lakes, renowned post-secondary institutions, great sports

facilities, and most importantly, a community of ethnic and cultural diversity.

These strengths attract businesses and industries to Burnaby, especially when

the overall economy in the province is strong.

[H. Bloy in the chair.]

This year's throne speech began with the tradition of honouring

British Columbians who have passed away since the previous throne speech. It

brings back to my memory the words of a former member of this assembly, Val

Anderson, and the first unveiling of the Legacies Now logo at the Kensington

rink with former Mayor Doug Drummond, and Yung Quon Yu's family farm in Burnaby.

It also led my mind to thinking of my grandfather's farming days

on the Musqueam reserve at the southwest corner of Vancouver for over 20 years

before he retired in 1965.

When we look at the throne speech or the budget speech, it

invariably creates different views of what it means to different individuals.

It's important, then, to look at the history as well as the facts.

It's a fact that over the last five years, British Columbians have

turned this province into an economic powerhouse. The provincial unemployment

rate is at an historic low, and the employment rate is at an all-time high.

People are moving back to this province to live and work. The net gain of

interprovincial immigration is in the thousands, and we are becoming the first

choice in Canada for many international immigrants.

[1505]

As the economy of our province remains strong, consumer and

business confidence increases. We see a

[ Page 5636 ]

high level of residential and non-residential construction. In Burnaby

highrises and new construction projects are popping up everywhere, especially in

the Brentwood-Lougheed area.

With increasing economic activities and prudent fiscal management,

our government managed to reduce the taxpayer-supported debt to GDP ratio — a

key indicator of debt affordability — from 20.6 percent in year 2001-2002 to

14.4 percent in 2006-2007.

B.C. now has regained a triple-A credit rating for the first time

in over 20 years. This means that the interest rate of debt services for this

province will be lower, saving millions and millions in interest payments to pay

for other valuable services.

When we look at the financial situation of this province, it's

helpful to analyze the provincial debt. The total provincial debt has three

components.

The first one is the provincial government direct operating debt,

which is debt incurred over the years by government administration. The second

one is other taxpayer-supported debt — mainly capital investment in schools,

hospitals, highways and public transit, government buildings, social housing,

etc. The third one is self-supported debt, which is debt essentially incurred by

Crown corporations such as B.C. Hydro, B.C. Transmission, Columbia Power, etc.

The B.C. government operating debt is a good measure of the

efficiency of government operations. In year 1990-1991 the B.C. operating debt

was $4.7 billion, or 6 percent of GDP at the time. After ten years of NDP

government, by year 2000-2001, it had increased to over $12 billion — more than

double.

Our government, however, is on the way to paying down the

operating debt to $9.1 billion, or 4.9 percent of GDP, which is a recovery to

the debt-to-GDP ratio before the ten years of NDP government. It took us six

years to undo some of the damages done by the NDP government. It is not easy,

but it is what a responsible government must do.

Let's look at another number: the total taxpayer-supported debt.

In year 1990-1991 the total taxpayer-supported debt was $9.8 billion. By

2000-2001 the NDP government had increased the total taxpayer-supported debt to

$25 billion. The total taxpayer debt to GDP ratio will decline to 14.8 percent

next year from 20.6 percent six years ago, which is really a measure of how

responsible our government is in managing the taxpayers' money.

Keeping our financial house in order is the right thing to do, and

a responsible government raises people's confidence in the future of this

province. Our government is focused on fiscal management, but we are also

committed to providing the best supports for B.C.'s most vulnerable and to

capitalizing on the Asia-Pacific gateway.

I'm happy that the Conference Board of Canada ranks our health

care system as the best in Canada, and our students are winning national and

international awards in academics, sports and innovations. Our diagnosis and

treatment of cancer patients is the best in Canada.

Burnaby North Secondary School topped the list of advanced

placement scholars. Our B.C. hockey and football teams won the most prestigious

cups. We have world leaders of business and innovation in this province in such

diverse sectors as software development, telecommunications, biotechnology and

alternative energy developments.

[1510]

Our government has taken many steps to create a favourable

business environment to encourage investment and entrepreneurship. The

government has successfully cut red tape regulations by over one-third and

reduced personal income taxes and corporate taxes.

In this budget, income taxes are reduced for families. Every

person earning up to $100,000 will be paying the lowest income taxes in Canada,

and 250,000 British Columbians will pay no income taxes. How exciting.

More British Columbians than ever before pay no income taxes. For

the overall majority who pay, it's the lowest in the country, leaving more money

in people's pockets and increasing their choices. They can use the extra dollars

to help pay for the rent or mortgage.

In fact, a strong economy allows the government to improve

important programs and services such as education, health care and

transportation. However, a strong economy also creates an increased demand for

housing — hence, the issue of affordability.

I believe this budget has initiated a multi-pronged approach to

address many housing issues. From the homeless to the renters, first-time buyers

to homeowners, and from people on social assistance to seniors living in their

own home, no one is untouched by this budget. The housing endowment fund ensures

that even the future generation will benefit from this budget.

This budget is both focused and visionary. In order to keep our

economy growing to continue to generate the revenue needed to support our health

care, education and social services, we must increase our trade activities,

including exports. The emerging economy in Asian countries such as India, China

and Korea, and in more mature markets such as Japan, creates many opportunities

for British Columbians.

As a provincial government and Canada's only Pacific province,

British Columbia is determined to make the most of the opportunities that rest

in Asia. After all, our province has some unparalleled advantages aside from our

strategic location, our natural resources, our economic stability, our cultural

and social links, and our people — all of which are great assets that will help.

But in this highly competitive world that we now live in, it's not

quite enough, which is why our government provincially has embarked on something

we call the Asia-Pacific Initiative, a culmination of cross-government efforts

to think more globally, build on the resources we have and look to form new

relationships with individuals outside of our province.

The Ministry of Economic Development will increase international

marketing activities to attract qualified business immigrants and provincial

nominees. We will expand the B.C. provincial nominee program, and reduce

processing time for applicants and recruit additional internal advisers with

C. Wyse: I would like to begin by acknowledging my

colleague from the opposite side, the member for Burnaby North. I appreciate

very much the time that he has put in, in preparing his speech. I am sure that

we could reach agreement, if the member wishes to complete his statement.

Interjection.

C. Wyse: No. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I wish to begin my response to the throne speech that received

little reference — one sentence, in fact, on page 6 — that said: "The

precedent-setting trade, investment and labour mobility agreement with Alberta

will create jobs and opportunity in every region of the province." One short

reference to an agreement that was reached with no public discussion and most

limited public input to the agreement.

The trade, investment and labour mobility agreement, or TILMA, has

not been debated. It was signed quietly with little fanfare and then simply

announced. This side of the House favours agreements that encourage trade,

encourage investment and encourage labour mobility. However, this side of the

House does not believe that TILMA is the way to achieve these goals.

I would like to examine why this side has reached this conclusion.

The side opposite hired the Conference Board to do the research from which TILMA

evolved. The Conference Board consulted 13 businesses, and four responded; 11

government agencies, and six responded. The Conference Board did not consult

major government ministries such as Health, Education, Children and Family

Development, or Environment. Of the 24 surveys taken, 11 responses were

returned, only four from businesses. No specific industry or trade was surveyed.

[1535]

In my opinion this is a very narrow sampling to develop a document

as far-reaching as TILMA. From this limited sampling the Conference Board

reports that billions of dollars of new economic growth and the creation of

thousands of jobs will result. Quite a conclusion, in my mind, based on the

sampling of four business responses.

In fact, this report uses figures of economic benefit based on

primary industries. The primary industries are excluded under the agreement.

This fact accounts for 60 percent of the accredited economic growth assigned to

TILMA.

There are some further myths surrounding TILMA. The basis of TILMA

is to break down costly interprovincial trade barriers. These trade barriers

cost no more than 0.05 of 1 percent of GDP. In fact since 2000, interprovincial

trade has been growing much faster than Canada's international trade — 25

percent from 2000 to 2005. This rate is greater than Canada's growth rate for

international trade.

TILMA opens up the following areas, which asks for trouble, in my

opinion. Governments must reconcile all existing and future standards and

regulations so they do not impede trade, investment and labour mobility. In some

areas government may adopt or maintain measures that deviate from TILMA rules,

but only if they pass a three-part test which stipulates, in

part 1, that the

measure be a legitimate objective. These objectives do not include protection of

heritage sites, promotion of culture, provision of education or expansion to

supply affordable housing.

Part 2 is that the measure is not more restrictive to trade,

investment or labour mobility than necessary to achieve that legitimate

objective.

Part 3 is that the measure is not a disguised restriction to trade

investment or labour mobility.

All provincial government entities are covered by TILMA, including

municipal governments, school and health boards, Crown corporations and

agencies. Governments cannot grant business subsidies that distort development.

Now let's look at some examples of regulations that could be ruled

to be TILMA violations if they impair or restrict investment. Differences in

B.C. and Alberta regulation of private schools. Restriction the B.C. government

may consider necessary to regulate the operation of private for-profit surgery

clinics. Regulation of recreation and tourism to protect ecologically sensitive

areas. Restrictions on particular products like ozone-depleting substances or

pesticides. Regulation of air pollution produced by manufacturing plants and

automobiles, such as B.C.'s AirCare program. Designation and protection of

ecological reserves. Protection of public views and municipal height allowance

bylaws. Municipal bans of billboards. And finally, bans on junk food in schools.

There's also the possibility of a $5 million fine if government is

found to be in violation of the agreement. A chill effect might result in public

policy–making, whereby governments eliminate measures or decline to introduce

new ones to avoid TILMA challenges. Challenges may be launched on these grounds:

measures restrict or impair trade, investment or labour mobility; lack of

reconciliation of existing regulations and standards that restrict or impair

trade, investment or labour mobility; establishment of new regulations and

standards that restrict or impair trade, investment or labour mobility; business

subsidies that distort investment decisions; treatment less favourable than the

best treatment provided to a province's own persons, services, investors or

investments in like circumstances.

Under TILMA, B.C. has agreed to allow individuals and corporations

to legally challenge the decisions government makes to protect the interests of

its citizens

[ Page 5640 ]

— a worrisome situation, to say the least. And all of that is contained in

one sentence on page 6 in the throne speech.

[1540]

Now let's examine a part of the throne speech where much was said.

Specifically, I refer to: "Little has been done to seriously address this

problem, which is literally threatening life on Earth as we know it…. The

government will act now and will act deliberately…. We will act to stem its

growth and minimize the impacts already unleashed. The more timid our response

is, the harsher the consequences will be."

Great words in addressing the serious issue of climate change. I

was hopeful that the members opposite had finally concluded that climate change

had arrived and that action was required by the government. Targets were set to

be achieved by 2020 — 13 years to reach targeted goals, when the goals are

developed.

To add some smoke, to give the pretence of achieving these goals,

we find previously announced programs re-announced as means to affect climate

change. I name three: the LocalMotion fund, Towns for Tomorrow, the B.C. Spirit

Squares program. A new one, a $26 million climate change fund, was also

announced.

The throne speech concentrated on achieving its climate change

goals by focusing on coasts, ports and oceans. The government left out the north

and the interior with its heavy industrial uses. The same government that

scrapped the B.C. climate change business plan and the climate change working

group in 2001 saw the light and reintroduced a similar committee in 2007.

Let us fast-forward one week to the budget and compare what it

does for climate change, compared to the throne speech. For example, let's see

what happened to that $26 million for climate change. Whoops, not there. From my

limited experience, this has to be a world record for any government in its

effort to highlight a government objective. From throne speech to a budget and

abandonment of a funding goal — maybe a week in the sun. Maybe British

Columbians should be thankful for the short attention span of the government on

this important issue in the budget.

Let's look at some past issues that the government highlighted,

announcing they would focus upon these issues and make improvements. Heartlands

were focused on and highlighted in 2003. Anyone who visits the interior of B.C.

cannot help but notice the mountain pine beetle and what it has done to the pine

trees. These interior rural communities are forced to be dependent for their

economic existence. These communities are suffering the consequences of climatic

change, and have been for decades in some instances.

In 2007 the province still has no social-economic plan for these

rural communities which are bearing the brunt of this climate change effect. So

much for communities like 100 Mile and Barriere.

The seniors were highlighted in 2005. After health authorities

shut down hundreds of beds for seniors care, the province continued not to

supply the 5,000 long-term care beds that it had previously promised.

Communities and seniors advocacy groups regularly highlighted the effect of the

government's failed plans to provide for their needs. In fact, seniors from

Williams Lake travelled hundreds of miles to both Kamloops and Victoria to

present their concerns to the Minister of Health and the Premier.

Finally, children were highlighted in 2006. After all of the

rhetoric of 2006, the unkindest cut of them all was the provincial cut that will

lead to the closure of most child care referral and resource centres around B.C.

I do understand that there may be some reason for some optimism for some change

by the government, but this is a response to the budget and the throne speech,

so I will wait to see what may unfurl in the future.

[1545]

Communities like Anahim Lake, Ashcroft and Savona no longer will

receive the support of these centres to provide much-needed quality child care —

the same child care provisions that assist people to find employment. In fact, a

nurse in 100 Mile will not return to her field as the wait time for child care

in her community already approaches a year — another worker removed from the

labour force unnecessarily.

In closing, on this part of the throne speech and budget, maybe

British Columbia is better off that climate change is only highlighted for about

a week by this government.

Now, let's examine how the budget was presented as a housing

budget. I do want to acknowledge the government's increasing the shelter

allowance by $50 per month — definitely a good idea. The government may have

been slow in increasing the shelter allowance, but it did so — albeit after the

worst winter in six years — as was reported by the Minister of Transportation

recently in this House.

Providing funds to move 750 much-needed social housing units to

seniors housing units is a sign of a desperate government scrambling to fulfil

an unfulfilled election promise from 2001. Calling $1.5 billion in tax cuts a

housing strategy is misleading, to say the least, and quite possibly insulting

to many.

A tax cut of $30 a month does not do much for an average working

family's ability to obtain affordable housing. In fact, local governments

continue to be requested to foot the cost of provincial responsibilities. Local

governments are being requested to provide exemptions for development cost

charges and levies. Local governments that only have property tax to raise

revenue are asked to financially assist the provincial government with billions

of dollars in surpluses — a provincial government that decided not to fund child

care but instead to reduce its revenue by granting tax cuts to the wealthiest

British Columbians.

Finally, on housing, the contracts for individuals to assist

homeless people to find housing and shelter in both Williams Lake and 100 Mile

expire March 31 of this year. These two programs have proved to be highly

successful in achieving their goals. Hopefully, money has been provided to

extend this needed service in both communities and funds are there to be

expanded to other communities across the province.

[ Page 5641 ]

I now wish to reflect upon education. Again, "this government is

determined to make B.C. the best-educated, most literate jurisdiction in the

continent." Last session, government introduced Bill 33 to reduce class sizes

and set class composition requirements — a noble idea, but no funding to

implement the costs of the bill.

Class size and class composition play a major influence in

becoming the most literate, best-educated community in the world. Funding policy

changes made in 2002 have increased the pressure — beyond the pressures of

declining enrolment — for rural schools to be closed. For example, school

district 27 is struggling with the Trillium report, which recommends up to eight

schools be closed over the next five years.

Virtual schools do not replace the school environment for

developing social skills required to function in today's society. The number of

school teacher-librarians has been reduced by the province to make up for budget

shortfalls in meeting the needs of B.C. children in its schools. The budget has

no mention of providing for students with special needs.

Now I would like to return to the major reason why I'm here in

this House: to bring forward some of the interests directly of the people from

Cariboo South. I now wish to examine some of the areas lacking mention that

directly affect the constituents of my riding.

[1550]

No mention of support for women fleeing domestic violence.

Pressure continues on remaining women's centres to remain open. The throne

speech acknowledges the Harper government's work with first nations but fails to

mention the cancellation of the Kelowna accord. No wonder first nations

leadership and community band members are tiring of the rhetoric of this

government. When it comes to going beyond the words of reconciliation, one only

needs visit amongst the first nations of Cariboo South to see why more than

words are required to establish and sustain a promised relationship. I invite

the minister to visit Cariboo South and meet with first nations directly.

On the matter of road maintenance, my office continues to be

bombarded with complaints of deteriorating road conditions and inadequate road

maintenance standards. The people of the Cariboo would prefer their existing

roads be properly maintained while they patiently await the promised four-laning

of Highway 97. Trauma patients from the Cariboo are refused admittance to

Kelowna and Kamloops hospitals because of extreme overcrowding conditions at

these hospitals.

The continued shortage of paramedics continues to cause remote

ambulance stations at Clinton, Anahim Lake and Alexis Creek to either be shut

down or be open at a reduced service level. The chiefs of Redstone, Nemaiah,

Alexandria, Stone and Anaham have voiced and written their concerns to the

Minister of Health regarding the frequent closure of Alexis Creek, still to no

avail.

There is not one dime for child care, as I previously mentioned. I

hope that that will become less true as this unfolds. In rural communities

obtaining adequate, affordable and available child care is further complicated

by bus transportation for school-age children. A working parent often requires a

child care provider to take the child to and from a school bus route. Besides

many inquiries to my office on this issue, I am stopped on the streets by

parents concerned about the government's decision to reduce its financial

support to child care referral and resource centres.

Finally, the throne speech closes with reference to the Olympic

dream. In the interior there is growing concern that the Olympic dream will turn

into a nightmare for the interior of the province and the Island. This fear

arises from cost overruns for the Olympics, coupled with the large number of

major projects complementary to the Olympics will leave no funds for the rest of

the province…. Such projects as the four-laning of Highway 97 from Cache Creek

to Prince George, to give an example, may not be built anywhere in the near

future as a result of those conditions.

Deputy Speaker: Minister of State for Mining.

Hon. K. Krueger: Mr. Speaker, you took me by surprise when

you said that. I almost sat down, because it's a relatively new title for me.

I walked into my house that weekend. I was sworn in on Wednesday,

and about ten minutes later the door burst open, and all of these little feet

came tearing in, and little voices yelled: "Hon. grandpa, hon. grandpa." It was

a sweet moment.

An Hon. Member: You're not old enough.

Hon. K. Krueger: I am old enough, Powell River–Sunshine

Coast. I have my fifth grandchild on the way and….

You're all here, just like we are….

Deputy Speaker: Member, could you just adjust your

microphone there.

Hon. K. Krueger: I know that everybody would be really sad if

they couldn't hear me. Is that better?

I was saying that I have my fifth grandchild on the way and….

[Applause.] Thank you.

Like our friends across the way…. In spite of the things they say

that make it sound like they have very different values than us, I know that

just like us, they care very much about the future of all of our grandchildren

and the generations to follow. We're all here because we think we can find a

better way day by day in this House, and we're working on that.

[1555]

Speaking today, I follow the member for Cariboo South, who has

always struck me as a really good guy — well, almost always. Yesterday he told

me he thinks that ideologically I'm a little to the left of him — which may

surprise some of his colleagues, as it did me. In some ways it's probably true,

because we're not as remarkably different in this House, in many ways, as people

think we are or as people say when they get flying in full rhetorical

flourishes. I thought it was an interesting comment.

[ Page 5642 ]

The fact is that, certainly, every member of the government's side

of this House cares very deeply about the people of British Columbia, especially

those who are in need of help one way or another, and just as deeply as any

member across the way. We have different conceptions of how to get there,

different ideas, different plans. So far, ours are working pretty well. We're a

whole lot better off in British Columbia than we were in the 1990s and getting

better every day. You'd never know that from listening to some of the rhetoric

from across the way. But we can show — and we have shown, and this budget is

further proof — that we not only care very deeply about the needy and wish to

meet their needs, but we've delivered the financial capability to do so in the

robust economy that British Columbians are enjoying today.

It's only because we have balanced budgets, which have led to an

economy that's absolutely flourishing, that we're able to deliver all of the

programs and budgets we've been rolling out to help and serve the people of

British Columbia. Everybody remembers what happened in the '90s. I don't want to

harp on that; we have so many good things to talk about. But I can vouch, and

the members opposite can check the record, that there was not a single new

extended care or intermediate care bed built in the whole Thompson health region

during the whole decade of the '90s — not one.

We're building them by the hundreds. Around the province we're

building them by the thousands. There are new facilities all over Kamloops. Even

though we fully restored Ponderosa Place, one of the older facilities…. We

turned what were miserable, sad, little four-bed wards, where people couldn't

get into the bathrooms with wheelchairs, into comfortable rooms for individuals

— sometimes two rooms where there used to be one ward. Even though we've done

all that, and it's much more modern and much nicer, seniors are actually telling

me they'll wait for a spot in one of the new facilities. They'd rather not go

into Ponderosa, even though it's fully refurbished.

So when I hear members across the way make an issue about old

facilities being decommissioned, even while they know brand-new facilities are

being built in their constituencies and all around the province, I kind of shake

my head. There must be something the opposition could reproach this government

for, where they could point out to us a way to do something better, accomplish

better results. But I'm honestly not hearing that from across the way at all.

I'm not hearing any constructive criticism, just a never-ending stream of

criticism, negativity.

Interjection.

Hon. K. Krueger: Now, my critic across the way points to

himself and promises me better. He keeps promising me things. So far he's not

delivering, but it's not that I don't believe him. He picked me up once in the

rain, and that's about the best we've delivered so far, and I appreciated that.

In my opposition years, five years at the end of the '90s, I would

frequently have seniors come to me in tears because of the health care they were

not receiving. Sometimes they were seniors and sometimes younger people who

needed cardiac care, and they were on long wait-lists. Sometimes there were

people of all ages and their families who had been diagnosed with cancer and

couldn't get in for treatment. As you know, there are zero wait-lists for any

life-threatening condition in British Columbia today. That's a record that our

government has every right to be proud of and that I'm tremendously proud of.

Our record speaks for itself, but I'm happy to speak for it. We've

been delivering things that we couldn't even dream of — any of us, on either

side of the House — during the 1990s because the money just wasn't there. During

those 10 years British Columbia's debt more than doubled, and we were left, when

we became government, paying almost $3 billion a year in interest and carrying

charges. Of course, the bankers always get paid first. That's how it works in

our homes, and that's how it works for government. You have to pay your carrying

charges before you can start paying for health care and education. In spite of

that, in health care we've added almost $5 billion a year in funding. We're up

to $13.1 billion a year, and that is something to be tremendously proud of.

[1600]

I always wonder how people across the way, good people, can stand

with straight faces and say that the B.C. Liberal government has cut health

care, because it is so manifestly not true. When we were in opposition, we

promised that if the people of British Columbia elected us as government, we

would deliver a new era of hope, prosperity and opportunity. No one could deny

that we have done that. We're delivering on it every day, and we'll continue to

do so.

Another $855 million of new annual funding in health care was

delivered with this budget, increasing, as I said, to $13.1 billion a year from

$8.4 billion a year, which was the best that the NDP government ever managed,

and they were going in debt to do that.

Thousands of new beds all around the province. If you visit

Westside subdivision in my constituency, you'll see one of the beautiful new

facilities under construction. The beauty of many of those facilities, like

other construction projects that we're doing all around the province, is the

beauty of public-private partnerships, which almost seems to be a swear-word to

the opposition. Every public-private partnership we're doing in the province is

on budget and on time — often ahead of time. That's a wonderful thing to see.

These seniors facilities that are being built often include about

as many private living homes as publicly funded homes, but you can't tell the

difference. You couldn't tell by visiting any of them who is paying for their

own and who's got a government subsidy because they're the very same —

high-quality housing for every senior there. Thousands of new beds around the

province, as I said.

[ Page 5643 ]

Education. We're spending at record numbers per student in the

K-to-12 system, and every year we're able to increase the amount that we're

funding per student.

[S. Hammell in the chair.]

Sadly, the number of students keeps dropping. That was the one big

export during the NDP years: people of child-bearing years — young people

graduating from high school and university in the 1990s having to move outside

of British Columbia to get a job, start a career, get their start in life and

start raising their families.

They're still doing it. There are young British Columbians,

expatriates, living all over Alberta, working there and contributing to that

economy. They've had to build specialized maternity hospitals in Calgary to

accommodate all of the young moms and their babies because that's where the

young population moved to in the 1990s.

Since we became government and kept our promise of balancing

budgets, we have delivered, year after year, huge new budgetary injections.

Lately we've been able to focus on individual groups that everybody really wants

to see helped — seniors, children, those in need of better housing.

This is the housing budget, in spite of the way that the

opposition derides it — a tremendous injection into British Columbians' pockets,

one way or another, across the board for housing. Whether you have been a

homeless person — and none of us want to see anyone homeless in British

Columbia; whether you're a homeowner; whether you're a senior who's been worried

about how you're going to stay in your house because the values are escalating

so rapidly in this high-flying economy; or whether you're a person who's hoping

to get into your first home, there's help across the board.

I listened to the member for Cariboo South talk about climate

change. I felt sad for him and for his party that they were never able to

deliver much of anything on the concerns about climate change.

Yes, we mapped out in our throne speech what we're going to do

about it. As the opposition knows, university professors and people of renown in

the field are saying that they couldn't have written a better plan themselves,

and if they could have in their dreams, it might have been something like what

the throne speech delivered, although they doubt that they would have thought of

all of those things.

The member opposite said how suspicious he is of the TILMA

agreement with Alberta. How typical, and how sad. We're creating the

second-largest economy in Canada with that agreement. Some 80,000 new jobs are

going to come out of it. Other prairie provinces are pleading to get in.

I see the member from across the way giving me a sardonic look

about that. When he's done with politics after the next election, there will be

more customers for his juice company, by far, because of TILMA. We're growing

this economy, and business people like him are going to profit from it whatever

their philosophies are.

I can't imagine why the member would be so suspicious of Alberta.

Our neighbours are our friends. When we prosper, we prosper together.

[1605]

The member for Nelson-Creston, a former cabinet minister in the

NDP government, said — and his friends, his colleagues, know this — that the NDP

doesn't have a clue what to do about climate change and never did. Maybe they

should turn to the Green Party to try to figure it out.

We saw in the polls today that the public is listening to that.

They know that that's true. There's a 4-percent drop in the NDP vote and a

3-percent rise in the Green Party vote. I see another member frowning, but it's

true. It's a poll that came out today. Just like the member for Nelson-Creston,

the people of B.C. don't see much hope that the NDP could do much about climate

change.

Then, also, the same member — who, for any faults he might have,

tends to say a lot of really honest things — said at one point that when he was

seeking the NDP leadership, those in the party had promised things that they

never intended to do. Frankly, we saw a lot of that. Now we hear a lot of

criticism of the government because we're doing things that they would never be

capable of doing.

Imagine the member for Cariboo South criticizing the Towns for

Tomorrow program. There has never been a program like it.

These small communities around British Columbia with under 5,000

in population miss out on a lot of the big infrastructure programs that come

along because they don't have the matching money. Our Premier listened to that

need. Those communities spoke to him at the UBCM about that need. Incidentally,

we pretty much all attend the UBCM conventions because we think they're pretty

important, and we listen to those communities.

People from these small communities — there are 81 incorporated

communities with less than 5,000 population in B.C., for the benefit of the

members opposite — told him that they have infrastructure needs, but they don't

have any matching money. So when the one-third, three-way programs come along,

with the feds and the province each putting up a third, they just can't afford

to match.

What did the Premier do about that? He delivered a whole new

program. He appointed me as Parliamentary Secretary for Rural Development. He

said: "I want as few barriers as possible. What they say is priority is what

we're going to treat as priority, and we'll pay 80 percent. They'll only have to

come up with 20 percent." There's never been a program like that before in this

province. If the people opposite were still government, of course, there

wouldn't be one now.

How can the member for Cariboo South criticize that? I wonder if

he knows what the project of choice for 100 Mile House is. It's in his

constituency. It would be interesting if we could ask him if he knows. I know,

and I expect that it's going to be delivered. I talked to the mayor, Donna

Barnett, personally. She's got a wonderful project in mind there.

[ Page 5644 ]

How could that member criticize us for delivering a program like

that in his own community? He even mentioned the town of Barriere, which is in

my community. When Barriere was struck by wildfires in 2003 and six dozen

people's homes burned, many of them without insurance, and the biggest employer

in town burned down — 180 of the best-paying jobs in North Thompson Valley —

never to be rebuilt, we found out to our sorrow, because the licensee went off

to consolidate at one of its surviving mills….

When all of that happened and people were in despair, our Premier

did something about it. Our Solicitor General of the day, who is the Minister of

Forests now, did something about it. They gave me $5 million. I actually

travelled to my constituency office with cheques for $5 million in my briefcase.

We put a million dollars into training through the North Thompson

Skills Centre, now called the Community Resource Centre of the North Thompson.

They're carefully husbanding that money. They're training people, fulfilling

their mandate.

We put $2 million into hardship grants to help those who had

losses that weren't insured get back on their feet. We put another $2 million

into economic development, and we're still stretching that money. Community

groups, all of whom were entrusted with that money, are making very careful

decisions.

Now the North Thompson Valley has full employment. Barriere is

thriving. Clearwater is thriving. Blue River is thriving. But then, pretty much

the whole province is thriving.

We have the government that can respond to these needs and that

believes in putting money in local people's hands, whether it's the southern

interior development initiative, the north Island development initiative or the

northern development initiative, people have money in the accounts.

They have autonomy. They have tons of intelligence. They just

never had any money, and whatever they raised was taxed away from them so

heavily and they were so overregulated that they had a tough time making any of

their good ideas operational. Not anymore. Entrepreneurship has broken free to

thrive in British Columbia under this government, and thrive it does.

A little story about seniors housing. A friend of mine came to me.

He's on the board of Thrupp Manor in Kamloops. Thrupp was and still is a home

for seniors who didn't have very much money — low-income seniors. But the people

who moved in who were young seniors enjoy it so much that they have stayed for

decades. Now they're getting to be very elderly seniors, and the facility isn't

really suitable anymore.

[1610]

My friend on the board — his name is David Beardsell — told me

that they had an opportunity, because a wonderful man who lived on a beautiful

farm property in north Kamloops not far from Thrupp Manor had passed away and

he'd left in his will that he would like Thrupp Manor or an organization like

them to have his land. But he did need to realize some money out of the land for

his estate. So we went looking for the money, and we found it. We found it in

the Interior Health Authority, who purchased that land and signed a commitment

that Thrupp Manor would have as much of it as they need when they're ready to

build.

Again, that's the sort of thing that you can do when you're a

government that's operating in the black, that balanced its budget years ago and

balances it faithfully every year so we get a triple-A credit rating. We're able

to take advantage of opportunities like that as they arise.

The people opposite, when they were in government, could never do

that. My friend from Cariboo South talked about rural development. Again, if I

was him, I'd be embarrassed to talk about that because of the record the NDP had

in the '90s.

We committed that we would deliver high-speed Internet broadband

service throughout British Columbia, and we've done that. We have brought the

pipe or the wireless service to 366 communities in British Columbia that didn't

have it before — what an achievement.

The things that people are getting done. I saw a video recently of

a first nations Cariboo South individual who makes teepees in the south East

Kootenays. He talked on the video and showed us how he uses a computer to order

supplies from all around the world and to sell the tents that he makes — teepees

— in places like Israel and Jordan, all over the world. A wonderful story, and

there are stories like that all over B.C.

I was in the rural development role very briefly, and I miss it

already — although I certainly have a rural constituency, so I'll always have a

focus on continuing to help those people. But the member for Peace River South

has taken up that torch, and he's carrying it on.

The member for Cariboo South also had the temerity to criticize

our housing programs. Our Minister for Housing has delivered programs that are

going to benefit British Columbians forever. People don't seem to have twigged

yet to what a beautiful deal he made with the federal government, who have

turned over properties all over British Columbia that belonged to them so that

he could apply his genius, his ability and his approaches and turn those into

high-density, brand-new housing with the help of private capital. There'll be

more public-private partnerships, folks. Whether you think they're a good idea

or not, they deliver for British Columbians, and we'll continue to do that.

It always surprises me when the NDP bring up the subject of child

care, actually. We had signed an agreement with the federal government. The

province and the Paul Martin government had signed a deal which, if it had been

maintained, would have delivered another $455 million over the next three years

in child care.

The current Prime Minister, Stephen Harper, to his credit, said in

advance what he was going to do. I'm sorry that he decided to do things this

way, and I'm sorry that it happened. But he said that he'd be putting $100 per

child in the pockets of parents in British Columbia and across Canada. He's

delivered on that,

[ Page 5645 ]

but he pulled the $455 million off the table, and it's no longer there.

How members opposite could stand up and berate this government for

a moment over that, when it was they, under their federal leader, Jack Layton….

Of course, they're all on the same team. They make no bones about that. They

work on each other's campaigns. Mr. Layton decided to pull the plug on Mr.

Martin. Mr. Harper was elected and did what he promised to do and did not do

what Mr. Martin had promised to do and had delivered on, as far as he could,

before he was turfed out of office.

But it was the NDP who held the balance of power, it was the NDP

who brought Mr. Martin down, and it was the NDP who took that $455 million off

the table, as far as I and other British Columbians are concerned. It makes me

wonder how the NDP can dare to accuse anyone else with regard to the funding of

child care. And $455 million is an awful lot of money. It was planned that it

would go a long, long way to provide that service to the British Columbians who

need it. You can't fault this Prime Minister for doing what he said he'd do, but

people can surely fault the NDP.

The member opposite talked about school closures. What do you do

with schools when children aren't showing up at them anymore? What responsible

government would keep two schools open when there are only enough students

between them for one school?

[1615]

As I said earlier, in the 1990s the primary export of British

Columbia was people, and especially young people. People are now raising their

families elsewhere, and we're trying to win them back, but it's not that easy

when they put down roots with their young families in another jurisdiction.

When you export young people, you end up with a declining

population in your schools. Maybe it would have happened to some extent anyway,

but it's happening with a vengeance. It's over 12,000 students that we've lost

from the K-to-12 system this year. We desperately want more children in B.C. We

only have between 600,000 and 650,000 in the K-to-12 system, and we know we've

got more than a million jobs coming vacant over the next ten years.

In the mining sector alone in the next year, we're going to need

11,000 new employees across Canada, many of them right here in B.C. But the NDP

exported our kids. Mining is another tremendous success story. I've got to tell

you, folks — I don't think it's a secret, although they didn't do it in front of

you — that when the mining folks were here on Monday and some members of the NDP

told them they felt that the upsurge in the fortunes of mining in British

Columbia were only about commodity prices, that made them laugh. That is so

wrong. I trust the members opposite know it, and that's just another rhetorical

thing.

Folks, there were $265 million spent on mining exploration in

British Columbia last year, in 2006 — some 265 million bucks. That is more than

a 1,000-percent increase in mining exploration since this government came to

power — since 1999, more than a 1,000-percent increase. Anybody in the industry

just laughs when somebody from the NDP says that the upsurge is just because of

commodity prices.

It's because we listen to them, like we listen to other job

creators around the province, and always have first in mind as priority the

protection of the environment, good stewardship and safeguarding of the

environment, which those industries do as well, by the way. They're no enemies

of the environment. They want to be environmentally responsible; they know they

have to be. They want to sell to their customers around the world certified

products that everyone knows come from companies that practise environmentally

friendly ways of doing business.

We listened to them. We got rid of unnecessary rules. We work with

them. We work with first nations. Last week we were able to announce that the

environmental certificate had been provided to the Galore Creek project,

NovaGold's project, way up in northwestern B.C., right near the Alaska

panhandle. They're going to spend $1.6 billion building that mine over the next

four years and employ a thousand people doing it. Once it's in production, it's

going to employ 500 people year after year after year.

The first nations involvement. Right now half the workforce at the

Eskay Creek mine are first nations people, and I fully expect that'll be the

case at Galore Creek as well. The first nation, the Tahltan, actually helped

them choose the haul road that they will use to get their product out. They were

so good at helping them choose that the company is only having to build a

4½-kilometre tunnel, which is an incredible feat of engineering, as far as I'm

concerned. But they would have had to build a 14-kilometre tunnel under the

route they were thinking of before the Tahltan showed them the way. It's 8.1

metres in diameter, this tunnel — a huge construction project.

The Tahltan are involved from start to finish — treated very

respectfully by the company, by government, as everyone expects in the new

relationship with first nations. By the way, who created that? The current

Premier of British Columbia. Not a single treaty was negotiated from start to

finish by the NDP in ten years. The one treaty that was signed was initiated

before the NDP came to power, but not one treaty concluded.

We have forest and range agreements, economic arrangements and

agreements-in-principle all across the province, with a whole lot more to come.

Things have never been as good between the first nations and the general

population as they are now in British Columbia, and getting better.

The mining industry, like the rest of British Columbia, has gone

from no hope — although their hopes were even deeper in the basement than most

of ours in the dark decade of the '90s — to brimming with hope and success. Out

of the 52 major mining projects that are coming on stream across Canada, that

are in the pipeline for approval, 25 are here in B.C. and another eight in the

pre-application phase. Galore Creek was the first major announcement of its kind

in more than a decade in British Columbia, and I believe there are many more to

come.

[ Page 5646 ]

The member for Cariboo South also talked about roads, and it

really surprises me when an NDP member will talk about roads, because in those

ten years of the NDP our roads crumbled. They weren't maintained, let alone

rehabilitated. There was very little new construction. The mid-Island highway

that was completed was soaring over budget. It cost far more than the Coquihalla

to build, through much less rugged terrain, and they had to eliminate all the

cloverleafs and the roundabouts.

[1620]

You have traffic lights all the way up the mid-Island highway. It

just feels ridiculous. A 100-kilometre speed limit. You get up to it, you get to

drive for a few kilometres, and you see flashing amber lights. You have to come

to a full stop for a red light on a major four-lane highway. I think there are

14 traffic lights on the way up the Island. No traffic lights on the Coquihalla,

but to build it cost, I believe, about two-thirds what the NDP spent on the

mid-Island highway. How sad.

Our Minister of Transportation is investing billions and billions

of dollars into new transportation infrastructure in British Columbia and

rehabilitating what's there. I'm really proud of his accomplishments.

The North Thompson River had an ice jam in early 2005, and then it

burst suddenly and broke two bridges up the North Thompson Valley. One of them

was a major highway bridge on Highway 5. The other was the bridge over the North

Thompson that has to be there in order that the little community of Birch Island

can get from one side to the other. That river splits the community, and they

were really scared that the bridge wouldn't be built.

I phoned the minister, and the minister got on a plane and flew up

to Kamloops. We hopped on a helicopter, and he came up with me and looked at

those wrecked bridges. He walked out on the Birch Island Bridge and made a

commitment on the spot: "We'll build you a brand-new bridge."

I got a postcard — one of the most heartening pieces of

correspondence I've ever had — from all the children of Birch Island holding up

signs that spelled out "thank you." They're grateful. We're all grateful, and I

think that the members opposite are grateful, too, for the successes of this

government.

I was recently in Lytton, listening to the communities from up and

down the Fraser River system talking about their plans for the sesquicentennial

— how they'll have Celebration 2008. They are going to showcase their culture,

what they do in their communities and everything about them — and they're

fiercely proud of it — to the thousands of tourists that will come through in

the sesquicentennial and for years and years thereafter.

We have lots to be excited about in British Columbia. We're really

excited about 2010. We're really excited about the sesquicentennial. Those are

events, but the things that we have managed to accomplish in British Columbia —

the prosperity we're enjoying, the future we have — is there forever for the

folks opposite, for us, for our children, our grandchildren, and we should

celebrate. We should celebrat

Document details

Collection	British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	20070228pm-Hansard-v15n3
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	20070228pm-Hansard-v15n3
Language	en
Format	htm
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	59fe77dabccbf38752d2ed9278b04e79924dcafa

Source file is stored in the law ingest library (htm).

British Columbia Hansard — Wednesday, February 28, 2007 p.m. — Vol. 15, No. 3 (HTML) (38th Parliament, 3rd Session)

HANSARD

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 28, 2007

CONTENTS

L. Krog

C. James

C. Trevena

C. Wyse

L. Mayencourt

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 28, 2007

V. Roddick: In the gallery today is a constituent from

SURREY FIREFIGHTERS

COWICHAN VALLEY

COMMUNITY KITCHENS SOCIETY

SEA TO SKY COMMUNITY

SERVICES SOCIETY

EATING DISORDERS

ZAJAC FOUNDATION

CALL FOR PUBLIC INQUIRY

INTO SALE OF B.C. RAIL

L. Krog: Yesterday the Attorney General refused to answer

L. Krog: Yes, thank you, hon. Speaker. I won't ask the

AUDIT OF MEDICAL ON-CALL

AVAILABILITY PROGRAM

C. James: My question is for the Minister of Health. Can he

C. James: I'm happy to provide some information, then, to

C. James: I do. The only problem here is the problem that

section 15 of the Freedom

FUNDING FOR

BURNABY GENERAL HOSPITAL

GOVERNMENT PLANS FOR ACHIEVEMENT

OF ENERGY CONSERVATION TARGETS

GREENHOUSE GAS–REDUCTION TARGETS

FOR OIL AND GAS SECTOR

C. Puchmayr: I seek leave to make an introduction.

C. Puchmayr: Mr. Speaker, we have in our gallery today the

C. Trevena: I seek to present a petition.

C. Trevena: It's a petition with about a hundred signatures

SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES

section 1 of the Supply Act,

SUPPLY ACT, 2006-2007

SUPPLY ACT, 2006-2007

Schedule approved.

SUPPLY ACT, 2006-2007

C. Wyse: I would like to begin by acknowledging my

C. Wyse: No. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

TILMA.

part 1, that the

Part 2 is that the measure is not more restrictive to trade,

Part 3 is that the measure is not a disguised restriction to trade

Document details