2009 Legislative Session: Fifth 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, March 10, 2009

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 39, Number 11

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Page

Introductions by Members

Tributes

Kalamalka Secondary School basketball champions

Hon. T. Christensen

Introductions by Members

Statements (Standing Order 25 b )

Unsung Hero Award recipient Gordon Harper

C. James

Tri-University Meson Facility

R. Lee

Surrey Memorial Hospital Society

S. Hammell

Army, Navy and Air Force club in Steveston

J. Yap

Child, youth and family network in Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadows

M. Sather

Serpentine Enhancement Society

D. Hayer

Oral Questions

Job security of GM Place workers for Olympic Games

C. James

Hon. C. Hansen

S. Simpson

H. Bains

Role of Patrick Kinsella in B.C. Rail sale

L. Krog

Hon. W. Oppal

R. Fleming

J. Horgan

M. Farnworth

Meat industry regulations

C. Wyse

Hon. M. Polak

Petitions

M. Sather

Second Reading of Bills

Ministerial Accountability Bases Act, 2008-2009 (Bill 4) (continued)

D. Routley

Hon. M. de Jong

Committee of the Whole House

Supply Act (N o. 1), 2009 (Bill 5)

B. Ralston

Hon. C. Hansen

Report and Third Reading of Bills

Supply Act (N o . 1), 2009 (Bill 5)

Budget Debate (continued)

G. Coons

Hon. K. Krueger

H. Bains

J. Nuraney

N. Simons

Hon. I. Black

S. Herbert

[ Page 14369 ]

TUESDAY, MARCH 10, 2009

The House met at 1:35 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Introductions by Members

Hon. G. Abbott: In the gallery today I have three constituents, including my wife Lesley. With Lesley is a special guest not only in the Legislature here today but later today at Government House. Pam Beech is one of the recipients today of the Community Achievement Award. Pam has been a remarkable member of the community of Sicamous for four decades. She's a life-long resident of the Shuswap. She has played terrific leading roles in minor hockey, community services and many other areas. She's joined today by her grandson Kristian Beech.

I'd like the House to not only make Pam welcome but also extend to her our congratulations on her remarkable service to the community as reflected in a community achievement award.

J. McGinn: I'd like to welcome some grade 11 social science students from Eric Hamber Secondary School. Some of you know that Eric Hamber is one of the largest schools, certainly in Vancouver if not British Columbia. Welcome them to the Legislature today along with their teacher Mr. David Smith, who is head of the social sciences department, Ms.

Sadeeq Mohammed and other teachers who organized this event today. If you'd please make them welcome.

Hon. B. Bennett: In 1920 a man by the name of Tom Uphill was elected to this provincial Legislature. He served for 40 years as the MLA for the riding of what was then known as Fernie. His great-grandson Brett is in the gallery someplace today. He's a firefighter from Fernie. Please help make Brett welcome here today.

S. Herbert: On May 15, 1981, a great man joined our province, a boy at the time. Members here on this side of the House will know that May 15, 1981, is my birthday, but I speak not of myself. I speak of my twin brother Doug Herbert who joins us in the House today. Please make him welcome.

Hon. L. Reid: We're joined today in the gallery by Rheta Steer. Some of you will recall her. She was a lovely woman, a dear friend, who assisted me with the care of my infants when they both spent their very early years with us. She is joined by her dear friend from Montreal, Joan. I would ask the House to please make them welcome.

K. Conroy: I would like to introduce Lee Depellegrin. He's the vice-president of the Trail firefighters. Yesterday was the first time he had ever sat in the chamber, and he so enjoyed himself that he decided to come back today and try it again.

Would you please join me in welcoming him.

J. Yap: I would like the House to join me in welcoming a group of 50 enthusiastic grades 6 and 7 students from the great school of Tomekichi Homma Elementary School in my riding of Richmond-Steveston.

They're here with a group of chaperones, of course, and their teacher, Mr. Don Allison, who is a frequent visitor here with students because he believes in showing his students how parliamentary democracy works by bringing them here to Victoria.

Would the House please make them feel warmly welcome.

Hon. J. McIntyre: I have a very special treat today. We're joined in the House today by several individuals representing the Squamish Nation and their education committee, who had a lovely meeting with the Minister of Education to discuss their aboriginal enhancement agreement.

As I read the names, you'll note that several of them are from the Harry family, who I have had the pleasure of getting to know over the years. This is their first visit to Victoria, but they also travelled to Ottawa to receive the federal government's apology. I know this has been a very special time for them.

[1340]

Let me read the names: Dale Harry, Squamish Nation councillor; Gwen Harry, elder; Terry Ann Harry, the elders coordinator; Paul Wick, administrator; Joy Joseph-McCullough, the associate director of education; Jackie Williams, enhancement agreement committee member; Linda Williams, enhancement agreement committee member; and Henry Williams. I would like the House to make them feel very, very welcome.

R. Fleming: I have a school group here, as well, from my constituency today. I would like to introduce from S.J. Willis high school, Carol Aileen, a teacher who is here with three students: Carter Glennon, Lucan Day and Miles Smith. Will the House please make these visitors welcome.

S. Hawkins: Visiting the Legislature today and in the gallery are two very dear friends of mine, Brad and Laurie Field. Brad is a great community builder, and he's worked with Cops for Kids and Kelowna Women's Shelter, and he's going to be honoured this afternoon at Government House with a B.C. achievement award. I'm asking the members to please make them feel very welcome.

H. Bloy: It's a pleasure for me to introduce three hard-working Burnaby firefighters who are back with us in the gallery today. It's amazing the commitment that

[ Page 14370 ]

they make all on their own time to our communities. We have Miles Ritchie, who is one of the cofounders of the World Police and Fire Games, coming this summer, July 31, mainly in Burnaby. We have Rob

Lamoureux and Mike Hurley, who is president of the B.C. Professional Fire Fighters Association, and he's from Burnaby. Would the House please make them welcome.

Tributes

KALAMALKA SECONDARY SCHOOL

BASKETBALL CHAMPIONS

Hon. T. Christensen: This afternoon I'd like the House to join me in acknowledging the accomplishments of a number of young women athletes at Kalamalka Secondary School in Vernon. I was actually a graduate of what was Kalamalka Junior Secondary School at the time. I won't say what year. But on Saturday the Kalamalka Lakers senior girls basketball team captured the provincial championship.

I think what is remarkable is that for many of the athletes on the senior girls team, this is in fact their fourth provincial championship. Many of them also won the junior basketball championship, the junior volleyball championship and the senior girls volleyball championship. So obviously a dynasty in the works at Kalamalka Secondary, and I would ask the House to join me in congratulating all of these young athletes, their coaches and their many supporters who have made this possible.

Introductions by Members

C. Wyse: I would ask the House to join with me today in recognizing two members from Cariboo South who are also here with us in Victoria visiting Government House to receive their Community Achievement Award in recognition of the great service that they have provided their communities over the years. I would like this House to recognize Alex Bracewell, Havanna Hamley and Lori Fry of 100 Mile.

J. Yap: Just to add to my welcome, the school group from Tomekichi Homma Elementary School includes two teachers who are here with us in the gallery: Michael Gilles and Bonnie Makutra. Would the House please make them welcome as well.

Statements

(Standing Order 25

b) UNSUNG HERO AWARD RECIPIENT

GORDON HARPER

C. James: I'm pleased to rise today to talk about the Unsung Hero Award in my community. The Unsung Hero Award is an initiative of the First Unitarian Church of Victoria and the Community Council. An unsung hero is a skilled, dedicated person who has served the larger community long and well but never received headlines. Their contributions deserve to be better known and publicly applauded because they will inspire the rest of us.

This annual award acknowledges and celebrates the work of one among a number of deserving citizens within B.C.'s capital region, someone who has dedicated themselves to the goals of social justice, peace and liberty for all and someone who is also committed to sharing their knowledge and resources for the betterment of their fellow citizens. I'm pleased to rise today to recognize Gordon Harper, recipient of the Unsung Hero Award 2009.

Gordon is the executive director of the Umbrella Society for Addictions and Mental Health. His career spans over 20 years of community service. Gordon moved through the hard road of recovery, he says, because one day after spending days drinking alone in his apartment, a family member knocked on his door. His cousin Marilyn said to him: "This has to stop, and what are we going to do about it?

[1345]

Having someone say "we" moved Gordon down that tough road to recovery. He believes that everyone deserves to have a "we," and he's passionate about helping people in their journey to recovery.

The Umbrella Society has a hard-working board of directors and a staff of only four, but you'll find Gordon and his staff everywhere in our community, meeting people in coffee shops, hospitals, detox homes, recovery homes and shelters. Everywhere they are that needs help, Gordon and his staff are there. No matter the need, they're there to provide support.

For that and more, I would like to ask this House to join me to thank Gordon Harper and congratulate him on being the recipient of the Unsung Hero Award 2009.

TRI-UNIVERSITY MESON FACILITY

R. Lee: In these troubled economic times, British Columbia is taking the high road to ensure a bright and prosperous future. I want to remind members of this House of a project all British Columbians can be proud of: TRIUMF, Canada's national laboratory for particle and nuclear physics located in Vancouver and founded by UBC, UVic and my local university of SFU in Burnaby.

I know that a number of the scientists from SFU are working hard at TRIUMF, including John D'Auria, professor of nuclear astrochemistry; Michel Vetterli, professor of physics; Tom Ruth, professor of chemistry; Richard Helmer; and Peter Jackson.

TRIUMF is bringing international business to B.C. A $2 million agreement was signed with India last year to

[ Page 14371 ]

manufacture high-tech components in Richmond by PAVAC Industries. And a new $1 million partnership was launched with MDS Nordion to develop advanced medical isotope products.

TRIUMF has an ambitious plan for the next five years, to focus on breakthroughs in medical imaging, information technology and the very nature of matter. An independent assessment of the plan identified more than $1 billion of economic activities and 1,200 jobs that will be generated.

In May, 2,000 of the world's most talented accelerator physicists will come to a conference in downtown Vancouver because of TRIUMF. I believe that places like TRIUMF give B.C. a competitive advantage in this difficult economic climate. For instance, TRIUMF is proposing a new accelerator that could play a role in addressing the medical isotope production problems that we hear about in Chalk River, Ontario.

Mr. Speaker, we know the critical role that science, technology and innovation play in driving long-term economic success. The more I learn about the innovative initiative spearheaded by SFU researchers and TRIUMF, the more impressed I am at the ingenuity and dedication of our scientists here in British Columbia.

SURREY MEMORIAL HOSPITAL SOCIETY

S. Hammell: In 1955 a delegation of determined women from Surrey chartered a plane and flew to Victoria to lobby their government. These women wanted an audience with W.A.C. Bennett, the Premier of the day, to impress upon him the need for appropriate health care in Surrey and the need to build a hospital in this growing municipality. It may sound familiar.

Dramatic action is usually preceded by frustration, and so it is true in this story. In 1946 the Royal Columbian Hospital served notice that they would no longer accept patients from Surrey, making it abundantly clear to all that Surrey needed its own hospital. The Surrey Memorial Hospital Society formed in 1947 to address this need, but there was immediately a conflict on where the hospital would be located.

A hospital did proceed in White Rock, and although various auxiliary groups were raising money in north Surrey, where the majority of the population was located, there was no commitment by the province to help out — thus, the need to fly to Victoria to lobby W.A.C. Bennett.

The government agreed to build the hospital if the community first came up with one-third of the costs. The amazing ladies' auxiliary led the community in raising the money. The construction of the hospital started in 1957, and it opened in 1959 — 50 years ago.

Today I'd like to honour this amazing organization. The Surrey Memorial Hospital Auxiliary was born as the ladies' auxiliary, and then, as over the years men joined, it changed its name to Surrey Memorial Hospital Auxiliary. Over the past 60 years, the auxiliary has raised over $4 million and contributed thousands of hours serving the hospital and raising money.

[1350]

I'd like to congratulate the Surrey Memorial Hospital Auxiliary for 60 years of service to the community of Surrey.

ARMY, NAVY AND AIR FORCE CLUB

IN STEVESTON

J. Yap: The Army, Navy and Air Force Unit 284 Steveston, or ANAF 284, began its journey in 1946, when 30 local veterans obtained a charter to open up a veterans club in Steveston. From their humble beginnings to their present day successes, ANAF 284 has been an integral part of the community. Starting with a temporary club room, to purchasing a building and converting it to a fully licensed club, ANAF 284 offered a place to meet, read, play billiards and poker, and meet up with good friends as well as a place to stage their fundraising efforts.

Unfortunately, in December 1956 the clubhouse was destroyed by fire. For the next three years ANAF 284 was forced to make do with the help of the membership and the ladies' auxiliary, with meetings in members' homes, while they raised funds for permanent quarters. Luckily, after a few difficult years, ANAF 284 was able to get back on its feet and continued to support the Steveston community.

In the 1960s and 70s the attention of ANAF 284 was turned to the building of seniors homes in the area. Raffles and lotteries arranged by the members were able to help fund several seniors residences, including one in Steveston, for a total of 198 suites.

Not a group to only support part of the community, ANAF 284 has helped to sponsor and fundraise for many local groups over the years, including children's sports teams, the B.C. Cancer Society, the Red Cross, Boy Scouts and Girl Guides, cadets, Terry Fox fund, Richmond General Hospital, Steveston Community Centre and many, many more groups in Steveston and beyond.

Mr. Speaker and Members of the House, please join me in thanking all the members of the Army, Navy, and Air Force unit 284 for their past and present service of the community, making Steveston the special place it is to call home.

CHILD, YOUTH AND FAMILY NETWORK

IN MAPLE RIDGE AND PITT MEADOWS

M. Sather: The child, youth and family network is a unique affiliation of over 140 organizations working together to enhance the well-being of families, youth and children, including the Katzie First Nation in Maple

[ Page 14372 ]

Ridge–Pitt Meadows. Through monthly round-table meetings and regular e-mails to its members, CYFN strengthens the availability and quality of services and resources in our communities.

The variety of organizations present at a CYFN meeting is impressive and demonstrates the value of bringing together a multitude of perspectives on the social issues facing our communities. CYFN committees range from early childhood education to middle childhood matters, to literacy, to substance misuse prevention and integrated case management.

Members include the Family Education and Support Centre, Cythera Transition House, PLEA, Ridge Meadows Association for Community Living, Big Brothers Big Sisters and many more. Affiliates include the Teen Resource Network, Building Community Solutions, and the Alouette Home Start Society.

CYFN has access to a community van which is available for use in both emergency situations and to facilitate fun events for kids, such as driving groups to the local skate park. There's also a community laptop, projector and screen available for community development activities. CYFN is known for their inclusive and holistic perspective, promoting a culture of connectiveness, striving for positive changes for its member organizations and ultimately for the citizens who benefit from its support.

It would be difficult to find a community organization that is not connected to the CYFN. Thank you to the child, youth and family network for continually working to enhance the quality of life of our children, youth and families in Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadows.

SERPENTINE ENHANCEMENT SOCIETY

D. Hayer: The beauty and value of British Columbia's environment is synonymous with the salmon that are raised in our streams and rivers, that provide substance to the first nations, that feed the wildlife and grace our dinner tables. Yet our salmon, the fish that have sustained a historic industry in this province, are in grave danger. It is through the work of incredible groups like the Serpentine Enhancement Society that operate the Tynehead Hatchery in my riding, that hopefully will return the salmon to its countless numbers.

[1355]

The Serpentine Enhancement Society raises over a quarter-million salmon fry for release into Surrey's Serpentine River and operates an ambitious educational program for children in some 40 school classrooms in Surrey. The society, led by my constituency president, Glenn Wright, teaches the salmon life cycle to school children at the hatchery and provides salmon eggs for raising salmon right in the children's classroom. The society also provides thousands of egg-to-fry displays to the B.C. Teachers Federation for their use in classrooms.

The society has a membership of over 59 and dozens of key volunteers from my constituency, such as Dr. Tom Goodman and Barry Child; including other constituents of mine such as President Glenn Wright and directors Alan Dobby, Dave Woods, Carol Wright and Frank Marshalok. Other directors are Ebb and Julia Budgell, Bruce Easton, Chris Hamming and Lorne Mayer.

I ask the House to join me in congratulating all these fine environmentalists who are working to ensure the future of salmon and educating our children on the value of salmon. I also ask the House to support their desire to see the Pacific salmon, including the steelhead, recognized as British Columbia's official fish.

Oral Questions

JOB SECURITY OF GM PLACE

WORKERS FOR OLYMPIC GAMES

C. James: Some 750 workers at GM Place don't know if they'll have a job during the Olympic Games. That's what they've been told by their employer. So my question is to the minister. Will he explain why the jobs of 750 hard-working British Columbians are in limbo?

Hon. C. Hansen: I heard earlier about some of the comments that the Leader of the Opposition has been making, and quite frankly, I believe that those comments are absolutely reckless and irresponsible. For her to be fearmongering among the workers at various facilities around this province….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Take your seat, Minister.

Continue.

Hon. C. Hansen: Yesterday, as was raised by the opposition with regard to 200 employees at Hastings Park…. We knew — and actually their employer knew at the time that leases were signed with the city of Vancouver many, many months ago — that that facility was going to not be able to operate the slot machines during that one-month period of time.

I can tell you that just in the last 24 hours, the B.C. Restaurant and Foodservices Association has stepped up to the plate and said that they'll actually provide a job-matching service for those employees, because they know that there are going to be jobs for anybody in British Columbia that has experience in food and beverage service in this province. It's a great opportunity for them. It's a great opportunity for this province.

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

[ Page 14373 ]

C. James: I'd tell the minister to talk to those employees, as I did this morning, to see how excited they are about losing their jobs for a month. I talked to an employee who's worked at Hastings for 43 years. He's put his heart and soul into that facility and into this province by paying tax dollars into the provincial budget, and now this government says to him and his family: "Sorry, you're out of luck for a month." That's the response this government has given those employees.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

C. James: This is 750 more employees. These are mainly women. They don't make a lot of money, but they contribute a lot to B.C., and like all British Columbians, they're excited about the games. They want to be a part of it, and they've been told that that can't happen. They're not going to be working.

Their employer says it has no idea whether they'll have a job or not. Again, my question is to the minister. Why are these workers being treated so badly by this government, and what is he going to do to ensure that they get to stay on the job during the Olympics?

Hon. C. Hansen: I understand how unsettling it would be for an individual who is told that he may not have employment for that particular month.

[1400]

But what the Leader of the Opposition is doing with the fearmongering that she is engaged in is exacerbating that problem.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Just sit down for a second.

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

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Member.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. C. Hansen: In the case of Hastings Park we recognize, with the installation of the slot machines and the casino operations there…. That was only installed a year and a half ago. At the time of that installation and the creation of those new jobs, it was clearly understood in the lease arrangements with the city of Vancouver that that facility would not be operational.

If the Leader of the Opposition has an example of someone who has worked at Hastings Park for 42 years, odds are they're working in the stables. Those employees will continue to be engaged, even though horse racing doesn't actually start until April. We know that there are year-round jobs and that they will be able to continue that work, although they'll have to go through the appropriate security clearances because they'll be behind security.

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

C. James: I find it unbelievable that, as always, this government points fingers somewhere else. Now they're pointing fingers at the workers and their families for raising genuine concern about losing their jobs.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

C. James: These workers approached us because they're concerned for themselves and their families. I want this minister to know that every member on this side of the House is going to continue to raise these issues on behalf of those workers and their families.

These are 750 workers at GM Place who support sports year-round, year after year. They work at Canucks games. They're more than able to work for the Olympics. But this government and VANOC won't tell them or anyone else whether they're going to keep their jobs.

Again to the minister: can he explain why the B.C. Liberals spend billions of dollars on the Olympics but can't tell 750 hard-working British Columbians whether they'll have a job for a month during the Olympics?

Hon. C. Hansen: There is only one person I'm pointing a finger at, and that's the Leader of the Opposition, because her comments are shameful.

There is going to be a huge demand in British Columbia for anybody that has experience in the food and beverage and hospitality industries. There are going to be tens of thousands of additional jobs during February of 2010. I can guarantee the Leader of the Opposition that if anybody has that kind of experience and wants to work during 2010, during the Olympic period, I know that the Restaurant and Food Services Association is going to help facilitate those workers to be in jobs.

I have no doubt that the 750 workers at GM Place will be in demand for many of those jobs in those services and the great experience that they bring with them.

S. Simpson: Mr. Speaker, what's reckless and irresponsible in this House is this minister's incompetent bungling of this file. I suppose it's a good thing that the Restaurant and Food Services Association is stepping up, because this government has turned its back on all those workers.

This Premier and this minister have a responsibility to 750 people at GM Place who work hard, pay taxes,

[ Page 14374 ]

expect to be able to work through that time at their jobs and are getting nothing from this government.

Will the minister stand up today and commit that those people will keep their jobs during the Olympics?

Hon. C. Hansen: Actually, I think what I'm hearing coming from this member for Vancouver-Hastings is the height of hypocrisy.

[1405]

When Great Canadian Casino Co. proposed creating those jobs at Hastings Park with the installation of slots, that member opposed it. That member opposed those jobs.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. C. Hansen: VANOC is as anxious as anyone is to make sure that there is continuity in food service at GM Place throughout the games. Those arrangements are being worked on. There are discussions that will take place, and as I said in my earlier answer, given the demand that there is for experienced food and beverage workers in February of 2010, I have no doubt that every single one of those employees that wants to work is going to have opportunities on their doorstep.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

The member has a supplemental.

S. Simpson: Well, maybe if some of those workers at GM Place had a friend with a corporate jet to fly the Premier off to Beijing, this minister might pay a little more attention to them.

This minister's performance is shameful. What this minister has done is turned his back on 750 workers. At some point here, it's $20 million for GM Place for what they do, it's a corporate jet for the Premier to fly around, and not one whit of care for those 750 workers. Stand up for people in British Columbia. Stand up for those workers and guarantee their jobs.

Hon. C. Hansen: No amount of bluster from this member is going to cover up his hypocrisy in that he opposed the creation of those jobs at Hastings Park from the get-go. We also know that the NDP opposed the Olympics from the get-go.

We are talking about $10 billion of economic activity. We're talking about the creation of about 244,000 jobs in British Columbia because of the Olympics. It's about time that this member and his colleagues stopped bashing the Olympics and get on board with the rest of British Columbians who are counting down, over the next 11½ months, to the biggest celebration that this province will ever see.

H. Bains: Quite frankly, the people of this province are sick and tired of this minister's non-answers. They're sick and tired of this minister pointing fingers at everyone else and accusing anyone who asks any questions. That's shameful.

It is shameful that with only a year to go, hundreds of these workers don't know whether they have jobs or not. Will this minister stand up today and tell these workers whether they will have jobs during the Olympics or not?

Hon. C. Hansen: I will tell the member what British Columbians are sick and tired of. They're sick and tired of this member constantly bashing the Olympics. They are sick and tired of the kind of fearmongering that we are hearing from the Leader of the Opposition and other members of the NDP caucus.

It's about time that the members of the official opposition got in touch with the rest of British Columbia and started to be supportive, encouraging for these workers, and helped to support them as they get ready for the biggest event that's ever going to happen in British Columbia.

[1410]

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

The member has a supplemental.

H. Bains: If you're a corporate Olympic sponsor, your tickets are guaranteed. The only guarantee the workers of GM Place and Hastings Park have is getting a pink slip from this government.

My question is to the minister. Why can't B.C. Liberals treat working people with a little bit of respect? Will you allow them to work? Is that too much to ask of this arrogant minister?

Hon. C. Hansen: I would ask of this member to show those workers a little respect.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: If the other members want to engage in question period, just keep going back and forth.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. C. Hansen: What would be respectful to these workers is if this member would not constantly fearmonger by saying that people are getting pink slips.

[ Page 14375 ]

Nobody is getting pink slips. We know of 200 workers at Hastings Park who may not be working at that particular location for the month of February. We also know that their employer is working with them to see if they can be accommodated at other facilities, and there are other employers that are willing to step up to the plate and provide job opportunities for these experienced workers during that period of time.

But it is the height of disrespect, actually, when this member, that Leader of the Opposition and these members of the NDP caucus continue to spread fear among workers that is absolutely unfounded and unnecessary.

ROLE OF PATRICK KINSELLA

IN B.C. RAIL SALE

L. Krog: Can the Premier confirm that his friend Patrick Kinsella, the chair of the 2001 and 2005 B.C. Liberal campaigns, received an untendered contract from B.C. Rail in 2002 to smooth the way for the sell-off of B.C. Rail?

Hon. W. Oppal: The member well knows that the issue relating to B.C. Rail is before the Supreme Court of British Columbia, and we will not comment on the matter.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

L. Krog: Perhaps the Attorney General and the Premier didn't hear what I had to say. The documents aren't before the courts. They're, in fact, available up there in the Legislative Library. If the Attorney General or the Premier has some knowledge about them and something that indicates that this matter is before the courts, perhaps they'd care to tell the House here today.

B.C. Rail's audited financial statements show $297,000 in payments to Mr. Kinsella over the period of the B.C. Rail privatization scheme. Patrick Kinsella's specialty is working the back rooms.

My question is to the Premier. Who was Patrick Kinsella lobbying on behalf of the government during the sale of B.C. Rail? It wasn't the federal government. It wasn't the municipal government. Will the Premier tell us: who was Mr. Kinsella paid to talk to, and what did he tell them?

Hon. W. Oppal: I don't know if this member realizes it or not, but there are people who are on trial before the Supreme Court of British Columbia right now.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Take your seat, Attorney.

Continue.

[1415]

Hon. W. Oppal: Irresponsible comments of that sort jeopardize a fair trial. That member well realizes that commenting in this arena about the trial that's before the Supreme Court jeopardizes the right to a fair trial.

R. Fleming: Very simply, we're asking questions about items that aren't in evidence. They're in the parliamentary library just down the hall from here. We're asking questions about a secret untendered contract worth $300,000 awarded to the Premier's friend, Mr. Patrick Kinsella, to help sell B.C. Rail — a secret untendered contract to the author of the Premier's 2001 election platform, which, you'll recall, promised not to sell B.C. Rail. Don't the people of British Columbia deserve to know the truth about this payment — a payment that broke the rules and has been kept secret for six years?

My question is to the Premier. Who did Mr. Kinsella lobby in this regard? What did he tell them? Tell us what Mr. Kinsella's role was in the B.C. Rail sell-off.

Hon. W. Oppal: The fact that the documents are now available in the public library, in the library here in the Legislature, is irrelevant. The fact is that they were before the courts. They were secured as a result of being in the courts.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Continue, Attorney.

Hon. W. Oppal: I'm quite prepared to give the members opposite lectures on the doctrine of separation of powers. In the meantime, I'm not going to comment on anything that's before the Supreme Court or has been before the Supreme Court or has been connected to the trial that's before the Supreme Court.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplementary.

R. Fleming: These filings, the evidence of this contract that is in the parliamentary library, are because the Financial Administration Act was violated. This is information that should have been available to the public for six years, since those contracts were awarded, and they never were, by B.C. Rail — on line or in any other source.

Here's what we know now. The government broke the rules to give the campaign chair of this party, the governing party, and their chief fundraiser a $300,000 contract to help smooth the B.C. Rail privatization.

Just what did this key Liberal official know? He's known for his lobbying and not calling it lobbying. What did he do for his money? That's the question today to the Premier. Will he tell British Columbians the truth? Will he tell why his government paid Mr. Patrick Kinsella $300,000 to help sell off B.C. Rail?

[ Page 14376 ]

Hon. W. Oppal: The fact that the documents are now available is not relevant. The fact is that they have been in evidence.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Continue, Attorney.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. W. Oppal: The documents relating to B.C. Rail have been the subject of a decision by Madam Justice Bennett of the Supreme Court of British Columbia.

J. Horgan: Well, let me help the Attorney out. I know he's always keen to solicit my advice. The financial statements for B.C. Rail, a Crown entity, tell us, the legislators of this place, that the chief bagman for the Premier and his political party received an untendered contract for $300,000. What did he do for the $300,000? That, surely, is not before the courts.

[1420]

Hon. W. Oppal: The fact is that all of this matter is related to what's before the Supreme Court. The subject of the B.C. Rail litigation is before the Supreme Court of British Columbia, and I'm not going to comment on it.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

J. Horgan: Well, we do know something about Mr. Kinsella's expertise. In his own resumé to the state of Washington, he suggests that he has experience with a company called Accenture by providing inroads to the government to privatize one-third of B.C. Hydro. He has experience with Alcan, another company familiar to the Premier and his colleagues, which received a pretty sweet deal for electricity purchase and power sales during the tenure of this government. So that's Mr. Kinsella's expertise.

Why would B.C. Rail, which is identified in the platform of the current government as not for sale, pay this guy 300 grand? What's the deal with that? Why is that not appropriate questioning in the Legislature of British Columbia?

Hon. W. Oppal: I'll repeat my answer. The issues relating to B.C. Rail are very much before the Supreme Court of British Columbia, and we're not going to comment on that.

M. Farnworth: The Attorney General stands here in this House and says he's prepared to lecture, you know, on "before the courts." Well, one thing he's still going to get, no matter how many lectures he does, is a failing grade on openness and accountability on this issue.

These documents were not before the courts. They're in the Legislative Library. They've always been in the Legislative Library, and they have not been before the courts. My question to the Premier is: what was Mr. Kinsella doing for $300,000? Stand and answer that question. Why was he paid $300,000?

Hon. W. Oppal: The issue of accountability and alleged wrongdoings relating to all documents, whether they are before the court now, whether they have been released for the court, are all linked to B.C. Rail. All of those matters are before the Supreme Court of British Columbia.

MEAT INDUSTRY REGULATIONS

C. Wyse: I spent the past few days meeting with representatives of the meat-processing industry. They are concerned that this government is clueless about their industry. They are facing extremely challenging economic times, made more difficult by regulations enacted by this government.

This is the question they would like this government to answer. Can the minister confirm that this government has no idea how many meat animals are produced in this province, no idea where and what they are and no idea how much slaughter capacity is needed to service them?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. M. Polak: When we made the transition to the new meat inspection regulations, we recognized that there would be challenges for industry to make that transition. That's why we provided $8.8 million to the industry. That, by the way, is funding that those members voted against.

I'm pleased to say that while we still have challenges, we have managed to quadruple the number of licensed provincial meat-processing plants since this has come into place in 2004.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

[1425]

C. Wyse: I don't think that answer is going to help Mike Noullett of Kawano Farms near Prince George, who told me how much money he spent — tens of thousands of dollars — to meet the government's new meat industry regulations. Now he is struggling to stay in business, because the ministry is letting other processors in the same area play by different rules — all this after the former Agriculture Minister used Kawano Farms as a

[ Page 14377 ]

photo shoot, announcing how well the new regulations are working.

Increased costs are forcing Musa Ismail of Pitt Meadow Meats and Richard Yntema of Valley Wide Meats in Enderby out of business. If these processors go out of business, meat producers in these regions will go under as well.

Your government created these problems in this industry. What are you doing to fix them?

Hon. M. Polak: First of all, this member ought to make up his mind which policy he supports. In this House just last week that member raised a concern about a licence that was not granted. Why? Because the person applying for the licence was within the 100-kilometre limit near another facility.

So which is it? Does the member think that we ought to protect those producers who have invested in coming up to the new standards? They've invested tens of thousands — sometimes in the neighbourhood of a hundred thousand dollars and more — into facilities that they've now brought up to standard.

We now have amended the regulations to protect those producers. This member advocated against that. Now he wants us to change the rules. I'm not sure what he thinks.

[End of question period.]

Hon. J. McIntyre: I seek leave to add to my introduction.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

Introductions by Members

Hon. J. McIntyre: I'm sorry I neglected to mention Gwen Harry, who is also here with the Squamish Nation, a 12-year-old. Her namesake, of course, is Gwen Harry, the Squamish elder, so I know that she has a wonderful model to follow in life. I would like to welcome Gwen as well.

M. Sather: I seek leave to present a petition.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

Petitions

M. Sather: I have a petition signed by 468 residents calling on the government to come to assistance of both workers and consumers regarding the closure of Extra Foods in Maple Ridge.

H. Bains: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

Introductions by Members

H. Bains: In the House we have a very active member, a firefighter from Surrey. Not only is he involved in the health and safety of his members, but he's also deeply involved in the community, whether it's the food bank or anything else. Tim Baillie is in the House. Please welcome Tim Baillie to this House.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: I call continued second reading of Bill 4.

Second Reading of Bills

Ministerial Accountability

Bases Act, 2008-2009

(continued)

D. Routley: Observing the theme of question period, I'd like to rename Bill 4, the Ministerial Accountability Bases Act, to be the "Ministerial accountability debasement act." As we can clearly see by the record of this government, they take every step possible, every measure within their reach, to lessen their accountability to the people of B.C., whether it be the cancellation of sittings or this kind of

an act, which gives a duck-and-cover to the many ministers who have seen their ministerial budgets go over budget.

[H. Bloy in the chair.]

It's clear that the original act and the holdback of bonuses was an absolutely political gesture. Since the capital won by that political gesture has worn off, they've lost interest, and they've lost interest in a very big way. Year after year we've seen the introduction of acts like these that give permission to these ministers, in a retroactive way, to overspend their budgets without losing that holdback.

So it's with some sadness, I think, that all the members are called back to the Legislature to debate bills that give the government a free pass on its own budget laws. This one here confirms all of that.

[1430]

We saw this government take over, in 2001, the largest surplus in the history of the province at that time, $1.48 billion. That's what they were left by the previous NDP administration. Through their mismanagement, their cold-hearted cuts to people at the same time they gave away the wealth of this province, we saw deficits from 2001 to 2003 — three deficits in a row. Then, during an unprecedented boom in resource prices and building rates in the United States, we saw the government post and take credit for four surpluses.

[ Page 14378 ]

Now, as the worm turns and the economy suffers, we see the government prepare for a deficit and a deficit next year as well — two more deficits. That puts their record at five in the red and four in the black, and it looks very much like 2008 may in fact have been a deficit budget as well.

If that's true, if that comes to be true once the Auditor General reports, they will have a six-deficit, four-surplus record — the great managers, the fiscal wizards who managed to pass an absolutely politically driven law which saw their ministers hold back 20 percent of their pay. And not one of them ever gave up the 10 percent penalty that would have been incurred for going over budget.

During this time, this unprecedented building boom in the United States which accounted for their surplus years, we saw deficits grow in this province. We saw a deficit that was represented in poverty numbers. This province led the country in child poverty for the past six years running.

Rates were decreasing for years and years. Every year poverty rates in this province declined until this government took over, and then they started to climb again until we now, very sadly, lead this country — if you can call that leadership — in poverty rates among children.

We see deficits in housing as they stopped providing housing support for British Columbians in order to paper over their broken promise of 5,000 long-term care beds, redirecting federal housing money towards assisted living in order to make up for that broken promise.

The NDP built housing through the '90s, even though the federal government didn't supply any support for that. The federal government re-entered the social housing support game in 2002. Did this government respond by directing that to the people who were on our waiting list? No. They redirected that money every year to cover that broken promise.

The other deficits we've seen grow during those times. Seniors care — seniors reside in an absolute deficit of adequate care. Child care — we've seen a loss of space. Classrooms — our classrooms are overcrowded. Our schools have been closed. Those are the deficits imposed on British Columbia by this government even while they reported surpluses in their budgets. Emergency rooms. Forest policies that saw tens of thousands of workers lose their jobs during boom times in the United States.

They took a made-in-North-America housing boom and coupled it with a made-in-B.C. poverty boom. That's their record. Yet what do they do? They call us back to the Legislature now to amend their own legislation on budgeting and to pass this Bill 4, which gives permission to their ministers to overspend their budgets.

They were warned. They were warned this downturn was coming. But again, through political necessity and expediency, they chose not to listen — a government that doesn't listen to anyone, a government that ignores the facts because of the political inconvenience of acknowledging reality. A government just like George Bush, which thinks it can create reality simply by insisting upon it. The more unreal their insistence becomes, the more insistent they become.

You can't have it both ways. You're accountable, or you're not, and this government is not accountable. This is one more duck-and-cover piece of legislation, one more evasion from the scrutiny of British Columbians. This is a retroactive righteousness that allows their ministers to overspend budgets, which they had agreed would be penalized 10 percent for doing just that.

This government denies the truth. They simply insist that everyone else is wrong, and if they're wrong, they think they can just change the rules. It's simple, really. If you're wrong, you just change the measurement. If you're wrong, you just change the law. This government has consistently shown that as its track record.

[1435]

During boom times, we saw a dying forest industry, and that was all good. During boom times, we saw increased poverty, and that was all good. During boom times, we saw the buildup of more debt, and that was all good. Now that the economy has turned and the ministers can't meet their budgets, we'll just give them more. We'll amend the law, and that's all good.

You just make it up as you go. You make it up as you must, and you remake it as you must. Last year the Accountability Bases Act encompassed seven ministries. Seven ministries went over budget. Last year was a time before government revenues were drastically affected by the downturn in the economy. Those ministries were Advanced Education; Environment; Finance; Health; Tourism, Sport and the Arts; Forests and Range; and Public Safety and Solicitor General. It was the fifth year in a row that it was necessary to pass such legislation — the fifth year.

This year I guess inflation has had its effect, because ten ministries are affected: Advanced Education and Labour Market Development; Community Development; Finance and the Minister Responsible for the Olympics; Forests and Range; Health Services; Housing and Social Development; Labour and Citizens' Services; Public Safety and Solicitor General; Tourism, Culture and the Arts; and Transportation and Infrastructure. All those ministries are over budget, and all those ministers, if they were to obey their own law, should be forfeiting 10 percent of their pay, half the holdback.

That was the deal. That's what this Liberal government waved a flag over. They waved and waved, and they said: "You know what? We're going to be accountable. We're going to ensure it, because we're actually going to penalize ourselves if we're not — although if we are found to be over budget, we can always maintain our accountability by just changing the rules."

That's what they did. Five years in a row we've seen it. Five years in a row, rather than acknowledge the

[ Page 14379 ]

truth, the government comes and changes and alters the truth, alters reality. They say: "No, we didn't mean it. We meant something else. We're going to change that one, and everybody is still within the rule." Well, they're not. They're simply not. They're simply not accountable. They simply don't care whether their words mean anything, and this is one more proof that that is true.

I thank you for the opportunity to speak about Bill 4, to speak against it, to say that this government owes this province accountability, that it bragged and beat a drum, and this is what we got.

Hon. M. de Jong: To the members who participated in the discussion around Bill 4, I've listened, as I always do, to the comments with care. I should say this. I appreciated very much the efforts some of the members made to try to apply some sort of rational analysis, at least to a part of the discussion.

I am thinking of the members that posed, I think, the appropriate question around the circumstances giving rise to the need for this legislation and also responsibly, at least to my mind, highlighted the fact that circumstances arise like fire seasons, like natural disasters, that give rise to the need for additional expenditures.

I think you can tell a lot about the nature of an individual by the manner in which they apply themselves to the task of criticism and critique. I listened to the comments of the last member who spoke for the opposition, and they were not dissimilar from some of the other commentary we heard.

[1440]

I don't want to take a lot of time, but I think it bears pointing out and placing on the record that apparently this member believes that a government, a minister and a ministry that perform their statutory duties as they relate to fighting forest fires should be penalized.

That's fine. If that's his and his colleagues' position and argument, then that's fine, but he should have the fortitude, the courage and the honesty to say so explicitly and not wrap that argument in rhetoric.

He and some of his colleagues apparently believe that whoever the Minister of Public Safety is, in a year when there is flooding that requires statutory expenditures, that individual should be penalized for performing their statutory duties. I disagree.

That was not the intention of the original piece of legislation that actually gives rise to the debate and discussion we are having this year and have had in past years. We wouldn't, of course, be having any of these discussions had the party opposite remained in power because, of course, none of these obligations ever existed under the party opposite.

So let me say on the record that I don't think officials, individuals who respond as the law requires them to, to ensure that there are resources to address natural disaster and forest fires should be penalized. But I understand that the member opposite from Cowichan and some of his colleagues…. I want to say "some of his colleagues," because a few of his colleagues actually quite fairly pointed out the distinction. I appreciate that, and I respect that.

I must say that I am not sympathetic to the rhetoric and argument that I heard from the member from Cowichan and some of his colleagues. The characterization that we heard from him and most of his colleagues that spoke, of course, fails again to take into account what has exactly taken place here.

This chamber approves a budget. Happily, over the better part of the last eight years, as the fiscal year has drawn to a close, through both the power of a thriving economy and prudent fiscal management, the government has found itself in possession of additional resources and has chosen to put those resources to work on behalf of the people of British Columbia, the people that pay them in the first place.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

The member and a number of his colleagues believe that individuals should be punished for that as well — all right? It's instructive. It is instructive to know that. That was not the purpose of the legislation — to punish individuals for decisions that are made at a corporate level to take advantage of additional resources that are available.

It is not, I should say in fairness to the member and others, a dilemma that confronted the NDP administration because, of course, I can't think of a time when they came to the end of their fiscal year with a surplus or moneys in excess of what they thought they would have. It was actually always the opposite. They had always overspent their budget.

There was always less money than they anticipated having at the end of the fiscal year, so the confusion that reveals itself in the commentary of the member from Cowichan and others is perhaps understandable, because it's simply not a circumstance, as a member of the NDP, that they would be familiar with or have to confront.

[1445]

The last thing I want to say…. Again, only one member of the opposition — and I'm obliged to him for doing so — pointed out that there is a second component to the principal legislation that this act deals with as it relates to fiscal responsibility, and that is the obligation of the government as a whole to table a balanced budget and the ramifications that flow in circumstances where that doesn't happen.

Well, it didn't happen this year, and we're not thrilled about that over on our side of the House because we think budget deficits are things to be avoided, and it was a difficult decision for us. It was a decision made difficult because we actually believe that governments, as a rule, should spend within their means.

[ Page 14380 ]

There is, however, a relevance between the legislation before us, or the main body of the legislation, and that decision, because that budget — the budget before the House now — has been tabled. It does call at this point for a deficit, and members of the executive council will be punished, as it were, as a result. They will not receive their full allocation, and that's as it should be. That is in accordance with a law that this government passed and reflective of the importance we attach to prudent fiscal management and balanced budgets.

We're anxious to move out of any kind of a deficit situation. We have a plan in place that would see that happen over the course of three years. What I find a bit remarkable, and I'll take this one opportunity to place this on the record…. We voted, in amending the balanced budget legislation, for a specific amendment. We committed to balancing the budget in the third year, returning to a balanced budget. But, and I want to give the opposition this degree of credit, so did they. So did they.

I wonder how members of the opposition, as they stand up and pontificate sanctimoniously about the legislation before us now, are reconciling the vote they cast just a number of weeks ago pledging to balance the budget in the third year with the promises they are now making and the whispers we are beginning to hear from members of the opposition and the NDP that we're going to have, if they ever had an opportunity, a much larger deficit, and it wouldn't be balanced. The budget wouldn't be balanced in the third year. So I have listened with great interest to the sanctimony….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. M. de Jong: I actually did listen with interest to what members of the opposition said. Believe me, I didn't like all of it, didn't agree with all of it, but I listened. And if members are having difficulty with that concept, I don't doubt for a moment that they are uncomfortable having someone point out the inconsistency between, on the one hand, voting in favour of a specific pledge to do something, and then ever since that date, speaking in terms that run directly contrary to fulfilling that pledge.

But we'll have lots of time over the weeks ahead to canvass that more fully, both in this House and elsewhere, as the province heads towards a general election on May 12.

[1450]

I guess I should, just for the record, emphasize in this House that although I was intrigued by the offer and the request from representatives of the opposition NDP seeking to cancel the election or postpone it, I want to assure all members that we on this side of the House are anxious to give British Columbians an opportunity to assess the choices that are available to them.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. M. de Jong: Well, I'm sorry I brought it up. But, of course, I didn't bring it up. The member for Surrey–Panorama Ridge brought it up. The member for Surrey–Panorama Ridge said that the first option the government should consider is postponing the election, and he purported to be speaking for a number of his colleagues. I'm not sure whether it was an interesting, odd observation to come from the opposition benches, but nonetheless, there it is.

Thanks, but no thanks. Ready or not, we intend to give British Columbians, as we pledged to do eight years ago, an opportunity to cast a vote in a predictable way on May 12.

Again, I thank members for their comments. They have heard mine, and with that, I move second reading of the bill.

Motion approved.

Hon. M. de Jong: I move the bill be referred to a Committee of the House for consideration at the next sitting after today.

Bill 4, Ministerial Accountability Bases Act, 2008-2009, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. M. de Jong: I call committee stage of Bill 5.

Committee of the Whole House

Supply Act (N o. 1), 2009

The House in Committee of the Whole on Bill 5; H. Bloy in the chair.

The committee met at 2:52 p.m.

section 1.

B. Ralston: The

section refers to the main estimates, and in the introduction of the estimates, there's also a document called the Supplement to the Estimates , which sets out greater detail in terms of what spending might be authorized. It's done in accordance with what are called standard objects of expense, which is an accounting term.

So I'm wondering if

section 1, by referring to the main estimates, is also referring to the Supplement to the Estimates. Or is it simply the main estimates?

Hon. C. Hansen: Main estimates.

[ Page 14381 ]

B. Ralston: The main estimates and the Supplement to the Estimates appear to be integrally related. Certainly, the main estimates really provide simply an overview of each ministry,

whereas the Supplement to the Estimates provides more detailed spending in each ministry.

Given that the approval that's being sought here is to spend 5/12 of the calendar year, a sum close to $13.5 billion, I'm sure the public might be comforted by the fact that there was that limitation on proposed spending that's set out in the Supplement to the Estimates . So can the minister explain why the decision was made in drafting the bill not to include the Supplement to the Estimates as part of this bill?

Hon. C. Hansen: This is in keeping with the tradition of interim supply.

B. Ralston: Well, traditions are fine, and we sometimes celebrate them. And sometimes they lose their purpose, or they're unexamined. Is the minister saying: "We did it this way just because it's always been done this way"? Or is the minister saying that it was a reasoned, principled decision to include a reference to the main estimates here and deliberately and thoughtfully to exclude the Supplement to the Estimates ?

[1455]

Hon. C. Hansen: I'll just remind the member that we are discussing the interim supply bill. We are not discussing the Supplement to the Estimates . The member will know that during the regular course of supply in the House, the Supplement to the Estimates is provided as guidance. It is the main estimates that actually get voted on and approved in this House through the normal course of the budget approval process, but that is not what we are here to discuss today. We are here to discuss interim supply.

B. Ralston: Well, let me just read from the estimates document, which the minister has and I have. It says: "While

section 23(4) of the Financial Administration Act authorizes the spending of an appropriation on any activity or STOB" — and that stands for standard object of expense, the accounting term I referred to earlier — "this more detailed presentation provides additional information and establishes a framework for administrative control by Treasury Board."

It seems to me that, obviously, the two are integrally linked. It provides a framework for administrative control by Treasury Board, and this is not me saying this. This is what's included in the document the minister has tabled.

So I'm wondering why that administrative framework for control of spending isn't part of what we're passing here. It seems to be somewhat looser than it might otherwise be by simply adding the addition of the Supplement to the Estimates as part of the basis on which this legislation goes forward.

Hon. C. Hansen: During the normal budget process, it is the main estimates that are approved by this chamber. The Supplement to the Estimates is provided as guidance. They are part of an internal budgeting process, but that information is made available at the time the budget documents are tabled and the main estimates are tabled. As I said before, that is not what we're here to debate today. We're here to debate interim supply.

The Chair: Member, and if you could direct your questions to the interim supply for Bill 5.

B. Ralston: Bill 5. I thought we were on…. Well, Ministry of Environment is one bill off, but that's probably not a surprise.

I'm referring here to the language of the statute that's proposed: "…the total amount of the votes of the main Estimates for the fiscal year…." Can the minister then explain the legislative authority that's being granted here? If we remove — as he said he wishes and the Chair has directed — the Supplement to the Estimates as a framework for that spending, what is the resulting control on spending that we achieve by passing this statute in the form that it's drafted?

Hon. C. Hansen: The member is not correct. We have not removed the Supplement to the Estimates . The Supplement to the Estimates has never been part of an interim supply process. So what governs the spending for this 5/12 of the year are the votes as set out in the main estimates.

B. Ralston: Well, I thank the minister for that correction. Perhaps it's the way in which I phrased it. Given that we're not — because of the position in which we find ourselves in the calendar — going to have debate on main estimates ministry by ministry, it seems to me that the Supplement to the Estimates provides additional parameters and guidance and controls on spending.

So I'm wondering. I appreciate what the minister said about the ordinary circumstance, but in this circumstance, does he not see that necessity and would he in this case consider an amendment to include votes of the main estimates and include in

section 1 a reference to the Supplement to the Estimates ?

Hon. C. Hansen: In keeping with the practice of this House, the answer is no.

[1500]

B. Ralston: Well, I certainly try to learn parliamentary tradition and have some respect for it, but a simple reflexive answer that that's not the way we do it here….

I think it bears a closer examination, and I'm inviting the minister to give a more reasoned response than simply: "Well, we do it that way, and that's the end of it." That may be a satisfactory answer in some cases. I don't

[ Page 14382 ]

think that's a satisfactory answer when we're talking about the spending of $13.4 billion.

Hon. C. Hansen: As I explained earlier, the Supplement to the Estimates is presented for information. It is part of an internal financial management process within government. Those allocations to STOBs are used very aggressively in terms of managing budget expenditures within ministries and across government generally, but it is not part of the normal budget approval process, never mind the interim supply.

The Chair: Member, if you could direct your questions to the Supply Act that we're doing at the present and limit it to the information that's laid out.

B. Ralston: Well, we're debating proposed

section 1. I'm referring to the words of the proposed statute "…total amount of the votes of the main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2010…." I'll attempt to frame my question in a way that arises out of that, because that's certainly my intention.

Given what the minister has said, is he prepared to commit here today that the spending — should this bill pass — will be confined to the STOBs that are set out in the Supplement to the Estimates and that there will be no spending outside that administrative framework, which is there to assist Treasury Board in spending?

Hon. C. Hansen: What this will commit to is the votes as set out in the main estimates.

B. Ralston: I thank the minister for that answer, but I don't think it was clear. Is the minister then saying no, he's not prepared to make that commitment?

Hon. C. Hansen: As I indicated earlier, it would be inappropriate.

Section 1 approved.

section 2.

B. Ralston: I'm looking at what's referred to in

section 2(

a) as the "capital expenditures referred to in

Schedule C of the main Estimates…." I'm not sure…. I'll seek some guidance from the Chair. Perhaps I can pose my question first, and I can get some guidance from the Chair.

The financing transactions, capital expenditures,

schedule C, as set out on page 197 of the main estimates. In there, there are a number of dollar amounts relating to different ministries. But some do jump out at one, and I'm going to pose a question.

If I pose the question, then I can wait for the Chair's ruling on this. In the Ministry of Attorney General, it's proposed to spend $690,000 on office furniture and equipment; the Minister of Children and Family Development, $864,000 on office furniture and equipment; the Minister of Forests and Range, $725,000 on office furniture and equipment; the Minister of Citizens' Services, $437,000 on office furniture and equipment; and the Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General, $489,000 on office equipment and furniture.

Given the general pronouncements that have been made about cutting government waste and a reduction in government waste and general tightening of expenditure, I'm wondering if the minister — if it's permitted — is willing to answer questions about what the basis is for that proposed capital expenditure on office furniture and equipment.

Hon. C. Hansen: The member's question is entirely legitimate, and the appropriate time for that would be during the estimates for these respective ministries. But we are here debating interim supply today.

The Chair: Member, the question should be directed. It's not to go into specific numbers within it, department by department.

B. Ralston: Okay, thank you. I appreciate that ruling from the Chair. I know the minister had a response, but I was seeking your guidance rather than his, because I know you'll be impartial.

[1505]

The Chair: It's not the mandate of the committee.

B. Ralston: Very well. Then the ambit of questions that I have to ask is really limited to…. Perhaps the Chair could rule as to what questions I'm entitled to ask, given that this is the expenditure of $659 million.

The Chair: Member, if you would like ask questions that relate to the interim supply bill.

B. Ralston: I'm seeking your guidance because this is a

section that proposes to spend according to a schedule. It's set out on financing transactions, capital expenditures for the next fiscal year. The bill asks for the sum of $659.7 million to be disbursed. Given that I can't ask any questions about individual amounts, can the Speaker just guide me as to what questions I would be entitled to ask?

Hon. C. Hansen: You know, I find the member's point surprising, given that he's been a member of this House for almost four years. This is not the first interim supply bill that has been presented during the time he has been the Finance critic. I would have

[ Page 14383 ]

thought that he understood the scope of an interim finance debate several years ago, never mind at this stage.

Mr. Chair, as is the tradition in this House, I am certainly prepared to answer high-level questions about this particular section. But it would be inappropriate for me to go into detailed analysis of how this appropriation would be spent ministry by ministry, because the place for that is in fact the estimates process.

As the member knows, the Government House Leader yesterday asked for a proposal from the opposition with regard to how it might facilitate us getting into the estimates process and getting that completed before the House dissolves for the election.

Given that what we have before us is interim supply, I'm certainly prepared to answer any questions the member has that are relevant and appropriate for an interim supply discussion during committee stage.

B. Ralston: Mr. Chair, I suppose I might have expected that rather high-handed lecture from the Minister of Finance. Regrettably, I did have a genuine question to ask of you, and I see he's chosen to answer it on your behalf. I'm a little bit disappointed in that.

Given the nature of this debate, I do have specific questions. Those are questions in individual ministries that I think would be appropriate to pursue. Since I'm not able to pursue them here, I don't have any further questions on this section.

Sections 2 to 4 inclusive approved.

Preamble approved.

Title approved.

Hon. C. Hansen: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 3:09 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

[1510]

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

Supply Act (N o . 1), 2009

Bill 5, Supply Act (No. 1), 2009, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

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

Budget Debate

(continued)

G. Coons: It's a great privilege to stand before the House and give my

interpretation of this government's budget.

[H. Bloy in the chair.]

With only weeks to an election, we have a government that's promising to protect health care just like they did back in 2001 and 2005. But if we look at the budget that was put in front of us and look at the background of the budget…. You know, this government was warned about a downturn, but they apparently didn't listen. They didn't pay attention. They bring forth a budget that is basically a hidden budget and not really meeting the needs of British Columbians.

After eight years of service cuts, privatization and higher costs for average British Columbians, we know this government can't be trusted — the arrogance, the deliberate neglect of everyday families — and this budget proves that.

They cut and they hide, and there's nothing to help British Columbians through, whether it's first nations or families trying to pay their bills, whether it's seniors, students or forestry workers, those that live in rural British Columbia, those concerned about gas prices and the gas tax that this government has implemented, ferry fares skyrocketing…. We've just seen how out of touch and arrogant this government is.

The gas tax has doubled. They've cut environmental protection. Olympic security costs are still out there and unknown to us. Nothing for rural B.C. We've seen cuts to schools. Crime and safety — we've seen this budget cut that. Cuts to student assistance and nothing for seniors.

On health care they say: "Trust us." But British Columbians realize that this Premier, this government, hasn't earned that trust. He'll use this recession to cut and privatize like we've never seen before. They know the real budget and the big cuts will come with this government.

When push comes to shove, this government will still put their friends and pet projects ahead of the needs of everyday families and average British Columbians. The hidden agenda will cost us more while the wealthy and connected reap the benefits from this government.

We've seen salary increases for the Premier and the big executives stay. We've seen overruns for the pet projects. We've seen $365 million for the stadium roof. That could have and should have gone to those in rural British Columbia who have been suffering through the past eight years — nothing, as I mentioned before, for rural B.C. and forest workers except cuts to the ministry.

The green economy was dropped by this Premier, although it was written on the back of a napkin — probably similar to this budget — out of nowhere. We've seen

[ Page 14384 ]

cuts to the environment. Nothing to deal with hospital waiting lists or school closures. Cuts, as I mentioned before, to colleges and universities.

When we look at this government with their promise on protecting health and education, British Columbians see it as eight years too late. This government, this Premier, did nothing when the times were good. After eight years of the cuts and privatization, why would we believe that they'll change their course now? We'll just see more closures, more privatization and more cuts.

On protecting jobs, this government has been lost out there over the last year. Jobs have been disappearing over the last year in the forest industry, over 20,000 jobs — 68,000 jobs just last December in British Columbia. The Premier's record shows that British Columbians don't believe him and don't trust him. It's just an empty collection of broken promises and nothing to help British Columbians through tough times.

When I look at the north coast, the region I represent, which is Stewart, the Nass Valley, Prince Rupert, the villages outside Prince Rupert, Haida Gwaii, down the central coast — Klemtu, Bella Bella, Bella Coola — there's plenty that this budget could have offered them. But we haven't seen that.

[1515]

We haven't seen the need for the bridge to Ocean Falls, and we brought that up before. It's a provincially maintained bridge in Ocean Falls which collapsed last June. I've given them documentation on the necessity of that. So we hope that this bridge, which is a key link to the community and a safety issue, is one aspect of infrastructure that this government will put some of their funding towards.

We look at road paving. I'm getting lots of calls from the Queen Charlotte Islands. The road between Masset and Port Clements hasn't been paved for over 27 years, and it's been cancelled for the third year in a row. Again, looking at road maintenance and concerns within the riding where some of the infrastructure budget should be headed towards.

Sir Alexander Mackenzie School, their gym — the Minister of Education fully knows the concerns with that. We've been communicating, and she has assured us that they are aware of the flooding issues, and they will deal with the gym immediately. So we look forward in the Bella Coola Valley to working on this gym, the only facility in the valley that can accommodate the needs for everybody.

We start looking at the rec centre and swimming pool in Masset that was forced to close down. The regional district people and the people from the upper Island met with the Premier on this. They're looking for some positive movement towards the rec centre and the swimming pool on upper Haida Gwaii in the Masset area as well as the community hall in Sandspit. They have communicated with the government and ministries on that.

We can't forget the Port of Prince Rupert as we move forward. Obviously, everybody in the precinct knows the importance of the Port of Prince Rupert, the closest network to the Asian market. Environmentally, it's the way to go.

When we start looking at the commitment from the government…. The Premier did commit when he was interviewed by the Delta Optimist . He was questioned about the Port of Prince Rupert and Deltaport, and he said: "We will treat all ports equally." I hope that as we move forward, that commitment comes through and that Prince Rupert will be treated as equally as the other ports in the province.

We have to get the agreement with the Coast Tsimshian on that, and we need to get all levels of government working toward that.

The local government has had a protocol for regional cooperation with the Gitxaala band, the Lax Kw'alaams band, the Hartley Bay band, the Metlakatla band and the city of Prince Rupert and the district of Port Ed where they developed a protocol for projects and issues that are important to the region.

I brought up on numerous occasions the Tsimshian access project, the fixed-link project. It's on the major inventories project of the Ministry of Economic Development. It has been there for many years.

I realize right now that there has been some shared funding between the partners and ministry for another feasibility study. I believe it's — don't quote me on this — the tenth or 12th in the last ten or 12 years. Another feasibility study — hopefully, that will generate what we need to do to push forward with that project.

On the north coast, ferries are a huge concern. I'll get into that in a little while. We're seeing skyrocketing fares. We're seeing the concerns with Transport Canada and the new regulations for safe manning. For example, the Kwuna , which goes between Skidegate and Sandspit — their passenger numbers have been reduced 75 percent from 150 to 30.

When a plane comes in, there's not enough crew on there to even get a planeload across, and you've got people waiting. They did in that region get a variance from Transport Canada. Between one and six it is safe to have 50 or 60 people on there, but after six o'clock, it's unsafe to have that number.

They had worked out something due to the airline schedules. But it's something that we as a government need to take seriously and look at what's happening with safe manning levels in communities along the coast to ensure that appropriate service levels are maintained and that people are communicated with.

[1520]

B.C. Ferries and this government knew for over eight years that these safe manning levels were coming into play. B.C. Ferries knew for 18 months that there were going to be significant changes, but no communications with their advisory committees, no communications with communities to look at it and try to problem-solve.

[ Page 14385 ]

It was the very next day. "The regs are taking in, and this is what we have to do." Again, we brought up our major concerns about communications and where we need to go in that aspect.

I realize that it's been a while since we've had the budget debate, but I want to concentrate on something that the Minister of Tourism, Culture and the Arts talked about when he was referring to the budget debate. This is a quote: "When I think about the ordinary British Columbian — and we all, both sides of the House, talk about the ordinary, average British Columbian — I'm not sure who that person really is."

Well, I think that's the problem with that side of the House. They don't know who average families are, who the average British Columbian is. They don't communicate with them. They don't talk with them. They don't work with them.

We're talking about families who are struggling to make ends meet, living paycheque to paycheque, looking for some hope for the future — whether it's forestry that has been abandoned by this government, whether it's creating green jobs or green technology or whether their kids have been shortchanged by underfunding in our school system or in post-secondary where there are skyrocketing tuition costs. We just look at the costs being downloaded onto families — whether it's the gas tax, hydro or ferry fares.

Average British Columbians that look to the government for leadership — this government has failed them in the last eight years. This budget also fails them. It's families that want fairness and respect from their elected officials. They don't want contempt or arrogance or broken promises. And it's families that are concerned about homelessness in the province, where homelessness has increased by over 300 percent, something that we should be ashamed of.

We look at poverty, the growing gap between the rich and the poor. Child poverty — we keep bringing this up to no avail. Number one in child poverty for five straight years — not a record to be proud of. We look at the minimum wage. This government sticks to their mantra since 2001 of not helping the most disadvantaged with trying to make ends meet. We look at social assistance levels that need help. We have the highest average wealth in British Columbia, but we have the highest rate of poverty — 13 percent of our population.

If we look back and listen to what Gandhi said when he called child poverty the worst form of violence…. The worst form of violence is child poverty. Given that, this government and its arrogance, its out-of-touch policies and the hidden personal agendas are doing more and doing an immense amount of violence against our children.

We need to work on a poverty reduction strategy like other provinces. I believe five other provinces have had strategies to work on trying to counteract poverty, and that should be a priority for this government. When we look at food banks, 78,000 British Columbians used food banks in the last couple of years, and one-third of those were children.

The gap between the rich and the poor has widened over the first decade, in the last eight or ten years. We have the highest overall rate of poverty, the highest rate of child poverty and the highest rate of working poor in this province. The income ratio gap between the richest and the poorest has increased from 10 to 1 to 14 to 1 from 1993 to 2006. The depth of the poverty that we're seeing is staggering.

We look at British Columbians. The average British Columbian in poverty in 2006 had an annual income of $7,700 below the Stats Canada low-income cutoff. This affects single mothers of colour. It affects aboriginal women and families and recent immigrants. We need to have policies that look at countering the poverty that we have in this province.

[1525]

Getting back to average British Columbians, average British Columbians are those that are concerned about our ferries, our marine highway and the direction that this government is taking our marine highway in.

We've seen devastation to many coastal communities up and down the coast. I visited over 25 communities, talked to them and listened to their stories in the last year and a half. Since that time, we've seen fare increases skyrocketing. We've seen businesses — whether it's B and Bs…. We've seen tourism go down, restaurants in trouble, hotels….

These ferries are essential service. They're either work-related or school-related. We've seen fares skyrocket, and we're going to see another 7 percent-plus in April. We've seen fares skyrocketing and ridership going down. We've seen revenues going down, but we've seen expenses going up.

If you put those together, it looks like it's a perfect storm, and this government has washed their hands of our marine highway. Even though the minister responsible and the Premier and this side of the government think they've washed their hands of our marine highway — our ferry system — their fingerprints are all over this file, all over it.

If we look at long-term debt with B.C. Ferries, it's over $1.4 billion of long-term debt with interest rates climbing and their payments climbing. If things don't improve, B.C. Ferries — I have to remind everybody that the sole shareholder is the B.C. taxpayers — will not only have to borrow money to raise cash for any new vessels. They will need to borrow to pay back their previous loans — the $1.4 billion in loans and bonds that they've issued.

We start looking, as I mentioned before, at cuts in staff due to safe manning regulations. B.C. Ferries is very top-heavy in management, which has morphed over the last couple of years. There's been a 67 percent increase in management since 2001, with a 15 percent decrease in

[ Page 14386 ]

workers. We've seen the CEOs' pay alone at least — and this was in 2006 — $550,000.

The board of directors recently received hefty wage increases. There's a tourism centre being developed in downtown Vancouver — 2,700 square feet with unknown staffing, no prescribed mandate and an unknown price tag.

We look at the Canucks. You go to a Canucks game. What do you see? You see B.C. Ferries plastered over the boards. We see B.C. Ferries on the score clock. We see areas where we should be putting service versus other areas that I believe should be put to help ferry-dependent communities and those who live in them.

We find ourselves in this position due to this government's and this Premier's policies and their lack of leadership. Their privatization model, the Coastal Ferry Act was rammed through the Legislature in less than 24 hours, transferring over $2 billion without a strategy. That's what we needed. The ferry advisory committee chairs recommended that we need not a reduction-in-service strategy but a ferry strategy that works for coastal communities.

We need to revamp the Coastal Ferry Act, as the opposition tried to do, to ensure there's transparency and accountability from the Premier. But it's difficult when the Premier and this government are afraid to face the realities of their own public policies and actions.

B.C. Ferries does not fall under freedom of information. It does not fall under the Ombudsman or the Auditor General to ensure this government is held accountable on how our $170 million a year of taxpayer money is spent.

Those in coastal communities believe that the Premier and this government have broken the economic and social contract with those that depend on his promise of a safe, reliable and affordable ferry service.

One thing happening out there that I'm sure all members are interested in is the sinking of the Queen of the North . We're coming up to the third-year anniversary. We've seen nothing from this government. The day the ferry sank on March 22, the Premier — and I'll read this from broadcast news — was "promising a full and thorough investigation of the sinking of the Queen of the North ."

[1530]

And what has he done? Washed his hands of this. In that time of three years we've had a couple of internal B.C. Ferries reports, and we've had the Transportation Safety Board report. The Transportation Safety Board report was a report that I was waiting for, to see what types of concerns we should look at with the sinking so that it would never happen again.

The TSB indicated that those on the bridge were not trained or qualified. There should have been three on the bridge, not two. There were alarms that warned about navigational concerns, and they were not set up or turned on. They had been disabled or turned off in the refit. So the Queen of the North came back after a refit, and alarms were turned off that should have been turned on.

Now, because the Transportation Safety Board report was leaked a night early and massaged by somebody, most of the media went towards what happened during that 14 minutes. What were they doing on the bridge? Again, when we look at what happened, we know that there was no evacuation plan or procedure. The watertight doors were open, and under regulations they're supposed to be closed. There was inadequate passenger safety training in their drills.

[K. Whittred in the chair.]

The TSB report indicated that external and internal safety audits failed to be effective in identifying safety deficiencies. Eight times in the final report of the TSB it said that in one way or another, B.C. Ferry Services' action placed the vessel, its passengers and its crew at risk.

We need a full public inquiry. This government, this Premier, is afraid to enter that process. We have families that lost their loved ones. We have passengers that are forever having nightmares because of this. We have crew that deserve answers. We have a public that deserves answers on what happened that night, and this government has failed British Columbians in that.

The TSB on May 11, prior to doing their report, issued a safety advisory that went to the CEO of B.C. Ferries. It said and warned that "crew members on the bridge were not adequately trained, and that is the responsibility of management to ensure this. Training is part and parcel of management responsibility."

Now, that wasn't mentioned once in either one of B.C. Ferries' internal reports, but I think it's fairly significant. The CEO of B.C. Ferries actually called this advisory benign and said he "didn't know if he bought into it." Well, I think it's time that the Premier buys into having a public inquiry, a judicial inquiry, into the sinking of the Queen of the North .

We have many other questions. We have the allegations from B.C. Ferries safety director Darin Bowland, who resigned days after the sinking. This is what he said. This is from his statements. He warned that a catastrophic event would happen if management did not heed his warnings about safety. "The lack of qualified people to run the new equipment on the bridges was an accident waiting to happen." This was a month or so before the sinking.

We need to have answers. We need to know what happened. Five days after the sinking of the Queen of the North , what happened? There was an order from B.C. Ferries' management to remove and destroy records and purge documents, including ship-specific manuals from the Queen of the North — five days after the sinking. These are questions that need to be answered.

[ Page 14387 ]

Darin Bowland basically said, and this is a quote from his report: "I believe that the lack of bridge resource management training might have been the cause, or one of the causes, of the sinking of the Queen of the North ."

And what happened to Darin Bowland, the safety manager for B.C. Ferries? Two days or so after the sinking he was fired. He left. He tried a lawsuit, couldn't fight the corporation and has disappeared. But these are his statements. So I believe that this government and this Premier need to take the high road, take a stand and have a thorough, public judicial inquiry into the sinking.

Now, getting back to average British Columbians. Average British Columbians are those who are trying to make ends meet. They're worried about our ferry system. They're worried about our education system.

[1535]

This Liberal government is so out of touch with what's happening in education. The Minister of Education keeps spouting that she's providing the highest level of funding ever, but basically her mantra is not felt in rural districts. We've seen 177 schools close. We've seen seismic upgrades not started and even more schools being closed across the province.

The education budget is a huge hit against parents and students. The minimum increase that they've put in the budget — I believe it's 1.2 percent, which is about $62 million — doesn't even cover the collective agreements coming up in the next couple of months, nor does it even look at inflation costs. So once again we're going to see education being hit with the full force of this government.

You know, both the throne speech and budget failed to come through for children and education despite the Premier's statements and promises that funding for health and education was going to be protected — nothing to alleviate child poverty or improve learning conditions for students.

The minimum wage remains unchanged. Other areas of social services are going to be slashed by this government, including and increasing the problems that teachers face every day. There is nothing about oversized classrooms or the lack of support for students with special needs. Nothing's been done for rural communities in this way, and the budget for education contains nothing for any improvement.

The so-called increase, as I mentioned, is set at about $60 million. It does not cover inflation. It will not cover salary increases. Boards of education have already been told to find $12 million in administrative wage cuts. That's only the beginning. What students, what teachers, what parents will again see are these Liberal cuts when this year starts next September.

During times of economic difficulty, poorer families and children that come from poorer families get hit the hardest. We already know that one in five students in British Columbia lives in poverty. There are no targets to end the poverty.

This budget, basically, is just a broken promise to students, parents and teachers. There are more overcrowded classrooms than there were back in 2005 and 2006. There's no plan to reduce class size or improve support for children with special needs and their families. There are more than 3,300 classes with 30 or more students and 11,000 classes with four or more students with special needs. A real failure of this budget is for students, and especially students with special needs, across the province.

Again, we have the average British Columbian, just to reiterate back to the Minister of Tourism, concerned about advanced education and post-secondary. What we've seen from this government is that the policies they've introduced basically seem to discourage people from attending university or colleges, rather than policies that assist them.

We've seen, under this Premier and this government, the greatest tuition fee increase in Canada. Since 2001 they've gone from just about $2,500 to over $5,000. This is the fastest increase in Canada, as a result of this government's policies, this government's arrogance, this government's deliberate neglect of everyday families and average British Columbians.

As a result of this government's policies, B.C. student debt has gone from the lowest to the second-highest in Canada. This is one of the biggest barriers to post-secondary education, that student debt. This government and this Premier eliminated student grants, just another slash-and-hit to those that depend on post-secondary.

Average British Columbians also include forest workers and their families and those that rely on our forest industry. What have we seen from this government over the years? They've abandoned forest communities. Every community in British Columbia has been affected by the forestry collapse, particularly those in rural B.C. We see it, we hear it, but we don't hear any answers or any solutions from that side of the House.

[1540]

We look at jobs lost in the forest industry, over 21,000 in the last two years. There are many stories and many concerns with what's happened. I've got a story here from Gary Weeks, who is a forestry worker who's looking for some transitional assistance. He says: "The forest industry and my family need assistance now, and this government has failed to put money into our forestry industry."

When we look at what else this government has failed to do, like log exports…. I hope this government learns from this side of the House and does something for the average British Columbian.

Hon. K. Krueger: It's my pleasure to rise in this House today to speak to the budget of 2009-2010, a budget that acknowledges and responds to the earthquake that is shifting the global economic landscape. It outlines

[ Page 14388 ]

a sound plan to help British Columbians through difficult times, and it provides a vision that will enable us to come out of this stronger than before, ready to act on the many opportunities around us and on the horizon.

The economic crisis that we face today is a crisis of confidence on a global scale, and it has made its way from Wall Street to Bay Street and most recently to Main Street, British Columbia, and into the living rooms of British Columbia's families.

Anyone who has been paying attention knows that a lot of what goes on in economies is on the basis of whether people are feeling optimistic or pessimistic. Responsible leaders want to work to the optimism side of that scale. The negative, destructive, pessimistic attitude so often heard from one quarter in this Legislature is a disservice to the people those members were elected to represent.

I celebrate the 2009-2010 budget for its strong message of hope. British Columbians need confidence right now. In the 1990s when British Columbians lost confidence, this province lost its most precious resource, its people, and particularly its young adults. People don't leave a province for reasons that are minor. They leave when they see no vision by the government of the day, and we certainly saw that in the sad decade of the '90s.

People lost confidence, and British Columbia saw a mass outward migration. Our youth packed up their belongings and followed their hopes for a future right out of British Columbia. There's no denying that 50,000 students have been lost from enrolment in the kindergarten-to-grade-12 system because their parents left British Columbia. Our young people in the '90s made the painful and difficult decision to leave their towns, their families and their province because the government of the day had no vision.

Those members repeatedly make false claims both about how they did in that sad and dismal decade and the economic miracle that has happened since they were turfed from office. The NDP decade in government was a decade of waste, tragic waste — opportunities wasted, public money wasted. The debacle of the so-called fast ferries tied up like monuments to misery and incompetence at the foot of Lonsdale.

A decade when debt grew massively. Debt was doubled for British Columbia. In 125 years of governments…. The debt that existed at the time the NDP came to office was doubled in ten years, leaving British Columbians paying interest on that debt when we had to fix the mess. Interest was the third-largest expenditure of the provincial government of British Columbia. Health care first, education second and interest third, dwarfing whole handfuls of other ministries' budgets combined.

A decade when time was wasted, a decade when relationships were squandered. The NDP Premiers of the day picked fights with all of our neighbours — with our country, Canada; with our best market, the USA; with the provinces and states that share boundaries with us — trying to distract the public from their inadequacy and from the woeful consequences of their incompetence.

The member who spoke just before me talked about a road in his constituency that he says hasn't been paved in 27 years, never seeming to pause to realize that for ten of those years, his party was government.

[1545]

In the almost eight years now that the B.C. Liberals have been privileged to lead British Columbia, we have overcome so many of those deficits — deficits in road maintenance and rehabilitation, financial deficits, deficits in health care, deficits in staffing.

Imagine a government, a socialist government that listened to socialist economists who said to them that the problem in health care was too many health care professionals. So they never added any doctors to doctors in training, and they actually cut the number of nurses in training. British Columbians are still struggling to catch up on staffing our health care system. We've doubled the number of doctors in training since we've been in government. We've almost doubled the number of nurses in training, but it takes a while.

Those same members that are strident members of the party that brought that ruin on British Columbia berate our government for the problems that they created. British Columbians saw no future, and they saw no hope in the '90s. That's why they left, and that's why it's so important that people know that now British Columbia's economy is in the best position of any state or province in North America to weather this economic storm.

In the past seven years we've fixed the consequences of the reckless incompetence of the NDP, which shipwrecked our economy. We fixed many aspects of it, but we still deal with the deficits that they left behind. It hasn't been easy to fix that mess. We're proud to know and to be able to say that we've eliminated the $7 billion in accumulated NDP deficits from the '90s.

Although no one likes to run a deficit, we're able to afford one presently in these tough economic times because of our sound fiscal management over the past seven years. We can afford to help workers and their families and every community in British Columbia through these difficult times.

The community development trust, announced in early 2008 with a $129 million budget — which we received, like all other provinces, as a portion of a transfer from the federal government — has been a model of successful partnerships. Now, the NDP are fond of saying: "Oh, that's federal money." Well, in the 1990s, as they were picking fights with the federal government and every other government around us, there weren't too many governments or parties of any kind that were friendly to making transfers to British Columbia.

I submit that British Columbia would be getting zero if the NDP were still government. But our Premier and

[ Page 14389 ]

our government have worked hard on relationships, much to the benefit of British Columbians, including all those that the members opposite are supposed to represent. By collaborating now with industry, unions and non-profit organizations, we've been able to assist over 4,000 forest workers and their families in the first year of operating the community development trust.

We've kept hundreds of people working in the hard-hit communities of Mackenzie and Fort St. James, with $4 million of direct assistance to create jobs for laid-off forest workers. In other communities we have agreements to create hundreds more jobs — jobs like the ones created in McLeod Lake, where 44 forest workers are restoring historic landmarks; and jobs like those in 100 Mile House, where 16 forest workers are reducing the risk of wildfires and improving forest health.

Through the community development trust we've also helped about 1,700 forest workers transition to retirement, leaving jobs for younger workers. We've helped close to 1,200 forest workers go back to school with tuition assistance. With the allotment of $30 million additional funding to the B.C. Rural Secretariat for community adjustment and job creation, we can expand the program to assist even more workers and in more industries than the forest industry.

We're hoping that the trusts that we have created and in which we've invested hundreds of millions of dollars will pitch in and partner with us with matching money. Also, we're in discussions with the federal government on doing the same, in the hopes that we'll have $90 million to assist displaced resource workers. Doing that we create constructive changes on the ground in the communities that need it the most.

I have a quote here from Cheslatta First Nation Chief Corrina Leween, who says: "The job opportunities program has been a godsend for our community. Not only have we been able to employ our people during these tough economic times, we also have taken the first steps to restore our significant historical trade system, which will help diversify our community infrastructure and create new economic opportunities."

We're partnering with first nations. We're partnering with people across this great province and helping workers have money to feed their families during these tough economic times and stay in their communities where they will surely be needed when the economy picks up again, as it is going to.

[1550]

We're supporting families. We're providing stability in their time of need. Another program assisting workers announced by the Ministry of Community Development this year is the labour market agreement with the United Steelworkers. The program covers the region of the Omineca Beetle Action Coalition from Prince George to Smithers.

The $2 million agreement provides assistance to hundreds of workers in 11 northern communities to upgrade their skills and to obtain sustainable employment. It's a partnership that allows the United Steelworkers to use their expertise working with industry to determine what skills will be needed in the future and targeting those with fewer skills who are facing challenges because of the economy and those who are not eligible for federal employment assistance. It's a unique program that embraces collaboration, focuses on partnerships rather than partisanship and puts the best interests of workers first.

The infrastructure programs that our Premier launched over past years are also stepping up to the plate in a major way to employ displaced resource workers in these troubled times. I'm delighted to see the commitment of $14 billion in new and ongoing public capital construction in the 2009-2010 budget. This represents 88,000 jobs across this province over the next three years at a time when every job counts. These jobs will be critical to ensure our skilled labour force remains active and in place while the economy recovers.

This construction builds on the work we've already done to assist local governments to build and maintain critical infrastructure. Through programs like Towns for Tomorrow we've partnered with British Columbia's smallest communities.

Our Premier is a leader who is very much in touch with and understands clearly the needs and aspirations of communities, including small communities. So he created a program unique in our history, recognizing that many of these small communities can't afford full partnering with the two senior levels of government. That program pays 80 percent of the cost of projects to communities under 5,000 population, 75 percent to communities under 15,000 in population.

Port Hardy, for example, received $400,000 to upgrade the seine float and surrounding area to support recreation, and $400,000 went to the village of Queen Charlotte to build infrastructure for a new green energy supply. By providing 80 percent of funding up to $400,000 for these communities with populations under 5,000 and 75 percent of funding up to $375,000 for communities between 5,000 and 15,000 population, this newly approved $71 million program is providing unprecedented levels of support for British Columbia's small rural communities.

[ Page 14390 ]

Because it's so well organized and working so well, the federal government is seriously considering partnering with us to enable us to expand that program in these tough times. Between the senior governments and the local communities we're working to preserve the lifestyle that British Columbians know and love, creating construction jobs at a time when the work is sorely needed.

Further to this, through programs like the $40 million LocalMotion, we've assisted communities to build new green bike paths and walkways that improve the quality of life and encourage healthy living in the populations, projects like $50,000 in Campbell River for new sidewalks near Sandowne Elementary School and $180,000 in Pitt Meadows for a cycling bridge over the Katzie Slough.

We're also pleased to be building on our partnerships with the federal government, assisting communities to build infrastructure, create jobs and maintain their quality of life through the Building Canada communities component, where we have funding of $111 million to assist communities with populations under 100,000 to build infrastructure like new water systems and new sewage infrastructure. The benefits of programs like these are immediate and on the ground.

Near and dear to my heart is the community of Kamloops, where I live. We very recently announced a combined grant of $14.2 million from the two senior governments for the city of Kamloops to assist them with upgrades to their wastewater treatment plant, having previously funded a state-of-the-art water treatment facility, which Kamloops is tremendously proud of and where Thompson Rivers University teaches technicians how to operate this state-of-the-art technology.

[1555]

These services provide direct benefits to 85,000 people and also reduce greenhouse gas emissions through methane capture, creating a better environment and an estimated 213 direct and indirect jobs in the wastewater treatment facility alone.

That's what these programs are all about: keeping people employed now while improving quality of life and the environment for the future. Stability today, a bright future tomorrow and hope for the long term.

Besides building and maintaining critical infrastructure at a time when construction jobs are key to our economy, this government is also committed to expanding its financial supports to local governments for their operations, to help them provide the services that make British Columbia's communities great places to live.

This year, I'm proud to say, we are fulfilling our commitment to double small community and regional district grants, increasing our annual commitment by $7 million for a total of $55 million this year. This continues our strong record of strong community supports.

During these unsettled times we're providing greater certainty to local governments by temporarily restructuring key transfer payments, including both traffic fine revenues and small community and regional district grants. We're collaborating with the Union of British Columbia Municipalities to restructure those grants to give local governments more certainty by providing a higher portion of funds earlier than would normally be the case. The end result is access to funds to ensure communities can continue to provide important services and participate in accelerated infrastructure spending.

Clearly, this government is continuing its commitment to supporting communities. Since 2001 the provincial government has provided $1.9 billion in funding to local governments, quite a contrast to the record of the NDP when in government, who cut grants to local governments by almost 75 percent. In 1996 local government grants were $141 million. Over the next five years the NDP slashed them to $36 million, almost a 75 percent cut.

The people who sit to the left and the right of the Leader of the Opposition had responsibilities for this ministry's predecessor operations — different names. When the NDP's House Leader was sitting in the minister's chair, $60 million was cut from small community grants. When the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant was the minister, $42 million was cut from local government grants. Well, we've been moving in the opposite direction.

As I said, we provided $1.9 billion in financial support to local governments in addition to the local government transfers they were already receiving. The Premier has had a sharp eye to the welfare of the residents of small communities and rural areas. In fact, our grants have been $786 per capita in those regions to rural and resource community residents, compared to $161 per capita in large urban centres.

This year we add an additional $2.8 million to the Peace River Fair Share agreement, totalling annual support at $29.4 million. We've committed $1 million to the Bulkley-Nechako for grants in lieu of taxes for the Kemano hydroelectric project.

We recognize that quality of life in every community in British Columbia is absolutely the key to attracting and retaining businesses and professionals such as nurses, doctors and teachers. It's a critical component when it comes to building our competitive advantage for today and for the future.

Another aspect of quality of life in British Columbia is our commitment to maintaining our environment. That's why we're so pleased that this year's budget includes a $4 million annual commitment for the next three years to reimburse local governments for any climate carbon tax in exchange for their commitment to become carbon-neutral.

In addition, we've included $3 million each year for the next three years for our program called Trees for Tomorrow, a program that will assist communities and local non-profits to plant four million trees in public areas

[ Page 14391 ]

of cities, towns, villages and regional districts throughout British Columbia. Planting trees in urban areas will help lock away greenhouse gases that would otherwise contribute to climate change. It's a great opportunity for communities to come together to improve air quality and beautify their communities.

[1600]

This year's budget clearly addresses the current financial crisis by providing immediate assistance to British Columbia workers. It stimulates the economy by enhancing the speed at which we undertake construction projects. It provides 88,000 jobs across British Columbia, jobs on projects that will set the stage for our economic growth when the world economic climate becomes more stable. We don't think it will ever return to what we used to think of as normal, and we're ready to deal with that and to embrace the opportunities of the present and the future.

Most importantly, this throne speech provides hope. Our government, before it was government, was preceded by a B.C. Liberal platform that promised hope, opportunity and prosperity. We have delivered that in spades, and we'll be delivering it into the future — hope for families that need assistance during these difficult times, hope for the children of British Columbia's future.

I want to urge the members opposite to get on board, to stop being so negative and destructive. Their fearmongering about the Olympics flies in the face of the optimism that British Columbians naturally feel at the prospect of hosting this greatest of all activities.

The whole world looks forward to the Olympics. Three billion people will watch the opening ceremonies. Just as people did when they had been here for Expo, they'll come back year after year to see more of British Columbia, which will have been showcased for months around the Olympics by international media that already have their reservations to stay here.

By preaching gloom and doom constantly, the members opposite work against the interests of their own constituents. Surely, they should realize that. I chaired the Small Business Roundtable in my previous assignment, and the great people who make up the round table — a permanent round table that listens to small business all around the province, in regional round-table meetings — grew more and more annoyed at the gloom and doom being spread by NDP MLAs. They know very clearly that optimism builds an economy, and that pessimism damages an economy.

Small business is the greatest job creator in this province. There are some 380,000 small businesses, and they produce over a third of the province's gross domestic product. They are really fed up with the negativity from the official opposition — totally fed up.

They also are alarmed at an opposition that still recklessly and incompetently thinks that it's a good idea for a government to interfere in issues such as minimum wage. We've had an $8 minimum wage for years. The average pay in British Columbia is over $21 per hour.

During the '90s when the small business sector was saddled with the highest minimum wage in Canada, I'm sure that the business people told the NDP side, just as they did the B.C. Liberals in opposition, that this was hampering their ability to reward their best employees, to pay their employees with the highest skills what they deserved and keep them in British Columbia. They were forced to pay the highest wage in Canada to entry-level workers, many of whom had to be taught, their first jobs, how to work — not just how to do the work of the employer but how to work in the first place.

When the NDP talks about increasing minimum wage by 25 percent when they become government…. Heaven forbid that that should ever happen again. But when they're talking about that, they're making promises with other people's money and never seem to understand that, nor do their supporters, who give them standing ovations for the prospect.

We know that if they became government, heaven forbid, and made that move, they would eliminate tens of thousands of jobs right across this province for people who presently are delighted to have those jobs and who have received many, many other benefits by the decisions of our government.

People who make less than $15,000 a year don't pay any provincial income tax at all. We made that change. We've given them new access to pharmaceuticals that they didn't have before. We've eliminated the Medical Services Plan premiums that many of them would have had to pay before we were government. We've helped them with housing allowances.

Right across the board, we've constantly had the interests of low-income people in mind with the changes that we've made and have always protected them as we made the changes that we've made to do with wealthier segments of the population.

[1605]

The reckless incompetence and the patent dishonesty and utter untruthfulness of the NDP opposition have been terribly destructive in this province, and it needs to stop. The interference that the NDP committed in the pulp industry in the 1990s….

Point of Order

N. Simons: Madam Speaker, I'm not sure myself, but I would like clarification if "utter untruthfulness" is appropriate language in this House.

Deputy Speaker: Member, I would ask you to withdraw that remark. It is unparliamentary.

Hon. K. Krueger: I'll withdraw it, Madam Speaker.

[ Page 14392 ]

Debate Continued

Hon. K. Krueger: The interference that the NDP government of the '90s committed in Prince Rupert with the failed Skeena Cellulose pulp mill set up the B.C. pulp industry for the problems that it's experiencing today. They were warned of that by Prof. Emeritus Les Reed of the forestry faculty of the University of British Columbia, who said at the time: "Yes, of course, there's a serious unemployment problem in Prince Rupert, but that is no justification for transferring the problem to other communities in still another reckless experiment in social engineering."

I suggest to the opposition members who continue to speak doom and gloom about the forest industry that they have a hard look at my constituency and those surrounding it. We've got a brand-new sawmill built on the shores of Adams Lake, the most modern sawmill in the southern Interior — over a $100 milli