2011 Legislative Session: Fourth Session, 39th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

official report of

Debates of the Legislative Assembly

(hansard)

Wednesday, October 5, 2011

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 25, Number 4

CONTENTS

Page

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

Role of teachers

L. Reid

R. Austin

Jumbo Glacier resort proposal

B. Bennett

Community Living Month

N. Simons

Animal Health Week

J. Thornthwaite

Ravi Parmar

J. Horgan

Oral Questions

Community living services and group home closings

A. Dix

Hon. C. Clark

J. Kwan

Hon. S. Cadieux

N. Simons

Community living services review

S. Simpson

Hon. S. Cadieux

Court system funding and cameras in courtrooms

K. Corrigan

Hon. C. Clark

L. Krog

Hon. S. Bond

Orders of the Day

Throne Speech Debate (continued)

B. Bennett

G. Gentner

J. Yap

C. Trevena

Hon. M. McNeil

G. Coons

Hon. H. Bloy

B. Simpson

B. Stewart

S. Simpson

[ Page 7975 ]

WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 5, 2011

The House met at 1:34 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

Introductions by Members

S. Fraser: Hon. Speaker, it's good to be back in these precincts. I went for a walk at lunch today. I was lucky; I got out of the building. I always stop on Wednesday at the cenotaph because there's a group there standing for peace for the province of British Columbia, for this great country of Canada and for the world.

[1335]

The Wednesday peace vigil meets at the cenotaph on the lawn from 12 to one every Wednesday, and I've seen them pretty much every Wednesday since I've been elected. Today is their tenth anniversary, hon. Speaker. Would you please join me in making them feel very welcome and wishing them a happy anniversary.

D. Hayer: It gives me great pleasure to introduce some very special guests. They are one of my constituents, Linda Feldhaus, who lives in the Port Kells area of Surrey-Tynehead, as well as her cousins who are visiting from Germany, Mr. Ludger Krampe and Mrs. Martina Krampe, here to celebrate their 25th wedding anniversary.

Would the House please make them very welcome.

M. Elmore: I'd like to introduce my friend Jennifer Mabugat, who is here today, and also ask everybody to congratulate her and her husband, Tim Chan. They're newly married and just returned from their honeymoon in Jamaica. They had a great time.

Also, welcome her — a new resident here in Victoria. So everybody please extend a warm welcome to her.

B. Stewart: I would just like to introduce to the House my father, Dick Stewart, who is here today in the gallery. He's here observing his son doing some of the work that I think he was very passionate about growing up but now has turned over to another generation.

M. Coell: I would like to introduce to the House some constituents of mine. They are the Probus Club of Brentwood. They were here for a tour of the Legislature and a lunch, and they're now here to watch question period. Would the House please make them welcome.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

ROLE OF TEACHERS

L. Reid: I rise today to honour World Teachers Day. I stand before you as a former teacher. It was my absolute pleasure to engage young learners, enjoy their curiosity and be energized by their awareness and their humour. I taught children with autism, children with learning disabilities, children with a myriad of interests and pursuits. I wanted the children I taught to see all sides of a question, to seek fairness and to possess tremendous humanity.

My students are adults today, many of them parenting their own children. It is a joy when they stop by to say hello. I couldn't be more proud of their accomplishments or their achievements.

The teachers I had the privilege to work with are magical — Max Caroll, Marlene Jurchuk, Basu Gill and countless others.

It was my privilege to attend the 45th reunion of David Thompson Secondary on Saturday last. Teachers came out to acknowledge a grad class that they last saw as students in 1966. The memories were fresh. The stories were wonderful. Students and teachers alike shared stories of events that transpired 45 years ago.

Schools and teachers will always have the ability to inspire future generations. It is generational work. Whether it is the teacher I met last year in Cairo or the plethora of international students and teachers that come from across the globe to Richmond, teachers understand that students desire a sense of belonging. Schools and teachers assist in building civil societies.

Thank you to all the teachers across the globe. My daughter wants to be a teacher. She will have wonderful colleagues who today are celebrating World Teachers Day.

R. Austin: October 5 has been designated by UNESCO as World Teachers Day, a time to celebrate the important role that the teaching profession plays in every society from the time when we enter school and, hopefully, onwards to lifelong learning.

The role of a teacher is both unique and incredibly important. Aside from one's parents or primary caregivers, there's no adult that we meet in the journey of life who spends as much time with us and who has as great an impact.

I am sure that if I canvassed every member of this Legislature and asked them to share an anecdote of a teacher who was special to them, I would receive a variety of fascinating stories because there's probably no one present who does not have that one special teacher — or, if they were very lucky, two or three special teachers — that changed their lives for the better.

[ Page 7976 ]

Indeed, hon. Speaker, I would venture that none of us would be where we are today, privileged to serve our communities, if we were not the recipient of a quality education provided by dedicated people who chose this profession, as well as all those who work alongside teachers in support of what they do.

In less complex times it was enough for teachers to just stick with writing, reading and arithmetic. But society has moved on, and now we expect to also learn other languages, a range of sciences — both applied and social. We also want our kids to be engaged in the arts and music and be supported in sporting activities during school and after school.

If that wasn't enough, we now include lessons on nutrition, the benefits of exercise and a host of social challenges that we want our teachers to assist us in solving.

[1340]

School is where we learn to be civil to one another — the values of democracy, inclusiveness and diversity. In short, the task of a teacher is both vast and varied, and I ask today that everyone join me in thanking teachers for what they do and think about ways in which we as legislators can support this important work.

JUMBO GLACIER RESORT PROPOSAL

B. Bennett: Yesterday we heard a very nice tribute to the late Jack Layton and also a tribute to former B.C. Premier Dave Barrett. In that same spirit of generosity and in line with the custom that these short statements are to be non-partisan, I'm also going to say something nice about some NDP leaders and the wisdom that they showed in relation to the Jumbo Glacier resort project.

In fact, I'd like to go on the record here today saying that I agree with the current president of the B.C. New Democratic Party when he said, when he was Environment, Lands and Parks Minister: "The proponents of this project have shown a great deal of understanding and cooperation while awaiting the completion of the land use plan."

I agree with the former Premier, Glen Clark, no doubt counselled by the current NDP leader, when Mr. Clark said: "The East Kootenay land use plan includes Jumbo Valley within the special resource management zone category, a designation which allows this type of development."

I agree with the former Premier, Mike Harcourt, when he said: "I hope that you will be able to proceed with this project and that one day we will be able to see this international venture realized. May I wish you good luck with the further formal review and assessment of your project." They definitely needed the good luck.

I've had a little fun with this today. You know, sometimes all you can do is just have a good laugh.

But let there be no mistake. My position on this and what I believe is that although I have full confidence in the current leader on this side of the House and the minister in charge of this file, the twists and turns in government process over the last 20 years on this project are a disgrace. All members should be embarrassed by the unjust way that this proponent has been forced to tread water for 20 years by both political parties in this House today.

I ask, on behalf of my region: please, let's have a decision.

COMMUNITY LIVING MONTH

N. Simons: This month British Columbia celebrates Community Living Month, a few weeks when we can reflect on the value and contribution that people with developmental disabilities make to our communities. The people I'm talking about, our fellow citizens, are far more than the labels we give them. Yes, they have challenges and they have special needs, but their lives are defined by the contributions they make to our society.

They are athletes competing in Special Olympics against their peers, doing their best to challenge their own physical and mental strengths, always trying to improve — exactly what all athletes try to do. Sometimes they win; sometimes they lose. But like everyone, they love to participate. They compete, they make friends, and they have fun. They remind us of the value of sport beyond winning and losing.

They are artists who paint and sculpt and draw the world from their unique perspectives, reminding us all that all of our differences actually make us one.

They are the proud employees of progressive businesses, where their skills and abilities are practised and demonstrated, where their efforts are always equal to others. They are self-advocates, making sure their community is one where they can live in dignity, stability and safety.

They are our brothers and sisters, nieces and nephews. They are our children — different in many ways but so similar where it matters most: in their love of life and their desire to be full and valued members of our community.

Our fellow citizens with development disabilities teach us every day the value of patience, the strength in perseverance, and most importantly, they remind us of our frailty, our common needs and, ultimately, of our humanness. Most importantly, we're reminded of the adage that a measure of the strength of our society is in the way we care for our most vulnerable.

To the parents, caregivers, family members, group home workers, advocates, activity coordinators, all the organizations that dedicate themselves to improving our collective quality of life and to those who make our communities welcoming places: happy Community Living Month.

[1345]

[ Page 7977 ]

ANIMAL HEALTH WEEK

J. Thornthwaite: "A nation's greatness is measured by how it treats its weakest members" — a quote from Mahatma Gandhi.

This is Animal Health Week all across Canada. Organized by the Canadian Veterinary Medical Association, Animal Health Week has been celebrated since 1985 by veterinarians and their health care teams, pet owners and animal enthusiasts right across the country. The goal of this annual campaign is to promote animal health, veterinary medicine and responsible animal ownership within our local communities.

Like many British Columbians and many of my fellow members on both sides of the House, I too am a proud animal lover. And like all of you, my kids and I consider our dog, a beautiful Labradoodle named Maximus, to be a member of our family.

Pet owners are less likely to suffer from depression than those without pets. People with pets have lower blood pressure in stressful situations than those without pets. Heart attack patients with pets survive longer than those without, and pet owners over age 65 make 30 percent fewer visits to their doctors than those without pets.

Animals are a big part of our lives here in British Columbia in so many ways, whether it's the pets we share our homes with, the animals being raised on farms around the province or the ones living in the wilderness. That's why I'm proud to live in B.C., a province that takes the health, safety and welfare of all animals very seriously. This past spring we amended legislation to give British Columbia the toughest animal cruelty laws in Canada, with higher penalties and greater accountability.

I would like to wish all of you a happy Animal Health Week and hope you will join me in taking this opportunity to thank the hard-working men and women who are dedicated to promoting the health and well-being of all animals in British Columbia.

RAVI PARMAR

J. Horgan: I rise today, as many members of this House, to speak about an extraordinary young person in my constituency, Mr. Ravi Parmar. Ravi is a quiet, strong supporter of his community and his school. He has been working tirelessly, this in his last senior year at Belmont, to raise issues of great concern not only to the students of today but to the students of the future.

Last year I had the pleasure to table a petition of 2,500 signatures that Ravi had collected between his jobs as a supervisor at the local Tim Hortons; delivering the local newspaper, the Goldstream Gazette ; and also as a volunteer swim instructor at the local pool in Juan de Fuca.

I tabled that petition prior to his meeting with the hon. Minister of Education, who graciously acquiesced to have Ravi come to see him to talk about the importance not just for this year but for future years and Ravi's vision and goal for a new school in our community.

I want to say that Ravi has been recognized not just by the Minister of Education and people in his community but also by the Save-On-Foods extraordinary kid foundation, which awarded a $1,000 prize to Ravi for his extraordinary work as a young man in our community. Ravi is going to take that $1,000 and put it towards meeting some of the tuition costs of his first year of post-secondary education, the first in his family to achieve that.

I ask all of my colleagues and all members on the other side of the House to join with me in congratulating Ravi for his extraordinary work as a 16- and 17-year-old to raise awareness of civic activity in our communities. Ravi's goal is to be the Prime Minister of Canada. I have no doubt he will achieve that goal.

Oral Questions

COMMUNITY LIVING SERVICES

AND GROUP HOME CLOSINGS

A. Dix: My question is to the Premier about the government's and her government's throne speech commitment to families. She will know that the per-client funding at CLBC has been cut dramatically in recent years, that her government has closed 65 group homes in British Columbia.

A.J. Sidhu is a young man who received CLBC services in Surrey. Mr. Sidhu has seen his funding cut, or has been told that his funding will be cut, by 30 percent. Their family has been told that. Now, the family has made an enormous contribution in this case. They've mortgaged their home to make a solution happen. Mr. Sidhu has not only issues with developmental disabilities but mental health issues. The solution keeps the community safe, the family together, and it's a great solution for A.J. Now it is under threat.

Will the Premier make her commitment to families real in this House by putting a moratorium on CLBC group home closures?

Hon. C. Clark: I thank the member for the question, because the issues that he raises, when they are experienced by families, particularly by individuals who are vulnerable in our communities, are very, very serious. Change is a very difficult thing for anyone, in particular for people who are vulnerable.

[1350]

Now, I know that CLBC has been working through some issues, and it has been a difficult time for many clients. We've certainly heard some of the stories in this chamber. I've heard some of them personally, and I am certainly deeply, deeply sympathetic to the issues that families and individuals face.

[ Page 7978 ]

The government has put almost $9 million in new money into the ministry to try and help them work through some of the changes. We are continuing to find ways and focus on how we can help clients better deal with the changes, manage through changes, and, where changes are found to be unnecessary or inappropriate, to make sure that we are addressing those absolutely as quickly as we can. It's a very legitimate issue that people experience, and our government is deeply sympathetic to the people that are feeling it.

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

A. Dix: Well, I'm sure the Sidhus will appreciate the Premier's sympathy, but when the Premier wants to put certain trials on TV, she acts to put those trials on TV. In this case she could act to put a moratorium on group home closures. She could do that today. That is within her power.

The fact of the matter is that the solution that the Sidhu family worked on — the solution that has worked for 11 years — is under threat now in real time. What they've done is a real B.C. success story. You don't have to imagine it. It's actually happening, and it's under threat now.

What I'd like to hear from the Premier today is that she followed the advice of the B.C. Association for Community Living, of Moms on the Move, of the Sidhu family and put a moratorium on group home closures so that the Sidhu family can not only get the Premier's sympathy but get some actual action from the Premier.

Hon. C. Clark: The member raises a legitimate question. Certainly, I know the minister would be happy to meet with the Sidhu family and talk with them and see if we can figure out a way through the issue.

There are group homes that have closed — there is no question about it — as we've been in the process of service redesign. Part of that has been making sure that individuals are in the most appropriate form of care for them. For many clients who have experienced this change, although change is always difficult, it has resulted in a better situation for them.

Now, it hasn't been perfect — there is no question about it — and we need to make sure that we are paying attention to every single one of those individuals and make sure that they're getting the treatment they deserve.

You know, the fact is that British Columbia, despite what's been going on around the world, remains a rich society. We have an obligation to look after the most vulnerable in our society, just as we look after the least vulnerable in our society.

The Sidhu family, I know when the minister meets with them, will have a chance to make their case, and hopefully, we can find a solution for them.

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

A. Dix: Well, what service redesign means in this case is a cut in service, to services that are working. The Sidhu family lives in the minister's riding. There have been four ministers in less than 12 months. It's not about ministers here; it's about a government policy that is simply failing that family.

The B.C. Association for Community Living about the Premier's throne speech, which she said was about family: "We were disappointed with the throne speech's lack of substance and its failure to acknowledge or commit to addressing the real problems of people in the community living sector." That's what they say, and that's what's going on.

It's not like the Sidhu situation is unique. The Premier is right. They've been cutting services to lots of families — 65 group homes closed, the average per-client-family funding cut by 20 percent since 2005 and 30 percent since 2001. Families are paying the price for the Premier's policies. She has a choice, and she can make that choice today. She can, hon. Speaker. She can.

Well, you know, hon. Speaker, I know that the Premier is impatient and all. I know that she's impatient and all. The Sidhus are impatient. They've been waiting for a long time to get an answer from this government. So the Premier, hopefully, will provide that answer today by putting in place a moratorium on group homes so that families like the Sidhus don't have to continue to suffer from the instability caused by her government.

[1355]

Hon. C. Clark: I hope the Sidhus, if they're watching today, feel that we've got the beginning of an answer for them. A meeting with the minister will certainly help get them there. I don't think we are going to be able to solve this today in question period. But I will say this, in addition to the answers I have given previously. I just don't want to go too far down the road on NDP math here. We saw where that took us in the 1990s, and we don't want to go back to that.

Let's remember this. We have increased the budget for CLBC every year since it was created in 2005. The government provides $3.5 billion to support people with developmental disabilities in British Columbia. That is a very significant amount of money, and it's money that's well spent for vulnerable people who need support.

We announced recently $8.9 million to bring this year's budget to $710 million for services for about 14,000 people who have developmental disabilities — just so we can be clear and be on the record with what the real numbers are here, because I know that the opposition likes to make political hay of some of these things.

I think we should be clear about what the numbers are, because $3.5 billion spent to support people with

[ Page 7979 ]

developmental disabilities is a very significant commitment. It's a commitment from a government that cares about families, trying to support families across the province and making sure that they can cope as well as they can, particularly when they have vulnerable members of the family.

I'll add this. In the long term the way to be able to continue to support people with developmental disabilities, health issues and children with special needs in classrooms is to grow our economy. That's to make sure we have a plan to create jobs all across British Columbia, attract investment, get people working, increase the tax base. Ultimately, that's the math that's going to lead to better services.

J. Kwan: The fact is the Sidhu family actually went to the former minister and went to the current minister for help, and none was offered. So we hope that the minister will take action today and actually ensure that the Sidhu family gets the stability they need to ensure that A.J., who is the victim here, gets the funding support that he requires.

The Sidhu family is not the only family who is suffering from the chaos created by this government in CLBC. Diane Birmingham has been given notice that Nancy Greene Way, a group home on the North Shore where her daughter Robin has lived for some 20 years, is closing at the end of this month.

Diane contacted the former minister and her own MLA, the member for North Vancouver–Seymour, who happens to be on the Premier's family-first committee. No help was offered to her either. To date no appropriate alternative has been offered to Diane, and the closure is looming.

We know there are at least 1,200 people on the wait-list for a group home. It's simply illogical for this government to close group homes.

Will the Premier commit today that she will put an end, a halt, to the closure of group homes, and to say to the families that the chaos will stop now and that we will put a plan together that really puts families first?

Hon. S. Cadieux: I am very aware of the concerns of the community, of the public in regards to the situation related to group homes and in our communities. I also know very well that living with a disability on a daily basis poses challenges from the moment one gets up in the morning. I am not content that families are feeling added anxiety as a result of situations that have been brought to my attention.

That said, I had my first meeting with CLBC yesterday. I expect there will be many more. I am more than happy to meet with the families or the members opposite if they are concerned about individual situations, and I will be continuing to look into the issues.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

J. Kwan: I appreciate that the minister says she's very concerned and that she's sympathetic. The Premier just said those words as well. So did the four previous ministers of Community Living B.C. They all said that they were sympathetic, that they were looking into it, that these problems will go away.

[1400]

Guess what, Mr. Speaker. None of these problems went away. They got worse and worse and worse, to the point where families are now in crisis, and they're reaching out and calling for help.

The minister and the Premier and this government said that they want to put families first. So just because the Liberal government is in chaos and has grossly mismanaged the Community Living B.C. file, it doesn't mean that families should be living in chaos as well. They shouldn't suffer the consequences of this government's inability to manage the file.

I'm asking the Premier again: will she put a stop to these group home closures and put a real plan forward that will prioritize the families with developmental disabilities, put their needs first, ahead of the budget cuts that this government is driving?

Hon. S. Cadieux: Again, I take my responsibilities as minister very seriously. I am diligently working to get an understanding of all of the concerns that have been raised and are being raised. I am happy to meet with families. I have met with some already, and I will meet with more.

I will look into the issues, and I'll be working with CLBC to consider how we're going to best address those issues.

N. Simons: While it's appreciated on this side of the House that the members on the government's side are concerned, that's not the first time we've heard that. In fact, we heard that four ministers ago. The same minister, four ministers ago, said they wouldn't force group homes…. Three ministers ago, they said they wouldn't force group home closures. Two ministers ago, said they weren't forcing group home closures.

We've seen 63 group homes close in this province in the last two years. That's the fact of the matter, and it's all because of a service redesign, a carefully veiled attempt to cut budgets and cut the services to people across this province.

Empty promises and words that can convince a few people, one at a time, that maybe their issues will be looked after is not good enough. This goes to the core of bad government policy. They don't want vague assurances.

People in this province support those living with disabilities, and I would ask this minister or this Premier to stand up in this House and say to the people in this province that the moratorium will be put on the closure of group homes in this province.

[ Page 7980 ]

Hon. S. Cadieux: These are complex issues. But let's remember a couple of things. People are not being left out in the cold. There are circumstances where people are being relocated. CLBC's residential options program was created in response to a demand from individuals for choices in their living arrangements.

Changes can be required for a number of reasons, and we're not going to solve any of these issues in the House today, Mr. Speaker. But transitions, I admit, are difficult at the best of times, and I am certainly committed to ensuring that families and individuals are adequately consulted on any transitions that are going to affect them.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

N. Simons: Indeed, change is difficult, but change is even worse when government policy makes the change chaotic, unplanned and surprising.

The ministry oversaw Community Living B.C. go around the province and reassess the disability level of every person on their caseload in an attempt to reduce the costs associated with each client. That resulted in the closure of group homes. That resulted in the cuts to funding to home share programs. That resulted in the shortening of day programming and a lack of support for people in employment programs.

It's an overall government policy that is leaving people with no possible services, and that is what needs to be addressed by this government. It's not simply about change and our inability to adjust to change. The change this government forces is bad change, and we're asking the government to do the right thing and change course and do what's right for people with developmental disabilities.

[1405]

Hon. S. Cadieux: Just as most of us have moved homes many times in our lives, sometimes the circumstances around people who receive services from CLBC change as well. There are a range of care options available for people, and we are committed as a government, and CLBC is committed, to ensuring that people are supported in the best way so that they can live the lives they want to live in their communities.

Although there's an awful lot of commentary from the other side of the House today about group homes, in fact I'd like to let people know that there are about 2,400 people in the province living in group homes. That number is up about 2 percent from last year.

COMMUNITY LIVING SERVICES REVIEW

S. Simpson: We heard about two desperate situations today where families are facing situations that are going to become untenable for them. We heard the Premier and we've heard the minister talk about agreeing to meet with people on one-offs. This is not a situation of one-offs, of individual cases. This is a systemic problem with Community Living B.C. that needs to get addressed.

The service redesign is all about money. While the Premier might want to create numbers, let's talk about the numbers we have. The Developmental Disabilities Association in a July 2011 study pointed out that the per-client funding for adult community living services has been reduced from $65,368 in '01-02 to $45,320 in '11-12. That's the reality of service redesign.

The minister will know that the B.C. Association for Community Living has called on her and called on this government to put forward an external review of Community Living B.C. and a full moratorium on the service redesign process, including group home closures, until you can get this fixed.

Will you respect the B.C. Association for Community Living, do the review and put the moratorium in place?

Hon. S. Cadieux: We do have a system that is focused on providing innovative solutions that allow individualized supports for people living with disabilities in our province and that encourage inclusion in our communities. Today CLBC is serving more than 13,600 people with a budget of over $710 million.

I recognize that there are challenges. I have heard the concerns, and I have had my first meeting with CLBC. I will continue to look into issues that are presented and look to work with CLBC to find innovative solutions to the problems.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

S. Simpson: The problem is this. We have had a revolving door of responsible ministers for this, and every one of those ministers has failed the people with developmental disabilities in this province. Every one of those ministers has perpetuated the demise of these programs, the erosion of these programs. That's the reality.

It started with the Government House Leader when he was minister, who said: "We're not forcing anyone to move." We know that commitment was never kept. That commitment was never kept.

The B.C. Association for Community Living represents all those organizations in this province that deliver those services day in and day out. They are the most knowledgable people on this issue — more knowledgable than Community Living B.C., more knowledgable than the people in this ministry.

They are saying an external review is necessary. They are saying there need to be more voices involved in this and more thoughts. They're calling for a responsible action by the minister. Will the minister be responsible, put the review in place, including the moratorium, and announce it today?

[1410]

[ Page 7981 ]

Hon. S. Cadieux: There are challenges. I am committed to having continued discussions with advocates, with individuals, with families. But these challenges are not going to be solved here in the Legislature today.

I have had what has been my first meeting with CLBC to address the issues of concern that have been raised to me. I will continue to have discussions.

COURT SYSTEM FUNDING

AND CAMERAS IN COURTROOMS

K. Corrigan: Yesterday we spoke about Edward Ellis, another alleged criminal that walked free thanks to the Liberal government's failure to properly resource our courts. And while he walked free, the Premier was scribbling her riot TV idea on a napkin.

In Monday's throne speech this government's priority, instead of properly funding our courts, was to turn the Stanley Cup riot trials into Hollywood-style televised proceedings. I fail to see how this idea will help ensure the riot cases will be tried effectively and in a timely manner.

To the Premier: how much is riot TV going to cost B.C. taxpayers?

Hon. C. Clark: Let me quote from October 4 — no, from September 29: "I'm going to be positive. I'm going to be propositional. I'm going to say how we're going to pay for things. I'm going to provide alternatives…. It's not going to be negative every day, because we want to bring change." That was the Leader of the Opposition just on Thursday.

And you know, today I have this list of tweets that have gone out for the last six or seven hours. I think there are 11 tweets. Ten of them are negative. One of them was a retweet. The Leader of the Opposition, every single time he's gotten up in the Legislature, has been negative, negative, negative. He's the same angry man we've seen for so many sessions in this Legislature, but he says he wants to change his ways.

Not only does he refuse to change his ways; his members refuse to change their ways either. Has the Leader of the Opposition failed to tell his members that they're trying to be positive, that they're trying to be propositional, that they're trying to keep people up to date on how they would pay for things and where they would get the money? I haven't heard any of that in the last couple of days.

Maybe it's time. Maybe it's time for the members across the way to remember that if the NDP would like to propose an alternative, British Columbians would love to know what it is.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

K. Corrigan: Well, I'd really like to thank the Premier for answering a serious question that may matter to the taxpayers of this province.

We have trial delays that are allowing alleged criminals to walk free in B.C., putting families at risk. Clearly, the Premier did not consult with the criminal justice branch or the prosecutors before talking about the riot TV idea. They would have told her this is a wasteful endeavour that won't do anything to bring the rioters to justice.

To the Premier, will she admit that the riot TV idea is a gimmick, a poor priority for spending of taxpayers' dollars and a diversion from…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

K. Corrigan: …the real issue, the serious issue, of a shortage of resources in our justice system?

Mr. Speaker: Member, just take your seat. Member, take your seat for a second.

Members, we want to be able to hear the question and hear the answer.

Hon. C. Clark: Well, you know, here's the thing I don't get about the NDP. On our side of the House we're committed to three things: creating jobs, making life better for families and opening up government. Opening up our courts is a part of opening up government.

Putting cameras in our courtrooms is something I know that the NDP apparently oppose. I know that the NDP don't like this idea of starting with the rioters in the courtroom.

But you know what? The reason we've made this request is because those criminals committed those crimes in public. They had no problem doing it with cameras flashing and videos on as they lit cars on fire and looted stores. They had absolutely no problem with that, and they attacked our fundamental sense of community safety in doing so.

[1415]

So what is the matter with them being tried in public as well? What is the matter with opening up the courtrooms beyond the people who can just physically attend? Why not make it open to the public? My question for the member opposite is: what is she so afraid of? Why is she afraid of opening the courts and allowing the public in to see how they work?

L. Krog: Cameras in courtrooms aren't going to make trials any better. Criminals aren't walking free in B.C. because there weren't cameras in the courtrooms. They're walking free because trials have been delayed or cancelled due to a shortage of sheriffs and judges.

B.C. Provincial Court Chief Judge Thomas Crabtree, who I think knows more about the courts than the B.C. Liberals, said: "The backlog of cases which has been

[ Page 7982 ]

accumulating due to judicial vacancies is now so great that the temporary use of retired judges will not resolve the problem."

So I have a proposition for the Premier. Will she take the issues facing our courts seriously, take the advice of the chief judge and hire the judges so that no more court cases are delayed or cancelled?

Hon. S. Bond: I'd like to take the member back to a date — March 19, 2010 — particularly after the member opposite's comments yesterday. "I don't doubt that many British Columbians think this is probably a good idea. It's a way of opening up the justice system, which is a good concept. Openness and transparency are always good." In fact, it was the member opposite on cameras in courtrooms.

Let me take him back to March 3, 2011. "I like the concept of cameras in courtrooms." Where's the consistency?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

The member has a supplemental.

L. Krog: But I really love the concept that criminals get prosecuted in British Columbia in a timely way.

The Attorney General well knows that the mere presence of cameras in the courtroom is not going to make up for this government's complete failure to fund the justice system appropriately, to hire the judges, to pay for the prosecutors and hire the sheriffs necessary to do that.

Samiran Lakshman, president of the B.C. Crown Counsel Association, says that the idea to temporarily use retired judges "doesn't fundamentally address what needs to be done, and that is increase the capacity of the court system to actually hear more cases in a more timely way."

So while the Attorney General can take us down other roads, drug dealers are still dealing, drunk drivers are still driving, and the Premier is still focused on turning the riot trials into a TV show. What we need are real answers here today.

I'm looking to the Premier. Will she get away from the cameras on this issue, take the issues facing our courts seriously and hire more judges?

Hon. S. Bond: Well, consistency certainly isn't a strong suit. Let's listen to one more quote. In fact, you know, Mr. Speaker, this government believes that it's important for us to have the opportunity for British Columbians to understand and to observe how justice takes place in British Columbia.

Let's face it. The member opposite, on March 19, actually said: "The notion of cameras in the court I don't think is a bad one." Shame on the member opposite for his lack of consistency and the comments he made yesterday in the media. He should withdraw his remarks.

[1420]

[End of question period.]

Orders of the Day

Hon. R. Coleman: I call continued debate on the Speech from the Throne.

A. Dix: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

Introductions by Members

A. Dix: A member of the press gallery became a dad last week. Jonathan Villeneuve, the cameraman for Radio-Canada, became a father on the early morning of September 27. His wife, Andrea, delivered, after six hours of labour, a beautiful son. Samuel Villeneuve weighed 6 pounds 13 ounces — it's not a race — has blond hair and is thriving. I hope everyone in the House wishes Jonathan and Andrea all the best.

J. Yap: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

J. Yap: In the gallery today — actually, he just left — and watching question period is my constituent Jerry Muir and his B.C. Hydro colleague Cam Matheson. They were both here today for meetings with the bioeconomy committee and took advantage of the opportunity to catch a great question period. Would the House please join me in extending a welcome to Jerry and to Cam.

Throne Speech Debate

(continued)

B. Bennett: I'm going to carry on from where I left off yesterday. I think I was talking about taxes. I think I was saying that it is this government that reduced personal income taxes from the highest in Canada to the lowest in Canada. I don't know if I said that yesterday or not for sure, but I want to make sure that I say it today.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

Of course, you know who had the highest taxes in Canada, and which political party of the two that are represented in this House raised taxes in B.C. to make them the highest in the country. It wasn't us.

[ Page 7983 ]

Winston Churchill once said…. This is a quotation from Mr. Churchill. We all like to quote Mr. Churchill. This is a good one. "I contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle."

If you listen to what the other side of the House says here day after day and year after year, as I have for ten years, that is exactly what they're suggesting. They seem to believe that you can tax British Columbia into prosperity, and it just doesn't work. It hasn't worked anywhere in the world.

Taxes actually lead to debt. When tax levels get so high that job creators can find a better place for their investment outside of British Columbia, they leave, which is what they did a decade ago. It's this government that managed the finances of this province such that B.C. has amongst the lowest debt-to-GDP ratio in the country.

Our economy over the past ten years has grown far more than our debt, unlike many jurisdictions in the western world, and frankly, it's something that I think the opposition neither understands nor cares about. In fact, it's one of the ways, one of the important ways, that this government has earned the triple-A credit rating and to this day retains the triple-A credit rating despite the massive economic uncertainty around us in the U.S. and in Europe.

[1425]

I note that yesterday members of the opposition were actually making jokes about the province's triple-A credit rating, as if it were unimportant, something that only accountants care about.

They should, in fact, go ask Greece or Spain or Ireland or even the U.S.A. about how important their credit rating is and how much more interest in the hundreds of millions — in fact, in the case of the U.S., hundreds of billions in extra interest — that their citizens are paying on debt because they don't have the credit rating that we have earned here in British Columbia.

Yesterday my colleague from Richmond Centre said in his remarks about the throne speech that the promises that the opposition have made to date add up to about $15 billion. Again, I noticed that the opposition members made jokes about that. They thought that was funny.

They do think it's funny. When you ask them where the money is going to come from to do all the things that they always want to do, they never seem to have an answer. They always seem to think that it's a joke. I don't think that they're fooling anyone. I don't think they're going to fool the people of B.C. a year and a half from now.

Although a decade has passed since they were in government, I consider it my personal responsibility — and I think my colleagues share this on this side of the House — to warn young people, young people in particular, in this province about what kind of threat the NDP is to them as they start out in life trying to get ahead.

We on this side of the House will ensure that the young people of British Columbia know what to expect from the NDP. You can be sure of that.

Under an NDP government, their taxes will be higher, investment and job prospects will diminish, and quite likely they will not be able to stay in B.C. and earn a good livelihood for their families.

That's what happened to my two sons when the NDP were in power. They both had to move to Alberta to find jobs. This government was elected in 2001. Three to four years later my two sons were able to move back to British Columbia with good jobs. We need to make sure that that doesn't change.

Despite what I'm saying, the opposition seems quite cocky these days, actually. I think they think that they're riding some kind of a wave and that the people are going to trust them in the next election, but the electorate has a long memory. The voters of B.C. know who created this solid fiscal foundation that we're blessed with today. It's a foundation that will sustain us through this economic downturn.

At a time when nations are defaulting, when the most important economy in the world, the U.S.A., is in tatters, the people of B.C. understand the value of being responsible, of balancing the budget when we say we're going to balance the budget, in 2013-2014, being reliable and being businesslike. Those are two things that the opposition party, when it was in power, was not: businesslike or reliable.

I believe that the world is in for a prolonged period of uncertainty and many difficult choices. In some ways, the financial chickens have come home to roost. My generation, the baby boomers, have been living it up for our adult lives, and to be blunt, we have been borrowing from our children and our grandchildren. Young people in this province now expect those of us in elected office to make the tough decisions so that the borrowing from them stops.

In the western world, governments have spent lots and lots of money over the past 40 years. In Canada we have a mostly publicly funded health care system that will soon eat up half of the provincial budget. A modest increase to that budget is felt by the health care industry as a cut, and of course that's how it's represented by the opposition — as a cut.

So be it. That's the nature of politics. But the public needs to know that the increase in health spending can't be sustained by a smaller workforce as we baby boomers retire.

Education. While the number of students in our K-to-12 schools is declining overall, the cost of education is rising steadily. Teachers. Teachers want a raise. We'd all like to give them a raise. Other public sector union workers will want a raise, and yet there's no money. There's no money to give them a raise. It isn't a matter of whether one party cares more than the other party; it's a matter of there's no money.

[ Page 7984 ]

Infrastructure. Provincial infrastructure doesn't last forever. Highways and bridges must be replaced, new roads and mass transit constructed.

[1430]

In my riding I've been fortunate. I think we've been fortunate in lots of places in the province. We just finished resurfacing Highway 43, which leads to the coal mines north of Sparwood — a very, very busy highway; a booming, booming industry — and we just replaced the last bridge on Highway 3 that hadn't yet been replaced in my riding. There are about half a dozen bridges. They've all now been replaced at great cost.

Schools must be restored. They must be replaced. Colleges and universities must have the capacity to compete for students around the world, and important research must be done at B.C. schools. All of that costs money.

On the social side, I think it's fair to say we'd probably all like to provide more money to CLBC, to raise social assistance rates, to inject resources into our justice system.

I wrote this speech yesterday. I could have written it ten minutes ago, listening to question period.

But if we elect an NDP government, they'll take care of all those needs easily and quickly. They'll just raise taxes — particularly raise taxes on the job creators, the people in our society who actually generate the jobs for families. That'll be their solution. That's always their solution. They did it before. They'll chase those job creators out of the province, leaving fewer taxpayers to pay the costs of all the social programs they can hardly wait to implement.

Now, I'm usually a pretty half-full-glass kind of guy. It doesn't come naturally to me to be quite so glum about the circumstances we find ourselves in, in the western world today. But I really think that the Pollyanna approach, or the ostrich approach, is not responsible. All western nations have been living beyond their means. Government is too big. It's too expensive.

Now that we're experiencing what it can be like and may be like for a long time, with revenues falling like a stone and previously solid jurisdictions inching towards default, it's our moral responsibility here in B.C. to hold the line, to work as hard as we can as legislators to find innovative ways to grow the economy and also to spend less on some things so that we can spend more on others.

That will be the challenge. Frankly, the alternative — a failure to balance the provincial budget, increase more debt — is just not something that this side of the House can abide.

I was caught by another line in the throne speech. It said that the government wants to ensure that we don't leave a legacy of debt for future generations.

I've mentioned younger British Columbians. A couple times I've mentioned my two sons. We actually moved to B.C. in 1992 and spent a couple of years in Kelowna and then moved over to Cranbrook in 1994.

If there's anything that has driven me personally to get into public life and remain in public life, despite the ups and downs that we all experience in this business, it is my belief that we have to leave the province in better shape than we found it. I don't believe that we will leave it in better shape than we found it if we leave increased debt for our kids and our grandkids.

Before I finish, I just want to say a little bit about the riding of Kootenay East. I'm just going to focus on one thing. I've said this before in the House, but it bears repeating. I think that we need — in the beltway here in Victoria, in the House — to recognize and even celebrate the metallurgical coal industry in this province.

During a time when good jobs are really hard to find — they're extra-precious — and at a time when export dollars are crucial to sustaining these social programs that everyone needs and wants, and at a time when all of us, both sides of the House, ought to be searching for opportunities to enable the creation of good new jobs, the metallurgical coal industry is a shining opportunity that we should exploit.

Asian economies are willing to pay top dollar right now for our high-quality steelmaking coal. Government needs to ensure that transportation infrastructure can carry the larger production that the mines want to bring on and that new coal mines will bring on in the northeast. That's why our investment in the Port of Prince Rupert, both our past and current investment, is so important, and our investments in the Vancouver ports as well.

I've heard in this House, over my ten years, members of the opposition deride the British Columbia coal industry. I guess it's easy to do that. You try and get people to buy into the Mr. Peabody's coal train stereotype, but it's worth reminding those members, and the public as well, that without metallurgical coal, you don't have steel.

[1435]

So you actually don't have the steel for your Toyota Prius car. You won't be able to have the nickel-cadmium batteries that exist in those Prius cars. You won't be able to have the wind farms that depend on steel. We need this commodity in the world to support our economy and to support the things that are important to us.

As I say, opposition members, sometimes to my absolute amazement, have been quite derogatory to this industry. What that means to me as the representative from Kootenay East is that they are being derogatory to the people who work in that industry. Those are my constituents.

In terms of direct employment, where I come from in Kootenay East, the metallurgical coal industry employs directly around 3,500 workers, and the average annual wage is over $100,000. Those are pretty good jobs.

[ Page 7985 ]

I can't tell you how many people in my riding that I've spoken to lately have been displaced from other jobs — maybe forestry jobs or retail or some such thing. Now they're driving a big truck up at Fording River, or they're doing something else at one of the five coal mines there, and they're making really good money that can support their families.

There are also thousands of other workers that support their families in some of the indirect businesses that support the coal-mining industry. Finning is a great example — and the welding shops, the pipefitters, the power pole contractors, the restaurants, the non-profits in my region that benefit from that high disposable income.

So when we criticize an industry and say, "Well, that's a dirty industry, and we shouldn't have that industry…." Our non-profits would be out of luck, out of business where I come from, if it wasn't for the wages that are earned by the people who work in the metallurgical coal industry.

I did want to get on the record with that, Madam Speaker. I don't know how much time I have left, but I'm finished. I'll give way to the next speaker, and I thank you for the opportunity to have a little fun with this. I hope nobody on the other side was offended. It's always a pleasure to get up in the House.

G. Gentner: It is a real pleasure to follow the esteemed colleague from Kootenay East, and I'm certainly not offended. The esteemed member for Kootenay East once said that the HST was the best thing since powder skiing. I guess the 61 percent of his constituents who voted yes to extinguish the HST probably voted that way because they didn't like powder skiing.

I'd like, first of all, before I begin, to thank my family — the sacrifices they make. All members here have families who give up a lot of their private time for us to do our work in this Legislature. I'd also like to thank my friends and, of course, my constituents — the constituents who are not afraid to come to my office and talk to me about issues, have a cup of coffee and discuss everything from the HST to…. One of the biggest issues in my constituency right now seems to be education.

I also have the opportunity at this time to thank my staff — Sheryl Seale and, of course, Renee Poley — who do a grand job relative to all the casework and also put together something that we call the Matrix, a community directory that I challenge all MLAs to follow. This is an extensive directory put out by my office, which also lists a thousand businesses in my constituency, 60 percent of which, of course, are at-home businesses that pay taxes and are an essential part of my community and, through those taxes, pay for many amenities that support my community.

You know, it is great to be back. It's great to be here. I thought, having read the statements of the Premier, that there would be some reference in the throne speech to the view of axing the Senate. That was made earlier by her, but I guess someone told the Premier that (

a) it's not in our jurisdiction, and (

b) the Senate actually sits most of the time, while here in the Legislature it seems to be a convenience.

So 112 days is the time we've spent in this Legislature since the last election, about 900 days ago; 112 days — that's all we've sat here. You take away the half days, the Wednesday, and it really amounts to about 98 days. That's quite remarkable. But it's great to be back. It's great to be here.

[1440]

I know the Premier talked about the Senate and suddenly recanted it. But speaking of flip-flops, I was also expecting something in the speech about cigarette prevention. That's because last week the Minister of Health said that the province would institute a surcharge on MSP premiums for people who smoke, and 24 hours later the Premier said: "I think it is a slippery slope for government to start applying MSP premiums based on people's personal behaviour." We expected to see it in the throne speech, but it's obviously another flip-flop from the government that seems to be rudderless, hon. Speaker.

It's also great to see so many members, particularly on the opposite side, who are going to have a job for at least another 17 months. I wish some of my constituents in North Delta could have that kind of security. I know we have a place of work called BEL-PAR. Workers, my constituents, are worried about that, because some of the furniture they make for the school district or for the Ministry of Education is now being made somewhere in California. So I have some great concerns on the job front.

I also have to say that I'm really curious why we're even having a throne speech. I was sitting in my office last Monday when we began this, before all of the pomp and ceremony began. I looked across the way at the boutonnieres. The members opposite were wearing this wonderful floral display, and I thought about all the jobs it was creating, the jobs created by simply the throne speech itself.

You know, I was listening and sitting down in my office, and I heard the 15-cannon salute. There was lots of powder and lots of smoke, which is what we can expect from this government. It's typical when you talk about gunpowder, for example, which was used for bringing forward the throne speech — a mixture of sulphur and charcoal and potassium nitrate, all the natural resources to enhance our jobs. Yet again, like most of our natural resources, they go somewhere else, and the gunpowder came from somewhere else to introduce our throne speech.

When it comes to value-added jobs, it seems to be lost in this government. You know, hon. Speaker, the guns

[ Page 7986 ]

were blazing, and the marching band was playing. We had the singing of God Save the Queen , and by the third or fourth gun — the third sound, the fourth sound — we started having O Canada . A 15-gun salute — and where there's smoke, there's fire.

No, the thundering that tested the seismic order of this Legislature, the pomp, was really welcoming us all back. It's more, really, a question of firecrackers lit prematurely before Halloween, an explosion of happiness, of wonderment and delight. Or is it really a symbol of the detonating or the imploding of the B.C. Liberal government?

Didn't we have a throne speech last year, earlier? I know there's a reason for all this pomp, but wasn't it a little over the top? Like, what was in the throne speech? Nothing, nothing of any relevance. We've heard it before from the Liberals.

Budgets — let's talk about previous throne speeches. September 2005, we had the improved support for seniors. What has happened? We're still in chaos, relative to our support for our seniors. In 2006 we had a throne speech that concentrated on the children of B.C., and to this day we have the highest poverty rates in all of Canada. Disgusting.

What do we do? We regurgitate something new. We're going to call it families first.

In 2007 we had a throne speech that was all about housing — how the housing starts were going to bolster the economy — and here we are today. You know, housing is in the ditch. Then in 2008, on the back of a Premier's napkin, we came up with something called the climate change. What a joke that has become. In 2009 the recession was starting. We had the "building stability and confidence" budget and throne speech — increased taxes. It didn't happen. Instead, we are running a deficit over the next five years.

[1445]

In the following throne speech, 2010, it was "building on the momentum of the games." Well, what a joke that turned out to be. Where is that stimulus? Where is it? We also had in 2011, this spring, the need for a prudent, cautious, far-sighted budget and throne speech, and we learned that the CEO of B.C. Ferries has these huge, exorbitant salaries.

So the status quo is still there. It currently exists. Who wouldn't want to admit that? The B.C. Liberals. But I dare not call them B.C. Liberals anymore. It isn't a throne speech by the B.C. Liberal government. No, it's the Premier's party's throne speech. I mean, they're changing names sort of like Teddy Roosevelt did with the Moose Party. No, I think it was called the Bull Moose Party. But we're not going to talk about bull here in this Legislature. No, no — not at all.

We're here because we didn't have an election. We are here for a throne speech instead. There is very little in this throne speech about the environment. You know, I'm sad to hear that the member for Chilliwack-Hope is no longer going to run, but he's doing great work in the view of the incineration file. I didn't see that in the throne speech — about how the asthmatic conditions up the valley are going to now, perhaps, change. What a real shame.

He did really good work on the Species at Risk Act, but I think it's the B.C. Liberals that are at risk, the B.C. Liberals that should be red-listed. They're the ones that need protection. They are the species, I think, that are dying.

B.C. Liberalsaurus — I think that is what we should call it now. Forget the new name of the party. It's attacked by a new malignancy called B.C. Conservatitis. It's taking them on. That is why the band played on, that's why we didn't have an election, and that's why we have this phony throne speech.

The Premier really doesn't have a mandate for the throne speech. I guess we did have an election. It was called the HST, an election and subsequent polling that show the B.C. Liberalsaurus can't fight against its own induced political climate change. Lots of guns and lots of smoke on Monday.

In today's Vancouver Province the editorial said the following regarding the throne speech: "The legislative program is nothing more than a patchwork of disconnected, off-the-cuff trivialities rather than a serious vision for the province and its citizens." That sums it up. That's what this throne speech is.

Let's talk about the HST. The government has spent over two years defending the HST, and the public has lambasted this government's position and handling. The government believed that father knew best, and what we have today is a lack of trust.

Where is the plan to execute, to move on with the people's mandate and finally get rid of the tax? This throne speech prides itself on families and on jobs. But why does it not move quickly to not only restore trust but restore the economy and give families consumer room to enhance the retail economy?

Regarding the housing market, where is the movement to remove the HST on housing sales and material to get the market moving again and create real jobs?

Jobs. Remember the 2007 throne speech and the budget for 2007 — "building a housing legacy"? Oh, the accolades, the promise. Yet we had more smoke on Monday, regurgitating something that has already failed. No action on the HST — therefore no jobs.

Why is it taking so long? Here's what the Premier said regarding quick turnarounds. "You know, when I talk about change, one of the changes people are going to see in government is we are going to move fast." That's what the Premier said. She said that as a newly elected leader of the party. "We will move fast." And here we have an HST that's mired in slow controversy.

I guess the B.C. Liberalsaurus is a clumsy, awkward animal. It can't move according to the political change.

[1450]

[ Page 7987 ]

Regarding housing, there is no way buyers are willing to wait for change. We need jobs now. We have empty subdivisions that sit with foundations poured and that are ghost towns. In North Delta we have infill lots that sit idle. Throughout British Columbia thousands upon thousands of workers could be working today if the B.C. Liberals could adapt and become swift.

Framers, electricians, plumbers and drywallers sit waiting. Retailers with building inventories are stagnant. We want jobs, so let's start the wave. Let's not wait for 2013.

You know, in my community we have a store, Home Hardware. It was there for 20 years. It shut down. It shut down a month ago.

The throne speech talked a lot about jobs. I quote: "Education and skills training should allow…British Columbians to earn a living in their own town. We are establishing regional workshop tables with seats for community, industry, First Nations and labour representatives to collaborate."

Since the Industry Training Authority was created in 2003, labour has not had a seat at the table. The government has yet to address many systemic issues with the ITA as identified in the Auditor General's report of 2008.

The budget this government is currently working under has cut the funding for the ITA, the training authority, by $3.3 million. It talks about the need for skilled workers and how they're going to come forward with all this training. Well, obviously, if you don't have the budget, the throne speech is all fluff.

ITA has failed this. The Red Seal program has collapsed because of this notion of modular training. High-skilled sector workers have told us in Delta…. We have a huge industrial area in my community. They've told us that they can't find the skilled workers. They have to train themselves.

You know, there's a lot of snorting going on over on the other side, but really, that is a species that cannot adapt to changing times.

We're talking about jobs. In the throne speech it talks about the B.C. jobs plan and through which the B.C. jobs plan has now changed the name of what the government has been proposing — the foreign trade zone into the international trade zone.

Jobs in my community are somewhat port-related. But what's happening here is that the supply chain industries are good jobs in support of the Asia-Pacific. What the government is proposing is a free trade zone, a state within a state that's going to have its own regulations, its own authorities, its own deregulation of labour standards and environment, and less corporate taxes.

Now, I only want to talk briefly…. The Premier has said and the throne speech says: "We will reach out to help B.C. companies entering Asian markets. We will be better equipped to welcome foreign investors through a new hosting and business development program. The Premier also will lead a provincial trade mission to…China this fall to build and strengthen relationships forged over the past decade and to identify opportunities for the next" decade.

Yet HD Mines, a joint venture recently formed between the Huiyong Group of mines — this is from China — has six months to bring workers to Tumbler Ridge before the LMOs expire. Now, HD Mines near Tumbler Ridge has already received permission to hire 92 foreign workers from China for their proposed coal mine — trained in China. So where are the jobs for British Columbia? You're bringing this investment from Asia, but the foreign workers are coming from China. Is that the new job plan for British Columbia? That is the job plan.

The province is responsible for enforcing labour standards, but we know what's happened. We know what's happened to the forest tree farmers up at Columbia, you know. They were scammed by labour contractors. We know what happened to the mushroom workers. They weren't protected.

The second pillar to the throne speech of the B.C. job plan is "making sure that the right connections are in place through investments in smart infrastructure. Building Canada's Pacific Gateway will continue to be a massive project, performed hand in hand with local governments."

Local government — what a joke. There's a freeway running through my community. There was no consultation. They're just ramming this thing through. They've put a new alignment that's supposed to go somewhere down by the river. They're now pushing it up in the back doors of a community that had no choice but to buy into it.

[1455]

You know, it goes on to say: "Our province has a special duty to ensure that marine ports and airports linking Canada to Asia and the rest of the world are the best they can be. The government is making significant new investments…at Deltaport."

What are those investments? It's going to be an international trade zone, foreign trade zone — deregulation, zero taxes, on and on. That's the blueprint behind the throne speech. And what are we seeing here? I quote some of the language. The foreign trade zone will need "guest workers" to survive. They're not calling them foreign workers. They're calling them guest workers.

So where are these jobs for British Columbians? The temporary workers program is alive in B.C. with little protection for those workers. The Sauder school of economics has referred to this so-called international free trade zone as a race to the bottom. So those are the underpinnings of what this throne speech is all about.

Now, on the health front the throne speech talks about helping families. But as the government states: "Families can extend beyond bloodlines to one's support

[ Page 7988 ]

network of friends and mentors. How we define them is a personal choice." A personal choice. Tell that to the challenged adult who, at the age of 18, moves from one ministry to the next.

How we define families is a personal choice. But what about the elderly grandmother whose children unfortunately are on the street — they're addicts — and she has no support? She's part of a family, but her position in mainstream society may not fit the criteria. Her husband is gone, but she still has to pay the bills. Define the family.

Take the case of Verna, 98 years old, in my community. Privatized health care workers won't even make her a pot of tea because they are afraid that her son might take a sip. Yeah, that's what is going on out there. Home care has been privatized. And the other part of it is that the son has a part-time job trying to make his way through it all. It's jeopardized, because the scheduling is not meeting the needs of his mother.

We're seeing the continual loss of Meals on Wheels, and therefore a lot of seniors are forced to take care outside the home into assisted living, costing us more money.

Let's talk about health care, families and jobs. There is nothing new in the throne speech regarding health care. All the comments are simply reiterations of past commitments. The expansion of Surrey Memorial Hospital was announced before the 2005 election by the then Premier, who said shovels would be in the ground by 2007. The expansion has been re-announced countless times by B.C. Liberalsaurus.

Oh, and let's not forget the former Minister of Health's commitment in June 2010 that by 2015 there would be a doctor for every British Columbian. Currently the BCMA estimates that a quarter of a million British Columbians don't have a doctor even today. Families and jobs, and the hatchet job in home care.

The private sector jobs — probably the end of our health care system, as we know. In Delta we had something called Delta Home Care, a non-profit. It used to be small and community-based. Delta Home Support Services was changed over a year ago, reduced the number of organizations. They had control of a budget. Home used to be excellent. Delta was a community-based system. It was contracted out to Saint Elizabeth and to Comcare and now over to Riviera, where we're seeing a great loss of jobs.

A new contract for the Fraser Health Authority, Riviera — Surrey, North Delta, New West, Burnaby — a huge U.S. corporation. It's changed, and the wheels are now falling off the system — and the loss of jobs. Scheduling is based now on profit and therefore will change with no respect to the client needs.

So we're talking about family. Yes, but this side believes in only one family, and that's the needs of the corporate family. Riviera-operated home care is run like a franchise and is losing their workers. There are no performance audits regarding the organization scheduling, and the accounting department and the call centres are located in Toronto.

No supervisor to check out the scene. It has been so depersonalized. Everything is automated — voice mail. Patients are in need. These are patients that need real need. The right hand doesn't know what the left hand is doing. Lots of turnover. Loss of morale.

[1500]

Now, workers only get a few gloves at a time to commute to their different homes. That may be good. They have to go back and forth on their own time to get the medical gloves. Think of that.

It's all right, I suppose, if the gas attendants are going to fill their cars. That means more jobs for them. But the system is falling apart.

Delta Home Care used to be locally controlled, could talk and persuade and get them going relative to their personal needs. Now there's no local control. It's understaffed, and the people there are overworked. Training has decreased, and scheduling is dispatched on availability and not on personal care needs.

There was one person, a lady in my constituency, who needs range of motion in the morning — she has MS — to get going, but it's all rescheduled. Sometimes she's lucky that that person comes, and when the person comes, the person's untrained.

The Premier better redefine family and the notion that all jobs come from the private sector, because if you have no oversight, no compassion, you have no family or any healthy workplace.

Now I'm going to conclude by talking a little bit about the throne speech and its reference to bullying. It states: "Important anti-bullying policies in our schools will be expanded to include a comprehensive training regime, on-line reporting tools and advanced threat assessment tools and protocols."

Anti-bullying is necessary, but so are so many other things, as well, in our curriculum. We have to re-enhance physical education, for we're seeing children who are becoming obese. The arts have been cut. We need creative minds. Today we have over 16,000 classes that have over 30 students or more than three IEP students.

On the anti-bullying, I held many forums in my community over the years. I have a real good understanding what it means. Anti-bullying is going to be part of curriculum, which is wonderful, but let's not forget what the slogan is. "Bullying stops here."

Bullying stops right in this House. The Premier has been touting an anti-bullying agenda but has yet to take action to protect the victims of bullying across the province. Victim service has been cut to the bone.

The budgets…. You know, it's all now up to Crown prosecutors. They have very little resources. If you're lucky, you have the local police, which may give you some assistance.

[ Page 7989 ]

But who is the bully? "Bullying stops here." What is it called? IhateJohnCummins.ca? I'm sorry. Ican'ttrustJohnCummins.ca? Unprincipled? Can't trust? Hate ads, negative ads? Who's calling the kettle black here?

"A new beginning. A new start. We're going to have no negative advertising." But this province, the provincial government, is going to run an anti-bullying campaign, and it's got its own cyberbullying going on at the B.C. Liberal website. Go check it out. That's where the bullying really starts.

Under the municipal auditor general, also mentioned…. Our provincial Auditor, in his last report, said that the government's own bookkeeping is unacceptable — accounting errors, information not auditable or misleading.

We've seen what happened with the massive creative bookkeeping with the Olympics, the megaproject not cited as part of the deficit, and now we have a government that's extolling the need for a municipal auditor general, when our own Auditor General says that for a government that strives for transparency and unaccountability, its own recordkeeping is "unacceptable." It's pointing fingers.

Let's define the municipal auditor general, define who interprets, because some of the most compelling arguments by the Auditor General go unheeded by its own government.

In conclusion, the throne speech proves that the Premier's plan is largely an exercise in repackaging existing plans and programs, heavy on self-promotion and light on real action. This is a government, frankly, that is out of gas. It's out of ideas. It's regurgitating the old, having spent the past two years completely consumed by the debate on the HST.

[1505]

I want to describe what this government is. I'm going to give you these words. "More and more, it's abundantly clear" — in the approach of this government, or of this leader opposite — "that…positions are simply not credible, and it shows that she has no real plan for our province, our economy or our families. On these significant issues, the public wants certainty and clarity, not more doublespeak and misdirection."

That was from the current Minister of Education on February 2, 2011, during the B.C. Liberal leadership…. So we knew. Even on that side most of the members had projected where we're going to go with the leadership of the current party.

This is a budget that lacks clear job targets. It leaves vital investments in people out of the equation. It fails to offer anything for many sectors, such as forestry, tourism, communities and the green economy.

In conclusion, hon. Speaker, I'm hopeful that in the next six or seven weeks we'll get some substance when we debate the throne speech further and what it really means, debate some of the bills. Let's get onto the real job here in making this province work.

J. Yap: Thank you, Madam Speaker, for this opportunity to take my place in the debate on the throne speech. It is an honour and privilege of all of us to take

part in this debate, and I'm certainly honoured to have this opportunity, as other members of this House.

For the benefit of those who are tuning in around the province to Hansard TV and watching the comments of different members, we've just heard a member of the official opposition go through his comments about the throne speech, which I was listening intently to — the member for Delta North. I believe that before I get into my remarks, I do need to address a few of the points he attempted to make, just to bring a little balance, because viewers around the province who are tuning in might be wondering.

First of all, I think, quite frankly, that it's the height of irony that the NDP are trying to be the defenders of jobs. Why I say that is because when they last held the levers of government — that, coincidentally, is the period of the 1990s, from 1992 to the year 2000 — per-capita economic growth fell to dead last in Canada in British Columbia. We became a have-not province. It's important that we remind ourselves and British Columbians of that decade.

We know that the NDP prefer not to be reminded about that period of time when they were in power. During that decade British Columbian businesses recorded the worst rise in business bankruptcies in Canada. That was between 1994 and '98. Business bankruptcies grew 12 percent in our province while, actually, they fell 13 percent nationally.

It's been said — and, again, worth repeating for the record — that the '90s were a time of growth, of expansion around the continent of North America and the world. But here in British Columbia, thanks to that NDP administration, B.C. was falling further and further behind economically. Jobs were being lost. We were last in job creation between '96 and 2000, and we were, for that decade…. Truly, that was a lost decade.

The other point I'd like to specifically refer to. The member for Delta North decided to make reference to certain political ads. I should suggest, respectfully, that he look in the mirror, because I do recall a certain advertising campaign referring to a crunchy cereal that is on the Internet, which is clearly very much a personal attack ad that the NDP have themselves put out there. So they should look in the mirror, respectfully.

[1510]

I'd like to get to my comments on the throne speech. I'd like to start off, first of all, as all members do, with gratitude. I'd like to give some thanks, first of all, to the people of the constituency of Richmond-Steveston for giving me the privilege of representing them here in Victoria.

[ Page 7990 ]

I'd like to thank the people who make it possible for me to carry out my duties as an MLA, both here in Victoria and in Richmond. The staff in Victoria are top-notch.

The people that help me — including Mario Miniaci, my research officer; Jeff Melland, my communications officer; Rob Scherf, my new legislative assistant, who do a great job for me here in Victoria. And I'd like to say a word of thanks to my departing legislative assistant, Andrew Leyne. He's moving on to a new opportunity, and I thank him for his great service.

I'd also like to thank my staff in my constituency office — Paige Robertson, PoWah Ng and Christiana Wu, who do just a great job on my behalf serving the people of Richmond-Steveston in Richmond.

They do a great job, whether it's in preparing for events, attending events on my behalf, accompanying me at events, preparing newsletters — all of the work that a constituency assistant does, especially in helping constituents who need our help at the constituency office.

I'd like to also thank the members of my riding association, who help me on a personal basis to be a candidate and a member of this House, including a few that I'd like to mention specifically — John Taggart, who recently moved on from being my riding president; Michael Chiu, who is my riding vice-president; Ray Holme, who is the new president of my riding association; Paul Dufour; Nina Graham; and Marnie Plant, to name a few — who go above and beyond the call of duty in volunteering their time to serve all of us through this political process.

Last but certainly not least, I'd like to thank my family — my wife, Suzanne, my daughter Lisa and my son Michael — for their love and support as I discharge my duties on behalf of the people of British Columbia and the people of Richmond-Steveston.

Madam Speaker, in thanking my family, I am reminded that at its core this throne speech is about families. It is about families throughout the province of British Columbia.

The throne speech is about helping families to have more time to spend together, about improving the education of our children, about defending and creating the jobs that help to sustain families in neighbourhoods, communities, towns and cities around the province. And it's about helping those who are most vulnerable in the extended families that we call communities.

Our new Premier has made families and jobs that sustain families the central core priority of our government. Our new Premier, our government, provides — and this throne speech outlines — a positive and optimistic vision for our province. I'd like, as I go through some of my comments, to highlight a few of the key parts, from what I see, of the throne speech that tie back to this great vision, this positive vision.

I'm very pleased that the throne speech makes good on the Premier's promise to add a new holiday, very appropriately called family day. This will be a great opportunity for all of us in the province to spend a bit more time with our families and to remember our loved ones just a bit more during that time of the year in February.

This new statutory holiday will be phased in, with the first one to happen on February 18, 2013. This will allow business to prepare and plan for this transition to this new statutory holiday.

[1515]

On education. As a father, I can tell you, as any parent can tell you, that a good education, a great education, for my children is a primary concern. Especially, as we all know, we are in the period of our history that is commonly referred to as the knowledge economy at this juncture in the 21st century. That's why I find the promise in the throne speech, the promise to modernize our education system, to be so exciting.

In the highly competitive environment of the 21st century we cannot afford to stand still. B.C. has to be competitive. B.C., our people, has to be given the opportunity to be competitive, and we must always improve.

We have a great school system in British Columbia, as you know, Madam Speaker. I've had the opportunity, as MLA, to visit all of the schools in my riding. I meet so many dedicated, passionate teachers who all care about developing their students, who are the leaders of tomorrow throughout our communities.

In Richmond, as I reflect back on the experience of my own children and their time in our K-to-12 system, I can think of so many great teachers who've touched their lives and have helped shape them — as you have shaped, Madam Speaker, in your past experience as an educator, young lives that will be one day our leaders.

As I thought back to those teachers, one, for example, stands out in thinking of the teachers that helped to educate my children. Teachers like Ms. Rebeca Rubio, who is a teacher at my children's high school, McMath Secondary in Steveston, that was the leader and the organizer of a great program called the Explorations program.

Many high schools have a similar program, where there's a focus on not just the regular curriculum but an enhanced and enriched program where the students are challenged to seek knowledge and to work as a team to have really great experiences in their education.

As I thought of the impact on my two children, the work of teachers like Ms. Rubio has really provided that great education which I know will stay with them for their lives.

There are many great teachers, like Ms. Rubio, with a passion for educating, and this throne speech holds the promise to help our teachers deepen their skills and further develop their skills. The skills our children need to learn from their teachers for the 21st cen-

[ Page 7991 ]

tury require a 21st-century curriculum and approach. We're going to help our teachers to gain these skills, and I'm very pleased that the throne speech makes that commitment.

It's also very important that we ensure that our schools are a safe environment, our communities are a safe environment. I'm pleased that the throne speech makes a commitment to two important initiatives in this area.

First, we're going to make sure that the thankfully very small number of individuals who abuse the authority and the trust that their students have in them will be removed from the education system — that these people will be removed. We'll make sure they will not return.

We'll also introduce measures to further reduce bullying in our schools, build on the important anti-bullying policies in schools and expand on them to include comprehensive training, tools for on-line reporting of bullies and advanced tools to enable advanced threat assessments. Our students, our youth deserve a safe and secure learning environment, and we're going to make sure they have that.

On jobs. This throne speech is very much a focus on jobs. Unless a family is very wealthy, it cannot possibly thrive unless there is a good job, and good jobs available is the key.

[1520]

As we have heard other members of my caucus in their comments about the throne speech, it is so important that we encourage the creation of private sector jobs, good-paying jobs that will help sustain families, communities, regions and our entire province.

This is a crucial time for our province — indeed, a crucial time for the world, as events of the last few months have shown. Thanks to the good, prudent fiscal management of our government over the last ten years, B.C. is in a great position to weather this economic storm that is gathering. We saw the impacts of the very serious — well, probably the worst — recession since the great depression of 2008-2009 and the impact on families and communities.

We are just recovering from that and are now seeing that there is a potential for a slowdown in the economy. Whether it is in our largest trading partner, the U.S., or whether it is in Europe, the signs are very troubling: the economic turmoil that is gathering, the impact on potential investment, the impact on financial markets that have an impact on the ability of the private sector to create jobs.

This is a crucial time for our province, and yet this is a time of opportunity, an opportunity for B.C. to take its place, to build on the strengths that we possess. Here are a few of them that we all should acknowledge. I know we won't hear members of the opposition talk about them, but I'll recite a few of them.

We have great assets, including an educated workforce. We have great natural resources. We all know that. We are blessed with great geography, being right here on the Pacific, the gateway between the Asia-Pacific and North America and beyond. We have a strong fiscal position, a triple-A credit rating, prudent debt-to-GDP levels and, importantly, competitive taxes.

This throne speech builds on the jobs plan which was recently unveiled by the Premier. The plan, appropriately named Canada Starts Here: The B.C. Jobs Plan , is a great plan to bring together, in a very focused way, the resources and to be very focused on creating the environment that will lead to investment that leads to jobs.

We heard the member from North Delta belittle — that's the only word I can think of, belittle — the private sector and their role in job creation. The fact is that it is the private sector that creates jobs. Government doesn't create jobs. We enable the creation of jobs. This jobs plan, Canada Starts Here , will enable the creation of jobs in B.C.

There are three pillars to this jobs plan, also referenced in the throne speech. The first one is to ensure that we are as effective and efficient as possible, to allow business to get on with doing business. That means to ensure that the permitting process is as efficient as it can be without sacrificing standards.

This is evidenced by our great and important emphasis on helping major projects receive the review and the approval that they need through the proposed major investments office, which will allow some of the very fundamentally important projects that will lead to investment and job creation in our province to proceed, as well as the jobs and investment board that will help lead to the investments that we require in our province.

The $24 million that has been committed to support the natural resource ministries over the next two years will also help to eliminate backlogs in the authorizing of the very important projects that are being proposed.

The second pillar is the one on infrastructure. We need to ensure that we are able to move our goods and services efficiently and effectively through our province.

[1525]

We know we have the advantage of geography. We know we are three days closer to the Asia-Pacific, a day and a half there and a day and a half back in terms of the normal sailing time. That's an advantage that we can take advantage of if we have the infrastructure to support the trade flows that will happen and will grow. It's not just imports but also in highways and bridges, and we're making these investments.

In our community we have a number of infrastructure projects that are contributing to the Asia-Pacific gateway, most importantly the airport. Canada's second-most-busy airport, the most important economic generator in Richmond and, indeed, one of the most important economic generators in our province, YVR, is a great airport, a great asset that is a vital part of the gateway.

[ Page 7992 ]

Of course, we also have the Canada Line, hugely successful, that has, way ahead of schedule, exceeded the expectations and is a successful public transit system, moving people efficiently within Richmond and Vancouver and beyond.

Another one that I have to mention, Madam Speaker, is the Highway 91 Nelson exchange, which recently opened and which you had a hand in supporting. It's a great project that now allows for the more efficient flow of truck traffic along the Highway 91 corridor — again, that smart infrastructure that will help us as we build our economy.

We need to continue to build on our assets, and one of our greatest assets is our diverse population. We know, we hear all the time, that we are blessed with having the most diverse population, here in B.C., in our country. The Lower Mainland is as diverse as it gets, and it is a great asset.

Many of the newer Canadians who are here in our communities are from the Asia-Pacific, and that provides a great base on which to continue to build cultural and trade links with the Asia-Pacific.

I'm very pleased that the throne speech talks about increasing the opportunities for immigration, in particular investor immigrants, and we look forward to a review of immigration so that we can continue to see the benefits of the needed flow of immigrants into British Columbia to help build our province.

Foreign students. They are a great asset, not simply because they're going to come here and get a great education and, potentially, move back to their home country. Even if they do, we have someone that will be familiar with British Columbia wherever they got their education, and it would be a natural fit for the B.C.-trained foreign students, when they go into business, to do business with British Columbia and Canada.

Madam Speaker, as you know, many foreign students choose to stay here after they gain their education — a great investment. I'm glad that the throne speech talks about increasing the number of foreign students by 50 percent.

The third pillar of the jobs plan Canada Starts Here is about opening up markets for our goods and services. We are and always will be an open trading economy of just over four million people, and our continued prosperity and continued growth as a society depends on ensuring that we provide continued opportunities to grow investment and jobs through trade.

The benefit of that is quite clear — more jobs, stronger communities, more revenues for government. We're able to use those revenues to further invest in the important services that British Columbians require, whether it is health care or education.

We have been and always will be trading, and the United States will always be an important trading partner for British Columbia. But we should always, as any prudent business will do, diversify our markets. I'm very pleased that while we already have historically strong ties with our Asian trading partners, our government is making a very focused attempt, a focused effort, to further build on those trade links.

[1530]

One way is to open up Asian markets through the export of liquefied natural gas — LNG. Our government has committed to helping develop three LNG terminals by 2020 to supply the Asian market. We have the opportunity to supply the booming markets in Asia, and we should. British Columbians want us to take advantage of this opportunity.

We're also going to double our trade presence in such vital markets as China and India, the two fastest-growing economies in Asia, by making sure B.C. companies have the help, the support they need to enter these markets.

We have businesses that are already successfully exporting and will continue to work on increasing their business in the Asian markets.

For example, in Richmond we have a very successful seafood company called Tri-Star Seafood, led by their chairman, Claude Tchao, which is a very successful seafood exporting business, creating growth in employment in Richmond as they try to satisfy the demand for British Columbia seafood in the Chinese market. We're going to see more success stories such as Tri-Star Seafood.

The Premier's trade mission, which is coming up in a month, will be another great opportunity for British Columbia to showcase all that we have to offer, to really focus with the trade delegates that will go to China and to India with the Premier to further market our products.

It's part of this important pillar of the jobs plan — marketing our provincial assets, marketing what we have to export to the markets that are looking for our resources, for our services. I'm very pleased that the throne speech makes reference to this commitment.

As we continue to develop and prosper, it's important that we continue to help those who are vulnerable. I'm glad that the throne speech makes a commitment to partner with innovative non-profit groups to find new and creative ways to help those who are vulnerable in our communities.

There are so many examples. The one that comes to mind is the great work of the Richmond Society for Community Living and its high-energy executive director, Janice Barr, who has a great team that serves the people in Richmond — not just Richmond but primarily Richmond. I've had the opportunity to see the good work that they do at Richmond Society for Community Living and the real impact that they have on their clients in my community.

I have the privilege of representing the great constituency of Richmond-Steveston, and my community is blessed with so many people who care about community, who care about making our community a better

[ Page 7993 ]

place. I'd like to mention a few of the outstanding local groups. There are so many of them, but I want to highlight a couple of them who really work hard as volunteers to make my community a better place.

For example, groups like the Steveston Historical Society, led by tireless volunteer Bruce Rozenhart. This is a society that works hard to preserve the heritage assets within historic Steveston village, an important legacy for our children and their children.

Another group, the Gulf of Georgia Cannery Society, led capably by Ralph Turner and his wife, Edith Turner. This museum within Steveston's last standing fish cannery is a great testament to the historic contribution of the cannery industry to Steveston.

[D. Black in the chair.]

There is a group which includes the two that I've mentioned. There's a group of about eight that proudly call themselves, informally, the group of eight and that care about Steveston and meet on a regular basis as a cooperative group of volunteers in Steveston to try to improve things in the community, whether it's in seniors care or beautifying and improving our waterfront and the riverfront in Steveston.

[1535]

I'd like to thank them for their volunteer service. This throne speech will allow us to continue to work with and to encourage non-profit groups.

In conclusion, I'm very honoured to have this opportunity to speak in support of the throne speech. This is a throne speech that looks to support families, with an emphasis on jobs — jobs that will sustain families and support neighbourhoods and communities and will help build our province. This is a throne speech that puts families first, and it's a visionary plan that will help British Columbia continue to move confidently forward.

C. Trevena: I rise to respond to the throne speech. I have to acknowledge that I'm very happy to be back here doing my job as one of the members of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition. That's one of the things we're elected to do. We're elected to represent people in our constituencies, to talk to people in our constituencies. Many of us have critic roles that involve talking to people across the province as we shadow ministers.

Part of our job is to ensure that their voices are heard here in this Legislature and, when the government comes with ideas and with legislation, that we as the opposition can stand and question it, can challenge it, can sometimes agree with it, but we can actually be that voice of opposition.

Unfortunately, in the last year, as I think many people are aware — sadly, quite a few people aren't aware, so I thought I should reiterate it — we have only sat for 24 days. I know that B.C. has a somewhat skewed reputation in the political world, but I think that this has really made us the laughingstock across the country and possibly across the Commonwealth for the lack of sitting time, thanks to the government, in calling us back.

We have fixed sessions of the Legislature, and very sensible they are too: two months at this time of the year, where we're supposed to be discussing legislation, and then about four months in the spring, where we can have a very honest debate about the budget that the government tables.

Since I was elected in 2005 — and I am very honoured to represent the North Island and have been so honoured since 2005 — we have had about two fall sessions, and last spring went by the wayside completely. I'm very happy that we can be back here. We can be discussing policy ideas. We can be discussing legislation. We as the opposition can be holding the government to account, can be questioning them.

At this point, in the throne speech, it's our opportunity to talk about many things. I will be focusing on the speech itself. I shall also be focusing a bit on my constituency and, obviously, on my role as the critic.

I would like to take this opportunity to give a heartfelt thanks to my staff in my constituency office, who, whether I am there or not, are the people who make things work; who are the representatives for me when I'm not there; who are the faces, always smiling, for any constituent who comes in; who are there to listen to the troubles, to try and find solutions, to work as advocates.

For Lynne Stone, my full-time assistant, and for Sandra Doran, my part-time assistant, I give my whole heartfelt thanks. They make my life so much better, and they make the life of so many of my constituents so much better. So for Lynne and Sandra, thank you very much.

I am very pleased to be, as I say, standing here to respond to the throne speech. The previous speaker, the member for Richmond-Steveston, talked about the vision in this throne speech. I find that very interesting, because the Premier herself has been saying: "Let's use imagination." In the couple of days that we have been back in the Legislature, she keeps talking about imagination. I think that we really are hoping to see some concrete ideas rather than the ethereal imagination and vision.

What I have to say is that what we have been presented with…. This whole throne speech debate, in fact, is really one of huge ego and huge arrogance. This throne speech is completely unnecessary. We didn't have to prorogue the House. We haven't had an election. We haven't had a full year, as I've just mentioned. We have had 24 days since our last throne speech.

[1540]

While I admit…. Going back over what I said in the last throne speech, I was talking about how thin that throne speech was. Well, this one has an equal lack of substance but a real lack of necessity.

[ Page 7994 ]

To have a throne speech when we have no reason to prorogue the House, when we haven't had an election and we haven't got a budget coming up, is purely for the Premier's own desire to raise her profile. It's yet another photo opportunity. Yet we have to question this, both for the reality of why we're having it and, secondly, for the cost.

We keep hearing from the government about how they are going to be looking after taxpayers' money, which I have to say is a phrase that really does distress me, because once you pay your taxes, it is the public's purse, so we are talking about the public's money. They are constantly talking about how they are very fiscally responsible and how constrained they are, yet we have a show of pomp and circumstance.

We have the boutonnieres, as my friend from Delta North mentioned. We have the parades. We have the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. We have a Lieutenant-Governor coming through in his full regalia to come and address us. We have a reception.

For what? For something that was not necessary. For something that has no substance and gives nothing but a little bit of profile to a new Premier, who has actually been in the job for six months and is clearly running out of photo opportunities.

My colleague from Delta North spoke before me and quoted, as I intended to do, from the Province newspaper, surprisingly. It's very rare that we on this side of the House are going to quote the Province newspaper, particularly the editorials. But the Province actually does say this morning: "The legislative program is nothing more than a patchwork of disconnected, off-the-cuff trivialities rather than a serious vision for the province and its citizens."

It also states…. This is what I find very telling. It's not just myself as a member of the opposition who is trying to question the government's reasoning and rationale, but the Province newspaper says that the "minor initiatives" that are in this package "seem more focused on giving the Premier the chance to make announcements than any serious attempts to fix B.C.'s many problems."

There is absolutely no substance and no solidity in this throne speech. This is a time when people are…. We keep getting the question: are they optimistic? Are they happy? Are they smiling? Aren't they smiling? This is a time when people are looking for answers. People are unnerved by what's happening in Europe. They are very worried about their future.

I represent the north Island, which is a most beautiful place. It really is a gorgeous location, with very strong, resilient communities. But these communities have taken a hammering over the last years, particularly with the change in the forest industry — the fact that we now have no mills in Campbell River; the fact that we are seeing people leave the community and not come back, particularly young people. As they leave for post-secondary education, it's very rare that they come back. We're constantly having to fight to defend health care services, to defend education.

People are looking for more than photo opportunities. They are looking for answers. What we get instead is a few gewgaws, a few promotional things and a few things that are frankly very, very worrying, like the sudden decision to televise the Stanley Cup rioters when they get to trial, which has been described variously as political meddling and, I think, a dangerous move — for the executive to move into the sphere of the judiciary.

We have very distinct roles in our system: the role of the executive — the role of the Legislature and us, as I've described, in the opposition — and the role of the judiciary. The executive should not mess with the judiciary. It should be very clear that they can keep separate. I'd be very interested to see what the judges decide on whether to allow cameras in the court, but this public shaming of people is not the way that we should be going forward.

[1545]

The Premier, in the throne speech, described the Stanley Cup riots as a "dark stain" on the province. I have to say that what is a darker stain on the province is the poverty levels in this province. Some of those poverty levels are a direct result of what the Premier did when she was in government before, when she was a minister in government before, when she was Deputy Premier before.

While we come in and we're supposed to have this great new voice, a new look — and hence, we have the throne speech — we have to remember that — there was an interlude on a local radio station, and we still get those sorts of radio station responses — the Premier had a very central role in government and paved the way through some of the actions taken when she was Minister of Children and Families and when she was Minister of Education that have left us in the situation we are.

Last week I had the privilege to talk to some students and some interns from Europe, across the continent — from the Czech Republic, Spain, U.K., Ireland, right across the board. Their first question wasn't about politics here. It wasn't about how our system works compared to the European system.

I was all prepared to talk about federalism in Canada compared to federalism in Germany and to compare our parliament to the Scottish Parliament and other analogies. Their question was: "How can you allow the poverty that you have in this country? How can you allow the poverty you have in Vancouver?"

A number of them that came said: "We came as Europeans to Canada to see this wonderful country. We came to British Columbia. We thought it was supposed to be a beautiful place, yet what we have seen is poverty. How can you allow that?"

It's a very valid question. How can we allow that? Unfortunately, with this throne speech, we are not go-

[ Page 7995 ]

ing to get any answers. What we're going to get is the continued entrenchment that we have seen for the last ten years of a government that has just given over the reins to the corporate sector, given up on the people of B.C. and given up on some of the most vulnerable in B.C.

That is why I'm doubly concerned when we keep getting this concept that we have a family-first agenda, that we are looking out for families before anything else. We have a cabinet committee on families.

This is a government that has seen — and I know they debate it — the worst level of child poverty for eight years now. It has gone up consecutively from 2002 through to today. I cite 2002 because that was the start of the cuts brought in by this government and brought in by the now Premier, the then Minister for Children and Family Development.

It's shocking that we have to try and defend…. We can't defend this level of poverty. To try to explain to people why we have such levels of entrenched poverty….

We talk about child poverty. Every child is a member of a family, and that's a mother's poverty, a father's poverty, a brother's poverty, a sister's poverty. It has become so much the norm, and this is what is so disgusting.

I was at a meeting in Port McNeill the other day, in my constituency. It's a wonderful organization, the Mount Waddington Health Network. It brings together people from across the region of Mount Waddington. It was brought together to work on public transit for the community, just to get people to their health appointments, and has expanded to be a very good conversation, bringing together not-for-profits, government organizations, part of the health authority — right across the area — to talk about health issues and other issues.

They were talking about housing when I was at the meeting a couple weeks ago. It went without notice, really, when someone from the school district commented that dozens of children go to school in Port Hardy hungry. It has become so bad that people don't stop and say: "That is so wrong." This is B.C. in 2011, and we can just accept that dozens of children go to school hungry? If this was Dickensian London, we would be shocked, but in B.C. it seems to be okay.

We get from the government this totemic call — families first. How can you put families first when you could ignore the most vulnerable, when you are doing nothing to fight poverty?

[1550]

I have the privilege of being the critic for Children and Family Development, and it's a very big role. There are a lot of issues there, a lot of concerns and, I've got to say, a lot of gaps. I know that we have a new minister and a new deputy minister that have made big promises, but we have a lot of gaps. I think those gaps have been exemplified in this throne speech, because there was nothing there for the children who need it.

There was nothing there for those dozens of children who go to school hungry every day in Port Hardy. There was nothing for child care for the children with special needs, for the children with mental health problems. Across the board, there was a big, big hole.

We have heard the government talk about a family lens, and that means we're going to get more StrongStarts. Well, StrongStarts, I think, for most people, are an opportunity for parents or caregivers to go with their child to a play-based learning centre. They aren't child care.

I was talking, in fact, last night to child care workers who were saying that they know of people who are facing homelessness because of child care, because they cannot afford child care. They can't afford to give up their jobs, because they live in the Lower Mainland. They need to work. They are two people working. Their maternity leave is finished. They cannot afford child care.

The government will say: "Oh, we've increased our subsidies; there are more people claiming subsidies." But people who are working are not entitled to subsidies, and they are going broke because of the cost of child care. So we have a gap there.

We have, in fact, the failure to address a significant issue that would really deal with many families' concerns and would be a huge family focus. But there are in B.C. only enough licensed child care spaces for about 12 percent of the province's children — 12 percent licensed child care spaces.

If the government was serious about its jobs plan, which I'll get on to in a few minutes, and if it was concerned, really, about the fate of children and the fate of the province's future — because if you look after children and give them a good start in life, you're going to give a better future; I think that that is well proven — they would have been addressing that in both this throne speech and in the jobs plan.

But these were a big gap, a big concern, particularly when we keep hearing that this is families first, families first, families first. I don't know how often we're going to hear that it's families first, and I don't know how desperate the families have to be for any change.

A couple of other things on my critic role. Since the Premier has taken over as Premier, since she was elected by her party to be Premier, there have been a couple of very significant reports from the Representative for Children and Youth.

The Representative for Children and Youth, as I think everybody knows, is a non-partisan office of the Legislature, there to advocate for both children and young people up to the age of 19, for those who are in care of the government, to provide oversight for the ministry, and to investigate critical injuries and deaths of children and to review them.

A couple of the major reports that have come out since we have had the new Premier. One was entitled Isolated and Invisible , and it was about a special needs

[ Page 7996 ]

girl who was found alone with her dead mother — a very, very sad case. Another recently was about an infant death. It was a review about how this child and his mother…. The family moved, so the file moved from on-reserve to off-reserve care. So nobody really knew who was responsible for this family.

Both very different reports, both very significant reports, and that's why the representative investigated and wrote the reports.

[1555]

What was at the root of the problem for both these reports was, again, poverty. Isolated and Invisible — the girl and her mother were severely poor. They weren't even getting income assistance. They weren't even getting welfare. They were living in a trailer park. They were lost from the system. They had been lost by the system. Likewise the case with the infant death; it was poverty underlying their situation.

While I'm not asking or expecting a response in the throne speech to those significant reports, I would have hoped there would be something to deal with the abject poverty, the systemic poverty, that causes so many problems — that causes the problems that the Ministry of Children and Family Development and the Minister of Children and Family Development have to pick up on to ensure that children can get a good start. But there was nothing in this.

Nor was there anything for the other families that I think the majority of people in B.C. would put themselves in — the middle class. If the Premier had really wanted to put families first and wanted to address the needs of families, one of the things she could have done is speed up the hand-back from the HST to the PST and the GST. This insecurity and the extra costs for another 18 months is going to cost families a fortune.

We've already seen, over the last year, the cost of this tax. Now people in B.C. have spoken, and whether you like the referendum process or not, whether you think this is the best way to have tax policy or not, this is the decision from the people of B.C.

Yet the government has decided simply to ignore it and has not given those families that would have benefited from it the head start, given them the advantage and said: "Okay, well, we know that we've got to move it back. It won't be overnight, but it'll be faster than 18 months, so you can have some certainty."

You'll know that when you're buying your kid's clothes, your 12-year-old who happens — because we have some healthy 12-year-olds — to have to wear adult clothes, you're not going to have to pay the HST on it. When you get that cup of coffee, you're not going to have to pay the HST on it.

Likewise, if the government had really wanted to do something for families, it could have done something to deal with the caseloads for those workers who deal with children with special needs.

We hear a lot of the time, obviously, about what's been happening with Community Living B.C. for the adults with special needs. It's quite traumatic what we hear daily about adults with special needs. But the parents of children with special needs are likewise finding huge problems with wait-lists just getting the special help that their children might need.

Again, if this had been addressed, if the government had looked and said, "We want to do something for families. We will help with the cases. We'll make sure that we've got trained people there. We'll make sure that we've got health workers in communities around the province. We'll make sure that families don't have to try and get to places well beyond their communities, well beyond their means because of the cost of transportation. We will ensure that we get that help in the communities," that would have been something for families. But again, it was ignored.

There are a couple other areas I want to touch on and then move on to talking a little bit about my own constituency and the lack of help from the jobs plan — a couple of other areas where families have been let down by this throne speech.

One is that there was nothing in this throne speech which helps families where there is a case of domestic violence. Somehow it's ignored.

If, and we only hope that it doesn't happen, a woman is killed — and it is so often a woman who is killed in a case of domestic violence — I bet you the government will be all over it, saying how bad it is. But it has done nothing, at a time when it could have done something, to stand up and say: "We want to ensure that there is good action to prevent an increase in domestic violence."

[1600]

I say this in families because this has such an impact on families and it has such an impact on the children. Again, if we want to ensure that we have a healthy society, a just society, a fair society, a society that looks after everybody, we've got to look after the most vulnerable. It's missing.

Likewise, what's also missing — and I guess that I shouldn't be too surprised about this — is the loss of the unit that looks after, or did look after, trafficking of women and of peoples. Again, it's something t