2005 Legislative Session: First Session, 38th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 22, 2005

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 1, Number 14

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Page

Introductions by Members

Statements (Standing Order

25 B )

Worker deaths in forest industry

C. James

Assisted-living seniors residence

in Richmond

J. Yap

Haig-Brown Festival in Campbell

River

Trevena

Promotion of literacy in B.C.

Mayencourt

B.C. Rivers Day

Simpson

Krueger

Oral Questions

Independence of child protection

officer

C. James

Hon. S.

Hagen

Hon. W.

Oppal

A. Dix

Attorney General handling of

review of death of Sherry Charlie

A. Dix

L. Krog

Hon. W.

Oppal

Independence of child protection

officer

Farnworth

Hon. W.

Oppal

Hon. S.

Hagen

J. Kwan

Impact of government policies on

forest worker safety

Puchmayr

Hon. M.

de Jong

Simpson

Budget Debate (continued)

M. Sather

Tabling Documents

B.C. Human Rights Tribunal, annual

report, 2004-2005

British Columbia Ferry Commission,

annual report, for year ending March 31, 2005

Budget Debate (continued)

K. Whittred

D. Chudnovsky

K. Krueger

G. Gentner

V. Roddick

Royal Assent to Bills

Freedom of Information and

Protection of Privacy Amendment Act, 2005

(Bill 4)

Supply Act (No. 2), 2005 (Bill 5)

[ Page 269 ]

THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 22, 2005

The House met at 2:03 p.m.

Introductions by Members

Hon. T. Christensen: It's my pleasure this afternoon to

welcome to the House two teachers from the Vernon school district. The Vernon

school district for years has been performing very well. I myself am a product

of that school district, and I'm pleased that one of my three children has

already started school there, with two more to follow. Would the House please

join me in welcoming two of the teachers who do great work in that district,

Glenda Dolcetti and Dolores Birnie.

S. Hawkins: I'm very pleased to introduce a constituent of

mine today, Kevin Layne, who's visiting Victoria. He is also a teacher. He's a

grade eight teacher from KLO Middle School in my riding. He's taught for 17

years in Kelowna in school district 23, and I would ask the House to make him

feel very welcome.

G. Coons: I'm pleased today to introduce some friends and

colleagues of mine from the teaching profession. In the gallery today are

Richard Jost, John Turpenning, David Walker and Nancy Arenz. Please join me in

making them welcome.

R. Sultan: I would like to introduce to the House a

physician, our former family doctor, Dr. Pamela Letts, who has engaged in family

practice in both Canada and the United States and who has drawn to my attention

the supremely challenging circumstances facing primary care in both of our

countries. Would the House please make Dr. Letts welcome.

Hon. R. Thorpe: Today in the House I'd like to welcome two

of my constituents and friends from the west side, Helena and Larry Dirkson.

Would the House please make them feel very welcome.

[1405]

Hon. M. Coell: I have two guests in the precinct today:

Alan Winter, president, and Bruce Schmidt, corporate secretary, of Genome B.C.

Would the House please make them welcome.

D. Chudnovsky: I'd like to introduce to the House two

constituents of mine in Vancouver-Kensington — dear friends. Please welcome

Manjit Dhamrait and Jaswant Dhamrait. And I'd like to introduce to the House my

wife and partner of many years, Ruth Herman.

K. Krueger: I, too, am celebrating a guest in the House

Kamloops senior secondary school, where my children all attended. He taught my

daughter. There are few things I love more than my daughter — well, probably

none — but teachers are a close second, and my wife is one of them. Would the

House please welcome Mr. Richard Youds from Kamloops.

Statements

(Standing Order 25

b) WORKER DEATHS IN FOREST INDUSTRY

C. James: I rise today to address an issue of critical

importance to working families in this province and of critical importance to

one of our most valued industries. It's an issue that demands immediate action

from this government because it involves the lives of B.C.'s workers.

So far this year, 27 workers have died in B.C.'s forest industry,

an appallingly high rate of death and the highest of any industry. The B.C.

Forest Safety Council expects this rate to increase. While that prospect is

frightening in itself, I want to put this rate in perspective. The number of

Canadian peacekeepers who have died on active duty in some of the world's most

dangerous conflicts is 107 in the past 50 years. The number of forest workers

who have died in B.C. alone in the last ten years: 250. That's an average of 25

workers per year who went to work in B.C.'s forests and who never came home.

It's unacceptable, and it's time for government to act.

The Truck Loggers Association has said something drastic needs to

be done. The Western Fallers Association, whose members are at the greatest risk

of death, has actively called on the government to do something. The United

Steelworkers, who represent forest workers across this province, have demanded

action. The B.C. Forest Safety Council has said the situation is unacceptable. I

join with them today in calling on the government to act, and to act now, to

ensure that every worker who sets out for work in the morning to work in our

forests arrives home safely.

ASSISTED-LIVING SENIORS RESIDENCE

IN RICHMOND

J. Yap: I rise today to talk about an exciting new

development in my riding of Richmond-Steveston. The Austin Harris site on

Moncton Street will be developed into 50 new assisted-living units under the

Independent Living B.C. program. This assisted-living facility will be built on

the site of a school that was closed ten years ago. This facility is a joint

project between Vancouver Coastal Health Authority, B.C. Housing and SUCCESS.

No doubt, all members are familiar with the social service agency

SUCCESS, which supports new immigrants with settlement, training, counselling,

educational and other valuable social services. SUCCESS has also become an

operator of assisted-living and long-term care seniors residences under the

leadership of their late CEO Lilian To, who regrettably passed away this past

July. This is a project that Lilian To initiated

[ Page 270 ]

before her passing, and it is fitting that it is progressing in fulfilment of

her vision.

[1410]

Richmond health services, on behalf of the Vancouver Coastal

Health Authority, will place and refer seniors to this residence. My community

hopes to break ground on this project next year and move seniors into this

residence in early 2007. With two storeys and a building footprint of 55,000

square feet, this facility will be quite impressive. Austin Harris seniors

residence will contain a dining room, library, outdoor patio, garden, Internet

and multipurpose room. I'm certain these amenities will make the home quite

comfortable for the seniors who will live there.

I'm proud of the work that our government is doing for seniors in

my riding of Richmond-Steveston and around British Columbia as the government

meets its goal of 5,000 new long-term care and assisted-living beds for seniors

by 2008. My constituents are very pleased that this facility will be constructed

in my riding. It's an example of the progress being made on this commitment as

we move forward on our great goal of providing the best system of support for

those who need it, in this case seniors.

HAIG-BROWN FESTIVAL

IN CAMPBELL RIVER

C. Trevena: I'm very pleased to tell the House about the

Haig-Brown Festival, which is happening in Campbell River this weekend. The

festival is to honour the life, work and continuing legacy of Roderick Haig-Brown,

who was one of B.C.'s first environmentalists. Haig-Brown came to B.C. from

Britain. He took a temporary job with a logging company on the Nimpkish River in

the early '20s, and that changed his life.

He found the hunting and fishing spectacular, and his love of the

wilderness was immense. Haig-Brown settled in Campbell River, and from his study

overlooking the bountiful Salmon River, he wrote 27 books and countless articles

about the natural world surrounding him. One of his most renowned battles was

over plans to build a dam at Buttle Lake in Strathcona Park. It was one of the

first conservation campaigns in B.C.

He won a partial victory, with the dam being placed further down

on the Upper Campbell, an area already logged. Haig-Brown said of this: "While

this is a great loss of that virgin forested lakeshore, we have shown that the

public can influence the developers. People will take heart from this and go on

and fight against ignorant developments." He continued to fight, trying to

protect the Campbell and Fraser rivers, among other battles. Haig-Brown hunted;

he fished; he loved the environment. His legacy was the understanding of the

need for balancing the economic and environmental values we still seek today.

People will be remembering, this weekend, that that balance

between the environment and the economy is not impossible. At Haig-Brown House

on the banks of the Campbell River, people will be celebrating one of our city's

heroes. There will be fly-fishing competitions, stewardships awards, guided

walks and tours. But they will also be looking for the legacy of Haig-Brown for

the balance, for we have logging companies working at a huge rate, harvesting

timber that loggers thought their grandchildren would want to log.

Mr. Speaker: Time, member.

C. Trevena: We love our wilderness. We hunt. We hike. We

fish. We kayak. It's the basis for our economy. We still need to find the

balance, the sustainability which Haig-Brown fought for all those years ago.

PROMOTION OF LITERACY IN B.C.

L. Mayencourt: The ability to read and write is a

cornerstone of success in learning and success in life. Our government

recognizes the importance of supporting and encouraging literacy, and that's why

we've committed to ensuring that British Columbia is the most educated and most

literate jurisdiction in North America.

It's not an idle promise. We're taking action and promoting

innovative literacy initiatives, funding programs that teach reading and writing

to youth and adults, and taking

part in great events like Raise-a-Reader Day,

which is this Thursday. Last year the province matched over $400,000 in

donations, and I'm sure that this year we'll do even better. You only need to

look at the numbers to see how serious this government is about literacy — $12

million invested in our public libraries, $10 million for public school

textbooks, $1.4 million for adult literacy, $5 million in innovation grants to

support unique literacy programs across the province, $5 million in funding for

community-based Literacy Now programs and $3 million for, my favourite, the

Ready, Set, Learn kindergarten program.

Funding for education has increased every year and is at the

highest level it has ever been in British Columbia. This year alone we've

committed an additional $150 million in education funding for school districts

to put into learning resources like school libraries or buying new textbooks.

Per-pupil funding is at the highest it has ever been, at just a little bit over

$7,000 for each public school student.

[1415]

This isn't a goal that any government can reach alone. B.C.'s

school districts also recognize the importance of this goal, and every single

one of those has shown that they share our vision by making literacy their

number-one priority. So don't be surprised if you see your local MLA and other

volunteers on the streets hawking newspapers next Thursday. They're just doing

their part to help us reach our goal of making B.C. the most literate

jurisdiction on the continent by 2010. Remember to make a donation. It all goes

to kids, it all goes to literacy programs, and it will help us reach our goals.

B.C. RIVERS DAY

S. Simpson: I'm pleased today to have the opportunity to

stand in this chamber to speak about B.C. Rivers Day, which is coming up this

Sunday, Septem-

[ Page 271 ]

ber 25. This is the 26th annual B.C. Rivers Day. We'll be celebrating across

the province with over 40,000 participants, individuals and communities expected

to come together to embrace the wonder of our river system — through a variety

of activities including stream clean-ups, paddle trips, community festivals — as

well as creating opportunities to highlight the work of local stream stewardship

groups.

Talking about B.C. Rivers Day without thanking its sponsoring

organization, the Outdoor Recreation Council, and in particular without

acknowledging the founder of Rivers Day, Mark Angelo, would be incomplete. Mr.

Angelo's commitment and efforts on behalf of our river system in British

Columbia are unmatched. This has been recognized by his receipt of the Order of

Canada for his work.

While we are rightly celebrating our rivers, we cannot overlook

the serious situation many of them face: toxic spills in the Cheakamus,

pollution in the Pitt, and the always-concerning state of the Fraser and the

Columbia. Today we also need to speak about the Taku, Nicola, Coldstream,

Chilliwack, Vedder, Coquitlam, Okanagan, Kettle and Nechako rivers, all of which

are endangered.

We need to do a better job on our rivers. We need to invest the

resources to ensure that job is done well. We need the conservation staff to get

the job done, the biologists to provide the science, and better support for our

communities and local stewardship groups who are critical to ensuring the health

of our river system. Only then can we have confidence that we will be able to

celebrate an ever-improving situation for our rivers in British Columbia for

many years to come on B.C. Rivers Day.

K. Krueger : Wake . Mr. Speaker, that is not a comment

on the state of your alertness, but a traditional greeting of the Secwepemc

people, many of whom I'm pleased to represent in this House. Today I chose a

topic so important that my friend across the way has already done it for me, but

it's important enough that we'll do it twice.

The name of my constituency is all about rivers. The city of

Kamloops was named by the Secwepemc for the confluence of the North and South

Thompson rivers — Tk’emlups in their language. The largest salmon run in

the world swims the breadth of the constituency on its way to the spawning beds

of the Adams River.

It is the goal of our government to make B.C. the world's leader

in sustainable environmental management. Our province will have the best water

quality and fisheries management bar none. From the mouth of the Fraser to

B.C.'s mountain streams, waterways have shaped our province and its history and

will always be vital to our well-being, recreation, tourism, commerce and

quality of life.

To honour this, the last Sunday in September has been recognized

as B.C. Rivers Day since 1980. Not only does this day serve as a celebration of

these natural wonders but also as an opportunity to raise awareness about the

threats to our rivers and streams such as rising temperatures, declining fish

stocks and the problems caused by pollution.

B.C. Rivers Day has proven to be such an unqualified success that

the world has paid attention. September 25, 2005, will mark the first World

Rivers Day. Endorsed by two United Nations agencies, World Rivers Day will

stress the importance of conserving and improving rivers and their ecosystems on

a global level.

Our Premier has long been concerned for the health of B.C.'s

rivers. Early in our acquaintance I remember his emphasis on a plan he named the

living rivers strategy. The living rivers trust fund, which our government

established, is going to see its funding tripled from the $7 million already

committed to further improve watershed management and to restore B.C.'s

waterways. I encourage all British Columbians to participate and to make this

year's B.C. Rivers Day the most successful ever.

Cooksjam . Mr. Speaker, that is how the Secwepemc people

sign off in the land where the waters meet.

[1420]

Oral Questions

INDEPENDENCE OF

CHILD PROTECTION OFFICER

C. James: The events of the past four days have been

shameful and embarrassing for this government. The Premier's most senior

ministers responsible for child protection displayed an attitude over the last

few days that is contemptuous and cavalier towards their responsibilities. But

more importantly, they've underscored how desperately we need a children's

commissioner with an independent mandate to help protect the most vulnerable

children in society.

I'd like to ask this question of the Premier, but since he's not

here I'll ask the question of the Deputy Premier. Will the Deputy Premier

immediately establish a children's commissioner with a fully independent

mandate?

Hon. S. Hagen: In the year 2001 we commissioned an

independent review of the children's commissioner's core functions. That review

recommended that external reviews of children's death to learn prevention

lessons should rest with the province's chief coroner. The review found that the

500-plus recommendations generated by the Children's Commission were becoming

repetitive and lacked relevance by the time they were issued years after the

death.

The chief coroner has responsibility for the investigation of

deaths in British Columbia. The child and youth officer is appointed the same

way the children's commissioner was — by order-in-council for a fixed term. The

term is for four years. Ms. Morley was appointed May 1, 2003, so her OIC expires

April 30, 2007. The child and youth officer, like the children's commissioner,

has a broad mandate to focus on systemic issues. The child and youth officer

does not answer to the Attorney General. No one in government vets her reports.

The child and youth officer is working to sup-

[ Page 272 ]

port the chief coroner in the development of a new process.

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has a

supplemental.

C. James: I'd like to take a moment just to talk about how

we got here and to speak to the minister's comments around the children's

commissioner and the independence of that office.

We heard today at five minutes to two that once again, we've seen

the mandate expanded for the review. So first we had an investigation into this

tragic case, which was ten months overdue and completely inadequate. This was

followed by another investigation announced this week, which again was

inadequate.

Yesterday we heard the investigation was expanded. Today we have

two more investigations in the conduct of this government. At every step it took

political pressure on the minister and the government to get any kind of action,

and all of it unnecessary if the Premier had just kept his word and if we had an

independent children's commissioner. Again to the Deputy Premier, so we don't

have to go through this time and time again: will her government reinstate an

independent children's commissioner?

Hon. W. Oppal: The children's youth officer is independent.

You know, you have to look at what the functions are in order to determine

whether or not any particular person is independent. If you look at her

functions, she is not a part of any ministry providing services for children.

She has a legislated mandate to comment publicly on issues affecting children

and youth without interference from any ministry or from Premier or the cabinet.

She does not answer to the Attorney General. No one vets her reports. She has

the complete authority to subpoena witnesses, to write reports and to do what

she wants in order to reach a just decision.

The opposition seems to think that if you report to the

Legislature or if you're created by the Legislature, that somehow makes you more

independent than if you're appointed by government.

[1425]

I was appointed to conduct the royal commission on policing in the

1990s by the NDP government. I can tell you that while my report went to the

Attorney General, I operated in an independent manner at all times.

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

supplemental.

C. James: Once again, we've heard today in this House the

lack of understanding by the Attorney General around independence and how

important the independence issue is to this entire case. I see a lack of respect

for this entire case. We've seen demonstrated once again that there's a deep

misunderstanding of the responsibility of the Attorney General. The independent

officer will not be appointed by government. We see right now the current

officer's mandate is determined by the Attorney General. Her mandate is

determined by the Attorney General.

Will the Deputy Premier please acknowledge that the conduct of the

ministers of her government has undermined public confidence in the entire

serving of children at risk in British Columbia?

Hon. W. Oppal: Again, I reiterate that the fact you are

appointed by government as opposed to the Legislature is a red herring. You have

to look at the substance of what an officer does.

Let me read to you what Ms. Morley wrote in her core services

review.

I stated I envision the children's officer as independent of MCFD.

In my opinion, the children's officer, and I envision the officer, does not

need to be independent of government to the degree of, say, the Ombudsman. On

the contrary, I see the children's officer as being a part of government and

assisting government in doing its job to protect and look after the interests

of children who require protection and other child welfare services from the

government.

The children's officer needs to feel free

to make critical comments about MCFD publicly if necessary.

There are ways of giving a children's officer that freedom other than making

them an officer of the Legislature. The children's officer should be

administratively accountable to the Attorney General. I suggest this for two

reasons.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you, Attorney.

Hon. W. Oppal: All right.

A. Dix: I say, with due respect to the Attorney General's

outstanding career and contribution to and aid of this province, that his

efforts on this file — his disrespect for its importance that he exhibited

outside the House yesterday — are, I think, worthy of an apology.

Justice Gove identified the individual children as a real problem,

a problem where children who die under the government's care go unnoticed and

uninvestigated. Those were the words of the Premier of British Columbia when he

called for an independent children's commissioner in the 1990s. I ask the

Attorney General to consider those remarks, to consider all the children other

than Sherry Charlie who need the government's protection and today announce his

intention to have a real independent children's commissioner for British

Columbia.

Hon. W. Oppal: I'll read for you

section 3 of the act: "The

functions of the child and youth officer are to provide support to children,

youth and their families in obtaining relevant services and to provide

independent observations and advice to government about the state of services

provided or funded by government to children and youth in British Columbia."

Again, I reiterate what I said yesterday. We are examining here

the circumstances of a terrible tragedy that took place in our first nations

community. It's my duty and my function and my fervent hope that we all set

aside our political differences and engage in that activity so that we can

prevent similar tragedies from

[ Page 273 ]

taking place. Regrettably, the opposition has turned this into a political

hunt, and that isn't the function of what we're here for.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

[1430]

ATTORNEY GENERAL

HANDLING OF REVIEW OF

DEATH OF SHERRY CHARLIE

A. Dix: Hon. Speaker, the Attorney General has, I think, an

important and profound responsibility to speak for all citizens of this

province. This issue, the issue of the Sherry Charlie report, has been an

important issue before him for months. He didn't bother to read the report. He

didn't bother to read the mandate of his child and youth officer. He didn't

bother to keep himself up to date when he was deciding, according to his own

words, the mandate for a review of the matter.

I think — with great respect to the Attorney General and, as I

say, his long and distinguished record of public service — that those actions

require, on his part, an apology to the people of British Columbia and, on his

part, evidence of an effort that he will try to commit himself to do better in

the future.

Hon. W. Oppal: I would invite the hon. member to take

part

in the review, as he has been invited. It's my hope that he will.

I do have a letter here from Ms. Morley that she released at 12

noon today. In it, she states as follows:

I have decided that I will issue a wide-ranging special report on

the many systemic issues raised by the events surrounding Sherry Charlie's

death, including the role played by MCFD workers and by other agencies. I will

also examine the impact of the cuts to child and youth services funds on this

tragic case. My report will be ready before March 31, 2006.

She goes on to state:

The systemic policy questions are obviously critical. I will request

Adrian Dix, MLA, and Shawn Atleo, regional chief for the British Columbia

Assembly of First Nations and a member of Sherry Charlie's nation, to be

involved in this process. If Shawn Atleo cannot serve, I will ask him to name

a delegate to do so. I would also like to involve a member of the government

caucus in the process who is not a member of cabinet.

I think that indicates that on this side of the House, we

are desirous of finding out exactly what happened so that these tragic events do

not repeat themselves.

L. Krog: With the greatest respect, the Attorney General

has been undeniably uninformed, out of touch and incompetent around this issue.

Yesterday he proved he didn't know the basic facts about the Sherry Charlie

case. He didn't know the basic facts about his roles and responsibilities. On

Tuesday morning the Attorney General told a radio host he'd read the report. On

Wednesday afternoon he told reporters that he had not read the report.

Has the Attorney General finally taken the time to review the full

report of the investigation into Sherry Charlie's death, and does he think it's

appropriate to launch a review about a matter he knows nothing about?

Hon. W. Oppal: Again, I would invite the opposition to

participate fully in this report rather than get politically involved in it.

This is a horrible case that took place in our first nations community. Rather

than delving into who knows what and what reports were filed, why don't we all

get involved in this and solve this in the public interest?

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

L. Krog: Yesterday the Attorney General accused the

opposition of "nitpicking." Instead of coming to terms with how his gross

incompetence and contemptuous attitude have shaken the public's faith in his

office, he attacked the opposition doing its historical job in this Legislature.

Does the Deputy Premier agree that asking these questions and demanding accurate

answers is nitpicking?

Hon. W. Oppal: When I suggested that perhaps the hon.

member was nitpicking, what I was saying, the gist of what I was saying, was

that he was misleading…. His question appeared to be misleading, and that isn't

what I was saying in my response earlier. That's all I was saying. I wasn't

being contemptuous or disrespectful of the hon. member — a person for whom I

have the highest respect, incidentally.

[1435]

INDEPENDENCE OF

CHILD PROTECTION OFFICER

M. Farnworth: The member made some comments a moment ago

about the difference in independence and parliament. I'd like to remind the

Attorney General that there is a difference — that there are positions that

report to parliament, because we need the absolute and undying confidence of

every member in this House that they are independent. That's why the Ombudsman,

the freedom-of-information commissioner, the Chief Electoral Officer and the

Conflict-of-Interest Commissioner are all independent officers of this House —

because the individual or the position, the way the member has described it….

The contract for the current youth officer begins and rests with cabinet, not

with this House.

Can the Attorney General tell us why the children's commissioner

is not worthy of the same level of confidence as those other independent members

of the Legislature?

Hon. W. Oppal: The hon. member may not be aware of the fact

that the Ombudsman, in fact, is involved in this. The Ombudsman issued a

statement September 22, in which he indicated that he is involved.

I don't want to repeat what I said earlier. The question was the

same that's been raised earlier. But I will say again that the fact that you're

appointed by gov-

[ Page 274 ]

ernment as opposed to being appointed by the Legislature does not take away

from one's independence. You have to examine the functions, the roles and the

process by which any person operates and issues a report.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

M. Farnworth: The difference is simple. In the case of the

children's advocate, these matters were automatically sent to them, which brings

me to the situation where we are today. If the government was so interested in

getting answers, why did it take four days of political pressure and the

changing of stories by the government day by day to get the government to

finally act?

Hon. S. Hagen: On Tuesday of this week I stood up and read

a ministerial statement, which is the first time that the talk of the review

came up in this House. It was in my ministerial statement that I advised the

House that I had asked the Attorney General if he would direct the child and

youth officer to review the three areas as noted in that statement. I further

advised the House, through my statement, that the Attorney General had agreed to

my request and accepted our recommended questions. The Attorney General prepared

and signed his letter to the child and youth officer based on my ministerial

statement. He added the paragraph widening the scope of the child and youth

officer's role, with which I agree.

J. Kwan: There have been two reviews, an Ombudsman's

involvement, the children's officer, the minister, the Attorney General and the

coroner's office to get to where we are today. It's been three years since the

death of Sherry Charlie. How many people does it take for this government to do

the right thing and reinstate the very necessary and important position, which

the Premier agreed with when he was in opposition — to have an independent

children's commissioner in the province of British Columbia?

[1440]

Hon. S. Hagen: As the Attorney General read out in the act,

it lays out very clearly…. I'll just read it again, plus the gathering evidence

section. This is the law in British Columbia.

Functions of the child and youth officer. The functions of the child

and youth officer are to provide support to children, youth and their families

in obtaining relevant services and to provide independent observations and

advice to the government about the state of services provided or funded by the

government to children and youth in British Columbia.

section 7 — and this is what makes the opposition's

criticisms absolutely wrong:

For the purposes of an investigation, the child and youth officer

has the same powers that the Supreme Court has for the trial of civil actions

to do the following: (

a) to summon and enforce the attendance of witnesses;

(

b) to compel witnesses to give evidence on oath or in any other manner; and

(

c) to compel witnesses to produce records and things.

I can tell the people of British Columbia that this person

is independent. We have never vetted anything she's written. We take her advice

seriously.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

J. Kwan: The minister and the Attorney General can continue

to read the act, but it does not change this very fundamental fact. That is that

Ms. Morley only has the authority to act if the Attorney General asks her to do

so, and her authority to act can only be within the scope of what the government

tells her the mandate is. That is the difference around the issue of

independence that this government fails to understand, and the Attorney General

proved yesterday that he's missed that mark entirely.

The issue around independence is this — and why the importance of

an independent children's commissioner is necessary in this province and why,

after Judge Gove's report came out and said that this needs to be done…. I

believe that was the reason why the Premier, when he was in opposition, agreed

with the then government. This government erased…

Mr. Speaker: Can the member put the question.

J. Kwan: …that independent position. Will they finally do

the right thing and reinstate that position today, right now?

Hon. S. Hagen: If the member opposite is insinuating or

suggesting that the child and youth officer will not bring in a report that is

independent and objective, then she should say so.

IMPACT OF GOVERNMENT POLICIES

ON FOREST WORKER SAFETY

C. Puchmayr: Today a report was released by the Western

Fallers Association on workplace safety in the lumber industry. The government's

own Forest Safety Council has tracked 27 deaths and 58 serious injuries so far

this year. Every single one of these is preventable. Clearly, something must be

done to address workplace safety across the province.

The Liberal government over the last four years has reduced

workplace safety inspections by 45 percent. Written orders are down by 49

percent. Employer penalties are down by 36 percent. Can the minister please tell

British Columbians how many of these cutbacks have occurred in the forest

sector?

Hon. M. de Jong: Thanks to the member for raising the

report. The numbers are terrible by any measure. In fact, the numbers I have

suggest that you can add three to that list of 27. This morning I spoke with the

president of the Fallers Association and also spoke with the head of the Forest

Safety Council, and we are conven-

[ Page 275 ]

ing immediately with all of the stakeholders to settle upon a specific

strategy.

Some work has been done; some good work has been done. But as Mike

of the Fallers Association said: "There's no silver bullet here." There is a

whole series of issues that need to be addressed in a comprehensive and

coordinated manner to take care of a situation which, if it existed in any other

walk of life, would be attracting howls of outrage and attention.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

[1445]

C. Puchmayr: The Steelworkers recently passed a resolution

calling this the industry's dirty little secret. I want to quote the minister

from 2003, where he said: "Working together, we will see significant decline in

death and injury in the woods." What we have seen is an actual increase in

deaths and injuries so far.

My question again to the Labour Minister: what is the government

doing now to reduce the number of deaths in the forest sector?

Hon. M. de Jong: Again to the member, I appreciate the

reference to the steelworkers union. Again, I have been in contact with Mr.

Hunt. I think there was also involvement by Mr. Wong. All of the stakeholders

involved in this have got to get together.

Some good work has been done. The Forest Safety Council that was

established by the government — by my predecessor, in fact — has done that work,

has identified…. But as this report that the member is referring to today and

the numbers themselves reveal, we've got a long way to go.

If you look back over the trend — not just five years, not just

ten years, but over 20 years — the reference the member makes to the industry's

dirty little secret is, I think, a very accurate one. The numbers are

deplorable. One death is too many deaths. You look at what has taken place over

the last period of time.

We're going to convene that group. I'm going to suggest to them

that we set some very specific objectives that we can measure over the course of

the next weeks and months, and attack this in detail.

B. Simpson: The Western Fallers Association report that was

released today and that the minister is referencing also indicated that forest

policy changes and cuts to the Ministry of Forests have created conditions in

the workplace that are increasing the hazards for workers.

One of the things that has gone on is a shortening of the

permitting cycle. The shorter season puts pressure on the fallers to fall as

many trees as they possibly can in the shortest amount of time. According to the

association and the report, the push by logging contractors to get the job done

quickly compromises safety and is listed as a major cause of accidents.

Will the Minister of Labour include in his review that he is

announcing today an analysis of those forest policy changes, with a view to

correcting the cuts and the changes in forest policy that are increasing the

hazards in the workplace?

Hon. M. de Jong: Thanks again to the member for the

question. Actually, lest I leave any misimpression, I think the time for review

has passed. I think it's time for action. If you look at these numbers and the

combination of factors that the report itself identifies…. The member is from a

part of the province where increased cuts attributable to the pine beetle

infestation are very much a reality. You look at how that is translated into

increased danger on the roadways for not just the transportation of wood

products, of logs out of the woods, but the number of accidents related to

travelling to and from work.

So there's a combination of factors. On the coast there are issues

relating to the greater use of helicopter logging — from an environmental

perspective, something very much encouraged. On the other hand, the

after-effects of that on the ground are making the life of fallers, according to

this report, very much more difficult.

There's a whole series of issues that this group, the safety

council, are going to have to address. As the president told me this morning,

everyone is going to have to roll up their sleeves. Everyone is going to have

to, as I think they have, realize…

Mr. Speaker: Thank you, minister.

Hon. M. de Jong: …that it is not about assigning blame to

anyone, but that we've got to fix it.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

B. Simpson: The minister is correct; it's time for action.

The task force recommendations were tabled, and 20 recommendations have not yet

been implemented. However, the report tabled today implicates changes in the

Ministry of Forests and cuts to the Ministry of Forests in creating increased

hazards in the workplace.

Will the minister commit to looking at those cuts and those

changes? For example, the report cites debris left by roadbuilders and heavy

logging machinery as a major cause of accidents involving fallers. That

increased debris is a result of changes to the Forest and Range Practices Act.

Changes to workers compensation have also caused fewer inspections and one-day

warnings before inspections.

[1450]

Mr. Speaker: Can the member put his question.

B. Simpson: Will the minister review those changes with a

view towards increasing workplace safety?

Hon. M. de Jong: Lest there be any doubt, we've got to

examine all of the factors that people in the field are suggesting or

contributing through the auspices of this report. If utilization rates in the

woods are a factor, and certainly the report suggests that they might be, then

we have to be prepared to examine that.

[ Page 276 ]

I take great heart in the fact that the stakeholders themselves….

I emphasize to the member — and I think he knows this, in fairness — that the

report was funded by the council which the government set up. These numbers,

historically, are atrocious. They're not getting any better. Last year,

ironically, was the best year out of the last ten. This year is not. I think the

commitment from all of the stakeholders and certainly from the government is to

roll up our sleeves and get to work and change the trend.

[End of question period.]

Orders of the Day

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

Mr. Speaker, on what I might term a friendly point of order, if I

might?

Mr. Speaker: You may.

Point of Order

Hon. M. de Jong: Only that it came up during the course of

question period. I think all members know that it is deemed unparliamentary in

our practices to refer to the presence or the absence of members in the House.

Mr. Speaker: Would members take note of that. It is

unparliamentary, and I was going to mention that. Don't mention when people are

here or aren't here.

Budget Debate

(continued)

M. Sather: It certainly is with great pleasure that I rise

to address this House for the first time. I must add, though, that I also rise

with a measure of trepidation, this being my first time. I'm reminded of the

words of the venerable member for Nelson-Creston, who advised some of us rookies

about this speech. He said: "Enjoy it. This will be the only time in your four

years in this House when you will be able to stand up and talk about what you

want to talk about for up to half an hour." I will try to keep that advice in

mind.

Mr. Speaker, I want to add my congratulations to the many others

for your election. I did note your protestations in being brought to the chair

the other day. Notwithstanding questions about the landing of cod and so on, I'm

sure you will lead this House for us very, very well, and I'm looking forward to

the next four years with you in the chair. Thank you very much.

I'd like at this time to thank my predecessor. Ken Stewart was the

MLA for Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows between 2001 and 2005.

[Applause.]

Thank you, members.

[1455]

I want to mention just a couple of things about the work that Mr.

Stewart did. It's around a couple of issues that I was also involved in, so they

are very near and dear to me. One was the conservation of a bog known as Blaney

Bog in Maple Ridge. This is a very valuable wetland. Mr. Stewart worked on that

as well as on the preservation of the Codd Island wetlands in Pitt Meadows,

another very valuable wetland. Both of these areas are now GVRD, Greater

Vancouver regional district, parks. Thanks to him for his work there.

I would also like to add thanks regarding my election. I want to

thank my campaign manager Diana Williams, who worked long and hard. Diana had

not actually worked on a campaign before, so it was a big challenge for her. She

came through in spades, so I definitely wanted to thank her as well as the rest

of my campaign team.

I want to also thank my wife Annette Lebox for her devotion, I

could almost say, to my election. She's a professional writer, and she set aside

her career for quite a number of months to assist me with mine. I think that

sometimes the spouses of members meet as many challenges, if not more, in the

political realm, so I certainly appreciate them.

I also want to thank my two constituency assistants, Carmen Ortega

and Donann Kinar, who are back in the constituency office doing a great job.

They certainly have made it possible for me to be able to get my feet on the

ground a bit in these first two weeks. Also, I want to thank my legislative

assistant Brian Kowalski, who is extremely capable and who is helping me here in

the Legislature.

We of course, my campaign team and I, were very pleased with the

results of the election — in part, I suppose, because it was somewhat historic,

I guess I could say. It had been 42 years since a member of the opposition of

any stripe had been elected in our constituency. The last time that happened,

back in 1963, the successful politician was an obscure politician that some of

you may have heard of: Dave Barrett. I don't presume to fill the shoes of Mr.

Barrett, but I'm pleased, certainly, to be here.

I now want to say a few words about my communities, Maple Ridge

and Pitt Meadows. Maple Ridge was settled by pioneers in the mid-1800s. One of

those early pioneers was John Haney. Maple Ridge previously went by the name of

Haney, and in town you can still see lots of businesses with the name Haney on

them. Older residents still refer to the community as Haney. Maple Ridge was the

fifth area to be incorporated in British Columbia, after Victoria, New

Westminster, Langley and Chilliwack. We are an old community in that respect.

I wanted to read from the municipality's website with regard to

the community of Maple Ridge, and I think it's quite apropos. It says: "From

pristine mountains to agricultural plains, from home business to lumber mills,

from forested parkland to urban sophistication, Maple Ridge offers a wealth of

diversity to all who live or visit here." I think that's absolutely correct.

[ Page 277 ]

We certainly do, also, consider ourselves to be sophisticated. I think the

member for Peace River North mentioned the other day that Fort St. John now has

one Starbucks. I believe we have at least five Starbucks, so we're definitely in

the big leagues in terms of urban sophistication, we feel.

Maple Ridge is growing quickly, and I'm going to talk about that a

little bit more in a few minutes. Our current population is around 76,000

people, and 65 percent of the residents of Maple Ridge commute to work every

day. I was one of those commuters before taking on this job. Certainly, it is in

the interests of those commuters to be able to commute easily to their

workplace, and there have been some difficulties with that due to congestion and

growth.

[1500]

I would just want to mention a few of the industries that we have.

Our largest manufacturing industry is wood processing. We have Interfor's

Hammond mill, which has been a good employer for these many years, I believe. We

have the Maple Meadows Business Park. As I understand, it is nearing capacity

now and will be probably be even busier when the new bridge that is planned to

be built is completed — the Golden Ears Bridge. One of the many companies there

is E-One Moli Energy. They're in the battery manufacturing business.

There are also considerable sand and gravel operations in Maple Ridge, and

there's a lot of dredging taking place in the Fraser River. Rural farming,

nursery and greenhouse operations are quite considerable in our community. As a

surprise to a lot of us, we actually have $39 million in farm receipts from

Maple Ridge every year, so farming is important to us.

With regard to transportation, the Lougheed Highway is the main

corridor through town. We also have the West Coast Express, which does help

commuters. It was built in the 1990s. I did mention the Golden Ears Bridge as

coming on stream in a few years. That's going to change the nature of our

community and commute. It will certainly help people to get to the Surrey area

more easily, and there will be some people coming the other way going to the

Tri-Cities area. So, Maple Ridge still has that friendly, small-town atmosphere,

and that's greatly valued by the residents of Maple Ridge.

A couple of other things I wanted to mention: we have our Maple

Ridge fair every August and the jazz and blues festival in August. The fair is

usually in July, and the festival in August.

[S. Hawkins in the chair.]

With regard to recreation facilities, we have our Maple Ridge town

centre, which is quite new, with the recreation complex, the ACT Theatre — see,

we are in the big leagues — and the Greg Moore Youth Centre. Golden Ears

Provincial Park, the busiest park in British Columbia, is located in Maple

Ridge. We get a lot of visitors coming every day to Golden Ears Park during the

summer.

We also have one of the largest horse populations per capita in

Canada and in North America. We also have over 100 kilometres of trails in our

community, and the Haney Horsemen have been very active in creating those

trails. I think particularly of two individuals: Bill Archibald and Sherman

Olson.

The member for West Kootenay-Boundary was bragging the other day

about sports heroes, so I certainly have to add our considerable contingent of

heroes as well. Maple Ridge is the home of Larry Walker, who many of you may

know is a very successful professional baseball player originally with the

Montreal Expos, later the Colorado Rockies, and last year he was in the World

Series with the St. Louis team.

D. Chudnovsky: Cardinals.

M. Sather: Cardinals. Yes, of course.

Cam Neely also is from Maple Ridge. Cam was a very, very

successful power-forward in the NHL, played with Vancouver and Boston and

recently, I believe, has been nominated for the Hall of Fame.

I mentioned the Greg Moore Youth Centre. Greg was a very

successful professional car driver on the CART circuit for many years, and we

honour his name.

We have a strong network of social service agencies in Maple

Ridge, and I'll just mention a few of them. We have the community services, the

Family Education and Support Centre, the Asante centre — which is well known for

diagnosing fetal alcohol syndrome, and very valuable in that respect — and we

also have the Crystal Meth Task Force. Of course, crystal meth has been talked

about in the House quite a bit lately and is a very important issue that Mary

and Gord Robson have gotten started in our community.

[1505]

Turning now to Pitt Meadows. Pitt Meadows is a smaller community

than Maple Ridge — about 16,000 individuals now — and the official community

plan expects only about 20,000 individuals there. Pitt Meadows is at the

confluence of the mighty Pitt and Fraser rivers and is, indeed, an exceedingly

attractive community. A lot of people have come to live there for the atmosphere

of Pitt Meadows.

A large part of north Pitt Meadows is in what is called the Pitt

polder. For those of you who may not know, a polder is an area of wetland that

has been reclaimed. Not surprisingly, we had Dutch settlers originally who were

responsible for that, so a lot of that area is now farmland.

Pitt Lake itself is quite interesting. It's one of only two tidal

lakes in the world. It's interesting when you go to Pitt Lake, as you can watch

the river going either way. It's quite remarkable. Recreation is big in Pitt

Meadows — canoeing, kayaking, birdwatching, hunting. We have, as I mentioned, an

extensive dike system in Pitt Meadows, which a lot of recreationists really,

really enjoy. People come from all over the lower mainland every weekend to the

Pitt polder.

Pitt Meadows is also home to the band office for the Katzie first

nation. Their members live on both sides of

[ Page 278 ]

the Fraser River, but their office is in Pitt Meadows with Chief Peter James.

The Katzie first nation are well-renowned for their community spirit and are

working with the community to assist the community and to fulfil their goals.

One of the elders, Willie Pierre, devotes a lot of his time to community events,

where he will do ceremonies for those events.

I was down to the Katzie reserve this summer. It was an

interesting experience. I met with the band council. Sitting around the table,

the administrator asked me: "Michael, would you like to learn the owl dance?" I

thought: "The owl dance?" I was trying quickly to think of how to respond to

this, looking around the room, and nobody was smiling. So I said: "Well, how

long would it take to learn it?" She said: "No time at all — about five

minutes." Then she started to laugh, and she said: "You took me seriously,

didn't you?" I said: "Well, I couldn't afford not to." So it turns out one

definitely has to be on their toes with the Katzie first nation folks. They

definitely have a great sense of humour. They ended up getting me in the dunk

tank for the Katzie days. That was quite an experience in itself.

Transportation in Pitt Meadows is a big issue as well. The Pitt

River Bridge is scheduled to be replaced around the same time frame as the

Golden Ears Bridge. That was a thoroughly canvassed issue during the campaign,

and we're looking forward to that.

Pitt Meadows has the new Meadow Town complex, and we have a

Cineplex Odeon. We didn't have a theatre for many, many years, and then we did

have the Pitt Meadows theatre for a time. Now we have the big time. We've got

the Cineplex Odeon, and we have the Great Canadian Superstore in there and you

name it.

Pitt Meadows has got four golf courses, so a lot of people love to

come out to Pitt Meadows to go golfing. There's the Pitt Meadows golf club.

There's also the Golden Eagle, Swan-e-set and Maple Meadows. So a lot of golf

tournaments — some of them quite big ones — are held there.

[1510]

Pitt Meadows is the sixth-largest agricultural area in the

province in terms of economic significance, with a total of $50 million in farm

receipts. As you can see, farming is a very significant area.

Interjection.

M. Sather: Yes. Very important.

Ninety-three percent of the land in Pitt Meadows is agricultural.

Now, some of the significant agricultural operations in Pitt Meadows include

blueberries and cranberries. We have greenhouses, dairy farms and nurseries.

Just to finish with my discussion about Pitt Meadows, I'll also mention a very

prominent sports hero from Pitt Meadows, and that's Brendan Morrison of the

Vancouver Canucks. So we have our share in spades.

I want to talk now a bit about how important my communities of

Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadows are in another respect. I've mentioned agriculture

several times. Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadows are on the interface between the

burgeoning metropolitan area of the Greater Vancouver regional district and the

rural and semi-rural regions of the Fraser Valley. This has certainly led to a

lot of discussion in our communities and particularly in Maple Ridge recently.

It's been an issue with the official community plan discussions that are going

on there at this time.

People come to Maple Ridge. They will say over and over that one

of the big reasons they come is because they really enjoy the rural atmosphere

of Maple Ridge. Surveys have been done that show that 85 percent of people feel

that way and support retention of the rural atmosphere and the environment in

Maple Ridge. However, there are a lot of pressures to develop, and by develop

I'm referring here specifically to housing development. It's an issue that is

playing itself out, I know, in many communities and certainly in North America.

It has tremendous significance about what our world will actually look like as

we try to address this issue.

Now, in Maple Ridge this past year we have had an unprecedented

number of applications to the Agricultural Land Commission to remove land from

the agricultural land reserve. Those submissions, most of them, have

unfortunately been sent forward without any recommendation by council as to what

should happen with them. We certainly have some concern as one of the previous

applications was for the historic Jackson farm. Although council recommended

against its removal from the agricultural land reserve, it was, in fact,

removed.

I and many people in my community believe that it's not a

coincidence that these applications are coming forward at this time when we have

a Liberal government that many people feel is sympathetic to development. We are

concerned about the commitment of this government to retaining our agricultural

land reserve. I know that the minister has made statements about the ALR. But

although land may have been added and has been added to the agricultural land

reserve, it isn't in the lower mainland, and we're losing land.

There was another big application you may have heard

about that proceeded not long ago in the area of Abbotsford. There's a great

deal of concern about that. It's an issue that requires, I think, a lot of

thought and honesty on both sides. I mean, certainly there are benefits of

development, and those need to be acknowledged. It does provide homes for

people, and it does provide jobs. If you look at the indicators of economic

activity, either here or elsewhere, you will see that housing starts are usually

high on the list. But unfortunately, it seems that although we are quite adept

at counting the benefits of development, we're not so good at counting the

costs.

[1515]

I referred earlier to livability and the rural atmosphere of Maple

Ridge and Pitt Meadows. I wonder whether those are taken fully into account and

valued. It seems like sometimes we hear phrases like: you can't stop progress.

But we must, I think, look more care-

[ Page 279 ]

fully at: is it progress we're talking about, or are we, in fact, regressing?

If we lose the livability of our community, we certainly have lost

a lot. I have seen a number of strong community activists from my community move

to other communities because they felt that Maple Ridge, in fact, was losing its

rural character. So, unfortunately, they have left. But I'm a stubborn type of

person, and I'm certainly not going to leave. I'm going to stay there and work

towards maintaining our livability

I think, also, that we have to look at the reality of what we're

doing in terms of our agricultural land, certainly in my community. We have to

be, as I said, honest about it in our discussions. If we are honest about it,

the reality is that we are filling the Fraser Valley with houses. If we continue

in the way we are, there will be one megacity from Vancouver to Hope. There's no

doubt about that. We have to be real, because that's what's happening. No one in

positions of power wants to say that, but that's the reality.

On the other hand, however, those of us that want to protect

livability need to face the reality, too, that the population is ever growing.

What will we do with all those people? Now, fortunately, the Greater Vancouver

regional district has come up with the Livable Region Strategic Plan. Without

that strategy, I don't think there would be much hope for agricultural lands in

Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadows.

There are varying degrees of commitment to that strategy. I think

that it's under pressure. Certainly the green zone, which is an integral part of

the Liberal region strategy, is under pressure in my community. People have

spoken out against their inability to remove land from the green zone, which

really amounts to, in most cases, removing land from the agricultural land

reserve. So that's a big issue.

I just want to say, though, also, on the other side of the issue —

and this is sort of the thing about which we dare not speak in many respects —

is population growth. If the population of our country, of this world continues

to expand inexorably, I think the chances of us having a livable planet are much

reduced. Certainly for non-human species, it's a death knell already. The

burgeoning human population is simply overcoming many other species.

In Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows we have a small remnant population of

the greater sandhill crane, and this is one of the most magnificent birds on

this planet. A group of people and myself census this population every spring.

We have about 12 left. If we are to lose that bird…. If you look back in early

ethnographical notes and in the Katzie oral history, that valley was full of

thousands of sandhill cranes at one time. If we lose that species, I believe we

lose a great important part of who we are. People feel that way about salmon as

well. I know it's very close to people's hearts.

[1520]

Madam Speaker, I want to move on now and shift gears a little bit

and talk about the five great goals that the government is talking about,

repeatedly — the five great goals for a golden decade. One of those is to make

B.C. the best-educated, most literate jurisdiction on the continent. I know the

government is fond of talking about literacy, but I have to wonder, with these

appellations, if they weren't focusing more on hyperbole than literacy.

Nonetheless, having said that, let's look at what actually has

been happening. I know the members opposite are not fond of us looking back;

they want to look forward. But if you want to know where someone is going, it's

instructive to look at where they've been. This government has been very, very

hard on education.

Members opposite like to say that there haven't been cuts, but if

you talk to the people in the system, clearly, there have. So call them what you

will; there definitely have been cuts. Teacher-librarians, special education

teachers, counsellors, school supplies — you name it. There's been,

unfortunately, an unending attack by this government on teachers, and it's been

focused a lot on the B.C. Teachers Federation. But that is the voice of teachers

in British Columbia, despite what this government would like to think and to

say.

It seems that the model of education that this government is

promoting and proposing is the Fraser Institute model of education, which I

don't believe is about true accountability and creating the very creative kind

of students that we need in the new economy in the new world.

The second great goal I wanted to comment on is to build the best

system of support in Canada for persons with disabilities, special needs,

children at risk and seniors. Well, there's a lot to be talked about there, and

I don't have, I think, all that much time left, but I do want to talk about

seniors, and seniors have been talked about a lot.

I had a broad range of people who supported me and are responsible

for me being here — people that had never voted NDP before, had never had an NDP

sign on their lawn before. But there is one group beyond all others that's

responsible for me being here today, and that's the seniors of Maple Ridge and

Pitt Meadows. They understood and they understand very clearly the axe that has

been taken to their services and the disrespect that has been shown to them over

the past four years.

I just wanted to mention a discussion I had with one senior in a

seniors facility. I walked up to the door and started talking to this gentleman.

He told me, to my astonishment, that his oxygen was no longer being funded. I

said: "Well, how do you manage?" He said something to me that has stuck with me

for the whole of the campaign. He's a tough pioneer. He said: "It's not too bad

if I don't walk."

In wrapping up, I have a lot of things I could talk about — the

great goals — but I will say this. The government has said that they're going

to, as I understand it, do things better this mandate than they did last time. I

hope so, although it might not be necessarily good politically for us if they

do. The people of British Columbia need them to do better, and I certainly hope

[ Page 280 ]

that they do, and we will work with them in helping them to do that.

Hon. W. Oppal: I seek leave to table two reports.

Leave granted.

Tabling Documents

Hon. W. Oppal: Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present

the following reports: the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal annual report for

2004-2005 and the British Columbia Ferry Commission annual report for the fiscal

year ending March 31, 2005.

[1525]

Budget Debate

(continued)

K. Whittred: Like many of the House before me, I want to

congratulate you on your selection, your appointment as Deputy Speaker, and of

course, I want to congratulate the member for Penticton–Okanagan Valley on his

appointment as Speaker. I wish both of you well in those roles, and I know that

the House is going to be cooperative and not cause you any angst over the next

several years.

I'd also like to congratulate all the members of the House on

their re-election, particularly all the new members. To all of the new members,

I would like to just tell you a little story about when I first came here in

1996. Shortly thereafter I think someone walked into my office with what

appeared to be a cartload of budget books and binders and documents. Then

somebody said: "You know, these are to get ready for estimates." Well, I have to

confess to you, I didn't have the foggiest idea what estimates were, nor did I

have the foggiest idea how to navigate those enormous documents. However, I do

assure all the new members here that you will learn that, and you will also

learn how to parse legislation, which is perhaps an even more tedious task.

Now, of course, most of all I want to thank the people of North

Vancouver–Lonsdale. I want to tell you a little bit about my riding. I think

I've got the best riding in the province. I think everyone in the House has said

this. My riding I often refer to as the window of the province because from my

front window of North Vancouver–Lonsdale I can look out, and I can watch the

ships in the harbour. I can see the products from the world coming in, and I can

see the bounty of B.C. going to other parts of the world — going to other parts

of Canada, going to Asia-Pacific and all the places we trade with.

Members of the House may not know this, but in my riding of North

Vancouver–Lonsdale we have, in fact, a third of the port of Vancouver. We all

know right now how important that gateway to Asia-Pacific is for the economy of

the province, which is growing at leaps and bounds.

I want to share with the House a little bit about being elected in

1996 and what it felt like at that time. This was a time when things were not

going very well during that first term. We were frequently faced with stories

about mines closing and forestry not doing well, and we would go from first to

last. Eventually, we came out with the knowledge that B.C. had gone from a have

province to a have-not province, and I have to confess to you, Madam Speaker,

that that was a huge blow to my ego. Like many of you in this House, I am a

westerner. My grandparents were pioneers. My parents were westerners, and I

always felt that we as westerners enjoyed a kind of a privileged place, and

certainly we weren't going to fall into that hole of being considered a have-not

province. Well, we did, and that had to be a low point in my life as a

parliamentarian.

I'm happy to say that things have turned around, and I also

acknowledge that this was not always easy. We had to make some very tough

choices. But now we lead Canada in job creation. We have the lowest rate of

unemployment. We have the lowest income tax for lower- and middle-income people.

We now have our house in order — our fiscal house is in order — and we now have

choices about what we can do with our future.

[1530]

We now have the opportunity to have a vision. We can have a vision

into the future. We can talk about big ideas, and we can talk about lofty goals.

This is what we've done. We have defined five lofty goals. Sometimes members

opposite and others like to make fun of these. I am proud of them. I am proud of

the fact that we have an economy that allows us to have the choice of making

some lofty goals and working toward those goals. I am pleased that we now have

the opportunity to have a vision beyond sort of the week or the month, just kind

of struggling through to make it to the next month end. I'm glad we have the

opportunity to actually do some long-range planning.

For the bulk of my time today I would like to take just a couple

of those lofty goals and link those goals to my community. The first one I'm

going to link is seniors, because that is an area where I have worked a great

deal over the past years as critic and as minister of state and simply as an

interested member of the House.

I am absolutely delighted that we are now in the position to have

the choice to put money into services for seniors. My riding of North

Vancouver–Lonsdale has a great many seniors, as many, many areas do today. The

Lonsdale corridor, you'll know, for those of us that are familiar with the

geography of the North Shore, is a corridor of apartments. Many of those

apartments are occupied by seniors. There is a real hub of senior activity

around that Lonsdale corridor and emerging in the lower Lonsdale area.

Many of these seniors are very active. That's one thing about the

seniors in North Van. They are active. You have to be fleet of foot, Madam

Speaker, to keep ahead of many of them. We have very active seniors

organizations. I'm going to tell you a little bit about one of them in a moment.

The Lionsview seniors housing

[ Page 281 ]

association is a good example because of the kind of work it does.

I think I would like to break my remarks about seniors into two

categories: one around housing and the other around, perhaps, health care

concerns.

The housing. I've already indicated to you that there is this

large population of seniors. The increase in the SAFER grant is going to make a

very big change, I think, in the ability of some of the low-income seniors in my

area to make ends meet.

One of the challenges in North Vancouver is that we do have very

high property values. Therefore, it is often difficult for people on lower

incomes to find adequate housing. The old rate for SAFER, which hadn't been

changed in over a decade, has now been increased so that the threshold is

raised. It will in fact allow some more people in my community to access SAFER

and, therefore, benefit from that particular part of the safety net.

I'm also working with various groups to try to find ways to

deliver more housing to seniors. This has been identified by many groups as

probably the main concern. I had a forum last year where I invited a whole range

of seniors to come for an afternoon, and we talked about issues. Out of that

came the information I was looking for, really, that would inform me about what

we had to do. One of those was housing.

I have been working very closely with organizations like the

Kiwanis, and I'm happy to say that there are now ongoing negotiations for two

different projects, both of them in that central Lonsdale core, which will

enable seniors to live close to services and to live in housing that is safe,

that is adapted to their needs, where they are close to the grocery store and

the banks and those various sorts of things. Those are all services they

identify as being important.

[1535]

I'm also pleased to note that there is targeted housing that has

been made available. One is a project on Queens Road in North Vancouver. This is

going to be a campus-of-care model, where we will see the whole spectrum of

seniors housing. There will be supported housing from the end of the spectrum,

where only small supports are needed, and it will go right through to assisted

living, where there will be a much larger degree of service available. That is

scheduled to be available, I think, probably early next year. So I'm really

looking forward to that.

I'm happy to say that we also had the opening of a seniors

assisted-living facility called Cedarview Lodge, and I was able to officiate at

that not too long ago. The people that were there just raved about it. I was

invited into a lady's apartment to have tea — a lady named Winnifred. Winnifred

invited me in, we had tea, and she had a lovely little apartment. She had, of

course, all the medical services she needed. She had her independence. She could

entertain her family. She could have her grandchildren. She wasn't locked in.

She could go outside and have a walk, and she had the added advantage of having

a wonderful mountain view. She couldn't have been happier, and the other

residents in that particular complex were equally as pleased.

There have been a number of myths that have been circulated, I

think, around seniors care in recent months. I'm going to try to give one or two

examples, because I would like to try to put these myths to rest. One of them

emerged recently around Evergreen House. Evergreen House in my community is a

long-term care facility. It is, in fact, a complex care facility. It is a

facility for the most serious of people who need long-term care.

The accusation was made that there were empty beds, closed beds.

You know, I went to the health authority, and I said: "Have you closed any beds

there?" No, they hadn't closed any beds. What it was, was simply the fact that

the previous government had actually brought in a policy to have two-bed wards.

We have continued that policy. We have been trying to renovate our facilities to

bring them into the 21st century, to make them suitable for how people want to

live in the year 2005. People no longer want to live in four-bed or eight-bed

wards. So this was a case, if anyone had really bothered to ask the actual facts

of the matter, where there had been no bed closures. There had simply been an

adjustment of the beds in the wards so that there were no longer any eight-bed

wards. That is exactly, of course, what we have all been working for.

I have a friend who recently had a stroke. This is very sad, and

of course, it's very sad for the family. But I want to say that the good part of

this is that this friend of mine was able to get into long-term care almost

immediately. Now, there has been criticism from some quarters that changes were

made that have impacted the rate at which people can access care. The fact is

that people who need care the most get it almost immediately. I am very proud of

the fact that access to long-term care for people who have strokes or other very

serious illnesses is almost down to zero. There is almost no waiting period. For

that, I am very thankful.

Over the last few weeks and months I've had some personal

experience with the health care system, because a member of my family has been

ill. I have had experience with several facilities. I've had experience with the

cancer clinic, I've had experience with Vancouver General Hospital, and I've had

experience with Lions Gate Hospital. I point out to the House that these are

just my experiences.

[1540]

I know that other people have different experiences, but my

experience is that I have had nothing but absolutely top-notch, professional

help from everybody in the system. I have found the facilities to be clean. I

have not noted any abundance of any kind of dirt. I have noticed the odd piece

of tissue or something on the floor — certainly nothing that could be construed

as any kind of mess.

I have noticed courteous staff in all levels of the hospital,

whether it be nurses, doctors, administrators, clerks or cleaning staff. I have

noticed nothing but the highest level of professional activity and care. I

commend the people on that, and I certainly congratulate everybody in the

system.

[ Page 282 ]

I do have another friend, however, who has been needing a hip

replacement, and she has been waiting for some time. So I also acknowledge that

there are challenges in the system. I am pleased to say that in the most recent

budget update, $20 million over three years has been added to access hip and

knee replacements and to perhaps observe that the biggest challenges today in

the health system are around procedures which are relatively new and procedures,

particularly in this case, like my friend's, who is quite elderly.

You know, 20 years ago, we didn't even do that procedure, and we

particularly didn't do that procedure on very elderly people. Now, I'm very

pleased that we do it today. It makes people's lives much more comfortable, and

I am grateful to the minister that this is noted and that we are working to make

sure that hip and knee replacements are attended to more readily, without such a

long wait.

I'll now turn my remarks to another one of our great goals, and

that is around education. Last spring, I think it was, I had the opportunity to

go to one of my elementary schools where they were having the Ready, Set, Learn

program. One of the great goals is to have the most literate society. We all

know that all the research tells us that we have to have children that are ready

for school, and that the learning activities that they have in early childhood

set the pace for the rest of their lives.

It was very interesting for me, Madam Speaker, because as you

know, I was a secondary teacher. I taught the big kids, so it's always quite a

treat for me to go for the really little guys. I was really interested. That

night the children came in. The teachers were thoroughly professional, and I

really want to give them every bit of credit. They came out in the evening,

which shows the kind of dedicated people that we have in teaching. They came out

in the evening to give of their time, to consult with parents and to test the

kids. That is but one example of how we are readying our children.

At Westview school, also, they are in the midst of what I would

call a flagship project in what the North Vancouver district is calling Early

Learning Foundations. This is a project where they have partnered with the

municipalities and with various non-profits to integrate child care services and

early learning services. This is one of the great goals of our government: to

find a way that we are going to streamline those early childhood experiences

with early learning experiences and somehow bring them together in a package

that works for everybody.

I'm really pleased to say that my community of North Vancouver is,

I think, way ahead in this particular area, because they seem to be doing it

already. North Vancouver is also very well known for its reading 44 program.

This is another example of teachers doing an absolutely outstanding job.

[1545]

The reading 44 program is a program that is used not only in North

Van but is also used across the province and in fact across Canada. It is

recognized very broadly, and it is a program that is developed completely by

North Vancouver teachers.

At a little bit other level, the post-secondary level, Cap

College, I'm happy to say, was designated as a centre of excellence for tourism.

It is now a leader of all the various post-secondary institutions in the

province and is helping to design policy and frame areas that we should pursue

in tourism throughout British Columbia. Cap College has also been very

innovative around film programs, and the film industry is one which is very,

very important to North Vancouver.

There's one other program in North Van which is really outstanding

and which shows its dedication to several of our great goals, and that is the

Outdoor School. This year my grandson went to Outdoor School for the first time.

He went to the big house. The big house, of course, is a program, as the name

suggests. It's a Salish big house. It combines cultural activities with learning

about the environment, conservation and learning how to survive in the

wilderness. Of course, he came home, and he just thought he had had the most

wonderful time.

The North Vancouver Outdoor School is an institution. My own son,

my grandson's father, went to Outdoor School — of course, many years ago — at

the same age. Then in high school he went again, when he was a counsellor. Those

are the sorts of activities that my grandson is looking forward to now. I can

never speak about education in North Van without pointing out the various

attributes of Outdoor School.

There is one other great goal that we have, and that is around

building the best system of support for people in need. There's just one area

that I want to link to my community here, and that is around Sage House. Sage is

a transition house in North Vancouver for women who have been victims of

violence. Recently they have been putting ads in the paper. These ads have been

in the paper basically saying: "You know, we're open for business. We're here to

serve you. If you are a victim of violence, please call us. We're here to meet

your needs."

The reason they have had to do that is because there was so much

adverse publicity that the government had cut programs to women's transition

houses. I point out that we did not cut programs to women's transition houses.

In fact, we increased funding to women's transition houses by $37 million. I am

very disappointed that people in the community have used this service as a

political tool to frighten people into thinking that this service is no longer

available.

In conclusion, I want to say that I am extremely proud to be a

member of this government, and I'm proud to be able to look at what a strong

economy can accomplish. I'm really proud that we have the lowest income tax rate

for lower-income and middle-income people. I am really proud that we have a

higher threshold for Pharmacare than ever before. I am really proud that the

SAFER threshold has been increased, which means that thousands more people are

going to be eligible to access a SAFER grant.

[ Page 283 ]

[1550]

We have eliminated — eliminated — MSP premiums for 290,000

low-income seniors. We have reduced prescription costs for 280,000 other

low-income seniors. Do you know that 82 percent of all registered users of

Pharmacare pay less than they did before we made the changes or pay nothing at

all?

Finally, we have added over $3 billion to the health care budget,

and we keep hearing about cuts. I was a history teacher. I'm sort of reminded of

Churchill's speech: some chicken, some neck. Some cut. You know, $3.1 billion in

addition is not a cut. That is a lot of money.

Most of all, I think I am proudest that we have now taken our

rightful place in Canada and in Confederation. I mentioned earlier how I really,

really felt very taken aback when we became a have-not province, and I'm pleased

that we are now resuming our rightful place in Canada.

We have taken the leadership on many, many issues. We are taking

the leadership on a national Pharmacare program. We took the leadership — I just

met with a group this morning — in terms of developing the SARS protocol. That

is a wonderful little achievement. It's not a little achievement; it's a huge

achievement for B.C. scientists. We are taking the lead in literacy. We are

taking the lead in planning for seniors. It's no secret that we are a changing

demographic, and yet nothing was done in previous years. We are planning for it.

I am very proud that we are taking the lead in opening the door to the

Asia-Pacific gateway. That, of course, is something that affects my riding of

North Vancouver–Lonsdale.

Finally, I want to invite all of you to North Vancouver, and I

want you to come and visit our Burrard Pier. We have the most wonderful

development at the foot of Lonsdale at the site that used to be the old Burrard

shipbuilders. It has been developed, and there is a pier that goes out into

Burrard Inlet, that goes out further than any other place on the water. It

doesn't matter where you come from in the province, I can guarantee you that

when you walk to the end of that pier, you're going to be really impressed. You

have a whole different feeling about where you are when you stand on the end of

that pier. So I invite all of you to come and have a look.

D. Chudnovsky: Hon. Speaker, I want to congratulate you on

your election. I look forward to working together with you and all of the

members on both sides of this House over the next four years.

Let me begin by expressing my thanks to the people of

Vancouver-Kensington who have done me the great honour and given me the great

privilege of representing them in this House. I also want to acknowledge,

remember and celebrate that our community of Vancouver-Kensington is on the

traditional territory of the Coast Salish people.

I'd like to speak for a moment about the former MLA for our

constituency, Mr. Patrick Wong. Mr. Wong contributed four years of service to

our community and to our province, and I know that the residents of

Vancouver-Kensington would want me to express their sincere thanks and

appreciation for those years of service. I want to pay tribute, as well, to the

other candidates who put themselves forward in the May election and particularly

to a fine young man, Cody Matheson, who was the candidate for the Green Party in

that election. I think if we'd had another couple of months in the campaign,

we'd have convinced him to join the NDP.

[1555]

I want to speak for a minute about the wonderful constituency of

Vancouver-Kensington, where Ruth and I have lived for 27 years, where we raised

our children Anna Chudnovsky and Benjamin Chudnovsky, and where we have built

our lives.

Vancouver-Kensington is one of the most diverse communities

anywhere. We in Kensington are Canadian-born, we are immigrants, and we are

Tagalog, Hindi, Korean, Spanish, French, Arabic, Hebrew and many, many more

languages.

Our families, too, are diverse. Many in Vancouver-Kensington live

together with a mom and a dad and their kids. Lots of our neighbours live in

extended families with grannies and grandpas and uncles and aunts and kids under

one roof. There are blended families and single-parent families and people who

live on their own, and there are same-sex couples and same-sex parents living

with their children. We celebrate every one of those families, and we're

thankful to each of them for choosing Vancouver-Kensington.

Last spring I had a chance to meet thousands of my neighbours in

Vancouver-Kensington. I knocked at their doors, and they were kind enough to

answer and to speak with me, and I learned a lot from them. They told me about

their hopes and fears, their dreams and their passions for themselves, for their

families, for our community and for our province.

Lots of my constituents expressed their concerns and anxiety

regarding their own parents. How could they take care of an aging mother or

father in dignity and make sure the care that was necessary and to which that

senior was entitled was available? Some of their parents required minimal help

in their homes — assistance that had been cut by this government. Some needed

more comprehensive assisted-living services, and some required long-term care.

It's no surprise that many of the people I met in our

neighbourhood were angry that the Premier's promise of 5,000 additional

long-term care beds had been broken. Our seniors, the people who built our

families and our province, deserve choices. Assisted living is one choice

appropriate for some of them, but long-term care is the necessary level of

support which many thousands of others need. One level of care does not replace

the other.

There was nothing about long-term care in the throne speech or the

budget. But my constituents sent me here, in part, to do something about

long-term care. I won't forget their instructions.

To a great extent, the election campaign was about the issue of

health care. My constituents told me about

[ Page 284 ]

their experience with deteriorating cleanliness and food services in our

hospitals. They told me about overcrowded emergency rooms and ever-longer

waiting lists for surgeries.

A woman told me about her husband who went into the hospital this

year for a lung transplant. When he was allowed to sit up after the operation

and put some weight on his feet for the first time, his wife was horrified that

she had to wipe the dirt off his feet before he could get back into bed. That's

the level of cleanliness in B.C.'s privatized, contracted-out hospital rooms

after four years of Liberal government.

There was nothing in the throne speech or the budget about

beginning to rebuild our public health care system, but my constituents sent me

here, in part, to do something about safeguarding and strengthening our public

health care system. They understand that health care can be about equity and

democracy, or it can be about privatization and two levels of care — one for the

rich and one for the rest of us. The instructions of my constituents on this

issue were clear, and I won't forget those instructions.

[1600]

Many of the residents of Vancouver-Kensington are health care

workers. They're especially angry with the contempt shown to them by this

government, and they told me about that anger in no uncertain terms during the

election campaign. As a result of Bill 29 thousands of health care workers were

thrown out of their jobs, and tens of thousands more had their salaries cut by

15 percent with the stroke of a B.C. Liberal pen — this from a government which

had solemnly promised that public sector contracts would not be torn up.

These are real people we're talking about, and one of them is

visiting us today in the gallery. I introduced Jaswant Damrit a little earlier,

but I want to tell you a little bit more about her. Like many other immigrant

women, Jaswant found work in the health care system. She was a housekeeper at

Burnaby Hospital for 25 years and was a member of the Hospital Employees Union.

After 25 years, on February 7, 2004, as a result of Bill 29 — as a

result of a choice made by this government — she was thrown out of work.

Throughout most of those 25 years Jaswant Damrit was the sole breadwinner for

her family. Now that she's lost her job, she and her husband are without an

income. The decisions of this government have disrupted her work life and had a

devastating impact on her family life.

Now, there are some who would say: "Don't worry about it; she's

only a cleaner. After all, she's a woman, and an immigrant woman at that." But

Jaswant Damrit and her workmates — the cleaners, the cafeteria workers, the LPNs,

the plumbers and electricians, the laundry workers and the rest — were and are

partners in delivering quality health care in this province. They do the

fundamental tasks that allow our hospitals and other health facilities to

function. Without them — their commitment, their energy and their loyalty — our

system suffers, and when that happens, we all suffer.

There was nothing in the throne speech or the budget for Jaswant

Damrit or her thousands of colleagues. Part of the reason the people of

Vancouver-Kensington sent me here was to do something about that situation, and

I can assure you, Madam Speaker, I won't forget their instructions.

Last April and May, as I visited with and spoke to and learned

from the people of Vancouver-Kensington, I also heard a lot about their concern

for and commitment to our public schools. Parents are justifiably anxious about

the conditions of learning experienced by their children. They believe in public

schools. They value the broad range of experiences to which their children are

exposed in our public schools. They know that individual attention to the

learning needs of individual students is one important key to success. They also

know that as a result of this government's choices, those opportunities for

learning and for growth have been undermined.

In 2001 there wasn't a kindergarten student in British Columbia

who was in a class of more than 20 students — not one. That's something in which

we can all take pride. Parents and students, teachers and school trustees,

politicians and bureaucrats: all of us can and should be proud of what we

achieved for our kids. Do you know how that happened — how we in British

Columbia managed to make sure that every kindergarten student in our province

was in a class with 20 or fewer students? We did it through collective

bargaining.

In 2002 no child in B.C. in grades one to three had more than 22

students in their class. That was achieved through collective bargaining.

Guarantees of counsellors, teacher-librarians, ESL teachers and learning

assistance teachers, and guarantees of service for students with special needs:

all were as a result of collective bargaining. All of these were achievements

for our province, for all of us. They were investments in our future.

[1605]

In 2002 this government introduced Bill 28, and we need to be

clear about the implications of that law. Bill 28 means that today it is illegal

in British Columbia for teachers and their employers to sign a collective

agreement to improve the learning conditions of children in this province. Who

better than teachers and school trustees to work together to find ways to

improve learning for our children?

This government has decided to create confrontation rather than to

choose collaboration. The results of that law and the cuts to funding — which

were choices made by the government — are that more than a hundred schools have

been closed, class sizes have increased across the province, specialist teachers

have been cut, school libraries have been shut down and services for students

with special needs have been reduced.

The people of Vancouver-Kensington support their children. They

support their schools, they support their teachers, and they support public

education. But there was absolutely nothing in the throne speech or the budget

about improving learning conditions or opportunities for our children. The

people of Vancouver-Kensington have sent me here, in part, to advocate on behalf

of our public schools, and I won't forget their instructions.

[ Page 285 ]

Over the last four years this government has treated health care

workers, nurses, teachers, education support workers and government workers of

all kinds as if they were the enemy. The people of Vancouver-Kensington know and

understand that our public servants are not our enemies. They are our neighbours,

and they deserve our respect and support for the important and difficult work

they do for all of us.

My constituents are very concerned about the environment. They

worry about greenhouse gas emissions and climate change. They worry that their

children and our children and grandchildren won't have clean air to breathe or

clean water to drink. That's why, time after time during the election campaign,

they called my attention to this issue. People in Vancouver-Kensington are upset

with this Liberal government, which — just like George Bush and his government —

has not endorsed the Kyoto protocol on climate change and has refused to develop

and implement a Kyoto plan.

[S. Hammell in the chair.]

If you ask them, Madam Speaker, the government will say that we're

going to have a made-in-B.C. strategy for greenhouse gas emissions. It's

important to unpack that little bit of doublespeak and figure out what a

longer period for implementation. That's what the constituents of

Vancouver-Kensington are worried about. The Kyoto protocol was already a

compromise, and the B.C. Liberals aren't even prepared to endorse that

compromise. My instructions are clear on that issue as well, and I won't be

forgetting those instructions.

My constituents are looking for leadership that moves us to

alternate sources of energy, to increased use of public transit, to a reduced

dependence on fossil fuels. They're looking for 21st-century thinking and

21st-century solutions to the real challenges facing our environment.

Each year on September 22 — today — International Car-Free Day is

celebrated by over 100 million people and about 1,500 cities around the world.

Car-Free Day is a vital tool in the larger day-to-day, year-to-year process of

reducing car dependence in cities. It's a time for celebration, for reflection

on the year that has passed and planning for the year ahead. It helps us to

change the way we think about transportation. I want to congratulate all of

those across B.C. who are participating in Car-Free Day today.

The people of Vancouver-Kensington are among those who built this

province. Their hard work and dedication created the institutions, the

enterprises and the assets which have made this province the envy of the world.

This government seems intent on selling off at bargain-basement prices the

British Columbia that our parents and my constituents built. They've engaged in

a program of privatization and contracting-out which is both breathtaking and

dangerous, and they've broken their word in doing so. No one will forget the

solemn promises that B.C. Rail would never be privatized.

[1610]

The people of Vancouver-Kensington understand that privatization

is an attack on democracy itself. They do not want vital public policy decisions

about our province made around a boardroom table in Cleveland or Brussels. They

understand that accountability and transparency can only be achieved when the

people of our province have the option of replacing the faces around that

boardroom table. The only way for that to happen is the democratic process.

However unhappy we may be about a particular government — and I

know a little bit about being unhappy with a particular government; I'm a Surrey

teacher…. However unhappy or frustrated we get, we know that the next election

is coming. That's democracy. The people of Vancouver-Kensington stand for

democracy and against privatization. Their instructions are clear, and I won't

be forgetting them.

I've spoken about a number of things that weren't in the budget,

but there is one thing that was in the budget that I do need to speak about, and

that's a corporate tax cut amounting to hundreds of millions of dollars. A

number of my colleagues have already pointed out that even the business

community wasn't expecting this massive giveaway from this government.

I want to focus on two other points. First, this is the second

time in four years that this government has, as its first order of business,

announced a huge tax cut for corporations that they didn't talk about in running

for election. In 2001 they ran on a tax cut for ordinary British Columbians and

then introduced a cut that went overwhelmingly to wealthy British Columbians and

to corporations. This time they didn't even bother to mention a tax cut at all

during the election campaign, and then the minister announced her

half-billion-dollar giveaway.

That brings me to my second point. The government would have us

believe that when they provide services for British Columbians and pay for those

services, that's spending. But when they reduce taxes to the wealthiest British

Columbians and to corporations, that's somehow not spending. What the Minister

of Finance announced last week was a gift, and she's using the taxes paid by the

people of British Columbia to purchase that gift. It's spending. She's spending

our money. Everyone agrees that government is about making choices, and this

government chose last week to spend almost half a billion dollars of British

Columbians' money on a tax break for corporations rather than on the services

that the people of British Columbia need and deserve.

We on this side of the House offer a different vision, different

priorities and an alternate set of values. We believe in building communities,

supporting families, respecting working people. We believe in dialogue and

discussion and negotiation. We believe that everyone should be invited to the

table and that everyone's voice should be heard. We're committed to making

decisions based on the social and the economic and the environmental impact of

those decisions. It is these values that will guide our work in this House.

[ Page 286 ]

There has been much talk about a new tone in this Legislature. I

want to add my voice and my commitment to those on both sides of the House who

have called for such a change. The people of Vancouver-Kensington have been

clear with me on this issue as well. They want us to do the people's business in

a respectful and mature and serious way. They want us to focus on issues, not

individuals. They want us to avoid personal attacks. They believe that we can

disagree without being disagreeable. They're right. We can do all of that.

My constituents elected me for a reason. They expect me to

advocate for their priorities energetically and passionately. They expect that I

will bring to this House the values and principles I articulated when I asked

for their endorsation in the election and when they chose me to represent them,

and that's what I will do to the best of my ability.

[1615]

Let me conclude by expressing my thanks to a number of people who

have helped me come to this important new challenge in my life. I want to thank

those who were involved in my election campaign, especially Linda Shuto, Dave

Aegis, Jim Edmondson and Emily Watkins. I want to thank my colleagues in the

British Columbia Teachers Federation, who have always supported me and whose

commitment to the children of this province is an inspiration. I'd like to

mention two extraordinary young women: Zoey Millaird and Kate Vanier-Maas, my

constituency assistants. I thank also my legislative assistant Christine Hunt.

I want to pay tribute to my parents, who taught me everything I

ever needed to know about politics and social justice. My children Ben

Chudnovsky and Anna Chudnovsky are the light of my life, and I treasure their

friendship and their advice. Finally, I must thank Ruth Herman, my best friend,

my partner and the best political organizer in the known universe, without whom

nothing is possible.

K. Krueger: Like many others, let me commence my remarks by

congratulating you and our other Deputy Speaker and our Speaker on your

appointments. It looks good on you. It's good to have you in the chair, and

we're pleased with the innovations in this House.

I want to welcome the new members and the returning members to

this place, which is not nearly so partisan as is commonly believed. Members

have very different views of issues and, indeed, of the world, but there is a

lot of affection between people here and caring for one another's circumstances.

It was particularly good to see Ed Conroy here on budget day. The

member for West Kootenay–Boundary is very closely related to Ed. I and others

spent a lot of time in prayer for Ed in the latter '90s as he awaited a liver

transplant. Many tears of gratitude were shed when he was able to tell the story

of how his young son had gone into a bicycle shop to preview the cycle he was

saving for. He'd come running out yelling: "It's here. It's here." His father

wondered why he was so excited, when he'd known the bicycle was there to be

seen. But he was talking about the new liver, which had arrived in an air

ambulance. His mother, our new member for West Kootenay–Boundary, hadn't known

how to reach Ed, but she knew they'd be stopping at the bike shop somewhere

along the way. The message was waiting — an urgent message — and Ed got his new

liver. We're all very thankful. It's so good to see him here.

I'm a pretty partisan guy by reputation and in truth. It's because

I believe that our approaches are right and good and in the best interests of my

constituents and all British Columbians. I have a habit of saying so and also

for stating my mind internally if I think we're heading in a wrong direction.

Both habits cause me some grief. But I am pleased with our government — very

pleased, on the whole — and who could not be pleased with its results?

Actually, we've been hearing from some members opposite for the

past couple of weeks who aren't pleased. Their comments are often revealing. I

do believe that most people elected as MLAs enter this beautiful chamber fully

intending to do the very best they can for the people who sent them. Their

intentions are good, yet often their actions betray those intentions.

We lived through a decade of that in the 1990s. I know that

members opposite get tired of hearing about it, but that's the way it was. I was

cutting my teeth in this place at that time. I was appalled at what the NDP did

to British Columbia and to the well-being of families and individuals who love

this province and call it home. Because I am so convinced of the destructiveness

of NDP views and practices and I've seen it so plainly, as have millions of

British Columbians, I'm repeatedly startled by how much I instinctively like so

many people who espouse those views and who long to return to those practices.

My wife and I went to Long Beach at spring break to have a

weekend's R and R and to prepare for the trials and tribulations of the coming

election. The very first morning, who do we bump into, walking along the beach

just like us, but the Leader of the Opposition and her husband, enjoying things

just like we enjoy. We had a nice chat, and I thought how I like her and always

have. I used to listen to her when she was a leader with the School Trustees

Association, and I've always respected many of her views. We want the same

things, but we have very different views on how to deliver those things for

British Columbians.

[1620]

This is my tenth year of representing the wonderful people of

Kamloops–North Thompson. I've seen a lot of things and suffered many

indignities, often by my own hand, like most elected people who dare to tread

these halls. Well, maybe more than some of the other elected people.

I'm very intrigued by everybody's expressed intent to behave

differently around here — the new détente. We'll see about that. I have a little

grandson, who is 15 months old now, who spent the first two months of his life

in Children's Hospital having major heart surgery. His name is Noah, and he's

one of the great loves of my

[ Page 287 ]

life. I'm profoundly grateful to God, the B.C. medical system and the

taxpayers of British Columbia who fund it, for his life. He is turning out to be

a very earnest little guy. He's happy, but he's earnest. He loves everybody he

meets, especially nurses — well, especially young women, having been surrounded

by nurses for so much of his early life.

Although we live in God's country, where it is warm and wonderful

for much of the year, as the season has come on and his nursery is cooler, his

mom — my daughter Keturah — decided recently he should wear sleepers at night.

He clearly didn't remember having worn sleepers in the past and was very puzzled

by what was on his feet. He crouched down in the sleepers and stared at his feet

— which, of course, were sheathed in the sewed-in manner of sleepers. He kept

pointing back and forth between them with his brow furrowed. He kept looking up

at his mom, and he'd say: "Shoes?" No, no. And he'd shake his little head:

"Socks?" No, and again, no. He plainly wanted a word for what these things were

on his feet, but nobody could come up with one at the time.

That's how I feel about the new détente. Peace? No, no. War? No,

no. At least I don't want to be the one to start it. But if the guy from

Cowichan-Ladysmith keeps on the way he started and if war breaks out, he'd

better keep his head up along the boards. Actions speak louder than words, as we

all know. The bottom line as of September 22, 2005, as I see it, is that we've

heard a lot from the NDP about a new style of getting things done in B.C.

politics, but so far it's not looking much different — not much change in

evidence.

The Leader of the Opposition frequently expresses her intent to

hold the government to account. So she should, and so should every member of the

opposition. But the people of British Columbia will hold this opposition to

account also. Why are they here? What are their goals? I've been dismayed to

hear the members deride our government and our Premier and us as government MLAs

for the great goals that we have set for the golden decade, and to hear various

NDP members repeatedly express their goal — which, they say, is to be re-elected

in four years.

Surely the British Columbians who sent them here expect greater

goals than that. That was the overarching and obvious goal of the NDP in the

'90s. We all know where they took B.C. during that sad decade. It was a golden

decade for every place else in North America — every place except British

Columbia, specifically because of the same NDP philosophies we're hearing today

from across the floor: class warfare; the attitude that business is bad, that

profits are evil, that the notional rich should be taxed. Who are the rich? Try

to pin an NDP member down on that. It's like trying to pin Jell-O to the wall.

I had a heavy-duty mechanic from Weyerhaeuser call me during the

election campaign and say that he would like to know what the B.C. Liberals had

ever done for him and his family. I said: "Well, for starters, you're paying the

lowest income tax in Canada up to the first $85,000 of your income." He said:

"That doesn't help me." I said: "Why not?" He said: "Because I make $100,000."

His understanding of tax law wasn't that good, but by the end of a very long

conversation, I think he might have voted for me. He should have. But he

certainly didn't understand initially, because he had been indoctrinated with

those points of view.

[1625]

Yes, this opposition should feel assured that they also will be

held to account. The NDP had better have higher goals than the re-election of

their members opposite. How are they going to pursue those goals? The public is

watching. Will it be honesty, productivity, constructive behaviour, fairness?

The NDP election campaign was none of those things. They and their allies

endlessly threw out the false mantra of cuts to health care, cuts to education.

I'm appalled to hear members still saying it in the House, when the truth is

exactly the opposite. Billions of dollars have been added to social programs,

because we can afford it — because we have a B.C. Liberal government.

When we received the reins of government from the NDP, the

province was going into the hole — $3.8 billion a year. We made that illegal. We

not only eliminated those deficits, but we have added that amount, $3.8 billion

per year, in health care funding. Every year from now on and more, we'll be

spending $3.8 billion or more on health care than the NDP ever did.

We have given autonomy to school boards and health authorities, as

we said that we would. They've adjusted to realities in different ways. One of

the members that I have been particularly impressed with opposite thus far is

the new member for Columbia River–Revelstoke. It bugs me that he is in the

chair, because Wendy McMahon is a great and beloved friend of mine. But there he

is, and I like him. Again, you find yourself liking the people regardless of

what they stand for.

I listened to him make his response to…. I believe it was the

throne speech; it could have been the budget. He talked about things that

happened in the constituency — things that Wendy McMahon knew would cost her

electorally, like closing the Kimberley Hospital. But folks, it comes down to

reality. You cannot afford to have two hospitals fully equipped and with full

medical staff 20 minutes apart from one another when you don't have the

population to support it.

There was a day when the federal government was able to fund

pretty much everything provinces spent on health care and education with 50

cents on the dollar. During those days, NDP governments in Saskatchewan seemed

to build a hospital just about everywhere there was a grain elevator. Along came

reality, and many of those hospitals were closed, because there just aren't

enough doctors, and there never will be, to staff them all up. There just isn't

enough money available from the taxpayers, and there never will be, to fund all

of those institutions.

Those are the tough realities, and I'm sure nobody thinks that

Wendy McMahon felt very good at all about the Kimberley Hospital closing or some

of the other things the member mentioned. He mentioned the

[ Page 288 ]

closure of an elementary school at Wasa. We had an elementary school closed

at Little Fort. I never had one person from Little Fort say to me that that

wasn't fair.

People are very practical. They understand that if a school

population has shrunk to where you have such a small number of children in the

school, plainly you are misspending the money. It's not even good for the kids,

because they benefit by having more children around them. Sometimes you have to

close schools. Sometimes you have to change benefit plans from being universal

to being applicable, as far as government paying for those benefits, to those

who truly need them. Sometimes that's the way it is.

If members opposite ever get to be government members again, which

I sincerely hope never happens unless they cross the floor, then they're going

to find out that there are a lot of tough realities, which their colleagues in

the '90s wrestled with but didn't wrestle nearly hard enough.

The NDP tactic during the campaign, Madam Speaker, as you know,

was to frighten seniors and anyone else they could into believing that British

Columbians needed protection and that the NDP would somehow provide that

notional protection. They are still using that tactic today. The NDP Health

critic called up the media in Kamloops and made allegations about a reduction in

eye surgery, referring to a specific specialist. He said, and I heard it, that

people need to be frightened. What a thing to say. People don't need to be

frightened. They live in the best province of the best country of the world, and

it's leading Canada once again. Why would you ever want to frighten people? If

it's for your personal gain, it's utterly shameful, and it shouldn't happen.

The NDP has been frightening people, and they conducted an

election campaign that was frightening for many people. My colleague Patrick

Wong, a wonderful guy, phoned me when it seemed like my whole constituency was

burning down in the year 2003 — terrible, catastrophic, destructive wildfires —

and he said: "We're going to help. The Chinese community wants to get a

truckload of clothing and food." I said: "Patrick, we've got more truckloads

than we know what to do with." He said: "Well, what do they need, then?" I said,

"I know they'll need money," and he went out, raised $300,000 for the North

Thompson Relief Association and handed it over, no strings attached. Two

busloads of Chinese British Columbians came up to Barriere to meet the people

who had been burnt out and to hand over that size of a cheque.

[1630]

During the election campaign Patrick Wong was spat on in lineups

in all-candidates forums. His signs were burned. He was harassed and

intimidated, and that is no way for anybody to behave in a democracy. I know

that B.C. Liberal supporters weren't doing that. Our people weren't doing that.

They wouldn't, and I trust they never will. How does that behaviour square with

expressions of concern for human rights?

Patty Sahota, another of our defeated members, grew up in Merritt,

B.C. — an Indo-Canadian, a wonderful person. I remember her so clearly, standing

over there and making her maiden speech in the House after the first throne

speech. Know what she said? She said that her mother was so proud, she could

hardly contain it, and she said to Patty: "What a wonderful place we live in,

where a girl like you, growing up in a family of immigrants, is elected to sit

in that Legislature. What a wonderful place we've come to live." Well, Patty

Sahota was rebuked by the member for Yale-Lillooet for, in his words, "having

failed to represent their race as an MLA." What an awful statement. We don't

think like that in British Columbia. We don't like it when people talk like

that, but that's what was said. He wouldn't apologize until the Leader of the

Opposition, to her credit, made him.

We had a lot of wonderful members who weren't re-elected and

wanted to be. I'm not levelling personal accusations against the members who

defeated them, but the misinformation was at a global level for four years,

fuelled largely by the money and power of union bosses. I think of people like

Bill Belsey, Rod Visser, Wendy McMahon, Mike Hunter and others, and they're

going to be very tough boots for you folks to fill. I hope you fill them well,

because your constituents will be counting on it, and they'll hold you to

account.

Bill Belsey represented the city of Prince Rupert, which was

economically just a wreck when the NDP were done with it after the sad decade of

the '90s. Bill brought proposal after proposal to our caucus, to our cabinet, to

our Premier, and it's an organization that listens. As a result, Prince Rupert

has a new cruise ship facility and a cruise ship industry. Prince Rupert has a

new container port on the way. Prince Rupert has a new college building. Prince

Rupert is thriving. I can't for the life of me see how anybody could perform

better than Bill Belsey, but I look forward to seeing the new member do his

best, and I believe he will. He's another guy I'm impressed with so far.

Those kinds of behaviours, those kinds of things I talked about

that happened to Patty Sahota and to Patrick Wong and to many of us through the

campaign — that's just not the way anybody should behave if they want to win

anything honourably.

The Leader of the Opposition continually says that the people of

B.C. sent this government a message, and she's right. They sent the NDP a

message too. The message to the NDP is: "You didn't win the election." You are

opposition, and you're a darn big opposition — a lot bigger than we wanted or

ever expected, frankly. You're expected to do your job in the best interests of

your constituents. I know that you know that, but with some of the things I've

already heard people saying over there, I don't think they've internalized that.

Some have; some obviously haven't.

The people of British Columbia also sent this government a

message, and that message is: "Carry on. You have a fresh mandate. We understand

clearly where you're going. Carry on." That's what we're doing. But we're

listening to them and to you, members opposite, if the opposition is going to

present its views, its convictions and its desires in credible ways.

[ Page 289 ]

I've been assigned by the Premier the responsibility of chairing

what we call the Government Caucus Committee for Natural Resources and the

Economy. It is ten ministries of government that pertain to those subjects. We

have wide-ranging powers as a committee. We'll be reviewing policy changes that

those ministries want. We'll be reviewing their suggested changes to their

ongoing service plans, which, as you probably all know, roll ahead three years.

We'll be reviewing their budgets. We'll be particularly concerned about any

issues that might fall between ministerial boundaries and therefore not receive

the kind of attention we'd like to see them receive.

[1635]

We fully intend to deliver on all five great goals of the golden

decade that we're into, and they are great goals. I don't think anyone who

examined them objectively could say otherwise or would want to sneer at them the

way I've heard some people sneering in the last two weeks.

We could use your help, and as Chair of that committee I would

welcome input from members opposite if it's genuine input — if you actually have

something that you think is a good idea and would like to contribute to the