2005 Legislative Session: First Session, 38th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 20, 2005

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 1, Number 11

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Page

Introductions by Members

Ministerial Statements

Review of death of Sherry Charlie

Hon. S.

Hagen

A. Dix

Introduction and First

Reading of Bills

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

Hon. C.

Taylor

Statements (Standing Order

25 B )

Simon Wiesenthal

C. James

Economic and cultural exchanges

with Asia

R. Lee

Aboriginal veterans

C. Wyse

North Shore Rescue

Whittred

Status of aboriginal women in

Canada

Fraser

Post-secondary education in

Okanagan

Horning

Oral Questions

Review of death of Sherry Charlie

A. Dix

Hon. S.

Hagen

C. James

Fleming

J. Kwan

Farnworth

L. Krog

Hon. W.

Oppal

Robertson

Ralston

Horgan

Simpson

Cubberley

Trevena

Petitions

D. MacKay

N. Macdonald

Budget Debate (continued)

R. Fleming

Hon. G. Abbott

D. Cubberley

Hon. B. Bennett

C. Puchmayr

M. Polak

J. Brar

[ Page 189 ]

TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 20, 2005

The House met at 2:04 p.m.

Introductions by Members

Hon. R. Thorpe: Today in the House are members of the

executive of the New Car Dealers of British Columbia. Would the House please

make Manse Brinkley, Maury Keith and Glen Ringdal welcome to this House.

[1405]

Hon. C. Richmond: I'm pleased to introduce a constituent

today. Sharon Richards is president of the B.C. Art Teachers Association and

also is a teacher at Westsyde Secondary School. On behalf of the member for

Kamloops–North Thompson and myself, I'd ask the House to please make Sharon

welcome.

B. Simpson: I'd like to welcome to the House today Ruby and

Jack Williams from my constituency — long-time supporters of the NDP in my area.

They have friends with them: Kay and Jack Lackner and Lynn Sam, also long-time

members of our party. Please make them welcome.

J. Horgan: I, too, would like to welcome some guests from

the provincial specialists association of the B.C. Teachers Federation here with

us today: Cheryl Johnson, from school district 69, president of the dance PSA;

Jenny Garrels, from school district 46 on the Sunshine Coast, the president of

the home economics section; and lastly, David Ennis, from school district 34,

B.C. music teachers. Would you please make them welcome.

J. Nuraney: We have in the gallery today my nephew Shafique

Dahya, who has come to Victoria to study at Royal Roads. May I please ask the

House to make him welcome.

J. Kwan: I have the pleasure of making six introductions

today. It's a rare occasion for me to have so many visitors in the Legislature.

First, let me introduce Tim Agg, the executive director of PLEA

Community Services, an agency providing a range of services in the Vancouver,

coastal and Fraser regions, whose office is in Vancouver — in fact, in

Vancouver–Mount Pleasant. PLEA also has the KidStart program, which happens to

be one of four finalists for the 2005 VanCity award for a million dollars. I'll

be supporting that, and I hope other members in this House will be also.

With him are two visitors from the United Kingdom: Martin Hurst,

chief executive of Catholic Care in the diocese of Leeds; and Pat Hurst, who is

the manager of the Cedar Crescent Resource Centre for people with mental health

challenges in Kirkham, Lancastershire.

Also in the gallery is Stuart Alcock, my constituency assistant,

who does tremendous work in my office, particularly when I'm away. With him is

Amber Hitchin, a graduate student at the University of Victoria school of social

work, who completed her practicum at my constituency office this summer and who

has done tremendous work. Along with her, of course, is her mother, Marie

Fletcher. I would ask the House to please welcome these visitors.

C. Wyse: Today it is my pleasure to introduce Rob Taylor

from the Cariboo-Chilcotin Teachers Association. Rob is the professional

development chair. I request the House extend a warm welcome to Rob.

R. Fleming: It's my pleasure to introduce Mr. Ben Johnson,

a young political science student at Camosun College. He's a young man who used

to think that Canadian politics was boring until last spring when he was here to

watch former MLA Joy MacPhail in the House at question period. He's a

constituent of mine in Victoria-Hillside. He's active in his community. Would

the House please make him feel welcome.

Hon. M. de Jong: Mr. Speaker, we have a visiting

parliamentarian with us today. Allan Kerpan is the member of the Saskatchewan

Legislature for Carrot River Valley. He is the Saskatchewan Party critic for

Crown Corporations and Investment Saskatchewan. He is also a former member of

the federal parliament from 1993 to 2000. I hope all members will help me to

welcome our visiting parliamentarian from Saskatchewan.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. members, I have a special guest that I'd

like to introduce today. It is my pleasure to advise you that we have the

visiting Clerk from another jurisdiction on attachment to our House this week.

I'm going to probably mispronounce his name here: Mr. Dhammika Dasanayake,

Deputy Secretary General, Parliament of Sri Lanka.

The visit is one of the continuing series of attachments whereby

our Legislative Assembly hosts Clerks from other jurisdictions. Please join me

in welcoming Dhammika Dasanayake to British Columbia and to our House.

[1410]

Ministerial Statements

REVIEW OF DEATH OF SHERRY CHARLIE

Hon. S. Hagen: I rise to make a ministerial statement on

the terms of reference of the director's case review into the death of Sherry

Charlie. As the Minister of Children and Family Development, I am very sorry for

the loss of Sherry Charlie and the suffering brought about for her family by

this tragedy. All of us involved in Sherry's case regret the renewed anguish

this recent exposure has brought.

There have been a number of factual errors and allegations tossed

about recently, and I take this opportunity to set the record straight. This

past July my assistant deputy minister and director of child welfare, Jeremy

Berland, regional Chief Shawn Atleo, co-chairman of the Nuu-chah-nulth tribal

council, and I held a news

[ Page 190 ]

conference to release a

summary of the director's case review into the death

of Sherry Charlie.

Following that conference, at my direction, we released a severed

copy of the director's case review. The review was severed as required by law

under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

I made a promise at that time publicly that should we ever

experience a further tragedy such as this, both the

summary and severed

director's case review would be released by the ministry at the same time,

without the need for anyone to submit a freedom-of-information request. This was

unprecedented at the time. I have directed that it become the standard that the

government will follow in the future.

Following the release of the severed director's case review, the

independent child and youth officer for British Columbia said in a release dated

August 4, 2005, that she is satisfied that the information cut from the report

was taken out for privacy reasons as required by law and that as much detail as

can be released publicly, consistent with privacy laws, has been released.

Yesterday I made a comment in the House that I know has been

widely misconstrued. We have always accepted ultimate responsibility for the

fact that a child died as a result of an inappropriate practice. One of the most

unfortunate circumstances in this matter was the result of human error. That

being said, I have never, ever put personal blame or responsibility for this

tragedy on the shoulders of any individual child protection social worker.

I spent time this summer visiting front-line workers in offices

around the province. I cannot stress enough how much I value what I heard from

them. The challenges of the changing realities of social work today are more

than most of us in this House could probably cope with on a daily basis. Yet

they are out there every day dealing with these matters, and I thank each and

every one of them for that.

Yesterday it was alleged in this House that ministry staff

purposely held back the release of the director's case review for some 15

months. The allegation that the review was purposely held back is categorically

untrue. The director for child welfare would not, morally or ethically, hold

back the review into the death of any child once that review was completed and

finalized to ministry standards.

I've been advised that the report was sent back to the reviewer

time and time again because the core questions were not being answered and the

report was not being written in a way that was acceptable to the standards of

the ministry. As the director for child welfare said himself yesterday during a

media conference, when being questioned on the time line: "In this case,

starting again wouldn't have been acceptable. To try and go back to square one

and say: 'Okay, add more things; ask more questions….' We'd already done that.

We had already posed more questions to the reviewer. We'd already said to the

reviewer: 'Look, you haven't answered the core questions. You haven't written

this in a way that is acceptable.'" As we all learned yesterday afternoon in the

House, the member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast has told us that he was the

individual contracted to conduct the director's case review.

Yesterday the opposition critic brought to my attention that the

original terms of reference of the director's case review had been amended. At

the end of this statement I will be seeking leave to table both the original

terms of reference and the amended terms of reference made two months earlier.

I have also been asked why I did not know that the terms of

reference were changed. To be clear, I shouldn't have known. The director of

child welfare conducts reviews into these matters completely independently of

the minister, as is the intent of the legislation. As the director of child

welfare said yesterday, it is simply not appropriate. I have also confirmed via

staff that no previous Minister of Children and Family Development was aware of

any changes to the terms of reference. Nevertheless, now we know the terms of

reference were changed.

[1415]

I have questions as to why, and I know that the director shares my

concerns. To answer those questions, I have asked the Attorney General — and he

has agreed — to appoint the child and youth officer for British Columbia

according to

section 6 of the Office of Child and Youth Act to conduct a review

into three areas: (1) the time lines involved in the writing, completion and

release of the director's case review; (2) why the terms of reference were

changed; and (3) the policy concerning a director's case review, including those

where kith-and-kin has been applied, and make any recommendations necessary as a

result.

I have requested of the Attorney General that this review be

completed by December 1 of this year. I've also asked that the child and youth

officer ensure that the official opposition critic for Children and Family

Development as well as a member of the aboriginal community are involved in the

process of this review. The Attorney General has also agreed to my request that

the child and youth officer's report be released publicly, to the degree that we

are legally able to do so, as soon as possible following its full completion.

Today I have also asked the director of child welfare to ensure, should there

ever be a need to conduct a future director's case review, that the role of this

ministry will always be reviewed, whether a delegated authority is involved or

not.

As a result of the director's case review, there were 12

recommendations made. All 12 of those recommendations have been implemented or

are in the process of implementation. Our aim and intent has always been to

learn, to improve and to do everything in our power to better protect the

children of this province. To be clear, the intent of this review is not to

reopen the original director's case review in its entirety but instead to focus

on variances in the process, as were brought to light yesterday. I also want to

remind everyone that the coroner's office is also conducting their own review in

the death of Sherry Charlie. Indeed, I remain confident in our system, in my

ministry and, in particular, in all of my front-line child protection social

workers.

I seek leave to table two documents.

[ Page 191 ]

Leave granted.

A. Dix: This is of course an extremely serious issue. We

received a copy of the minister's ministerial statement five minutes before two

o'clock. I would say this: I respect the minister, and I respect his commitment

to public service, but in this case, there has been a pattern of cover-up that

should be disturbing to all members of this House.

In 2002, when Sherry Charlie died, the government had just

implemented kith-and-kin guidelines. They implemented a new program to protect

the most vulnerable children in our society. They implemented that program by

faxing out draft practice guidelines to social workers.

I just want to say the significance of this: there was no training

for those social workers. The guidelines said that there would be no home

studies in spite of the fact that every child involved in the kith-and-kin

program was in need of protection — no home studies. This didn't come from

front-line social workers; it came from the highest ranks of the ministry and

from the government. The ministry was instructing social workers not to monitor

homes and not to do home studies.

When we came to July of this past year, 15 months after the

government had received a copy of this report, and the government finally chose

to release the

summary of the report, the government did not mention…. In fact,

they hid all references to the responsibility of the Ministry of Children and

Families. They hid them in July of this year — July 2005.

Subsequent to that, they were forced by pressure to release the

full report. At that time they did not release the guidelines — the public

document, the public guidelines — that they handed out to social workers. Those

were hidden. They weren't just hidden from me; they were hidden from the child

and youth officer who was given the task of ensuring that all information was

provided to the public. They were hidden.

[1420]

Subsequent to that, we received a copy of that document. We had

asked the minister's office to provide us one — that public document. They

refused to do so. Subsequent to that, we've had the revelation that the cover-up

and the effort to deny ministerial responsibility started in this case as early

as October 2002. These are very serious issues.

I appreciate the minister's statement and his desire to get to the

bottom of it, but there are more issues here, I think, than are dealt with in

this referral. And there is a fundamental question beyond that. The Minister of

Children and Families and his colleague the Attorney General gave direction as

to this review. What this House needs, what this province needs, what all of us

need to protect children in the future, are independent reviews — an independent

child commissioner to decide what's important and what isn't, what's relevant

and what isn't, what should be shown to the public, to the members of this

House, and what shouldn't.

In this case there has been a pattern to deny the opposition, to

deny the public the information it needs to go forward and to deny social

workers the information they need to protect children. While I appreciate and,

of course, will help with any review that seeks to find the facts, the

government is missing the point here. They cut spending for children and

families by 23 percent. They were responsible for the chaos in the Ministry of

Children and Family Development. They were responsible for racing to implement

this new program with terrible, terrible mistakes made in the way they

implemented. They were responsible for those things. They were responsible for

denying the people of this province an independent commissioner by vote in this

Legislature.

I think the lesson from this is not that we should help the

minister or his officials out of their embarrassment with respect to the terms

of reference, but that we make fundamental change, that we bring in an

independent children's commissioner — bring one back to British Columbia.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

SUPPLY ACT (No. 2), 2005

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

Administrator: a bill intituled Supply Act (No. 2), 2005.

Hon. C. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I move that the bill be

introduced and read a first time now.

Motion approved.

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

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

estimates for 2005-2006 have been debated and voted upon in this assembly. The

bill will provide interim supply for government operating expenses for

approximately two additional months of the 2005-2006 fiscal year. This will

allow time to debate and pass the estimates. This interim supply is required

because we anticipate the authority under the existing interim supply will be

exhausted before the estimates debate has completed.

This bill will also provide interim supply for other financing

requirements. The first interim supply sought supply for two-thirds of the

year's financing transaction requirements for capital asset expenditures and

loans and investments. This bill seeks two-thirds of the supply based on the

estimates tabled on September 14, 2005, and includes the amount authorized under

section 2 of the Supply Act (No.1), 2005.

This bill also repeals

section 3 of the Supply Act (No.1), 2005,

which provided for 100 percent of the year's financing transaction requirements

for revenues collected for and transferred to other entities and replaces it

with 100 percent of the year's financing transaction requirements based on the

estimates tabled on

[ Page 192 ]

September 14, 2005. This requirement includes any sum already paid under

section 3 of the Supply Act (No. 1), 2005.

[1425]

Mr. Speaker, I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the

days for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 5, Supply Act (No. 2), 2005, introduced, read a first time

and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next

sitting of the House after today.

Statements

(Standing Order 25

b) SIMON WIESENTHAL

C. James: I rise today to pay respects to the memory of Mr.

Simon Wiesenthal, the pre-eminent human rights activist known all over the world

for his work in bringing Nazi war criminals to justice. As the members may have

heard, Mr. Wiesenthal died today at the age of 96. He was the conscience of the

Holocaust, a description so aptly drawn by Rabbi Marvin Hier, the founder of the

international human rights centre named in honour of Mr. Simon Wiesenthal's

work.

Simon Wiesenthal spent his life pursuing those who tried to escape

responsibility for the evil they perpetrated in Europe from 1933 to the

Holocaust's end in 1945. Working alone, he took on an enormous task with a

quiet, determined courage, not out of a desire for revenge but in the patient

and persistent pursuit of justice. He rose to this challenge in an effort to

spare future generations the incredible horror of genocide. He said once that

because he had survived the Holocaust, he felt a special obligation to those who

did not survive.

Simon Wiesenthal will be remembered and wants us to remember the

victims — in many cases, when the world didn't want to. Working against a rising

tide of postwar apathy and against overwhelming odds, Mr. Wiesenthal brought

over 1,100 Nazi war criminals to justice. Our memory of Simon Wiesenthal and the

courage he showed in pursuing what he knew in his heart to be right serves as a

very important reminder of our collective obligation to our past and our

responsibility to justice and the memory of the six million who were murdered.

ECONOMIC AND CULTURAL

EXCHANGES WITH ASIA

R. Lee: In order to keep British Columbia's economy firing

on all cylinders, our government recognizes the need to build strong economic

and cultural relationships with the world's emerging markets — especially Asia,

the world's fastest-growing economy. I can tell you firsthand that these efforts

are paying off.

As a direct result of our province's expanding ties to China, I

had the pleasure of being a guest at the Chinese consulate this morning for an

announcement about a great opportunity for university students. Beginning in

September next year the government of China will provide 15 scholarships for

British Columbia post-secondary students to study in their country for a year.

Not only will these students attend a post-secondary institution in China, but

they also will experience Chinese culture, learn the language and develop a bond

with the Chinese people.

To build on partnerships such as the one announced today, the B.C.

Liberal government has launched the Asia-Pacific gateway strategy to take our

products to the world and to open doors for new cultural and educational

exchanges and ties. We have already announced that we will establish a world

trade university in Chilliwack to offer graduate-level programs in trade-related

fields and host international trade conferences and events. We will expand the

ports of Vancouver and Prince Rupert to commercial and cruise ship traffic. Our

government will build on the Dream Home Canada project and create even more

opportunities for B.C. forestry products in the growing Chinese sector.

This is an exciting time to be in British Columbia. The strength

of our economy will only grow by leaps and bounds, thanks to our progressing

partnerships and the Asia-Pacific gateway strategy.

ABORIGINAL VETERANS

C. Wyse: Today I rise in the House to recognize an

achievement of an individual from Cariboo South: Ashley Camille. Ashley received

national recognition in a contest sponsored by Veterans Affairs Canada.

[1430]

Ashley is one of 13 students selected to travel to Belgium and

France. She will join war veterans, aboriginal leaders and others at significant

European battlefields, such as Vimy Ridge and Juno Beach.

This trip is named the Aboriginal Spiritual Journey. It is meant

to recognize sacrifices made by aboriginal soldiers and to call home the spirits

of those who died. Let me read for you an excerpt from Ashley's essay:

When the call came for men to enlist for the First and Second World

Wars, aboriginal men and women joined the list alongside their fellow

countrymen. Many of the native young men and women who enlisted did not know the

sacrifices they would have to endure. They lost their status and were forced to

join the war not as aboriginal Canadians but as Europeans fighting for their

homeland.

Soldiers died on the soil of a foreign

land. Their stories will not be told and have become secrets

locked in time. Native soldiers fought with the spirit of their ancestors,

achieving honours worthy of a great war chief. Aboriginal soldiers celebrated

with as much enthusiasm as the rest of the troops when the war ended. They

looked forward to returning home and celebrating with their families and fellow

soldiers; although, when they arrived, they did not get a hero's welcome. Having

lost their status, they could not return to their lives on the reserve or

benefit from the status system. While their own veterans were discarded from any

post-war privileges, many native communities lost their land to returning

non-native war veterans.

[ Page 193 ]

Her mother Marie, her family and friends from Canoe Creek nation,

her classmates and teachers at Columneeza Secondary School are indeed proud of

Ashley's achievement. I request that the House recognize this achievement.

NORTH SHORE RESCUE

K. Whittred: This last Saturday I was very pleased to

participate with other members of the North Shore community in celebrating the

40th anniversary of the North Shore Rescue team. Many of you, I think, know

about this highly skilled mountain search and rescue team. They are frequently

in the news, as they successfully locate hikers and skiers in the mountainous

terrain of the north shore, Whistler and in fact throughout our province.

Forty years ago, in 1965, when this team started their work, their

equipment was pretty basic. They had sash-cord safety lines, tin helmets,

antique vehicles and a lot of hand-me-downs from the province and, I think, from

various fire departments. Today, I'm happy to say, the team works with much more

advanced tools. They have automated external defibrillators; radio repeaters,

the most up-to-date of modern communications and, of course, a helicopter flight

rescue team.

The amazing part about this rescue team is that it is all

volunteer. This team is made up of people from North Vancouver and, I think, a

few other communities. It has been and continues to be a leader in its field.

Did you know, Mr. Speaker, that the North Shore Rescue was one of

the first B.C. search and rescue teams to train in human tracking, to use search

dogs, to establish a dive team and to develop special protocols to treat

hypothermia? It is this history of innovation and clever teamwork that has given

North Shore Rescue the well-respected reputation it enjoys.

For four decades they have rescued people in the north shore and

provided leadership and assistance to other parts of British Columbia and

throughout the U.S. Pacific Northwest.

STATUS OF ABORIGINAL

WOMEN IN CANADA

S. Fraser: I apologize for not attending the House

yesterday. I was given leave to attend the conference on the pine beetle in

Prince George.

[1435]

There was an

article in the paper that I found very disturbing. On

Saturday people marched along Southridge towards Highway 16. They marched to

bring attention to the missing women that have disappeared along that highway

and in that area. A disproportionate number of those women were aboriginal.

I will refer to the Amnesty International report of last year

entitled Stolen Sisters: A Human Rights Response to Discrimination and

Violence Against Indigenous Women in Canada .

In the report it says: "The social and economic marginalization of

indigenous women, along with a history of government policies that have torn

apart families in indigenous communities, have pushed the disproportionate

number of those indigenous women into dangerous situations." Further: "These are

not new concerns. Indigenous women's organizations, government commissions, the

Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples and the United Nations human rights

bodies have all called on Canadian officials to address the marginalization of

indigenous women in Canadian society…." And further: "…and to ensure that the

rights and the safety of indigenous people are respected and upheld by police

and the courts. Sadly, fundamental measures that could help to reduce the risk

of violence to indigenous women remain unimplemented."

I bring this to the attention of the House, and I support those

marchers on Highway 16. They should not need to march to raise attention. I

suggest that if the same number of people and girls had gone missing in, say,

Shaughnessy, no one would have needed to march to get attention.

POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION

IN OKANAGAN

A. Horning: I think it is only fitting that today, on

International Student Day, I take the opportunity to speak about a landmark

event in the Okanagan, the opening of UBC Okanagan and Okanagan College. Earlier

this month I had the privilege of attending the official opening of these two

new post-secondary institutions in Kelowna. The opening marked an incredible

shift in how students from my constituency and throughout the Okanagan access

post-secondary education.

Before, students were forced to leave our region to pursue a full

degree. Now, those students can remain close to home and still access the

education they want. As study after study shows, students are more likely to

stay and work near where they go to school. Along with direct benefits to

students, these two institutions combined will bring an estimated $700 million

each year to the economic activity of the Okanagan and create 2,000 new jobs.

From day one our government has been a trail-blazer in

post-secondary education. It is one of our five great goals to make B.C. the

best-educated jurisdiction on the continent. A major part of reaching that goal

is ensuring our post-secondary system grows with the needs of our province. We

have already made more investments and innovations over the past four years than

were made during the previous ten. From the opening of UBC Okanagan and the

Okanagan college to the establishment of Thompson Rivers University and the

medical school at UNBC in Prince George, we're working to make B.C. a leader in

post-secondary education and university research.

By 2010 we will have created 5,000 new post-secondary education

seats in the Okanagan, part of the overall provincial target of 25,000 new

seats. We've capped tuition fees at the rate of inflation and are pro-

[ Page 194 ]

viding $450 million over three years for student financial assistance so

every resident can make the advantage of B.C.'s world-class education system.

Students come first for our government, and we're backing that commitment with

dollars and deeds.

Hon. S. Hagen: Mr. Speaker, it's been pointed out to me that I

made an error in what I read, and I would just like to re-read the sentence that

the error was in. At the end of the statement: "I will be seeking leave to table

both the original terms of reference and the amended terms of reference made two

months later." I had said "earlier," but it's two months later.

[1440]

Oral Questions

REVIEW OF DEATH OF SHERRY CHARLIE

A. Dix: We've learned today that the Ministry of Children

and Family Development removed from the terms of reference for the director's

review a fundamental question, which was: was the response of the Ministry of

Children and Family Development to the child protection concerns consistent with

established standards? That question has never been answered and will not be

answered in the review announced today. Will the Attorney General expand the

terms of reference of the review he has ordered to include an answer to that

question?

Hon. S. Hagen: What we are doing by asking the child and

family officer to look into this whole matter is finding out the answer to those

three questions, which I have read into the record but am happy to read into the

record again. One has to do with the time lines, because an accusation has been

made that the government held up this report. The accusation is wrong.

The Attorney General is asking the child and youth officer to look

into the time lines involved in the writing, completion and release of the

director's case review and, secondly, why the terms of reference were changed,

which is a question I and, I think, everyone in this House wants to know the

answer to — and thirdly, to review the policy concerning a director's case

review, including those where kith-and-kin has been applied, and make any

recommendations necessary as a result.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

A. Dix: My supplemental is again to the Attorney General,

who is the person who directs the child and youth officer in British Columbia to

make reviews. The Minister of Children and Family Development and the Attorney

General seem interested in their problem, which is the cover-up, but not the

problem in the investigation of this case. The purpose of removing that term of

reference was to, in fact, limit the review and not ask serious questions about

budget cuts in the Ministry of Children and Family Development.

I ask the Attorney General: since this was stricken from the

review and we have not had these answers, will the Attorney General expand the

public inquiry that he has announced into this case to include fundamental

questions of the failures of the Ministry of Children and Family Development?

Hon. S. Hagen: I will read into the record again what the

Attorney General is asking the child and youth officer for British Columbia to

do, and that is number two — and I know the member has it, so he should read it

again so he understands it: why the terms of reference were changed. That's what

we're asking the child and youth officer to look into.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a further supplemental.

A. Dix: With great respect to the minister, the question he

should be asking, and all of us should be asking, is why the Ministry of

Children and Family Development let down Sherry Charlie. That's the issue we

need to know about. That's the issue that the striking of this term of reference

from the review has hidden from the people of British Columbia. That's the issue

we need an answer to.

I ask the Attorney General: will he expand this review, the

provisions in his review, to include a review, as well, of the guidelines faxed

to aboriginal agencies that instruct social workers not to monitor homes and

that instruct social workers not to do reviews of family homes before entering

into kith-and-kin agreements.

Hon. S. Hagen: I think I would ask the member opposite to,

perhaps, show a little patience and to wait until the child and youth officer's

report is made public, which is a commitment that's been made by my colleague

the Attorney General of British Columbia. It doesn't have to be made public

under the act, but he has made the commitment that it will be made public. I

think that we should all wait to read that report.

C. James: There's no question that people have been

patient. They've been waiting a very long time to have this issue responded to.

Yesterday in question period the minister said: "…it was a mistake that was made

that was not related to budget cuts." Based on what information did the minister

make this statement?

Hon. S. Hagen: I want to say categorically that I have full

confidence in the social workers in my ministry. They do exceptional work. They

do an exceptional job. They do a tough job — the toughest job there is in

government. I have total confidence in them.

[1445]

The unfortunate occurrence that happened in this particular case

is that there was a piece of information that was not sent. I have said that

publicly; we have said it publicly many, many times. It was a case of not

sending a piece of paper. It was a case of a 49-cent stamp or sending it by

e-mail.

Having said that, I have never directed blame on this case to an

individual social worker. I have the utmost respect for our front-line workers,

because they

[ Page 195 ]

do work that I could never do. They deal with situations every day that I

could never deal with. Thankfully, they have the training, they're

professionals, and they know how to do it right.

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has a

supplemental.

C. James: I'm still not getting an answer, nor was our

previous questioner getting an answer from the minister. I'm going to try again,

and I would like the Attorney General, as well, to listen to this question,

since it relates to the scope of the review that's coming up.

When we listened to the minister's statement today, we still heard

no acknowledgement of the responsibility of the minister who is responsible for

the ministry in this case. I'd like to ask again to the minister: will he ask

for this review to include a discussion on the impact of the budget reductions

by his government on this case?

Hon. S. Hagen: As I said to the House yesterday, the

kith-and-kin agreement that the mother and the delegated agency agreed to put

the child into actually cost the taxpayer more money. Because this was on

reserve, the federal government would not pay for it. So it was not a case…. It

was not a decision made to save money. It was a decision made because at the

time it was thought to be the best placement for the child.

R. Fleming: Yesterday the minister's assistant deputy

minister said that he was irritated when he found out that the terms of

reference were changed. The minister's statement has said today that he will

look into why the terms of reference were changed. The fact is that they were

changed a year ago, and people in his ministry knew that a year ago. If they

were so irritated, why did the minister and the ministry cover up that

information until only yesterday afternoon?

Hon. S. Hagen: Well, I can only say this: apparently,

members of your caucus knew a year ago, but I didn't.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

R. Fleming: Yes, I do. This is about ministerial

accountability, not blaming others. Yesterday the minister rose in this House

and said: "I can say categorically…that this ministry is more open and

transparent than any other ministry of its kind in Canada and probably the

United States and Europe as well." If the ministry is so transparent, why did it

delay the report until after an election, hide information, dodge answers and

change the terms of reference?

Hon. S. Hagen: That question is exactly why the Attorney

General has asked the child and youth officer to examine why these things

happened. That's what we just announced today.

J. Kwan: Yesterday during question period the minister

blamed a former minister at 2:40. At 2:45 he blamed a single social worker. Two

minutes after that, he blamed a director. At four o'clock the minister blamed an

unnamed civil servant for the cover-up. Today in his statement…. The statement

gives us no comfort that in fact the minister's going to take responsibility for

the actions and the bungling of this file. Will the minister finally stop

pointing fingers and take responsibility today in this House?

Hon. S. Hagen: Let me make it perfectly clear. I have never

blamed an individual social worker. I have never blamed my director of child

welfare. I have always said that I and my ministry take full responsibility for

what happened. But my job is also to make sure that we correct our best

practices so that these things don't continue to happen.

[1450]

The previous member was correct. We are the most transparent

ministry of our kind in Canada, and I challenge anybody in this House to find

another agency like this in the United States or Europe. That's why we're not

afraid to ask the questions to get to the bottom of this, because I also want to

know why the terms of reference were changed.

Mr. Speaker: Member has a supplemental.

J. Kwan: The minister said yesterday: "This occurred

because of a tragic error made by one of our employees." He further says: "I

have said on record that a mistake was made by one of our social workers, and we

recognize that, but we want to make sure that we learn from this so that these

sorts of things can't happen again." That's blaming others. It was his ministry

that sent out flawed guidelines. It was his ministry that told social workers

they did not have to do home monitors. Why did the minister blame a social

worker, blame staff, blame everyone else yesterday, when the responsibility is

clearly at the feet of this ministry and this government?

Hon. S. Hagen: I have said many, many times on the public

record that I am very proud of the work that our front-line social workers do.

They do work that I couldn't do. They deal with the most difficult issues that

any ministry in government deals with — far more difficult than numbers or

budget issues. They deal with people issues — the most difficult challenges that

there are in government. They're family issues. They work to keep families

together.

When the NDP were in government, they couldn't wait to run into a

home and snatch the kids away. What we try to do is keep the kids in their

families, with extended families or in the communities. That takes a lot of

work. It takes a lot of family counselling, and that's what our workers do to

make life better for kids in this province.

M. Farnworth: The minister has stated that he takes full

responsibility, so why is not ministerial responsi-

[ Page 196 ]

bility included in this review? Why is it not part of the review being done

by the Attorney General?

Hon. S. Hagen: Let me reiterate into the record what we're

asking the review to do, which came as a result of a question that was asked

yesterday. The Attorney General is asking the child and youth officer for

British Columbia, under

section 6 of the Office for Children and Youth Act, to

conduct a review into three areas: firstly, the timeliness involved in the

writing, completion and release of the director's case review; secondly, why the

terms of reference were changed; and lastly, to review the policy concerning a

director's case review, including those where kith and kin has been applied, and

make any recommendations necessary as a result.

I might add, if I find my note here, it is sort of interesting….

This is a question that the opposition should have asked, but I'll ask it: what

kind of legal power does the child and youth officer have? The answer to that is

the child and youth officer has the authority to access any provincial

government information she requires to do her job. She also has the authority to

comment publicly without interference on matters affecting children and youth.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

[1455]

M. Farnworth: That's correct, but the minister has chosen

to emphasize certain points they want to have looked at and to ignore others. If

it wasn't for the questions that were asked in this House yesterday, this

commission and the work of the Attorney General wouldn't have been announced

today. So again: why are not ministerial accountability and the actions of the

minister part of the review? Why are not the issues that have been raised around

budget part of the review? Will the minister ask the Attorney General to broaden

the scope of the review so that those items are included?

Hon. S. Hagen: As I said, this is not about redoing the

director's case review. The child and youth officer, on August 4, said that she

is satisfied that the information severed or cut from the report was taken out

for privacy reasons, as required by law. She is satisfied that as much detail as

can be released publicly, consistent with the privacy laws, has been released.

Together with that, we released a document at that time showing the 12

recommendations that came out of the report which we have completed or which

will be completed this fall.

I'll make this request to all members of the House: if

there are members of the House who have information on this case that the child

and youth officer should know, please come forward with that information.

L. Krog: My question is to the hon. Attorney General. As

the Attorney General is supposed to be independent of government, does he agree

with the scope of this report?

Hon. W. Oppal: The scope of the report obviously is going

to be an independent report. It's a report that I'm asking the child and youth

officer to do under

section 6 of the act. I can assure the hon. member that she

will have complete independence, without any interference from my ministry or

any other member of government.

Mr. Speaker: Member has a supplemental.

L. Krog: Again, to the Attorney General. The issue is the

scope of the report. The report should include the actions of this government.

It should include whether or not the information was, in fact, appropriate,

whether or not the budget cuts had effect. Does the Attorney General agree in

this respect that the scope of the report is, in fact, appropriate?

Hon. W. Oppal: Mr. Speaker, I….

Mr. Speaker: Attorney General.

Hon. W. Oppal: I'm sorry. I just have this enthusiasm, and

it's tough to curb it from time to time.

I'm completely satisfied that the terms of reference here are

exhaustive, they're thorough, and they will provide the appropriate answers and

recommendations.

G. Robertson: Yesterday the minister told the media he

wasn't sure about the terms of reference. He said: "I'm not saying that over a

year of briefings it wasn't mentioned to me." It's been 24 hours now. Can the

minister tell us if he was briefed on the terms of reference?

Hon. S. Hagen: I have already said that. I was not briefed.

Mr. Speaker: Member has a supplemental.

G. Robertson: The minister should have been on top of this

file a long time ago. He should have found out for himself what role budget cuts

played in this case, instead of waiting until now and being pressured by the

opposition. He should have done his homework. Can the minister explain in clear

terms how it's possible that he knew so little about the most important file to

cross his desk as a minister?

Hon. S. Hagen: I'm not sure what the member's question is.

If the member's question is related to the change of terms of reference, the

answer is that I am not supposed to know. I'm not told that. That is made by

director-level decision in the ministry.

[1500]

B. Ralston: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of

Children and Family Development.

Mr. Speaker: I've still got to recognize you first. Sorry.

Member for Surrey-Whalley.

B. Ralston: Thanks, Mr. Speaker. My question is for the

Minister of Children and Family Development. The

[ Page 197 ]

minister has just told this House that he was aware of the guidelines in

2004. According to a document that has been provided to me, the government knew

this in November, 2002. Can the minister please confirm that?

Hon. S. Hagen: Could you ask the member to rephrase his

question, because I have no idea what he's asking.

Mr. Speaker: Member for Surrey-Whalley, would you like to

repeat your question?

B. Ralston: I'll rephrase the question. I understand and am

advised that Mr. Berland in the ministry was aware of this matter and the change

in the guidelines in November of 2002, although the minister has just said to

this House that he was not aware and the ministry was not aware until 2004.

There is a clear contradiction between what the minister has said here in this

House and what Mr. Berland has said in correspondence to others in the public.

Hon. S. Hagen: I think there's confusion in the member's

mind about the ministry and the minister's office. What we've said consistently

is that the change in the terms of reference was made between September and

November of '02. I did not find out about the change until yesterday.

J. Horgan: My question is to the Minister of Children and

Family Development. He said in his ministerial statement earlier today that he

was responsible for releasing a

summary document that deleted key elements of

the whole report. Can he confirm today that that was made by his office — his

ministerial office?

Hon. S. Hagen: No. What I said today in my statement was

with regard to the director's case review. Here's what I said. I made a promise

at that time that should we ever experience a further tragedy such as this, both

the

summary and severed director's case review will be released by the ministry

at the same time, without the need for anyone to submit a freedom-of-information

request. I might add that none of these reports were ever released under the

previous NDP government. We are the most open and transparent ministry of its

kind in Canada, and probably the world.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

J. Horgan: Of course, the minister would be aware in the

previous administration there was an independent children's commissioner who

handled all these reports publicly with complete access to all the information.

My supplemental question is to the minister, and it has to do with

the proliferation of order-in-council appointments in the public affairs bureau.

Will the minister confirm that the Premier's office and his staff were aware of

changes to the document before it was released?

B. Simpson: Today the minister has repeatedly stated that

he has the full confidence of the social workers and the front-line workers out

in the field. However, today the issue is not the confidence that we have in

those workers. The issue today is whether or not the people of British Columbia

can have confidence in the minister and the minister's office to conduct the

oversight necessary on the files that he has on his desk.

Will the minister please speak to the province of British Columbia

and its people as to how they can regain confidence in your office and what you

will do to regain that confidence.

Hon. S. Hagen: That is precisely why today I have asked the

Attorney General, and he has agreed, to appoint the child and youth officer for

British Columbia, according to

section 6 of the Office for Children and Youth

Act, to conduct a review into three areas: first, the time lines involved in the

writing, completion and release of the director's case review; second, why the

terms of reference were changed; and last, review the policy concerning a

director's case review, including those where kith and kin has been applied, and

make any recommendations necessary as a result.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

[1505]

B. Simpson: I'm sure that the minister is getting tired of

reading the terms of reference for us, as we are getting tired of hearing what's

missing in those terms of reference and what we are calling for today. So I ask

the minister: would you please clarify for this House whether or not the Premier

is satisfied with the scope of this and has signed off on those terms of

reference.

Hon. S. Hagen: To answer that question, I have asked the

Attorney General, and he has agreed to appoint the child and youth officer for

British Columbia according to

section 6 of the Office for Children and Youth Act

to conduct a review into three areas: first, the time lines involved in the

writing, completion and release of the director's case review; second, why the

terms of reference were changed; and last, review the policy concerning a

director's case review, including those where kith and kin has been applied, and

make any recommendations necessary as result.

D. Cubberley: A question to the Minister of Children and

Family Development: can the minister tell this House whether the Premier's

office signed off on the terms of reference he has presented for the inquiry

today and who in the Premier's office signed off on the terms of reference.

Hon. S. Hagen: Let me reiterate what we've announced today

— the Attorney General of British Columbia and myself. The Attorney General has

agreed to appoint the child and youth officer for British Columbia according to

section 6 of the Office for Children and Youth Act to conduct a review into

three areas: first, the timeliness involved in the writing, completion and

release of the director's case review; second, why the

[ Page 198 ]

terms of reference were changed; and last, review the policy concerning a

director's case review, including those where kith and kin has been applied, and

make any recommendations necessary as a result.

Might I remind the member opposite of the powers of the child and

youth officer? The child and youth officer has the authority to access any

provincial government information she requires to do her job. She also has the

authority to comment publicly without interference on the matters affecting

children and youth.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

D. Cubberley: We're beginning to understand the terms of

reference, Mr. Minister. What we're really interested in is what's not in the

terms of reference. I think what the House and all British Columbians would

appreciate is your speaking directly to the issue of the fact that the

government cutbacks to the Ministry of Children and Family Development are not

under consideration in the inquiry you're proposing. Will you now tell the House

why that lies outside the scope of this inquiry?

Hon. S. Hagen: Under the kith-and-kin arrangement — which

in this case, the mother and the delegated agency agreed the child would be

placed under — there was actually an extra cost to the Crown. This was not

anything to do about saving money. It cost us more money because the federal

government wouldn't pay for that part of the cost.

C. Trevena: I'd like to ask the Deputy Premier who approved

the terms of reference. Did you?

Hon. S. Hagen: What I've announced today together with the

Attorney General, who is in agreement…. He has agreed to appoint the child and

youth officer for British Columbia according to

section 6 of the Office for

Children and Youth Act to conduct a review into three areas: first, the time

lines involved in the writing, completion and release of the director's case

review; second, why the terms of reference were changed; and last, review the

policy concerning a director's case review, including those where kith and kin

has been applied, and make any recommendations necessary as a result.

[1510]

Let me also read into the record the legal power of the child and

youth officer. The child and youth officer has the authority to access any

provincial government information she requires to do her job. She also has the

authority to comment publicly without interference on matters affecting children

and youth.

[End of question period.]

Petitions

D. MacKay: I wish to file a petition on behalf of 1,090

residents of the Bulkley Valley and Lakes District who are opposed to the

non-motorized use of a proposed Maurice LRMP process that took place in that

part of the province.

N. Macdonald: On behalf of the residents of Columere Park, a

community in Columbia River–Revelstoke, I present a 204-name petition opposing

proposed changes to Columbia Lake Park.

Orders of the Day

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

Budget Debate

(continued)

R. Fleming: It's a great honour as a new MLA to this House

to be able to rise today to both respond to the government's budget and remark

on some of the issues and the hopes and aspirations that the people of Victoria

have expressed to me.

Firstly, I want to thank the people of Victoria-Hillside for

electing me as their representative to this assembly and placing their trust in

me to represent their issues and interests. It was a great honour to represent

many of my constituents and to work with neighbourhoods across my riding over

the past six years as a member of Victoria city council. I look forward to

continuing with public service in this new role.

There are a number of people I'd like to thank for their help and

friendship. I'll begin with my former colleagues from city council, Councillors

Denise Savoie, Pam Madoff and Dean Fortin, also Mayor Alan Lowe and the rest of

council, and the great staff at the city of Victoria. I'd also like to thank

Councillors Carol Pickup and Judy Brownoff from the district of Saanich, whom

I've worked with closely over the past several years on regional planning,

transportation and housing issues in Greater Victoria.

I'd like to thank my campaign manager Chloe Burgess and my

constituency assistant Marni Offman for constantly working so hard on my behalf.

I'd also like to thank my family and my wife Maura for their years of support

and hopefully enduring patience that isn't wearing thin of my choice of career

for the time being. I'd also like to thank the former MLA for Victoria-Hillside,

Sheila Orr, for the dedication and sincerity that she brought to the job of

serving the people of Victoria-Hillside, which she cared very much about and

continues to care very much about.

I'm very much looking forward to convening the Public Accounts

Committee shortly. It's an important part of the Legislature, and I think in

recent years it's emerged as a key check and balance, in our parliamentary

democracy, of executive power. I look forward to working with the members

opposite and all the members of the committee to run an exemplary public

accounts committee that serves this House well.

[1515]

Much has been said by the government about a rising sense of

confidence occurring in our economy.

[ Page 199 ]

Indeed, there are many undeniable benefits that come and flow from the Bank

of Canada's record-low interest rates and its effect on the housing and

construction market in this province and across our country. The rebound in

several of our resource sectors has flowed money to many parts of the province

and to the treasury here. Today's record level of federal transfers to B.C., a

complete reversal of the era of federal cuts and downloading of health and

social transfers in the mid to late 1990s…. Federal reinvestment in health care,

education, child care and other areas have helped this government post a surplus

of $1.26 billion this fiscal year, almost matching the $1.3 billion surplus and

4 percent growth rate that the government inherited in 2001.

But we must never make the mistake of believing that the economic

confidence of certain market analysts means that we should not take seriously

the worries that occupy the minds of ordinary British Columbians who struggle to

make a decent living each day. Far too many people in our province and in my

constituency are consumed with daily anxieties about feeding their children

nutritious food, paying for basic medicines, accessing post-secondary education

and wondering about the well-being of their elderly parents as they age. Many

people work long hours for low pay, and instead of feeling like they're getting

ahead, they feel vulnerable in our economy. Too many people have fallen outside

of society and are living in situations that risk their health.

Last January Victoria had its first official homeless count and

estimated that there are as many as 700 people in this region without a place to

call home, many sleeping in the rough each night. In the Burnside-Gorge

neighbourhood in my riding social workers have told me about the homeless one-

and two-parent families that they encounter, some living in their cars, who each

morning have to send their kids to school without food. This neighbourhood

coordinates a housing placement program for temporary and long-term housing, but

they are unable to help too many people that need their help.

I think that everyone in this House can acknowledge a number of

serious social problems we face here in British Columbia, and the point really

is that we're not helpless to effect change. When we decide to show the proper

determination and resolve, we can begin to improve, to fix our housing problems,

fix flaws in our health care system, provide people with skills and training

opportunities and address the long-term care bed shortages and other service

gaps that will allow our seniors to live in dignity.

On this last point, in my constituency there is a high percentage

of seniors, many on fixed, low incomes. For them, private care homes aren't an

option. Many are blocking acute care hospital beds because of the shortage of

public long-term care facilities. The government must work on its fulfilment of

the 5,000-bed promise from 2001. Part of the challenge to the government, who

now say that this commitment will be met by 2008, is finding and assembling land

at a reasonable cost. I'm pleased to say that there are two such sites in my

constituency already zoned for residential care and assisted living that could

issue building permits immediately. We are ready to be part of the solution if

the Ministry of Health and B.C. Housing will enable our health authority to

proceed.

I'm a great fan of so-called mixed development in our urban and

suburban areas. We've learned some painful lessons about the negative impact of

redeveloping tracts of land into homogeneous places where the housing forms and

the income and demographic group are pretty much the same. We've learned the

mistake of building low-density, car-oriented neighbourhoods that don't have

commercial spaces for living and working and don't have public amenities like

transit and parks. We've learned that these poorly planned communities gobble up

far too much land and, let's face it, tend to be boring and depressing places to

be.

[1520]

Victoria boasts some redeveloped areas that are highly liveable

places. One of them, at the heart of my constituency, is the Selkirk waterfront.

This large site was a former plywood plant that sat dormant for many years. The

land was heavily contaminated. Pollution impacted the marine health of the

shoreline and the waterway. Fortunately, a local family, the Jalls, developed a

visionary and comprehensive proposal to clean up and revitalize this site.

Today at the Selkirk waterfront what you see is a clean waterway

that houses a beautiful rowing club and public wharves. There you'll find

hundreds of good paying jobs in the office buildings on the site. Hundreds of

residents live in apartments and townhouses that range from the expensive to the

very good quality, affordable public housing for families and the so-called

hard-to-house. There's a Montessori school and pubs, cafés, restaurants and

greenspace commons.

This project involved a monumental cleanup utilizing

made-in-Canada, made-in-B.C., environmental technologies. All three levels of

government were involved in this project. The public amenity package included

the conversion of an abandoned rail bridge to become a significant walking and

cycling trail connector — the Galloping Goose Trail.

For me, the Selkirk project is a great example of new thinking

about planning. It's an example of how to bring economic revitalization and

vibrancy to a depressed area. It's also a politically inspiring, real-life story

about the difference that private sector visionaries like the Jalls can make and

how politicians can help make things happen when they believe in something and

when they champion it.

Andrew Petter was the MLA for Saanich South during the Selkirk

revitalization. It was a project that he took an active interest in and got the

support of his government for. Mr. Petter is now the dean of the faculty of law

at the University of Victoria. He was a great champion for this region during

his time in public office. Among other things, he supported and helped the

community create one of the most comprehensive networks of urban cycling and

walking pathways in all of Canada. He helped the region secure its water supply

[ Page 200 ]

and purchase significant land holdings to create a large protected area for

our region's blue and greenspaces in the surrounding hills and shorelines.

He also helped to preserve one of the province's most significant

heritage buildings just a block from here — St. Ann's Academy. He did it by

involving the B.C. Buildings Corporation in the creation of a business plan that

worked for that building. Sadly, this Crown entity is soon to have its assets

stripped and wound down for privatization. One would think that a

business-minded government would today see the value of owning a property

portfolio in this hot market, but such is not the case.

There are other brownfield redevelopments underway in our region.

One significant cleanup is being led by Transport Canada and B.C. Hydro at the

former gas plant in Rock Bay. Still another is a $300 million dockside

redevelopment project financed by VanCity Enterprises in Victoria West, part of

my neighbour's constituency of Victoria–Beacon Hill.

There is no question that Victoria is a premiere destination for

tourism from around the world. This industry has matured into a major employer,

and it continues to grow each year. It now surpasses the $1 billion mark in

economic gross activity each year for this area. But in order to remain a great

destination, people have to be able to travel here easily, affordably and

comfortably.

[S. Hawkins in the chair.]

One of our gateways for nearly a million visitors, mainly from the

United States, is just a block from this House — the Belleville ferry terminal.

Various private ferry operators have used this facility for decades.

Unfortunately, its age shows. The site — I think all would agree — is an

eyesore, whether it's viewed from the land or from a vessel in the harbour. Its

redevelopment by the Crown Provincial Capital Commission seemed certain only a

few short years ago. After years of discussion with Transport Canada, we finally

got harbour properties divested from Ottawa to local and provincial authorities.

The province became the consolidated owner of the Belleville terminal site, and

the province successfully rezoned this property in 2000-2001.

The province, again with Mr. Petter in the lead, was

looking at providing grants and low-interest borrowing guarantees for the

Provincial Capital Commission to redevelop the site. It was to be an updated and

refreshed ferry terminal that promised to double the number of passengers

visiting our city each year. Well, this government, the current administration,

has had over four years to oversee this project. I'm disappointed to say that

next to nothing has happened. I know that the business community, Tourism

Victoria, the chamber of commerce and many others share my sense of frustration,

as does the U.S. Customs authority and the ferry operators and passengers.

[1525]

There are other transportation issues that have been ignored by

this budget: public transit in Greater Victoria. Public transit in Greater

Victoria and 50 other communities where B.C. Transit operates have suffered four

years of cutbacks from frozen funding. Service levels in my community today are

at pre-1996 levels. Over 100,000 hours of operating annual transit service have

been cut here in Victoria.

Instead of providing more transportation options, we have fewer.

Instead of funding public transit as part of a comprehensive Kyoto

implementation plan, we're ignoring rising greenhouse gas emissions. Once upon a

time, shortly after the 2001 election, in fact, the Ministry of Transportation

said it would examine sustainable transit funding and governance models. This

never happened. There are certainly many other strategic investments the

government should make that will improve the health of the population and save

taxpayers money downstream.

It was a mistake — and I would like to hear the government admit

it — when they cancelled the Homes B.C. program. This program created thousands

of new units of affordable family rental housing. The program was innovative, it

was flexible, and it was necessary. Housing programs are needed even more today

than they were ten years ago. Vacancy rates are lower, housing and land costs

have risen dramatically, and the private sector can no longer build rental

housing in any viable way. B.C. Housing should have the resources and the

ability to respond to the creative housing ideas that are coming from the

non-profit sector. We'd be a much better province for it.

I know that local governments, neighbourhoods and law enforcement

would like to see B.C. Housing help convert problem properties — so-called crack

houses — into well-managed, affordable housing. There's one such property in my

riding that had over 300 visits from the police last year. Crystal meth and

other drugs are sold and consumed openly at this address. Yet without the

ability to sentence addicted dealers to treatment — because the facilities don't

exist and aren't funded — without services that make it possible to intervene,

this dangerous, toxic situation goes on.

To build affordable rental housing again in this province will

require a committed partnership from the province. In search of this

partnership, the city of Victoria and the capital regional district have created

two affordable housing trust funds to leverage dollars for affordable housing

projects. I know that the mayor's door is open in this city, and the mayors'

doors in many of our communities across B.C. They want to engage the province on

housing.

To build any kind of housing and meet the demand of a booming

construction sector is a challenge we must take up, and it is a challenge that

provides government with the opportunity to invest in the skills development of

young workers. The independent economic advisory council cited a skills shortage

as one of the major risks facing B.C.'s economy today, yet this budget, sadly,

does little to move us in the right direction.

I note that the budget for the Industry Training Authority is in

fact $10 million less today than it was in 2001. In my constituency, wait-lists

are growing for

[ Page 201 ]

young people to get into trades programs at Camosun College. I've heard

firsthand from contractors and developers in Victoria about the lack of skills

training. Young people and small businesses are struggling to afford the fees

introduced by this government for apprenticeship.

Similarly, students and their families that want to attend one of

the two institutions, the University of Victoria and Camosun College, to pursue

a degree or vocational program are struggling with this government's huge

increase to tuition fees and the corresponding cuts to student grants and other

supports that make it possible to attend. This government is literally crushing

the dreams of education for students from low-income backgrounds.

[1530]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank this House for the chance to share

some of my constituents' concerns and priorities. I look forward to working with

the government MLAs and various ministries to make good things happen in my

constituency and in this province. Despite all the challenges we face, I'm

optimistic we can find solutions that will improve the lives of the people who

we all serve.

Hon. G. Abbott: Thank you, Madam Speaker, for the

opportunity to make some comments in respect of the recently tendered provincial

budget. It is a great honour to be able to speak once again in the House and to

be part of this incoming parliament. First, I do want to congratulate you on

your ascension to the chair — richly deserved — and I'm sure you'll do an

exceptional job. I'd also appreciate it if you would pass along to Mr. Speaker

my congratulations.

[Applause.]

I'm not sure why he's clapping, but thank you.

Mr. Speaker as well as Madam Speaker and I have had the

opportunity to serve together since 1996. I certainly do welcome his movement

into the chair as well and, of course, the new Assistant Deputy Speaker, who is

from the opposition side and who I hope will be part of a new and more

constructive relationship in this House between the government and the

opposition.

Having served in opposition, I do remember well how easily

additional spending rolls off the tongue in comparison to the position one finds

oneself in when constrained by actual budget disciplines. But I know we'll work

hard to do a good job for the people of British Columbia, and I do look forward

to working with all members of the House and, indeed, want to congratulate all

members of the House on their election.

I particularly want to thank the electors of the Shuswap, who have

now been putting up with me for some time and who have been generous in their

support over the years — in 1996, 2001 and again in 2005. It is a tremendous

privilege and honour to represent them and to serve them in this Legislature. I

have very much enjoyed doing that, being an MLA, and in more recent years have

had the opportunity to serve on the executive council as well.

I also want to thank the electors of the Shuswap for allowing me

the opportunity to serve in local government for 17 years before coming to this

Legislature. I had the good fortune to serve with, among others, the member for

Columbia River–Revelstoke — I see across the House — who was a good friend of

mine in local government. We're probably not going to be such good friends now,

but actually….

Hon. S. Bond: Oh, come on.

Hon. G. Abbott: Yes, the Deputy Premier is absolutely right

that we don't let small issues of partisanship get in the way of friendships in

this Legislature, so I'm sure that will continue here as well.

I did have the good fortune to serve for 17 years on the board of

the Columbia-Shuswap regional district, where the hon. member also served, and

as a councillor in the new district of Sicamous after it was incorporated in

1989. I think one of the great benefits of having served in local government is

that one does get used to working with people, regardless of what their partisan

complexion may be. It is an opportunity to try to resolve problems — to meet

difficult issues without recourse, necessarily, to particularly ideological

solutions. One of the things that I have learned from my now over 25 years in

elected office is that the public really welcomes commonsense solutions rather

than embracing ideological solutions. Hopefully, that is a spirit that will

pervade this House as well as the broader province.

One of the things, of course, that one learns after

some experience in local government is the importance of sound fiscal management

in whatever jurisdiction we are fortunate enough to be a part of. One of the

things local governments have been obliged to do for decades in British Columbia

is to balance their budgets every year. You are not permitted, under the terms

of the Municipal Act — now the Local Government Act — or the Community Charter

to incur deficits, and that does, I think, impose a fiscal discipline on elected

officials that is not always evident in this particular jurisdiction.

[1535]

I am pleased, though, that in fact our government has restored

that fiscal discipline to the management of finances in this province.

Obviously, the budget recently tendered by the new Finance Minister is yet

another example of that. We have moved away from what were in the 1990s a

continuous stream of substantial deficit budgets to a fiscal position now where

I think we can be sure that we will see balanced and surplus budgets for a long

way into the future. I think the fiscal discipline is critical to producing the

outcomes that we need in this province.

Having been a part of the government from 2001 to 2005, when we

did have to make some difficult decisions — and it seemed every day there were

more than a few difficult decisions that had to be made…. The purpose of making

those difficult decisions was not to just feel the tide of difficulty rolling

over us. It was to ensure we had an economy that was buoyant and growing, and

finances that could sustain the social

[ Page 202 ]

safety net we have in the province and the innovative programs that would

make this province a better place to live and to work and be a part of.

I'm very proud of what we were able to achieve over the past four

years, and I think I'm going to be even more proud of what we're going to be

achieving in the next four years ahead.

[Applause.]

Yeah, go ahead — clap. I think the next four years are going to be

a tremendously exciting time for this government, for this province. I think

we're going to see achievements that one would simply not have anticipated just

a few years ago. It's going to be a tremendously exciting time as we see the

product of that fiscal discipline and that exceptional management of the economy

and our finances yield social investments for the province.

The previous speaker referenced B.C. Housing, and I just want to….

I'm not going to do a critique of his or anybody else's speech in the

Legislature, but I do want to note, as minister responsible for B.C. Housing for

over three years earlier in our tenure in office, that B.C. Housing was one of

the two provincial programs in Canada that continued and expanded under our

leadership. Only ourselves and Quebec had social housing programs during that

period in time.

The budget for that — I remember it very well — was $153 million

annually for housing programs at B.C. Housing. I was very proud of what we were

able to do with that. We have an exceptional team at B.C. Housing. They put

together public-private partnerships. They put together partnerships with

non-profits across this province that yield literally thousands of new housing

units that are of tremendous benefit to those who are most vulnerable in our

province. I'm tremendously proud of what B.C. Housing has done, and I will say

that in any venue.

I am particularly proud of the Independent Living B.C. program

that we launched in 2002. That has made a huge difference to the frail elderly

in the province. It provides them with supportive housing opportunities and

assisted-living opportunities that ensure they can live as independently as they

can for as long as they can with the health supports they need. I think it's a

great model, and it's something that I'm proud of and I know our government is

tremendously proud of.

I'm also very proud to hear from the Finance Minister in her

recent budget update that we are going to see a major extension to the Shelter

Aid for Elderly Renters program in B.C. Again, this is a great step forward, and

this is very much a dividend of the hard work that has gone on over the past

four years. The SAFER program is a subsidy to elderly renters who, in the

absence of that subsidy, might not be able to live independently. It's a very

important program. We are going to see, through this budget, an expansion in the

level of support in the SAFER program for the first time since 1991. That's a

big step ahead to expand the SAFER program.

[1540]

I'm also very proud because I, absolutely shamelessly, advocated

for this as a Housing Minister. I'm very proud that we are going to be able to

extend the SAFER program to elderly renters who have their own trailers or

mobile homes in mobile home parks. They pay a monthly pad rental, and this is

going to be extended to them. Again, elderly renters will be able to live

independently, with support from the health authorities where they need it, as

long as they can and as independently as they can. Certainly, today's senior is

healthier than ever before, lives longer than ever before and is more

independent than ever before. I think these are the kind of supports that make

life even better for seniors in British Columbia.

The other thing we need to make note of as something that really

backstops the social changes that we've made, the social investments that we've

made and the social dividends that are being produced in British Columbia is

that we have seen confidence restored in the British Columbia economy. In terms

of economic growth and all of the different measures associated with economic

growth, we have moved from being the number ten jurisdiction to being the number

one jurisdiction in Canada — something that we should be tremendously proud of.

In the most recent year we are seeing ourselves move ahead of

Alberta as being the number one economy in Canada, and I think we all are very

proud of that. It also underlines the point that by being good economic

managers, by seeing our economy and our job growth so strong, we can again

produce social dividends that would have been unimaginable under a different

regime where taxes and regulations were more onerous and there were fewer

incentives to build a strong economy.

I'm proud to have been and to be a member of a government that has

had tremendous success in the area of building the economy. We are seeing jobs

produced in British Columbia like never before. In many areas of the economy one

of the biggest challenges is in fact to find the human resources to meet the job

potential that exists there. We have led Canada in recent years in job creation.

I think that's a tremendous feat for our great province. Many times we are

leading North America in terms of job creation. We can be very, very proud of

that. The lowest unemployment rates in British Columbia for 20 years…. One

suspects that we are going to see more good news of that character in the months

and years ahead as well.

Ours is a province that has been tremendously blessed in a range

of areas by the resources, the people and the infrastructure that we have. If we

keep building on that in the sustained, disciplined manner that we have over the

past four years, we are going to continue to see tremendous economic news in

British Columbia for literally years to come. It's going to be tremendously

exciting to be a part of that.

Madam Speaker, today I want to focus, perhaps not surprisingly, on

the area of health. I know that you're a former Minister of Health Planning, so

I hope you find my comments tremendously stimulating as well, being a former

minister responsible. I know that if I were to ask my constituents in Shuswap

what their number

[ Page 203 ]

one issue was, they would say health, without a doubt. I suspect that if I

canvassed the constituents in 78 other ridings about what their number one issue

was, they would say health as well. Health currently constitutes between 43

cents and 44 cents of every budgetary dollar in the province.

[1545]

It is a huge responsibility, and it's a tremendous honour for me

to have the opportunity to lead the Ministry of Health, at least for some period

to come.

I did want to talk about some of the issues around health and some

of the challenges we face in the months and years to come. I think that it is

going to be tremendously exciting and gratifying to lead this ministry. Every

day I am astonished by the commitment, the talents and the energy that exist

within the Ministry of Health, across the health authorities of this province

and within the hospitals and the facilities sector. Health is a huge thing. I

have not to date, as Minister of Health, met anyone in the health care system

who is not excited and committed to producing better health outcomes for the

citizens of British Columbia. I think it's going to be an exciting time.

Again, I don't think I'm being biased here. We have a great health

care system in British Columbia. Is it perfect? No. There's always room for

improvement in a number of areas, and the key to success is to drive forward and

to see continuous improvement across the system. Notwithstanding the occasional

things that go wrong in a system where there are literally hundreds of thousands

of interactions on a daily basis, we have a great health care system.

The fact that we have a great health care system is a tribute to

the doctors, to the nurses, to the orderlies, to the front-line workers, to the

administrators and to the thousands and thousands of people who make this system

work very, very well on a daily basis. We want to build an even stronger health

care system in British Columbia, and I think that by driving and demanding

continuous improvement across the system, we're going to do that.

Again, I've heard a lot of comments in this House, and I

understand why members of the opposition need to try to discredit or diminish

public confidence in our management of the health care system. That's part of

being in opposition. I accept that they are going to do that, but I do hope that

while they may wish to undermine confidence in me, they never in their comments

undermine the public health care system in British Columbia as a whole, because

it's a great system. Again, we are working every day to make it an even better

system. I think in many respects the facts speak for themselves in regard to

making it a better system.

Let me begin with this. The budget for health in fiscal 2000-2001

was $8.5 billion. I think it's somewhere in the 30s as a percentage of the

provincial budget. We have seen that figure grow over four years to where we

have, in the 2005-2006 budget, a budgetary allocation of $11.6 billion plus the

$150 million incremental increase, which the Finance Minister announced in her

recent budget.

We have seen the budget for health care grow by $3.25 billion over

the past four years. People may want to natter on about cuts for all of the

reasons that people natter on about cuts, but the fact of the matter is that

there has been a huge increase in the budget for the Ministry of Health. We may

want to quarrel about whether the allocation is perfect or whether it's

appropriate — and I think that's a great thing to debate — but there has been no

question that both the size of the budget for health and its percentage of the

overall provincial budget have grown dramatically. That's the first point I

wished to be clear on.

[1550]

The other thing that we are doing as a government, which I think

is very important, in addition to growing the size of the budget…. The other key

element that we are in the process of expanding is the skilled human resources

that are necessary to make this a great and greater health care system in

British Columbia. We have, I'm proud to say, expanded — in fact, doubled — the

number of seats for doctors being trained in this province. That's going to be

key to ensuring that we have that very important skill as we move forward. Also,

because they are also a key part of the health system, we have greatly expanded

the number of nursing seats in the province.

I know, Madam Speaker, you can take some credit for this. In the

early years I know you were a great advocate for expanding the number of nursing

seats in training institutions across the province. That's yielding dividends

today.

We saw — and I know this is surprising — that through the 1990s

there were only 85 nursing seats added across the province and another 400 added

just prior to the 2001 election. If you compare that ten-year period to what we

did over the past four years, which was to add some 62 percent more new seats —

and I don't want to be too precise about this, but it's 2,511 new nursing seats

across British Columbia — that is a tremendous advance in terms of meeting the

need for nurses and nursing skills across the province. In addition to that,

through the provincial nominee program and other initiatives, we have added 600

additional nurses as well. That's key, I think, as we move forward.

One of the things that is possible through the addition of the

$3.25 billion in new resourcing and the addition of the human resources — the

additional doctors and nurses — is that we are far better equipped to deal with

the challenge of wait times than we ever were before in the history of British

Columbia. Let me begin by prefacing my remarks with this. We have a demographic

challenge in British Columbia, and I'm a part of that challenge. I am part of

that great burst of population following the Second World War that we

affectionately call the baby- boomers. I'm part of that. Many of the members of

this chamber are part of that.

You, Madam Speaker, are far too young to be a part of that

particular phenomenon, but there are a number of us in here who I think can be

rightly described as baby-boomers.

[ Page 204 ]

In addition to having that demographic wave of people in their 50s

and 60s who are making increasing demands on the health care system, we are

also, I'm happy to say, seeing our seniors live longer in British Columbia than

ever before in history. British Columbia's seniors live longer than anywhere

else in Canada. That's a great fact and one we should be really proud of. They

are living longer, they are living healthier, they are living more active lives,

they are living more independently, and they are also demanding more surgical

services than ever before in British Columbia's history.

We've got a demographic wave that's coming at us. That's part of

our challenge here, and we are, I think, moving very appropriately to meet that

challenge. I'm not saying we resolved it. I think we've got some ways to go.

That goes back to continuous improvement in this area as well as other areas of

government.

I want to put a few facts on the table. This is a comparison

between today and 2000-2001. These are surgeries that are being performed in the

province. We are doing 65 percent more knee surgeries, particularly knee

replacements, than four or five years ago — so a 65 percent increase in that, a

35 percent increase in hip replacements, a 20 percent increase in cataract

surgeries, a 7 percent increase in coronary bypasses and a 52 percent increase

in angioplasty surgeries across this province.

[1555]

We are resourcing a lot more surgeries than has ever been the case

in this province before. About half of the surgeries that we do in the province

are done immediately. If you break a leg or an arm in an automobile accident,

chances are you will get that done immediately. Of the balance — that is, the

elective surgeries that are not done on an emergent basis — 50 percent of the

balance of those surgeries are done within one month, 75 percent are done within

three months, 90 percent within seven months and 97 percent within 12 months. So

that's all good too.

Now, one of the challenges of my job, one of the challenges of the

health care system we have in British Columbia, is that it tends to get

characterized by the exceptions rather than the rule. We have 3 percent who are

not getting their surgeries on a timely basis, and they are rightly and deeply

concerned about that. I think that's, again, where we need to be blunt and

honest about the challenge and find ways to address the needs of all British

Columbians. Hopefully, one day I can report that 100 percent of British

Columbians are receiving their surgeries in a timely way. I'm going to be honest

about that, and we're going to work tirelessly towards better health outcomes in

that area.

We are making progress on wait times. Again, the facts speak for

themselves. I think members probably know that we recently re-released a website

on wait times that contains much more accurate and up-to-date information about

wait times across the province. But generally, the outcomes are improving.

In cataracts we have seen the wait times reduced cross-province

from an average 12 weeks down to less than eight weeks. Cancer radiation — a

critical piece in the exceptional cancer care that we have in the province — is

reduced from two weeks to one week. In fact, I want to say this about cancer

care before we move on. I am tremendously proud, hon. Speaker, as I'm sure you

are, of the work that has been done by the Provincial Health Services Authority,

the PHSA, and particularly proud of the work that has been done by the B.C.

Cancer Agency.

We often take for granted the just remarkable, exceptional people

that we have working in different places in our health care system. British

Columbia has become a centre of excellence second to none in North America and

perhaps the world in terms of cancer treatment and cancer research. It is

astonishing — the work that is done every day in that area. In fact, your

recovery is testament to that, Madam Speaker, as well. Just incredible work is

being done by the B.C. Cancer Agency, and it's something we can all be very

proud of.

The area where we still have a challenge…. I talked earlier about

the increase in the number of hip surgeries, the number of knee surgeries. Even

though those surgeries are up 65 percent and 35 percent respectively, it's still

a challenge because we have more and more people. The demand curve, because of

the demographics in our province, continues to go up, and we need to find ways

to meet that demographic challenge. We have relative stability around the

wait-list or wait times on hips and knees, but I want to do better. I do look

forward to the constructive suggestion and advice from members all across the

House in respect of how we might do that. I know sometimes we need to look at

innovations and embrace innovative thinking, and I think this is no exception in

this case.

As we move forward, we are going to see, I think, improving

outcomes for British Columbians. I want to see that happen. I see the green

light is on, and I don't want to get caught here.

Interjection.

Hon. G. Abbott: Go two hours — oh, yes. Well, thank you

very much for that vote of confidence and diverting me a bit.

[1600]

I do want to say in conclusion that I've had the opportunity to

live now in this province for all of my life, 52 years. It's a great province.

We are spectacularly blessed with resources. My favourite place on a weekend is

either up on Silver Star or Larch Hills cross-country skiing or downhill skiing.

You can look out. You see the forests; you see the farms and orchards. You can

see the rivers and lakes, the mountains, the tremendous wealth, the tremendous

opportunity that exists in this province. We're all tremendously honoured,

tremendously lucky to be able to live here. I know that today British Columbia

is once again the envy of this nation, and I know we're going to continue to be

the envy of the world.

D. Cubberley: I rise today to address the House for a first

time. The chance to take

part in these delibera-

[ Page 205 ]

tions comes with a sense of awe and a determination to give my best. It will

take time to acclimatize to the privilege of having a voice in the course of

events in the life of our great province. I recognize that with this privilege

comes a large responsibility, one I believe I personally felt settle on my

shoulders at the moment of the swearing-in. It's one that I welcome because it's

central to our system of representative democracy, and because it is an honour

to enjoy the public's confidence to represent the constituency of Saanich South.

Since the swearing-in, just what it means to be an elected

representative has become clearer day by day. Stepping into this grand chamber

in the company of so many fine colleagues on both sides of the House opens a new

chapter in an exciting and promising adventure. I welcome the chance to speak,

in my own right to be sure, but more importantly for all those who have sent me

here to advocate on their behalf for the values of community, caring and

cooperation that we on this side hold dear.

Let me begin by congratulating all members of the House on their

victory in the recent election and by acknowledging that no one who comes to

this grand House gets there on individual effort alone. For me, victory flowed

from having a great campaign team with a relevant platform offering practical

solutions to the problems faced by people. There were also many enthusiastic

volunteers and widespread local support. So let me thank, first of all, my own

community, the citizens of Saanich, for the confidence they vested in me. I had

the privilege to serve them in other roles for some 15 years, but I'm eager and

delighted to serve them now to the best of my abilities in this new one.

I also want to thank my wife and partner Susan and my son Bryn for

their support and for their willingness to make personal sacrifices in the

service of politics. I think every family does that, and we appreciate it.

May I also, on behalf of Saanich South, thank my recent political

opponent, former MLA Susan Brice, for her efforts on our behalf. I know from

personal experience that it isn't easy to lose, especially as an incumbent.

Hopefully, one draws consolation from friends and colleagues and from the things

achieved while in office.

There are many reasons why I am standing here today, rather than

someone representing the governing party. Those reasons have much to do with the

public's assessment of how the prior government performed in office. I want to

canvass today a few of the currents of opinion that affected the outcome and

that I believe will ultimately provide a litmus test as to whether government

has heard and learned, or not.

public services — foremost among those, health care and education — and also

about its blatant disregard for certain constituencies, seniors and the less

well-off being the most obvious. There was also a deep undercurrent of concern

about its management of our forests and our environment, one that registers even

in a suburban municipality like my own.

Some here may know that I served for many years as a municipal

councillor and more recently as a regional district director, an experience that

taught me much and reinforced my belief in the value of making decisions in open

forum and delivering services as close to home as possible. Local government

tends in the direction of openness, transparency and good public process because

its decisions are made in committee of the whole, where the public can attend

and directly address decision makers who themselves, in turn, must give reasons

publicly for the decisions they're about to make.

[1605]

[S. Hammell in the chair.]

Local government affords an interesting angle from which to view

provincial political machinations. I'm sure some other members of the House have

had that experience. One often feels that senior government conducts its

business without much regard — or respect, for that matter — for the more junior

level. I have been one of those who doesn't accept this as just reality and have

pushed for progressive change — change that gives local government greater

autonomy and access to sources of revenue that grow with the economy; change

that commits senior government to share resources, to consult and to show

respect; change that enables communities to manage the challenges they face by

making their own choices and decisions.

I must admit I was not eager to leave municipal politics, but

rather chose to step forward in response to the terrible mistakes of the past

four years: the disinvestment in core community services; the skewing of public

priorities toward failing privatization schemes; the shifting of fees and taxes

onto low- and middle-income earners, those on fixed incomes and the needy; and

the incompetent management of our public health system.

Elections are always a judgment on government's performance in

office, and as we can tell from the results, there was widespread concern and

disillusion in British Columbia. The gap between promised and delivered outcomes

was so wide that a sense of betrayal and unease had taken root by election time.

Entire communities of interest and of place were abandoned as

promise after promise was broken. The lack of respect for signed contracts and

working people in general. The sale of public assets like B.C. Rail and the

ongoing export of jobs in forestry and shipbuilding. The gutting of

environmental regulation and the elimination of oversight at every level. The

missing 5,000 long-term care beds. Rampant privatization of services the

government pledged to protect. Skewing of tax relief to the most wealthy, after

promising not to, coupled with increases of fees and taxes falling most heavily

on those least capable of paying. The high-handed governing style. The refusal

to consult or consider impacts prior to acting. The complete lack of

accountability and transparency in everything from the sale of public assets to

the delivery of public services.

[ Page 206 ]

We see the same sad story playing itself out today with the

Maximus fiasco. A government that pledged to be the most open, transparent and

accountable in Canada privatizes by stealth and then hides from scrutiny behind

hollow phrases like "proprietary information." All the while, the most grandiose

and misleading language is deployed to cover over the most obvious realities —

empty slogans like "the golden decade" and "B.C. is back."

Madam Speaker, you won't convince people that B.C. is back when

they're preoccupied with the things that have been stuck onto their own backs.

One reason this government underachieved electorally was this huge

gap between rhetoric and perceived reality. The gap and the practice of

self-praise continue today as if nothing had been learned. For example, the

claim, which we heard most recently from the Minister of Health, that there are

more long-term care beds for seniors — one that ran absolutely false during the

election campaign — continues to be made. Everyone accepts that there are more

assisted-living spaces today than before. That's a good thing, as Martha Stewart

says.

The public knows there are fewer long-term care beds — as many as

600 cut in the capital region. The promise was to add 5,000 to the stock of

beds, not to deplete it further. It was a doorstep issue.

It surprised me how many families were actually affected by this

or knew someone affected — when a senior needing long-term care, round-the-clock

care which can't be attained in assisted living, got stuck in an acute care bed

in a local hospital and waited anxiously, for months in many cases, for a

placement that wasn't coming any time soon because government had cut beds in

British Columbia; or worse still, when seniors got moved to an inappropriate

interim setting where they were warehoused with nothing to do but wait and eat

rethermalized food from the privatized food service operators.

[1610]

I go back far enough to recall the rhetoric of patient-centred

care from this government's time in opposition. Compare that rhetoric with the

things done to seniors in the last term of office. Consider the impact of

raising medicare premiums and increasing Pharmacare deductibles on seniors,

people who struggle to live on fixed — which means declining — incomes; or of

privatizing MSP access, eliminating face-to-face, walk-in access and condemning

seniors, indeed everyone, to endless waits in a telephone maze with no service

when you get through because the privatized contractor isn't able to get the

mail opened in order to be able to process it in a timely manner and therefore

can't report on the file status to the worried senior on the end of the line

after an hour when they finally do get through.

Or consider the impact of reducing home care and housekeeping

services on seniors attempting to remain independent and age in place —

something we all benefit from their doing; or the impacts on morale for care

providers who don't earn large wages, dealing with seniors and having their

wages arbitrarily and unilaterally rolled back by 15 percent, or the impact on

morale in care settings, unable to retain quality staff now, because the

15-percent wage reduction made it unattractive to take the preparatory training

at the community college; or the terrifying experience of crowded emergency

rooms and hallway waits for elders unable to get into a proper hospital bed

because acute care beds are being used to store people who needed one of the

long-term care beds that the government decided not to build.

Senior anger and concern were definitely a factor in my

constituency — indeed, I believe in most constituencies across B.C. Anger,

fuelled by rhetoric like Fair Pharmacare — which might more aptly have been

called unfair Pharmacare — that was offered up, the name, to counter the reality

that new costs were being transferred onto those least able to pay — over $100

million in added costs according to one analysis, which translates into seniors

on fixed income with multiple medications suddenly having to find hundreds more

dollars a month for the same service…. Anger and unease are because of the

perception that the government makes far-reaching choices without caring about

their impacts in real lives.

The manifest lack of respect shown for working people generally

was another potent factor — cancelling contracts, legislating wages, privatizing

services, all leading to widespread social and familial dislocation.

We in the capital region experienced that very directly, with a

fury in fact, because we received the double whammy of the combined impacts of

outsourcing and privatization along with major cuts to ministries headquartered

here. Those subjected to arbitrary treatment by government, after promising not

to do it in an election campaign, used their democratic rights to participate in

sending government a message. That's another reason why Saanich South sent me to

this Legislature.

The approach to education in general and teachers in particular

was also a doorstep issue. Claiming to invest in education and early childhood

development, while capping funding for one and siphoning money away from the

other, did not persuade the public. Rising class sizes, fewer teaching

assistants and school librarians, the closure of schools and reduction of the

teaching force led to a wide-ranging sense of unease with the government's

management of the system. Think of the huge gap between the glorious rhetoric

communities and families.

The first of the five great goals of the golden era is to make

B.C. the best-educated, most literate jurisdiction on the continent. That was

trumpeted in the pre-election throne speech, as if progress were already being

made in a deliberate manner towards that outcome. Never mind that it flew in the

face of reality — that B.C. was regressing, not moving forward.

Contrast the rhetoric with the actual state of child care and

early learning in this province, where B.C. ranks near the bottom in a country

that's in the basement amongst G-8 countries — right at the bottom.

[ Page 207 ]

[1615]

How important is access to high-quality, affordable early learning

and out-of-school care? It's very important to all those families with children

who, either because they are single-parent provider families or are two-parent

provider families…. These now compromise the vast majority of all families

raising children, and they must have access in order to keep working. It's

important to them, as it is to the economy and to the company wanting to retain

happy, motivated employees while maximizing productivity.

Early childhood development and out-of-school care are part of the

educational infrastructure that optimizes individual development and sets the

stage for school achievement by readying children for the classroom and for

future workforce readiness. It provides the basis for the creation of a

family-friendly workplace, which we do not have in British Columbia at this

time.

When people have access to high-quality child care and early

learning, they don't have to find a way to excuse themselves several times a day

in order to move children between places of learning and places of care. Nor do

they live with the stress of having to do that without detracting from their

performance at work or the stress of having someone else, a person they may not

know, pick their child up and drive them to where they can be dropped off. This

was a doorstep issue in my community. It's one for me personally because I have

a young child, but it was a doorstep issue, and it's one where government's

record is most lacking. Now with federal funding on the immediate horizon, there

is indeed a golden opportunity to bring this lamentable performance into line

with one of the five great goals, to line reality up with the rhetoric and

deliver the service that supports the attainment of the goal.

But that won't happen if the experience of jurisdictions that do

this capably already are ignored or if the wishes of parents for safe,

affordable and accessible opportunities are disregarded. Above all, it won't

happen if the experience of current providers, both not-for-profit and

for-profit, are ignored in the design of B.C.'s programs and if they aren't

consulted before we implement.

As the Minister of Health said — I find myself agreeing with him

on this one — without doubt the single most salient issue in my constituency is

health care. The principal concern is the way in which restructuring of health

care delivery has taken place. The sense that government is uncaring combined

with its manifest preoccupation with privatizing and outsourcing components of

care delivery are creating widespread unease about the future of public health

care. There's a clear and widespread sense that government's attention is not

where it should be — not on reducing waiting times for quality-of-life

surgeries, not on reducing pressures in crowded emergency rooms, not on

providing promised investments in long-term care beds and certainly not on

ensuring the cleanliness of hospitals or the quality of food provided to

patients and people in long-term care.

There is a sense that health care is drifting without a real plan

to address its deficiencies and that privatization continues to be overtly and

by stealth what government is most interested in. This sense of unease is not

allayed by the constant iteration of the golden goal for health and fitness, nor

by the Premier — however sincerely — urging us all to ingest at least five

servings of fruit and vegetables daily.

Let me just say on a somewhat humorous but still serious note, for

the benefit of the spinmeisters who advise government on this sort of thing,

that simple repetition of a phrase will not change public behaviour. I will give

us the benefit of the doubt and say that the government intends to try to change

public behaviour and not merely to repeat the formula for its own sake. In fact,

despite having heard this repeated endlessly by members opposite, it isn't clear

to anyone whether it is actually five servings each of fruit and vegetables

every day or five servings of fruit and vegetables cumulatively.

J. Horgan: Or three and two.

[1620]

D. Cubberley: Or three and two. Madam Speaker, you know the

gravity of this concern.

More seriously, if government wishes to close the gap between the

rhetoric and the reality on health care, it will require a demonstration of its

determination to address the bottlenecks and gaps in the existing care delivery

system and to respect the wishes of all British Columbians for timely access to

care. I heard the minister minimizing this area of concern when talking about

the government's great achievements. But you know, it should be obvious on the

heels of the Chaoulli decision by the Supreme Court that reducing waiting times

for quality-of-life surgeries especially must be a priority for all provincial

governments if we intend to protect the public system. Yet throughout the

election there was utter denial of this issue in favour of gobs of bafflegab

about the great job being done and golden goals.

It's interesting, as one who had the opportunity to listen

sometimes — perhaps more often than I wanted to — to the Premier and his

ministers while they were in opposition arguing that wait-lists were the most

pressing problem facing British Columbia…. They were requiring urgent and

express actions to make access prompt. I find the silence today deafening.

I still recall the government's new-era pledge — you probably do

as well — to make care patient-centred and to provide it closer to home. In

opposition it was assured that this could be done not by adding new resources to

health care funding, as the NDP government of the day was doing in a sincere

effort to offset the federal cuts to health care transfers, but by reallocating

existing funding. I recall members opposite vehemently asserting that no more

money was needed, and yet today I hear the Minister of Health talking about how

much money has been put into the system. So today it's an entirely different

tune.

Members opposite speak about how much money is being invested, as

well they should — how much they've increased the budget since taking office.

But no one wants to talk realistically about an action plan for

[ Page 208 ]

wait-lists. In fact, the minister says that they're all coming down and that

we don't need to think about it.

We do need an action plan to address wait-lists, to address the

problems plaguing British Columbia — problems so severe that in many places

people wait far longer than the patient whose case went to the Supreme Court.

No. Instead, though, what we get is a revamped wait-list website that performs

the amazing feat of bringing waiting times down by — wait for it — cleaning up

the data. We brought wait-lists down in British Columbia by cleaning up the

data. It feels good, doesn't it?

Ironically, the new and improved website does nothing for wait

times, but it does demonstrate that patients of particular doctors are waiting

far too long for surgeries that are routinely handled in a matter of weeks

through other doctors living in nearby communities. The gap between rhetoric and

reality in this instance is extreme, and it's growing.

The real challenge to this government is whether it's going to

change course and prioritize the real needs of health care or whether it will

continue to privatize by stealth, as it's doing with B.C. NurseLine today —

listing it quietly on the B.C. Bid website without establishing any kind of

business case for what's being proposed — or as it has done with Maximus — with

a contract so bogus as to contain clauses allowing the minister responsible to

decline to discuss the expenditure of public funds on the grounds that it's

proprietary information and can't be talked about.

R. Fleming: Open and transparent.

D. Cubberley: "Open and transparent," my colleague says. A

little bit far from it, you might say.

I've also watched with considerable interest as the government has

attempted to give itself the aura of holding laudable goals — and they are

laudable — and developing plans to move B.C. towards those goals. It was a

rather stunning about-face after four years of decimation on the road to

re-election.

I contrast, however, the rhetoric about becoming healthy and fit

and the endless exhortations to act now with a rather underwhelming performance

on the ground over the preceding term. Madam Speaker, the election demonstrated

one thing, and that is that you cannot simply walk away from your history in

politics.

"Eat your veggies and fresh fruit, and get more exercise" will go

nowhere at all unless you provide the social and physical infrastructures that

enable changed behaviour at the community and neighbourhood level. I know, for

the record, that upon taking office, this government eliminated the provincial

cycling network program — a modest investment fund in urban cycling

infrastructures to cost-share their development in partnership with

municipalities; a program with demonstrated impacts on the incidents of cycling

and walking in daily life, because it allowed communities to build trails and

bike lanes. This, of course, is the real prescription for personal fitness.

[1625]

It was the first of its kind in North America — one I know

something about because, as an advocate, I was directly involved in creating it;

one that generated new patterns of investing in facilities in urban regions.

I suggest to members opposite, with the greatest respect, that it

will take much more than one-shop grant programs and photo ops to get people to

become active as part of daily life. The animatronic repetition of formulas

about fruits and vegetables will have no impact at all without new opportunities

for changed behaviour.

Let's pause there for a moment — just for a moment. The history of

fitness promotion is littered with hollow campaigns urging publics to engage in

physical activity. Be active. Do something — anything. Get up right now and do

it. These verbal promotions universally flopped, and they've been doing it for

35 years, because there's no sense urging people to be active if they can't walk

between their house, the local school and their place of work.

If we want to meet the golden goal of fitness, we will have to

find the ways to enable people to get exercise as part of their daily life. That

will mean providing the infrastructures that support those choices —

principally, improved walking and cycling environments along with high-quality

public transit. As Madam Speaker knows, I'm sure, every transit trip involves

two walk or cycle trips, so there's the connection.

It won't do to announce one-off grant programs that do not provide

sustained inducements to municipalities to supply the infrastructure for active

living. We were making progress — modest progress, but progress — which we could

easily have accelerated in order to make Act Now more than a slogan. But the

B.C. government cut the legs out from under it by shelving the cycling network

program, and we lost four years of investment in active living. Now we need to

catch up — not in photo opportunities but in ongoing and sustained investments.

Were this government opposite enterprising, it would approach the

federal government quickly and, under its joint mandates for health promotion

and for greenhouse gas reduction, secure its involvement in an expanded program

for cycling infrastructure and a twin program for walking infrastructure and,

between the two, fund the development of mixed-use trails in every city in

British Columbia. Instead, what we see is another one-off with less money than

the program had in it before, with communities like Kelowna and Victoria denied

grants because there isn't enough funding to supply the demand that's already

there, let alone supply the demand that's latent or could be there.

The failure to work in concert with communities on issues related

to growth, especially public transit, was a further reason for the outcome in

Saanich South and, I think, right across southern Vancouver Island. The

provincial transportation plan crows about spending a thousand dollars per

capita on the lower mainland. We did the math, and it remains silent on spending

$10 per capita here.

Transit properties outside TransLink have received no increase to

funding and have been denied access to additional gas tax. That continued in the

budget update, which has resulted in ongoing service declines and deteriorating

rolling stock. Pass-ups on key routes

[ Page 209 ]

are now a feature of the Greater Victoria system, and no relief is being

offered despite the megamillions available for much-needed transit around the

lower mainland.

Finally, Madam Speaker, concern about the environment and the

government's neglect of public lands, water and air were a factor in the

electoral outcome in my constituency. The lack of trust there is widespread and

deep-rooted, based on elimination of most staff and a wide swath cut through the

regulatory framework. Whether it's forest practices, land conservation,

aquaculture, sustainable energy, product stewardship and recycling — there's one

we'll come back to — or sustainable development in cities, this government lacks

all credibility among environmental stakeholders.

[1630]

Leading the world in sustainable environmental management — one of

the great goals — is going to be very difficult to bring off with the

government's priorities in practice. But we on this side exist and will serve to

try to bring you to your