2007 Legislative Session: Third Session, 38th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

TUESDAY, MARCH 6, 2007

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 15, Number 9

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Page

Introductions by Members

Statements (Standing Order 25 B )

Contributions of immigrants

J. Yap

Fred Thomas

C. Wyse

Safe schools

L. Mayencourt

Alouette Home Start Society

M. Sather

Commonwealth awards for rescues

R. Lee

Vancouver downtown east side

J. Kwan

Oral Questions

Patient discharge policy at St. Paul's

Hospital

C. James

Hon. G. Abbott

N. Simons

Long-term care assessment

G. Coons

Hon. G. Abbott

Children and Family Development

Ministry policy on e-mails

M. Karagianis

Hon. T.

Christensen

Seismic upgrades for schools

D. Cubberley

Hon. S. Bond

Fraser River dike system

M. Farnworth

Hon. J. Les

Firefighter services for 2010 Olympics

C. Puchmayr

Hon. J. Les

Regulation of emissions from Vancouver

region greenhouses

S. Simpson

Hon. B. Penner

Petitions

C. Trevena

Tabling Documents

Public

Service Benefit Plan Act, annual report for year ending March 31, 2006

Throne Speech Debate (conitnued)

B. Simpson

L. Mayencourt

C. Trevena

Hon. W. Oppal

D. Routley

R. Hawes

B. Ralston

Hon. M. de Jong

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Labour and Citizens' Services

Hon. O. Ilich

C. Puchmayr

C. Evans

B. Simpson

[ Page 5837 ]

TUESDAY, MARCH 6, 2007

The House met at 1:35 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Introductions by Members

Hon. O. Ilich: We're being visited today and yesterday by

members of the British Columbia Professional Fire Fighters Association. So it is

with great pleasure that I welcome them to the House.

These are the people that we want to have in our community. We

want to know that they're always there. We never want to see them other than

that. I know they provide terrific services. They are involved in all sorts of

charitable works, and they do all sorts of things in keeping our communities

safe and happy.

They are currently in Victoria, along with other British Columbia

firefighters, meeting with our MLAs. I had the great pleasure of addressing them

yesterday morning, and I look forward to continuing our positive relationship

with them.

Would the House please help me welcome all the members of the

Professional Fire Fighters Association.

C. Puchmayr: On behalf of this side of the House, I too

want to make welcome all the firefighters that are here this week in Victoria,

speaking to us about very important issues that come before them. As opposed to

going through them all individually, I want everyone again to give the

firefighters a warm welcome to this chamber.

Hon. W. Oppal: I have the pleasure of introducing two

members of the Law Society of British Columbia, the governing body for lawyers

who practise in this province. We have with us today Anna Fung, who is the

president of the Law Society, and Tim McGee, the executive director of the Law

Society of British Columbia.

J. Horgan: It's my pleasure to rise today and introduce two

very, very old friends of mine: Steve Hanna, who saved my life once, and Mike

Game, who almost took it once. They both also happen to be professional

firefighters, but that's just an aside. I'm proud to recognize that they've come

to this place. They have prominent roles in the community in Saanich, where I

grew up, and the member for Saanich South is their MLA. I'm just delighted that

they came here to put forward their issues so that all of us can understand

them.

Please make them welcome, particularly Steve Hanna.

B. Lekstrom: It's my pleasure today to introduce a number

of guests visiting us from the great city of Dawson Creek in the beautiful Peace

country. Joining us today — and they're all very good friends of mine — is His

Worship Mayor Calvin Kruk, the mayor of Dawson Creek.

I will take the opportunity to mention two close friends and

people I've played a great number of nights of hockey with: Ted Cousens and

Dennis Kesterkey, who are both down from Dawson Creek doing work on behalf of

the firefighters here to visit with the MLAs. Please make them welcome.

H. Bains: Also in the vicinity are firefighters from

Surrey. Over the years we have become very good friends. In the team we have

Larry Thomas, Mike McNamara, Terry Hunt, Mike Starchuk and Mike Murphy.

Would the House please join me and extend the warmest welcome to

them.

B. Bennett: In the gallery someplace above us are Doug and

Judy Walker from Vancouver. Doug is the CEO of the Nature Trust of British

Columbia. They have a reception for MLAs at Government House tonight starting at

6:30.

Please help me make Doug and Judy welcome.

S. Fraser: I'm going to break protocol, since it's already

been broken. Ben Halychuk and John Haley are in the gallery today, and they are

constituents, friends and firefighters. John and I served on the Tofino

volunteer fire department quite a few years ago. He was the chief, and I was the

disciple.

Please help me in making them feel very welcome today.

Hon. M. Coell: I would like the House to welcome a

constituent of mine, Ryder Bergerud, who is a grade 10 student in Gulf Islands

Secondary School. He's earning credits toward his planning 10 course by

attending question period, and I think he deserves very high marks for that.

[1340]

D. Thorne: I have a couple of my firefighters here today

from Coquitlam, and I must say it's a pleasure to me to be lobbied instead of

helping them to lobby, as I did when I was a Coquitlam councillor — Randy

Hammell and Steve Farina.

M. Farnworth: It's my pleasure to introduce a constituent

and also a member of the Port Coquitlam fire department — that is, Al Coplin.

Will the House please make him most welcome.

C. Trevena: Mr. Speaker, I know that an agreement was made,

but everybody else has broken it, so I also would like to ask the House to make

welcome Mark McKenzie and Reid Wharton, two Campbell River firefighters here in

the gallery. Many of you will have met Reid last night. He was greeting members

at the reception. I hope the House will make these two Campbell River

firefighters very welcome.

R. Fleming: It gives me pleasure to add to the

introductions firefighters from my constituency —

[ Page 5838 ]

Gary Birtwhistle and Rick Farrell from the Victoria fire department and Mitch

Williams from the Saanich fire department.

Mr. Speaker: On behalf of all of us, we welcome all the

professional firefighters across British Columbia.

Statements

(Standing Order 25

b) CONTRIBUTIONS OF IMMIGRANTS

J. Yap: I rise in the House today to focus our attention on

an ever-increasing portion of British Columbia's population — that being our

immigrant population — and the significant contributions these people have made

and continue to make towards the province's economy, community and culture.

We live in a nation of immigrants. Most of us in this House can

easily trace our ancestors back to a foreign nation within only a few

generations, and some of us sitting here today, including myself, are

immigrants. Over one-quarter of the population of this province was born outside

of Canada. British Columbia continues to draw the best and the brightest from

around the world, as well as being a new home for those who are seeking to start

a new life. Not only do we accept immigrants here in British Columbia, but we

roll out the welcome mat and greet them with open arms.

The provincial nominee program offers accelerated immigration for

skilled workers and entrepreneurs, encouraging people from around the world to

make B.C. their home. In my own community we're lucky to have volunteer

organizations that make it their goal to ensure that Richmond is a great place

to feel welcome and eventually thrive, upon their arrival.

The Richmond Multicultural Concerns Society assists newcomers

settling in Richmond as well as facilitates their inclusion in the community.

The Richmond Chinese Community Society helps new immigrants from China and the

Far East not only become settled but also stay connected with their culture

while becoming active members of our Canadian society.

I know we all agree that the international flavour of British

Columbia is what truly makes B.C. the best place on earth.

FRED THOMAS

C. Wyse: In Canada 58 professional rodeos are held each

year. Over 1,600 persons volunteer their time to ensure each event is a success.

These events provide an opportunity for cowboys and cowgirls to demonstrate

their skills to the thousands of rodeo fans across the country. In addition, the

rodeo serves as an economic generator for the sponsoring community while

bringing both national and international recognition to that community. For

example, the Williams Lake Stampede is internationally recognized as one of the

major rodeos on the professional rodeo circuit in North America.

But I've digressed from the main reason for addressing the House

today. In 2006 Williams Lake's Fred Thomas was recognized as the Canadian

Professional Rodeo Person of the Year. This award was presented to Fred in

recognition of his 16 years in promoting professional rodeo in Canada. Though he

knew he had been nominated for the award, he was very surprised to be chosen as

the recipient of an inscribed buckle and a gold membership to the Canadian

Professional Rodeo Association in recognition of his work over the years.

Fred's comment provides some insight into the person. "Everyone

does their thing. Williams Lake is one of the most fortunate rodeos in western

Canada. We have excellent volunteers and directors, and the way our rodeo is run

is second to none. I was pretty humbled."

[1345]

In closing, I request that the House join me in recognizing the

volunteers who make rodeos across Canada possible but, in particular, for the

House to recognize Fred Thomas, the 2006 Canadian Professional Rodeo

Association's Person of the Year.

SAFE SCHOOLS

L. Mayencourt: It gives me pleasure today to rise and speak

about safe schools. One of the things that came out of our throne speech, which

was very important to me, was the fact that the provincial government has

decided to adopt a piece of legislation that I've been trying to get passed for

the last three or four years in this House to deal with discrimination,

harassment and bullying in our school system. I'm proud that our government is

stepping up to the plate to take on that responsibility.

At times in my travels around the province, people will ask me why

I feel so passionate about that. I'd like to just go through one little piece of

information that's been brought to my attention over the last several weeks.

Some months ago Michael Richards, the guy that played Kramer on Jerry Seinfeld's

show, started referring to a member of the audience using the "n" word to

describe that person's race. Last month Isaiah Washington, a star of a local

television show, referred to one of his co-stars with an "f" word.

This week Ann Coulter, who's a CNN consultant, talked about John

Edwards and wanting to talk about him, but she didn't want to because she

thought she'd have to go into treatment if she mentioned the "f" word. Just this

week Louis Champagne, a Quebec broadcaster, referred to André Boisclair, the

Parti Quebecois leader that's in the middle of an election race — that no one

would support him because he's with a group of "f"s.

Words like the "f" word and the "n" word are pervasive in our

society. It is our responsibility as adults and as legislators not to ban the

use of those words but to at least educate kids that it is not right to pick on

people because of their sexual orientation, their race, their gender or their

gender identity. We're moving

[ Page 5839 ]

forward to make sure that kids in every school in British Columbia know that

those words are inappropriate. I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for this opportunity to

raise the issue again.

ALOUETTE HOME START SOCIETY

M. Sather: In my constituency of Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows,

the non-profit Alouette Home Start Society operates the Iron Horse Youth Safe

House and, through the receipt of federal funding, employs two community

outreach workers. The Alouette Home Start Society was incorporated in December

2003 resulting from the Maple Ridge, Pitt Meadows and Katzie youth and family

networks' desire to address the needs of the homeless and those at risk of

homelessness in my community.

The Iron Horse Youth Safe House, operational since June 2005, has

served over 237 youth from Maple Ridge and surrounding areas over the last 20

months. With a five-bed co-ed facility, Iron Horse addresses the needs of youth

and youth at risk of homelessness, aged 13 to 18, with support services being

provided off-site by many community partners such as PLEA and the Greg Moore

Youth Centre.

To date, the community outreach workers have provided basic

services to over 450 different at-risk and homeless youth. The homeless have a

wide array of health concerns, and through an integrated case management

approach, the Alouette Home Start Society has been able to bring many of these

youth off the street and redirect their lives. The Alouette Home Start Society

received federal funding to keep them open until October. They will require

provincial and federal funding to remain open beyond that point.

Support for youth, whether it is addictions services or housing,

is essential to prevent youth from falling into a life of homelessness. We need

the services that the Alouette Home Start Society provides in order to address

the issues of youth in my community.

[1350]

COMMONWEALTH AWARDS FOR RESCUES

R. Lee: Last Saturday, with the Lieutenant-Governor and the

Attorney General, I attended the 95th annual Commonwealth awards ceremony

presented by the Lifesaving Society . It was an honour for me to again

listen to the heroic actions of British Columbians as young as seven years old.

Last summer seven-year-old Calum and ten-year-old Macaulay Mowbray

saved their great-grandpa's life when he lost his balance at the poolside, broke

his hip and fell into the water. The young Mowbrays received silver medals for

their courage and for remembering what they learned in swimming lessons.

Silver medals for bravery were presented to Chad Becher, Kevin

Loewen, Kelly Parslow, Joel Visscher, Ryan Boivin, Chad Longland, Russell Mills,

Dave Trickett, Robert Murphy, Alejandro Muzio, Dave Paslawski and Ashlie St.

Laurent.

Chad Longland was presented with the Governor's gold medal for the

most heroic rescue of the year. While he and his fiancée were walking their dog

along the Vedder River near Chilliwack last August, Chad noticed a limp body was

drifting into an eddy. He quickly swam ten metres to the place he had last seen

the person. He learned later that he was rescuing 16-year-old Nicholas Chan of

Vancouver, who lost consciousness unexpectedly while swimming with his family

and friends.

Chad found Nicholas at the bottom of the river. He dove down,

grabbed him by his shirt and pulled him up. Nicholas wasn't breathing. Chad

resuscitated him, and he was later treated for hypothermia in hospital.

I would like to ask the House to join me in thanking all the award

recipients for their quick thinking and unselfish acts at a time when they were

needed most.

VANCOUVER DOWNTOWN EAST SIDE

J. Kwan: Over 700 units of single-resident-occupancy hotel

rooms have been converted to other uses, such as turning them into hotels and

condominiums, resulting in mass evictions of low-income people. The form of

housing is often the last option for people who are not able to get into social

housing. Though many of these rooms do not meet basic standards, they are the

last link to accommodation before someone ends up on the street.

In the period prior to 2003, an additional 800 units were also

converted into hotels, condominiums and youth hostels. According to a report by

the Pivot Legal Society and the Carnegie Action Project, one in five lodging

rooms in Vancouver has also been sold or put up for sale since January 2006.

Twenty-two hotels have changed hands since January 2006. An additional ten

hotels are currently for sale, with an average cost of over $60,000 per room.

The downtown east side was a name given to this unique, historic

Vancouver neighbourhood when the term "skid row" used to be its name. I've

learned everything about the realities of politics and public policy in this

neighbourhood. This neighbourhood has, more than any other, challenged us as

lawmakers — our sense of justice and human decency and compassion. We have the

only safe injection site and heroin prescription trial in North America.

Though there is sadness and grief in this neighbourhood, there is

also immense beauty. This is a neighbourhood that has taught us about human

rights. There are more art galleries and more artists living in my community

than anywhere else in Canada. It is a place of creativity, innovation and

inspiration for all of us who come to see it.

It is one of the last unique low-income neighbourhoods in North

America. People live for a longer period of time in this neighbourhood than

anywhere else in Vancouver. But today there are many threats to this community.

The downtown east side has been through many traumas, individual and collective.

People have

[ Page 5840 ]

always had to struggle to achieve important victories in this neighbourhood.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to acknowledge the importance of this

neighbourhood in this Legislature and the very threats that it faces as a

community that provides stable homes for low-income people.

Oral Questions

PATIENT DISCHARGE POLICY AT

ST. PAUL'S HOSPITAL

C. James: On February 1, Dan Lessard, a resident of Powell

River, suffered a heart attack. Two days later he was flown to Vancouver for

surgery at St. Paul's Hospital. He was told after his surgery that he would be

flown back to Powell River to stay one more night in the hospital there.

However, his flight was cancelled because of weather delays. As a result, only

four days after the heart attack he was discharged from St. Paul's and told to

find his own way home.

Can the Minister of Health explain why the government discharged a

heart patient with no support and told him to find his own way home to Powell

River?

[1355]

Hon. G. Abbott: Mr. Speaker, I have been briefed with

respect to the case of Mr. Lessard. The details are not consistent with what the

Leader of the Opposition has just articulated.

I believe it is correct that Mr. Lessard was transferred by air

evac to St. Paul's Hospital, appropriately, for a procedure in respect of his

heart. I understand from the details I have that the cancellation-of-flight

information is correct. However, it is my understanding that Mr. Lessard himself

requested that he be discharged from St. Paul's.

In those situations where a patient is being discharged — he was

directed to speak to a social worker in respect of his return to Powell River —

policies in respect to the transfer of patients either by air evac or by ground

ambulance are long established. They long precede this government. I understand

that the transfer was made in accordance with those policies…

Mr. Speaker: Thank you, Minister.

Hon. G. Abbott: …and we are following up to obtain more

information in respect of this case.

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has a

supplemental.

C. James: I do, Mr. Speaker. The facts remain. Mr. Lessard

was discharged without a flight home. He had no ferry fare and no money in his

pocket. The only bus to Powell River had already left. He was required to track

down a friend of the family in order to find the fare to be able to take both a

plane and a ferry to try and get back home again to Powell River. This was days

after suffering a heart attack.

Again, I'd like to ask the Minister of Health: does he think that

was good-quality health care for Mr. Lessard?

Hon. G. Abbott: Again, it is a policy that long precedes

our government. The longstanding policy of B.C. Ambulance Service — where a

patient is being discharged to their home in another community from the

hospital, where the transfer is not being made to another facility — is that the

transfer would not be made by air ambulance.

I hope the member can appreciate that there is a demand for the

availability of air ambulance at particular points in time. The aim of that

policy is to ensure, when a critical case appears, that the air ambulance is

available to the patient.

Again, in fairness to St. Paul's and to the medical practitioners

who made decisions with respect to this, the Leader of the Opposition should

ensure that she has all of the facts at her disposal before she forms her

conclusions…

Mr. Speaker: Thank you, Minister.

Hon. G. Abbott: …about whether the policy was followed

appropriately.

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

supplemental?

C. James: Well, I do. I'm not quite sure what the Health

Minister thinks has to happen for somebody to be able to be flown home. Mr.

Lessard had six stents inserted after his heart attack — six stents. He was in

no condition for the journey that he was forced to make by ferry and by flight.

Again, my question is to the Minister of Health. Does he think it

was good-quality health care for Mr. Lessard to have to go home on his own, on a

ferry and a flight, after he'd suffered a heart attack?

Hon. G. Abbott: I'm glad to provide a briefing to the

opposition leader in respect of the longstanding policy around the disposition

of air ambulance and other ground ambulance. But again, these points should be

noted. The patient, I am advised, wished to be discharged from St. Paul's. The

physician agreed that the patient was healthy enough to be discharged and did

so, providing the patient with prescriptions and instructions for his self-care.

[1400]

The patient was advised of the Ambulance Service policy and was

directed to a social worker at the hospital to assist him with his return to the

community. There are some questions at that point about the interaction between

the social worker and the patient, but the facts are not as the opposition

leader has set them out.

N. Simons: I don't think it's wise for the minister to

engage in a debate with the actual health care professionals who have called

this a travesty. Quite frankly, allowing a person to go out onto the street

poorly dressed for the

[ Page 5841 ]

weather, with a pamphlet telling him not to walk more than a block or to lift

anything more than ten pounds…. That's not exactly good discharge planning.

I'm going to ask the same question of the minister: does he

consider that proper health care?

Hon. G. Abbott: Again, the member appears to be forming his

conclusions before he has all of the facts. I think members of the opposition

would be among the first to be highly critical of the B.C. air Ambulance Service

were there to be the absence of a plane to transfer critical patient at a time

when it was being used for a non medically urgent flight.

And again, I think it is important — before the member or any

member of this House leaps to conclusions about whether this was the policy that

was undertaken with both full compliance with the policy and full common sense —

that we should have all of the answers. I know it is the wont of the opposition

sometimes to leap to conclusions prematurely. I'd advise them in this case that

they should get all of the facts before they make those conclusions.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

N. Simons: The history is clear on how the government

responds to actual well-researched issues around a number of other issues,

including child welfare. I'm not sure if the minister wants to really go there.

The issue at hand has nothing to do with an ambulance bringing him

home, and where the minister got confused, I don't know. Maybe it was in the

'90s. The issue at hand here has to do with the fact that he was left in the

street — no money for a taxi, no ability to get to the airport — figuring out

what in the world he was supposed to do on the street.

The minister can re-create, and he can do revisionist history. But

I've been talking to doctors and nurses and people in the health care system who

say this is a regular occurrence, that people are left to find their own way

back after significant surgeries in downtown. I'll tell you it's a shame on this

government that this is the situation.

As much as they like to talk about doing their homework — maybe

they heard that a lot growing up — the fact of the matter is that this is

inappropriate policy. I'm asking the minister: what is he going to do to make

sure that policy is appropriately applied?

Hon. G. Abbott: The answer to the question is that we are

going to follow up and get all of the facts before we form conclusions about

whether the policy was appropriately complied with. But again, I'm advised that

the patient in question….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. G. Abbott: I'm advised that the patient in question

requested his discharge from St. Paul's. I understand that the physician, again,

appropriately provided the patient both with prescriptions and with a self-care

plan. I understand that the patient spoke with a social worker. I understand

that the social worker provided the patient, among other things, with a taxi

chit for use, which apparently was returned unused.

[1405]

I'm not saying at this point that the patient was at fault or that

the system was at fault. I think it is entirely unfair and inappropriate for the

opposition to form those conclusions without having all of the facts at their

disposal.

LONG-TERM CARE ASSESSMENT

G. Coons: Perhaps the minister can look at its health care

plan for Verna Sevigny from Prince Rupert. Last December Verna, who is 96 years

old, had a two-hour assessment for placement into Acropolis Manor, a long-term

care facility in Prince Rupert. At this point in time Verna was living alone and

had no family in town. Prior to this most recent assessment, Verna had been on

the wait-list for 18 months but continued to be considered far too healthy for

admission.

Shortly after the latest refusal, Verna fell in her home and broke

her hip. As a result of complications from her fall, Verna passed away a week

and a half ago in Prince Rupert Hospital. Can the minister explain what he's

doing to ensure that 96-year-olds are given the care and support they need

before it's too late?

Hon. G. Abbott: I think one thing the member should note

right from the outset is that the system should not form conclusions about the

health of an individual based on their age as opposed to a range of other

assessment issues that may come into play in terms of determining if they should

be candidates for residential care, for assisted living or for admission to a

facility.

I know lots of folks who are in their 90s and in exceptional

health. I also know lots of folks in their 60s and 70s who are in very poor

health. I think it is unfortunate if the member thinks that rather than doing a

rigorous assessment around the suitability of a candidate for residential care

or facility transfer, that is made exclusively on the basis of their age. If

that's what he's saying, he is very wrong.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

G. Coons: I find it quite appropriate that the minister

talks about rigorous assessment, and I'm glad that he brought up that topic. One

of the questions asked of Verna in her assessment was how many times she had

fallen in the past three days. She answered: "None." Unfortunately, she wasn't

asked how many times she had fallen in the past month, because her answer would

have been: "At least ten or 12 times." The 69-year-old advocate for Verna who

was present at her assessment says: "Home care is a farce, and assisted living

is a farce. So where do we turn?"

[ Page 5842 ]

My question again to the minister is: where does a senior like

Verna turn to get help in their golden years?

Hon. G. Abbott: Let me now extend condolences to the

family. Obviously this is a difficult time for them, and I certainly offer our

sympathies at this point in time.

In terms of assessment I think, again, the member appears to be

forming some conclusions based on some advice that he has secured from a source

in respect to the assessment being inappropriate. If that's the case, he should

say so — that the assessment model was not appropriate. If that's what he's

saying, then I invite him to provide more.

In terms of supports for the frail elderly in this province, our

government has made bigger investments in supportive care for the frail elderly

than any government in the history of British Columbia…

Mr. Speaker: Thank you, Minister.

Hon. G. Abbott: …both qualitatively and quantitatively…

Mr. Speaker: Thank you, Minister.

Hon. G. Abbott: …with some 3,000 incremental units of

residential care and assisted living.

[1410]

CHILDREN AND FAMILY DEVELOPMENT

MINISTRY POLICY ON E-MAILS

M. Karagianis: The opposition has acquired a security

bulletin that was sent out to all staff in the Ministry of Children and Family

Development. Under the heading "Appropriate Use of E-mail and the Internet,"

MCFD staff are told: "You should never correspond with foster parents via

e-mail."

My question to the minister is: can the minister explain why

foster parents have been singled out in this way and why staff is being

forbidden from communicating with them?

Hon. T. Christensen: The Ministry of Children and Family

Development, rightly so, takes issues of personal privacy very seriously. We

have a number of protocols in place that cross the ministry in terms of what is

communicated by e-mail and with whom. This is simply consistent with those

protocols to ensure that we're protecting the personal privacy of the clients

that we serve.

Mr. Speaker: Member has a supplemental.

M. Karagianis: I'm not entirely sure whose privacy is being

protected in this particular case and why foster parents are being singled out.

Certainly, none of these e-mails is FOI-able.

Another e-mail that was sent from the Deputy Minister of Children

and Families to staff after a series of leaks says, "I am now seldom going to

e-mail you collectively," and later in the e-mail: "We will shred documents

after meetings if they are not needed. Other than that, your binder is to be

kept under lock and key."

This is very shocking language around secrecy and stealth in both

these e-mails. I'd like to ask again to the minister: can you please explain

what the reason is for all of this extraordinary secrecy within your ministry?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Hon. T. Christensen: I would hope that the members opposite

would understand the nature of the information that the Ministry of Children and

Family Development often deals with. We have, I think, a very solid legislative

foundation here in terms of the legislation that applies to this ministry

specifically around child protection and services to families as well as through

the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The ministry complies

with the legislative framework. Again, we take very seriously the obligations we

have in terms of the personal privacy of the children and families we serve.

I would add that the member chooses to have some suspicion that

foster parents are being singled out. We have a very constructive and solid

relationship with the foster parents association in this province. We've just

increased the compensation that we're providing to foster parents by an

additional $31 million.

That increase and the other work we're doing with foster parents

come about directly as a result of that constructive relationship we have

developed with foster parents.

SEISMIC UPGRADES FOR SCHOOLS

D. Cubberley: On March 7, 2005, the B.C. Liberal government

announced it was allocating $254 million over three years to seismically upgrade

80 of the worst high-risk schools in B.C.'s earthquake zone. The quote was:

"We're fast-tracking seismic projects…so that students will be protected as soon

as possible."

Two years of the fast track, and a few of the promised projects

are done, and a few others are underway. How is the minister planning to

complete the 70 or more outstanding projects this year so that government can

keep its pledge to families, when cost projections are from 2004 and there's no

new money in this year's budget?

Hon. S. Bond: Only the member opposite could actually stand

in this House and think that $1.5 billion to seismic mitigation programs is not

showing progress in this province.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

[ Page 5843 ]

Hon. S. Bond: Not only that, apparently the opposition

critic hasn't spent a lot of time with the Leader of the Opposition, who

previously was a school trustee. There's a process involved in capital building

in British Columbia. It actually says that, in fact, we have funded the

feasibility studies for 95 fast-track projects in this province, and all of them

will continue to be moved forward in this process.

[1415]

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental?

D. Cubberley: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Two years have gone by, and

four projects have been completed, according to the ministry. It seems there

never was any new money added to seismic safety budgets. In fact, the capital

budget dropped in 2005, just after the 80-school commitment.

The minister may like to point to her re-announcement yesterday of

the Mount Douglas Secondary School project as a sign of progress. The problem

is, of course, that the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head announced that project in

2005. Back then, it would only have cost $7.6 million to get the project done,

but now it seems that it's up to $9.5 million.

Will the minister admit that these projects are being slow-walked

because, in fact, she has no strategic plan, no firm time lines, no earmarked

funding? Will she give B.C. parents a clear commitment that she'll get seismic…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

D. Cubberley: …safety out of limbo and onto the fast track?

Hon. S. Bond: There's hardly any credibility from the

members on the opposite side. Let's just take….

Interjections.

Hon. S. Bond: Oh, they love to roll their eyes and groan.

Let's listen to a quote about the progress made under the previous government.

In March of 1998….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. S. Bond: Let's listen to a quote from the Vancouver

Sun in March of 1998. Listen. You'll love it. "British Columbia's…."

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. S. Bond: "British Columbia's biggest stash of liquor

is safe from an earthquake, but the government of the day says it doesn't have

the money to reinforce a school just down the street attended by 2,000 children.

The liquor distribution centre on East Broadway was seismically upgraded shortly

after a $2 million plan to upgrade Vancouver Technical School was cancelled."

I can tell you this….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, question period will get shortened if

I can't hear the answer and hear the question.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. S. Bond: Perhaps the most telling

part is that the

members opposite voted against every single increase to funding — to capital, to

public education, to post-secondary education. They simply have voted against

every single budget increase in the province.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

FRASER RIVER DIKE SYSTEM

M. Farnworth: My question is for the Solicitor General and

Minister of Public Safety. The Fraser Basin report on flood protection raises

serious concerns about the state of dikes on the Fraser River from Mission on

down to the mouth of the Fraser.

In the case of many communities such as Port Coquitlam, for

example, the dikes need to be raised by a minimum of two feet. This is a huge

expense for local government. In a year of record snowpacks and concern about

devastating floods, what funds is this government committing to assist local

government in ensuring the integrity of the dike system?

Hon. J. Les: The member is correct. There is a significant

snowpack across the province this year. That is something of which we are well

aware. My staff and the staff in the Ministry of Environment are hard at work in

addressing that potential threat.

As the member will be aware, the circumstances of a flood are

going to be dictated largely by weather patterns, particularly in the month of

May. Nonetheless, we have to be sure that we are prepared.

[1420]

We are taking steps in consultation with municipalities, regional

districts and first nations to ensure that we know exactly where the weak spots

are. We're going to deal with them proactively.

FIREFIGHTER SERVICES FOR

2010 OLYMPICS

C. Puchmayr: The British Columbia Professional Fire

Fighters Association has made contact with several ministries, asking to have

representation on the Olympic fire advisory committee.

[ Page 5844 ]

To the minister in charge of the 2010 games: will he give the

public the assurance that the B.C. Professional Fire Fighters Association will

in fact participate on these important committees to enhance the work currently

being done in this field by the Olympic fire advisory committee?

Hon. J. Les: I appreciate the question. Obviously, as we

approach the 2010 games we are going to want to incorporate the expertise of all

British Columbians who have expertise to provide. I know that initial contacts

have been made by my deputy minister to the firefighters, and that dialogue will

continue.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

C. Puchmayr: We don't have to look too far back in history

to see the risks associated with firefighters and first responders in a

disaster.

Will the minister then commit today that he will invite the

association to participate? And will the minister commit that the B.C. Fire

Fighters Association will represent those services for British Columbia during

the 2010 Winter Olympics?

Hon. J. Les: I really don't want to get into the habit of

repeating my previous answer. I think it was fairly self-explanatory. But I just

want to point out for the benefit of the members of the House that the police

and firefighters in this province actually are going to be involved in a very

important event in Adelaide, Australia, in just a few weeks — the World Police

and Fire Games.

I think we should also understand and remember and remind

ourselves that police and firefighters from all over the world are coming here

in 2009 to participate in the World Police and Fire Games. Over 14,000 people

will be here in 2009 for those World Police and Fire Games, so they're going to

be very actively involved in that as well as in 2010, and making sure that we're

all safe in British Columbia.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

REGULATION OF EMISSIONS FROM

VANCOUVER REGION GREENHOUSES

S. Simpson: Citizens in the GVRD and the Fraser Valley are

increasingly concerned about what greenhouses are burning and the emissions

they're creating. While the GVRD administers the Environmental Management Act on

behalf of the province, greenhouse companies are resisting compliance with their

permits, and many are refusing to get permits at all. In the Fraser Valley it is

worse. The regional district has no authority on this issue, and they have no

support from the provincial government to control those emissions.

My question to the Minister of Environment is: will he commit

today to stand up in support of the GVRD's authority to regulate emissions to

their standards? And will he speak out for the people of the Fraser Valley, who

have no ability to protect themselves and are concerned about what is coming out

of greenhouse smokestacks?

Hon. B. Penner: If the opposition critic would take time to

do some research, he would learn that under

section 31 of the Environmental

Management Act, the GVRD does have delegated authority over air quality issues.

They have had that for more than 30 years. That's a lot of time for him to do

some homework.

The Ministry of Environment does take air quality issues

seriously. If infractions are brought to our attention or we learn about them,

compliance and enforcement activities are undertaken. But I'm very concerned,

because the other night on Global Television I saw the Environment critic

criticizing the use of wood waste as a fuel source, when only last November he

was on Voice of B.C. saying we need to use biomass as an alternative

energy source.

Which one is it? Do we want to use renewable resources in British

Columbia to create jobs and economic opportunity? Because, Mr. Speaker.…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

[1425]

Hon. B. Penner: The opposition critic is already working

against green power projects like the Ashlu river small hydro project. Other

members of the opposition are opposed to green energy projects in British

Columbia. If we can't use water and we can't use wood waste, what do we have

left in British Columbia?

[End of question period.]

Petitions

C. Trevena: I have another petition protesting the

provincial cuts to child care, this one containing about 500 signatures.

Tabling Documents

Hon. I. Chong: I have the honour to present the 30th annual

report of the Public Service Benefit Plan Act for the year ending March 31,

Orders of the Day

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

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

the Ministry of Labour and Citizens' Services, and in this chamber continued

debate on the throne speech.

Throne Speech Debate

(continued)

B. Simpson: Again I have an opportunity to stand and give

some of my reflections on the government's

[ Page 5845 ]

throne speech. I've had the opportunity to speak to the throne speech and the

budget speech a couple of times now. Today I would like to focus more on the

implications of the throne speech and the government's activities for rural

British Columbia.

There's a particular comment in the throne speech…. In fact, I'd

like to put two of the comments together. There's a comment about the

self-confidence and optimism. It states: "Self-confidence and optimism have

created a legacy of leadership rooted in the power of individual aspiration and

the potency of common purpose." Interesting rhetoric.

I want to combine that with a statement about rural British

Columbia that says: "Rural British Columbia has record levels of employment and

economic growth. That is a credit to our citizens and their hard work."

In fact, to put those two together paints a picture of a

government that really is out of touch with what's happening outside the lower

mainland, outside the Whistler corridor and outside portions of Vancouver

Island. As a member of the Finance Committee, I had the pleasure of touring this

province and hearing directly from delegation after delegation in rural B.C.

Even in the areas where there is economic growth of the kind that the throne

speech speaks to, many of these delegations spoke to the issues associated with

managing that growth.

In the Okanagan, for example, we heard that we were overextending

the development beyond the capacity to deliver water. There were concerns in the

Okanagan around the continued drought, the loss of tree cover because of

mountain pine beetle and western pine beetle, and whether or not there was a

capacity for us to continue to maintain infrastructure through that growth area.

[1430]

In Fort St. John we heard the exact same thing. We heard that the

communities in that region, which is probably the most booming region

economically, are struggling to manage that growth and do not have the necessary

infrastructure or the necessary resources to do the kind of work they need to

do.

[S. Hammell in the chair.]

They spoke to us of homelessness. We heard that in Kelowna as

well. They spoke to us of poor infrastructure and degrading infrastructure. They

spoke to us about the fact that they, as communities, do not have the resources

to address all of the social implications of growth, the kinds of lifestyles

that people have to live in the Peace region as they've come in and out —

contract workers, where that's not their home; the drug addiction; the need for

assistance for seniors; and the need for assistance for those with mental

problems, with addictions problems, etc.

Even in the growth areas of the province there are significant

issues associated with managing that growth as a result of the government

retracting all of the services in our social infrastructure. Again, if members

on the opposite side want an education on what that retraction of services looks

like, all they have to do is read the Premier's appointed Progress Board report

on the social infrastructure in this province. It is pointed. It is clear. It

speaks to the fact that the government has failed to bring all British

Columbians along in this period of an upbeat economy, again as a result — and we

bandy this back and forth — of resource pricing and a construction boom.

I want to talk about other areas of the province that simply,

unequivocally do not share this false sense of optimism that permeates the

throne speech. When I was up in Prince Rupert and in Terrace with the Finance

Committee and on other business trips that I took up there, that optimism was

certainly not there. Yes, Prince Rupert has this port development underway. It

isn't quite sure what the level of government commitment is to that, whether or

not they're going to divert some of the Gateway funds from down here along the

Highway 16 corridor. There's a lot of uncertainty around there. There are first

nations issues in that port development.

We heard a very strong presentation from those who work in the

fishing industry in Prince Rupert and, Madam Speaker, quite a heart-rending

presentation from that group about people who are being forced, effectively, to

go on social assistance, being forced to move out of their communities to seek

other jobs because of what's happening with the fisheries.

We heard in Terrace on a recent trip up there that one of their

final mills…. They have one sawmill left in that community. We stood on the site

of one of the mills that has been closed recently and has been cannibalized. We

met with the city council of Terrace, who told us that effectively they do not

know what the future holds for that community. They are no longer a forestry

town. They're no longer a manufacturing town. So what are they? One of the

reasons that they're engaged in the debate with Kitimat around what happens with

Alcan is because they are grasping for anything they can to beef up their

economy.

As we come down the Highway 16 corridor, anybody who's paid any

attention to what's going on in the interior knows that the communities of

Houston, Burns Lake, Decker Lake and Vanderhoof are all living with uncertain

futures. The CEO of Canfor stated quite bluntly and categorically, both in a

speech in Prince George and publicly in one of his quarterly reports, that the

future of the forest industry in those areas is uncertain. It's the only way

that he could capture it: it is uncertain. He also stated in the speech in

Prince George that the provincial government has no plan for the forest sector

in the province. It simply does not exist.

These are not my words, Madam Speaker. These are the words of the

CEO of the largest forest company in British Columbia, when he was asked a

question at a conference in Prince George. So down that Highway 16 corridor

there's a great deal of uncertainty in the forest sector.

[1435]

I was also able to visit Queen Charlotte Islands–Haida Gwaii and

attended a town hall meeting in

[ Page 5846 ]

Sandspit. In Sandspit that community has no idea what its future holds, and

it has been trying for a very long time to get a minister of the Crown — they

don't care who, but somebody from this government — to come and to speak with

them directly about what the government has in store for them. I was there in

the spring.

They were pleading for that, and I understand from one of the

ministers that someone has visited there. That's good for Sandspit, but again,

for that community their future still remains uncertain. They haven't been given

surety as to what it holds, what their options are, and — I will talk briefly

about climate change — what climate change looks like for rural British

Columbia, for a town that isn't on the grid.

Port Alberni is another community that actually came and protested

down here on the lawns of the Legislature to get this government's attention to

its plight. The provincial government, under the former Forests Minister, took

private lands that were part of a historic deal to take old Crown land from the

E&N Railway and bring them under Crown management so that they were protected to

higher values, they were protected for the public good, and they were put into

tree farm licences.

The former Minister of Forests broke that contract and released

those private lands, leaving Port Alberni completely surrounded by private

lands. Now Port Alberni finds itself with a very uncertain future. They are not

optimistic, they don't hold out a lot of hope for a government that continues to

refuse to listen to them.

That community was given some concessions by the existing Forests

Minister, but on the day that Port Alberni was given what it had been asking for

— and a committee was struck and some consulting resources were given for that

community to actually take a look at its future — that same day the current

Forests Minister released more private lands from tree farm licences, without

consultation with the affected communities and over the express disapproval of

the first nations in that region.

It's obvious to the community of Port Alberni that all they've got

is a smoke-and-mirrors exercise to try and stop them from blocking the highway

yet again, to try and stop them from continuing their protest. As far as I'm

aware, that is not going to work. Port Alberni — because of the uncertainty,

because they don't share this government's optimistic view of the world — will

actually be taking to the streets again. They are not happy with how the land

base in their area is being managed, how their watersheds are being managed,

what their future holds and the uncertainty associated with that.

The community of Midway is another community that the government

has failed to serve as it looks at losing its last mill. In fact, the whole

southeast part of the province…. Everyone knows that the companies down in that

region are the most susceptible companies for the next wave of corporate buyouts

and corporate concentration in the province.

In the Kootenays the entire area is also very concerned about the

status of fire and interface fire risk in their region. Again, one of the things

that is a missed opportunity in this particular budget and throne speech is the

opportunity to take the surplus and address fire. I'll speak to that shortly.

In the Kootenays they do have some growth areas. The growth areas

are predominantly an influx of capital from Alberta and from other places as

people move in to retire in that area — in Invermere, for example, where it

becomes a bedroom community for Calgarians. But they are uncertain about what

that growth means for their overall infrastructure, and they're also uncertain

about what they're going to do to address the growing fire risk. So that sense

of optimism, that sense of "everything's going to be all right" is not shared

around this province.

[1440]

I want to share some of the concerns that come from my riding. We

have a funny situation in our riding. In Quesnel and Williams Lake and the

larger centres we believe that Victoria and Vancouver get all of the resources,

get all of the attention — and those are our big, bad urban centres. But in my

riding, in Horsefly, Likely, Wells, Nazco — all of those very small communities

that are historical communities and have lots of roots in the province, are part

of the Gold Rush Trail and have deep first nations roots in those communities —

they consider Quesnel and Williams Lake to be the urban centres that get all of

the benefits of that urban life.

So we have a bit of a schism in our communities between the

smaller outlying communities and our major centres. Horsefly, Nazko, Likely, Big

Lake, Miocene — all of those communities feel that over the last six years they

have seen a retraction in all of the public services that they believe they

contribute to the tax of this province to get. They've seen their roads

deteriorate.

A perfect example of that is the fact that over the last three

summers, we are not getting mowing on our side roads, our tertiary roads and

secondary roads. What the ranchers and farmers point out to us is that the

government has an obligation to deal with invasive plants. If a farmer or

rancher does not deal with an invasive plant issue on his or her property, they

will get in trouble under the law.

That same law, the Weed Act, applies to the government, and yet

the government does not hold itself to the same account, because the highways

for invasive plants are the ditches along the sides of these secondary and

tertiary roads. Over the last number of years they have simply not been mowed.

They don't put the mowers out there. They don't get them before the seeds fly,

and this causes two problems.

The spread of invasive plants is a very large concern in this

province, particularly when you couple it with climate change. The other aspect

of it is a public safety issue because one of the things that we have to live

with in our neck of the woods is the movement of wildlife. If you're driving

down a secondary road that has had the sides ingrown — and some of these weeds

grow up to four, five, six feet in height — you have no

[ Page 5847 ]

chance to respond when a coyote or a deer or something pops out. You have

absolutely no chance to respond whatsoever.

So it is both an issue with respect to invasive plants, and it's

an issue with respect to public safety. The Horseflys, Likelys, and Nazkos also

feel the retraction in services from the perspective of their ability to get any

assistance to do development plans, to grow their communities and to be

attractive. In particular, when they lose a school, which we've seen in many of

those communities, or any kind of health care intervention that they have,

retracting a nurse that would go out there two or three days a week or, in some

cases, a small clinic that was there before but now has been pulled back…. So

the smaller communities are struggling.

Let's go to the larger communities in my constituency, Quesnel and

Williams Lake. I would agree with the statement that right now we have record

levels of employment in those communities, but it's a false economy because it's

based on an uplift in the annual allowable cut in the Quesnel region or the

Vanderhoof region, a similar community. We are completely dependent on the

forest sector for the bulk of our economy, and as a consequence, we do have

higher rates of employment.

We also have high rates of contractor employment and all of the

peripheral secondary employment that comes from that, but everybody knows that

that's a zero-sum game. We are eating through what is left of the pine forest so

fast that any day now — whether it's two years, three years or four years; we

don't know — that has to come to a stop. Everybody's asking the question in the

community: what does that mean?

I had an interesting conversation with my wife. My wife grew up in

Quesnel. She's been there since she was two years of age and is vested in

Quesnel. I have two teenage children. They love that community, and we've had

lots of opportunities to leave it and have chosen not to. We were talking about

renovating our house. As we all know, we have become targets in this climate

change game as to whether or not we are reducing our carbon footprint. One of

the things that I said to my wife was that we need to do some due diligence

around our house, our energy systems, our water-heating systems, our insulation

and so on.

[1445]

So we are putting together a renovation plan. My wife looked at me

during the conversation, and she asked me directly: "Is this the right thing to

do?" I said: "Well, why?" She said: "Because, what is the future of our

community? What does it hold? Should we be investing the $10,000, $15,000 or

$20,000 in our home that this is going to take? Will our home hold value? Is the

crunch going to come two years from now, three years from now, five years from

now? When is it going to come, and is this the right thing for us to do?"

It struck me that those conversations — and I've since then

validated it — are occurring at kitchen tables throughout the city of Quesnel. I

spoke at a chamber of commerce luncheon. People came up to me afterwards and

said: "Yes, we've had those conversations." The car dealerships in town are

wondering what their future holds. I spoke with one of our largest electrical

contractors, who said their plan is a two-year plan. They do not look beyond two

years because they don't know what the future holds for the community of

Quesnel.

What is the future in those areas that do not have a transitional

economy — the Terraces, the Prince Ruperts? What happens in Midway? What happens

in the Horseflys and Likelys of the world when their traditional, normative

dependence on forest economy starts to collapse? That question remains

unanswered by this government. It remained unanswered in the throne speech and

the budget speech.

In Quesnel, for example, we need to know when the annual allowable

cut is going to drop. I find it unconscionable that we have a government in

power that cannot answer that question for us. Why they can't answer it is

because they gutted the Ministry of Forests in 2003. Inventory branch was the

biggest hit, and since 2003 they tried to get the corporations to do inventory.

That didn't work. They've now pulled the inventory responsibilities back, but

they still haven't resourced it.

So we don't know. In the Quesnel timber supply area, we do not

have a clue what our annual allowable cut looks like in the future. It's

currently at 5.3 million cubic metres. The Council of Forest Industries has done

some work around it and, in a worst-case scenario, that 5.3 million cubic metres

could as soon as five or eight years from now drop to less than half a million

cubic metres of cut left.

That's based on only mountain pine beetle being the pest that's

destroying our forests, it's based on only mature pine trees being impacted, and

it's based on a shelf life or a usable life of the timber of approximately 15

years. None of that is true. None of it's true.

We now know that every age class, from plantations right through

the mid-term timber supply to the mature trees, is being devastated by the

mountain pine beetle. We know that spruce beetle, fir beetle, other pests and

diseases — collar weevil in the plantations — are wiping out large tracts of the

land base. Jim Shepherd, the CEO of Canfor, made a public statement about this:

the shelf life, the actual usable life, of the pine in the newly infested areas

is very short and could be as short as two years.

So here we have a community — that historically is one of the

oldest communities in this province, that historically has provided all kinds of

tax to the provincial coffers because we have the largest concentration of

primary and secondary manufacturing for a population that size — that simply

does not have the data set that it needs in order to understand what its future

is. When will the allowable cut come down? How soon will that happen? How deep

will the cut level come down? And how long and protracted will that cut be?

The fact that we can't answer that question in 2007 is simply

unacceptable. I would suggest that the fact that the ministry — in its service

plan, the budget, the throne speech — does not speak to the fact that all of

[ Page 5848 ]

these communities are out there on tenterhooks is a gross oversight.

[1450]

In conjunction with the issues around whether you're managing

growth or no growth or an uncertain future, one aspect that I find intriguing is

the government's inability to understand that unless they resource local

governments, unless they resource communities to actually build infrastructure,

to have amenities in all of those communities, to have schools so that they have

their options available to them to attract families, to have health care

services and particularly seniors care services, that we end up with our hands

tied as we try to develop an alternative future.

There's an irony in our region just now where one of the

offsetting strategies that both Williams Lake and Quesnel have is a desire to

attract and retain seniors. We actually have a deliberate plan that's being put

in place to try and keep seniors around in Quesnel and Williams Lake. At the

same time, in Williams Lake, we have the closure of all the public facilities

for seniors care and the push towards a single private care delivery provider.

In Quesnel we're going to do that in a different way. We're going

to build a new public facility. Kudos to Northern Health for sticking to their

guns and doing that, but in the plan for that we do not get additional capacity

that jibes with what the city plans on doing in trying to attract and retain

seniors. The retraction of home care services is another one of those issues

where it makes it very difficult to keep our seniors and their cash in our

communities.

It appears to me that the government is working at cross-purposes

with what the local communities and local government are attempting to do as

they try and position themselves for this uncertain future or, in the case of

growth, to deal with the unmanaged growth.

Now, the throne speech does talk about Spirit Squares. Yeah,

Spirit Squares are really going to save us. You know, we're going to go after

one because you go after whatever is available to you, but Spirit Squares do not

replace schools. Spirit Squares do not replace health care facilities. Spirit

Squares do not improve our home care delivery services. Spirit Squares do not

restore child care cuts.

So a nice thought that we get this Spirit Square, but in general

the feedback from our communities is this: they're selling us out for the 2010

Olympics, and they're trying to buy us out with these Spirit Squares.

Interjections.

B. Simpson: I guess I must have hit a nerve.

I've advised our community to take full advantage of Spirit

Squares because you take anything that you can get from this government if you

live where I live — right?

Towns for Tomorrow is another program that they have. Okay,

another nice slogan. In fact, Ronald Wright has written a book called A Short

History of Progress . Ronald Wright points out that when civilizations or

societies are struggling and they're starting to slide what people do is elect

governments that give them the biggest empty promises.

I can tell you this. I get a really good laugh when I say: have

you ever heard of the five great goals and the golden decade — right? The

biggest empty promises.

It's an interesting aspect of this government that they don't get

all agitated when you mention "heartlands" budget. They'd like that word to

disappear from their vocabulary. You don't get anything from them when you start

talking about the golden decade again. I recall having to sit in this

Legislature during the first fall session where government members just went

"golden decade" and "five great goals" ad nauseam. We were all looking for

travel-sickness bags on this side of the House, we were hearing it so often. Do

we hear it now? No, we don't hear it now.

These phrases — Spirit Squares and Towns for Tomorrow…. I hope

that they're paying those speechwriters. I hope they're paying a lot of money to

the people who've done the PR around this, but it's not working in our

communities.

[1455]

The feedback on Towns for Tomorrow…. Again, I am advising all of

our communities to take full advantage of it, but there's a great disadvantage

to that in that many of those communities are struggling to do meaningful things

in their communities. In many cases, a lot of these government programs require

matched funding.

When you're trying to deal with sewer systems…. Again, even the

government member's feedback on 20 cents on the dollar shows that they are

completely out of touch with the communities in my riding, where 20 cents on the

dollar is a very big deal.

So they don't address the issues. In Quesnel, for example, we are

going to have to deal with our sewage treatment facility if something happens to

our pulp mill, because right now it's done through the pulp mill. If we lose

sawmills and can't sustain the pulp mill, the city then has to address what it's

going to do with sewage treatment.

The city has to address the impacts of the mountain pine beetle

truck traffic on municipal road infrastructure with no additional support from

this government. So will they go after a Spirit Square? Will some of the

communities go after Towns for Tomorrow? Sure. They'll take whatever handout

they can get. The reality is that it doesn't address the real issues.

In closing, my comment on the throne speech and the budget speech

is that I think it does a disservice to rural British Columbia. There's a missed

opportunity here. This government put aside a quarter of a million dollars to

resolve an issue of their own creation, with respect to housing and

homelessness.

My preference would be that the government took some of the

surplus and put it aside for a true rural strategy — not nickel and dime, not

words and rhetoric, but a true rural strategy — that would serve all of my

communities and the communities that we heard in the Finance Committee — to

serve their needs to have

[ Page 5849 ]

some control over their future, whether it's managing growth or dealing with

an uncertain future.

That's the missed opportunity in this budget. I hope that the

government wakes up to the fact that rural B.C. simply does not share the

optimism of this government today.

L. Mayencourt: It's great to be here today in the

Legislature to talk about the throne speech. I must say that there are times in

debate where something really stands out. I was listening to the member talking

about chatting with his wife about due diligence and checking about energy plans

in their house. That's an interesting kind of pillow talk, but I'm not sure that

it really does tell us very much about….

B. Simpson: Excuse me. Point of order, Madam Speaker.

I never referred to having pillow talk with my wife. I don't

believe that that's acceptable, Madam Speaker.

Interjections.

L. Mayencourt: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I think, you know,

it's really interesting the way some things are framed. I want to know from

members opposite what it is….

Deputy Speaker: Member, could you just sit down for a

second. When you stand, then I'll recognize you, and then you can begin.

The member for Vancouver-Burrard.

L. Mayencourt: Well, thank you, Madam Speaker. It's a great

privilege to be here today to talk to you and to members of the Legislature and

to people around the province that are glued to their television sets.

We just had a speech from the member for Cariboo North. It was

great to hear him talk. He mentioned that nobody has talked about the five great

goals, so I thought it would be really important if I could reinforce the five

great goals, because I'm actually very proud of the five great goals. I talk

about them all the time.

I talk about the heartland, as well, because I care about the

people that are in the areas around the neighbourhood that the member

represents. I also am really encouraged by the kind of optimism that I see in

British Columbia. I do not see people fretting about their future and all that

sort of stuff. I hear optimism.

When I go up to Prince Rupert, I talk to people that think it's

really great they're getting their port expanded. When I talk to people in

Prince George, it's really great that they're talking about all the benefits

that they're getting from an inland port and expanding of airports and all those

sorts of things. So there's a lot of stuff that's going on there that is

actually pretty important to people and that seems to be missed.

I'm not sure who the member is speaking to when he's getting this

"oh, woe is me" kind of attitude around the province. I actually hear people

saying: "You're doing great and keep going. We see a bright future for all of us

in British Columbia — not just for us but for our kids and our grandchildren."

[1500]

The five great goals are to make British Columbia the

best-educated, most literate jurisdiction on the continent. I think that's a

great goal, Madam Speaker, and I'm not ashamed of it at all. I'm surprised that

members opposite — many of them from the teaching profession, many of them from

higher education, many of them that have gone to post-secondary education and

become lawyers and doctors and all that sort of stuff — wouldn't want to embrace

a great goal that says we will be the best-educated, most literate jurisdiction

in North America. That's a darn good idea.

As a matter of fact, when I sat on the Education Committee with

members opposite, I spent an awful lot of time trying to define what literacy

was and what best-educated was. We actually had a great dialogue with British

Columbians that said: "You know what? That's a good goal. We're with you, and

we're going to do it."

That's why I'm very proud of the report we produced on literacy,

which shows that British Columbia is at the forefront and will continue to lead

in literacy and in being the best-educated jurisdiction on the continent.

Now we move on to the second golden goal, and I do hope that the

members opposite will give us an opportunity to spell out our goals. God knows,

we've had to listen to their stuff. Our second goal has to with healthy living —

to lead the way in North America in healthy living and physical fitness.

I cannot think of anything, other than better-educated and all

that sort of stuff, that would be better than that. That's a really great

objective for government to set. Sometimes I get from the opposition that they

don't really think those are things we should be aiming for — that we should be

aiming for something else.

What should we be aiming for? I'm not exactly sure, because

members opposite haven't really offered up any great goals other than to stand

in this House and fret about how concerned and how disenfranchised and all that

sort of stuff….

I get the opportunity to visit with hundreds, perhaps even

thousands of British Columbians. What I hear from them is: "Thank you for

turning our economy back on, thank you for fixing health care, thank you for

dealing with education and literacy, and thank you for leading the way in North

America."

Here's another area that's so vitally important to me. I spent the

last 15 years of my life working with people that were disadvantaged, people

that were sick, people that were separated from their families, people that were

dying. It is to build the best system of support in Canada for persons with

disabilities, special needs, children at risk and seniors. That's our third

golden goal.

I don't know why none of the members over there have actually

articulated what they find wrong with building the best system of supports.

Maybe it's

[ Page 5850 ]

because they're so embarrassed that out of ten years in government, they

didn't increase income assistance — not a whit, not a nickel, not a dime, not

even a food stamp. They didn't even do it for people living on disability.

People living with disabilities in our community — British Columbians wanted

them to support, and they fell down on the job. In ten years of government, they

did not do anything to improve the lot in life for people with disabilities.

Let me tell you members opposite — for those of you who were not

here in the '90s — what the NDP did to people with disabilities. As a standard

practice, everyone that applied for persons with disability status was denied.

Every single one of the people that applied was denied. They went to an appeal

process in which the ministry of income assistance at that time did not show up

or didn't put forward an argument for why they should be declined. They were

ordered to review it and put them in and let them have their PWD designation.

So they went through this process again. They applied for persons

with disability designation. They were awarded by an independent tribunal. They

were awarded dollars to support them in their healthy living.

The NDP's Ministry of Human Resources appealed each and every one

of those. Each and every one of those was appealed. There were 600 people in the

province of British Columbia who went through that process under the NDP, who

were refused each and every step of the way. Some of them spent the last year

and a half of their life applying for persons with disability status.

I'm not proud of that. I don't know why they would be so proud of

it, and I don't see why they won't stand up here today and say that we should

build the best system of support for persons with disabilities in British

Columbia.

[1505]

Now, the next one I know just burns them deeply. This one bothers

them a lot. Environmental management — to lead the world in sustainable

environmental management with the best air quality, the best water quality and

the best fisheries management, bar none. Why have the NDP turned anti-green?

Maybe it's because they're afraid they're going to lose some of their vote. I

don't know what it is.

We sat in this government and decided that we would reduce

greenhouse gases by a third by 2012. That's not bad. That is excellent, and I'll

tell you who's telling me it's excellent. Everybody I see on the street in

Vancouver-Burrard, everyone I meet in Victoria…. Everywhere I go in this

province, people are saying: "Thank God your government is doing something

instead of just letting the NDP talk about it and rag on it." It's about time

that a government stood up and said, "We are going to do something good for our

environment." We are going to reduce the negative impact of mankind on our

earth, and we are doing it in spades.

We're doing it with Washington; we're doing it with Oregon; we're

doing it with California. Do you know what? We're going to lead the west coast

to an environmentally sustainable environment that's going to spread like a

green wave across Canada.

Mark my words, Madam Speaker. The time has come. British

Columbians are sick of the negative people over on that side. They are sick of

the whiners. They are sick of the people that say: "Oh, I'm not sure about my

future."

What they want is courage. They want commitment. They want people

that stand up and say: "You know what? I'm going to park my gas car, and I'm

going to buy a hybrid." They want people that are going to say: "I'm going to

change my lightbulbs to fluorescent too." They want people to stand up and be

counted…

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Order, order.

L. Mayencourt: …and do what is right in this House. Madam

Speaker, the Liberal Party in British Columbia is doing it, and I know that's

why they're so grumpy. I know it hurts. It hurts because they thought they were

everything to everybody, when in fact they were nothing to anyone.

It's time that people in this House stand up and say what they're

going to do, not what they're afraid of doing. I listen to the members opposite

talk about complex problems: "Oh, very difficult situation. I'm not sure we can

do that." You know what, Madam Speaker? I didn't get elected to solve simple

problems, and neither did they, but they shirk them daily.

They have nothing to say when it comes to reducing greenhouse

gases. Our plan was better than theirs. They were so surprised that they sat

around in here and moped for a week. Now they've been trying to do some

catch-up, and of course: "Oh well, not enough in the budget for it." Well, $100

million to start a study on how we can do better in British Columbia for the

environment — pretty darned good, as far as I'm concerned.

I have one more, and this one really bugs them. This one really

gets 'em bad. We're going to create more jobs per capita than any other

jurisdiction in Canada, and we're doing it every single day of the week. We do

it every single day. You know why? Because we have ignited a spirit in British

Columbia. We have unleashed the power of British Columbians to get in here, to

come to a province….

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Member, Member.

L. Mayencourt: We have….

Deputy Speaker: Member, just a second. Would you sit down

for a sec.

L. Mayencourt: Oh, I'm sorry.

[ Page 5851 ]

Deputy Speaker: Members, a bit of order.

L. Mayencourt: Madam Speaker, I'm happy to work with you to

help enlighten the people on those benches over there any old day.

It is time to recognize that over two million people work in

British Columbia today. As a matter of fact, under that government over there,

10 percent of the population was on welfare — 10 percent of the population.

"There's no hope. Don't worry about it. Come on down here, and we'll give you a

cheque."

Do you know what? British Columbians that we work with in the

Ministry of Employment and Income Assistance come to me and say: "You know what?

I want to work, I want a job, I want to contribute, I want to pay taxes, and I

want tax cuts. I want it all. I want to be part of what is the British Columbia

dream — a beautiful, beautiful place on this planet where people have the

opportunity to fish, to hunt, to swim; a place where British Columbians can

invest in their homes, where they can make a living, where they can have

friends, where they can live in safe communities."

[1510]

We are doing that, and that's why we lead Canada in job creation —

because we are doing what we said we would do. Those are the five great goals,

in case the member has forgotten them. I hope that he'll commit them to memory.

The other day I had a chance to talk a little bit about an issue

that was really important. I was talking about a community group that's really

done some great stuff in my neighbourhood. I made a mistake, and I admit it. So

I want to retract it. Actually, I was talking about Haro Park, and I was talking

about Diana Buric. Diana Buric is the director of resource development at Haro

Park. Neall Ireland is running the patient identification program there. I just

wanted to correct that piece.

Last week I got something that was really amazing, and it really

touched me. This is a letter, or rather it's a series of about 150 letters from

some people in my riding. It came to me, but it was really directed at the

member for North Vancouver–Lonsdale. The member for North Vancouver–Lonsdale

started a dialogue in this House two years ago about mandatory retirement, and

bless her heart, she struck a chord. People around British Columbia started to

see what it meant for them, and people in British Columbia want to get the

change so that people can continue to work after they're 65.

This is the example of a teacher in British Columbia who is so

loved by her students — and by the kids that have gone through and now become

parents of students and all that sort of stuff — that they wrote hundreds of

letters to me to say: "Please make sure you change mandatory retirement."

It reminded me of a film that I watched when I was a little kid,

called Good Morning, Miss Dove . Miss Dove, for something like 50 years,

educated everybody in this little town, and everybody loved her forever. It just

reminded me of how important it is.

Amanda White wrote to me and sent me these letters, and I want to

assure those people that Ms. Everman's issue of retirement is going to be dealt

with in this session of the Legislature. That's something that was in the throne

speech as well. I think it's a good thing that we're doing it, and I want to

thank the member for North Vancouver–Lonsdale for her vision and her

understanding. I think that's a pretty darn good thing to have happen.

Today I started off talking a little bit about safe schools, and I

talked about the issues of racism, sexism and homophobia in our school system.

There is no doubt in my mind that everybody in the school system is doing their

best and that they want to make sure they eradicate those things. But the fact

of the matter is that those things, that kind of discrimination and harassment

and bullying, occur in our schools. I was so delighted when the throne speech

talked about adopting the Safe Schools Act or adopting a piece of legislation

that required school districts to deal with this. This time has come.

And you know what? We're on the leading edge. We are on the

leading edge of this, of saying to schools: "You have to prohibit

discrimination, harassment and bullying in our school system." As a matter of

fact, on Friday I'm doing a presentation to the U.S. consul general, because

member states from the United States are actually looking at this kind of

legislation. They see it as progressive and important. It's time to get on with

it, and I hope that all members on both sides of the House will support the safe

schools initiative put forward by the Minister of Education.

I've met some great people across this province as a result of the

safe schools initiative. I'm going to highlight one just for a moment. They're

not from my riding, but they are nice people. It's called Saltspring Women

Opposed to Violence and Abuse — SWOVA — and they have developed a program called

Respectful Relationships. Respectful Relationships is all about making sure kids

have the right tools to make decisions in their lives, the ability to mediate

conflict, to make a difference in each other's lives. I want to thank Lynda

Laushway, Jean Elder, Randie Clark, Anne Marshall, Leslie DeAthe and Robert

Anaviva. They're doing great work. If the House would please join me in thanking

them for their good work on that.

You know, I've been the MLA in Vancouver-Burrard for about six

years now, and as I've said in other speeches, it's a great privilege. I love

doing it. I love to poke fun at the opposition, and they love to poke fun at me,

but we do have a good time here. I want to talk now about some vision work

that's been done in my riding, which I think is important for this House to

consider.

[1515]

Vancouver-Burrard, as many of you know, is a downtown peninsula of

Vancouver. It's bounded by Stanley Park, Main Street, False Creek and Burrard

Inlet. So it's a really concise little neighbourhood of about 100,000 people,

very nicely put together. We have decided that what we want to create is a hub

where all of the kids, adults and seniors — all the people of the neighbourhood

— are looked after and interconnected in many, many different ways.

[ Page 5852 ]

What we've been doing is working on this neighbourhood hub

initiative. I want to thank Sandra Menzer and the folks at the West End–Yaletown

interagency team who have put so much work into this. I want to describe some of

what they're doing.

They want to create a neighbourhood where families would have

access to a range of services that meet their children's developmental needs,

including physical, emotional, social and intellectual needs. The services are

organized into four hubs that are defined by the four neighbourhoods: Yaletown,

Coal Harbour, the West End and the downtown south. We have been working to

create services in those hubs that give opportunities for children and their

families to have a great life.

The issue that we deal with here is looking at a variety of

services that are offered, and I've said many times in this House how well

looked after we are in licensed child care services. We have a great capacity

within all four hubs, and we have family drop-in programs. We have kindergarten

through grade 7 — public education obviously. We have before- and after-school

programs — things that make for a healthy neighbourhood.

We have some challenges in that our population is continuing to

grow, so we've got a lot of new housing development. We've got shortages of

kindergarten care, and we need to do a little more on our after-school programs.

We also have some needs in our neighbourhood for some more facilities. For

example, right now we have an elementary school in the Yaletown area called

Elsie Roy. It's sort of bursting at the seams, and we need to add onto that

particular school.

The second is International Village. International Village is kind

of on the edges of Chinatown and Yaletown. It's a great place, but it's a

neighbourhood in transition. There are lots of families moving in there. We're

going to need a new school, new day care centres and a new community centre as

well. The idea behind the hub is to try and make all these things work together

so that individuals get a high level of care and every chance to succeed through

their school years.

Coal Harbour is another area. We already have the community centre

there, and it's a great facility. But now we're adding on, with having a need

for a brand-new school and some additional child care spaces. While at Lord

Roberts, which is in the West End, we're going to have to get some extra space

and try and open up the school to more non-education-based activities. In other

words, when the school is closed, the community gets to use the basketball

courts, the playing fields and all that sort of stuff.

Of course, ongoing, we need to continue to work on our child care

operating grants. I'm very happy to hear that the Minister of State for

Childcare was able to continue to fund some child care referral spaces, which

are very important.

The last area that I want to speak on is one that we've talked

about a lot in this House, and that's our housing stuff. I've had the

opportunity to do what perhaps few in this House have done. I've gone out and

spent some time on the streets. I've slept in SROs. I've slept in the park. I've

lined up for food at the food bank, at the Salvation Army and at Union Gospel —

great organizations that help the poor living in very difficult situations.

I want to tell you, Madam Speaker, that every morning when I get

up, I think about how I'm going to find housing for my neighbourhood. I'm doing

it because it's really important to me, because I actually value the people that

are living on our streets. I think that government needs to do something about

it. Our government has committed almost $300 million this year to support people

needing housing. That's an important number, because it is three times the

amount that any government in the history of British Columbia has ever spent on

it. We are very, very proud of that, and rightly so, and we are continuing to

work on a variety of different projects.

[1520]

For example, just last week I participated in an announcement of

over 760 spaces that were being created around British Columbia — actual

apartments, not just shelter beds, that will be built and will house people who

have difficulty finding homes because of their economic situation or perhaps a

mental illness or an addiction. We feel that all of these people have a place in

our society. That's why I work so hard on trying to find ways to supply more

housing for people that are vulnerable in our communities.

I've heard from the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant a few

times that we cut housing. I want to tell the member for Vancouver–Mount

Pleasant and every other member over there today, here and now, that in the past

six years this government has provided 12,000 new units of social housing in

British Columbia.

No one has done that except our Housing Ministry and our

government over the past six years. That is 2,000 units of housing each and

every year. The NDP couldn't even do half that. I'm really proud of what we've

done there.

I'm also really proud of the rental assistance program. The rental

assistance program is great because of this. It allows people to stay where they

are and get a rent supplement because they are in a low-income situation.

Anybody that earns under $28,000 as a family can get up to $563 as

a rent supplement, money that is private. It goes to them and their bank

account. They go out and rent their apartment or what have you. Their kids never

know that they're in social housing. The kids never know. They don't live in the

housing project on the other side of the river. They live where they live, and

no one stigmatizes them as a result of being there.

Thousands and thousands of British Columbians are benefiting from

that. Last year we did that same sort of program for seniors — Shelter Aid for

Elderly Renters.

Once again, they don't want to say it, but in their ten years in

government, they thought the rent didn't go up for seniors. For ten years they

felt that everything was fine. Well, I heard over and over again from

[ Page 5853 ]

my seniors and from seniors in Prince Rupert and Kingsway and all over the

province that they didn't have enough money to pay for their rent, and that

meant they were eating into their food budget. So I'm proud that we doubled

that.

Today in British Columbia, 120,000 families benefit from Shelter

Aid for Elderly Renters, the rental assistance program, direct subsidy from the

ministry and B.C. Housing, plus a large number of non-profit agencies. That's a

lot of people, and that means those people have the opportunity to raise their

kids, their families. It means they can buy groceries, and it means they can

have some dignity. That's important to the B.C. Liberals over here.

That's something that I get up — and I know other members on this

side of the House do as well — every morning trying to figure out. What can we

do in our communities to solve the homeless problem?

I've spent a lot of time thinking about issues around mental

health. Why? Well, because it turns out that an awful lot of people that are

homeless on our streets have a mental health issue. What are we going to do

about it?

I've talked in this House about a fellow who lives in my

neighbourhood. His name is Doug. Doug was born in Florida. He came to Canada,

and he has for the last two years lived at a garbage can on my corner. Doug is

paranoid and schizophrenic. He's an alcoholic, and he literally lives there. He

stays in the same clothes day after day after day until they fall off and

someone gives him a new shirt and a new pair of pants.

We have decided in this province that we're going to mainstream

people living with mental illness. We're going to let them be free. Doug is not

free. He may not have a chain on him, but he's stuck to that garbage can on the

corner of Davie and Bidwell. We are not doing Doug any favours. It is time for

us to take a look at what we do with people living with mental illness. Do we

need institutional care?

[1525]

It's time that we're having that dialogue now through the dialogue

on health care. It's time for us to face up to the fact that the

deinstitutionalization at Riverview, while it was great for some, has actually

been horrific for so many more. It's been awful for communities that care about

people like that. We feel hopeless. We don't know where to turn.

We need to make sure that we talk about mental health, that we

decide how we're going to deal with it. Not everyone needs to be

institutionalized, but boy, if someone needs it, they should get it. It's as

simple as that. So that's how I feel.

I've talked a little about addictions in this House as well, and

I've told you a little bit about a visit that I had to Italy last year which was

really eye-opening. I went to San Patrignano, a community in south-central Italy

where people living with an addiction stay for three to five years. They have

2,200 people living in that community, and they are all surrounded by love and

inspiring stories and fellow alcoholics. They're doing something. They're making

a difference in people's lives, and 75 percent of the people that go through the

program succeed.

Those are the kinds of things that we should be talking about in

British Columbia. We shouldn't be fretting about whether or not…. Some of our

worries are so small and so minuscule. What we should be talking about is a

vision for British Columbia — one that looks after the mentally ill, one that

looks after the addicted, one that looks after those with disabilities.

Where are my five goals here? We should be the most literate

jurisdiction in North America. We should have the best level of support for

persons with disabilities. We should provide the best jobs in North America. We

should provide for the best environmental technologies.

There's nothing wrong with the five goals. There's something wrong

with the guys over there who have decided that those aren't worthy, noble goals.

It's time for the NDP to stand up and say…. What are your goals? What is it you

want to accomplish? When are you going to stand up and tell us? Do you want to

have a better health care system? Do you want to provide for people with

disabilities?

Even though your record does not stand up to those goals, even

though in the ten years that you were there you didn't have the opportunity to

improve the lot in life for those individuals…. I'd like to hear what they plan

for the next election. We're going to be in an election in 2009. I wonder if the

members over there have a clue as to what they're going to do for the

environment today, tomorrow or more importantly in 2009.

I wonder what members have in mind for their goals. Why don't we

have a list of goals from the NDP? Maybe they just haven't had the opportunity

to think it out. But you've got two years, guys. Think about it. What do you

want to do for the environment? What do you want to do for persons with

disabilities? What do you want to do for seniors? What do you want to do for

education? What do you want to do for health?

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: One moment, Member. Member for North

Island, just one second.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members. Members, I think we need to all

remember to treat each other with respect when we're speaking in this House.

C. Trevena: Madam Speaker, it's with real pleasure that I

stand here to respond to the throne speech, particularly since I've been sitting

in the House much of the day listening to the various pieces of debate. I hope I

will respond to some of the debate of the throne speech as well as the content

of the throne speech.

I'd like to actually start with the member for Vancouver-Burrard,

who at the end of his response to this throne speech was talking about: where

are the plans from the opposition? I would like to quote my colleague from

[ Page 5854 ]

Vancouver-Kensington on this: "Our role as opposition is to oppose. Our role

as opposition is to question and to criticize and to put up alternatives and to

make sure that other people's voices are heard so that there is a debate there."

[1530]

We will come, and we will explain our vision, and we are sharing

our vision, if people want to listen to it. But our role is in opposition. It's

been very interesting to hear the rhetoric and the spin that has been coming

about this throne speech — the words and the accusations.

It's fascinating to hear about the five great goals again and

again. What it comes down to is that both sides of the House have a certain

vision. It's just that our vision may not be quite the same. We have a vision on

this side of the House where everybody has equality of opportunity and can

really achieve a better life. I think that the other side of the House has a

vision where some people will do okay but many others won't.

I also just wanted to pick up on something that the member for

Vancouver-Burrard said, when he kept reflecting on what happened in the 1990s.

This is something which we hear time and again in this chamber. The government

benches have a lot to say about what went wrong in the '90s, without realizing

that this is 2007. This is well into the 21st century. They have been government

since 2001, and I think they have their own record to stand on without trying to

find the little holes their spin doctors and PR people can find in what happened

in the past decades.

I'm very happy to stand here and respond to the throne speech. I

earlier responded to the budget speech, so some of the areas which I'll be

touching on this afternoon I did touch on before. Some of the areas that I

mentioned in the budget speech — quite a lot about my concerns about education

and school fees that were raised in the throne speech — I will be leaving.

As I start this, however, I would like to recognize that I have a

huge privilege standing here, like we all have. Standing here for our

constituents — for the 50, 60 or 30,000 people whom we represent in our

constituencies — is a great privilege.

Like others who have stood before me, I would like to take this

moment to thank those who work with me in my constituency. Lynn Stone is my

constituency assistant, and Kathy Smail is my part-time assistant — both in

Campbell River. Jennifer Daffurn is my assistant in my Port McNeill office. I

literally would not be able to do any of the work on behalf of my constituents

without their strong support and strong help.

It was a very interesting throne speech in the fact that it was a

green speech — no question. Half the speech was about environmental initiatives,

and I think that to denigrate that is foolish. I think there are some valuable

things in the throne speech, which I hope will be worked on.

But what does concern me, which I mentioned in my response to the

budget speech, is that while there is some substance there and goals and targets

that can be worked on — which we as a province and as a country truly need if we

are going to achieve anything — the substance isn't there. When it comes to

looking at the budget, the budget isn't there. The targets are there, but

without a budget, it's really hard to reach them.

The member for Vancouver-Burrard mentioned that we may be sniping

at money that is going to be put into looking at the problem. But we know what

the problem is. Let's start putting the money into finding the answers, acting

on the answers and making sure that we as a province are not just saying that we

want to take the lead but are taking the lead.

Earlier today my colleague from Nelson-Creston talked very

passionately about this throne speech and about the environmental aspect of this

throne speech. He raised the issue of how much substance there is here or

whether it is a nicely written piece of rhetoric that stands on the bookshelves

for a year and then in coming years will be discarded along with others that

have gone before. Whether the spin will outweigh the hope, time will tell. I

hope that this is really something that government is committed to and will take

action on.

[1535]

I'm pessimistic. I've got to admit that I'm pessimistic. I'm

pessimistic because of what we saw later in the budget — that there isn't a

financial commitment for some of these targets. I'm pessimistic because as my

colleague from Nelson-Creston mentioned, one of the things we've got to do, if

we are looking at environmental issues and looking at climate change as the big

driver for our province and for our country, is change the way we do things —

change the way we do everything.

I think it takes a government with extraordinary courage to start

introducing those changes. I hope this might be a government with that

extraordinary courage, but I fear it is a government that is glued to its great

goals, its rhetoric and its spin, and that we won't see that.

On the specifics of the environment package in the throne speech,

there are some very good ideas there, and there are some things that do concern

me greatly. One is in the energy plan which is a spinoff from this — the talk

about coalbed methane. The best coalbed gas, practically, in North America will

be used.

I think we should be questioning whether we need to be exploring

for coalbed methane at all. It's very dangerous environmental policy. I think it

is something where we should be having alternatives and not exploring these new

sorts of drilling.

We've seen what's been happening in the United States and other

places where there has been coalbed methane exploration. It is of great concern.

I know that there are plans to look at coalbed methane just south of my

constituency on the TimberWest lands around the Comox Valley. I think that there

will be loud opposition to this, and I will be very happy to be part of that

opposition. We need to be moving beyond coalbed methane and looking at other

areas.

[ Page 5855 ]

Unfortunately, one of the other areas that is also mentioned in

the plan is offshore oil and gas, and oil and gas exploration, which does lead

to offshore oil and gas. Seventy percent of British Columbians don't want

offshore oil and gas exploration. The Priddle report a couple of years ago

showed very clearly that there should not be offshore gas and oil exploration.

First nations from Haida Gwaii and along the north coast and the

north Island have come out very clearly against offshore oil and gas

exploration. I hope that this government is listening to those concerns when

it's looking at its environmental plans and doesn't push that sort of

exploration. It would be extraordinarily dangerous for us as a province to go

down that road.

We have fantastic sources of renewable energy. I would have liked

to have seen, really, a greater commitment to those renewable energies in the

supports that can be found.

Tidal power. There are starts of work on tidal power just in my

own constituency. Just off Quadra Island there is exploration of tidal power.

Wind power. It's great to have wind farms, but what about the

transmission lines? I know that again in the north Island we've got a number of

exploratory proposals for wind farms, but then we don't know about how we're get

the power off the north Island and down to the rest of the grid.

I think that one of the problems this illustrates is that we need

more of a strategic plan, less of a patchwork of independent power producers — a

cohesion and a realization that what we are talking about is something

fundamental. It's power for our province, and it's a renewable source of power

that can come from across the province but shouldn't be left with one operator

who wants to do it here and another operator there. "We'll do that one. This one

is a big company; they can basically buy people off. We can make sure this

happens and that happens."

Again, it sounds terribly cynical, but I fear that unless we do

have a very comprehensive plan, we are going to see that the different ways of

developing our alternative energies are just simply going to go to the highest

bidder. I think we also need to be very inventive in exploring new ways of

alternative power, alternative sources of power.

There has been lots of talk about biomass and wood waste. On this

coming Saturday I'm going to be in Gold River for an open house from a company

that is looking at burning pelletized garbage as power and selling that to the

grid. Concerns about emissions? Yes, there are some, but is this the way we want

to move forward? Is this an environmental move that we want to make? Maybe it

is.

[1540]

We really have to look more broadly than the specifics of the

buzzwords of biofuels, of this, that and the other. We've got to get beyond

that. I think we've got to look for ideas, encourage those ideas and, as I said

at the beginning, put some substance behind them.

There are some things that are there that one feels are just

filling up space. Reducing energy consumption. We all know we need to reduce

energy consumption. We don't need that in the throne speech. This isn't going to

be the answer for the province or for the country.

Tree-planting initiatives — great. I would like, as I offered in

the budget speech, the Minister of Forests and Range to come out with me to

either the TimberWest or Western Forest Products lands and see what is happening

there, and try and encourage some tree-planting when we are seeing the wholesale

devastation of areas that people who live and work and log in those areas are

extremely concerned about.

There is the issue of electrification of ports — again, a very

interesting idea. Will the commitment be there? What are we looking at when we

talk about ports? Campbell River is getting cruise ships coming through. We have

a cruise ship terminal. It would be great if we could plug those cruise ships

into the grid in Campbell River. But what does this mean? It just says a

statement — electrification of ports.

When you look down the list, what else is there? Hydrogen fuel and

fuel cell buses — possibly interesting. But doesn't that mean we've also got to

invest in public transit?

It's very amusing. There was a lobby by one of the city councils

about smoking in bus stops. It went to all the city councils. Tahsis village

council got the letter and said: "First, let's get a bus, and then we can get

the bus stop, and then we can stop the smoking at the bus stop."

I think there's a disconnect between the realities of what is

happening in Vancouver, Victoria and the lower mainland and what is happening in

rural B.C. The access to transport is huge for rural B.C.

One of the issues that I deal with time and time again in my

constituency is our ferries — the fact that this government has abdicated

responsibility for the ferries, made it into a quasi-private organization and

allowed the fares to go up, ratcheting them up and ratcheting them up and

ratcheting them up until people are effectively forced out of their homes.

I live in a ferry-dependent community. I use the ferry all the

time, and the stresses and strains that the increase in fares and the fuel

subsidy are putting on my community — literally the community I live in, not

just my constituency — are huge.

Ferries aren't just used by holiday makers and not just used by

resort workers. They are used by people who go to work, by people who go to the

doctor, by people who have businesses. I use my own ferry as an example. On any

one route you don't just have the RVs and the pickup trucks.

You've got the tractor-trailers carrying farmed fish. You have the

gravel trucks. You have the workers going on the Island and workers leaving the

Island — Telus workers and a cross-section, ambulances…. They all use the

ferries, but people are being squeezed. This government needs to take

responsibility for B.C. Ferries — for our ferries and for our marine highway.

I've talked quite a lot about the environment and the issues

around the environment and about transportation and how it affects my community.

I hope they'll

[ Page 5856 ]

be taken seriously. I hope the government is listening to this as a debate

and that they don't just put out the throne speech and then say: "That's it.

We've done a great job, and we're going to move on. We've had our say. We've had

our five great goals, and we won't listen to anything that the opposition says

because we know best."

I'd like to talk about something that the throne speech didn't

mention. I was waiting to hear from the Minister of Citizens' Services, who

spoke earlier today, whether she would be mentioning it because it is part of

her portfolio. Unfortunately, she didn't. That's the issue of women, who make up

52 percent of the population and are ignored in the throne speech — absolutely

ignored.

[1545]

It's very interesting, actually, to read this as a woman and wait,

to turn page after page and think: well, there's going to be something here. And

there isn't.

While the House wasn't sitting last fall and early this year, I

took the opportunity to talk to many, many women across the province. For a

couple of weeks I was on the road talking to women across the province. I wanted

to hear what they had to say about the issues that affected them in B.C. It was

eye-opening. I mean, I talked to a cross-section. I talked to workers, to people

in unions, businesswomen, people who are in public services, students, teachers.

I was in Prince George, Kamloops, Quesnel and right across the province. I met

with first nations women and new Canadians and minority women.

I'd like to share with this House some stories from these women,

because what all of them are saying to me, in their own ways, from across the

province and from whatever walk of life…. And I'm talking indiscriminately —

whatever walk of life, not just our sort of people or your sort of people. Women

were not being heard.

A young woman who is working as a trucker. She's working night

shifts. She's being paid under the table. It's the only job that she can make

work, because she has three children that she is trying to bring up and a

student loan that she's trying to pay off and day care that she is trying to

juggle.

The older woman I met in Prince George who has had to go back to

work. She is 75 years old. She doesn't have an extravagant life, but she has

never worked, really, for very long, and so she didn't have the pension

contributions to make it possible not to work. So at 75 she's back at work.

I went to child care facilities — again, part of my critic's role

— and there were a couple of young mothers I met. One told me — this was in

Kelowna — she won't be having a second child because she can't afford the child

care. The insurance clerk who said that she won't be going back to work because

she can't afford, basically, to use all her income to pay for child care. And

the nurse who didn't go back to work because there is no child care.

I'd like to tell the House about the grandmother who didn't expect

to be spending her retirement years, her years as a grandparent, looking after

her grandchildren. The women who are stressed, who are juggling one or two jobs

and two or three children just trying to make sure that lives get on. The woman

who told me, "Well, I've got two under two," and just looked at me and smiled,

knowing that that is a stress. She's also back at work and trying to make it

work with a sister-in-law and mother and making sure that there is the space.

The other women. The women who work with female offenders, who

know the reality that when women come out of the provincial jail system, they

can almost not re-establish their lives because of the way the system works —

the access to housing, to their own children, to supports.

The women who give and give and give professionally. Women are

largely carers — nurses and health care workers and transition house workers and

counsellors. The women who, through their work and their commitment and their

volunteer time, are essentially propping up what was once a social safety net.

They're doing it. They're not getting any support from this government. Show

them the throne speech, and then offer them the budget, and they see no hope

there.

[1550]

Even the areas where one would hope there would be some movement,

where it's so public — violence against women…. Not one word of it in the

Attorney General's ministry. Not one word of the need for more supports for

women who are facing violent relationships, for women who are trying to get out

of violent relationships. Not one word about the fact that we don't have a

zero-tolerance policy anymore in this province.

Not one word about the fact that women….The police so often now

are dual charging when there is a case of violence against women. So if the man

calls and says there's a fight in the house, the woman will get arrested. What

that means for not just for the woman, but for the whole family…. Not one word

about the fact that it's the woman who always has to leave the house to go to

the transition house. There was some support for transition houses.

Nor was there any word about child care. I know that we've been

talking a lot about child care in this House over the last while, basically

since the House came back in session. I think that it's worth reiterating child

care.

The Minister of State for Childcare used to be an early childhood

education worker, and so I'm sure that she really does understand and care about

the future of our children, upon whom we are dependent for the future of our

society. We depend on these children.

I would just like to use this opportunity, since this is my sort

of second kick at the can, to read into the record some of the e-mails that we

have both been receiving — both the Minister of State and me — from various

child care workers, parents and providers.

From a woman in Vancouver, who writes:

"Our family works on the tightest of budgets. We have one

child in a part-time day care and another in part-time before- and

after-school care. We struggle to pay our housing, monthly bills and child

care expenses.

[ Page 5857 ]

Quite frankly, I don't know what we'd do if our bills were any higher.

I imagine a lot of young working families are in the same situation as we are.

Do I or my husband quit our jobs to look after our children? What happens to our

economy then?"

I think that's a very telling point. What happens to our economy —

the issue of the fact that women have to work, and women do contribute to our

economy. Child care providers, who are extremely overstretched and extremely low

paid, also contribute to our economy

Another child care provider. This is Kathy Rae from Campbell

River, who has been working in the child care field for over 35 years and who

says she'd like to offer some feedback about the current child care situation.

"The time for a clear plan with time lines and targets is

long overdue. We need adequate dedicated operating funds to make quality child

care spaces sustainable, to ensure that spaces are affordable for families and

to promote quality through improved wages. Only then can communities move

forward with confidence to create the child care services that are so

desperately needed across the province."

It is communities. We are talking about our communities here. We're

talking about the future for our communities, the people who live and work in

our communities now and the people who live and work in the communities in the

future.

Another — someone who works in child care. Just to give the

reality — in case people think we are making this up and that it all relates

back to some time in the past — this is a letter from the year 2007.

"My name is Sharon Lusier. I'm an early childhood educator

and have been for the past 15 years. I started out in the field making $10 an

hour. After 15 years I now make $13 an hour."

This is why I say it's an economic issue, because it's not just the

women who are going to come out of the workforce because they can't find child

care. It's not just the stresses on the systems because of child care. It's the

fact that the people who work in child care are effectively being forced out of

the profession because they can't afford to work there anymore.

After 15 years, to be earning $3 an hour more than when you

started — to be earning $13 an hour? I know that's above the minimum wage, but

it's an insult. It's also scary that we can think that the people we depend on

to not just look after our children, but to nurture them and to help create the

people who they will become — to say that these people are worth just $13 an

hour? I think it's really very insulting.

[1555]

Most of the child care workers I have met are women. I know there

are male child care workers, but most of them are women. There is a longstanding

issue of women's equality in pay. I know that this government in its past — I

think it's worth it that we do pick up on its past as well as its present record

— did repeal pay equity, which means that we now have women quite legally paid

basically 70 percent of what a man earns.

While this government espouses the fact that it wants a very good

economy of a mixture of people and highly skilled people, immigrants and

immigrant women get about half what a white man gets. I put that on the record

because I think it's something that has to be…. People have to remember that

when we're talking about child care and we're talking about women's issues,

we're also often talking about poverty and often poverty-led pay.

Talking about poverty pay…. A woman who works as a health care

worker saw her pay cut in this last six years because there was a rollback of

pay for health care workers, which in itself is a huge insult. She says: "I

wonder if this will ever get read." This is from Michelle Lowe. She says:

"I'm the mother of two boys under six years old, and I'm

appalled at what I'm hearing and reading about how our government values

children and their caregivers and, ultimately, families as a whole. I wonder if

this will ever get read. As of today I'm now an employee at my hospital, but

child care at this point would cost me $30 more a month than I would bring home

at $19 an hour."

Now, I'm not an economist. I am, I believe, an educated

person, but this really makes no economic sense. It makes no economic sense that

we have a cross-section of people — not just people who are on low incomes, but

people who are on middle incomes, people who are on high incomes — who say: "How

do we afford it?"

People on two incomes…. I was talking today to somebody who said

she and her husband are both earning $50,000. A $100,000 income, and they still

cannot make child care work.

Assuming that there is the money, one has to ask: is there the

space? Because when we talk about child care, we are talking about a social

crisis in our province. It's a social crisis that is reverberating right across

the province. Many of us are not from the lower mainland in this House. We pick

up our local papers, and we can see this is reverberating across the province,

that this is not something that is isolated.

What we see is that everywhere not only are families squeezed on

costs, but they're squeezed on space. In my travel around the province I went to

Vernon, the constituency represented by the Minister of Children and Family

Dev