2015 Legislative Session: Fourth Session, 40th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

official report of

Debates of the Legislative Assembly

(hansard)

Thursday, February 12, 2015

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 19, Number

ISSN 0709-1281 (Print)

ISSN 1499-2175 (Online)

CONTENTS

Page

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Tributes

Dylan Armstrong

Hon. T. Lake

Introductions by Members

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

Bill 3 — Building Act

Hon. R. Coleman

Bill 5 — Government Information Act

Hon. A. Virk

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

Moose Hide Campaign to End Violence Towards Women

S. Fraser

S. Gibson

Music and teaching accomplishments of Mark Reid

S. Simpson

Work of Tzu Chi Foundation in Burnaby

R. Lee

Breakfast sponsorship program by Our Place Society

C. James

Eating disorder awareness

J. Thornthwaite

Oral Questions

TransLink management and CEO compensation

J. Horgan

Hon. T. Stone

Access to family physicians

J. Darcy

Hon. T. Lake

Access to family physicians in Fort St. John

J. Rice

Hon. T. Lake

Government action on homelessness and affordable housing

A. Weaver

Hon. R. Coleman

Funding for investigations into missing and murdered women along Highway 16

M. Karagianis

Hon. S. Anton

S. Fraser

Implementation of Missing Women Inquiry recommendations and bus service on Highway 16

S. Fraser

Hon. T. Stone

Reports from Committees

Special Committee to Appoint a Police Complaint Commissioner, report, February 2015

J. Martin

Motions Without Notice

Appointment of Police Complaint Commissioner

J. Martin

J. Rice

Tabling Documents

Crown Proceeding Act, report, fiscal year ended March 31, 2014

Orders of the Day

Throne Speech Debate (continued)

B. Routley

Hon. T. Wat

S. Robinson

On the amendment

S. Robinson

Hon. S. Anton

On the subamendment

A. Weaver

G. Heyman

Hon. P. Fassbender

B. Ralston

Hon. A. Wilkinson

[ Page 5725 ]

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 12, 2015

The House met at 1:32 p.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Hon. P. Fassbender: Tuesday was Safer Internet Day in the province, and this year’s theme was “Let’s create a better Internet together.” I’m proud to say that we have some amazing young people that are in the precinct today who have been working with us in the government and the Ministry of Education under our ERASE Bullying strategy. They’re part of our student advisory group.

These students are taking ownership of their on-line actions and inspiring others to do the same. I’d ask the House to join me in welcoming them into the precinct.

G. Heyman: We spend many hours in this Legislature talking about training and skills development, particularly for First Nations people. It’s my pleasure today to introduce a couple of guests in the precinct, one of whom is an old friend of mine and many people on this side of the House.

Karen Abramsen, from Kelowna, is program manager with the Okanagan Training and Development Council. She is here with Joseph Pierre, who is a board member of the council, from the Penticton Indian Band. They’re meeting with colleagues from across the province as well as with people from Service Canada, who are working hard on the issues and in the field of aboriginal employment and training.

Will the members please join me in making our guests feel very welcome.

Hon. N. Letnick: Joining us in the member’s gallery this afternoon is a delegation from the German Bundestag, Germany’s parliament.

[1335]

The head of the delegation is Mr. Klaus-Peter Flosbach. He’s also with fellow members of the German Bundestag — Mr. Alexander Ulrich, Dr. Tobias Lindner, Mr. Markus Koob, Mr. Oswin Veith and Mr. Michael Thews — who are members of the German-Canadian Parliamentary Friendship Group.

They’re accompanied by Mr. Hermann Sitz, a good friend of mine and also consul general of the Federal Republic of Germany in Vancouver, and Mr. Bertram Dierkes-Leitfeld, deputy consul general. I’ll be meeting with them this afternoon to discuss trade and other relations between British Columbia and Germany.

Would the House please make them feel very welcome.

L. Reimer: It’s a great pleasure to introduce a very special person in my life, my wonderful mother, Norma Chambers, who has spent the past week here with me in Victoria. We’ve managed to have a few meals together. Would the House please join me in a warm welcome for her.

Tributes

DYLAN ARMSTRONG

Hon. T. Lake: Six and a half years ago at the 2008 Beijing Summer Olympics Dylan Armstrong, of Kamloops, came within one centimetre of a bronze medal in the shot put. To have come so close to the podium after years of daily training at the expense of so many of life’s other activities was heartbreaking for Dylan.

Yet the world witnessed a remarkable young man who showed no trace of bitterness, giving one of the most gracious sports interviews that I have ever seen. Dylan thanked his family, his coach and his hometown of Kamloops for all of the support during his journey to the top echelon of athletics.

As we know, at the top echelon sometimes it can be tainted by those who don’t follow the rules. As it turns out, the athlete awarded the bronze medal that day was disqualified. This Sunday at the Tournament Capital Centre in Kamloops our great Dylan Armstrong will have an Olympic medal for shot put placed around his very large neck. I hope the House will join me in congratulating him.

Introductions by Members

G. Kyllo: It gives me great pleasure to introduce some guests, some constituents from my riding. We have Donna Lahota and Nathan Goebel. Donna’s claim to fame is that her brother was a former mayor of Sicamous. Even more importantly, her cousin is Lorne Mayencourt, former MLA, whose office I now share.

With Donna is her daughter Nicole, who’s celebrating a birthday this next week and who resides in Langley. And a close friend and former business owner from Sicamous — we have Jean-Noel Robert.

Could the House please make them feel very welcome.

J. Rice: In the House today we have some guests from the Office of the Police Complaint Commissioner.

[ Page 5726 ]

I would like the House to make Stan Lowe and Rollie Woods welcome.

Madame Speaker: The member from Penticton.

D. Ashton: Madame Speaker, thank you very much for the opportunity. I, too, would like to welcome Councillor Joseph Pierre from the Penticton Indian Band. I’ve had numerous occasions and the honour to work with him on numerous issues that the city of Penticton and the band face. Would the House please help me make him welcome here.

Hon. J. Rustad: Today is a special day. Today is the fourth anniversary of the Moose Hide Campaign event, which sees aboriginal and non-aboriginal men standing up against violence and to end violence against aboriginal women and children. A number of people were out on the steps participating in this today, and a number are in the precinct here, hopefully, for question period today. I just wanted to introduce them.

Paul Lacerte with the aboriginal friendship centre was one of the driving forces behind this. Chief Robert Joseph, Jeremy Loveday, Saul Brown, Jeanette MacInnis, Chancellor Amos, Warren Claremont and Carl Mashon — these people are all pledging to help bring about an end to violence. Through this, many people are also fasting today. I am also participating in that fast today to help bring about an end to aboriginal violence.

What I would like is to, first of all, thank everybody in the House for wearing the moosehide today. Thank you for permission that we may wear it today. Also, if the House could please make them welcome.

[1340]

J. Horgan: Although they won’t be officially assigned to a caucus until tomorrow, I want the House and those in the galleries to recognize a clutch of handsome young undergraduates, who are maybe looking at graduate studies, along with Dr. Paddy Smith. They will be the interns here at the Legislature in the coming spring session.

I’ll introduce them as follows: Emily Barner from the University of Victoria; Kathleen Bowers from the University of British Columbia; Corinne Brosz from the University of Northern British Columbia; Matthew Chan from McGill University and someone from away, perhaps; Jessica Giang from the University of British Columbia; Mark Levesque from Simon Fraser University; Sarah Marriott from Simon Fraser University; Kevin Sage from Simon Fraser University — I think there's a trend here; Kristine Parker from the University of Victoria; and Alissa Wrean from Wilfrid Laurier and the University of Victoria.

Would the House please make our new round of fresh-faced interns very, very welcome.

Hon. A. Virk: I’d like to join with my colleague the Minister of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation to also welcome the fourth annual Moose Hide Campaign event that occurred on the steps. In fact, I’m also joining my brothers who are fasting today in promoting an end to violence.

M. Dalton: I, too, am participating in the Moose Hide Campaign and the fast. I just want to express my appreciation for the great work that Paul Lacerte at the aboriginal friendship centre is doing, putting a focus on violence against aboriginal women and children.

While I have the floor here, I do want to recognize a very special guest of mine, my valentine Marlene, my wife of 30 years, who’s been a frequent guest here. She’s just been a tremendous support to me. As members may be aware, I will be seeking the federal nomination for the riding of Pitt Meadows–Maple Ridge. I told Marlene that she has the last word, and she says we’ve got to do this. I’m not one to argue. Would the House please make her feel welcome.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

BILL 3 — BUILDING ACT

Hon. R. Coleman presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Building Act.

Hon. R. Coleman: I move that the bill be introduced and read for a first time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. R. Coleman: I am pleased to introduce the Building Act. The building construction sector is a major contributor to B.C.’s economy. This act will achieve three major goals: streamline the regulatory framework for construction; increase the competency of building officials by establishing minimum qualifications, as in other provinces; and continue to support the construction sector with local government while encouraging building innovations.

This act is a significant step forward for the construction sector in B.C.’s economy. It is strongly supported by industry stakeholders.

I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

[ Page 5727 ]

Bill 3, Building Act, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

BILL 5 — GOVERNMENT INFORMATION ACT

Hon. A. Virk presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Government Information Act.

Hon. A. Virk: I move that Bill 5 be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. A. Virk: I am pleased to introduce the Government Information Act. This act will modernize and facilitate information management practices across government by, first of all, repealing the 1936 paper-era Document Disposal Act and moving to electronic storage of information. It will also establish a digital archives, which will provide on-line public access to government archival information.

In moving to electronic storage and archiving information, we’ll be joining other leading jurisdictions in Canada, the U.S., the U.K. and Australia. Digitizing our information will make it easier to manage, retrieve and store, resulting in improved services for citizens, efficiencies and better use of taxpayer dollars, increased productivity and timely access to information, and better overall information management. In short, the Government Information Act will move British Columbia’s information management practices into the digital age.

[1345]

On a final note, I move the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 5, Government Information Act, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

MOOSE HIDE CAMPAIGN TO END

VIOLENCE TOWARDS WOMEN

S. Fraser: Today, February 12, 2015, aboriginal and non-aboriginal men met for the fourth consecutive year here in Victoria to stand together to end violence towards aboriginal women and children. The Moose Hide Campaign — its annual gathering of men took place at the Hotel Grand Pacific from 9 a.m. this morning till noon; the procession marched to the B.C. Legislature, and a press conference was held on the steps at 12:30 — is just to deal with the issue of violence against women and children.

In B.C. violence against women and children is an issue affecting all ethnicities and backgrounds, including the infamous and tragic Highway of Tears. For B.C., the unfortunate reality is that the international community has taken notice. The UN report on murdered and missing indigenous women by the UN Inter-American Commission on Human Rights was just released recently. It focuses right here on B.C.

The Moose Hide Campaign is calling on men across the country to stand up for those experiencing violence and to create an environment where it is safe to talk about the issue. The campaign is catching on across the country.

“Our goal is to re-shape our society to one where women are treated with love and respect at all times,” says Paul Lacerte, Moose Hide Campaign founder and the executive director of the B.C. Association of Aboriginal Friendship Centres. He goes on to say: “The level of violence towards women in this country is shocking and totally unacceptable. We need to do more as men to support each other in our healing and also hold each other accountable for our actions. We need to stop taking a back seat on this issue and help drive the change together.”

I applaud them, and I applaud Paul. He is so right. We in this House need to be part of that solution and, as legislators, all of us held to account should we fail.

S. Gibson: Today members on both sides of the House are proud to be wearing a moosehide patch to show support for the Moose Hide Campaign and what it stands for. The campaign, as we know now, is in its fourth year and was created by the B.C. Association of Aboriginal Friendship Centres. As a matter of fact, I have one in my constituency.

The inspiration for the campaign comes from Paul Lacerte. One day he and his daughter Raven were hunting moose near Highway 16 up north when it suddenly occurred to Mr. Lacerte that Raven deserved to live in a world free of violence. He wants a world where all women and children have the right to feel safe within their own community or within the confines of their home. Now, three years later, over 20,000 pieces of hide have been distributed Canada-wide.

The movement is spreading. It supports “Violence-free B.C.,” our new long-term strategy to eliminate violence against women in this province.

Today I’m taking

part in a one-day fast, a very simple act of sacrifice for men to signify their empathy for women who endure violence in their lives. Many other women are also fasting today to demonstrate the strength of their commitment.

Anyone can take part and be a part of the solution by simply standing up and saying that violence or abuse of any kind, be it physical or emotional, will not be tolerated. Let’s take part fully in the Moose Hide Campaignand create a world that Raven and so many other young people and women deserve, a world without fear and without violence.

[ Page 5728 ]

MUSIC AND TEACHING ACCOMPLISHMENTS

OF MARK REID

S. Simpson: I’m pleased to be able to stand and celebrate Mark Reid, a remarkable teacher at Vancouver Technical Secondary School in Vancouver-Hastings. A music educator, Mark has been director of bands and choirs at Van Tech since 2006. This year he’s been nominated for the Global Teacher Prize and has reached the shortlist of the final 50 teachers in contention. This global competition and the accompanying $1 million prize to the winner seeks out the best teachers from around the world.

[1350]

Mark is one of three Canadians and the only British Columbian on the list. Recognition of his accomplishments is not new to Mark. In 2013 he was the MusiCounts Teacher of the Year. That award was presented to him at the Junos by Shania Twain. President of the Canadian Music Educators Association and past president of the British Columbia Music Educators Association, Mark is also a conductor at the Saint James Music Academy, teaching classical music at no cost to children living in Canada’s lowest-income neighbourhoods.

Mark studied conducting at the University of British Columbia, earning admission to the Blue and Gold Circle and winning the Horning prize for most promising music educator. He has performed with the Vancouver Symphony Orchestra and is the music director for Carpe Ictus Music.

This is an impressive resumé of both accomplishments and recognition, but most important is his commitment day in and day out to the kids at Van Tech. He has motivated young people though music and created hope and opportunity for them to believe they can follow their dreams.

We all know there are many outstanding teachers in the public education system in British Columbia, teachers who every day go the extra mile to meet and exceed the needs of our children. Mark Reid is a shining example of that dedication and ability, and I’m very proud that he teaches young people in Vancouver-Hastings — a pride I know is shared by my colleague for Vancouver-Fairview who is Mark’s MLA.

I ask all members of this House to thank Mark for his work, congratulate him on his accomplishments and wish him well in the competition to be named the No.1 teacher in the world.

WORK OF TZU CHI FOUNDATION

IN BURNABY

R. Lee: A few days ago I had the opportunity to attend an event in Burnaby hosted by the Tzu Chi Foundation of Canada. I was amazed by their wonderful work and contributions to the community of Burnaby, as well as worldwide countries. I would like to share their mission with all members in the House today.

The Tzu Chi Foundation is a global non-profit charity organization founded by Dharma Master Cheng Yen, a Buddhist nun, in 1966, while the Tzu Chi Foundation Canada was founded in 1992, aiming at inaugurating the good work of the global foundation.

The Tzu Chi Foundation Canada has delivered charitable and humanitarian services to 81 distinct projects in the past 23 years. Numerous communities, including my riding of Burnaby North, have benefited from the great work of the organization. For example, in supporting low-income families they have set up breakfast programs in four elementary schools and two secondary schools in Burnaby, providing a nutritious breakfast to the needy students in the school.

Moreover, their volunteers provide help in the Burnaby food bank by distributing food to the needy ones. They also participate in the hot meal service hosted by the Salvation Army and serving seniors at some senior homes, etc.

Meanwhile the organization is working with the aboriginal community to bring in acupuncture services to improve healthy living. Over the years, Tzu Chi Foundation volunteers have also assisted in fire and flood emergency relief in the province.

I am deeply touched by the Tzu Chi volunteers’ passion, diligence and commitment in serving locally, as well as globally. May the House please join me in recognizing their great efforts and contributions throughout the years, and may we all learn from their selfless and humble hearts while serving our neighbours.

BREAKFAST SPONSORSHIP PROGRAM BY

OUR PLACE SOCIETY

C. James: Today many of Victoria’s vulnerable citizens woke up to the reality of living below the poverty line, not able to find affordable housing, struggling to pay their rent, buy groceries and trying to manage paycheque to paycheque. That often means no breakfast to start their day.

Our Place, an extraordinary organization in Victoria, has once again stepped up and answered that call. Generous local citizens and businesses have also stepped up to do their part. This initiative is called sponsor-a-breakfast, and it’s a creative approach to delivering a nutritious hot breakfast for those who need it most. Pancakes, eggs, ham, potatoes, sausages, fruit and other hearty choices give people a good start to their day.

On an average morning the team at Our Place serves 400 meals. In the last year the demand has doubled, and a growing number of those coming for breakfast are the working poor — people who are employed and on the brink of homelessness. Starting off the day with nutrition and community can have a huge influence on positive life changes.

[1355]

[ Page 5729 ]

The sponsor-a-breakfast program engages businesses, community groups, schools, individuals and organizations. The Victoria Real Estate Board sponsored the entire month of October, and a different real estate company took on each day.

Other participants have included Ecole Victor Brodeur, the Victoria Grizzlies junior hockey club and Colliers International. Sponsoring a breakfast at Our Place is also a terrific way to mark a birthday or an anniversary, a great team-building exercise for groups and organizations that want to work together and give back in the community.

I want to say thank you. Thank you to all those who’ve donated their dollars and time to make a difference, and a particular thank-you to the dedicated staff and leaders at Our Place, who once again answered the demand in our community in encouraging nourishment, hope and belonging for all.

EATING DISORDER AWARENESS

J. Thornthwaite: Last week was National Eating Disorders Awareness Week, a time to educate Canadians about eating disorders and raise awareness of the resources available to those who are suffering.

Eating disorders are potentially life-threatening, complex mental illnesses. Anorexia nervosa and bulimia are two of the most common eating disorders, each with its own distinctive signs and symptoms. Anorexia has the highest mortality rate of any mental illness. However, eating disorders like anorexia are treatable, usually with a combination of therapies involving a number of different health care professionals, including counsellors, physicians and dietitians.

The focus of this year’s Eating Disorders Awareness Week is encouraging an open, supportive dialogue so that we can help end the stigma and shame associated with eating disorders and help the one million Canadians, plus the many others, who struggle with unhealthy food and weight preoccupation. We must also emphasize the importance of early intervention and of recognizing the warning signs. Many symptoms are often overlooked, and getting help during the early stages significantly increases the likelihood of preventing a disorder and leads to a greater chance of full recovery.

This fiscal year it’s anticipated that provincial health authorities will spend more than $10 million on eating disorder services. Our provincial eating disorder plan addresses specialized support services at various levels and helps health authorities tailor services so that patients receive the right type and intensity of supports to meet their individual needs.

These are great services, and if you or someone you know may be suffering from an eating disorder, I encourage you to reach out and get help. Talk to someone. Contact your family doctor or the National Eating Disorder Information Centre and find out how you can access the help you need. When it comes to eating disorders, talking saves lives.

Oral Questions

TransLink MANAGEMENT

AND CEO COMPENSATION

J. Horgan: Hon. Speaker, as you will know and many in this House will know, families right across British Columbia are getting squeezed day by day by day, nickel-and-dimed to death by a government that continues to increase fees, continues to increase licences. But other people are doing pretty well — a small, small percentage. The top 2 percent, for example, will be getting $236 million in tax cuts from the government later in the year.

We learned yesterday that at the urging of the minister the TransLink board fired their current CEO, Ian Jarvis, $460,000 a year, and replaced him with Doug Allen, $420,000 a year. And on the surface that would appear to be a good deal for taxpayers, a good deal for the travelling public. The problem is they didn’t actually fire Mr. Jarvis. They didn’t like his advice on Monday, but today on Thursday they’re going to be paying him $460,000 a year to advise the incoming CEO.

My question. While commuters are stuck in gridlock and transit users are left at the curb, how is it that the Minister of Transportation thinks it’s a good idea to solve these problems by having two CEOs at TransLink?

Hon. T. Stone: Thank you very much to the Leader of the Opposition. Let me be clear where the government stands on this file. First, this government is….

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

[1400]

Hon. T. Stone: First, our government is committed to a yes vote in the upcoming plebiscite. Our government is committed to providing the people of Metro Vancouver with a say over any new taxes and fees that the mayors determine are necessary for expanding transit and transportation in the region. This government also supports the decision that the TransLink board made and the decision that the Mayors Council supported yesterday to ensure that there is the strongest possible management at TransLink that there possibly can be in the years ahead.

Madame Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition on a supplemental.

J. Horgan: I’m so delighted that the minister chose to be clear today on his government’s position with respect to the TransLink referendum, a referendum that was

[ Page 5730 ]

promised by the Premier during the election campaign. Even though there’s overwhelming consensus within Metro Vancouver about how to address the challenges at TransLink, it was just this week that the minister discovered that we should remove the management that we put in place and replace that management — but not really — so that we can get to the bottom of the challenges at TransLink.

It strikes me that the people that are on the side of the road as the buses leave them behind — and the people that are banging their hips on the tollgates that don’t work, $300 million worth — are a little bit concerned that we now have a million dollars’ worth of CEO and they’re still being left at the side of the road.

Will the minister be clear to the people of B.C. and exercise what anyone would see as common sense — only have one CEO mismanaging TransLink at a time, not two?

Hon. T. Stone: If the members opposite are truly committed to a success in this plebiscite, what would be really useful would be for the members opposite to clarify where they stand.

The member for Vancouver-Fairview, who happens to be the opposition critic for TransLink, one year ago said, in a number of media interviews: “This referendum has no hope of passing.” Then a year later he suddenly finds religion on this plebiscite, and he decides to support it. “Let’s get out there, and let’s support it.” Now he’s out there suggesting that he doesn’t support the TransLink decision — and the decision of mayors, by the way — to ensure that TransLink has the best possible management it can possibly have, moving forward.

Hon. Speaker, I don’t know about you, but I think that the people of the Lower Mainland are pretty darned confused and would appreciate some clarity. Maybe the member for Burnaby–Deer Lake could also let us know if she supports the mayor of Burnaby’s position on this plebiscite. There are all kinds of mixed messages coming from the other side.

Madame Speaker: Recognizing the Leader of the Opposition on a further supplemental.

J. Horgan: As you know, I’m the member for Juan de Fuca here on Vancouver Island. I will not be able to vote on the referendum, but I understand that the member for Westside-Kelowna, who lives in Vancouver, will. So that’s a good thing. You know that there’s one Liberal who will be voting in favour of it.

I appreciate that the government would see two heads being better than one, but two paycheques for just one head doesn’t make a whole lot of sense to the people who are being stuck in congestion. The economy is being constrained. People are hurting day after day after day. They pick up their paper today, and when they get on the SkyTrain — after they bump their hips on the tollgates that don’t work — they learn that they’re being paid a million bucks to be mismanaged.

Will the minister call on the TransLink board to do two things? Firstly, fire Mr. Jarvis. Don’t just move him down the hall. And the second thing, tender their resignations, and let’s deal with the governance challenges that have bedevilled this place since you took power.

[1405]

Hon. T. Stone: Clearly, the Leader of the Opposition either has not recently read the act where the governance model is actually laid out in detail, or he’s choosing, for the purposes of question period, to kind of gloss over what the facts really are with respect to how the governance works.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members, Members.

Hon. T. Stone: The board of TransLink is comprised of appointees that are approved by the Mayors Council. The Mayors Council actually has two seats on the board, including, at the present time, two very active participants: the mayor of Vancouver and the mayor of Surrey. They are both full-fledged participants of the TransLink board.

They are the ones, in concert with their other mayor colleagues, who are responsible for the operations and management of TransLink. For the hon. member to suggest anything otherwise betrays a fundamental lack of understanding about how the governance works at TransLink.

ACCESS TO FAMILY PHYSICIANS

J. Darcy: In 2010 the government promised that every British Columbian would have access to a family doctor by 2015. That was the GP for Me program, and the Premier recommitted to doing this in the 2013 election. Well, here we are. It’s 2015. Does every British Columbian have access to a family doctor? Not even close. Hundreds of thousands of people are having to line up at walk-in clinics for their basic medical care. If they don’t get in, if their number doesn’t come up, where do they go? They end up in the emergency room.

The medical services tax has doubled in this province since the Liberals came to power. Even though people are paying more, they are getting less.

Can the Minister of Health explain why this government has failed to live up to its promise that every British Columbian would have a general practitioner in the year 2015?

Hon. T. Lake: I want to take this opportunity, first of all, to thank the member for the question. It gives me an opportunity to point out that the Conference Board of

[ Page 5731 ]

Canada has named British Columbia the top province in health delivery and health performance in Canada and No. 3 in the world. The top three in the world. I know the member opposite does a very good job and is aspiring to be in the top three on the other side of the House. I think she should be in the top three, like British Columbia.

The fact is that British Columbia is training over twice as many physicians as was the case in the 1990s. We have more doctors per capita than at any other time in our history. The reality is that the type of practice has changed. We need to change with the times, and we are doing that with the divisions of family practice connecting patients to long-term, continuous care from family practitioners. We’ll continue to do that very good work.

Madame Speaker: Recognizing the member for New Westminster on a supplemental.

J. Darcy: This is surely a first in question period — the Minister of Health going back to the record of the NDP government in the 1990s. We’ve had the best health outcomes in Canada since 1993. The fact is that we exercise more, we smoke less and we drink less, and that’s a credit to British Columbians. Absolutely it is.

The other fact is that today hundreds of thousands of British Columbians don’t have a family doctor. According to the Auditor General, the ministry doesn’t even know how many people this affects, because they’re not even tracking it.

[1410]

How can the minister defend this government’s health record when they have failed in their most basic promise? So 2010, 2013 — hundreds of thousands of British Columbians don’t have a family doctor. How can the government defend that record?

Hon. T. Lake: I find it interesting that members of the opposition would talk about the lack of physicians when not one extra doctor was trained in the 1990s. If that action had happened in the 1990s…. We would have 1,000 more physicians in the province of British Columbia if they didn’t try to limit the supply of physicians being trained in the province of British Columbia in the 1990s.

The divisions of family practice are working very closely, through the divisions of family practice, on the GP for Me program. We’re making great progress attaching patients to long-term care with their family practitioners. We are employing nurse practitioners around the province, designing primary health care for the needs of today and for tomorrow’s British Columbians.

ACCESS TO FAMILY PHYSICIANS

IN FORT ST. JOHN

J. Rice: For people in Fort St. John, it’s even harder to find a family doctor. Last year seven doctors announced they would close their family practices. There were already 18,000 people without family doctors. Now there are 24,000 without. The government has told people in Fort St. John that their region is important, but they’ve done nothing to ensure important services are there.

Like everyone else in this province, people in Fort St. John are paying for this government’s hikes in medical services tax, and they’re getting less. Why is this government ignoring the crisis care being faced by the people of Fort St. John?

Hon. T. Lake: Well, first of all, it was this government that built a $350 million hospital in Fort St. John.

We recognize that it is a challenge in some parts of the province to attract the health care professionals needed. I want to thank and recognize the member from North Peace for his efforts, working with the community, with the mayor of Fort St. John, with the divisions of family practice, with Northern Health.

The community has wrapped themselves around this challenge of attracting physicians and other health care professionals to their community. They’ve made great strides with a walk-in clinic and a non-attached clinic. There are more doctors that are set to come to Fort St. John this year, and we’ve created three nurse practitioner spaces to help with that challenge as well. There’s a lot of good work being done in Fort St. John.

Madame Speaker: I recognize the member for North Coast on a supplemental.

J. Rice: I’d like to remind the minister that the fancy, expensive hospital he speaks about in Fort St. John is filled with seniors that should be in a long-term care facility, not a hospital.

Lee Taylor lives in Fort St. John. He is a senior with COPD, emphysema and lung cancer. He is on oxygen, and he has no doctor. It takes Lee five to six weeks to even get into a clinic just for a simple medication change. If he wants to see one sooner, he has to call an ambulance. Does the minister agree that the situation in Fort St. John needs to be addressed now — and make sure people like Lee Taylor have a doctor?

Hon. T. Lake: I wouldn’t characterize the hospital in Fort St. John as fancy. It is a state-of-the-art, modern hospital to serve that community.

[1415]

There are people in Fort St. John working very diligently to address the challenge of attracting health care professionals to that community. A lot of work is, in fact, going on. If the member would like to travel to Fort St. John and meet with the mayor and the community members that have been so active in making sure that this problem was addressed, she would learn that.

Rural health care is a challenge in every jurisdiction

[ Page 5732 ]

across Canada. British Columbia has more rural physicians per capita than any other province. We’re working hard to make sure the communities that need those health care professionals get those health care professionals.

GOVERNMENT ACTION ON HOMELESSNESS

AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING

A. Weaver: Victoria’s Coalition to End Homelessness estimates that it costs about $25,500 a year to maintain a shelter bed in the capital regional district. On the other hand, the cost to run new supportive housing is only about $16,700 per unit per year. The costs of providing additional rental supplements, including support, is even lower, at $6,800 per unit annually.

The evidence is clear. Since Utah launched its homelessness reduction strategy, a strategy that involved — you guessed it — giving homes to the homeless, they’ve reduced chronic homelessness by 72 percent, and they’ve saved an average of $8,000 per person in health, social and justice system costs.

The same is true elsewhere. For example, the Canadian Observatory on Homelessness calculated that for each dollar spent on housing and supports for the chronically homeless, about $2 in savings is found in health, social and justice services.

The Minister of Finance recently announced that there’s more than a $444 million surplus in this past year’s budget. My question to the Minister Responsible for Housing is this. Will the government commit to using the one-time budget surplus to make capital investments in housing in order to reduce ongoing operating commitments in health, social and justice systems?

Hon. R. Coleman: Thanks to the member opposite for the question. I’m always happy to get up and actually talk about housing in this House, which is seldom, because we don’t usually ask these questions. The fact of the matter is that in British Columbia we are home to the most successful housing strategy in Canadian history, right here in British Columbia.

In the last five years alone over 6,000 people that were formerly homeless in this province are no longer homeless because of the outreach workers, the money that’s been invested and the people being connected to housing and supports by our people across the province.

We’ve purchased over 50 buildings across the province of B.C. and renovated for housing and have also spent over half a billion dollars, just in the last couple of years, in building additional housing supports for people. In addition to that, we also today, in total, have 100,000 households in British Columbia that receive some form of support in their housing in British Columbia.

There are today 27,000-plus families in households receiving rent assistance where they live, in communities across British Columbia. The budget for housing has tripled in the last number of years simply because of the commitment of this government to the success of dealing with homelessness, mental health and addiction.

Madame Speaker: Oak Bay–Gordon Head on a supplemental.

A. Weaver: I recognize that this is not answer period, but my question was not about what the government has done. My question is about what the government will do in the future.

The reality is that recent analysis showed the least affordable cities in the world were Hong Kong and Vancouver. In fact, in the top five in Canada, four of them were in B.C.: Victoria, Kelowna, Fraser Valley, Vancouver. They’re all in the top five. Toronto is the only one that wasn’t.

The reality is that if you’re living on income assistance, you’re getting a total of $375 as your housing allowance,

whereas the average person on income assistance is paying $501 in Victoria. If a landlord were to actually follow the rental tenancy office allowable rents, rents could have increased 30 percent since 2007, the time that this rental income assistance has remained fixed from.

The evidence is very clear. The costs of inaction are simply greater than the costs of action.

I reiterate my question. When will the government commit to (

a) increasing that shelter allowance and dealing with British Columbia’s homelessness problem, and (

b) providing more affordable housing to actually deal with this problem, which is a tax on our social, health and other justice systems?

[1420]

Hon. R. Coleman: To the member opposite, the B.C. Housing budget for capital is actually pretty good for the next number of fiscal years. It has continuously been put in the three-year fiscal plan as we sit down and work with communities like Victoria, identify sites like we have in Victoria for three buildings that we’ve recently done and other buildings we’ve bought and renovated, partnerships that we do with the non-profit sector in order to be able to connect that sector in to being there for the people whose housing they’re going to operate.

I’m happy actually…. To the member opposite, if you want to come and have a visit, we can actually explore some of your ideas. One thing I do know, when we wrote the housing strategy in 2005 — which is, by the way, again the most successful one in this country — we opened it up to being open to ideas.

The whole idea around it was that if we actually saw something in Portland or Utah or somewhere else and we thought it could work here in British Columbia, we were not disinclined at all, in our minds, to steal a good idea that might help the citizens of this province. That’s why

[ Page 5733 ]

the housing ministry, B.C. Housing, has such a dynamic mandate, in order to go out and look for their solutions on behalf of B.C. citizens.

FUNDING FOR INVESTIGATIONS INTO

MISSING AND MURDERED WOMEN

ALONG HIGHWAY 16

M. Karagianis: In 2012 the member for Prince George–Valemount, who was then the Justice Minister, said that the project E-PANA investigation into missing and murdered women along the Highway of Tears had “government’s full support.” However, just two years later the B.C. Liberal government cut the E-PANA project by 84 percent.

I’d like to know: is this how the B.C. Liberal government shows its support, by hampering the ability of investigators to solve these horrible crimes?

Hon. S. Anton: The issue of missing and murdered women in British Columbia has been a priority for this government for some years now. That, of course, includes solving the murders and missing women along Highway 16, the E-PANA investigation. That’s why government committed money to the RCMP a number of years ago to set up a task force, which was set up. It was a very extensive task force, a massive amount of work done.

The work continues. The investigations continue within major crimes of RCMP. They continue because the RCMP is extraordinarily committed to the families to solving these murders. This is an issue that must be solved — I agree with the member opposite — and that sentiment is shared by the RCMP. They continue to work very hard on these cases every single day.

Madame Speaker: Esquimalt–Royal Roads on a supplemental.

M. Karagianis: That makes no sense at all. The government has cut the funding by 84 percent. The RCMP themselves have said to the government: “...no other Highway of Tears historical homicide investigations being undertaken for the foreseeable future.” They have told the government — an 84 percent cut means no more investigations.

I would like to know from the Justice Minister how letting people who have committed murders go free in this province is a way to have a violence-free British Columbia?

Hon. S. Anton: The RCMP budget last year was increased by $5 million. The RCMP has a major crimes division. The major crimes division looks after many things, but including historical murders and investigations.

I’ve spoken to the deputy commissioner on this file. I know from what the RCMP tell me and from what the deputy commissioner tells me and from what I observe that they are extremely committed to continuing to work with the families along Highway 16 to solve these unsolved murders. It is a priority of the RCMP. It’s a priority of government. It has been, and it remains so.

S. Fraser: An 84 percent cut does not jibe with what the Attorney is saying.

[1425]

The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights report into missing and murdered aboriginal women in B.C. confirmed that there are more unsolved cases here than in any other province in Canada. It said that government must offer “judicial remedies for victims and their family members when they suffer acts of violence.”

The families of women murdered along the Highway of Tears have suffered for way too long. Will the Justice Minister commit today to reversing cuts to E-PANA so those families can finally get justice?

Hon. S. Anton: As I said a moment ago, the budget of the RCMP last year increased. The major crimes unit works hard every single day. The RCMP themselves are extremely committed to solving these issues, solving these historical murder files. They work closely with the families. They are committed to this file. They have a major crimes division that works on these files. This is a commitment of the RCMP. It has been, as I said, and it remains so.

IMPLEMENTATION OF MISSING WOMEN

INQUIRY RECOMMENDATIONS AND

BUS SERVICE ON HIGHWAY 16

S. Fraser: Just wearing the moosehide doesn’t make the problem go away. Platitudes don’t make the problem go away. Both the Missing Women Commission of Inquiry and the Inter-American Commission said that women along the Highway of Tears were being put at risk because of the lack of safe, affordable alternatives to hitchhiking, for instance. That’s why the Missing Women Commission urged this government to act immediately to “develop and implement an enhanced public transportation system and provide a safer travel option for northern communities.”

Again to the minister: when will these communities get the shuttle service that was recommended years ago?

Hon. T. Stone: As the Attorney has stated, I think very clearly, on numerous occasions inside and outside of this House, this government is committed to the recommendations in the missing-women report, including the recommendation to identify safer transportation options. That is why last summer staff from the Ministry of Transportation actually spent the better part of a month meeting with all kinds of organizations — First Nations,

[ Page 5734 ]

about 80 First Nations leaders, and municipal leaders — up along the Highway 16 corridor to talk about this challenge of safe transportation options.

I think that fundamentally, there is no easy fix in terms of the often-suggested bus service. But I’ll tell you there were some very good suggestions that were made, some very good ideas that were thrown on the table. A number of those we actually announced before Christmas and we’ve actually implemented. They include a new web portal that makes it much, much easier for people who live in the area to learn about the variety of transportation options that do exist along the corridor. All of that information is now consolidated into one place.

In addition, this government has provided $75,000 to Carrier-Sekani Family Services for driver education, safe driver and driver licensing programs for First Nations.

These are some of the steps that we have implemented to ensure that folks along the Highway 16 corridor have safer transportation options.

[End of question period.]

Reports from Committees

J. Martin: I have the honour to present the report of the Special Committee to Appoint a Police Complaint Commissioner. I move that the report be taken as read and received.

Motion approved.

J. Martin: I ask leave of the House to move a motion to adopt the report.

Leave granted.

J. Martin: I move that the report be adopted.

Motion approved.

J. Martin: I ask leave of the House to move a further motion to reappoint Stan T. Lowe as Police Complaint Commissioner.

Leave granted.

Motions Without Notice

APPOINTMENT OF

POLICE COMPLAINT COMMISSIONER

J. Martin: I move that:

[Pursuant to the Police Act (RSBC 1996, c.367), and the Police (Police Complaint Commissioner) Amendment Act , 2009, Stan T. Lowe be re-appointed as Police Complaint Commissioner for a term of four years commencing March 1, 2015.]

In moving this motion, I would like to provide a brief profile of the candidate unanimously selected by the committee.

[1430]

Mr. Lowe is currently B.C.’s Police Complaint Commissioner, a position he has held since February 2009. Mr. Lowe is currently a lawyer and holds a law degree from the University of British Columbia. He has an extensive background in criminal law and management, including a legal career in private practice and with B.C.’s major crimes prosecution unit and the criminal justice branch of the Ministry of Justice, where he was a senior member of the branch’s management team from 2005 to 2009.

Since 2009 he has provided leadership to the office of the Police Complaint Commissioner, improving the management and practices of the office while enhancing its relations with police agencies, community stakeholders and citizens. His work and his achievements as Police Complaint Commissioner and his previous service in prosecution and management make him well qualified to continue to lead the office of the Police Complaint Commissioner.

I want to extend my sincere appreciation to the Deputy Chair, the member for North Coast, along with the committee members for their hard work and dedication. I’m pleased the committee was able to work collaboratively and was able to unanimously recommended Mr. Lowe’s reappointment.

J. Rice: I just, too, wanted to add that it was a pleasure working with our Chair and that I very much appreciated being on this committee. We look forward to working with Stan going forward.

Motion approved.

Tabling Documents

Hon. S. Anton: I have the honour to present the Crown Proceeding Act report for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2014.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: Continued debate on the throne speech.

Throne Speech Debate

(continued)

[D. Horne in the chair.]

Deputy Speaker: I recognize the member for Cowichan Valley, and I ask those members that are leaving the chamber for other duties to please make certain that the member for Cowichan Valley is heard.

[ Page 5735 ]

B. Routley: Just to quickly review where we were, we were continuing in our discussion about the kind of jiggery-pokery that goes on with the Liberal government that continues to this day, I can assure you. You’ll see the evidence for that in just a minute here.

One of the problems that this government has is a reliance model, a professional reliance model, wherein they relied on the proponent, their expert, in doing something like dumping contaminated soil in the watershed in our beautiful Shawnigan Lake region. For the good people of Shawnigan Lake, I just want to read into the record what the government actually had the audacity to say in their throne speech, because they’ll be very interested and very disturbed at the same time.

I quote, under the heading “The Environment” in the throne speech, it says: “B.C. will continue to lead on responsible economic development by continuing….” Imagine this, people in the Shawnigan region, where they’re continuing to dump contaminated soil. They’re saying they’re going to continue “to protect our clean air, our clean water and our land.” Just the opposite is what’s going on in the Shawnigan Lake region.

They also carry on here with: “We will continue to provide a positive example to the world that there is no need to choose between economic growth and fighting climate change.”

[1435]

What fight on climate change? Ask the good people in the Cowichan Valley region what’s going on with the river and the fact that we continue to run out of water and actually have to truck fish up the river. Five times in the last ten years this has gone on, with the help of volunteers, to rescue the iconic salmon in what is known as a B.C. heritage river from being decimated by a drought.

Why? It’s because this government knows — they’ve seen the record — that there are continual climate change impacts, continually dwindling water supplies. Yet they have not been, and refuse to be involved in, developing a fulsome plan of action.

Now, where I left off we were reviewing one of the…. This is the professional reliance that the Minister of Environment relied on. Just think about this for a minute. They actually relied on a group that is now owed…. It came out as evidence, under the Environmental Appeal Board, that the company, the proponent, South Island Aggregates, owes Active Earth $540,000. They made this admission that they actually owe more than half a million dollars.

They certainly are owed that based on the success of whether or not this thing goes ahead. So the proponent has a monetary reason. Of course, this raised many questions about the reliability of Active Earth’s reports. They had given, and had, considerable financial ties to the proponent of the contaminated site and a vested interest in the outcome of the permitting process.

That’s a serious matter, in my opinion. It was impossible to condense the 32 days of hearings, but some of the most pertinent details were highlighted during the closing argument. I just want to go over some of what was put forward in the closing argument put to the Environmental Appeal Board. This is relevant to what we’re talking about — clean air, clean water — that was part of the throne speech.

“Most importantly, the experts who testified were unanimous in their concern about the location of this proposed contaminated soil site. It became glaringly clear that this is indeed a wholly inappropriate site for this type of dump and that the contaminants would present a clear risk, not just to the environment but to the long-term safety of the drinking water.” This is dumping arsenic, all kinds of health risks to the community, as a result of this toxic brew that they’re planning on dumping.

“It also became clear that in the process of granting the permit, the protocols for selecting this site for contaminated soil were wilfully overlooked and ignored.”

Secondly, the statutory decision-maker, or SDM, for the Ministry of Environment clearly was derelict in his duties. Now, can you imagine this? “Not only did he not once visit the site before issuing the permit in August 2013; he neglected a significant number of his responsibilities, as outlined in the ministry’s statutory decision-maker handbook” — which, of course, he was taken through by the lawyers.

They asked him: “Did you do this? Did you do that?” The answer was that he didn’t follow the handbook that he, as statutory decision-maker, ought to have to thoroughly review, you would think, in something as important as this.

“Some of the responsibilities that he did not fulfil included ensuring that the process was transparent, consistent and fair; having in-depth knowledge and specialized expertise; consulting with First Nations.” The Minister of Environment’s designate did not even respond to the Cowichan Tribes’ opposition to this proposal.

It’s clear, when you look at the list of experts and their analysis and reports, that the government was relying on a flawed process with people that had a monetary incentive to be less than forthright in their whole issue. It certainly wasn’t anything about the public interest.

[1440]

They were not addressing the public’s concerns or verifying the accuracy of the information and reliability of the experts. They did not assess the current compliance and performance, as well as the financial stability, of the applicant. This is only an abbreviated list of the requirements that the Minister of Environment’s designate did not fulfil.

Again, I suggest that what was really on this designated representative’s mind was that it was all about their continued focus on getting to yes. They were getting to yes before they even did their due diligence. It’s my view after reading some of the evidence that came out as a re-

[ Page 5736 ]

sult of those days — day after day and weeks and weeks — of hearings.

Finally, as the hearings progressed, we learned of the questionable practices of South Island Aggregates. They are currently operating as a quarry under a Ministry of Mines permit, and there have been instances of non-compliance with the permit in the past. These include possibly blasting below the water table level as well as blasting into neighbouring CVRD parkland.

As the lawyer for Shawinigan Residents Association pointed out in his closing arguments, Mr. Block, who is one of the co-owners, committed perjury several times while under oath at the Environmental Appeal Board hearings. What does that tell you about the suitability of the operator to reliably oversee a self-regulating permit?

The evidence against the proposal has been overwhelming. The notion of putting the drinking water of 12,000 people at risk for the benefit of one business is insane, one of the representatives of the professional group suggested.

The environmental panel has promised to be efficient in its decision-making. We do not know when the ruling will be issued, and we do not know if they choose to uphold the permit. However, the community has already said that they are committed that they will choose to continue to fight.

The next step is a judicial appeal. Shawinigan Lake community is now holding its breath, hoping for an outcome that they have fought so passionately for. I hope that the minister will listen and cancel this permit.

Hon. T. Wat: It is an honour for me to rise in the House today to speak to the Lieutenant-Governor’s Speech from the Throne, to talk about my portfolio and the work that we are doing to grow and diversify B.C.’s economy and create well-paying jobs for British Columbians.

As we head into a new budget cycle, we need to celebrate the successes of our hard work. We are proud to be once again delivering a balanced budget, a feat that is out of reach for many jurisdictions and that protects taxpayers and sustains public services by managing costs and controlling spending. We are also focused on saying yes to economic growth so that we can grow revenues instead of raising taxes.

We can attribute our financial health to our diverse economy, which we are proud of and want to continue to diversify. We are more than a resource economy. Look at our opportunities in agroforestry, international education, mining and energy, natural gas, technology and green economy, tourism as well as transportation.

We can also attribute our financial health to discipline in controlling expenditure, as well as our success at breaking into Asia-Pacific markets. As Minister of International Trade, I am proud to say that our ministry has played an important role in that success.

We have worked diligently to deliver on our mandate, contributing to B.C.’s strong economic position today by opening and expanding international markets for B.C. goods and services, attracting investment for our provinces’ businesses, entrepreneurs and communities, and by leveraging our many historical, cultural and business links to countries across the Pacific and around the world.

[1445]

One of the most effective ways to nurture its current relationships and build new ones is through trade missions. I am very happy to report that we supported over 400 inbound and outbound trade missions since April 2011, including three major Premier’s missions to Asian markets that resulted in business deals and partnership agreements valued at over $1.8 billion.

This year the Premier embarked on her seventh international trade mission, returning to B.C.’s sister province of Guangdong, China.

B.C. and Guangdong province are celebrating a very important milestone this year, the 20th anniversary of our sister province agreement. Last September, during a visit from Guangdong’s governor, Zhu Xiaodan, B.C. and Guangdong signed an action plan to celebrate this anniversary and build on our trade and cultural ties.

The Premier’s trip will also build on a memorandum of understanding in which both the B.C. government and the Guangdong subcouncil of the China Council for the Promotion of International Trade agreed to promote investment and trade initiatives, participate in information exchanges, introduce potential investors to each other’s markets and review industry sector priorities for two-way investment. Further details will be announced soon.

These trade missions have helped develop our strong trade relationships in Asia, and they have a direct impact on our families by creating jobs in our province. For example, in 2014 we attracted 13 Asian international offices to locate in our province, and one office expansion occurred. Our exports continue to grow, increasing by 6.3 percent in 2014 compared to 2013. This has been a great year for investment venture capital attraction, with $94 million invested in 240 small businesses.

Our government has also been involved in negotiations on federal trade agreements such as the Canada–European Union Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement, CETA, and the Canada-Korea Free Trade Agreement. Once in effect, CETA will open one of the world’s largest markets to British Columbia. It will lift 98 percent of trade tariffs and trade barriers between Canada and the EU, comprising 28 member countries. The key outcomes of CETA are very clear: more jobs and economic opportunities for British Columbians.

Another exciting opportunity for B.C. business is the Canada-Korea Free Trade Agreement. This is Canada’s first free trade agreement with an Asian country. South Korea is already B.C.’s fourth-largest export destination, with $2 billion in exports in 2014. It’s worthy to note that 50 percent of Canada’s trade exports to South Korea come

[ Page 5737 ]

We are working very hard to reach out to business in B.C. so that they can take advantage of these opportunities. As part of that effort, we are committing to a long-term engagement and outreach program to increase trade and investment between B.C. and South Korea. A key component of the plan is a B.C.–South Korea trade and investment forum to be held in June this year.

I would like to conclude by saying that one of B.C.’s most valuable resources is its people. We are the most ethnically diverse province in Canada, welcoming nearly 40,000 new immigrants every year. I’m proud to say that I am one of those immigrants who emigrated to this beautiful province 25 years ago. All of the immigrants, including myself, have been contributing to the economic growth of this province.

It’s our multicultural society that gives us our significant competitive advantages and an important bridge across the Pacific — a bridge with family and business connections in key countries and world markets. Cultural diversity and increased participation by all cultures is vitally important to creating a strong and vibrant future for B.C.

[1450]

An important aspect of respecting our cultural diversity is having the courage to recognize when things did not go well. That is why, as part of the government’s apology for historical wrongs against B.C.’s Chinese-Canadian community, the Legacy Initiatives Advisory Council was established in October 2014.

The council is working with Chinese-Canadian communities and other key partners to ensure legacy projects are successfully implemented, including identifying and recognizing historical and cultural sites and artifacts, creating a book that celebrates Chinese-Canadian achievement in B.C. and implementing the B.C. education curriculum supplement plan.

We can all be part of the role that we will play in helping to honour those Chinese Canadians who helped shape B.C.’s culture. After all, our many different cultures contribute to the overall economic health and quality of life in our communities. Our goal is to ensure a meaningful legacy is created for all British Columbians to enjoy. This goal will carry us forward as we continue to make our province a more prosperous and inclusive place to live.

Hon. Speaker, thank you for this opportunity to speak in support of the Speech from the Throne.

S. Robinson: I am pleased to rise in the House today in response to the throne speech in this spring 2015 session of the Legislature.

It is always an honour and a privilege to stand here as a representative of the citizens of Coquitlam-Maillardville. My community is a suburban community that was once considered a francophone rural mill town. Today, over 100 years later, Coquitlam-Maillardville is a thriving, diverse community that is no longer francophone, no longer rural and no longer a mill town.

Today Coquitlam-Maillardville is very suburban and very diverse. It is so diverse that on a single street of 20 houses, you can find people who come from 20 different countries, speaking 20 different languages. The people of Coquitlam-Maillardville are hard-working people who are committed to their families and committed to their communities.

The people that I represent want a government that understands their challenges and a government that will act in ways that provide opportunities and provide services that will assist them in doing what’s right for their loved ones. It was with this in mind that I listened to the throne speech on Tuesday. It was with this in mind that I scoured the throne speech yesterday, looking for the tidbits that I could go back to my constituents with and say: “This government cares about you and your family.” But I couldn’t find mind much that will make life any easier for the people of Coquitlam-Maillardville.

During the 30 minutes of the throne speech there were many words spoken, but very little was actually said. Words are merely words, and this government, I have to say, is good with words. Debt-free B.C., prosperity fund, violence-free B.C., A GP for Me — these are all catchy words that have been used by the Premier and her caucus for several years now. But they are merely words. It’s really easy to say these kinds of words. I want to talk about how words backed up with little or no action damage the spirit and hurt people we say we care about.

You see, I am a family therapist, and I’ve been working with all kinds of people for over 20 years. And therapy, or counselling, is an activity of words. We use words to convey meaning and intention. When I worked with families, and couples in particular, it was not uncommon for words to be shared between spouses in our session.

People would use words to commit to changing what they’ve been doing in the relationship. They would use words that would convey that they would be more attentive, that they would be more thoughtful, words to convey that they would be more patient or more supportive. Whatever words that they wanted to use, that they thought their partner wanted to hear, were words that they would use to commit to being different in the relationship.

In caring, committed relationships, I would often see progress, where words were backed up with action and behaviours that supported those words that were said in session.

[1455]

There were times when a couple would return, and we would monitor progress, and we would see that the

[ Page 5738 ]

words were not followed up by supporting actions and behaviours. Of course, we would see that the relationship suffered. The partner expecting the behaviour change would be disappointed and frustrated — frustrated that although their partner was saying all the right things, they felt that the partner really didn’t understand what was going on, or perhaps their partner wasn’t listening, or perhaps their partner wasn’t caring. The experience left them with this notion that they were just saying the right thing at the time.

What we have heard once again in this throne speech were words — words that are not being backed up with action that will make lives better for all British Columbians. With this Premier, we have someone who knows to say all the right things. But at the end of the day, British Columbians are left disappointed and frustrated — frustrated to see that there are no changes in action or behaviour or policy that would back up what the words are saying.

Let’s just take a closer look at some of those words. Let’s start with “prosperity fund.” This was certainly a key element of the Liberal election platform. The words that the Liberals put out to British Columbians were that if elected to government, they would develop a prosperity fund.

Actually, here I have a news release. It’s a news release from exactly two years ago today — February 12, 2013. “Billions of dollars in revenue will be dedicated to the B.C. prosperity fund.” Another one: “Our LNG industry is developing quickly.” And then there’s: “Information on the LNG prosperity fund will be published annually so that British Columbians know how much money is in the fund and how it is being spent.”

Interesting. There was nothing in this throne speech that speaks to the prosperity fund now, nothing to speak of how much money is in the fund or how it’s going to be spent. I don’t think I’ve ever seen an annual report so that British Columbians can see for themselves how much money is in that fund that was promised to them, nothing about how that money is going to be spent.

Words slip off the tongue, but the actions that will make lives better for British Columbians and the people of Coquitlam-Maillardville just aren’t being delivered.

Let’s look at these other words: “Violence-free B.C.” Last year we had a promise in that throne speech for a comprehensive strategy to end violence against women. How did this government follow through on these words? In the last budget, the Liberal government actually cut funding to victim services and crime prevention, during a year that hit a five-year high for spousal violence.

Then just days before this current throne speech, for the next session of government, the Premier identifies up to $3 million in civil forfeiture funds for the time being. But the government’s February 6, 2015, release says: “Over $3.4 million in grants from civil forfeiture proceeds were used to support vulnerable women in 2014 alone.” Does this mean that we’ve gone from $3.4 million down to $3 million? And what does “up to $3 million” really mean?

Having been an active community program developer in Coquitlam for many years in my previous career, I know, and I believe everyone in the House knows, that developing any program without stable funding is not the best use of resources. Can you imagine developing a program that supports women to rebuild their lives, one of the commitments outlined in the press release, only to have that funding cut in 2016? What does that do to the women who are relying on this new program? What does it do to their children? What does it do to the relationships and new partnerships that service providers are to develop, as outlined in that press release?

This is not a long-term plan. This is not a long-term plan to stop violence against women. The words “violence-free B.C.,” which sound so lovely, cannot be achieved with this announcement. They are merely words spoken with no real plan to back them up.

If this government truly cared about ending violence against women, then this Premier would announce a stable source of funding for anti-violence and support programs. She would follow through on commitments she and the Minister of Justice made after the murder of Serena Vermeersch to improve monitoring of dangerous offenders. She would finally act on the 2012 Oppal report’s urgent measures to fund the safe transportation for women along Highway 16.

[1500]

This is what my constituents expect from their government. Saying words just to get what you want in a moment without following through is a betrayal to the relationship, and the people in my constituency are feeling betrayed by this government.

What about “Debt-free B.C.”? Those are also really lovely words echoed by this government. Whatever happened to those words, the ones that were printed on the side of that campaign bus? The Liberal government says it’s committed to debt management, but it is the government that has had the fastest increase in debt in B.C.’s history.

In March 2011 the provincial debt was $45.2 billion. Here we are, four years later, and it’s estimated that we will have a debt by the end of the fiscal year of over $63 billion.

Words like “debt-free,” “violence-free,” “prosperity fund” — they’re thrown around to make the Liberals look good in that particular moment, but without any real substance to back them up, without the commitment to realize these ideas, they are merely words.

With this government, words get bandied about because they sound good, but to people, words are commitments. They are commitments to the people of Coquitlam-Maillardville. They are commitments to the people of British Columbia. This government is not liv-

[ Page 5739 ]

ing up to its commitments it has made over the years.

What am I hearing from my constituents? What’s life really like for them these days? I am hearing that life is getting harder. Increases to MSP, hydro, ferries, bridge tolls, ICBC rates — all hidden taxes that are paid by everyone regardless of income. All these hidden taxes are making it difficult to make ends meet.

The people in my constituency, as I’m sure it is for people throughout this province, are feeling nickel-and-dimed everywhere they turn. They see the costs of living going up, and they see their wages and savings being eaten up by those creeping costs.

Earlier this year I wrote an op-ed in our local paper about all of the community leaders in the Tri-Cities, mostly politicians from all levels of government, and how we were running around the Tri-Cities raising awareness about the food bank, that the food bank shelves were empty and that we all ought to be doing our fair share.

It is the giving season, and it’s the best fundraising time of the year if you’re fundraising for poverty relief programs. I wrote my op-ed challenging all of our community leaders to think beyond poverty relief and to start advocating for poverty reduction.

Taking photo ops with a box of food we collect at our constituency offices that we’re going to deliver to the food bank, and then not doing anything to reduce poverty, is just about a photo opportunity and does nothing to reduce poverty in our communities.

I received a letter in response to that op-ed. I’d like to read it here in the House, because I think it just really speaks to the experience of people in my community.

“I agree with the essence of your column. I recently retired after more than 40 years working, both as a postal worker and, later, as a health care worker.

“For the last ten years I worked in a seniors home in Vancouver. When I retired I was earning less than $18 an hour, considered to be poverty level. My small pension from that place barely covers our medical-dental plans. Our CPP and OAP cheques are inadequate.

“Our rent is affordable because we live in a small trailer park, but the property will likely be sold to a developer when the Evergreen line opens in 2016. I don’t know what we will do when my savings, mostly an inheritance, runs out.

“Thanks for writing that column. I hope it has some impact.

“Sincerely, Brian Sproule.”

Life is hard for many in my community. This throne speech, the one that we heard on Tuesday, offers absolutely nothing for Brian and his family.

Why are British Columbians feeling so squeezed? Squeezed to pay for things their families need. Squeezed for time because they are stuck in traffic. Or squeezed for time because they have to pick up additional shifts at work to pay for the added care their aging mother needs, or testing their child with learning challenges needs because the public schools can no longer afford to provide testing services.

In my community, as I’m sure exists throughout the province, wages have stagnated. The inflation-adjusted median income fell 2.4 percent between 2006 and 2012. Young people, young adults, like my children, are having a real hard time finding jobs that pay a decent wage. They are in their mid-20s, living at home because they can’t make enough money that will pay their bills if they are to pay market rents.

[1505]

While the Premier talks about young adults on the couch, and she characterizes them as lazy because they are living in their parents’ home, I’m here to tell her and her government that our young adult children are busting their tails. They’re busting their tails to find a way to participate in the economy.

I should know. I am the parent of two young adults, both still living at home and both finding the financial burden of the most expensive housing in the country, combined with poor transit, increased Hydro, MSP and ICBC rates that keep going up as significant barriers to financial independence.

Rather than deal with this problem, the Premier would rather call our adult children lazy. How is that for leadership in this province? Our children are burdened with increasing costs of living, enormous student debt and poor economic opportunities.

So many of my children’s friends are juggling a raft of retail and other low-wage jobs, running from the coffee shop where they work the morning shift to the daycare job where they work the afternoon shift to the restaurant where they work the evening shift. This is how our young people are finding their way in the world. This is how our young people are making ends meet. This is what awaits them after they finish post-secondary school.

While the Premier chastises my children for living at home, I’m here to tell her that they are hard-working young adults who want what their parents had and that this government is not helping. And to top all of that off, to top off the increased MSP, the increased Hydro, the increased ICBC rates, what does this government do? They give people who make the most money a tax break. And there was nothing in this throne speech for my children or for their friends, nothing on assistance with housing, student loans or supporting — really supporting — the expansion of a transit network.

There was nothing in the throne speech that talked about what’s going on in my community around access to transit, nothing to address issues that we have with TransLink governance. Either this government isn’t listening, or they just don’t care.

What did the government have to say about transportation in general in this throne speech? Transportation is a significant issue in Coquitlam-Maillardville. The government says: “Transportation is crucial, because our trade depends on it.” And then it goes on to say that the Malahat safety improvement project and work to increase capacity and reduce bottlenecks through the new west partnership with Alberta and Saskatchewan…. These

[ Page 5740 ]

projects are highlighted as examples.

I’m not sure how the Malahat project, which I understand needed to get done, is connected to our trade issues. But I can tell you that if this government were really committed to making transportation corridors more efficient by increasing capacity and reducing bottlenecks, they would have at least announced the commitment to provide funding for transit infrastructure ahead of this plebiscite.

If this government were really committed to opening up transportation corridors, they would do more than just say they will support a yes vote. This government, a government that claims to want openness, transparency and accountability, would hear what the people in the Lower Mainland are saying about TransLink.

If this government truly wanted to work collaboratively with the mayors, if this Premier really, really wanted to work collaboratively with the mayors, then she would hear what they are saying and this throne speech would have said a thing or two about how this government will support their work by fixing the governance mess that is TransLink.

I am certainly hearing from my constituents in Coquitlam-Maillardville that supporting this referendum is hard to do because they don’t trust TransLink to be responsible and accountable stewards of their hard-earned tax dollars. If we had a government that was paying attention and cared what people were saying, we would have heard in this throne speech how this government plans to change TransLink’s governance, how they plan to change this governance structure, a structure that this government set up years ago.

If we had a government that cared about taxpayers in the Lower Mainland, they would address ways to increase transparency and accountability with the TransLink governance model so that taxpayers in the Lower Mainland could rest assured that their tax dollars are wisely spent on the transit infrastructure that the region desperately needs.

What else have I been hearing from my constituency these last few months that would help inform this government so that they can chart a course for the future? I’ve certainly been hearing about the underfunding of education. What did we hear in the throne speech on that? We hear about the development of three offshore schools and some mention of “bringing some of the best thinking on learning from around the world to B.C. students, teachers and parents” to make sure our children are ready to inherit the world.

I do recall seeing a lot of promotion about this on my Twitter feed, about the Focus on Learning forum. I’m not sure that there’s really going to be money behind it in the budget to move this forward, and this grand plan doesn’t speak to how to help children who aren’t succeeding in today’s classrooms.

[1510]

Of course, I have a few letters from my constituents to read into the record, because I think it’s important that this government hear what real people are saying about their real problems.

“I generally don’t speak out, for a few reasons, not the least of which is that most people who are sharing stories have kids with autism spectrum disorder, physical challenges, cerebral palsy or diagnosed mental health issues like anxiety or depression. My children have none of these things, but they do have special needs.

“I’m a parent of gifted children. Because of the triage situation of our education system these days, our children’s needs aren’t being met. Yet we feel guilty drawing attention to this fact because — let’s face it — they aren’t in as desperate need as the kids with autism and CP and trisomy 21.

“My eldest is in fifth grade and testing in the 99th percentile. He is applying to the math enrichment program. He had no enrichment until last year, despite his first-grade teacher identifying him as one of those to watch for the challenge program.

“My middle child is in third grade, and he is in no man’s land. Despite him being sent to the challenge centre in earlier years, the system offers no place for grade 3 kids who are suspected of being gifted but haven’t yet been assessed.

“He is the kid who finds things boring, because he intuitively already understands what his class is being taught, and he has for years. Luckily, he had a great teacher and principal who have singled him out for a bit of special consideration.

“My daughter — well, I don’t know if she’s gifted or not, but she will be fine no matter what. Even at six, you can tell she will achieve what she wants. This is what it’s like for my children.

“Regards,

“Kristina Lee”

I have another one, a little bit more heartbreaking.

“I think you know that I have a daughter, gifted with learning disabilities. She has definitely struggled with less and less help available in secondary school. At her current high school she was told she would be funded for her gifted program or for her learning support but not both, even though she has both designations.

“She was excited to pursue the gifted program at the start of grade 10 last year. She was an honour student and in an accelerated gifted education program. With the lack of support available last year, she started to struggle, and we asked to ensure her recommended accommodations were being made. She was told that we had to advocate for these accommodations.

“As things got worse, we asked for further testing, as her last tests in the district were eight years earlier. We were told that, given her continued high performance, she could not be prioritized for support or updated sight testing to further understand learning difficulties. Two and a half months later she failed the class.

“Starting out again this year with marks in the high 90s, she got the flu and missed a week of school. No support available to understand missed work, now she’s in danger of failing math. She was achieving 90 percent last year and mentoring fellow gifted students. What a travesty.

“Last district-paid learning testing was in 2005. We paid privately for testing in 2009, but we no longer have the means for private testing, since I am disabled and no longer able to work. If she doesn’t have updated testing before going into grade 12 provincial exams, will she qualify for accommodations?

“Without accommodations, they will not see what this long-time honour student is capable of. Without doing well in those provincials and without updated documentation of moderate-level learning disabilities, how successful is university going to be? Will she just give up?

“Alexander Graham Bell, Edison, da Vinci — so many gifted people also have learning disabilities. Are we returning to the Dark Ages? Even though we now know how to unlock the skills of these students with appropriate technologies and support, we

[ Page 5741 ]

are too underfunded to do so.

“Bottom line. Yet another student who is being failed because classroom teachers are too stretched. There are too few specialist teachers remaining on any given staff. Resources to get extra help are a moot point without the staff to identify and apply the expertise.

“Within seven months an all-honours student drops to failing one course, then two, before she can qualify for help. And which other students now lose out because my daughter finally won that waiting-to-fail lineup and gets help?

“The system is bleeding to death. Teachers are demoralized and burning out. Students aren’t succeeding, where they once did — all due to underfunding in the system.

“Thanks for listening.

“Laurel Lawson”

On behalf of the constituents of Coquitlam-Maillardville, I am deeply, deeply disappointed with the content in this throne speech. The words on the campaign trail and in the announcements that get made at regular intervals don’t speak to a government that lives up to its words. These words that we heard on Tuesday are more of the same — merely words, words without commitment.

[1515]

In light of this, I would like to move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper.

[Be it resolved that the motion “We, Her Majesty’s most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia, in session assembled, beg leave to thank Your Honour for the gracious Speech which Your Honour has addressed to us at the opening of the present session,” be amended by adding the following:

“and that the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia regrets that the families in the province have seen their wages fall as they pay more for their basic services, while the government gives a break to the highest two per cent of income earners; regrets that the government has failed to meet its commitment that all British Columbians will have access to a general practitioner by 2015; regrets that seniors still do not have flexible options for home care or assisted living; regrets that young people in the province face uncertain job prospects as the government has bet on one sector rather than working with businesses and workers across B.C. to reach their potential; and regrets that the government will not fulfill its commitment for at least one LNG pipeline and terminal online in B.C. by 2015.”]

I would like to speak to the amendment.

Deputy Speaker: Proceed.

On the amendment.

S. Robinson: I mentioned a while ago about work as a family therapist and when the relationship would be challenged because someone in the partnership wasn’t true to their word or not able or willing to live up to their commitment. When this would happen, we would find ways to heal the relationship. I spent 20 years helping people find ways to come together, and this amendment speaks to that.

When we don’t follow through, it can be due to a range of reasons. Sometimes we weren’t authentic in the moment. We just put words out there because they sounded good in the moment. Sometimes we make commitments truly believing that we can follow through, and then we can’t. And sometimes we make commitments because we think that’s what others want to hear, but we really know we can never deliver.

Regardless of the reason, it’s important in the relationship to own up, to take responsibility and to demonstrate regret at not being able to deliver as promised. So in this amendment I identify a number of ways that the throne speech can be amended to accommodate these failures.

Firstly, the government should acknowledge its failure to help families that continue to fall behind financially. Acknowledging that increasing the MSP, increasing ICBC and Hydro rates, along with increasing ferry fares and tuition have all led to an increased financial burden on middle-class British Columbians — those who are working hard to pay their bills, feed their families and care for their loved ones — only to add insult to injury when this government gives tax breaks to the top 2 percent of British Columbians.

This government needs to acknowledge the error….

Deputy Speaker: Member, I believe the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head has a point of order.

Point of Order

A. Weaver: I rise with a point of order, hon. Speaker.

With respect to the member, this amendment is out of order, in my view, as it has not been on the order paper for two days. The first time that this amendment could be brought to the Legislature would be Monday of next week.

Deputy Speaker: I’m being told by the Clerks that the amendment was indeed passed to the Clerks on Tuesday. This being Thursday, it has indeed been two days since its tabling.

Member for Coquitlam-Maillardville, please proceed.

Throne Speech Debate

(continued)

S. Robinson: There is a burden right now on middle-class British Columbians — people who are working hard to pay their bills, feed their families and care for their loved ones. And then, to add insult to injury, this government needs to acknowledge the error of their $230 million tax cut that is going to B.C.’s top earning 2 percent.

This tax break is an insult to middle income earners. Those who can most afford to pay taxes are getting a break, while those least able to afford taxes are having to pay more, with various fees and increases in payments to government.

Secondly, the government needs to acknowledge its failure in delivering the GP for Me plan. I imagine that this might have been one of the commitments that rolled

[ Page 5742 ]

off the tongue rather nicely. “GP for Me” sounds really good. They’re actually, what I would call, delicious words, because they roll so nicely off the tongue. Perhaps there were even some very real intentions to deliver.

[1520]

But when you come up short, it’s important to take responsibility. By 2015, every British Columbian was to have access to a general practitioner. Here we are into the second month of 2015, and we all know that there has not been delivery on this commitment to British Columbians.

The minister’s response last year when challenged about meeting the target? He said at the time: “Well, we’ll have to wait and see. We still have almost two years to achieve that.” That’s what he said in an interview last February. The minister is choosing that by the end of 2015 everyone will have a GP or perhaps, maybe, now a nurse practitioner. But given what I am hearing from people in my constituency, people who cannot find a GP in my community, I highly doubt that we will see this achieved even by the end of the year.

There ought to be an apology to the people of British Columbia, one that points to a promise made — the words sounded so good — but that the government wasn’t able to deliver.

What about this government’s commitment to seniors? These are people who have worked their entire lives to raise their families. They paid their taxes to build this amazing province of so many riches. What do we say to them about their access to home care or care facilities? Seniors deserve to have supports that allow them to stay in their homes as long as possible, and when they can no longer stay at home, they need to know that there is an appropriate placement and support available to them as they live out their remaining years.

Our parents and grandparents deserve to be treated with dignity so that they are assisted to the bathroom when nature calls, not when it is scheduled by the service provider who has to operate care facilities like assembly lines. This government ought to express some regret to them in this throne speech. This throne speech does nothing to make the remaining years of their lives better for them.

It’s more than just seniors who are being let down by this government. This Liberal government ought to apologize to our young people who face difficulty accessing education upgrades and uncertain job prospects because this government has bet on LNG to the exclusion of other sectors. As a result, job prospects for young people are compromised. Just this morning I read in our local paper, the Tri-City News , an

article about how this government’s policy to start charging for high school upgrades is impacting young people in my community.

The

article goes on to note: “Among the hardest hit by the change in government policy may be young adults from 19 to 25 years of age who are still trying to get their careers established and who may require additional high school courses or need better marks to get into college or university. This group currently makes up about 30 percent, or 154 of the 473, of students who have so far enrolled for high school credit courses with continuing education this spring.”

After May 1 the school district will have to charge students for upgrading courses directly. This was previously funded by the province, and the school board hasn’t yet determined the cost for these courses but estimates that the charge after May 1 will be in the neighbourhood of $500 or more per course. Even our children are getting hit with new fees so that life is harder for them under this Liberal government policy.

This government’s behaviour of nickel-and-diming British Columbians is making life harder for average, regular folk — people like my children, people like my neighbours, people like the constituents who live throughout Coquitlam-Maillardville. Top earners in this province? Well, they get a tax break.

What about those job prospects, those 100,000 jobs that were supposed to be coming to our children and our communities with LNG? The government put all its eggs in that LNG basket, and they are coming up with bubkes — nothing, nada. What should this government have been doing instead? This government should have been working with businesses and workers across B.C. so that all sectors could reach their full potential.

How does this government talk about what it’s going to do now that gas prices have dropped and they see the 17 LNG plants they told us would materialize not likely to happen? Well, the one that caught me during the throne speech, the one that caught my attention, was how this government talks about how it values tourism. Really?

[1525]

How does that jibe with their decision to increase ferry fares, eliminate or reduce ferry routes and, more recently, increase camping fees this past year? This government didn’t even do an analysis of how these changes in the ferry system would impact tourism in ferry-dependent communities. Now they talk about how they value tourism — more words.

There was also plenty in the throne speech about eliminating red tape. This red tape elimination activity is not new. It’s been an active project throughout the Liberal government tenure, for 14 years. One would think that with all this effort, most of the red tape would have been eliminated by now.

Or perhaps they have these make-work projects. On the one hand, you develop policies over here that create red tape, and then two years later you make a commitment to eliminate red tape. You just keep cycling through

[ Page 5743 ]

these announcements, making it look like you’re making life better for small business in our province.

The throne speech mentions the value of a diverse economy. Lovely words. If the Premier and her government truly believe that we have a diverse economy, then why has the Premier been exclusively pitching LNG for the past several years and ignoring every other sector?

My colleagues and I on this side of the House have been referring to our diverse economy, in response to the throne speech last spring and again last fall, in response to the government’s singular focus on LNG. We have been calling on this government to recognize the forestry sector, the mining sector, the technology sector.

New Democrats understand the importance of building economic resilience. We understand the importance of capitalizing on our strengths. We have been challenging this government to address all economic regions of our province, not just those communities where an LNG industry may develop.

British Columbians know that we have a diverse economy, and this government has just woken up to that? Or perhaps another explanation is that things aren’t going so well on that LNG front. Perhaps they should distract from that promise they made to the people of British Columbia and talk about the rest of the province. Perhaps British Columbians won’t notice.

Regardless, this government needs to own up to the fact that they have been ignoring every other economic sector in this province. Furthermore, this government needs to own up to the fact that their commitment to have LNG up and running, to start filling those coffers in that prosperity fund — just not going to happen like promised.

This Liberal government said there would be at least one LNG pipeline and terminal on line in B.C. by 2015. It’s 2015, and we still don’t have a single commitment.

That promised prosperity fund? Words that sounded so good during the campaign in the moment, words used in order to get elected, were not grounded in reality. This government, keen to get re-elected, said what it needed to achieve that goal — just like some of the spouses I have seen in counselling sessions, saying what they think the other spouse wants to hear but not being able to deliver.

This is the stuff that results in disappointment and can shatter relationships. This government has made many commitments — promises of jobs, promises of a general practitioner for every British Columbian, promises of seniors living out their years with dignity, promises of LNG, promises that our young people will have job prospects that will pay them a living wage so they can move out of their parents’ houses and be financially self-sufficient.

This throne speech should acknowledge these failures to deliver on their commitments and acknowledge to British Columbians that we need a new course — a course based in reality that is in touch with what real British Columbians need, a course that makes sure that British Columbians can get good jobs, security for their families and opportunities for our children. That’s the British Columbia that my constituents and all British Columbians deserve.

Hon. S. Anton: We have a throne speech that is positive, that creates a vision for the future. We have an amendment that is full of doom and gloom. It is not necessary to amend the Speech from the Throne.

In the meantime, I do have something to say on the speech.

Deputy Speaker: We’re on the amendment currently.

Hon. S. Anton: Do you wish to vote on the amendment? I want to speak on the amendment.

Deputy Speaker: There are further speakers to the amendment, and then we’ll go back to the address and the response.

[1530]

Hon. S. Anton: Let me just say one more thing, then. As I said, I’m not going to say much but just say that a positive vision trumps a negative vision every time, and we will be voting against the amendment.

A. Weaver: I rise to table a subamendment to the amendment for the following reasons.

The role of government is to offer British Columbians a vision. The role of opposition, if they do not like the vision government is offering, is to offer a counter-vision. Unfortunately, the amendment before us does not offer a counter-vision. All it does is simply hurl abuse, hurl negativity on the government’s vision.

Now, I agree with what was said in the actual amendment. That is, I agree that the government did promise to give every British Columbian a GP by 2015. In fact, in Victoria, the region I am in, there is not a single general practitioner accepting new patients south of Mill Bay. That’s more than 350,000 people. I agree with that.

I agree that seniors do not have flexible options for home care. I agree that young people in the province face uncertain job prospects, in particular in light of the fact that we’re re-engineering our education system for a hypothetical industry that I’ve been saying for two years now — not one, not two, actually more than two years now — is not supported by the economic reality that the world is oversupplied with natural gas and ours is expensive.

There are many other reasons that I agree with the amendment. However, it is our responsibility as opposition, when we don’t agree with the government’s vision, to offer a vision that we could hang our hats on. So I subamend the amendment. I move:

[Be it resolved that the motion “We, Her Majesty’s most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia, in

[ Page 5744 ]

session assembled, beg leave to thank Your Honour for the gracious Speech which Your Honour has addressed to us at the opening of the present session,” be amended by adding the following:

“and that the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia regrets that the families in the province have seen their wages fall as they pay more for their basic services, while the government gives a break to the highest two per cent of income earners; regrets that the government has failed to meet its commitment that all British Columbians will have access to a general practitioner by 2015; regrets that seniors still do not have flexible options for home care or assisted living; regrets that young people in the province face uncertain job prospects as the government has bet on one sector rather than working with businesses and workers across B.C. to reach their potential; and regrets that the government will not fulfill its commitment for at least one LNG pipeline and terminal online in B.C. by 2015 .”

and recognizes that leadership in government requires a commitment to seek out and incorporate ideas from others while leadership in opposition requires a commitment to offering solutions, and hence calls on this House to collaborate on the development of a new vision for British Columbia that builds on the good ideas of all members, regardless of their party affiliation.” ]

With that, I’ll sit down.

On the subamendment.

Deputy Speaker: I will note that actually I was in error of the customary practice of this House when it comes to the address in response. That is that members can speak both to the Speech from the Throne as well as the amendment, as well as the now subamendment, for up to four days, in the standing orders. So we will not be taking a vote on the amendment at this point.

I will now recognize the member for Vancouver-Fairview and will also note, as is customary on these issues, that we are addressing both the address in response as well as the amendments at this time. This would represent the member’s time generally on the address in response.

A. Weaver: I rise on a point of order. I would not have stood to raise my subamendment had you not ruled that we had to speak on the amendment today. I feel that I was forced to put together a subamendment and waive my time accordingly, that I had prepared in response, in light of a ruling that you now claim was not correct.

Deputy Speaker: I apologize to the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head, but I will recognize the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head again in this debate. I will also recognize the Minister of Justice again.

Hon. S. Anton: I think I was actually next.

[1535]

Deputy Speaker: I will recognize the Minister of Justice at this point.

As I have ruled, that does stand.

Hon. S. Anton: It is a great pleasure to rise in the House today and speak in favour of the Speech from the Throne, which has outlined so eloquently our vision not just for the present but for future generations. As I said a moment ago, it is a vision full of opportunities for British Columbians. It is a vision for sustainable growth and for building a stronger, better and more prosperous British Columbia.

I’d like to start, though, by thanking the riding of Vancouver-Fraserview for supporting me, for the vibrant, engaged, multicultural and hard-working community that is Vancouver-Fraserview in the southeast of the city of Vancouver. It is a riding which is full of friendly people who work hard, who are interested in what we’re doing in Victoria and interested in the sustainability and the prosperity of their great province of British Columbia, which many of them have chosen to make their home.

I’d like to thank the people who help me in my riding, the volunteers who help me, who are working every day to help me and to help our riding of Vancouver-Fraserview. I’d like to thank my office, my two staff, Tanya Tan and Yulin Shih. I’d like to thank my family, who have helped me for so many years. My brother was here a couple of days ago for the throne speech, bringing his wife and his five young boys to see what government looks like and to hear the message of hope and prosperity, the message given out in our throne speech.

Some of our ministries in government support the building of our resource industries in British Columbia. They support the LNG industry. They support the mining industry and forest industries and so on. Other of our ministries support different aspects of building our economy and the diversity of our economy. We just heard from the Minister of International Trade, who told us about the trade ties that British Columbia is successfully building around the world and, in particular, with Asia.

In my case, as the Attorney General and Minister of Justice, it is justice and public safety. It is the role of this ministry, in support of all of the other things that we do in British Columbia, which I am going to talk about. In particular, today I’m going to talk about how Justice supports our government’s agenda and it supports citizens and businesses in British Columbia, leading to a safe and just province, the province of British Columbia.

Canadians across the country have sent governments a clear message. They want a justice system that is timely, efficient and effective — the kind of system all of us as partners in justice are working towards in British Columbia. Our government has been clear that we share this goal.

As Attorney General and Minister of Justice, one of my top priorities is to transform and modernize our justice system. We envision a system that works for families, for businesses and for all British Columbians, one that is accessible, affordable, effective and accountable.

I’d like to point out, though, in starting, that British Columbia’s justice system is already exceptionally strong

[ Page 5745 ]

and is recognized as one of the best in the world. It is a multifaceted, living system that seeks to be responsive to society in all of its nuanced complexity and to treat every citizen as equal before the law. We are proud of our justice system in British Columbia, and I want to thank everyone who works so hard to support it. But we know we can make it better, and we’re always working to improve it.

When I first took over the Attorney General and Justice portfolio from my predecessor in June of 2013, I inherited a ministry already undergoing significant change. I stated at that time that our commitments to safe communities, to strong families and to a timely, transparent and confidence-inspiring justice system were steadfast, and they still are.

[1540]

In 2012 my predecessor issued the ministry’s White Paper on Justice Reform , a guiding document for transforming and modernizing the justice system. In addition, we had commissioned the well-known and respected lawyer Geoffrey Cowper to review B.C.’s criminal justice system with a view to identifying areas of challenge and areas for improvement. The Cowper report was delivered in August of 2012 and contained far-reaching recommendations for positive change in our criminal justice system. I’m pleased to be able to report that we have acted on and completed many of Mr. Cowper’s recommendations.

In this respect, our reputation precedes us. British Columbia is regarded as the most innovative province in Canada when it comes to justice reform. That is a feather in our cap, collectively speaking.

In particular, I want to thank our courts for their interest in innovation. We have seen real leadership in this regard from the Supreme Court of Canada, with their Action Committee on Access to Justice, and from the courts at all levels in British Columbia. We believe in a coordinated approach to justice so that those who need it know what their options are and they feel supported and informed. We’ve made great headway, and we continue to work diligently on further improvements.

We’ve paved the way to improvement with legislation. In 2013 we brought in the Justice Reform and Transparency Act, which establishes the framework for an effective, efficient and transparent justice system that is strengthened by collaboration amongst justice leaders and stakeholders. The act reformed court administration processes and fulfilled key recommendations in the Cowper report, in addition to enabling many of the action items outlined in the white paper.

I want to stress that collaboration has been a hallmark of our work on justice reform. Adopting Mr. Cowper’s recommendations, the new act provided for Justice Summits to be held at least once a year. In fact, we have held four Justice Summits in the past 23 months.

These summits address issues of critical importance to the justice system and to stakeholders. Not only do they encourage collaboration among participants across the justice and public safety sectors, but they are forums for discussion on how the system is performing and how it can be improved. We believe in consistent monitoring of our progress, and our Justice Summits have been an effective way to do that.

Our landmark Family Law Act also came into force in 2013. It puts the best interests of children first when families are going through separation or divorce. The Family Law Act recognizes that out-of-court resolution of family law issues is the preferred method of resolving those family law matters. In this way, the new act supports families through a difficult time and gives them more opportunities to resolve their disputes.

We make significant investments, over $100 million annually, in programs and initiatives designed to increase access to justice. For example, we have 21 family justice centres that are located throughout the province, offering services such as dispute resolution and mediation as well as needs assessments and referrals. Because going through a family separation is extremely stressful for the moms and dads who need them, the family justice centres and the support they provide can make all the difference to them and to their families.

Our three justice access centres are also helping make a huge difference for clients, helping them to navigate the justice system. We opened the third justice access centre in Victoria in the fall of 2013. It’s an innovative, one-of-a-kind facility co-located with the University of Victoria Law Centre. The other two justice access centres are in Nanaimo and Vancouver. These justice access centres are one-stop shops designed to help people manage their legal issues, such as separation and divorce, housing, income assistance and employment disputes.

[1545]

These services work to both increase access to justice and keep disputes out of the courts, reducing court backlogs and giving families access to more affordable legal solutions. We know that they are working. In the last fiscal year over 20,000 people were helped at our justice access centres, and a further 35,000 people were helped at B.C.’s family justice centres.

Just to give you an example of how effective they are, a study at the Vancouver Justice Access Centre last year showed that two-thirds of justice access centre clients do

[ Page 5746 ]

not proceed to court. In other words, they are able to find ways to resolve their disputes outside of the court process. That is an accomplishment, particularly when you consider that one of the challenges identified in the Cowper report was court delays.

Encouraging other paths to legal resolution is one positive step we have taken to reduce the number of cases our courts must hear, but it’s only one. Other initiatives we have undertaken include working with the Provincial Court to directly address backlogs. British Columbians don’t want to see long waits for cases to be heard and justice to be done, and they certainly don’t want to see any case stayed because of delays in getting to trial, so we have done something about that.

Working in consultation with the Provincial Court, a court backlog-reduction project in 2013 added extra sitting days in several communities throughout British Columbia, including Terrace, Kamloops, Kelowna, Port Coquitlam, Surrey, Abbotsford, Nanaimo, Vancouver and Victoria. The project is complete, and I’m pleased to report that it has been successful. Times to trial for criminal matters are now largely within the standards set by the office of the chief judge, and they are the shortest that they have been for almost a decade.

In addition, we have well over 250 justices and judges working in our courts today in British Columbia, and this does not include the more than 25 masters and judicial justices who also provide important judicial functions in our courts.

Taking a broader view, it’s clear that things are moving in the right direction in our courts in British Columbia. Over the past 15 years the total number of Provincial Court cases has declined by 28 percent, and over the same period the total number of Provincial Court sitting hours has declined by 19 percent. Those are remarkable statistics.

One of the things that has led to the decline in cases and hours in the courtrooms is the immediate roadside prohibition program. This is probably one of the most successful initiatives that we have undertaken to keep cases out of the courts and keep our streets safer. Our groundbreaking approach in the immediate roadside prohibition program both deters people from drinking and driving and allows police to immediately remove those drivers who are affected by alcohol from our roads. If you blow a fail, you can lose your licence for 90 days, have your vehicle impounded for 30 days and pay all towing charges as well as a $500 penalty.

We have led the way nationally on tackling this issue, and the results speak for themselves: 227 lives saved and a 54 percent reduction in alcohol-related motor vehicle fatalities. British Columbia’s IRP laws, the toughest in Canada when they were introduced, will continue to help ensure more British Columbians get home to their families alive.

We have committed to reducing alcohol-related motor vehicle fatalities by 35 percent in three years. That was the commitment — 35 percent in three years. We shattered that goal. Since its inception this program has contributed to an estimated reduction of 6,000 Criminal Code impaired-driving court cases each year, and it has saved, as I said, 227 lives. Over a 3½ year period we’ve seen an estimated 21,500 Criminal Code cases diverted from the court system to an administrative process as a result of the IRP program. It has been a remarkably successful program.

I spoke earlier about British Columbia’s leadership. The rest of the country is watching this one, because the rest of the country is extremely interested in what’s going on in British Columbia in this regard.

Transforming our justice system into the most efficient, effective and timely system it can be involves work at all levels in all branches. Every person who works in the system is part of the justice reform process. Our criminal justice branch has been working on a number of projects that, by reorganizing and streamlining processes, are making our system more efficient.

[1550]

For example, the branch has introduced quality control standards that allow for the improved monitoring of prosecution files as they progress through the system, facilitating proactive case management and ensuring that they are ready to proceed to trial at the first available date. The branch has enhanced Crown file ownership where possible so that fewer prosecutors are working on any one file. This kind of continuity means that you have people working on cases who are already familiar and up to speed, which, in turn, goes a distance to minimizing delays. These initiatives may sound minor, but the benefits have a real payoff for the justice system by increasing efficiency and effectiveness.

Our government has made it a priority to address the important issue of domestic violence and, more broadly, to create a violence-free British Columbia. Crown counsel and the criminal justice branch are part of that.

Domestic violence units, with police, government and communities working together, support victims of violence. I have visited some of these units and seen firsthand how they help victims, in some cases in very dangerous situations, to reach safety.

When those cases proceed through to prosecution, they come to the criminal justice branch, where Crown counsel is particularly focused on the safety of the victims and the children when it comes to prosecuting the domestic violence cases. Crown counsel has policies in place to assist them.

The criminal justice branch provides staff with ongoing training around enhancing victim safety. Indeed, all Crown counsel are expected to have the capacity and skill set necessary to prosecute a domestic violence case. Some Crown counsel offices even have dedicated prosecution teams specific to domestic violence cases.

[ Page 5747 ]

In Surrey, Abbotsford, Vancouver, Port Coquitlam, Duncan and Nanaimo the criminal justice branch has esta