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)

THURSDAY, MARCH 1, 2007

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 15, Number 5

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Page

Introductions by Members

Introduction and First Reading of

Bills

Ministerial Accountability Bases Act,

2006-2007 (Bill 5)

Hon. M. de

Jong

Retail Petroleum Consumer Protection

Act (Bill M201)

J. Horgan

Speaker's Statement

Guidelines for members' statements

Statements (Standing Order 25 B )

Nanaimo RCMP

R. Cantelon

Hospice societies

S. Fraser

Festival du Bois

H. Bloy

Harriet Nahanee

J. Kwan

Kelly Scott and Kelowna curling team

A. Horning

Mitch Gillis

C. Wyse

Oral Questions

Special needs students

D. Cubberley

Hon. S. Bond

Funding for Fraser Health Authority

A. Dix

Hon. G. Abbott

C. Puchmayr

Performance bonus for highway

maintenance contractors

D. Chudnovsky

Hon. K. Falcon

Seal-coating of Highway 18

D. Routley

Hon. K. Falcon

Agreements with independent power

producers

S. Simpson

Hon. R.

Neufeld

Offshore oil and gas industry

G. Robertson

Hon. R.

Neufeld

Petitions

R. Lee

N. Simons

Motions without Notice

Committee of Supply to sit in two

sections

Hon. M. de

Jong

Budget Debate (continued)

J. Kwan

Hon. C. Hansen

D. Routley

D. Hayer

H. Lali

Hon. L. Reid

S. Hammell

B. Lekstrom

Hon. C. Taylor

Reports from Committees

Special Committee of Selection,

first report

Hon. M. de Jong

Motions without Notice

Powers and role of Select Standing

Committee on Children and Youth

Hon. M. de

Jong

Powers and role of Public Accounts

Committee

Hon. M. de

Jong

Statements

Thanks to members

Hon. R. Thorpe

[ Page 5681 ]

THURSDAY, MARCH 1, 2007

The House met at 1:33 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Introductions by Members

S. Fraser: I get to be first. That's great.

I'm very, very honoured today to be able to welcome a number of

people from my constituency involved with hospice — in particular, Ty Watson

House in Port Alberni. I'd like help in welcoming Rose Waslyniuk, Bob Taschuk,

Bob Barteux, Betty Argatow, Melanie Reimer, Christopher Stevenson and Lynn

Turner. Please join me in welcoming them.

Hon. R. Coleman: Members of this House know I'm no

scientist. Actually, many of them would probably say: "He's no rocket

scientist."

However, in the gallery today we do have a number of scientists

from Genome B.C., who are the catalyst for the internationally recognized life

sciences cluster in British Columbia. Since 2001 they've turned a $100 million

investment by the province into $400 million in research projects. The research

they conduct is leading to improvements in areas of British Columbia's economy,

from human health and agriculture, fisheries and even forestry.

Today I'd like the House to recognize Willie Davidson, Ben Koop,

Bob Hancock, Christoph Borchers, Paul Keown, Joerg Bohlman, Bruce McManus, Steve

Lund, David Dolphin and Alan Winter. Would the House please make them welcome.

[1335]

H. Bloy: With us today in the gallery are two special

guests. Karl Segnoe is completing his bachelor of arts degree with a double

University in my riding of Burquitlam.

As many of you know, SFU produces some of the foremost scholars in

the country, and no doubt Karl is among them. He has conducted cultural research

around the world, including Southeast Asia, India and Europe. With him today is

the love of his life, Deborah Rimusso. Deborah is visiting British Columbia for

the first time from Italy. Will the House please make them welcome.

Hon. C. Hansen: As I think some people know, I was born in

Port Alberni in the riding of Alberni-Qualicum. The member for Alberni-Qualicum

was making some introductions earlier, but there's actually another delegation

here today, as well, that I would like to welcome to the House. It includes

Madelynn Kingsley, Ben and Irene Potter, Rita and Doug Faust, and Gerry and

Paula Peterson. I hope the House will make them very welcome as well.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

MINISTERIAL ACCOUNTABILITY

BASES ACT, 2006-2007

Hon. M. de Jong presented a message from Her Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Ministerial Accountability Bases Act,

2006-2007.

Hon. M. de Jong: I move that Bill 5 be introduced and read

a first time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. M. de Jong: The Ministerial Accountability Bases Act,

2006-2007, provides for an increase in the amount of operating expenses for the

Ministry of Finance and the Ministry of Forests and Range for the purposes of

ministerial accountability under the Balanced Budget and Ministerial

Accountability Act. The additional amount for the Minister of Finance has been

debated and passed as part of the supplementary estimate of yesterday, and the

additional amount for the Minister of Forests and Range is to account for the

statutory costs associated with firefighting.

I move that Bill 5 be placed on the orders of the day for second

reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 5, Ministerial Accountability Bases Act, 2006-2007,

introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for

second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

RETAIL PETROLEUM

CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT

J. Horgan presented a bill intituled Retail Petroleum Consumer

Protection Act.

J. Horgan: I move that

an act intituled Retail Petroleum

Consumer Protection Act, notice of which is on the order paper, be read a first

time now.

Motion approved.

J. Horgan: It is an honour and a privilege to rise in this

Legislature today to put words into action. Many of my colleagues have come to

me over the past number of months with complaints from people all over this

province concerned that declining world crude prices have not been followed with

the reduction in retail gasoline prices.

As a producer of oil and gas, and with our immediate proximity to

the oilfields in Alberta, British Columbians are right to expect that retail

prices here would be lower than other provincial jurisdictions. That is not the

case. In fact, average retail prices this past week in Toronto — where hundreds

of retail outlets have been closed because of a supply crisis in southern

Ontario

[ Page 5682 ]

unparalleled in modern times — are still eight cents lower per litre than in

the lower mainland area.

The intent of this bill is to amend the Utilities Commission Act

to protect consumers from wildly fluctuating petroleum product prices by giving

the commission the ability to examine wholesale prices and regulate retail

prices with the view of reducing apparent price gouging. Regulation of this

nature is within provincial jurisdiction. Other provinces regulate the sector

with a view to protecting consumers and providing certainty for the driving

public.

British Columbians expect consumer protection from unfair pricing,

and this act will provide that protection. The amendments within the bill will

give power to the commission as an independent panel to ensure price

fluctuations are consistent with market conditions and not set to realize

windfall profits. It will also appoint an advocate to review and report on price

volatility in B.C. so that British Columbians can be guaranteed that they are

not paying more than the market requires.

[1340]

A place for controls, an officer for appeals and a commitment from

this Legislature to protect British Columbians. Words into action, Mr. Speaker.

I urge my colleagues to support their constituents and assist me in passing this

bill.

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

second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill M201, Retail Petroleum Consumer Protection Act, introduced,

read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second

reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Speaker's Statement

GUIDELINES FOR

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

Mr. Speaker: Members, before we get started on members'

statements. Hon. members, several members of the House have indicated that there

seems to be some uncertainty as to the appropriate scope of debate and subject

matter under Standing Order 25b, the order which provides daily statements by

members. The statement delivered to members of this House on November 18, 2002,

will be of assistance to members in fashioning their statements under Standing

Order 25b.

Last February 12, 2002, the standing orders of the House were

amended to adopt, under Standing Order 25b, the provisions for daily statements

by members. There has long existed in this House a similar provision for weekly

private members' statements, under Standing Order 25a.

The intent and spirit applicable to weekly private members'

statements are also pertinent to daily statements. Private members' statements

have been well canvassed and discussed in a number of Speaker's rulings in this

House and amply referenced in Parliamentary Practice in British Columbia ,

third edition, at page 46.

In order to assist members with respect to their daily statements,

I remind the House of the relevant guidelines in this regard. The jurisprudence

of this House does not preclude members from expressing a party's position on

political issues or policy. However, the topic covered should not revive

discussion on a matter already discussed in the same session, nor should it

anticipate a matter already appointed for consideration by this House.

Statements should not reflect negatively on individual members or

groups of members in this House. It is also contrary to the intent and spirit of

statements to use these as a vehicle to criticize or rebuke another member's

words spoken during other proceedings in the House.

I would ask all hon. members to be guided by these principles.

Statements

(Standing Order 25

b) NANAIMO RCMP

R. Cantelon: I rise today to give an account of the RCMP

appreciation dinner held recently in Nanaimo. It was held as a fundraiser for

the Nanaimo crisis centre. It wasn't the scarlet tunics that sold out the house

for this inaugural event, although it was a real gala event. It was because this

event gave the community an opportunity to show their personal appreciation and

gratitude to the members, one of each of whom sat at the tables.

Of course we respect and admire their ultimate commitment to put

their lives on the line 24-7 to protect the safety of the citizens of the

community. But it is about much more than that. It is about how each member

takes it upon themselves to make it personal in making the place they live in a

better place for all of us to live in.

Today it's about working with community leaders, neighbourhoods,

business leaders and youth in rebuilding the cores of our cities on a safer,

crime-free foundation. In Nanaimo Supt. Jeff Lott has set up a task force that

works closely with the neighbourhood community groups, the Downtown Nanaimo

Partnership, city bylaw enforcement officers and the fire department in a

coordinated strategy to combat drug abuse. They are the front line in a

compliance strategy using the nuisance house bylaw, the Safe Streets Act and the

Trespass Act to push away drug squats and close crack houses. And it is working.

Neighbourhoods are taking back the streets.

A special thanks for the event goes to the New Car Dealers

Association for organizing the gala. They have special reason to be grateful,

since car thefts have been reduced in Nanaimo by 70 percent.

I ask the House to please join me in adding our appreciation and

congratulations to this fine police force, the RCMP.

[1345]

HOSPICE SOCIETIES

S. Fraser: The hospice societies of Vancouver Island

applaud the recent decision by the Vancouver Island Health

[ Page 5683 ]

Authority to support the operation of a residential hospice in Port Alberni,

Ty Watson House.. This decision opens the door of collaboration with communities

and community partnerships between VIHA and the hospice societies, and is an

important step in building capacity within our health care system.

Although palliative care and end-of-life care is a complex issue

that cuts across all ages and circumstances, it is actually the baby-boomers and

their aging parents who will define the face of this segment of health care in

B.C. over the next 20 to 30 years.

Vancouver Island has the highest rate of aging population in the

province, and it is clear that we must find new and innovative ways to meet that

growing need. The provincial framework on end-of-life care in B.C. was released

just last May 2006. It recognizes the value the hospice societies bring to the

delivery of palliative and end-of-life care.

Trained hospice volunteers and professional staff provide

significant psychosocial care across all care settings in the continuum. Hospice

societies need to be recognized as full partners in care, capable of delivering

programs and services that effectively meet the needs of individuals at the end

of life and during caregiving and bereavement.

We as government, with our health authorities, need to make a

strong commitment to work in partnership with hospice societies and all other

care partners to ensure that B.C. is an innovative leader in creating excellence

in the delivery of end-of-life care — end-of-life patients and families who are

experiencing possibly the most difficult time of their life.

FESTIVAL DU BOIS

H. Bloy: This weekend the annual Festival du Bois returns

to Blue Mountain Park in Coquitlam. The theme for this year's festival is music

that tells a story. The francophone cultural impact in British Columbia is quite

the resilient story.

Coquitlam is home to the oldest and largest francophone community

in British Columbia, Maillardville, with settlers arriving from Quebec nearly

100 years ago. Festival-goers this year are sure to be enchanted with an

acoustically rich lineup of main stage performers, including the renowned lead

of La Bottine Souriante, Yves Lambert, as well as Marco Calliari and the Mosabo

Cultural Company and Maillardville's own — and my very favourite — Jammers, led

by Jean Lambert.

In its 18th year, Festival du Bois is an important cultural event

for all members of my riding, including families, who are sure to be delighted

with the special children's stage this year. But the festival only happens

because of the strong leadership of Johanne Anita Dumas and her huge team of

volunteers. Year after year they organize every detail of this event in a humble

manner, guaranteeing its success.

This year the new innovative workshop tent is sure to be a

microcosm of what the festival actually stands for — an inspiration for the next

generation of musical talent, an opportunity for members of my community to stay

connected to their heritage and a whole lot of francofun.

HARRIET NAHANEE

J. Kwan: Yesterday was the funeral of elder Harriet

Nahanee. She was 71 years old and died in hospital last Sunday of previously

undiagnosed lung cancer and pneumonia. Her lawyer says that she may have

contracted the pneumonia at the Surrey Pretrial Centre

On January 24 Harriet was sentenced to 14 days for contempt of

court for her

part in the Sea to Sky Highway expansion project at Eagleridge

Bluffs. Harriet was one of numerous people who gave a prayer at the Eagleridge

Bluffs site to protest against the government's decision on Eagleridge.

Harriet was born on the Pacheenaht Indian reserve on Vancouver

Island in 1937. Along with other children on the reserve, she was taken from her

parents at the age of five to live at the Ahousat Residential School. In 1998

she testified about the horrific abuse that she and other native children

suffered, including beatings, rape and murder.

[1350]

This morning at 10 a.m. over 80 people gathered at the aboriginal

friendship centre in my constituency, where the proceedings began with a

traditional women's warrior song. At the service many people asked why she was

sent to jail at her age and in frail health when many other compassionate

interventions existed. People were also asking for a public inquiry into her

death today.

I would like to express my condolences to the family, friends and

hundreds of people whom she touched through her activism and wise, dignified

leadership on behalf of aboriginal people and the environment. My heart goes out

to the family of elder Harriet Nahanee at this time of deep sorrow and lingering

questions.

KELLY SCOTT AND

KELOWNA CURLING TEAM

A. Horning: Kelly Scott is well on her way to becoming a

Canadian legend. This 29-year-old skip and her team from my hometown of Kelowna

has defended her title at the Scotties Tournament of Hearts and is heading to

the World Curling Championships.

Kelly and her team — third Jeanna Schraeder, second Sasha Carter,

lead Renee Simons and coach Gerry Richards — beat Saskatchewan 8-5 in the finals

of the Tournament of Hearts last weekend. The Scott rink will represent Canada

at the World Women's Curling Championship in Japan this month.

Curling is quickly becoming one of the most popular sports in

Canada. I'm proud to say that Kelowna is now being touted as the curling capital

of Canada, thanks to the dedication and talent of several curlers who call

Kelowna home.

Despite receiving international recognition on her agility and

grace on the ice, Kelly Scott has always remained true to where she has come

from. Scott has never shied away from letting it be known that she

[ Page 5684 ]

lives, breathes and plays on Canadian soil. Ms. Scott said it best during a

recent interview after her win at the Scotties: "We were ready to wear the maple

leaf and represent the maple leaf the way it should be."

With the emotion of a true leader and the depth of a skilled

athlete, Ms. Scott has led her rink to successes that will forever be engraved

in Canadian sports history. I would like to ask the House for a warm round of

applause to wish Kelly and her team the best of luck in Japan.

MITCH GILLIS

C. Wyse: I am pleased today to recognize a member of my

constituency who is an inspiration to many aspiring athletes. Mitch Gillis was

born and raised in Williams Lake and graduated with honours from Columneetza

Secondary School in 2002. Mitch is a sports enthusiast who enjoys hockey,

fishing and snowboarding.

During his high school years he was a three-time zone 8 curling

champion, but Mitch has pursued one sport — golf — with dedication and

determination. His golf accomplishments include: member of the winning B.C. team

at the 2000 western Canadian Juvenile Championship; 2000 B.C. match play

champion; member of B.C.'s victorious 2001 Junior America's Cup team; three

Pac-10 golf all-academic honouree including team selection 2004-2005.

In 2006 Mitch was named captain of the university men's golf team

and in this same year won the Oregon Amateur Championship, the Oregon Men's

Stroke Play Championship and the Pacific Northwest golf public links

championship — the first golfer to win all three of these events in one year.

In October of this past year Mitch was featured in

Sports

Illustrated magazine's "Faces in the Crowd" and in an

article on

golfweek.com. Mitch has attended Oregon State University on golf and academic

scholarships and will graduate with a degree in business management this spring.

In 2006 Mitch received the Glen Klein Community Service Award, and

during the same year he served as president of the student athletic advisory

council. These achievements, together with his accomplishments on the golf

course, demonstrate Mitch's commitment to his studies, his sport and his

community.

I ask the House today to join with me in congratulating this young

man. Mitch Gillis has a bright future due to the support of his family and to

his own hard work.

Mr. Speaker: Members must have anticipated Standing Order

25b. They did an exceptional job.

Oral Questions

SPECIAL NEEDS STUDENTS

D. Cubberley: Recently the Minister of Education announced

her intention to set up segregated schools for some of the nearly 60,000 special

needs kids in British Columbia.

Now we hear that a former Liberal Education Minister — whose many

blunders included the grad portfolio this minister buried quietly a few weeks

ago, as well as cutting targeted funding for special needs kids — sees

segregated schools for special needs kids as a business opportunity, and that

she has the minister's ear.

[1355]

My question to the minister: can she share her rationale for

segregating a few needy kids when she refuses to supply teaching supports for

the over 9,500 classrooms with more than three special needs kids?

Hon. S. Bond: Let's make one thing perfectly clear. The

only side of the House that's actually used the word "segregated" in this House

is the member opposite, and that is shameful.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker:

Members. Members.

Hon. S. Bond: What is even more disappointing is that….

Perhaps the Education critic should try to find the Leader of the Opposition,

who spent a number of years as a school trustee in this province and probably

understands that the system we have in place today does not meet the needs of

every child. We're going to work hard to make sure we provide choice and

opportunity in this province.

Mr. Speaker:

Member has a supplemental.

D. Cubberley: Well, this minister claims to have placed a

"legal limit" of three on the number of special needs kids per class, but today

there are 9,555 classes in B.C. violating this pseudo-cap. In Comox school

district, 46 percent of all elementary classes, 53 percent of all middle school

classes and 40 percent of all high school classes are breaking her legal limit.

Shouldn't the minister's priority be to fully fund the inclusion

of special needs kids in B.C.'s blended classrooms, rather than segregating some

in separate schools?

Hon. S. Bond: Well, it's interesting. Perhaps once again

you should have a discussion with your leader. As a matter of fact, it was the

now Leader of the Opposition who made the statement: "Kids don't come in

class-size packages."

You know, as we look across this province today, we have

record-level funding for public education. We have 1,100 more classes, 12,000

fewer students, 175 more teachers and 400 additional teaching assistants.

School trustees across this province make difficult decisions

every day. The Leader of the Opposition was one. Perhaps she should spend some

time with her Education critic.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker:

Members.

[ Page 5685 ]

Member has a further supplemental.

D. Cubberley: Well, I hope the minister isn't claiming that

nearly 10,000 classes exceeding her legal limit of three is a success.

This minister claims that she fully funds special needs education,

so she may be interested in Sean Steele's plight. He's a 13-year-old autistic,

and next year he hopes to go to high school. He's assessed as having the

capacity to complete a Dogwood, but he'll need an aide's support throughout his

entire high school. However, he will stop receiving the support he needs because

his high school, Sir Charles Tupper, hasn't enough support staff for kids like

Sean. His grade 7 teacher is advocating on his behalf, but Sean's future is

uncertain.

If there aren't the resources available for kids like Sean in

regular classes, what in heaven's name is this minister doing spending money on

segregated schools? [Applause.]

Hon. S. Bond: I'm surprised that the members opposite clap

at the use of the word "segregated" in this House. It's shameful. Let's be very

clear.

Interjection.

[1400]

Mr. Speaker:

Member. We listened to the question; let's

listen to the answer.

Hon. S. Bond: Let's make one thing perfectly clear. This is

a government who supports inclusion and has in fact provided over half a billion

dollars a year in funding to demonstrate that.

Perhaps the Education critic would have liked to have met with the

parents that I met with today, in fact, who said that the current system doesn't

work particularly well for their children. You know, parents have come to us and

said: "We want to look at options."

I want to say to the member opposite that we're not going to stop

looking for choice and opportunity to better serve children in this province,

and we're going to keep doing that — even to the cries from the opposite members

talking about the word "segregation." That is shameful. We are not contemplating

that, and we will remain committed to providing choice and opportunity for

parents and students.

FUNDING FOR FRASER HEALTH AUTHORITY

A. Dix:

The bed and funding crisis in the Fraser Health

Authority and at Royal Columbian Hospital continues, and there's no end in

sight. The director of surgery at Royal Columbian Hospital, Dr. Mark Matishak,

had to cancel all of his elective neurosurgeries in the month of February due to

the lack of beds and the lack of adequate budgets. For the Minister of

Transportation's edification, we are talking about surgeries for brain tumours.

It was this government's mismanagement that brought about the

chaos at Fraser Health. Former board chair Keith Purchase said it, doctors are

saying it, health care workers are saying it, and patients are crying out for

help.

My question to the Minister of Health: when will the Minister of

Health step in and address the funding crisis at Royal Columbian and in the

Fraser Health Authority?

Hon. G. Abbott:

As I've said before in this House, any time

a surgery — including elective surgeries — is cancelled or postponed, we regret

that. We always want people to have timely service; we always want them to have

timely surgeries.

There are more surgeries in British Columbia this year than ever

before in our history. Almost half a million surgeries have been undertaken in

the province this year — more than ever before. Most of those surgeries were

undertaken on a timely basis. There are exceptions. The opposition can raise

those exceptions, and of course we want everyone in the system to have timely

surgery.

It is not a matter of dollars. The budget for Royal Columbian

Hospital has gone from $146 million five years ago to $224 million today.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

The member has a supplemental.

A. Dix: What is the minister talking about? They cancelled

100 percent of the elective neurosurgeries at Royal Columbian Hospital in

February, and he responds with that bafflegab.

At a time when we should be increasing capacity in the Fraser

Health Authority…. It's right there in the budget: a deficit this year. As a

result of this government's budget, there will in fact be dozens of beds cut.

Keith Purchase predicted it in his letter of resignation to the Minister of

Health, and it's coming true in hospitals across the Fraser Health Authority.

Why does the Minister of Health think this is acceptable?

Hon. G. Abbott: There are two principal challenges that

Fraser Health Authority is attempting to address these days. Both of them

actually relate to the absence of investment during a critical period of the

1990s. One example of the challenge was the failure to….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker:

Members.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. G. Abbott:

One of the challenges was the failure to

invest in new capacity. They were a government….

Interjections.

[1405]

Hon. G. Abbott: Apparently, they don't want to hear this,

Mr. Speaker, and I don't blame them for not

[ Page 5686 ]

wanting to hear this: 3,334 hospital beds cut during the 1990s — 3,334. There

were promises made during the 1990s repeatedly. They were going to build the new

Abbotsford hospital. When was it done? Never during the NDP's tenure. There were

promises made about Surrey Memorial. When was that done during the NDP's tenure?

Never.

Our government promised Abbotsford. We're delivering Abbotsford,

on time and on budget.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker:

Members.

C. Puchmayr: How can the minister dare talk about

capacities when they tore down a hospital in that region? They tore down a

hospital that performed thousands of surgeries a year. They tore it down. This

government tore it down.

We always hear about the occasional surgery that the minister

talks about, which has to be cancelled — the occasional surgery. In this case,

this doctor had his entire elective surgery calendar cancelled due to a lack of

operating room capacity. One patient had her surgery cancelled six times.

Neurosurgery, serious spinal cord surgeries cancelled at the jeopardy of the

patient.

What will this government do today to address this crisis in this

region?

Hon. G. Abbott: The second challenge…. I outlined the

capital challenge from the 1990s in my previous remarks. The other challenge

that really daunts the health care system in British Columbia today is operating

room nurses and nurses generally. There are some 2,000 nurse vacancies in the

province today. I know that Royal Columbian Hospital is one of the hard-hit

institutions in respect of the nurse shortage.

The nurse shortage is entirely a product of the failure of the NDP

government to invest in that area of public policy. There was a substantial

decline in the number of nurses that were graduating in this province between

1993 and 2001 — a very substantial reduction. We've reversed that, but it takes

five years to educate a registered nurse and get them at work in our hospitals.

If the NDP wants to do something about that, why don't they admit

that they failed British Columbia in the 1990s with their failed rationing

policy?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker:

Members.

Member has a supplemental.

C. Puchmayr: I wonder how many young people changed their

career directions after this government tore up collective agreements and

created this capacity problem in the hospitals, where nurses are absolutely

overworked. What young person wants to get into a field that is so mismanaged

and they're working in crisis every day?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker:

Members.

C. Puchmayr: The resignation of Keith Purchase…. He said

quite clearly that he was concerned about the capacity problems that are

created. Dozens more beds are going to be cut from the Fraser Health Authority.

Dozens more beds will be cut.

[1410]

Yesterday the minister heard from my city council about the

crisis. The minister has heard from Mr. Purchase about the crisis. The minister

hears from us about the crisis. The minister has heard from the emergency room

doctors who were bold enough to sign a letter explaining the situation in the

Fraser Health Authority. What will he do today to address this serious crisis in

our region?

Hon. G. Abbott: The facts speak for themselves. In 1993,

839 nurses graduating. In 2001….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, I can't hear the answer. Members.

Members.

Minister, continue.

Hon. G. Abbott: Mr. Speaker, I'll repeat it so you have an

opportunity to hear this time.

In 1993, 839 graduate registered nurses in the province. By 2001

that had been reduced by 265 to 574 graduates. We've reversed that. We've added

75 percent more nursing spaces in this province — 3,021 additional nursing

spaces in this province. We have tripled and then tripled again the number of

international medical graduate residency spaces in this province — now 18

compared to two during the NDP's tenure.

As well, we are taking steps to add capacity. The Abbotsford

hospital will add capacity on the acute care side as well as the cancer side.

The additions at Surrey will be enormously helpful as well.

PERFORMANCE BONUS FOR

HIGHWAY MAINTENANCE CONTRACTORS

D. Chudnovsky: The Minister of Transportation wrote to a

Kitimat city councillor that he has asked contractor Nechako Northcoast "to

review their winter maintenance procedures and to make adjustments necessary to

keep roads in your area as safe and reliable as possible."

So let's review. Thousands of residents are complaining. Business

people are complaining. City councillors are complaining. Even the minister is

complaining about the service and telling the company to improve.

My question: is this company, which even the minister is telling

to improve its service, receiving a performance bonus payment, and how much is

that bonus payment?

Hon. K. Falcon: Well, perhaps a little education for the

member on why there are incentive bonus payments made to contractors. Under that

member's term of

[ Page 5687 ]

government they had a quality assurance program undertaken by the contractors

that essentially identified the problems but had absolutely no feedback loop to

actually fix any of the problems. As an example, counting the number of potholes

may be an interesting exercise, but if you don't actually have a feedback loop

that gets those potholes repaired and someone held to account for that, it's not

much of a quality assurance program.

What we have today is that the contractors operate under the

principles of our program, which the member may be aware of, called ISO 9001 —

an internationally accredited, recognized program which has continuous

improvement as the fundamental basis of that program. That means they

continually work to identify and improve on their system. That's exactly what

they're doing in that area, and that's exactly what they're doing right across

the province.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

D. Chudnovsky: Continuous improvement? Did I hear the

minister say continuous improvement? Did he say continuous improvement? There

are…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

D. Chudnovsky: …only 46 people in the province who can

claim that there's continuous improvement in road maintenance in this province,

and they're all in this room on the other side.

[1415]

Now, the minister lectures us on auditing and on monitoring and on

feedback loops, but surely the issue is results. Surely the issue is the

condition of the roads. On that score it's unanimous. The people of the

province, city councils, business people, truckers — even the minister himself —

are telling the companies to improve their service.

To the minister: what is the total amount that taxpayers in

British Columbia are spending on performance bonuses to the road maintenance

contractors this year? What's the amount?

Hon. K. Falcon: Well, one of the things that might be

helpful for this member to know is that when you want to actually encourage the

right behaviour, you provide both incentives and disincentives. This member

wouldn't know that, because the member has never worked in the private sector. I

can understand his complete lack of understanding about how you want to motivate

private sector contractors.

What we have done is made sure that we not only have performance

bonuses that are paid to incent the contractors to do the right thing, but we

have independent stakeholder reviews to make sure that as we analyze the work of

those maintenance contractors, we're also speaking to stakeholder groups like

the RCMP, the truck-driving industry, the major employers — pulp mills, for

example — that use a lot of the roads.

Having said all this, the one thing I take issue with is the fact

that we have had the worst, toughest winter we've seen in two decades. All we

hear from across the way is, frankly, just a slagging of workers who have worked

very hard to try and deliver under very, very difficult circumstances. I think

that by and large, they've done a very good job.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, the member for Cowichan-Ladysmith has

the floor.

SEAL-COATING OF HIGHWAY 18

D. Routley: The minister's awareness of the present is

every bit as challenged as his comprehension of the past. In….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

D. Routley: In 1979 the then Socred government resurfaced

Highway 18 from Duncan to Lake Cowichan. They chose to use seal-coating, where

gravel and tar are pressed into the road by passing traffic. The flying rocks

cost millions in damage and numerous injuries. The method was proven to be a

disaster on this 110-kilometre-per-hour, heavily trafficked route.

Since then, during the '90s the highway was twice repaved without

significant nuisance and with good results. Now despite all of this experience

and many, many warnings from local officials, the ministry has again chosen

seal-coating. Again rocks are being sprayed like hail into traffic. Damage has

occurred to thousands of vehicles. Will the minister commit to a proper repaving

of Highway 18 now?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. K. Falcon: I was kind of snickering because I saw the

former Minister of Transportation on the other side banging the desk at that. He

would know.

I'm pretty sure it's not the position of the opposition that we

should eliminate seal-coating in the province, because these members are well

aware, I would hope, that this is actually how we extend the life of our highway

system and how we do it in a cost-effective way. I'm pretty sure they wouldn't

tell us, as is their wont, to just act completely irresponsibly with taxpayer

dollars and repave everything, when we can actually save significant money and

still extend the length and the benefit of the highway system by utilizing

seal-coating.

In this case, the member knows that on Highway 18 we had a

seal-coat failure — very rare. In fact, we're still trying to figure out why

that occurred. It did cause some challenges for the drivers, and I don't want to

[ Page 5688 ]

understate that at all, except to say that we have sent over 500 cheques to

the individuals who were affected. We've worked very closely with the community

to make sure that we lower the speed limit. We ensure that traffic is not

continuing to flick up gravel, and we will redo that job once spring arrives.

AGREEMENTS WITH

INDEPENDENT POWER PRODUCERS

S. Simpson: A key component of the energy plan that was

released the other day in terms of providing power for British Columbia is the

private power sector. It's anticipated to supply as much as 40 percent of our

demand into the future.

[1420]

The private power producers have 20-to-30-year power purchase

agreements with B.C. Hydro. There is no guarantee of renewal of those agreements

when they expire. In fact, those companies will be free to sell that power to

the highest bidder after those agreements are settled. The government currently

has no means to compel those companies to meet British Columbia needs first.

My question to the Minister of Energy is: how can he fulfil the

commitments he made in that plan around energy efficiency? And more importantly,

how can he fulfil those commitments long term — past 2020, past 2030 — if those

power agreements expire and some or all of those companies choose to sell their

power elsewhere?

Hon. R. Neufeld:

I'm pleased to stand in the House and just

remind the member that when they were in government, they actually signed some

contracts with independent power producers — on Vancouver Island, some up north.

They had nothing in there to actually get that electricity back. I would say to

the member that he should get proud and happy of an energy plan that most

everybody in British Columbia appreciates.

I don't know what it is about the energy plan that these people

don't like. Is it clean energy? Is it 90-percent clean energy? Is it zero

emissions? What is it they don't like, Mr. Speaker?

There are huge opportunities in the province — $3 billion worth of

green, clean power that's going to be built in the next number of years in the

province. And you know what, Mr. Speaker? This group said they would nationalize

it if they got into power. Can you imagine? Can you imagine what would happen? I

suggest they review what they said very carefully.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

OFFSHORE OIL AND GAS INDUSTRY

G. Robertson: Last November 23 the Premier pledged to

investors in Hong Kong that he would aggressively pursue offshore oil and gas

development, but all bets were off on February 13 when the throne speech

rhapsodized about this government's sudden commitment to tackle climate change.

Then, only two weeks later, on February 27 the energy plan update reaffirmed the

Premier's commitment to offshore oil and gas, with less regulation and more

subsidies to industry.

The Premier has flipped and flopped like a flounder in an oil

spill, Mr. Speaker.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker:

Members. Members.

We'll continue when there's quiet. Member for Vancouver-Fairview

continues.

G. Robertson:

My question is simple. To the Minister of

Energy: what takes priority — offshore oil and gas drilling or dealing with

climate change?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. R. Neufeld: Well, the energy plan was broad-ranging.

It deals with climate change. It deals with actually having enough energy in the

province to meet our needs in 2016, which the NDP government did not look at

seriously at all.

Let me tell you, Mr. Speaker — $127 million in B.C. Hydro funding…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker:

Members. Members.

Continue.

Hon. R. Neufeld:

…over the next two years for Power Smart

and conservation initiative. Is that something the member for Vancouver-Fairview

disagrees with? A $25 million innovation clean energy fund — does that member

disagree with that?

Mr. Speaker, it's interesting that that member would get up and

talk about oil and gas, because of everybody in this House, he is probably the

largest consumer — his company is — of, actually, natural gas in the province of

British Columbia. Unbelievable that that member would stand up….

[1425]

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Minister, continue.

Hon. R. Neufeld: All we want to do is keep the planet

happy. That's what we want to do. That opposition is riding a 50-year-old, dead,

three-legged dark horse.

You know, up-country the old saying is: "When your horse dies,

dismount." I'd suggest they dismount.

Interjections.

[ Page 5689 ]

Mr. Speaker: Members.

[End of question period.]

H. Bains: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to make an introduction,

please.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

H. Bains: In the vicinity there are about 37 grade 9-10

members of Frank Hurt Secondary School band team, along with their teacher Mr.

Jeff Williams. Please join me and extend them a warmest welcome to this

facility.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members, we haven't finished yet.

R. Lee: I rise to present a petition.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

Petitions

R. Lee: I have a petition of the Canadian Alliance for

Social Justice and Family Values Association signed by 17,648 British Columbians

asking the Legislature to defend and to preserve parental and children's rights.

N. Simons: On behalf of residents, children and families of

the lower Sunshine Coast, I present a petition to the Minister of Transportation

to ensure that safety improvements take place in their area, close to their

school and their neighbourhood.

Orders of the Day

Motions without Notice

COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY

TO SIT IN TWO SECTIONS

Hon. M. de Jong: Firstly, by leave, I move the following:

[Be it resolved that this House hereby authorizes the Committee of

Supply for this Session to sit in two sections designated

Section A and

Section

B;

Section A to sit in such Committee Room as may be appointed from time to

time, and

Section B to sit in the Chamber of the Assembly, subject to the

following rules:

1. The Standing Orders applicable to the Committee of the Whole House

shall be applicable in both Sections of the Committee of Supply save and except

that in

Section A, a Minister may defer to a Deputy Minister to permit such

Deputy to reply to a question put to the Minister.

2. Subject to paragraph 3, within one sitting day of the passage of

this Motion, the House Leader of the Official Opposition may advise the

Government House Leader, in writing, of three ministerial Estimates which the

Official Opposition requires to be considered in

Section B of the Committee of

Supply, and upon receipt of such notice in writing, the Government House Leader

shall confirm in writing that the said three ministerial Estimates shall be

considered in

Section B of the Committee of Supply.

3. All Estimates shall stand referred to

Section A, save and except

those Estimates which shall be referred to

Section B under the provisions of

paragraph 2 of this Order and such other Estimates as shall be referred to

Section B on motion by the Government House Leader, which motion shall be

governed by the provisions of Standing Order 60a. Practice Recommendation #6

relating to Consultation shall be applicable to this rule.

Section A shall consist of 18 Members, being 11 Members of the B.C.

Liberal Party and 7 Members of the New Democratic Party. In addition, the Deputy

Chair of the Committee of the Whole, or his or her nominee, shall preside over

the debates in

Section A. Substitution of Members will be permitted to

Section A

with the consent of that Member's Whip, where applicable, otherwise with the

consent of the Member involved. For the third session of the Thirty-eighth

Parliament, the Members of

Section A shall be as follows: the Minister whose

Estimates are under consideration and Messrs. Bennett, Cantelon, Hayer,

Horning, Jarvis, Lee, Lekstrom, and Nuraney, and Ms. McIntyre, and Roddick

and Messrs. Bains, Chouhan, Cubberley, Evans, Farnworth, Fraser and

Ms. Conroy .

5. At fifteen minutes prior to the ordinary time fixed for adjournment

of the House, the Chair of

Section A will report to the House. In the event such

report includes the last vote in a particular ministerial Estimate, after such

report has been made to the House, the Government shall have a maximum of eight

minutes, and the Official Opposition a maximum of five minutes, and all other

Members (cumulatively) a maximum of three minutes to summarize the Committee

debate on a particular ministerial Estimate completed, such summaries to be in

the following order:

(1) Other Members;

(2) Opposition; and

(3) Government.

Section B shall be composed of all Members of the House.

7. Divisions in

Section A will be signalled by the ringing of the

division bells four times.

8. Divisions in

Section B will be signalled by the ringing of the

division bells three times at which time proceedings in

Section A will be

suspended until completion of the division in

Section B.

Section A is hereby authorized to consider Bills referred to

Committee after second reading thereof and the Standing Orders applicable to

Bills in Committee of the Whole shall be applicable to such Bills during

consideration thereof in

Section A, and for all purposes

Section A shall be

deemed to be a Committee of the Whole. Such referrals to

Section A shall be made

upon motion without notice by the

[ Page 5690 ]

Minister responsible for the Bill, and such motion shall be decided

without amendment or debate. Practice Recommendation #6 relating to Consultation

shall be applicable to all such referrals.

10. Bills or Estimates previously referred to a designated Committee

may at any stage be subsequently referred to another designated Committee on

motion of the Government House Leader or Minister responsible for the Bill as

hereinbefore provided by Rule Nos. 3 and 9.]

I've provided a copy of the motion to the Opposition House

Leader.

For the information of members, it is the motion that represents

the usual division for the purpose of the estimates debate in this chamber and

the committee room, and I so move with leave.

Leave granted.

Motion approved.

Hon. M. de Jong: Secondly, just for the information of

members that are involved, the Committee of Selection is scheduled to meet at

three o'clock to verify membership on the various select standing committees.

Lastly, I call resumed debate on the budget.

Budget Debate

(continued)

Mr. Speaker: Member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant continues

where she left off.

J. Kwan: Just picking up from where we left off before the

lunch break, I was talking about the evictions that took place around Expo 86.

Many people in the city of Vancouver were displaced as a result. I even know of

community members who died as a result of those evictions. So I would really

hope that the government would in fact have the wisdom to leave a more socially

just legacy when the Olympics are here in 2010.

[1430]

I have a young child, a daughter, and I meet many young parents.

They all tell me about their difficulty in finding and accessing child care.

This government has not invested in child care in a way that meets the needs of

the majority of families. This is wrong and unacceptable. Billions of dollars of

surpluses this year and projected for next year could be put to good use right

now. This government's child care policy, in fact, is hurting families.

By funding child care, we can move our economies and build our

future by freeing people to work in a more productive way then, where their

family life is stabilized. This government is not doing that. We have a

situation where there is a labour skills shortage. Instead of providing support

to families, the government in fact is decreasing the support for families.

We have the capacity for leadership, innovation and excellence in

this province. We can build a strong economy together by not leaving people

behind.

One of the first bylaws ever passed by the city of Vancouver was

to place a geographic restriction on where Chinese residents could live. It

became present-day Chinatown. In 1907 the anti-Asiatic riots took place in my

constituency of Vancouver–Mount Pleasant. During the Second World War Japanese

residents were taken to the interior to be interned from there. But today the

Asian community contributes greatly to the economy and provides opportunities

for British Columbians. It is amazing how far we have come.

[S. Hammell in the chair.]

Let's build our economies. Let's do it in a way that doesn't

destroy historic neighbourhoods or contribute to climate change. Let's do it in

a way that helps the people who need the assistance so that they have the

opportunity to maximize their potential.

It is a deep honour for me to represent my wonderful constituency

in this chamber with its many narratives and histories. The government would

like British Columbia to be the best place on earth. I would like that too. But

for that statement to be true, it has to be a place where no one is left behind

— where the government addresses the issues of poverty and homelessness, where

the government addresses equal opportunities for all.

Until the government recognizes the harmful policies that they

have put in place and the negative impacts of those policies, I don't think

British Columbia can be true to the statement that the government wants it to be

— a statement that I too share.

So I urge the members in this House, and I urge the Minister of

Finance, to take a good look at her budget and at the realities of what's going

on in our communities today and not to hide behind her cloak of spin doctors.

The reality is, if you dare to go out and talk to the people on

the ground and see what is around you — the government should know, ought to

know — there's much more work to be done. They need to bring legislation in

place that would actually bring progressive, positive change for British

Columbians.

They need to invest in communities. By investing in communities,

they're investing in the people. By investing in the people, they're investing

in our economies. By investing in our economies, they're investing in the future

of British Columbia.

Hon. C. Hansen: It's a pleasure to take my place in this

budget debate. I want to talk about one particular theme in my remarks, what I

believe is one of the biggest challenges that British Columbia is facing today,

and that's in the area of available workers.

If you think about it, what a phenomenal change it has been in

just six years' time — from a time six years ago when we had workers who were

looking for jobs. Today we have jobs that are looking for workers. That is true

in just about every corner of the province and in just about every industry that

you look at today.

One of the responsibilities that I have as a minister is the whole

area of dealing with the skills needs of the

[ Page 5691 ]

British Columbia economy for the years to come. When you look back over the

last 15 years, we have seen some particular contrasts in the work environment in

British Columbia.

[1435]

In fact, if you go back to the mid-1990s, you actually saw a time

when we had a mass exodus of British Columbians who were going to other parts of

Canada to look for job opportunities. In fact, the year that it actually peaked

was the year of 1998, when we saw a net out-migration from British Columbia of

17,500 workers who left to go and find job opportunities in other provinces.

If you look at the rest of the 1990s, under the administration of

the NDP at the time, we saw in 1999 a net out-migration of 12,500 and in the

year 2000 a net out-migration of 14,800. We actually saw that start to turn

around with the election of a B.C. Liberal government in 2001.

You know, I have talked to numerous British Columbians who have

been in exactly that boat. When you start to look beyond the statistics, what

you realize is that these are typically young workers in British Columbia who

went to other provinces because they couldn't find jobs in British Columbia in

the 1990s — young individuals who went to build their futures in other parts of

Canada, to take their skills and take their vision, their excitement, their

future careers to other parts of Canada rather than staying right here in

British Columbia.

Today we're starting to see that reverse. We're starting to see

those young families now starting to move back to British Columbia because of

the tremendous wealth of opportunities that are here today.

I met one of those individuals just today. At the introductions at

the start of this sitting of the House, there were a group of scientists that

were in the gallery who were introduced. At lunchtime today I had the pleasure

and the honour of talking to one of those scientists.

He was telling me that he was born in British Columbia, grew up in

Coquitlam and became one of the world's leading experts in his particular field.

In the mid-1990s he left British Columbia to go to the U.S. because he could not

find opportunities in British Columbia. There was nobody that was actually

creating an environment where he could practise his world-class science and

research.

Just a few years ago he came back to British Columbia because of

the environment there is for research and development today — something that was

actually stimulated and caused by this government over the last five and a half

years.

We have additional challenges, because what the economists are

telling us is that over the next 12 years, we're going to have about a million

job vacancies in this province. In the same period of time we know that we are

going to be graduating about 650,000 students from grade 12 in British Columbia.

So we need to find ways of attracting workers to come to British Columbia.

One of the things that I thought of is: what are the reasons why a

worker and his or her family would want to either return to British Columbia or

move to British Columbia for the first time, to be part of this huge, dynamic

economy and this great future that we are seeing for British Columbia?

When you ask that question of a lot of British Columbians, you

know what comes to mind first of all? They say, "Well, it's our natural beauty

and just the splendour of British Columbia," which everybody in this House has

to admit is pretty special. It really doesn't matter what corner of this

province you go to. We do live in a spectacular part of the world.

The challenge that I gave to myself is: what would be the top ten

reasons why somebody would want to move to British Columbia to create the career

of their future? Let's say that we put natural beauty as the tenth of the ten

reasons. I challenged myself to come up with nine reasons that were equal, if

not more important, for that young family in their decision to come to British

Columbia.

Well, I'm going to do the David Letterman routine, and that's to

count from ten down to one. Reason 10 is natural beauty, but reason 9 is this:

the job creation record of this government in the last five and a half years. We

have seen a net increase of over 350,000 jobs in British Columbia in just five

years. We in British Columbia now see an all-time record low unemployment rate.

I know that members have seen these stats that say it's the lowest

in 30 years. The reason that stat is used is because Stats Canada only started

using that….

Interjection.

Hon. C. Hansen: The member said he's never heard that

before. That's actually quite interesting. It shows you what kind of research

they get fed to them.

[1440]

The record low unemployment…. It was only 30 years ago that Stats

Canada started actually recording the unemployment rates in the way they do

today. Only 4.3 percent of our labour force in British Columbia is unemployed,

and that actually compares to the time during the NDP government in the 1990s

when our unemployment rate went over 10 percent.

For that young family coming to British Columbia, one of the great

reasons that they'd want to come here is that we've got jobs not only for that

individual and their spouse, but jobs that are going to be there for their kids

when their kids get of an age where they're looking for employment in this

province as well.

The number 8 reason as to why a young family would want to come to

British Columbia and build its future is that the future actually looks pretty

good. You know, people have said, "Well, yes, there are lots of jobs today, but

maybe it's short term, and perhaps it's just because we're hosting the Olympics

in 2010" — and I'm going to come back to the Olympics a little bit later.

The fact that I can stand here and say without hesitation that

there is going to be strong growth and good jobs for families in British

Columbia for the

[ Page 5692 ]

medium and longer term is because of the number of major projects that are

being planned in British Columbia. There is, in the latest reporting that we

have done of the major projects being planned in B.C., $117 billion worth of

major projects that are either being built or are in the planning stages today.

Many of those projects are going to be built well into the next decade to be

there to provide jobs for the future.

Let's compare that to just five years ago, when we formed office.

Five years ago, do you know what that number was for the number of major

projects being planned in British Columbia? It was $46 billion — less than 40

percent of what is actually being planned today. Today there are 781 projects.

Five years there were just 315. What that tells that young family living in

another part of Canada and thinking about moving to British Columbia is that

there's not only a great job here today, but there are going to be great jobs

for the years to come as well.

The number 7 reason why a family would want to come to B.C. is our

education system. We have one of the best education systems of any jurisdiction

in the world. If you look at the international assessments that are done for

15-year-olds in the school system — and there's a standardized test that's done

in country after country around the world — what that shows is that those

15-year-olds in British Columbia score better than any other jurisdiction in the

world in the areas of math and reading skills.

In fact, when you look at sciences, which is really going to be so

much about what the future is about, we are second only to Finland and Japan —

if British Columbia were actually looked at as if it were a country comparing to

those nations as well. For that family wanting to make sure their kids have a

great education system, they can count on that when they come to British

Columbia.

The number 6 reason why a young family would want to come to

British Columbia is our health care system. As we know from the survey that was

released just a year ago by the Conference Board of Canada titled Healthy

Provinces, Healthy Canadians , in British Columbia we have the best health

outcomes of any province in all of Canada — something that we are rightfully

proud of.

The number 5 reason why a family would want to come to British

Columbia is that British Columbians actually have one of the highest levels of

physical fitness. I think for any parent, that's something that they strive for

not only for themselves but for their children as well — to have the

opportunities to be physically fit; to be involved in sports, if that's their

thing; but just to be outdoors, whether it's walking and running or skiing or

playing soccer.

British Columbia has some great facilities in communities

throughout this province, great things to encourage young individuals and older

individuals to be physically active. In fact, some of the best physical fitness

that we see in Canada is among our seniors. A great study that just came out

yesterday that was reported from Stats Canada showed that B.C. seniors are a lot

more active than seniors in the rest of the country. In fact, British Columbia

is the only province in Canada where the majority of seniors are physically

active and getting regular exercise.

[1445]

That compares to a national average of 41.4 percent. So not only

is British Columbia in the lead, we are well ahead of the national average in

that area — something that I think is very attractive for young families when

they're looking for a place to come to build their futures.

The number 4 reason why a young family would want to come to

British Columbia in the next couple of years is because in three years' time we

in British Columbia are going to be hosting one of the biggest celebrations that

the world knows: the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Games. There is no doubt, Madam

Speaker, that in 2010 this is going to be a very exciting place for families to

be as we celebrate those Winter Games in three years' time.

We're going to see about 2,500 athletes from all around the world.

They're going to come to British Columbia to compete and show off excellence and

show how they can be role models for young individuals and older individuals

from all around the world. We're going to see about 10,000 journalists who are

going to come to this province to report on and showcase British Columbia to the

world.

I think, for every British Columbian, we are going to be immensely

proud of what those viewers of television and the Internet — which is going to

be very important in three years' time for watching the Olympics — are going to

see when they see British Columbia being broadcast around the world. I think any

young family looking for a place to build their future today would be very proud

to be here in British Columbia, bringing their skills to this province and

making British Columbia their home as we go forward.

The number 3 reason why a young family should come to British

Columbia is the fact that the world economy is shifting, and it is shifting to

the Asia-Pacific region. The Pacific Ocean is going to be the ocean of the 21st

century. When you look at the geographic advantage that British Columbia has,

families from around the world and across Canada should recognize that British

Columbia is going to be the crossroads of so much of that exciting energy that

we are going to see flow. Whether it's commercial energy and trade, education,

just the exchange of cultural visits or tourism, British Columbia is going to be

at the crossroads between the huge, growing economies of the Asia-Pacific region

and the largest economy in the world, that of North America.

We actually have that opportunity to build a pretty exciting and

dynamic place in British Columbia to facilitate that kind of international trade

and international exchange of people. Vancouver and other parts of British

Columbia can become the meeting place where people from Asia and North America

can come together to share their ideas, to share research and to share

education, a meeting place for conferences and a place where

[ Page 5693 ]

tourists will come to really be one end of the bridge between North America

and Asia. I think anybody that wants to be part of that exciting future would

want to make their home right here in British Columbia.

The number 2 reason why a family would want to come to British

Columbia is around the area of what it costs them to live in this province, and

particularly how deep government is into their pockets when it comes to how much

money government leaves in their pockets. This is an area where British

Columbia's gone through a pretty big transformation.

If you talk to people who built their impressions of British

Columbia from, say, ten years ago, they might have an impression that British

Columbia is a high-tax jurisdiction. Well, that is definitely the last century's

news, because under this government in the last five and a half years we have

actually made the tax regimes in British Columbia the most attractive in Canada.

Particularly when I talk about the number 2 reason, it's about all

of those various taxes and near taxes that the provincial governments take from

individual families. Let's look at income tax, property tax, sales tax, fuel

taxes and health care premiums. In other provinces they have payroll taxes to

fund their health care system; in British Columbia, we have a health care

premium.

[1450]

Let's look at all of those together and then compare where British

Columbia is today to where we were in 2001, but also compared to other

jurisdictions across Canada. Today if you look at all of those taxes or near

taxes combined…. Look at a two-income family of four. Let's say that family is

living today in Ontario. That family would pay a total of $8,025 in those total

taxes, if they had a family income of $60,000 — $8,025 they would pay in

Ontario.

Well, if they moved to British Columbia, they will actually see

those total taxes drop to about $5,800. That's a pretty big saving they would

realize, leaving more money in their pockets, more money to support their kids,

more money to spend in the ways they choose to spend, compared to what they

would be paying today in Ontario. In Quebec by the way, that same family would

be paying $9,372 in those total taxes compared to just $5,867 in British

Columbia.

Now, if this family was earning $90,000 in combined income, again,

there's even a bigger contrast from what they would be paying in other

jurisdictions. In Ontario that family would be paying over $13,000 compared to

less than $9,000 in British Columbia. In Quebec they would be paying over

$17,000 compared to less than $9,000 in British Columbia. Again, as families

across Canada look at where their future should be built, British Columbia has a

pretty attractive tax environment for them to consider.

In fact, before I leave that subject of those total taxes, we

might just want to look back to 2001, to the last budget that the NDP government

ever brought in, and look at exactly the same taxes in exactly the same

families. The contrast is pretty stark. That family of $60,000 income under that

NDP government would have been paying $6,900 a year compared to $5,867 today.

That same family earning $90,000 a year, in fact, in 2001 would have been paying

$10,307 compared to $8,860 today.

If you look at all of those taxes, those families are paying less

today in British Columbia than they would have five years ago, six years ago

under the NDP and less than the other provinces, particularly Ontario and

Quebec, which are the provinces that we are seeing significant people move back

to British Columbia from.

Madam Speaker, if you actually look through all of the various

family makeups — it's included in the budget documents, if members want to go

and look at it, on page 142 — you can look at every single family makeup,

whether it's a two-income family of four earning $90,000, a two-income family of

four earning $60,000, a two-income family of four earning $30,000, an unattached

individual earning $25,000, an unattached individual earning $80,000, a senior

couple with equal pension incomes of $30,000.

For the information of members, these were actually the family

makeups that were included in the 2001 NDP budget, and we have tracked the exact

same family makeups in every single budget since. What this shows, in the budget

documents on page 142, is that every single one of these families are paying

less today in their total taxes, which I outlined, than they would have paid

under the last NDP government in 2001.

The number 1 reason why I think families from other parts of

Canada or, indeed, other parts of the world would want to look at British

Columbia for their future is in the area of one of those taxes, and that's in

the area of income tax. I think it's the one thing that's sort of top of mind

when people move from province to province to bring their skills and to build

new careers when they go forward. The fact today is that, under the budget that

was brought down by the Finance Minister, British Columbia will have the lowest

personal income tax for incomes up to $108,000 of any province in Canada.

[1455]

In the 1990s under the NDP government, you know what British

Columbia's reputation was? That it had the highest marginal income tax rates of

any jurisdiction in North America. What a contrast today, where we have actually

been able to go from what they were taking out of families' pockets in British

Columbia and say that we're going to let families keep more money in their

pockets. We have brought in the lowest income tax rates for families, for

individuals earning up to $108,000.

I think that's one of the big challenges this NDP opposition is

going to have. Later today we're going to vote on this budget, and I challenge

those NDP members when they stand up to vote. They have to decide. Are they

going to have to go back to their constituents and look their constituents in

the eye and say: "I voted against your tax cut"?

If you want to be unpopular in your constituencies, vote against

this budget and go back and tell your constituents that you voted against a

10-percent tax cut for them. That they voted against leaving money in the

pockets of their own constituents….

[ Page 5694 ]

Those are my top ten reasons why I think young families should

come to British Columbia. British Columbia actually has a very promising future.

We are seeing those young families coming back to British Columbia today. We are

seeing the immigration numbers back into the positive numbers that we did not

see. In fact, if you look at the year 2003, we saw a net in-migration from other

parts of Canada of 4,055 individuals. In 2004 it went up to 7,077. In 2005 it

was 4,526. Last year, in just the first three quarters of 2006, we saw a net

increase of 5,100 citizens coming across the B.C. border from other parts of

Canada.

We are going to build a very attractive and rosy future for this

province, and we are going to put out the welcome mat to ensure that those young

workers are invited back to this province or invited to come to this province

for the first time and bring their families.

Madam Speaker, there's one subject area that I want to touch on in

just the few moments that I have remaining, and that's something that is called

TILMA, the trade investment and labour mobility agreement. The reason I want to

touch on it is because I heard some of the NDP members talking about TILMA in a

context that convinced me that they have done no research on it at all. I don't

believe that they have even gone into the website to look at what's in the TILMA

agreement. I don't believe that they have actually gone into the website to look

at some of the various letters that I have written to people around the province

which we put up on the website that actually helped to explain TILMA and counter

some of the gross misinformation that has been spread by some individuals in

this House and across Canada.

I heard the member for Cariboo South, actually, a few days ago

talking about TILMA, saying it evolved from a Conference Board report. That is

absolutely untrue, and if the member did even five minutes of research, he would

have known that.

The TILMA agreement actually evolved from ten years of discussion

that started with the signing of the agreement on internal trade in 1995. There

has been an ongoing debate…

Interjection.

Deputy Speaker: Member.

Hon. C. Hansen: …across Canada about the failings of the

agreement on internal trade, and the fact that we need to ensure that we can

break down the barriers to interprovincial commerce across Canada. It has been a

subject of numerous conferences. It's been a subject of numerous ministers'

debates. That actually led to some discussions between B.C. and Alberta that

said: you know what? If we can't get consensus among all provinces in Canada in

terms of how to move forward and actually break down some of those barriers,

then B.C. and Alberta will, in fact, go it alone.

We have heard from some of the critics of TILMA across Canada that

it's going to somehow compromise our ability to regulate, to put environmental

regulations in place. That is absolutely not true.

[1500]

If you haven't read the agreement, go read the agreement. If you

still don't understand the agreement, go and read the actual

interpretations of

that. A lot of the language that's contained in TILMA goes back to the agreement

on internal trade — the same language that was, in fact, signed by somebody by

the name of Glen Clark on behalf of the NDP government. The same

interpretations

spill over into the TILMA agreement as we go forward.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Member. Member.

Hon. C. Hansen: We have heard people say that it's going to

impinge on the ability of municipalities to regulate things like the size of

billboards. That is absolutely not true, unless a municipality was to put in

place a regulation that said that only B.C.-based companies could install

billboards in that particular municipality. That would be a violation of TILMA.

What TILMA says is that we're going to break down some of those

impediments between B.C. and Alberta. We're actually going to create one

economy. We're going to ensure that individuals and companies can actually flow

across the border within our own country in ways that are impeded today, and

there are barriers of many types.

I look forward to the opportunity in estimates debate, because

when you get into the estimates of my ministry, I am very sure that the members

will want to come into the chamber and raise questions about TILMA. I hope I can

help to correct some of the misinformation that they have been spreading. They

can raise whatever questions they want, and we can have whatever debate they

want to hear in the estimates debate when that comes up during this session.

In that area I certainly welcome any of the members that would

like to come in for a briefing on TILMA. Officials in my ministry have worked

very hard on it, and they've done a fabulous job on behalf of British Columbians

to put that agreement in place. I know that there are a couple of members of the

opposition who are going to actually come in for that opportunity on Monday

morning, and I welcome that.

I urge other members, given the fact that there are obviously some

misunderstandings they have, to also take up an opportunity to come in for a

full briefing. If they don't want to do that, just come and join us during the

estimates debate on the Ministry of Economic Development, and we can have a

thorough discussion on TILMA at that time. I do invite the members to go into

the website in my ministry and read through all of the material on this

agreement. I think you will find that it is actually a very positive agreement

that's going to benefit British Columbia well into the future.

D. Routley: I had this nice speech prepared, but now that

I've listened to the Minister of Economic Development, I think I need to address

what he's just said.

[ Page 5695 ]

Interjections.

D. Routley: Well, thank you very much to the colleagues on

the other side.

You know, the Minister of Economic Development stood up here and

talked about jobs looking for people, in a province where we have the

largest-growing age group of seniors and where we have fewer and fewer younger

children. It's not surprising — is it? — that jobs would be looking for people.

But there's something else going on in this province. There are

also 14,000 people looking for housing in this province. There are thousands

upon thousands of people looking for their cancelled surgeries in this province.

There are tens of thousands of students looking for some time with their teacher

in this province. None of them are going to see any of those because of this

government's policies.

Then the minister went on to talk about out-migration, and he

spent some time framing the '90s myth. The growth rate is only now reaching the

same rate as it was in 1999. It's all about demography; it's all about external

economies. It's galling that the minister would stand here and talk about

scientists from the Genome project and take credit for that — just like my

opponent took credit for five schools built by the NDP when he ran in his

election. It's not surprising. It's the Liberal way. Cut, slash, and then make

up a reality out of words. But it defies the reality we face in our communities.

[1505]

I heard the minister talk about his top ten reasons for a young

family coming to British Columbia, and I'd like to address his top ten reasons.

The number 1 reason…. I'm sorry. We're going backwards — aren't we? David

Letterman style. We'll start at number 10.

Number 10 is natural beauty. I'm sure the B.C. Liberal Party will

take credit for the natural beauty of B.C. But I believe it's been here…. Even

before the '90s I think it was naturally beautiful. So let's just dismiss that

one. It's lovely; we all agree.

Job creation record. Wow. Look at the net increase. Yes, the

increase is high, but you know what? The Conference Board also rated your job

creation as creating the worst-quality jobs in the country. That's what they

said about your jobs. And yes, we have a skills shortage, but how is it being

addressed? With the decimation of the ITAC program? With a three-year gap in

coherence and training? With a disinvestment in child care so women can't access

training? Is that how you address the job shortage in this province? It's kind

of funny.

Let's go on to number 8: medium- and long-term prospects are

driven…. Yeah, yeah, okay. Medium- and long-term prospects. Would that have

anything to do, perhaps, with world markets? Would it perhaps have anything to

do with the price of metals? Remember, Minister…. Well, actually, I'm going to

have to return to that, because you've taken me off my notes. I love this

conversation, but it's difficult.

Number 7: our education system. Yes, that young family will look

to B.C. What will they see? They'll see closed schools. They'll see overcrowded

classrooms and too many special needs students in their child's class for their…

Interjection.

Deputy Speaker: Member.

D. Routley: …teacher to spend adequate time with them.

Their teacher will be so stressed that that person will not be able to react to

what they do best — to identify that teachable moment, to have that experience

with children that gives them the grounding and the foundation that they need.

That's what you've cut. It's disgraceful.

The downloads into our education system, the down loads of the MSP

premium increase, the downloads of the teachers' settlement that you legislated

but did not fund, the download of costs from Bill 33 that you offered to this

province. This province stood together with the teachers, defending their

classroom conditions of those selfsame children that the minister is trying to

attract, and what did you offer them? Words. Just like this budget, just like

the throne speech, just like everything you've offered this province — words,

slogans, but nothing of substance. No funding. You don't have the gumption to

stand behind your words, because you never had the intention to.

Okay, let's move on to number 6: health care system. Oh, yes,

health care systems are the best in B.C., but then they have been for over 20

years. What do we see now? Seniors being the largest-growing group of homeless.

Are you proud of that, Minister? I didn't see it in your ten points here.

Number 5: physical fitness levels. Yes, ActNow B.C. Act soon. Act

some day. Insufficient diets amongst those 25 percent of the children of this

province who live in poverty? It's amazing — the highest poverty rate amongst

children in Canada. The seniors' fitness levels? Yes, part of that demography

that has come here to retire, that boomer bulge that has come to B.C. to

retire…. Many of them are very healthy, but for those seniors who lead as the

fastest-growing group of homeless in this province, the physical fitness they

get is pushing shopping carts and looking for the next warm place to sleep, and

that is disgraceful. The minister should be ashamed.

And 2010 — a wonderful NDP initiative. We're very proud of it. The

minister asked: "What will viewers see when they watch the Olympics?" They'll

see B.C. They'll see homelessness. They'll see devastated forests. They'll see

public services that have lost their purpose of universality and equality of

service, because this government has stripped away the very means to achieve

those things.

[1510]

Boy, they're going to see something — aren't they? They're going

to see something. Just look at the foreground. We'll keep the shot fairly

narrow. Yeah, we'll just keep them out of the field. The camera shot won't be

too wide.

You know what? There's a lot of space under that convention centre

— $800 million. Maybe you could

[ Page 5696 ]

have made that your housing program instead of a 10-percent tax break to

those who already have homes. You did nothing to address homelessness, but that

$800 million convention centre will be a good place for them to bunk out during

the Olympics, outside that field of view.

Let's go to number 3, the Asia-Pacific century. I think that was a

Liberal idea too — wasn't it? — the Asia-Pacific century. I give you great

credit for the revolution in China. It's amazing. To the ideologues over here,

it's funny that they would claim great favour for that. It's really funny.

Number 2, the cost of living — how deep is government in your

pockets? Well, Minister, it's not all about taxes. It's also about downloaded

fees. It's also about MSP premiums through the roof. You know what? The first

year that this government raised the fees for drivers' licences, my wife, myself

and my daughter needed new licences — my daughter for the first time, so she

needed an "N" and an "L." Under the NDP government, that would have cost my

family less than $80. Under your system, it cost my family $375.

An Hon. Member: It's a tax cut.

D. Routley: Oh, it's a tax cut — right. That's how we're

paying for his tax cut. I remember now; I get it now. Sorry, he knows from what

they've been saying…. A bit slow, but I've got it now, you see.

That's number 2, cost of living. Wow, fee increases and service

cuts, yep. Tax breaks that have favoured the wealthy and the rich and your

friends, and service cuts that have penalized those living in poverty and

struggling — that's what you've done. You should be very proud of it. You should

be very, very proud.

Number 1, income tax. Well, that's what it's all about, isn't it?

It's all about that, yeah. Never mind that we lead with the lowest tax rate.

Well, we lead with the highest level of child poverty. God, it hurts to say it,

doesn't it?

I grew up here. It wasn't that long ago that people from my town

on the Island would go to Vancouver and come back, and they would be shocked.

They saw people living in doorways. They would come home, and they'd say: "This

is amazing. This isn't B.C." But you know what? Increment by increment, this

government has made us used to the suffering of the poor. It's not the way B.C.

envisions itself. That's not the vision we want.

Now he brings up TILMA. Yes, we want to debate TILMA. Bring it to

the House. Your deal, negotiated behind the closed doors of the corporate

boardrooms, doesn't satisfy British Columbians. You should consult the former

Education Minister, Christy Clark, and her remarks around the education program

and what effect it would have on your effort to remove junk food from vending

machines.

Hon. C. Hansen: Absolutely not true.

D. Routley: Well, go talk to Christy Clark, and ask her why

she went to Coca-Cola and other companies and asked them to voluntarily comply

and not challenge under TILMA.

Interjections.

D. Routley: Oh, it's funny that she mentioned…. Okay.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members.

D. Routley: So there we can dismiss ourselves with the

minister's comments, except to say that of the three million tax returns in

British Columbia last year, which totalled $5 billion, 53 percent of them were

from people who earned less than $25,000 per year. Of this massive tax

break, housing program, environmental program, new car program — however it might

suit the government to define it…. I'm sure there's a bumper sticker in your

mind somewhere, isn't there?

Those 53 percent of the people are taking home 4.9 percent of the

tax break. Whoa, whoa. Put the brakes on, family coming from Ontario. Put the

brakes on. And 3.3 percent of those tax returns were from people who earned more

than $100,000. You know what? They took 20.7 percent of that tax break, $107

million. That is three times the increase in the shelter allowance in the

Ministry of Employment and Income Assistance.

[1515]

Where are Liberal priorities? It's crystal-clear to the people who

have suffered from the cuts, the lack of service and the devastation you've

brought to rural communities and all the other people in British Columbia who

are struggling under the yoke of this government. They know it. They see it

clearly. They see Liberal priorities very clearly.

Now I'll return to what I had initially intended to talk about,

which is exactly the same thing: hypocrisy. Hypocrisy — a throne speech on the

environment that has no mention in the budget, a children's budget from a couple

of years ago that followed with us leading the country in child poverty for two

years. Well, that is a little bit hypocritical — isn't it? — to claim that as a

child's budget.

Then the seniors' budget. It took a little stab at housing with an

increase to the SAFER grant but then followed that up with Bill 27, which made

it much easier for landlords to evict seniors from mobile home parks and from

assisted-living buildings. The eviction of seniors continues relentlessly under

the watch of this Liberal government.

We see a budget that advertises a surplus. At the same time it

propels us further and further into debt. Our debt is growing at 5.2 percent,

double the rate of inflation. If I wanted to show a surplus in my chequing

account, I could certainly take an advance from my credit card, but it wouldn't

do me much good. This budgeting isn't doing B.C. much good.

This is Enron budgeting. This is off-book budgeting, and we're all

going to pay for it. We're all going to pay for it because of things like the

Vancouver Convention

[ Page 5697 ]

Centre — $400 million over budget. And it's the first of our many Olympic

projects.

What kind of legacy — not now but then — will that family from

Ontario inherit from this government? This is a cynical baiting and switching,

but it's not surprising from this corporate government. They advertise a green

leather armchair, just like a bank might. Then you get there, and it's a big

lineup and a total pain in the pocketbook. The history of failures of this

government is undeniable but not well advertised — not well advertised by them

or their friends that print those advertisements.

The great golden goals. I think we've forgotten them, haven't we?

The first one was literacy. What happened? We were tasked as a literacy

committee, and we were told by the executive director of Literacy B.C. that this

province spends the least of any province on community-based literacy projects.

We heard that a 1-percent increase in the rate of literacy amongst

our labour force would translate to a $1.6 billion increase in the GDP. How

would that happen? It would happen by directing benefit and improvement in

standards to people this government isn't interested in. That's a problem.

That's why they're not interested in that. It helps the wrong people.

A 10-percent tax break was dressed up as a housing plan. How

disgraceful. After six years of ignoring the housing needs of this province,

after shutting down housing projects, now they denigrate those projects that are

world-renowned. Social housing just doesn't work in their world.

It's all about supplements. They'd rather not build, because it's

too late. They've wasted six years, and now they're going to offer a supplement.

That, Madam Speaker, will be a landlord supplement, because we all know it will

do nothing more than drive up rents for those who struggle the most. That,

again, is very sad.

Then you have a look at the conversions that this government goes

through. The environmental conversion. Coal was the way to go. But now we'll

just wait. It will be the way to go when a technology comes along that doesn't

exist yet, but we're going to put all our eggs in that basket anyway. We say,

"We're all for offshore" when the Premier is in Asia. Then he comes back in

February to this House and rules it out. Then, a mere matter of days later, it's

back on the table. So the insincerity and the hypocrisy are galling.

[1520]

This government, this Premier who would like to paint himself

green…. The same man, the same government, has denuded the slopes of Vancouver

Island from all of its forest lands. It is disgraceful. This Premier can lean on

a thousand hybrid cars, and he will never make up for the damage that he did in

my own riding alone.

It's horrible; 200 truckloads of raw logs leave our community

every day. I go back into the bush…. I worked as a chokerman on my first job out

of high school. In those days if we dragged a log across the ravine of a creek

and broke a piece off, it didn't matter how much it cost. It had to be pulled

out. It didn't matter. But this government has put an end to that standard.

We see mountains of wood rotting. We see a forest land loaded and

ready to burn. We see pulp mills that can't get fibre. We see sawmills shutting

down. We see job loss, and we lose that carbon sink that this government is

counting on.

They can plant a million trees, but they've cut down what it would

take to really address this problem. The devastation in our riding is atrocious.

The bottom third of every river valley is completely logged off. We have

pictures of machines operating with their tracks in the creeks. Forget the

riparian zone. It is awful.

Now they supplement that by allowing Western Forest Products to

remove private lands from the TFL — a massive giveaway of public funds. Here you

go; have it — given away. But along with the value of that land that goes up

five, eight, ten times as soon as it's released from that TFL, that massive

giveaway to that company is not only a giveaway of money, it's a giveaway of

Vancouver Island and British Columbia and that wonderful industry that is

renewable and that is sustainable. Or at least would be if it had a government

that had that as its interest.

But not this government. It's log it and flog it. Build some more

housing. Forget about the forest, and forget about the forest industry. They

have no interest in managing it for the future. It's: cut it down, log it and

flog it. It's disgraceful.

Then the friends of labour conversion. After having decimated the

employment standards of this province, after having damaged lives in

communities, after a 25-percent cut in the minimum wage…. It is sad. After the

hours of work were torn apart so that young people are now on call for one or

two hours of work…. That's why the Conference Board rated your job creation as

creating the worst-quality jobs in Canada. You took away overtime rights. You

took away on-call rights. You changed the complaints process so that anyone who

isn't computer literate and doesn't have the backbone….

Deputy Speaker: Member, through the Chair.

D. Routley: Yes. They changed the complaints process so

that anyone who is not computer literate or doesn't have the backbone to stand

up to an employer, who is already abusing them in most of these cases, can't

access that system. They shut off the tap. They knew it — a cynical move hurting

the very immigrant population that they hope to address the skills shortage

with.

This is all very sad, and what's the source of this boom? Retiring

boomers from elsewhere coming here. Just as Ralph Klein will never convince the

dinosaurs to die again in Alberta, this Premier can never convince the boomers

to retire again in B.C.

Victoria has the lowest vacancy rate in the country, but it has

the highest vacant-bedroom count. So they have had no planning, no vision. Just

throw the dust in the wind. What will we be left with? Well, we'll be left with

more of the same — more homelessness and more vulnerable people, particularly

people like that family from Ontario that the Minister of Economic Development

just invited into our province. Put the brakes on, family.

[ Page 5698 ]

What else drove this boom? Well, metal prices. From the mid-'90s

to now, silver has increased by 285 percent in value. Copper, the main driver of

our mining industry in B.C., is up 215 percent. So it's at a price now where it

comes out of the ground, and it gets shocked. Back then it was at a price where

it stayed in the ground, and we got shocked.

[1525]

The minister says it's all about their policies. Well, I think

those metal prices are driven from far bigger forces than this minister's

policies. Take a look, if you doubt that, at the theft of metals from

construction sites — the theft of kilometre after kilometre of hydro lines in my

own riding, in Ladysmith. This is created by Asian demand. They know it, and

B.C. knows it.

The mismanagement of that prosperity. The skills shortage. The

fumbling of the transition from ITAC to the ITA. The ignoring of repeated

warnings. The experience in New Zealand, the experience of other countries that

have invested in this same model. One of the main recommendations was to keep

all the stakeholders at the table. So what does this government do? They say:

"We'll have industry at the table. Labour, you're gone."

You have no interest in apprenticeships and skills training. I'm

waiting. Does anybody want to rise to that and explain that? No.

Then we take a look at the literacy issue and the child care issue

— the cuts to child care. How do we address a skills shortage if women and men

who have children cannot access child care, cannot access literacy programs,

cannot access training?

In Quebec they have the lowest effect of skills shortage and the

highest participation of women in the skilled trades. Why? Because they have

universal child care. Because women are not barriered from participating.

Because they weren't so cynical as to put up those barriers as this government

did. That's a very sad record.

Then we take a look at the Vancouver Convention Centre. What a

wonderful project. What a wonderful display of fiscal management — in the

neighbourhood of $800 million. What was the original price?

An Hon. Member: It was $495 million.

D. Routley: Thank you, Member. The original price was $495

million. Going, going, gone. Well gone past that — $800 million. Isn't it the

first of the Olympic projects? With that kind of overrun on our first project,

what can we expect of the others? What kind of legacy is being built by this

government? It is a legacy that is a mountain of debt and a valley of human

suffering. That is just too sad for a wealthy and strong province, a beautiful

place like ours. That is sad.

If I had that $800 million, or if my riding could even recommend

spending the $400 million overrun, let's see what we might do with it. First of

all, in the aboriginal file, we might create a real new relationship by doing

something about the living conditions of first nations people on reserve, which

have been made so much worse by this government. All the cuts that they have

made that have affected first nations people living in urban settings off

reserve have driven them back home, and that has terrifically overburdened the

social services on reserve and made living conditions that much worse. So the

cup of desolation from their policies overflows. It overflows into our

reservations and our aboriginal populations.

You know what? We'd do something to really change their lives. We

would offer opportunity for training, because in most of these reserves the

unemployment rate is between 70 percent, probably at best — and in my

communities from 80 percent — to 95 percent unemployment.

An Hon. Member: You're not happy about that?

D. Routley: I'm not happy about 80 percent and 90 percent

unemployment. The Liberal member asks me: I'm not happy about that? No, I'm not

happy about that. Neither are they.

What would we do in education? Well, we might give the teacher

enough time to address that teachable moment. We might give enough resources not

to have more than three children with special needs in a class.

[1530]

My own wife has five. Now, with students that were added to her

class after the beginning of the year, seven. She had to be consulted with by

her principal. He came into the room and said: "You know what. You're going to

have five. See you."

Hon. S. Bond: I'll follow up on that.

D. Routley: You go right ahead. Bring it back there,

Minister. Bring it back.

Then look at advanced education. We would not cut….

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker:

Order.

Hon. S. Bond: We'll get the name and check it.

Deputy Speaker: Order.

D. Routley: Right, yeah. I'm sure my wife is shuddering

that the minister is going to get her name and check on her.

Interjection.

D. Routley: Is it?

Interjection.

Deputy Speaker: Order. Order.

D. Routley: Yeah, you go ask what kind of consultation.

Walk in the door, and say: "How do you feel about this? Five special needs

children in your room — how do you feel about it? I'm glad it's okay. See you

later."

[ Page 5699 ]

Agriculture. We would do something to help the small farmers of

our riding who are being forced out by policies around meat-packing, who are

being forced out by attacks on ALR. This government has done nothing to increase

the value-added food industry in this province. In fact, they cut from food

industry creation…

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Order, members.

D. Routley: …in this budget.

Then we would look at forestry in my riding. We would look at the

decimation done by this government, and we might actually be able to do some of

the planting that this government talked about.

We'll look to the Ministry of Employment and Income Assistance and

address some of the hardships inflicted there. We would restore some of the

cancelled surgeries that this government has inflicted.

Transportation. We'd certainly not increase the ferry fares and

decrease the service to the point where economic development on Kuper Island,

amongst the first nations, is practically devastated. We wouldn't do that. No,

we wouldn't do that.

We look at the overall picture here. We have a government that

says, but doesn't do. We have a government that governs through slogan. We have

a government that governs by turn of phrase.

[H. Bloy in the chair.]

We have a government that's busy redistributing the wealth of this

province and its benefits to its friends and the rich. We have a government that

has hurt people, that has destroyed environments and that has the gall to brag,

has the audacity to ask British Columbia to forget that record. With a can of

green paint we'll forget that record. Pretty and positive words; ugly and

destructive actions. A radical agenda from a gang of ideologues.

You know what? I urge this government to take a look in the mirror

and see, as we see, the true face of the B.C. Liberals, and that is one of cut

and dash. Hold a gun to the head of public workers. Now we're your best friends.

I will be voting against this budget.

D. Hayer:

Before the last speaker from the NDP we had our

MLA for Vancouver-Quilchena….

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Can I remind all members of the House to

show respect for the speaker.

Member, continue.

D. Hayer: Before this member from the NDP spoke, we had our

MLA for Vancouver-Quilchena, who is the Minister of Economic Development,

respond to Budget 2007. It was a very good speech, a very detailed speech.

Then I tried to say: which is the real world? Is it the minister's

from our party or the opposition's? Then I went to this headline from Now

newspaper. This is from Wednesday to Sunday, February 24. It says: "Surrey's

Business Crowd Backs B.C.'s Budget in a Big Way." The Premier was greeted by

three standing ovations at the board of trade dinner Wednesday, at $85 per

person, and the Leader of the Opposition was a day later, at $30 per person.

Only 60 people showed up, and no standing ovation.

When we are in Victoria, sometimes people say that we don't live

in the real world. That just shows me, because the opposition doesn't really

understand what the public understands, and the proof is in the pudding. If you

take a look it, it's probably the same story in many places all over again.

[1535]

Anyway, I just wanted, before I start, to try and say what the

reality is outside and what is the reality here. But on the other hand….

This budget speech is all about sharing the incredible

opportunities created by a strong and powerful economy that leads Canada — an

economy that has created more jobs than people to fill them and revenues that

allow our government to share the wealth that we are creating. More affordable

housing, less taxes and a better environment — things that make our province the

best place on earth to live.

Those on the other side of the House know this and enjoy it.

People are now flocking back to B.C. in droves, unlike the dark days of the

1990s. Our Minister of Economic Development, in his previous speech, covered all

of the steps, so I don't have to repeat them.

They're coming back here from across the globe — many new

immigrants and Canadians coming back from other parts of the province and other

parts of the world — to seek opportunities, to seek prosperity and to seek

security for their families and their children. They come here because it is the

best place on earth to live. This government has made it and will continue to

make it even better with growth, opportunity and prosperity. They are precious.

Homes are in demand, so the values of homes increase. Because of

demand, products become more expensive, but this budget speaks loudly and

clearly to those issues. Through income tax cuts, we will put more money into

people's pockets to give them greater purchasing power and allow them to put a

little more money aside each year for their children's future and the family's

future.

This budget will, through dramatic change to housing policy, allow

people to feel more secure in their homes and to make home acquisition a little

easier. It is all about addressing the pressures of prosperity. To be perfectly

honest, what better pressures are there than those of prosperity instead of the

poverty of the 1990s?

Yet this budget recognizes that not all of us are basking in

prosperity and economic good fortune. There are families and single moms out

there who need a helping hand, who need to benefit from the strength of our

buoyant economic times. So this government is

[ Page 5700 ]

increasing the income assistance rate by 20 percent, the largest increase in

the history of this program.

This government is also cutting income tax rates for those most

vulnerable. Now those who earn up to $15,000 will pay no income tax at all.

That's the first in Canada. Those at the $20,000 level will pay almost 70

percent less than they did in 2001. The family of four with a household income

of $70,000 will save more than $1,800 a year compared to 2001. Even those

earning $100,000 a year will pay one-third less than they did before our

government came into office.

These tax cuts will help them with their housing costs. It will

help them to save for their family and enhance their discretionary spending

power. This means that all British Columbians earning up to $108,000 a year will

pay the lowest income tax rate in Canada. When these tax reductions are fully

implemented, the total provincial personal income tax burden will be lowered by

$550 million a year. That is truly remarkable, and all of that because in six

short years, we turned the economy around from the worst economy to the best

economy in Canada.

Again, we changed the worst economy in Canada to the best in the

country. This budget outlines how we are sharing that change, which moved the

prosperity, promise and security for all British Columbians, regardless of their

income level.

We know — and all the members from the opposition know this too —

nowadays people can't find workers. In the 1990s your kids had to go to Alberta,

Ontario and the United States to look for jobs, and they know that.

Interjection.

D. Hayer: That's okay. They're entitled to have a different

view, which is different than what's outside in reality, in the outside world,

as I stated in the Now newspaper previously.

[1540]

By boosting the qualifications for the homeowner's grant — a grant

for homes valued up to $950,000 — this government is providing relief for

seniors and others who are feeling the pressure of soaring housing values. This

will help seniors who have been concerned that property tax rates may force them

out of the houses they have called home for decades.

In addition, this budget now lowers the qualification time for

property tax deferment to age 55, providing even more security for other

seniors. This is good news, especially for those seniors on fixed income who

have worked all their lives to help create the prosperity this province enjoys

today.

With this budget, we have taken away the fear that they'd need to

sell their longtime homes, because now they don't have to. Now they can feel

that their future is good. It is not in jeopardy anymore. They don't need to

think that they have to move away from their community, their friends and

family, and their roots.

Young people — new, first-time homebuyers — will benefit too. The

housing legacy that this budget and this government are creating will allow more

people to acquire their first-time home, their first significant investment in

the future. With this budget, the first-time-homebuyers program has been

enhanced by exempting the first-time homebuyers throughout the province from

paying property transfer tax on a home valued up to $375,000. This will save

those buyers up to $5,500, and that's a significant cost savings to those who

have struggled to acquire that first home, that first step toward financial

stability and security for the family.

It is not only the homebuyers who are benefiting from our

government's decision to create a legacy of housing for all British Columbians.

We are expanding the rental assistance program. We are raising the income

threshold for those who qualify to $28,000 a year. This means close to 6,000

more working families — more than 20,000 in total — will be eligible to receive

subsidies of up to $536 a month to help them with their housing costs. That is

incredible.

For those most vulnerable in our society, our government is

providing an additional $27 million over the next three years to increase the

number of year-round shelter beds by close to 30 percent, as well as providing

related support services for those on the street. As well, another $38 million

in one-time funding will be given to projects that provide direct housing and

support to those who are homeless or at risk of being homeless.

Those most vulnerable citizens of our society deserve to

participate and benefit from the good things that have happened in our economy.

This budget addresses that issue and addresses the assistance it will provide to

these people to get on with their lives, to cope with their lives and also to

make sure those people with addiction problems or mental disorders are looked

after. Part of that will be an additional $50 per month to provide better

shelter for those on income assistance. With this increase, British Columbia now

has the highest shelter assistance rate in Canada for employable singles,

couples and single-parent families.

For those women and children who are at risk of domestic violence,

there is $6 million in funding to provide safe havens and strengthen support for

them when they are in transition houses. They need extra help. The government is

helping them.

For those with special housing needs, seniors and others, $45

million over four years has been allocated to convert up to 750 social housing

units to supportive housing.

Again, we are reaching out to everyone in a very positive way to

assist those most in need. On top of all of that, Budget 2007 establishes a $250

million housing endowment fund. This will generate approximately $10 million a

year to support new projects beyond those that meet the criteria of established

housing programs, opening up the way for innovation to provide new housing

solutions for people throughout our province.

[1545]

While I know that across the spectrum, everyone will appreciate

that easing of the burden of home-ownership for housing in general, there is a

particular

[ Page 5701 ]

appreciation in this budget for the residents of my own constituency.

For those most vulnerable in Surrey, the following housing project

announcements were made last week. The Atira Women's Resource Society is

planning 32 units for women and children at risk of homelessness through a mix

of second-stage transition housing units and emergency shelter beds. The

development will also feature a high-risk-pregnancy clinic with prenatal and

postnatal care. Counselling and job skills training will also be planned. The

province will contribute up to $9.3 million in capital costs.

The Fraserside Community Services Society plans 12 transitional

housing units for people with mental illness and addictions. The society will

receive assistance through a $1.3 million purchase by the Provincial Rental

Housing Corporation of a property that will be leased back to the society at a

very nominal rate.

The Elizabeth Fry Society of Greater Vancouver will receive a

$243,608 grant to help renovate a duplex for 11 housing units in Surrey. These

units will be a mix of shelter beds and transition housing for people with

addictions. We are indeed walking the walk, not just talking the talk, on

homelessness.

Surrey will benefit greatly from the $2.1 billion in capital

funding set aside over the next three years. That money is for a new major

construction project — the upgrading of health facilities, equipment and

information systems.

Some of the health care improvements in Surrey include the

announcement of a new 148-square-foot outpatient hospital in Surrey with an

estimated cost of $126 million; the opening of a new $4.8 million minor

treatment centre at Surrey Memorial Hospital to relieve ER congestion by

treating more than 80 outpatients a day; opening up 20 beds — sub-acute units in

Surrey — to care for patients prepared either to return home or move into

residential care; opening up ten new hospice beds and 18 additional acute care

geriatric beds in Surrey.

Further plans to improve health care in Surrey include a new

state-of-the-art emergency centre and urgent care facility, which will triple

the existing emergency floor space at Surrey Memorial Hospital. Construction is

planned to begin in 2008 with a projected completion date of 2010. A new

prenatal care facility at Surrey Memorial Hospital. Some 67 new acute care and

critical care beds by the end of 2007.

There's more — 12 new renal units by 2009 and 250 new residential

care beds to be built by the end of 2008. These investments in Surrey's health

care options are both needed and welcomed by Surrey residents — in the

fastest-growing city in British Columbia, if not the fastest-growing city in

Canada.

We heard just recently what people of Surrey wanted in health care

when our Premier's conversation on health care visited our city. I am certain

that outcomes, once the conclusions of this Conversation on Health are reached….

My constituents and my fellow Surrey residents will be pleased with what the

future holds for them in increased health care options.

For families in my riding, the great news in this budget was

education for their children. Overall the budget shows an increase of 2.3

percent for K-to-12 education opportunities. That is $633 million more over the

three years on K-to-12 spending, an addition of $132 million allocated in the

previous budget. It means a total of $765 million over three years for

kindergarten-to-grade-12 students — all that while school enrolment throughout

the province keeps on declining.

This budget does not overlook advanced education either, with more

than $700 million allocated to post-secondary institutions throughout B.C. The

new Kwantlen trade and technology campus in Cloverdale is now helping students.

That will help to make sure that students reach their full potential, with an

official opening planned for this spring.

[1550]

This was announced when I was on the board of governors at

Kwantlen University College. There was no funding available in the '90s, but our

government has finally given the money and finished the construction.

I also want to remind this House and the people of Surrey that we

now have conveniently close to home a full campus of Simon Fraser University,

one of the best universities in British Columbia and Canada, located right in

Surrey. It was with great pride that I joined our Premier and the president of

Simon Fraser University and many others on the wonderful occasion last fall when

Surrey's SFU campus was officially opened.

It was a great day for Surrey, for students and for the parents.

The students don't have to go far away. They have such an exceptional facility

and an opportunity for higher education or advanced education located right in

their own community very close to their homes.

I also want to remind this House that Surrey has not been

overlooked in the past years' budgets either, particularly in the area of

dramatic transportation improvements. We already have the Golden Ears bridge

underway. Now on- and off-ramps at Highway 1 and 192nd Street have been

completed. Four-laning of the Fraser Highway right by my constituency office has

been completed from 160th Street to 168th. Four-laning of the Pacific Highway,

176th Street, from the U.S. border to the Trans-Canada Highway….

Also, the four-laning of Highway 10 is underway, and a new

underpass to link the Golden Ears bridge and 176th Street is underway. A planned

underpass at 156th Street and Highway 1 in my constituency to improve access to

Fraser Heights is also being planned, and the work is starting on that. The

route planning for South Fraser perimeter road is on track.

There's more for my residents of Surrey-Tynehead. As a matter of

fact, all the residents of the lower mainland will benefit from this. That is

the twinning of the Port Mann Bridge and the widening of Highway 1 to eight

lanes, and improvement of all the overpasses and underpasses on Highway 1 and

also all the overpasses in my constituency of Surrey-Tynehead.

We have done a lot in the past few years, and this year's budget

promises even more. In fact, there's so much good news and so many good things

contained

[ Page 5702 ]

in this budget that I'm sure the discussions about this budget will go on for

weeks — about the benefits of this budget, about its inclusiveness of all people

in the province — in the households of British Columbians and at the meetings

they hold with their business organizations or their offices.

Never before have I seen a budget that addresses so much, provides

so much for so many regardless of their economic status. That is why so many

people are happy about it. We have with this budget reached out with assistance

to our most vulnerable, providing them with increased shelter care, with the

biggest increase in financial assistance in the history of this program.

We have reached out to seniors, providing them with long-term

security against inflation and the increasing value of their homes. I know that

the opposition doesn't like it, because they would like us to go back to the

1990s, but progress has to be made. Things have to get better. The way we have

done it is with the help of all British Columbians and all the businesses, by

turning this province back to number one from the worst economy in Canada.

We have reached out to parents and their children with help to

make them the best-educated, most literate in all of North America. We have

reached out to those who need health care, and we have allocated more funding to

improve and enhance access to these most vital services. We have reached out

broadly to everyone in this province who pays taxes by making it the most

taxpayer-friendly jurisdiction in Canada. We have increased the health care

budget by almost 55 percent since we took over this government. That's great

news.

When I talk to my constituents, the British Columbians, they're

really happy about it. A lot more needs to be done, and we want to continue to

do that.

I wait with interest to hear what the opposition has to say,

because I'm certain that beneath their rhetoric will lie their personal belief

that this budget, like the throne speech, is good for British Columbians. They

support it, and they like it.

[1555]

If the NDP chooses to vote against this budget, here's what

they'll be voting against. Here, as a matter of fa