2006 Legislative Session: Second Session, 38th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

TUESDAY, MARCH 7, 2006

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 7, Number 4

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Page

Introductions by Members

Statements (Standing Order 25 B )

Parks and trails in Metchosin

M. Karagianis

SEDI HomeSave project

L. Mayencourt

Selkirk Montessori School

R. Fleming

Skills training in B.C.

J. Rustad

Vancouver District Science Fair

S. Simpson

Gravel industry in B.C.

R. Hawes

Oral Questions

Government support for coastal forest

communities

B. Simpson

Hon. R.

Coleman

Government response to concerns of

Sandspit residents

G. Coons

Hon. R.

Coleman

Hon. P. Bell

Investigation into release of

government records on personal information

H. Lali

Hon. M. de

Jong

Government computer system security

R. Fleming

Hon. M. de

Jong

M. Farnworth

Government action on skilled labour

shortage

G. Robertson

Hon. C. Hansen

Hon. G.

Campbell

Child care funding

D. Thorne

Hon. L. Reid

Petitions

K. Conroy

Throne Speech Debate

(continued)

D. Chudnovsky

J. Rustad

S. Simpson

S. Hawkins

Hon. R. Coleman

D. Cubberley

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Finance

(continued)

J. Kwan

Hon. C. Taylor

G. Gentner

M. Sather

[ Page 2765 ]

TUESDAY, MARCH 7, 2006

The House met at 2:04 p.m.

Introductions by Members

M. Polak: This morning I had the opportunity to meet with a teacher from my riding, Shawna McKay. She teaches in the provincial resource program for deaf and hard of hearing in Langley. She has taught elementary grades from four to seven, and has been a teacher for the last 16 years and a teaching assistant for four years. She's here representing the Langley Teachers Association. Would the House please make her welcome.

Hon. G. Campbell: It's my pleasure today to introduce Mr. Harry Rawlins and 70 grade five students from West Point Grey Academy. One of the students is Ali Harkness, who is the niece of the member for Surrey–White Rock. I'm glad that Ali and her classmates were here today both for the Governor General and to watch us in the Legislature.

Also joining us today is Sylvia Zubki, who lives in Kitsilano in my riding but teaches at David Livingstone School in Vancouver and is president of the Vancouver Teacher-Librarians Association. I hope the House will make them all welcome.

[1405]

N. Simons: I would like to welcome to the House today my partner of — I figured it out — four years today, Scott. He's in the House, and I ask the House to make him welcome.

Hon. S. Bond: I'm delighted today to be joined in the House by someone who made a very special effort to be here today to hear the Governor General speak. He is a grade 11 student at Prince George Secondary School. He is an avid debater and, in fact, just recently attended the national debate championships. He has been a young parliamentarian from the B.C. Youth Parliament at Christmas. His school involvement includes student council, district student advisory council and a school planning council member. He is also involved with UNBC with the model UN. I am convinced that he has a future in this House, if that be his choice. Please join me in welcoming, from Prince George, Adam James.

D. Thorne: I'd like to introduce Neil Nicholson to the House. He came over today to meet with the Governor General and was successful in actually shaking her hand and saying hello before she was whisked away. Neil is a very involved resident of Coquitlam-Maillardville. He's a past chair of the Douglas College board and is staying as involved as he always was. I would like the House to make him very welcome.

K. Whittred: I'm really pleased to introduce to the House a librarian from Queen Mary School in my riding, Ms. Ieke Glese. I've had the pleasure of visiting Queen Mary School on a number of occasions, most recently during Literacy Week where I was invited to read to a number of the primary students, which was quite a pleasure. Please join me in welcoming Ieke to this House.

D. Chudnovsky: Today in the gallery is Kate Van Meer-Mass. Kate is my constituency assistant in Vancouver-Kensington. She was here this morning for the Governor General's visit, and she told me that she wouldn't mind doing that job sometime. She's hoping there's a course that she can take at VCC or Langara to learn how to do the job. Would you please welcome Kate Van Meer-Mass.

D. Jarvis: In the House today is a young lady by the name of Mrs. Arlene Ewing, who is also from North Vancouver. Arlene has been a teacher in North Vancouver for 22 years and is currently teaching grade seven at Queen Mary community school in North Vancouver. Arlene is deeply involved in issues regarding early childhood development. Would everyone please make her welcome.

J. Horgan: I just want to acknowledge someone who is in the precincts today playing the drums with the Esquimalt Jazz Ensemble: John C. Russell, who used to be the drummer in my kids' band, Rock and Roll Circus. John is a fine young Canadian. He was very pleased to entertain us and the Governor General today. I want you to all give a warm round of applause for the Esquimalt Jazz Ensemble.

Statements

(Standing Order 25

B) PARKS AND TRAILS IN METCHOSIN

M. Karagianis: The furthermost part of my riding is the community of Metchosin, which celebrates its rural nature and protects it quite fiercely. Metchosin celebrates some of the most beautiful parks and trails in the region as well. Some are quaint, and others are part of the history of the community. For hiking, biking, walking your dog or taking a leisure picnic, there are many to choose from.

Blinkhorn Lake Nature Park is off Kangaroo Road and is a 45-acre park that was acquired from the water district in 1999. The trails run along the eastern shore of the lake, and it is a great place to go hiking anytime in the year. The Lusse Way Trail is much harder to find, is very steep in places and is good for both the serious hiker and the serious trail-biker. The Libra and Gemini trails are, again, little-known trails that wander through 48 acres of Crown land.

[1410]

There are unnamed parks and trails in

section 114 which are known by the community — 42 acres that were acquired in 1999. These trails run through park areas, the Deer Park Trail and to Metchosin Wilderness

[ Page 2766 ]

Park. The Sea Bluff Trail trails along the perimeter of a sheep farm with ocean views and picnic tables and a sign that says: "Please keep all the gates closed behind you so the sheep don't get out."

Metchosin Wilderness Park may actually touch a memory for all of us. It is the 100-acre park. Winnie the Pooh fans will know that the 100 Acre Woods is an important and significant story for all children, and the 100-acre park in Metchosin is reminiscent of that.

The more quaint and historic trails: Wayne's Rock, Bob Mountain and La Bonne trails. These come off the Galloping Goose Trail near Matheson Lake, and the Madill Trail can take you on a walk from William Head down into the Metchosin municipal area.

SEDI HOMESAVE PROJECT

L. Mayencourt: I'd like the help of the House to make something important happen in our communities. I want to assist low-income families to make the decision of a lifetime: to own their own home. We know that housing prices are through the roof, and for some the affordability issue has never been greater. SEDI is a non-profit charitable organization that is dedicated to enabling poor, unemployed and underemployed people to become self-sufficient.

If you've got a home, you know that this kind of asset is like a savings account. You see, your home can act as a cushion against any sudden loss of income or other financial risk. There are more benefits than just the financial ones, though. It is a fact that homeowners are more involved in their community than non-homeowners. They enjoy a higher success rate in their marriages, their family health is better, and their kids are doing much better in school.

SEDI is seeking provincial support for HomeSave, a project that would help families open a specialized savings account and have their savings matched by the province and the federal government. Participants could save for three to five years, and when they're ready to purchase a home, the matched savings can be withdrawn and used for a first-time home purchase.

In addition to the matched contribution, a community-based agency teaches families how to budget and save for the future. Here in Victoria we have just such a project running through the Gorge Social Services Agency. It is the family self-sufficiency program funded through the Ministry of Employment and Income Assistance. All we need is B.C. Housing at the table.

So here is a challenge for all of us to consider. Let's take the opportunity of the 2010 Olympics and the Olympic village. Let's encourage a small group of families to start a HomeSave bank account today, help them save over the next four years, and when the Olympics are over, let them have an opportunity to buy a home in the Olympic village. Working in conjunction with SEDI, I believe that an inclusive asset-based policy approach such as the proposed HomeSave project could allow low-income British Columbians a long-awaited opportunity to realistically save for and purchase their own home.

SELKIRK MONTESSORI SCHOOL

R. Fleming: Last month, on February 4 to be exact, a significant anniversary of an outstanding organization occurred in my community. The Selkirk Montessori School marked its 25th anniversary. Founded in 1980 by a group of dedicated parents under the leadership of Ms. Karen Colussi, the Pacific Montessori Society, as it was then known, has worked tirelessly to achieve what Selkirk Montessori School is celebrating 25 years later — an exceptional and caring community school.

At the Selkirk Montessori preschool, elementary and middle schools, children learn at their own pace through guided exploration. This education movement's founder, Maria Montessori, who worked the turn of the last century to promote the idea of expanding the human potential of our children, stressed the educational goals of independence, confidence, self-discipline and love of learning.

Students leave Selkirk Montessori with a secure foundation for a successful transition to further studies. Selkirk Montessori has changed a great deal over the past 25 years. Today it is located in an exciting new waterfront setting in a safe, earthquake-proof building that is fully up to code and fully wheelchair-accessible. The school now offers a full B.C. curriculum to grade eight, taught by Montessori-trained staff whose credentials exceed provincial standards.

[1415]

I'd like to personally thank Ms. Penny Barner, the school administrator, for her outstanding work in her community and at the Montessori School. Would the House please join me in recognizing the significant milestone for this outstanding registered non-profit school organization in my community.

SKILLS TRAINING IN B.C.

J. Rustad: I rise today to talk about great news for the people of Prince George–Omineca but also about the challenges this creates. B.C. is back, and our economy is booming. The unemployment rate in my riding is at or near historic lows. For the first time in decades, jobs are looking for people. But this creates challenges. Finding, training and keeping skilled employees is becoming increasingly difficult.

Our government understands this, which is why we're committing an additional $400 million in new money to meet the skills challenges. It's also why I'm holding a round-table discussion on skills challenges in Vanderhoof next week. I'm inviting community leaders and representatives from the area to create an open dialogue. Solutions come through open discussions.

An example of this is in health care. The people of Prince George had enough of the mismanagement in the '90s, and thousands rallied to ask for solutions. Our government listened and created the northern medical program, meeting the skills challenges in the north for the north.

We also undertook an aggressive hiring policy, and now the health care services in the north have im-

[ Page 2767 ]

proved dramatically. Today we're showing the same real leadership by recognizing and continuing to meet challenges. We built a new college campus in Quesnel. We've opened the John Brink Trades Centre of Excellence in Prince George. We're working on our local college to find ways to increase skills training and opening up opportunities for industry to take leadership through a $90 million initiative.

Real leadership is about listening to what people of our province are saying and then building solid, credible and visionary plans towards meeting our needs. This is what our government is doing.

VANCOUVER DISTRICT SCIENCE FAIR

S. Simpson: I'm pleased to speak today about a wonderful event I attended on March 4 in Vancouver — an event that I'm sure the member for Vancouver-Burrard, who also attended, would share my enthusiasm for. The Vancouver District Science Fair, which was held at Vancouver Tech Secondary School, brought together over 400 grades seven to 12 students from across the district to present some 200 science projects.

The projects were as diverse as you could imagine: hovercraft design; environmental projects looking at air and water quality; experiments around DNA, biology and chemistry, among others. It was a great opportunity for these young scientists to share their work, to engage with university professors, lecturers and students who volunteered their time to evaluate the students' work and, more importantly, to encourage them to continue their curiosity and their accomplishment in the science field.

I had the opportunity to speak to many of these young people and was very impressed by their knowledge, their understanding and their passion for science. They spoke about the future and about wanting to make contributions to building a better and more sustainable place for us all.

As we look ahead, we all know that science will play a critical role in ensuring the sustainability of our future. We need a better understanding of how our planet works, how we can use technology more effectively, how we can find alternatives to fossil fuels and develop approaches to grow that are more in harmony with our environment. These are big challenges, but I must say I was very encouraged by my time with these young people who offered such hope as our next leaders in the scientific community.

I ask this House to join me in congratulating all of these young scientists and the people who work with them, and to encourage them to continue to develop their skills, curiosity and their contributions for all British Columbians.

GRAVEL INDUSTRY IN B.C.

R. Hawes: For years, gravel wars have waged across much of our province because gravel pit and quarry operations don't mix well with residential life. While local governments accept that the provincial government is the permitting agency for gravel extraction, there's no real agreement as to which level of government approves processing or, for that matter, what even constitutes processing. In the absence of agreement, we have costly litigation.

Gravel is an essential product for maintaining growth, infrastructure and a functioning local economy. In the Fraser Valley, for the past three years a committee comprising municipal and regional government, the provincial government and the aggregate industry has been meeting to end the gravel wars.

[1420]

By jointly planning where extraction and processing can take place in future, tensions will be eased, litigation will end, and there will be some certainty. The planning process is prefaced by agreeing that we need at least a hundred-year supply of local aggregate. The entire region is being mapped on a yes-no-maybe basis. A no zone means aggregate production cannot take place. In a yes zone, everything can take place, including asphalt and ready-mix. Aggregate activity can take place in a maybe zone, with conditions that have, hopefully, been predetermined.

The process of determining future needs, where supplies might be, mapping the zones, and finally determining conditions in the maybe zones has proven to be extremely time-consuming — however, everyone agrees, well worth the effort. Once complete, the tripartite plan is to be enshrined in community plans and can be altered only with tripartite agreement. This is an excellent example of government and industry coming together to solve a problem through discussion rather than through litigation.

Oral Questions

GOVERNMENT SUPPORT

FOR COASTAL FOREST COMMUNITIES

Mr. Speaker: Member for North Coast.

B. Simpson: It is fitting that I'm now the member from North Coast, given that I wish to speak about the coastal forest industry.

Mr. Speaker: Cariboo North, sorry.

B. Simpson: Mr. Speaker, the throne speech spoke of transformative change without mentioning the crisis in the coastal forest sector. Many coastal communities and forest workers do not share this government's view that everything is rosy and getting rosier. These communities and workers are living with the negative impacts of mill closures and the threat of mill closures. The CEO of the Coast Forest Products Association captured the essence of this issue well when he stated on public radio that "it is very important to ensure the communities and the workers affected by change are taken care of fairly and honourably."

The needs of coastal communities are being ignored by this government. To the Minister of Forests and

[ Page 2768 ]

Range: why did the government not include a specific targeted program to assist the coastal forest sector in its budget?

Hon. R. Coleman: I thank the member opposite for his question. The member may or may not know there is a coast forest recovery group that meets regularly, which we put in place back in December, including the Coast Forest Products Association. We have looked at a number of aspects with regards to this. We made some stumpage changes and some pricing changes in January at the truck loggers convention.

We have also engaged in another process to go out and look at the ability to attract capital to the coast for future investment, and we are working with all the parties on the coast to try and find long-term solutions. There is also a report coming out from the Competition Council that the member may be aware of, which has some recommendations in it that I'm reviewing now with regards to the coast.

I think it is important that we all, on both sides of this House, recognize one thing. We have to work cooperatively for long-term solutions for the coast. We're not going to do it in a partisan way. We're actually going to do it by finding solutions for the communities on the coast of British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Cariboo North has a supplemental.

B. Simpson: Well, the minister completely missed the point of my question. I wasn't asking about what the CEOs of the forest companies needed to be competitive. I was asking about the needs of communities and workers who are going through a very painful transition. Last fall the Minister of Forests and Range was given a briefing by CIBC World Markets in which he was advised that the industry is not sustainable in its present form. The CIBC briefing also stated that "We need the equivalent of a Manhattan Project for the forest sector to get back into the game."

To the Minister of Forests and Range: why were workers and communities excluded from the Competition Council process? Why have they not been given a chance to get their voice into the process of reinventing the coastal forest industry?

Hon. R. Coleman: I have spoken to communities. I've spoken to mayors and councillors of communities. I've spoken to regional directors with regards to the forest on the coast. I've met with any organization that wanted to sit down and discuss the coast with me over the last nine months. That process is going to continue. There's $100 million in the revitalization trust for forestry on the coast, which is something we put in place for the transition — which the member is well aware of.

[1425]

The member is also well aware of the fact that not just the forestry at the coast but forestry in British Columbia faces an 85-cent-plus dollar today. The market has changed dramatically for the people on the coast with regards to where they can sell their products. There is a huge change coming for us to work cooperatively to find the solutions on the coast with regards to forestry. I intend to find those solutions. I started that by making quick short-term decisions at the truck loggers convention in January. That is now leading into the next phase and the next phase.

We will work cooperatively with anybody on the coast to find the solutions. But if the member believes in a panacea solution that could be swept on tomorrow to change the structure on the coast, it's not true.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you, minister.

Hon. R. Coleman: The fact of the matter is that we have to find the solutions long-term together to attract the capital, create the jobs and build the industry on the coast of British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker: Member for Cariboo North has a further supplemental.

B. Simpson: I know that the minister has spoken to a lot of people. The question is whether or not he's listening to a lot of the people who are speaking to him.

In 2001 the Pearse report recommended that government efforts and resources should be "directed from supporting failing enterprises to helping workers and communities adjust to changing circumstances." Yet an advanced draft of the Competition Council report states that the guiding principle of an effective government response to their crisis must be "evenhanded reduction of the social rents paid by industry."

That's a panacea — in short, even more concessions by communities and those who work in the industry, including the demand for a 50-percent reduction in industrial property tax rates provincewide. That's a panacea.

To the Minister of Forests and Range: will the minister commit today to act on the recommendations of both the Pearse report and the advice of the CIBC and engage coastal communities and workers in a process to engage them in the reinvention of the coastal forest sector?

Hon. R. Coleman: I'm pleased that the member has finally made the stretch I've been asking him to make for the last nine months, and that is that there has to be a stretch over to the reinvention of the coast forest sector in British Columbia. In the past, the member has had the opinion that there was some reason why there did not need to be that change in the forest sector of British Columbia on the coast.

Today he has come to the realization that change is needed. He's come to the realization, by quoting from those courts, that we've actually moved down that direction, because I already acted on some of the things out of the CIBC thing. I'm moving on the things from the Competition Council thing.

You know what we're going to do, member? Together, both sides of this House are going to find solutions for the coast of British Columbia.

[ Page 2769 ]

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE

TO CONCERNS OF SANDSPIT RESIDENTS

G. Coons: It is interesting that the minister has indicated he has met with groups and organizations, because the people of Sandspit and communities across Haida Gwaii, Queen Charlotte Islands, have felt they've been abandoned by this government. For months now, residents of Sandspit have been asking the Ministry of Forests and Range staff and the Minister of Forests himself to provide them with an update on the status of negotiations between the government and the Haida Nation. In the meantime, due to the government's lack of substantive progress on these negotiations, workers are unable to work, property values are declining, and the future of this once vibrant community is in jeopardy.

To the Minister of Forests and Range: will the minister do the right thing and commit today to go up to Sandspit, hold a town meeting to hear the residents' concerns and share with them the status of the negotiations with the Haida?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. The Minister of Forests and Range has the floor.

[1430]

Hon. R. Coleman: I'm not sure if the question is better put to myself or the Minister of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation. The member must be aware that there are some delicate relationships on the Charlottes with regards to negotiations, with regards to treaty and protected areas and certain aspects of the flora, the fauna and the animal culture that exists on the Charlottes. We're trying to work through all those issues.

A new relationship actually established the opportunity to work on that, starting last June, and we've been working with those groups. We have people in the Ministry of Forests that regularly travel to the Charlottes — and I mean regularly — to meet with folks in those communities with regards to the issues on the Charlottes.

Frankly, as we get closer, I'm more than happy to sit down and engage the communities if we think there's an opportunity to explain where we can get some finality on the Charlottes with regards to forestry and the other aspects with regards to first nations.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

The member for North Coast has a supplemental.

G. Coons: I think, as the correspondence to the minister indicates, that the people of Sandspit do respect the need to negotiate a deal with the Haida, as do the opposition. However, the government owes it to all residents to keep them informed, as every resident is impacted by these negotiations.

The uncertainty surrounding the negotiations is leading to a severe drop in property values, the out-migration of longtime residents and workers, and the potential closure of businesses and schools. Communities are in a downward spiral, all as a result of this government's failure to communicate.

Again, perhaps the Minister of Forests and Range, if he isn't willing to do the right thing and go to Sandspit…. Will he at least send a senior staff person, who knows what is going on, to meet with the residents and address their concerns?

Hon. P. Bell: The member should know that the Ministry of Agriculture and Lands has responsibility for land use planning in the province, and specifically what he's referring to is exactly what we're focused on right now. He should know there's been an extensive process engaged with all communities on Haida Gwaii. In fact, we're in government-to-government negotiations with the Haida at this point, and we believe there is a good, long-term sustainable solution for Haida Gwaii that meets the needs of first nations and meets the needs of the local communities.

INVESTIGATION INTO

RELEASE OF GOVERNMENT RECORDS

ON PERSONAL INFORMATION

H. Lali: Yesterday the Minister of Labour and Citizens' Services, in the spirit of atonement for the past sins of this government — which is actually becoming a daily occurrence with this Liberal government — had apologized for, as the minister put it, a screwup — not just any old screwup, but one which saw the release of personal, confidential records of tens of thousands of British Columbians.

In the course of his mea culpa, the minister said: "Oops. By the way, there was a second screwup a couple of years back." Will the minister tell us today just what motivated this Liberal government to cover up the first screwup and saw the release of personal and confidential records?

Hon. M. de Jong: Thanks to the member. Well, I do, in response to the question, want to take advantage of the opportunity to advise all members of the House and British Columbians, conclusively, that the tapes which were the subject of the story in the newspaper on the weekend and the discussion in this House yesterday have now been re-secured.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. M. de Jong: Further to that, I want the member to know that with reference to the other incident

[ Page 2770 ]

that I spoke of yesterday, in fact, four or five years ago there was a situation in which a forensic computer specialist purchased some computer equipment — it was equipment that had been scrubbed clean — and was able to retrieve certain information. That gave rise to involvement by the Privacy Commissioner and a renewed set of guidelines.

But I want to say this, finally. I am now convinced that there is no ironclad way to ensure that, whatever the scrubbing technology, you can sell computers or information-gathering material safely guaranteeing the security of privacy. The ban that was put in place temporarily will become permanent.

Mr. Speaker: Member for Yale-Lillooet has a supplemental.

H. Lali: I'm not doubting this minister's sincerity in taking remedial action. What I doubt is this Liberal government's commitment to keeping secure the personal information of British Columbians, especially through good times. Again, we have heard the apology yesterday.

[1435]

My question: will this minister stand today and give us the reason why this Liberal government chose to cover up rather than disclose when it first became aware that its disposal protocols for sensitive personal records were screwed up?

Hon. M. de Jong: Well, first of all, the guidelines are on the Internet. The protocols where there is a breach in guidelines are available for the public on paper and on the Internet. No one is trying to cover anything up. That's why, immediately in both instances, when information came to the attention of this minister and a previous minister, the Privacy Commissioner and his office were immediately notified, immediately brought….

I have to say this. The work that has taken place cooperatively with that office, with the media outlet that acquired the tapes in this instance and with the individual who acquired them at the auction has been exemplary.

I think we've got a big job ahead re-establishing in British Columbians' minds the confidence they need to have that their private information will be kept secure, but that's what's going to happen. It will be kept secure.

GOVERNMENT COMPUTER SYSTEM SECURITY

R. Fleming: British Columbians obviously have a right to know that their private information stored on the government's computer systems is safe and secure. Last June the Auditor General released an audit of the government's corporate accounting system. The Auditor General delayed the release of this report by six months to give the government time to fix dangerous computer security flaws that he identified. Can the minister responsible assure this House that serious computer security problems identified by the Auditor General have been fixed?

Hon. M. de Jong: We in government work on a continuous basis and take the recommendations of experts and watchdogs like the Auditor General very seriously and spend literally millions of dollars a year.

This last incident was not about security. The guidelines are there, the protocols are there, and a mistake was made. As a result, the privacy and the private rights of thousands of individual British Columbians were compromised. We're going to eliminate that risk by making sure that this never happens again, by ensuring that this kind of equipment is never again sold.

Mr. Speaker: Member for Victoria-Hillside has a supplemental.

R. Fleming: The auctioning of government computer systems may be one fiasco, but my question is about the Auditor General's findings that there are serious problems with the government's corporate accounting systems — with firewalls that were often down, allowing the possibility that third parties can access the government's system.

My question to the minister: can he assure this House that since the publication of the June report, there have been no serious breaches of the government's computer system that would jeopardize British Columbians' personal and private information?

Hon. M. de Jong: I will repeat for the member that assurance, which is that on an ongoing basis, we employ all of the available technology — the latest technology. We upgrade systems. It's an expensive proposition. It's a big network. We want to ensure that we have an efficient computer structure but also one that can offer that guarantee to British Columbians.

Again, I emphasize to the member that with all of that security, all of those protocols and all of those policies in place, that doesn't change a thing when a mistake is made and tapes or computer equipment are improperly sold. British Columbians deserve to know that their privacy rights are being protected, and those rights will be protected.

[1440]

M. Farnworth: This is about more than equipment and a mistake being made and materials being sold at auction. The opposition has been advised that at least one breach of security, which involved a minimum of 78 government computers and access through the highest level of passwords and involving several ministries, occurred. Apparently, the government found out on the sixth of February of this year that outsiders had been accessing the system for at least two months. Will the minister either confirm or deny that this breach occurred?

Hon. M. de Jong: The officials within the ministry are on watch constantly to ensure that any attempt to

[ Page 2771 ]

break into the government's computer networks, whether it's with individual ministries or the network itself…. Action is taken to ensure that doesn't happen. Attempts are made and are followed up on, and where appropriate, the Privacy Commissioner is notified. That, to my knowledge, has taken place in every instance where any attempt has been made, successful or unsuccessful.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

The member for Port Coquitlam–Burke Mountain has a supplemental.

M. Farnworth: In order to assure the public of this province that their private information is secure and that this breach of security was investigated properly, will the minister commit today to bringing back to this House by tomorrow the computer system trouble ticket ITIMS IM099729 and the supporting documents that go along with it, as well as the occurrence file numbered C102006-026, from the office of the chief information officer?

Hon. M. de Jong: I will make the inquiries that the member would expect me to make when confronted with the information he's presented to the House.

GOVERNMENT ACTION

ON SKILLED LABOUR SHORTAGE

G. Robertson: Today costs for capital projects in the lower mainland are skyrocketing, driven in part by the biggest skills shortage in B.C. history. Well, outside of the lower mainland over 50 percent of businesses are unable to fill job vacancies, according to a recent B.C. Chamber of Commerce survey. This government for the past four years…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

G. Robertson: …did nothing to prepare for this crisis. In fact, it cut the skills training budget in 2001.

The Minister of Finance said last week that skills training was cut because "there frankly weren't the jobs that required it." Does the Minister of Finance believe that waiting four long years to restore funding for skills training is a prudent way to handle what is widely acknowledged as the greatest threat to B.C.'s economy?

Hon. C. Hansen: What the member is talking about is a direct result of the fact that the economy of British Columbia has created 275,000 additional net new jobs since 2001. This is a success story, and it's part of the challenges that come along with a tremendous success story.

Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to advise the member that actually just today, I got some latest statistics on the number of apprentices that are being trained in British Columbia. As of April 1 of 2004, when the Industry Training Authority was first established, we had 14,676 registered apprentices in British Columbia. As of February 28 there are now 26,007.

[1445]

With the new budget that's been put in place for skills development in British Columbia — an increase of $400 million in this last budget alone…. Of that, $39 million is being targeted directly at the Industry Training Authority. Another $90 million is being put in place for tax credits to encourage more employers to engage apprentices in British Columbia. This government is meeting that challenge.

Mr. Speaker: Member for Vancouver-Fairview has a supplemental.

G. Robertson: It's interesting how much of a surprise all these new jobs are — all of a sudden. For four years nothing, and surprise — jobs.

[Applause.]

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members. Member for Vancouver-Fairview. Members from the government side.

G. Robertson: It does speak volumes as to this government's ability to prepare for the future and to….

[Applause.]

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

G. Robertson: I call on the government for one more round of applause for the skills shortage.

[Applause.]

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members. Has the member got a question?

G. Robertson: Confusion and mismanagement are at the core of this government's approach to the skills shortage, along with uncalled-for applause.

The Finance Minister said that there weren't the jobs to maintain or increase the skills training budget over the last four years, but others were saying just the opposite. The B.C. Chamber of Commerce, the B.C. Business Council, the Conference Board of Canada and the Canadian Federation of Independent Businesses were all raising the alarm four years ago that a skills shortage crisis was upon us, which required action and investment.

To the minister: do you agree with the Finance Minister that there was no problem until this year, or do you agree with the leading business organizations of this province that we've had a problem all along?

[ Page 2772 ]

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Hon. G. Campbell: The member opposite wants to go back four years. Four or five years ago in this province, tradesmen were leaving because they were looking for work elsewhere. Today in British Columbia we don't just have investment in activities in the construction industry. We have investment in tourism, in mining and in energy, and every single one of those industries is growing because at last they have a government that encourages investment and creates jobs in British Columbia.

In the last two years there's been a 73-percent growth in the number of people that are at work in apprenticeship programs. What's really important, to answer the member's question directly, is: do we listen to the groups that he mentioned — the Business Council, the Chamber of Commerce? My answer is yes, and that's why his side of the House will never again come back to this side of the House.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

[1450]

CHILD CARE FUNDING

D. Thorne: Since 2001 the B.C. government has cut $40 million from the provincial child care budget. Until today the federal government has picked up the slack, providing millions to the province for child care. In fact, B.C. had a five-year funding agreement with the feds worth $633 million for children under six, but Prime Minister Stephen Harper cancelled it. These federal dollars funded quality, affordable child care for B.C. families, and this government let that money slip away.

To the Minister of State for Childcare: what will you do now to fill the financial gap created by the cancellation of the federal government child care program? Will your government reinvest in child care for British Columbia families, or will you abandon it?

Hon. L. Reid: Our vision for child care remains clear. B.C. children will enter school better prepared to learn, better prepared to succeed. B.C. families will have access to quality child care. Families will have access to a range of services in British Columbia — early learning programs, services that we're going to deliver in concert with the Ministry of Education. Children with special needs will be better supported to learn as they go forward in the community.

Children will be cared for by qualified early child care providers. We are working in partnership with the sector. B.C. families will have access to community hubs where a range of services will be provided.

That is the British Columbia vision for child care. We will continue to deliver on that vision for child care, because it's vitally important that we have the strongest possible start in this province for British Columbia families. That work is underway. That work will continue.

[End of question period.]

K. Conroy: I seek leave to present a petition, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Leave granted. Proceed.

Petitions

K. Conroy: This is a petition from over 800 residents in West Kootenay–Boundary who are very concerned about the level of maintenance and care that the roads and highways in the West Kootenays and Boundary have had this winter of 2005-06. They want the Ministry of Transportation to investigate this matter and to work with Emcon to develop a higher level of service.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: Mr. Speaker, in Committee A, I call Committee of Supply — for the information of members, the estimates of the Ministry of Finance — and in this chamber, continued debate on the throne speech.

Throne Speech Debate

(continued)

D. Chudnovsky: Mr. Speaker, good afternoon to you and to the members on both sides of the House. I'm pleased to rise this afternoon to respond to the throne speech. I think of it as the second

chapter of my comments for this month. I was pleased last week to be able to make some comments about the budget.

I'll continue with my perspective by picking up where I left off on the issue of health care and privatization. As members will know, those on this side of the House are extremely concerned about a move towards privatization of health care. There are those on the other side who have suggested that that concern is primarily an ideological concern — which, from my perspective, is certainly the pot calling the kettle black.

[1455]

The move to privatization, or the suggestion of a move to privatization, needs to be dealt with, of course, with respect to objective criteria that we can look at, and judgments need to be made as to the quality of the health care that's available to the people of the province.

If I might, I would like to continue with some comments that I was making a couple of weeks ago about those assessments and about the concerns that we have here on this side of the House, and certainly that I have when it comes to moving towards privatized health care.

[ Page 2773 ]

The three most pressing issues begin with the issue of patient safety and patient health. I commend to those on the other side some of the terrific work that's been done across North America — and particularly in the United States — and across Europe, which investigates the health and safety of patients in health care facilities and compares privatized health care facilities to public health care facilities and finds without much debate…. There's not much controversy about what the results of those investigations are.

In virtually every case, those facilities that are run on a private-for-profit basis are less safe and less healthy for patients than those that are in the public sector. It's not an ideological argument. It's an argument that has to do with the health of the people of this province as we move — as the government has suggested that we will be moving — towards a privatized system.

So I ask of those on the other side of the House — and it's a responsibility of those on this side of the House — to have a close look at the work that's been done, the assessment that's been done, and the accounting that's been done with respect to the health of those patients who find themselves in private or public health care facilities.

The second concern that drives me in this debate about the privatization of health care services has to do with decision-making in public policy. When health care is a commodity, not a service, that market drives decision-making with respect to health care. It is in the nature of the market economy that commodities are bought and sold — you know, buy cheap; sell high. If we move to a situation where health care decisions and health care services are driven by what sells rather than the health needs of the population, we will be doing a disservice to the people of the province.

This government has said that it is moving in that direction. So we as an opposition and I, certainly, put forward the notion — not as an ideological notion but as a practical health care outcomes notion — that we move in the wrong direction when we commodify, when we make of health care a commodity as opposed to a service delivered to the people of the province. Decisions about health care and other social services — but we're talking about health care here — should not be made on the basis of what sells in the marketplace. They should be made on the basis of the needs of the population.

The third concern — not an ideological concern but a practical concern — that I have about the move towards private health care delivery is that we make an error when we begin to make private decisions about health care policy as opposed to public decisions. Now, I will be the first to say in this House that I don't always like the decisions that governments make regarding health care and many other public policy issues.

[1500]

I've said before in this House that I have been a Surrey teacher for almost 30 years, and the government of education in Surrey — the school trustees — has made all kinds of decisions that I don't like over the years. Certainly, this government has made all kinds of decisions that I don't like over the years, but they were elected by the people. That's democracy. That's the way public policy decisions should be made. They should be made by those elected by the people.

The people of this province do not want — and they're right not to want it — significant public policy decisions about health care made by some board of directors in Cleveland or in Brussels. It's an inappropriate way for decisions about health care to be made in British Columbia.

It's not ideological. It's about democracy. It's about who decides. It's about who we trust to make the important policy decisions with respect to the health of the people of the province. That should be done publicly. It should be done by the people who were elected by the residents of the province. It should not be done by private interests for private reasons. Even this government, which has made all kinds of errors, is the correct government to make health care decisions for the people of B.C., because the people of B.C. chose them. It's not some private board of directors that should be making the decisions for the people of the province when it comes to health care.

Now it's important, it seems to me, that we do have a discussion about reform and innovation in health care. We need reforms and innovation in health care. We need to make sure that the services that we provide as a community — not the commodities we make available as a private concern but the services we provide for each other as a community — are the appropriate services, that they're done efficiently, effectively and safely. That requires of us that we have an ongoing discussion about health care reform.

That's why this side of the House, the opposition, has made an issue out of the broken promise with respect to long-term care beds. There's two parts to the argument. First, our elders, the people who built this province, the people who built our families, deserve the kind of services which are appropriate to them, and in many cases that's residential long-term care service. In many cases that's what they need and what they deserve. So as an issue on its own, it's appropriate for us to remind those opposite and to remind the people of British Columbia that that promise was broken.

[S. Hammell in the chair.]

But there's an additional health care policy question that needs to be dealt with, with respect to the broken promise. That health care policy issue has to do with the availability of appropriate care. When the 5,000 long-term care residential spaces are not available, as we've heard in this House over the last few weeks — and they aren't available — our elders, the people who built this province and our families, the people who have amassed the wealth, the wonderful wealth and the privilege in which we live, are forced into facilities and into services which are inappropriate to them.

What kind of facilities? Emergency rooms and acute care beds. When our elders are forced into those beds inappropriately because it doesn't match the care they need and deserve, then that care isn't available to the rest of us and the people who need it.

[ Page 2774 ]

So when we say from this side of the House…. Our leader throughout the election campaign and since then has made a point of speaking to the need that that promise be kept. She's talking about two things. She's talking first about the right of our elders to be taken care of in the way they need and deserve. But she's also talking about the health of the system, the need for the system to appropriately serve members of our community. When those beds in acute care, in emergency rooms and in other places are full because our elders need to be cared for, then those beds are not available to the rest of us when we need them.

So that discussion has begun. It's a good discussion; it's an important discussion. The opposition has participated in it. It has driven that discussion, has pushed and pushed and pushed. Now we have another promise. We will be holding the government to account for that promise, because the last one was broken. The seniors deserve it, and the system needs it.

[1505]

There's another element of the health care debate that needs to be looked at really carefully. It's the part of the debate around health care reform that's taking place across the world. We need to be at the forefront of that discussion. It has got to do with the reform of primary health care in our communities. "Communities" is the key word there.

If you look at the Romanow report, the Romanow report which that side of the House seems to have lost somewhere…. Former Premier, leader, goes around the country, speaks to thousands of folks, asks them what they think solutions are, has a discussion with them, and one of the most important issues…. One of the most important reforms he talks about is reform of primary health care. Somehow this government seems to have forgotten that there was a Romanow report. They seem to have lost their copy. Well, we'll find them copies, and we'll show them where Mr. Romanow and the thousands of Canadians with whom he spoke look to primary health care reform as a solution.

What does that mean? What does that mean on the ground? What could it mean for British Columbians? It could mean for British Columbians that we have community health care clinics or facilities — use whatever word you want — with a range of services — MDs, family practice people, nutritionists, nurse practitioners, dental care, pharmacists — in a community-based facility. These exist in our province and provide fantastic care to the people of the province.

We can begin to draw people away from acute care facilities into community-based facilities, community-governed facilities where community boards are involved in the governance because they know better than anyone what the needs of their communities are. We can begin to draw those folks away from a system which made some sense in the past — this is innovation; we're talking about the future in reform — towards a system which we need in the future.

That's a discussion we need to have. Didn't see much about it in the throne speech, but it's a discussion that we need to have, that Mr. Romanow began with Canadians. Canadians were pretty clear about what they wanted. British Columbians are Canadians. We need to continue that discussion, and we need to find ways to innovate, to provide care for people in communities in the public system. That takes political will. It takes wanting to do that. It takes an assessment of our needs and a commitment to public care. Why? For ideological reasons? No. Because we're together in our communities doing the best we can for each other.

That's what public care is about. It's about us in communities doing what we can for each other in the best way possible. It's not about buying and selling health care, and that's not the direction that Canadians want to go.

I've taken longer on health care than I thought I would, but I want to get to transportation for just a little bit. I've had the privilege over the last few months to begin to look at and begin to learn some things about transportation policy in our province. I want to say that it's a privilege in this sense. A year ago if you had asked me if I would be learning about why trains fall off tracks and about bridges and about congestion policy and about widening highways or not widening highways, I would have responded in two ways. I would have laughed, and I would have been fearful. But it's not so scary.

These are really important issues, and if you work at it, you can begin to learn some things about the issues.

[1510]

I want to say that in this House over the next number of months and years, we will be discussing at some length, I think — and we've already begun — a project which the government calls the Gateway project. The Gateway project is a project for providing a transportation strategy that serves the needs of the people of the lower mainland and, more broadly, the people of the province and serves the needs of those who move goods in the lower mainland and, more broadly, in the province.

We believe on this side of the House that it's an important discussion and an important project. It's so important that we're not going to let it be political. Parts of the Gateway project are politics dressed up as transportation policy, and we don't think that that's the way to go with transportation in this province. We think we need to look carefully and in a scientific, ordered and step-by-step way at the transportation needs and the transportation solutions.

So for instance, the Minister of Transportation and the Premier have been talking about the Gateway project. I was pleased to attend the re-announcement of the re-announcement of the re-announcement of the Gateway project in downtown Vancouver a few weeks ago. The Premier made a speech, and the Minister of Transportation answered questions, in which they said: "This Gateway project is an important project that's going to cost $3 billion."

Well, I think we need to stop right there and say: "Is that the case? Is it the case that the project that has been put forward by the Premier and the Minister of Transportation is going to cost $3 billion?" I don't think so. I

[ Page 2775 ]

think it's really important that we be hardheaded and businesslike about these issues. It is the case that every single major capital project that the government has been working on over the last number of years is going substantially over budget.

Now, the Minister of Transportation plays a game about the word "budget," because he talks about the final contract that's signed as opposed to the amount of money the government said they were going to spend. Let's talk about the amount of money the government says they're going to spend. They say they're going to spend $3 billion on the Gateway project, when the Sea to Sky Highway, the RAV project, the Olympic project, the Bennett bridge in the Okanagan…. Every single one of them is hundreds of millions of dollars over budget.

We have a responsibility, an accountability, to the people of the province to say to government — and we say this to government, and we will continue to say it to government, the minister and the Premier: "We need to be clearer. We need to come clean with the potential costs of this project."

I noticed on TV the other day that the minister was scoffing at our estimate. We'll see. We'll be here to see whether the estimate that's been put forward by the government turns out to be true, at $3 billion for this project, or whether, like the RAV, they'll be starting to throw pieces of the project overboard at the same time as the price rises. Our estimate is $4½ billion, and our estimate is based on the assessment of those who are looking at the rise in cost of these big capital projects.

Their estimate is that over the next four or five years construction costs will increase by about 50 percent. Now, there are elements of the Gateway project that are going to be well beyond the next four or five years, but we're moderates over here. We're conservative. We think $4½ billion is closer to what it's going to cost than what the minister has said. We'll see, but we will continue to ask the tough questions. We will continue to hold the government to account. We will continue to get them to itemize the cost of these projects to make sure that what the people of the province are told is closer to what the real costs will be.

The second element of the Gateway project has to do with tolling. The minister has told us…. For this we need to genuinely thank him, because the debate on tolling is an important one and we need to have it in the lower mainland. The minister has told us — and he's been in the media a lot with respect to the potential cost — the proposed cost of tolling in the lower mainland on the part of the Gateway project which is the proposed twinning of the Port Mann Bridge and the widening to double the width of Highway 1 in the Vancouver corridor.

He's told us in the press that what that will cost people is a $2.50 toll going one way on the new Port Mann Bridge and $2.50 going around the other way on the new Port Mann Bridge. That's five bucks. The debate has been around five bucks.

As you know, Madam Speaker, because you live there, the people of Surrey are a little skeptical about that $5 to get in and out of Vancouver. The people of the valley and those going the other direction are skeptical. But, of course, that's not the whole story. If you look at the leaked document from which the minister takes the proposed toll, you'll see that those people who did that study talked about "…in addition to the toll for going back and forth over the bridge, there would be a ten-cent-a-kilometre distance toll on all the newly expanded and improved parts of Highway 1 in the project."

[1515]

What that adds up to, if you're coming from Langley, let's say, to downtown Vancouver and back — thousands of people do it — is about 33 kilometres. So you have your $2.50 to go one way on the bridge and your $2.50 to go the other way on the bridge and $3.30 to go one way on the highway and $3.30 to go the other way on the highway. It turns out to be $11.60. That's really the proposal.

We say: "Let's talk to the people of the region about that proposal." We don't reject tolling out of hand, although we've got some suggestions as to what the guidelines for tolling might be. I might have time to talk about that in a few minutes. But at the very least, we call upon the government to be straight with the people of the region. If you're talking about the proposal that comes from the leaked document, which it appears that they are, then you're talking about $11.60 — Langley to Vancouver and back to Langley — not $5.

Let's talk about tolling for a second. I want to make a couple of points about tolling with respect to what we should look at. If we're going to do tolling as a transportation demand mechanism as opposed to a way to raise money for a bridge so that you can fill up the bridge so that you can build another bridge so that you can toll so that you can fill up the bridge so that you can build another bridge…. Transportation policy experts tell us that if you're going to use tolling, it should be a transportation demand management tool, not simply a way to pay for a big, fat project. Then what should the guidelines be?

Well, the first thing you need is a free road alternative to the toll because some people — and to their credit, this is part of the government's guidelines themselves, but we'll unpack that in a minute…. You need a free road alternative if you're going to have tolling, and that makes sense because some people will choose the free alternative. What has the Minister of Transportation said is the free alternative? He's told us it's the Pattullo Bridge.

I see several friends in the chamber who live in Surrey, and one who lives in New Westminster. They know intimately, as I do, because I drove across that bridge to work years ago, year after year after year…. To suggest that the Pattullo Bridge is an alternative, a serious alternative, for commuters and for freight shippers coming from Surrey and the valley to Vancouver or the other way around is a joke. It's a joke. It's crowded, it's dangerous, and it isn't an alternative.

"Well," says the minister, "the real alternative…." "That's true," he says. He allows as how there are some problems with the Pattullo. So he says that the pro-

[ Page 2776 ]

posed — the proposed — south perimeter road that the government has been sitting on for years and years and years is another alternative. Yeah, it's an alternative if you're going where it's going, but if you're coming from the valley into the city, it's no alternative at all.

The first thing you need is a legitimate free alternative if you're going to toll one of the roads. The second thing you need is public transit as an alternative, because tolling, if used inappropriately, is just regressive taxation. That kind of tolling, if it's inappropriately used, discriminates against people who don't have the money to drive. We aren't going to agree to another policy, another set of fees which are not progressive but, in fact, regressive. You need public transit as an alternative for those who choose it, and more and more of us will want to choose public transit, and more and more of us will have to choose public transit.

But there are a whole bunch of people who don't get to choose. They can't afford to run a car — and the tolls. There isn't a public transit alternative for people in Surrey and in the valley, and that has a lot to do with choices that government has made about what the priorities for public transit in the region will be.

The third thing you need…. What the heck is the third? You need to be sure, as I said a few minutes ago, that if you're going to choose tolls, the tolls are a transportation demand management tool.

[1520]

That means that your income from the tolls has to go to public transit or else you're on a treadmill of building a project, paying for it with tolls…. It fills up — very quickly — and then you build another one, you pay for it with tolls, and it fills up very quickly — unless you get off that treadmill. Then using tolls doesn't make sense. Those are our guidelines. Those are our variables that we would present to those on the other side. Again I say: we don't reject tolls out of hand, but we think there needs to be some guidelines for them.

We have some questions that we would ask about the Gateway project — specifically, about the twinning of the bridge and the widening of the highway — that we think are very important and need to be asked, because on this side, we're convincible. As I have said many times, we're convincible, but we haven't been convinced. We haven't been convinced because the minister and the ministry and the government haven't answered the basic questions which people are asking more and more about this project.

Question one. Will the twinning of the bridge and the widening of the highway solve the problem of congestion? It's the fundamental question, and we don't have an answer to that. What we know is that in other jurisdictions, when these big transportation capital projects are tried out, when bridges are built and highways are widened and new highways are built, the pattern is…. It's a very, very clear pattern; it's been identified by people who look at strategic transportation policies. In other jurisdictions, when you build those kinds of projects, what happens is that they fill up, and they fill up very quickly.

They draw traffic from other places. They don't solve the problem. Indeed, the Premier has said the same thing. "You can't build your way out of congestion," the Premier said, and he's right.

The minister has told us that there will be studies that will prove that in this case, this is different. It's not going to fill up, and the studies will be there to prove it. As I said before, we're convincible on this side. We're convincible. We want to see those studies. Let's look at them, and let's look at them carefully. Let's look at the methodology. Let's look at the assumptions. Let's engage in a discussion.

Interestingly, though, we find out that those studies are going to be made public after the consultation process. They're working on them now. There's a consultation process on now — a bit of a bogus consultation process; I'll talk about that in a second. They're going to talk to the people of the region and discuss with them, except that there are no discussions in this consultation. They're going to have a consultation, and then after that's finished, the studies that purport to prove that this time it's going to work will be made public.

A second question that we ask about the project is: what about land use planning? What about the livable region strategic plan? Is this project going to be consistent with that? Third, what about the ALR, the agricultural land reserve? Is the project going to put increasing pressure on the ALR, pressure that we've already seen begin? The fourth question that we ask is: what about air quality, and what about greenhouse gases?

The minister tells us: "It's coming. It's coming — after the consultation." The study's coming after the consultation. We want real consultation with the people of the region. We want a real discussion with the people of the region. This is important stuff. It's going to cost billions of dollars of the taxpayers' money. We want to make sure that the issue it's meant to address is solved and that the other questions are answered.

J. Rustad: I'm pleased to rise today to respond to the throne speech. I would like to take this opportunity to thank once again the people of Prince George–Omineca for the honour of representing them. The people of my riding are very warm and practical, and it's a real pleasure to work on their behalf.

I'd also like this opportunity to thank my family. All of us here make a lot of sacrifices doing this job. I think it's a sacrifice that is worthwhile, but the sacrifice is not just us. It's also on our family. It's so important for family and friends to be supportive in this role. In particular, I'd like to thank my wife Kim Royle. She has been absolutely fabulous and a real strength for me in doing this. Quite frankly, without her, I don't know if I would be able to be doing this job here today.

[1525]

The throne speech talks about our plans to celebrate the upcoming 150-year anniversary in 2008, and this will be an exciting time for our province. We will not only be celebrating the progress we're making and also the coming of the Olympics, but we will also be cele-

[ Page 2777 ]

brating our history. There are many places in this province that are rich in history, but I would like to brag a little about Fort St. James.

They're celebrating their 200th anniversary this year, and the people in Fort St. James…. It's amazing what they have done and what they have gone through. They've seen some real challenges, and they've come a long way in that community. But you know what? They're optimistic. They're optimistic about the future, they're optimistic about where they're going, and they're optimistic because of what we've been able to do with this government. We have one of the lowest unemployment rates in history in our area, and the people are seeing the real benefits of what we're doing in this province.

Along with their optimism, I'm proud of what our government has been able to do directly for Fort St. James, and I just want to mention a few of those. We have put money back into improving our resource roads that are facing increasing wear and tear in order to deal with the mountain pine beetle epidemic. This is so important, because in order for our economy to boom and to keep moving, we need to be investing in the infrastructure that is such an important part of it. Putting those moneys into the resource roads is exactly what's needed for that particular area.

We're also creating additional seniors care opportunities in the community hospital at Stuart Lake. That hospital has been a cornerstone of the community for many, many years. It's not just about Fort St. James. It's a much broader area. There are many bands and many more people living in the outskirts who need the kind of resources that are in that hospital. Being able to expand on some long-term care facilities, some complex care facilities within that hospital, is a very important component for the community of Fort St. James.

We're also expanding on skills training opportunities to help meet the needs of our growing economy. We have jobs chasing people now. We need to be able to continue to support the economy and support the growth that we're seeing. In order to do that, we need to be able to continue with the investments we have in our skills training. I'm very pleased to hear that in our budget we have just released we have an additional $400 million towards that. Some of that will go directly into training in my area, and I'm very pleased to see the kind of benefits we're able to bring for the people in my riding.

We're also committed to creating a new passing lane on Highway 16 to help alleviate some of the increasing pressures from the number of vehicles travelling due to industrial demand, particularly the mountain pine beetle. It's not so much the volume of traffic that's on there, but it's so difficult sometimes, particularly in winter, to be able to pass or to manoeuvre when there's a series of trucks on the road. Being able to put in additional passing lanes is something that, to me, was very important.

These are issues that I campaigned on. They're issues that I know the people of Fort St. James as well as the people of Prince George–Omineca are happy to see our government undertaking.

The people of Fort St. James and indeed my riding have seen significant change over the years. Once again, they're looking at more change for the people of our riding. Change is not a bad thing, Madam Speaker. The throne speech talks about transformative change. This is not change for the sake of change, but it talks about the kind of change that transforms a province into a better place — into a place where hope and optimism abound.

One of the places that we focused on a great deal in the throne speech was talking about transformative change for our health care system. We're facing some unprecedented change in terms of demographics, in terms of what we can provide, in terms of the technology and genetics — the kind of services that we want to have for our people. We are facing this change, and we need to change our system with that. We cannot continue on doing the same things and expect a different result.

Recently I've had a great pleasure of visiting with a group of the HEU employees in the hospital site and around. I spent a half-day touring their jobs and going through all the various components they have and meeting and talking with people, and they're incredible people. It's amazing — the work they are doing and the work they're doing on our behalf, providing the services that the people of this province need. It really shows one of the challenges that we're facing.

[1530]

I sat there and talked with them, and I said: "How is it that we're going to be able to provide the health care system that we'd like to see in the decades to come, not just for today or tomorrow but for our children and for their children? We need to be able to have this as a sustainable approach."

I was surprised. They actually had a lot of interesting ideas. They came out, and they said one of the greatest things they wanted to see was a suggestion box — the ability for them to have direct input and bring forward ideas as to what may work for the hospital and what may work for the Northern Health Authority. I thought that was a great idea, and that's something I certainly want to work towards. It's very important that we have that kind of input and those kinds of tools and abilities for our front-line workers to be able to walk with us in this change that we need to have in the health care system.

Why is that so important? We currently have the best health care system in Canada. The Conference Board of Canada has just produced a report, and we have the best, bar none. We want to improve on that. It's not just enough to be best in Canada. We want to have one of the best systems anywhere to be found, but we need to be able to walk forward. We need to be able to look at what changes are working in other areas. We need to be able to look at what successes other health care systems have so that we can try to incorporate some of those ideas.

But at the same time we can't ignore the fact that we are the best in Canada and we have done a lot of great things here. We don't want just wholesale change; we want to be able to integrate so that we can find the solutions we need for the future.

[ Page 2778 ]

But that brings up a question, and that's: why, with all the great news that we have in our health care system — one of the best systems in Canada — would the opposition be calling us to follow the last-place system? Why would they want us to go from first to last, which is exactly what happened to us with our economy in the 1990s? And why did they allow philosophical ideology to lead their decisions rather than what's best for the people of this province?

I want to take a moment to talk about long-term health care beds. I had the pleasure of touring some of our facilities in Prince George and in Vanderhoof and looking at the quality and difference of the new facilities and the renovations that we're doing today compared to what things were in the past. I have to tell you, Madam Speaker, when I saw some of those rooms — 75 square feet of space per person, four people jammed in, four seniors crowded into a room with a washroom that doesn't have proper lifts, that's very difficult to even manoeuvre a wheelchair in…. I have to say, that's not what I want to see my parents in.

I want to see them have the kind of ability, to have the kind of respect they deserve. They helped to build this province. They helped to create the kind of opportunities we have today. Yet I find it amazing that the opposition keeps standing day after day after day saying that they want those facilities open. They want to see our seniors crowded into these kinds of facilities. That is not what I want to see for the province, and that's not what we want as a government. We want to be able to build the best kind of support system possible for seniors. We want to have facilities that show respect. We want to have facilities that meet their needs. That is what we're working towards.

Change is needed. B.C. is back, but it took a lot of change to make this happen. I'd like to touch on some of the change we've seen over the last five years to put in perspective the kind of leadership needed to continue to make positive change in B.C.

One of the boldest steps our government took five years ago when it first came to power was a policy of tax relief. That was a very controversial move, and many of the opposition here stood up day after day for years saying that tax relief doesn't work. They campaigned against it. They believe that we needed the extra revenue, that it was the wrong thing to do. But because of tax relief, the 25-percent tax cut that we implemented, revenue on the personal taxation side has skyrocketed.

[1535]

Throughout the '90s and going into 2001 revenue increased by 1 or 2 percent on personal taxation. After the tax cut we have seen revenue increase by 25 percent in just the two-year period following, and revenue has continued to increase at an incredible pace. That's because tax relief works. Tax relief puts more dollars back into the individual's pockets. It gives people the opportunity to be able to invest, to be able to create the kind of futures that they want in this province.

Furthermore, it's so important that we are competitive, that we are able to attract businesses, that we're able to create the kind of opportunities that truly have our province where it is today, and we'll continue to build on that success.

It seems so strange to me that even in the face of that kind of success, the opposition opposed it and continued to oppose it. But I will say this: they've stopped opposing the tax relief, and they've stopped talking about that. And I know why. Because even they can see the success that it's helped to bring for this province.

Madam Speaker, I'd like to put a couple of quotes on the record, because it's important for me to paint the picture of where we are in this province. Even the Leader of the Opposition has said: "My goal is to move back to a fair taxation system." That was from a March 4 interview. Also: "If we had been in power four years ago, we wouldn't have given a large tax break at the start of our mandate." That was from a speech from the Leader of the Opposition to the Council of B.C. Business. And finally: "I think what we need to do is move back to a progressive tax system."

Interjection.

J. Rustad: That's exactly what it is. That's precisely what it is.

That is saying that they are not interested in moving forward. They're not interested in our tax relief policies. What they want to do is raise taxes. That is exactly the wrong thing to do for our economy. We need to keep it moving forward. We have finally moved from last place to first place. Our policies are working. We can never go back to what things were like in the '90s.

It's vision that can lead us forward, and it's this vision that can make real progress a possibility. I ask this of the opposition: how can taking money away from the people of this province in terms of taxation lead us forward?

Our throne speech talks about change. It talks about defining a vision for the future. It talks about the need for change in health and education to continue with our success for today but also to build for a future tomorrow.

I wonder: what have the NDP said about this? They have called for more spending. Some would say that they have called for reckless spending. They want more money for health, more money for seniors issues, more money for education, more money for the disabled, more money for special needs, more money for training, more money for post-secondary education, more money for road maintenance. In essence, the NDP simply stand for more spending.

This, in my opinion, is a call for reckless spending, and that…

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Order, members.

J. Rustad: …is exactly what defined the 1990s. Nothing has changed. It's the same old NDP.

[ Page 2779 ]

I'd like to focus on change and opportunities that are coming with our role in the Asia-Pacific gateway for Canada and, indeed, for North America. Asia-Pacific is growing at an incredible pace, and we are the western province. We are the Asia-Pacific gateway for Canada to those countries of China and India. It's that opportunity that we have that puts us right in the centre. It puts us as the closest link. It gives us all kinds of advantages.

It also — because of their growing economies, because of the booming success they've had over there — has fuelled the demand for commodities. And it's those commodities that we have. That's created some growth.

The opposition here would like to say that that's precisely why we have growth, but it's important to note that it's not just commodity prices. It's policy. It is those kinds of changes. It's putting in the support that's necessary to attract those dollars, because those dollars can go anywhere in the world. There are resources anywhere in the world.

It's our policies that have made a difference, and you can tell that by the percentage growth. We have grown significantly faster in terms of our exploration dollars than anywhere else in Canada. That's because of policies. That's because of what we're doing in this province.

That's also because we are putting into place…. We recognize that we need to continue to build upon the success from the Asia-Pacific gateway. We need to build those kinds of relationships so that we have further opportunities.

[1540]

In India and in China they have a huge number of people who are now entering into the middle class. They have disposable income. They have opportunities. They want to travel and see areas in the world. It's the relationships that we can build and it's our strategy around that that will provide all kinds of opportunities for us here in this province.

Also part of that is the Port of Prince Rupert. I have to say that construction on that port started just yesterday, and that is one of the most exciting opportunities for northern B.C. that's happened in decades. It will create all kinds of opportunities in transportation and in containerization, as well as opening up our north, really, to the world.

I also want to take a moment to talk about our Gateway strategy. We heard just recently the member for Vancouver-Kensington say that this project is going to cost $4.5 billion, that more studies are needed and that it's not going to solve the problems. Quite frankly, I was surprised that he didn't just come out and say he opposes it, because that's essentially what he has done. I have to say that that project, which we have pegged at $3 billion…. We have pegged that based on projects that are right beside it. We have done all of our costing. We have worked contingencies into the project. We've worked contingencies around the overall project.

We know how to manage projects. We know how to manage money. All of the projects that we have to date are on budget or within our contingencies. We have done the work that we need to do in this province.

Why am I talking about the Gateway? I'm talking about that because it's so necessary to be able to move the goods for our province. It's not just about the lower mainland. It's about all of B.C. It's about being able to provide the people in my communities — and the communities of Fraser Lake, Vanderhoof, Fort St. James and Prince George — with those opportunities to be able to access ports in a timely way.

We lose about $500 million a year just in transportation of goods because of the congestion in the lower mainland. That is something that, to me, is unacceptable. We need to be able to fix those problems. We need to be able to have a better flow of goods in this province. The Port of Prince Rupert is going to be a great benefit, but we also have to make sure that we don't end up with people sitting for hours and hours just trying to get to ports down here in the lower mainland.

The benefits that we're going to see from those investments…. In particular, I want to go back and talk a little bit about the Port of Prince Rupert. That vision that we had as a government to help bring that forward is going to create an amazing opportunity for the community of Prince George, combined with opportunities they're looking at with the expansion of the airport and the possibility of inland container ports. It's going to transform what Prince George looks like. It's going to transform the kind of opportunities that are in that community. Quite frankly, I'm excited to be part of it. I'm excited to have the opportunity to be able to promote that and to be able to move it forward.

Why is all of this so important? It's important because we need to continue to improve the quality of life for all the people of this great province. You know, we want to become the best-educated, most literate jurisdiction in North America. We want to build the best system of support for seniors and those in need. We want to create more jobs per capita than any other province in Canada. We want to have the best environmental standards, and we want to lead the way in healthy living and physical fitness. But we can't achieve these without transformative change.

We can't go back to the way things were in the '90s. We need to continue moving forward. We need, in particular, to continue with the growth in the economy — growth that would be stagnated if that opposition were to happen to get in power and raise taxes like they've been talking about, because all they've been promising to do is to spend additional dollars. Those dollars have to come from somewhere. Don't let them fool you.

I'd like to take a moment to talk about our education system. One of the things that came out of the job action that happened this past fall, but indeed something I had been doing for years before I entered into this position, was my taking the opportunity to visit schools — to go in and see a little bit about what's happening in the classrooms, to talk to some students, but more importantly, to sit down with the teachers and

[ Page 2780 ]

the support staff and to have the opportunities to discuss their job, discuss the challenges that they're facing and to be able to bring forward those ideas and those challenges they're facing to my colleagues in government. I believe it's very important to be able to make those connections. It's important to be able to go out and talk with the people, to hear firsthand what those challenges are.

[1545]

I have to say that it's amazing, for all the rhetoric and all the politics that you hear around education, that teachers are rather quite optimistic. They know that they have the skills and abilities to be able to deliver on the education of students. They also know that we have one of the best education systems in the world, but they are keenly aware that we have challenges. In particular, we have challenges around class size and composition. Those are some real challenges that are facing our school system today because of the changes that have happened over the past 25 years.

The provincial round table, I'm pleased to say, is looking at those issues. It's set up to address those issues. It's set up to bring all of our stakeholders together, to be able to have those kinds of conversations, because that's what's needed. That's what the people of this province need, and that is what we're delivering on. It's a big part of moving forward in terms of being able to address the issues that we have in our province.

Additionally, we need to continue to try to find a new way, and we need to continue to find a new relationship with our first nations, first nations who were here many years before us. I think back to Fort St. James 200 years ago when the first communities came and settled, and it became a community there. The first nations were there before. We entered into opportunities, we entered into trading, and we entered into the kind of relationship that was profitable for both at the time. It's unfortunate that that has gone. That moment, that time has changed. We need to find some way to get back to that. We need to find some way to bridge over the past, to build that new relationship.

I'm very pleased with our government's commitment in moving that forward, because quite frankly, we have some real challenges in our society. We have challenges in our jobs and in our economy and in trying to keep things moving in our skills. First nations are a big part of that, and we need to embrace that, and we need to continue moving forward. I know we've made some great success. In my area just this summer we signed an agreement-in-principle with the Yekooche First Nation. Also, covering off part of my area, we've signed an agreement-in-principle with the Lheidli T'enneh First Nation.

I'm confident that we're going to be able to move those tables forward toward some final treaties in the very near future.

I'd like to talk a little bit about democracy. We were elected to lead our province forward. We were elected to provide real leadership for the people of British Columbia. Our throne speech does exactly this. We're delivering on the promise to the people of this great province.

However, it's necessary to add the other side of the equation. The people of B.C. also elected an NDP opposition, an opposition that promised the people of this province that they would not just oppose, but they would also propose solutions. Sadly, the Leader of the Opposition has not delivered on this promise. It's unfortunate that they have let the people down in this province, because they wanted to see a different NDP. They didn't want to see the NDP of the past.

I'm proud of the direction our government is taking. I'm proud of the improvements our government has provided for the province and especially for the people of my riding. I look forward to continuing to build upon our success, to continuing to provide a vision for the future and to continuing to provide real leadership for the people of this great province.

The throne speech outlined a part of that vision. It's a vision that doesn't come all in a day. It's a vision that builds over time. It's a vision that started in 2001, that built step upon step to get us from last place to first place, to move our economy forward and to continue to build a future.

This fall we had a budget and we had a throne speech that were focused around seniors. We have made significant strides in terms of providing services and providing the kind of care and the kinds of facilities that we want for our seniors. This budget and this throne speech have really been focused around children. It's been focused around the skills, and it's been focused around continuing to move our province forward.

In the future, as we move forward, as we look at change, and as we look at the kind of change that we need, our government will be there to continue to lead this province forward, because it is vision, it is leadership, it is creativity, and it is the kind of strength that is needed to be able to move a province forward.

[1550]

We have vast opportunities. We cannot squander those sorts of opportunities on one-time flops from the '90s. We need to build a solid future: the Gateway project, the Cariboo connector, the northern medical program.

I have to say that the northern medical program was not so much about just providing another class, or another course is available. It was listening to the people in the north who had a real issue and building a change and building an opportunity. We doubled the number of doctors trained in this province — the first time any new doctor training spaces were available since the early '80s. Even though there were huge and mounting problems, even though thousands of people rallied and complained about our health care system in the north back in the late '90s and early at the turn of this century, nothing happened.

It was our government that provided the leadership and the vision to make that difference and provide those extra seats.

It's the same with nursing. We are facing real challenges in terms of skills. We're facing challenges in our province. What happened? The '90s — no substantial gains in terms of nursing seats. What we have done is

[ Page 2781 ]

increased those by 50 percent. We're doing that because we recognize that with changing demographics, with the way our province is, we have to provide the kinds of skills, the kind of tools and abilities, so that local areas and our province can meet those demands. When you train people in the north, when you train people by the people in the north, you get people staying in the north.

That's the real challenge. We need to find ways to continue to keep people in the communities that they come from and to provide those kinds of services. In the '90s people couldn't find a family doctor. We were cancelling surgeries because we didn't have the right people in place in terms of the specialists. Today, because of policies that we've put in place, because of additional hiring policies, because of the training policies, we've been able to attract all kinds of specialists. I have to say: we have one of the best health care systems now in the Northern Health Authority. It's a jewel in the north, and it's one that I'm very proud of.

Quite frankly, I'm proud of it because people are quiet about it. You don't hear a lot of noise about the health care system in the north. You don't hear a lot of noise because of the great work that our government has done and, particularly, because of the great work that the people up there have done.

Madam Speaker, I'm very proud to be doing this job. I'm very proud to be able to have the opportunity to represent the people of Prince George–Omineca. I'm thankful for the opportunity they have given me. I look forward humbly to continuing to serve them, to continuing to work on their issues, to bringing them forward, and to making sure that our government and our province continue to lead forward to provide the kinds of opportunities so that people in my riding can build their homes, can build their families, can build a solid future and can have the kind of hope and prosperity that all of us in this province would like to have.

S. Simpson: It's a real pleasure to have the opportunity to come and to speak to the throne speech. As always, it's a great privilege to be able to be here and to represent the people of Vancouver-Hastings in this place.

I want to talk today on the throne speech about some of the underlying contradictions in the speech in terms of practice versus the rhetoric of the speech. There's a lot of rhetoric in that speech. I'm looking forward to doing that.

I mentioned a moment ago about what a pleasure it is to represent the people of Vancouver-Hastings. One of the reasons that's such a great honour for me is because of the nature of that community of Vancouver-Hastings. It's a community that really is exactly that: it is community. It's built on a foundation of people who look after the interests of their neighbours, who have compassion for their neighbours, who work together to find solutions to the problems that affect the people of Vancouver-Hastings.

It's a community that's very diverse, from an established middle class to many people who are very, very poor; from people who are doing quite well to people who have significant issues and struggle to overcome those issues. Together, people look for solutions.

[1555]

It's a community where those of us who are more middle class and who are doing better…. I would say that the vast majority of people in that situation know it's our task to work with our neighbours — and it's with our neighbours who may be doing a little less well — to make sure that everybody is lifted up. It's not about divisions. It's not about finding ways to separate the community and to push the folks who are doing less well to another place. We work hard at that.

The people of Vancouver-Hastings — I know when they talk to me — would be very appreciative if this government periodically would give them a hand in doing that. Unfortunately, that doesn't happen very often. This government is not very good at helping the people of British Columbia who have needs, who are vulnerable — the people the Governor General talked about today when she talked about people who are vulnerable. This government is just not very good at supporting people who have needs. They are much better at supporting people who are already doing all right.

I guess I want to talk a little bit about why I think that happens. I think one of the reasons is that this is a government that understands some things about capital, but they don't understand a lot about capital. They understand something about capital in terms of the economy. They certainly get that. I think they understand that a little bit. The problem is that they have no sense of social capital. They have no sense of environmental capital. They don't seem to understand that those pieces are pretty critical in the development of a well-rounded, comprehensive and competent set of policy.

If you want to have a society that actually works, you have to have a foundation within social capital. You have to have a foundation within your environmental capital to go along with your economy. Unfortunately, they're not really good at that on the other side of the House, and we'll talk about that a little bit. We know when we've talked about social capital that funding obviously is a big-ticket item, and there's no doubt that there needs to be additional dollars put into the organizations and into community to ensure that the challenges they face are met.

This government has reduced that funding across the board. I talked to agencies and organizations in my community who talk about the lost funding, who talk about the struggles to try to make it up, who talk about the pressures they face around training dollars that have disappeared and the pressures they face around youth program dollars that have disappeared. When they talk about that, the interesting thing is that they talk about the loss of the money and the loss of those direct services. But increasingly, what we see those people talking about when they talk to me about this is the impact in lost capacity. They talk about what happens in communities when….

Madam Speaker, just a bit of a point here. When you're developing successful communities, it really is

[ Page 2782 ]

about developing the capacity of those communities to meet the challenges that they face. That includes developing the capacity of the agencies and the organizations that work in your community, developing the capacity of the volunteers who come out and are the backbone of much of what happens in community — about developing the capacity of citizens and community organizations that come out and work to build the capacity of community.

Building of that capacity, building of that community infrastructure is an essential piece. It doesn't happen overnight. It's something that happens over an extended period of time. It's something that happens through people working together, building trust together, building confidence together, learning how to share resources in the community to maximize the impact in a positive way on the community.

What that means is that organizations that work in your community, both large and small organizations, have to learn how to get along. Sometimes large and small organizations don't get along so well, but they learn over time. They begin to understand how to build that capacity.

It's about having them learn how to access services; how to access each other's services and how build on each other's services; how to complement the work that others do so that you're not duplicating that work, but rather you're finding ways to, as successfully as possible, begin to develop an envelope of services that work for everybody. It's about those organizations learning how to leverage their resources to better meet the needs of community.

[1600]

This is true whether you're talking about the social service sector…. Certainly, social service groups in my community of Vancouver-Hastings are stretched. They're stretched by the pressures that they feel, by increased poverty.

As we've heard many times, Statistics Canada has told us that we have the highest rates of child poverty in Canada in this province, and that's felt. What we know is that children don't get poor by themselves while their parents are doing really well. Poor kids mean poor families. As a consequence, they tend to need those services more than some of the rest of us, and those services unfortunately aren't there in the way that they have been in the past.

That's because the infrastructure has been eroded, and the infrastructure has been eroded because the support from the government in British Columbia over the past few years has, in fact, been cut, and that support has hurt people in British Columbia.

We hear about it when we talk about training. There's an awful lot of encouragement and desire for training in my community — young people who are looking to be trained, who are looking to find opportunities. What we're finding is that those opportunities…. For many of these young people at this point, we're not talking about them stepping into an apprenticeship tomorrow. We're talking about training at a much more basic level.

We're talking about basic life skills for people who have been doing other things for a period of time, who haven't dealt with jobs, who maybe have had some problems with addiction — some other issues — and they're now looking to put their lives back together. A big piece of that is finding the opportunities not just to deal with issues around addictions but then to move past that and to begin to be able to deal with issues like: what do I do next? How do I build on the accomplishments I'm making in dealing with my personal issues? That means finding opportunities to train, to get a job, to be able to move on.

Those fundamental skills, the ones that people need before they go to get an apprenticeship or before they get to college, are being eroded. They're provided at the community level, largely by community organizations, and increasingly, what I'm seeing in my constituency is that those organizations that deliver those services very, very well simply aren't delivering them in the same way that they used to. They're not doing that, because they don't have the resources to do that.

We're seeing it in community justice. I talk to people in the community policing centre. I talk to the organizations that are working around the community policing centre providing justice programs, and they tell me the same thing: they're seeing increased pressures on them around service demands, and they're seeing that without the ability to deliver those services, because they don't have the supports.

Housing, obviously, is a very big issue. It's very hard for people to deal with the other issues in their lives if they're not dealing with the question of their housing. As we know, housing is going to fast become the issue forgotten by this government. That's pretty clear.

Agency after agency that delivers non-profit housing in our communities — I've spoken to many of them over the last couple of months — all tell me the same thing. They're all deathly scared of where they think this government is going. They're all very, very concerned that this government is going to walk away from the delivery of housing units. They're going to walk away from meeting the needs of those tens of thousands of people in British Columbia who are in desperate need of affordable and reasonable-quality housing.

But that infrastructure has fallen apart too, and many of us are very afraid that we're going to see over the coming months an even greater erosion in the area of housing. We'll see.

Community health. I have community health services in my community, and they're services that aren't delivered by the government. They're delivered by non-profits. They're very effective services. They provide a range of services for British Columbians. They provide a range of services for the people in my community. What they do in doing that is they don't just meet what you might call conventional health services. They deal with preventative matters. They look at those linkages to other organizations. They look at those services that need to be provided. They tell me, and it gets back gets back to the question of housing.

When I talk to people who deliver community health services in Vancouver-Hastings and say, "What's the single biggest issue around community health?"

[ Page 2783 ]

they tell me: "Oh, probably housing." If people don't have a decent place to live, quite frankly, they're not going to meet their other objectives and their other aspirations.

[1605]

We see that with youth services. We see that with mental health services. We see it in the area of community planning. The erosion of this social capital has really arisen because of cuts in funding that have literally taken millions of dollars out of these critical services in communities across British Columbia, but it's also about the change in the way those dollars get delivered.

One of the things that I hear from agencies and organizations is about the change in contracting and in the requests-for-proposal methods that have been developed by this government and adopted by this government in a whole range of areas. They're changes that really pit agencies and organizations against each other. They're changes where organizations that have delivered excellent services over the years all of a sudden are no longer eligible to do that. They delivered those services at the very local level, and now the government has said: "Well, we're looking to deliver those services in a regional style, so consequently you're no longer eligible to bid on those projects."

Some of them end up subcontracting from somebody else to deliver those services, but they certainly don't have the same kind of control. They don't have the same ability to respond to community needs, because they've become part of a larger bureaucracy — regional bureaucracy — rather than keeping it at a very local level where they can in fact deliver those services in an effective and local way.

We see it because of lack of certainty about funding. Instead of having rolling funding that would approve funding from year to year from agencies that are doing good work and would do reviews of the work they do, we see this year-to-year funding. We see funding in ways that don't allow for long-term planning.

If we're going to get around that, we need to do things in a slightly different way. We certainly need to begin to engage those agencies, I believe, in a much more collaborative way in the review of how that funding is provided and what the minimum standards around that funding should be.

We need to ensure that those agencies…. If we're going to support agencies in the community — and we absolutely have to do that — then we need to make the commitment to ensure that those agencies and organizations have the capacity to be able to meet the needs in the community, to respond when they need to respond and to represent the interests of our communities. We need to ensure that the folks from those communities, that decision-making around how funds get allocated…. At some point, those communities that are the recipients of those funds need to have a stronger voice in how decisions are made about who delivers that funding and how that funding gets delivered.

We also see these issues around environmental infrastructure, and we need environmental infrastructure and environmental capacity, which really ensure that we're doing a number of things. First of all, we need to ensure that we're actually delivering. We have the capacity for the science it takes to make decisions about our environmental integrity, and that means investing more dollars, quite frankly, in the science side of the environment. I don't believe that we do invest enough dollars in that area of the environment, and I think we need to do that in order to ensure that the decisions we make are the very best they can be.

It's about ensuring that we have the capacity to provide the enforcement of our regulatory regime. One of the things that we see…. It's a decision of this government, and it's not an unreasonable decision that the government decided that they wanted to cut much of the regulations. So they went to a results-based approach.

But when you do that, and it's not a bad thing to do, that only works well if you have the capacity within government to provide the audit and the oversight functions necessary to ensure that those organizations — whether it be business, whether it be local communities, whoever — in fact are doing what you expect them to be doing to meet the objectives that you've set. That means having the audit and the oversight function in place to be able to review that and stay on top of it. Part of the problem we have is that we don't necessarily have that function in the way that we need to have it in British Columbia right now. So we need to do a better job of that.

[1610]

It's about education in the environment. We have a challenge. We need to improve our education in the environment. We need to do a better job of talking to students and to young people about the environmental issues. We need to bring the environment into our school system in a way that we haven't done, and we need to begin to build a sense of urgency within young people about the challenges around the environment that we need to meet collectively.

What we know, when we talk about sustainability, is that all of the regulations and rules in the world will only get you so far. Unless people on the ground at the community level are, in fact, embracing that and saying, "Yes, we agree with this, and we need to begin to move forward and make the changes that are being talked about — we support those changes," they're not going to occur. We need to do that on the ground. It's a long-term project, and that means starting in the schools. I'm afraid that we don't have the environmental education in our school system that we need, and I think that the government needs to look at better support there.

We need to do a better job of protecting and enhancing the assets we have. The largest asset we have that we're doing a poor job on, quite frankly, from an environmental context, is probably our parks system. We're not doing a good job with our parks. We've allowed our parks to erode, to degrade over time. We're not putting the resources into the parks that we need to put in, and we need to invest in a much more signifi-

[ Page 2784 ]

cant way in ensuring those parks are moving forward in the public interest. I'm hopeful we'll have much more opportunity to talk about parks as we move on over the next number of years.

Unfortunately, Madam Speaker, the conduct of the government over this time has assured that neither our social nor our environmental capital are going to be very well met — by the conduct and actions of this government. The problem when you allow your social and your environmental capital to erode is that it takes a lot more than money to rectify and fix the problem. Money doesn't do it on its own.

These things, as I think I've said before, are built over time. You build social capital over time. You build it by building the organizations in your communities, by building the community spirit, by engaging and supporting your activists who are doing civic duty. Those networks, that credibility, can be undone very quickly when you don't have supports in place, and yet it's a very difficult thing to put the pieces back in place after you've let it fall apart. I'm afraid that we've let it erode in many communities in British Columbia, and we need to invest in putting that social capital and social infrastructure back together.

Part of the problem with this is that the government, I believe, has not really adopted a sustainability model for how they think about public policy. Now, it's interesting. The government, the Premier in the throne speech…. We talked about sustainability in health care, but sustainability in health care is about money. It's not about the sustainability of the system; it's about money. Sustainability is about balance. That's what sustainability is supposed to be about: bringing balance.

Sustainability in the views of the government is about something very, very different. It's an objectionable term the way it's used by the government. In the case of health care, it's a code word for accelerating privatization. It's a code word for embracing the likes of the Copeman clinic. It's a code word for saying: "It's okay, if you can pay extra money, to move to the front of the line." That's not okay with British Columbians. I'm very hopeful and very expectant that if we have a real consultation over the coming months, that's going to become very apparent to the government.

Part of what happens here, though, as we head in this direction is…. We need to understand that the government has mastered a number of things on the other side of the House. Some of the things they've mastered…. They've mastered this ability and practice of accepting no responsibility for their actions. It's remarkable the way the government can always find somebody else to blame for what goes wrong in British Columbia. It's a government that have mastered the ability to off-load public responsibility onto somebody else and then are able to say: "It's not our fault. It's somebody else's fault."

[1615]

It's a government that is always looking to blame somebody — whether they're blaming a health authority, a school district or a local council or they're finding a consultant to blame. Sadly, too often they end up actually blaming those who are poor and more vulnerable. It's not a good way to do business.

In the throne speech we heard a lot about consultation. We heard that the government was going to have a dialogue on health care and the changes there. We heard that the Premier and the Education Minister are going to visit school boards across the province. We heard that we're going to be in a dialogue to deal with a number of the challenges in the first nations communities. Well, we can only hope that those consultations and that dialogue will go forward, but we can hope that the Gateway program that my friend from Vancouver-Kensington spoke about earlier — and, I believe, the member for Prince George–Omineca — isn't in fact the model of consultation that we're going to use.

What we've seen in the Gateway program is a number of promises, for months and months, about the provision of information about environmental analysis and a whole range and series of information that the Minister of Transportation made commitments about in estimates last year. None of that information, by the way, has materialized, but that's okay. We know that on the Gateway program the government has essentially dismissed the Greater Vancouver regional district and their concerns. They have dismissed all of the councils that don't share their view of the world.

They've set a consultation program in place that involves a series of open houses and a questionnaire that you can check off boxes on to see what you think about this and that, but no real opportunity for a discussion. Quite clearly, there's no real opportunity for discussion about what the choices are. There's no real opportunity for a discussion about whether in fact the choices that the government is proposing are ones that are going to meet the needs of British Columbians, of people who live in the lower mainland; or whether the choices that the government is proposing are actually going to solve the congestion problem, a very real problem that exists for people south of the Fraser.

Is it going to solve it for three years, or is it going to solve it for 20? Experts will tell you it's closer to three; the Minister of Transportation will tell you it's 20. But there's no room for this discussion to happen in a thoughtful way, to actually figure out what the answer to that question is. There's no room to put evidence on the table and talk about what the solutions really are. I do think, as a number of members who have talked about this issue have said, that in fact, we all share a desire to solve that problem.

What we don't necessarily agree about is the discussion that's going on at this point in time about how to get there. We don't agree with the predetermined solution of the government that was set in stone by the Minister of Transportation before he ever got to the table to talk to the people who have an interest in this, the stakeholders.

The minister has essentially said: "This is what we're going to do. This is how we're going to proceed. I will talk to you now that the decisions have essentially been made." That's not consultation, and we can only

[ Page 2785 ]

hope that the discussion about health care, the discussion that the Premier and the Education Minister are going to have in our school boards and the discussion with first nations maybe will be a little more thoughtful, more legitimate and more credible than the process that they're following on the Gateway program.

We face many big changes in British Columbia. We face many challenges. We really do need to marshal our resources to accomplish our goals, and that means engaging our communities. It means bringing many more people into the discussion than the 79 of us in this room. It means opening that discussion up to people across British Columbia. That means providing resources for those communities to build their social capital, to build their capacity to meet their own challenges and, as importantly, to build their capacity to represent their own interests, whether it comes to this House, to this government, to the federal government or to others.

Part of our challenge is to make our communities as strong as we can make them. They will advocate for their interests and will, in most cases, make the right choices, and they certainly will provide strong voices. They will oblige us, as they should, to justify decisions that we take and to put forward and to be accountable for decisions that we take, and that's a good thing.

[1620]

That will only occur, though, if they have capacity, and I would hope the government would be prepared to support communities to build that capacity to stand up for their own interests.

So if the government is truly serious about the golden decade, it really does begin in our communities. It begins with respect, it begins with vigilance, and it begins with those things that the Governor General spoke about in the very inspiring speech that she made here in this House earlier today.

It was a speech about respect and vigilance. It was a speech that called for us to make the extra effort, to go the extra mile and to make sure that, in the decisions that we're making in this place, we always remember that it's our task in British Columbia to raise everybody up, to make sure that everybody's doing better and we all share in the opportunity and the prosperity that the government continues to tell us about. If we don't do that, if we pick winners and losers, if we let there be winners and losers, then we're not doing our job.

I would hope that every member here took heart from what Her Excellency had to say today when she spoke about that, about raising people up. I think if we take that to heart, if we do the work that we need to do, if that's reflected in government policy, then this will be a better