2010 Legislative Session: Second Session, 39th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for

informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

official report

Debates of the Legislative Assembly

(hansard)

Monday, May 17, 2010

Morning Sitting

Volume 17, Number 6

CONTENTS

Page

Orders of the Day

Private Members' Statements

Moving ahead with Gateway

D. Hayer

H. Bains

Crime and punishment

M. Farnworth

J. Les

Positive signs in the forest industry

J. Rustad

B. Routley

Pay equity

K. Corrigan

J. McIntyre

Private Members' Motions

Motion 10 — Investment in capital projects

R. Sultan

B. Ralston

D. Barnett

J. Kwan

R. Howard

D. Donaldson

M. Dalton

R. Chouhan

S. Cadieux

[ Page 5365 ]

MONDAY, MAY 17, 2010

The House met at 10:02 a.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

Private Members' Statements

Moving Ahead with Gateway

D. Hayer: I rise today,

as I have often in this Legislature, to talk about the Gateway project and the impact

it will have on my city of Surrey, on British Columbia, on Canada and throughout

North America. The Gateway project, as we see it primarily today, is a construction

project creating the new ten-lane Port Mann bridge and the North and South Fraser

perimeter roads.

[C. Trevena in the chair.]

It is far more than just a collection of improved transportation

corridors. The gateway, properly known as the Asia-Pacific gateway, is all about

growing the economy and about how British Columbians will benefit through thousands

of new jobs, long-term secure prosperity and the transformation of B.C. as North

America's trade powerhouse.

In recent years Asian countries — significant among

them China, Korea, Taiwan, Japan and India — have not only become enormous producers

of goods. Their increasingly wealthy and fast-growing populations are now huge consumers

of products we generate here in North America and in British Columbia. British Columbia,

with North America's closest and best deep-sea ports — Prince Rupert, Vancouver,

Roberts Bank, Deltaport and the Fraser-Surrey docks — is poised to take advantage

of that.

We have the ports, and with the work now undertaken

by our government to develop the new ten-lane Port Mann bridge in my riding, the

perimeter roads and all the infrastructure improvements taking place — including

the improvement to all the interchanges, the widening of Highway 1 from Langley

to Vancouver and the South Fraser perimeter road and all the other infrastructure

improvements that are taking place, as I have stated — we will have an excellent

transportation corridor route in British Columbia. It will provide access to all

those billions of consumers in Asia.

To be clear, we are not just stopping at improving on

the ground right here. As I speak, our Premier and the Premiers of Alberta and Saskatchewan

are in Asia promoting western Canada trade. They are also opening up trade offices

in these countries, as we have in India, where I travelled earlier this year to

celebrate the new offices we opened in Chandigarh and Bangalore.

[1005]

The Premier will be discussing all aspects of trade,

letting the people of Asia know that we are the quickest, easiest and best route

to the markets in North America. And we can provide across Canada access to Europe

as well. This government and our Premier have a vision that will not only improve

the economic climate following the recession; it will strengthen the economy of

our provinces and our country for decades to come.

In the 19th century people on the east coast of this

continent heard the refrain, "Go west, young man," for economic prosperity. Well,

in the 21st century we are looking west again — west to the eastern nations that

have great products to sell to us and a vast number of consumers to buy our products,

produced right here in British Columbia and in Canada.

In fact, Madam Speaker, just yesterday the successful

efforts in Asia are paying off, with an announcement that China National Building

had signed a major purchase agreement with B.C.'s Tolko Industries Ltd. for B.C.

wood products. This means Tolko now ships the equivalent of two full sawmills' production

to China, supporting 400 mills and woodlands jobs right here in British Columbia.

But we need an excellent transportation system to move those goods and products

either way, and that's what the Gateway project is all about.

It is a key in establishing British Columbia as China's

Pacific gateway and fostering increased Asia trade and investment opportunities

in B.C.-based companies. The Asia-Pacific has the potential to drive B.C.'s economic

prosperity for decades, with $76 billion in additional annual trade with an employment

impact of up to 255,000 jobs by 2020. To seize that advantage, it is important that

we expand and improve our infrastructure system to handle the growing volume of

shipping business that will flow between our continents.

I also want to note that improvements we are making

are not simply to improve trade routes. We are also improving the lives of British

Columbians, particularly those who live in Surrey and the Fraser Valley. The new

Port Mann bridge in my constituency will eliminate the traffic gridlock that exists

more than 14 hours every day. It will eliminate the air pollution created by those

tens of thousands cars and trucks in the traffic jam. People will be able to get

to work faster and home quicker.

For the first time in 20 years they will be able to

use buses to cross the Port Mann bridge. Transporting people in a green form of

transit will benefit our environment. It will include bicycle lanes and pedestrian

lanes. The new bridge will streamline the flow of commercial traffic. It will, at

the same time, save time for commuters. They'll be able to spend more time with

their families instead of stuck in the traffic. At the same time it will save the

provincial economy more than $1.5 billion a year.

[ Page 5366 ]

We have four-laned the Pacific Highway, 176th Street

from the U.S. border to Highway 1. We have also four-laned the Fraser Highway and

Highway 10, which improves east-west traffic flow through Surrey. We started the

work on the Gateway project in 2003 in response to the impact on growing regional

congestion and to improve the movement of people, goods and transit throughout Metro

Vancouver and the Fraser Valley.

We are growing at a marked rate. Surrey, in particular,

is experiencing significant growth and is one of the fastest-growing regions in

Canada. Approximately 1,000 new residents each month move to Surrey and call it

home. Surrey is expected to become the largest city in British Columbia, surpassing

Vancouver within 15 years. Yet with all this growth and good environment, we have

seen no significant infrastructure improvement since the 1980s. Today those improvements

are coming.

[1010]

H. Bains: It is a pleasure

for me to stand here and respond to the member's statement.

Madam Speaker, when I was preparing this morning about

responding to this title called "Moving Ahead with Gateway," I thought that the

member, on behalf of his government, the Liberal government, would stand up here

today and come up with some contrition about why, after making an announcement years

ago about how much taxpayer money they would be spending on the Gateway project,

they didn't have any consultation with the public.

I thought he would stand up on behalf of the Liberal

government and apologize to the north Surrey residents in Whalley — how their neighbourhood

will be affected by this project, why we neglected and ignored their concerns. I

thought he would stand up here and talk to the residents of North Delta and explain

to them why they refused to consult with them, why they refused to listen to their

suggestions about rerouting the South Fraser perimeter road, why they basically

ignored the concern brought to them about the 300 acres or so that we are taking

out of the ALR and why we are actually encroaching more and more into the Burns

Bog.

I thought he would stand up on behalf of the Liberal

government and say: "Look, we're sorry. Yes, you know, these projects are important.

There are some economic benefits to the region, but we're sorry that we forgot or

we ignored your concerns." I thought he would set some records straight. What you

hear is, I think, a re-announcement of the same.

If you go back and look at the announcement made by

the minister years ago, I think, word for word, it was almost the same as the member

has stood up and read. I think this is the same old sloganeering coming up from

this member and the rest of the Liberal members on that side day in and day out.

People of this province are looking for some direction, some leadership. They are

looking for some substance behind these statements and these slogans, but it's not

coming. He's repeating the same old rhetoric — an announcement of the same announcement.

What I see here today unfolding, I think, is the same

thing that they have done with the Surrey Memorial Hospital: first, the announcement

that we have listened to the people of Surrey and that: "Yes, you know, we are going

to expand the Surrey Memorial Hospital." Then there was an announcement of when

we are going to start building that expansion.

Then there's an announcement of the cost. Then there's

an announcement that, yes, we have picked up the contractor. Then there's an announcement

of where the expansion is going to be built and an announcement that we are tearing

down the old building where the new expansion is going to go. I think that's the

same thing that's unfolding here.

He failed to explain the effect on the truckers in the

Port Mann and on the Highway 1 expansion — how they are being affected. The contractor

was given a fixed contract at the price that was prevailing at the time, two years

ago, at the highest of the construction cost. Today there's a windfall profit by

that contractor, and that contractor now is paying much less than what it actually

takes to operate a truck in a safe manner. He failed to explain that again, hear

why they are not going back to that contractor.

Either that money comes back to the province, or those

truckers and all those contractors will be paid the amount of money that, actually,

the contractor is going to charge the government and the taxpayers.

I think it's about time that this member and the rest

of the Liberal government members stop undermining the intelligence of British Columbians.

That's exactly what they're doing — announcement, announcement of another announcement.

They fail to explain why, on the South Fraser perimeter road, the province and the

taxpayers are taking the bigger risk in preloading. They failed to explain why $400

million, which was the initial cost of the South Fraser perimeter…. Why has that

cost gone up to $1.2 billion?

Maybe this member is saying that this Liberal government

does not actually have any intention of complying with what they announce, but in

this particular case, because they have chosen a contractor for the South Fraser

perimeter, they actually are going to go ahead with this project. Perhaps that's

what he's trying to say: that we have changed, that this project will go through

and that we have contractors in some of the other areas.

[1015]

D. Hayer: I thank the

member for his response, but I want to remind the member, if he cares to look back

at the records, that this was one of the longest consultations in transportation

history for the South Fraser

[ Page 5367 ]

perimeter road or the Gateway program. Over 10,000 people participated in the years'

worth of discussions. The South Fraser perimeter road has been part of the regional

plan for over 20 years. The NDP and this member love to talk, but they never like

to act.

Madam Speaker, at this time I will remind you of this.

When our government first announced the new Port Mann bridge to be built, it was

his Leader of the Opposition who said that it was the wrong bridge in the wrong

place. She was wrong.

I was hoping this member would say that he disagreed

with his leader and say: "Look, actually we need to have a twinning of the Port

Mann Bridge. We need to widen Highway 1. We need to ten-lane Highway 1 from Langley

to Vancouver. We need to make sure the South Fraser perimeter road is built, because

our truckers and our workers need it. We need to make sure these improvements are

good for our constituents." Many of his constituents who are truckers use that road.

They need it.

The Surrey Board of Trade and the Surrey Chamber of

Commerce have talked about it for more than 25 years. They wanted the government

to make changes on it. This member's government was in power for ten years. They

never did anything. They made no improvements. They insulted the trucking industry.

They insulted the Surrey constituents. They made sure we were stuck in the traffic.

Sometimes it takes an hour and a half to get to the Port Mann Bridge from my constituency,

when it should be a five-minute drive.

By having the South Fraser perimeter road, it will make

sure truckers can move quicker and safer. It will take them off the local road on

this regional highway. That will be good for everyone. This will save $1.5 billion

to the economy. This will be good for the parents who are driving their kids to

the playgrounds, the schools, the shopping centres, because it will eliminate a

lot of the traffic. This is environmentally friendly.

This is the first time the Port Mann Bridge is going

to have buses moving on it for the last 25 years. It's been more than 25 years since

the rapid bus transit system has moved on it. Actually, as a matter of fact, we

are putting the largest investment in bicycle lanes, and Port Mann Bridge is going

to be having bicycle lanes beside it and a pedestrian lane.

I was hoping this member of the opposition would be

supporting all those things instead of what he and the NDP do all the time — just

speaking negatively, opposing everything government tries to do. Instead of showing

an alternative, instead of constructive criticism, instead of finding solutions,

all they do is oppose everything. I was hoping this member would have changed that.

Deputy Speaker: Thank

you, Member.

D. Hayer: Madam Speaker,

I'll have more to say later on. I'm sorry I ran out of time.

crime and punishment

M. Farnworth: I want to

talk today about crime and punishment. I want to start off by saying that one of

the things that I am particularly pleased about in my constituency is how my constituents

are very clear in telling me what they want to see from government and what they

want to see in the form of public policy when it comes to issues around crime and

punishment.

Public safety is a top-of-mind issue for people in my

constituency. People in my constituency, and I think the public in general, have

very strong views in terms of crime, how it impacts on them and the scourge that

it is in our communities. People have watched as gang violence over the last number

of years has reached levels that we haven't seen for a long, long time, and they've

been extremely concerned about that.

They've been extremely concerned about violent crime

and the nature of violent crime and some of the horrific crimes that have taken

place and what they see as some of the flaws in terms of the justice system, in

terms of dealing with violent crime.

They want to ensure that those who engage in violent

crime, particularly repeat offenders, are dealt with by the court system and by

the justice system in a way that ensures they are not out on the streets to be able

to reoffend and that when someone injures someone deliberately and maliciously,

the penalties in place are in fact penalties that will not only deter individuals

but, more importantly, will ensure that they're not able to do those types of crimes

again into the future.

[1020]

We've all seen on the news some of the terrible tragedies

that have taken place over the last number of years, and the public is extremely

concerned about that. I want to talk about that. But I also want to talk about two

other areas that the public is concerned about. As I said, they want to ensure that

people who engage in violent crime — gang crime, repeat violent offences — are dealt

with by the courts and that the penalties are commensurate with the type of crime,

in that they are severe penalties and ensure that, as I said, people are off the

street.

People also recognize that the crime needs to be dealt

with on another angle, and that's around the area of prevention — that is, deterring

people at the beginning from entering into the criminal justice system, ensuring

that we're doing everything that we can to ensure, or that we have the ability to

ensure that people, particularly young people, are steered away from running into

problems with the justice system.

There are a number of programs in my particular area

— restorative justice, for example — which have been very successful and supported

by the police, the com-

[ Page 5368 ]

munity and local councils, which would like to see more attention paid to it. There

have been issues around the funding around restorative justice that are causing

a lot of communities concern, and this is something that I believe needs to be addressed.

We need to be ensuring that, on the one hand, while

we have the penalties in place to deal with violent crime and those who would thumb

their nose at how civilized people behave in our society.... We also need to make

sure that we have in place programs such as restorative justice, which ensure that

there are alternative ways of dealing with offenders, particularly those who are

coming into contact with the justice system for the first time.

We also need to recognize that there is a group of individuals

who for too long have been ignored in our system, and those are victims. We need

to ensure that victims and their rights are also respected within the justice system,

and there are issues there that need to be dealt with.

I want to come back just for a minute, though, to the

issue of prevention. I've mentioned the area around the issue of penalties, and

I know some of those need to be done in Ottawa. But some of those that we've advocated

on this side of the House before, that I've advocated for in the fight against gang

crime…. There have been some changes that have been made, which we support.

We think more needs to be done, for example, around

the issue of tracking the money and tracking ill-gotten gain. We'd like to see additional

auditors hired whose sole job is to audit and go after the money of those associated

with gang crimes. So in essence, we're being more aggressive on the confiscation

of the proceeds of crime, and we're expanding it by providing additional resources,

by having more auditors who can follow the trails of money, because I think that

is one of the more effective ways of dealing with tracking crime.

As I said, we need to ensure that we're dealing on the

prevention side not just with programs or restorative justice but also in our school

system, which means having the funds in place targeted to deal with the issue of

gangs and, finally, in dealing with the issues around victims. I think one of the

areas of victims that's particularly important is victims' rights to know.

Too often victims are left in the dark about what's

taking place in the court system. Too often they are left in the dark as to how

an individual with an extensive and lengthy criminal record can be out on the street

again, and that is something that we have to change.

I think we need to look seriously at and work with groups

involved with victims. FACT, Families Against Crime and Trauma, is an example of

a group that's trying to change that, and we need to do that by listening to what

they have to say and putting some of those programs into play.

One of the key ones around that is, I think, having

and devoting more time to putting into place a program so that individuals understand

what's happening in the justice system, because too often they don't. Too often

they feel as though they're being ignored when, in fact, they have a right and should

have a right to know exactly what's going on. In my response I'm going to talk a

little bit further about that.

This is a very important issue that is of top of mind

for my constituents, and I look forward to hearing the response from the government

benches.

[1025]

J. Les: I'm pleased to

be able to respond to the member for Port Coquitlam this morning on a topic that

is of great importance to us all. There's no question about it. Not a whole lot

of partisanship, actually, on this particular issue. I think we all share the same

goal. Public safety is paramount. It's one of the primary things that we're here

to ensure actually occurs in our community so that people can go about their business

without concern for their personal safety.

Happily, I can advise the House that we've been pretty

aggressive as a government in dealing with some of these challenges when, for example,

since 2001 we've increased the complement of police officers in our communities

by some 1,100 members over that nine-year period of time. That's a pretty significant

increase.

We've also given considerable extra resources to communities

to enable them to hire additional police officers, as well, when we return all traffic

fine revenue to these communities. That's almost $300 million in resources that's

gone to communities, cities and towns across the province of British Columbia.

We've also done, I think, a great job of integrating

police forces across the province to respond effectively to criminal challenges,

such as the Combined Forces Special Enforcement Unit, the Organized Crime Agency,

the Integrated Gang Task Force, the Outlaw Motorcycle Gang Unit and other integrated

units that have performed extremely well in addressing some of these issues.

In late 2007, given the upsurge in drug-related gang

violence that we saw at that time, the Uniform Gang Task Force was created, which

operated mostly in the Lower Mainland. That directly resulted in 124 charges being

laid, 39 firearms seizures, four armoured car seizures and six seizures of body

armour — and that was just in the first year of its operation.

It's also important to give the police forces the tools

that they need. The police records information management environment technology,

or PRIME for short, is a great data-management system that probably leads North

America in giving police the ability to handle information on the street, where

they operate, giving them real-time information when they need it. Those are just

a few of the initiatives that have been undertaken in the last several years.

[ Page 5369 ]

The other thing to keep in mind is that we have developed

through all of this a very effective relationship with the federal government. The

Criminal Code, as we all know, and the various changes that need to be made from

time to time are the responsibility of the federal government.

Because of the very good and effective relationship

that we have with the federal government, we were able to take the lead in advocating

for changes to the Criminal Code so that, for example, we're eliminating this notion

of two-for-one credits where people waiting for their trials to occur were getting

two days of credit for every day that they served — and sometimes deliberately so.

The public, and I think most of us in this House, found that particularly offensive,

and that has been effectively dealt with through changes in federal legislation.

Bill C-46 was another piece of legislation that we advocated

strongly for, given the new technologies that are available on an ongoing basis

today. These are taken advantage of not only by society at large but certainly specifically

by the criminal element as well, and police need effective powers to deal with those

new and emerging technologies.

Also, Bill C-15, which imposes mandatory penalties on

drug producers and traffickers, was something that our government advocated strongly

for, and this, too, has now passed into law in Ottawa and is another, I think, important

initiative that people solidly support.

Finally, Bill C-14, which makes murders connected to

organized crime activity automatically murder in the first degree, again signalling

the attitudes of, I believe, all of us that the organized drug trade and the organized

crime that evolves from that is simply unacceptable and that a forceful response

by government was called for.

[1030]

M. Farnworth: I thank

my colleague for his comments. Yes, a number of things have been done. But I would

feel and I think the public would take greater comfort if the government wasn't

always so reactive and would be a bit more proactive, particularly in a number of

areas, and less dismissive when positive suggestions are made to them.

I'm reminded of two right off the top. One was the issue

around gang colours. Initially the government thought they would consider it; other

provinces have done it — the banning of gang colours as a tool for the police against

organized crime. Then they decided that no, they weren't going to do it.

We saw on the issue of body armour — again, a suggestion

raised from this side of the House and by the public — that the government dismissed

it as not something worth doing. Then they turned around after continued public

pressure, and in fact did do it. I wish, in that sense, that the government would

be a bit more proactive.

Even in our dealings with Ottawa around the issue of

the two-for-one sentencing, it took quite some time to get there. One of the more

disturbing things is that sometimes they just stay silent. When the crime bills

that the member trumpets fell off the table because of prorogation, not a peep from

the government side.

I want to come back to what, I think, is one of the

key issues. That's around the issues of victims and victims of crime and how they

need to be better served. I'm thinking of the case of Jesse Penner in my own constituency.

He was killed in a vicious knife attack. His father Gord Penner and others have

been fighting for justice, and continue to fight for justice.

One of the key issues that they want and that we have

to find a way to deal with is that they don't receive information. They feel like

they are isolated within a system that ignores their needs. It's not good enough

for us to say, "Oh, we have a victims of crime fund," when in fact what's required

is for them to be able to understand what's taking place, to get answers from government,

to get answers from the justice system as to why decisions unfolded the way they

have.

How is it that someone can be involved in ten or 15

violent offences, keep going back on the street and then, when something terrible

happens, the family involved in the tragedy is told nothing? They have no understanding

of how the system has failed them and how it has failed an individual in terms of

them constantly being back out on the street. That's something that needs to be

addressed.

Issues such as wage loss are things that we've tried

to address by our private member's bill. Hon. Speaker, I will talk about this at

another time.

POSITIVE SIGNS

IN THE FOREST INDUSTRY

J. Rustad: It's a pleasure

today to rise to talk about the positive signs in the forest industry. When you

think about the forest industry and you think about the challenges that we've been

facing over the last three or four years, you might find it odd to talk about positive

signs in the forest industry. But the fact is that our forest industry, which has

been so important to our province for so long, has gone through many cycles throughout

its history.

I've been involved in forestry pretty much all my life.

I've gone through many of those cycles and seen how things have gone and what happens

when we pick up from the cycles. There's no question that this last three- to four-year

period for the industry has been tougher than just about any one I can remember

in my time around forestry.

I remember the time in '81-82 when the forest industry

went through a significant downturn, and we had very high unemployment rates. Similarly,

in the early

[ Page 5370 ]

'90s we went through some challenges, and back in the '70s and '60s, going back

quite a ways.

This previous turndown, actually, was quite pronounced

because of what had happened in the U.S. housing market. The U.S. housing market

topped out in about 2006-2007 at around two million homes. That's huge in terms

of the overall demand for our lumber and our lumber exports going down to the States.

As that declined to 450,000 to 550,000 housing starts,

of course there was a ton of production that came off line, not just in B.C. but

across North America and, indeed, actually around the world. That production that

has come off line, of course, is simply that when prices drove down, we ended up

hitting, I think, $127 a thousand board feet back a few years ago. I mean, companies

just can't make money at that rate.

[1035]

But we're in a different situation now. Because of that

decline, because of that change, as we start progressing, what we're seeing is that

lumber prices have been recovering. They hit up into the $350 range just in the

last few weeks. They pulled back a little bit from there just in the last week,

but those lumber prices have gone up at a time when housing starts haven't really

picked up much in the States.

The interesting thing is that the supply-demand scenario

has changed. Because of all those productions that have come off, particularly stuff

in eastern Canada and down in the States and some here in B.C., we don't have the

same type of supply that we used to have. That has changed the dynamics somewhat

in our forest industry and has created some opportunities for us here in B.C.

Coupled with that, we also have a very interesting situation

in China. Typically, we have put about 80 percent, 90 percent of our lumber into

the United States. The vast majority of what we produce goes into that market. Now,

the Chinese market is starting to grow significantly in demand, to the point where

it has changed what we do in our province, and it has changed how much we're shipping

now to the U.S.

Just some stats around that. The annual lumber shipments

to China are now six times greater than they were in 2003. That equates to 1.63

billion board feet last year or more than twice what it was from the previous year

in 2008. We have a goal to try to achieve three billion board feet this year shipping

into China. As of the first two months of the year, we actually shipped 296 million

board feet to China, which is more than double the amount compared to last year,

so we're on track to be able to achieve those goals.

You might say: "Why is that important? What's the significance

of that?" As that lumber comes out of going to the U.S. and starts going to China

and as those markets develop over there, that creates a different supply dynamic

for forest products in North America and, quite frankly, everywhere. That's a very

positive opportunity for us as a province, and we are trying to take advantage of

that.

We're working with China. We're working with, actually,

many of the Asian countries, but particularly China. We're working with them around

trying to get wood trusses in the houses, trying to build large buildings utilizing

wood, trying to understand what they can do with wood products.

It's actually having a great effect. We're seeing in

China that demand change. We're seeing some of those patterns change, as the Chinese

learn that building with wood is faster, it's better from an environmental perspective,

it's more resilient in terms of earthquakes and other types of challenges, natural

disasters that can happen. That is slowly changing how they build and how they do

things.

When you think about a country that has 1.2 billion

people, a slow change for them means a rapid opportunity for us. We recognize, of

course, that in our province, being able to set the stage to be able to take advantage

of that, we also need to build and encourage construction. We need to be able to

encourage investment in the forest industry in B.C.

I happened across an interesting quote the other day

around this, and in particular, it's with regards to HST. This is from Jim Shepard,

the president and CEO of Canfor in August of last year. He said: "Without investment,

there are no jobs, and what this does" — it's talking about the HST — "is that it's

one small step, but it's a significant step, in making our manufacturing sector

look attractive and competitive."

That's the key, Madam Speaker, in terms of what we need

to be doing going forward. We need to make sure that we have the right environment,

the right opportunity to be able to attract the capital, to be able to create those

jobs and take advantage of those markets and that changing supply-demand scenario.

We're seeing that across the province there have been

enormous amounts of investment that have actually started to happen in our forest

industry. Many of the mills are now running double shifts. They are back up and

running. There are some new mills that are opening, and we're seeing signs of a

very positive change in the industry. The forest industry is actually optimistic

about where their future will be.

New revenue streams, such as bioenergy and new opportunities

for products are all adding to that new attitude, that new opportunity that we have

in the province that is coming forward, that new optimism.

[1040]

I'm about to turn it over to the opposition for some

comment about this, but I will close in my comments afterwards with a list of some

of these activities that are happening around the province. It is quite extensive,

and I believe that it shows that we are taking the right steps. We're moving in

the right direction to be able to

[ Page 5371 ]

create that positive opportunity and to be able to take advantage of what the world

presents us.

J. Horgan: I seek leave

to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

J. Horgan: Joining us

in the gallery today is Ms. Shaw and 28 grade 8 students from Spencer Middle School

in Langford in the heart of the constituency of Juan de Fuca. Would the House please

make all of these students very, very welcome.

Debate Continued

B. Routley: I certainly

am happy to agree that any signs of improvement in the forest industry is indeed

good news. Unfortunately, I am not so optimistic in the shorter term, and I certainly

have to look at what the factors are that are behind the current turnaround in the

industry.

Global but somewhat temporary factors have affected

supply. These include weather-related work stoppages in the southern United States,

an earthquake in Chile, a port strike in Finland, and a new log export tax in Russia.

This is what was stated by Andrew Casey, vice-president of trade of the Forest Products

Association of Canada. He recently pointed out that there are somewhat temporary

events taking place.

I would hope that China does pan out to be the market

that we all hope it to be. Unfortunately, a lot of what they're buying right now

are lower-cost and lower-value products.

I want to turn away from markets and talk about…. In

the longer term there is definitely going to be a supply problem. Part of that supply

problem worldwide is because of what's happening with climate change and the impact

that that's having on forests. We don't have to look any further than right here

in British Columbia. We've seen more than 15 million hectares of forests suffer

the assault from the mountain pine beetle and other bugs.

As a result of this dramatic increase in the frequency….

We've had a dramatic increase in the size and frequency of wildfires here in British

Columbia. Obviously, we all hope that that doesn't happen this year, but with all

that dead and dying wood all over British Columbia, all it takes is a lightning

strike to get that started. At risk are our watersheds, our parks and our present

and future timber supply. The structures of entire ecosystems are affected. Plant

and animal species are at risk. Our communities and environment and economy are

profoundly affected.

We have a responsibility to act now. What I'm concerned

about is that I don't see the members on the other side taking the necessary steps

to protect our forests. It's not just the opposition saying that. You need to look

no further than the Western Silvicultural Contractors Association. Look at their

website, and see what they have to say about the future of forests in British Columbia.

They're indeed under threat. We've got the 15 million

hectares of forest that have been affected by the mountain pine beetle, and somewhere

between three and six million hectares will not regenerate naturally and will require

tree planting.

Unfortunately, we're going the other way. We're planting

fewer trees. The member opposite is the Parliamentary Secretary for Silviculture

to the Minister of Forests, and I would hope that he would act aggressively to seek

changes to the way we're going to less planting. We need to be aggressively planting

our forests and dealing with the dead and dying forests of British Columbia.

But they go on to say that this is going to require

that we plant over six billion trees — six billion trees. With the province's current

approach, it's going to take years to accomplish, instead of getting on the job

right now.

[1045]

We've also got the problem of not sufficiently restocked

land. We've got an estimated 700,000 hectares that have suddenly appeared on the

books that need reforestation. That not sufficiently restocked land is the equivalent

of 1,750 Stanley Parks, if you can imagine that. It's a huge area and a very serious

issue that needs to be addressed.

Healthy trees and forests are at the heart of the economy

of British Columbia. We are far from a sunset industry, although we're never going

to return to the same level of production that we once were able to do. We've lost

almost 50 percent of the mills in British Columbia. Huge numbers of mills have closed,

and I'm not so optimistic about the investment. In fact, we've seen investment since

2009 that's almost nonexistent.

J. Rustad: I want to thank

the member for Cowichan Valley for his response to my statement here.

I just want to start with a couple of things. The member

said he hasn't seen any evidence of investment. Well, how does this sound? As of

June 1 now, the mill in Quesnel by Canfor will be opening up, starting up new. The

exciting thing about that mill is that a hundred percent of its fibre is going to

be dedicated to the China market. That's all qualities of fibre.

On May 17 the Canfor Chetwynd mill will have started

up with one shift, with a $20 million investment in new equipment. That's coming

up here just today, as a matter of fact. That's opening up. The mill for Canfor

has also been started up with investment and opening up now for two shifts. That's

the Mackenzie Canfor operation.

Conifex has just bought the Mackenzie mill. That deal

is hoping to be completed by June 1, and they'll hopefully be back up and running

by late summer.

[ Page 5372 ]

Fort St. John — a $45 million upgrade to the Canfor

operations up there and also pumping out the wood. That's a pretty significant investment

that's already been made.

Fort St. James. Conifex just completed a $10 million

upgrade in my riding and is planning to go to two shifts there on August 1.

Radium and Vavenby. Both are looking towards the potential

for restarting this summer. Isle Pierre mill, another Canfor operation, just completed

$5 million of upgrades. Another mill in my riding, the Apollo, is looking at the

opportunity to perhaps invest some money. Pinnacle Pellet is making an investment

to create a pellet mill in Burns Lake. The list goes on and on in terms of the amount

of investment.

The real key to that investment is: why are they making

those investments? If there's such a concern with mid-term fibre supply, why would

companies make those kinds of investments? They're making those investments because

they believe in the future of the forest industry. They believe in the opportunities

that we have in this province, and they believe in the scenarios that are happening

around the world. That is phenomenal when you think about what forestry means to

us as a province.

Adding to that list, Harmac is also adding a second

line, bringing the total number of employees working at that mill to 265 and bringing

on another 50 percent in production. Adams Lake Lumber is up and running on a five-day

workweek with a one-shift capacity in both the new $100 million state-of-the-art

sawmill and the planer mill. Interfor is increasing its hours 65 percent with the

move.

All of this, when you look at what's happening, is pretty

incredible. I have companies around my riding today that have never been busier

than what they have seen because of these investments, because of these changes.

I am very optimistic about the future. It is a great

time to be in forestry.

Pay Equity

K. Corrigan: A decade

ago, in the year 2000, ten years ago, the Ministry of Women's Equality sought British

Columbians' response to a discussion paper on women's economic security and pay

equity. One submission noted that while there had been some progress over the past

decade in narrowing the wage gap between women and men who work full-time, full-year

jobs, women in British Columbia at that time still made only 73 cents for every

dollar earned by men.

The submission also highlighted the successful Vancouver

Island Highway project and said that that kind of model should be used for future

equity initiatives in training and hiring.

[1050]

The first of its kind in Canada, this large-scale construction

project was accomplished within budget and on time, while at the same time meeting

the social objectives of hiring local labour and mounting a significant training

program specifically for women and First Nations people.

That was a decade ago. I would love to be able to stand

here and say that it didn't matter that the present government abolished the Ministry

for Women's Equality, that it didn't matter that pay equity initiatives had been

reversed, that it didn't matter that initiatives like the Vancouver Island Highway

training program had been abandoned — in fact, that significant gains had been made

and that the equity gap in the intervening ten years had been wiped out.

What is the reality for women ten years later? Women

are losing ground, with women only making about 70 cents now for every dollar earned

by men. British Columbia has had the highest child poverty rate in the country for

six years running, and the families that these impoverished children live in are

vastly, disproportionately headed up by single-parent mothers. Single mothers remain

the poorest family type in Canada, and immigrant women, senior single women, women

with disabilities are all disproportionately poor.

Women continue to disproportionately be minimum-wage

workers. Traditional women's jobs continue to be low-paying jobs, and labour market

discrimination continues to undervalue and underpay or not pay at all for the work

that women do. The glass ceiling still exists.

At the same time there appears to be an intentional

abandonment of any recognition that gender inequality even exists in British Columbia.

Government has become gender-blind. This gender blindness, not coincidentally, has

emerged as both federal and provincial governments have systematically dismantled

or removed support for institutions dedicated to supporting women — things like

removing funding for women's centres, the court challenges program, legal aid, and

I could go on and on.

If we are ever going to address women's inequality,

the first thing we must do is to recognize its existence. We must start to look

at government policy and legislation through a gender lens to consider the impact

that legislation and policy will have on women in this province. We must, for the

sake of a healthy economy and healthy families and for the sake of justice for women,

develop strategies to ensure the economic security of women in this province.

Minimum-wage laws are a key pay equity strategy. Women

account for two-thirds of minimum-wage earners. Immigrant women, women with disabilities

and aboriginal women are even more likely to be working for the minimum wage. Therefore,

increasing the minimum wage to $10 an hour would have a significant impact on closing

the gender pay gap and reducing poverty. I think

[ Page 5373 ]

it is shameful that there has not been a minimum-wage increase in this province

for a decade.

We also know that unions reduce the inequality between

men's and women's wages, particularly for those unions that negotiated strong pay

equity settlements, such as the Hospital Employees Union. The passage of Bill 29,

which cleared the way for the privatization of health care support services in hospitals

and long-term care facilities, profoundly impacted the lives of the thousands of

women who predominated that workforce. Not coincidentally, it rolled back the clock

on pay equity achievements in this province.

Pay equity, or equal pay for work of equal value, is

critical to reducing the pay gap between men and women. It is an internationally

recognized fundamental human right and a right which has been enshrined in legislation

in most provinces across this country.

Reducing women's economic inequality in fact benefits

the economy. Studies have confirmed the direct relationship between the amount of

equality between men and women in a country and that country's economic performance.

Reducing gender inequality actually improves productivity and economic growth in

countries.

When a government's economic policies, such as child

care subsidies, make it easier for women to work and have children, the result of

these better choices is that they support families.

[1055]

Considering that by 2006 two-thirds of women with children

under the age of three were employed and considering the significant gap in women's

wages, it is imperative that society support child care policies that help move

women out of poverty, not more deeply into poverty.

You know, we just hosted the Olympics here, an event

that this province spent billions of dollars on. What a missed opportunity in all

that building, with all those tradespeople hard at work. Why did we not use this

opportunity to increase the number of women working in trades? These are the kinds

of strategies we need to put to work in order to improve the economic security of

women, to decrease the level of poverty of women and their families.

Increased economic equality and economic security are

the keys to ensuring women's equality in society. We know, for example, that some

women stay trapped in abusive relationships because they don't have the economic

wherewithal to leave those relationships.

In conclusion, it is time to take off the gender blinders,

to talk about the particular inequities affecting women and to address those inequities

now.

J. McIntyre: I'm delighted

to rise to speak to this statement, because really, I think one of the fundamental

tenets of this government is that we need a healthy economy. This whole discussion

of pay equity becomes moot if there aren't jobs. This government has been dedicated

to job creation, and we have an incredible track record on that.

Without job creation, without dramatic investment in

post-secondary creation of spaces, without dramatic investment in skills training

and without a diverse labour force, as I say, the conversation on pay equity becomes

moot. We've made those investments, Madam Speaker.

I want to talk for a moment about how well the plan

is working. We're leading the country in 2010. Despite a major economic recession,

the Conference Board of Canada reports that B.C. is expected to lead Canada in economic

growth at 3.8 percent this year. Leading Canadian financial institutions are forecasting

B.C. to either lead Canada or be in the top three in GDP growth. RBC, Scotiabank,

CIBC and others are all predicting B.C. will lead the country in job creation —

jobs.

According to Stats Canada, last month alone, in April,

we created 49,300 jobs — the third highest in Canada. And it's 21 percent of the

total jobs created in this country over the last month. That's what we need — jobs.

The unemployment rate in British Columbia fell to 7.3 percent in April, the lowest

level in the past year, and it remains lower than it was during the '90s.

Our major industries are rebounding. Business confidence

is on the rise. According to the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, B.C.'s

small and mid-sized businesses — many of them led by women owners — are the most

optimistic since March '08, two years ago, with an index of 71 percent. It's a 47

percent increase over April a year ago. Those are dramatic statistics. That's what's

going on in our economy.

Our credit rating shows that British Columbia is on

the right track for job creation. We've had our triple-A credit rating renewed,

noting that our debt reduction has given B.C. an increased capacity to respond to

the global recession. Again, that means jobs.

Let me talk about women in the economy specifically.

We've created an economy that's created almost 200,000 new jobs, and now 1,093,500

women are employed. I remember in my first term when we passed that million mark,

when a million women in this province for the first time were working. The unemployment

rate for women is now 6.2 percent, significantly lower than in 2001 when we inherited

office, and it's lower than the 7.3 percent that I just quoted for the whole province.

So women are being employed.

In 2008, 34.3 percent of all business owners in B.C.

were women. This is on a par with the national average, and it's the fourth highest

in the country. The average hourly wage for women in B.C. just this past month,

in April, was $20.57, up 27 percent from the $16-and-such in 2001. That's way above

minimum wage.

The member before me mentioned this, but British Columbia

will be spending $300 million this year on

[ Page 5374 ]

child care programs, which is an increase of $8 million over last year and an increase

of 42 percent, again since 2001, when we inherited government. That creates more

opportunities for women to participate in the workforce. Look at the program for

full-time kindergarten that will be rolling out over the next two years.

[1100]

Not only is that about early investment in children,

but also it allows women to participate more fully in the workforce, to be earning

full-time wages. That, of course, is a positive. The same with the three- and four-year-old

playschools and preschools we're looking at. All of that will enable women to be

in the labour force, working at capacity and working in full-time jobs.

Another important point is that in 2008, women made

up about 56 percent of the students in public B.C. research-intensive universities

and 58 percent in the public colleges and institutes. That will lead to high-paying,

family-supporting jobs. I think soon men will be wanting pay equity at that rate

— just a minor aside, not to offend any colleagues.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Anyway, let me talk about trades training and diversity

in the workforce, because those are very important issues. We've been making significant

investments in training and attracting skilled workers to B.C. to meet the demand.

The funds trading has increased 40 percent this decade. We're now investing over

$100 million a year on trades training. That was a commitment in our Budget '06.

K. Corrigan: I was at

the LMLGA — Lower Mainland Local Government Association — meetings this past weekend.

Somebody got up and asked the Premier of this province about a poverty-reduction

strategy because they were terribly concerned about poverty in their community.

The response from the Premier was that the poverty-reduction strategy for British

Columbia was to create jobs, which is similar to what the member has just said.

I'll tell you that the local politicians from around

the province were appalled — appalled at the lack of concern for people who are

in poverty in this province. This trickle-down theory that has been continually

rehashed by this government has not worked, and it's time to do things differently.

It has not worked.

Despite ten years of trickle-down economics, B.C. has

the highest overall rate of poverty in the country. Despite this trickle-down economic

theory, children living with single parents have nearly four times the poverty rate

than that of children of two-parent families. This government reduced income assistance

to levels that the National Council of Welfare called "to the level that they were

cruel."

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Continue, Member.

K. Corrigan: Full-time

earnings for minimum-wage workers in this province amount to only $16,640 a year,

more than $5,000 below the Statistics Canada poverty line for an individual living

in a large urban centre in 2007. I can't believe that the member opposite is proud

of that record.

Women constitute two-thirds of all Canadian workers

earning that below-poverty minimum wage, and the member opposite is proud of that

record. You know, I'd also like to mention that…. Let's look at international comparisons.

By international comparisons, support for single-parent

families is damning — again, mostly women families. In 16 OECD countries B.C. ranks

15 out of 16, only ahead of the United States in disposable income after paying

for housing. Single mothers in Norway and Austria had over $1,500 in disposable

income after paying for accommodation. B.C.'s single moms had $414.

You know, I'd like to mention some of the things that

you could do and which were done in the 1990s.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you,

Member.

K. Corrigan: But I won't.

Hon. G. Abbott: I call

private member's Motion 10.

[Be it resolved that this House recognize the importance

of investing in capital projects across the province that will create thousands

of jobs today to facilitate an even stronger economy in the future.]

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members,

unanimous consent of the House is required to proceed with Motion 10 without disturbing

the priorities of motions preceding it on the order paper.

Leave granted.

[1105]

Private Members' Motions

MOTION 10 — INVESTMENT

IN CAPITAL PROJECTS

R. Sultan: I am pleased

to offer the motion, which I shall repeat. "Be it resolved that this House recognize

the importance of investing in capital projects across the province that will create

thousands of jobs today to facilitate an even stronger economy in the future."

I'd first like to quote Mike Currie, president of the

Consulting Engineers of B.C. and head of Burnaby's Kerr Wood Leidal Associates.

About three months ago

[ Page 5375 ]

Mike noted that the provincial budget increased committed capital to accelerated

infrastructure investment in B.C. to $5.3 billion from the $3.4 billion allocated

in the government's September '09 budget.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

About a third of the money has gone to transportation,

but Currie noted that the province has also funded smaller projects, benefiting

many smaller rural and urban areas.

Some of the latest projects include highway rehabilitation

projects, including improvements on Highway 1, which slows down traffic in my own

riding as we head to the airport; work towards the northwest transmission line,

vital to the future of British Columbia's mining industry; upgrades to the Royal

B.C. Museum, right across the street; air tanker bases in Castlegar and Williams

Lake; the Klemtu ferry terminal; and the Mackenzie connector. Other major projects,

including the Port Mann bridge and the Evergreen line, will keep the consulting

engineers busy.

This government is very active on the infrastructure

front. Where will the money come from? To answer this, on April 21 Bloomberg.com

headlined from New York: "British Columbia Sells Five-Year Global Notes." British

Columbia sold $1½ billion of U.S. dollar denominated five-year bonds, 50 percent

more than originally planned, amid expectation that Canada's economic performance

will lead the Group of Seven countries this year.

Carrying on with the Bloomberg comment, British Columbia:

"'…priced its 2.85 percent five-year notes about 16½

basis points under comparable Ontario debt trading in U.S. dollars,' said Jim Hopkins,

an assistant deputy minister in B.C.'s Ministry of Finance. 'We were hugely oversubscribed

in the offering,' Hopkins said yesterday. The debt sale benefited from the halo

effect of Canada's economic performance. 'The province's'" — referring, of course,

to British Columbia — "'AAA credit rating also really helps,' he said.

"'B.C. originally planned to sell $1 billion dollars

worth of notes,' Hopkins said. 'Total demand from central banks and other investors

around the world topped $2½ billion,' he said."

Bloomberg's report makes it quite clear there is an

international appetite to invest in British Columbia. Why? This brings me to my

third point this morning. On April 29 the Globe and Mail

reported that the Bank of Canada's governor, Mark Carney, added another gold star

to his resume Thursday, joining the likes of Oprah, Lady Gaga, Ben Stiller and Bill

Clinton on Time magazine's 100 most influential people

in the world for 2010.

Mr. Carney was on the leaders

section of the list along

with 24 others, including Barack Obama; former Republican vice-presidential candidate

Sarah Palin; Brazilian president, da Silva; and IMF fund managing director Dominique

Strauss-Kahn. I say: "What?" A central banker on the Time

magazine list of the world's 100 most influential people — a Canadian central banker?

What's going on? The world has indeed changed. Balance sheets count. Look at Greece.

Look at the United States. Look at the United Kingdom. A bit shaky, Members.

So that ferry terminal in Klemtu is readily financed

by this government in British Columbia due to its fiscal discipline, financial probity

and strong balance sheet. Financial discipline can sometimes be painful for those

who grew quite comfortable under the old rules, but the world has changed.

We have a strong balance sheet, and there are enormous

capital project funding benefits in keeping it that way. The age of the balance

sheet has arrived, and British Columbia capital projects are the beneficiary.

[1110]

B. Ralston: Well, the

world has changed and so, apparently, has the B.C. Liberal Party. They now believe

in the virtues of effective government regulation of the banking system. They also

understand the importance and the effectiveness of using the government rate of

borrowing rather than the P3 model, which costs the taxpayers hundreds of millions

of extra dollars when capital is borrowed privately. Certainly, since the rates

have diverged between government borrowing and private borrowing, that difference

has become more acute.

It's great to know that that conversion has taken place

on the other side and that much of the rhetoric, overblown and off-base, that we've

heard about P3s has now been abandoned. There was no mention of that in the member's

statement whatsoever.

He spoke about the government borrowing rate — the government

in the money markets in New York getting a very effective rate. We on this side

of the House have claimed and argued against the P3 model for that very reason:

that the government cost of borrowing is far lower than the cost of borrowing by

a private entity in a P3 model.

I think it's refreshing to see that the member is leading

the way for his caucus. Perhaps we'll hear some retraction by the Minister of Finance

and maybe even the Premier, who has repeatedly claimed the virtues of the P3 model,

notwithstanding that it was rocked to its core in 2008 and 2009, notably in the

Port Mann bridge financing where, ultimately, private financing was not available,

and they were forced to rely on the government guarantee.

There's no doubt that capital funding for judicious

capital projects in the province — whether they be seismic upgrading of schools,

hospitals, roads and all the other kinds of minor capital projects that are so important

for communities throughout the province — really are important parts of the government's

capital plan. Indeed, that's what we set forth back when the crisis began in terms

of stimulus spending. That's just the role

[ Page 5376 ]

that the government should take: use the government rate of borrowing and get in

and do the work that communities want done.

I'm very happy to hear the refreshing change of direction

that the member from West Vancouver has announced here today in the chamber.

D. Barnett: I'm honoured

today to stand here and support my colleague's motion. Capital investment in our

province has been around for a long time. If we look back to the days of W.A.C.

Bennett, I would think that maybe that's when capital investment started, and our

province grew from there.

I am pleased to say that I have been around for a couple

of days. I have seen years of capital investment by governments, and I have seen

years of no capital investment by government. I am pleased to say that over the

last ten years the capital investment by this government is one that we are very

proud of.

Capital investment is, yes, P3s and other methods of

capital investment. When I look at rural British Columbia and I look at the highways,

the health care and the schools that come from capital investment, I look at the

benefits and the beneficiaries. The beneficiaries are our people, our constituents.

I look at projects in the Lower Mainland, and a lot

of times people from rural B.C. say: "How come all the money is going to Delta or

Surrey for bridges?" Those bridges, those roads are so important to rural British

Columbia, and from time to time nobody understands that.

We are the resource communities. We need to get our

commodities to market, and thank goodness this government has provided a transportation

system so that we can get our commodities to market quicker. Our resource industries

are, once again, the benefactor, and that makes our citizens and our constituents

the benefactors.

I look at the projects in rural British Columbia that

have happened over the past ten years. I look at projects such as Towns for Tomorrow

helping our infrastructure for our water systems, our sewer systems. I look at the

highways. I look at the airports. I look at all the initiatives that have happened,

and I'll give you a few in my riding.

[1115]

In 100 Mile House, a water system upgrade recently of

almost $300,000. The 108 Resort, which you all know about, which is now a big subdivision,

over $1 million. Cariboo seniors low-rental housing initiative, $5.4 million. Horse

Lake and Canim Lake water system, $1 million. Highway 97 improvements, $20 million.

Williams Lake air tanker base, $1 million. Mackenzie Avenue rehabilitation in Williams

Lake that they've been asking for, for years, and we finally are successful — one

of my first successes as an MLA — over $10 million.

I am proud of this side of the House and the capital

investments and the dollars that go from one end of this province to the other.

You know, we just listened to my colleague over here talk about a great initiative

which this government worked with the private sector called Tolko Industries, which

is a big component of economic development in my riding. Signed this great initiative

with China, but to get it there, we need the infrastructure, and this government

once again has provided that.

All I can say is that when you look at infrastructure

and capital spending, this side of the House has done more than their job for this

province.

R. Sultan: I seek leave

to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

R. Sultan: In the gallery

with us today is Dr. Georg Witschel, who is the ambassador from Germany to Canada,

representing the embassy of the Federal Republic of Germany in Ottawa. Would the

House please make Dr. Witschel welcome.

Debate Continued

J. Kwan: I was looking

forward to the member for West Vancouver–Capilano's response to my good colleague

the Minister of — sorry, the soon-to-be Minister of — Finance, the critic for the

Ministry of Finance. It is indeed a sea change, you know, what politics changes

in a short period of time, one might argue.

I recall when I was first elected in this House. I would

swear to you, Madam Speaker, that the other side of the House would be against debt.

They would be against capital investment on behalf of British Columbians.

I recall those days when we were in government, when

the NDP was in government. We would invest in building schools and hospitals and

community infrastructure. And you know what? The other side, including the Premier

now, then the opposition, would scream up and down and yell, "Spending money is

bad, and actually increasing debt is bad," even though those were completely valid

investments on behalf of British Columbians.

And what do you know? In 2010, here we are. We have,

on the other side, the Liberal government talking about the value of investing for

British Columbians by way of capital projects, and it is actually a good thing.

How about that — hey? What ten years changes in politics. With the Liberal government

now at the helm, they finally see the light. They finally see what the NDP saw a

long time ago: that investing in communities is actually creating healthy communities

and healthy economies.

So here we are. I have to say that there is one major

note of difference between the Liberals and the NDP,

[ Page 5377 ]

and that would be in the area of P3s. Although, I did just hear the member for West

Vancouver–Capilano saying that it is better to invest using government borrowing

rates. I did hear that. I wasn't imagining it. I didn't sort of dream it up. I heard

it from the other side.

[1120]

Hence, the logic follows that P3s, which actually put

at risk taxpayers' money at a much higher rate because the borrowing rate from the

private sector tends to be much more expensive than that of what government could

secure…. If you follow that logic, then naturally, you would arrive at the place

where P3s are not of equivalent value to that of publicly invested, government-invested

projects, because governments have better borrowing rates.

So the better way to go, in fact, in investing in capital

projects would be to use the government borrowing rate, and that would be public

projects by government and not through the P3 model.

At least one member on that side of the House has changed

his tune on that score, and he's an economist at that, to boot. So he must have

studied this carefully before he made the statements today, I am sure, because he's

a diligent member of the House who does his homework. I'm sure he's studied all

of that and actually arrived at the position. That's why he made the statements

that he did.

Now, if he could only just convince the rest of the

Liberal bench on that side of the House to that thinking, then maybe you could get

the Minister of Finance to can Partnerships B.C., because that's costing taxpayers

a lot of money.

I just also want to say this. In terms of investments,

there are many areas in which we can invest in our community to make our community

strong. People will know in this House that I've long been an advocate of affordable

housing. There's no mystery to that.

We know that investing in building social housing and

cooperatives in our community creates healthy communities. Why? Because it provides

for security of housing for people who are in greatest need. It provides for affordable

housing for those in our community who are low-income, middle-income, seniors, families

and across the board.

But what happened with the Liberal government when they

came into office? Lo and behold, back in 2001 they actually cancelled the permanent

affordable housing program that had been in place in British Columbia for a long,

long time. What does that permanent housing program do? They actually build housing,

invest in capital investment for British Columbians and for our economy and for

our communities.

So if the government hears this message from the member

for West Van–Capilano, then they will get up right away and bring back a permanent

affordable housing program in British Columbia. That's what the government should

do.

If the government did that, then guess what will happen.

It would actually save taxpayers' money. Why would that happen? Because it would

save on the social spending side of things. It would decrease the costs for health

care. It would decrease the costs on the criminal justice system. It would decrease

the social-related costs in our community, and that is the right thing to do.

Lastly, I simply have to say this. If we want to end

homelessness, we need a permanent affordable housing program, capital investments

in our community that will benefit all members of our community economically and

socially.

To that end, Madam Speaker, let me just add one more

thing.

I think I still have a few more minutes on my time —

right, Mr. Whip? Yes, I do.

So on that note, there's another area for good investment

for our communities as well.

I am a mother of two, as people know. I think about

children all the time — infrastructure for children, capital investment in a small

sense but one that's close to my heart because I see the joy of children at these

places. Those are called playgrounds. They're actually called school playgrounds,

and wouldn't it be wonderful if the Liberal government brought back the funding

for school playgrounds, capital investments right in our communities to benefit

children across the province?

I know the member for West Van–Capilano supports this

because he's co-written letters with me asking the Minister of Education, asking

the Minister of Finance, asking the Minister of Housing and Social Development to

support funding playgrounds for inner-city schools.

[1125]

We know that children in inner-city schools have little

resources, actually, and often they rely on the public infrastructure to provide

for the services that they need very much. School playgrounds are an important component

of that, and the government this year cancelled the funding for school playgrounds

for our communities.

Guess what. Those who are in greatest need, those that

are in inner-city schools — and the PACs, the parent advisory committees — are running

around like crazy trying to fundraise, and they're having a heck of a time. Even

when they go and ask for a small portion of funding from the government to help

leverage the fundraising efforts that they have, the government says no. Shame on

them.

I ask the government to listen carefully to this member's

private motion, to support this member's private motion and start funding capital

investments from playgrounds to social housing to ending P3s so that we can save

taxpayers' money on behalf of British Columbians by way of capital investment.

R. Howard: It gives me

great pleasure to rise this morning to speak to the importance of investing in cap-

[ Page 5378 ]

ital projects, and I would like to make something really clear right at the outset.

P3 projects save taxpayers' dollars. It's unquestionable that P3s work.

I know there's some confusion down the aisle here from

the members opposite. The member for Surrey-Whalley and the member for Vancouver–Mount

Pleasant have mistakenly assumed that the only thing in the formula that determines

the success of a P3 is the cost of borrowing. Well, what nonsense. What about innovation?

What about the private sector drive? What about the competitive forces that all

help to make sure that P3s work?

I will talk about some very specific projects. When

this government came to power, as I recall, we inherited a capital deficit. The

member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant talked about school grounds.

Interjections.

R. Howard: The Liberals….

The B.C. government has funded many playgrounds. The NDP opposition when they were

in power, I am told by reliable sources, funded zero playgrounds.

Interjection.

Deputy Speaker: Member.

A courtesy was afforded to you.

Please continue.

R. Howard: What, of course,

my good friend from West Vancouver was referring to was the cost of borrowing. Of

course, we've documented several times — I've spoken in this House a few times about

it — the seven credit-rating upgrades that this government produced in their ten

years in power. In the 1990s, when the opposition was in power, there were zero

credit-rating upgrades — zero. I am also told by reliable sources that there were

a number of credit-rating downgrades.

I think that, having clearly demonstrated that we've

managed the cost of debt down, the success of P3s is well documented. I want to

talk about just one in my community — the Canada Line. The Canada Line was a P3.

It was brought in ahead of

schedule and on budget. This major private-public partnership

produced the Canada Line, the equivalent of ten lanes of roadway running between

Vancouver, the airport and Richmond.

Just think of the tonnes of greenhouse gases that are

not being emitted into the atmosphere. Think of the tens of thousands of cars that

are off the street as a result of this. We have story after story of successful

individual stories. The trip, prior to the Canada Line, from their front door to

the front door of their office was often an hour or an hour and a half. Post–Canada

Line this trip now takes somewhere between 25 and 35 minutes. It's a tremendous

success.

We look at the businesses that are around the Canada

Line stations. They're reporting increases in businesses as we speak. This new Canada

Line and its guideway provide for new walking paths, new connectivity in the city,

new bicycle paths. It has enabled us to take No. 3 Road and turn it into a great

street, providing connections to all sorts of other places in the city. It has allowed

us to reconnect and crank the bus lines so that we can get smaller buses driven

further into the neighbourhoods, more convenient ridership, take them straight to

the SkyTrain station and straight to their destination.

[1130]

It has allowed us to accelerate development in our city,

create transit-oriented density nodes where people can live, work, learn and play,

all without a car. This is a tremendous success story. It was a P3, and when you

look forward, you actually get excited by the other projects such as the Evergreen

line, the possible Broadway line, the extension of the Surrey line that will all,

I hope, be done with a P3 way of doing things. They will help create a city and

a region that is connected.

I would just close by talking briefly about the big

picture again and the Conference Board of Canada. As a result of the many significant

infrastructure projects that this government has undertaken, the Conference Board

of Canada said that B.C. is expected to lead Canada in economic growth at 3.8 percent

in 2010. Now, that means jobs. That means jobs for us. It means jobs for our families.

It means that we can have peace and security and look forward to a prosperous future

in this province.

Deputy Speaker: The member

for Cowichan Valley seeks leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

B. Routley: We have with

us today a group of grade 5 students from Queen Margaret's school in Duncan. With

them is Susan Cruikshank, and I would ask that you make them feel welcome.

Debate Continued

D. Donaldson: I rise today

to speak to the resolution introduced by the member for West Vancouver–Capilano:

"Be it resolved that this House recognize the importance of investing in capital

projects across the province that will create thousands of jobs today to facilitate

an even stronger economy in the future."

I understand the member is part of the Association of

Professional Engineers of B.C., so I can see the logic in his introducing this motion,

because implicit in it are

[ Page 5379 ]

large capital projects that would benefit the professional engineering designation.

I'm not saying that in casting any aspersions on the

member for that at all. What I'm saying is that it's a way that he's coming about

and approaching this project. However, there's a disconnect between the potential

merits of this motion and the actual B.C. Liberal government decisions around capital

projects.

The first is where these projects have taken place.

Here's an example, just a small sample: $800 million, 100 percent cost overrun on

the Vancouver Convention Centre; at least $600 million on the Sea to Sky Highway,

a highway to a ski area; and now at least $400 million for a new roof on Vancouver's

B.C. Place.

Now, I'm not commenting on the merits of these projects.

Certainly, there is some debate about the merits there, but note that all of these

projects are in a small geographic location in a tiny part of the province. That

flies in the face of where the actual wealth, the new revenues are generated in

the province. These are in the rural areas.

A study done by economist David Baxter of the Urban

Futures Institute pointed out that 70 percent of the new revenues generated in the

province come from non-urban areas, places like the constituency I represent, Stikine,

in the northwest part of the province.

I'm sure the member for West Vancouver–Capilano can

understand the frustration of people where I live, when they are working to extract

the natural resources that drive this new revenue, when they pay taxes like anyone

else in B.C., and then we see that most of the money that the government is deciding

to spend on capital projects is in faraway places that bring little benefit to hard-hit

communities where unemployment is at extreme levels.

In fact, Greg Halseth, a professor at the University

of Northern British Columbia in Prince George, who actually studies rural economies,

calls this approach by the B.C. Liberals a continual withdrawal from the resource

bank. If you continually withdraw from the resource bank without reinvesting, the

bank goes under.

[1135]

That's what the B.C. Liberals are doing to rural B.C.

Their decisions on capital spending largely benefit the urban areas but do little

to improve infrastructure in rural areas — infrastructure that we depend on not

just to fuel the economy for the rest of the province but for our basic quality

of life in smaller rural communities.

Another contradiction is how these large capital projects

are instituted by the B.C. Liberal government. Let's go back to the Sea to Sky Highway.

It was a P3 decision by this government to let private interests initially fund

this public project, but the repayment on the back of taxpayers is deplorable. Over

the 25-year life span of this deal, it will cost taxpayers an extra $300 million

more than if we funded it ourselves like we used to.

This is a number from Partnerships B.C., saying $300

million more out of the pocket of taxpayers for the Sea to Sky Highway. That's money

out of the pockets.

Good for them. The private companies arranged the best

deal possible, but obviously, this government wasn't looking out for the concerns

— our concerns — of rural people. That's $300 million more that could have gone

into our schools, that could have gone into day care, that could have gone into

housing, that could have gone into high-speed Internet connections and other public

infrastructure projects in rural communities. It's a bad decision all around.

Interjection.

D. Donaldson: I know some

of the members on the other side have personal interest, and good for them. They're

trying to promote and boost their constituency over the rest of the province, but

when it comes to $300 million more, surely the member on the other side could see

that other areas of the province could benefit from that kind of money, not just

her constituency.

When this government goes on to proceed on a capital

project in the north, they create a situation that hinders the ability of the project

to proceed in a fair and timely manner. One example of that is with First Nations.

This government has not put the serious effort that is required into consultation

and accommodation with First Nations in the north, in the northwest especially.

I'll give an example of that. Even on the issue of proposed

coalbed methane drilling in the Sacred Headwaters area of the northwest — an area

where the Stikine, the Skeena and the Nass rivers all begin — this government has

taken two years to negotiate with the Tahltan and still, after two years, no tangible

results on that issue.

I would submit that if the B.C. Liberals were serious

about resolving land title issues with First Nations on a specific area like this,

then two years would be plenty of time to come to a solution. Two years. But no,

nothing.

I'll tell you what. This does not bode well for a project

like the northern transmission line that crosses at least five First Nations' traditional

territories. Much hangs on that project in the north. I urge the Minister of Energy,

Mines and Petroleum Resources, the Minister of Aboriginal Relations and other ministers

to get on with their job around consultation and accommodation with First Nations

so we can see projects move ahead in a timely manner.

Finally, and I'm sure the member for Nechako Lakes would

agree with me on this, you cannot have a thriving rural economy, which these projects

are supposed to support, without people. Rural people in small communities drive

the rural economy upon which the rest of the province depends. But this government

has gutted rural communities, gutted them to the point that some-

[ Page 5380 ]

times people in the north and in rural communities think that the policies of this

government are leading to the depopulation of rural communities, much like the outport

policy in Newfoundland years ago.

Sometimes people believe that this government thinks

it would be better for all people to live in large urban centres — easier for them

but not good for the people of the north or rural areas.

I'll finish off by saying that Elinor Ostrom, who is

the first woman to win the Nobel Prize for economics — just this year — talked about

two things that are very important for people in rural areas to take care of the

commons: a means of communication and support in the ability to self-organize. Well,

on neither front has this government done anything of significance for rural communities

in those regards.

[1140]

This motion…. I take it to heart, but unfortunately,

around capital investment this government says one thing, does another. It's all

talk and no action. I hope that they on the other side take some of my positive

suggestions, incorporate them into solutions that will mean further sustainability

for the people of the north and betterment for all in the province of B.C.

M. Dalton: I'm pleased

to stand in support of this motion: "Be it resolved that this House recognize the

importance of investing in capital projects across the province" — including rural

B.C. — "that will create thousands of jobs today to facilitate an even stronger

economy in the future."

I'd just like to respond to some comments that the member

for Stikine mentioned as far as infrastructure projects happening in rural areas.

The government is investing in projects throughout this province, and the rural

parts of our province are definitely enjoying this benefit. What happens? The benefit

that rural communities feel actually benefits all of us.

Just to mention a few of the projects. Let's talk about

the Cariboo connector. This is a $200 million first-phase Cariboo connector. We

have the William Bennett Bridge; that's $144 million. We have the Kicking Horse

Canyon. That's almost a billion-dollar, two-phase project which will upgrade 26

kilometres of Trans-Canada Highway to the western boundary of Yoho National Park.

Then there's the northwest transmission line, which

the member alluded to and which is near his riding. This is a project worth over

$400 million. This will not only create jobs as this line goes through — also all

the mines, the forestry, the different economic opportunities right here. This is

very important for rural B.C. It's very important for all British Columbia.

Then we have the ferries. We're investing over $175

million to revitalize the fleet and the new ships. This benefits people on ferry

routes right across the province, right along the coast. Then there are the airports.

We have invested in 33 community airports — Prince George, many different community

airports.

Now, as far as the relations with the First Nations,

we are developing good economic relationships. The Nisga'a treaty, again, is in

the northwest section. That was the first treaty. The coastal First Nations just

signed a treaty, again in that neck of the woods of the member. Part of that is

a new ferry dock.

Also, the Haida Gwaii. We're seeing more and more First

Nations agreements, which are great for the province, which is great for all of

us, and they are also linking in with the economic opportunities.

Right across this province there are projects that have

just completed, that are starting or shortly about to get going. This is an important

time. It helps us pull out of the recession. We're seeing right now, with the economic

forecast of 3.8 economic growth this year…. That says a lot of what we're doing

as far as a government and as a province. We're making the right choices.

At the same time, we're not just spending money willy-nilly.

We have maintained our triple-A credit rating, unlike the downgrades. So this helps

everybody. This provides jobs for those that have more needs as far as financially,

more difficult needs, but it helps everybody. So it helps us keep out of the recession.

Also, we enjoy better costs. Because the markets are

down, construction costs are lower and we're able to maximize government dollars,

public money, in order to receive more projects, more infrastructure than we otherwise

would. It also helps set us up for improved economic prosperity and an improved

quality of life.

I would like to just mention a few of the projects that

are happening in my riding, because I think this is indicative of what's happening

in ridings everywhere — every riding, every constituency in this province. Also,

it helps us to leverage federal dollars.

Let's talk about a few. One is the Florence Lake Road,

a forestry road, just a simple little project in the Mission area in my constituency.

[1145]

Because of this road — which is a million dollars right

here — Tim Horton's children's camp has indicated that they're going to be setting

up camp up there, along with the Zajac Ranch for children with needs.

We have the Pitt River Bridge that just opened up, and

this is saving time. It's a $200 million project. Over $100 million was in provincial

funds and about $90 million in federal. It has alleviated a bottleneck, and it has

been a real economic booster for my riding, Maple Ridge–Mission, and also in Pitt

Meadows.

This has improved the quality of life. People are able

to spend more time at home. It reduces business costs. I talked to a vice-president

with CPR, and I know that it allows a truck, the container traffic, to move a lot

quicker. It just reduces pollution and increases the economic ability and maximizes

labour costs and transportation costs.

[ Page 5381 ]

Some other things are happening. One is the Alouette

women's correction centre, which is receiving a major upgrade. This is going to

provide, full-time, 80 jobs, and it goes in line with our focus on public

safety and crime reduction. In the downtown core we have a beautification project

happening. We just turned the sod last week on that project.

Last week another project that I was involved in the

opening of was the Riverside College, which is $7.2 million — $5.2 million is provincial

money. What is this? This is a transition program. It's a high school completion

and entry-level program in trades and technical.

For kids that were otherwise falling through the cracks,

we were able to get them in and give them training. All sorts of programs are being

offered, whether it be in carpentry, plumbing, business support specialists, nail

technicians, hairstylists, professional cooks or auto service technicians. This

has just been a very positive announcement, and good things are happening there.

A comment was made as far as school playgrounds, spending

money on capital programs. As a teacher for many years in both elementary and high

school, I did not see funding for school playgrounds when the NDP was in power.

I will say that what has happened is that in the past it has been PAC associations,

parents and fundraising drives. The B.C. Liberal government has designated $20 per

student, and this helps to pay for these programs, these playgrounds, in a much

quicker way.

We're seeing dikes added. Another announcement just

this week, not just an announcement but a completed project, was the Spirit Square

in Mission, which was $350,000 in provincial money. This helps to pull the community

together, and it's important for the community.

Last, a comment was mentioned by the member for Surrey-Whalley

regarding P3s. Well, we have a new P3 that we opened up just recently. It's the

Golden Ears Bridge. I think I've heard one negative comment in the past year about

it — somebody having to pay. But other than that, all I'm hearing from people is

that this has been a very positive thing. It's changed and given a lot more time

for people. It's made the trips back and forth for business much better, and it

is really a generator for our area as far as business and for improving family life.

With those remarks, I am going to conclude.

R. Chouhan: I was very

pleased to hear the member for West Vancouver–Capilano when he was speaking in defence

of his motion. He did not talk about P3s. That's really good, encouraging news coming

from the Liberal benches. Finally, somebody has realized that P3s are not the solution.

That's not the answer.

We have seen over and over again that when you have

P3 projects, it costs a lot more money to the taxpayers in the long run. So I hope

the other members will realize that's not the way to go. It's important. Unfortunately,

some new members from the Liberal bench would like to see the B.C. Liberal government's

record through rose-coloured glasses, because they were not there.

[1150]

Let me give you some information about the B.C. Liberal

record. This is not my document. This is from the B.C. Ministry of Finance's 2009

Financial and Economic Review . If you look at that….

In fact, when the B.C. Liberals came to power, they actually reduced the funding

to capital projects by 14 percent. Many schools were closed. Many hospitals were

closed. No new funding had gone into creating, building new schools and hospitals.

That's the record of the B.C. Liberal government.

The only time we saw more money going into capital projects

was when the Olympics came on the scene. They wanted to look really fancy in the

eyes of the world, so they started creating, building some of those venues. But

still, if you look in the real sense, there's no new funding into creating real

projects that will help the community and that will address the needs of the public.

British Columbians are still not seeing real investment in the projects which meet

their needs.

Now, I was hoping to hear that somebody may have mentioned

the Pattullo Bridge. That's a deadly bridge. It's an old bridge. Nobody is talking

about replacing that bridge, although the community has been asking for many years

that we need to take care of that. There have been some fatal accidents on that

bridge. That's the kind of project I would support. Nobody has talked about it.

When we were in power in the '90s, we believed in investing

in schools. We created a lot more schools. We built a lot more hospitals. As we

have done in the past, we would like to see now more investment in affordable housing,

day care, playgrounds.

Don't forget rural B.C. The member for Maple Ridge–Mission,

when he was reading the motion, said that includes rural B.C. The motion doesn't

talk about rural B.C. at all. So let's not try to create illusions out there that

the B.C. Liberals are doing something about it. They are not. They have failed British

Columbians. They have not done anything to address the needs of the public either

in the Lower Mainland or in rural B.C.

I will support any capital projects which really create

jobs, which create projects that help people. So by saying that, I conclude my remarks,

because I think that there are a couple more speakers who need to speak on that.

S. Cadieux: I am very

pleased to speak about the importance of investing in capital projects in British

Columbia. Certainly, we are talking about the need to build things today that help

us create a better economy in the future. You know why we need to do that? Well,

in my riding and in the city I live in, we are one of the fastest-growing cities

in Canada. We've got approximately a thousand new people every month, and we're

[ Page 5382 ]

expected to become the largest city in British Columbia in ten years.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

With all those people that we need, of course, to work

here and to pay taxes here, we need more than just houses. We need better roads,

better transportation, more schools, more hospitals. And you know what? We're getting

all of that because this government sees the importance of that.

We've got a new Port Mann bridge coming, the South Fraser

perimeter road, new transit, all of which will help to see savings in the economy

of $1.5 billion a year to businesses. That's really important so that they can continue

to invest and create jobs and keep people working.

We've got the new Surrey out-patient hospital, the Surrey

Memorial expansion — over half a billion dollars of new hospital investment in Surrey.

We've got SFU Surrey, the expansion there. We've got Kwantlen trades and tech campus

that opened in Cloverdale a couple of years ago, which is incredibly important in

keeping skilled labour trained and ready to go.

We've been doing seismic upgrades to schools. We've

got new schools. In fact, I was just there Monday at a new school that opened in

my riding, built to LEED gold standards. Fantastic. It's not only a great new school,

a healthy new school, but it will also bring savings in the future.

What I find really interesting is that the NDP voted

against all of these initiatives. Yet here today they're talking about the need

to invest and why didn't we invest. "We did so much better in the '90s."

[1155]

Quite frankly, we had to get out of debt first before

we could start incurring new debt. We had quite a hole to dig out of. Again, they're

bringing up P3s and lecturing us on why P3s are horrible. Quite frankly, we've never

said that P3s are the only way. P3s are one way. Sometimes they make the most sense.

Sometimes they provide a fantastic option for government in providing for new capital

infrastructure. I think we need to remind the NDP of that, because obviously, they

don't quite understand the finance of the government.

We've got all of these great projects coming in. It's

important. All of the money we're spending is money we're spending to build the

future of British Columbia, to build the economy. It's all important. It's all great.

We've also heard today that all the infrastructure money

should be spent on social housing and playgrounds. I'm sorry, but I thought we were

doing an awful lot in terms of playgrounds, which I didn't see any of in the '90s.

Also on social housing — announcement after announcement after announcement of openings

of new social housing, providing fantastic benefits for our communities.

Noting the hour, I would close my remarks with a quote

that I read just recently that I got a kick out of. I'm not sure who said this.

However, it does pay to plan ahead. "It wasn't raining when Noah built the ark."

S. Cadieux moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. G. Abbott moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House

stands adjourned until 1:30 this afternoon.

The House adjourned at 11:57 a.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page

Hansard Services publishes transcripts both in print and on

the Internet.

Chamber debates are broadcast on television and webcast on the Internet.

Question Period podcasts are available on the Internet.

TV channel

guide • Broadcast

schedule

Copyright © 2010: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria,

British Columbia, Canada

ISSN 1499-2175