2005 Legislative Session: 6th Session, 37th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

MONDAY, MARCH 7, 2005

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 27, Number 27

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Page

Tributes

Death of RCMP officers in Alberta

Hon. G.

Campbell

J. Kwan

Introductions by Members

Introduction and First Reading of

Bills

Civil Forfeiture Act (Bill 5)

Hon. R.

Coleman

The John Hussey Foundation (Corporate

Restoration) Act, 2005 (Bill Pr405)

H. Long

British Columbia Wharf Operators'

Association (Corporate Restoration) Act, 2005 (Bill Pr403)

L. Mayencourt

Statements (Standing Order 25 B )

Fuchsia ribbon campaign for sexually

exploited youth

S. Orr

Passport tourism program in Coquitlam

H. Bloy

Opening of U.S. border to Canadian beef

W. Cobb

Oral Questions

Disability benefits increase

J. Kwan

Hon. S. Brice

Social worker position in McBride

J. Brar

Hon. S. Brice

Emergency services plan for children on

Vancouver Island

J. MacPhail

Hon. S. Bond

Technicians in health care system

P. Nettleton

Hon. G. Bruce

Government funding for agriculture

industry

E. Brenzinger

Hon. J. van

Dongen

Collective bargaining for teachers

R. Masi

Hon. G. Bruce

Tabling Documents

Letter from Assistant

Deputy Minister of Human Resources confirming service delivery changes at

McBride office, January 2005

Introduction and First Reading of

Bills

Supply Act (No. 1), 2005 (Bill 20)

Hon. C. Hansen

Motions without Notice

Appointment of Select Standing

Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and

Private Bills

Hon. G. Bruce

Standing Order 81 Motion

Adoption of government business

schedule for March 7 to March 10, 2005

Hon. G. Bruce

J. MacPhail

Committee of the Whole House

Ministerial Accountability Bases,

2004-2005, Amendment Act, 2005 (Bill 19)

Report and Third Reading of Bills

Ministerial Accountability Bases,

2004-2005, Amendment Act, 2005 (Bill 19)

Throne Speech Debate

(continued)

C. Clark

Hon. K. Falcon

J. Brar

E. Brenzinger

K. Krueger

K. Manhas

G. Hogg

D. MacKay

J. Nuraney

R. Stewart

R. Nijjar

[ Page 12313 ]

MONDAY, MARCH 7, 2005

The House met at 2:05 p.m.

Tributes

DEATH OF RCMP OFFICERS IN ALBERTA

Hon. G. Campbell: Across the country today and for the last

number of days, people have been aware of the loss that we felt as four RCMP

officers lost their lives in the line of duty. Since last Thursday, all of us

have been reminded of the great risks that are taken each day by our law

enforcement personnel across this country.

British Columbians, like our fellow Canadians, are shocked and

saddened by the tragedy that rocked the community of Mayerthorpe, Alberta. It

reminds us that the RCMP are such an important part of our shared national

identity. When an officer falls, it touches the heart of every Canadian. But

when four officers fall in the line of duty, it wrenches our hearts. We mourn

with their families, with their fellow officers, with their communities and with

the citizens of the community that is directly involved.

We honour the memories and the service of four exceptional

Canadians. RCMP Const. Brock Myrol, RCMP Const. Peter Schiemann, RCMP Const.

Anthony Gordon and RCMP Const. Leo Johnston were four exceptional young men who

had only just begun their roles as guardians of the ideals of justice, peace and

freedom upon which our nation stands and about which we are all so proud.

On behalf of all British Columbians, I extend our sincere

condolences and our heartfelt prayers to the families and their colleagues. I

know these words are inadequate, but I offer them in the hope that our prayers

may somehow ease the pain, if only a little.

I would also like to extend my personal sympathy to the family of

Leo Johnston, 32 years old, married just three and a half months. He'd not even

seen his own wedding pictures yet. Now his wife, Kelly, struggles with his loss.

His twin brother, Const. Lee Johnston, serves on my security detail here in

British Columbia. To have this tragedy strike someone with whom I work so

closely saddens me. It also saddens, I know, all the members of this Legislature

and people from our entire community.

These incidents are always so sudden. They're always so

unexpected. They almost take us out of time, and we wonder to ourselves: how did

this come about?

There are no words that can express the sorrow or the sense of

loss that I feel or that we all feel for Lee and his family and his three

colleagues. I can only offer my deepest sympathy and my profound thanks to all

of the families who have supported their officers — our officers — and

particularly to the Johnston family who have allowed two of their sons and

encouraged two of their sons to serve in the RCMP.

There clearly are many questions that must be answered as a result

of this tragedy. There must be lessons that we learn. There must be issues that

we face together as Canadians. It's in facing those issues together as Canadians

that we honour their service, we honour their professionalism, we honour their

citizenship and we honour their commitment to Canada.

But in our rush to seek answers, let us never forget the human

faces of this national tragedy. Let us not forget the people of Mayerthorpe as

they struggle to overcome the shock of violence in their peaceful community. Let

us not forget the families and friends who will forever carry the wounds of loss

and sorrow in service to a country. Let us not forget the RCMP officers across

Canada who face the same risks every single day and who, by the grace of God,

are spared the same fate. Let us not forget the four young men of such

potential, pride and promise, who have been taken from us too soon.

I would ask that the Legislature rise and recognize the four

officers with a moment of silence.

[1410]

Mr. Speaker: Thank you, hon. members. Please be seated.

J. Kwan: The opposition joins with the Premier and the

government to also express our deepest condolences to the family and friends

and, indeed, the community who lost these four RCMP officers as they worked and

served the community. With this tragedy that took place, we are reminded that

men and women each and every day in the course of their work perform tasks that

may put themselves in harm's way. This is one of those tragic situations.

As the Premier mentioned, I do hope that we learn from this

experience. I do hope that we can address concerns that might arise out of it. I

do hope that in the future, we can work to improve our communities in terms of

their safety and in terms of the men and women who put their lives at risk.

We're reminded, of course, that these four young men, these four officers who

lost their lives…. They, too, have families. They, too, have friends. They're

taken away from us far too early in their journey in this world.

I hope that as they're listening, as they're watching from

wherever they are, they give us the wisdom today to learn from their tragedy and

for us to create and work towards better communities for all.

Introductions by Members

K. Krueger: One of the great privileges of working in this

place is the number of highly energetic, intelligent and well-motivated young

people we get to work with. One of them, my legislative assistant, Jeremy

Walden, is with us today, as is his friend Darren Simpson, who is a graduate of

the University of Victoria's hospitality management program presently working in

Whistler and who has joined Jeremy to watch us in

[ Page 12314 ]

question period. Would the House please make these young men welcome.

K. Manhas: I have the pleasure today to introduce to the

House Mr. Bob Kissner. Bob is the executive director of the Focus Foundation of

B.C. They run day programs in the lower mainland as well as two provincially

accredited schools through the Whytecliff Education Centre.

Bob, through the Focus Foundation…. This is an extremely

interesting, extremely positive project in British Columbia. We really are

leading North America in this. They focus on at-risk students. All of their

students exhibit severe conduct and behavioral disorders. Over half of them

haven't attended public school for the last two years and have exhausted many of

the social service resources. Their success is shown through accreditation

audits that the Ministry of Education conducts. Their course completion is the

same as public schools. Their attendance rates exceed 86 percent, and they have

a huge amount of support through the head of the Premier's Technology Council,

PricewaterhouseCoopers and others.

I think it's a fantastic program that the Ministry of Children and

Family Development supports, and he's here to talk to us and make sure that we

continue supporting that. I'm sure that we will. Would the House please make him

welcome.

Hon. C. Hansen: Joining us in the gallery today are two

individuals who serve in the Ministry of Finance. Andrea Buzbuzian is a policy

analyst, and Sarah Drummond is a co-op student. They both work in the financial

corporate sector policy branch of the ministry. I would ask the House to make

them very welcome.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Port Coquitlam–Burke Mountain

has another introduction.

[1415]

K. Manhas: I'd just like to introduce two groups of people:

Laurie Nobbs and his family from Liberty Homes, a great company and supporter in

Port Coquitlam and the Tri-Cities, as well as Mr. Isidro Flores and his family

from Concord Concrete. I've spoken about them in the past in this House. They're

great contributors to our community. They will be coming up to Victoria shortly,

and I just wanted to make sure they got welcomed.

H. Long: Mr. Speaker, last Friday night, on behalf of

yourself and the Legislative Assembly, I attended the certificate presentation

ceremony at Government House to recognize the Teachers Institute on

Parliamentary Democracy, which was a resounding success. I'd like to recognize

all the staff that made it possible. In particular, I would like to acknowledge

Karen Aitken from public education and outreach for her dedication and

professionalism in making sure that this event was so successful. It is through

efforts of people like Karen that the events of this nature are assured to be a

success.

Hon. G. Campbell: Mr. Speaker, our Olympians have returned

home. The B.C. Special Olympics athletes returned from the 2005 Special Olympics

World Winter Games in Nagano. They came home with 23 of Canada's 84 medals.

I know many members of the Legislature know our Special Olympians.

But I think it's important to note that Kim Beck from Victoria earned two gold

medals in snowshoeing; Corrie Carlile of North Vancouver had two silver medals

in snowshoeing; Fred Collins of North Vancouver participated in alpine skiing;

Michelle Lord of Mission had two gold medals and a bronze medal in speed

skating; Alexandra Magee of Surrey had two gold medals in figure skating,

singles and pairs; Ken MacLean of Vancouver had a silver medal in cross-country

skiing; Tracy Melesko of Kelowna had gold, silver and bronze medals in

cross-country skiing; Maria Schmitke of Kelowna had three silver medals in

cross-country skiing; Alexander Singh of Surrey had a silver medal and two

bronze medals in speed skating; David Swartzman of Victoria had a silver medal

in cross-country skiing; Marc Thériault of Delta had a gold medal and silver

medals in figure skating, singles and pairs; and Meghan Williams of Courtenay

had two silver medals in alpine skiing.

These are athletes. They are dedicated, they are committed, they

are winners, and they are British Columbians. I hope we'll give them a hand.

K. Krueger: I wasn't sure she was going to make it, but I

have another wonderful person who works with me. She was one of our legislative

interns last year and now works with me up in Kamloops. I'd like the House to

welcome Joanna Ellis back to the Legislature.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. members, in the gallery this afternoon

are two special guests. Dominique Boutin, manager of the legislative dining

room, is here today. With her is executive chef Brian Vickstrom. Brian is a

fairly new addition to the Legislative Assembly. He is a 30-year veteran as a

chef and has cooked all over the world. He is an Olympic gold medal winner for

the Culinary Team Canada. As members know, his food is excellent. I would ask

members to extend a warm welcome to Dominique and Brian.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

CIVIL FORFEITURE ACT

Hon. R. Coleman presented a message from Her Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Civil Forfeiture Act.

Hon. R. Coleman: I move that the bill be introduced and

read a first time now.

[ Page 12315 ]

Motion approved.

[1420]

Hon. R. Coleman: I'm pleased to introduce the Civil

Forfeiture Act. Once enacted, this legislation will be an important element in

our strategy to combat organized crime and protect British Columbians from being

victimized. It will be separate from the criminal law and will allow us to go

after property that's purchased as a result of unlawful activity, using the

civil law process.

Families and businesses suffer substantial losses as a result of

unlawful activity such as consumer fraud, credit card fraud, identity theft,

pyramid schemes, telemarketing scams, drugs, etc. The motive for all these

activities is profit and the unlawful accumulation of property and assets.

Jurisdictions around the world and within Canada are already using forms of

civil forfeiture to go after unlawfully obtained assets, including the provinces

of Ontario, Manitoba and Alberta.

Under the Civil Forfeiture Act, cash or property acquired from an

unlawful activity will be subject to forfeiture by a civil court order. The

civil nature of the proceedings will allow us to rely on the civil standard of

proof, the balance of probabilities, to determine which property is to be

forfeited. Money recovered will be paid into a special account which will be

used to prevent unlawful activities, remedy the effects of unlawful activities,

compensate eligible victims of an unlawful activity that resulted in forfeiture,

and for costs related to the administration of the act.

Mr. Speaker, 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.

Bill 5 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.

THE JOHN HUSSEY FOUNDATION

(CORPORATE RESTORATION) ACT, 2005

H. Long presented a bill intituled The John Hussey Foundation

(Corporate Restoration) Act, 2005.

H. Long: I move the bill intituled The John Hussey

Foundation (Corporate Restoration) Act, 2005, of which notice has been given on

the order paper, be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion approved.

H. Long: I move that the bill be referred to the Select

Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and

Private Bills.

Bill Pr405 introduced, read a first time and referred to the

Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing

Orders and Private Bills.

BRITISH COLUMBIA WHARF

OPERATORS' ASSOCIATION

(CORPORATE RESTORATION) ACT, 2005

L. Mayencourt presented a bill intituled British Columbia Wharf

Operators' Association (Corporate Restoration) Act, 2005.

L. Mayencourt: I move that a bill intituled British

Columbia Wharf Operators' Association (Corporate Restoration) Act, 2005, of

which notice has been given on the order paper, be introduced and now read a

first time.

Motion approved.

L. Mayencourt: I move that the bill be referred to the

Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing

Orders and Private Bills.

Bill Pr403 introduced, read a first time and referred to the

Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing

Orders and Private Bills.

Statements

(Standing Order 25

b) FUCHSIA RIBBON CAMPAIGN FOR

SEXUALLY EXPLOITED YOUTH

S. Orr: You will notice today that some members of this

assembly are wearing fuchsia ribbons. This marks the start of the Stop the

Sexual Exploitation of Children and Youth Awareness Week. The fuchsia colour

symbolizes efforts in preventing the sexual exploitation of children and youth,

because it is a combination of red, for red-light districts, and purple, the

provincial colour for violation prevention.

The Capital Region Action Team on Sexually Exploited Youth, fondly

known as CRATSEY, is a wonderful organization that has been working on this

issue for many years and has been very successful. One of the driving forces is

Councillor Helen Hughes from the city of Victoria, who started with Dr. Richard

Stanwick on this project. They got the ball rolling. Helen is a highly respected

member of our community for her commitment to our youth.

We cannot begin to imagine the horror that a child has to endure

when being sexually exploited at the hands of a molester. This happens every

single day. We know it goes on, and we try to stop it. But it still continues.

I work with an organization called the Mary Manning Centre, and

they deal only with children and youth who have been sexually assaulted. On a

good month they always have a waiting list of up to 40 children. I have seen

that list go up to 100 — some as young as five years old, and last year they had

a two-year-old. This must stop. No child should have to wait

[ Page 12316 ]

for help. This week, let us think about what more we can do for the most

vulnerable of our society — our children.

PASSPORT TOURISM PROGRAM IN COQUITLAM

H. Bloy: I would like to announce that I have been

reappointed an ambassador for the city of Coquitlam. As an ambassador for the

city of Coquitlam, I'm proud to show off their passport. This passport

highlights hundreds of activities that take place there — like the West Coast

Chocolate Festival; Rotary's Amazing Race; Festival du Bois, which was held this

past weekend; the Como Lake Festival; the fourth annual Korean Heritage Day

Festival, which will be held on June 18; and the B.C. Highland Games.

[1425]

People can take these passports and have them stamped and win

prizes from some great companies in Coquitlam — like Coquitlam Centre, Ikea, Go

West, Best Western Coquitlam Inn and the Executive Plaza Hotel. This book tells

you so much about what is going on in the city of Coquitlam.

I have given a passport to all the members in the House here, so

when they visit Coquitlam they'll be able to enjoy the many benefits. I would

like to thank Mayor Jon Kingsbury and his city council and especially tourism

director Barb Stegemann, who was a driving force behind the Coquitlam passport

program.

I invite my colleagues and all the citizens of British Columbia to

come and visit Coquitlam.

OPENING OF U.S. BORDER

TO CANADIAN BEEF

W. Cobb: Ranchers in Cariboo South were eagerly awaiting

the reopening of the U.S. border, which was supposed to take place earlier this

month. The USDA had finally agreed with the fact — the fact we in the Cariboo

knew all along — that Canadian beef was absolutely safe for consumers on either

side of the border. But hopes of an open border and the return to something

resembling normal business have been destroyed once again by the forces of U.S.

protectionism.

The first round of bad news came when an American judge gave the

U.S. cattle industry interests seeking to keep our beef from being sold there….

The second letdown came when the U.S. Senate voted to overturn the USDA

decision, ignoring the advice of their own animal health experts. An enormous

blow was struck on our local ranchers. They were already struggling to keep

their feet above water through this last 22 months of being locked out of their

biggest cattle market. I'll admit that many of our local producers had grown

weary after nearly two years of rumours of the border reopening. But neither the

U.S. nor Canadian officials saw this latest disappointment coming.

Cariboo is ranching country. There are families throughout the

region that have been raising cattle for generations. The sad truth is that the

U.S. cattle producers who are pushing this issue don't care one bit about

British Columbia families. Instead, they cloak their trade protectionism in a

guise of concern about food safety.

The USDA based their decision to let our beef into the U.S. on

pure science — period. Canada and the U.S. have similar safeguards to protect

human health, food safety and animal health. The fact is that the USDA would

never consider clearing our beef if there was any risk. The USDA have said they

will continue to work to ensure that science-based decision-making prevails, and

we will continue to stand behind our ranchers.

Provincial and federal aid programs have already provided some

breathing space for the industry. But more aid could be necessary if this

closure continues to drag on. It's unacceptable when common sense and science

are trumped by selfish, unfounded protectionism. Our ranchers shouldn't have to

suffer because of ignorance and the greed of a handful of American producers.

Mr. Speaker: That concludes members' statements.

Oral Questions

DISABILITY BENEFITS INCREASE

J. Kwan: The millions of dollars wasted in the disability

review will go down as one of the most mean-spirited policies this government

pursued, and that's saying something. British Columbians aren't fooled by a

last-minute increase in disability benefits.

Can the Minister of Human Resources explain how she can justify

denying individuals who qualify as persons with a disability, living in group

homes, the increase in benefits?

Hon. S. Brice: It is with a great deal of pride that I know

the government went and seriously looked at the resources that persons with

disabilities had and gave the largest increase ever in the history of this

province. This government is working to build the strongest support system in

the country for persons who are vulnerable and have disabilities.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant has a

supplementary question.

[1430]

J. Kwan: The government made a big deal about this increase

in a pre-election bid to try to erase the memory of their dismal and

mean-spirited record. Last week the minister told this House that every

individual on PWD is getting the $70 increase. Families contacted the opposition

immediately to say that wasn't true.

I have correspondence from a family, and I quote from it: "People

who live in group homes are not receiving the additional $70 per month. I know

this because my son is one of these people who have been

[ Page 12317 ]

designated PWD. Because of a serious relapse, he has been living in a White

Rock group home for the last two years."

What is the Minister of Human Resources doing to ensure that these

individuals living in group homes are seeing an increase to their benefits, as

they were promised in this House last week?

Hon. S. Brice: Following up on the discussion that we had

in this House, I gave a fulsome rendition of exactly how these are going to

apply. I will certainly be dealing with my colleague in order to ensure that

they get the best.

You know, Mr. Speaker, I have just simply got to put on the record

here that this government has the best record of dealing with persons with

disabilities. In fact, I'm going to just quote here from the Canadian Centre for

Policy Alternatives, certainly a think tank that is supported by the opposition.

This is what they wrote in the year 2000: "The 1990s were a

difficult decade for British Columbians, particularly for the poorest in the

province. There was an increase in poverty in B.C. by any measure. The depth of

the poverty was also higher and more visible on the street, in the rise of

homelessness, panhandling and food banks. Life for the poor is more difficult

and precarious than it has been in several decades." In 2000.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant has a

further supplementary.

J. Kwan: Just last week the minister on several occasions

said that individuals with disabilities would actually get the $70 increase. On

one occasion she said — and I quote from Hansard : "Any adult individual

who qualifies as a person with a disability is eligible for a $70 increase." On

another occasion she said: "Yes. As I stated, anyone receiving disability

assistance is receiving the $70."

The correspondence that I put on record…. The minister knows about

the problem. Parents and families have contacted her with their concerns.

Again to the minister: will she take immediate action to ensure

that every British Columbian living with disabilities benefits from the

Premier's last-minute conversion to compassion — that they would actually get it

before he changes his mind?

Hon. S. Brice: My office has always got an open door. We're

always pleased to review individual cases. I would invite the member of the

opposition to provide me with a copy of that correspondence.

SOCIAL WORKER POSITION IN McBRIDE

J. Brar: Last week I asked the Minister of Human Resources

about service delivery changes at the office in McBride and if the social worker

at that office had been cut. I was assured by the minister that the position

remained and that there was no change.

If that is the case, can the minister explain why her staff is

telling disabled clients that they have cut that position at McBride?

J. MacPhail: No wonder you don't want to debate estimates,

you guys. No wonder.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. S. Brice: This issue was canvassed fully in debate,

and I stand behind the remarks that were made. The individual circumstance that

was raised was simply a matter of finding the appropriate individual to fill the

position.

On this side of the House we are absolutely committed to providing

the best programs for persons with disabilities, and there is no match from the

record from the opposition.

Mr. Speaker: Member for Surrey–Panorama Ridge has a

supplementary question.

J. Brar: British Columbians with disabilities deserve

straight answers. The minister told this House and British Columbia that the

social worker position at McBride had not been cut.

[1435]

I'm tabling a letter sent by the assistant deputy minister of this

ministry, which clearly indicates that the service has been cut at the McBride

office. Phone calls to the McBride office recently, just last Friday, confirmed

that the social worker has been replaced by support staff with nothing more than

a phone line and a fax machine.

Was the minister misleading this House when she stated that the

McBride office had not lost its social worker, and will she commit now to

reverse that decision?

Hon. S. Brice: There are no plans to reduce the service in

McBride. The staff are working to find the appropriate person to fill that

position.

Not only have we provided the best and biggest increase to persons

with disabilities in the history of this province, we have also doubled the

earnings exemption. We've invested millions of dollars in allowing these

individuals the very best opportunity to get back into the workforce. This

government has done more for persons with disabilities than any government in

the history of this province.

EMERGENCY SERVICES PLAN FOR

CHILDREN ON VANCOUVER ISLAND

J. MacPhail: Mr. Speaker, I don't know what the plans are

for this Legislature, but this may be the last time that the Premier has an

opportunity to answer one of my questions. He hasn't answered one this session,

so I'm hoping he'll take the opportunity to answer this one.

[ Page 12318 ]

The opposition has obtained the Vancouver Island health

authority's pediatric contingency plan — a plan for looking after our children.

Will the Premier confirm that the Vancouver Island health authority has directed

staff at the Victoria General Hospital to take sick children out of emergency

rooms and place them in hallways to make room for new patients coming into the

emergency room? Last opportunity to answer one of my questions.

Hon. S. Bond: The Vancouver Island health authority has the

best interests of the patients of Vancouver Island as part of their strategy. In

fact, you know, Mr. Speaker, day after day after day we have sat and listened to

the members opposite talk about problems that were evident during the decade

that they were here in Victoria and simply did absolutely nothing about them.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Leader of the Opposition has a

supplementary question.

J. MacPhail: It's shameful, how this government refuses to

take responsibility. Updated February 2005, this is a pediatric contingency

plan: "Over-census patients will also be placed in the hall." This is a

directive from the VIHA administration. "All units are expected to do this when

the ER is no longer able to accommodate and care for ER patients arriving at

their triage." Children are being put in hallways.

Well, that's what the plan says. The only plan that this

government has to deal with overcrowded emergency rooms is to fill halls with

patients, including children, including babies. But wait. Help is on the way.

Today we learn that the Vancouver Island health authority is dispatching smile

teams to hospitals to make staff feel better when they put patients in halls.

Let me quote. I quote.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Order, please. Hon. member,

please put your question now.

J. MacPhail: I will, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Now, please. Now, please.

J. MacPhail: Can the Minister of Health explain the meaning

behind this statement? "Smile teams will be travelling the Island with treats,

bringing smiles to wards, units and facilities throughout the authority. If

you're smiled on, you'll know it."

Are you sure they meant "smiled on," Minister of Health?

Hon. S. Bond: I am absolutely amazed that the member

opposite stands up and undermines the work of the health care professionals in

this system day after day after day.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Order, please.

Hon. S. Bond: Mr. Speaker, every single day in this

province the incredible health care professionals who work in this system make

sure that British Columbians have the kind of care that they deserve. We're

going to continue to make sure that happens in British Columbia.

[1440]

TECHNICIANS IN HEALTH CARE SYSTEM

P. Nettleton: In the wake of this government's 15 percent

across-the-board pay cut to Hospital Employees Union members, the casualties

continue to mount. I have received a letter from David Neuman, an

HVAC/refrigeration technician at Prince George Regional Hospital. He is one of

over a thousand highly skilled employees who are now looking at leaving their

current positions in favour of opportunities in the private sector.

My question is to the Minister of Health Services. Is the minister

aware of the continued exodus of technicians and other skilled, vital help from

B.C. health care? If so, what is she doing about it, or is this merely part of

the plan?

Hon. G. Bruce: This government is very aware of all that's

going on in that respect, and they're working with the parties. Of course, when

it comes to a situation where you're cognizant of labour market needs — both

competitively in the private sector and with the public sector — it's incumbent

upon government to make sure that the needs are met, so the services can be

provided for the people of British Columbia. To that end, we are doing that for

all areas of British Columbia, and we have made sure in this particular instance

that we have the people in the appropriate places.

GOVERNMENT FUNDING

FOR AGRICULTURE INDUSTRY

E. Brenzinger: Today my question is for the Minister of

Agriculture, Food and Fisheries. B.C. is far below the national average for

provincial budget contributions as a percentage of agriculture GDP. In 2004 B.C.

contributions to agriculture were $203 million on an ag-GDP of $3.4 billion.

That's $338 million less than the Canadian average.

For the minister: why, in 2004, did rocky Newfoundland contribute

the equivalent of 15 percent of agricultural GDP to the ag-food sector while

B.C. contributed only 6 percent?

Hon. J. van Dongen: The agricultural industry in British

Columbia has shown good growth in the last 25

[ Page 12319 ]

years, showing growth in gross farm receipts every year except in 1982. We

have a very diverse, very strong agricultural industry. Our budget in the past

year was $45 million.

As a result of BSE and avian influenza, our government topped up

that budget with an additional $41 million, making a total of well over $80

million and also triggering significant federal dollars into the province for

our cattlemen and poultry men.

COLLECTIVE BARGAINING FOR TEACHERS

R. Masi: Recently, the teachers union released an issue

alert to all teachers, claiming the province was planning to restrict teachers'

bargaining rights. The alert alleges that the Wright report threatens to

restrict teacher bargaining rights more than any time since teachers formed

associations. To the Minister of Labour: are you planning to restrict teachers'

bargaining rights?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. G. Bruce: Don Wright, a former Deputy Minister of

Education and of Forests, both for this government and for the former

administration, has undertaken a review of teacher bargaining in British

Columbia. He has put together a very comprehensive report. At this point, it's

to all of the parties.

I have met with two of the four parties so far, wanting to speak

with them and get from them their impressions of the report. It is a difficult

situation in that regardless of the political party in power during the course

of the last 12 years, we've been unable to get a negotiated settlement. It's

important that as we work through this process, we get all parties to work

through and to come up with a new process, so we will find a way that we can get

negotiated settlements.

Until the time that I've been able to meet with all the parties

and bring forward a conclusion…. It's incumbent upon me to meet first with the

parties before I start offering opinions.

[End of question period.]

[1445]

Tabling Documents

J. Brar: I seek leave to table a document. It's a January

2005 letter from the Assistant Deputy Minister of Human Resources confirming

service delivery changes at the McBride office.

I also rise to reserve the right to raise a matter of privilege.

Mr. Speaker: We need leave to table the document.

Leave granted.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

SUPPLY ACT (No. 1), 2005

Hon. C. Hansen presented a message from His Honour the

Administrator: a bill intituled Supply Act (No. 1), 2005.

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

a first time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. C. Hansen: This supply bill is introduced to provide

supply for the continuation of government programs until the government's

estimates for 2005-06 have been debated and voted upon in this assembly. The

bill will provide interim supply for government operating expenses for the

initial six months of the '05-06 fiscal year. This will allow time to debate and

pass the estimates. This interim supply is required because existing voted

appropriations will expire on March 31, 2005.

This bill will also provide interim supply for other financing

requirements. This bill seeks supply for two-thirds of the year's financing

transaction requirements for capital asset expenditures and loans and

investments, and 100 percent of the year's financing transaction requirements

for revenues collected for and transferred to other entities. This will allow

time to debate these requirements. This interim supply is also required because

existing voted appropriations will expire on March 31, 2005.

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.

Bill 20 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.

Motions without Notice

APPOINTMENT OF SELECT STANDING

COMMITTEE ON PARLIAMENTARY REFORM,

ETHICAL CONDUCT, STANDING ORDERS

AND PRIVATE BILLS

Hon. G. Bruce: By leave I move:

[that the Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical

Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills be comprised of the following

Members: Mr. Lekstrom (Convener), Mmes. Orr, and Trumper, Messrs. Belsey,

Bhullar, Bloy, Brar, Bray, Hunter, Johnston, Long, Sultan and Wilson.]

Leave granted.

Motion approved.

[ Page 12320 ]

Standing Order 81 Motion

ADOPTION OF

GOVERNMENT BUSINESS

SCHEDULE FOR

MARCH 7 TO MARCH 10, 2005

Hon. G. Bruce: I rise pursuant to standing order 81.1(2).

Mr. Speaker, in relation to government….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Order, please.

Can we please have order while we hear what the minister has to

say.

Hon. G. Bruce: In relation to government business before

the House or on the orders of the day, I move to adopt the

schedule which is in

the hands of the Clerk and has been distributed to all members.

[Pursuant to

Standing Order 81.1 (2) that the following

schedule be adopted for the

conclusion of House business for the week of March 7 to March 10, 2005:

Monday,

March 7

2:45-4:00

Bill 19

Committee

and 3rd Reading

4:00-9:00

Response

to Throne Speech

Tuesday,

March 8

10:00-10:45

Bill 20 —

Interim Supply

2nd

Reading

10:45-11:45

Response

to Throne Speech

2:45-5:50

Bill 20 —

Interim Supply

2nd

Reading (completed)

Wednesday, March 9

2:45-6:00

Bill 20 —

Interim Supply

Committee

6:30-9:00

Bill 20 —

Interim Supply

Committee

Thursday,

March 10

10:00-12:00

Bill 20 —

Interim Supply

Committee

2:45-5:45

Bill 20 —

Interim Supply

Committee

and 3rd Reading

Unless previously completed, at the times and dates mentioned, the

Speaker and the Chair of Committee of the Whole will forthwith put all

necessary questions for the disposal of all the various stages of the business

indicated without amendment or debate. Any divisions called on the second or

third reading of the Bills, or the Address in Reply, may be taken in

accordance with Standing Order 16 and all other divisions will be subject to

the provisions of Practice Recommendation No. 1. Proceedings under this motion

shall not be subject to the provisions of the Standing or Sessional Orders

relating to times and days of sittings of the House.]

J. MacPhail: Point of order, Mr. Speaker. We are now about

to shut down the House with the biggest interim supply that people have seen in

this province, and the government is now going to limit debate on it. They

passed this rule when they had a majority of 77 against two. They claimed that

they were going to have the most open and transparent government. Now we see

they're going to run and hide. They refuse to debate their legislation, they

refuse to let us debate the estimates, and now they're going to ram through,

with this sessional order…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Order, please.

J. MacPhail: …that was of their making…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

J. MacPhail: …in a few hours. It is shameful.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. member, would you state your point of order, please.

J. MacPhail: I say that this is completely wrong-headed. It

is against any transparency in any Legislature in the parliamentary system. This

government is now using it to deny anybody the opportunity to debate the

estimates of the budget.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Order, please. Order, please.

J. MacPhail: The Legislature in a fixed sitting should

finish April 18, not this week.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you. Order, please.

Hon. member, it is not a valid point of order. The question is

adoption of this motion.

[1450]

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Order, please. If you wish to

debate, please take it outside the chamber.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. member, you are out of order. There is no

debate at this moment. If you wish to discuss it, please take it outside.

Motion approved on the

following division:

YEAS — 43

Falcon

Coell

Les

Wong

Chong

McMahon

Bell

van Dongen

Wilson

Bray

Cobb

Lee

Plant

Hansen

Bruce

Brice

Abbott

Coleman

Penner

Clark

Anderson

[ Page 12321 ]

Jarvis

Orr

Hogg

Nuraney

Nebbeling

R. Stewart

Long

Mayencourt

Trumper

Johnston

Krueger

Masi

Bhullar

Hayer

Lekstrom

MacKay

Halsey-Brandt

Bloy

Suffredine

Hawes

Kerr

Manhas

NAYS — 5

Kwan

MacPhail

Brar

Brenzinger

Nettleton

Orders of the Day

Hon. G. Bruce: I call committee on the Ministerial

Accountability Bases, 2004-2005, Amendment Act, 2005.

Committee of the Whole House

MINISTERIAL ACCOUNTABILITY BASES,

2004-2005, AMENDMENT ACT, 2005

The House in committee on Bill 19; J. Weisbeck in the

chair.

The committee met at 2:59 p.m.

Sections 1 to 3 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

Hon. C. Hansen: I move that the committee rise and report

the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 3 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

Bill 19, Ministerial Accountability Bases, 2004-2005, Amendment

Act, 2005, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. M. Coell: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

Hon. M. Coell: I have some guests from the Gulf Islands

here, from Gulf Islands Secondary School. Mr. Sokol is teacher and instructor,

and five adults are accompanying him. Would the House please make them all

welcome.

Hon. G. Bruce: I call response to the throne speech.

Throne Speech Debate

(continued)

C. Clark: I am honoured to be able to offer my comments on

the throne speech today in the chamber. Unfortunately, my voice has deserted me

today, which will probably be my last opportunity to speak in this chamber that

I've loved so much, but I hope I'll get to the end of it.

I'm honoured to speak in this chamber because I have such a

profound respect for the work that this Legislature does. I have a deep, deep

love of politics. I love question period. I love debate. I love the people I've

met. I even love the protestors. I love politics. I love the conviction that

every single member of this Legislature brings to the debate that we have in

this chamber and outside the chamber every day. The work that we do here is so

important, and it has been just such a tremendous honour to be at the heart of

the work this Legislature does.

I was raised in a family that held public service in the highest

esteem. My father was a teacher, but he revered politics. To him it was the

highest calling for any citizen to be able to serve in public office, whether it

be municipal, provincial or federal. He believed, as I do, that politicians have

it in their power to make a better society if we make good decisions. Equally,

we have it in our power to diminish what could be a great society if we make the

wrong ones. He was a public school teacher, and he knew that building a great

society is a task for every single citizen. He also knew that policy-makers have

a huge role to play in building that great society.

If we have broad economic policies that work, we can attract

investment. We can create jobs. We can give hope to families and help them put

food on the table, pay their mortgages, hold their marriages together and give

them time to nurture and love their children because they're not worried about

their finances every day. Or we can choose to send those jobs to other provinces

for other families and other people's children.

[J. Weisbeck in the chair.]

We can support citizens who need help when they're going through

tough times, or we can ignore them. If we support them, we can create a caring

society where the least advantaged benefit just as much from our economy as

those who are advantaged. If we ignore them, we risk creating a society where

those who are lucky, those who were born with advantages, get an opportunity to

thrive; and where those people who are mentally ill or mentally challenged or

physically challenged or who have just never had a lucky

[ Page 12322 ]

break struggle every day in a society that is so wealthy, people could not

have imagined it 50 years ago.

[1505]

We can make choices today that will ensure our children have the

same opportunities to succeed that we have, or we can burden them with years of

debt that they will really never have a chance to pay off. We can care for the

elderly in our society and ensure they have dignity to the very end of their

lives, something we all want for ourselves and for our parents. We can give our

children all of the knowledge they will need to compete anywhere in the world

with the best and the brightest, on an even footing.

We can protect the rights of minorities from the tyranny of the

majority, something that we must always be vigilant about in any society, if we

want our children to inherit the rich democratic institutions we're working so

hard to create. We can create a society where individual differences are not

just tolerated but they're embraced and valued and recognized for what they are:

the fabric of one of the richest societies anywhere on earth — a society where

because we welcome differences, we live in a place that is so unimaginably rich

with such a bright future.

We can give every child, while they're still in the womb, the best

chance in life by educating their parents about how to make sure they're taken

care of. We can support those families, once those children are born, with every

resource available to strengthen them and to make sure that every family becomes

a seamless safety net that protects children. We are blessed if we have

children, and we should remember that for those of us who have children, even if

we have only one, those aren't our only children. Every child in every community

needs to be all of our children. That's how we will build strong communities.

Those were the values that my father instilled in me. He believed

in those things because he was a public school teacher. He saw every day the

impacts of government decisions on individual lives. He knew the ingredients

that went into a successful child, and he knew how difficult sometimes the

challenges were for families and children to overcome alone. He believed, as I

do, that resilient, loving, safe families are the fundamental base for a caring

society. He knew that government could not replace families, but he knew that

families often have to rely on government to get through some tough times. That

was what defined him as a B.C. Liberal through all of those years.

He ran as a candidate in three elections when he knew absolutely

for certain that he would be defeated. He ran because he believed it was

important to represent an alternative to British Columbia and to stand up for

those values that he prized so highly as a public school teacher. My father

taught me a lot. He taught me a lot, because I watched him do politics. I

watched the politicians who came to our house and who would share dinner and

talk about the next election campaign. But I learned mostly from my father

because he was such a thoroughly decent individual. I learned from watching him

care so deeply for his students and for his family and for his friends and those

around him.

It wasn't easy to be a Liberal in those days, but just like if

you're a hockey player, you can't score from the bench. You can only win if you

run for office. Even if you don't win, you sometimes can make a difference.

It was those diehard Liberals across British Columbia like my

father who clung so stubbornly to the belief that there needed to be an

alternative in British Columbia. It was those Liberals who forced the Social

Credit Party to widen their tent in the 1970s and revitalize that party with new

ideas. It was those Liberals who offered an alternative when the Social Credit

Party finally veered off course under Bill Vander Zalm.

I want to salute those party diehards who strived to present an

alternative vision through all those years. I think of stalwarts like party

president Floyd Sully and former MLA Clive Tanner — they ran this party on guts,

on sweat, but mostly on hope — and party stalwarts like Mike McDonald, who drove

to every riding in this province trying to recruit candidates.

[1510]

Our party is full of people like Mike McDonald — it was then and

it is today — people who truly believe that change is possible, people of

principle who understand that you need to have a sense of core values that you

will stand up for and represent no matter how difficult times are, people who

also understand that you need to be pragmatic. We need to work with a broad

range of people and make sure that British Columbia's free enterprise party

represents the vast majority of British Columbia, not just a few.

I think of my colleagues in the Legislature like the member for

Vancouver-Quilchena, who was the one staff person to the Liberal caucus in the

1970s. I think of the class of '91, people like the member from Richmond, the

members for Vancouver-Langara, Langley, North Vancouver–Seymour. I think of Fred

Gingell, a man who had nothing to gain by running for office. He became a giant

in these corridors, and he will always be remembered by those who knew him. He

will be loved by his friends and enemies alike. He will be loved because he

brought so much intelligence and good humour, and he brought a sense of this

place, a sense of profound respect for what we do here. He will be difficult to

replace.

Those were a group of political pioneers in British Columbia, and

they presented an alternative, a middle-road alternative that B.C. was hungry

for. It is a narrow path in this province to try and govern from the centre. If

we venture too far to the left or too far to the right, we will go over a

precipitous cliff to disaster. W.A.C. Bennett walked that path carefully for

almost all of his career. Bill Bennett walked that path carefully while he was

Premier. It's easy to veer off course, but those two men who worked so hard for

the vision of a great British Columbia were two men who, while they didn't

always walk perfectly along the centre, worked hard to include all British

Columbians in the vision for a great future.

[ Page 12323 ]

The NDP's approach at election time this time, just like in every

other election we've ever seen, will be to say they will be the ones that can

chart the course for the centre. Remember Glen Clark said he would be the one to

walk the path that W.A.C. Bennett walked. The fact is that when the NDP get into

power, they don't walk through the centre; they make a desperate dash to the

left. When they do that, British Columbia almost inevitably falls over the

cliff. When they go over the cliff, they do things like fudge the budget. They

spend more money than we've ever had. They kill jobs in every region of this

province and in every industry. British Columbians in this next election will

not forget the devastation that the NDP wrought on British Columbia when they

promised to chart a middle course.

When Carole James says she wants to stand up for big taxes, big

government and big bureaucracy, she also says she wants to stand up for the

little guy. Well, you can't do both. If you want to stand up for the little guy,

if you want to be on the side of the people of British Columbia, you have to

leave some money in their pockets. You have to craft a government that's going

to be small enough and nimble enough to respond to their needs. You have to be

responsive and listen to what the people want.

Carole James's vision of British Columbia is a vision where our

province will be run from the back rooms again by a government of people who are

not interested in supporting the little guy. They aren't interested in being on

the side of the people on main street. They aren't interested in supporting

people in every industry, in every region of this province. They aren't

interested in creating jobs. They aren't interested in creating a real budget

surplus that we can invest in British Columbia.

They are interested in governing for their special interests. They

are interested in making sure that the people who are back in the seat of power

in British Columbia are not the voters but the special interests.

When this election rolls around, although I will not be a

candidate, I will be working with every ounce of energy I can muster to make

sure that this Premier and this government, which has made some tough

decisions….

K. Krueger: And the member for Kamloops–North Thompson.

C. Clark: And the member for Kamloops–North Thompson, who

heartily deserves to be re-elected….

[1515]

I look around at my colleagues in the Legislature, and I see 75

people who have decided to run for public office even though it's not always the

best way to make yourself popular at home — people who decided to put their

names on the ballot even though they knew that being a politician doesn't always

bring credit to your family. They did it because they believe in public service,

and they did it because they were disgusted with what had happened in our

province over the last decade. They did it because they know their communities

and they care about making a better life for the men and the women that live

there. That's why they ran for office.

I see people in this chamber who work day and night to represent

the concerns of their constituents. I see people like the member for Port

Coquitlam–Burke Mountain who has done more to bring benefits to that community

than any MLA in a decade. I see people in this chamber who work privately and

publicly every single day to try and make sure their communities are better

places, people who put together ideas and bring together decision-makers and

listen to the concerns they hear on the street and make sure those concerns are

heard in the halls of power.

That is why the B.C. Liberal members are here in this chamber,

because we care about making a better British Columbia. We care about making

this a place again of hope and opportunity where every child can have the

opportunity to go to university, where every child can hope they can get a job

when they graduate from high school and where every grandparent can know that

their grandchildren may be able to live in the same community where they grew

up. That is what drew us to public office, and that is the great project that

we've embarked on for these last four years. It's a project that is not yet

finished. It's a project that we still need to continue.

It would be so easy to turn back the clock, to go back to the days

where our economy was shrinking, where people were leaving, where British

Columbia was literally the laughingstock of this nation. It would be so easy to

go back to the days when forest workers were standing on the unemployment line

in record numbers, where mines were closing in every community instead of

opening, and where the high-tech industry was shrivelling up and leaving for a

better climate. It would be easy to go back to that, but we cannot allow it to

happen.

This government has charted a middle course. This government has

stood up for the little guy. This government has done what people said was

impossible. This government and this Premier have brought in a $2 billion

surplus. For the first time that many British Columbians can remember our

province is in a position to invest in people again, to invest in communities

and to make sure that people who are the least advantaged and the most

vulnerable have what they need to be able to sometimes live through tough times.

We have the resources to build the best education system anywhere

in the world. By the way, we already have the best education system anywhere in

the world. Kids in British Columbia do better on international comparisons than

any kids, anywhere in the world. Our kids do better in reading and mathematics.

The only kids in the world that can challenge our kids on science are kids in

Finland and Korea. Not bad for our education system. More kids are graduating

from high school than ever before in British Columbia. More kids are getting

scholarships than ever before.

We are making sure that our public education system is as

accountable and transparent as it can possibly

[ Page 12324 ]

be. We're asking school boards to publicly account for what they want to do

and how they intend to improve, and then we hold them to those accountabilities.

We make sure that they live up to the commitments they've made.

We've included parents in our education system in a way that was

never done before here or anywhere in Canada. We've put parents and students at

the centre of the agenda instead of special interest groups, and that shows in

achievement. Instead of saying we're going to look at just how much money we put

in….

[1520]

Now, we have put a lot more money into public education, but we

would be wrong if we said: "Gee, we've put more money into education; therefore,

the education system must be better." We have put more money into education, but

that's not the only reason the education system is better. The education system

is better because we are focused on achievement. We are focused on the needs of

students and parents, not the needs of the special interests. We, for the first

time, have tried to forge a relationship and share power with the people we are

trying to benefit and serve in our public education system. That has shown

itself in the results that we get.

I have no doubt that when this government is re-elected and when

we are given the great task to carry on this project we've embarked on, our

public education system will continue to get better. I have no doubt that when

this government is re-elected for another four years on May 17, we will continue

to build on the 25,000 new spaces at universities that we've promised and will

deliver. We need to make sure that every young person in our province who has

the ability and the willingness should be able to go and pursue a world-class

post-secondary education in whatever field it is they want to pursue.

We have the obligation to ensure that our citizens have all of the

opportunities we can provide them. We are such a rich society. To do anything

less would be irresponsible. To do anything less would be a lot like what the

NDP did. Less would mean that we were actually shrinking access to education,

which is what the NDP did. To do anything less would mean that we underfund our

universities, that we shut down opportunities, that we make it five years or six

years to do a four-year degree.

To do anything less means that we would again be sending more

students out of British Columbia to pursue a post-secondary education, when they

should be doing it here — when they should have access to great universities

like Simon Fraser, UBC, UNBC, UVic and now the great new university that will be

in Kamloops, the great new university that will be in Kelowna, the great new

universities across this province that our government is investing in and that

we will continue to grow to make sure our citizens have every opportunity that a

rich, wealthy, diverse and caring democratic society can provide.

My father, when he was alive, revelled in politics. He watched

question period every day. He pored over the newspapers. He sent me clippings.

When I was living in France, he used to mail me these huge packets of clippings

— mostly Vaughn Palmer's columns, so I can't say I was always well informed.

Unfortunately, my father died after I was nominated but before I

got elected, so the task of helping me through my political life fell to my

family. In my case, that was my mother, my brothers and my husband. My brothers

in particular, I want to say, did a great deal to make this possible for me.

They devoted themselves to helping me succeed. My oldest brother put aside his

better instincts in every election and went and put up signs on election day,

knocked on doors and asked people if they'd voted yet.

My other brother has devoted thousands and thousands of hours and

so much deep emotion to helping me succeed. I think the hardest day for him was

when I told him that I wasn't planning to run again. I'm grateful for that. It

was he who persuaded Gordon Campbell that I would be a good candidate, and it

was he that phoned me and said: "If you get a call from Gordon Campbell, you

might want to think about being a candidate."

So I ran, and I was elected to represent Port Moody–Burnaby

Mountain, and I learned the ropes in opposition. I think if you look back at the

Hansard record on those days, you'll see that I struggled to make a

speech, and I wasn't very quick on my feet. But I learned through this chamber,

as I've seen so many members do, how to be a better politician.

[1525]

It was during those years that the Premier, in particular, helped

me and encouraged me in my growth as a politician. I always had the sense that

he believed I was capable of things I had no idea were possible for me. He

always gave me tasks and I always said, "I don't think I can do that," but he

made me do them. He's someone who knows how to build a team around him, and he

knows how to find the unique talents in every single individual and give them

something to do that will allow them to grow in those talents.

He's been a great leader of our province. He's been a great leader

of our party, but he's been a great friend to me. I want to thank him very, very

much for that. In those years we worked hard to hold the NDP to account, and we

learned a lot in opposition. We weren't always perfect, but we did have a pretty

good time. Those years were years that I think were marked by a great deal of

good humour and camaraderie for us, the class of '96.

It was when we got into government that it really tested the bonds

of my family. It was my husband, Mark, who made it possible for me to do this

job. When I was invited to join cabinet and we had our son Hamish, it was Mark

who travelled back and forth to Victoria every week — interrupted his work and

spent three days here so that we could have dinner together every single night.

It was Mark who emptied the rotten food out of the fridge and went shopping

every night to make sure we had dinner to eat. It was Mark who allowed me to

stand in the limelight while he stood in

[ Page 12325 ]

the back and didn't take any credit for the incredible support that he's

been.

It was difficult to have a baby in the Legislature. I was shocked

at the amount of controversy it created. I have brought my son here. I put him

in office space that had already been allocated for me, and I paid for his

caregiver. It was the public sector unions, who say they support more women

getting into politics, that were protesting outside my constituency office,

saying I was ripping off taxpayers.

I do want to say to the member for Vancouver-Hastings, who is

normally a voluminous voice in any debate and who normally jumps at any

opportunity to make the government look bad…. I want to say thanks to her too,

because during that entire debate, when many of her friends and supporters and

colleagues were attacking me for bringing my child to work, she refused to take

part in that debate. She refused because…. Although I disagree with her on

almost every single imaginable issue, I agree with her that we need to get more

women into politics, and you can't get more women into politics if you don't

find ways to be flexible about families.

The other person that I need to thank is the Whip, because it was

the Whip who made it possible for me to go home every night and have that dinner

with my family. It was the Whip who would who look at me in caucus meetings and

send me a note saying: "What are you still doing here? Don't you have a son at

home?" I have made many friends in this Legislature who have been great

supporters of my family and my need to be able to spend time with them.

Unfortunately, it hasn't been enough time, and that's why I need to leave.

Before I leave the topic of the member for Vancouver-Hastings, I

do also want to say that my initial sense of her was one of deep suspicion and

that it evolved to a sense of grudging respect for her. Now that I'm leaving and

she's leaving, I feel free to have a sense of good-humoured camaraderie with

her.

Her party will not be able to replace her. When you look at the

slate of candidates they have presented, it is obvious they have no one running

for them that will be even half the debater and half the warrior that she's been

on her party's behalf. When they go into this election, they will lack a plan,

they will lack a vision, and they will lack the vitality of the member for

Vancouver-Hastings.

When they go into this election, they say they will have — get

this — a seven-point plan for British Columbia, a seven-point plan to put us

back on the right track. Do you know what that plan's going to say? It's going

to say:

"

(1) Trust us.

"

(2) Forget the past.

"

(3) Glen Clark — who was that, anyway?

"

(4) Listen. MacPhail's leaving, but we've got lots more like

her…."

Who knows how far they'll get with that.

[1530]

That party is totally bereft of ideas. It's a party that has

never, ever done what it has said it's going to do. Now they are a party that,

when they go into this election, will be saying to British Columbians: "Hey,

folks, let's turn back the clock. Let's go back to 2001. Let's go back to the

good old days when British Columbia was the laughingstock of our nation, when

British Columbia was losing people every single day to other provinces. Let's go

back to a province that was seeing a huge shrink in its economy, even at a time

when North America was undergoing the largest economic expansion in its history.

Let's go back to the days when strikes and job action were an everyday

occurrence. Let's go back to the days when it was harder and harder to get into

university, when forest workers were standing in unemployment lines, when mines

were closing, when young people had to leave their families and leave the proud

province of British Columbia to find work."

My great-grandfather came to this province from Scotland. He left

his family, his language, his farm — everything he knew — to come to British

Columbia, because this was the land of hope and opportunity. When the NDP took

that away from us, thousands of British Columbians were hurt. It has been this

Premier and this party that have restored that sense of hope and opportunity.

When Jim Sinclair says he wants to go back to 2001, he's not just

saying he wants to go back to the days of job losses and mine closures; he's

saying he wants to go back to the days when we weren't able to boost disability

payments by a record amount. He says he wants to go back to the days when we

weren't able to provide lower Pharmacare and MSP payments for seniors who needed

them. He says he wants to go back to the days when we couldn't afford to invest

many new billions of dollars into our health care system. He wants to go back to

the days when we didn't have a sense of hope and opportunity in British

Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, I see that my time is up, so I want to close by

saying this. I want to say that I have so tremendously enjoyed the opportunity

to be a representative of my constituency. I'm deeply touched by the support

they've shown me in the two successive elections I've been in.

I want to say that I will miss this place. I will miss politics. I

will miss the hundreds of friends that I have worked shoulder to shoulder with.

I've loved every minute of it. Other than being a mother, it has been the

greatest privilege of my life to serve here. I hope that the MLAs who occupy

this seat after me love this place just even half as much as I have.

Hon. K. Falcon: It's always a challenge to follow the

member for Port Moody–Westwood. I think the member summed up beautifully,

crystallized exactly the kind of chaos and mess that was left to this government

to have to clean up again. I say "again" because this is the same thing that we

saw in the early seventies, the last time prior to 1991 that the NDP government

was, unfortunately, given an opportunity to govern. In three short years they

left a trail of devastation that was not forgotten by British Columbians,

fortunately.

[ Page 12326 ]

It was many a long year before they were ever allowed to return to

government, and that was only because people forgot. They forgot because one of

the things the NDP like to do, as the member for Port Moody–Westwood pointed

out, is to portray themselves as moderates. This is a new thing they trot out

every time a new election is coming around. They'll trot out this idea that

somehow they've changed, that they learned from all the lessons. They remember

the devastation they wreaked on the province, and they're going to be different.

They promise they're going to be moderate. They won't allow big labour to call

the tune. They'll try and be independent. We've heard all that talk before.

In fact, I remember so clearly the commercials they ran on TV in

1991 showing their leader at the time sitting with a little piggy bank saying:

"We will not spend one penny more than we take in." I know many members of this

House remember that ad.

What happened, Mr. Speaker? What followed was year after year

after year of deficits — every single year that that government was in, except

for one. In that decade of deficits they managed to single-handedly double the

provincial debt from just around $17 billion to almost $35 billion.

[1535]

The one year they had a surplus was as a result of one-time —

clearly one-time — skyrocketing natural gas prices and some energy export sales

to the United States, which was a unique and one-time kind of event. What did

that government do? They cranked up their program spending, knowing that those

were one-time revenues that would revert back to a much lower amount. That's not

how that government managed things. They, of course, cranked up program spending

and set us on the course of totally unsustainable spending yet again.

When we were elected, our Premier had a vision and he had a plan

for British Columbia, and the plan was called a new era of hope and prosperity

for British Columbia. That new era of hope and prosperity contained 201 specific

commitments that we laid out before British Columbians, that we were going to

systematically fulfil and move forward to ensure that we could lay a foundation

again in British Columbia — a foundation for restoring confidence, a foundation

for economic opportunity and a foundation for growth and prosperity.

Doing that would not be easy. We knew it was going to involve

making difficult choices, but leadership really is about making difficult

choices. That's why we have a Premier that's never been afraid to make difficult

choices. When faced with the prospect of doing what is politically expedient or

politically easy and doing what is more difficult but knowing it will benefit

future generations much more tangibly, this Premier always goes for the decision

that is going to benefit our children and our grandchildren.

As we started to implement that plan, it involved, as I mentioned,

201 specific commitments, many of which, of course, I won't try to cover. What I

will do is remind those in the listening audience of the key elements. Some of

those key elements included a significant reduction in personal taxes, and we

fulfilled that on our first day here in this House with a 25 percent personal

income tax cut. We did that because we are a government whose philosophy

fundamentally is that we believe we need to provide tax relief to the

hard-working men and women of this province so that they have an opportunity to

decide how those dollars should be spent — their money. There's no such thing as

government money.

The NDP always talk about spending more government money. You

know, at the end of the day it's not government's money; it's the taxpayers'

money. It's the people that are working eight and nine hours a day, that are

struggling to raise their families, feed their children, attend their local

parent advisory committee meetings, be involved in the community, coach soccer.

Those are the people that are making the contribution, and the work they do and

the taxes they pay are something that we have to treat with the utmost respect.

That's why the 25 percent tax cut was followed through.

Another commitment we made was to reduce the regulatory burden by

33 percent, or one-third, within our first three years. I was tasked by the

Premier with heading up that challenge, prior to becoming Minister of

Transportation. We methodically went through every single part of government,

every ministry of government, every Crown corporation, and we had them count the

number of regulations right across government. In the previous government the

one area they led in, and they led unashamedly, was in the growth of red tape.

There was no other province that came close to how they could add on that red

tape and regulation.

We went across government, and we actually, for the first time

ever, counted how many regulations we had in this province. We found we had

382,000 regulations. We said we would reduce those by a third, and I am pleased

to say that we exceeded that commitment. We reduced the regulatory burden by 38

percent in the province.

That was the catalyst — reducing unnecessary regulation; reducing

taxes; reducing corporate taxes to ensure that we were competitive for small

business with our major trading partners, whether it's in Alberta or Washington

State — that really kick-started the economy of British Columbia. It told the

investment community that we were serious in British Columbia about bringing

forward an economy that would start to work again, that they could have

confidence in investing in that economy.

[1540]

The benefits of a powerful economy can be seen in our throne

speech. The benefits of a fast-growing, private sector–driven economy can be

seen, because you now have the proceeds of a growing economy that are directed

to government — the proceeds that allow us to reinvest in health care, reinvest

in educa-

[ Page 12327 ]

tion, reinvest in post-secondary education. That is exactly what we have been

doing in this government.

One of the things that I thought was so powerful coming out of

that throne speech was the commitment the Premier and the government had made to

invest $76 million through to 2007 to expand diagnostic screening for every

child in British Columbia — in hearing, in sight and in dental testing. It is so

important for young parents and young families, particularly those of modest

income, to know that they could have that screening done and paid for by the

province — to ensure that they can become aware at a very early stage of whether

there are any challenges their young child might face so that those can be dealt

with as efficiently as possible.

The area of schooling, in K-to-12 education, is something I'm very

proud of in this throne speech. I'm proud because I represent the

fastest-growing community in the province, and that is Surrey. I represent

Surrey-Cloverdale, one of seven ridings in the community of Surrey, a district

that was shortchanged for a decade and beyond.

We were a growing school district with a growing student

population. What happened was that the funding formula never recognized that. In

the decade of the nineties, the lost decade, we had portables scattered

throughout the length and breadth of our entire community, because our kids were

jammed into our schools, with none of the foresight being made to build new

schools.

What we did was move to a per-pupil funding formula so that

dollars would follow students. For the fastest-growing student population in the

province and in the largest school district in the province — bigger than

Vancouver — that was very significant. Our grants to school boards will increase

$150 million in the coming year. That will be a total increase of over $300

million since we were elected in 2001, in spite of the fact that the student

population has declined by almost 30,000 students.

The opposition and their BCTF union friends will say: "Oh, they

closed all these schools." Naturally, they forget to talk about the schools that

are open, but let's just put that aside for a moment. They talk about all the

schools that were closed, but I have not yet heard Carole James say she's going

to reopen those schools. Why haven't we heard that? Why haven't we heard her

jump to the tune of the BCTF and say: "Yes, our labour friends, as usual, are

right, and we're going to reopen all those schools"? The reason is because they

know they can't, and they won't, because it actually wouldn't be good public

policy.

As usual, we made the difficult decisions to close schools where

they had dramatic declines in population and to open schools in communities like

Surrey that were seeing dramatic growth in student population. In my riding

alone I have opened up three new schools in the last couple of years — in my

riding alone. We've opened up over a dozen new schools in Surrey, with more to

come in the coming years.

We have undertaken one of the most dramatic capital spending

programs in K-to-12 education that we have seen in many, many years. Last fall

we provided an extra $10 million for school textbooks. This is above and beyond

the additional funding we provided — another $10 million for school districts to

purchase textbooks. That represents about 285,000 new textbooks that will now be

available for students in our schools.

By '07-08 capital funding for B.C. schools will have increased by

almost $2 billion since 2001. We will have built or approved 29 new schools in

British Columbia and expanded, renovated, replaced or seismically upgraded 245

new schools. That is one heck of a stark contrast to the kind of nonsense that

you see coming out on BCTF ads, which are full of misinformation — flagrant,

flat-out misinformation. They're outright lies, in fact, when they talk about a

post-secondary education costing $1 million. Then they candidly admit: "Well, we

know it's nowhere near that figure, but we're just saying that."

[1545]

Actually, when you think about it, a teachers union ought to have

a lot more responsibility and credibility than that. If they are to dare to

profess to speak for young kids, which they don't…. If they dare to profess

that, they ought to at least have some passing resemblance to understanding what

the truth really is.

Post-secondary. I want to touch on that for a moment, because the

post-secondary field is something I am genuinely passionate about, possibly

second only to the Premier of this province. That's why I'm pleased that the

Premier and our government confirmed in the throne speech that we are

undertaking the largest expansion of post-secondary seats ever in the history of

British Columbia — 25,000 new seats by 2010. Those are in addition to the 6,000

new spaces created over the previous three years. Mr. Speaker, $800 million will

be invested in new capital in our post-secondary system.

What does that mean in Surrey? In Surrey we have a new SFU campus

— a $70 million investment with over 3,000 new students able to be educated

right in Surrey to the benefit of our community. They won't have to travel to

Simon Fraser University in Burnaby and won't have to travel to UBC. They can do

it right in Surrey.

There's a new trades and technology campus opening in my riding in

Cloverdale. It's a $39 million investment that will have 1,000 new student

spaces to help meet the growing demand a growing economy creates in terms of the

desire for new students and trade spaces.

Our government will be increasing funding for advanced education

by $132 million over the next three years. We are limiting future tuition fee

increases to the rate of inflation effective this September.

I do want to say this; I want to acknowledge this up front. There

have been those that have said that not having a cap on tuition fees hurts

students, and I want to address this head-on. I find it interesting that when

the previous government put a so-called freeze on tuition fees, the one thing

they forgot was to make up the difference to the universities. They did not

increase the funding to universities to make up that inability for

[ Page 12328 ]

them to collect any increases from the students. That created a disastrous

situation in the post-secondary industry — a situation where they didn't have

enough seats, not enough money to undertake capital expansion, not enough money

to hire new professors. The result was that four-year degree programs were now

taking five years and six years. Students were finding it was taking much longer

to get through their education. Our commitment there, I think, is important.

The increases that have taken place in post-secondary have, in

some ways, been a challenge for students. I think it's important to look at

where our undergraduate tuition fee structure stands today. Where we stand is

that our undergraduate tuition fees today are number five out of ten provinces.

Where were they ten years ago? They were number five out of ten provinces.

I believe that the increases post-secondary education has

undertaken are sufficient. Now they can move forward with a cap based on an

allowance for inflation. That will provide some certainty to our students going

forward. The post-secondary institutions will know that in addition to that we

will be funding additional dollars to the post-secondary institutions.

I want to touch on policing for a moment, because that's also

important in my community of Surrey. For too many years in British Columbia,

governments at the local level, provincial level and federal level have ignored

the importance of dealing with crime. Fortunately, we have a Solicitor General

who understands that it's more than just words; it's actually action that is

necessary to deal with some of the challenges of crime.

In the policing end we said to municipalities right across this

province that we would turn over 100 percent of traffic fine revenues to

municipalities. One of our 201 commitments that we made in our new-era plan for

British Columbia was to turn over 75 percent, but we actually ended up turning

over 100 percent. In Surrey that meant millions of new dollars available to

invest in policing.

In the community of Surrey, under the leadership of Mayor Doug

McCallum, we have seen a commitment of over 100 new police officers being added

over the next three years, in part because of that commitment to turn over 100

percent of traffic fines.

[1550]

The throne speech also talked about the $122 million in new

funding to add 215 new police officers over the next three years. That's 215 new

police officers with units dedicated to stopping the growth and expansion of

Internet pornography, particularly with respect to children. It's a dedicated

unit that will fight child pornography on the Internet, something that has been

long overdue in this province and something that now will be combatted with the

dedicated police force. Those 215 police officers will make a huge difference in

British Columbia as we move forward in battling crime and criminals.

I want to touch briefly on health. I believe that health care is

the biggest challenge going forward not just in British Columbia but for the

country as a whole, and how we deal with that challenge is going to be very

important.

Frankly, the opposition likes to run down the health system and

tries to create a crisis where no crisis exists. It tries to take isolated

situations and turn them into a harbinger of something larger. I can tell you

that health care is an area that all provinces are going to be challenged with,

as we deal with an aging population and as we deal with a demographic shift that

sees the challenges of a population that is aging and that requires greater

resources in our health system.

I am proud to say this: in 2001 we committed in the New Era

document that we would not make any reductions in health care spending. I am

pleased to say that we have increased health care funding. It has increased

since 2001 by over $2 billion, and over the next three years it will go up by

another $1.5 billion. This represents an increase since 2001 of $3.5 billion of

new money into the health system, yet you will still hear the opposition talk

about health care cuts. It is unbelievable to me that anyone could talk about a

cut when you're talking about an increase of over $3.5 billion, but they will

still do that.

We have doubled the number of doctors being trained in British

Columbia. Do you know that not a single new medical training space was added in

British Columbia since 1980? In the decade of the nineties there was not one new

training space for doctors. The previous NDP government actually cut the number

of training spaces for nurses. It is absolutely unbelievable. That's probably

because in their entire $8 billion budget they didn't have a single employee in

the Health ministry responsible for health planning. It boggles the mind.

Today, as I say, I can tell you that we have doubled the number of

doctors in training with brand-new medical schools at the University of Northern

British Columbia in Prince George, at UVic in Victoria and at a new Life

Sciences Centre at UBC. There will be 896 doctors in training at any given time

in B.C. today. What a massive difference that is going to make as we go forward.

With nurses we have added another 2,134 new nurse training spaces

in the province — a 50 percent increase in total nurses in training in British

Columbia. It is 25 times greater than the nurse training spaces added throughout

the entire 1990s. It's an unbelievable achievement in such a short period of

time.

The final thing I will say, briefly, is on transportation. There

is no community more than Surrey, except perhaps big parts of northern British

Columbia, that understands how important transportation is to the well-being of

the community and the growth of the economy. In transportation in Surrey we are

seeing almost one-quarter of a billion dollars in new transportation investment.

Virtually everywhere you drive in Surrey, whether it's our

contribution to the widening of Fraser Highway, the four-laning of 176th Street

or Highway 15 all the way from Highway 1 right down to the Douglas border

crossing, the four-laning of Highway 10 all the

[ Page 12329 ]

way from 176th Street right into Delta or the four-laning of 8th Avenue

between Douglas border crossing and Highway 99, things are on the move in

transportation, and it's just the beginning.

[1555]

It is the beginning because we recognize that as part of the

gateway program we need to do more. We need to deal with the challenge of the

most congested corridor in the lower mainland, the Port Mann Bridge — a bridge

that was built 40 years ago and that has been ignored by successive governments

ever since, in spite of the fact that the population of the GVRD has tripled

since 1963.

We are not going to ignore it. We are going to move forward with a

business plan, with consultations with the communities, with the proper

environmental assessment. Unlike the previous government, which rammed through

the millennium project ignoring their own environmental protections, we'll do it

the right way. I do want to say this: we will do it. It will happen, and it will

happen because it's long overdue. It's one piece of a bigger answer to the

puzzle of transportation. Congestion alone costs the lower mainland $1.5 billion

a year.

We recognize that the solution to transportation gridlock is a

balanced one that invests not just in roads and bridges, though that is

important, but also invests in public transportation. That's why, under the

Premier's leadership, we have spearheaded a funding commitment of $435 million

to the RAV line. This will get 100,000 people a day out of their cars and into

public transit, and it will help free up the lower mainland congestion by making

that investment.

That's not all. There's an additional $170 million that we've

committed to help bring light rail to the northeast sector, which will again

answer the need for improved and increased public transit. It is that kind of

balanced transportation vision that really will start to answer the challenge of

$1.5 billion worth of congestion costs to the lower mainland economy.

[H. Long in the chair.]

In conclusion, let me say this. We had a plan for British

Columbia. Our Premier had a plan for British Columbia. The New Era

document that we laid out, a new era of hope and prosperity for British

Columbia…. Of the 201 specific commitments I talked about at the beginning of my

comments today, 97 percent have been achieved — 97 percent, Mr. Speaker.

That is a record of accomplishment that has inspired the private

sector and that has given confidence to the bond rating agencies who upgrade our

debt rating. It has given confidence to the small business community that has

the highest level of confidence anywhere in Canada right here in British

Columbia. It has given confidence to the public to know that the plan is

working; that a private sector–growing economy works for British Columbia; that

the power of a growing economy is the power to have new resources to invest in

health care, in education, in transportation and in those folks that need an

extra lift from the government.

That's exactly what we're doing, Mr. Speaker, and I want to thank

you for the opportunity to address our response to the throne.

J. Brar: I rise to respond to the speech from the throne. I

want to tell you that I am in good spirits, but my throat is sore. I saw that

another member speaking this afternoon also had a sore throat, so maybe there's

something in the air in British Columbia. I will go through it, but I may be

coughing through this speech, so you'll have to bear with me for that.

I would like to start by taking this opportunity to extend my

deepest thanks to my constituents in Surrey–Panorama Ridge and to acknowledge

their ongoing commitment to our community — a community that is truly diverse; a

community that represents many cultures, languages and histories that contribute

to the prosperity of our great province; a community that celebrates each

other's values and faiths. I am proud to stand here today and be their

representative, and I will ensure that this government does not fail them in

tackling the current challenges we have in this province.

However, I feel that this, the fifth and last throne speech in the

mandate of this government, did just that. It failed my community. This was a

speech that left much to be desired, a speech that has done little to solve some

of the pressing issues facing British Columbians.

[1600]

I am well aware that most throne speeches are long on rhetoric,

and this speech was no exception. More concerning is that this speech was short

on specifics and short on vision, Mr. Speaker. For a government to offer so

little back to the people of this province after forcing them to endure four

years of drastic cuts to the vital programs and services is shameful.

British Columbians have seen their taxes increase, user fees soar,

programs that benefited them and their communities eliminated, the privatization

of the health care system and their public assets sold off at bargain-basement

prices. Now this government stands before them with only advice to act now on

eating more fruits and vegetables — a great idea but not a great offer. Although

this is a valuable sentiment, it offers little to the patient who can't get

through the doors at the local hospitals or to the senior without appropriate

care beds or to the doctors and nurses struggling to provide quality care in

overflowing emergency wards.

It is clear to me that this government has thrown in the towel on

health care and abandoned patients. In my constituency this is all too obvious.

The number one issue facing Surrey residents is the state of public health care.

Surrey Memorial Hospital is under extreme pressure. When this government cut

services to Delta Hospital and Burnaby Hospital and closed St. Mary's, it only

served to increase the demand on the emergency services at Surrey Memorial

Hospital. This has led to overflowing emergency wards and the practice of

hallway medicine at Surrey Memorial Hospital.

The Fraser health authority is facing a $50 million capital budget

shortfall this year alone, and that num-

[ Page 12330 ]

ber will grow to $160 million next year. Over 800 long-term care beds have

been cut from this region. The needed expansion of Surrey Memorial Hospital has

been put on hold for the last four years, despite demand from the former CEO,

Bob Smith, that further stalling would mean disaster for the community.

Well, disaster has struck that community — my community. Still,

all this government can do is to fire their scapegoat and force the health

authority to redirect dollars earmarked for staff recruitment to the ER

expansion project. While this government sits on an unallocated re-election

slush fund of $65 million, it forces the health authority to choose between an

ER expansion or much-needed staff at Surrey Memorial Hospital. This is an

unacceptable situation. Should we save the hand or the foot? It's a very

difficult decision. There is money to save both but just not the political will

in British Columbia.

This government promised to improve health care, including a

promise to create 5,000 additional long-term care beds for seniors. Now, as a

result of broken promises, health care is in worse shape under the leadership of

this Premier than ever before in this province.

[1605]

The ramifications of this broken promise are seen and felt not

just in Surrey but also in Penticton, Kamloops, Victoria and right across the

province and particularly in smaller communities.

We can tell from the throne speech that he has no intentions of

resolving the crisis his government has created. We now know that the shiny

promises contained in the throne speech truly ring hollow, especially on the

issue of health care. Now that we have seen the budget for 2005, the promises of

this government have no backing. There is no money allocated for long-term care

beds and no commitment to capital projects that have been on hold for four years

because this government has refused to fund them.

Looking at the throne speech in retrospect, the fancy packaging of

the golden decade has become tarnished. The gold paint is already chipping away.

British Columbians will not be fooled by fancy slogans and buzzwords. They want

substance. They want truth. They want to see a government that makes a real

investment in this province, in communities and in families, not a government

that merely pays lip service to the important principles of our society when,

and only when, it particularly benefits them — just two months before facing the

voters of British Columbia.

For the last four years, this government allowed tuition fees to

skyrocket. Across the province tuition fees have doubled, with no regard for

students who have been forced to rethink their educational goals because of the

new price tag they have to pay. The B.C. Liberals' agenda for post-secondary

education has been to make it as hard as possible to get a degree or a

certificate.

Skyrocketing tuition fees, cancellation of student employment

programs and the elimination of provincial student grant programs — that is the

legacy this government has left to students, the future of this province. It is

a legacy that ensures that only those who can pay are educated, and the rest can

get a job for $6 an hour in this province. It's a legacy that flows funding to

institutions so that students pay more to sit in overcrowded classes, using

outdated lab equipment and crossing their fingers in hopes of getting the

classes they need to graduate.

Now — surprise, surprise — after years of public outcry from

students and parents, two months before the election this government announces a

cap on tuition fees — a big surprise. This last-ditch effort to repaint the

image of this government and its record on post-secondary education is useless.

In fact, it just goes to show that this government really doesn't get it.

We used to be a leader in this country when it came to

post-secondary education. It was the NDP that set the now national trend to

freeze tuition fees and make education affordable for average families. It was

the NDP that introduced the most progressive student grant programs in the

country to ensure that our students didn't graduate with unmanageable student

debt. It was the NDP that built our world-class model of education that includes

colleges, university colleges and universities all working together. It has

taken this government only four years to erode that system, to dismantle the

system that was built over many years.

[1610]

Where we were once leaders, we are now simply followers, and it is

our students, our youth, that are paying the price. It is this government that

dares make one of its goals for the golden decade to make B.C. the

best-educated, most literate jurisdiction on the continent. That is a tall

order, especially after cutting funds for schools, libraries and librarians.

Maybe the Premier does not see the connection, but I do. So do British

Columbians across the province.

This government has forced school closures and cuts to vital

programs and services for our schools, programs and services that benefited our

kids and their families — programs like physical education, music and art, and

services like special needs assistance and support in the classroom. This

government gave themselves a big pat on the back when they announced a

reinvestment of $150 million for our schools and then looked confused when the

flurry of heartfelt thanks was not forthcoming. Well, putting back a portion of

what you took does not deserve thanks, only gasps of relief from underfunded

school districts that can now make ends meet without more cuts and closures.

Cuts and closures have been the name of the game for the last four

years. Now that British Columbians have all suffered and struggled with

increased taxes and user fees, the loss of vital programs and services, the

erosion of health care and the sell-off of public assets, the B.C. Liberals have

saved up enough of a re-election fund to give a little bit back. A change of

heart. Suddenly the heart starts beating for ordinary British Columbians.

Surprise. An admittance of a mistake this government has made? I would like to

believe that, but just like in the 2001 election, this government will say one

thing and do another — lots of promises, no action.

[ Page 12331 ]

This throne speech is no different. More empty promises will only

serve to foster the growing credibility gap this government has with British

Columbians, a credibility gap that has grown with each broken promise. It is

just not credible to disband the Seniors Advisory Council and ignore the input

of seniors across this province for years only to reinstate the very same

structure two months before an election.

It is not credible to cut services for women and children at risk

only to tell those same women and children that now that the election is near,

their safety is very important to this government. Nor is it credible to cut

child care programs and subsidies only to speak of the importance of child care

for working families just prior to election day. Not only is it not credible,

but it is insulting — insulting to all those British Columbians who have had to

work hard with less stability and smaller paycheques because of this

government's agenda.

The message coming out of this government is clear: contracts are

worthless, workers are disposable, children and youth are not worth investing

in, our environment is not worth protecting and publicly owned assets are better

off lining the pockets of private interests. I could go on.

[1615]

If the opposition had been given the opportunity to debate the

line-by-line estimates of the budget, I'm sure this list would be even longer.

But I suppose that's why this government has chosen to avoid the estimates

process. It is too risky. It is too risky just before an election, two months

away. Heaven forbid that the budget should be passed and this government bound

by the promises contained in it.

This government has a record now. The record is clear. Just as my

colleagues and I have held this government to account inside this House, the

public will hold the government to account on May 17, 2005.

E. Brenzinger: I rise to speak to the House in response to

the throne speech. As the House Leader of Democratic Reform B.C., I rise to

respond to the Speech from the Throne. I also recognize the consideration

extended to me by the Government House Leader, who has acknowledged and

facilitated my right and that of my party to be heard under the provisions of

the standing orders.

Tomorrow is International Women's Day. That will be a year to the

day since I decided to leave the Liberal caucus to sit as an independent. Today

I speak for a new political party and for the disenfranchised of this province —

the broad middle of the electorate, who have faith neither in the promises of

this government nor in the failed vision of the NDP.

I speak, too, for the voters in Surrey-Whalley who once believed,

as I did, the Liberals' bright promise of a new era and who must now surely

question the new promise of a golden decade. I fear that we shall all grow

silver waiting for this government to deliver.

I address you from experience. I know I speak for the values of

Surrey-Whalley when I say that the government has a huge credibility problem.

The people no longer trust you. When I was elected in 2001, the people knew they

were electing a political moderate, a liberal in the true sense of the term.

I expected the government to tackle issues like providing

increased assistance to children with special needs, but it did not. I expected

you would move to increase the number of care beds for the elderly, but you did

not. I expected that you would seek to treat people with drug addictions in

their own communities rather than herding them into the downtown east side or

Surrey-Whalley, but you did not.

Instead, you froze health care spending across the province. You

closed the hospitals, lost thousands of highly trained and experienced health

care workers and opened the way to further privatization of health care. You

tore up the contracts of health care workers. Honouring contracts is fundamental

to our way of life. If we cannot trust the government to honour its contractual

commitments, how can we trust your promise of a golden decade?

You abused the power of this Legislature. You eliminated the job

security which helped British Columbians retain experienced workers and recruit

new ones.

The throne speech notes that you have attracted more doctors to

our province from other parts of Canada in 2003 than any other province. Raiding

other provinces is hardly a record of which to be proud, especially when you

have largely ignored, to date, the talents of trained professionals who are

immigrants to this province. The sad fact is that many who come here with

foreign credentials soon find the lustre gone from the golden promise of

relocating to British Columbia. One-third of them will live below the poverty

line five years after immigration, and many will never work in the professions

they trained for.

To your credit, you have nearly doubled the number of doctors and

nurses in training, but health care is about more than doctors and nurses. I

represent Dr. B.C., and our prescription for health care also includes eye care,

dentistry, physiotherapy, hearing, podiatry, naturopathy and chiropractic.

This government eliminated eye exam coverage. You eliminated

physiotherapy, massage therapy, non-surgical podiatry, naturopathy and

chiropractic from MSP. You eliminated the B.C. hearing aid program. The throne

speech would have us believe that Pharmacare is getting better every day. You

increased the deductible paid by everyone for prescription drugs, and you

reduced premium assistance for drugs for all seniors.

[1620]

You have a credibility problem. It involves more than health care,

special needs, children at risk and seniors. It involves every one of your

stated five great goals.

You tell us you want to create more jobs per capita than anywhere

else in Canada. Yes, B.C. job creation has increased, but what kinds of jobs are

we speaking of? You don't raise the ceiling by lowering the floor.

[ Page 12332 ]

Far too many of our working poor face an awful dilemma. Never mind eating

more vegetables, their big question is: do they pay the rent or feed the kids?

Which Third World country would you have us emulate in your thrust

to enter the global marketplace? Why do we have homeless in the streets? Why are

we exporting high-paying jobs with every new raw log export? Why are we placing

the skilled people of our working waterfront at risk? Why are we exporting jobs

by having ferries built overseas? Why has this government stood idly by as our

forest industry spiralled into decline, mills were closed and the mountain pine

beetle reached epidemic proportions?

The answer is incompetence and a government that hides from the

important questions. Your backbenchers and the numerous moderate Liberal MLAs

who are not running again know the truth about this government, though not all

are willing to admit it. This is a government which suppresses internal debate

and responds with a herd instinct to the first whiff of criticism from the back

benches. This is a government of spin doctors who would have the people believe

bright new dreams, when the tarnish of the old ones tells the real truth.

The truth is we have a windfall in the budget this year from our

discouraging status as a have-not province within Confederation. It isn't

something to celebrate. It augurs of itself no golden decade. You tell us that

you plan to lead the world in sustainable environmental management. Great goal —

then why haven't you done it? Can the people believe a government that has

consistently lowered the environmental bar and has reduced the standards of

environmental assessment? I think not. Can the people believe in the

environmental review office that has been made subordinate to government policy

and which emphasizes development values over environmental protection? No.

Can the people believe a government that proposes sustainability

when its record shows a substantial increase in unsatisfactorily reforested

lands? Why? Incompetence and lack of foresight — that's what the people

concluded. Can the people believe a government which has gutted the ability of

provincial staff to monitor and prosecute impacts on the environment? No. The

government's answer in the throne speech is a new student conservation corps. It

will take more than a corps of junior forest rangers to cure the sustainability

gap in our forest sector.

Then there is education. Children in Surrey have been going to

school in portables. In other areas of the province some 130 schools have been

closed. Access to library services has been reduced. Teachers have been laid

off. Class sizes have increased. Young rural children face many hours on the bus

just to get to school. Some faced reduced school weeks while their working

parents have to scramble to find day care for the days when schools are no

longer available.

Neither this government nor the preceding one has fully understood

the idea of equitably funded and equitably delivered education. We need to

recognize the special importance of rural schools to the people of our interior.

They are more than a place to be educated. They express the right of rural

cultures to preserve their way of life, and they are an essential part of a

viable rural economy. What this province desperately needs is a program of rural

education enhancement funding — funding that is fully justified by the

provincial wealth gathered in rural communities. We also need standardized hours

of instruction for students across the province. We need local governments that

have the resources to respond to local needs. We also need to address child

poverty. One child in six lives in poverty in B.C. This is not acceptable. These

children need a healthy start in life, and the best way to achieve that may be

effective school lunch programs. The throne speech promises to eliminate junk

food in all schools within four years. If this government was serious about

nutrition, it could do this today. It seems the golden decade of eating more

vegetables is at least another four years away.

[1625]

The throne speech also promises increased school safety. Some

promise. Some distant goal — 15 years, they tell us, it will take until seismic

upgrades will be complete.

We cannot trust this government. Our teachers know that. You have

sought to restrict teachers' fundamental democratic rights. You have created an

atmosphere of fear and intimidation in our school districts. Like others in the

public sector, teachers have endured abrogated contracts, poor-faith bargaining

and a government willing to overrule the reasonable decisions of the judiciary.

Is it any wonder, then, that we see disturbing advertisements from

BCTF as a counterattack to your warm and fuzzy publicly funded advertising

promoting your idea of the best place to live? The best place in the world to

live and work is one where democracy means something — where in a manner

consistent with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, employees of the Crown and

public institutions are free to discuss public policy without fear of

intimidation or loss of employment.

I believe that a government that values the best interests of

children and families should have nothing to fear from the fair and open comment

of teaching professionals and that teachers should share with other citizens

equal rights to freedom of assembly, association and speech. This government has

turned B.C. into a Third World state of labour rights and has found itself cited

under UN conventions on freedom of assembly. It has jeopardized the cause of

women and children more aggressively than any other government in B.C. history.

Now it asks us to dream of the new possibilities. We have seen your new era. It

has not been the dream you had us imagine. It has been a nightmare, and this is

especially true for first nations.

The throne speech talks of an inclusive society, of the diversity

and wealth of first nations cultures. What it ignores is the abysmal record of

this government on aboriginal concerns. As the Supreme Court reminded us in its

decision on the Haida challenge to Weyer-

[ Page 12333 ]

haeuser forest tenure, this government has "a diminished vision of the

dignity of the Crown."

Rather than acknowledging your responsibility to consult with and

accommodate the concerns of first nations, you have sought at every turn to

frustrate and discourage their legitimate aspirations. Dr. B.C.'s first nations

partners….

Interjections.

E. Brenzinger: Oh, the government is getting a little antsy

here.

Dr. B.C.'s first nations partners suggested that every year B.C.

delays completing effective treaty negotiations may cost us $1 billion in lost

economic activity. Rather than realizing the potential that exists, you have

chosen instead to engage in costly court battles and a divisive referendum —

rather than government-to-government negotiations as envisioned by the original

treaty tables.

A throne speech that promises to promote aboriginal languages

isn't enough. We need to open our eyes, hearts and minds to the true status of

first nations within British Columbia. It is time to recognize that the

historical denial of democratic and legal rights to first nations people has

created a social environment that has served neither the best interests of

aboriginals nor non-aboriginal citizens.

The actions of successive federal and provincial governments have

created a costly and controversial Third World existence for many first nations

within this land of plenty. Cultures that were once self-sufficient when B.C.

entered Confederation have, by successive government policies, been reduced to

an unsatisfactory dependence. It is time that first nations share equally in the

benefits of economic progress. It is time that we had a government that would

recognize the first nations' inherent right to self-government, honour treaties

and conduct good-faith political negotiations that build healthy communities and

allow for mutually beneficial economic growth.

It is time, too, that we listened to the recommendations of the

Lortie commission and the Law Commission of Canada and establish first nations

constituencies so that aboriginal voices are heard in this Legislature. The

members of this Legislature and the federal House of Commons should hang their

heads in shame at the record on aboriginal affairs. Only 40 percent of first

nations pupils finish high school. We need a coordinated approach between the

federal government and the provincial and local schools to turn the situation

around. We can pay our part now, or we can pay for it later in increased

welfare, justice and correctional costs.

[1630]

The government would have us believe that we now have safer

streets. They imagine the member for Vancouver-Burrard's private member's bill

on aggressive panhandling has done that. Here is the government's true record on

public safety, crime and justice. Crime rate statistics clearly indicate the

B.C. government's failure to address crime and to protect citizens and private

property. Abbotsford, Vancouver and Victoria are now among the leading

metropolitan areas in Canada for Criminal Code offences. The crime rate in these

communities, expressed as the number of overall offences per 1,000 population,

was double or more than double that experienced in either Toronto or Quebec City

in 2003, according to the Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics. Abbotsford had

134 crimes per 1,000 of population; Vancouver, 116; and Victoria, 106. This

compares with 53 for Toronto and 51 for Quebec City.

Crimes such as breaking and entering, fraud, theft and possession

of stolen property have substantially increased, giving B.C. the ignominious

title of having the top property crime rate of the ten Canadian provinces. From

2000 to 2003 the number of property crimes in B.C. increased by 11 percent. In

Quebec, by contrast, property crime actually decreased by 2 percent in 2003, and

Ontario experienced only a 0.2 percent increase.

Crimes such as counterfeiting, prostitution, gambling, disturbing

the peace, vandalism and criminal harassment showed even greater increases.

During the last four years the number of crimes in this category increased by 18

percent. In all the cities and in all the provinces and states of North America,

Vancouver is now second only to Miami for property crime. On average, there is

one bank robbery every day in the city — three times the rate of Toronto — and

the cost of Vancouver auto theft and vandalism adds $60 million to the premiums

of every ICBC policyholder. The average claim for residential and business break

and enters is approximately $4,400, according to the Insurance Bureau of Canada.

Clearly, B.C. has a problem, and it's time to get tough on crime.

Democratic Reform B.C. believes court statistics suggest that the

provincial government cutbacks to the court system may actually help to create

an environment in which crime flourishes, since much reported crime goes

unpunished or unresolved by the justice system. We require a renewed investment

in the court system. As crime rates have burgeoned, the Ministry of Attorney

General has taken a contrary approach, prosecuting fewer crimes, closing

courthouses and reducing staff. The number of hours for criminal sittings at all

levels of courts declined from 113,515 hours in fiscal 2000-01 to 101,454 in

fiscal 2003-04, a 10.6 percent reduction. Meanwhile, evidence suggests that the

courts are backlogging. According to the 2003-04 annual service plan report, the

numbers of criminal cases concluded fell from 125,545 in 2002-03 to 109,295 in

2003-04, a 12.9 percent decrease.

Under strategies created by the current ministry, targets have

been established for Crown counsel that suggest the percentage of those facing

criminal allegations who should go forward to court proceedings. Targets were

initially set to divert 13.5 percent of cases from proceeding to trial. These

have subsequently been increased to 17 percent. While it is perfectly normal for

Crown counsel to conduct a rigorous pre-charge screening of police investigative

reports, we shouldn't have a quota system driven by efficiency standards

[ Page 12334 ]

more applicable to industrial processes than justice. But that's what this

government favours.

The current strategies, as applied to justice, seek to minimize

expenditures by reducing services. From the perspective of Democratic Reform

B.C., this is penny-wise but buck foolish. The short-term government savings are

insignificant when compared to the broader cost of an ineffective justice system

and the resulting physical, emotional and economic impacts expressed by medical

bills, missed work, lost property and increased insurance and security costs. A

nickel-and-dime approach to justice betrays the public trust.

[1635]

The throne speech promised to make B.C. the best-educated and most

literate jurisdiction on the continent — again, a laudable goal. The 25,000 new

student spaces by 2010 and $195 million more for higher-education operating

budgets by 2007 are impressive, but let's consider what the new era for higher

education has really meant. In '93 the average student owed just over $8,000.

Today it's almost $25,000.

It's fine that we will have more seats coming available and more

doctors and nurses in training, but how will we fill those seats if students

can't afford to be in schools? Holding fees to