2005 Legislative Session: 6th Session, 37th 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)

THURSDAY, MARCH 10, 2005

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 27, Number 32

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Page

Introductions by Members

Tributes

Pharmacy Awareness Week

Hon. S. Bond

Introduction and First Reading of

Bills

The Genuine Progress Board Act, 2005

(Bill M203)

J. Kwan

Statements (Standing Order 25 B )

Family care model for seniors

J. Bray

Impact of wind farms on wildlife

habitat

E. Brenzinger

Women of Distinction Awards

B. Kerr

Oral Questions

Investigation of child deaths and

independence of child and youth officer

J. MacPhail

Hon. S. Hagen

J. Kwan

J. Brar

Consultation with first nations on wind

power projects

E. Brenzinger

Hon. G. Abbott

Impact of government policy changes on

child safety

J. Brar

Hon. S. Hagen

Tabling Documents

Legislative Assembly Management

Committee, annual report, 2004-05

Ministerial Statements

Closing of thirty-seventh parliament

and retirement of MLAs

Hon. G. Bruce

J. Kwan

Committee of the Whole House

Supply Act (No. 1), 2005 (Bill 20) (continued)

J. Kwan

Hon. C. Hansen

J. Brar

J. MacPhail

Report and Third Reading of Bills

Supply Act (No. 1), 2005 (Bill 20)

Royal Assent to Bills

Ministerial Accountability Bases,

2004-2005, Amendment Act, 2005 (Bill 19)

University of Victoria Foundation Act

(Bill Pr401)

Pacific Bible College Amendment Act,

2005 (Bill Pr402)

British Columbia Wharf Operators'

Association (Corporate Restoration) Act, 2005 (Bill Pr403)

Westco Insurance Company Act, 1966

Repeal Act, 2005 (Bill Pr404)

The John Hussey Foundation (Corporate

Restoration) Act, 2005 (Bill Pr405)

Supply Act (No. 1), 2005 (Bill 20)

[ Page 12455 ]

THURSDAY, MARCH 10, 2005

The House met at 2:04 p.m.

Introductions by Members

E. Brenzinger: Today I introduce to the Legislature

Ian Bruce, the DRBC candidate for Saanich North and the Islands, who is here

with his daughter Kim Bruce. Ian is a professional biologist and is executive

coordinator for the Peninsula Streams Society. Ian provides ecological and

fishery services to industry, governments and first nations through his

consulting firm, Watershed Eco-Logical Services Ltd. He has recently served on

the North Saanich council's environmental advisory commission. Please give Ian

Bruce and Kim Bruce a warm welcome to the House.

Tributes

PHARMACY AWARENESS WEEK

Hon. S. Bond: There are two things today that I need to

bring to the House's attention. Pharmacists have been a regulated health

profession for over 100 years. Their knowledgable advice and safe provision of

over 35 million prescriptions annually in British Columbia are a benefit to all

patients and make pharmacists an invaluable part of the health care team. The

addition of pharmacists to the British Columbia NurseLine service has benefited

hundreds of patients who have had questions about medications after their local

pharmacy has closed. With this service, patients do not have to wait until

morning to get answers but can speak with a trained pharmacist after hours.

[1405]

It is with this shared spirit of patient-centred care — a spirit

shared by this province and its pharmacists — that I proclaim this week, March 7

to 13, 2005, inclusive, Pharmacy Awareness Week.

Secondly, I simply recognize a significant contribution by the

member from Coquitlam-Maillardville, who yesterday made his 100th blood

donation.

Introductions by Members

G. Hogg: Just when we thought the Minister of Family and

Child Development was ageless, I'm informed by his staff that in fact he's not

ageless and that he will be celebrating a momentous birthday tomorrow. His staff

Sharon McKinnon, Forrest Parlee, Michelle Benham and Charmaine Wylie, along with

all of us, wish him the very best on this birthday, which will entitle him to

untold benefits in the future. Please extend best wishes to the Minister of

Children and Family Development.

Hon. S. Brice: This afternoon I have the pleasure of

introducing Shirley and Tony Blunt. They are constituents of the member for

Victoria-Hillside. Shirley serves on the board of the Saanich Volunteer Services

Society. Tony and Shirley are here to tour the Legislature and to observe

question period. I would ask the House to please make them welcome.

B. Kerr: I have two introductions to make. The first

relates to the Women of Distinction Awards, which I will be speaking about in a

few minutes. Seated in the public gallery are three representatives of the Women

of Distinction Awards: Darlene Bailey, the Women of Distinction council chair;

Brenda Parkinson, the program chair; and Maggie Kerr-Southin, the media and

public relations chair. I ask that all members of the House recognize and

welcome these women today.

Also, I would like to introduce three of my constituents. Gordon

Stewart and two of his daughters, Charlotte and Lucy, are here. Gordon operates

his own tree service business in greater Victoria. Both of his girls are members

of the Girl Guides of Canada and are here wearing their uniforms today. I ask

the House to please make them feel very welcome.

R. Stewart: It's my pleasure today to recognize some

guests: M. Paul Deroy, representing La Fédération des francophones de la

Colombie-Britannique; Denise Branter, president of La Société francophone de

Victoria and president of the traditional dance troupe Les Cornouillers; Chantal

Lefebvre, the director general of l'Association des écrivains francophones de la

Colombie-Britannique — that's representing francophone writers; and Diane

Tremblay, director general of La Société francophone de Victoria.

Each year we recognize Journée de la Francophonie on March 20.

These folks have joined us today to recognize that our government has once again

proclaimed March 20 as Journée de la Francophonie. That day will mark the

culmination of the Victoria Francophone Festival, which starts on March 17. I

invite all members to take

part in the francophone celebrations here in

Victoria. Would the House please make them welcome.

But even more important than those distinguished guests, it's also

my pleasure today to introduce my daughter, Amanda Stewart, who has joined with

her father for a day of roaming around the Legislature and trying to figure out

what her father does. I'd like the House to please make her welcome.

H. Bloy: I would like to thank the member from Powell River

for allowing me the opportunity to stand up and introduce someone today. I have

two people from my riding and a guest. I have Chris Ferronato, who formerly

worked in the House here, and his mother, Edith, along with their cousin,

Cecilia Ferronato. She is visiting from Treviso, Italy, a region in Northern

Italy just a few hours' drive from where the 2006 Winter Olympics will be held.

She attends the University of Venice, where she's completing her studies in

international business. She is in our great province for the first time on an

international co-op program. Would the House please make them welcome.

[1410]

L. Mayencourt: It gives me great pleasure to introduce some

legislative assistants that have been work-

[ Page 12456 ]

ing for us for the last little while. First is my own legislative assistant,

Nick Artemenkov, and Kevin Dixon, Laura O'Connor, Dustin Dunlop, Lisa Johnson

and Marnie Llewellyn-Thomas. I also have the intern who is going to be following me for

a little while, Graeme Hooper. I would ask that the House please make them all

feel welcome.

I just have one more introduction, Mr. Speaker. I'd like to

introduce the member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast. [Laughter.]

G. Hogg: I'd like the House to join me in welcoming and

thanking those paragons of intellect and wit known as the government caucus

interns. They have hanging on their wall a list of the top ten things that

interns love to hate. Number one on that list is working in the coolest building

in town — in the basement.

Would you please welcome and thank the government caucus interns:

Jake Ayers, Andrew Crabtree, Conor Donaldson, Graeme Hooper, Erin Rattan, Alayna

van Leeuwen and Norah White.

Mr. Speaker: If there are no further…. Oh, the member for

Powell River–Sunshine Coast. [Laughter.]

H. Long: Today in the House I have family members and

friends. I've got to say that after four years of being in the House, it's the

first time — I guess the second time — that I have had family here. I'm really

pleased that they're here with me on the final day of this Legislature. It makes

me proud to be their parent.

With us today I have my grandson, Kyle Tougas, who's from Powell

River. I have my son, Craig Long, and his wonderful wife, Kim. She is now

carrying and should be delivering in May my fifteenth grandchild. Also, I have

with me my daughter, Brenda Birtig-Long. With her is her friend Trevor Cooper.

Believe me, the next person I will introduce has been one person

that's been with me right through this whole ordeal in the Legislature. I've

really enjoyed it, but she's enjoyed it here in Victoria as well. I want to

recognize Mary-Lynn Hopkins, who's my friend and my love.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

THE GENUINE PROGRESS

BOARD ACT, 2005

J. Kwan presented a bill intituled The Genuine Progress Board Act,

J. Kwan: I move the bill be introduced and read for a first

time now.

Motion approved.

J. Kwan: This bill establishes the genuine progress board,

which will give elected representatives and the public real information and

advice on how best to measure our economic achievements as well as efforts

toward a clean and healthier environment and a better quality of life for all

British Columbians. The board will look beyond traditional measures of progress

that often don't account for how real people and communities are doing. It will

give advice on how we move away from a boom-and-bust economic model to one that

will sustain our communities in the long term.

The genuine progress board will be accountable to the Legislative

Assembly rather than to the office of the Premier. Citizens from all regions of

the province that represent the diversity of our province will be appointed by

the assembly and not by the Premier or cabinet.

The genuine progress board will help us to make the right choices

for the twenty-first century and will give us advice so we can best ensure that

our economy meets the needs of the people in their communities and reflects the

economic, social and environmental priorities of British Columbians.

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.

[1415]

Bill M203 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) FAMILY CARE MODEL

FOR SENIORS

J. Bray: Today I wish to raise an idea whose time I think

has come — an idea that can assist with how we provide care to frail elderly

living in our communities. We are all very aware of family care homes for

children, also referred to as foster care. We have moved over the last two

decades to community living for adults with developmental disabilities. In both

examples, we moved away from purely institutional care to that more closely

resembling a family home model.

I believe that in many cases family care homes can provide

excellent care to frail elderly. In particular, when family caregivers, often an

elderly spouse, need some respite care, a neighbourhood network of

professionally supported family homes could offer this care. This is an idea

that members of my community have brought to me, and I believe it is worth

researching.

The care can be provided by health employees looking for

alternative work models or by families already providing care for a senior

family member and struggling to balance out-of-home work with their caregiving

responsibilities. Providing care for another senior or three clients in a month

in weekly instalments would allow that caregiver to be employed in the home

while caring for their own family member.

As our population ages, the demand for residential care and

respite services will outpace our ability to build and fund them. The family

care model could ease

[ Page 12457 ]

some of the pressure, provide more respite for families caring for a senior

and improve the quality of life of both the senior and their family caregiver.

As we embrace the concepts of aging in place and family helping family, we need

creative solutions to support caregivers. Although a relatively new concept here

and not one that would suit all seniors — nor one that all families might choose

— I sense that there is a pool of care providers ready to open their homes to

provide seniors care and families and seniors who would look to respite

opportunities in a family setting as opposed to more institutional models.

IMPACT OF WIND FARMS

ON WILDLIFE HABITAT

E. Brenzinger: A wildlife survey for the Knob Hill wind

farm development has discovered a provincial treasure in a rare bottom bog: the

only confirmed nesting sites of the blue-listed greater sandhill crane on

Vancouver Island. Windmills kill birds. I am in a dilemma. I support alternative

energy, but my heart is with the cranes. Can they survive 150 turbines?

The greater sandhill crane stands six feet tall. In flight, it is

majestic. Its wingspan reaches two metres. Its call, a sound like no other, can

carry a mile. There are only, at last count, 36 confirmed nesting sites for this

species on the B.C. coast — 28 in the Queen Charlottes, four at Burns Bog, two

at Pitt Polder and now two in northern Vancouver Island. Which do we choose —

the windmills or the sandhill cranes?

Here's the irony. Sea Breeze Power Corp. has just received an

environmental certificate for Knob Hill. It has invested nearly $10 million in

pursuing alternative energy in this province. At first it planned 50 turbines

for Boundary Bay, but since that is a refuge for waterfowl, the North Island was

recommended instead.

This government has disappointed the Tlatlasikwala and Quatsino.

This government has failed to fully consult and accommodate their interests.

When they sought accommodation, you told them it was against government policy.

Why doesn't this government help our first nations? First nations are offended

at this government.

The wind farm industry is also offended by this government. It

should be insisting that B.C. Hydro let the producers into the grid. Instead,

B.C. Hydro has brought us Duke Point. You should have species-at-risk

legislation with effective inventories and clear habitat destinations to give

certainty for developers and wildlife alike. This government should be resolving

the issues of title. The wind industry has staked out nearly a million hectares.

If you propose a major sell-off of B.C. lands, the people, especially first

nations, deserve to know Thank you very much for letting me share my dilemma.

WOMEN OF DISTINCTION AWARDS

B. Kerr: It gives me a great deal of pleasure to recognize

the eleventh annual Victoria Women of Distinction Awards. Sponsored by and a

fundraiser for the YM-YWCA of Greater Victoria, the event not only honours

inspirational women of Vancouver Island but also supports women, children and

families and their involvement in programs and services of the Y.

[1420]

Since the first awards night held in 1995, the Victoria Women of

Distinction Awards has honoured 740 women as nominees and 103 as award

recipients. More than 7,600 people have attended the event over the years, and

more than $390,000 has been raised for the YM-YWCA of Greater Victoria.

This year 56 women from all walks of life from Vancouver Island

have been nominated in nine different categories. Individuals and organizations

have nominated these women for their achievements, vision and inspiration of

others.

On May 19, a gala awards night will be held at the Victoria

Conference Centre, at which time the organizers will shine a light on these

exceptional women, ten of whom will become recipients of the prestigious Women

of Distinction Award.

Mr. Speaker: That concludes members' statements.

Oral Questions

INVESTIGATION OF CHILD DEATHS

AND INDEPENDENCE OF

CHILD AND YOUTH OFFICER

J. MacPhail: In the 14 years I have been in politics, one

of the most difficult issues I have ever had to deal with was the death of

Matthew Vaudreuil. Because of the Gove report, which our government implemented

in the wake of the little boy's death, Matthew Vaudreuil did not die in vain.

Does the Minister of Children and Family Development support the recommendations

of the Gove report?

Hon. S. Hagen: Indeed, that was a tragedy. Every once in a

while something like that happens. I can tell you that this government supports

anything that will make life better for the children and families of British

Columbia.

Mr. Speaker: Leader of the Opposition has a supplementary

question.

J. MacPhail: I have been surprised over the last few days

at how singularly unprepared this minister is to embrace the work of the past

decade around this matter. One of the Gove report's key recommendations was to

establish independent officers to investigate and report on the deaths and

injuries of children. With the full support of the Premier, the current Premier,

the former government implemented that recommendation.

Here's what the current Premier told the House when he was

opposition leader: "When a child dies, we should investigate. We should

investigate independ-

[ Page 12458 ]

ently." To the minister: why did the Premier say one thing in opposition and

do the exact opposite once elected?

Hon. S. Hagen: I would like to quote from a letter today

sent by Jane Morley, the child and youth officer for British Columbia, where she

indeed talks about the Gove inquiry. She says:

"The problems that the Gove inquiry highlighted ten years

ago have complex causes and are not susceptible to easy fixes. They require a

transformation in the child welfare system. Transformations do not happen

overnight. They only happen with leadership from those responsible and when

those working in the system embrace the change."

The problem with the watchdog model…

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. S. Hagen: …that was being proposed by the people that

the member opposite is referring to is that the model that appears to underline

the vision of these former officials who signed the letter…. It also insinuates

that they will not do their job properly and professionally, which in fact I

believe they are doing.

Mr. Speaker: Leader of the Opposition has a further

supplementary.

J. MacPhail: When this bench was in opposition, they

hammered the then government day after day after day to implement the Gove

report recommendations, and that government did.

In the past the children's commissioner and the child and family

youth advocate were free to investigate the deaths and injuries of children

independently without having to seek permission from the Attorney General, which

today Jane Morley does. She has to seek permission from the Attorney General to

investigate. No political interference whatsoever existed in the past. That's

real independence. That independence is gone now. This government says they've

eliminated duplication of those offices. Fine, but can the minister tell British

Columbians why they also eliminated the independence of those offices?

Hon. S. Hagen: Let me tell the truth. Here's what Jane

Morley…

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Listen to the answer, please.

[1425]

Hon. S. Hagen: Here's what Jane Morley, who is the child

and youth officer for British Columbia, has written today in answer to the

accusations made really against her.

"It is simply untrue to say that I answer to the Attorney

General, as one of the three authors stated on a CBC interview. Nor do I

answer to the Minister of Children and Family Development or to the Premier. I

children, youth and families — or about any other issue related to children

and youth. I have not, in the two years I have held this position, felt

threatened in this independence or been directed by the Attorney General in

how to fulfill my statutory responsibilities."

J. Kwan: The minister says Jane Morley can do the job. Then

yesterday the Solicitor General says the coroner's office can do the job. Well,

in opposition the Premier said: "The coroner is no substitute for reviews." In

Matthew Vaudreuil's case, the report was a one-page report from the coroner.

We know that Jane Morley's office does not have the independent

authority that the previous watchdogs had. The government took that authority

away. The reality is that Jane Morley does not have the authority to investigate

deaths or critical injuries without the authorization of the Attorney General.

Can the minister explain why the government thinks that Jane

Morley or the coroner, who actually do not have the independent authority to

investigate deaths or critical injuries around children, are somehow a

sufficient substitute for the independent child protection watchdog that used to

be in place, which the government supported when they were in opposition?

Hon. S. Hagen: I'm really pleased to quote again from the

letter from Jane Morley, the child and youth officer, where she says:

"Nor do I agree that I do not have the necessary tools to

monitor the system effectively. If anything, I have wider authority than the

previous 'watchdogs.' I have the right to any government information I deem

necessary to do my job, and part of my job is to monitor government in

relation to the legislative and policy standards it has set for itself.

"Furthermore…."

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Order, please. The question was

listened to with respect. Let's have the same courtesy for the answer, please.

Hon. S. Hagen: The letter to the Premier laments the end of

a number of accountability mechanisms that previously resided with the

organizations that the former officials had. Each one of the mechanisms listed

remains within the authority of an independent statutory officer: the ombudsman,

the chief coroner, and the child and youth officer. The public need not be

concerned on that front.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant has a

supplementary question.

J. Kwan: The minister and this government should know full

well that Jane Morley, the current child and youth officer, does not have the

independent authority

[ Page 12459 ]

to investigate deaths or critical injuries of children in the province. That

authority and that mandate have been taken away by this government after they

took office. The statute does not allow her to have that authority.

The reality is that the government would only investigate deaths

or critical injuries if the Attorney General authorizes it with a political

lens. That is the reality and that is the law today.

Will the minister finally do the right thing and reinstate the

authority of the child and youth officer — the independent authority that they

used to have? Or is the minister saying that Joyce Preston, Cynthia Morton and

Dulcie McCallum are wrong in their assessment of what the government has taken

away in terms of that independent authority?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Order.

Hon. S. Hagen: I'll tell you one thing this government will

not do, and that's play politics with kids' lives.

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

[1430]

Hon. S. Hagen: The real issue here is not whether the

watchdog authority exists, because it does, but how it is being exercised.

Jane Morley goes on to say….

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. S. Hagen: Yes, I have met with her — twice, actually.

"With great respect for these former officials, all of

whom were very dedicated to their work and have the best…."

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. S. Hagen: Mr. Speaker, I really wish they would listen

to this. If they would listen to this, they would get it. Okay?

"With great respect for these former officials, all of

whom were very dedicated to their work and have the best interests of children

and youth at heart, the evidence does not support the proposition that the

previous way of holding the government accountable was noticeably improving

things for children and youth."

J. Brar: It is very interesting — Jane Morley. The question

was asked by the opposition, and the answer goes to the minister. That tells the

story of how independent she is. Matthew Vaudreuil was not in care. He was left

with his mother but was known to the ministry. It is why the Gove report led to

the independent investigation of both children in care and children known to the

ministry.

Can the Minister of Children and Family Development point to a

single public and independent investigation carried out into the death or

critical injury of a child known to the ministry and a single change in public

policy this government has made as a result of an investigation into the death

of a child?

Hon. S. Hagen: I would like to clarify something. Was the

member opposite insinuating that the child and youth officer is not independent?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Order, please.

The member for Surrey–Panorama Ridge has a supplementary question.

J. Brar: I don't understand what the question is. Can the

minister clarify the question?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Order, please.

CONSULTATION WITH FIRST NATIONS

ON WIND POWER PROJECTS

E. Brenzinger: To the Minister of Water, Land and Air

Protection. This government made a great show of its new measures for the

protection of species at risk last year. We now see how hollow that promise was.

Wildlife Canada's call for a full-year study of species at risk at Knob Hill was

ignored before an environmental certificate was issued.

My question is: why have you signed off without consulting the

elders of the Tlatlasikwala about traditional use of the land, and how much of

B.C. do you propose to sell off before you look at the real issues?

Hon. G. Abbott: I hope this is not indicative of the

research capacity of DRBC when and if they ever actually elect a member to this

House, because the member is entirely wrong. The EAO processes look exhaustively

at the issues and interests that are raised by first nations in these processes.

The member may not know it, but first nations are partners in a number of the

wind power developments that are going to be coming on stream on Vancouver

Island.

For her to suggest that we do not consult appropriately or

accommodate appropriately is completely misguided, and she should go back and

check with her research staff what the real story is.

[ Page 12460 ]

IMPACT OF GOVERNMENT

POLICY CHANGES ON CHILD SAFETY

J. Brar: Let me clarify that. The current child and youth

officer does not have the independent authority to investigate a death of a

child and a serious injury issue, and I think the minister should know that.

[1435]

This government would like to talk about reducing the number of

children in care. That is a sound public policy, as long as the family home is

safe. But keeping children out of care also saves the government money. When a

government has a drastic cost-cutting agenda like this one, the importance of

independent oversight becomes even more crucial. This was one of the main points

made by the child protection expert in the letter to the Premier.

Perhaps the minister can tell me this: since this government

eliminated the independent watchdogs and cut the ministry budget by $200

million, are children in B.C. more safe? Yes or no?

Hon. S. Hagen: The member opposite referred to the letter

to the Premier. Again, I say that the letter to the Premier laments the end of a

number of accountability mechanisms — which I think is what he's getting at —

that previously resided with the organizations that the former officials led.

Here's what the child and youth officer says: "Each one of the

mechanisms listed remains within the authority of an independent statutory

officer: the ombudsman, the chief coroner and the child and youth officer."

I can say that in addition to that, this ministry has a record of

being open and accountable during a child's death. For an example — and this was

raised by the opposition yesterday — in the case of C.W., this ministry held a

press conference to publicly release the results of our findings and

recommendations. This has been and will continue to be our practice.

[End of question period.]

Tabling Documents

Mr. Speaker: Hon. members, I have the honour to present the

annual report of the Legislative Assembly Management Committee, 2004-05.

Ministerial Statements

CLOSING OF THIRTY-SEVENTH PARLIAMENT

AND RETIREMENT OF MLAS

Hon. G. Bruce: I rise today to make a ministerial statement

in respect to the thirty-seventh parliament and the members that have sat in

this House, both in this parliament and in parliaments before. Perhaps we can

pause a moment and reflect on how wonderful it is that we can sit in this place

and argue and shout and debate and that, when it is all said and done, nobody

gets hurt. Well, there have been a few times that my feelings have been hurt.

There's been once or twice that that's happened. I've been hurt to the quick.

Often, in watching the debate that takes place here and not having

the feel of what's taking place on the floor, people don't perhaps fully

appreciate that this forum allows for us — in this country, in this province —

the opportunity to explore new ways of doing things, to argue about past ways of

having done things and to look to the future in whichever direction we think the

future may be.

Today there are a fair number of members here that have spent time

in this place. They have done their constituents proud. They have honoured the

tradition of this House and what it means to be a member in this House. I will

just mention a few.

I look across at my friend from Malahat–Juan de Fuca, who came

newly elected, not having been in politics before, to this particular forum and

found it different than running a grocery business. Having said that, he enjoyed

himself — I know — thoroughly.

Beside him is the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin, who brought a

whole different flavour to this House. He did just a super job and rallied hard

— and us with him. We wish him well as we go forward.

To the member for Richmond Centre, who has a very statesmanlike

appeal and approach himself and who has done his constituents and the government

very, very well during his time on the front bench.

To the minister — not the minister; she was a minister…. To the

member for Nanaimo-Parksville, who sits across there with this incredibly

beaming smile. I'm not sure why she's smiling so much and some of us aren't. I

know her constituents are very, very appreciative, certainly, of the job that

she has done for Nanaimo-Parksville.

The member for West Vancouver–Garibaldi, who in his search and

climb to make sure that we could bring the Olympics to Whistler and to this

province did yeoman service, not only for that constituency but for British

Columbia and Canada as well.

To the member for Kelowna–Lake Country, who has added that

statesmanlike approach, sitting there in the chair from time to time — where did

he go? There he is over there — and who stood in when it was necessary and added

an element of calmness to this House when calmness was required.

[1440]

To the member for Delta North, who in his quiet careful way —

where has he gone? There he is over there — has added quiet wisdom to this House

and to our caucus as well.

The effervescent member for Port Moody–Westwood has quietly spent

many times, many days, in this place and is one who we know will be spending

many hours and days with her children.

Then my good friend from Powell River–Sunshine Coast, who came to

this House in 1986 when I first came…. We had the character-building time of

being elected and then being defeated. You know, there is

[ Page 12461 ]

character-building in being defeated. I don't recommend it, but some people

may.

Then, of course, our longstanding member for Vancouver-Langara,

who has added quiet and serious comfort to us from time to time in our

deliberations and our debate. We certainly have appreciated that very, very much

through the years — right from 1991 through to now.

Then of course there is the ever-present Leader of the Opposition.

You and I have….

J. MacPhail: You are the brains trust — honestly.

Hon. G. Bruce: Well, thank you. I'm still glowing over

that, you know. We've done a fair number of nights together in this House. I

have enjoyed the debate with you. It has always been a challenge to try and be

out in front or at least running hard to catch up. I think that that has done us

very, very well — the opportunity to have that type of debate.

It does concern me a little bit, though — and I know that we need

to have this question answered — because there was a very glowing

article that

was written in the Vancouver Sun today where the member for

Vancouver-Hastings said that she promised she won't ever return to politics.

Quote: "I'm saying never." Does the Leader of the Opposition mean ever or never?

Or never, ever? Or never, never? Or maybe? I think that in time that will become

evident.

What also was concerning me…. I have watched members from the

opposite side of the House — a few Premiers and others — fall into doing work

for other political organizations. There was a particular quote, and it sort of

stems off the aspect of the Leader of the Opposition's mention of perhaps moving

into the entrepreneurial field — small business and so on. This quote — I don't

think it's very old — said: "We are cutting red tape. We're cutting the cost of

doing business. We're lowering taxes, and it's working. The economy is on the

move." Is it true that you are advising the B.C. Liberal campaign team? There is

no truth to that.

J. MacPhail: We'll talk. [Laughter.]

Hon. G. Bruce: We'll talk. There's always an opening.

I would like to wish all of the members that have served in this

House and served this province and the people of their constituency good

fortune. Godspeed to you all. Thank you on behalf of the people of British

Columbia for doing the job that you have done and for coming and spending time

in serving this province and this country.

[1445]

J. Kwan: I would like to respond to the minister's

statement.

First of all, I would of course like to echo the sentiment of the

Government House Leader. We, too, in the opposition caucus wish to thank every

single member who has served this House. They served this House in their own

fashion. I'm going to choose my words cautiously. I might add that sometimes

some members might be headed in the wrong direction. Nonetheless, people served

in this House. I do believe that each and every one of us entered into politics

because we want to make a difference in people's lives in a positive way. For

that, the opposition caucus wishes to thank every single member who is in the

class of '91 and beyond.

It is my understanding, in fact, that there will only be, perhaps,

one returning member — perhaps two — from the class of '91 after May 17. So

there are many people who will be exiting these hallways and this chamber most

likely for the last time, although as they say, you never say never in politics.

I would also just like to add a few words. I actually have a

script to assist me in not getting too emotional as I say my thanks to my

colleague. First of all, I would like to say that sitting in the gallery today

we have a group of very special people. They're here with us today to help send

off the longstanding member for Vancouver-Hastings — the MLA for

Vancouver-Hastings. They are her fiancé, the charming James Shavick, who treats

my colleague, the member for Vancouver-Hastings, with love and respect — the way

she should always be treated.

J. MacPhail: That's on Hansard . [Laughter.]

J. Kwan: I have no doubt that he will. I have no doubt in

my mind that he will.

The leader of the B.C. New Democrats, Carole James, will carry on

the torch in this chamber after May 17 — in a different capacity than the

current Opposition House Leader's capacity — along with her husband, of course,

Al Gerow.

Of course, all of our caucus staff and friends are also here

today. I have to say — and I know that my colleague from Vancouver-Hastings

shares these sentiments — our success as "the little caucus that could" is in no

small measure due to the fact that we have this small group of dedicated and

committed people behind the scenes working with us. On behalf of the NDP

opposition caucus, we thank you.

Mr. Speaker, I know it is unparliamentary to refer to a member by

name, but why stop here? I've been accused of being unparliamentary all of the

time. So I'm going to ask the House to indulge me for, I hope, one last time —

for a moment.

Joy, my good friend, all these friends are here today to send you

off in style. You have been and you are an inspiration to all of us. I don't

have to tell you how challenging it has been for the last four years. I don't

have to tell you how incredibly rewarding it has been as well. I've been so

proud to stand here, to sit here next to you in this House and to travel with

you all over the province, to represent the countless British Columbians who

have not been represented by this government.

[ Page 12462 ]

For 14 years you celebrated your birthday in this building, and

I've got to tell you: that is a personal sacrifice that few can actually say….

We know that MLAs travel away from their home and from their families to do the

work on behalf of their constituents. People do not necessarily know the toll

that comes with it. But we all do it, and we do it with pride, because it is a

privilege to represent the people in our communities.

Today, Joy, you'll leave this House for the last time. We're all

very happy for you, on a personal note. I know that on the government side,

they're ecstatic. Question period will never be the same again without your

unique blend of heckles. The halls of the Legislature will never be the same

again without your infamous laughter. We will miss that. I will miss that.

[1450]

The work you have done both in government and over the last four

years in opposition has been an inspiration to countless people across the

province and the country. I cannot imagine sitting in this House without you,

side by side, and I'll always treasure the memories of the past four years. I'll

treasure our friendship, and I know that our friendship will continue as you

move onto the next

chapter of your career and your life.

I know that all members of this House and certainly everyone who

has joined us in the gallery today will wish to join me in wishing you nothing

but the very best and in thanking you for the 14 years of service, of incredible

dedication and commitment to public service.

Finally, I want to say a big thank you to Jack Scott, her son,

who's 17 today. For 14 years he's shared his mom with all of us. Thank you.

[Applause.]

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition.

J. MacPhail: Okay, Mr. Speaker, you're all invited to the

wedding. [Laughter.]

Orders of the Day

Hon. G. Bruce: I call continuation of debate on committee

stage of Bill 20.

Committee of the Whole House

SUPPLY ACT (No. 1), 2005

(continued)

The House in committee on Bill 20; J. Weisbeck in the chair.

The committee met at 2:53 p.m.

The Chair: Hon. members, the committee will come to order,

and we will have a recess to the call of the Chair.

The House recessed from 2:54 p.m. to 3:02 p.m.

[J. Weisbeck in the chair.]

section 1 (continued) .

J. Kwan: This pre-election budget, of course, also deals

with the issue around child care, on which I wish to canvass the minister at

this point. We began some of that debate yesterday in and around issues with the

Minister of Children and Family Development, and then we ran out of time. I'm

going to take this opportunity to ask some questions around the child care

services area. Let me first of all, though, put on record the lay of the land,

if you will, around what the government has done to date in this sector.

As one of the first acts, the new B.C. Liberal government

cancelled the Child Care B.C. program, which was the former government's, the

NDP government's, universal child care initiative. At the end of the 2002 school

year, the Liberal government eliminated the $7-a-day before-and-after-school

child care program. They eliminated that program.

Then the Liberal government cut subsidies for low-income parents,

putting child care out of reach for thousands of B.C. families. They lowered

income thresholds for the programs, so fewer people could qualify. Those who

still did received a smaller subsidy, resulting in the pulling of thousands of

B.C. children from quality licensed care and the closure of many day care

programs.

The Liberal government chose to tie child care operating grants to

enrolment. As a result of that, public funds are disproportionately supporting

care for children from affluent families. The Liberal government also eliminated

the requirement that operating funding be used to keep fees affordable and wages

adequate. As a result, fees are on the increase, and wages are on the decline,

hurting both affordability for parents and quality care for their children.

The Liberal government also funnelled federal dollars designated

for child care into a whole range of provincial health programs, from pregnancy

counselling to midwifery to immunizations.

[1505]

Don't get me wrong, Mr. Chair. It's not that I think those are not

important programs. It's that I think those are programs that should be funded

out of the health care budget and not the child care budget. The minister in

this budget, putting in $4 million in this pre-election budget…. They're

allocating $4 million to child care services, in addition to the budget that was

tabled last year.

Does the minister think that $4 million in this pre-election

budget comes anywhere close to undoing the damage that his government has done

to child care services, to children and families in the province of British

Columbia?

Hon. C. Hansen: One of the things that is not reflected in

Budget 2005 is the increased federal contribution to child care across Canada.

As the member will know, they have committed $5 billion over the next five years

nationally. British Columbia's share of that,

[ Page 12463 ]

we anticipate — although it's not certain yet — will be somewhere around 13

percent of that.

We are currently in discussions with the federal government, and

the ministers responsible have met. The provincial and territorial ministers

have met with the federal minister responsible, and once that agreement is

finalized, we will have to come back to the House with a supplemental estimate

to seek the authority for those dollars.

We are working with the federal government for the expenditure of

those increased dollars. We have made a commitment that all of those additional

dollars coming from the federal government will be dedicated to child care, just

as we ensured that all of the increase of federal dollars for health was in fact

reflected in the health expenditures. We don't know yet exactly what that time

line will be, but I know the ministry is working as closely as we can to move

that forward as fast as we can.

J. Kwan: That's the federal pot of money, which is not in

this budget. I'd like to ask the minister about what is in this budget and is,

therefore, part of the interim supply bill debate. The government's budget

document does not show how much money will go to child care. Child care is

lumped together with early childhood development and supports to children with

special needs in the Ministry of Children and Family Development's budget.

I'd like to know how much money will go to child care out of the

$395.6 million budgeted for those various programs in the '05-06 budget. Could

the minister please give me a breakdown of that? Will the minister also advise,

out of this interim supply budget, how much of that $13 billion will be going

into child care?

Hon. C. Hansen: In the child care program that was

originally with Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services and was transferred

to the Ministry of Children and Family Development, the base budget for that

last year was $173.155 million. That is being increased by $4 million in the

coming year's budget, so the amount that is being appropriated as a result of

this interim supply would be approximately 50 percent of that to provide for the

first six months of operations.

J. Kwan: Does the minister think this $4 million would

actually cover off what the government had cut in the last four years in this

area?

Hon. C. Hansen: As I mentioned earlier, there is an

opportunity to expand child care services further in the province. The details

are yet to be worked out with the federal government in that regard, but the

allocation that is here meets the objectives set out in the ministry's service

plan.

[1510]

J. Kwan: Then the answer is no. It actually does not cover

off what had been cut in the last four years from the area of child care. Four

million dollars does not do it.

Now, the minister mentions the federal dollars. In my calculation,

it is over five years. Out of the $5 billion from the federal government for the

provinces and the territories, it is anticipated that British Columbia will

receive something like $650 million over five years. That's approximately $130

million per year.

I'd like to ask the minister this question: is it this

government's commitment to spend every single dollar from the federal government

on child care — strictly on child care services?

Hon. C. Hansen: The short answer is yes, but I will just

restate for clarity. Every dollar that the federal government has put into their

child care program, which is the $5 billion over five years — as I indicated, we

anticipate about 13 percent of that will be earmarked for British Columbia,

although that is not finalized yet…. Every dollar that is allocated for British

Columbia as a result of that child care program will be spent on child care in

this province.

J. Kwan: Could the minister please advise which child care

programs these dollars would be dedicated for? And the $4 million that's

allocated in this budget…. Which child care programs will the $4 million go

towards?

Hon. C. Hansen: With regard to the last question, as far as

the $4 million lift in the budget, I don't have that detail as to where

specifically that would get targeted. That would be a question for the Minister

of Children and Family Development during an estimates discussion.

Regarding the first part of the question, as to where the federal

dollars would be allocated, we don't know that yet. We are still in discussions

with the federal government. I know there have been proposals back and forth

that the Minister of Children and Family Development has been working on. The

details are yet to be determined. As soon as we do get them finalized, we will

seek the authority of the House at the earliest opportunity to move forward with

that.

J. Kwan: Does the minister consider pregnancy counselling

to be in child care programs?

Hon. C. Hansen: Again, that's a question that would be more

appropriately put to the minister responsible. I will certainly make the

question known to the minister.

J. Kwan: Well, no. The minister just earlier said that

every single federal dollar the government receives would go into child care.

That's what he said, and that's on record, but we know from past practices that

when those dedicated dollars from the federal government were supposed to go

into child care, they didn't, even though the government pretended that somehow

they

[ Page 12464 ]

did. They put dollars into things like pregnancy counselling, midwifery, and

so on.

As I said, I'm not saying that those are not important programs.

They are. But they're not child care programs. I'd like to get some clarity from

the minister on what he considers to be child care programs so that there will

be no mistakes when it comes to allocating those dollars.

The minister refuses to tell us how much will go into what

program. Well then, let's find out. What is considered to be a child care

program in the definition of this Minister of Finance and this government?

Hon. C. Hansen: The parameters of how the federal dollars

could be spent will be determined through the agreements the provinces and

territories sign with the federal government. We are committed to ensuring that

all of those dollars flow for those intended purposes, and the actual

definitions and scope are some things that would be included in the agreement.

J. Kwan: Come clean, and tell British Columbians what your

intentions are. This Minister of Finance, just moments ago, on record, said that

all of those federal dollars would go towards child care. He said that

definitively. Let's find out what is considered to be child care from this

minister's point of view and this government's point of view.

It's not a trick question. The opposition has already stated our

point of view on what we consider to be child care and what is not. It's not a

trick question. It doesn't need some federal-provincial negotiations to find out

what is child care and what is not child care. One ought to know that.

[1515]

I'm going to give the minister another chance to answer that

question, because child care advocates in the community are very concerned about

whether or not the government will actually flow the child care dollars through

from the federal government into the area of child care. Experiences in the last

four years have demonstrated that they have not.

The government wants British Columbians and child care advocates

to trust them and to believe them on their word to do what they say they will

do, but their track record is poor on that front. Now is the minister's chance

to make the commitment in this House that all of the federal dollars will

actually go into child care, as he has said, and to let British Columbians know

now what is deemed to be child care from the provincial Liberal government's

point of view.

Hon. C. Hansen: With all due respect to the member, how she

defines child care in this context is irrelevant. What is relevant is how the

federal government, in their agreements with the provinces, define child care.

It is their $5 billion that they are flowing to the provinces, and they will do

it with agreements in terms of how those dollars can or cannot be spent.

Those are the agreements that are being worked out now. We will

adhere to those agreements and those

definitions as they're set out, and we will

ensure that every dollar that is allocated to British Columbia is spent for

those explicit purposes. It's not up to us to define what constitutes child

care. It is up to the federal government and those agreements that are

subsequently signed.

J. Kwan: Sorry, but the minister can't just get away with

that. He's right from the point of view that the question is not about how I

define child care. It isn't. It is about how child care advocates in our

community define child care, and it is about how this Liberal government defines

child care.

We know that in the last four years, their definition of child

care is so huge that one could drive a truck through it. We know that health

care programs that were formerly — under the previous administration — funded

out of the health care budget somehow, under the Liberal government's mandate….

They took child care dollars to fund those health care programs, and then they

claimed they are child care programs, when in reality, they are not. The federal

government knows that. The provincial government should know that. British

Columbians certainly know that.

The question at hand here is this: given that it's the provincial

government that will be at the negotiating tables with the federal government,

how and what is it that they're going to put forward at this table, and how are

they going to define child care?

It's a simple question that I'm going to put. Let's just sort of

go down a list to see what the minister considers to be child care or not.

Pregnancy counselling: is that a child care service?

Hon. C. Hansen: Perhaps it will help the member if I

outline for her what the principles are that will be guiding this agreement. To

date, the provinces, territories and the federal government have agreed on four

principles to guide the $5 billion investment in a national vision of early

learning and child care.

First of all, it's quality. High-quality early learning and child

care services are grounded in leading practices with an appropriate complement

of qualified staff. Secondly, it's universally inclusive. Universally inclusive

means early learning and child care services are open to all preschool children,

including children with special needs, aboriginal children and children with

differing cultural and linguistic circumstances.

Thirdly, accessible. Early learning and child care services are

broadly available and affordable. Fourthly, developmental. Developmental early

learning and child care services promote healthy development and contribute to

improved lifetime outcomes in the areas of social, emotional, physical and

cognitive development.

[1520]

These are four principles that have been set out by the federal

government and approved by the provinces and territories, and that's where they

are at, so far, in their discussions. They have agreed on that so far.

[ Page 12465 ]

There's still a lot of work to be done before those agreements can be

finalized.

J. Kwan: I appreciate the minister reading the list of the

federal requirements for the $5 billion commitment to the provinces, but that's

not my question. I already know the list that the federal government has put

out.

The minister earlier said that every single dollar from the

federal government will be put towards child care. He said it. It is in

Hansard . Now I'm asking for clarification of what this minister considers to

be child care. It's not complicated. Does the minister consider pregnancy

counselling to be child care services?

The minister has already said on record moments ago that this

government will commit all the federal dollars to child care. But what is child

care, exactly, in the minds of this minister and this government? That's what

the child care advocates want to know, and that's what I want to know. Is it

such a difficult thing to understand, to decide whether or not pregnancy

counselling is part of the child care service?

Let me ask another one. Is immunization considered to be child

care services in the minds of this Minister of Finance and this government?

Hon. C. Hansen: I guess to come back to the point I made

before, what my

definitions are is not relevant, and what the member's

definitions are is not relevant. What is relevant is what the language will be

in the child care agreement with the federal government. It will set out the

scope of how these dollars can be spent. We will adhere to that scope, and we

will ensure that every dollar that flows from the federal government as a result

of that agreement is spent on the intended purposes.

J. Kwan: What is relevant is the credibility of this

minister and this government. They said they were going to put child care

dollars into child care. Over the last four years, they did not. That's why they

cancelled the universal child care program, because they took money away from

child care services and put it elsewhere that they claim are child care

services. That's why they cut subsidies to families and children who needed

child care support. That's why they cut and stopped funding the wages for child

care providers in and around the province.

That's why child care centres had to close. That's why this

government caused the situation where child care centres across the province had

to close, because they changed the policy around how child care centres would be

funded. Those are huge ramifications for the families and children in British

Columbia in the area of child care.

Dr. Clyde Hertzman, a renowned expert in early childhood

development, has said time and time again, and there has been report after

report after report that indicates this, that proper, quality child care is

essential to early childhood development. Yet this government saw fit to

actually take away resources in that sector. That's what the government did. As

a consequence, many families and many children have not been able to access

quality child care.

[1525]

In fact, when I travelled the province a couple of years ago, I

spoke with a woman who, when the government cut child care subsidies and changed

those programs, lost her job as a result of that, because she could no longer

afford child care services. She was a single mom. She lost her job because she

had no reliable, quality child care she could depend on. As a result, she was

put into a compromised position of having to accept employment that puts her and

her child at risk. I'm not going to say who it is or even what community, for

that matter. In small communities, people may well know who I'm referring to,

and I want to protect the identity of this family.

The issue here is this: the government cut those programs. They

took money away from child care programs, and families and children were left

without. How could the minister back up his own words just moments ago when he

answered my question definitively that all of the federal dollars would actually

go into child care, when he knows very well that immunization cannot be counted

as child care services and that pregnancy counselling is not a child care

service?

It's not that complicated to know what's a child care service and

what is not. The minister is only pretending to make it complicated so he could

walk away with trying to fool British Columbians once again. That is the real

agenda here — isn't it, Mr. Chair? The child care advocates know it, and British

Columbians know it. It is time for this minister and this government to know

that the gig is up. They can no longer try and fool British Columbians the way

that they have in the last four years.

This is a pre-election campaign budget. The minister should come

clean and tell British Columbians what it is they intend to fund, what funds

they receive and where it is they intend to put those moneys. That's why we need

line-by-line budget debate, ministry-by-ministry debate, instead of this sham

where the government is asking for authority to spend $13 billion and not

telling British Columbians where they're going to put those dollars and how

they're going to spend that money. They wouldn't even answer simple questions

around how the government would define child care.

I'd like to move to another area, because time is of the essence.

The government is going to shut down the Legislature at 5:45. They're going to

shut down debate, and there will be no further opportunities before the election

to put questions to the minister.

Interjection.

J. Kwan: The minister wants to respond? Great. I will

listen to the minister to see what he has to say.

Hon. C. Hansen: I just want the member to reflect back on

what happened. What she's talking about when she talks about universal child

care is a program

[ Page 12466 ]

that the NDP government brought in right at the end of their term, when they

were going into an election. Based on a one-year spike in revenues to

government….

Interjection.

The Chair: Member, member. Minister. Member. Please give us

some respect here. Let's hear the minister.

Hon. C. Hansen: We had a one-year spike in energy revenues

as a result of the energy crisis down in California and the increased sales of

natural gas and electricity that resulted from that. What resulted from the

one-year spike is that the previous government started ramping up program

spending as if they were going to be able to count on those one-time dollars

year after year.

When they rolled out a universal child care program, it was not

with any kind of fiscal responsibility in terms of how that program would be

funded, because they knew at the time that it was going to cost hundreds of

millions of dollars. Yet they pushed that program out, knowing this province

could not afford it based on the revenues to government that were being

projected. That is not responsible.

What we are doing is making sure in our budget planning that we

actually forecast our revenues in a very responsible way; that we know exactly

how much money government can spend next year, the year after and the year

after; and that we build our programs with that in sight, so that we never again

go back into the kind of deficit spending we saw in the 1990s.

When we talk about a $3.8 billion structural deficit that we

inherited, the structural deficit was there because of the kinds of programs

that government ramped up in assuming these one-time moneys would be there year

after year, when they themselves knew that was not the case.

[1530]

J. Kwan: What nonsense. This government constructed the

fiction about this structural deficit. That this government actually…. Day one

in office, before they even looked at the books, they gave the biggest tax cuts

to the biggest corporations and the wealthiest British Columbians. Then they

proceeded to cut programs in an unprecedented way. Then they took away services,

then they increased fees, and then they increased taxes all over the different

areas in the services that the government provides to British Columbians.

The list is long in terms of the increased fees and increased

taxes, whether it be property taxes or gas and fuel taxes. Even for a period of

time the government increased the PST and increased fees and delisted services.

The ministers know very well that the universal child care program was going to

be funded in part by the loss of the tax revenues that this government had

actually put in place on day one of them being elected, and by federal

government dollars on an agreement that was negotiated with the previous

government and committed to child care.

The government took away those dollars from child care and cut

programs. That's what they did, and what we have now is a significantly

watered-down child care provision in British Columbia. The new federal dollars

that are supposed to be flow through later on…. On the one hand, this minister

likes to say: "Oh yeah, we're going to commit every single one of those dollars

to child care." But in a backhanded, sneaky kind of way…

The Chair: Member, member, member….

J. Kwan: …he's going to break that promise and put the

dollars elsewhere, not in child care.

The Chair: Member, take your seat, please. You're starting

to get into some unparliamentary language here. I think the word "sneaky" is not

a very respectful way to refer to the minister. Be a little more respectful

here, please.

Carry on.

J. Kwan: The record shows what the government has done.

This is what the government is going to do again, unless they say clearly and

definitively what it is they intend to do. But this minister would not commit to

that. He's going to find some loophole, a gigantic loophole that he'll want to

drive through to say: "Hey, when I said that I'm going to commit all the federal

dollars to child care, what I mean by child care is immunization programs, not

child care services."

He's going to find a way to do that, Mr. Chair. That's my

prediction. That's been their record, and that's what this government is going

to do. They're going to fabricate some reason why they can't afford it. The real

truth is this: they don't support child care. The current Minister of State for

Women's Services was actually on record in her own community paper saying that

she does not support child care. The former Minister of State for Long Term Care

was on record saying that child care is for tennis moms.

Those are the real reasons why this government is not being an

advocate for child care — because they don't believe in child care services.

Never mind that Dr. Clyde Hertzman and others, experts in the field, have said

that early childhood development includes access to quality child care.

I have to admit that I have an almost-two-year-old, and she

started child care in a licensed day care environment about a month ago.

Already, I have to tell you that I see the things that she has learned from this

child care centre, the peer-to-peer relationships that she's developing and how

she is working through some of the challenges that we know as parents of

two-year-olds — what they call the terrible twos — learning how to share and to

communicate with others and not just to say "mine, mine, mine" all the time.

[1535]

Those are the kinds of things…. Yes, parents absolutely play a

role. Make no mistake about that. But we also know that in the child care

environment, in the

[ Page 12467 ]

qualified quality child care forum, those early years of development will pay

dividends in the future lives of these children. I already see some of those

benefits in the short period in which my daughter has been in a day care. I only

wish the same access for every parent. That's what I'm asking for. I'm not even

saying that every parent should put their children into day care. It's their

choice.

What I'm saying is that every parent, every family should have the

choice to do that and should have the opportunity to do that, if they wish to do

so, and not face barriers, whether it be financial barriers or otherwise. That's

the commitment that I'm looking for from this government when I'm asking him to

define what access to child care is. Not immunization programs — those should be

funded out of a health care budget.

Let me just move to another area of women's services. I'm going to

be quick here, because I know that my colleague from Surrey–Panorama Ridge has

questions around the transportation front. There are so many areas where we want

to put questions to the minister, so I'm going to be very quick here.

Let me just do a quick review of what's happened in the area of

women's services. Since 2002 the Liberal government has eliminated the Ministry

of Women's Equality, breaking an election promise. They've repealed pay equity,

removed the pay equity provision from the Human Rights Code and buried their own

report on pay equity by the lawyer that the government had actually appointed

specifically to do this review. They have buried those recommendations.

They have eliminated the employment equity within the public

service. They have introduced a two-tier minimum wage, because the majority of

B.C.'s minimum-wage earners are women over 19 and not youth. It especially hurts

immigrant women. They've rolled back the wages of B.C.'s lowest-paid health care

workers, the majority of whom are women and immigrants, in its imposed contract

on the HEU.

They scrapped universal child care, as I mentioned; cut subsidies

for low-income parents; put child care out of reach for thousands of B.C.

families. They've slashed legal aid funding and laid off victim services

workers, the people who help rape and domestic violence victims through tortuous

criminal trials. They've eliminated funding for B.C.'s 37 women's centres.

They've ended the zero-tolerance policy on domestic violence.

They've abolished the B.C. Human Rights Commission. British

Columbia is now the only province in Canada without a commission. They have

attempted to turn back the clock on equality rights on same-sex couples by

voting to deny them the right to control the remains of deceased loved ones.

As a result of this government's regressive policies, B.C. has

been singled out for criticism by the United Nations Committee on the

Elimination of Discrimination against Women — a first in the history of B.C. The

UN committee stated its concern that the Liberal government's policies are

having a disproportionately negative impact on women and children in areas such

as social assistance, legal aid, and support for those experiencing sexual and

domestic violence.

In 2001 the Ministry of Women's Equality, as I mentioned, was

eliminated despite the Premier's pre-election campaign to maintain it. It was

replaced by a junior Minister of State for Women's Services. That minister of

state was then eliminated by OIC on January 26, 2004, and then was replaced with

the Minister of State for Women's and Seniors' Services.

Funding for women's and seniors' services in 2002-03 was $54.4

million when it was only targeted for women's services. Then in '03-04 it became

$51.6 million for women's and seniors' services and in '04-05, $37.2 million for

women's and seniors' services. This year's budget and the estimates interim

supply debate that we're dealing with deal with a budget of $49.8 million for

'05-06.

After three years of cuts, the Liberal government announces this

increase of $12.5 million. The government claims that the funding increase from

$33 million to $45.5 million annually for transition houses somehow makes up for

the difference for all of the cuts. We know that is not true.

[1540]

People from transition houses say:

"We find that the cuts to legal aid and cuts to certain

health benefits are seriously impacting women and the volume of work at

transition houses. Cuts to women's centres and other agencies serving women

have only really had a ricochet effect on the transition house sector. Really,

all these agencies should be seen as part of a continuum."

They go on to say:

"The cuts have been hard over the last three years. For

instance, it cost the province $1.37 million to run all the women's centres

across the province. For us to get this money now feels a little like taking

the funds out of our sisters' pockets."

This is what people in the sector are saying, even those

in the transition house sector who had actually received a small lift. They go

on to say:

"We turn away three times as many people as we can so

that the demand eclipses our ability to serve. We're actually funded for

24-hour access, not for 24-hour staffing, but we do have 24-hour staffing as a

security measure."

This is what's happening. Women's centres. The government

cuts for the funding of the 38 women's centres across the province only saved

the government $1.7 million, but they didn't see the way to actually fund

women's centres for the incredible work that they do.

Has the minister done an assessment of the cuts to women's centres

and how these cuts are putting new demands on the transition house sector? Does

the minister think the small increase in this area — in this year's budget and

therefore out of the interim supply — would actually erase the damage that the

government has done over the last four years?

Hon. C. Hansen: That was a long intervention, and I

appreciated the member's remarks, but it covered a lot of ground. I did want to

go back.

At the outset of her comments she was talking about taxes and fees

that may have been increased in

[ Page 12468 ]

the province. I just wanted to point out, for the information of the member

and anyone else following these discussions, that if you look at the total taxes

paid by British Columbians…. If you take the personal income tax and add in the

sales tax, property tax, fuel tax, MSP premiums — take all of those taxes that

individuals pay personally — every single British Columbian, regardless of their

income or their family status, is paying less in terms of their total taxes

today than they would have under the NDP government in 2001.

If you look at some specific examples…. You take a senior couple,

for example, earning $30,000 a year. They, in fact, would be paying $930 a year

less today in their taxes than they would have in 2001 under the NDP.

The member then came back to this whole issue of the original

child care agreement that she was talking about, which was signed prior to us

forming government. There are reporting requirements in that agreement, and

there are conditions upon which those dollars can be spent. So I can assure the

member that all of those dollars that are spent are spent in accordance with

that original agreement. We report that to the federal government accordingly,

and they have the opportunity to come back to us if they feel those dollars are

not being spent in accordance with that original agreement.

The member then went on to talk about programs for women's centres

and transition houses. I can tell the member — well, I know she knows this, but

I'll remind her of it — that just last fall this government increased the

funding for transition houses with the largest single increase ever for

transition houses and programs for women and children facing violence and abuse.

That went up by $12.5 million a year to provide for enhancements of services

around this province for women and children facing violence and abuse.

J. Kwan: Mr. Chair, give me a break. When the minister says

that the income tax breaks for British Columbians somehow would actually cover

some of these costs…. That's what he's implying in his answer to me.

[1545]

For the minister's information, I'll tell you. Without subsidies,

for one child in child care today is somewhere around $1,000 to $1,200 per month

per child. That's how much it costs; I know. Even if I grant the minister that

the $900-and-some that a family gets in terms of income tax rebate…. I'm not

going to dispute that, because those families have actually lost support in the

MSP area, and they have had to pay more for MSP premiums. They've had to pay

more for Pharmacare services. They have to pay for eye exams, increased gas

taxes, increased PST, and so on and so forth. I'm just going to leave all that

aside for one moment. That tax rebate doesn't even cover one month's worth of

child care support in terms of fees for child care services for a family for one

child, let alone for the whole year.

So spare me when the minister is saying that they're doing a great

job here. Women and families are saying they are having a tough time. Child care

providers used to see children that came to their centres to get child care

services. They are no longer coming. Why? It's because the government cut their

subsidies, because they could not afford it. It's not because they don't want

the children in those child care centres. It's because they can't afford it.

This Minister of State for Women's Services, to paraphrase the

article in her own community, does not believe in the concept that it takes a

village to raise a child. She believes in the concept that only the parent is

responsible. Well, I take a different point of view than that, particularly for

those single parents who are struggling out there, for those families that are

struggling day in and day out.

I see this as not just a social issue. It is an economic issue,

because if we invest upfront for these children and their families, it will pay

dividends down the road economically for this province. Those children will grow

up having opportunities and their potential maximized, because in those early

years a foundation was laid for them.

We know that those early years are critical for the development of

children into the future. That's what this investment is about, and this

government is not committed to it. They have demonstrated that by their actions

in the last four years. Right now this minister would not commit to saying how

he would define child care for the federal dollars that are coming in the next

few months.

[H. Long in the chair.]

I want to focus on women's services for just a moment here. We

know that the ministry and the government have done no assessment of the cuts to

women's centres. They wouldn't even actually meet with the women's centres

coalition. After much pressure, when they finally did meet, they went and called

the cops on them. That's what the government did with the women's coalition when

they wanted to meet with the Minister of State for Women's Services. That's how

the government treats women.

I'd like to know if the minister actually agrees with the

executive director of the B.C.–Yukon Society of Transition Houses that it would

be more valuable to consider transition houses and women's centres as a

continuum of services and to fund both kinds of services. Will there be any

dollars from this $13 billion under the interim supply that would be going to

these services?

[1550]

Hon. C. Hansen: Again, early on in the member's comments,

some time ago at the outset of it, she made some comments that are not accurate,

so I do wish to correct the member's understanding of it. She made the claim

that the increases to MSP premiums and the changes to Pharmacare actually

resulted in people being less off than the reduction in the tax cuts….

[ Page 12469 ]

Mr. Chair, I want to be explicit that if every individual in

British Columbia in terms of their income tax, their MSP premiums — all of those

direct taxes…. They are paying less today than they did in 2001. We've seen

income taxes come down. We've seen MSP premiums come down for the majority of

seniors and low- and moderate-income British Columbians.

The comment that she made early on was not accurate, when she

talked about Pharmacare. In fact, that drove costs down and gave more financial

assistance for low- and middle-income seniors and low- and middle-income

families.

She then went on to talk about child care, which I think we've

been back and forth on a bit. She went on to talk about women's services. I can

assure her that in this budget for this coming year, there is $12.5 million of

additional funding for transition houses and for other programs for women and

children facing violence. That is part of this interim supply bill that we are

asking for appropriation for today. Roughly 50 percent of those programs will be

funded as a result of this interim supply bill.

J. Kwan: That wasn't the question that I asked. I asked how

much money is going to women's centres, not this broad category of stopping

violence. Let me actually go into the violence issue in a moment, Mr. Chair. But

before I do that, I wish to dispute what the minister said.

This minister and this government brought in hikes in MSP premiums

to the tune of $400 million over the last four years. Then in this budget they

gave back a measly $40 million to British Columbians. They are still out of

pocket $360 million just on MSP alone.

Please, truth would be nice, Mr. Chair, in terms of the real

state….

The Chair: I question the comment on truth.

J. Kwan: Well, factual information that is based on truth

would be useful for British Columbians and for them to know what actually is

taking place, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: The minister on a point of order.

Point of Order

Hon. C. Hansen: Mr. Chair, I have an obligation to take

offence to the member's comment, and I would ask her to withdraw it.

The Chair: Would the member please retract. Would the

member please retract — unequivocally retract.

J. Kwan: Mr. Chair, I'll retract because those are the

rules of the House. I will have to retract because I have no choice.

The Chair: Unequivocally, would the member retract her

statement about truth.

J. Kwan: I said I will retract.

We all know what the lay of the land is.

The Chair: Member, please sit down. I asked for the member

to unequivocally retract her statement without any more statements.

J. Kwan: Mr. Chair, I retract my statement.

The Chair: Thank you, member.

J. Kwan: Let me go on and tell you, Mr. Chair, what really

is happening in British Columbia in the area of MSP alone. This government

increased MSP premiums by $400 million, impacting British Columbians over the

last four years. This year's budget only gives back $40 million. British

Columbians are still out of pocket $360 million on MSP premiums alone. You do

the math, Mr. Chair, and tell me how British Columbians somehow actually got a

better deal under this government on that front.

I'll use an example of seniors. By no means a couple, whose income

is just under $30,000 a year…. Before the changes to Pharmacare and before the

changes to MSP, they actually paid a very small sum towards MSP. You know how

much they have to pay now, thanks to this government? And they somehow claim

that their benefits are so much better. Twelve hundred bucks for the couple.

They were just over the qualification of the threshold. Why?

Because they worked all their lives to save some moneys in RRSPs, and that's

considered to be part of their income and the interest that they earn. These are

individuals who worked minimum-wage jobs throughout their adult lives in this

province.

[1555]

The minister likes to say that somehow people are better off and

seniors are better off. Well, tell it to people who actually believe them

outside of this chamber. Certainly, the opposition does not believe them, and

the vast majority of British Columbians don't believe this minister, because it

is nonsense — absolute nonsense.

The government says they're somehow treating women in a way that

protects them from violence. Let me just ask the minister this question. This

government and this Premier ended the zero-tolerance policy on domestic

violence. On July 31, 2002, the Attorney General released the proposed revisions

to the province's spousal assault policy, which in effect directs Crown counsel

to prosecute fewer cases of spousal assault.

The Vancouver police department claims that this will

decriminalize violence when it takes place in the domestic private sphere. As of

May 2, 2003, charges are no longer automatically laid in every alleged spousal

abuse incident in British Columbia. Is this how you protect women against

violence?

This is how this government is doing that work. They cancelled the

funding for women's centres. They increased the pressure for transition houses.

They took away policies that protect women who face violence in domestic abuse

situations. They even stopped the policy change, long and hard fought for, of

automatically

[ Page 12470 ]

laying charges in spousal abuse incidents in British Columbia, thereby

bringing us back to the days where the message is that domestic violence,

spousal assault, is not necessarily a criminal matter.

When you assault someone, no matter who they are — rich or poor,

women or men — it is an assault, and it is criminal in its nature. This

government defines spousal assault differently now, and they treat women

differently now. The message that they sent out is the wrong message. Shame.

Shame on them. That's their legacy. That's their cross to bear. That's their

record in the last four years.

Hon. C. Hansen: Just to respond to the last point the

member was making…. As I mentioned earlier, there is the largest single increase

ever for the budget for transition houses in British Columbia — an increase of

$12.5 million of additional money that will go into funding transition houses

around the province and programs for women and children facing violence and

abuse.

When the member talked about the impact of MSP on a senior couple

earning just under $30,000, she in fact is not correct. Let's actually go back

and look at…. What I've got here is the budget report from 2001. It actually

gives the example of a senior couple earning $30,000 a year.

What it shows is that for health care premiums, MSP premiums, in

2001 under the NDP government, they would have paid $768 a year. Under this new

budget, Budget 2005, with the extra benefits that we've brought in for premium

assistance for MSP, that would actually be down to $230 a year for that same

couple earning $30,000 a year.

Now, the member said it wasn't actually $30,000 a year. She said

it was just under $30,000 a year.

Interjection.

Hon. C. Hansen: In fact, I listened very closely to what

the member said.

Interjection.

The Chair: Member, would you let the minister answer your

question.

Hon. C. Hansen: In fact, when she said just under $30,000 a

year…. If it was $29,000 a year, that same senior couple would be paying zero

under the new MSP premiums that have been brought into place.

[1600]

The point I was making was that the total taxes that this couple

would pay…. Let's say it was $30,000 a year. Under the NDP government in 2001,

it would have been a total provincial tax of $3,391. Today under Budget 2005

that same couple would be paying total taxes, all of those combined, of only

$2,458.

J. Kwan: I see the members in this House thumping their

desks. You know what? Tell it to the seniors who actually believe you.

What I said about the senior couple was this. They made just under

$30,000 a year and because they actually have some earned RRSPs…. Because of the

interest on it and as a result of those two combined aspects, they were not

actually qualified for MSP premiums and they had to pay $1,200 per month. That

is the reality. But had they been in a situation where….

Interjections.

The Chair: Order, members. The member has the floor.

J. Kwan: If they were only one person and not a couple,

they would otherwise qualify. Under the previous administration they would have

qualified, but not under this government. They have changed the rules that

impact seniors. That must be why seniors are saying to us when we travel the

province that they actually have to choose between buying medicine versus eating

dog food. That is actually a true story that was told to me when I travelled the

province.

Interjections.

The Chair: Order, members. Let the member finish.

J. Kwan: These members and this government should know what

their record is and stand by it instead of making it up as they go along. We

were just talking about women's services. On the violence question, on the

zero-tolerance question, stand up and defend the policy. Say that it is the

right thing to do to decriminalize spousal abuse. That is what the government

has done, Mr. Chair. That's exactly what the government's done.

Interjections.

The Chair: Order, members. Order.

J. Kwan: Stand by your record, and say that you are proud

to do that.

We just celebrated International Women's Day. Look at the record

of what this government has done in the measly four years that they were in

place. They've dismantled the advances that people worked so hard for — before

me, Mr. Chair; I take no credit for the work that people have done before me.

They made those changes, and they forced government to bring forth policies to

address these concerns. This government, this minister and this Premier turned

back the clock, just like that. That's how they show they really care about

people. That's how they show it.

British Columbians know the difference, and they know they can't

trust a government that has broken promise after promise after promise. They

know the difference. They know the difference when the government will not even

commit to being held to account — when they say they want open and accountable

[ Page 12471 ]

government, but in fact, they will do anything but be open and accountable.

We see that with the government shutting down debate. By 5:45

today there will be no more questions to the government on anything. They want

to spend $13 billion of taxpayers' money. They want a blank cheque to just go

and do whatever they want, with no scrutiny. That's the truth of the matter.

J. Brar: We certainly have a lot of questions, but the time

is, of course, running out. We will not get the opportunity to ask questions we

want to ask. But let me say this to you. Yesterday I stood up and talked about

and asked questions about one very important issue the people of Surrey face.

That is the situation at the Surrey Memorial Hospital. We didn't get any

straight answers on whether the people of Surrey have any hope out of this

budget or not.

[1605]

Another important issue I want to talk about today and ask

questions on is the Port Mann Bridge and transportation. During the by-election

this government said time and again to the people of Surrey that the most

important issue for the people of Surrey is the twinning of the Port Mann

Bridge, and that it was the number one priority for this government. They said

that to people almost every day during the 28-day election campaign.

That promise was no different from the list of promises we saw in

the New Era document. We know that lots of promises after that were made

but not kept. A few of the examples: B.C. Rail — the government said they were

not going to sell it, but in fact, they sold it; gambling — the government made

a promise to the people of British Columbia that they were not going to expand

gambling, but in fact, they did the opposite. The government also promised in

the New Era that they were going to build 5,000 new long-term care beds,

but they didn't deliver on that either.

The twinning of the Port Mann Bridge was a very similar promise,

which came out during the by-election. After it came to this House, I found out

a lot of things about the bridge and about the total plan of the government when

it comes to the transportation issues. What I see here is that this government

has laid out an ambitious infrastructure investment plan: $6 billion over ten

years. Passing this interim supply bill will presumably provide funding for some

of these projects.

Not all of these projects are without their faults. The Sea to Sky

Highway, RAV line and Port Mann Bridge are all questionable from a financial

perspective at this point in time. The Port Mann is a very, very blatant example

of a megaproject with no study on its feasibility. This is an example of a

project that has been dictated and justified on political grounds. It is chosen

based not on how it will benefit the province but on how attractive it is to

voters in the minister's own constituency.

We are talking about billions of dollars here — $13 billion of

taxpayer's hard-earned money. The government wants a blank cheque without going

through any estimate debates line by line, ministry by ministry.

Now, the Port Mann Bridge. The minister has not done any

consultation with the large number of stakeholders with which he should do the

consultation.

The minister told us only a few days ago that he has actually

consulted — has done consultation. When we asked with whom, this is the list we

know: Trucking Association and B.C. Automobile Association. These are the

members which have an obvious special interest in an expanded highway system.

[1610]

When we asked the minister to expand on the list of stakeholders

who are part of this bridge, the minister fumbled on that and said: "We are

going to consult with all other stakeholders." But let me tell you: there are

many people out there who have lots of questions about the feasibility of Port

Mann Bridge. Without consulting those people, it is very, very challenging to

proceed with this project.

Now, one of the key stakeholders is the municipalities of British

Columbia. The minister tells us that he hasn't done anything on that one. I

don't understand why. The minister has been talking about it for the last six

months as a key project or priority for the people of British Columbia and

hasn't done anything.

Then, also, there are a lot of environmental groups who want to

know what the impacts on the environment will be on this one. No consultation

has been done. No consultation has been done with the transit users, the

cyclists and the lone-car users. I don't understand why the minister is

reluctant to do this consultation. I don't know. But I have a question: why?

This is a megaproject, and this is a very open, transparent government which

likes to consult the people of British Columbia. But that consultation didn't

take place.

We asked him a question during the supplementary debate about the

environmental impact of the bridge. Here is the response of the minister:

"Having traffic sitting for hours and hours every single day is possibly the

worst environmental outcome you could appreciate." This is his response. This is

his study. Where is the evidence? Where is the study which tells us that there

will be no environmental impact by building the bridge?

The minister also admitted very clearly that day that he has not

completed one study on the feasibility of the Port Mann Bridge as well as the

Highway 1 expansion. He did mention the preliminary studies, but he didn't want

to show them to anyone, because they're confidential. But what we are doing here

today is debating the budget, which includes the budget that is dedicated, as I

understand, to these projects.

Let me say this. The member has been asking questions from

this side…. I'm not here to stand in the House and support something which is

shallow, which has no basis, which has no study, which has no business plan. I

have been saying this for the last six months, and I will continue to say this

until I see something very concrete. All I'm saying is that there are se-

[ Page 12472 ]

rious reasons to be concerned about passing the budget on this item without

having full study on this project.

[1615]

How does this government know that this is the best way to improve

transportation and open up our port to trade and commerce without studying the

impact of the bridge on the region and province? How can this government be

certain the benefits will outweigh the costs?

What are the alternatives available? Do we know that? We don't

know about that. So what we are asking here is to give us the blank cheque.

We'll go and do the work. But we can't tell you whether there will be an

environmental impact. We can't tell you what the business plan is. We can't tell

you what the exact budget of this project is. We can't tell you whether the

federal government is going to support this project at the end of the day or

not.

Everything is in process. We can't tell you anything past the

budget. So my first question to the minister is: will the Minister of Finance

please tell us how much of this interim supply bill will go towards funding this

project and other projects like that, which have not been studied, which have

not been examined?

Hon. C. Hansen: Maybe this demonstrates for those that are

following the debate the difference between our approach on this side of the

House and what the NDP members offer British Columbians. We have a

Transportation minister in this province who actually has a vision for how to

solve some of our transportation bottlenecks around the province and to meet

some of our transportation infrastructure challenges. He's not afraid to go out

and talk about them and to advocate for them and to do the studies that are

necessary to make sure they're done on an environmentally sound basis.

We have that in terms of the proposal for the Port Mann Bridge in

that there are the kinds of studies and due diligence that will be done. It all

starts with a vision, and that's something we have not seen from the opposition

members in this House or the political party they're representing. We have seen

absolutely nothing in terms of a transportation plan.

We know that the member for Surrey–Panorama Ridge is opposed to

the twinning of the Port Mann Bridge. He might as well just stand up and admit

that. We on this side of the House are actually trying to create some solutions

for our transportation challenges in British Columbia. In this budget we

actually have a significant increase for spending on transportation

infrastructure around the province going forward.

There are a variety of projects, including rehabilitation of

roads, something sadly neglected in the previous decade. We've got funding for

airports and port infrastructure, border crossing infrastructure, Okanagan

valley corridor and Okanagan Lake Bridge. There's the Kicking Horse Canyon

project. There are gateway initiatives. The Sea to Sky Highway is well underway.

There are highway corridors. There's the Richmond-Airport-Vancouver rapid

transit project. All are provided for in funding in this budget.

In addition to all of the projects that are now well advanced in

their planning and the studies and the environmental reviews that must be done,

there are other projects such as the ones that are part of the vision that the

Minister of Transportation has set out. Within the ministry's main budget they

will be doing the due diligence to ensure that these proposals are firmed up so

we can ensure that the proper studies and environmental reviews are done and the

other due diligence that is necessary. So a portion of this interim supply that

we are talking about today would, in fact, go to the Ministry of Finance for

their ongoing work to make sure that the vision for a new transportation system

in British Columbia can be realized.

J. Brar: It's very easy to stand up and blame the

opposition for asking questions, because the government does not have answers.

That's what I hear. Again, there's no answer. There is no straight answer.

Let me ask you a very simple question on this one. In this budget,

in the interim supply bill, how much money are you asking for the gateway

project? Is there any money for that?

[1620]

Hon. C. Hansen: For the provincial share of the gateway

initiatives there is a budget in '05-06 of $50 million; therefore, in the

interim supply bill there would be an allocation of approximately 6 / 12 of that.

J. Brar: I couldn't clearly understand the breakdown of the

budget. Can the minister please clarify again the breakdown for the gateway

project?

Hon. C. Hansen: What I'm referring to is not any great

mystery. It's in the budget fiscal plan. I know the member has a copy, and it's

on the website. It's on page 58.

It shows that for those gateway initiatives there is $50 million

in the coming year. Approximately half of that would be provided for, because as

we've discussed earlier in these debates, the overall allocation under interim

supply is 50 percent of the '05-06 budget. That then doesn't get precisely

allocated at 50 percent to every single initiative and line item, but the

government is obligated to stay within that 50 percent allocation until such

time as there is further authority from this Legislature.

J. Brar: Now I hear this is not a mystery. Everything is

crystal clear — simple. Then why are we not prepared to debate the budget? Why

are we shutting down the House almost a month before the writ is dropped? Why?

What is in this budget? Why are you afraid of debating the budget? Is there

anything to hide in this budget? Why are you running away from debating this

budget, if it's a very clear scenario? Why? Tell the people of British Columbia

what's in this budget.

[ Page 12473 ]

Let the people listen to the debate. Why are you afraid of them, if it's so

simple?

The minister told us in the supplementary debate that the cost for

building the Port Mann Bridge alone is $800 million. Is there any money — even a

single dollar — in this budget which is dedicated for the construction of the

bridge?

Hon. C. Hansen: As I indicated earlier, there is an

appropriation for the Ministry of Transportation. It is $804.455 million for the

coming fiscal year. Half of that, approximately, would be approved as a result

of this interim supply bill that is before us.

When it comes to the Port Mann Bridge, which the member had

specifically asked about…. A part of the work that is done internally, within

the ministry, I'm sure, is working towards the kind of studies and analysis that

the member is talking about.

[1625]

J. Brar: So we are not sure whether there is any money in

this budget, in this interim supply bill dedicated towards the building of the

bridge. The cost of the bridge is $800 million. What we are asking here is only

$25 million for the next six months and $50 million for the next 12 months.

Where is that promise? It was so urgent during the by-election

that the government wanted to start it very quickly. Now what we see in this

budget is that we don't know whether there's any money for the construction of

the bridge. Is there any commitment for the construction of the bridge for this

government? There's not a single dollar committed for the construction of the

Port Mann Bridge. That's all I can assume, after the minister responds to my

question.

It's very strange. It's another promise — a very recent one — made

to the people of Surrey and broken after just six months. It's very clear that

there's no money for the construction of the bridge. There is no plan for the

Port Mann Bridge.

Now I would like to ask the minister: had you seen any

comprehensive plan for the Port Mann Bridge before allocating this $25 million

of hard-earned taxpayer dollars? Had you seen any business plan before you made

that decision?

Hon. C. Hansen: It would be wonderful if we could actually

turn the clock back to the last decade and have some planning for the kind of

traffic congestion that we see in parts of the lower mainland so that some of

these projects could be under construction today or perhaps even completed

today. It would not be responsible for a government to decide on a project, such

as the twinning of the Port Mann Bridge, and have any expectation there's going

to be construction underway six months later.

I'm a little bit confused as to where the member is coming from on

this. On the one hand he said: "How can you proceed with a project when you

haven't got the studies done and the environmental analysis done?" On the other

hand he's saying: "Where's the money in this budget" — and we're talking about

the next six months — "to actually construct the bridge?"

The point that I tried to make earlier is that there is planning

that has to be done. There is assessment that has to be done. The environmental

issues have to be addressed. But at least we're moving forward with a vision in

terms of how to address some of the transportation issues in the province.

J. Brar: Now, finally, I see the minister admitting very

clearly that no planning has been done at this point in time and that the

planning has yet to be done. This money, I think it's fair to assume, is only

for planning. There's nothing concrete — no concrete commitment for the building

of the bridge.

That's how I see it. The construction of the bridge is going to

cost $800 million as per today's estimates. What we see in the budget is only

$25 million for the next six months and $50 million for the year. I think,

maybe, for the next few years we won't see that $800 million in this budget.

One more thing I would like to ask the minister on the

twinning of the bridges. Is there any time line? There's a commitment; we are

committing $25 million. Is there any time line as far as the planning to be done

or the environmental study to be done or any other feasibility to be done? Is

there any time line that the minister has seen before committing this money for

this project?

[1630]

Hon. C. Hansen: The exact detail around the time line for

the twinning of the Port Mann Bridge is a question that…. I don't have that kind

of detailed information with me. This is an interim supply debate, and as I

think I indicated earlier, it's the tradition in this House that the Minister of

Finance will respond to whatever questions to the best of his ability and with

the information we have available. That is a level of detail he would have to

direct to the Minister of Transportation, and the appropriate time would be

during estimates debate. I will make sure that the Minister of Transportation is

aware of his interest.

J. MacPhail: I'd like to move an amendment to Bill 20, if I

may. I'll give the copy to the Table. Here is a copy for the minister as well.

[Section 1 by:

(

a) striking out "$13 139 500 000" and substituting "$8 760

000 000" and,

(

b) by striking out " 6 / 12 " and

substituting " 4 / 12 "]

Section 1 of Bill 20 will be amended to read:

"Voted expenses appropriation

1 From and out of the consolidated revenue fund there may be

paid and applied in the manner and at the times the government may determine

the sum of $8 760 000 000 towards defraying the charges and expenses of the

public service of the Province for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2006, and

being substantially 4 / 12 of the total amount of the

votes of the main Estimates for the fiscal year ending

[ Page 12474 ]

March 31, 2006, as laid before the Legislative

Assembly at the present

session."

On the amendment.

J. MacPhail: We're here today to debate interim supply. As

the Minister of Finance noted yesterday, this is the normal practice in this

House and, indeed, throughout the Commonwealth. Again, as the minister noted

yesterday, interim supply is traditionally introduced prior to the end of the

fiscal year in order to carry out the operations of the government through the

first three months of the coming fiscal year. This is done in order for the main

estimates to receive full and complete scrutiny by the parliament. Indeed, in

our national parliament there is an exact date upon which the estimates must be

passed by the assembly and supply allocated for the fiscal year.

There is nothing untoward about this. In fact, that is why interim

supply is generally not debated at all but passed with unanimous consent of the

House in one day. That's the point the minister has been trying to rely upon in

saying that the tradition is that interim supply is passed without all of these

questions. He is right, given that what I have just outlined is the common

practice. Then members get on with their constitutional responsibility of

scrutinizing the spending plans of the government. That is, they get on with the

very basis of our democratic system — not a dime is to be collected through

taxation or spent through appropriation without the approval of the Legislature.

It's not a difficult concept to grasp, but apparently it's one that this

minister and the Premier just can't get their minds around.

Yesterday the Minister of Finance tried to do so. He tried to

explain this departure from the very essence of our democracy as being somehow

better than what happened before. He cites the 1996 election, when there was no

debate on the budget, but he glosses over the fact that there was approval of

interim supply, which his colleagues sitting with him on that side of the House

then voted for. He fails to mention that this chamber was in session throughout

that summer of 1996, passing full supply and debating all of the main estimates.

The minister says previous governments used special warrants, but he glosses

over the fact that approval was always sought, debated fully and received by

vote for those expenditures.

This is a really interesting one. He claims that the NDP

government in 1991 failed to pass its own budget and ran on special warrants for

an entire year. Here's the truth of the matter, Mr. Chair. The NDP government

was formed in November of 1991. By that time interim supply had expired and the

fiscal year of the province was seven months old. He glosses over the fact that

in November of 1991 that new NDP government inherited a budget that had never

received approval of the Legislature.

[1635]

Perhaps the minister would like to ask the current member for

Kamloops, who was Social Credit Government House Leader in that disastrous

government, how he used the rules of the House to stifle debate on the estimates

in the summer of 1991. Perhaps he would like to ask the current minister

responsible for children in care in this province why he voted in the summer of

1991, as a Social Credit member, to cut a cheque for himself and then run in the

summer of 1991, just like he is doing now. Or perhaps he would like to ask the

current Minister of Labour, the current Government House Leader, why he voted in

the summer of 1991, when he was a Social Credit member, to run from any scrutiny

in this vain attempt to hold on to his job back then — a charade the voters of

our province saw through for all three of these members and sent each one of

them packing for their arrogance and abuse of the chamber.

That's the legacy of these three members. No debate, no budget.

Unfortunately….

The Chair: Member, I think your comments are at this time

commenting on existing members of a House from the past, and it's

unparliamentary.

J. MacPhail: I'm sorry, Mr. Chair. I accept what you are

saying, but I'm unaware of what's unparliamentary. I will try to moderate my

language.

The Chair: Thank you, member.

J. MacPhail: Mr. Chair, I am recounting the legacy of those

three members. They are current members, and their legacy is well known in this

province. Their legacy is no debate, no budget. Unfortunately, that Social

Credit way of 1991 has now come back, reinvented as this Liberal government.

Why? Because this government introduced a set election date. Not only that, they

set the date for the middle of the first supply period. What were they thinking?

In his rush and bolstered by his arrogance, the Premier has

created the same problem the last Social Credit government left the NDP: a

budget that may not be passed until well into the third quarter of the fiscal

year. You might almost think it was by strategy — a strategy they learned and

gleaned from their current Liberal cabinet members, former Social Credit

members.

The minister is asking for six months of supply, supply that will

take the business of this province to the end of September. He says he is doing

so because the next government will need that much time to redesign the budget.

The minister's problem is this: the election will be held on May 17. The

election writ will not be returned until June 8, so the earliest a new executive

council can be appointed is June 9.

Here is what

section 6 of the Budget Transparency and

Accountability Act says. I'm reading from

section 6. It's entitled "When

estimates are to be presented."

"

(1) Subject to subsection (2), the minister must present

the main estimates for a fiscal year to the Legislative Assembly with the budget

for that fiscal year, on the third Tuesday in February in the immediately

preceding fiscal year.

[ Page 12475 ]

"

(2) If a general election is underway on the

third

Tuesday in February or as of that date has been recently completed, or there has

been a general election in a fiscal year before passage by the Legislative

Assembly of the final Supply Act for that fiscal year, the main estimates

referred to in subsection (1) must be presented to the Legislative Assembly no

later than 90 days after the post-election appointment of the Executive

Council."

Here's what this Minister of Finance is asking for. He's

asking for approval from this House to spend public moneys and to collect taxes

until the end of September because he anticipates that the House will not be

recalled until September 7. He's assuming that he will exercise his full right

under

section 6, which says only that the main estimates must be presented to

the Legislature within 90 days. They don't have to be passed by the Legislature.

This Minister of Finance is going to use that allowance to say: "Well, I'll

present the estimates by September 7."

[1640]

One of the reasons given for this bill before us today is that in

the opinion of this Minister of Finance and the government, the estimates and

thereby final supply could not be passed before dissolution on April 19. I'll

skip over the two offers I made to the minister to ensure that if the government

called the estimates, we on this side of the House in the New Democrat

opposition would pass them by April 18.

Indeed, I improved upon that offer yesterday. I said that if the

estimates were called, we would pass them by the end of this fiscal year — March

31 — thereby eliminating the need for interim supply completely. Both offers

were turned down.

Back to trying to follow the logic of the Minister of Finance and

his prediction that passage of the estimates will take a couple of months. Given

that, the people of British Columbia will not see the 2005-06 budget finally

passed until the beginning of November of this year. You combine his two

predictions — his prediction that he will merely present the estimates within 90

days after the writ is returned and his prediction that it takes at least a

couple of months to get the estimates through, and that's why we can't do it now

— and he is saying to the people of British Columbia: "You ain't gonna get to

debate the budget through your MLAs until November of 2005."

That is his logic — again, a full seven months into the fiscal

year, just like the Social Credit government of 1991 left the province in that

year. Of course, just as an aside, this logic is completely based on the

arrogant assumption that this minister and his Liberal colleagues will return as

the majority in this House.

The only conclusion the public can reach is that this Minister of

Finance is trying to have all of his budget and spend it too. In doing so, he is

returning us to a time when the budget process was ad hoc, secretive and abusive

to parliamentary practice and tradition.

There are a number of options still open to the government and

minister to remedy this abuse, and I have just introduced an amendment for one

of them. But there's also the Constitution Act of British Columbia. The

Constitution Act of B.C. is an ordinary statute readily available to amendment

by this Legislature. This government could have easily brought in an amendment

to remedy their error of setting the fixed election day in the first quarter of

supply of any fiscal year.

Why not? If indeed it is the set election date that caused the

minister to come before this House with the unprecedented request for six months

of interim supply, why not simply bring in an amendment to the Constitution Act

— that just requires a simple majority — to have the election in June, well

after final supply has been passed?

We have, after all, a set legislative calendar so we know when

that will happen. The Minister of Finance is also being a little bit

disingenuous when he says that to pass the estimates would, in effect, bind the

next government. Again, that logic simply does not hold. Just as what happened

in July of 2001, any new government this summer has every opportunity to

reintroduce a budget and have the estimates debate or to reintroduce another

interim supply bill, pending the introduction of a full budget. Both these

options would benefit from the wisdom of the newly elected members of the

thirty-eighth parliament.

It is this Premier's intransigence and arrogance that has placed

this House in the unenviable position of breaking with constitutional

convention, and he is doing so solely for partisan purposes. But I have

presented the solution in my amendment. It is a solution that reduces

expenditures and, therefore, is in order. It is a solution that is going to help

the Minister of Finance out of the mire of the Premier's making.

[1645]

The amendment says that instead of giving this government 6 / 12

of spending without examination of the main estimates, it will give the

government 4 / 12 of that expenditure, and they can, after the election — immediately upon

the return of writ and the appointment of executive council — reconvene the

Legislature and pass the main estimates.

Hon. C. Hansen: I enjoyed the member's history lesson. I'm

familiar with it, and I have studied it. I think she left out some of the

important details. For example, in 1991…. She's right, the government was

elected in November, I guess took office in November of 1991, that first time

that she became a member in this House. That government chose not to meet the

Legislature until the following spring, so there was no final supply ever

granted for that year.

Interjection.

The Chair: Order, member. The minister has the floor.

Hon. C. Hansen: I found it interesting when she talked

about the use of special warrants and tried to defend the special warrants. She

started out by saying

[ Page 12476 ]

that it's essential that the House approve expenditures before they are

spent. That is not the case in special warrants. That is a case where the

cabinet actually decides to spend money over and above what is appropriated by

this House, and then they come back to the House after the fact to get those

approvals. I know that the member used that tool when she was a Minister of

Finance but….

Interjection.

The Chair: Will the member please come to order.

The minister has the floor. You were not interrupted previously. Thank you.

Hon. C. Hansen: We have made a commitment not to use

special warrants. We will come to the House and seek the approval of the House

for spending beforehand. That is exactly what is before us today.

The member is right when she talks about the time line following

the election. Executive council will get sworn in sometime in early June. Then

the estimates have to be tabled in the House not later than 90 days afterwards.

By asking for 6 / 12 , and again…. Maybe just

for the benefit of those trying to follow this debate, we often talk about the

4 / 12 or 6 / 12 , and I know some people

are wondering why we don't just talk about it being half. There is a reason for

it. It's that interim supply is always broken down in terms of twelfths, so it's

either 1 / 12 , 3 / 12 , 4 / 12 ,

6 / 12 , etc.

The estimates have to be tabled before the House in early

September as a result of that time line. I indicated in the discussions

yesterday that under the new rules, the new wording of the Budget Transparency

and Accountability Act, it is not simply a budget update or an economic update,

as my predecessor brought in, in 2001. But it will, in fact, constitute

three-year spending plans and three-year service plans for all of the

ministries.

It is going to be a considerable amount of work. One of the

reasons we are asking for 6 / 12 instead of the usual 4 / 12 is to allow for the

time necessary to put that detailed work together.

The Chair: Shall the amendment pass? Division has

been called.

Members, according to the Clerk, under the time allocation

rule it is on division, not division.

J. MacPhail: I accept that. Everybody, just relax.

I acce