2008 Legislative Session: Fourth Session, 38th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 18, 2008

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 26, Number 6

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Page

Introductions by Members

Tributes

Jeneece Edroff

Hon. G.

Campbell

Introductions by Members

Statements (Standing Order

25 B )

Allan Matthews

C. Wyse

Black History Month

D. Hayer

Faith-based organizations in New

Westminster

Puchmayr

Kathy Barnett

McIntyre

Cariboo dogsled mail run

Simpson

North Shore Community Resources

Society

Whittred

Oral Questions

Definition of revenue-neutral

C. James

Hon. C.

Taylor

Ralston

Hon. R.

Thorpe

B.C. Hydro and independent power

producers

Horgan

Hon. R.

Neufeld

TransLink board remuneration and

transit rates

Karagianis

Hon. K.

Falcon

Ferry fares

G. Coons

Hon. K.

Falcon

Trevena

ICBC rate structure

H. Lali

Hon. J.

Les

Funding for sexual abuse

intervention program

Simons

Hon. T.

Christensen

Point of Privilege

B. Simpson

R. Hawes

Petitions

C. Wyse

Throne Speech Debate

(continued)

M. Sather

R. Hawes

S. Fraser

Hon. T. Christensen

C. Trevena

D. MacKay

M. Karagianis

Hon. K. Krueger

[ Page 9731 ]

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 18, 2008

The House met at 1:34 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Introductions by Members

C. James:

All of us in this Legislature know that it's impossible for us to do our jobs if

not for the support of family and friends in our lives, and I have two such

friends visiting me in the Legislature today. They moved in on my street as

neighbours and became close friends — we raised our children together — and are

a very important part of my life. It also happens to be Pat's birthday, so I

would like the House both to wish her a very happy birthday and to welcome Pat

and Allan Miller to the Legislature.

Tributes

JENEECE EDROFF

Hon. G. Campbell: We all in this Legislature have heard of

Jeneece Edroff, a young girl from Saanich who at the age of seven years old

started to raise money in her school for children in Variety Club. In her first

year she raised $164. She suffers, as I'm sure members will remember, from a

rare disease known as neurofibromatosis.

Her family receives support through Variety, but Jeneece thought

she could go out and talk with kids in the community, go around the community

and try and raise resources for other people. She started when she was seven.

I'd like to tell the House that this year alone she raised $400,000. She can now

say that she has raised $1.1 million for the children of British Columbia, and

I'd like to congratulate her for that exceptional feat.

[1335]

Introductions by Members

N. Macdonald: I'd like to

make a couple of introductions. First, I'd like to welcome Tara Taylor. She is

from White Rock, and she is with Bram Rossman, who is from Invermere and was a

journalist in Invermere and has just returned from Central America. If you could

join me in making them welcome.

Secondly, it's my privilege to have my wife Karen here with me,

and my daughter Danielle and my daughter Brandy. They're joining us, Danielle

for the first time. Please join me in making them welcome.

Hon. O. Ilich: I, too, have a member of my family here

today. My son Matthew is here to watch the proceedings today, and he is joined

by my administrative assistant from my office, Jane Wong. Would the House please

make them welcome today.

C. Wyse: Indeed, it must be family day here in the

Legislature. I have three introductions I would like to make. I will start off

by introducing my daughter to the House, Anne Marie Wyse, who is visiting us

from Alberta. I would also like to introduce to the House Al Matthews, who is

formerly from Cariboo North. Al now lives here in Victoria. Finally, I would

like to recognize Roxanne Carr, who is a councillor with Strathcona county in

Alberta, in ward 2. I would ask the House to indeed make these three individuals

welcome.

J. Brar: Up in the gallery I have a couple of friends I

would like to introduce to this House. We have Jaspreet Singh Kahlon, who is

specially visiting us from San Francisco, and we also have Ranjit Sandhu, who

lives in this beautiful city of Victoria. Please make both of them welcome.

Hon. R. Thorpe: As you are aware, Penticton this year will

celebrate 100 years. On behalf of the Centennial Committee of Penticton, a book

has been prepared by the Penticton writers and publishers and all kinds of other

volunteers in Penticton. On behalf of Penticton, it's my pleasure to present

this book to the Legislative Library of the Legislative Assembly.

Statements

(Standing Order 25

B) ALLAN MATTHEWS

C. Wyse: I am particularly

pleased to address the House today to acknowledge a man who has recently been

recognized for his volunteer work. This man is a volunteer who has given his

time, his talents and his heart to his community, and he's in the House today.

Allan Matthews, my friend and longtime colleague at Columneetza Secondary School

in Williams Lake, was recognized for his volunteer work and was inducted into

the B.C. Hockey Hall of Fame in January of this year.

He has devoted his time to young people through teaching, through

his sponsorship with school teams in the Kootenays and the Cariboo and through

his work in hockey. Mr. Matthews was chair of Hockey Canada in 2005, culminating

more than 30 years of involvement in hockey that included minor hockey, Junior

A, Junior B, Canada Winter Games, Northern B.C. Winter Games, team manager and

team coach.

He was president of the B.C. Amateur Hockey Association and has

accompanied hockey teams to tournaments throughout Canada and around the world,

has been education consultant for the under-18 team at world championships and

was Hockey Canada's delegate to the International Ice Hockey Federation from

2003 through 2005.

He has received the Hockey Canada Volunteer of the Year Award, the

Hockey Canada Minor Hockey Week Award, the Dunk Jamieson Award for outstanding

volunteer service to the game of hockey, the city of Williams Lake certificate

of merit and the Queen's Jubilee medal.

But Al Matthews's volunteer work is not limited to hockey. He has

chaired the Williams Lake Parks and

[ Page 9732 ]

Recreation

Commission, was secretary of the Williams Lake new arena fundraising committee

and has served on many committees of the school district where he has taught.

Al is a fine citizen, an excellent role model for others and a

worthy recipient of the many awards he has received. Please join me in

acknowledging my friend, my colleague and a very fine man, Allan Matthews.

[1340]

BLACK HISTORY MONTH

D. Hayer: Mr. Speaker, the observance of

February as Black History Month is particularly significant to British Columbia

as we celebrate the foundation of this province 150 years ago. It's significant

because our founding father, Sir James Douglas, was black, son of a Scottish

merchant. The history books describe his mother as a free coloured woman from

British Guiana.

To further ascribe the multicultural history of our founding

father, on a fur-trading trip to Fort Vancouver on the Columbia River in what is

now called Washington State, he met and married Amelia, whose history was native

Indian. It is with great pride, as the Parliamentary Secretary for

Multiculturalism and Immigration, to recognize the incredible mix of cultures

that has existed in British Columbia since its birth in 1858.

In fact, it was Governor Douglas who encouraged the first

immigration to British Columbia of people other than Caucasians. He actively

encouraged blacks from Africa to come to this new colony. On April 25, 1858, the

first black settlers arrived at Fort Victoria.

Interestingly, despite the long and deep roots that people of

black descent have in our province, it was not until February 1994 that the

British Columbia Black History Awareness Society was formed.

Mr. Speaker, I want you to take note that history was created in

our Parliament Buildings when Rosemary Brown became the first black woman ever

to be elected to a Canadian legislature. I would also be remiss not to

acknowledge one of your forerunners to the chair, Speaker Emery Barnes.

I ask all the members in this House to honour the enormous

contributions that the black community has made to British Columbia not just in

modern history but right back to the roots of our province 150 years ago.

FAITH-BASED ORGANIZATIONS

IN NEW WESTMINSTER

C. Puchmayr: Many faith-based

organizations in my community do so much to assist those who have so little.

Saint Barnabas Church has a small congregation, yet feeds so many people. They

are the host to recovery programs, a child care, a drop-in program, a native

artists gathering, a thrift store and an annual Christmas dinner. Shilo–Sixth

Avenue United Church has a food bank and a drop-in centre as well as recovery

programs. St. Aidan's is active in the Grow-A-Row food planting program, and the

Wood Street Khalsa Diwan Temple is active with many other temples in the region

in feeding the homeless in the downtown east side.

The Gospel Mission is very active daily feeding the homeless in

New Westminster, and the Salvation Army runs most, if not all, of the emergency

shelter beds in New Westminster.

One can only imagine what it would be like without the assistance

of these organizations, especially now as we see an alarming increase in

homelessness — not just with young people. It's with seniors and those with

mental illness as well.

There is a common denominator amongst these and other

organizations in New Westminster, and it doesn't matter what your spiritual

beliefs or faiths are. I'm sure there are many other communities in British

Columbia that are blessed in this manner and are trying so desperately to assist

those less fortunate. It must be a daunting task, as many congregations have

seen a decline in their growth over the years. Yet we see that in a time of

need, extraordinary things will happen, and it's extraordinary to see so many

get out and help those in need.

KATHY BARNETT

J. McIntyre: I rise today to

pay tribute to a woman named Kathy Barnett, who on January 30 was taken from us

prematurely when she was killed by a motorist while on holiday on a cycling tour

in New Zealand with her husband and business partner, Bob Barnett.

Born in 1958, she did not quite make it to a full 50 years,

although she accomplished much in her active lifetime. I only had the privilege

of knowing her for several years, but from the grief and the shock and the

tributes that poured in when the news hit the Whistler community that they had

lost one of their true leaders, you can see what a tremendous influence she had

on those who knew and loved her, those she volunteered with and those who worked

with her.

Kathy was co-founder and publisher of the Pique Newsmagazine

and served tirelessly for numerous non-profit organizations and local charities.

She was an active member of several boards, including the Whistler chamber;

Tourism Whistler; the Women's Enterprise Centre, founded by western

diversification; and the Community Foundation of Whistler, of which she was a

founding member.

[1345]

She also served on the

Small Business Roundtable for our Ministry of

Small Business and Revenue, where the minister and her colleagues will miss her

forthright views and her work ethic. She had an infectious laugh and a twinkle

in her eye, and she'll be sorely missed by all.

I'd like to read the poem from the celebration of her life held

February 10 in a packed conference centre in Whistler, as it suits her to a T.

Tributes to her were flowing, and there were tears and laughter. She'll be

remembered always as a mentor, role model, good friend and an inspiration to

businesswomen in B.C.

Kathy Barnett, I see your eyes in the snows of winter,

sparkling like diamonds, floating through the air.

[ Page 9733 ]

I hear your voice in the birds of spring,

laughing and joyous

on the first warm breeze.

I witness your accomplishments everywhere I go,

reflected in the faces of friends, and friends unmet.

Gone too soon, remembered too well,

missed too achingly, with us everywhere.

CARIBOO DOGSLED MAIL RUN

B. Simpson: This

year the kickoff event for B.C.'s 150th anniversary took place January 24 to 27

in the Cariboo. It was the 16th annual running of the Gold Rush Dogsled Mail

Run.

The dogsled mail run follows the old Cariboo wagon road, which was

one of the first infrastructure projects of the fledgling Crown colony, and I'm

quite certain it wasn't a P3. During this event, mail is specifically sent in

specially designed envelopes. It's transported for three days in the basket of a

dogsled through the sites of six former or existing post offices, including

Barkerville, which is the fifth-oldest operating post office in the province.

In fact, all the mushers had to be sworn in as letter carriers

before they could head out on the trail. That included the Minister of State for

ActNow B.C. and myself, even though we only participated in the ceremonial

start. The trail runs for a hundred kilometres starting in Quesnel, with

overnights in Cottonwood House and at Troll Ski Resort. On the final day the

mushers go through Stanley and Barkerville before finishing in Wells.

This year there were 33 dogsleds; 28 finished. They were from

Australia, Germany, the U.S. — California, Minnesota and Washington State —

Northwest Territories, B.C. and Alberta. There were also cross-country skiers,

skijorers — which I think is suicide on skis, as it's dogs pulling a skier —

showshoers and snowmobilers.

As I said, the Minister of State for ActNow B.C. and I

participated in the opening ceremonies and the ceremonial start. I have to say

that the community is still abuzz about the stance the minister took on the back

of his four-dog team, and there's a video that people can look at if they're

curious.

Seriously, though, it takes a community to put on such a

successful event. There were 16 committees and 65 volunteers. Special note goes

to Jeff Dinsdale, Eileen Seel and Lynn Yorkas, and a very special note to Terry

Johnston and the crew who prepared the trails.

I ask the House to thank these volunteers for such a great kickoff

event.

NORTH SHORE COMMUNITY

RESOURCES SOCIETY

K. Whittred: North Shore Community

Resources is a non-profit organization with a strong focus on supporting their

employees. In fact, they were recently recognized for this leadership. On

February 1 North Shore Community Resources received a 2008 WorkLife B.C. award

of merit.

The WorkLife B.C. awards recognize B.C. employers who have

developed workplaces that support their employees to balance commitments for

work and for family. They recognize the challenges that families face in

balancing children's dental appointments with professional responsibilities.

Flexibility in the workplace is increasingly becoming a priority

for employees. Employers who understand this can help employees juggle the

demands, responsibilities and choices they face both at home and at work. Chosen

from hundreds of applicants across the province, North Shore Community Resources

are deserving recipients for their outstanding commitment to the needs of their

employees. By allowing flexible work hours, the ability for employees to bring

children to work and the understanding that elderly parents often need care,

North Shore Community Resources truly is an example to the province.

[1350]

Also, as a multiservice agency, North Shore Community Resources

includes North Shore Child Care, Resource and Referral, Information North Shore,

Volunteer North Shore and seniors one-stop information centre. Having all of

these valuable services in one office creates a bit of a one-stop shop of

support for many North Vancouver residents.

Once again, I would like to give my heartfelt congratulations to

North Shore Community Resources, who are now recognized across the province for

their commitment to help people balance family and work.

Oral Questions

DEFINITION OF REVENUE-NEUTRAL

C. James:

For months there has been widespread speculation that the government is going to

bring in a new gas tax. Both the minister and the Premier promised that such a

tax would be revenue-neutral. Unfortunately, the Minister of Finance's shifting

and confusing definition of revenue-neutral has caused much uncertainty. Maybe

today the Minister of Finance can clear up that confusion for us.

I'd like to ask the Minister of Finance what her definition of

revenue-neutral is. Is it a tax shift or a shifty tax?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Hon. C. Taylor: Ah, very clever.

As the opposition would know thoroughly, I will make no comments

on the budget until tomorrow.

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has a

supplemental.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

C. James: I'm actually not asking the Minister of Finance

to speak specifically about what might be in

[ Page 9734 ]

the budget

tomorrow. I'm asking her to speak about her definition of — what she means by —

revenue-neutral. She's been all over the place in her comments about the true

definition of revenue-neutral. She's defined revenue-neutral, in fact, as a tax

grab.

Again, my question to the Minister of Finance: what definition of

revenue-neutral is she going to use tomorrow — the one that's actually found in

accounting notebooks or the one that she's made up in the last while?

Hon. C. Taylor: I'll make no comments on the budget till

tomorrow.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

The Leader of the Opposition has a further supplemental.

C. James: I certainly heard the Finance Minister say she

can't talk specifically about the budget that's coming out tomorrow, but she

certainly has raised lots of concern from families over the last month with her

definition of revenue-neutral. This Finance Minister has talked about

revenue-neutral as taking in a new tax and using it for special projects. So I

think families deserve an answer. They deserve an answer about what kind of

definition the minister is using for revenue-neutral so that they know whether

this government once again is going to pick their pocket tomorrow.

Again to the Finance Minister….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Just take your seat for a second.

Members, let's listen to the question and listen to the answer.

C. James: Again, nothing to do with the budget tomorrow — a

very simple, straightforward question for the Minister of Finance. What exactly

is her definition of revenue-neutral?

Hon. C. Taylor: I am sort of disappointed that the opposition

has no questions that they actually want to ask the government today, so I will

say that in terms of the budget I will answer questions about the budget very

happily not only tomorrow but for as long as the session lasts.

[1355]

B. Ralston: My question is for the Minister of Small Business and

Revenue. In 2005 and 2006 his ministry conducted a review of the provincial

sales tax. Participating businesses were told that their proposals had to be

revenue-neutral. Can the minister advise the House what definition of

revenue-neutral he used in that review?

Hon. R. Thorpe: In fact, we conducted some 21 consultations

around the province of British Columbia. The net results were 13 changes brought

in, in Budget 2007, putting $120 million over three years into the pockets of

individual British Columbians and small businesses.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

The member has a supplemental.

B. Ralston: I'm going to ask the same question again,

because there is obviously not an answer forthcoming. What definition of

revenue-neutral did the minister use in the review he conducted?

Hon. R. Thorpe: I thought it was pretty clear that we

conducted 20 consultations throughout the province of British Columbia. I

thought I was clear that this was…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. R. Thorpe: …the most comprehensive review of the

provincial sales tax in the history of the province of British Columbia,

designed to streamline and simplify things. I also thought I pointed out that

$120 million was put back into individuals', businesses' and small businesses'

pockets in British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, let me just remind the members on that side of the

House that they voted against putting money back into British Columbians'

pockets.

B.C. HYDRO AND

INDEPENDENT POWER PRODUCERS

J. Horgan: Nothing from the tax

collector; nothing from the debt collector. Let's go to the third prize here:

the Minister of Energy, responsible for B.C. Hydro.

Since 2004, B.C. Hydro rates have gone up 11 percent. B.C. Hydro

projects a 25 percent increase between now and 2011. Can the minister confirm

that his ideological fixation with private power is compromising the ability of

B.C. Hydro to manage the energy resource for all British Columbians? And will he

say, now that B.C. Hydro can buy power where it finds it, to do so in the

interests of ratepayers, not in the interests of your friends?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. R. Neufeld: I'm appreciative that my critic is

actually asking me a question about IPPs, when he has been going around the

province telling — or spreading, I should probably say — rumours that aren't

quite true.

Let's go back in history a bit when….

Interjections.

Hon. R. Neufeld: No, actually, they're not true.

[ Page 9735 ]

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Choose your words carefully, Minister.

Hon. R. Neufeld: When he was a political hack in the NDP

government…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. R. Neufeld: …in the Ministry of Energy and Mines….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Through the Chair, please, Minister.

Hon. R. Neufeld: It was the NDP that built the largest

natural gas–fired plant on Vancouver Island — 250 megawatts — and signed a

contract with a United States company, an independent power producer.

On top of that, they were so wise that they took the cost, and

they spread it across Fred and Mary. Fred and Mary — Fred and Martha, to tell

you the truth — will actually have to bear the cost of the natural gas that goes

into that plant. They didn't even have the wherewithal to make sure that that

independent power producer had to actually absorb that kind of cost. That's how

smart they were.

Of all the people to stand up and complain about IPPs….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. R. Neufeld: This group has opposed….

Sit down, Member. You'll get your chance.

Mr. Speaker: Take your seat, please.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

[1400]

Hon. R. Neufeld: This group has opposed every green power project

in the province of British Columbia — every one of them. They have opposed it

unilaterally in here and out on the street. That's unacceptable.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. We want to hear the question and hear

the answer.

The member has a supplemental.

J. Horgan: I had ten cents on how long it would take to get

to the 1990s, and I just lost it because I thought you'd give it a little bit

more time than that. If we could harness the hot air that comes out of that

minister, we'd have more megawatts than we'd know what to do with.

I realize this isn't a mutual admiration society, but a modicum of

respect to ratepayers on that side of the House is in short supply. That's for

sure.

Will the minister stand in this place and for once defend British

Columbians, instead of independent power producers, and defend the people who

built B.C. Hydro, the best Crown corporation in Canada? You guys have wrecked it

in six short years.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Just wait.

Members.

Just take your seat, please. Take your seat.

Members, Members.

Hon. R. Neufeld: Let's go to a little bit of history. I

know it bothers the member over there, but let's….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Take your seat. Just sit down.

Hon. R. Neufeld: Okay, we'll just take some more time.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. R. Neufeld: If they are so opposed to independent

power producers, why in 1996…? That was the dark decade, remember, Member.

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Member.

Hon. R. Neufeld: B.C. Hydro purchased $89 million from IPPs.

Can you tell me why, if they're so bad?

Mr. Speaker: Member, through the Chair.

Hon. R. Neufeld: In 1997 B.C. Hydro purchased $90 million

worth of electricity from IPPs. In 1998 B.C. Hydro purchased $114 million from

IPPs, and in 1999, $105 million.

It's hard to understand how in the 1990s it was okay for that

group of misfits to actually purchase electricity from IPPs, but today there's

something wrong with it.

Mr. Speaker: Just take your seat for a second.

I want people to be very careful in how they choose their words. I

want members to listen to the question and listen to the answer. If we want to

continue with

[ Page 9736 ]

question period,

we're going to show a little bit of a sign of respect for both sides.

TRANSLINK BOARD REMUNERATION

AND TRANSIT RATES

M. Karagianis: My question today is for

the Minister of Transportation. While transit fares in British Columbia have

increased to being the highest in Canada, the minister's handpicked TransLink

board has met in secret and given themselves a pay raise that amounts to half a

million dollars — dollars that should have gone into transit fares rather than

their pockets.

Will the minister confirm today that he will roll back those

inflated wages?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. K. Falcon: I guess I'm left wondering if indeed the

writers across the way really are on strike, because I got this question last

time. Anyhow, I'm happy to answer it again for the benefit of the members

opposite.

The members will know that a special committee chaired by former

New Democratic Premier Mike Harcourt made a recommendation to the TransLink

board — the new professional board — to receive compensation based upon what

similar authorities like the Vancouver Airport Authority or the Fraser Port

Authority would be earning. I get that it's a lot of money for average folks,

but we're asking them to be responsible for their

part in implementing the

largest transit investment package in the history of the province.

[1405]

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

M. Karagianis: Currently in British Columbia we have the

highest transit fares in the country — $10 for a rider to go from Surrey to

downtown and back. That is more than a lot of people earn on the minimum wage in

this province today. This government has sanctioned their handpicked TransLink

board to have a 500 percent pay increase.

My question to the minister was whether he would step in and roll

back those inflated wages. I would ask him to take a further step to roll back

transit fares and make them affordable here in the province of British Columbia.

Hon. K. Falcon: Well, I guess I'll have to put it on the

record, because that's twice now that this member has stood up and talked about

TransLink having the highest fares in the country. That is absolutely false. I

just wish for once you would do your homework, Member.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Minister, through the Chair.

Hon. K. Falcon: Again, the research department of the NDP,

as always, is letting their members stand up and make fools of themselves in

front of the public. I'll put it on the record.

Montreal and Toronto charge $2.75 for a basic one-zone fare; Metro

Vancouver, $2.50; in Ottawa, $3. It's cheapest, actually, here.

Then the member says, "What about the ride from Surrey to

Vancouver?" — which I just took this morning, by the way. Member, I'd invite you

to take SkyTrain once in a while. You might learn a thing or two.

If the member wants to know what the equivalent is in Montreal,

it's about $9.50 for the same 40-kilometre distance. If the member wants to know

what the equivalent is in Toronto for the same 40-kilometre distance, it's about

$6.50. It's more than what it is here. We have a great transit system in the

lower mainland of British Columbia.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

FERRY FARES

G. Coons: My question is to

the Minister of Transportation — or minister of miscalculations, it seems. Over

the past three months I've visited 23 ferry communities and heard the stories of

this government's abandonment and neglect of those people that live in

ferry-dependent communities. Since 2003 the fares have skyrocketed and will

climb by over 130 percent by 2011.

Will the minister finally, finally take a leadership role with

this file and freeze fares?

Hon. K. Falcon: The fact of the matter is that the B.C.

government provides over $130 million a year in subsidies — a number that has

gone up every year to make sure that we keep rates as affordable as possible for

ferry-dependent communities. I might add that they voted against every single

one of those increases that were in the budget.

Let me just say this. I get that fuel prices have gone up

dramatically. There's no question. Every industry is affected, whether it's

airlines, taxis, buses or ferries.

I wish I could pretend there was a magic answer to all that, but

the fact of the matter is that we now have a ferry system that's investing

hundreds of millions of dollars in replenishing their fleet and investing in

terminals. They're providing a better level of service and more reliability in

terms of the service and are doing it very, very efficiently in terms of

managing the organization.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

G. Coons: I note that the minister didn't mention that the

provincial subsidy didn't go up for four years, and it was the federal subsidy

that was going up. Obviously, the minister is totally out of touch with

ferry-dependent communities. British Columbians deserve a

[ Page 9737 ]

real response

from this minister. But last Thursday all he had to say about ferry users'

concerns was: "Boo hoo." It's in Hansard , hon. Speaker.

If the minister won't answer my first question, maybe he can tell

us this: what exactly did he mean by "boo hoo"?

Hon. K. Falcon: I guess I'm going to have to provide a bit

of a history lesson for the member. What the member apparently forgets is that

during the '90s, fares went up over 70 percent.

The difference, of course, is this. They blew half a billion

dollars on three ferries that didn't work at all. They bankrupted the

corporation with over a billion dollars' worth of debt that had to be written

off. The corporation did not invest in a ferry fleet, which had an average age

of 42 years. It suffered from political interference of every possible shape

imaginable, and they essentially wrecked the ferry system.

[1410]

We now have a ferry system that we can be proud of again in British

Columbia and that is running well. It's being invested in. The fleet is being

rejuvenated, and we are not going to interfere the way they used to interfere

day after day after day in the ferry system of British Columbia.

C. Trevena: The Minister of Transportation is showing that

he is arrogant and out of touch with reality — the reality for families who live

on the islands, families who are being forced from their homes because they

cannot afford the fares, families who are seeing a complete neglect of what is

our marine highway, which does connect our communities.

In my constituency fares have doubled since his government has

taken office. Wages haven't doubled. People cannot cope with these increases. So

I ask the Minister of Transportation not to have a dismissive sneer, not to be

dismissive and just go, "Boo hoo," but to commit to the people of British

Columbia, to commit to the people who live on the islands that he will freeze

the ferry fares.

Hon. K. Falcon: Actually, the member should know that fuel

prices have gone up, and in every sector where fuel prices have gone up, people

have had to pay increases. I wish fuel prices weren't going up. I wish there was

a world in which we could pretend there's not a reality out there that fuel

prices are increasing.

I'll say this to the member. The amount of subsidy that taxpayers

are providing for ferry-dependent communities is the greatest it's ever been in

history. Just for the Islands Trust area alone — $55 million a year for 25,000

people. That's $55 million each and every year. And we provide additional

subsidy for those that are medically at risk, for seniors, for school trips,

etc., of over $20 million a year.

We're doing our bit to protect those that are most vulnerable, but

we're also recognizing that it is a difficult environment with the increasing

cost of fuel escalation in British Columbia.

ICBC RATE STRUCTURE

H. Lali: While the

Minister of Finance has been talking about revenue neutrality, average families

here are facing real hardship due to this government's ongoing shameless cash

grabs. You know, this government's new ICBC rate structure is hitting Metro

Vancouver families especially hard, where the rates will increase up to 6

percent. On top of that, there are unjustified new fees for additional young

drivers and arbitrarily imposed higher penalties for traffic violations.

While it makes record profit, ICBC is gouging even more revenue

straight out of the pockets of average British Columbians. However, most

families are actually paying more, not less — especially good drivers.

My question is to the minister responsible for ICBC. How can the

minister justify this shameless cash grab, and how does this fit into revenue

neutrality?

Hon. J. Les: I think this is my first opportunity to

welcome the member opposite out of the penalty box. He….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. J. Les: We'll all recall that he spoke his mind last

year, and for his trouble he was banished for a period of time. But I'm glad to

see him back.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Whoa, whoa.

J. Horgan: I withdraw, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Continue, Solicitor General.

Hon. J. Les: I think it's important to recognize that the

management of ICBC today is much, much improved over what we had in the 1990s.

In the 1990s we indeed had an insurance corporation that was nothing but a

political plaything for the government of that day. Today ICBC is being run

professionally according to sound economic and actuarial principles.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

H. Lali: Well, if there's anybody who should be in the

penalty box, it ought to be the minister responsible for ICBC, for tax gouging.

[1415]

Let me repeat again for the hon. minister that families are getting

gouged, and ICBC is making more revenue from insurance rates and additional fees

from families and good drivers. However, safe drivers are not getting the

benefits that they deserve, especially if they are living in places like Burnaby

and Surrey and other parts of Metro Vancouver. This isn't revenue neutrality;

it's a shameless cash grab.

[ Page 9738 ]

Again,

my question is to the minister responsible for ICBC. What is this minister going

to do to help average families and safe drivers with these out-of-control costs

being imposed on them by this uncaring government?

What is the minister going to do to actually lower the cost for

people who are safe drivers, especially in this province, in the face of record

profits which are actually going into the pockets of upper and middle management

in the way of incentives? None of these are actually going towards the reduction

of rates for insurance purposes.

Hon. J. Les: Well, there's a reason why there is more

premium revenue in ICBC today. It's because there's a booming economy in British

Columbia. There are a lot more vehicles out there.

As ICBC adjusts the premiums that are charged to individual

motorists, it's focusing particular attention on only those 5 percent of drivers

who have dangerous driving records. The 95 percent of British Columbians who

drive safely, who don't have an extensive claims record…. For those people the

rates are going to tend to stay the same or go down.

That's guaranteed because these rates are not going to be

politically manipulated. The corporation is in fact accountable to the Utilities

Commission, so those rates are set, as I said previously, based on economic and

actuarial principles.

FUNDING FOR SEXUAL ABUSE

INTERVENTION PROGRAM

N. Simons: The Mary Manning Centre is

under threat of closure once again due to this government's refusal to provide

it with stable funding so it can help young children who've been victims of

sexual abuse. The funding situation, in fact, is so bleak that staff therapists

are planning to use their vacation time to go on a little bikeathon across lower

Vancouver Island. Unfortunately, this speaks volumes about this government's

priorities.

My question is to the Minister of Children and Family Development.

Will he commit to funding this centre and others like it appropriately to meet

the needs of children who've been victims of sexual abuse?

Hon. T. Christensen: Members may recall that the funding

for the sexual abuse intervention program, which funds the Mary Manning Centre,

has not increased since the program was initiated in the early 1990s. So

notwithstanding ten years in government, members of the opposition chose at that

time not to pay any attention to sexual abuse victims and increase the funding

for counselling support, similarly to them not taking any effort to increase

resources for children and youth suffering mental health issues.

This government has doubled the funding to support children and

youth with mental health…. That's resulted in over 90 percent more children and

youth receiving services over the course of the last five years.

We have been involved in a review of the sexual abuse intervention

program, and I'm happy to say that that program can expect significant

additional funding resources as we implement stronger standards and

accountability and consistency for the sexual abuse intervention program. Over

the coming weeks we will be determining how that funding will be allocated among

the 49 agencies around the province that do this important work.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

N. Simons: Yes, credit to the former government for

introducing a program like this. Unfortunately, it's suffered from the lack of

funding from this government. It's had a lot of time to put some funding into

these programs. These are little children in this province who are victims of

sexual abuse. It's not something that should be delayed or hidden from the

public.

So my question once again to the minister is: can he guarantee

that program funding for sexual abuse intervention will in fact meet the needs

of the province?

[1420]

Hon. T. Christensen: I can certainly understand the members

advocating for additional services for victims of sexual abuse, much as members

on this side have advocated as well, in particular for the Mary Manning Centre.

But what I find hard to accept is the absolute hypocrisy of members who had ten

years in government in this province to pay a little bit of attention to sexual

abuse victims.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. T. Christensen: In fact, the Mary Manning Centre in

1999 — $126,000. In the year 2000 — $248,000. This last year — $314,000 to the

Mary Manning Centre.

This government recognized that we needed to improve services to

children and youth with mental health issues. That includes victims of sexual

abuse. We are doing that. We will be adding significant additional resources,

something that those members failed to do for ten whole years.

[End of question period.]

C. Puchmayr: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

Introductions by Members

C. Puchmayr: The New Westminster school district's business

China. Would the House please welcome Kathy Zhao, Lillian Yu, April Zhang and

Haddie Chen, as well as the general manager and the executive assistant, Valerie

Martinick and Cindy Tang. Please make them welcome.

[ Page 9739 ]

Point of Privilege

B. Simpson: I rise to address a point of privilege I

registered this morning.

During the debate on the softwood motion this morning, the member

for Maple Ridge–Mission argued that I had effectively flip-flopped on my

response to the softwood lumber deal. The basis of his argument was a quote from

the Revelstoke Times that he attributed to me. In fact, that statement

was made by another MLA.

Earlier in the debate the member from Kootenay East had actually

used the exact same statement and attributed it to the correct MLA. The evidence

is there in the

article from the Revelstoke Times , and I ask the member

for Maple Ridge–Mission to withdraw his claim that, based on the evidence he

presented, I flip-flopped on the softwood lumber agreement.

R. Hawes: I have a copy of the

article that was in

question. It is, in fact, very confusing in that there are some things

attributed to the member for Cariboo North, and then immediately after those

comments, it says: "It is my obligation to speak for the mills in my area, and

flawed or not, this deal is a good resolution for them."

When you read the article, it would appear it was stated by the

member for Cariboo North, but I will accept what he says. Clearly, the author of

this

article perhaps inserted this in the wrong place. It should have been

attributed, I guess, to the member from Revelstoke, who for once on the other

side does appreciate the importance of the softwood lumber agreement. So to the

extent that you've said that, I will withdraw my comments.

C. Wyse: Petition, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

Petitions

C. Wyse: From the staff at Williams Lake Seniors Village

supporting and encouraging the provincial government to appoint a seniors

advocate to deal with seniors issues, rather than the present system.

Orders of the Day

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

speech.

[1425]

Throne Speech Debate

(continued)

M. Sather: It's my pleasure to respond to the throne

speech. The throne speech had a number of references to sustainability within

the realm of climate change, and I understand we're going to hear more about

that tomorrow. But I didn't hear anything in the throne speech talking about

sustainability of the resources of this province, such as the resources that are

represented by the crown jewel of our Crown corporations, B.C. Hydro.

What we're seeing instead is a greenwashing of a presentation with

regard to independent power producers with regard to a number of other claims

that the government is making. What in fact we're seeing is the privatization of

B.C. Hydro, and what we're seeing is the disenfranchisement of the people of

this province who've been represented ably by their Crown corporation for some

considerable time.

The throne speech said that consumers will be given new tools to

save money on their power bills. Well, they better hope that's the case, because

what they're seeing now is exactly the opposite. They're seeing their power

bills going up — and going up very, very steeply.

B.C. Hydro has an application in right now, as was referenced just

recently in this House, to increase the power rates by 11 percent over the next

three years. But their projections, in fact, are for 25 percent — a 25 percent

increase in the power rates to the people of this province. Largely, and in many

respects, this can be attributed to the energy policies of this government.

We have the IPP power coming online, which this government is

beholden to and is encouraging to the detriment of British Columbians, and which

is going to raise the rates even further than that. The 2000 request by B.C.

Hydro for IPP power, the independent power producers — the private power

producers — will raise the rates an additional 8 percent alone.

So the people of British Columbia have real cause to be concerned

about where this government is taking B.C. Hydro. What we're seeing is an

absolute gold rush of independent power producers in the way of so-called

run-of-the-river projects.

I think when most people heard run-of-the-river a few years ago,

they thought they were what I thought they were: a turbine in the middle of a

river. The water runs through it and produces power. Sounds very benign, but

that's not at all what these projects are. These are private river diversion

projects, and they are diverting streams in vast numbers in this province and

not just short distances — three, five and ten kilometres and more.

There are nearly 500 streams in this province that are under

application for water licences for these private river diversion projects.

There's no public process in place anymore where the people of this province can

evaluate whether or not these projects are in the best interests of this

province. There are 200 companies involved, a lot of whom are affiliated one

with the other. When you look into it, you will see that they have a lot of

connections.

[S. Hammell in the chair.]

It was said earlier in this House that IPPs were around in the

'90s, and they were. The Minister of Energy mentioned purchases of $90 million

in '97, $94 million in '98 and $105 million in '99. That's for a total of $285

million. Well, what we're looking at is an entirely different magnitude of

involvement with IPPs now.

[ Page 9740 ]

2007 B.C. Hydro and the people of British Columbia are on the hook for $28.4

billion in hydro from independent power producers. That is a lot of cash, and

the problem is not having…. It's not about the IPPs themselves. If they're

regulated in terms of their environmental effect — and that's a whole other

subject that I don't have time to go into right now — and if there's a

competition with B.C. Hydro for that hydro, then it's a different matter. But

this is definitely open season for these folks, and they're going at it flat

out, understandably. There's tons of money to be made.

[1430]

The Minister of Energy says: "Oh, not to worry. This is only 0.01

percent of the streams in British Columbia that could conceivably be used for

IPPs." But in fact, nearly all of them that are economically feasible in the

near future, at least, are being claimed.

These water rights, which are the rights, again, of the people of

British Columbia, are being given away for a song. The water licences, the

rentals — the ancillary costs for the IPPs to produce these river diversion

projects amount to about 3 percent only of the income that they achieve.

Water, as we know, is becoming an increasingly valuable resource

in this century. With climate change happening, with global warming, water is

going to become even more essential to all of us. So it's important that the

government, on behalf of the people of B.C., steward that resource carefully.

But in fact, that's not what happens. The value of the water, the people's

resource, is not even considered as an economic value when these licences are

given out.

Contracting and privatization go together. Of course, B.C. Hydro

has been forced, through this government, to contract out a third of their

workforce — in terms of customer services, administration and so on — to

Accenture corporation. Many people will be familiar with Accenture, but probably

a lot aren't. It's a Bermuda-based company. That's a nice tax shelter

arrangement.

This is a corporation that the state of California refused to deal

with. This is a corporation that is an offshoot of the Arthur Andersen

consulting company, which was part of Enron and faced obstructing justice

charges as a result, along with a number of other folks that were so charged —

Ken Lay, Mr. Fastow, and on and on.

This is the organization, though, that we're putting in charge of

a lot of our crown jewel, B.C. Hydro. Enron, people will remember, is the

organization that brought the electrical system of California into chaos —

rolling blackouts and brownouts, and the way they operated to force contractors

to stop producing power, only to drive the prices up. What we're seeing,

unfortunately, is our crown jewel, in B.C. Hydro, passing from public hands to

private hands.

You'll notice that what this government and a lot of people that

speak for this government do…. In order to sort of facilitate this changeover,

there's been a process of vilifying B.C. Hydro. Saying that it was run-down, and

we had to privatize it, is basically what it amounts to. That's the same logic

we hear being used with our extended care homes. "Oh, the ones in place were run

down, so we had to bring in the privatized companies." That's happening, for

example, in my community.

Now, the government mandated that these independent power

producers, through the run-of-the-river projects and the wind projects, can only

be done privately. They can't be done by the people's corporation any longer.

How did the government come to the decision that they should switch from having

the people's corporation doing it to having private individuals and corporations

doing it? Did they produce any studies that show that it's justified? No, they

didn't.

What we're seeing here is that it's like renting instead of

owning. By the time we're finished the long-term contract with a private

producer for power…. We don't own the resource after that. They own it. So the

people of this province, through this government's energy policies, are moving

from owners to renters.

[1435]

B.C. Hydro could be involved in developing these alternative sources

of energy, and we would then be keeping the money in British Columbia. B.C.

Hydro, being large, has the benefit of working with the economies of scale that

a large organization can. Instead, what we see this government doing is that in

January of this year the Premier and the Energy Minister passed an

order-in-council that's going to make borrowing rates for B.C. Hydro, which has

the effect of making it more profitable for the private producers. Everything is

being manufactured to their benefit and not to the benefit of the people of

British Columbia.

B.C. Hydro also, of course, has the benefit of being able to

manage the whole grid in a unified way. With power production in the United

States — that's some of the independent private power production — it's not done

in a unified way. That has led to a lot of the problems, and we don't want to

see that happen here.

Another troubling trend, along with privatization, is the

integration of our energy system — our grid here in British Columbia — with the

grid in the United States. The American policy is a continent-wide marketplace

based on privatization. They are developing what they call standard market

designs through the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, or FERC. Regional

transmission organizations, or RTOs, are the managers of the resource. The RTO

in our case is called Grid West. That's in the northwestern United States.

FERC's mandate down there in the United States is that all

provinces that want to export power into the United States should have to adopt

the U.S. system. We should be clear that there are no international rules that

say we have to adopt the American system, and we shouldn't be. But the

Independent Power Producers Association of B.C. and Alcan are encouraging this

province and this government to join and to integrate with Grid West. I don't

doubt that the government is going to assist in doing that.

What happens then, with that integration with the U.S. market? Who

gets to export power to the United

[ Page 9741 ]

States and how

much they get to export will be regulated by the RTOs — by the American

government under their regulatory body — not by us. The IPPs will have the

option of selling power to the United States.

I know when I talked about this to one of the private river

diversion projects — the so-called run-of-the-river projects — in our neck of

the woods over in Maple Ridge, he said: "Oh no, we want to sell locally." Well,

that's not what they want. In fact, they want to sell at the highest price. If

it happens to be in British Columbia, then that's where it's going to go. But if

it's in the United States, then it's going to go there.

With this kind of system that this government, with the IPPs, is

setting up, we are going to be competing with the United States for power. We're

going to pay more, and we're seeing that start to happen already. So we should

be standing up. This government should be standing up for our power and for

British Columbians — standing up to the United States and not cooperating with

them in undermining our system. In fact, the power over our power is being ceded

to the United States, and that's a concern. Just like California was at the

mercy of Enron, we're going to be at the mercy of the IPPs.

Another key part of the U.S.-B.C. plan involves separating the

electricity-transmitting part from the producing part. The sole purpose of that

is to make the export easier for the private producers. The government says

that's a process of non-discrimination. They call that non-discrimination — that

B.C. Hydro shouldn't be able to discriminate against independent power

producers. But the people of British Columbia are being discriminated against in

the process, and the government should remember who they serve.

[1440]

Our transmission corporation, the B.C. Transmission Corporation, is

not answerable to B.C. Hydro. You know, there's also an advantage to having BCTC

remain a Crown corporation, which it is. It's that when the IPP power fully

comes into play, there's going to be a lot of need for new lines to export this

power to the United States.

Guess who's going to get to build those lines and pay for them. We

will, Madam Speaker, through BCTC. It's a golden deal for the IPPs, and it's one

that a lot of British Columbians are becoming aware of and are realizing that

there's real cause for concern.

The government says that their strategy is about providing

security of supply, but in fact that's not what we're seeing. We're seeing them

surrendering our interests to those of the IPPs. The energy purchase agreements,

the lucrative energy purchase agreements that the government is making with the

IPPs, are 20 to 40 years in length. As I said, when these expire, then the IPP

is free and clear to export their power should they want to.

American companies are buying into our IPPs at an increasing rate

too. GE, for example — General Electric — recently bought 49 percent of Plutonic

Power, which is in the process of building a large facility at Toba Inlet up the

mainland coast. They've since lent $40 million to get that going.

With more involvement of American companies in our power-producing

structure, the investor rights of NAFTA kick in. That's something that we also

need to be concerned about in terms of maintaining security of the supply. The

government says it's about security of supply. That's not moving in the

direction of security of supply.

We've seen this privatization happen in the gas industry already.

Not long ago we saw Terasen being bought out by Kinder Morgan. That's Richard

Kinder, by the way, who's also associated with Enron. This government had

nothing to say about that whatsoever and were happy to see it go.

Apparently, Westcoast Energy has also been bought out by Duke

Energy of North Carolina. It's happened. The deregulation has happened in the

oil and gas industry, and now the government is looking to make it happen in our

electricity grid as well.

The government denies that they're privatizing B.C. Hydro, but

people of British Columbia will remember, too, that they denied flatly that they

were selling B.C. Rail. We know that's in fact what they did. In fact, that's

what's happening here. Through Accenture and through the IPPs they're

privatizing B.C. Hydro.

The IPPs — their association claims that privatizing our

electrical grid is going to lead to more investment and lower prices. Well, B.C.

Hydro invests in British Columbia, so the money stays here. But the IPPs are

increasingly foreign-owned, and the money doesn't stay here.

B.C. Hydro also has some of the lowest prices on electricity in

North America. I don't think the IPPs and the price they're getting it…. It's

not going to be the case that we're going to be getting lower rates, and we see

that is in fact not what's happening at all. Privatization in the United States

has not lowered the rates.

The IPP power is expensive, as I mentioned. In 2003 B.C. Hydro

paid as much to buy the 10 percent of power that they need, which they got from

the IPPs, as they paid for the other 90 percent that they produced themselves.

The contracts, the power purchase agreements, are now going for up

to $88 a megawatt hour for IPPs. Well, the U.S. Department of Energy and others

have said that by 2018 the power is worth about $50 a megawatt hour, so they're

extremely lucrative for these organizations.

[1445]

B.C. Hydro is contracting out for a lot more power all the time. In

2006 they made a call for power, and then it went up by four or five times.

There's a real gold rush going on out there. There's a lack of oversight, and

people have real cause to be concerned.

We have huge financial obligations to the IPPs. They're considered

off-book by the government. They're not part of the long-term debt, but they

will be paid by British Columbians through higher rates and through fewer

services for the people of British Columbia. The people of B.C., through the

energy

[ Page 9742 ]

purchasing

agreements, are financing the construction of assets that will belong to someone

else.

The IPPs are also using B.C. Hydro to increase their profits. They

want to use the storage in the dams that B.C. Hydro has built to turn their

non-fixed energy. In other words, it comes in, in the spring during the spring

freshet largely, and it's gone. You have to use it as it comes,

whereas of

course if you store it in a dam, it's then fixed.

That may be all right in low-water years when B.C. Hydro has room

in their dams, but in high-water years, if they do this in order to make storage

room for the IPPs, B.C. Hydro will have to spill water. That's water that could

be used for export, to put more into social programs and other programs for the

people of British Columbia. Right now B.C. Hydro is using their storage to sell

when the price is high, and that makes a lot of sense.

Again, if a storage of IPP power essentially goes into these dams,

investor rights again can kick in with NAFTA. They have the title, I guess, in

their own minds, to continue that. The IPPs have been clear about their intent

to export. Their association said that making dam storage available to B.C. IPPs

might improve their chances of building for the export market.

There's another concern that British Columbians are more and more

beginning to have about these projects. These so-called run-of-the-river

projects are going to be able to deny — and in fact, already are denying — access by

British Columbians to their valleys, to their rivers.

Where the generator is situated oftentimes is in a narrow valley

where there's one road up the valley, and that can be bought fee simple by the

IPP. Then if you want to go into the valley, which still nominally belongs to

British Columbia, you will have to have their say-so.

In fact, even though they haven't got some of them — and we've

witnessed this in the Ashlu already — fee simple, they're already trying to

prevent people from going into Crown land, which belongs to the people of

British Columbia. Its recreational users particularly have something to be

concerned about that.

Madam Speaker, I'm going to have to skip a little bit of what I

was going to say, but there's a lot more that could be said about this.

To summarize, the IPPs are driving up…. By contracting out a third

of the workforce, they're privatizing B.C. Hydro. They're opening transmission

lines to the IPPs for export. They're subsidizing IPPs with B.C. Hydro assets

and granting exorbitant energy purchase agreements. They're destroying B.C.

Hydro's role as a driver of economic activity in British Columbia and a supplier

of affordable energy. They are allowing long-term private power exports to

undermine our long-term energy security, and they're increasing the foreign

control of B.C.'s electrical system.

The IPPs are touted often as green energy. As I say, there's a lot

I could say about that, but I don't think I'm going to have the time to go into

that today.

Another area that I wanted to talk about a little bit, which was

in the throne speech…. The throne speech claims that supports for

women fleeing abusive relationships have all been enhanced. Ouch. That certainly

isn't the case in my experience. Before I had this job, I worked in the field of

treating men who have been in abusive relationships, and what I saw was that the

policy had changed from holding those men to account for their actions to

oftentimes giving them a way out and letting them off. That's certainly not the

way to deal with the problem.

[1450]

There used to be a policy in the previous government that you got

charged if you abused your spouse, but now that's not the case. This government

also cut out the funding to women's centres, which do a lot of the

behind-the-scenes work and assistance for women who have been in abusive

relationships. They cut victim assistance funding as well.

In addition to that — and I had a friend who worked in this area —

the programs for men who are abusive to their partners has been abandoned in the

provincial correctional facilities. In fact, pretty well all programming in our

correctional facilities has been abandoned. So I don't know how the government

can say, in the face of what's actually taken place, unfortunately, that they're

enhancing services for women who have been abused. That's not what I've seen.

Another thing that the government mentioned is the program Trees

for Tomorrow. It includes urban afforestation, planting more trees in the urban

environment. But B.C. Hydro's policy is cutting down trees in Maple Ridge.

That's what I see, and I've talked to the Energy Minister about it and will

probably have a chance to talk to him some more about it.

What we see on the ground doesn't accord with what it says in here

— that there are going to be trees for tomorrow. I see the "trees for tomorrow"

in my community being cut down by B.C. Hydro, who used to trim the trees. Now

they just cut them down. It's easier, and it's cheaper, I guess. But it's not in

the best interest of a climate change approach, and it's not in the best

interest for the beautification of my community. I imagine others have suffered

the same thing.

The Forests Minister mentioned that their forest management

practices are second to none. I'm not sure what he can be referring to there.

Maybe it's second to none in closing mills, because we've seen a plethora of

those.

I'm very concerned about the mill in my town, which has recently

been threatened with closure frequently. Hammond Cedar is a strong employer in

our community. We want it to continue. The folks that work there have little

faith that Interfor is committed to keeping Hammond Cedar going. They've seen

Interfor shipping raw logs across the line and building mills in the United

States. They have a lot to be concerned about.

It seems to me that the Minister of Forests is excelling in real

estate development but not forestry management. I know he has a background in

that area, so maybe he knows of which he speaks when it comes to real estate. As

far as managing the forest resources of British Columbia, we have a lot to be

concerned in that regard.

[ Page 9743 ]

think I'll conclude my remarks there and pass on to the member.

R. Hawes: That was an interesting — if not perhaps lacking

in some facts — little diatribe.

Before I go into my comments on the throne speech, I just want to

correct a couple of the comments my colleague was making in his speech. I guess

I'll start with a couple of the latter things he said first. I didn't get a

chance to write them all down.

He talked about when the NDP were government, they would charge

those who would abuse women, and somehow the government doesn't do that anymore.

Well, the government doesn't charge people. It's actually Crown counsel that

makes these decisions. It's not the government that goes out and charges people.

[1455]

The second thing he talked about was cutting trees down and Hydro's

policy of cutting trees down in Maple Ridge. In fact, this member wrote some

letters complaining about some cottonwood trees being cut down on a dike that

was protecting people's property from flooding because it would interfere with

the raptors in the trees that were sitting there looking for food, I suppose.

The truth is that if you don't cut cottonwoods out of dikes, the dikes are

compromised, and you'll lose them.

In terms of Hydro cutting down trees, obviously trees around hydro

lines create a public danger, and they have to cut them down. Actually, in terms

of shipping raw logs from Hammond Cedar, raw cedar logs, particularly off Crown

land, do not get shipped out of this province. So I don't see raw logs, as he

explained — and I think that's what he said — being shipped out of this

province.

I want to speak for just a moment about the comments about IPPs.

First, I want to delve into a little bit of history about B.C. Hydro. When the

big assets of B.C. Hydro were built years and years ago by the Bennett

government — by "Wacky" Bennett, as he's called affectionately — those were a

lasting legacy for everyone in British Columbia.

For many, many years — I'm not going to just say it was the 1990s,

because it went on before the 1990s — B.C. Hydro has been looked upon as a piggy

bank by previous governments. Everything that could be taken from B.C. Hydro was

taken and put into general revenue by preceding governments. As a result, B.C.

Hydro was not allowed to or did not have the capital to reinvest in itself to

create more hydro generation, nor did it have an opportunity or the funds to

invest in transmission lines. In fact, when we took government in 2001, very

shortly thereafter we got reports of just how bad the transmission lines were in

this province.

We are taking steps to make sure that reinvestment in B.C. Hydro

and in its assets, which are protected by legislation, can be made. At the same

time, we recognize the debt that Hydro carries, and creating more debt by

building things like the run-of-the-river projects is perhaps not first and

foremost. It's not B.C. Hydro's forte; it is the forte of the IPPs. During the

1990s and probably before then, we did rely on some independent power

production. And yes, there will be more.

The member opposite says — and he attributed a comment to one of

the ministers — that 0.01 percent of the creeks and waterways in this province

were going to be dedicated to IPPs. The fact is that it's 0.001, which is a

significant difference. It's about a thousandth, you know. But give or take a

thousand placements, what's the difference when you're making a bunch of

statements that don't have to have too much accuracy to them?

Let's talk about things like water leases and the fact that

basically the water is being given away. We're getting a very low price. In

fact, we're getting millions of dollars from the water leases over time, year

after year. We are getting power from the IPPs, which is not what's known as

firm power. This is power that relies on the flow of the watercourse. If you

have a winter that doesn't have a lot of snowpack and the water volume is down,

then there is no power production, or it's reduced. It is a risky business.

I know that the members opposite hate anything to do with private

enterprise. Everything in the world should be in the hands of the public. When I

listen to this kind of stuff, I have these visions of these people sitting

around in a room trying to guess what these evil enemies are doing — you know,

these people who are in private business. What must they be doing to line their

pockets? It defies logic to think that the government should be the ones who

invest in everything.

Madam Speaker, the opposition talks a lot about the price that's

being paid for power from IPPs and how that will drive up prices. Well, if

you're relying on the prices that we could use or that we were fortunate enough

to be able to have — based on the assets built by "Wacky" Bennett, if that's the

base price that you're setting — frankly, you're never going to stay there.

There is new production necessary, there are new costs attributable to that, and

there are new energy demands.

[1500]

We are now a net importer of power. We can either move to where we

are energy self-sufficient, or as the opposition suggests, we can move to

relying on or continuing to rely on offshore power. We can import, from Alberta

and the United States, coal-fired or gas-generated power, not green power. That

flies in the face of the climate change policy this government has laid forward,

which frankly, I happen to believe is a good policy, a sound policy. It's one,

though, that demands that we move from the old way of producing power —

coal-generated without sequestration of the greenhouse gases.

The NDP really are speaking out of both sides of their mouth here.

They claim to be on the side of the environment, yet they want the purchase of

power from outside of British Columbia. From my way of looking at what they're

doing, they're trying to suck and blow at the same time. But that's pretty

typical of the way they've operated for many, many years.

Accenture, the Bermuda-based company…. In fact, Accenture is a

British Columbia–registered company that pays its taxes in British Columbia,

that employs British Columbians who also pay taxes. If the members

[ Page 9744 ]

opposite took the

time to read the legislation that created the Accenture agreement, they would

soon find out that there is, in fact, a profit-sharing agreement. As Accenture

grows and takes in other…. For example, in Calgary, I believe, they've signed a

contract to do the billing, etc., for a Calgary hydro company. A portion of the

profits that they'll generate will attribute back to the taxpayers of British

Columbia.

This has got nothing to do with Enron. This has got nothing to do

with Bermuda. This has got nothing to do with corporate boogeymen. This has

everything to do with a business arrangement that makes a lot of sense for

British Columbians and allows Hydro to concentrate on what it's very good at

doing, and that's producing electricity.

One more thing. The throne speech lays out the ability for us, or

our plan, to allow a look at Site C. Frankly, Site C has for many years been a

difficult topic to talk about. But I can tell you that in many parts of this

province it would be very much welcomed. I see my colleague from the north over

there applauding that. That would be carrying on in the tradition that W.A.C.

Bennett established years and years ago.

Hon. B. Penner: What's the NDP's position on Site C?

R. Hawes: Well, the NDP have not ever really stated a

position on Site C. If they have, it's probably anti, but I'm sure that it'll

change tomorrow, as it frequently does.

M. Sather: What's the Environment Minister's position?

R. Hawes: We are going to do a review. And that leads to

one more thing: the public process. The member opposite said there's no more

public process. Well, there's an environmental review process. The public has a

full opportunity to participate in that process. It is ongoing, and every single

IPP is subject to this sort of environmental scrutiny in which the public has an

opportunity to comment.

I'm not quite sure where all of this comes from, other than…. That

leads me to another part of what I wanted to talk about. When you're in

opposition, you don't really have to deliver on anything. You can say anything.

You can make up wild, crazy things that you say you're going to do, because

you're never going to have to deliver on them. So when I hear all of this stuff

that's, frankly, just a lot of misstatements and a lot of things that really

aren't very factual…. When you boil the facts right down, what's happening in

the IPP world and in the other policies the government is following actually

makes an awful lot of sense.

I want to just mention what was going on in the…. It's still going

on. Frequently, as we talk about what our policies are and we try to juxtapose

those with the policies that the NDP followed in the 1990s, we hear the roar of

indignation from the opposition side. "Oh, that's the '90s. That's old history.

We've changed." Well, have they changed?

In the 1990s what often went on would be that new programs would

be put together that would put big cost on the government but without any regard

to what the ongoing obligations and consequences fiscally would be. That's why

we ran into huge deficits. That's why they had to increase taxes dramatically to

the businesses that provide the jobs in this province. But they still don't get

it.

[1505]

They say they've changed but yet…. I'll give you some examples. We

have revitalized and are revitalizing the ferry fleet. That's going to make a

couple of the older ferries that we have redundant. We're not going to need

them. We're going to sell them. They may be sold for scrap. They may be sold to

somebody who wants to use them, perhaps in some other country or wherever.

The Leader of the Opposition is out there crying that the money

that comes from that should go to reduce ferry fees. Well, that's great. That's

a really good policy, but what about next year, after you've spent that money?

What about the ongoing obligation that it creates? But they don't think about

any of that.

We have put in place, starting in 2001, the obligation on the

government to file not just balanced budgets by the third — and I'll talk about

that in a minute, about what happened in the throne speech and how it was

delivered — but three-year rolling plans.

When the NDP were in power, they'd budget for a year. It was

edge-of-the-page budgeting. You come to the end of the year, everything falls

off, and you start fresh again. When you get a little bit of a problem in your

budget, no problem. "We'll just defer a bunch of expenses off into the next year

and worry about it next year."

We have instituted the provisions of GAAP. The generally accepted

accounting principles govern how we budget and how we report our expenditures —

a massive change. The investment world is very clear in telling us they now have

absolute confidence in what we are telling them about our fiscal position. It

has made us one of the most attractive places in the world to invest money.

The investment dealers who come and talk to us, who actually are

pretty important people because they do move a lot of money around, tell us that

now the confidence is there.

When the NDP was in power, money was fleeing here, and their

clients were looking for places anywhere else to invest money. Today we are a

target area. We are a centre where people want to invest their money because

they can have confidence in what this government is doing, unlike that previous

bunch.

The throne speech, when it comes out, is a statement of where the

government wants to go. It is a vision of where we wish to go. In 2001 we

inherited a structural deficit of over $4 billion.

An Hon. Member: Five.

R. Hawes: Well, five is over four.

We inherited a massive structural deficit. We said we would

balance the budget by the third budget out from when we took office.

[ Page 9745 ]

The

NDP at the time, the two members of the NDP that were here, spent a great deal

of time…. The members opposite, if they ever wanted to go and read Hansard

back to those days, would find many statements by the two NDP members that were

here. "It can't be done." "We won't be able to do it." "We're going to fail."

"The economy is on its knees because of us," they said — and on and on and on.

The business community said: "Well, maybe now is not the time."

Because there were tough measures that had to be taken to bring us to that

balanced-budget position. If you live beyond your means for a long time and you

get into a big hole, I don't think there are very many families in this province

who don't understand that to get out of the hole, you've got to change your

lifestyle and you've got to take a little bit of tough medicine.

We took the tough medicine because we had the courage to at least

dole it out when it had to be doled out. That's something the previous

government couldn't do. They continued with their spending spree while we had to

look at finding ways to at least bring the spending under control, create some

revenues and balance our budget. We did it exactly as we said we would do.

In 2005 in the throne speech we laid out the five great goals:

literacy, health, social safety net, environment and jobs. Every one of those

had some great vision attached to it, but that was not a throne speech that

said: "This is what we will do in the next 12 months."

This is a vision that moves on down the road. These are lofty

goals that are difficult to achieve, that take a lot of work and a lot of vision

to get to and policies that make sense. So each year subsequent to those five

great goals they do guide what this government does.

As we instil policies that bring us closer to achieving those five

great goals, it becomes clearer and clearer, I know, to the public, because I

talk to the public a great deal. They begin to really understand that we have it

on the right track. We have good control of the economy, in spite of what's

going on around us.

[1510]

At the present time there are dangers lurking in the United States

economy and in parts of the rest of Canada, and we have worked hard to insulate

ourselves as a people in this province from those dangers. We have tried to

build an economy that is diverse enough to withstand the challenges, for

example, that we're now facing in forestry. And we will see our way through the

challenges in forestry.

But luckily, the diversity and the investment capital we've been

able to reattract to this province will see us through the times that other

provinces will not be so fortunate to get through like we will. They will suffer

some economic hardships that those in this province will not.

I want to talk a little bit about this throne speech, then. What

is advancing us to where we want to be? I'll just open to a few pages in the

throne speech. To start with, we have talked and the Premier has talked for

years about the sustainability of the Canada Health Act.

The five principles of the Canada Health Act miss sustainability.

You can't have a health system for future generations if you can't pay for it,

and with the rising costs in our health system very clearly something has to

happen. That's why we had the Conversation on Health. The Conversation on Health

engaged British Columbians all over this province, and we got thousands and

thousands of submissions. As a result, we will be able to begin implementing

changes that will bring sustainability. Some of those changes are outlined in

the throne speech this year.

I don't understand why these people opposite don't get these. Why

don't they support…? I don't get it. I understand that they're in the

opposition. I understand that their job is to oppose policy even when it's

really good policy. I believe in my heart of hearts that most members on the

opposite side go home in the evening and look in the mirror and say: "Golly, I

wish I could have been a B.C. Liberal. I really like these policies." I truly

believe that.

Interjection.

R. Hawes: The member from Maillardville says it's the best

thing she's ever heard. I think she's talking about when she speaks to herself

in the mirror.

We are developing a Brain Research Centre that's going to take a

look and work with the experts in this province. Make no mistake: we have world

leaders in this province in problems like Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, dementias.

We have people in this province who are world renowned, and we're building a

centre for brain research to get on that problem, because it is a growing

problem, as everyone knows.

Everyone has someone who's been touched with Alzheimer's or

dementia or Parkinson's or one of the diseases of aging. As we are all getting

older, clearly it's in everyone's best interest that we get on that, that we

develop something that is going to actually produce good results. An investment

in that is now going to happen.

These investments, by the way, don't happen because the economy

was being run into the ground. These investments happen when you build an

economy that let's you make these investments. That's what we've done.

We are going to invest in a centre for hip health. I think

everybody knows what happens with seniors when they fall — a tremendous number

of fractured hips leading to all kinds of complications and crushing costs.

Never mind the cost to the families that are involved and the terrible

consequences that the people who suffer these falls have to live through, but

the cost to the health system is also staggering.

We have to move to a place where we now get into preventative

care. I served for a long time on both a hospital board and on the community

health committees as we looked at transitioning health care under that

government to the 52 unmanageable health regions. We talked a lot about

preventative health care.

Government after government talked about preventative health care,

and the first item that ever got cut is preventative health care. Investment in

preventative health care has been talked about for years and years, and no

investment.

[ Page 9746 ]

Through the Minister of State for ActNow, we are now seriously

looking at a major part of preventative health care — that is, how to make sure

that people exercise properly, eat properly and look after themselves. That's

how you prevent big health expenses down the road.

We are developing now a thing called the Walking School Bus to

allow kids to start walking to school in safety again. Parents all over this

province just shudder when they think of their kids walking four, five, six

blocks to school.

[1515]

I remember when I was a kid. It was over a mile to the school, and

everybody went home for lunch. And you ran home.

Interjection.

R. Hawes: That's what it was. You had to get up an hour

before the alarm clock went off so that you could get there — on and on and on.

But I do recall that as a youth everybody walked to school. There were no

parents driving their kids. In fact, they were probably lucky if some people had

cars to drive their kids to school.

The other one — and I've heard this mentioned several times in the

last week — was the bike rack at the school. Until somebody mentioned that a

week or so ago…. It's such a distant memory, but I recall now that the bike rack

was huge at all of the schools. During the day it was crammed with bikes.

They're gone. Kids are getting a ride to school with their

parents. So we're also going to develop what's called a bike train and get kids

back on their bikes and bring back those days when kids are actually getting a

little bit of exercise going to school. They can learn how to be kids again.

I do have to say that I did listen as the Finance Committee

travelled the province…. Silken Laumann came and gave a presentation about this

kind of thing, and she did talk about building communities where kids are

walking to school. The big thing that struck me with what she had to say was

that parents get involved. Pretty soon the parents get talking to each other,

and then they know each other. That's how you build community. That's something

that has been lacking.

Children should not be subjected to secondhand smoke. I've read a

number of things lately in the newspaper columns and other places — that

government shouldn't be so big and be interfering. Well, if the government isn't

going to make sure that kids are kept safe, I'm not really sure who will when

there are still some parents out there who don't seem to get it. They smoke in

their cars when their kids are there.

This is the right thing to do. I am absolutely positive, if for no

other reason, that the members opposite are going to vote at the end of the day

for this throne speech, because they would not want to vote against banning

secondhand smoke in cars when kids are present. I'm sure that they would.

There will be new patient quality review boards in the health

regions. Over and over and over we all hear of instances where people aren't

very happy with the health care delivery that they have received, for whatever

reason, where they live. One of the reasons, I guess — and it is always going to

be that way….

There are literally hundreds of thousands of people receiving

treatments in hospitals every single day in British Columbia. Of those hundreds

of thousands of cases that are handled, there is always going to be something

somewhere that doesn't go right.

The people who have to live with the consequences of something

that doesn't go right need to have somewhere to go. Frankly, it shouldn't just

be their MLA's office so they can write an e-mail and it can come up at question

period. They actually need some true answers, and someone needs to take a look

at what's going on.

These new patient care quality review boards will be charged with

the responsibility of looking at these kinds of incidents and will, I think,

provide a great deal of satisfaction in a non-political way.

Foreign doctors being allowed to practise here. Internationally

trained physicians will practise their specific areas under a new restricted

licence. I don't know about the other members here. I know what's happening in

my community.

We have a shortage of specialists in my area, and the specialists

that have come have difficulty getting licences even though they are fully

qualified. They have even practised in other provinces in this country, and they

have difficulty here. This is going to allow them to practise to their training,

and that is a wonderful thing that should have happened a long time ago. I don't

think it ever could have happened under that previous government.

The Health Professions Act is going to allow health professionals

to practise to the extent of their training. Their scope of practice will be

increased — such a sensible thing. Pharmacists should be allowed to give

renewals for standard prescriptions that people are getting over and over, and

they're going to their doctors every three months for a renewal — same renewal.

There's absolutely no reason that pharmacists, who actually have

far more training in the dispensing of medications and understand medications….

They spend a lot more time on that than doctors do. I think most doctors would

agree that pharmacists actually are the guys who are the true specialists in the

dispensing of medication. Not in diagnosing conditions, but certainly, they know

what all of the contraindications and all that around medicines are, and I think

it's a wonderful innovation. I know it will come with regulations that will

safeguard patients.

[1520]

Ambulance paramedics being allowed to release patients that don't

need transportation to the emergency ward. Gee, I know our paramedics are just

absolutely first class and are quite capable of handling that.

There are so many innovations in health care coming in this throne

speech. As you go through the throne speech, page after page of good news, great

policy, vision. That's the word, I think, more than any other word — vision. As

we went through the 1990s and we

[ Page 9747 ]

lived through

that era — the one that they don't like to talk about; they say let's forget

about it…. As you think about vision, is that a word you ever would have applied

to what was going on in the 1990s? I don't think so. No vision would be much,

much more appropriate, yes.

I am extremely proud of the throne speech. I'm extremely proud

that I know our government has worked in ministry after ministry after ministry

to look at how we can bring our five great goals into absolute accomplishment.

The only way we can do that is to continue year after year after year pushing

great policy forward, but making sure that we have an economy that allows us to

invest in the areas that need investment.

What was happening in the 1990s was an absolute dereliction of any

fiscal responsibility. We have created a situation now where all investors can

have confidence, where fudge-it budgets are a thing of the past, where there is

absolutely no thought that what the government is reporting is inaccurate in any

way. I'm very, very proud of that.

When I look at the accomplishments that we have made in seven

years and then you compare the ten years the opposition had…. The other day

someone in this House in question period heckled that we've had seven years to

accomplish something and look what we've done. Well, just look what we've done.

Look at the transformation in British Columbia over seven years.

Look at the change in confidence in people in seven years. Look at the

confidence in the business community, even as reported by the Canadian

Federation of Independent Business, where we've gone from tenth to first in

Canada in terms of business confidence. That is leadership. That is vision. That

is putting what we say and plan into action. We will continue to do that.

I urge all members to read this carefully, vote for it, and not

just that, go check with your constituents if they like what's in here. I know

they do. So I would urge the NDP to get up on their feet…. I know you can't join

our party. I know you want to, but you need to stay as the opposition. At least

vote for this sensible, sensible throne speech.

S. Fraser: I've prepared a speech, but I have to address a

few of the things that the member for Maple Ridge–Mission stated. First of all,

things to be not proud of are the worst child poverty rate in the country four

years running; the worst social indicators in the country, bar none; the worst

homeless record in history….

Interjections.

S. Fraser: I know it's considered funny, but you guys talk

to different people than we do, I guess.

The member referred to the reference to secondhand smoke in cars.

Of course, I'll want to give credit where credit's due, and that's my esteemed

colleague from Nanaimo. That's his private member's bill. It's fine for it to be

stolen by this government if it gets in place. If they want to take credit for

it, fine, but I will give credit where it's due.

IPPs. If the member previously had actually talked to any of his

constituencies or gone to the UBCM and talked to municipal leaders that this

government stripped of all authority over IPPs within their jurisdiction, he'd

know what IPPs mean to the people of British Columbia. It's privatization of our

rivers. It's piratization of our rivers.

[1525]

Now, back to my speech. I am proud and honoured to represent the

people of Alberni-Qualicum, to fight to protect the rights of the people of

Alberni-Qualicum, to fight to protect the environment of the people of Alberni-Qualicum

and to fight to ensure that the future for the children of Alberni-Qualicum is a

bright one. All of us in this Legislative Assembly, I believe, have an

obligation to fight injustice and to speak frankly. The problem with the throne

speech is the lack of frankness.

The problem with the throne speech, as I see it, is not in the

words. They sound pretty good. It's got the same cover and binding as it did

last year. Sounds great. The delivery — that was not the problem. I'd like to

congratulate the Lieutenant-Governor. He did a yeoman's job at getting through a

very, very lengthy throne speech. No, the problem wasn't in the words or the

delivery. The problem is in the integrity of its authors. The problem is in the

credibility of its authors.

Now, I see the throne speech used as capstone a quote from JFK. It

says: "History and our own conscience will judge us harsher if we do not now

make every effort to test our hopes by action." It wasn't cited to JFK, but it

is a quote from John F. Kennedy. I suggest that history and our own conscience

will judge us harsher if we do not now make every effort to test our hopes by

action. Well, that's like an epitaph for this government when it comes to throne

speeches.

If you're going to pick a JFK quote, I have a better one: "The

great enemy of truth is very often not the lie — deliberate, contrived and

dishonest — but the myth — persistent, persuasive and unrealistic." That was

John F. Kennedy, and it applies to this throne speech and every throne speech

from this Premier and this government. History has already judged this

government by showing the litany of broken promises from the throne speech and

from around the throne speech.

We've seen platitudes, slogans. That's the greatest legacy of this

Premier and this government, as was referred to moments ago: the golden decade,

five great goals, the four As, things like forest revitalization that have

destroyed forest communities — polar opposite. The people of British Columbia

are getting pretty fed up with the crass politics of Liberals using slogans

instead of governing or governing by spin.

[Interruption.]

S. Fraser: Somebody should get fined for having their cell

phone on.

Rather than responding to the speech, maybe we should have the

Auditor General do a review and

[ Page 9748 ]

investigation

that goes subsequent to it, because the Auditor General's numerous analyses that

have come out recently have been important. They put in stark reality the true

frailty of this government's promises and their feebleness in intent.

Just look at this government's other throne speeches and promises

made there. When this government promises making children a priority — laudable

cause — what we get is the highest child poverty rate in the country, bar none.

That's four years running now. Great job.

When this government's throne speech promises the most literate

jurisdiction in North America, what we get is 40 percent of working-age British

Columbians that lack sufficient literary skills to fully participate in today's

workforce. We find that no one really knows what is already being spent on

literacy or how much funding will be needed to reach government goals. No idea.

This is not my opinion. These are the quotes from the Auditor General just

several weeks ago.

When we get promises of Olympic costs somewhere around $600

million, we get a reality check again from the Auditor General. Let's put it

into billions. When we get assurances of good management, referred to by the

speaker before me, instead we get a convention centre expansion project with

mismanagement and cost overruns of Olympic proportions.

[1530]

When we get promises of protecting the public interest, we get a

province with the worst social indicators, bar none, in the country.

[H. Bloy in the chair.]

When we get promises of respect for aboriginal rights, we get a

Premier and a government that are silent while Canada votes no to the U.N.

declaration affirming the rights of indigenous people. When we get promises

about protecting worker safety, we get policies that lead instead to death and

injury.

When we get promises about protecting the environment, we get

forest practices that make the most seasoned logger gasp. When we get promises

about sustainable aquaculture, we get a Premier and a government that ignore all

of the work and all of the recommendations that the public demanded through the

Special Committee on Aquaculture. When we get promises about environmental

stewardship, we get destruction of watersheds.

When we get promises of health care — "When you need it, where you

need it"; remember that slogan? — we get loss of local services, massive waiting

lists and loss of basic standards like cleanliness in our hospitals.

When we have promises of protecting local government and community

values, we get a whole series of guttings of social contracts and a whole

variety of legislation that strips away the authority of our local governments.

Those on the ground, closest to the community values — gone.

When we get promises from this Premier and this government about

addressing climate change, we get a Premier and a government that are overseeing

— no, orchestrating — the destruction of all the green stuff, our forests, that

sustains our future and our very survival.

We all remember promises like: "We will honour negotiated

contracts." Remember that one? "We will not sell B.C. Rail." I like that one.

What did we get? That's right — the polar opposite. We got torn-up contracts,

not to mention a breach of the Charter of Rights of Canada, which is appalling.

With the B.C. Rail sale…. Well, I guess it is a 999-year contract. Maybe it's

not quite a sale. The murk around that deal has yet to come forth.

That reminds me of another promise. "We will cooperate with the

court and provide any and all information." Remember that one?

When it comes to promises in the throne speech or in issues

raised, I actually get nervous. What's going to be listed in this book? There's

a perverse irony here. Everything promised in the throne speech from this

Premier and this government is actually the most at risk. The Auditor General

has affirmed that. It should be the job of the opposition to affirm that, so I'm

doing it.

We already have independent bodies. The Forest Safety Council

ombudsman just said the same thing. If I'm not mistaken, that ombudsman was a

former Liberal minister of state, and he's saying it. So you can't trust what's

in here. It's very difficult to debate it, whether it's pro or con, because it

is meaningless as words.

I find myself crossing my fingers, hoping that there won't be any

issues of importance in the throne speech, with the knowledge that all British

Columbians have now — that any issue raised by this government and this Premier

in this book becomes the most at risk, the most threatened, especially if it's

used in another slogan.

[1535]

The throne speech highlights health care. In Alberni-Qualicum we have

a crisis in health care. We have a crisis on the west coast with the Tofino

hospital. We've had the community come together to try to deal with it in the

vacuum of this government. The doctors are burning out. There are no

replacements. Nurses have been refused critical training. We've lost services

like obstetrics. The entire facility needs to be replaced, and we've heard

nothing from this government about addressing these issues.

This government's previous slogan was "Health care when you need

it, where you need it." The current one, now being adopted in this throne

speech, is "Reasonable access." We had "Health care when you need it, where you

need it," and now "Reasonable access." That sounds like a bit of a softening

there. It sounds like we're going in the wrong direction.

Say you're a woman living in Tofino or Ucluelet or any one of five

Nuu-chah-nulth communities on the west coast, or you're any one of a million

tourists that are travelling to the west coast, to Clayoquot Sound. If you're a

woman there needing obstetric services, "reasonable access" has become a

two-hour perilous drive. That doesn't fit into either slogan, "Health care when

you need it, where you need it," or "Reasonable access," by anyone's estimation.

[ Page 9749 ]

Quality end-of-life care is an essential part of any health care

continuum. There are members from both sides that went to a meeting just this

last week with the hospice palliative care society in B.C. This government's own

report came out in May of last year, I believe, and it said that quality

end-of-life care through hospice is an essential part of the continuum. There's

no core funding. There's nothing from this government. Their own report came

out, and it has been ignored.

Just like the report on forest road safety that I referred to

earlier, the ombudsman's report — ignored. Actually, rejected summarily by at

least two ministers of this House. From answers in question period, clearly they

hadn't even read the report.

This does not bode well for the throne speech or for the people of

British Columbia. It doesn't even make good business sense. If you don't bring

core funding to hospice, it will cost the health authorities hugely. Not

reflected. No mention in the throne speech. Even after a major government report

on end-of-life care from last year, no remedy in the throne speech. Very

disappointing.

Parts of my constituency have the highest percentage population of

seniors in Canada, bar none. Yet there is no primary health care facility there.

It's a 40-minute drive in any direction to get to one. "Health care when you

need it, where you need it." "Reasonable access." Forty minutes to get to

primary health care. That's unacceptable by anyone's estimation. No remedy in

the throne speech except the new slogan, "Reasonable access." "Health care when

you need it, where you need it" didn't work. "Reasonable access" doesn't bode to

work any better.

The throne speech also highlights the environment. Meanwhile, we

have what is being termed as "liquidation logging" on the coast — some 120,000

hectares and counting, so far, given away from publicly controlled tree farm

licences on Vancouver Island alone. I have a hard time with that. That's 500

square miles taken out of the protection of public tree farm licences.

[1540]

These are values that have been in place since the '40s. The 1956

royal commission report on the state of tree farm licences — that's Justice

Sloan — and the critical importance of maintaining forest integrity on public

and private land through the tree farm licensing system…. That's been respected

by every government, no matter what political stripes, until this government

came in. In four years they've dismantled the whole premise of sustainable

logging for future generations. You can't make comments about protecting the

environment while you are stickhandling that one.

We need watershed protection. It is about our future survival. We

don't need more platitudes in the throne speech. In my constituency there's a

sensitive watershed known as Hamilton Marsh. I'm hoping we see action from the

government, and I want to acknowledge that the minister has agreed to look at

the issue. It's not mentioned — watershed protection — in the throne speech. I

think that's a problem. It is so fundamental to our future health.

In other parts of my constituency, in the Alberni Valley, it seems

like there's a perpetual boil water advisory. There have never been boil water

advisories before the forest practices which this government have been engaged

in. So since it is this government that brought us these horrendous forest

practices that are damaging watersheds, damaging people's private property,

damaging salmon streams, fish hatcheries…. Since that seems to be a legacy left

by this government, I challenge the government to provide tax relief.

Budget is coming up this week. How about starting with a PST

rebate for anyone in Beaver Creek, say, that has bought a kettle in the last

year to try to deal with the boil water advisory? Or maybe some break on hydro

fees to try to handle the boiling of that water.

I have a constituent, Wayne Crowley, that has been fighting for

two and a half years now the damage to his property from forest practices levied

by this government. He should get pain and suffering, at the very least.

The throne speech highlights first nations and aboriginal issues.

I noticed the leadership council was not present in this chamber. None of the

three members from the Assembly of First Nations or the B.C. summit or the Union

of B.C. Indian Chiefs were present. I am hoping that wasn't an oversight in

invitation.

I am surmising only that there is discontent with the contents of

this throne speech. The most fundamental part of that discontent, I think, can

be demonstrated through this government's handling of the UN declaration on the

rights of indigenous people.

We see words about a new relationship in this throne speech. Well,

we had a chance to show it to the world. The UN declaration on the rights of

indigenous people brought together many, many nations in the world, who

overwhelmingly supported addressing the rights issues with indigenous peoples.

One of four countries that voted against it was Canada — 144 yes votes, four no.

This is while Canada was instrumental for 20-plus years in actually drafting

this.

Now, we obviously have a government in Ottawa currently that is

somewhat less progressive about human rights. But to stay silent as a provincial

government that purports a new relationship while that's happening? That's

appalling.

[1545]

We had a chance to pressure the Harper government into doing the

right thing and protecting the rights of indigenous peoples all over the world.

We got silence from the government side of the House.

I rose and spoke to the House in a two-minute statement, urging

the government. I raised it in estimates. The Leader of the Opposition showed

true leadership in taking a position on behalf of the official opposition of

British Columbia in supporting the rights of indigenous people, and this Premier

and this government remained silent.

Silence is not acceptable. Abraham Lincoln said: "To sin by

silence when they should protest makes cowards of men." Martin Luther King Jr.:

"Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things" that happen.

That's what you did; that's what this

[ Page 9750 ]

government did.

Silence is part of the problem. Silence in the face of oppression and injustice

is oppression and injustice.

The fact that we had less enthusiasm following this last year,

with this throne speech that came forward last week, is no surprise to me. In

every venue that I've been in, in the last year dealing with aboriginal affairs,

the UN declaration came up. No one could believe the callous disregard from this

government and this Premier in staying silent.

The new relationship is raised, and land use agreements are raised

in this throne speech. But I'll tell you, I don't see an addressing of some of

the key problems with the treaty process or of those not involved in the treaty

process. Those have been displaced from the treaty process.

The Auditor General's report last year, again, was quite scathing

on this government's handling of the new relationship. It has no official role

in government. It has led to confusion in the treaty process. We have repeatedly

had a call for rights-and-titles issues to be addressed, by those first nations

and by all members of the leadership council, whether they're in the treaty

process like the B.C. summit or outside of the treaty process like the Union of

B.C. Indian Chiefs.

Yet we have a motion on this side recognizing there's a problem

that must be addressed, to empower the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs

and address these issues publicly, transparently. We got the same silence from

this Premier and this government over that motion as we did from this government

when dealing with the UN declaration on the rights of indigenous people.

This stuff isn't new relationship, hon. Speaker. This is the worst

of the old relationship. It is called hypocrisy.

New relationship. Well, tell that to the Pacheedaht on the west

coast of Vancouver Island or the Kwagiulth on the north Island or the Hupacasath

or the Tseshaht who had to resort to or are looking to resort to litigation to

try to deal with this government's lack of respect for aboriginal rights and

titles and for the spirit and intent of court decisions levied against this

government's actions — certainly with the removal of private land from tree farm

licences.

Forcing first nations into litigation is not a new thing. It's not

a new relationship; it is the worst of the old relationship.

There is one issue that was raised quite significantly in the

throne speech, and I'd like to speak to that for a moment. It's called Jordan's

principle. I'm going to give a little bit of credit here where credit is due. We

have finally, as a province, recognized Jordan's principle. That is a good

thing.

[1550]

It's a national issue — again, just like the UN declaration on the

rights of indigenous people that we didn't take any position on, on behalf of

the government. Jordan's principle deals with injustice upon reserve children.

This is significant too. There's a group called the First Nations Child and

Family Caring Society of Canada, and they have been advocating for Jordan's

principle for a long, long time. It affects hundreds of children on reserve.

I first raised this in estimates with the then Minister of

Children and Family Development two years ago. I took a liberty in that process

to stand in the small House on the record and read into the record Jordan's

principle and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms

section that affirms Jordan's

principle — that children must come first between interjurisdictional bickering

between federal and provincial governments.

I followed that with a similar questioning in estimates with the

then Minister of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation, and I followed it

subsequently with further inquiries about Jordan's principle last year. So it's

two years later than it should have been, but finally we have seen recognition

that children must come first.

My only fear is that the acknowledgment from this government of

Jordan's principle and protecting children on reserve may lead to the same place

that we got to with this government affirming the importance of children in a

previous budget. That led us to four years in a row of the worst child poverty

in Canada, bar none. Let's hope that's not the fate of Jordan's principle.

Hon. T. Christensen: It is indeed an honour to rise and

have an opportunity to respond to the Speech from the Throne today. I do want to

start first and foremost by thanking the people of Okanagan-Vernon, my

constituents, who have entrusted me to be here and have given me the opportunity

to represent them since 2001. I'm always reminded at the time of the throne

speech of what a privilege it is for all of us here, notwithstanding some of the

banter back and forth, to sit in this place and have an opportunity to speak on

behalf of the people who reside in our communities, to bring their ideas to this

floor, to discuss their challenges.

I'm very thankful to individual constituents who have come into my

office to discuss their hopes, some of the challenges they face and their ideas

about how British Columbia can be a stronger province. I certainly take their

trust and my responsibility to them very seriously.

I am incredibly proud to be part of a government that has always

looked to the future of this province with hope and with optimism. Certainly, I

think that is something that is very much reflected in this year's throne

speech.

We came to government in 2001 at a time when British Columbia felt

like it had a perennial cloud hanging overtop our heads. It's not surprising —

as I've listened to a few of the opposition members provide comments about the

Speech from the Throne — that we did have that cloud over our heads, because

I've heard a consistent negative, destructive and pessimistic theme about what

is actually possible here in this incredible province. I certainly don't intend

to dwell on some of what I heard from the opposition members, but I can't help

but respond to a few of the comments from the member for Alberni-Qualicum.

We've heard, from a number of members on the opposite side,

outright opposition and hostility towards the concept of independent power

producers,

[ Page 9751 ]

notwithstanding

that independent power producers have been in this province for a number of

years and were selling into the grid through the 1990s at an increasing rate.

That seems to be all forgotten. There's no question that there's abject

hostility towards the concept of independent power producers providing a

resource for additional power in the province.

[1555]

I do wonder what the member for Alberni-Qualicum thinks when one of

those successful IPPs is actually the China Creek project with the Hupacasath

First Nation — an opportunity for a first nation to play a critical role,

looking to the future, to a new economy, to new opportunities. Those are the

types of opportunities that this government has strived to provide to first

nations and to others across our province.

I must also respond to some of the member's comments around health

care. It is perhaps an understatement to say that governments across Canada — if

not throughout the western hemisphere and the world, for that matter — are faced

with the daunting task of trying to ensure that health care is reasonably

accessible to all citizens and that it is sustainable so that it will be there

today, tomorrow and for generations to come.

We are in a dramatically better situation today than we were seven

short years ago, when we came to government. Yes, we faced challenges around

physicians, but we've almost doubled the number of physicians that are being

trained. Here's a bit of a surprise. It actually takes a number of years to

train them, so those additional spaces we added when we first came to government

are only now producing physicians that can work in the province.

British Columbia has an enviable record, tops among provinces and

jurisdictions in Canada, in terms of attracting physicians to work here. That's

what is necessary to set us on the proper course to have physician professionals

that we require in the province.

We know that in the early 1990s the former government actually cut

the number of nurse-training spaces. We've had to work very hard to increase the

number of nurses that are being trained in the province, because any of us who

have had anything to do with a health care facility in the province know how

critical it is that we have sufficient numbers of well-trained and qualified

nurses to ensure that the system is working well.

The member mentioned a breakfast last week around palliative care.

Let me tell you a little story from my constituency about palliative care. The

residents of Vernon and the North Okanagan raised well over a million dollars in

the late 1990s to build Vernon Hospice House. It is an incredible facility that

enjoys widespread support among my constituents. It was built with community

funds.

You know what happened when we went to the government of the day

to try and get some operating funds for Vernon Hospice House, a place with a

home-like atmosphere, with incredible volunteer support that could assist people

in their final days and assist their families in dealing with the many

challenges that arise in one's final days? There was no funding available.

You know what's happened under this government? For the first time

Hospice House has beds that are funded through the Interior Health Authority.

You know what's happening today? There are shovels in the ground

in Vernon. I'm proud to say that at the groundbreaking we had a nice competition

to see who could dig the biggest hole. Normally, as a politician, you don't want

to be digging the biggest hole, but I actually won that competition.

Now the bigger excavators are in there. They've laid the

foundation, and Vernon Hospice House is doubling the number of beds that are

there, with the support of the Interior Health Authority.

That's the type of progress that is critical. It's those types of

investments, together with the community, that are going to ensure we have a

health care system that meets the needs of the people of the province now and

into the future.

It's in line with the significant additional investment that the

Interior Health Authority is making of $81 million to add a new diagnostic and

treatment tower at Vernon Jubilee Hospital — a hospital that hasn't changed a

lot since I was born there, in fact, which is a scary thought. We are seeing the

types of investments that are necessary to meet the needs of our communities —

finally, after a decade through the 1990s where none of those investments were

being made.

[1600]

In listening to members of the opposition respond to the throne

speech, it's clear in many cases that they haven't been paying attention to the

significant things happening in the province, to the sense of optimism that

pervades the province today. It's also clear that those members need to think

back and remember the 1990s, as we all do, because we know that if we ignore

history, we're damned to repeat it. Certainly, in this province we don't need to

go back to what was happening in the 1990s.

For the past seven years this government has worked hard in

partnership and in collaboration with British Columbians to build a brighter

future, and it hasn't been easy. We've held fast to our shared vision, the

vision that this government was elected on: to create a province of opportunity,

of mutual respect and strong partnerships, of caring and compassion for our

fellow citizens and of fiscal responsibility. Truly, it is a testament to the

people of British Columbia that people across this country again look to British

Columbia with envy. We can again rightfully claim to be the best place on earth

to live, to work and to raise a family.

Just think about it, Mr. Speaker. What an exciting time. What an

exciting time to live here in British Columbia. There is unprecedented economic

opportunity in a well-diversified economy that's been built upon a foundation of

forward-looking public investments in post-secondary education and

transportation and is among the most competitive tax and regulatory regimes

anywhere.

In two years, amongst this place of great optimism and hope, we'll

be in the midst of one of the greatest sporting and social events imaginable,

the 2010 Olym-

[ Page 9752 ]

pic and

Paralympic Games. What we are seeing in the excitement of the two years leading

up to it is a number of reports in the media and commentary from those outside

the province who have experience with a number of different Olympic Games,

whether they be summer or winter. What are they telling us, these outside

objective observers? That these are the best organized games they've ever seen,

and that two years prior to the games starting, already