2008 Legislative Session: Fourth Session, 38th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 2008

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 27, Number 3

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Page

Statements

Anti-Bullying Day

Hon. G.

Campbell

Tributes

Grant Roberge

Hon. G.

Abbott

Introductions by Members

Introduction and First

Reading of Bills

Ministerial Accountability Bases

Act, 2007-2008 (Bill 5)

Hon. M.

de Jong

Statements (Standing Order

25 B )

Bullying

C. James

Mayencourt

Campbell River community dialogue

on inclusion

Trevena

Japan-Canada Chamber of Commerce

career fair at UVic

H. Bloy

Kaylanna Erica Lipinski

Sather

Electronic stability control

in vehicles

Rustad

Oral Questions

Koksilah Elementary School

closing

Routley

Hon. S.

Bond

Horgan

Hon. G.

Campbell

Fraser

Farnworth

A. Dix

Funding for Evergreen line

Karagianis

Hon. K.

Falcon

Chudnovsky

Disclosure of documents in B.C.

Rail court case

L. Krog

Heli-skiing in Purcell Wilderness

Conservancy Park

Macdonald

Hon. S.

Hagen

Reports from Committees

Special Committee of Selection,

report

Hon. M.

de Jong

Budget Debate (continued)

V. Roddick

M. Sather

R. Sultan

N. Macdonald

J. Nuraney

D. Chudnovsky

H. Bloy

C. Trevena

J. McIntyre

[ Page 10017 ]

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 2008

The House met at 1:32 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Prayers.

Statements

ANTI-BULLYING DAY

Hon. G. Campbell: Hon. Speaker, today has been declared

Anti-Bullying Day in the province of British Columbia. It highlights our

province's commitment to safe and inclusive neighbourhoods.

I want to thank all the members of the opposition who joined with

MLAs on the government side to say that all of us want to stop bullying now in

British Columbia. We want to stop the aggressive behaviours such as bullying,

harassment and intimidation that are unacceptable in safe, caring and orderly

societies — whether they're our schools, our workplaces, our communities or the

province generally.

It is important, I think, for us to recognize that there are

things that are above any political disagreement. This is one of them. Our

anti-bullying activities, the things that we do as individuals, are important to

all British Columbians.

Again, I'd like to say thanks to the opposition and the government

members for standing up to say we're going to stop bullying here.

Tributes

GRANT ROBERGE

Hon. G. Abbott: It is with much regret that I rise to

advise the House of the passing of Mr. Grant Roberge, our executive director of

Chilliwack Health Services since 2005. Mr. Roberge had been seriously ill of

late and passed away Tuesday night.

Throughout his career Mr. Roberge has contributed greatly to

health care across the province, working on Vancouver Island and at Vancouver

General Hospital prior to taking up his position in Chilliwack. Mr. Roberge will

be missed by everyone who has worked with him, and his contribution to this

province will be forever appreciated.

Mr. Speaker, if you would, on behalf of all members of the House,

please extend to Mr. Roberge's family our condolences.

[1335]

Introductions by Members

Hon. M. de Jong: If he were just a Cariboo media baron, I

would feel no particular compulsion to introduce him to the House, but he is

also the mayor of Williams Lake and a young man whose leadership and enthusiasm

for public service I have admired for some time. I hope all members will welcome

and extend greetings to Mayor Scott Nelson.

Hon. L. Reid: I have the absolute pleasure today of

welcoming to this chamber Alanna Hendren, who is executive director of the

Developmental Disabilities Association and who does wonderful work. She's joined

by Bruce Sandy, who is the provincial advocate on behalf of the B.C. Association

of Child Development and Intervention. Both of them do amazing work on behalf of

special needs youngsters and adults with developmental disabilities. I'd ask

this House to please make them very welcome.

K. Whittred: Each year the public education and outreach

division of this organization sponsors a parliamentary procedure workshop. The

first workshop is being held today, and the participants are in the gallery. I

would ask all members of this House to welcome them and, of course, wish them

well as they learn how to be experts in parliamentary procedure.

Hon. R. Thorpe: Mr. Speaker, you will recall that five

years ago today as we travelled back to our ridings, my journey was diverted to

the north shore of Vancouver, and our family was blessed with the arrival of our

grandson. Today is Eben's fifth birthday, and I would ask the House to please

join Papa in wishing Eben a very happy fifth birthday.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

MINISTERIAL ACCOUNTABILITY

BASES ACT, 2007-2008

Hon. M. de Jong presented a message from His Honour the

Administrator: a bill intituled Ministerial Accountability Bases Act, 2007-2008.

Hon. M. de Jong: I move that Bill 5 be introduced and read

a first time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. M. de Jong: The Ministerial Accountability Bases Act,

2007-2008, provides for an increase in the amount of operating expenses for the

Ministry of Advanced Education, the Ministry of Environment, the Ministry of

Finance, the Ministry of Forests and Range, the Ministry of Health, the Ministry

of Public Safety and Solicitor General, and the Ministry of Tourism, Sport and

the Arts for purposes of ministerial accountability under the Balanced Budget

and Ministerial Accountability Act.

The additional amounts for the Ministers of Advanced Education,

Environment, Finance, Health, and Tourism, Sport and the Arts were included in

the supplementary estimates that have been debated and, I'm happy to say, passed

unanimously in this Legislature.

Additional amounts for the Minister of Forests and Range and the

Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor

[ Page 10018 ]

General are to account for statutory costs related to forest fire fighting

under the Wildfire Act and flood costs and disaster relief under the Emergency

Program Act, respectively.

I move that Bill 5 be placed on the orders of the day…. We should

first put the question on first reading, I expect.

Motion approved.

Hon. M. de Jong: I move that Bill 5 be placed on the orders

of the day for consideration by the House at the next sitting after today.

Bill 5, Ministerial Accountability Bases Act, 2007-2008,

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

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

Statements

(Standing Order 25

B) BULLYING

C. James: Today all members of the Legislature joined

together with people across this province in a campaign to end bullying. It's a

campaign that's very close to my heart as a parent and as a former school

trustee.

The Wear Pink campaign began last year in Nova Scotia after two

exceptional students took a stand. They came to school wearing pink after a

fellow student was harassed and bullied for wearing pink. The bullies used

homophobic slurs to taunt and to hurt their victim.

Unfortunately, that kind of bullying happens far too often in our

schools and in our communities. Any steps we can take to put an end to that

hurtful behaviour are steps that we must take.

[1340]

That's why I was so proud when the opposition introduced

amendments to the government's safe school legislation, amendments that were

designed to protect students from discrimination and harassment based on the

B.C. Human Rights Code, including sexual orientation. I was pleased to see the

government adopt those amendments in October. It was a welcome and necessary

step, especially for students in our schools who are facing sexual

discrimination.

Any kind of bullying is wrong. It has significant impacts on the

victims, on their families and on our communities. By taking a stand together in

this Legislature and in our communities, we're sending a very clear message.

It's time now to end bullying and harassment.

L. Mayencourt: I couldn't agree more. I want to thank the

Leader of the Opposition for raising the Safe Schools Act and all of the work

that has happened as a result of members on both sides of this House. As a

matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, today there is so much pink in this room I can

almost see it reflected in your own skin tone. You're looking really healthy

today.

The students that actually started this campaign are David

Shepherd and Travis Price. They took a stand in Nova Scotia. They said to their

classmates, "Let's wear pink to school tomorrow," and everybody did. That sent a

signal that was much, much better received than if it had come from any adult.

I want to tell you I'm very proud that our province has adopted

the elements of the Safe Schools Act, and I want to thank especially the Premier

and the Minister of Education for their leadership on this issue. I would be

remiss if I did not acknowledge the other members of the Safe Schools Task

Force, MLAs Wendy McMahon and Brenda Locke, and the Education Minister at that

time, Christy Clark.

I also want to thank two very, very wonderful women, Nasima Nastoh

and Cindy Wesley, who have given their lives and their time to make sure that

schools in British Columbia will always be safer.

CAMPBELL RIVER COMMUNITY

DIALOGUE ON INCLUSION

C. Trevena: I rise today to talk about an event in Campbell

River, a community dialogue on building an inclusive, diverse and welcoming

Campbell River for all.

In a packed community centre on a sunny Saturday, people came

together to listen to one another — people from different backgrounds, different

cultures and different countries. The issue they talked about, around tables and

in panel situations, was inclusion: how to make a community inclusive for

everyone — for young people and seniors, for first nations, for people of

colour, for people with disabilities, for people who are gay or lesbian.

There was music, poetry, art, drumming and a celebration of

diversity. There were also tears as people were jolted out of their complacency

that everything is okay in the community. The questions posed seemed simple:

what does inclusion mean to you, and when have you felt genuinely included? The

answers were not always that clear-cut.

People opened up about growing up gay in the city, about being

aboriginal, about being disabled, and people listened. The community dialogue

came together after five months of planning, coordinated by the Campbell River

and Area Multicultural and Immigrant Services Association and funded by the

Ministry of Attorney General. It was part of SFU's continuing studies dialogue

program.

The dialogue encourages people to give and take in the mutual

search for meaning. It encourages listening and sharing stories rather than

opinions. The people who attended Saturday's event learned a lot about

themselves, about their community, and embraced difficult questions. But as with

so many such events, the feeling at the end of the day was that the community

would benefit with more opportunities for people to come together in the true

spirit of dialogue.

JAPAN-CANADA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE

CAREER FAIR AT UVIC

H. Bloy: I rise today to take this opportunity to bring

attention to a unique job fair at the University of Victoria taking place this

weekend. The Japan-Canada

[ Page 10019 ]

Chamber of Commerce is organizing this worthwhile event to provide valuable

information about the Canadian and Japanese job markets.

[1345]

As MLA for Burquitlam, I recognize that many of us straddle two

cultures. I have the pleasure to speak at the Japan-Canada Chamber of Commerce

job fair and highlight many of the programs available to students wanting to

enter the B.C. job market.

Our Skills Connect program is of particular interest to many

students, and our provincial nominee program where almost 4,000 skilled workers

have entered the workforce since 2001.

I want to thank Atsuko Umeki for spearheading the event and

organizing what I know will be a certain success. I also want to thank these

students from the University of Victoria, who helped organize it, and I hope I

pronounce their names correctly: Sei Ishii, Hideyuki Imaizumi, Shotaro Fukuhara,

Yamagami Takao, Asami Mori and Eiichiro Yanagimura. These young Japanese

students have great role models to look up to: Kazuko Komatsu, Angela Nakamura-Holinger,

Laura Saimoto and Sy Saimoto.

Our estimates show that we need to attract 3,000 workers with

specific skills from outside British Columbia each year. This job fair is

helping students fulfil those needs. Please join me in wishing the Japan-Canada

Chamber of Commerce great success this Saturday at their job fair.

KAYLANNA ERICA LIPINSKI

M. Sather: Embryonal rhabdomyosarcoma, more common in

younger children, is a cancer of the connective tissues attached to muscle

tissue wrapped around organs, the head or the neck. The cells resemble those of

a six-to-eight-week-old embryo, thus the name embryonal rhabdomyosarcoma.

Treatment for embryonal rhabdomyosarcoma consists of chemotherapy, radiation

therapy and sometimes surgery.

In my community Kaylanna Erica Lipinski, four years old, is

suffering from this rare cancer. It is attacking her stomach and liver. She has

endured 38 chemotherapy sessions and 20 blood transfusions since her diagnosis

last year. On December 29, 2007, Kaylanna, along with her mother Meranne Steves

and grandmother Patty Schultz, left for Boston to receive special radiation

treatments not available in Canada. Kaylanna is scheduled to be there into

March, and I have some more updates on that.

As one can imagine, the financial burden placed on Kaylanna's

family is heavy. Although medical treatment is covered, food, lodging and travel

for her mother and grandmother are not. Months of driving back and forth to

Children's Hospital will continue when they return as well. The family has gone

into debt in an effort to save the life of this precious child.

I have spent time with Kaylanna. She is bright and happy. Even

though she has lost her hair and suffered a great deal, nothing gets her down.

She remains an engaging presence when you meet her.

I received news from Boston this morning telling me that Kaylanna

is in remission and returns home on Tuesday. I ask this House to join me in

sending our prayers and good wishes to Kaylanna for a full, happy and long life.

ELECTRONIC STABILITY CONTROL

IN VEHICLES

J. Rustad: I rise today to talk about a life-saving

innovation that could also provide significant financial savings for our

province. If I told you that you could make a small investment in your vehicle

that could potentially reduce your risk of being in an accident by 25 to 40

percent, would you be interested?

Electronic stability control, or ESC, is just such an investment.

Science shows that ESC provides outstanding improvements towards helping drivers

avoid accidents. Some countries in Europe have recognized these benefits and are

now making it mandatory that all new vehicles have this life-saving device. The

U.S. is also making it mandatory, but unfortunately not for another decade or

so.

ESC works by measuring the direction of the vehicle and comparing

it to the direction the driver is steering. If there's a difference, it

automatically applies a brake to the appropriate wheel to help the driver gain

control of the car. This fantastic device comes as standard equipment on

higher-end vehicles, but manufacturers have been resisting equipping all

vehicles with the device.

The cost of an accident to individuals and families is beyond

measure. But for the province, it's estimated that accidents account for 15

percent of our total health budget, and in northern B.C. it's as much as 20

percent of NHA's budget. Just imagine what 25 to 40 percent savings of that cost

could be if everyone was driving vehicles equipped with ESC — not to mention the

insurance, legal costs and other related savings.

[1350]

Sadly, most people aren't aware of the potential life-saving

benefits that electronic stability control can provide. Most people haven't

heard about it, and even some people that own vehicles equipped with ESC don't

know what it is.

Please join me in helping to raise the level of awareness of the

benefits of ESC and also engaging the federal government to consider stepping up

efforts towards making it mandatory for all new vehicles.

Oral Questions

KOKSILAH ELEMENTARY SCHOOL CLOSING

D. Routley: On the very same week that Prince George is

considering an aboriginal school of choice elementary school, an aboriginal

school that serves my community may be forced to close because of this

government's policies. Over 95 percent of the students at Koksilah Elementary

School are aboriginal. The school has been developing groundbreaking language

and cultural programs for many years. Enrolment is increasing. But they're being

forced to close their doors.

[ Page 10020 ]

What will this minister do today to save the first aboriginal

elementary school, Koksilah, from closing down?

Hon. S. Bond: I think the most disappointing part of this

question is that the member opposite knows full well that the locally elected

school trustees are making difficult decisions based on the fact they've had

significant declining enrolment. This is not in any way about ending the program

or the excellent services, but on this side of the House, we're actually going

to pay attention to what locally elected school trustees are saying to us. In

fact, they're grappling with this decision as we speak.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

D. Routley: In fact, those very trustees just last night,

in a meeting with the member for Malahat–Juan de Fuca and myself, pleaded to us

to help them bring some sense to this government and have them turn around from

this decision and this funding formula which is forcing these things to happen.

In fact, enrolment numbers in this school are up. There are 140

students. That's up 40 percent. There are ten on a waiting list, and they are

being told there's no room. Yet the board, because of the policies of this

ministry, are forced to consider closing this excellent school. If the minister

really cared about closing the education gap for first nations students, she

would not be allowing this school to close, and neither would this Premier.

So again I ask the minister what she will do now to help the

people of Koksilah and the Cowichan Nation who are served by that school to keep

that school open.

Hon. S. Bond: Perhaps what we need to do is put some facts

on the record for the member opposite. It's not an easy discussion to have in a

school district where they're grappling with declining enrolment and a number of

things. I want to reiterate for the member opposite that it is not about

offering those services to students in that district.

But let's look at the facts. Enrolment in that school district has

decreased by 15 percent since 2000. In fact, per-pupil funding in that district

is $1,588 higher than it was in 2000 and 2001. In fact, the district is

receiving more money this year — $630,000 more this year — than it received last

year. It's grappling with difficult issues, and we're going to be supportive of

locally elected school trustees.

[1355]

D. Routley: In fact, I should inform the minister that

elders from the Cowichan Tribes and the PAC chair of Koksilah are here, and I'm

sure they'd like to meet with the minister after question period to have her

explain exactly how she's going to support that school.

In fact, in Cowichan school district, we've already closed close

to 25 percent of the schools. There are eight schools out of the 30-odd schools

targeted in the past five years by policies forced on our board by this

government. So it does no good to offer us these pat and standard answers. The

answers of the minister go nowhere near the question.

The question remains: what will she do to protect these valuable

cultural programs that bring truth to the language of reconciliation and fly in

the face of the actions of this government?

Hon. S. Bond: I am always amazed by the fact that somehow

it seems negative that we have the highest level of funding in education that

the province of British Columbia has ever had. I'm not certain how that is

negative.

What's really disappointing about this discussion is that this

problem, in terms of the change in demographics in British Columbia, didn't

start yesterday. In fact, it started in the 1990s. This is the tenth year in a

row that we've seen decline. In fact, the Leader of the Opposition, as a

respected locally elected school trustee, knows full well that that's true. The

only difficulty with that is what has happened since she's become the Leader of

the Opposition.

Let's look at the comments by the Leader of the Opposition. "There

are some schools that have been closing because of dropping enrolment, and

you're always going to see that in this province." There were schools that were

closed under the New Democrats because of declining enrolment. What's changed?

J. Horgan: For the minister's benefit, the problem for

first nations learners in this province began about 150 years ago. We are on the

brink now in the Cowichan Valley of restoring some reconciliation and of

creating a new relationship that the Premier speaks so eloquently about, but

that eloquence falls on deaf ears in the Cowichan Valley.

Tonight there will be a large public meeting in Duncan to discuss

another round of school closures as a result of inadequate funding from this

government.

My question specifically is to the Premier. How does closing a 98

percent first nations school, eliminating the spectre for elders of residential

schools in this province…? How do we reconcile and create a new relationship by

closing the only school south of the Cowichan River that teaches aboriginal

languages?

Hon. S. Bond: To the member opposite: having a successful

program for aboriginal children in British Columbia is not determined by the

building that they're in. What it's determined by is a conscious effort by

school districts and educational leaders to make a difference for aboriginal

children.

Under the leadership of this government, in fact, we've seen

aboriginal completion rates in British Columbia rise from 42 percent to 48

percent. That's the highest they've ever been. We've made no secret of the fact

that that is completely unacceptable, but we are working closely with first

nations leadership. We are providing record levels of funding, and we are

committed to making a difference for first nations children in British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

[ Page 10021 ]

J. Horgan: The Premier will be joining us in the Cowichan

Valley this summer for the North American Indigenous Games where we will be

celebrating athleticism, culture and language just months after a school

district is forced, because of an inadequate funding formula, to close a first

nations school.

Again my question is to the Premier. When you come to the Cowichan

Valley for the photo opportunity, when you come to the Cowichan Valley to bask

in the Cowichan culture, what will you say to the students and parents at

Koksilah Elementary when their children are dispersed to other schools in the

district?

Hon. G. Campbell: I think we all know that there's nothing

more important than education for young people across this province, aboriginal

and non-aboriginal alike. The fact of the matter is that our province has

established the first-ever educational agreement. It was done with first

nations. It provides for first nations to take control over the education of

their kids in keeping with the standards that we've set across the province of

British Columbia.

[1400]

We've signed 36 aboriginal enhancement agreements across the

province to encourage aboriginal funding. We've increased funding for aboriginal

language preservation. But there's one other thing that we do; and that is, we

respect the responsibilities of locally elected school boards. We're not

pretending these are easy decisions to make, but we have increased funding in

education to the highest level in the history of British Columbia. Per-student

funding is at the highest level ever in the history of the province.

We are working with aboriginal communities to focus on their needs

and the needs of their children. We are developing aboriginal curricula. We are

developing aboriginal languages. We are working to protect aboriginal languages.

And we will continue to work with school boards across this province to protect

and preserve the kinds of quality aboriginal educational programs that are

critically essential to the long-term future of the province.

S. Fraser: Well, these answers from the minister and the

Premier are somewhat evasive, and I think it explains why first nations

leadership recently had to propose their own legislation to this Premier to fill

a complete vacuum in leadership on this file.

The question was about the Koksilah school and its shutting down —

so a great answer to a different question. Maybe the minister and the Premier

should dust off their copy of The New Relationship . The first goal says:

"To restore, revitalize and strengthen first nations and their communities and

families to eliminate the gap in standards of living with other British

Columbians, and substantially improve the circumstance of first nations people

in areas which include education…."

There's a waiting list for this school. To the minister

responsible: ducking the issue makes a mockery of the new relationship. Will she

respect the spirit and intent of the new relationship, and will the Premier

respect the spirit and intent of the new relationship and maybe go to the

meeting tonight and actually consult with the elders?

Hon. S. Bond: I'm not sure what part of the answer that the

member opposite actually missed. This is not about a building, and locally

elected school trustees have made it clear that the services and programs that

are excellent for these students will continue. They will continue to excel and

to do well in the school district.

I'm just really disappointed that the members opposite continue

to, in fact, not pay attention to the important decisions that school trustees

are making in British Columbia. We're not prepared to ignore the role that

locally elected school trustees have in this province.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

S. Fraser: The minister's response again makes a mockery of

the Premier's new relationship. Goal No. 4 is, "To revitalize and preserve first

nations cultures and languages and restore literacy and fluency in first nations

languages to ensure that no first nation language becomes extinct" — and to make

B.C., of course, the best-educated and most literate jurisdiction on the

continent. Remember that slogan, Minister?

Will the minister agree to meet with the members from the Cowichan

Tribes here today and/or go to the meeting tonight and actually consult? The

minister said she's working closely with first nations. Well, they're here, and

they'll be here tonight. Put some meat on the bones of those words.

Hon. G. Campbell: You know, I appreciate the fact that

members of the opposition have discovered the importance of the new relationship

that we're trying to build with first nations. That member should remember this:

you voted against expanding the first languages program in British Columbia. We

voted to put it in place and to enhance it.

[1405]

That opposition has been a roadblock in the way of building the

new relationship ever since they were elected. The fact of the matter is we're

expanding educational agreements. We're expanding opportunities to keep living

languages of first nations languages across the province. We've got a new

relationship trust, which is $100 million, to help first nations themselves

decide what's best for them in the province.

All of that is building, and it's successfully working towards

closing the gaps and transforming the lives of first nations across this

province.

M. Farnworth: I'd like to remind the Premier that it was

the Premier, when he was opposition leader, who voted against the introduction

of first language skills and first language education for aboriginal people in

this province. I'd like to remind the Premier that he had to be dragged kicking

and screaming to this table, to this province and to this Legislature to advance

[ Page 10022 ]

aboriginal issues in this province. It was that opposition leader who voted

against the Nisga'a agreement.

The question — what we have been dealing with here today — is

about the Cowichan. It's about this government's educational policies and how

they're impacting on a Cowichan school, the first aboriginal school in this

province that teaches aboriginal languages. This government's policies are

resulting in that school being closed. At the same time, there's a school that

will teach aboriginal languages opening up in Prince George.

The question is simple: how does closing Koksilah advance the

preservation of aboriginal culture and aboriginal languages in British Columbia,

and why won't the Premier act to protect it?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. S. Bond: The member opposite can characterize this

however he chooses, but the fact of the matter is that services will continue

for aboriginal children in that school district. They will continue to excel at

what they do. This government has made a commitment to close the gap that was

absolutely unprecedented, and these members opposite supported not one of those

initiatives, on the other side of the House.

From our perspective we're going to continue to work with locally

elected school trustees. We're going to ensure that aboriginal children have the

opportunity to take courses that are designed to meet their needs. In fact, we

are the government that created "First Peoples 12" for the first time in this

province, which is seeing outstanding outcomes for aboriginal children.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

M. Farnworth: Up until the religion of the reconciliation

was discovered in the last couple of years, this government, when they were in

opposition, did nothing but create division in this province around aboriginal

issues. For the minister now to stand and somehow say that they are responsible

for everything that's great in this province happening for aboriginal people is

outrageous.

What is outrageous is that this minister stands here and says that

somehow their programs are working. Well, they will only work when you have

aboriginal students together, not dispersed throughout a school district. You

need critical mass. You need aboriginal students learning with aboriginal

students and elders able to impart that wisdom.

My question, again to the minister: how is shutting down a 98

percent aboriginal student body school going to help to protect culture and

aboriginal heritage in the Cowichan Valley in British Columbia, and when will

this minister wake up and smell the coffee and realize that she needs to make

changes to ensure that we are protecting, not hurting, aboriginal culture?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

I remind members, through the Chair.

Hon. S. Bond: I hope the member opposite will take the time

to review his transcript, because I think he suggested that the only way in

British Columbia that aboriginal students will be successful is if they are in a

separate school of their own. That is not what British Columbia's principle is

about.

[1410]

Interjections.

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

your seat for a second.

Continue.

Hon. S. Bond: In fact, that well may be an option that is

chosen and selected after much consultation and thought by some school districts

in British Columbia, in consultation with first nations people, but in British

Columbia we stand on the principle of inclusion, and we also want to look at

choice. There isn't a one-size-fits-all model for any child in British Columbia.

A. Dix: Directly to the Premier. The elders are here today.

They're having a public meeting tonight. The school is closing, if he doesn't

step in and take some action here.

So it's directly to the Premier. It's not about rhetoric.

It's not about calling out the opposition. This is about students and teachers

and parents and a community. Will he intervene to keep Koksilah school open?

Will he do that today? Will he commit to that today?

Hon. S. Bond: First of all, we regularly meet with groups

and parents and people who are concerned. It would have been incredibly

important if the members opposite would simply have, even yesterday, let us know

that it might be something they would like us to have done. Doing it here on the

floor of the Legislature is probably not the most effective way to do that.

Let's be clear. Perhaps the method of operation by the members

opposite, despite the fact they have a Leader of the Opposition who was once a

school trustee, is to tell locally elected school trustees how to do their job.

We're not going to do that on this side of the House.

In fact, I understand the member for Malahat–Juan de Fuca was at

the meeting. That's what one of the members opposite said. Perhaps he should go

back to his quote in The Vancouver Sun on September 24: "I support local

autonomy for school boards — absolutely." What happened?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

FUNDING FOR EVERGREEN LINE

M. Karagianis: We've listened in the House while the

Minister of Transportation has bragged repeatedly

[ Page 10023 ]

about the influence he has at the federal level and about how they were going

to deliver $400 million for the Evergreen line. Yesterday we actually saw the

budget come down. Despite the minister's brag that "I'm actually very confident

that the federal government will ultimately be there," in fact the federal

government has announced just $67 million for the Evergreen line, a fraction of

what the minister said he was going to be getting. Hon. Speaker, $67 million

will build about 522 metres of the Evergreen line.

My question, then, to the minister is: will he stand up and admit

today that he has failed to deliver for the Evergreen line?

Hon. K. Falcon: I have to say that even in this House it

comes as a shock when we get $67 million from the federal government and the NDP

find a way to figure out that that's somehow a negative for the people of the

Tri-Cities and the province of British Columbia. Mr. Speaker, what you will

find….

I would encourage the member, even with the shoddy research

department they have, that if they go back and look at the previous projects

we've been involved with, you will hear a common theme. The common theme from

the NDP is exactly what they're saying today: "Oh, it's never enough money. They

don't have enough. It will never get done."

Let me just check the record. They said that on Kicking Horse

Canyon. It's getting built. In fact, the member opposite from Columbia

constantly shows up and praises that project, even though the whole time they

said it would never get done. Canada line. They opposed that project, even

though it's now getting done. Gateway program. They said it would never have

enough money, even though it's well on its way. Convention centre, same thing.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

The member has a supplemental.

[1415]

M. Karagianis: I'm sorry you shut him down before he could

mention the convention centre and the $400 million overrun on that.

Hon. Speaker, the Evergreen line was pushed off the table by this

government for their P3 Canada line, and the Tri-Cities have been waiting ever

since for something to happen on the Evergreen line. Let's be realistic about

what the minister says here about $67 million. That's over two years. That's

$33½ million a year. That will actually build 275 metres a year, 11 kilometres.

Let's see: 44 years for the Tri-Cities to be waiting for the Evergreen line to

be built.

Is that what he's saying to us today — that it's going to take 44

years for him to deliver this line to the Tri-Cities?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. K. Falcon: Well, Mr. Speaker, that is so typical of

the NDP — negative, destructive, pessimistic and wrong. I'll tell you this. Just

as they opposed the Canada line and said it should never get done and we

shouldn't build it…. Guess what. It's under construction, on

schedule and on

budget. It's getting built to the benefit of British Columbians.

I'll also say this. The member, as usual, has not done her

homework. If the member looked at federal budgets, you would know that the

federal budget also includes something called the Building Canada Fund. It also

includes something called the national P3 fund. We will be getting the balance

of the dollars from those funds working in cooperation with the federal

government, something that that opposition does not understand, and we will get

the Evergreen line built to the benefit of the Tri-Cities by 2014.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

D. Chudnovsky: Mr. Speaker….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Wait a second, Member. Continue.

D. Chudnovsky: For all the bluster, after all these years

the minister has still failed to put into place the resources necessary to build

the Evergreen line, which has been promised to the people of the Tri-Cities. The

federal commitment is wholly inadequate. The provincial commitment is hundreds

of millions of dollars short.

The Evergreen line was planned in the 20th century. It was the

first priority of the GVRD. It was postponed in the 21st century because of this

government. Are the people of the Tri-Cities going to have to wait until the

22nd century for the Evergreen line?

Hon. K. Falcon: You know, Mr. Speaker, one can only shake

their head. First of all, the member should understand that TransLink made the

decision to build the Canada line and decided that it was a priority. The member

ought to understand at least how things operate.

The second thing the member needs to know is that unlike the

members opposite, who had not just a failed record of trying to get cooperation

or dollars out of the federal government but a disastrous record…. They not only

were not able to repatriate any dollars back into British Columbia, but they

actually lost money. The federal government in Ottawa so did not want to do

business with them that they actually pulled money out of British Columbia —

Nanoose Bay, for example, comes to mind — because of their disastrous dealing

with the federal government.

I would put our record of delivering federal government dollars

into projects for the benefit of British Columbia against their record any day

of the week.

[ Page 10024 ]

I will say this to the member opposite: you are wrong on Canada

line. You were wrong on the Kicking Horse Canyon. You were wrong on the Gateway

program, and you're wrong again on the Evergreen line.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

DISCLOSURE OF DOCUMENTS

IN B.C. RAIL COURT CASE

L. Krog: The B.C. Rail corruption trial continues to be

mired in scandal. The Premier refuses to be held accountable to the Legislature,

but he is more than happy to talk with the Vancouver Province editorial

board, with columnist Mike Smyth and with the Deputy Attorney General about the

case.

Now, the Deputy Attorney General, Allan Seckel, has confirmed that

there has been more than one process for vetting documents related to the B.C.

Rail corruption trial. Mr. Seckel says he cannot tell us how many documents are

being withheld due to parliamentary privilege. Will the Attorney General tell

this House how many documents are currently being held…?

Mr. Speaker: Member, could I remind you that this is before

the Speaker at this present time. The question is before the Speaker. You have

made a presentation. The Government House Leader has made a submission, and it's

under advisement by myself.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

L. Krog: A new question, hon. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Member for Nanaimo, have you got a

different question?

[1420]

L. Krog: The Attorney General has advised this House many

times that he doesn't wish to answer questions on this, but we know that for at

least three years it was senior staff in the Premier's office that decided to

keep evidence in the B.C. Rail trial secret. Last May the Premier told this

House that Allan Seckel….

Mr. Speaker: Member, you're going along the same lines.

It's the same question on a decision that I haven't made yet. It is under

advisement with the Speaker.

If you have a new question, proceed, but if you don't, please sit

down.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

L. Krog: I will sit down, hon. Speaker.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

HELI-SKIING IN PURCELL WILDERNESS

CONSERVANCY PARK

N. Macdonald: I particularly appreciate the opportunity. A

very straightforward question to the minister responsible: will the minister

confirm that the government is negotiating with a heli-ski operation to have

them exchange their existing heli-ski tenure in the Purcells for a tenure in the

Purcell Wilderness Conservancy Park?

Hon. S. Hagen: I'll take the question on notice.

[End of question period.]

J. Horgan: I have an introduction.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

Introductions by Members

J. Horgan: Joining us in the gallery today are Chuck

Seymour, the first nations education assistant, an elder and traditional speaker

for Koksilah Elementary School, as well as Hannah Seymour, the PAC chair of

Koksilah Elementary. Would the House please make them welcome.

R. Hawes: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

R. Hawes: In the House today is Mr. Mike

Shandalla, who is

one of my constituents and a very good supporter, and I'd like the House to

please make him welcome.

D. Routley: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

D. Routley: I would like to ask the House to help make welcome

two elders from Cowichan Tribes who have come to visit us today. They are very

special people to the Cowichan people, and I'd like us to give them a special

welcome. They are William Seymour and Albie Charlie.

Orders of the Day

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

Budget Debate

(continued)

Hon. M. de Jong: Mr. Speaker, can I adjourn the debate on

the budget in order to make the committee of selection report to the House

regarding committees?

[ Page 10025 ]

Hon. M. de Jong moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Reports from Committees

Hon. M. de Jong: The Special Committee of Selection has met

and has come to agreement on the appointment of members to the various select

standing committees. That report includes the following:

Select Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs: Mr. Mayencourt,

Convener; Mr. Horning; Mr. MacKay; Ms. McIntyre; Ms. Roddick; Ms. Whittred; Mr.

Coons; Mr. Lali; Mr. Fraser; Mr. Chudnovsky.

Select Standing Committee on Children and Youth: Mr. Cantelon,

Convener; Mr. Rustad; Mr. MacKay; Mr. Bennett; Ms. Polak; Ms. Roddick; Mr. Krog;

Ms. Karagianis; Mr. Brar; Mr. Simons.

Select Standing Committee on Crown Corporations: Mr. Rustad,

Convener; Mr. Cantelon; Ms. McIntyre; Mr. Yap; Mr. MacKay; Mr. Black; Mr. Evans;

Mr. Horgan; Mr. Lali; Mr. Simpson.

Select Standing Committee on Education: Mr. Nuraney, Convener; Mr.

Jarvis; Mr. Lee; Mr. Mayencourt; Ms. Polak; Mr. Rustad; Mr. Routley; Mr.

Fleming; Mr. Cubberley; Mr. Macdonald.

[1425]

Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services: Mr.

Bennett, Convener; Mr. Bloy; Mr. Hayer; Mr. Lee; Mr. Hawes; Mr. Black; Mr.

Ralston; Mr. Austin; Mr. Horgan; Ms. Thorne.

Select Standing Committee on Health: Mr. Sultan, Convener; Mr.

Hayer; Mr. Jarvis; Mr. Nuraney; Ms. Roddick; Ms. Whittred, Mr. Dix; Mr. Gentner;

Mr. Chudnovsky; Mr. Chouhan.

Select Standing Committee on Legislative Initiatives: Mr. Horning,

Convener; Mr. Bloy; Mr. Hawes; Mr. Sultan; Mr. Hayer; Mr. Mayencourt; Mr.

Farnworth; Mr. Simpson; Ms. Conroy; Ms. Kwan.

For the Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical

Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills: Mr. Horning, Convener; Mr. Bloy, Mr.

Hawes; Mr. Hayer; Mr. Mayencourt; Ms Roddick; Mr. Farnworth; Mr. Dix; Ms. Kwan;

Ms. Conroy.

Lastly, the Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts: Mr.

Fleming, Convener; Ms. McIntyre; Mr. Black; Mr. Hawes; Ms. Polak; Mr. Rustad;

Mr. Sultan; Mr. Yap; Mr. Bains; Mr. Ralston; Mr. Simpson; and Ms. Trevena.

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

Motion approved.

Hon. M. de Jong: I ask leave of the House to permit the

moving of the motion to adopt the report.

Leave granted.

Hon. M. de Jong: I move that the report be adopted.

Motion approved.

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

Budget Debate

(continued)

V. Roddick: Other exciting steps that we are putting

forward in putting the patient first is that we are expanding the roles of

nurses, pharmacists, paramedics, midwives and naturopaths. This is great news

for both my constituents in Delta and all British Columbians and will provide

more choice for patients.

[H. Bloy in the chair.]

A new British Columbia agriculture plan was introduced on February

15 — another milestone for British Columbia to add to the mining plan, the

transportation plan and the energy plan. As Parliamentary Secretary for

Agriculture Planning and chair of the of Agricultural Planning Committee I was

delighted to take

part in the building and release of this plan, titled

Growing a Healthy Future for B.C. Families . This plan provides a strong

foundation to ensure that farming continues to have a bright future in our

province. Its strategies focus on meeting and benefiting from environmental and

climate changes and ensuring innovations drive a competitive and profitable

agricultural sector.

To help reduce B.C.'s greenhouse gas emissions by one-third by

2020, the budget includes a revenue-neutral carbon tax, providing $440 million

for a one-time climate action dividend of $100 to every resident and over $1

billion for a broad range of climate action programs and tax incentives to help

encourage the adoption of greener lifestyles.

This budget also allocates $25 million to establish a bioenergy

network to encourage research and investments in such areas as wood waste;

co-generation; biofuels from wood, agriculture or waste biomass; anaerobic

digesters; and wood pellet production.

With this budget we are also providing $30 million for B.C. green

ports initiative, which will reduce emissions from commercial truck and ship

traffic — extremely important for Delta South. Furthermore, $33 million is

allocated to provide tax relief for the purchase of conventional fuel-efficient

vehicles and to meet the fuel efficiency criteria set out in the federal

government's ecoAuto rebate program. We're providing PST exemptions that include

Energy Star–qualified residential large appliances — freezers, fridges, dryers,

etc.

[1430]

Comprehensive air and water stewardship strategies will be

released this spring as new steps are taken to combat global warming. With its

ports, roads, railways and ferry terminal, Delta South will certainly be

interested in these strategies.

A big step that has been taken recently in Delta South is new

signs on Highway 17: "Trucks use right lane only." I have been consistently

lobbying — I think the Ministry of Transportation would refer to this as

[ Page 10026 ]

nagging — since 2000 for this particular issue. Now we need to make sure it

is strictly enforced.

New investments will be made in plug-in hybrid electrical

vehicles, hydrogen-powered buses, clean retrofit of dirty diesel trucks and the

electrification of truck stops. An example of zero-emission electric vehicles

can be seen at ferry terminals. Currently, at Tsawwassen terminal the GEM e6

electric vehicle, a six-passenger shuttle, is being used as a passenger shuttle

between the long-term parking and departure.

The B.C. government is moving forward with a pilot project to

enable the broader use of zero-emission electric vehicles across B.C. Delta

South would be the perfect place to try out this pilot project because of the

many commutes between, in and around the communities of Ladner and Tsawwassen.

A new "brown fields to green fields" redevelopment strategy will

target existing dirty sites for the creation of well-treed, green, livable

communities. Delta is troubled by many land-filled brown fields, so this

redevelopment strategy is most welcome. In fact, the Delta millennium committee,

of which I was a member, has a tree project that was started in the year

1999-2000, and the municipality is carrying this project forward.

This government has also shown dedication in expanding the PST

exemption on bicycles, including electric-assisted, two- and three-wheel cycles

and non-motorized adult tricycles. It has added $15 million and will expand and

refine the Scrap-It program provincewide to get older, less efficient vehicles

off the road. This is particularly important to our air quality in the lower

mainland, Delta — in fact, the entire Fraser Valley.

The budget of 2008 includes $3 million for a new food miles

initiative, which will increase public awareness of the distance food products

are transported, to encourage the purchase of local agricultural products. We

need to bridge the urban agricultural divide and continue to produce the best,

safest, most nutritious products available. Buy local, Mr. Speaker, because we

all still have to eat to live.

This budget provides PST exemptions for farmers on purchases of

qualifying all-terrain vehicles used solely for farm purposes. Delta South

farmers will benefit from the implementation of allowing all licensed vehicles

to use coloured fuel when travelling for farm purposes or on the highway. This

is huge for farming provincewide.

Prime farmland, hundreds of thousands of people plus extensive

service industries are on our floodplain. This budget is dedicating $30 million

as part of a ten-year $100 million program for flood protection and planning.

Sustainable planning and this flood protection are imperative for our

communities and our food supply.

Mr. Speaker, $438 million over four years on programs and services

will be available to strengthen social services. This funding will support

persons with developmental disabilities as well as children and youth at risk

and with special needs. Delta South is a destination community due to its

marvellous amenities. This provincial funding will also be most welcome.

[1435]

We believe in people, in families. Budget 2008 provides an

additional $104 million over four years to implement new and expanding measures

to help break the cycle of homelessness, including emergency shelters, homeless

outreach services, homeless rent supplements, predevelopment costs. For

opposition members to say we don't care and aren't doing anything about this

issue is factually incorrect.

School boards are working tirelessly to deliver solutions in an

era of terrific challenges and changes. Education is more important than ever in

this era of technological revolution. Therefore, we are increasing K-to-12

funding by 2 percent, even though enrolment is expected to decline by an average

of 1 percent per year.

Budget 2008 increases our investment in StrongStart early learning

centres in communities throughout B.C. This excellent program has grown from a

pilot project started in Delta, where I attended a very exciting opening.

With the booming art community in Delta, my constituents will be

happy to hear about $24 million generated from the $150 million endowment for

the B.C. 150th birthday cultural fund to support new arts and culture activities

across the province.

Members, we all know tax rates affect us. We strongly believe in

leaving more money in taxpayers' pockets. By 2009 every taxpayer in B.C. will

see their personal provincial income taxes reduced by 5 percent on the first

$70,000 earnings. By 2009, B.C. will pay the lowest personal tax in all of

Canada for individuals earning up to $111,000.

British Columbians will see an increase in the homeowner's grant

threshold to $1.05 million in assessed property value, up from $950,000. This

ensures that more than 95 percent of B.C. homeowners continue to be eligible for

the full value of their grant. This certainly helps the price-challenged housing

in areas like Delta South.

In addition, to help ease pressure faced by first-time homebuyers,

Budget 2008 increases the first-time-homebuyers exemption to $425,000 from

$375,000. This can save up to $6,500 in property transfer tax.

A strong economy is required to enable us to pay for necessary

social services. The general corporate income tax rate will be reduced to 11

percent from 12 percent, with a future reduction planned to 10 percent by 2011.

This will make B.C. on par with the lowest corporate tax rates in Canada.

Small business tax rates will be reduced to 3.5 percent from 4.5

percent, with further reductions to 2.5 percent by 2011. Coming from a small

family business background, I know how valuable these reductions are. It's

great, it's encouraging, it's entrepreneurial, and it's common sense.

B.C. is the gateway to Asia. Together we can positively and

sensibly develop it so that everyone can benefit, especially communities like

Delta South, who are on the front lines.

[ Page 10027 ]

I've been listening for the last couple of weeks to members of the

opposition stating that we're not doing anything for health care, seniors, the

issue of homelessness, people in need. From where I stand, this is just not the

case. There is a list as long as your arm of initiatives, whether it be

agriculture, first nations, our children and families, health care, education or

the environment. This is British Columbia's time to lead.

[1440]

Where do the opposition members stand on important issues? This

year's balanced budget asks and, most importantly, answers the question: what

kind of legacy do we want to leave for future generations? The NDP's answers are

inconsistent, negative and regressive. I am proud to be part of a government

that is making the right decisions for the future generation of British

Columbians.

We have the lowest unemployment rate in over 30 years, the highest

average wage, and we are working to deliver for children and families. How can

the NDP vote against this budget and throne speech?

Opposition benches, join with us. We all need to be optimistic and

positive, and have confidence in our province and our people. We will act with

speed and purpose because we're confident in our endeavours. We are definitely

the government to lead the province into this exciting time.

Happy 150th birthday, British Columbia.

M. Sather: It's my pleasure to respond to the budget.

Before I begin, though, I wanted to thank my staff, who have done such a capable

job for me over these almost three years now.

In my constituency office there's Sheryl Seale, who is the

foundation of our crew there. Sheryl is exceedingly organized — a very political

person doing a wonderful job. Donann Kinar has been with me almost since the

beginning and provides a really inviting atmosphere for constituents that come

in, and that's a great thing. Carly O'Rourke is a young woman that I've just

hired recently. She's a graduate from SFU and has a great and bright future

ahead of her.

Here in the Legislature, Brian Kowalski, my legislative assistant,

does a great job of keeping me going technologically and organizing things for

me. Brian is a real outdoor guy too, which I really like. Cara McGregor is my

communications officer, and Cara is always bright, helpful and willing to

provide the communications information that I need. Paula Gunn is my research

officer. I can only hope that all the members opposite, including the

Transportation Minister, have such a capable research person as Paula.

We've heard the budget. We've heard the Premier provide us with

what is hailed as a green budget, complete with the Finance Minister wearing the

green shoes and what have you. There are things in the budget that we approve of

and that I approve of. We approve of a carbon tax. I think that's a move that we

have to go toward. I certainly have some difficulties with the way that it's

unbalanced with regard to big oil and big banks.

What I want to see, and what I want to talk about today, is if the

green rhetoric really matches the on-the-ground reality of being green. One of

the areas that the government talks about is providing green energy.

I want to talk about an area that's near and dear to me — and to

many British Columbians, the more they know about it — and that's the Upper Pitt

River area at the north end of Pitt Lake. The other day I heard the member for

East Kootenay talk about Fernie being the most beautiful place in British

Columbia. I had the opportunity to go to Fernie not long ago, and it is a truly

spectacular viewpoint from Fernie. But it's rivalled equally, I can tell you, by

going up to Pitt Lake and looking up that valley on a beautiful day with the

snow-clad mountains of Garibaldi. It's a tunnel that is absolutely spectacular

on all sides. It's a fantastic area.

[1445]

Although it's only 50 kilometres from Vancouver, to get there is

difficult. You have to fly in, or you have to take the long boat ride up Pitt

Lake. Having visited last year again during the summer, I renewed my

acquaintance with it and just how spectacular it is. The area has been logged,

but trees are growing back. It's an ongoing operation there, but the wilderness

feel of the place is very tangible, very real.

Back in the '90s this river, due to a gravel operation that was

proposed there, was actually on the list of B.C.'s most endangered rivers. I'm

hoping that's not going to happen again. I'm hoping that the government is going

to look long and hard at what's happening in the Upper Pitt with regard to the

so-called run-of-the-river operations that are being worked on there.

There's a plan there by Run of River Power Inc., through their

subsidiary Northwest Cascade Power, to dam and divert eight streams in the Upper

Pitt. On the west side of the Pitt you have Boise, Homer, Pinecone, Steve and

Bucklin Creek, and then on the other side, the east side, Corbold Creek, ZZ

Creek and then Shale Creek north of that.

Now, it's not that I think all of these kinds of projects are bad.

I don't. I haven't had a chance to look at all of them by any means, but I

understand the one at Furry Creek, for example — off the Sea to Sky Highway — is

a good operation and not environmentally damaging. That certainly can't be said

for the Upper Pitt.

One of the problems with this whole process around these

dam-and-divert projects that are going on is that there has been no reasonable

access to the public in terms of decision-making around this. It's not only Bill

30, which has been talked about — how local government decision-making has been

pushed aside — but the fact that the land use planning process that we used to

have with the local resource management plans is not there. There's no way for

the public to have a say in the formative parts of any project like this.

When it comes to the environmental assessment office, they form

working groups. Non-profits that want to find out can't even find out who's on

those working groups. So it's extremely difficult for the public to feel

involved in this, and that is one of the reasons

[ Page 10028 ]

— certainly not the only reason — why there is so much concern.

The Upper Pitt is an absolutely spectacular fishery as well. Not

only is the scenery magnificent, but we have all five species of Pacific salmon

there — the sockeye, the pinks, the chinooks, the coho and the chum. In

addition, we have a species of trout there as well.

The largest population of coho in the lower Fraser Valley is there

in the Upper Pitt. The coho salmon is a fishery that's very much under duress.

There's a recent report from the department of Fisheries and Oceans last October

that said: "The conservation of Georgia Basin coho has been an issue since at

least 1989, and a major concern in the decline of coho is the loss and

degradation of freshwater habitat due to increasing economic and development

pressures in the Strait of Georgia."

That's exactly what we're concerned about here — the environmental

pressures that these projects are going to put on the coho and other salmon

there, other fisheries there.

The coho in the Upper Pitt are also threatened. They're at their

lowest levels ever. We get information there…. I get it from talking to folks

who live there, particularly Dan Gerak and his wife, who run the Pitt River

Lodge up there. It's an excellent facility.

[1450]

We have, as well, the cutthroat trout, rainbow trout, Dolly

Varden, bull trout and steelhead. Steelhead, of course, are a highly prized

fishery. I think the member opposite is a steelhead fisherman and has spoken in

the House about that. They, again, are under duress. Dan Gerak tells me they may

get as few as 50 steelhead returning this year, so that's of great concern.

I want to talk a little bit about what is the problem specifically

with the dam-and-divert projects for the fish — looking at an 80 to 95 percent

reduction in the flow of these streams, and it's over a long area as well. In

the Upper Pitt, those eight streams would be dammed from 3.2 up to 4.6

kilometres.

The salmon and the trout in that system depend on these streams

for both spawning and rearing. It's extremely important habitat. The river

itself is glacial. It's very cold, and as such, it's not that productive in

terms of the food that the salmon and trout eat. So the streams are kind of the

lifeblood of the whole system there.

The reduced flows in these streams that are going to result mean

that the wetted width of these streams is reduced. Some of that wetted width is

not very deep, so you're losing the productivity of the aquatic invertebrates

upon which those fish depend.

These are kind of the basic nuts and bolts of how a fishery works,

how fish survive. I think we all, on both sides of the House, want to ensure

that our salmon are not put in further jeopardy. When you reduce the flow on a

stream as well, to that extent in particular, the water is more shallow, and it

warms to temperatures that are often fatal to fish.

A stream is also a living entity in terms of its habitat. You need

to have a constant recruitment, as they call it, of boulders, gravel and rocks

as well as the woody debris. The rocks are brought down, and they provide shade

for the fish when it's hot. The gravel of course provides substrate for

spawning. That material, the woody material as well, provides not only organic

nutrients to the stream but also some of that cover I already mentioned with

regard to the rocks.

When we get this kind of a reduction in flow, you're making the

river sterile. That's of great concern to everyone who is familiar with that

situation.

The time of year when that material gets washed down is in the

spring, during the spring freshet. But that, unfortunately, is also the time

when the run-of-river projects are in operation because they depend on that

heavy flow in the spring. So that's the time of year when the diversion of the

water is going to have the greatest negative impact.

There will also be increased risk, and I'm certain there will be

additional siltation, from landslides due to the work that will be done to lay

all these pipes and to make the dam. I know that when I looked at the Ashlu up

in Squamish, I saw heavy equipment right in the stream.

There's no doubt that the detrimental effects are considerable. We

can get complete failure of the technology, as well, in terms of letting the

water through the creek. That happened in Miller Creek near Whistler not long

ago.

[1455]

Sometimes I hear government members or proponents of these systems

say: "Well, don't worry about it, because all the water is going back into the

stream." But there are a couple of problems. One of the things is that the fish,

certainly in this system, are above where the water goes back into the stream.

They're affected directly by the negative aspects of the reduced water.

So we have coho, chinook, steelhead, cutthroat and rainbow trout

spawning and/or rearing above the generator site — that's where the water goes

back into the river — in Boise, Homer, Pinecone, Steve and Bucklin creeks. Boise

Creek has fish-bearing waters not only to the fish barrier above it but all the

way up.

The threat, however, is not confined simply to the area above the

intake because, as I mentioned, with the recruitment of debris and rocks, that's

a problem below the intake as well.

All eight streams, with the possible exception of Shale, are

fish-bearing streams, and 3,000 sockeye have been observed spawning in Boise

Creek. Boise contains about 1,500 rare Dolly Varden, a bull trout cross which….

Apparently, they're above the fish barrier. It's interesting. It's thought that

they've been there and developed a separate strain since the last ice age.

In Homer Creek 5,000 sockeye have been observed spawning, and up

to 40,000 sockeye returned to Corbold Creek. Coho and pink salmon also spawn in

the lower reaches of Corbold Creek. The sockeye in the Upper Pitt are unique in

being on a six-year return cycle. They return every six years to their spawning

beds — or redds, as they're called — which in the normal cycle is four or five

years for sockeye. As in other areas, salmon and trout in the Upper Pitt are

threatened, so the threat is throughout.

[ Page 10029 ]

Steelhead and bull trout. Another species at risk. Coho — I

already mentioned their precarious situation. Populations in the Upper Pitt are

at their lowest levels ever known.

I also wanted to talk for a few minutes about the

precedent-setting application that's now in place to sever the Pinecone Burke

Park to put the transmission line through. This will be precedent-setting if it

should happen; I certainly hope it doesn't. There was another additional line

put through Mount Robson, but it was in an area where there was already a

right-of-way beside a railway and highway, so it's quite different. This line

would go up Steve Creek, over a pass, by a wetland and down into the creek on

the other side, going down into the Mamquam River.

There are at least five species at risk in the study area, one of

which is the grizzly, which is a blue-listed species of concern. I mentioned the

wetland in Steve Creek, and it's one of two significant grizzly areas in the

Upper Pitt. The draft management plan and the background report for Pinecone

Burke Provincial Park noted that subalpine wetland habitats in Steve and

Pinecone Creek watersheds provide valuable spring/summer forage for grizzly

bears and that spring/summer forage is a limiting factor for grizzly bear

conservation in the Pitt River watershed.

What they're saying, in fact, is that this is critical habitat,

the destruction or disturbance of which could limit the viability of the grizzly

population there. It's a serious issue. Documents on the integrated land

management bureau site show that the intake on Steve Creek and the dam that will

be built there are very close to that wetland. This may very well flood the

wetland. But even without flooding, the construction of the dam, the

transmission line and the ongoing maintenance threaten the ability of grizzlies

to use this habitat. They're very sensitive to human disturbance.

[1500]

It's disturbing to me to read the consultant's reports downplaying

the negative impact that this could have on grizzlies. In fact, it's downplaying

whether or not grizzlies even are there. The consultant says in the reports:

"They did not locate any critical wildlife habitat." Yet what else is this

wetland if not critical wildlife habitat? It's hard to understand how they could

say that.

The study area that the consultants looked at falls within the

Garibaldi Pitt grizzly population unit, which is considered threatened by

COSEWIC, the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada, with an

estimated population of 18. Wildlife habitat for grizzlies to the east of

Pinecone Burke is "based on habitat suitability and not on evidence of

grizzlies," they said.

Yet Dan Gerak from Pitt River Lodge told me that he saw tracks of

grizzlies in Blue Creek just three kilometres from Steve Creek, the study area.

He showed that to the consultant's biologist, yet they say there is no evidence

of grizzlies in the area. It really brings into question the integrity of the

work that's been done up there, and certainly they're trying to minimize the

negative effect on a vulnerable species, the grizzly bear. That's of great

concern.

Marbled murrelets are another species at risk in the area. In this

case a red-listed species has been documented in the Upper Pitt. The northern

spotted owl is a critically imperilled species that's likely found in the Upper

Pitt — or it was before the government allowed a lot of logging of their

habitat.

We know there is an active nest-site ten kilometres northeast of

the study area. The consultant's report admits there is a potential that

dispersing juveniles may use Crawford Creek–Steve Pass to move between the

watersheds. So there is a very real possibility that they will run into power

lines and be killed. Other species at risk in the area are coastal tailed frogs

and red-legged frogs.

So the access to this area is a huge issue. The proponent suggests

that they're going to use helicopters to build the transmission line, but what

kind of access is that going to open up to increased fishing and hunting? A

reputable source from one of the fishing organizations in British Columbia said

to me that opening that up to access would essentially kill that fishery within

ten years.

There is a newly developing predator-prey system in the Upper Pitt

with the Roosevelt elk that have been transplanted there and the wolves that

have moved into the area. It was on the front page of The Vancouver Sun

not long ago. They're at risk from increased access.

This whole project also puts in jeopardy the tourism values of the

area. There are going to be power lines all over the place. As Dan Gerak said,

his clients would not be particularly interested, unfortunately, in going up

there if the values are degraded in that manner.

This development, along with that of the related Pamawed Resources

development on Crawford Creek, which is a related company to Run of River, would

bring driveable roads 6.5 kilometres closer on the Pinecone Burke Park side and

on the west side eight kilometres closer. So they're going to bring the access a

lot closer. That's of great concern.

Putting up the power line through there might keep hikers out, but

it's not going to keep out folks on snowmobiles, and it's not going to keep out

people on ATVs — the all-terrain vehicles. The proponents' consultants

themselves say it would be desirable to have snowmobile access in there, so we

are really concerned. A lot of folks are really concerned.

I hope the government will look at this carefully and recognize

that there may be appropriate places for these projects, but the Upper Pitt is

definitely not one of those places. The proponents' consultants also say that

road improvements associated with the construction of the proposed hydropower

project at Crawford Creek will re-establish culverts at stream crossings and

improve access to upper Crawford Creek. So they are admitting they are improving

the access there, but it's not improving for the wildlife, and it's not

improving for the fish.

[1505]

I haven't had the opportunity to be there in person, but looking

at a topographical map, where the intake for the power development on Crawford

Creek would

[ Page 10030 ]

be is pretty flat wide-open country. So it would be very difficult, if they

put the road up there to the intake, to not allow increased access to the Upper

Pitt.

What about the dam that would be built with road access along

Steve Creek? They're going to push that road in there another nine kilometres

into the wilderness. I don't think they're going to be constructing and bringing

all that heavy equipment in there by helicopter. I doubt it very much.

The proponent says: "Well, don't worry about all this potential

destruction to a pristine area. We'll give you compensation. We'll add a piece

onto the Pinecone Burke Park on the east side of the park." I don't get it. This

is Crown land. It's not theirs to give. I don't quite understand how that would

be compensation on their part.

What about the hazards that exist up there in the Upper Pitt with

regard to snow and landslides? Looking at the consultant's report, they have

hazard ratings that are moderate to high in many areas along where that power

line would go through. I don't see anywhere any assessment of the dangers of

rock and mudslides. Those are just the hazards on Steve Creek, where they've

done some of the work around this park severance adjustment application that's

before the government now.

I understand that the Environment Minister…. I have it on good

authority that he feels strongly about wilderness, that he is a proponent for

wilderness and that he is a proponent for maintaining those kinds of values. So

I can't fathom how he could possibly be in favour of this project. I'm fearful,

however, that he is. I'm hopeful that he's not and that he's prevailing upon his

colleagues to say: "Let's look at this through the lens…."

You know, it's supposed to be a green budget, a green time that

we're operating in now. Let's make sure that we truly are looking at these

projects through an environmental lens. If we are, there's no way that the Upper

Pitt projects that are on the books right now could be approved. I'm really

hopeful that this government will have a hard look at that and will turn it

down.

Just in the time I have remaining, I want to make a few comments

about agriculture and the agriculture plan that the Minister of Agriculture

talked about the other day. He talked about the hundred-mile diet and that it

was a key fundamental principle on which this plan was written — about eating

locally.

Well, those are good ideas, ones that I support. However, I want

to see that the government is actually acting to protect the land itself.

Without the land, we can't be eating locally because we won't have any land on

which to grow the food. The member for Delta South is always talking about how

we have to eat to live, but we also have to have land to produce the food which

we eat to live.

When I look at what's happening with transportation, for example,

I see the South Fraser perimeter road taking 500 acres or 300 acres — a large

number of acres — out of the agricultural land reserve, and there's another

route possible. I see in my constituency the Abernethy connector that has gone

through two heritage farms and an organic farm.

[1510]

The minister doesn't seem to have any concern about that and says

that's TransLink's problem. Now I see another road being proposed through

agricultural land in my community. Gateway tells me that it's not their project,

but they're providing all the data on what would be the effect of this road in

terms of traffic.

It's not very convincing data, by the way, but that's supposed to

be the rationale for this road. Also, the district of Pitt Meadows say that if

they build this road, they're going to have to get funding from the province.

I look at an order-in-council that this government passed

recently, making it easier to get land out of the green zone. All our

agricultural land in Maple Ridge is in the green zone. So this simply is a way

to make it easier to develop agricultural land.

Where does the government come down on that? On the one side

they're saying they're green, but on the other side the Agriculture Minister

says they've got a great agricultural plan. But when you look at the protection

for the land base, it's simply not there. What we see is erosion of the land

base, and that's of great concern to me and to my constituents.

Finally, some points on the fees in B.C. parks. Fees are between

$9 and $50. They introduced the parking fees for day use — very unpopular — and

as of April 1, they're going to increase again by a dollar per night.

R. Sultan: I wanted to just respond for a moment to the

remarks by the member for Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows, because he said the magic

word, to my ears — steelhead. He immediately grabbed my attention with his, I

think, sensitive, passionate and thoughtful remarks about the beleaguered

species of fish, including steelhead, in our local watersheds.

I must say I would want to associate myself with many of his

concerns, because those concerns are broadly felt, I think, in the environmental

community and also among the thousands of other British Columbians who treasure

the steelhead, our salmon, the bull trout, the cutthroat and all the other

species which are part of our tradition. There's no question that the impact of

humanity in its many forms is not friendly to the future of many of these

species.

About 200 feet from my office, in the Capilano River — for which

my riding is named — I have a living pilot test of the impact of dam building,

of urbanization, of lack of recruitment. As the member for Maple Ridge–Pitt

Meadows pointed out, the lack of addition to gravel and sand over the years, the

change in the very contour of the watershed affecting the beaches we have in

West Vancouver–Capilano…. The effects of mankind over a century of development

are not always very friendly to the steelhead, not to mention many other

species. So I share many of his concerns.

In the same breath, I would hasten to add my support of the

independent power producer industry. I think this is among the many energy

production alternatives, one of our friendliest sources of electricity for the

future. But I do agree that it must be done with great care. I intend to take a

greater interest in the

[ Page 10031 ]

Upper Pitt project that he described, because I must confess that I'm quite

ignorant on that subject.

The budget itself addresses one of the other major factors that

scientists suggest to us is causing distress to, among many other things, fish

populations. I refer to climate change. I wanted to quote the remarks of Dr.

Andrew Weaver on what I guess many would call, justifiably, the central theme of

this budget that we are debating today.

[1515]

Dr. Weaver is a professor and Canada research chair in atmospheric

science at the University of Victoria. His contribution to the Intergovernmental

Panel on Climate Change won him the Nobel peace prize in 2007. Just a mile or so

away from these chambers, one of our UVic scientists won the Nobel prize. I

wasn't really aware of that.

So we have a local expert on atmospheric science holding forth. He

said on the Bill Good Show , our very popular CKNW commentator that

many of us listen to frequently…. It's always on as background in our office in

West Vancouver–Capilano. I guess I could attribute that to one of the former

producers of an NW show who works for me, Patti Hamilton.

Here's what he said to Bill Good the other day, on February 26:

"Frankly, why I like it" — referring to the Finance Minister's budget — "is that

it puts more money into the pockets of British Columbians to allow them to make

choices in more energy-efficient ways. That's the way to deal with it. Use the

marketplace to find solutions. Don't tell the marketplace what the solutions

are. Give people the money to actually assist the market in making those moves."

Later in the interview with Bill Good, Dr. Weaver went on to say:

"Success will be measured by emissions reductions. There is no other means of

success. That is why it's being introduced. It's not being introduced as a tax

grab. It's being introduced to guide society towards carbon reductions. So

there's your measure of success."

Here's a final comment and quotation from Dr. Andrew Weaver to

Bill Good on February 26: "I don't buy the argument that this is going to put

people into poverty. I think you see in the budget that there's all sorts of tax

relief specifically aimed at low-income people."

So that's Dr. Weaver, and he speaks to some of the comments I have

heard. Adjectives that have been used to describe this budget are

"sophisticated," "deft" — not daft, but deft with an "e" — "smart" and

"surprising."

I would admit that it caught me off guard because I was

speculating, along with many, that what we were going to see was a carbon tax,

but the revenue was going to be spent on buses or mass transit or something

else. It was, in fact, a Quebec-style — and having lived there for a decade, I

think the government in Quebec is very good at this — tax grab to be used under

the banner of some noble cause just to raise government revenues for some other

purpose.

Of course, the members, I think — private members certainly on

this side of the House and I suspect many, many members on the other side of the

House — were surprised to see that in fact it was as the Finance critic in the

opposition said: taking money out of one pocket and putting it in the other.

That was his very graphic description of a tax-neutral program, and that is in

fact what the Finance Minister delivered to our pleasure and to our surprise.

We have seen on display once again a very intelligent, motivating,

tax-cutting, friendly-to-low-income-people, business-friendly,

friendly-to-children, conservative, not-in-deficit, debt-reducing budget

applauded by the credit agencies. That's a tough act to follow. Will we ever see

again in this House a budget that accomplishes so many things on so many

dimensions? My compliments to the Finance Minister and to the government who

carefully crafted these measures.

But what I wanted to talk about in the main was another dimension

of the budget — namely, its impact and ramification in the forest industry. A

significant proportion of government revenues in the budget derives from the

forest industry. It is, after all, our largest British Columbia industry.

Members on the benches opposite have denounced the government for creating hard

times in this industry.

[1520]

About two weeks ago, on February 7, the Leader of the Opposition,

speaking to the Western Silviculture Association, accused the government of

ceding government control of this resource — I'm using her words — tearing up

the Forest Act and gutting the social contract. Those are her words. The leader

conveniently overlooked the ruinous policies imposed on this industry by her own

party when it constituted the government of this province during a quite

disastrous experiment in central planning and socialism during the 1990s.

The NDP philosophy vis-à-vis forestry was brought home to me

vividly when I attended the Truck Loggers Association convention in the early

'90s shortly after they came to power. I was accompanied by my brother-in-law,

Pete Holmquist. I mention him because he's struggling in hospital right now, and

I hope he recovers. He was one of our notable fallers on the coast — I worked

with him as a faller's helper one summer, a wonderful and in many ways scary

experience — and a North American hand-bucking champion. Now, that's an

accomplishment.

With Peter, we went there with the truck loggers and the place was

bustling with athletic loggers like my brother-in-law, chainsaw salesmen,

massive equipment and so on. The NDP government of the day had erected a giant

tent in the centre floor of the Canada Place convention centre. In the tent,

handbooks and panels on the wall explained how loggers must conduct themselves

in the future.

Now, to illustrate, I hold in my hand a sharply pointed yellow

pencil, a Dixon Ticonderoga 1388-2HB pencil, and it's identical to the one that

you all have on your desks in front of you. The government of the day, in that

tent with the truck loggers, specified the brand, the stocking number, the lead

weight and the hue of the various coloured pencils which the truck loggers were

ordered to use when cross-hatching their harvesting maps prior to submitting

them to the government for approval.

[ Page 10032 ]

Let's say a cherry red Dixon Ticonderoga 1469-3H or whatever, for

areas to be cut to a certain specification; another specification for the apple

green, to be applied to another cutblock of a different type, and so on up the

mountain and down the gullies, in all colours of the rainbow. Now, I ask: was

there a run on coloured pencils of the specified brand at the local art stores?

I don't think so, because I was the only person brushing up on the crayoning

rules in that tent.

Under that previous government's rule in the '90s, petty

rule-making and government interference ramped up aggressively. The forest

industry reacted by cutting back on its investment spending and hunkering down,

hoping for a change in government, which eventually happened. In the meantime

our global competitors had been given another window of opportunity to leapfrog

ahead of us.

Now fast-forward 15 years to now. Once again, the NDP has busied

itself with plans and proposals for the forest industry. A fundamental fact of

life for all of us is the softwood lumber agreement between Canada and the

United States. On February 7 in that same speech, the Leader of the Opposition

repeated a characterization of the softwood lumber agreement as being "a serious

mistake" which must be "renegotiated or dumped." Her suggestion was for the

federal and provincial government to take this agreement to hearings to

determine what steps should be taken, up to and including abrogation.

By prescribing such policies, I am sad to say — and I'm genuinely

sad to make this observation, because these are fine people on the opposite

bench — Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition has again demonstrated that seven years

in the political wilderness have not yet qualified them to be trusted again with

the governance of this province or the stewardship of this industry. That's

really my considered view, and I say that with some regret.

To be fair, the Leader of the Opposition would merely start with a

review of the treaty. But in the current environment and given the opposition's

clearly stated intention if returned to power, one must conclude that their

review of that treaty would inevitably lead to their attempt to withdraw from

the agreement, even though British Columbia is hardly in any position to exit

unilaterally from an international agreement entered into by the federal

government.

[1525]

Let's look at a few of the other pesky details. This agreement

between two nations, Canada and the United States, runs for a minimum of 18

months, from October 2006 until April 2008 — only a couple of months away. Then

the parties can give six months' notice of their desire to get out, which would

carry us forward to October 2008.

Under the terms of the agreement, if the United States terminates,

there's a standstill agreement. If the U.S. gives six months' notice in April,

there would be one year of free trade, and I put free trade, again, in quotation

marks. On the other hand, if it was Canada which abrogated, as happened in the

period 1986-87 through 1991, we could conceive again the possibility of the

Americans levying a border tax which could be multiples higher than the current

15 percent.

Let us simply say that if Canada abrogated, Washington might not

be amused, but the American softwood industry might be delighted. Draw your own

conclusions.

Under free trade conditions, since lumber prices have nosedived 60

percent off their high, there's little doubt that our American friends would cry

"dumping," and we would be into a litigation scenario. Pick your own countervail

percentage. It seems unlikely to be modest.

Under litigation, there would be no cap on the maximum duty

payable by the Canadians, unlike under the current agreement. If you think the

current U.S. presidential contest is spilling over with the milk of free trade

kindness, you haven't been paying attention.

We should not overlook that the last litigation period helped

fatten the wallets of the lawyers, not to mention armies of economists,

lobbyists and travel agents on both sides of the border. Legal bills on the

Canadian side of the border alone are estimated to have been in the $200 million

range, of which British Columbians paid about half. There's no reason to believe

that American legal bills were significantly lower. It's my personal observation

that the American bar tends to live rather handsomely.

Therefore, under the NDP's abrogation scenario, B.C. mill

netbacks, already insufferably low, would in all likelihood be further reduced

by American duties. Indeed, I would say it's anybody's guess whether there would

be any netback at all.

But if somehow we carried on exporting regardless, we should keep

in mind that last time under somewhat parallel conditions, the Americans

sequestered $4 billion U.S. — equivalent to about $5 billion Canadian at the

exchange rate of the day — of which ultimately, and only after strenuous hard

bargaining, about half was returned to B.C. shippers. It was no sure thing that

we would ever see a single red cent.

To sum up, therefore, the Leader of the Opposition's proposed

adventure in international diplomacy would impose huge costs on our forestry

companies and huge penalties on our forest communities.

The Canadian industry back east is already in arbitration over

alleged Quebec and Ontario subsidies to their forest industries. The Leader of

the Opposition would have us join Quebec and Ontario in that process — more Bay

Street lawyers, more bar bills at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, D.C.

[K. Whittred in the chair.]

In truth, the solution to our current industry dilemma is to get

unwanted lumber, which is pushing prices down to unheard-of levels, off the

market so that more sustainable pricing can be restored. In this regard, the

interests of the Canadian softwood industry and the interests of the American

softwood industry should dovetail neatly.

We are already seeing additional mill closures in B.C., and our

industry is being restructured with a

[ Page 10033 ]

vengeance — inevitable, of course, but of absolutely no comfort at all to the

millworkers pushed into the street.

[1530]

What is overlooked by the Leader of the Opposition is the growing

appetite of American lumber producers to reduce supply on their market, as they

view it, by virtually halting Canadian exports at the border. So if you think

things are tough now for forestry workers in Port Alberni or Williams Lake, just

contemplate that NDP scenario.

The wood industry on both sides of the border is being pummelled

by the combined forces of the U.S. sub-prime mortgage mess, declining U.S. home

prices, a 50 percent collapse in U.S. house construction and the consequent

oversupply of softwood lumber. In a conference call with analysts on February

21, Hank Ketcham of West Fraser Timber Co. described it as "a bloodbath out

there." We have not even gotten around to mentioning the beetles.

The Canadian industry is also being penalized by the unprecedented

strength of the Canadian dollar climbing to levels not seen in 35 years. The

U.S. dollar weakness is driven by American profligacy in things fiscal and

monetary, and in that regard Canadian virtue becomes our penalty.

Until stamina returns to the U.S. housing market, until certainty

returns to the U.S. mortgage market, until there is some further restructuring

of those packages of IOUs — bundled, sold, rebundled and resold by those clever

mathematical chaps in red suspenders from the University of Chicago business

school who we used to admire for being so smart — and until the U.S. dollar

shows some sort of recovery, which may depend on the presidential election, it's

hard to foresee any quick recovery for Canadian softwood lumber.

We could perhaps take some comfort from the United States history

of responding to their mistakes: diagnose the problem, take the awful-tasting

medicine quickly, don't spend too much time in bed, and bounce back quickly.

Let's hope American history repeats itself.

Meanwhile, the situation of our B.C. forest industry, for reasons

beyond our control, is not pretty. Let us, therefore, thank ourselves that the

opposition party in this province does not have its hands on the policy levers.

Surely they would, in short order, make a tough situation in our forest industry

much, much worse.

N. Macdonald: As always, it's a pleasure to speak and to

respond to the budget speech on behalf of the people of Columbia

River–Revelstoke.

I'll begin by saying that some odd things happened yesterday — two

things. One was that we had unanimous agreement in this House on an issue, and

it was to do with spending. That is not something that happens very often. There

was a supplementary bill that came in. It was for $1.2 billion or in that

neighbourhood. The interesting part of it is that it was tacked onto the

previous, or this year's, budget even though they were items that were talked

about in the throne speech and, in fact, even talked about in the budget speech.

So it was a bit of an odd thing that way.

We voted for it, and I was happy to do that for one reason in

particular. There was within that supplementary budget $262 million for an

endowment for the arts. That is something that is, I hope, going to be

administered in a way that is going to be very beneficial for something that is

important to me, which is the arts, the arts councils and heritage. That's

something in there that I'm really happy about.

Like I say, there were two things that were kind of odd, and the

other part of it is the $1.2 billion that the general public is going to imagine

is from this year's budget. It properly should be in the budget that we are

debating now. I did not hear any minister explain why it would be taken from

last year's budget other than what is the obvious answer — that they didn't want

it to show up in the 2008-2009 budget.

In fact, the budget that we are looking at and the one that I'm

now going to turn my attention to is a budget that forecasts a $50 million

surplus. But if you put in that $1.2 billion worth of spending, it really would

not have been a surplus. So we can call this the not-quite-balanced budget 2008

— a bit of smoke and mirrors with it.

[1535]

In fact, the other claims that are made about this budget — of it

being a green budget — are the same sort of smoke and mirrors. There's very

little in here that you could look at and say is going to be effective in what

the Premier has said is the intention of government, which is to deal

effectively with climate change. I think there are some fundamental weaknesses

in the approach that show up even in a budget that deals with the issue in such

a small, small way.

I have had the opportunity since the budget came through to travel

through the riding. I was in Cranbrook and Kimberley and had the opportunity

over the weekend to travel all the way through — had meetings in Golden — to

Revelstoke and back. So I was through most of the community and had an

opportunity to get some reaction to the budget.

There is no question that this budget ignores rural issues. The

things that people were talking about in our community meetings were not

addressed here in this budget. It should not be a surprise that they would be

ignored, because it is a government that consistently depends upon sloganeering

without the substance to make a real difference in people's lives. Anybody who

has looked back at that heartlands strategy and seen how empty it turned out to

be would understand that reality.

This is not a budget that addresses the things that are important

to rural British Columbians, and it unfairly targets rural residents in the

first attempt at dealing with greenhouse gases. People in Columbia

River–Revelstoke do not have an option of public transport, nor do they have the

option to use smaller vehicles. The gas tax is going to hit them harder.

Now, when I see ministers come and visit Golden or Revelstoke,

they do not come in a Smart car. They come in an SUV. That's what they rent

because, reasonably, you need to do that. So we don't have an option as to

whether we drive or not. We are not able to make those decisions.

[ Page 10034 ]

If you are going to move forward with greenhouse gas legislation,

what you would reasonably do is consider all parts of the province and make sure

that you come up with ideas that work for everyone in the province. But to do

that, you would have to listen to people. You would have to include them in the

conversation.

What I would point to is a fundamental weakness in the approach

that the government has taken on a very important issue. Let's be really clear.

All British Columbians want greenhouse gas climate change initiatives to work.

They want them to work, but if they're going to work, then people need to be

engaged and participate.

What is a common trend in this government, consistent in this

government, is the move to secrecy — the move to keep things in secret. We see

it with this climate change initiative. Huge amounts of money are being spent,

perhaps properly. We don't know. It's secret. We are not participating in any

open way. We cannot even get information on who is meeting with this

secretariat. What's clear is that rural people weren't invited, because we would

have given them ideas about how to move forward with a proper carbon tax.

But who does meet with them? We can get an idea from who is

exempted — cement industry, aluminum industry, gas and oil industry. Their

carbon emissions are not dealt with in this budget. They are not sharing the

load with people who are going to be driving and who need to heat their homes.

We're going to be paying more in rural areas, and those that seem to have access

to government are not going to be included.

The part that confuses people, as well, and makes them think there

is something less than genuine about the attempt to deal with climate change is

the $360 million subsidy to oil and gas. It seems incongruous with the speeches

that are made by the Premier about dealing seriously with climate change, but

what the Premier says and what happens…. There's often a gap there. It's easy to

recognize, but it's not something that people in rural areas accept.

[1540]

If we are going to move forward in climate change, then that

secrecy has to be taken away. We have to make sure that we engage all people in

British Columbia. We need to make sure that when we come forward with measures,

they are not just a simple gas tax — a gas tax that punishes rural areas — and

that some consideration is given to people who do not have the choices that the

Minister of Finance says we should have and the opportunity to make choices that

she says we should be making.

There was a hundred dollars that was put back. It's going to go to

each citizen. That was from last year's budget, apparently, and that is going to

be sent out to individuals.

In the grocery store, people were coming up to me. They didn't

like the gas tax, and they see the hundred dollars for what it is: a

pre-election gift of their own money. It's not something that is anything other

than that. To give that gift to every person — that pre-election little gift of

a hundred dollars — costs the government $10 million. So $10 million is going to

be wasted with that effort, and it's not the only waste that we see.

We fight for small amounts of money that would make a difference

in people's lives, and we can't get it. Very often we can't get it. Yet we see

gimmicks like this hundred dollars per person costing $10 million to administer,

and you think that's wasted money. But it's nowhere near the wasted money that

you see for advertising and how much money is spent on advertising — government

advertising that gives the government spin on one thing after another.

This is a Premier that came in promising not to do that sort of

thing. Well, times have changed, and they have changed pretty quickly. Tens of

millions wasted on government advertising.

Let's move on to some things that the people in rural communities

talk about but that don't show up in this budget at all, and the first one would

be forestry. Forestry is going to be hit hard by that gas tax. They will not

have options about the vehicles they use. They will not have options about where

they have to move personnel or how they move logs, and they will not be able to

pass along the costs.

So a community that is dependent on forestry is going to find out

that forestry, in a time of crisis…. They're going to have their challenges

increased with this gas tax. What consideration was given to that?

You look at the things that weren't there and that forestry

communities need. We have spoken a number of times in this House about the need

for community transition. Rural areas produce the wealth of much of this

province. There is no question. From my riding we light two million homes in the

lower mainland. My riding gave $20 billion from Kimberley mine — $20 billion.

You look at the billions and billions that have come in, in

forestry. But when those communities need help from the rest of the province,

with this government there is no attempt for transition. Those communities are

left on their own, and that should in no way be acceptable. There's no community

transition plan, even though mill after mill is going down.

What is the government going to do? Nothing. This budget makes it

clear. Is there any attempt to keep the industry a vital part of our future? It

seems self-evident to me that you would be doing everything you possibly could

to keep the industry healthy so that when it picks up…. And it will, because it

can be an incredibly efficient and productive industry, but you've got to get it

through the tough times.

The Social Credit used to do that; the NDP did that. It's

cyclical. It will come out, and it can be strong in the future. But it cannot be

strong if you allow the industry to disappear and if you do not think of new

ways of doing things. I'm happy that on our side, we've put forward new ideas.

But what we've seen in this budget is a complete absence of ideas and a complete

absence of anything to do with forestry. It is not there. Count the sentences.

You find one or two sentences. That's it.

[1545]

[ Page 10035 ]

What about poverty? In my area people do not accept the fact that

we have the highest child poverty in all of Canada, and we have had that for the

past four years. We have a growing divide between rich and poor. All of those

things in a small community, we do not accept. In our communities we look after

those that are at their weakest, those that are the poorest, and people accept

that as normal. I think that's the standard British Columbians would say they

accept.

We do not accept that our children should be living in poverty.

From a moral point of view, it's wrong. From a practical point of view, it is

wrong. They are our future. It is wasting the potential that they have if we

leave them in poverty. It should have been addressed. It should have been a

priority. Yet it is not even mentioned in this budget.

There is an acceptance by this government that poverty, child

poverty and family poverty are things that should be accepted and that there is

nothing this government intends to do to improve their lives. That's a problem.

That certainly does not sit with the values that you would find in the

Kootenays.

There are things that can be done. It would be simple to change

the minimum wage. That was not done.

Another issue came up again and again. It came up in meetings in

Revelstoke. It came up in meetings in Kimberley. They are dealing with it in

Invermere. They are dealing with it in Golden. It is the problem of affordable,

attainable housing. It is simply not possible to leave local government on its

own to deal effectively with this problem. There should be the province at the

table; there should be the federal government at the table. Again with this

budget, there is nothing to deal with the housing crisis.

It is a crisis in the East Kootenay, in Columbia River–Revelstoke.

You speak to people in those communities, and they will tell you that there

needs to be something from the province. Legislatively, they have made the

situation worse. They have allowed things to be done to the mobile home parks

which are destructive and cause a problem. They have allowed changes to

apartments, turning them essentially into condominiums. It's a problem. So

legislatively, there is a problem that this government helped to exacerbate.

There is a need for resources, and there's a need for some

leadership. That lack of housing, of course, comes with the purchase of second

homes out of Alberta. We have housing, but we do not have it so that it is

affordable for permanent residents.

Well, the complication that creates is: how do you attract people

to the community to live? You have a shortage of workers. You have a shortage of

people who are able to take the jobs that are there in the community. You cannot

be paid $8 and $9 an hour and live in a place like Invermere. It is impossible.

Yet if you are a business person, how do you run a motel, a hotel or a golf

course without that pool of labour?

Those are jobs that people would take and would enjoy. I've done

jobs like that, but when I worked in Invermere — in a restaurant, at a golf

course — I had housing that was affordable to me. It was reasonable. It does not

exist now, and yet the government ignores that even though local governments

have told them again and again that they have to be in there actively, as part

of a solution. But this budget does nothing for it.

What else are people talking about? Child care. It's not just

people involved in child care who say we have to get organized here. It's people

that are on the chamber of commerce. In fact, it's anybody who is dealing with

children. There's a realization, a recognition, that we have to figure out how

to do child care properly. Yet we have a federal government and a provincial

government that consistently fail us on that issue.

We've made a commitment that in 2009 we will put forward a child

care plan that is available to others. It will be something that people can

afford, and it will be of high quality. That is something that the government

that sits here, for the past seven years, should have done long ago. There

should be a child care plan. In our area it is self-evident. You don't talk to

anyone who doesn't see the need for a proper child care system, yet nothing is

done.

There are a host of women's issues that need to be addressed, and

yet again, that is not in this budget at all. It is not a priority of this

government.

[1550]

You have a host of needs in education. As everyone knows, rural

schools are being closed to this day. In my area we lost eight schools. There is

a problem with the funding formula. There is a problem with the resources that

are given to special needs. Again and again you have the minister stand up in

question period and throw out numbers, but there is a reality on the ground that

nobody can deny.

It is problematic to have schools in rural areas run with the

sorts of funding formulas that we have. Schools need to be a priority. It's what

people talk about. It makes complete sense that you would make that a priority

for this province. Any government that is in power should make that a priority.

Let's talk about another issue that is of importance. It's rural

highway maintenance. It is a complicated place to maintain highways. It always

has been; it always will be. But there is also a consistent concern about the

quality of highway maintenance in my part of the province.

There has been a lot of snow this year. There was a lot last year,

but that is always the way it has been. It is an area that is challenging, but

it's a place where we have to get road maintenance right. People's lives depend

upon it — visitors to our area. There are incredible numbers each day on the

Trans-Canada, but also residents who depend on that highway, who have no choice

but to use our roads each and every day to move our children, to go to work, to

visit others, to visit our neighbours. That's an area that should have been

addressed in the budget as well.

There is no question that we are going to pay more for

transportation. There is no question that we are going to pay more in rural

areas for our heating. There is no question that the tax breaks of $200 million

for the

[ Page 10036 ]

banks…. Our banking industry is not going to help individuals in my area. Is

that all that we're going to end up paying more for?

I'd like to talk for a minute about another concern, and that's

the fact that we're also going to be paying more for electricity. We are going

to pay more for electricity, and we are going to have that happen because of

this government's policy on private power producers. We are going to be paying

more for electricity needlessly.

In fact, as people come to fully understand…. I understand the

member for West Vancouver–Capilano said that he's going to start to look into

one of the power projects. I would invite all people, all members of the public,

to have a close look at these projects. There are some that make sense. There

are some that are small and what you would imagine them to be, hearing the

government propaganda.

But there are many that do not match in any way the words that

this government uses to describe them. They are not necessary. They are not in

any way benign. I think if the member looks at the project that was identified

to him, he would have serious concerns environmentally and would have serious

concerns economically, because we are going to pay more to get our electricity

unnecessarily.

If we took care of B.C. Hydro, if we allowed B.C. Hydro to operate

in the public interest, we would all be better served, but that is not what is

happening with this energy plan. This energy plan, and this move to private

producers, is a move that will benefit a very small number of people that are

very connected to the government. It will be seen by those who look at what is

taking place as one of the biggest giveaways in the history of this province.

There is no question that as people start to look at what is

taking place on our public lands, they are going to question more and more who

possibly would be allowing this to happen. Who would be giving away the

advantages that B.C. Hydro has provided to this province, and why?

Let's just talk about how the private power producers work. First,

there are sites that were identified. We'll use one type of private power

development. We'll talk about the so-called run-of-the-river projects. B.C.

Hydro used public money to identify those sites. So we paid; we paid to identify

the sites. Then in 2002 the sites that we paid for were given away for $5,000 to

$10,000 to private interests. They were given to private interests, and they got

the rights to those sites that we identified.

[1555]

Those sites were on public land, our land, and those sites were

going to use public water — our water. So we pay, we pay, and we pay. Then B.C.

Hydro's Liberal-appointed board required B.C. Hydro assets to be used to enter

into a contract, secret contracts for the most part, with these private power

developers.

We do know one thing. We do know they are going to be paid such a

huge amount of money that they're pretty well able to go to the bank with that

contract and get their project financed. So in essence, we build the project. We

find the site for them, we identify the site, we then give them our land, we

give them public water, and then we essentially pay for them to be built. Then

when they finish the 15-to-40-year contract, they get to sell the power anywhere

they want.

This power we're buying at many, many times the cost we should be

paying, and at the end we don't own that facility. It is owned by a private

developer. Many questions, when they start to read about it or understand it:

who would do that, and who are these people?

What I would ask people to do is have a look at who is benefiting

from those private power developments. Who are they, and who are they connected

to? Once people start to look at that, they will understand that this is the

biggest giveaway — one of the biggest giveaways — in the history of this

province, and we will pay.

We will pay, starting right away with higher hydro costs. Not only

that, these are isolated sites. How do you move the electricity from those

isolated sites to the grid? Well, who's going to pay for that? Yeah, we will.

There is a requirement the government made that B.C. Hydro or B.C. Transmission

Corp. is going to pay to connect for these companies. You cannot lose money on

these deals.

What is the public good? We are going to end up paying more. We

are going to end up paying more. The argument is made that there is an energy

shortage, and there are energy challenges. But much of the shortage is created

by numbers, and I'll give you an example. We buy electricity from Alberta —

coal, thermal-generated electricity. But we do that for economic reasons.

Because we have rivers that are dammed, we are able to store up

water and potential energy. We can generate that energy when we want. We store

it up, and we generate it at times of high demand. So when I'm in Revelstoke, if

I'm there at five in the afternoon, the river below Revelstoke dam that flows

right past Revelstoke will be flowing full out as we, with our publicly owned

company, generate lots of power to light and to heat and to help people in the

lower mainland cook. That is power that we can provide to people cheaply.

At two in the morning there's very little demand for power, so we

store up water, and the river in front of Revelstoke is very, very low. It

doesn't flow with very much power. In Alberta the coal-generated plants cannot

be put down or brought up that quickly. They remain producing the same amount of

power all the time. So we buy it from Alberta at pennies on the dollar. That

makes good business sense. It is how B.C. Hydro works in the public interest to

keep costs down.

B.C. Hydro should always be working in the public interest, but

what has happened is that you have decisions being made that have nothing to do

with the public interest. You have a misrepresentation purposely by this

government about the energy situation. It's misrepresented with claims like:

"We're being forced to import power from Alberta."

Well, we're not forced to. We do it because it makes good sense

to, and hopefully, we would always be doing it because it just makes good sense

at certain

[ Page 10037 ]

times to be buying power cheaply. That is something that I would say people

really need to watch carefully.

[1600]

Another thing people were saying is that there is so much focus on

the lower mainland that it's easy to feel left out. That's something we simply

don't accept as a reasonable outcome. It would be interesting to go through this

budget and just look at the costs of projects in the lower mainland, in

Vancouver. The convention centre. I think that in this budget there's — what? —

$300 million more for the convention centre and counting. There is….

Interjection.

N. Macdonald: The member brings up the Kicking Horse

project shared by the federal government and the provincial government, and the

member knows…. I think he mentioned it in question period today. You got my

title wrong. You were talking about the Kicking Horse project. The one bridge

has been something we've worked for a long time to get, and the minister knows

that it's something that I support.

What is needed is the completion of that project.

Interjection.

N. Macdonald: The minister points out the cost of that

bridge. What I would point out to the minister is that we have, from the border

to Kamloops, a need for infrastructure. We need that whole

section done. If

you're telling me that the federal government needs to be at the table, I would

agree with you. We've had that conversation before.

That whole

section needs to be done. The last stage of that

project needs to be completed. As it stands, the highway moves and comes to a

40-kilometre-an-hour corner. We move from four lanes to two lanes at a

40-kilometre-an-hour corner. As yet, the project sits uncompleted.

Is the bridge a positive thing? Yeah, you bet. Does more need to

be done? Yes.

With that, I would like to thank, as always, the House for the

opportunity to speak. I want to be clear that this is a budget that does not

address the needs of rural British Columbians. I want to be clear that it is a

budget that does not meet the basic needs for British Columbians in terms of the

things that most should be concerned about.

By ignoring forestry, by ignoring child care and by ignoring

poverty issues, they have really done a disservice. As well, they have ignored

the needs of seniors, and that is something that I will continue to address in

this House.

With that, I see that my time is up, and I thank you.

J. Nuraney: I want to commence my remarks by saying that

the member for Columbia River–Revelstoke began his remarks by saying that he did

support the supplementary budgets that were presented before this House and

voted in favour. I am very pleased to see and hear that all of them across the

floor supported the budget that this government presented before them on the

supplementary estimates.

How can any reasonable man not support a budget that is good for

all British Columbians? I hope that as time and days go by, when we come to

voting for the budget, the members opposite will understand the real purpose and

the real intention behind this budget, which is to improve the lives of all

British Columbians. I look forward to the day when the vote is presented in the

House and we once again see a complete consensus and unanimity.

[1605]

I would like to begin my remarks today with the acknowledgment of

the people