2007 Legislative Session: Third Session, 38th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

MONDAY, MARCH 5, 2007

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 15, Number 7

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Page

Introductions by Members

Introduction and First Reading of

Bills

Public Inquiry Act (Bill 6)

Hon. W. Oppal

Statements (Standing Order 25 B )

Single Parent Resource Centre in

Victoria

R. Fleming

Proposed place of worship at

legislative buildings

J. Nuraney

Project Comeback for Surrey homeless

H. Bains

Coquitlam passport program

H. Bloy

Nisga'a new year celebration

G. Coons

Joni Ross

J. McIntyre

Oral Questions

CN Rail safety and call for public

inquiry into sale of B.C. Rail

D. Chudnovsky

Hon. K. Falcon

Compensation for CN Rail derailment in

Cheakamus canyon

S. Simpson

Hon. B. Penner

J. Horgan

Funding for child care resource and

referral centres

C. Trevena

Hon. L. Reid

B. Simpson

Call for inquiry into death of Harriet

Nahanee

J. Kwan

Hon. J. Les

Call for inquiry into death of Kevin St. Arnaud

M. Farnworth

Hon. J. Les

Police complaint process

M. Farnworth

Hon. J. Les

Barkel Business College

R. Fleming

Hon. M. Coell

Increases to ferry fares and surcharges

N. Simons

Hon. K. Falcon

B.C. Utilities Commission role and

decision on Alcan power sales

R. Austin

Hon. C. Hansen

Petitions

C. Trevena

Second Reading of Bills

Ministerial Accountability Bases Act,

2006-2007 (Bill 5)

Hon. M. de

Jong

Throne Speech Debate

(continued)

M. Sather

Hon. O. Ilich

H. Bains

Hon. R. Coleman

J. Kwan

Hon. P. Bell

N. Simons

J. Rustad

C. Evans

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Small Business and

Revenue and Minister Responsible for Regulatory Reform

Hon. R. Thorpe

G. Robertson

B. Simpson

G. Coons

[ Page 5743 ]

MONDAY, MARCH 5, 2007

The House met at 1:33 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Introductions by Members

C. James: I am pleased to introduce three people who have

joined us in the precinct today, all representing the Canadian Federation of

Students who last year celebrated 25 years of providing post-secondary students

with an effective and united voice provincially and nationally. Please help me

welcome Scott Payne, the B.C. chairperson; Shamus Reid, the B.C. national

executive representative; and Summer McFadyen, a B.C. organizer.

D. MacKay: Today in the precinct I have two guests. I had a

very pleasant lunch with them, and I'd like to introduce them to the chamber

today. With us in the chamber is Calvin Helin, who's a Tsimshian native from

Port Simpson originally. He's a lawyer practising in the Greater Vancouver area

now. He's also the author of a book called Dances with Dependency . I

think you can probably imagine what the book is about if you've seen the movie

Dances with Wolves . He's also here today with the public relations chap

by the name of Tony Mayer, and they're down here to get some exposure for the

new book. They're at the Victoria Conference Centre from six tonight if you want

to get an autographed book from the author.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

PUBLIC INQUIRY ACT

Hon. W. Oppal presented a message from Her Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Public Inquiry Act.

Hon. W. Oppal: I move that the bill be introduced and read

a first time now.

Motion approved.

[1335]

Hon. W. Oppal: I am pleased to introduce Bill 6, Public

Inquiry Act. The act would repeal and replace the existing Inquiry Act with a

more modern statute. The purpose of the Public Inquiry Act is to provide for the

ability of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to establish commissions of

inquiry into and report on any matter considered in the public interest, and to

provide the powers and the duties necessary for commissions of inquiry to carry

out their functions.

The act would provide for two distinct types of commissions of

inquiry, which may be established according to the purpose for the calling of

the inquiry: hearing commissions, the traditional and more formal type of

inquiry, and study commissions for inquiries into matters of public policy. The

Public Inquiry Act draws upon the principles of the Administrative Tribunals Act

enacted in 2004, which establishes a modern standard for administrative justice

and effectiveness.

The new Public Inquiry Act will provide a modern statutory basis

for commissions of inquiry to fulfil their functions in a manner that is

independent, fair and efficient.

I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second

reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 6, Public Inquiry Act, introduced, read a first time and

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

of the House after today.

Statements

(Standing Order 25

b) SINGLE PARENT RESOURCE CENTRE

IN VICTORIA

R. Fleming: I rise today to talk about an extremely

valuable non-profit society located in my constituency of Victoria-Hillside. I

am referring to the Single Parent Resource Centre of Victoria. Since 1978 the

Single Parent Resource Centre has been committed to providing and serving the

varied and changing needs of single-parent families in Greater Victoria.

In a relaxed and supportive house-like setting, the centre offers

effective services that assist custodial and non-custodial parents in meeting

the changing needs of their families. Families in my community rely on the wide

selection of programs and free services that the Single Parent Resource Centre

provides, including counselling sessions and a comprehensive selection of life

skills programs and workshops, parenting skill development courses and parenting

support groups.

In addition, there is an eight-week volunteer training program

which readies volunteers to provide reception, individual support, and resource

and referral information for the centre and its clients. Some of their free

services include a clothing room for men, women and children; a bread pantry; a

furniture and household goods exchange; and a telephone messaging service.

In addition, the Single Parent Resource Centre is also the sponsor

agency for the Victoria child care resource and referral centre. Fortunately,

thanks to the outpouring of parents and child care providers, it now looks like

that positive relationship and vital service will continue for years to come

into the future — after being told only in January that the CCRR funding cuts

may effectively close it in September of this year.

The Single Parent Resource Centre will soon celebrate its 30th

anniversary and celebrate 30 years of helping parents and kids and strengthening

families in our community. I ask that all members of this House join me in

thanking the staff and volunteers of the Single Parent Resource Centre for the

important work they contribute to making Greater Victoria a better, more

inclusive place to live.

[ Page 5744 ]

PROPOSED PLACE OF WORSHIP

AT LEGISLATIVE BUILDINGS

J. Nuraney: It is obvious that Canada in the past two

decades has become the envy of the world in its ability to accommodate people

from different cultures and backgrounds. Pluralism has helped Canada to be

tolerant and respecting of the cultural values of others.

It is also evident that as more and more people immigrate to

Canada, they bring with them their spirituality and strong beliefs in their

faiths and practices. The world today is seeking a balance between the material

and the spiritual. Some of the world's serious conflicts have also risen because

of the ignorance of these values.

The freedom to practise one's faith is a fundamental premise of

our new society. It is therefore incumbent on us all to accommodate the practice

of one's faith.

[1340]

It is my humble proposal that our legislative building, which is

the symbol of freedom and democracy, should offer a common place of worship to

facilitate those who wish to have their moments of peace and remembrance.

Mr. Speaker, it is my request to you today to consider my humble

proposal and let us take leadership in demonstrating to our nation and to the

world that we in British Columbia understand and care.

PROJECT COMEBACK FOR

SURREY HOMELESS

H. Bains: Last December I was very fortunate to be invited

to the Project Comeback Christmas dinner. As stated in this House previously,

Project Comeback is an initiative designed to assist homeless day labourers in

Surrey achieve full-time employment and independent housing.

Despite the many challenges they face, these people want to break

the cycle of homelessness and integrate back into society. Project Comeback is

the hand-up they need to achieve this goal. I was honoured to have the

opportunity to have dinner with successful participants of this program. There

were 35 people who met the criteria for this program, and 33 people are still

living independently.

I cannot begin to express the deep impact this program has had on

these people. Joining them for Christmas dinner was a truly remarkable

experience. Men and women of Surrey are getting a second chance. They are so

grateful for this opportunity. The participants of this program have formed a

bond between one another that was evident and extremely important. Each and

every one of them expressed their sincere gratitude during the round-table

introductions. Attending this dinner was like having a dinner with huge family.

A couple of quotes from the participants. First: "I feel I'm

slowly rebuilding my life. I now talk about my future. Before entering the

program, I could only think about my next meal or where I was going to sleep."

Second: "I wake up every morning with some place to go and something to do. I

have my own place, and I'm making several new friends. Before, I dreaded the

start of each day."

My hat goes off to Susan Keeping, executive director of Newton

Advocacy Group Society, and Sarah Khan, project coordinator of Project Comeback,

for the outstanding service they provide people that are homeless day labourers

in Surrey.

COQUITLAM PASSPORT PROGRAM

H. Bloy: Mr. Speaker, last month we celebrated the Spirit

of B.C. Week throughout the province, and I'm here to tell you that the spirit

of B.C. is alive and well in Coquitlam all year long. The 2007 Coquitlam

passport is now available. This award-winning tourism marketing initiative is in

its fourth year. This year the passport features over 100 events and festivals

in Coquitlam.

This past weekend I attended the popular Festival du Bois, part of

Coquitlam's unique Flaunt your Frenchness week. This year the festival attracted

over 15,000 people from B.C. and beyond. As you can see, I'm wearing my festival

tie that I've had for many years.

As we head into spring, there are many more events to look forward

to in Coquitlam, including the Como Lake Fishing Derby organized by the Kinsmen,

the Korean Heritage Day Festival headed by Yonah Martin, the Highland Games, and

the West Coast Chocolate Festival headed by Linda Baker. People can have their

passports stamped at certain events and win prizes from great Coquitlam

companies like Coquitlam Centre, Best Western Coquitlam Inn, Executive Plaza

Hotel and Go West RV Rentals.

It is my pleasure to provide all members of the House with a copy

of the 2007 passport, and I hope they will visit my community this year and

enjoy some of the unique events.

I would like to thank Mayor Maxine Wilson and her council, and

especially tourism director Barb Stegemann, who was the driving force behind

this successful program. Their hard work and dedication has made Coquitlam a

year-round destination.

[1345]

NISGA'A NEW YEAR CELEBRATION

G. Coons: Speaking of events, last week I had the

opportunity of attending hobiyee . Hobiyee is the new season, the

new year for the Nisga'a and many other first nations. It begins on the full

moon in the month of February. Prior to this full moon is a crescent moon called

hoobix , meaning spoon. This crescent moon, which appears in the first

weeks of February, resembles the shape of the traditional Nisga'a wooden spoon.

This particular spoon-shaped moon was observed to predict what type of harvest

year could be expected.

It is said that if the hoobix moon — known by the Nisga'a

as Hobiyee , meaning the spoon is full — was sitting in the sky to look

like a smile, then the harvest

[ Page 5745 ]

year would be plentiful. If the hoobix moon is on an angle or even

upside down, then it's believed that the new year harvest will not be plentiful.

However, the position of the crescent moon does not stop anyone from

celebrating. This is a time for singing, dancing and sharing large amounts of

food, which creates an atmosphere of peace and happiness.

Last week, with my colleague from Skeena, I had the opportunity to

join in New Aiyansh with over a thousand drummers and dancers and thousands more

to celebrate. Nations from the whole region joined in the Hobiyee

celebrations, and it was a sight to behold. I believe that to make our 2010

games a real significant event encompassing the traditional history and culture

of our province, we must invite our first nations to open or close the games,

empowering the crowd with the sights and sounds of thousands upon thousands of

traditional drummers and dancers.

In closing, I would like to wish everybody in the assembly a happy

Nisga'a new year. Hobiyee . Welcome one and all to the celebrations next

February in Gitwinksihlkw.

JONI ROSS

J. McIntyre: On February 22 a young woman found herself in

a terrifying situation. Joni Ross, a 20-year-old UBC student, was driving home

on a slushy road when her car slid down a two-metre embankment just north of

Pemberton. Joni's arm was severed at the elbow in the accident, attached by only

a small piece of skin.

Despite this, she managed to extricate herself from her overturned

vehicle and climb up the embankment in search of help. Forced to wait by the

side of the road, in a few moments, luckily, the first person to come across

Joni was Pemberton volunteer firefighter Andrew Gilmour. Gilmour immediately

called 911 and began first aid, reassuring Joni that help was on the way.

The ambulance from Pemberton arrived within 15 minutes, and Joni

was transferred to the excellent Pemberton medical clinic where staff quickly

decided they needed to cut the thread of skin and pack her arm in ice. Joni was

then transferred to Vancouver General Hospital by air ambulance where she

underwent nine hours of surgery to reattach her arm. While she's not out of the

woods yet, the reattachment surgery was successful, and she passed the critical

first 72 hours.

Thanks to what was described as her tremendous resolve and

courage, Joni is recovering from her terrifying accident. Doctors are hopeful

that she'll regain the use of her arm. I would like to commend all those who

helped Joni through this ordeal. It's never easy to deal with an emergency

situation no matter how much training you've had. Yet Andrew Gilmour, who I

understand is an acquaintance of hers and just 18 years old, did everything

right.

The ambulance team from Pemberton got to the scene quickly, and

the staff at the Pemberton clinic made the right decision to help save her arm.

Then a team of skilled doctors spent, as I said, nine hours in surgery with her.

She was described by one of her doctors as an unusual person who did things I

doubt many other people would or could do.

I'm sure that all members of this House will join me in thanking

those who came to Joni's rescue and in wishing her a speedy recovery.

Oral Questions

CN RAIL SAFETY AND CALL FOR PUBLIC

INQUIRY INTO SALE OF B.C. RAIL

D. Chudnovsky: On Friday Transport Canada released two

devastating audits into CN Rail's safety record. On Saturday yet another train

derailed. The audits were only released because of access-to-information

requests from this official opposition and from the CBC. They cover the years

2000 until 2005 and shed light on the poor safety, maintenance and environmental

protection record of CN. So CN's poor record was well established when this

government was in discussions to sell B.C. Rail.

[1350]

To the Minister of Transportation: what discussions took place

between this government and CN at the time of the privatization of B.C. Rail

with respect to safety, maintenance and environmental protection?

Hon. K. Falcon: You know, this is actually an issue that

I've canvassed numerous times before with this member. This member knows full

well that at the time of the partnership arrangement with CN and the British

Columbia government, it was made very clear in the revitalization agreement that

they are going to be expected to uphold the national regulatory standards that

are in place, which govern all the railways — whether it's CN, CP or Burlington

Northern — and that we expected that they, as landlord and owner of the tracks,

would uphold all of the regulatory standards that are in place. That's exactly

what they'll be held to do by the federal regulator.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

D. Chudnovsky: Here are just some of the problems the audit

identified with CN: incorrect safety inspections; non-compliance with the Canada

Labour Code; incorrect track inspection, testing and maintenance; inaccurate

train journals; high number of cars with safety defects; safety culture

improvement initiatives not being effectively implemented.

The real problem here, and one that is borne out by the audits, is

that this government sold our railway to a company that had a track record of

safety problems. The citizens of B.C. have the right to know whether this

government took action to protect the public at the time of the sale. Is the

minister prepared to call a public inquiry into the sale of B.C. Rail?

Hon. K. Falcon: You know, if this member would just do his

homework, the member would know that

[ Page 5746 ]

even under B.C. Rail — the glorious days, which apparently this member yearns

for, when B.C. Rail operated on that rail line — B.C. Rail also had challenges

with derailments on a continuous basis.

The issue for this government, and one of the things that we have

made abundantly clear to both the current federal government and the previous

federal government, is that we expect them to act and to do everything necessary

to make sure that public confidence can be maintained in the operation of the

railway.

That's why, when this member over the last year and a half or two

years periodically gets up and tries to play politics…. While he's doing that,

I've actually been meeting with the federal minister, phoning the federal

ministers — both the current government and the previous government — and

raising it at the national Ministers of Transportation meetings, raising the

issue of railway safety.

As a result of that…. This audit, which the member quotes from,

was one of the results. The other result, of course, is that the current

government has now put into place a new panel to review the Railway Safety Act,

and I think that's the appropriate measure to get real results.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a further supplemental.

D. Chudnovsky: Well, the people of B.C. know, because

they've been listening, that this minister for the last year and a half has been

acting as a public relations flack for CN rather than representing the people of

British Columbia when it comes to safety.

Here's the record of the sale of B.C. Rail: billions of dollars in

profits to CN, two workers killed, one river dead, dozens of derailments and a

criminal investigation.

Again to the minister: will the Minister of Transportation commit

to holding a public inquiry into the sale of B.C. Rail once all the criminal

prosecutions are complete?

Hon. K. Falcon: Well, this member opposite is very

selective. Apparently he's only concerned about CN derailments. I'm actually

concerned about all derailments. I'm just as concerned about a CP derailment

last week up in Golden as I am about one that took place under CN.

[1355]

This member has consistently for two years tried to criticize the

CN–B.C. Rail partnership. Now, why is that? I'll tell you why, Mr. Speaker.

Because…

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. K. Falcon: …apparently that member wants to go back to

the glory days where taxpayers had to see over $1 billion of taxpayer investment

written off under that government when the NDP were in power. Apparently,

they're against the $30 million CN is investing in the Port of Prince Rupert.

Apparently, they're against the over 1,000 new railcars that have been added to

the CN system. Apparently, they're against the $135 million in the northern

development fund, which we topped up to $185 million and which is being invested

in northern communities right across this province.

COMPENSATION FOR CN RAIL

DERAILMENT IN CHEAKAMUS CANYON

S. Simpson: Last week CN put their offer on the table for

restoration and compensation concerning the caustic soda spill that devastated

the Cheakamus River fishery, killing nearly half a million steelhead. The offer

is $2 million over five years for restoration and no money for compensation.

By comparison, at the CN derailment at Lake Wabamun in Alberta,

the provincial government stood up for their citizens, and the result was $28

million for restoration and $7 million for compensation. The contrast is clear.

One government stands up for her citizens, and one government does not — $35

million for Albertans, $2 million for British Columbians.

My question is to the Minister of Transportation. Is he satisfied

that CN's $2 million offer is adequate to deal with the Cheakamus River

situation?

Hon. B. Penner: We were very concerned about the derailment

that took place in the Cheakamus canyon in August of 2005. We have held CN

responsible for all the ongoing costs of the cleanup and the mitigation. That

work is continuing. We have, for example, people from the conservation corps — a

new program that this government established — and many other agencies working

collaboratively to make sure that we can recover those fishery stocks as quickly

as possible for the Cheakamus canyon. CN Rail will be held responsible for all

those costs.

Mr. Speaker: Member has a supplemental.

S. Simpson: Well, the CN offer is a pittance — $400,000 a

year for five years. Not only that, but they want to control how the money is

spent. CN is responsible for this accident. Now they want to manage the

restoration project and decide who gets restoration dollars and who doesn't.

The Cheakamus is a public asset, and it should be managed in the

public interest, not in the interest of the company responsible for the

polluting. Mr. Speaker, $2 million — that's less than $1 a year for five years

for each of those half a million fish that were killed. It's a sad offer.

The Cheakamus stakeholders have called for a trust fund to be

established of $1.5 million a year for 25 years to deal with these issues. What

action is the minister going to take now to ensure that the concerns of the

community are met and that CN is obliged to pay sufficient funds to meet the

restoration costs and legitimate compensation demands of both the first nations

and the local communities?

[ Page 5747 ]

Hon. B. Penner: This appears to be one of those rare

circumstances where we actually agree on something across the aisle here. It has

been the position of our government right from the outset that CN Rail will be

held responsible for all costs associated with responding to the spill and the

deaths that occurred for the fishery resource in the Cheakamus canyon. We're

continuing to work on a recovery plan with a variety of stakeholders, including

first nations. CN Rail will be held responsible for all those costs. Not just

going backward but going into the future, we're going to do whatever it takes to

recover that river to its former glory.

J. Horgan: Hon. Speaker, we're pleased to hear the

minister's response. Does that mean, then, that he's rejecting the $2 million

offer from the federal government?

[1400]

Hon. B. Penner: I haven't had a chance yet to see that

letter, if there has been an offer made, but our position remains clear. CN Rail

remains responsible for all costs associated with the cleanup and recovery of

the damage that resulted from the derailment on August 3, 2005.

FUNDING FOR CHILD CARE

RESOURCE AND REFERRAL CENTRES

C. Trevena: Last week the government backtracked on funding

cuts to child care resource and referral centres and announced the funding will

be $9 million this coming year. But let's be realistic. That is a $5 million

cut. So I'd like to ask the Minister of State for Child Care whether she will

commit to the House today that the $9 million announced last week will go to

fund all the existing child care resource and referral centres.

Hon. L. Reid: The members opposite will know that last year

$14 million was expended on child care resource and referral; $5 million of that

were federal dollars under the early learning and child care agreement. I've

canvassed this many times with the member opposite. She will know that that

agreement has been cancelled. The federal government has cancelled the early

learning and child care agreement. That $5 million is no longer available to us.

The member will also know that on the fifth of January we put out

that the best-case scenario in British Columbia was $9 million. Only the New

Democrats would find fault with best-case scenario.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

C. Trevena: The $5 million is a cut no matter how you shake

it. It's clearly a cut, whether it's come through federal or provincial. There

is no money going into child care centres.

Last week an e-mail went out from the coordinator in the ministry

for child care resource and referral section, and it stated: "At the moment we

do not know what this means for the CCRR budgets, and there is no guarantee that

the original CCRR recommendations will be accepted. There's still a possibility

of CCRR closures, depending on the budget details."

Will the minister of state say that there will be no closures of

child care resource and referral centres and that their recommendations will be

accepted?

Hon. L. Reid: We are, as we speak, in dialogue with child

care resource and referral. Certainly, the information will go and come between

them and us directly, because we have that responsibility and we take that

responsibility very seriously. They will give us advice, and we will have those

discussions.

B. Simpson: I guess, in the fullness of time or something,

these child care referral centres will find out what is in the Minister of State

for Childcare's mind. As of today, those centres still do not know what the

government's announcement means.

The minister talks about best-case scenario. Is it best-case

scenario to force all of these centres to ramp up their services, go to

storefront, add staff, incur leases and additional costs on a $14 million

budget, cut that budget and say it'll be $3 million, and then — as a result of

pressure — flip it back to $9 million and as of today still not tell the child

care and referral centres whether they are getting that money or not. Is that a

best-case scenario?

My question to the Minister of State for Childcare is this. Can

the child care referral centres today rescind the layoff notices that this

government forced them to give, and can they today tell their landlords that

they will in fact be sticking around for another year?

Hon. L. Reid: I am pleased, yet again, to canvass this with

the members opposite. The federal government cancelled the early learning and

child care agreement. That is where they lost the $5 million, which is on the

table today.

[1405]

In terms of the program and the progress we have made in these

files, we are proud as a government to place our priority on vulnerable families

in British Columbia — 25,000 families earning under $38,000 a year. We made that

change. We lifted the income threshold from $21,000 to $38,000 — hugely

significant.

We placed equal priority on vulnerable children in British

Columbia — children with special needs. They are indeed a priority of this

government. Whether or not you have Down syndrome, autism or cerebral palsy, you

will attend child care in British Columbia with the appropriate resources and

support. That is good news.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

B. Simpson: I do. My question is really very, very simple.

It doesn't have to do with all the things that the minister keeps wanting to

talk about. We're asking one simple question. Will the child care referral

centres, as

[ Page 5748 ]

they are today, get the $9 million that the government flip-flopped and

raised the allocation to last week?

The thing that's happening here is the minister's staff

understands how difficult this situation is. The e-mail that was referenced

earlier says: "We know the waiting game is painful." So my question to the

minister is: will she alleviate the pain for these centres and tell us today if

they will be funded by that $9 million?

Hon. L. Reid: The budget in place for child care resource

and referral was $9 million on the fifth of January. It's $9 million this coming

October, and it's $9 million on a go-forward basis.

CALL FOR INQUIRY INTO

DEATH OF HARRIET NAHANEE

J. Kwan: Harriet Nahanee, an aboriginal elder and activist,

died February 24 at the age of 71. In spite of many more compassionate

interventions, she was sent to jail at her advanced age and in frail health. Her

lawyer believes that she may have contracted pneumonia while she was held in

Surrey Pretrial Centre. There are many lingering questions regarding her death.

Will the Solicitor General commit today to holding an independent inquiry into

the death of elder Harriet Nahanee?

Hon. J. Les: First of all, I'm sure along with all members

of this House, we sincerely regret the passing of Ms. Nahanee. It's true that

she was incarcerated for a short period of time. However, there is no evidence

that she contracted any disease of any kind while incarcerated.

But there are avenues open to the family if they wish to pursue

those avenues with respect to lodging a formal complaint. I would urge them, for

example, to address the provincial director of adult custody to ensure that any

concerns they might have are properly responded to.

CALL FOR INQUIRY INTO

DEATH OF KEVIN ST. ARNAUD

M. Farnworth: My question is to the Solicitor General.

Kevin St. Arnaud was shot in Vanderhoof and killed while being taken into police

custody. The subsequent police investigation of this tragic event has raised

more questions than answers in the communities in northern British Columbia.

Will the Solicitor General order a public inquiry into the events surrounding

the death of Kevin St. Arnaud?

Hon. J. Les: Mr. Speaker, I'm well aware of the

circumstances surrounding the death of Mr. St. Arnaud. It was recently the

subject of a coroner's inquest. This matter is currently before the commission

for public complaints, which is a federal process whereby complaints against the

RCMP are adjudicated. That process is currently underway, and I suggest that we

wait for the results of that process.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

POLICE COMPLAINT PROCESS

M. Farnworth: This case, the Ian Bush case and the

questions that have been raised by the public in communities in British

Columbia, particularly those serviced by the RCMP, have raised questions around

the police complaints process.

[1410]

Does the minister not believe that it would be desirable to have a

uniform, independent process for investigating these types of cases? And will he

commit to pursuing this with Ottawa? An ideal time to implement a uniform

complaints process would be when the RCMP contract comes up for renewal in 2012.

And it should be done, if not sooner.

Hon. J. Les: I appreciate the question. Clearly, we've had

several troubling incidents in British Columbia over the last several years, and

it certainly does call into question whether or not we might be better served in

the province if we had a unified police complaints process. As the members

opposite will know, we recently completed the Wood report into the police

complaints process as it relates to municipal police departments in British

Columbia.

I think it's fair to say that the report has been well received,

and I believe the member opposite responded positively to that as well. As part

of the release of that report, I made a copy available to my federal

counterpart, the Hon. Stockwell Day. His department is reviewing that report.

Indeed, as he suggested to me, he too is reviewing his options with respect to

the police complaints process federally in light of the recent O'Connor report

that was delivered to the federal minister.

It is too early to suggest exactly what kind of collaboration

might be available between the provincial and the federal governments in this

case, but the fact that there is some opportunity to develop a more

collaborative process…. Certainly, that prospect is there, and I'm committed to

following up on that with the federal minister to the greatest extent possible.

BARKEL BUSINESS COLLEGE

R. Fleming: The Ministry of Advanced Education has

confirmed, through the opposition's freedom-of-information application, that it

possesses at least 15 audits of private post-secondary institutions. Some were

apparently triggered by financial irregularities including the misuse of

taxpayer-funded student loans. So far the Minister of Advanced Education has

shown a pattern of refusal to levy fines or prosecute when laws are broken by

bad actors in the private post-secondary education business.

Can the Minister of Advanced Education confirm if an internal

audit of Barkel Business College finds serious and fraudulent abuses of public

student loans and recommends RCMP review? And if so, what has he done about it?

Hon. M. Coell: The member knows that the ministry routinely

audits institutions. If there is a complaint, if

[ Page 5749 ]

we audit them, we sometimes send in an inspector. We sometimes close them if

necessary or refer them on to the courts. I can confirm to the member that the

institution that he mentioned is still under review.

Mr. Speaker: Member has a supplemental.

R. Fleming: It would be nice if this House could know what

the 25 blank pages of the freedom-of-information request means, if this minister

is going to take action. The problem here in British Columbia is that when fault

is found, operators are going scot-free on charges, of any fines or anything for

any wrongdoing that is conducted.

He has in his possession several reports, including the ones on

Kingston and Lansbridge University, which we've discussed in this House.

Unfortunately, a message is being sent out loud and clear. The message is that

this is a profitable business in British Columbia and that when you're caught,

you will be tolerated.

China, Korea and India have heard this message. They're making

warnings to their students about British Columbia. Can the minister confirm that

the former operator of Barkel is now involved with a career college under a

different name, operating today with the permission of the Liberal's

self-regulating agency?

Hon. M. Coell: The member has selective memory. The

institute that he mentions, Barkel, was actually registered under the NDP. We

investigated it. If necessary, the investigations may have suspensions or

closures of institutions. That one is under investigation.

[1415]

INCREASES TO FERRY

FARES AND SURCHARGES

N. Simons: The Minister of Transportation has repeatedly

told people in my community that Mr. Crilly, the ferry commissioner, is

responsible for considering the impact of fare increases on ferry-dependent

communities.

Mr. Crilly, on the other hand, has an opposite view. In fact, in a

letter to one of my constituents he says that the commission doesn't consider

the needs of or the impact on ferry customers or communities when they rule on

ferry and fuel surcharges. So who's wrong? Is it the commissioner or the

minister?

Hon. K. Falcon: If I understood the member's question

correctly — I'm not entirely sure I did — what I would say to the member is that

the member should well know that under legislation, we actually cap the ability

of the ferries to increase their rates. They are capped under the legislation

over the term of the Ferries agreement that we have.

If the member is referring to fuel surcharges, that of course is

separate. I suspect that what Mr. Crilly was probably saying to the individuals

there was that ferry surcharges are exceptions. Naturally, we would rather not

see fuel prices go up. But the member well knows that whether it's railways or

airlines or the taxi industry or indeed even ferries, when we see those kind of

increases in fuel prices, then those are historically passed along to the

members who utilize those services. It's no different with the ferries.

Mr. Speaker: Member has a supplemental.

N. Simons: I don't think that the obfuscation that the

minister is offering is going satisfy either this side of the House or the

general public, quite frankly. The question was a simple one, and perhaps it has

to do with homework that he's not able to answer it. I'm asking the minister why

he's been telling constituents that in fact the commissioner can look into the

impact of fare increases on communities, and the commissioner says: "No, the

minister is wrong. It's there in black and white." So who's wrong — the minister

or the commissioner?

Hon. K. Falcon: I appreciate that this is evidently an

issue that gets the member excited. But I would just simply say to the member

that the member knows full well — and if he doesn't, he should refer to the

website — as to what the roles and duties of the independent ferry commissioner

are all about. The fact of the matter is that when you have fuel surcharges,

those are surcharges that nobody has any control over. The price of fuel goes

up, and what they do is….

Interjections.

Hon. K. Falcon: Apparently, the members opposite don't

believe fuel prices have gone up everywhere. I believe there's one of those

members over there that thinks they ought to be regulated. I'm just trying to

tell….

Interjections.

Hon. K. Falcon: Well, thank you. Apparently, all of the

members of the NDP believe that now, and that'll be an interesting circle to

square when they talk to their environmental friends about how to change

behaviour by lowering the price of fuel. Oops.

Actually, I'm quite fascinated by this conundrum. Perhaps we can

explore it further with the members of the opposition. It's quite interesting.

B.C. UTILITIES COMMISSION ROLE

AND DECISION ON ALCAN POWER SALES

R. Austin: The new energy plan talks about "reviewing the

B.C. Utilities Commission's role in considering social, environmental and

economic costs and benefits when examining electricity purchase agreements." Can

the Minister of Economic Development commit to this House that the changes to

the BCUC are not retribution for the correct decision to reject the Premier's

sweetheart deal with Alcan? And will he guarantee that these changes will not be

used as an end run to reverse that decision?

[ Page 5750 ]

Hon. C. Hansen: It's actually interesting that the NDP are

continuing to flog this whole issue around the future of Alcan in Kitimat. I

just wanted to share with the member a letter coming from the chief councillor

of the Haisla First Nation, Steve Wilson, who in a letter to the editor —

actually in Terrace — writes this. He says: "Today the rest of us are working to

fix the problem that the NDP left behind, and now for the first time that

company and the province are being inclusive." It goes on to say: "We are fixing

the past, and at least we are intent on being inclusive, unlike" — dot, dot, dot

— "the New Democratic Party of British Columbia."

As a government, we're proud of the fact that we have once again

put B.C. Hydro subject to the regulations and review of the B.C. Utilities

Commission. I am sure that the Minister of Energy will confirm that that will

continue as we go forward.

[1420]

[End of question period.]

Petitions

C. Trevena: I have a petition with approximately 300 names,

protesting the cuts in child care funding by the province. I have a second

petition with about 200 signatures, opposing the potential eviction of Tom

Bakken from Crown land. He's been homesteading north of Campbell River.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: In Committee A, I call the commencement of

estimates debate. For the information of members, we will be discussing the

estimates of the Ministry of Small Business and Revenue. In this chamber I call

second reading of Bill 5, to be followed by the resumption of debate on the

throne speech.

Second Reading of Bills

MINISTERIAL ACCOUNTABILITY

BASES ACT, 2006-2007

Hon. M. de Jong: I move that Bill 5, Ministerial

Accountability Bases Act, 2006-2007, now be read a second time.

Bill 5 is a short bill, but it does provide for an increase in the

amount of estimated operating expenses for purposes of ministerial

accountability under the Balanced Budget and Ministerial Accountability Act by

the amount referred to firstly in the Supplementary Estimates No. 1, 2006-2007,

which was tabled on February 28 and actually passed through this House on that

day.

As debated in the House last Wednesday, that $290 million

supplementary estimate provided for funding for incentive payments to public

sector employees under the negotiating framework for the 2006-07 fiscal year. To

date, happily, 140 public sector agreements have been successfully negotiated.

Those 140 agreements, when combined with management and exempt compensation

agreements, represent approximately 94 percent of all public sector employees.

That, by any measure, is a significant achievement for the employees, for the

employers and, actually, for all British Columbians.

In addition, the second part of this short bill relates to the

cost of fighting forest fires. There was an early start to a lengthy fire season

this past year, and the Ministry of Forests and Range was required to spend in

accordance with their statutory authority — in fact, statutory obligation — for

direct forest fire fighting costs.

[1425]

The current estimate for statutory spending for '06-07 is $111

million. I take it that that is an estimate, insofar as there are still invoices

being processed, but that estimate is offered with a fair measure of confidence.

There were some notable fires in '06-07. They included the

11,000-hectare Hourglass Creek fire, 20 kilometres northeast of Tumbler Ridge,

which, we will all recall, caused an evacuation alert and ultimately an

evacuation order; the 60-hectare fire at the south end of Galiano Island, which

caused an evacuation alert and some voluntary evacuations; the 130-hectare fire

five kilometres south of Falkland, which additionally caused an evacuation

alert; the over 5,400-hectare Tatoosh fire approximately one-half mile inside

the Canadian border, between Manning and Cathedral parks, which caused an

evacuation alert; and a further 1,800-hectare fire, the Border Lake fire, less

than a kilometre from the Canada-U.S. border, which also caused an evacuation

alert.

[S. Hammell in the chair.]

It was, therefore, a challenging fire season. The overall fires

totalled 2,571, and I'm told and advised that just over 1,500 of those fires

were caused by lightning strikes. The Ministerial Accountability Bases Act, Bill

5, makes provisions to increase the amount of estimated operating expenses for

purposes of ministerial accountability under the Balanced Budget and Ministerial

Accountability Act for the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Forests and

Range to account for the costs that I have just described.

There may be further questions about the specifics, particularly

around the fires, and we'll have an opportunity to canvass those in committee

stage of the debate. Those would be my comments on second reading, Madam

Speaker.

Interjection.

Hon. M. de Jong: I have no further comments except to move

second reading.

Motion approved.

Hon. M. de Jong: I move that the bill be referred to a

Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House

after today.

[ Page 5751 ]

Bill 5, Ministerial Accountability Bases Act, 2006-2007, 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 continued debate on the throne

speech.

Throne Speech Debate

(continued)

M. Sather: Well, it gives me pleasure again to respond for

the first time to the throne speech. It was, as we know, a speech that was

somewhat different than what we saw with the budget speech. But there are a

number of areas that I wanted to cover off with regard to the throne speech.

The throne speech talked about children and families and children

and family development, and it talks about transformative change. We on this

side of the House are a little worried about what is intended by this government

with regard to transformative change. When we look at what's happened in this

province for children and their families, we do have concerns.

[1430]

As we know, as we've mentioned before in this House, in British

Columbia we have the highest child poverty rate in the country. How can that be

in a province as wealthy as ours? The government is fond of telling us how well

the economy is doing. That's great, but what about the children that are being

left behind? What about us having the highest poverty rate in Canada? How can

this government possibly be proud of that, especially having said that they were

going to transform the issue for children and families?

Well, that's surely not the kind of transformation that this side

of the House is looking for. We expect better from the government than that, and

so we're looking for some change there. There were additional funds from last

year, and we were wondering how those are going to be spent. That's not covered

in the throne speech — what is going to be done in that regard.

You know, Madam Speaker, one of the things that worries me about

the care of children in this province — and the care of adults, for that matter

between vulnerable children and their families, they need a person that they

know is going to be there for them.

Yes, they may have an advocate, or they may not. But they need

someone representing the government that's going to be there for them or at

least is going to be a conduit for them to be able to clearly explain their

concerns and be responded to. That has all along been the social worker.

Social workers do a valuable service in this province, and I think

we all can recognize that. I have concerns about whether their professionalism

is being supported and whether their work is being fully supported by this

government.

I speak as a former social worker myself or at least in a social

work position as a mental health therapist. I worry, for example, about

Community Living B.C. and what's happening with Community Living B.C. for our

most vulnerable children, children who have special needs, children with autism,

children with more severe disabilities — although autism can of course be very,

very severe in itself.

They don't have a social worker anymore that they can go to or

that their families can go to. We now have analysts and the like, and it's all

business-sounding. But where is the caring? Where is the person-to-person

assurance that those people are being cared for, that they and their families

know they have somewhere they can go to and access readily?

What I'm hearing in my community is that they can't access those

services readily. I hear it from teachers who are special needs teachers, and I

hear it from the families who have special needs children. They're concerned. In

Maple Ridge the analyst makes a plan for them, and it's in Coquitlam. Then that

goes through a bunch of hoops, and it comes back to Maple Ridge. In this whole

process, a number of them have told me they feel completely lost.

What I've been told by teachers that are in a position to try to

assist these families is that oftentimes they give up. A teacher told me about a

family that she's dealing with, who has two autistic children plus a child with

bipolar disorder. Wow, that is a load for any family to deal with. She's not

accessing the services that presumably are available to her. A service is not

only available if the government says it's available and it's on the books of

being there. There has to be a clear and easy way for that family to access that

service, and this is not happening.

There are families out there that are not getting the services

they need, and the government needs to look at that. They need to go back and

look and see: are these people getting the services they need? Are they able to

talk to someone on a one-to-one basis? Do they have a social worker?

[1435]

It's the same thing through the Ministry of Employment and Income

Assistance. Their employment assistance workers are not available one-on-one to

clients. It's all kind of a distanced model where you go on the Internet and get

whoever is available that day.

Again, the problem is its relationship and the lack of

relationship that happens as a result. People need to know that they can have a

person-to-person relationship with their worker, and what I'm hearing in my

office is that they don't. They don't feel that anymore.

Now, that may end up meaning that there are more people on income

assistance, and maybe the government thinks that's a good thing. But it's not a

good thing if the reason they're not on is because they don't have the skills or

the capacities, or because the availability isn't there for them to access those

services.

I've had staff and advocates go through the kind of applications

that they have to go through online, and they said: "It was difficult for me."

One of our members

[ Page 5752 ]

was earlier commenting that it's difficult to access employment assistance

through the kinds of steps that you have to go through now. So it's really

one-to-one relationships, important relationships.

It's not just about the bottom line. It's fine to be efficient.

There's nothing wrong with efficiency as long as it's balanced with the human

element.

I wanted to switch areas for a minute. The government has talked

in the throne speech about investing in B.C. ports. We know there's a lot of

push by this government for port development and the movement of containers and

the like. We need to know, again, that there are assurances that other aspects

of society are going to be taken care of or are going to be watched out for in

this process.

For example, is the agricultural land reserve going to be taken

into account? I think of — in my community, right out in the middle of the

Fraser River — Barnston Island, where Fraser River Ports had a proposal to

develop that for a port facility. Fortunately, it did not get through the

Agricultural Land Commission, but it concerns me that Fraser River Ports is

considering that kind of development on agricultural land. I mean, were they

getting some encouragement from the government to move ahead with that? I hope

not, but I wonder.

You know, I've had conversations with Captain Domaas from the

Fraser ports. He's a great guy and very communicative, but I worry about what

they're planning for my community in Pitt Meadows. We have the intermodal yard

for CP, and from the port's development I'm sure they feel it's an excellent

area to further develop a relationship or a continuity between the port and the

intermodal yard. But is this going to be done at the expense of the agricultural

land reserve? I really worry about that, and I want to know. I hope this

government is going to assure that our industrial developments are green, that

they consider agriculture and that they consider the environment. I'm not sure

that's happening.

The transportation-related developments with the South Fraser

perimeter road. It's related to port development as well, and there are real

concerns in Delta about Burns Bog and what effect the development is going to

have on Burns Bog. There are vulnerable species there.

In my community, in Pitt Meadows, we have about 15 of the greater

sandhill cranes remaining. There are only two areas, and a third small area,

where they breed in the lower mainland anymore, and the other one is at Burns

Bog. This has to be taken into account when we decide on a new road. I know

there is lots of concern in Delta that that's not happening. Again, it's fine.

The throne speech talks about increasing economic development, and that's great,

but we must be sure it's done in a way that looks at other values.

On education, in the throne speech, eliminating junk food in all

public schools and in all vending machines in provincially owned buildings is

apparently going to be legislation, as I understand it, that this government is

going to introduce in this session.

[1440]

I'm wondering, though, whether they have thought about a

development like that in terms of TILMA, the trade, investment and labour

mobility agreement that we had a chance to talk a bit about in this House. The

impression I have is that they haven't really thought about what the

ramifications of this agreement are. This is an agreement between Alberta and

British Columbia. The concern that I have is particularly around the issue of

investment and what is an investor.

Certainly, there are investors involved in junk food in schools

and in public buildings; there are big investors. Are they going to challenge

government legislation to remove junk food from schools under the auspices that

it's affecting their investment or that it's inhibiting investment, and that's

not allowed under this agreement?

I hope the government has thought this through, but I must say

that when we met with the minister's representatives earlier today, I didn't get

that impression at all. Understandably, the person that helped to put this deal

together for British Columbia wasn't there, but I have to hope that there has

been more homework done than it seems there has.

Other issues in the throne speech are kind of provocative or

interesting around education, and we'll wait to see what it all means. But one

of them said that they'll give teachers new recognition and financial incentives

to reward improvements in student achievement. So how is that going to work,

Madam Speaker? How is the individual teacher going to get a financial payout for

improving the test scores — I guess that's how it would have to be — of the

students?

I mean, we know there's a great diversity in our schools. We know

there are schools where there are a lot of children who come from poor homes and

a lot of children who come to school hungry. They're not ready to learn. Now,

they probably aren't going to be able to get the same kind of learning

improvements as the children who are in a school where they have adequate

supports both at home and in the school. Yet there's a suggestion here that

there's going to be financial incentives for student improvement. I have to

wonder if that's not the Fraser Institute model where we rank all the schools,

rank all the teachers and decide who's the best. Again, it's not a model that's

conducive, really, to learning in the schools.

Another thing that I wonder about in the throne speech is the talk

about establishing a teacher employment registry to publicly report the names of

teachers disciplined for misconduct. Now, why? Why is this government now

wanting to publicly report teachers?

I met with a bunch of teachers this weekend in a social event, and

they talked to me about how demeaned they feel that their profession has been

under this government. Now they're going to be further stigmatized by a public

reporting of their misdemeanours. Are they going to do like they're doing for

Mr. Callow? Are they going to tell where they're living now? Is that the next

thing that this government has in mind with teachers?

[ Page 5753 ]

We know that their attitude towards teachers has been very

negative. The teachers feel it; they know it. They know how this government

feels about them, and they're concerned about what's up next. I really don't

think it bodes well for public education in this province. The government has a

lot of fence-mending to do with the teaching profession, but this, to me,

doesn't look like fence-mending. This looks like more scare talk. This is more:

"Wow, these guys are under the microscope. Watch out."

It also says in the throne speech that the government will have

the ability to directly communicate with all teachers in B.C. What does that one

mean? We know that the BCTF is not on the Christmas list for this government.

And what does that mean — "directly communicate with the teachers"? Is that code

again for saying that we're going to go around the BCTF? I'm afraid that it is.

[1445]

That, again, does not bode well at all for public education in

this province. I'm hoping this government is not taking that punitive approach

towards teachers, because believe me, it does not lead to better outcomes. This

government is always talking about outcomes. Well, if you want better outcomes

in education, you have to support your teachers. That's the basic.

We look at education in the throne speech as well. There is no

special needs help there. Special needs is a huge area, as we all know. It's a

challenging area, and it's one that we do have to look at. There's discussion

now about how we should support children in schools with special needs,

particularly the high-incidence, less severe special needs children.

Should they continue to be totally part of the wider school

population? Should they have their own schools? Should it be a part of each?

That's a real challenge for this government or any government. I don't know. I'm

not criticizing the government on this. I don't know what their intentions are,

but I'm hopeful that it's going to be an open discussion where we look at

everybody's concerns. I think both sides of the House will have to look at that,

because I think we have to admit that special needs kids often are not doing

very well in schools.

It's very difficult. My wife was a teacher, and I remember going

on an outing with her and with a child with autism — and very, very challenging,

a child with autism. It's very challenging for them to go on an outing, because

having the same environment and a lack of stimulation oftentimes works best for

them.

There are a lot of areas that are a great challenge for parents,

obviously a great challenge for the children and a great challenge for our

teachers. So all need to be supported. Again, we can't be putting undue pressure

on teachers who are oftentimes dealing with a lot of special needs children in

their school. It's very stressful for them, and it's very stressful for the

parents. So we need to work together on that.

Looking at health care, the throne speech says that we must face

up to reality and do what is necessary to make our health care system

sustainable for the future. Do what is necessary. We wait to see, I guess —

after this conversation on health care that's going on — what the government's

intentions are and what the Premier's intentions are for health care.

We on this side of the House have the concern that it means more

privatization coming down the road. We don't think that necessarily, by any

means, is the best way for dealing with health care. I see it, and it's

happening all around this province when we look at long-term care. We know the

promise of this government to build 5,000 long-term care beds, which hasn't been

met. One sees what's happening with long-term care.

In my community there are two facilities that have been closed

down. One is closed, and the other one is about to close. They're becoming

assisted-living facilities. One of them will have some continuing long-term care

capacity, but it's going from a non-profit agency that served my community very

well. The people in that facility were happy. I would go there many times. The

staff were happy. It was a lovely environment.

The health authority came to the facility and said: "You know,

you've got to upgrade." Well, fair enough. They said: "We'll upgrade. Give us a

hand. Tell us what to do. At least assure us that the 52 beds that we have

funded will continue to be funded by the health authority." They couldn't get

that assurance. They weren't given that assurance. They had no choice but to

sell, and they sold to a private business, which is going to build some

long-term care beds.

[1450]

But the portion of these facilities that's the real moneymaker is

the assisted living. We're talking 3,500 bucks a month to be in assisted living.

What we're seeing, what care providers who have clients in these facilities are

telling me, is that the level of care isn't there. The level of care for the

type of patient that they have oftentimes isn't there.

We're getting Alzheimer's patients wandering out on the street.

We're getting people being sent to emergency rooms. If they had the level of

care that was appropriate to the kind of patient they have, it wouldn't be

happening. But they're going to the emergency rooms. We know about the problems

in the emergency rooms and in the hospitals with bed availability. It's a big,

big problem. Partly the problem is this government's privatization scheme around

long-term care. It's unbelievable to me that they continue to do this.

In my community, at Ridge Meadows Hospital we just opened a

newly…. There was a closure of the continuing-care facility there, Creekside.

They opened a nice, shiny new building. That's great. Just last fall it opened,

and now they have to reopen Creekside, which was just closed, because 23

patients have to be moved back into Creekside. It's a question of not enough bed

availability in the hospital. That's what's happening.

There's a great concern I have that doing what's necessary to make

health care sustainable, according to this government, is about privatization.

That's what we'll be looking carefully to see over the coming session, over the

coming year — just what the government

[ Page 5754 ]

has in mind, just what the Premier has in mind, with regard to health care.

The throne speech talks about the changes leading to fundamental

health reforms that increase individual choice. Well, yeah. If you have the

means, then some of the assisted-living facilities are quite nice. And if you

have the capacity to be there, that's wonderful. That's choice for you, but it's

not choice if you don't have those financial capacities. I've talked to seniors

in assisted living in my community, and they said: "We sold our home. The kids

got some, and the rest of it's gone for us to live here, but this isn't going to

last that long. So if we live five years or if we live ten years, we don't know

what we're going to do after we run out of money to pay for this nice

apartment."

There's choice for some. For others, it's picking up the

consequences. The rest of the seniors in this province are left to pick up the

consequences of this government's ideological choices around privatization that

are hurting seniors.

Also, the throne speech ignores the systemic influences in health

like poverty, poor housing, aboriginal status, access to a social safety net and

employment status. We need to look at the big picture. The unequal distribution

of economic and social resources plays a significant role in a person's state of

health. Having the highest childhood poverty rate, having increasing

homelessness — these are not good indicators for good health.

We have to look at those people. We have to value each and every

member of our society. This certainly isn't the only reason, but trying to speak

to something that the government seems to be cognizant of…. That's economic

indicators. It doesn't make good economic sense from several perspectives to

have people out on the street. They're not able to contribute to the economy in

a way that we would like them to. They're having huge health care costs, which

are another burden.

The gap between the haves and the have-nots is increasing. This is

not a good indicator for societal stability, let alone for the health and

well-being of those individuals.

[1455]

Seniors health. I've spoken a bit about seniors health, mentioned

in the throne speech but not about much. In fact, there's no specific mention of

seniors health at all, and that's a concern. Seniors have suffered greatly under

this government. They know it. I hope this government knows it, and I hope

they're going to do something about it.

No comment, no mention of any progress on the long-term care beds

issue. No changes to Pharmacare mentioned. What's happening there with

Pharmacare? Seniors complain to me all the time about the cost of their

medications and about having to purchase more medications than they ever did

before.

No mention of any changes to home support. There's another thing

that's really, I guess, penny-wise but certainly pound foolish. Inadequate home

support. You know, if you don't need bathing, you can hardly get home support

these days. That's not right. People do need assistance with cleaning. They do

need assistance with some of the daily activities of living. This is all to keep

them in their homes, where everybody would prefer to be, and out of hospital as

long as possible. Again, it's an area that this government has neglected.

Seniors are feeling the brunt of that. They're not happy about it, and so they

shouldn't be.

When we look at mental health in the throne speech, there's talk

about shifting responsibilities of supportive treatment and care facilities to

municipalities. That's interesting. I'm not sure what the government really has

in mind there. As I say, I worked in the mental health system. Continuity of

care is essential to a strong mental health system, and municipalities have not

really been involved in providing mental health in that capacity. I wait to see

how that one is going to work.

We look at Community Living B.C. That was supposed to be a

devolvement to the communities, but it hasn't been a model that's working very

well, from what I'm told in my community. I'm hoping this isn't going to be

something along those lines.

Housing. Few concrete commitments from the B.C. Liberals on

housing and homelessness in the throne speech. The speech encourages local

governments to exempt small-unit supportive housing projects from development

cost charges and levies. Well, this government has, as far as I can see, a

pretty mixed approach to housing. Mixed, at best, is the best way that you could

describe it.

They're going to encourage local government to make some changes.

I know the minister has often criticized local government for not creating

enough social housing. But then you've got a member — like in my community, the

member for Maple Ridge–Mission — who says that he despises social housing. He

despises it. Is that the attitude that prevails in other members of this caucus?

He says that it's a stigma. Does that mean that people should be ashamed because

they live in social housing?

This just doesn't cut it, and I worry that this government has far

too much of that attitude in their caucus. I worry that they're not really

intent on providing social housing. I know there's some discussion about housing

for people with addictions, and that's good, but it's not just people who have

addiction problems who need housing.

Looking at my critic area of Intergovernmental Relations, there's

a reference in the throne speech to TILMA, the trade, investment and labour

mobility agreement. When is that going to be brought before this House in terms

of legislation so that we can have a full debate? This is a huge, huge

agreement. It's an agreement that potentially has very far-reaching consequences

for this province. This government is trying to run below the radar on it. "It's

just a deal. You know, it's just an agreement. We sign all kinds of agreements

with various provinces. This is just another one. Ho-hum." On the other hand,

they say it's going to create billions and billions of dollars and so on, but….

[1500]

[ Page 5755 ]

Deputy Speaker: Member.

M. Sather: Thank you very much, Madam Speaker.

Hon. O. Ilich: I actually am very pleased to respond to the

government's throne speech as the Minister of Labour and Citizens' Services. At

the Ministry of Labour and Citizens' Services we are dedicated to providing the

best services possible for the citizens of British Columbia. This is a very

broad mandate, which means we have many opportunities to support government's

great goals and the Pacific leadership agenda.

Our economy is strong. More people are working than ever before,

and thanks to a progressive tax environment, they are keeping more of their

money. As has been said many, many times in this House, the best social policy

is a job. Building on the strength of our economy, we are working to ensure

everyone has access to housing that meets their needs and is within their means.

As a result of this government's tax cuts for families and our

strong economy, real disposable income has grown every year since 2001. Put

simply, when people have more money in their pockets, they can decide where they

want to spend that money and what their priorities are.

Today we lead Canada. B.C. leads Canada in job creation. We have

got 350,000 more jobs in B.C. since 2001. So we are an economic powerhouse. We

are continuing to grow, and we have the lowest unemployment rate in 30 years.

Right now the unemployment rate stands at 4.3 percent. More people are working

than ever before. Even entry-level workers are being offered benefits and

bonuses, and that's a good thing. Unlike in the 1990s, people are flocking to

British Columbia to work and to invest and to live. So I'm very proud to be part

of a government that is leading Canada on job creation.

I'm also pleased that we're leading on climate change. The action

on climate change announced in the throne speech and the actions on global

warming are broad. They're innovative, they're challenging, and they're

exciting. Nationally, provincially and in local communities like mine in

Richmond, we each can make a commitment to take the steps necessary to reduce

greenhouse gases.

In my community, for instance, we are going to have the Canada

line. That's under construction. As we can see every day if we tour around

Richmond, there's lots of construction going on. The new Canada line is going to

reduce net greenhouse gas emissions by up to 14,000 tonnes by 2021, so we're

going to be happy to have the RAV line in the community. It's going to take a

lot of cars off the roads, and I think people are going to be very happy once

that is completed. So I'm pleased that's ongoing in my community. I know that

I'm going to be very happy to get on that and make my way to downtown or from

Richmond on public transit.

Transit changes like the Gateway project and transit corridors

will dramatically increase local transportation options and alternatives. I

think we've discussed how that's going to also complement our climate change

agenda.

One of the other things that I was pleased about in the throne

speech was LocalMotion funding, which is a $40 million announcement to help

local governments build walkways, cycling paths, disability access. These

incentives will also get us out of our cars and into our communities, walking,

and give us better access. We'll be more fit, and it'll be better for us. We'll

contribute less to greenhouse gas if we're walking and doing our business that

way.

There's a number of other initiatives that I'm very pleased to see

were in the throne speech. Spirit Squares, I think, are great — and Towns for

Tomorrow and green cities.

[1505]

At work, at home and in the community. I just want to talk a

little bit about some of the other initiatives of my ministry. Knowledge is the

key to unlocking our citizens' true potential in the digital world. Access to

that information and the knowledge to use it are essential for success.

One of this government's priorities has been to help make that

flow of knowledge possible by fulfilling our commitment to bridging the digital

divide, and that is to ensure that all communities have access to broadband

Internet. Broadband connectivity and capacity-building are important

cornerstones that will allow all of our communities to access social and

economic opportunities and services such as telehealth and distance education.

Using government's purchasing power in the telecommunications

market, the government has been able to ensure access is available in every one

of the 366 communities identified by the Premier's Technology Council. British

Columbia has gained international recognition for its innovative approach to

that challenge.

Certainly, when I go and talk to people at UBCM and other people

that come in to see me occasionally, they're very happy, and we get kudos for

that connectivity. I think it's very important. I've spoken at a couple of

functions in the last little while that dealt with the knowledge and

connectivity, and people are very pleased that we are extending broadband out to

all the communities of British Columbia.

One of the tenets of the Pacific leadership agenda for this

government is to lead Canada in partnerships with first nations. I am really

proud that my ministry is able to assist in doing that through the

transformative change accord. Going forward, NetWork B.C. is focusing on

connectivity for first nations as well as building capacity of first nations

communities to share in the health, social and economic benefits of Internet

access.

We do recognize that to successfully introduce broadband and other

new information and communication technology applications, there needs to be a

basic skill level within the communities wherever possible. At a conference just

last week, I was pleased to provide $50,000 to the First Nations Education

Steering

[ Page 5756 ]

Committee to develop the skills and expertise required in communities to use

and maintain the technology.

One of the things that we were quite keen to be working on and

that the throne speech promised is that more will be done to preserve aboriginal

languages. We have a program that we're working with. It's called

FirstVoices.com. It's a great example of helping communities to harness the

potential of the Internet.

FirstVoices.com is a major project, actually, of the First Peoples

Cultural Foundation. They are using the Internet to document languages, because

many first nations languages are in danger of becoming extinct. They are being

recorded and put on the Internet as sound files so that people can learn them

again.

I was pleased last week to also be able to provide $25,000 for the

FirstVoices program. These funds will assist 15 community-based language teams

to document their languages, bringing the number of publicly accessible B.C.

first nations language archives to 25. This new money is added to funding

already provided to FirstVoices through the First Peoples Heritage, Language and

Culture Council.

A language is not only the voice of the people. It's the voice of

their past, of their ideas and their values. It's the voice that shapes their

culture. Thanks to this program, these traditional languages are more than a

part of British Columbia's heritage. They're also a part of the future.

Many of the challenges and opportunities that the Internet and

connectivity provide for first nations are captured in the documentary and

educational DVD series Cedar and Silicon . I think that was provided to

all members of the House. It's a great DVD. If you haven't seen it, I'd urge you

to watch it. It really shows terrific examples of how the Internet is working in

communities in British Columbia.

It's produced by the Knowledge Network with the financial support

of the B.C. government and also the federal government. It's a one-hour

documentary, and it talks about enabling first nations to better access health,

education and economic development opportunities by bridging the digital divide.

If any of you haven't seen it, it is going to be running again on

the Knowledge Network on April 19. I invite you all to watch and learn a little

bit about it and be inspired by what we're doing there with the ministry. With

Cedar and Silicon , we'll show you what's going on.

[1510]

With information technologies, obviously there come some

challenges. We do need to do a better job of managing the flow of information

within government. Recently we have expanded the role of the provincial chief

information officer. His role has been clarified, and it is now going to

encompass both information technology and information management. The chief

information officer has also been provided with responsibility for overseeing

all IT projects across government.

We remain committed to being the most open and accessible

government in Canada. One prime example of the significant leadership role B.C.

is playing in information management is the hosting for eight years of the

international privacy and security conference right here in Victoria. We had

about 900 people here a few weeks ago. Over the past eight years this conference

has established itself as one of North America's leading events in the security

and privacy arena. I found it quite fascinating to listen to the people who were

speaking there as to how privacy and security keeps changing all the time. We

are doing what we can to remain on the cutting edge of security and privacy

issues.

One of the most important aspects of improving services is in

delivering services with greater efficiency. We have been working very hard on a

centralized service delivery and ASD partnerships — that's alternative service

delivery partnerships — which we know deliver significant savings to government.

Shared Services B.C. provides more than 30 services to core government and

agencies in the broader public sector, including procurement and supply,

corporate accounting, strategic acquisitions and intellectual property,

information technology, payroll, and the accommodation and real estate sector.

Shared Services continues to leverage technologies and economies of scale to

offer effective business solutions to clients across government and the broader

public sector.

In the throne speech this government pledged further health care

initiatives that will build on the Conversation on Health, and fundamental

health reforms that will increase choice and maximize health services. Access to

that information and the knowledge to use it are essential for success, and so

I'm proud that the technical electronic backbone will be provided by the

Ministry of Labour and Citizens' Services for initiatives such as a new

electronic surgical patient registry and a new electronic medical records

system. This will help in the health sector, it will save us money, and it will

mean that patients will be better served.

Another example of the benefits of this model has been in

workstation support for the tens of thousands of people providing services to

the citizens of British Columbia. We have a partnership with IBM, and that was

to refresh more than 30,000 government workstations over the last two years. It

has been a success, and it was completed in less time than was expected. It's a

contract that is on track for savings of about $80 million over the next ten

years. By ensuring that all of our employees are operating with a consistent

level of desktop technology, we were able to greatly improve security and

reliability.

I see many members of the House here. We're all working on the

same computers. Having that happen means that the end-user problems requiring

in-person support have dropped by about 50 percent. So not only have we saved a

lot of money, but we've saved time, and we're giving better service to all the

people who use computers within this House and within the greater public

service.

This is just one of the many examples of how partnering with the

private sector in alternative service

[ Page 5757 ]

delivery has brought real and tangible benefits. We're letting the private

sector and the people that know how to do some of the things that they do best….

We're letting them do the work, and it's brought real and tangible benefits,

freeing up people and resources to protect and improve public services.

The savings and benefits of alternative service delivery are being

measured not just in the millions but in the hundreds of millions of dollars for

government. The flexibility and gainsharing elements of B.C.'s ASD partnerships

are unparalleled and continue to attract the attention of public sector

jurisdictions around the world.

[1515]

We have won awards for what we have done with alternative service

delivery. I know that one of the members of the House was in Washington D.C.

earlier this year picking up an award from across North America. We got an award

for being the best of one of these ASD projects. We're internationally

recognized for the work that we're doing here, and I'm very proud of the people

that work in our ministry, who have been able to do this great work.

We continue to want to provide services to British Columbians

where and when they need them — whether it's in person, by phone or over the

Internet. One of the things that we have responsibility for is government

agents' offices where we serve more than two million people annually with

front-counter service.

Today we are working to provide government services at convenient

times and convenient locations and are integrating services from across

government so that people can go to a single location to get the services they

need, regardless of what ministry is ultimately responsible for those services.

I was in Prince George a few weeks ago, and I went to the

government agent's office. There were people being served getting hunting and

fishing licences, renewing their driver's licences, taking driver's tests and

doing all those things in a single office. People were being well served. We

have great government agents' offices all over British Columbia. The customer

satisfaction there is continually very high, and I'm very proud of the people

who work there.

One of the things we're committed to is that it should not be up

to individuals to figure out how government works. It's up to the government to

serve the citizens and to figure out the best way to do that. For British

Columbians, there's no wrong door to get to government services. We are

developing welcoming offices that combine multiple services with improved

signage and better access for citizens, and we're doing that in many, many

languages.

The government website is also slated for major redevelopment so

that there is a seamless integration of all our service delivery channels.

Because this ministry is in the business of providing services within

government, we will have a vital role in supporting government's goal of leading

the world in environmental sustainability.

As outlined extensively in the Speech from the Throne, the

province has been actively listening to the concerns expressed by British

Columbians about the potential impacts of global warming. We're going to be

working to support the throne speech's call to meet or beat the best practices

in North America for reducing carbon and other greenhouse gases.

We will coordinate and lead the environmentally sustainable

procurement for government goods and services. Right now, we are greening the

government fleet through the purchase of hybrid vehicles whenever possible. I'm

sure that some of the people in my community in Richmond, where the auto mall

is, will be happy to see this. I think that the credits available for purchasing

a hybrid will also be helpful to them and to the people who buy them.

In terms of the government fleet, all of the hybrids being

acquired generate lower greenhouse gases than the conventional gasoline vehicle

that would otherwise have been purchased. So we're happy to be leading on that

particular initiative.

We're also greening government buildings, and we're going to be

looking at a saving — actually, $14 million annual savings — by greening

buildings to make sure we have high-performance buildings that use less energy.

That's the green building initiative of the accommodation and real estate

services portion of the ministry, and we're excited to be working on that as

well.

Also through ARES, we will be assisting as appropriate with the

unified B.C. green building code. We will assist with the development over the

next year with industry, professional and community representatives.

One of the other things we talked about in the throne speech was

that we aim to lead the way in North America in healthy living and physical

fitness. My community of Richmond, I'm very proud to say, is first across

Canada. We've obviously taken that initiative very seriously in Richmond, and I

did see in our local paper on the weekend that we are in fact first.

[1520]

We're living longer. We live longer in Richmond than anywhere else

in Canada. So that's great for the citizens of Richmond, and I think it is

because we do so much walking and do so much bicycling. We've got a lot of bike

paths and walking trails, so I hope that rubs off on my family. Obviously, we

want everybody throughout the whole community to live long.

Living a healthy lifestyle has made all this possible, so we're

going to continue to focus on that. My ministry is going to be looking at ways

that we can contribute to that by replacing junk food with healthier choices in

vending machines in B.C. public buildings.

The throne speech confirmed that we will replace junk food with

healthier choices in vending machines in B.C. buildings, and it's expected that

a significant percentage of vending machines in public buildings will have

replaced that food with healthier choices by 2010. We've done it in our schools,

and now it's time for our public employees to show leadership by making

healthier choices too.

The Speech from the Throne clearly lays out that the government

will open up Canada's Pacific gateway

[ Page 5758 ]

and strengthen our economic competitiveness. One of the best indicators of

the strength of our economy is the unemployment rate. In 2006 the annual

unemployment rate for the lower mainland is 4.4 percent, down 1.3 percent from

2005. That's the lowest annual unemployment rate ever recorded in the lower

mainland.

The labour portion of the ministry is going to be assisting in

that on many levels. British Columbia is enjoying an unprecedented level of

labour peace at the moment, evidenced in part by the success of last year's

public sector bargaining, which saw collective bargaining agreements reached

covering more than 98 percent of the province's public employees.

We are also seeing unprecedented labour relations stability. There

has been a significant decline in work stoppages in strikes and lockouts in

British Columbia since 2001. On average there were fewer than half the strikes

and lockouts from 2001 to 2006 than at any time during the 1990s.

We also have a trend to longer agreements. Agreements now are

covering five, six and in some cases even seven years, reflecting employer and

unions' renewed sense of optimism about our economy. More than half of all the

union members in British Columbia work in the public sector, so we're pleased to

see that stability. We're doing what we can to make sure that continues.

Agreements have been reached covering virtually all of the

unionized workers in the public service, and we hope and believe that each one

of them is fair to employees and affordable to the taxpayers. All of the public

sector agreements are for four years, contributing to fiscal stability and

certainty for British Columbia. The conciliatory bargaining process ensures that

the people of B.C. will enjoy labour peace and uninterrupted service for many

years.

Our economy continues to benefit from a labour code and employment

standards that are fair and balanced for both employers and employees. We also

have a workers compensation system that remains responsive to the needs of

workers and employers.

My ministry is very broad in scope. Our work touches citizens

wherever they interact with government, and that means we have boundless

opportunities to support and promote the vision and progress outlined for this

government in the Speech from the Throne.

We make government services more centred on the needs of the

citizens of British Columbia. We connect the province and build a capacity that

will allow all of our communities to access social and economic opportunities

and services. We preserve and revitalize sleeping first nations languages. We

provide safe jobs for our young people and support for those who need it.

We can be open and transparent while protecting security and

privacy, and we advance the Pacific leadership agenda. We can truly live and

work in the best place on earth. Thank you very much for allowing me to talk.

H. Bains: It is my honour to reply to the throne speech. I

had the opportunity earlier to speak on the budget but didn't have the

opportunity to talk about the throne speech, so I am really privileged. I feel

privileged and honoured to have this opportunity to talk about some of the

issues that are important not only in this province but to the constituency that

I represent, Surrey-Newton.

[1525]

It gives me a great deal of pride to stand here as their

representative, because those are the folks who put their faith in me in order

to bring their issues to this House and make sure that those issues are debated

and actually talked about. Hopefully, the government members of this House would

listen to those issues and concerns, and there's expectation that they would act

on those issues.

I must say that we were able to bring those issues here before,

but it is my disappointment, to say the least, that those issues weren't acted

upon by the members of the government. The only reason I could think of is that

it's a matter of ideology and politics. I think that governed their decisions,

rather than the common sense and practicality that are required in this day and

age in order to deal with those issues. The members of my community are actually

expecting the government to also look at their concerns and deal with those

issues that they have brought to this House through me.

I want to talk about health care issues that we have in our

community, because it is by far the most important and concerning issue in our

constituency — not only in Surrey-Newton but for all the folks living in Surrey

and the surrounding area who actually go to Surrey Memorial Hospital for health

care needs. It is one of the key issues that they face day in and day out. As I

have said in this House before, you can hardly ever walk the street in that

area, walk into a social gathering or have a family gathering where these issues

are talked about, where the issues and the experiences — the bad experiences

that they or their friends have actually experienced in Surrey Memorial Hospital

— aren't brought up.

So it is on their minds all the time. You've seen and heard of

many high-profile cases that went through Surrey Memorial Hospital where members

of the community felt that the system failed them, that the government failed

them and that they're not very happy with the situation they face.

More troublesome to them, I think, is that they don't feel the

government is taking this issue seriously. They believe that the decisions, as I

said before, are more politically motivated, rather than motivated by the needs

and concerns of those folks to fix the problems that we have in the area around

Surrey Memorial Hospital.

There's no doubt that it's not just members on this side of the

House talking about those issues. Here we have doctors, nurses, patients and the

general public talking about the issues that we face in Surrey with Surrey

Memorial Hospital. They all feel that the situation is in chaos and that health

care is in crisis, starting with Surrey Memorial Hospital and then expanding

into most of the hospitals in the lower mainland.

[ Page 5759 ]

Hour after hour of waiting in the emergency wards in pain and

agony — this isn't the health care system that our forefathers dreamed about.

They actually thought that the health care system should be one — a public

health care system that is funded by public funds and that will look after the

needs of the public, as the Premier even said, when they need it and where they

need it.

But they're not seeing the results. I think it's time now to act.

Act now, rather than continue to make those promises, continue to come and make

those big announcements…. Not only are they telling people that they actually

are doing something — in my view, that is misleading — they go out there and

delay the decisions and the promises that they have made.

[1530]

I give you this very good example. After a tremendous amount of

pressure from the community and from this side of the members, the government

side, including the Premier, finally realized that Surrey Memorial Hospital

needs help. As a result, they made the announcement during the election of 2005

that there is a study being conducted that they will actually fast-track so we

will know sooner rather than later what is actually needed — what kind of help

is needed and what needs to fixed.

That study was fast-tracked, and I give them that credit. As a

result, the Minister of Health went to Surrey and made an announcement that came

out of that study that they will be expanding the emergency ward and that they

will also actually be building another day care ambulatory unit that will be

built either in the hospital — at the time they weren't sure — or outside the

hospital. They made the announcement, which I thought was very important.

The announcement was that the construction of these facilities,

the expansion — especially the ambulatory care unit that I have talked about

before — will start in 2007 and that the construction will be completed in 2009.

I can tell you I was the one that was quite happy with the announcement — that

at least something is being done, that at least the decisions are being made,

that the concrete decision is there, that this will start the need to expand the

hospital, that the date was given, that the time line was outlined.

So we were happy. Then the Premier went back to my constituency in

Surrey and said, "Well, you know, this is the area and the site where the

ambulatory care unit will be built," but he didn't tell anybody that at the same

time he was making a decision to delay the construction by one year — why one

year? — knowing full well the problems we face in Surrey, knowing full well that

this is the fastest-growing region in the province if not in Canada, that we do

need to act soon. I couldn't believe that that would be the decision made by the

Premier after the decision was made earlier to start the construction in 2007.

However, after questioning, the answer was: "Well, the construction will finish

at the same time as it was originally announced."

No one has actually come out with any explanation. My question

back to them is: if it takes only one year to complete the construction of this

unit, why don't you start the construction as you promised to the province, as

you promised to the folks in Surrey that it would start — in 2007? If it takes

one year to construct, then it will be completed one year sooner. People will

not have to go through one extra year of pain and agony and suffering that they

go through now with this decision and will continue to go through for the extra

year.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

No explanation has come forward, none whatsoever. What is the

explanation? What is the reason for delaying the construction of the ambulatory

unit by one year? There's no explanation. When there's no explanation, you are

left with trying to come up with your own answers or speculations, and the folks

are speculating. They are speculating that the decision to delay the

construction has to be maybe one and only one reason — that they don't care,

that they're not serious about dealing with the issue at hand and that they want

to line it up with the next election so that again they can point out to the

folks in Surrey: "Look what a wonderful job we're doing for you. We're building

this facility for you."

The other explanation is that because of the mismanagement and the

cost overrun at VANOC for the Olympic Games and at the Trade and Convention

Centre expansion, the money is being sucked into those two big black holes, and

there isn't enough money left to pay for the health care system that we need to

fix right now. Again, there's no explanation coming from the government side.

[1535]

That is not how the government should run. This is a government

that promised to be the most open and transparent government in Canada. They ran

on that promise. What I've seen so far — and I have actually dealt with many

governments before this government — is that this government is the most secret

government that I've ever faced in this province. That goes back quite a while.

I go back to 1973 in this province.

That is a lot to say about this government, and that's another

promise broken, in my view. The promise was also broken on the health care

promise they made to people in Surrey. I don't think that is sitting well with

the folks. I don't think that it should sit well with those people on that side

of the House. I would concede that everyone, even on that side, comes here to

make a difference. They came here trying to make our people's lives better. But

there are some questions here that I believe the only reason, or one of the

reasons…. Some of the decisions that I question are completely politically

motivated rather than motivated by the need-and-commonsense driver.

There's a lot more to talk about on health care in Surrey. I will

finish by saying that the government, rather than fixing the problem in Surrey

Memorial Hospital and providing the resources to those hard-working health care

workers both in the emergency ward and in the rest of the hospital, rather than

pro-

[ Page 5760 ]

vide them with the resources they need, they are actually more busy. They're

busy now trying to open private health clinics in Surrey. Now that to me is a

shame. Here I think they have lost direction. There's a lack of vision there.

Again, when you look at all those decisions being made, they're made purely on

the basis of political motivation rather than what is actually needed out there.

I'll talk about some of the other issues that are facing our

community right now in that part of the lower mainland. I think Surrey is one of

the most diverse and multicultural communities that you come across. I would say

it is more multicultural and diverse than anywhere in Canada, if not the world.

That is the beauty of that city, but they have challenges. They are crying out

for help from this government to help them to contribute back to their economy

and to this province and the country they adopted, but they're not getting any

help.

I'm talking about folks who have foreign credentials. They held

their education outside of this country. They were actually sought out by this

government and the federal government because of the skills they possess, which

are needed in Canada. As a result, they were given those points, because they

come from the point system, and they were successful in meeting the criteria. As

soon as they land here in Canada, they are told: "Thank you very much for

coming, but the qualifications that you brought with you, the credentials that

we told you we were in need of in Canada, the skills that you brought with you

that we can actually use in Canada to help deal with the labour and skills

shortage in this country…. Those credentials are no good anymore, now that

you're in this country."

I think that is very disrespectful of those folks, and it is

insulting to those folks who are in this country. They want to come and

contribute. They want to come and help us deal with the issues we have, such as

the labour shortage. Even the federal government of the day, today, is pointing

fingers at the provincial governments. They are saying that over 400

provincially regulated organizations are the ones who need to work with the

provincial government to come up with the solution to this very serious problem.

The provincial governments are not doing enough, as the minister

has said already, to deal with this issue. My federal NDP colleagues have, as

the members on the other side will also know, introduced a nine-point formula to

deal with this issue. The Ontario provincial government has also taken steps.

Those are, in my view, the concrete steps that are needed.

[1540]

Is that everything that can be done? I'm not so sure, but they

actually came to the House and passed Bill 124. Through that bill, they are

giving these provincially regulated organizations — the associations, the

professional associations — a plan to work out, a process whereby those

credentials can be recognized through a fair system so that those folks don't

feel left out. My understanding is that they are giving them about a year to

deal with this issue, and if they fail to deal with it, then the provincial

government can actually bring in changes that are needed to deal with it.

I think that's the kind of leadership we need in this province —

which is sorely lacking, I might say. We need leadership. We need a vision from

this government. Them failing these foreign-trained professionals…. It's not

only that those professionals are not realizing their full potential to

contribute back to our economy; we are also losing out as a province and as a

country. We're not able to utilize the skills that they brought here. They're

sitting there for us to use and utilize, but we're not doing anything to have

them put through the system so they can be actually realized. So that's another

example.

I didn't see any vision coming out of the throne speech to deal

with this issue. You will hear the ministers, from time to time, talk about how

serious they are about dealing with this issue, but what they've done is more

lip service — a lot of talk. Right now it's time. It's time to walk the talk,

and it's time to deal with this issue rather than continue to talk and provide

lip service and leave the impression that they're doing something about it.

The other issue that I want to talk about, which is very near and

dear to me — I think the minister will agree with me that it is a serious issue,

because the minister has received numerous presentations and perhaps calls and

e-mails — is the issue about manufactured home owners and the problem they are

facing with the new act. They have told me. They have told other members of this

House. I'm sure they have told the minister, because there was a petition

brought to this House.

When they changed the act in 2002, they actually put in a lot of

unfairness, as they will tell you, by way of compensation when they are told

that the landowner or the park owner has decided to redevelop that land for uses

other than the manufactured homes park. It used to be, before the act got

changed, that if the park owner was to evict these homeowners, there was up to

$10,000 moving expenses paid to them. That got changed to 12 months of

compensation, or the equivalent of 12 months.

The minister and everyone else who deals with this issue are quite

aware that it's not anywhere near or close to $10,000. Many times it's only

$4,000 or $5,000. Here is a group of people who are seniors, most of them. There

are many in those situations who actually have physical or mental disabilities,

who actually have made these home parks their communities, their homes. These

are quite little communities. If you walk through one — which I have, quite a

number of times — they are very well kept. They are the community. They look out

for each other. They know each other. This is the kind of lifestyle they have

chosen, and they want to maintain that lifestyle.

In the event that the park owner decides to redevelop, these folks

are left with very little. Again, this act that was brought in, in 2002 is to

help the landowners and the park owners at the expense of these homeowners.

That's not what I call fairness. I think that is a one-sided agreement.

[1545]

[ Page 5761 ]

It's not only I who is talking about this; many members have

spoken about this. Many municipalities have actually started to pay attention to

this, and my hat is off to the municipality of Coquitlam, which took the lead

and put in their own in-house policy to deal with this issue. That was then

followed by Penticton and others, and since that time the UBCM actually passed a

resolution to adopt the policy that was adopted by the city of Coquitlam.

I think there's a clear message coming from all of those

communities when you see a resolution get passed by the UBCM calling on this

government to deal with this issue that they believe is unfair — unfair to our

seniors and unfair to the manufactured park owners. So I think it's about time,

Minister — through you, Mr. Speaker — that we should start to pay attention to

the plight of these folks. The municipalities have recognized this. I think it's

about time that this government started to recognize this and to deal with this

issue. Put in some safeguards. Bring some fairness back so that our seniors who

are living in these home parks feel they are actually respected and can live the

last few years of their lives in the lifestyle they have chosen, with dignity

and respect. That's what I call on the government for on many occasions, and I

call on the minister again. This is what is needed.

The other part that really is affecting our community is the Human

Rights Commission, which was actually eliminated when this government took over

in 2001. This province actually has a long history of dealing with some of the

injustices of the past. In trying to come to grips with this situation, as a

result, the Human Rights Commission was introduced by — I must say; I'm proud to

say — the government of the day in 1972, led by Premier Dave Barrett. I think

that was a great achievement. It was a great initiative taken, along with many

others that that government actually brought, and we still enjoy the benefit of

those decisions today. That was the one which brought in this Human Rights

Commission at that particular time.

No government since that time has tried to tinker with this. They

felt this was an important piece of legislation. It was an important policy

matter, because the Human Rights Commission is the one that a new immigrant, who

actually is the one in most need because they don't know our system as they come

to this country…. When they felt they were being discriminated against, or that

they didn't get the justice or the fairness they needed at a workplace, in their

neighbourhoods or in other places, they could go to the Human Rights Commission.

The Human Rights Commission was set out for helping these folks — how to proceed

with the application, how to do a proper investigation — and to lead them to the

panel, so that the final decision would come through it.

Now that part — the initial part that would help them put those

applications through and do the investigation part — is gone. Now the folks are

left on their own.

I'll talk about the education part that this commission provided.

That is also missing. It was more important, because education, as everyone has

recognized — not only here but all across the world — is the key to reducing

discrimination and racism. The Human Rights Commission was playing a key role in

dealing with that issue. Now that issue is gone. There was nothing in the speech

that my constituents and I could see where there was something coming for them.

There's nothing in there.

As I've said before, my constituency is one that is a

working-class community. They go out in the morning, pack their lunch pails.

They go to work, deal with their workplace issues, earn their living — hard work

— and come home. They take their kids to a hockey game or to the park or to the

other recreational activities they're involved in, come home, cook, wash

themselves and sleep. Then they go back and start the day all over again. As

they are engaged in that practice day in and day out, there are workplace

accidents. Many of them have gone through workplace accidents, and here comes

WorkSafe B.C.

[1550]

Their experience with WorkSafe B.C. is less than, I would say,

acceptable. You will hear day in and day out from these folks how terribly they

were treated at WorkSafe B.C. This government has actually allowed that

organization to deteriorate to a point that it simply does not do the work that

it was set out to do many years ago, decades ago. This organization was set up

for the workers so that if they are hurt at a workplace and cannot continue to

work, there will be that income that they will be receiving, rather than through

litigation which will take months and years.

Here was the contract, basically, that was agreed to between the

workers, the employer and the government. If they are hurt, they will be looked

after, and a paycheque will continue to come so that their houses aren't taken

away by the banks because they are unable to work because of no fault of their

own. They were hurt at the workplace.

That link is missing. They are hurt, they are sitting at home, but

that income isn't coming because of the bureaucracy and because of the system

that they put in place, which is completely anti-worker.

That's the culture that exists out there, the culture of denial

that exists at WorkSafe B.C. That is something that needs to be fixed up and

fixed up quickly. This government showed no desire through the throne speech

that they are able to do that or even have a desire to do that.

I was able to attend one hearing. This fellow went through 12

years of denial, had to hire his own lawyer. The allegations at the hearing were

that WorkSafe B.C. was withholding the pertinent information that was needed to

deal with the claim at hand. Mr. Speaker, I just have to tell you that after 12

years this person was actually so suicidal that he left home quite a few times.

It's recorded that this person was so fed up with the system and how he was made

to feel so little — no respect, no dignity — that he felt he was worthless and

useless. That's the system that caused him to think that way and that he was

going to kill himself.

[ Page 5762 ]

I heard those with my own ears at that hearing. I must tell you:

after 12 years he finally won his case. Finally, I was told today, after 12

years. It shouldn't take 12 years. It shouldn't take even 12 days to deal with

the issues if you're hurt at the workplace.

The issue, as I said before, is that if you're hurt at a

workplace, your paycheque should still come. The worker gave up the right to sue

the employer in return for that arrangement. But the employer and the government

are actually relinquishing their part of the contract, and as a result the

workers are suffering every day, every time they are hurt at a workplace, every

time they need to deal with WorkSafe.

Another fellow, Mr. Saran. It's been over seven years. For over

seven years he has been going from lawyer to lawyer. He's gone from one

department of WorkSafe B.C. to another — still no end in sight. Right now,

because he cannot earn a living, cannot provide food and shelter for his

children and his family, he also feels that he's useless.

This is not the country our forefathers dreamt about. This is not

the society that our forefathers decided we wanted to have. Their dream was to

have a society where everyone is respected — the working people, the CEOs of the

companies. Everyone is treated the same. Everyone has respect and dignity,

whether at the workplace or at their homes. That's not happening here, and I

think this government should be ashamed. This government should start to pay

attention to this.

[1555]

Hon. R. Coleman: Following on the heels of the member for

Surrey-Newton, I have some comments to make, obviously, about some of the things

that he didn't talk about today.

Before I do that, Mr. Speaker, yesterday my community lost a

wonderful guy named Jim Shiells. Jim Shiells was a gentleman who was a pioneer

in the chicken industry in British Columbia for many years. Sadly, he died of

cancer in hospice yesterday morning at 10:30.

[S. Hammell in the chair.]

Jim was actually a beneficiary of modern science about nine years

ago when a new procedure was put in place to clean marrow, so that he could have

his cancer treated back then and have nine years with his grandchildren and his

children and his family.

My community will miss Jim. Jim was a Rotarian, he was involved in

the chamber of commerce, and he was involved in the chicken board. For me Jim

was an educator. When I became an MLA back in 1996…. Any member that serves in

the Fraser Valley would be able to tell you that one of the most complicated

files you can try to deal with is the chicken and chicken marketing boards and

the turkey and turkey marketing boards.

Jim was a guy who sort of got me through that and taught me so we

could understand it in my community. I did say to my wife that I would probably

mention Jim in the House today, because I feel that our communities are built on

people like this, who have built the foundation of British Columbia. Those are

the important things that we need to remember from time to time as we go

forward.

Now I want to talk about the throne speech in a number of areas,

and the first area I want to talk about is basically an area that has to do with

my riding and the lower mainland and, I think, the lack of understanding of way

too many people about the importance of infrastructure, the Pacific gateway and

the issues facing it.

I'm disappointed to sit through speeches time and time again from

members of the NDP from Surrey, who won't stand up and tell us whether they

support the Gateway project and won't stand up and tell us what they believe and

support — that this is an important project for the future of B.C. and for our

communities.

The reason I say that is because on Friday I was downtown in

meetings and headed out to the valley, as we call it. Just past Surrey — that's

the valley. We have Surrey, and then we have the valley. As I'm going out, I'm

coming across the Port Mann Bridge, which took quite some time to get across. As

I finally got across the Port Mann and crawled my way to 160th and 176th and

192nd and out past 200th Street and past 208th Street, the traffic on the north

side of the freeway was stopped. There was traffic idling for about ten miles,

trying to get across the Port Mann Bridge. That's in the afternoon, which is

supposed to be counter to the rush hour, but the rush hour now goes both ways

for about 11 hours a day on the lower mainland of British Columbia.

When I think about that, it's always frustrating to me, because I

have sat in that valley and known for a long time that an investment had to be

made in infrastructure. I also knew this — that I have a community in the north

end of my riding called Walnut Grove. There are about 35,000 or 40,000 people

living in that area of my community. There's one thing that isn't available to

them, even though we tell them they should take transit and use transit in

British Columbia.

There's one thing that's not available to the people from that

entire area of British Columbia, where there are about 100,000 people, not

counting the 150,000 people in Abbotsford, and that is this. There is no HOV

lane. There is no bus lane. There is no ability for transit to go directly

downtown to Vancouver across the Port Mann Bridge, because there's no lane for

it.

So you can talk about transit, and you can talk about air quality.

You can talk about all these things, but if you don't expand the Port Mann

Bridge, you're not getting there. At the same time all that's taking place, all

you see as you drive along that freeway is the lost economic opportunity in jobs

to every person from all socioeconomic aspects of our society. They sit idling

and can't move goods and services and get things to a construction site or to a

port or anywhere in a timely fashion.

I find it frustrating that the members opposite won't grasp the

Gateway strategy and look at it from a

[ Page 5763 ]

holistic point of view and say this: "If we actually do something on the Pitt

River Bridge, do something with the Golden Ears bridge, do something with the

Port Mann and do the south perimeter road, we'll actually move goods and

services more efficiently so that we can compete in a world market. We'll

actually move people quicker and more efficiently and improve the use of transit

for the people in the Fraser Valley and at the same time reduce air emissions."

Now, that's important. I get the fact that the people opposite me

in this House will talk oftentimes about the fact that they know something about

climate change or they know something about pollution. But at the same time they

say that, they never actually follow through historically and stand by those

claims.

[1600]

The member for Nelson-Creston said: "Our party has no idea how to

deal with climate change and its implication for socialistic principles." The

member for Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows said in the House: "I…say that the record of

the last government, being the NDP in the late 1990s, was not good on climate

change…."

One of the things that affects climate change, affects my

community is air emissions, and I can tell you this, Madam Speaker, and this is

important. In the upper Fraser Valley, according to doctors that I know, we

suffer from a greater percentage of asthma and ear, nose and thr