Hansard — Monday, November 27, 2006 p.m.


CONTENTS

	Routine Proceedings
		Page


Tributes		5115
	Prince George hockey champions
	Hon. S. Bond
	Dirk Meissner
	Hon. M. de Jong

Introductions by Members		5115

Tributes		5115
	Frank Calder
	Hon. M. de Jong
	M. Farnworth

Introduction and First Reading of Bills		5115
	Parliamentary Calendar Act, 2006 (Bill M209)
	C. James
	Workers Compensation Amendment Act, 2006 (Bill M210)
	G. Gentner

Statements (Standing Order 25B)		5116
	Global Centre for Pluralism
	J. Nuraney
	Value-added and remanufacturing sectors in forest industry
	B. Simpson
	Dawson Creek Fall Fair and Exhibition
	B. Lekstrom
	Investigation into Sullivan mine accident
	N. Macdonald
	Cypress Mountain Olympic venue
	J. McIntyre
	Workplace deaths and injuries
	C. Puchmayr

Oral Questions		5118
	Health Minister action on private health care services
	C. James
	Hon. G. Abbott
	A. Dix
	K. Conroy
	Funding for limits to class size and composition
	D. Cubberley
	Hon. S. Bond
	Potential school closings in Cariboo area
	C. Wyse
	Hon. S. Bond
	Funding for northern and rural schools
	B. Simpson
	Hon. S. Bond
	Alcan power sales to B.C. Hydro
	J. Horgan
	Hon. R. Neufeld

Petitions		5123
	M. Sather

Standing Order 35		5123
	C. James
	Hon. M. de Jong

Motions on Notice		5125
	Adoption of report of Special Committee to Appoint a Representative for Children and Youth (Motion 72)
	J. Rustad
	C. James
	M. Karagianis
	N. Simons
	D. Thorne
	A. Dix
	J. Rustad
	Appointment of Representative for Children and Youth (Motion 73)
	J. Rustad

On the Motion to Adjourn		5135
	M. Farnworth
	N. Macdonald
	D. Chudnovsky
	C. Trevena
	G. Robertson
	L. Krog
	J. Brar
	G. Gentner
	R. Austin
	M. Sather

On the Motion to Recess		5164
	M. Farnworth
	A. Dix
	D. Routley
	B. Ralston
	G. Coons
	B. Simpson

Standing Order 35 (Speaker's Ruling)		5173

On the Motion to Recess (continued)		5174
	R. Chouhan
	S. Simpson
	H. Lali
	J. Kwan

On the Motion to Adjourn (continued)		5181
	M. Sather
	D. Routley
	B. Ralston
	G. Coons
	R. Chouhan
	H. Lali
	D. Thorne
	C. Evans
	C. Puchmayr
	J. Horgan
	J. Kwan
	C. Wyse
	S. Hammell
	H. Bains
	N. Simons
	B. Simpson
	S. Simpson
	D. Cubberley
	M. Karagianis
	K. Conroy
	A. Dix
	Hon. M. de Jong

Hon. S. Bond: Today I would like the House to just recognize a significant accomplishment by a Prince George hockey team that recently spent Thanksgiving in the United States. The midget team there won. They were one of two Canadian teams at that tournament in Denver, Colorado. Under the head coach, Jason Garneau, they actually brought home the gold to Prince George. We're very excited and very proud of the team, and I hope the Legislature will recognize them today.

Hon. M. de Jong: Two submissions to the House today — one happy, one not so happy.

Dirk Meissner from the Canadian Press was in Vancouver on Thursday night, where the Vancouver firefighters presented him with the International Association of Fire Fighters award for the best column or editorial in North America. He received the prestigious honour for his piece on amendments to the Workers Compensation Act to recognize the increased cancer risk faced by professional firefighters.

The International Association of Fire Fighters Media Awards Contest is conducted annually. It honours reporting and photography that best portray the professional and dangerous work of firefighters and emergency personnel in the United States and Canada. There were, I am told, over 225 entries in the 2006 media awards contest. I know that all members of the House would want to congratulate Mr. Meissner on his most impressive achievement.

J. Horgan: Not in the gallery today, but certainly in our hearts and our minds, is the MLA for Victoria-Hillside, who was father to Rory Fleming this past weekend. Would the House please welcome Rory to the world.

Hon. M. de Jong: The fact that all members of the House would know this does not, I think, negate the possibility of taking a moment to remember the fact that a 26-year servant of this House passed away on November 4. Of course, I'm referring to Dr. Frank Calder. Members of the chamber, some of them here, were in attendance for his memorial service.

British Columbia and Canada lost a true giant in the passing of Dr. Frank Calder. He was a member of the Order of Canada and the Order of British Columbia. His life really was characterized by a series of firsts. He was the first status Indian, as the term is used, to be admitted to the University of British Columbia. He was the first aboriginal person in the country to be elected to a legislature, and remarkably, he served in this chamber for 26 years — a fact that I was not aware of.

He was the first aboriginal person to enter the Canadian Parliament and the first to be appointed as a minister of the Crown in British Columbia. He was a founder of the Nisga'a Tribal Council and served as its president for 20 years. He was later named chief of chiefs by the clans that comprise the Nisga'a Tribal Council. He was a guiding spirit for British Columbians, Canadians — aboriginal and non-aboriginal.

Mr. Speaker, he truly was a pioneer, a giant amongst men and women, and I hope that you, on behalf of all members of this chamber, will convey to his family our sincerest condolences and our great thanks for their having shared Dr. Frank Calder with all of us.

M. Farnworth: This side of the House would like to join with the government side in recognizing the tremendous contribution that Frank Calder made, not only to aboriginal people in British Columbia but aboriginal people right across this country, and the contribution that he made to the people of British Columbia and to redressing the grievances of the past, fighting to ensure that those injustices are corrected and rectified, but more importantly, helping to build and make reconciliation the framework with which we proceed in the future.

I think it is only fitting that this House take the time to do that, and we send our condolences as well.

C. James: The Parliamentary Calendar Act, 2006, establishes a set parliamentary schedule for the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia. Many members of this House will recall that when the significant amendments to standing orders were introduced in the last parliament, the government stated that in order to maintain a balance between the will of government and the necessity of adequate accountability, and in exchange for granting government the authority to in-

voke closure on business by a fixed date in the spring, a fall session was added to the calendar.

Somewhere along the way that principle was abandoned, much to the detriment of the effectiveness of this place and, more importantly, the interests of the people of this province. This act establishes permanently a fall session that would not be at the will of the Premier or the government but at the will of the members of this place, as it should be.

I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at a sitting after today.

Bill M209, Parliamentary Calendar Act, 2006, 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.

G. Gentner: I move the Workers Compensation Amendment Act, 2006, be read a first time today.

G. Gentner: As you all know, the Workers Compensation Act went through some drastic changes in 2002. There were changes made to the benefit levels, the average earnings, pensions after 65, inflation adjustment and the receipt of CPP disability benefits. These are just some of the changes that were made to the act.

The government would have you believe that the purpose of the Workers Compensation Amendment Act was to restore the system's financial sustainability and modernize how benefits for injured workers would be calculated. Modernize? What exactly is modernization? I'll tell you what it means, Mr. Speaker. It means to deny the rights of injured workers.

The number-one case that walks into my office is workers compensation cases. I'm talking about hard-working, honest and proud individuals who have had the misfortune to suffer a work-related injury or disease.

However, it is my understanding that there is one particular change that was not based on the recommendations of the Winter report of 2001. I'm talking about the change to the basis for determining permanent partial disability pension levels. Under the previous legislation, there was a dual system in place. The injured worker would receive compensation based on either loss of function or loss of earnings, whichever was higher and more equitable for the injured worker.

The current legislation has been changed so the compensation is now based solely on loss of function, except in exceptional cases which are very rare. The Winter report even recommended that the dual system remain in place.

It is the right of injured workers to have their compensation based on fair legislative rules and fair policy and practices, but the current Workers Compensation Act and the current policies of WCB are hardly fair. I propose a private member's bill so that we can start bringing back fairness and equity to the injured worker, which is what he or she rightfully deserved.

Bill M210, Workers Compensation Amendment Act, 2006, 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.

J. Nuraney: I had the honour and the privilege to attend a signing ceremony between the Prime Minister, Hon. Stephen Harper, and His Highness the Aga Khan for the creation of the Global Centre for Pluralism in Ottawa. The Global Centre for Pluralism will be a major new international centre for research, education and exchange about the values, practices and policies that underpin pluralistic societies.

Drawing inspiration from the Canadian experience, the centre will function as a global repository. The centre will function also as a source of information for knowledge about fostering pluralistic values, policies and practices. It will work with the countries to nurture successful civil societies in which every citizen — irrespective of cultural, religious or ethnic differences — is able to realize his or her full potential. In his remarks His Highness the Aga Khan described the Canadian practice of seeking unity in diversity as Canada's gift to the world.

Under the terms of the agreement, the government of Canada will contribute $30 million towards the establishment of the centre's endowment fund. The Aga Khan will also contribute a minimum of $30 million toward the endowment and the refurbishing of the former Canadian War Museum, which the government is making available on a long-term lease to serve as the centre's global headquarters.

This new institution will play a significant role in promoting democracy, good governance, a more equitable sharing of world resources between the developed and developing countries, and the projection of Canadian values such as the rule of law, human rights and respect for diversity.

I am very proud to be a member of the Shia Ismaili Muslim community, which is partnering this lofty project, a true tribute to Canada and its values.

B. Simpson: I had the pleasure of spending some time with the president of the Independent Lumber

Remanufacturers Association a few weeks ago. The members of this association employ approximately 4,000 workers and ship four billion board feet of wood products per year, with a value in excess of $2.5 billion, making the association one of the biggest employers in B.C.'s forest products industry and a vital contributor to the B.C. economy. A similar association exists on Vancouver Island, the Vancouver Island Association of Wood Processors, which represents 57 businesses, employing more than 600 workers in communities from Victoria to Port McNeill and Parksville to Port Alberni.

The individual member companies of these two associations and others like them represent the future of our forest industry because, by necessity, the future of the industry lies in extracting full value from every tree harvested in this province. However, the sector cannot thrive if the entrepreneurs who run these companies must struggle every day simply to survive.

They cannot put their creative energies towards growth if they have to fight every day to secure fibre supply. They cannot grow if they are not given assistance to secure the financial capital required to expand their operations. Without security of fibre, banking institutions are very reluctant to underwrite the expansion of this sector. Finally, they cannot expand to their full capacity unless a forest policy framework recognizes their particular needs and circumstances and takes into account the punitive impact that the softwood lumber agreement will have on them.

If the forest industry is to continue to contribute to B.C.'s economy in the future, the entrepreneurs in the value-added and remanufacturing sectors must be given every opportunity to grow and to contribute as fully as possible to the B.C. economy, both now and in the future. This House owes these entrepreneurs our utmost respect and our support.

B. Lekstrom: It's my privilege today to stand in this House and speak about an outstanding event in my riding of Peace River South. This event is the Dawson Creek Fall Fair and Exhibition, which is held annually in Dawson Creek but encompasses all of our surrounding area in the entire Peace region with their participation. In 2007 we will mark the 85th birthday of this fair and exhibition, one that we're all very proud of and one I encourage each and every member in this House and all British Columbians to make an effort to attend if it is at all possible.

This event showcases agriculture and the importance of it, not just to the Peace region or our province and our country but to the entire world. We have people that travel the Alaska Highway and, during their tour, attend this fair if they happen to be travelling through our region during the time that it's put on. All, without exception, are truly amazed at the quality of this exhibition.

It takes a thousand volunteers to put this together, including the service sector, which contributes time and equipment to host this event. My thanks go out to each and every one of those people. It encompasses cattle shows, horse shows, a world-class rodeo that rivals the Calgary Stampede. The World Professional Chuckwagon Association run their wagons there as well. One of the highlights is the heavy involvement of the 4-H Club in the entire region. They're actually the future for agriculture in our great province, so it is tremendous.

This year 25,000 people attended our fair and exhibition. For a community of roughly 12,000 people, that's quite a turnout. But as I said, this is about more than Dawson Creek. This is truly about the Peace country coming together to host this. This year they received the award of excellence as the number-one fair in British Columbia from the B.C. Association of Agricultural Fairs. As well, they won the committee of the year award from the Professional Chuckwagon Association as the best committee and best organization that has put these together.

In closing, my heartfelt thanks go out again to all of the volunteers that put this together, with special mention to Ms. Connie Patterson, who has been involved in agriculture her entire life but really is the backbone of this event. Please visit.

N. Macdonald: On Monday, May 15 of this year a contractor, as this House knows, was killed in a small shed at the Sullivan mine reclamation site. It would be two days before he was missed, and on the morning of May 17 three other people died in that shed. In the six months that have followed, the families of those killed have tried to deal with the tragic loss of their loved ones.

Kimberley and surrounding communities turned out in massive numbers for a memorial service attended by the Lieutenant-Governor and ministers of government as well as paramedics, police and fire personnel not only from across the province but from across North America. Kimberley has since dedicated an ambulance to the memory of the two lost paramedics.

A commitment was made repeatedly by government that they would find out what happened and that they would work to see that it would not happen again. We know that is what is needed for the families to allow closure; we know that is what is needed for the community to allow closure. I wanted members to know where we are, because so many of you very graciously offered condolences to the community in the spring.

The first report of the accident was presented on Monday, October 30 in Cranbrook by the chief mine inspector. Families were given a presentation the night before. What has been very clear from the family members is that they need much more. They were in no way

satisfied with the report and raised a number of issues that they felt needed to be dealt with.

At this time there is a coroner's report being prepared, and it is hoped that it will do more to answer questions that are still outstanding. If not, the community and family will need a coroner's inquest, and the commitments made by members of this House on behalf of all of us on May 17 and at the memorial service will be tested. We simply cannot let them down. Kimberley is a wonderful community that stands together in good times and hard times. It has and will continue to support those within the community that are grieving.

J. McIntyre: I am very excited to report today that Olympic fever is hitting British Columbia. Our first completed Olympic venue was just opened on November 16 for everyone to use, and it is well over three years before the games are set to begin and only six or seven months after construction began.

Our government is committed to leaving lasting legacies of the 2010 Winter Games, leading up to and beyond the Olympics. At Cypress Mountain in West Vancouver–Garibaldi athletes and teams can now come to train and participate in sport and become familiar with the facilities and the courses before the Olympics arrive.

Cypress Mountain will play host to ten events, including men's and women's aerials and moguls as well as the snowboard half-pipe and snowboard cross. Thanks to the recent additions and upgrades, such as an in-ground half-pipe, a new freestyle site and a regraded parallel giant slalom course, we'll have the chance to experience world-class Olympic facilities right in our own back yard.

As the host province, we want to see as many B.C. athletes as possible competing in our games. By completing the Cypress Bowl venue so early, the advance training time should give B.C.'s athletes an advantage when it comes to showing their stuff to the world in 2010.

But the 2010 Olympics are more than just games. They're about opportunity — opportunities for tourism, opportunities for athletics, opportunities for businesses and opportunities for volunteerism. It's our opportunity as a community, as a province and as a country to highlight to the hundreds of thousands of athletes, visitors, media and spectators worldwide exactly why British Columbia is the best place on earth.

All levels of government have been working together collaboratively to ensure we're prepared, to ensure everyone is ready. We will be ready, but the question is: is the world ready for the competition they're going to face from our athletes at this venue? I can't wait.

C. Puchmayr: There have been 11 deaths so far this year in the B.C. forest sector. Some will say it has improved since the senseless carnage of last year, but I remind this House that one death is unacceptable. So are the serious workplace injuries that continue to permanently maim men and women, young and old.

We need to understand that this was a year when we saw significant reductions in log harvest due to summer drought and unprecedented autumn rains. As we head towards the season where many of us share and reflect on the past year, a season where we gather with our family and friends, we should not forget those who will not be coming home to their loved ones because they were a victim of an industrial work-related accident.

This is a time that should be a festive season for all, yet it is one filled with heartache and pain for those who have lost a loved one — a time of heartache and pain for the families of the 188 fatalities that we remembered on the day of mourning this year, a time of heartache and pain for those who have died this year because of the work that they did, a time of heartache and pain for the families of the Sullivan mine disaster. This is also a time when injured workers suffer from reductions in pension benefits and rehabilitation premiums from the new directives of WorkSafe B.C.

Yet this is a time of great prosperity. Many large multinational corporations that operate in our province benefit from the toil of our citizens' labour — a prosperous time for the global resource markets as they bring in record profits due to our global commodity prices; a prosperous time for shareholders and investors; a prosperous time for government coffers, both provincial and federal, as these global commodities enter into our general revenues.

Let's work together to ensure that profit is not put ahead of people. Let's work together to ensure that the pendulum swings a balance that creates a fairness in how our resources are extracted in a manner that protects our workers and our environment. That, Mr. Speaker, is what I want for Christmas.

C. James: Over the weekend British Columbians learned more about the Minister of Health's inability and refusal to protect B.C.'s public health care system. We heard that the minister was once again surprised at another credit-card-for-medicine scheme — this time a private for-profit emergency room — a scheme that, according to Dr. Godley, "lets us go back to the old days when people bartered for medical services."

The minister tried to blame his former deputy, Penny Ballem, for his ignorance. To the Minister of Health: can he explain why he was caught so uninformed? And will he agree that he should have known about this issue before the media contacted him?

Hon. G. Abbott: I thank the member for her question. The use of sanctimony as a political weapon can

certainly be, in some circumstances, a powerful one. When it's used as this opposition likes to use it, it does invite the stench of hypocrisy to overwhelm it.

I'd like to know from the Leader of the Opposition where she was in March 1999 when the False Creek Surgical Centre was formed. Where was she? I know where the federal Health critic was. She was the Minister of Health of British Columbia — didn't say a word. I know where the opposition Health critic was. He was a chief political adviser to the government of British Columbia — didn't say a word. I know where the Opposition House Leader was. He was a member of executive council along with several other members of the opposition.

None of them spoke up to say a word against False Creek Surgical. They should keep that in perspective.

C. James: It's clear that the Minister of Health doesn't know anything about his own ministry, including the fact that he has been the minister for the last year, and that's what we're talking about here. This isn't an isolated incident. It's another example of this minister's pattern of surprise and complete ignorance.

Emergency room crises — we heard the minister call doctors alarmist, and he denied the story. Separated seniors — the minister actually dismissed this story as fearmongering. MRI scandals — the minister said it couldn't happen, and it did. Extra billing and queue-jumping — the minister was caught once again unaware and uninformed.

This new credit card ER wants to charge patients $200 to get in the door, and the minister claims he had no idea that it was in the works. Will the Minister of Health please explain to this House why he is repeatedly in the dark when it comes to our health care system?

Hon. G. Abbott: When we talk about the False Creek Surgical Centre, I think we also have to remember that there were a few other centres that had some things in common with them: Boardwalk Surgery Centre, Delbrook Surgical Centre, Broadmead Surgery Centre, Metrotown Surgical Centre, Parklane Surgical Centre, Seafield Surgical Centre, Okanagan Surgical Centre, Valley Surgery Centre and about 20 other private surgery centres that were put in place during the tenure of the NDP during the 1990s.

I noted with some interest the Leader of the Opposition calling for my resignation last Friday.

Hon. G. Abbott: If that were the case, there would be 26 desk-beaters across the way that would be tendering their resignations as well.

C. James: If the Health Minister spent a little less time researching the past and spent more time paying attention to the Health Ministry, we might not have the system in chaos right now.

In March in North Vancouver, a doctor informed patients he was going to start charging an annual user fee. The minister promised us a review. We've not heard anything back. We're still waiting for the minister to take action about user fees at Copeman and at Options Clinic. Now we have a Kamloops surgeon setting up queue-jumping schemes, and now we have a credit card emergency room. I expect there are more.

Again, my question is to the Minister of Health. What specific steps has he taken to make sure that he and his office are actually better informed about our health care system in the future?

Hon. G. Abbott: What we do is observe the rule of law on this side of the House. We observe the rule of law. When we receive a complaint, we forward it to the appropriate body for adjudication.

I know the Leader of the Opposition would be the first to leap up, were I to interfere in any of those appropriate processes. She would say that is an outrage. She does not, however, appear to want to see those due processes take place. Would she feel it appropriate, for example, were I to launch an investigation into why her federal leader decided, when he had a pain in the Shouldice, that he would go to a private clinic to get it? Would that be appropriate?

Hon. G. Abbott: …where we have received a complaint, we have followed up that complaint appropriately, thoroughly and properly.

A. Dix: Well, in this case, the Ministry of Health was informed in January about this very serious issue, which the minister himself has acknowledged is serious, and the minister claims he was ignorant that it was going on as of last Thursday.

The minister also claimed on Friday that he has launched an internal review to explain why he was kept in the dark. I'd like to ask him how it's going. In particular, can the minister tell this House whether his office, his ministerial assistant Alex Dutton, received a request from Dr. Godley earlier this year seeking a meeting to discuss False Creek Surgical Centre's private emergency room or "urgent care" proposal?

Hon. G. Abbott: The letter of January 18 was from the executive assistant to Dr. Godley, who I believe is Sherry Wiebe, and her letter was to Alex Dutton, executive assistant at the Ministry of Health. The request contained in the letter was to offer me what was termed a courtesy briefing in regard to exciting innovations that were proposed — their words — by False Creek Surgical. They did go to some pains to assure that what was being proposed was within the bounds of the Canada Health Act. I understand that request for a meeting was forwarded to the deputy minister, and that is what we know at this point.

A. Dix: Let me get this straight. The Minister of Health was kept in the dark by his own staff about what was going on at False Creek Surgical Centre.

A. Dix: The letter went to the Minister of Health about a serious issue like this, and he is so committed to defending the Medicare Protection Act, so committed to defending the Canada Health Act and so committed to defending patients in British Columbia that it took him…. Well, in fact, he didn't take any action, any steps on this question.

My question to the Minister of Health is: will his office be part of his so-called investigation into what happened, and can he explain why the letter from Dr. Godley's office to his office wasn't followed up by him in January of this year?

Hon. G. Abbott: We receive thousands of requests to meet annually. Some of those we're able to oblige; others we are not. I'm certainly still looking into it. We've reviewed the correspondence files a couple of times, and we'll continue to do that to see if there's further we discover.

Hon. G. Abbott: …the former Rasputin to the court of the chronically misguided back in 1999, what his advice was to his government. Did he keep that secret? Did he keep it secret from his ministers?

Hon. G. Abbott: What was his advice as chief political adviser around the False Creek Surgical Centre? Was it a great and perilous threat to the province, as the member might suggest today, or was it not?

K. Conroy: Let's bring it back to 2006. Last week the minister was informed about a surgeon in Kamloops who had set up his own queue-jumping scheme. A patient was told that $350 would get her to the front of the line. The minister once again pleaded ignorance. He said it was an isolated case.

On Friday the opposition received an e-mail from another concerned British Columbian. Colleen Abbott was told she would have to wait three years to see a foot specialist, or she could pay the fee and get in to see the same doctor in a private clinic in 30 days. Three years or 30 days.

How many other cases does the minister need to see before he admits that credit card medicine is becoming the new reality in B.C.?

Hon. G. Abbott: In fact, what we have seen during the last five years is far more timely attention to surgical procedures than was ever the case back in the 1990s.

Today, for example, in British Columbia we are doing 86 percent more knee replacements than we did back in 2001 — 86 percent more knee replacements; we've almost doubled the number — and 47 percent more hip replacements than back in 2001. Surgery is more timely than it ever was under the NDP.

If the member has a concern, I'm surprised she has not forwarded the information to my office. I hope she has forwarded it to my office. It's great to raise these things in question period and to make a political stunt around them, but if she wants something done, she should forward the information to my office.

I would gladly receive it. I can assure the member I will take the case to the College of Physicians and Surgeons, who are the appropriate adjudicative body in this matter, as we did last Thursday when the information was forwarded to us.

K. Conroy: Yes, I do, Mr. Speaker. It's interesting. You'll get public health care in this province if you have money or if the opposition brings the case to the attention of the minister.

In fact, the opposition did know about this case, but so has the minister because we got the e-mail the same day as the minister was sent the e-mail.

Ms. Abbott was referred by Dr. Alistair Younger out of the public system into his own private practice at the Cambie Surgery Centre. It's another example of doctors referring their own patients to the private system and then making a profit. For $500 she can jump to the front of the line.

What is the minister going to do about this to put an end to this blatant queue-jumping?

Hon. G. Abbott: Whenever we receive information which suggests that physicians, or indeed any other

health practitioners, are conducting themselves inappropriately in relation to the statutes of this province and the code of conduct which is expected by the College of Physicians and Surgeons, we will forward all of the information we have to the College of Physicians and Surgeons for follow-up on that.

We did that last Friday. We did that with another case today, which the members may wish to raise here shortly. I don't know.

Whenever we get information about an apprehended or suggested breach of statute or code of conduct, we follow up on it with the appropriate bodies. In this case, it will be with the College of Physicians and Surgeons. I invite the member to submit whatever information she has with respect to Ms. Abbott, and we will ensure that it is taken forward to the College of Physicians and Surgeons for their attention.

D. Cubberley: Bill 33, Education (Learning Enhancement) Statutes Amendment Act, 2006, places restrictions on class size and composition in B.C. classrooms. The Minister of Education has directed school districts to absorb any new costs associated with class size and composition requirements. At the same time, she's told school districts to absorb all the costs of lost revenues due to the school fees decision. For good measure, this summer she quietly withheld the annual facilities grants owed to school districts for work already done.

My question to the minister: can she tell us just how many classes across British Columbia exceed the cap of three, and whether she still believes the convenient fiction that school districts have enough money to meet all of their obligations?

Hon. S. Bond: Bill 33…. We came to the conclusion that we did need to respond to some of the challenges in classrooms today, and by bringing together partners at the education round table, we created a bill that began to address those issues. School startup went very, very well this year, despite the member opposite's comments. In fact, let's look at the record. Funding for education in British Columbia is at the highest level it has ever been at, and we continue to add funds.

D. Cubberley: The minister has a very elastic concept of school funding. Elastic money — one allocation fits all needs.

The figures that I have seen — and I notice the minister didn't give us any figures on how many classes — show that some 7,577 classes are above the cap of three. That's only a partial count — 49 out of 60 school districts. In Sooke school district alone, 130 classes have five or more children with IEPs. Some have as many as ten, and one has 14. Can the minister tell us how many of these classrooms have not received additional resources and which school districts are reporting implementation issues that cannot be met with existing funding?

Hon. S. Bond: In fact, this is the first government that actually made an effort to ask every single class-size number in the entire province. We also know this. Even at a time of record-level funding in this province, we believe that the people that are best designed and best trained and best equipped to make decisions about classroom size are at the school level, with principals and parents and administrators working together. We have excellent educators and teachers in this province, who are working to make sure that our class size is reasonable, appropriate and fair to all students.

C. Wyse: Is the minister aware of the Trillium report of school district 27, in which it's proposed to close eight more schools in order to balance its budget?

Hon. S. Bond: You know, it's simple to stand up and say all the time, as the members opposite do, that it's all about the money. Well, has the member opposite done his homework? If we look around the world, enrolment in schools is declining not just in British Columbia but in Saskatchewan, Australia, Ireland — all across the world. Schools have to adjust to that.

Yes, I'm aware of that report. Closing a school is never an easy decision. It's difficult; it's painful. But the demographics in this province continue to show decline in enrolment not just today — 37,000 students less — but that will continue for at least another decade.

C. Wyse: In fairness, it being question period, the answer is that I have done my homework. Is the minister aware that the Trillium report as well as school district 27's financial report show that the projected nearly $1 million budget shortfall arises from the inadequate funding of mandated provincial programs and the lack of funding to implement Bill 33, which alone is close to $400,000?

My question is: what will the minister do to intervene to prevent the closure of eight schools in Cariboo South?

Hon. S. Bond: It is always difficult to make decisions about school closures. In fact, we believe that locally elected school trustees actually work hard to use the resources that they're given. What is this government going to do? It's going to continue to make education a priority. We are at record levels of funding.

We're going to continue to fund schools appropriately and make sure our children have the best opportunities possible.

B. Simpson: I'm glad to hear the Minister of Education say that she was committed to funding school districts and school boards appropriately. In '04-05 school district 27 did a significant restructure in order to meet the ministry's funding constraints and in order to avoid school closures. Subsequent to that, Bill 33 costs, distributed learning costs, contractual obligations and other provincially mandated programs and policies have created the deficit situation in school district 27.

My question to the minister: if she's talking about funding school boards appropriately, will she address this shortfall so that eight schools do not have to close because of this minister's inadequate, inappropriate funding of provincially mandated programs?

Hon. S. Bond: I think it's ironic that the member opposite stands up and talks about funding levels. How simple is it? Let's look at the answer. We have 37,000 fewer children in the school system. We are projected to continue to see that decline take place — another 30,000 fewer students over the next number of years. In fact, funding — let's remember — during this government's mandate is at the highest level despite that rapid decline.

B. Simpson: I do, and it intrigues me that the minister starts talking about how simple it is, because that captures this government's idea about educational funding. In fact, it is not simple. One size does not fit all. Rural communities and remote rural schools need different funding formulas in this province.

If the minister had done her homework, she would have read the Trillium report, which states explicitly that the education funding system in this province now encourages fewer schools with larger enrolments. And in the case of school district 27, the first targeted schools to close are rural, remote schools where the funding formula does not work.

My question is to the Minister of Education. A few years ago, the community of Wells had to go on a hunger strike to get this government's attention to the fact that if they lost their school, they lost their community.

The community of Likely in my riding is one of the first targeted schools to close. Are they going to have to go on a hunger strike in order to get this minister to pay attention to their needs and to keep that school open? Eight school closures. To the minister: what is she going to do to keep those schools open?

Hon. S. Bond: Obviously, a tutorial is necessary for the member opposite. In fact, the current funding formula actually has recognition factors for northern and rural communities, including geography, dispersion, climate, all those things that matter in northern communities where we live.

In fact, this government has provided a buffer grant for those districts who are losing enrolment at a rate more rapid than expected. So it's time for the member opposite to go back to school, to do his homework and to recognize that this government has placed funding at an all-time high in this province.

J. Horgan: My question is for the Minister of Energy. Recently B.C. Hydro issued a call for power. Secret and separate from that was a deal cooked up between the government of British Columbia and the Aluminum Company of Canada, also known as Alcan. That deal commits B.C. Hydro to purchasing power and providing profits to Alcan of over 1,000 percent.

My question is a very, very simple one to the Minister of Energy. Can he advise this House at what time price gouging became the main pillar of the B.C. energy policy? Can he tell this House why this deal is being rammed through the B.C. Utilities Commission without adequate public consultation?

Hon. R. Neufeld: Well, again, we see that the opposition now are opposed to actually getting electricity from clean power generation. They named it in the House. One day they're against one type of generation. Next day they're against another type of generation. It's pretty simple. You just have to go to the website, to www.bcuc.com. Have a look, and the deal is there. That's all they have to do.

J. Horgan: I thank the hon. Minister of Energy, but what we object to is profits from a public resource….

J. Horgan: What we object to is profits from a public resource being reinvested in South Africa, in India and not in Kitimat where the Industrial Development Act says it should be.

That 1,000-percent profit that's going to a company based in Montreal is going to produce new aluminium smelters to compete with Alcan in other jurisdictions around the world. I don't know why that won't get into the thick skulls on the other side.

My specific question on a supplemental speaks to the agreement that the minister just spoke to. In a letter dated November 10, the B.C. Utilities Commission wrote to B.C. Hydro and said the following: "Given the complexity of the agreements filed in this proceeding, B.C. Hydro ought to have provided more than 60 days to review the energy supply contracts." Ought to have provided more than 60 days.

My question is to the minister. You signed an order-in-council on the tenth of November jamming this through. The people in Kitimat, the people of British Columbia have no say in money going offshore to compete with our own smelter in Kitimat. What's the deal?

Hon. R. Neufeld: I guess the reality is starting to show through to the public. I've heard other MLAs on the opposite side of the House say that private industry doesn't create jobs and wealth. Now we have the Energy critic saying that profit is not acceptable in British Columbia. Well, I tell him: that's the difference between that side of the House and this side of the House.

Secondly, I look at a map in my mind, and I don't know about profits going offshore when they're going to Quebec. Interesting.

Hon. R. Neufeld: The other thing that we're well aware of on this side of the House is that we actually use the BCUC. We actually empowered the BCUC, unlike the member over there, when he was an adviser, who actually bypassed the BCUC at all times.

I want to tell you that what has happened is that there is a deal between Alcan and B.C. Hydro to purchase electricity for use inside of British Columbia borders and for British Columbians which is clean, green electricity — something we should all be proud of, not talking about profit.

M. Sather: I have a petition from 1,259 residents calling on government to move the Abernathy connector and Formosa Nursery in my constituency a mere 35 metres to save this viable organic blueberry farm.

C. James: I rise under Standing Order 35 to seek leave to move a motion that this House do now adjourn for the purpose of discussing a matter of urgent public importance — namely, the need to send a clear unanimous message from this House to the government of Canada that British Columbia supports the United Nations declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples. We demand the government of Canada support the declaration at the United Nations vote tomorrow in New York.

Debate of this issue is of immediate concern. The declaration is scheduled to be voted on by the third committee of the United Nations tomorrow. Sadly, our federal government has decided to join a small minority among world nations who will vote against the declaration. Our country was one of the driving forces that led to the drafting of this declaration, and now, to our collective shame, Canada has become the driving force against it.

This declaration is enormously important to first nations people — a sign that the government finally gets it. British Columbia's aboriginal leaders have spoken strongly in favour of the declaration. According to Ed John: "This is a historic document for all indigenous people, and there is tremendous support for the adoption of the declaration. However, there is a real sense of betrayal with Canada's complete reversal of their historic leadership position of support."

Shawn Atleo: "Canada's position is not substantiated nor supported by international or domestic law. Canada is going against the grain, as many states are providing solid support for the declaration."

Stewart Phillip: "Since the federal election, Canada's discriminatory actions against indigenous people at the national and international level have been shameful and disgraceful. As a member of the Human Rights Council, Canada accepted responsibility to uphold the highest standards in the promotion and protection of human rights."

In light of the Premier's very public declarations of support for a change in attitude towards first nations and in light of the declaration's importance, I call on this House to unanimously endorse a motion of support for the UN declaration. I'm providing you with a written statement of this matter and now do therefore move the following motion.

Hon. M. de Jong: Let me make the following submissions in reply to the Leader of the Opposition's submissions to the House and thank her for her comments earlier.

First of all, I must make this observation that there is a certain irony in the fact that the Leader of the Opposition would make the comments she has today, some 48 or 72 hours after essentially criticizing the Premier for fulfilling a commitment to meet with the Assembly of First Nations today, as he is in Vancouver.

It was that very Leader of the Opposition and her caucus who were chastising the Premier and playing politics with his….

Hon. M. de Jong: Yeah, thanks, Mr. Speaker, and I know the truth hurts. We are all bound by comments that we have made earlier. In any event, the Premier is meeting with the Assembly of First Nations.

The question for the Speaker to consider today is whether or not the application that the Leader of the Opposition has made falls within the ambit of the rules in Standing Order 35. I will make the same observation today that I have made on two previous occasions. It is not simply a matter of deeming something to be of importance and of interest, which the question undoubtedly is. What the Leader of the Opposition is saying, by virtue of her commentary and submission to the House today, is, "I don't want to deal firstly with the matter that has brought the House back" — that is, the appointment of the commissioner, the child and youth commissioner.

Hon. M. de Jong: The submissions from Yale-Lillooet are always helpful, even when they contradict themselves.

It is implicit in the submission that the Leader of the Opposition has made today that she believes this is of more importance than the matter which actually precipitated the House being called together. I disagree, and I would urge the Speaker to disagree as well. It does not displace the matter which has brought us here, and that is the adoption of the unanimous recommendation, which the government does intend to call in short order.

Beyond that, I would call…. Having done this now three days in a row, I actually expected someone within the opposition research department to assist folks like the Leader of the Opposition, who make these submissions, to point out to the Chair how it is that the application fits within Standing Order 35, because clearly it doesn't. The reason they don't make those submissions is that it doesn't.

The question is not the urgency of the matter. It is the urgency of debate in this chamber. That principle has been enumerated in the Parliamentary Practices time and time again, and the Leader of the Opposition simply chooses to ignore that fact.

I am not in any way disputing, as I did on previous days, the importance of the matter and the interest that people have in the matter. But the question is whether or not it should displace what we have been scheduled to discuss. As I say, the test is not the urgency of the matter but the urgency of debate.

I would suggest to you, hon. Speaker, that a matter that falls outside of the jurisdiction of this chamber — insofar as it is a matter engaging the federal government via our relationship with the United Nations — is also something that you may wish to take into consideration when presenting your ruling.

So whilst, as I said previously, I appreciate the fact that members have interest in these matters and that they are of importance, in this case it does not take precedence, in our view, over the matter that has brought us to this House today. By the way, Mr. Speaker, this government and this Premier do not need to be lectured to by anyone about the importance we attach to our relationship with our first nations. We stand….

Hon. M. de Jong: This Premier stands at the hallmark of having led this province to a new relationship with its first nations, having embraced and acted in a tangible way to enshrine the principle of reconciliation and mutual respect. Mr. Speaker, for the reasons that I've enumerated and enunciated today, I would submit to you that the application from the opposition leader should fail.

C. James: It's very clear in listening to the House Leader in his close that, in fact, he was making the case for the urgent debate of this motion, Mr. Speaker, because the vote tomorrow is at the United Nations. I think it's very important that we're actually on record in British Columbia as having a position on this critical issue to show our support. I'm very disappointed that the House Leader chose this opportunity to play politics with a very important issue that in fact…

C. James: …was raised because of the urgency and because of the importance of taking this on. There is more than ample time in the legislative calendar to be

Hon. M. de Jong: I call Motion 72, the adoption of the report from the Special Committee to Appoint the Representative for Children and Youth.

ADOPTION OF REPORT OF
SPECIAL COMMITTEE TO APPOINT
A REPRESENTATIVE FOR
CHILDREN AND YOUTH

I'd like to start by thanking the Clerk of Committees, Craig James, as well as our research analyst, Wynne MacAlpine. The work of the Clerk's office and the work of those individuals, in terms of moving this committee forward and the other three committees that I've had the honour to chair, have been outstanding. I just wanted to start by thanking them for that work and for that support.

I'd also like to thank the committee members for their hard work in helping to bring forward this recommendation and making this exciting opportunity in the province become a reality.

Mr. Speaker, this report constitutes the unanimous recommendation for the appointment of the first Representative for Children and Youth of British Columbia. The committee is very pleased to recommend Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond to the House.

The committee thanks the many individuals who applied for the position of the Representative for Children and Youth. As we have noted in a report to the House, those individuals serve children and youth in almost every sector — in education, social work, medicine, law and public administration, just to name a few. The range of their experience has reminded us that it does take all of society to support the children and their families. We are especially grateful to the committee of professionals who have dedicated themselves to this work.

Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond is a leader in that community. For more than 24 years she has worked to address the problems facing the child welfare system at the root causes. As a lawyer, professor of law and author she has worked to strengthen the self-determination rights of the aboriginal people and to restore the strength of aboriginal women and their families and communities.

As a judge she has been an outspoken advocate for services to assist youth in the justice system, particularly sexually exploited youth and youth disabled by fetal alcohol spectrum disorders. In every capacity Ms. Lafond has welcomed the responsibility that comes by default to people in authority. That is the responsibility to set an example for young people.

I'd like to close by taking this opportunity to quote a line from the report about Ms. Lafond, because it summarizes why this appointment is so important: "What became evident in our discussions was that Ms. Lafond also meets a need that we didn't explicitly identify — hope."

Unfortunately, Ms. Lafond cannot be here with us today. Weather problems have kept her grounded in Saskatchewan, but I look forward to introducing her in the House at a later time.

C. James: Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to stand in support of this motion today. The motion today appoints, as we've heard, Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond as the Representative for Children and Youth for the province of British Columbia.

Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond is a noted aboriginal lawyer and respected legal scholar, whose distinguished career broke new ground for aboriginal people and for aboriginal women in this country. Ms. Turpel-Lafond holds a bachelor's degree from Carleton University, a law degree from Osgoode Law School, a master's in international law from the University of Cambridge and a doctor of law from Harvard Law School.

She was the first tenured law professor of aboriginal heritage in Canada. She was also the first aboriginal woman to serve as a Provincial Court judge in Saskatchewan. In 2006 Ms. Turpel-Lafond was awarded the C. Willy Hodgson Award for her work in building bridges between aboriginal and non-aboriginal peoples in Canada.

Ms. Turpel-Lafond's efforts to advance the principles of equity and diversity in the areas of law and justice set her apart from so many. Her passion for justice, her work to bring communities together in the spirit of kindness and respect, and her tireless advocacy for diversity and quality make her the ideal candidate for this position, and I am very proud to support her.

I'm also incredibly proud to see once again an independent officer of the Legislature, a position that will oversee B.C.'s child protection system, and advocate on behalf of our province's most vulnerable children, to correct what many view as this government's biggest mistake. The opposition will be unanimously supporting this motion today, because having a representative for children and youth in our province is the right thing to do, and this position is a huge victory for children in B.C.

This position is a step forward in rebuilding our child protection system, which was wilfully dismantled by this government over the past five years. It's also a strong reminder of the arrogance that has come to characterize this Premier and his government — a government that refused to listen; a government that refused to heed the warning signs; a government that refused to back down, despite mounting evidence that

their approach was just plain wrong; a government that changed course only after the political fire became too hot for them to ignore.

I bring this up because one of our responsibilities as legislators is to examine our history, to look closely at the choices we have made, identify what went wrong and how to fix it, because we can't begin to learn from our mistakes until we acknowledge that what happened was wrong and that it never, ever should be allowed to happen again.

Much of what informs today's motion came long, long before the election of this government. Members on both sides of this House will remember the story of Matthew Vaudreuil, a five-year-old child who died at the hands of his caregiver in 1992. His tragic death prompted a public outcry, followed by a judicial inquiry by Justice Thomas Gove. In his report Judge Gove spoke of Matthew's legacy, of the changes needed in B.C.'s child protection system so that tragedies like Matthew's would never, ever happen again. Chief among them was the need for an independent children's commission. "Children who are affected by administrative decisions need easy access to independent advocacy," he said, "especially when their interests and the interests of their parents or other caregivers differ."

Judge Gove reminded us that protecting vulnerable children is not a partisan issue. It's a fundamental issue of justice. These children deserve an advocate. They deserve a voice. He also reminded us that that advocate must be distinctly independent from government. That advocate must be free to represent the interests of children at risk, to speak for those who cannot speak for themselves.

Some of the members of this House were also sitting members when Judge Gove's recommendations were first debated and implemented. The Premier was one of them. He was the Leader of the Opposition at the time, and he supported every one of the recommendations in the Gove report. He supported the creation of an independent children's commissioner. He demanded that the government of the day act immediately to appoint one. In fact, he spoke passionately about the need to put more resources in the system and to help children at risk.

The government of the day implemented Judge Gove's recommendations. They agreed that there needed to be an independent advocate in place to represent the interests of the most vulnerable, and in 1996 the Children's Commission was created. It was an independent body empowered to review all child deaths and critical injuries of children in care in the province of British Columbia. Now — 14 years after that terrible tragedy, 11 years after Judge Gove brought forward his recommendations and ten years after the Children's Commission was created — we stand here today debating a motion to appoint a representative for children and youth to protect B.C.'s most vulnerable.

If that important lesson was learned more than ten years ago, then why are we standing here today? Because the Premier did not keep his commitment to British Columbians. His actions betrayed the voters of this province and betrayed the children of this province.

The Premier promised to end the chaos and bureaucratic restructuring of the Ministry for Children and Families. He promised to introduce accountability into the child protection system, and he promised to enhance training for front-line workers to protect children at risk. But he didn't follow through on those commitments. If he had, we wouldn't be standing here debating this motion today.

This government, in June 2002, shut down the office of the children's commissioner — one of this government's biggest mistakes. In doing so, the Premier went back on his word and the spirit of the Gove report, which he embraced when he was in opposition. The changes brought forward by this Premier and this government have created a crisis in our child welfare system.

No case better illustrates the severity of that crisis than the case of a 19-month-old girl from Port Alberni who died at the hands of her caregiver. If any case illustrates the need for an independent children's officer, this is it. It showed the systematic crisis and the extreme pressure faced by front-line workers. It showed the serious failing of this government's handling of the Children and Families portfolio, and it showed the dire need to restore an independent watchdog for children. It showed the human impact, most importantly, of this government's reckless cuts and severe mismanagement.

It also showed us, sadly, that the government was more concerned about covering up than getting to the bottom of the problem. It was only after months and months of questioning, of denial, of blaming individuals and social workers, of denying responsibility that this government finally admitted that its choices resulted in chaos for the most vulnerable children — which brings me to the Hughes report and the reason that we're standing here today.

The hon. Ted Hughes conducted an independent review of B.C.'s child welfare system, one of nine reviews launched in this tragic case. Mr. Hughes laid the ultimate responsibility for the problems plaguing our system squarely at the feet of the Premier, because it was the Premier's budget cuts and the Premier's reckless dismantling of our child protection system that was at the heart of the contributing factors that led to this tragic case. Mr. Hughes's number-one recommendation was to restore an independent officer of the Legislature to provide independent oversight to our child welfare system, to provide a voice for children at risk.

While this motion is a huge victory for children, as I said, it was sadly only political expediency that brought us to this point today. It has taken far too long for this government to admit its failure, and their choices put children at risk.

The Premier wants British Columbians to believe he's learned his lesson, but when you look at everything that has taken us to this point — relentless ques-

tioning from social workers, from advocates, from the opposition, from the media — British Columbians are really wondering what this government has learned. After five long years of denial, British Columbians don't have a lot of faith that this government can be trusted to do the right thing on their own. This is a government that wants to avoid the tough questions, avoid debate, avoid accountability.

I'd like to reiterate that this appointment is a wonderful victory for children and families in our province. The opposition is incredibly proud of the work that has led to this report and this appointment, and we are going to do everything to ensure the success of this office and of this representative. We will continue to work to address what is left to be done, because there are many other recommendations from the Hughes report that still have to be implemented, including addressing the urgent problems in the Coroners Service.

The opposition will continue to hold the government to account for its cuts to these vital services and supports that have left vulnerable children behind. We will continue to ask the tough questions about this government's record, and we will continue to stand up for the issues facing children in this province: growing child poverty; a lack of affordable, accessible quality child care; growing wait-lists for children with special needs and developmental disabilities.

We will hold this government to account for their choices, because all children in this province deserve an opportunity to thrive. All children in this province deserve a voice. No child should be left behind, and we will fight every single day to ensure that doesn't happen.

M. Karagianis: As Deputy Chair of the hiring committee, I stand today to speak in favour of this motion. I'd first like to echo the comments made by the member for Prince George–Omineca in thanking all of those who participated in the committee and all of the staff support on that. It was a very professional process, and staff was excellent in that.

I think that the member for Victoria–Beacon Hill has talked a little bit about the history of how we got there, and I'd like to touch on that briefly before I talk about the really superior candidate that we are appointing today.

In 1992, as the previous speaker said, Matthew Vaudreuil and the case around his tragic death launched us into the Gove report and, in fact, the inception of the Children's Commission here for British Columbia. The Gove report called on the provincial government to appoint an independent children's commissioner. In fact, the New Democrat government of the day did just that. They set up an independent, open and publicly accountable Children's Commission.

Premier Campbell, then in opposition, said: "Equally importantly, we should have the dollars for children in need in this province. Instead of having a government that continues to try and protect politicians first and bureaucrats second and maybe kids third, if they even get on the list…." I think it's important to remember those words, especially as subsequent events unfolded over time.

In the 2001 election Gordon Campbell made the promises to the citizens of British Columbia….

M. Karagianis: I beg your pardon. Premier Campbell made these promises to the citizens of British Columbia. He said: "It's time we put real accountability into the system and devote the resources to the job needed to put the interests of kids first." He said: "We need to make children the number-one priority and devote adequate resources." But the Campbell government did the complete opposite.

Mr. Speaker: Member, please take your seat. Just to remind you of using the right parliamentary language and not to reference names in any way, shape or form.

In fact, the provincial government did the very opposite of those things. Once in government, the promise-breaking began early, and it was rigorous. It has continued to affect the lives of families and children in British Columbia until this very day. First came the core review, and the Premier said that all British Columbians would benefit and that there would be better services for children, families and first nations.

In truth, this government laid off hundreds of front-line child protection workers, eliminated internal child protection audits and attempted a vast reconstruction of the system that created chaos in the ministry. In 2001 the Premier said: "The changes may be unsettling for staff and people who rely on government programs, but all British Columbians are going to benefit from an examination of government and government services to determine what government can do best and what government should be doing."

With that, this government launched massive budget cuts and full-scale restructuring, after promising the very opposite and flying in the face of the advice of all experts who warned against trying to do both at the same time. By January 2002 the Premier said that he had no hesitation about cutting jobs, eliminating programs and closing jails and courthouses. A month later the government announced a 23-percent cut to the Ministry of Children and Family Development — $360 million.

The Premier said he had a better plan to reduce children in care and to save money. Instead, the axe fell on the Children's Commission and the act and the Child, Youth and Family Advocacy Act as well. The minister responsible at the time called the elimination of the Children's Commission a good-news day for protection of kids at risk. I'll repeat that, actually. The minister of the day in government said the elimination of the children's commissioner was a good-news day

The commission had made public more than 769 child and youth fatality reports during the six-year period in which it operated. The coroner's office, staggering under its own budget cuts of 15 percent, was handed responsibility for child death reviews, despite the Premier's comments in opposition in 1996 that the coroner is no substitute for reviews. In truth, since that transfer in September of 2002 the Coroners Service has released just one public report. The B.C. Liberals' child and youth officer was mandated to investigate deaths only when asked to do so by the Attorney General.

Next, the Premier turned his focus on aboriginal services. He announced a historic plan to reduce the number of native youths in foster care, but he admitted there would be no new money allocated to accomplish that. We'll talk more about that promise shortly as well.

A year later, this government had to admit that their planned cuts would put vulnerable children at risk, so the government only cut the budget by 11 percent, eliminating 525 employees, including 130 front-line workers. As the Premier reminded reporters in his year-end interviews, the cuts made in 2002 were just the first round of a three-year plan. There seemed to be little connection between the government's budget objective and its child care policy. When the cuts added up, people could see that one would not support the other.

The tragedy of the child's death in Port Alberni would shine a light on just how deplorable this situation had become. As the story unfolded, the government failings spoke volumes: the budget cuts, the chaotic restructuring, the lack of resources and guidelines, the complete lack of government leadership. In the fall of 2005 both the opposition and Gove himself called for the Children's Commission to be reinstated in the wake of the Port Alberni child's death.

In addition, the discovery of hundreds of unfinished child death reviews, shoved into storage and forgotten by the Coroners Service forced the Premier to admit there clearly had been a bit of a problem. But the Premier blamed it on systemic breakdown and denied that his budget cuts or restructuring had anything to do with it.

The NDP opposition and the Leader of the Opposition continued to call on the government to reinstate the Children's Commission and to provide adequate funding for child services. Under the onslaught of the opposition, the government eventually, after dodging and dancing and attempting in every possible way to avoid admitting responsibility for the chaos in MCFD, had to announce a total of nine reviews to try and mitigate the situation. At the end, Judge Ted Hughes was finally appointed to investigate the circumstances around the Port Alberni child's death.

The Hughes report, released in April of 2006, was openly critical of the way the Liberal government handled the Ministry of Children and Family Development over the past five years. As Mr. Hughes said: "I cannot agree with the Premier's earlier assessment that budget cuts did not contribute to the failure of the transition process or that the transition provisions of the new act constituted a clear plan for the transfer of death review functions."

The report by Mr. Ted Hughes makes 62 recommendations to the government, many of them directly reflecting the briefing note that was sent to the Hughes commission by the New Democrats.

The number-one recommendation of the Hughes report is for the establishment of an independent children's representative for B.C. So here we are all these years later — five years of cuts and chaos, public outcry, cover-ups — and we have come full circle right back to where we were at the beginning — same recommendations, same criteria for a children's representative.

But in the past five years many other things have changed. Now every month in this province over 2,400 children access a food bank. Homelessness has become epidemic. In 2005 in the GVRD the total number of homeless people almost doubled and included 40 families with children. In Victoria more than 700 were homeless in 2005, including 41 families and 78 children. Those numbers have grown considerably, even in the last year.

In Penticton recently I spent two days going to the Liberal convention. Standing in front of the convention centre was a young woman and her son. It was a bitterly cold morning. I approached the woman because she had a huge placard that talked about the fact that she was going to be homeless in a few days, without help. As it turned out, I was the only person attending that convention that stopped to talk to that woman. Her name was Carmen Caruso, and she and her three children were in fear of being homeless. But no one would stop to talk to that woman except me, the observer at that convention.

British Columbia has nearly one of every four children in the province living in poverty. Census figures show that aboriginal children have a poverty rate that is almost twice as large as that of non-aboriginal children. The vast majority of poor children in British Columbia live in families with an income — children of the working poor, also a new demographic here in British Columbia in the last number of years. In a time of economic prosperity many children and families are clearly being left behind.

Against this new reality, this backdrop, a candidate has come forward who so exemplifies the Hughes vision and who so epitomizes the committee's expectations that unanimity from our committee was quick and fairly painless, considering it's an all-party committee. Judge Turpel-Lafond not only brings remarkable credentials and extraordinary life experience, she demonstrated throughout the interviews her own compelling vision of what she saw happening with the children's representative position. In fact, I have great confidence that in British Columbia we are about to experience a profound change.

But where do we go from here? What can we hope for from this new position? What wish list can we in the opposition offer? Well, I think we can offer a few wishes.

First, I'd like to actually talk about a young woman from Quesnel by the name of Kayla O'Flynn. In January of 2002 Kayla O'Flynn, a young teen, was diagnosed with a progressive neuromuscular disorder. Her condition began to deteriorate, and eventually her family had to go to the Children and Families Ministry looking for support. But in fact, their timing could not have been worse because against the unfolding events of the Campbell government cuts…

…against the unfolding events of the government's cuts and restructuring, this child and her family were let down by the system.

Kayla was age 14 at the time. She was denied at-home services because she could feed herself despite her condition. Kayla couldn't actually walk to the table to get her food, but she could lift a spoon to her mouth so she was considered not qualified for at-home services.

What Kayla actually needed, and what her therapist recommended as her condition deteriorated, was a power wheelchair so that she could get around, so she could get to the table to get the food to feed herself. But that was denied to her.

Her condition continued to deteriorate, and over the next three years Kayla's family continued to appeal and sought time after time to get a power wheelchair for their daughter. But of course, this was all being played out at a time when government was restructuring and there were budget cuts. In early 2005 the Ministry of Children and Families did grant her medical benefits and therapy but no power wheelchair.

Then in June of 2005 she received a letter saying that all responsibilities for the developmentally challenged were being shifted to CLBC, a new entity created by the government. She applied there, but still got no power wheelchair. In June of 2005 Kayla ended up in the hospital as her health continued to deteriorate, still with no power wheelchair.

Eighteen months after requests, appeals and therapist recommendations that this is what she needed, this young woman died from her condition without ever receiving a power wheelchair. Several weeks after her death the family received confirmation that their request had finally been approved. This young woman and her family lived in Quesnel.

If there had been a children's representative in place for Kayla, well, I think we can all guess that she might have got her power wheelchair so that the last 18 months of her life would have been better. She would have had more dignity, and she would have been able to get to the table to feed herself.

Jan Morrison-Hines is a young mother who lives in Smithers. She has a 14-year-old son, non-verbal, who suffers from autism. Jan Morrison-Hines does not access any services from government other than some diapers for her son through the at-home program. Her son requires up to 16 diapers a day, and she is his sole caregiver.

When the budget cuts came, Jan was told that her son could only have eight diapers a day. Of course, her son broke out in a rash. Her doctor went with the mother and appealed this decision by the government, and then Jan was told that her son could have 12 diapers a day. But in fact, every three months Jan Morrison-Hines has to reappeal with a letter from her doctor or else she'll have her number of diapers reduced to eight a day.

I would say to you and to the new children's commissioner: what kind of mean-spirited government restricts the number of diapers that you can put on your child every day? I would hope that this is a case that our new children's representative will take on, and I will certainly be urging her to do that.

Kathleen Moore is another mother who has been denied adequate services for her daughter because her condition does not fit within a fairly narrow description of the kind of autism that's supported. She only receives half the funding that an autistic child would get. Kathleen Moore is very concerned because her daughter could end up in the justice system without adequate supports and care. So I'm hoping that Kathleen Moore and her daughter will be a case that the new children's representative will take on.

Those are only a couple of many, many stories right now of families being told to come up with a plan under Community Living B.C. They sit down and do a plan for their children, and then they are being told that there's no funding. There's no respite care for their children. There are no intakes being done. They can't have enough diapers for their children.

Community Living B.C., a huge responsibility under the Ministry of Children and Family Development, appears to have no funding left only partway through their fiscal year. I will certainly be talking with the new children's representative to look into that, to find out why this aspect of ministry care has been so vastly underfunded that they are telling people they can't have diapers when they need them.

I'd like to go back to earlier in my speech when I commented about the Premier's comments and promise about aboriginal services. He said he had a historical plan to reduce the number of native youths in foster care, but he said there was no money allocated to accomplish that and that there would be better services for children, families and first nations.

Unfortunately, absent today in the gallery because of the weather are a number of representatives from

the Stó:lô tribal council who were here last week. They meant to be here today, but certainly the weather has prevented them from doing that. This community has been pleading with government to address their issues and to provide leadership to them because the transition of authority has not gone well for the Stó:lô community, and the funding has not gone smoothly for the Stó:lô community. A schism has resulted in their community, which is leaving their children and families at great risk.

It is an unacceptable situation. It is my sincere hope that the new children's representative will see their case and will take it on and that she will urge government to take the leadership that's required there to help mend the rift in that community and to help provide the adequate services they so justly deserve and want.

It's foster care inequities, underfunding, recruitment and retention problems from a government that cut birthday and Christmas gifts to foster children, thereby discouraging foster parents who want to build a quality of life for the children in their care and are being denied by a mean-spirited and unkind government the kind of quality service that they would like to provide for those children.

Children in the home of a relative. Now, in fact, that's excluded from the mandate of the Representative for Children and Youth. That's too bad, because they will be unable to turn to this new representative for advice, for advocacy, for support, because children who live in the home of a relative are not paid to the same degree as children who live in other kinds of foster care. So while families struggle to provide adequate care while fostering members of their own family, they are treated unfairly and differently by this government.

I know for a fact that Ms. Turpel-Lafond has a particular interest in children with FASD. I know that that will be one area where she is going to concentrate. In fact, currently there is a huge inadequacy in the system and in the support services for those with FASD. There is an abnormally large impact on the youth justice system of young people — young aboriginal people often — with FASD, who are being treated as criminals when they should be given support systems for their health conditions.

I also have faith that Ms. Turpel-Lafond is going to look into issues around justice for girls, ongoing concerns that they have about the safety of young girls within the judicial system. I recently toured the youth facility in Prince George, and, in fact, as with many of the other facilities here, there is an overrepresentation of aboriginal youth in those facilities and an overrepresentation of children with FASD.

There's a high rate of aboriginal youth suicides here in British Columbia among aboriginal youth aged ten to 19 years. The suicide rate is five to six times higher than for non-aboriginal populations. I know that that will be a particular concern for the children's representative in finding ways to reach out and provide better services to those communities.

Youth agreements in this province have become a one-way ticket for young people to be sent living on their own at an early age, often with catastrophic results. Many of them end up on the streets. Many of them end up on the east side of Vancouver because, in fact, they are given inadequate funding, inadequate supports, and at a very early age of 15 or 16 are sent to live on their own. It's certainly more cost-effective for government but is tragic for the young people in this province who are experiencing youth agreements. I know for a fact that Ms. Turpel-Lafond will take that on as a special interest.

Transition to adulthood for all children with special needs, autism, the developmentally challenged. This government has a policy that you may have been autistic until you were 19, but the day you turn 19, you are now a consenting adult, free to make your own decisions. You are given funding and sent on your way. If you have an IQ over 70, all your other pre-existing conditions become immaterial, and you are often deemed to be capable of living on your own. All programs and supports are abandoned.

Parents with grave concerns are complaining all over this province about children who continue to need supports. For the same reason they needed them before their 19th birthday, they need them after their 19th birthday.

We talked earlier about the Coroners Service. The Coroners Service was never funded to a level that would permit it to fulfil the responsibilities it was given in 2002 for the child death reviews. This is an important component of the new children's representative in their job. In fact, this is a significant part of the job. Perhaps one-third of their duties will be around child death reviews.

To this date the 955 lost files still have not been reviewed or released in this House. I realize this is not necessarily the job of the new child representative, but it is the job of this government and for the families who are still waiting to hear. I heard the Solicitor General say the other day that these reviews were going to be released. I sure hope so. I expect the new children's representative will probably have some curiosity around that as well.

The Morley report, released just weeks ago, shows a complete breakdown in communications between the Coroners Service, MCFD and aboriginal agencies. Although I do not expect the children's representative to dig back into history around either the 955 death review files or perhaps as far back as the case around the child's death in Port Alberni, I do hope and believe that this new person will want to closely examine all the reports and documents, like the Morley report of September 29, in order to solve some of the outstanding issues and seek answers to the questions arising from these reports, because of course in many ways that will shape where she goes in the future.

Of course, we have the Hughes recommendations. Again, I know that Ms. Turpel-Lafond's understanding and knowledgable approach to the report is such that she'll be moving forward on those recommendations. She spoke very eloquently of that during the interview.

I am thrilled that we have a strong, energetic visionary to take on these daunting challenges here in British Columbia. I believe from her credentials that Ms. Turpel-Lafond is more than capable and may in fact take us far beyond where we expected to go. You only need to spend a few minutes in the room listening to this woman talk to know that she is a very powerful presence. I suspect she's going to put British Columbia far beyond anything we might have expected or planned for.

In fact, there may be many surprises in this House in the days to come. I'm happy to offer my support and join with the Leader of the Opposition in saying that we unanimously support the motion to approve Ms. Turpel-Lafond.

N. Simons: It gives me great pleasure to stand and put my support behind this unanimous choice of the committee for Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond as the first Representative for Children and Youth. When I heard her quoted as saying that this was the best job in Canada, I thought we picked the right person. I used to think that to be the Minister of Children and Family Development was the best job, but if it's the representative who chooses that to be the title of hers, I'm glad. She's obviously got the enthusiasm, the qualifications and the integrity that have been sorely lacking in the ministry and in this government.

I just have to say that on a personal note, this represents a day that is the end of a chapter, in a way. In fact, I think that the events of September 2002, culminating in today, are a sorry chapter for the government, a sorry chapter for the ministry and a very sad — in fact, tragic — chapter for the people of Ahousat and Nuu-chah-nulth. My thoughts and feelings of goodwill are with them.

I think it would be important to remind ourselves why or how we got here. We did not get here because of government's great desire to have an independent representative oversee their ministry. We didn't get here just because Judge Hughes recommended we have an independent reviewer.

The committee made a selection. The committee made a good selection. We're here partly because of that selection. I'm glad to say that the Legislature is unanimous in the support of that selection.

But we're actually here because of what happened not just in 2001, with the core review, but the subsequent gutting of the programs for children and vulnerable children — aboriginal children included — which occurred in the months that followed. Budget cuts in the area of 23 percent were shocking to the employees and, I think, to the management of the ministry at the time.

When I got a phone call in September of 2002 saying, "Nick, we've had a tragedy, and we need someone to come and look into it," I said: "Why are you picking me?" They said: "Well, you're the first person on the list that both parties could agree to." I said: "Well, I hope it wasn't too far down the list."

As it turns out, I was chosen, perhaps, because of some brave person in the ministry who knew that I'd be objective, that I'd look at ways of improving the system and that I wouldn't simply say: "This individual made a mistake. That individual made a mistake. Ultimately, the uncle is the one who should be held responsible."

We're here partly because this government decided to offer an award to the ministry that could cut regulations as quickly as possible, and that included the Ministry of Children and Family Development — the proud winners of the deregulation sprint award. Cutting out regulations that make sure you check out a home before you place a vulnerable child in there, before you place a child who has absolutely no adult figure looking after their best interests….

When you cut rules about placing a child in a home like that, that's the wrong kind of deregulation. That's not red tape. That's protecting the vulnerable children of this province. This government failed.

The kith-and-kin program was introduced — as you know, I said it was introduced rapidly and without adequate thought — ostensibly for the first nations and aboriginal communities of this province. Why, then, were they not consulted once on the implementation of this new piece of legislation?

The Premier said that it wasn't to save money and that it wasn't necessarily to reduce the number of children in care. The kith-and-kin program, as the public now knows, was purely an exercise in reducing costs to government and to make the number of children in care officially go down without really having an impact on children at all. As you know, children who are in kith and kin are not considered in care.

The Premier said: "I want child welfare decisions to be made openly so that you can see why those decisions are being made and can hold us to account." It took over four years to hold this government to account on its incredible failure of 2001 and 2002. That's not openness. That's not accountability.

I wrote a report that was ready in August of 2003 with 21 recommendations, including the 12 that were ultimately left in the report after the cutting that it underwent. We're here because the government could influence an internal review process so that important facts were deliberately held from the public.

There's another reason, besides the abject failure of this government to operate the ministry properly. We've realized that under this system, the current system — the best place to live since 2001 — government is in fact unable to look at itself objectively. This government's response to the report that was released, condemning it for the actions that it took, was itself taken to task.

Who did the government ask to review the reviewer? Somebody they hired, an officer for children and youth in B.C, held by a person who was primarily responsible for the core review of 2001. I would suggest that it's inappropriate for government to hire somebody in government to investigate itself, particularly when the "itself" was responsible for the cuts that took place in the ministry.

The changes in the terms of reference were reviewed. The delay in the report was reviewed and every single time — surprise, surprise — had nothing really to do beyond little organizational problems due to some budget cuts.

They decided to change their focus and question the validity of the report. Well, the validity of the report stands for itself. Twelve recommendations out of 12 were implemented. Other ones came, emerging out of other reports that were subsequently released, almost verbatim from the original report of 2003. I don't think the public of British Columbia accepts that from a government that claims to be open and accountable.

This brings us to the question: how will having an independent representative actually help us? I think that if we had had one in 2001, they would have said: "Excuse me. Those kinds of cuts will have a serious negative impact on children in this province. Don't implement that program so quickly, because you haven't got guidelines. You haven't had training. You haven't figured out where that particular program stands in legislation. No social worker has ever done one of those."

It wouldn't have looked very good on this government to see that the first time they implement a kith-and-kin program, it results in the death of a child. They didn't foresee that, because they didn't plan ahead because they weren't managing properly. Child welfare deserves more than policy written on the side of a desk.

The representative will help children. The representative will be the voice those children can't have. The voices of social workers are stifled, but the voice of the independent representative will not be. The representative will say: "Don't cut programs that help families look after their own children. That would be inappropriate. We want children to stay with their families. We should be putting money into those programs."

It will help youth who think that maybe after being in care for 16 years of their life, they should have more than just a handshake and a pat on the head, saying: "Good luck to you." It should be more than that. It'll help families. It'll help foster parents. It'll help grandmothers and grandfathers look after their kids. It's a special day. It's a good day. It's a good day that we are all here speaking in favour of the appointment of the person who will correct the many wrongs that have taken place since 2001.

Let me just end on what I would consider Ted Hughes's other most important recommendation, recommendation 12. Recommendation 12 reads that the provincial and federal governments, in collaboration with aboriginal communities, begin to work toward the fulfilment of the commitments of the Kelowna accord by assessing the health, economic and social needs of aboriginal communities, including the urban off-reserve population.

This comes right back down to the essential element which underscores all of this. That is the abject poverty into which first nations children are born and raised. We have all failed; we've all failed in the past. We have an opportunity to say, once and for all, that investment in child protection should be made at the beginning of the children's lives so that they're not going to school hungry after being kept up at night because of fighting, because of violence, because of alcohol and drug abuse. These are the children who would end up not doing well in school, dropping out of school.

I think the representative's role will be to advocate for those children. She knows them, I know them, and I am so pleased to say that I am thrilled that this sad chapter in the history of British Columbia's child welfare system will be over and that we'll have a truly independent voice for children in B.C.

D. Thorne: I rise today to speak in favour of this motion. For the past year and a half I've had the pleasure of serving on the legislative committee that has been responsible for several appointments of independent officers of this Legislature. We have interviewed and hired many excellent candidates, and the appointment of the new children's representative is no exception.

Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond is of such a high calibre that I'm not only proud to be part of her appointment, but I feel very hopeful as well. I feel hopeful especially for the children of British Columbia, because this is a chance for a new beginning. It is a chance to reverse this government's legacy of cuts, chaos and harm to B.C.'s most vulnerable children and families — a chance to say for the first time in six years that vulnerable children and their families really do matter.

The NDP opposition opposed this government's elimination of the Children's Commission and the deep cuts to the ministry back in the early 2000s. When the minister responsible for eliminating the Children's Commission actually called the elimination of the independent office a good-news day for the protection of kids at risk, opposition MLAs warned this government that they were placing budget cutting above the safety of children and that the Premier and his government would live to regret eliminating independent oversight of this ministry.

The opposition MLAs called on the government to reinstate the children's commissioner and to provide adequate funding for children's services. During the 2005 election the NDP platform pledged additional resources for the Ministry of Children and Family Development and also the restoration of the office of the children's commissioner. Since May 2005 the renewed NDP opposition has continually highlighted the serious failures in this government's handling of the Children and Families portfolio and the dire need to restore an independent watchdog and advocate for children, finally forcing an admission from the Premier and his government that first-term budget cuts did in fact hurt children, hurt child protection and especially hurt services to children and families.

Now, because of this continued political heat, we finally can stand here today and unanimously recommend a new child representative. In spite of people

maybe saying that we've had it before or whatever, this is indeed a huge step forward. I believe that we have finally, as a government — both sides of this Legislature now, which is really important — admitted that this is an office that must be filled and must be there for the children of British Columbia.

Even with this unanimous motion, I believe this government still can't fully be trusted when it comes to our vulnerable children and families in British Columbia. Just very briefly I'll mention a couple of things. B.C. has had the highest rate of child poverty in Canada for a couple of years now, and we can say that we still are winning today, because all the new statistics have just come out.

Families and children in this province, as we all know, face increasing risk of homelessness. Housing is at an all-time low. We are finding that we do not have any subsidized housing anymore. Our waiting list has grown to 14,000. Almost half of food bank recipients in British Columbia are children, and food banks are a really new growth industry, if we want to talk about growth industries.

Also, I would like to add that I believe this appointment and other key Hughes recommendations should have been and could have been implemented before today, almost the end of November. Just because we have this motion, I don't think it means that this opposition is finished looking at this government and holding it accountable for leaving vulnerable children and their families behind — and not letting that happen again in the future.

That being said, I want to rise above this and speak about my pride in being part of this unanimous decision and this wonderful candidate and in the fact that we are turning over a new leaf today in British Columbia. I think the future is hopeful not just for the vulnerable families but especially for the children. I think we should all be very proud that our work has led to this unanimous report and to this appointment.

I can tell you that my side of the House will work very hard to ensure the success of this office, and I hope that you can say the same, Mr. Speaker.

A. Dix: It's a great honour to rise in this debate today, first of all, to express my appreciation to all the members of the special committee that worked this fall and made such an outstanding recommendation. Clearly, Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond will be an outstanding representative for children in British Columbia.

I want to acknowledge the work of my colleague from Esquimalt-Metchosin, my colleague from Coquitlam-Maillardville, the member for Prince George–Omineca and members on the other side of the House for their work on this committee. It is important work because it is an important role, and it's one that people in British Columbia have fought hard for over the last few years — to see this day arrive, a day when we have the appointment of a new Representative for Children and Youth in British Columbia, when we have an outstanding voice who will speak up independently on behalf of children, particularly those children who don't ordinarily have a voice in the debate.

The report of the committee emphasizes to me the importance of the work that's been done by many people in the last little while. We heard from the member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast, who spoke in this debate. He, like many other social workers, has shown remarkable courage and remarkable leadership in speaking out when he needed to speak out.

One of the reasons why we need independent voices and independent commissioners is the issue around confidentiality. It's why it's so important that we have such a distinguished legal scholar and fighter for children being appointed to this position. The importance of confidentiality in the case of children has been illustrated, in fact, by what's happened in British Columbia over the last few years.

What's happened in British Columbia over the last few years is that children, particularly children in care and children known to the ministry — who are, it's fair to say, the most vulnerable people in society, who don't have a voice in public debate — have suffered some of the worst cuts and some of the worst actions by government that we have seen in decades in British Columbia.

At the same time, what we saw in this period was the elimination of just those independent voices who could access the confidential information, who could access the cases and who could in fact speak as a voice. What we had was the confidentiality designed to protect children used to protect those who cut services to children. That is why it is so important today that we are naming a new Representative for Children and Youth.

And you see this. If anyone has ever done a freedom-of-information request to the Ministry of Children and Families, you see this, even in issues where the Ministry of Children and Families has clearly failed. The confidentiality which is intended to protect children is in fact used to protect those who have not done what they needed to do.

The seriousness of this issue you can see in the recent report by the child and youth officer with respect to the case of Jamie Charlie. That case shows us very profoundly where you have individuals who have very senior places in this province not seemingly understanding their fundamental role — the fundamental role each citizen has to report threats to children. This is what happens. This is what happens when you don't have independent voices with access raising issues like this.

This is one of the things that we hope to change, and one of the things we have to do today as we approve this appointment is commit ourselves to providing the new representative with the resources and tools that she needs — for example, the resources and tools of her office, which we vote every year. We have to

commit ourselves to providing adequate and appropriate resources. We have to commit ourselves to providing adequate and appropriate resources for social workers. We have to commit ourselves to address the challenges of transition facing many people in community living. We have to commit ourselves to providing resources to young people and youth on youth agreements. It's a forgotten fact that — serious as the cuts were to young children — the actual brunt, the monetary brunt of the cuts that this government brought forward to children and youth, happened to youth from 12 to 19.

I think we have a sense from the work that the new representative Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond has done that she will be very much engaged in the issue of cuts to youth, because those are issues of great importance in our province.

Hon. Speaker, I think as we go forward, we have to commit ourselves to those things. We also have to commit ourselves because all of us know that in the debate on the legislation where we created this office in May — and now we're taking that legislation forward to the next logical step and appointing the representative — we acted very hastily in a sense. The ministry had to draft that legislation quickly and did draft that legislation quickly, but clearly there are significant areas where we have to ensure that the new representative has the appropriate tools to do the job properly.

I'm thinking, for example, of a program that the Minister of Children and Families, the Solicitor General and the Minister of Agriculture will know, which is the Child in the Home of a Relative program. With 4,719 children in that program, I think it's fair to say that the support we give to children in that program is completely inadequate. As of now that program, which is an important program that affects many people in the MCFD system, should be reviewed and should be under the purview of the child representative, and that program is not.

We have to commit as legislators to give the new representative the statutory authority and the financial authority to do her job. That's part of our commitment when we stand today, when we all stand today as members of this Legislature and approve this nomination, approve the new representative. We have to, when we stand, think about what we need to do next, which is provide her with the resources, provide the ministry with the resources and, most importantly, provide children with the resources they need — especially children in care and children known to the ministry. We have to do all of those things.

Hon. Speaker, I just want to say, as we come close to wrapping up this debate, how proud I am of the people of British Columbia for fighting for children that they don't know. We have heard voices — and I have heard voices as I've gone around British Columbia — of ordinary people who may not know many of the children in care they've spoken out for but have said again and again and said to the government that it was wrong to get rid of an independent children's commissioner. They spoke out and said that they wanted this day to happen, and they were going to fight for it. We've heard their voices, and their voices have been heard.

I want to thank social workers who said that this day was an important day and stood up, sometimes at risk of their jobs, and said no to this government. They said that we must have an independent commissioner back, and we must reverse the cuts that were made to the Ministry of Children and Families. I want to thank them.

I want to thank courageous people who had so much at stake. I think of Harvey and Rose Charlie, who spoke up in this debate. They personally had a lot at stake. They had personal issues to expose, and they rose beyond that and spoke up for all the other children — not just the children in their family but all the children of British Columbia.

There is a huge weight on the new child representative, but that weight should not be just borne by her. It should be borne by every one of us. This action today has to be followed up by action every day. The fate and the future of children in care, of children known to the ministry, of children living in poverty, of children in this province who are, we often say, our future, but sometimes we neglect and we hide…. Their future is of paramount importance to us. As we act today, let's think of what we can do tomorrow to support the child representative — and the day after tomorrow and the day after that.

With that, I ask all members of this House to support this appointment but also to support all of the measures we all have to take every day to ensure that every child in this province — not just some, but every child — has all the opportunities they need to have a happy life.

Mr. Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, the member for Prince George–Omineca closes debate.

J. Rustad: For me, this is a very proud moment, and I'm very honoured. I'm proud that our government has initiated this process, that we took the report which was presented to us by Justice Hughes, that we implemented his recommendations, we accepted his recommendations, and we thanked him for his recommendations. We brought forward legislation as quickly as possible last spring, which then, of course, struck this committee. I have to say that I am very honoured to have had the opportunity to chair and to work with the colleagues on this committee. They worked very hard in terms of bringing forward this recommendation.

Today is the day that the work that had been undertaken more than a year ago comes to fruition, and I'm very pleased that we will be able to celebrate here today the appointment of an individual who I believe will truly put children and youth first. That, to me, is what is so important about this debate and about this position. It will bring forward the opportunity for hope, the opportunity for collaboration, to be able to work together to bring forward solutions that face us in this province and that have faced every province in this country, to bring forward the ideas and the concepts to

work in a collaborative environment, to put politics aside so that the children and youth can truly come first.

There have been many speakers today, so far, that have talked at length of some of the challenges, some perhaps out of proportion. I would like to say that I will not taint this day of celebration by engaging in the political wrangling that has been presented in this House, because this truly is a day where both sides of the House should put aside any political perspectives to truly celebrate the opportunity to move forward an agenda, to move forward the ability to improve the system for children and youth.

I'd like to thank, once again, the members of the committee for their hard work. I look forward to the children and youth representative, to the work that that person will be doing in the coming months and years for the improvement of the system in general.

Hon. M. de Jong: I call Motion 73, standing in the name of the member for Prince George–Omineca.

Hon. M. de Jong: I move that the House at its rising do stand adjourned until it appears to the satisfaction of the Speaker, after consultation with the government, that the public interest requires that the House shall meet or until the Speaker may be advised by the government that it is desired to prorogue this session of the 38th parliament of the province of British Columbia. The Speaker may give notice that he is so satisfied or has been so advised, and thereupon the House shall meet at the time stated in such notice and, as the case may be, may transact its business as if it has been duly adjourned to that time and date, and in the event of the Speaker being unable to act owing to illness or other cause, the Deputy Speaker shall act in his stead for the purpose of this order.

M. Farnworth: Normally, we would be dealing with this motion on the last day of a session. In this case, going by the calendar….

M. Farnworth: I see the member opposite wants to interject even before I've started my remarks. I can see that I may be having to take some time in educating him.

M. Farnworth: Anyway, the reason we do this motion is because it signals that the business of government and the business of this House has been completed. After this motion passes, there would be another motion, and that is that the House do now adjourn. But this motion is debatable, and it's debatable for a reason: because the government believes that the business of the House is finished, but the opposition may have a different view.

Were this motion being debated on the 30th of November, it would be passing unanimously, but it's not the 30th of November. It is a few days before that, and there is still business in this House that needs to be done.

This House is not just the government's House; it's not just the opposition's House. It belongs to all members. In fact, it belongs to the people of British Columbia who elected each and every one of us and sent us here as hon. members to do the people's business. It's incumbent upon us that we remember that.

At the beginning of October, when the calendar would normally call us back, when the Speaker would call us back — in this case, it would have been the second or third of October — we would have looked forward to a full legislative session that would have ended on the 30th of November. That session would have given us the opportunity to raise questions in question period, to raise statements in our member statements, to take advantage of private member's bills, to take advantage of private member's statements, to take advantage of the orders of the day — all the opportunities that are afforded members of this House whether they are members of the executive council or not. It would have allowed each and every one of us to bring forward the issues that matter to the people in our constituencies and to the people in the province.

Unfortunately, that did not occur, because the government decided in its wisdom or lack thereof that the business of the House had been finished, that we did not need — in the words of my colleague across the way — busywork. Well, somebody else's busywork is another member's important piece of legislation that needs to be done.

You know, the Attorney General of this province tabled two pieces of legislation, the Public Inquiry Act and the Adult Guardianship Act. I'm quite sure that when his ministry prepared them, when he took them to cabinet committees and got the sign-off at those cabinet committees, when he took them to a cabinet meeting and had to convince his colleagues about the

importance of why these pieces of legislation needed to be on the agenda and be part of the government's program, little did he expect that they would, in fact, become just busywork.

Two important pieces of legislation that, regardless of where you stand on them as members, deserved to be debated, deserved to have the opportunity to be amended, deserved to be scrutinized by an opposition and the media for the public to understand why the Attorney General of this province and his entire ministry would go to such efforts…. Getting legislation on the agenda is not an easy thing to do, having sat in executive council and knowing how difficult it is. I know the work that went into those two pieces of legislation within the Attorney General's ministry. I know the work, the personal effort and the personal work, that the Attorney General would have had to do to get those two pieces of legislation on the cabinet table. And I know the disappointment that is felt within the ministry. I know the disappointment that would be felt by the Attorney General that his work is deemed busywork. That is not the way it's to be done.

There is time. There is time between now and the 30th of December — the 30th of November.

M. Farnworth: I know. I know I like sitting. I know I do like this House, but even the 30th of December is a bit long for me. By the 30th of November we could have had fulsome discussion, debate and question on those pieces of legislation, and they could have been dealt with in this House.

The government, for whatever reason, felt that that is busywork, which leads us to ask a question. When passing this motion, what assurance do we have in the future that legislation at the end of a session that is not passed and is scheduled for a fall session is even going to come to pass — that it will not once again be deemed busywork? It may well be legislation that the opposition is in favour of and thinks, with proper scrutiny and proper examination, would add to the security and to the well-being of the people of this province.

The example that has been set in this session does not bode well. That's why it's important that we get on the record at this particular point in time our displeasure with the ending of the session, our displeasure with the failure to have the fall session, and the consequences in terms of what it means to the people of this province, whether it's the lack of opportunity for members in this House to ask questions or for members of the executive council to see their hard work deemed as busywork.

This House operates best when government and opposition understand each other's roles. We understand what the role of government is, we understand the power of government, and we understand government's desire for certainty and a legislative calendar. Well, I've been in this House now for going on 12 years, and from 1991 to 2001 there was not a calendar such as we have right now. Government opened the session, and the opposition closed the session. The throne speech and the budget speech were done. Then we went into estimates, and we dealt with legislation.

I remember the Opposition House Leader and other members of the executive council in those days. They would question and take their time until they felt that every piece of legislation had had the questions asked that needed to be asked. Then the government would ask that motion that the House do now rise, and it would be met with unanimous support.

Sessions would last for months on end. They would start in March, and they would go sometimes….

M. Farnworth: My hon. colleague is absolutely right; they would run into August. I knew personally that we were sitting far too late when on my birthday, July 23, we were still sitting.

In 2001 the government changed, and they brought in a calendar. The calendar was intended to deal with the challenges that we face in the Legislature. It set fixed dates: a spring session and a fall session and the dates on which that session would start. It allowed for government to understand when legislation would be coming in. It allowed for the opposition to know how much time they had, to budget that time accordingly and to be able to say: "Okay, we can spend this much time in estimates. We'll spend this much time on legislation. We will do the people's business according to a calendar."

It's a very civilized way to do things, but part and parcel of that is that we stick to that calendar. We know what it is. The public knows what it is. The media knows what it is. By breaking with that calendar, we do this House a disservice. Had we stuck to that calendar, we would have been able to deal not only with the legislation that was on the order paper; we could have dealt with legislation regarding other issues that are of importance to this House.

We would have been able to deal with private member's bills, both government and opposition. I offer this up in the spirit of non-partisanship and of a House working on the people's business to benefit all British Columbians, and I'll give two examples.

My colleague the member for Port Moody–Westwood has a very admirable bill on child booster seats. We could have dealt with, and we still can, if we sit until November 30, that private member's legislation. We could deal with that and make a real improvement in the issue of safety to parents in this province, something worthwhile doing. I don't think that's busywork, and I'm sure the member for Port Moody–Westwood wouldn't say that was busywork.

Here I will beg the indulgence of the House and members from both sides for a moment, because I know we normally do not make mention of the presence or absence of members. But my colleague the member for Victoria-Hillside is absent today…

M. Farnworth: …for the very best of reasons. He and his wife are celebrating the birth on the weekend of their first child, a healthy baby girl at seven pounds, six ounces.

Were he here today and were we sitting till the 30th of November, there's a private member's bill that he has on the order paper dealing with the issue of payday loans and the challenges that people face when they have to deal with usurious interest rates that sometimes charge 100, 200, 600 percent. Again, that is an important piece of legislation — not busywork — that we could deal with in the next three days.

It's not too late, hon. Members. You can repent. See the error of your ways. There may yet be salvation for you.

I may make this in jest, but I make it in all seriousness. These are important issues that this House still has the time to deal with if it so chooses. It's not busywork.

There are other issues of broader importance that we could deal with. There is the issue around first nations. There are issues that our own Premier has stated around oil and gas, around first nations, that deserve to be discussed and debated in this House. We have three days to do that. We have three days to do the work of the people in this chamber. There are issues around health care, some of which have been canvassed in question period, but a lot more questions remain. They could be dealt with in other question periods over the next few days. We could debate emergency motions.

The bottom line is that the people's business should be our first concern, and the people's business is never busywork. It's important work.

In 2010 we're going to be hosting the 2010 Olympics, the Winter Olympics, which everyone in this House wants to succeed and to go off with as much success as possible. Part of that is rigorous examination. That's another issue we could be addressing and dealing with.

We could be dealing with the issue of climate change, which as we know, is of increasing importance to all of us and is impacting not only our environment but our economy with profound consequences for each and every one of us and our constituents. Again, that's hardly busywork.

When we're debating and discussing this motion that the House should now rise, we need to really think and ensure that we have dealt with every piece of business that we can possibly do, every piece of business that is of importance, before the 30th of November. The last thing we want to do, and I'm sure the last thing this government wants to do, is to somehow give the impression that this House is irrelevant and is just a plaything for those who think that we should waltz in and waltz out whenever we want, at our whim. That does not respect this institution. It does not respect the members of this House, and it does not respect the public of British Columbia on whose business we are here working.

We've had questions around private colleges. We have had questions around regulation of home inspectors. We have had questions on a host of topics and subjects, yet there's still more work to do. That's what this is about — doing the people's business.

I ask the government members opposite to think about their Attorney General, to think about how much work he put into this legislation and the importance of it, to think about that, to look inside themselves and to step up to the plate and realize that if it was important enough for their Attorney General to recognize that the public of British Columbia could benefit from the changes he wanted to make, it's their duty to stand by their Attorney General and make sure that those legislative changes take place and that the public of British Columbia benefits from his wisdom and hard work.

M. Farnworth: And we do, hon. Member. You will not be surrendering your rights.

I am just making the case that the good members opposite recognize the hard work and dedication of their colleagues, think about the mistake they are making by voting in favour of this motion and by adjourning the House at this point and, rather, recognize that three more days won't hurt. Three more days won't kill them.

There's good work to be done. They may take a beating or two in question period, but hey, that's the nature of the business. The good thing is that they will know that when we leave here on November 30, we have dealt with all the business and all their government business that they intended to do and to start. The session will not have been a failure for them.

With that, hon. Speaker, and those final imploring few comments on my part, I urge them, I ask them, I say to you: think about why you're here. Think about who it is you represent. Think about all those, even if it's something just as crass as…. Think about all those potential voters you'll make happy by doing the thing that you said you would do for them.

Think, hon. Members, of the importance of how much business we can get done in three more days and finish on November 30. Whether it's booster seats, whether it's payday loan regulation, whether it's legislation from the Attorney General, whether it's other private members' bills that have been tabled before this House, we owe it to the people of this province to do the people's business. As I said at the beginning of my speech, that is never, nor will it ever be, busywork.

N. Macdonald: I rise to speak against this motion. This House has a responsibility to all British Columbians to sit, and to sit for the time that's allotted to us. A need for accountability is why…. When I first came here and we met for the first time — the first time I sat here — we had the Clerk go through and explain to us the 500-year tradition of putting together a system of

government that allows those in power to be scrutinized for how they spend our money; challenged on the laws they make that constrain our lives — in our system the check and balance to a government that can easily slide into arrogance; and to make sure that arbitrary power is not common, that it is fought and scrutinized.

I lived for six years altogether in Africa. It is a place where opposition to government is severely restricted. I've seen what happens when you remove or restrict the ability of people to hold their government to account. What you get is that arrogance, and it does not work. It does not work for the governed, and it does not work for government. They become sloppy and arrogant.

That sloppiness and arrogance, despite all of the work of the two members in opposition that were here, is evident for how often we go back and look at those four years and find fault. We are here today fixing what was completely foreseeable and what should have been pushed in the House if there was an opposition with the numbers that we have today. We need to meet in this Legislature to allow the public a voice. Without it, the government has massive powers, and it is easily able to escape accountability.

Now I have half an hour to speak, and I intend to use it to speak — to talk about the things that I came here to speak about, the things that Columbia River–Revelstoke sent me to speak about. What I cannot accept from any member is the idea that we are not here doing something important. Those that would vote in favour of a motion to recess and to say there's nothing here but busywork do a discredit to themselves and to this institution. If we are not here to do that, then what are we here for? What did we go and stand and run for election for if it is not to be here and do the business of holding the government to account, or if you are the government, to explain yourself and make sure the people of the province understand what you're trying to do and to explain it to them properly?

On November 2 George Weitzel, husband of Sullivan mine victim Kim Weitzel, began to try to speak for truth. He stepped into a difficult place for a grieving person. This is someone who describes himself as a bulldozer driver. He says, "I do not speak publicly," but he did. He started to speak publicly about his experience. He began to speak publicly about the concerns that he had with the provincial mine inspector's report. You'll remember perhaps that this report came out six months after the tragedy in Kimberley. It came out October 30.

On behalf of the families of the four people who died on May 17 at Sullivan mine, he said that they were not satisfied with the report. In his words he said — and he would ask me to pass that along in the venue that I'm chosen to come and represent his views in — that he didn't think that report was fair, he didn't think that report was complete and he did not think that report was accurate. What does a family do if government and a huge multinational…? Teck Cominco is a massive company. What do you do as an individual if you need to face down and question those institutions? It is a huge thing to try to do.

The meeting on Sunday, October 29, between the families, the Minister of State for Mining and the mine inspector was described by the family as rancorous. The presentation of the report the next day was a full-on, message-delivering show by the government — government communications. It was incredible to witness. The accident was described as unprecedented, which is the position they're putting forward. It was done 15 times or more. Much of the media picked it up and reported it as such, and that is where the families needed to begin. They begin with a message delivered. They begin feeling that they cannot possibly be heard against the powers of government, against the powers of a huge multinational.

What tools does an ordinary person have? Well, what I would put to you today — and the relevance to this topic — is that one of the tools must include this assembly. If it is not part of the answer for citizens, if we do not make them feel empowered, then what are we doing here? Why are we here at all? So in my view, this is not busywork. This allows people to feel that they can stand up and if they think something is not right, there is an opportunity for them to fight and to seek justice. This Legislature is a significant tool, and to restrict the public's ability to question and scrutinize cannot be good for governance in any way.

On May 17 Kimberley found out four people had died on the grounds of Sullivan mine in a 10-by-10-by-8-foot plywood hut built over a four-foot-deep hole that was used for testing water samples. The water needed to be collected and tested because it passed through a sloped area made up of tailings from the mine.

Sullivan mine, I'll remind you, was closed in 2001 after a century of mining lead, zinc and some silver. The tailings are acidic. Oxidation of rock that is acidic takes place when in contact with water, and that produces acidic water that needs to be tested, but it also produces oxygen-depleted air.

Mine inspector Hermann, in his report, says very clearly that the oxygen-depleted air that killed four people came from this mine waste dump leading into the water-sampling shed. That is what happened.

On October 30, then, the report was presented in Cranbrook by the mine inspector, but it did leave many, many questions. The family has said very clearly, as I indicated earlier, that they do not accept this report as definitive in any way. The line from the mine inspector repeated, as I said, 15, 20 times was that this was part of an unprecedented — and implicit in that was an unpredictable — event. End of story.

But in Kimberley, throughout the community, it's not only the families themselves, but it is people writing to me, sending e-mails, signing petitions, phoning.

To people there it is not the end of the story at all. It cannot be. Questions are about the hut built by Teck Cominco that killed four people. The questions go something like this. I don't intend this to be a conclusion. This is not a conclusion. These are questions that need to be answered — questions that would, amongst other places, be asked here. So this is not a conclusion. As I said, they are things that people have raised that I don't have the ability to answer, but somebody should.

Water that moves through the mine waste dump is collected by ditch and pipes and brought to a sump in a four-foot hole. It is to test water before treatment. Mine waste sat exposed to the elements. It sits out there. Water passes through it naturally through rain and other things, and it oxidates. We know that. It produces acidic water and oxygen-depleted air. The water is collected and directed to the test hole by ditching and pipes.

Now, it is known that the gas will also be directed. There is nothing new about this. We know that the gas will pass along through, so the question is this. Sump systems properly designed will prevent gas of any kind from getting into a hole, and you know that just by looking at your toilet or your sink. You know that it is designed to prevent gases from coming up through the pipe that you've built. So people are asking and deserve an answer: who put thought into that water collecting system? To many, it doesn't look like that sump was engineered at all. It was just built — with tragic consequences.

If it had been built differently, it would not have killed four people. That is the conclusion that many reach. If that is not true, then there is an onus upon us to make sure that the families understand exactly what took place and why that's not true. At this moment many in Kimberley would feel that that was poorly engineered and that there's a problem there that needs to be explored.

Eventually a hut was built over the test hole years later. That was to prevent that test hole from freezing. Now, this is significant. You are now building what amounts to a confined space, and it was built to prevent freezing. There are no lights. There's no ventilation. There was no consideration at all to the possibility of a gas buildup. If we know oxidation is the process going on and that oxygen-depleted air is a by-product, then surely there needs to be some due diligence done in the building of that hut, but none seems to have been done. If it was, that should be brought forward. The families should understand it and be able to question it.

We know the gas can move in the same way that water does when it goes into a hole with no proper mechanism to prevent the buildup of the gas. Then we put a small hut over the collection hole to further concentrate the oxygen-depleted gas. Then last October, as temperatures dropped and, likely, water flow was reduced, a metre-thick layer of gas-impermeable glacial till was used to cover the mine waste area. It was packed to seal the mine waste.

Was any consideration given to the possibility that this would concentrate gases towards the system used to concentrate and collect water? Was there any thought given to this at all? It seems reasonable that gas, including the oxygen-depleted gas that previously would have seeped through the porous mine waste surface, would now be trapped. That is not beyond the scope of possibility. Has that been explored at all?

On May 15, the day the first person died, it was hot. Kimberley is Canada's highest city. Spring comes late. The water was flowing for perhaps one of the first times, and there had been more work done around the shed just before May 15. Was any thought given by the company about the possible impact of this change? Is it so unpredictable that oxygen-depleted gas would be concentrated in the shed, a shed that was built and that killed four people?

There was no confined-space protocol. Everywhere else in the mine has a confined-space protocol. Was there no indication for people that this should be treated as a confined space? Because if there had been, it would have been entered differently, in a consistent way.

To say that this is unprecedented, to say that it could never have been predictable, is something that would be an affront to the family, and they've clearly indicated that it is. These are things that need to be investigated. It needs to be investigated outside of this House, but we need to have this venue to push government to make sure that it's investigated.

The families have a lot of questions, then, about the site that killed their loved ones. As I said before, I stand here not to give conclusions but simply to raise those questions — questions that we here need to consider because we promised these families that we would answer their questions and would try to learn, to make sure it did not happen again. That is something that I think all of us sincerely gave to these families.

What happened? Well, a person who worked as a contractor for Teck Cominco came onto this property alone. He enters a confined space built by Teck Cominco and is killed by oxygen-depleted air. This is on May 15.

The company does not keep track of him coming in, even though that is required by provincial law. One of the recommendations of the mine inspector in his report is that the company actually follow the law. They didn't follow the law. What is the penalty for that? It is nothing. What requires them to follow it now? Nothing. We need to be looking at that system. Is that a system that works? Is that a system that is going to ensure worker safety?

Someone paid by Teck Cominco comes onto Teck Cominco property, goes into a Teck Cominco–built hut and lies dead for two days. Teck Cominco is required to check on a lone worker every two hours — or is it two and a half hours? — but they break that law. They don't do that.

The mine inspector's third recommendation is to follow the law there and actually check on workers alone. If they don't, how does the government hold

them accountable? They do nothing. There is nothing in place to hold the company accountable. What sort of recommendation is that to give to the families?

Does the fact that this wasn't done impact the events that consequently unfolded? One of the things the mine inspector said was: "Well, we won't penalize them because it doesn't seem to have impacted subsequent events and caused the death of three people." The mine inspector says that, but what the family asks is: on what evidence does he reach that conclusion? If it's he who asserts it, then the onus is on him to prove it. He does not in the report, nor has he subsequently, and the family contests that.

Then there are conflicting testimonies about the actions of another Teck Cominco employee. That needs clarity. The family needs to know that everything that can be known about that is known, so it needs a further process, or it needs questions here in the Legislature.

There's the question of why paramedics without the training they needed were brought onto Cominco property and directed by a Teck Cominco employee into a building that Teck Cominco built, which killed them.

There are questions about subcontracting. There are questions about training. There are questions, questions, questions that should be raised here by the people that our electors chose. This is why we were chosen to do this.

A gentleman phoned me at home. He wanted to talk about this incident. He had lost his son in an industrial accident. It was many years ago. It was a forklift accident, and part of his closure…. This was what he really wanted to say to me with talking about it. He made the point that part of the closure for him was getting all the information.

Before he could move on, he needed all of the information, and he needed to do his best to make sure that it would not happen again. He needed to make sure that it would not happen again. He needed to make sure that those of us with the ability to change things understood what we could do and what we should do, and only then can closure come.

At this time what I want members to understand is that the families reject the conclusion of the mine inspector's report. The community rejects the conclusion. I reject the conclusions. Mayor and council have called for a coroner's inquiry. That's one method. I have called for a coroner's inquiry. The critic for Labour has called for an inquiry. Many, many in the community have written to me or phoned asking for the same thing. The steelworkers….

They all want the same thing. They want to make sure that this is fully understood and that we do all we can to make sure that it does not happen again. Now there is still a coroner's report coming. I don't think it will be enough, but it's possible that it will. If it is, then fine. If not, then we should commit ourselves to making sure that we continue until the family and the community is able to find closure.

That's something that was important for me to say. It's something that I've waited a long time to say here. We've said it with the tools that were available to us MLAs and the media. We've said it to individuals. We've talked as a community together, but it is one example of things that really…. They're not busywork. They are fundamentally what we do.

For all the jokes about politicians, people have tremendous respect for this institution. They have high expectations for us. They expect us to be here. They expect us to work. They expect us to fight — in a respectful way, but they want us to fight for them — to make sure that they have a voice through us here, so that if government is doing something that is not in the people's interests, we speak for them.

This is our opportunity. We have three days left. I would urge members to vote against this motion to give us that short, short period of time to do the people's business.

There are so many other things that I think we need to be talking about from my area. We have land use issues that are complicated and big and that people have strong opinions on. I'm happy to say that in past sessions some of the work that we've done here — and not only just speaking in this session, but in meetings with ministers — we've been able to work through. Other issues remain outstanding and need to be dealt with.

Land use issues. We have questions about forest health that are crucial to the community. We have questions about road maintenance. We have questions about convention centre overspending related to Olympic overspending. We have questions on homelessness and poverty.

The cancellation of the session, I think from my perspective, has been shameful. Even the few days we have had, the government has wasted time that we could have used. We had mornings available to us, afternoons available to us, evenings available to us that we did not have a chance to question government. Now we're going to be closed down again.

There's a saying about arrogance — and I think this is overriding everything that goes on here — that arrogance diminishes wisdom. But it's wisdom and thoughtfulness that British Columbians want from us. I would urge you to vote against this. Certainly, I know that on our side, we're happy to be here. We're proud to be here, and we know that we have business to do.

D. Chudnovsky: I'm pleased and proud to stand with my colleagues this afternoon to speak against the motion before us.

Breathtaking arrogance. Those are the only words that I can think of to describe the way that the government and the governing party have treated this Legislature this fall. There are many issues, concerns and challenges that face the people of British Columbia. Because of the breathtaking arrogance of this government and their decision to cancel this sitting of the Legislature and their request that we leave here today and not use the remaining time available to us in this Legislature, those issues will not be canvassed.

In my view, that's an undermining and an undercutting of democracy. It shows contempt for the opposition. It shows contempt for the Legislature. But more important than either of those, it shows contempt for the people of the province. This Legislature belongs to the people of the province. It doesn't belong to the Premier. It doesn't belong to the executive council. It doesn't belong even to each of us together, the MLAs. The Legislature belongs to the people of the province.

Accountable government starts with a government prepared to come to the Legislature to put forward its ideas and legislation and to be prepared to be held to account by opposition. That's what accountable government is. This government chose this fall not to submit, not to agree with, not to be consistent with, that notion of accountable government.

We have to ask ourselves the question: why? What is it that moved government to choose not to meet here this fall? What is it that moves this government to suggest that the session should be over now? It's very important that we unpack that question because, as we all know, the government has a majority, so they can win every vote.

It's not a fear of losing a vote in the Legislature that moves this government to its breathtaking arrogance. They can win. It must therefore be a fear to discuss, a fear to debate, a fear to answer questions. When we have a government that's afraid to debate, that's afraid to discuss, that's afraid to answer questions, then it seems to me that the only phrase we can use to describe them is breathtakingly arrogant.

We're all here. We had a vote a few minutes ago. Everybody was here except for maybe a couple of folks who, for one reason or another, weren't able to be here, but there were certainly more than 70 members present. We're all here. We're elected to do the people's business. We're ready to go.

The government controls the agenda. They decide what the content of the discussion is to be. It's up to them. But no, over the last few days what we've heard is: "House Leader, move to adjourn. House Leader, move to adjourn. House Leader, move to adjourn." It's colossal and breathtaking arrogance. It's a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of parliamentary democracy. It's another example of treating the people of the province with contempt.

Had we had a session and were we to have a few more days to discuss the business of the people of the province, I, as one of 79 members of this House, would have had a lot of things that I'd want to discuss. Take, for instance, a couple of weeks ago. The federal transportation committee, a committee of members of the House of Commons, voted unanimously to hold an investigation of railway safety. In the motion that they passed, they referred directly to events that have taken place over the last year and a little bit here in British Columbia.

They referred to the spill of caustic soda into the Cheakamus River in their motion — which was passed unanimously in the House of Commons in Ottawa — as a catastrophe. They referred directly to the deaths of workers near Lillooet. They referred directly to the record for maintenance and safety of CN since the time that B.C. Rail was privatized by this government.

I would have wanted — and I'd be happy to, tomorrow or the next day; I'm here, ready to go — to talk with the Minister of Transportation, who acted as if he were a public relations officer for CN over the last year. Every time there was a problem, he said: "Oh, they're doing great. They're getting better. They're working at it."

Rather than holding them to account and advocating for the people of British Columbia over the last year, he acted on behalf of CN. I'd like to have, over the last six weeks or maybe in the next few days, talked to the Minister of Transportation about that. I'd like to invite the Minister of Transportation to attend the hearings of that federal committee looking into rail safety and to report to them what discussions, if any, took place at the time of the privatization of B.C. Rail about safety or maintenance.

Let him stand up for the people of British Columbia for a change, instead of working for CN. This is an investigation that we on this side of the House have been asking for, for more than a year. I never heard the Minister of Transportation ask for that investigation. He was busy making excuses for CN. But we've asked for it, and we're happy it's going to happen, and we'd like the Minister of Transportation to be there to tell that committee what he knows about safety and maintenance with respect to CN. I would have liked to have a chance to talk to him about that over the last few weeks, and I certainly would still like to have the opportunity to do that over the next few days.

I'm against this motion. But those on the other side, it seems to me, think that that's busywork. They think it's busywork to stand up for the environment of British Columbia, to advocate on behalf of the families of those workers who were killed in those accidents. That's busywork, as far as this government is concerned. We don't think so. We think that we have to be here to discuss those issues.

Over the break, since the adjourning of the House in the spring, I had a wonderful opportunity to meet with a group of ranchers from the Cariboo. I travelled up with my dear friend, the member for Cariboo North. We met in Williams Lake with a number of ranchers. That was between the time that the House adjourned in the spring and when it was supposed to reconvene here this fall. I heard a lot of things that were of great concern to the ranchers in the Cariboo, about maintenance of fencing along the CN line, about the deaths of cattle caused by accidents with CN trains.

These are fine folks, who it was a pleasure and a privilege to meet, and they had some questions they wanted asked. They wanted some advocacy from government, from ministers of the Crown, on their behalf, to make sure that their livelihood was protected, to make sure that the rights which they had become accustomed to during the time when B.C. Rail was the railway that belonged to the people of British Colum-

bia…. That was the one that was never going to be privatized. Remember that one? During that time their rights and their interests were protected. Things have changed, and they want some questions asked.

I would have liked to have had an opportunity in this House over the last six weeks to talk about that with the Minister of Transportation and others on the other side of the fence, but there was breathtaking arrogance on the part of this government. They decided that it's busywork to ask questions on behalf of the people of this province, to come to this House and hold the government to account. That's busywork. They don't want to do that.

Well, they've got an opportunity to do it over the next three days, and we're happy to be here. I'm happy to be here to ask those questions. And to do that, members on the other side have to agree with us that it's important to support this democratic institution, that it's important that a government has to stand and be accountable for its actions, that it's important that an opposition has the opportunity to ask questions and engage in debate and discussion. But they're afraid of that — another example of breathtaking arrogance.

This fall there's been a discussion in the lower mainland about rapid transit to the Tri-Cities, to the northeast sector. People in the Tri-Cities have been waiting for years. They were promised rapid transit for years. In fact, you'll recall that at the time of the approval of the then RAV line — they got a new name for it — the people of the Tri-Cities were promised, again, that their project for rapid transit was number one on the list of priorities in the lower mainland, consensus number one. Everybody agreed that was the thing that had to be done first — rapid transit to the Tri-Cities.

But government had a different idea, a different agenda, a different set of priorities, and they imposed on the people of the lower mainland a different plan — first, the RAV line. The people of the Tri-Cities were promised, in exchange for support for the RAV line, that the rapid transit to the northeast sector would be done contemporaneous with the rapid transit to the airport. On the basis of that promise, people went against their better judgment and supported this other project that was the priority of the government.

Now, not surprisingly, the people of the Tri-Cities, of the northeast sector in the lower mainland, are saying: "Well, where's the rapid transit? Where's the project that we were promised?" I make this point because this is information that became available to us during the period between the close of the session last spring and when the session was supposed to be opened this fall. Subsequent to that, we find out that this government and the representatives of the people of the municipalities in the lower mainland agree that there are nowhere near enough resources to carry out that project as there need to be.

Of course this government, when it comes to rapid transit projects in the lower mainland, is prepared to provide about 20 percent of the capital costs, whereas previous governments — NDP and Social Credit governments — provided 100 percent of the resources for that kind of project. So not surprisingly there's a problem with resources, and the people of the northeast sector are once again seeing the promise begin to melt away.

I would have liked to have been here over the last six weeks during the time when the Legislature was scheduled to ask some questions about that, have some discussions about that, advocate on behalf of the people of that area of the lower mainland. That's my job. It's what I was elected to do.

Those on the other side of the aisle were elected to listen to those questions. That's their job. They're not supposed to be able to run away from that job. It's breathtaking arrogance on behalf of this government to think that, as the Leader of the Opposition said earlier this week, they can waltz in and waltz out of this place whenever they feel like it. That's not parliamentary democracy.

What's required of government is that they take the hard shots. What's required of the opposition is that they be prepared to ask the tough questions. In this House we've got an opposition prepared to do its job, but a government that's running away from theirs. Breathtaking arrogance.

Had we had a session and were we to have some time over the next few days, there are issues about rural roads that I would have brought to the attention of the minister and brought to the attention of the House on behalf of people who have communicated with me as the opposition critic for transportation and who have real problems and real issues and real challenges in their communities that they want taken care of. They want somebody to ask the questions and somebody's willing to do that. But they want somebody to answer the questions, and that somebody isn't prepared to do that. That somebody wants to run away from the House. We say no. We're voting against this motion.

Since privatization and with the increase in the pine beetle problem and a reduction in maintenance standards on roads across the province, we've got all kinds of roads — in the rural areas especially — that are in need of capital improvements and maintenance improvements. We've got a minister who's hypnotized by billion-dollar transportation projects in the lower mainland but isn't taking into account the real problems that real people face with respect to transportation in the rest of the province. Highway 20, Highway 97, Highway 3 and the Trans-Canada — all of them are in need of work. All of them are in need of improvements. They're not the only ones; they're just examples.

Then we hear the minister last week on the radio — not in the House, on the radio — announcing that the expected funding, the expected resources from the federal government for the much-needed improvements to the Trans-Canada Highway, are going to be lower than we had expected. I would have liked to have had some time in the House to talk to the minister about that. It's my job. It's what I was elected to do, and I'm willing to do it. I'm willing to be here, and so are the

people on this side, but on the other side they want to run away. They want to run away from their responsibility to answer the questions. Breathtaking arrogance, Madam Speaker.

Since the adjournment of the House last spring, and when the House was supposed to open this fall, what happens at the beginning of September every year? We have the beginning of school every year. This is a historic year in this province, because Bill 33 began to be implemented this September. Bill 33 — which, you will remember, saved the government's bacon after they had precipitated a crisis in the schools of this province last year — wasn't what teachers wanted. We all know that historically, teachers have wanted class sizes and support for special needs students in collective agreements. That was the teachers' position, but teachers chose to compromise with this government on Bill 33 last year.

We began to see the implementation of Bill 33 this fall. In between when the House adjourned in the spring and when it was supposed to open this fall, in October, came the implementation of Bill 33. You know what, Madam Speaker? There are some questions to ask about the implementation of Bill 33, about the availability of resources to make sure that it actually works and serves the needs of the children of the province.

I know that I and many others on this side of the House would have liked to ask some questions and have some discussion about Bill 33's implementation, because the purpose of Bill 33 was to make things better for the kids of the province. We would still like to do that over the next three days, but not this government. The opposition is ready. The opposition has been ready to ask the questions, to put forward the challenges and to make sure that the government is held to account, but not this government. This government runs away from that; it runs away from it. Breathtaking arrogance.

In my constituency in Vancouver, homelessness and poverty are important issues. In my constituency we have neighbours — and I call them neighbours because they are our neighbours — who are living on the street. They're living on the street in increasing numbers. In my constituency, like in all of ours, almost 25 percent of the kids are living in poverty. That was reasserted to us last Friday — wasn't it? — when the latest figures came out. We recall last year this government saying, "No, no, no, no; those are old figures; those are old numbers," when we brought up the issue of child poverty — which means families in poverty. When we brought up the issue of child poverty, this government and the ministers on the other side said: "No, no, no, no. Things are great. Those are old numbers with respect to child poverty."

Well, they're new numbers. They came last Friday, and it seems to me incumbent upon this House to discuss those figures. It's our responsibility as the opposition to question this government about those numbers — the impact on children, the impact on families, what it means and what we can do together to ameliorate that situation, to make things better for those kids and their families. That's our responsibility.

We're ready to do that, Madam Speaker. On this side of the House the opposition is prepared, was prepared from the time that this session was supposed to start, continues to be prepared and is ready for the next three days during the period in which this House is supposed to sit — continues to be prepared to do our job. That's our job. That's what we were elected to do.

The people said, "Go to the Legislature and ask the tough questions," and we're ready to do that — but not this government. They want to run away. They wanted to run away between the middle of October and now, and they only were dragged kicking and screaming into the House for what they hoped would be an hour or two.

Now they want to run away again and waste those last three days on which we are supposed to be, on which the people expect us to be, doing our jobs. Our job is to ask the tough questions; this government is to be accountable. But no, they're unprepared to do that. Breathtaking arrogance.

I want to conclude by saying this. We should take, in my submission, our responsibilities very seriously. The stuff of democracy should not be messed with. The people expect us to do the simple jobs that they elected us to do. They're really rather simple. We can make a big deal out of it, but they're rather simple.

They expect the government to come to the House with their ideas for building a better British Columbia and their legislation for building a better British Columbia. They expect that the government will come to the House and do that business. That's what they expect. They expect us on this side to ask the tough questions, to debate the difficult issues, to hold government to account.

I want to say, with the greatest of seriousness, that this government has made a terrible mistake in thinking that they can run away from their part of that responsibility. They've made an awful mistake. It's a mistake that shows contempt for the people of the province and arrogance towards the people of the province.

We on this side are ready to do our job. I urge every member of this House to vote against this motion. Stand up for democracy, stand up for accountability, and stand up for a parliamentary system that expects the government to have the jam to stand in front of the opposition and answer the tough questions.

C. Trevena: Madam Speaker, like my colleagues, I would like to stand to speak against this motion. Like my colleague from Vancouver-Kingsway said, it smacks of outrageous arrogance to come to the House with a very important matter of business…. Nobody questioned how important it was to have a children's commissioner. This was vital. This is something that we have been calling for, for many, many months since the office was abolished by this government.

So I don't diminish the reason that we were called back, but we shouldn't have had to be called back in

the first place. We should have been here doing, as my colleagues have said, the people's business for the last few weeks. Instead, we get called back by the Speaker, with no agenda. It's just that there are issues to discuss, so the Speaker calls us back.

We have a very important issue to discuss, but we have more than that issue. We have issues that are important to the people of British Columbia. I have to admit that it surprises me that the government has only brought one thing to us. I think it shows that maybe it isn't arrogance; maybe we're overestimating the intelligence of this government. Maybe it is a government that now, after five and a half years, is completely devoid of ideas and has absolutely nothing to offer the people of British Columbia, which is another reason to stand against this motion.

It would be very nice to continue to ask questions and continue to bring up the issues that matter to the people of British Columbia and matter to the people in each of our individual constituencies, in 79 constituencies — not just in those on this side of the House but in 79 constituencies — to discuss them, debate them and work on them. But maybe this is a government that is arrogant and completely devoid of ideas.

Alternatively, the arrogance…. This is very possible — that the government can set the parliamentary calendar, let everyone know there is going to be a fall session and then just say: "We don't want a fall session. It doesn't suit us. We don't want that sort of accountability. We don't like being questioned, and we certainly don't want another three days of being questioned when, unfortunately, we have had these last three days of being questioned."

I think maybe there is just a simple contempt — a contempt for procedures and a contempt for the people of British Columbia. This government may not have any issues, and it may see the work that we do in this House as busywork. I think that is very sad, because as my colleague from Columbia River–Revelstoke and my colleague from Vancouver-Kingsway suggested, this is a contempt for parliamentary procedure and parliamentary democracy. Having an opposition and having accountable government is one thing which sustains our democracy. It is part of having a healthy democracy.

Like some others in this chamber, I've worked in places where democracy has been under threat; where people will die to sustain a democracy; where people, if they had the opportunity to have a House with a fixed session, would be revelling in the opportunity — not trying to rush out saying: "We have no business. Let's close this place down as quickly as we can, because we don't want to be questioned." Instead, the members of this government are willing to toss away this essential pillar of our parliamentary democracy and just say: "That's it. We haven't got anything we want to do."

It isn't like we don't have issues that we need to address locally and provincially. The government says that it is being held to account by having conversations on certain things. Yes, it's very important to take issues to the people, but it's very important to bring the people and people's questions to this House.

We have the government having its conversation on health care, and while that is very important, I wonder whether this government would be willing to be challenged here in this House about seniors who are having to question whether they can afford medicine, whether they can afford food or whether they can afford to heat their homes. These are the issues that this House should be addressing. They should be addressing those families who are wondering where they're going to get care for their elderly relatives. These are the sorts of issues this House should be addressing and why we should be here continuing this session until it finishes, and this is why I stand against the motion.

We do have an arrogant government, a government that has no ideas. How many conversations does it take to replace being questioned by a loyal opposition? This has not gone unnoticed. The people of B.C. are very aware that we didn't have a session, and then we were called back. I think we all went back to our constituencies this weekend, and we had comments from a lot of people — "Good to see you back" — from both sides of the House, I'm sure. At least, my constituents were saying they were glad to see that we were up there having a chance to question this government again.

I said to them: "Well, you know, the session doesn't finish till next Thursday, so hopefully we'll be able to carry on." But I think what people are asking is: what is this government afraid of? Is it afraid of having questions on climate change or on private colleges or on Olympic overspends? Is it afraid of being questioned when it actually has no answers, when it's so devoid of ideas and answers that it has no moral foundation anymore? Is it afraid of issues such as women's issues coming up?

Since the House should have been in session, we have tragically seen two women in Surrey killed and a third one seriously injured. While people stood up and said how terrible this is — and it is terrible; it is tragic, and it's not a political football — there are issues that this raises. It raises the issue of women's centres, but this government isn't here to answer those questions.

It raises the issues of counselling for women and for women who face violence. It raises the issues that there is a six-month wait for women who have been victims of violence to get counselling. But the government hasn't been willing to have those questions answered, because it hasn't been here. It raises questions of access to legal aid. It raises questions of support for women in our communities. Yet this government has basically turned a deaf ear to it. Women are getting no answers, whether it's the women in Surrey, whether it's the women in Kamloops who have seen their women's centre closed since this House should have been in session or whether it is women who are simply trying to get on and make the most of things, get their kids to school and see that Bill 33 doesn't really work. These questions need to be answered.

I also stand against the motion because there are other questions provincially which are important. During this summer the Minister of State for Childcare sent out a letter to child care providers saying that the government would try to maintain funding till the end of June. That's it — nothing more. No answers for the child care providers, no answers for the families whose kids are going to child care, and no chance for the opposition to raise these questions with the Minister of State for Childcare. No chance for anybody to ask: what's going to happen to the child care centres in my communities? What's going to happen to those child care centres that are facing massive deficits and may have to close because of the potential loss of operating funds?

What about those families who are wondering how they're going to find an extra $100 to $200 a month to pay for child care costs? There is uncertainty about child care funding, but there is no way we can get answers, because this government is too afraid of having questions asked and decides to shut down the House instead of answering questions.

There is no one to answer a very simple question of: where is a child care plan? This is a very big issue, but it's not such a hard question. The government promised to bring this to the House back in January, and we're still waiting for that to be answered.

Federally, three parties have voted in favour of a national plan, and that includes the Liberals. Perhaps this government would like to take on what its namesake in Ottawa has done and have a real child care plan, but clearly not. It's not willing to address this. It's not willing to be challenged.

As my colleague from Vancouver-Kingsway said, last week we saw once again — not old figures but new figures — that B.C. has one in four children living in poverty. In my own constituency, in Campbell River one in four families with school-age kids has an income of less than $30,000 a year. That's below the poverty level. Twenty-five percent of families of school-age children are vulnerable.

Campbell River is a comparatively rich community. This is an indictment. Yet I have no recourse to ask the members opposite what they're going to do about this, what they are going to do to help me tackle this serious issue in my community, because they decide there really isn't that much that's important. Certainly child poverty is not one of the important things, despite the fact that we are an extremely rich province, despite the fact that we have a commitment — we hear from the opposite side — to having a golden decade and five great goals. Despite this, the government is not willing to listen to questions. That is why I stand against this motion. Again, it is washing its hands of the serious issues that we have in our communities.

Again in Campbell River recently, about three weeks ago, the report came out showing the level of youth exploitation. The fact that youth exploitation is rising in some of our communities, including my own, isn't because young people want to go into the sex trade. It's because of poverty. Yet I cannot raise these questions of poverty and problems in my community because, again, the House isn't sitting, and this government doesn't want to answer questions. It is, as my colleagues earlier have said, arrogant.

I would like to be asking the government why it is doing nothing about rebuilding the social safety net, why it isn't looking seriously at addressing issues that we do bring up quite regularly about income assistance — the two-year independence test, the two out of five years. How can we address these so that the most vulnerable people are not exploited, so that people in my community and in other communities across this province are able to get the social assistance they need?

Instead we get, effectively, cynicism from the Premier, who does admit that shelter rates — that portion of income assistance, $325 a month for a single person — are too low. The government announces, during a period when the House should be in session, that it is going to increase the shelter rates. But it doesn't allow us to ask by how much, and it doesn't allow us to press this government on doing it now rather than waiting for the new financial year.

Now — when people need shelter, when we've had torrential flooding, when we've got freezing temperatures — we're not allowed to challenge this government, because this government decides we have no business. "We're just back for a couple of days to get our business through, our one item through, and that's it. We don't want to have to listen to you. We don't want to have to answer any questions." But there is a desperate need.

I have had people coming into my office who simply say: "I don't know how I'm going to afford to keep my place this winter, because I can't afford my hydro bill, I can't afford my food, and I can't afford my rent." These are issues that we should be addressing and that it is incumbent on all of us as legislators to address.

We hear that the government is committed to a housing strategy. But what about the issues of homelessness? What about the fact that shelters have been full throughout this last weekend because of the weather? In Campbell River the Salvation Army is keeping its soup kitchen open tonight just because there is no other place for people to go. Their shelter is full.

I've been working with a group of people in the community — the chamber of commerce, churches and advocates — to try to find emergency shelter. But we need long-term answers, and this government, in its arrogance and its lack of commitment, is refusing to work on long-term answers and is refusing to give answers to any of our questions.

People know that shelter and the right to shelter are basic human rights. People in my community know that, and they would like a few answers. They would like to know when the shelter rate is going to go up and how much they're going to get. They would like to know that the housing strategy is more than rent subsidies. They would like to know that their mobile homes are not going to be taken away from them.

I would like to ask the members opposite — and I don't get much opportunity to do so — how many people from mobile home parks they have in their constituency offices who are worried about losing the home they have had for years because of changes in legislation that this government has brought in.

There are other issues that I would have liked to bring in. Health care. We've had some discussion on health care in question period. There are always questions about health care.

I would like to have asked the minister responsible for health about the location of the hospital in Campbell River. It's going to be moved down-Island. It's going to be moved away from about 50,000 people. I drove the road where it's going to be moved to yesterday in the snow and ice. It is 40 kilometres. They say that it's not so far. Forty kilometres in that sort of weather is treacherous.

These are the sorts of questions I would like to have brought in. Instead of being able to ask questions, I write a letter to the minister, and the minister responds with a letter to a local newspaper. I don't think this is acceptable. I would like to know why this government continues with its arrogance when we are here to ask questions on behalf of our constituents.

I would also have liked to ask the minister about ambulance coverage in my constituency and in other rural constituencies. I know that we have been trying to address this through question period. In my constituency I know that in one community at the moment, it's likely that there's not going to be ambulance coverage over Christmas because people are overstretched. They do not get the recompense they need to do this very vital task in our communities. It's a volunteer ambulance service, and so they say: "We don't want to do this."

We need to be addressing these issues. We need to make sure that we get those loyal, hard-working volunteers committed to carrying on. But we can't do that unless we have a House sitting where we can raise these questions.

These are some of the questions I would like to have brought. I would also like to have brought questions of economics, questions about what's happening in the forest industry. There is a crisis in the coastal industry. The members opposite recognize that and have admitted to that. I would have liked to have been able to ask questions about what this means and how we can address it and to have got to ask questions about fibre supply, so that the mills in my community can maintain their operation.

I'd like to ask questions about the consolidation of industry. We have Western Forest Products, a very big company responsible for nearly all the Crown lands, the Crown TFLs in my community. I would have liked to ask the Minister of Forests and Range about that and what sort of precautions are there to make sure that that isn't exploited and what sort of assistance is going to be offered to other communities where they do not have access to the logs from Western.

But with this arrogance that this government has and with its lack of willingness to have questions asked of it, it has decided that it doesn't want to hear anything. I have not had the opportunity to ask that, but noting the hour, I do move that the House do now recess for a half-hour for dinner break.

C. Trevena: Before we recessed, I was talking about why I'm against this motion. I've talked about provincial issues that I think need to be addressed. I've also been talking about issues in my own constituency — social issues, issues of health care and the siting of the new regional hospital. I think this is really an issue that does need to be addressed by this House because of the financial investment, the likelihood of it being a public-private partnership, its location and the concerns in the community. I talked about issues of ambulance service, and I've talked about issues of poverty in my community, as well as homelessness and housing issues.

I've also just been discussing the issue that I would like to have raised about economic issues in my community and about the coastal forestry and problems that are there that I would like to have raised with the Minister of Forests and Range. Unfortunately, because we haven't had a session for the last two months and because we are being asked to adjourn this session, these last few days, three days early, and I think because of the arrogance of the government, I'm not going to have the opportunity, and my colleagues aren't going to have the opportunity to discuss this with the government.

I also have within my own constituency…. I do get the sense that this government is afraid of rural concerns, and it's something that I'd like to have addressed with them. One of the issues that is very important for my communities, as for others on this side of the House and, I believe, on that side of the House, and that would be very good to address — and I'm glad to see the Minister of Transportation is back in the House — is the issue of our….

Deputy Speaker: Member. Member, you cannot refer to members in the House — whether they're present or not.

The issue of ferries. We are a ferry-dependent island, obviously. We are an island. We depend on our ferries, and I represent islands that also depend on fer-

ries. Since the House wasn't sitting at a time when the House was supposed to be sitting, I would have had the opportunity to raise the issue of yet another increase in fares with the minister. I'm sure the minister would have said that it's not his responsibility, but it would have been an opportunity to raise the fact that we have seen an over 50-percent increase in some of our fares, so that some constituents in my communities are having to pay over $400 just to be able to get from Campbell River back to their communities.

I know that this is supposed to be a business-friendly government, but I'd have liked to have been able to raise the issue with the government about how business-friendly they are when we are having businesses being damaged because they cannot have their customers reach them, they cannot get the produce they need, and so on. Because of the way that the House has moved and the way that we have not had this session, I have not been able to have this opportunity and will not be able to have this opportunity, because of the fact that we have a motion that looks likely to be carried.

I'd also like to raise one last thing that did leave my phone ringing off the hook. Again, it's an issue that came when the House was not in session. It came during the summer, the issue of lodges in our parks. This is one that left my phone ringing off the hook, left my e-mail box full. I was hoping to be able to raise this with the Minister of Environment about what seems to be — we've been talking about arrogance — an arrogant move by the Minister of Environment. Because the House isn't sitting and because we are not having the opportunity in these last few days to continue, I can't raise the issues of my constituents, which is the issue of lodges in our parks.

Cape Scott is one of the provincial parks where lodges are likely to be built. I had hoped that there'd be more than a letter-writing campaign from my constituents on this issue and more than a letter-writing campaign on line, and that I'd be able to ask the Minister of Environment why this was going to go ahead and what the plans were. Again, the arrogance of this government means that we can't ask any questions.

I find it very frightening — the very cavalier attitude that the members opposite have shown. They've said that we were going to have a fixed session and then decided not to have it. They call us back for one item of business, which is extremely important but does not allow for other very important issues to be discussed. I fear that this arrogance is going to continue.

But let me say that I, as a member of this Legislative Assembly, along with my colleagues, will continue questioning this government, whether or not we are in the House. We would hope to be in the House to carry on the people's business, but we will carry on asking questions, and we'll carry on demanding that the people's business be done.

G. Robertson: It's my great privilege to rise and speak against the motion to adjourn this House. It's with great regret that I see only three days left on the set legislative calendar after having only been here for three days. To hear the government attempt to adjourn the House with this motion, in my opinion, is highly, highly arrogant. For them to have the audacity to shut down the people's House before this sitting is through, when we haven't even had a chance to get into the issues at hand, is very troubling. This is something that I've heard repeatedly for the last two months from my constituents in Vancouver-Fairview. This is something I've heard as I've travelled around the province as the critic for Small Business, Revenue and Deregulation.

It's a great concern to all of the people of British Columbia when their House is shut down, when their expectation is that we come here to do the people's business, to do business on behalf of the businesses of B.C., to build the future of B.C., to make law that makes sense, that creates a viable and positive future for our kids and our grandkids. There are a great number of issues that could have been brought forth over these last many weeks, and certainly, if this motion does not pass, we will have the opportunity to canvass those issues over the next several days.

I'll start with a really critical issue. I rose in the House last Thursday to bring up the issue of the dirty drinking water. Almost a million people in the lower mainland were having to boil or were having to buy water. People on Vancouver Island went through similar challenges. At one point we had half of the province with unsuitable drinking water due to the extreme weather, brought on by the big storm that hit the province November 14, 15 and 16. Clearly, we were not prepared in the least for that kind of weather and that kind of disruption to our fragile drinking water systems.

Ironically, we're here tonight in the Legislature with the temperature dropping rapidly. We're supposed to hit minus 7, minus 8 tonight, which is very unusual in the south coast of B.C. in November. Again, I don't know how many more extreme weather events we need in rapid succession for us to take the issue of global warming seriously in the B.C. Legislature. B.C.'s government right now is a laggard on global warming, on addressing global warming, both adaptation and mitigating the onset of global warming.

Had we been sitting these last many weeks…. Along with many governments around the world, along with countless academics and economists working on the issue of global warming — climate change, the impacts, the accelerated impacts that are being felt around the world right now…. It has arisen now as the primary challenge of our time and the foremost formidable challenge for our children and grandchildren to have anything like the kind of world that those of us here have had the privilege of living in.

It's very, very disturbing when this government pursues an agenda to accelerate global warming, to accelerate the impact on our communities and to degrade the environment that our kids and grandkids are going to depend on. When this government moves forward, recommending coal-fired power plants, when

the Premier from the People's Republic of China announces that offshore oil and gas will proceed in the next two or three years…. That debate hasn't happened in this House. We could start in on that debate over the next couple of days here; get a start on it. Let's talk about it here. That's what we're here to do.

I don't believe there's been anywhere near the kind of consultation that the New Relationship calls for with first nations on the coast of B.C. to make oil and gas development offshore a reality. I don't think the communities on the coast of B.C. have seen that kind of consultation. Certainly, we have not had the opportunity to debate the merits, the challenges and the impacts that oil and gas development offshore will have on our climate, on our fresh water, on our marine ecosystems, on our salmon runs.

Those are debates that could all happen over these next couple of days. They could start up. Certainly, we could have been into them over these last number of weeks and, really, be asking that question.

Is now the time to be accelerating the development of fossil fuels in B.C., when thousands upon thousands of credible scientists with peer-reviewed science, Nobel laureates, have come forward and said: "Whoa, we need to slow this ship down"? They have raised the alarm repeatedly for a decade now, and many governments around the world….

Even the government next door to us to the south — in the United States, in Senate Committee meetings — is taking the issue seriously. With the change in the Senate and the House in the United States, we see a government coming to grips with the policies they've had, particularly on fossil fuel development and energy policy over the last five years, which they now acknowledge have been wrong-headed and have done more to radically accelerate climate change on this planet than anyone would have guessed.

This government has no targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. That would have been a fantastic subject to tackle. I wonder how the grandchildren of the members opposite will look back at us here in November 2006, after massive flooding and drinking water disruption and after the biggest cold snap for a November. And we have no targets for reducing our greenhouse gas emissions to mitigate the impacts of climate change.

Is this government intending to just let it ride? "Let's go through all this oil and gas and coal, coalbed methane. Let's pump it. Let's crank it. Let's sell it at a discount. How about that? Let's sell it as far as we possibly can. That's economic development. Forget the future generations. They can figure it out when they get here. They can sort out the mess that we leave behind."

Maybe we should be having that debate in this House this week, before we go off on holidays. Maybe we should have had that debate over the last couple of months instead of being kept away from the House, because talking about global warming and climate change and the relationship of energy policy to it…. That's busywork.

That's an abrogation of democracy — to keep this House empty when there are issues of that import that need to be addressed and when it's our responsibility, both to the people who elected us and to the people who follow us living in this province…. We owe it to them. We are responsible to them to address these issues in a meaningful way.

I harken back to my last estimates debates in the spring with the Energy Minister. It would have been great to have followed up on the questions that I had for him this fall. We could still do so in the next few days, on the energy plan and the update to the energy plan. The fact that the public, the citizens of British Columbia, have no opportunity to have input into the updated energy plan….

It's as if the opinions of the people from the Peace country to here on southern Vancouver Island, from the Kootenays to Haida Gwaii, don't have an opinion, don't have any expertise and don't have the right to have input on their energy future. Again, that relates directly to what will happen here to our climate and to what will happen here to our water, to our farmland and to our forests.

Despite farmers and fishers, despite those who work in the woods and the forest industry and those who work right now making sure that drinking water gets to everyone in B.C., raising the alarm that things are changing way faster than anyone would have anticipated, that what's happening in our oceans, along our coasts and in our forests — from mountain pine beetle to many other infestations that are taking hold, to the loss of the western red cedar on the south coast of B.C., to the appearance of southern species in the north of B.C…. When those alarm bells are ringing, we have an obligation to be in this House debating the reality that this province is facing.

But no, this is government by whim and fancy. This is a government that decides, "Well, there are other things we could do. We could go out and set up a conversation on health," rather than having a debate on health.

We had a robust question period today, questioning the direction in our health care system, questioning the privatization that this government blithely accepts. We could be having that debate over these next couple of days. We could be addressing the False Creek clinic, the surgical centre that is in my riding of Vancouver-Fairview, which is a hotbed of health care in B.C.

All kinds of issues come up every day. I hear about them in my constituency office, whether it's emergency room conditions at VGH…. There the emergency room physicians, earlier this year, actually had the courage to step up and make a strong statement about the conditions that had deteriorated. What I heard last week from physicians in the emergency room of Vancouver General Hospital is that it's even worse. It has gotten worse.

We could be debating that. We could be talking about what should be done. Apparently that is not a priority or an option for this government.

Well, I'll just bring up another issue that surprises me from a government that has claimed, over time, to be a friend of business, a pro-business government. What a message this government sends to business in B.C. when they fail to show up, when we have the fewest number of sitting days in a year, average, in the modern history of B.C.

Imagine if staff at a successful business decided: "You know what? We're going to go for the fewest days of work this year, and let's see how we do on the bottom line." Imagine if the board of a successful resource company in B.C. said: "You know, let's do the fewest days of harvest this year and see how we do on our bottom line." Imagine if any enterprise tried to minimize the amount of effort that they put in.

We wouldn't see too many successful businesses. We wouldn't see the kind of thriving entrepreneurship that we have here in B.C. because of the spirit, the talent, the creativity, the tenacity and the hard-working attitude that British Columbians have. That's why we have successful businesses. We have businesses that are willing to go all out all the time. That's what makes us competitive.

This government sends a pretty clear message about productivity and competitiveness to all the businesses that operate here in the province. That message is crystal-clear. "We don't have to work hard. We don't have to tackle the issues. We don't have to listen to the 42 percent of people that were elected to serve communities around the province, to see what their input is. We don't have to be challenged by that. We can kick back."

Well, interestingly enough, the government rests on its laurels with business. The round table that this government sent out, the round table on small business, was out around the province, and there was a very interesting finding from that round table, specifically about deregulation and the reams of red tape that were cut by this government. It was very, very peculiar to note that 85 percent of those small businesses that came forward in the round table said: "You know what? We didn't notice. That deregulation didn't help us." How many years have we been hearing that 25, 30, 35 — is it even 40? — percent of the red tape was cut in this province?

How could it be that that much deregulation can take place and 85 percent of small businesses feel no change, no positive impact? How could this be? Could it be that all that rhetoric, all that sneaky deregulation, doesn't even show up on the ledgers of our small businesses? It defies the imagination that so much could be done and 85 percent don't even notice.

It's interesting that we still have yet to have a substantive debate on the skills shortage in B.C. We have three days here, the last three days in 2006, in which we could talk about the impact of the skills shortage on the small businesses of B.C., never mind the big businesses. Let's talk about four years ago and the cuts that this government made to apprenticeship and training, the increases this government presided over on tuition, the end of the grants program.

Let's look at the impacts of this government's policies on post-secondary education and training and see…. Well, maybe if we absolutely devastate post-secondary education and training programs and support for students and encouraging the people of this province to get more education and training and pursue the career of their dreams…. If we hack that to bits, do you think it'll have any impact on businesses of B.C., particularly the small businesses that can't recruit from outside of B.C. or overseas?

It amazes me that this government, so-called friendly to business, proceeded on that course, and it doesn't surprise me in the least that our small businesses are in dire straits because of the skills shortage that this government has exacerbated for its five and a half years. It doesn't surprise me when the round table for small business goes out around the province and hears all they hear, repeatedly, from small businesses around the province. "We can't find the people. Where are the people? People don't have enough training. People don't have enough education to take these jobs. Our communities don't have the bodies."

It should come as no surprise to this government. They've been on a tear. We could spend the next few days debating how we put that back together best, how we serve the small and big businesses of this province with a robust post-secondary education and training program, a system that actually feeds our businesses and makes sure that there isn't an ongoing shortage. We're in big trouble on this front, and I hear repeatedly from the business community that this government doesn't want to talk about it. We're not going to talk about it, apparently, over these next three days if they pass this motion to adjourn.

So much for friendly to business. So much for supporting the businesses and rural communities adjacent to the B.C. parks where this government is pursuing, I guess you'd describe it as, an insider deal for lodges and resorts. What about the businesses in those communities that have existing business, established, servicing those parks? Do you think they have any issues around unfair competition? Do you think they have any issues around actually being consulted? Do you think they'd like to be involved in the process before the requests for proposals are going out and proponents' meetings?

Well, we could talk about this over the next several days. Most of those meetings have been cancelled. Most of the business people in those communities don't want to see the business they already have jeopardized. They aren't interested in supporting a process this government is foisting on them to privatize the parks on the inside rather than supporting the businesses and communities that make a difference on the outside of the parks and making sure that people have good access to our parks. There is a lot more this government could be doing to promote, to service, to improve access for citizens of B.C. into our parks. Apparently, that's not worth talking about either. It's status quo for limiting the access to the parks, and it's a whole new agenda for privatizing and

Speaking of friends of the government, we should be talking about the softwood deal — the softwood sellout. I've heard from all kinds of businesses around this province — value-added business, lumber remanufacturers — that are in serious trouble because of the softwood deal. This government…. They're for it; they're against it; now they're for it again. Now: "We'll never let it go up." Now: "We're for it. It's a good deal for B.C."

It's not a good deal for the thousands of people who work adding value to the beautiful wood that comes out of our forests. Apparently, rather than debate that, rather than bring that into the Legislature to decide what is right…. Is the softwood deal a good deal? Rather than talking to the people who work in remanufacturing and value-added, let's just bully ahead with it, shall we? Let's just get 'er done. That's the attitude.

Let's increase raw log exports, too, while we're at it. Let's just fire them on out of here. There are lots of people that can make use of these. Besides, we need to cut those trees. They're dying faster than we can cut them.

That harkens back to that whole question about global warming. Why should we do anything about global warming? Global warming is making sure we can liquidate our forests faster than you can say child care.

Child care — how does that fit in this equation? Child care and small business. Do you think it's easy to start a business when you have little kids? Do you think it's a real bonus for an entrepreneur to have toddlers while they figure out how to launch a business, raise capital, hire people, sell their products, create jobs? Do you think it helps job creation to make sure that those entrepreneurs have to spend a good chunk of their waking hours looking after their kids too?

Well, some of us entrepreneurs were lucky. We had the opportunity to start businesses and create jobs and work our tails off because we had families who backed us up and could help raise the kids. We had extended communities that could do that. But there are a lot of entrepreneurs that don't have that luck, don't have that support.

When this government backs away from child care and doesn't stand up for all the people who fought for child care in this province, this government not only does the people and the kids of B.C. a disservice. It's a direct hit on small business in particular, where those people don't have the options. It just slows it all down. It slows down economic development, and I thought that's what this government was all about — good for business, good for economic development.

I've just skimmed the surface of the hypocrisy of this government saying that it's good for business. The kind of business this government is good for is a very narrow band. It's a very narrow band. It's a dinosaur economy.

It's a government that doesn't realize that the world is changing very, very quickly. They're doing nothing to adapt to this. We could spend the next three days, and we would just barely be able to address the myriad issues related to change in our economy — the necessity for this government to take action and make fundamental changes on economic development and tax policy, to make critical changes to ensure that B.C. remains competitive and productive and actually leads the new economy forward, leads the world in emerging technologies and innovation.

Rather than skimping and scraping and not investing where they're told, where they're given plenty of opportunity by some of the most brilliant people in B.C, from academic institutions to entrepreneurs…. There are all kinds of opportunities. We don't have the opportunity to even address those here if we adjourn. We're going to have to leave that till next year.

Maybe a few of those opportunities go south in the meantime, where governments are actually in hot pursuit of economic development that is knowledge-based, green, ecologically sensitive — to an economy that recognizes what natural capital is, what social capital is. Somehow, those concepts haven't quite taken root here. This government is sliding on down the line into irrelevance in terms of economic relevance.

There's got to be a balance of the resource economy and the knowledge-based economy here in B.C. That has to happen. It's bursting at the seams. If you go around the province right now, the kind of innovation that you see, the kind of genius that you see in this province should be supported in every which way.

It should be supported by government programs and policies rather than investing hundreds of millions of dollars in a non-renewable energy company for extraction, for maximizing, for accelerating the pace at which we liquidate our hard assets. Once they're gone, they're gone. That's it. Why would we accelerate the pace to get rid of assets that are increasingly valuable? Every day that goes by, every year that goes by, the value of natural gas, oil, methane and coal only increases. It gets more and more scarce on this planet.

We don't have the opportunity here, if we adjourn, to talk about the best way to do that. What programs should be in place? What should we be supporting? Where should the tax incentives be? How do they relate to the new economy and the knowledge-based economy? How does that balance with the resource economy? These are not questions that this government is allowing us to ask. These aren't answers, maybe, that the government wants to hear. They're not paying attention to this stuff. They're happy living in the past, and I suppose that at some point it'll catch up to them. Time waits for no one.

I would like to bring things back into my riding of Vancouver-Fairview, where, during the past couple of months with the House not sitting, there was some serious tragedy in a mental health facility called Hampton Court, very close to my home. This government was not sitting. I did not have the opportunity to raise the issue here in the House with the Minister of Health. I would still like to raise questions with the Minister of

The opposition asked questions last spring about the future of Hampton Court and the reasons for closing down the facility. We did not get satisfactory answers. Since the government announced the closure in January of this year, three of the 16 residents have died, tragically. There are eight residents left at Hampton Court, wondering what their future holds.

They have a stay at this point. They're allowed to stay in the home through Christmas and New Year's, thankfully. But I beseech this government and this Health Minister to stand up for the people in Hampton Court, for the people in this province who face the day-to-day realities of mental illnesses and the challenges of that, the people that live on the streets of Vancouver and Victoria and many of the cities and towns around the province.

Whether they have multiple barriers or just have had a tough time in life, this government is not responsive; it does not care. They have the audacity to not sit this fall, to keep us out of here so that we can't ask the hard questions, can't look at what can be done better and can't stand up for the rights of people with mental health issues. There is no advocate for those people in this province anymore. We're it, and you won't even let us come here.

If we pass this motion, we won't be here for the next several days to talk about these issues and stand up for people living on the streets, people faced with mental illnesses. This is an abrogation of democracy and an abrogation of the government's responsibility to the citizens of B.C. It has been very painful for all of us, particularly the people that live at Hampton Court and the staff who work with them, to go through this, to only have the media who showed up to pay attention, thankfully, and to bring the story forward. We didn't have the opportunity to bring it to the government, and that is atrocious.

L. Krog: I never rise in this chamber without a sense of humility, conscious of the history that brought us to this place, conscious of the honour and the privilege that is bestowed upon each and every member of this House to represent the constituents who send them here as their voice. This didn't happen overnight — this right to speak in a parliament. It occurred over a long period of history fraught with battle and blood and the fight of many peoples to secure the right to representative democracy.

The Anglo-Saxon kings who preceded William of Normandy, who conquered England in 1066, used to engage in a council, and they would only pass laws after they sought the advice of that council. When William of Normandy conquered England and killed Harold Hardrada in that great battle that every English schoolchild learns about, things changed. Even then, although William was an absolute monarch, he nevertheless would seek the advice of the council of his tenants-in-chief and ecclesiastic council before making laws.

Over time we know where that kind of absolute power led. It led to the barons of England running King John down at Runnymede on June 15, 1215, and forcing him to sign a charter. It wasn't the Magna Carta, the great charter. That comes a little later; some people aren't aware of that. After King John had signed it so reluctantly, he closed it with these wonderful words:

So what did good King John do? He appealed to Pope Innocent III, who — only a couple of months later, on August 24, 1215 — issued a papal bull annulling the charter, the first of the charters that we recognize.

The history of this place relates back to those very events. In 1225 what we think of now as the great charter, the Magna Carta, was signed, and between that time and 1416 no less than 55 times was that recognized by the predecessor concept of what we call a parliament. It set out royal obligations, and it also set in place what this place must respect above all other things, and that is the rule of law.

In 1265 Simon de Montfort, the sixth Earl of Leicester, in rebellion against Henry III, summoned the first elected parliament without any royal authorization. That was a gutsy guy. By the time of Edward III, parliament indeed had two houses: one, the nobility and higher clergy; the other, the knights and the burgesses. The common people weren't quite there yet. That took a long period of time.

The power of the monarch really settled into its prime piece under Henry VIII. That was the peak of the power of monarchs in Britain. Of course, it was downhill from there for monarchy as we know it, and thank God for that. It led to a period where Charles I, rather unwisely opposing parliament, inspired a fellow called Cromwell and a great deal of other distressed English nobility and commoners. It led to his beheading.

Monarchy returned. The people weren't ready to give it up. Following the Restoration, they ran into another king. He was forced to abdicate politely — Charles II. After that, a Protestant was invited to occupy the throne. From there through our history — and it is our history because it is the history of this very place — the rights and powers of the people and the common people in particular have increased and increased and increased.

It was the basis of the parliament that first sat in this country, after the formation of this country, before

there was a province of British Columbia. And all of those procedures and rules and changes occurred in order to expand the power of the people.

The Minister of Education said earlier today: "A tutorial is necessary for that member opposite." We listen at great length to the Minister of Health whenever he is asked a question. He wants to talk about history too. He wants to talk about the '90s. He never stops talking about the '90s. Why does he want to talk about the '90s? It's because he doesn't want to deal with the present. Because where are we in the present?

The history of this place and this province was not a pleasant one in many respects. It wasn't until 1972 that the words of the members of this House were recorded in a Hansard. It wasn't until 1972 that this place had a question period — the right of the opposition to question the executive council on any issue that the people thought fit.

This government, and I give them full credit, brought in a system of a fixed legislative session. Now, why was that? It's because they wanted to take into account the concerns of the families of the members who sit here. It would give the opportunity for people to know how long a session would last. It was a civilized reform. They managed that reform through a previous opposition when the members opposite on this side consisted of two lonely, energetic, hardworking members. It was good enough for the previous Legislature.

Here we are today in 2006, five years into this government's term. The opportunity for the people of this province to question the executive council and the members on the government side of this House has been taken away with an arrogance that is so unbecoming I can barely restrain my language. This is a government that has gone from election to arrogance without a comparable period of humility in between.

Tonight in my constituency, while dozens of my constituents sleep on the streets of Nanaimo, there will be nothing said of substance in this House about those people. It is absolutely shameful that this government in this place, in this time, after bringing in a fixed parliamentary session, should turn to the people of British Columbia and say: "There'll be no fall session, because it's busywork."

This is a government that does not want to operate within the bounds of democracy. There's an agreement signed between the province of Alberta and the province of British Columbia, negotiated in secret. It's called TILMA, the Alberta–British Columbia Trade, Investment and Labour Mobility Agreement, which many of my constituents believe will have a serious impact on environmental and labour standards in both provinces. It is the rush down to the lowest common denominator. We won't have a chance to discuss that here tonight or over the next three days, because this government wants to shut down probably the shortest legislative session in the history of British Columbia.

You know, the way politics works in this province is kind of like kids with a toybox. You've got this classroom, and the government is the kid with all the toys. The rest of us on the opposite side — occasionally they let us play with a few toys.

They demonstrate their maturity, sensitivity and compassion by allowing us a few things: the right to question cabinet ministers, the right to speak, the right to bring motions — all of those things. That's an opportunity given to us.

Tonight, as we approach the Christmas season, what the government has said is: "You're not playing in our toybox. We don't want to give you that opportunity. We don't think you deserve it. We don't think the problems of the people of British Columbia are worthy of legislative debate. We don't think the problems facing the people sleeping in the streets of Nanaimo, Ladysmith, Vancouver and Victoria tonight are worthy of legislative debate."

We have so many issues to discuss in this House — so many issues. I have listened with incredible pride to the comments of my fellow members on this side of the House, on the opposition side, who tonight have spoken about all kinds of issues that they would love to debate.

Let's talk about child poverty, as an example. You know, when the statistics first came out about one in four children in British Columbia living in poverty, the government's response to the minister responsible was: "Pooh-pooh. Well, that's an old statistic." Now the most recent statistics that have come out say that 23.5 percent of children in British Columbia are raised below the poverty line, which as the member for Vancouver-Quilchena said earlier — I believe it's Quilchena; I could be wrong — means that there are one in four families living in poverty. We'd like to talk about that on this side of the House, but we're not going to get that opportunity.

Homelessness. Senior citizens make up the fastest-rising homeless demographic in the province today. But what do we know? This government, this Liberal government, spends roughly the same amount of money on a webpage advertising campaign to promote work-life balance as they do for low-income housing.

What have we arrived at in this province? Is this the stage of democracy that throughout history we've worked to achieve? Is this the reason King John was run down at Runnymede by the barons: to arrive at a state where this province is enjoying the richest budgetary surpluses in its history and we're spending more on advertising telling people to live well than helping them to actually survive?

There are lots of things we could have spoken about in this session. We could have talked about Grant's law, to restrict sole workers at night and have better protection for employees at gas stations. Do we say to his family that what is important, a law that might have prevented the loss of their son's life, is not worthy of debate?

We could have said to the parents of this province…. Instead of saying through an advertising campaign, "Talk to your kids. Tell them to stay off crystal meth," we could have actually passed legislation to

limit the ability to buy the ingredients for what this government tells us is a terrible curse on our children, but we're not going to debate that either.

We could have dealt with legislation surrounding the payday loan industry. I don't think there is one member of this House who goes to an operation like that. We're all relatively well-paid. Statistically speaking, we are members of the elite in this province. But for those people earning six bucks an hour, or eight bucks an hour — if they've managed that onerous training period prescribed by government legislation in this province — those people do get forced to go to payday loan operations. Those are the people who pay the onerous interest rates. Those are the people who suffer. But this government doesn't care enough to call this House back to deal with a private member's bill that would address that very issue.

We could have worked on legislation to deal with the criminal-record checks for people working with children. It's a pretty non-partisan thing to do — isn't it? We could have done something as basic as bring legislation before this House for debate, or even a motion, surrounding the home inspection industry.

Here we are in the midst of a real estate boom. There are thousands of homes changing hands in British Columbia every month, with the government reaping the reward of the sales tax on homes but not willing to recognize an industry and provide standards for it. When people for a couple of hundred bucks are making what for most of us is the single biggest investment of our lives and relying on the advice of those people, there are no industry standards. It is shocking, hon. Speaker.

But I want to talk about something that is closer to home for me and my constituency. I want to talk about the fact that in the numerous liquor establishments that have now become so common throughout this province under our so-called liberalized — and I use that word advisedly — liquor laws, the people who are hired as bouncers have no training. There are no standards. So the biggest, burliest, ugliest, dumbest, meanest ex-criminal can get hired in an establishment in this province and act as a bouncer. It's a pretty shocking circumstance. I'm reluctant to say more, because that issue is of importance in my community. There is a case before the courts now where, maybe, if that kind of regulation had existed, there would be a family on Gabriola Island who'd have a son there to celebrate Christmas with them.

Nanaimo enjoys the benefit of two ferry terminals — three, actually, if you include Duke Point out in Cedar — Departure Bay and the Gabriola ferry. My constituents are concerned about ferry rates.

Dozens of my constituents have just been ripped off in an investor fraud scheme. They would have liked me to have an opportunity to question the Attorney General about the lack of regulation. I have dozens and dozens of constituents who have no access to legal services, who require legal services, but that's not going to be addressed in this session, because we're not going have to have a session.

I'm conscious of the fact, and I say this with a tremendous sense of resignation, that there are 33 of us in opposition. The government has the majority. We will fight this motion. We will speak against it — all of us on this side of the House. We will raise our issues, but at the end of the day or the close of the night the government will win. The doors to this place, which they happily open to welcome a sports trophy, will be closed to all of those British Columbians who are sleeping in the streets tonight, who don't have enough money to raise their families with, who can't get in to a doctor and who are being asked to pay extra money to acquire reasonable health services that should be provided under the medical care this province is so proud of.

We could have talked about a clinic in Vancouver that's going to charge patients $1,300 to jump the queue, but the doors to this place are closed to those people. The doors to this place are closed. "Come back in the springtime."

What's even more shocking is the contempt that this government shows for this House. The Premier of this province announces he's going to increase the housing portion for people on social assistance. Does he announce it in the Legislature? Does he announce it here to the people of British Columbia, to the elected representatives of the people of British Columbia? No. He announces it in a forum where it does him some political good.

The real arrogance of it is that as we sit here all warm and toasty tonight in this place, there are thousands of our fellow citizens on the streets of British Columbia wondering if they're going to survive the night, knowing full well that when that paltry housing allowance increase is brought in, the landlords of this province are simply going to do what they've always done whenever the rates are increased. They're going to bump up the rent. This isn't about helping poor people, and we will have no opportunity to debate that this fall either.

As I said when I commenced tonight, I never rise in this House without a sense of humility. But I must say tonight the feeling of disgust I have in my heart for this government, for all of the things that it will fail to address by cancelling the fall session and by limiting the debate, is something I haven't felt in a very long time. I say shame on this government, shame on this Premier, shame on the executive council for sitting there opposite and lecturing the opposition about history when the history of this period is written. When history looks back and looks at these huge budgetary surpluses and looks at how we treated the poorest and weakest amongst us — those without voice — I'm just glad that I'm on this side of the House at this time instead of on that side of the House, because I wouldn't want history's judgment visited on me.

In the introduction to a wonderful book called The Story of Parliament there is a quote by the Rt. Hon. Baroness Boothroyd. She was the Speaker of the Mother of all Parliaments for eight years, and this is what she

said: "The function of Parliament is to hold the executive to account. That is the role for which history has cast the Commons. It is the core task of members. It is in Parliament in the first instance that ministers must explain and justify their policies. This is the chief forum of the nation today, tomorrow and, I hope, forever."

Clearly, this government does not believe this is the chief forum. This government believes the chief forum is cabinet. This government believes in secrecy. This government's arrogance has been demonstrated time and time again. The epitome of that arrogance is the fact that this place will be shut in a matter of hours, notwithstanding all the pressing problems that have been raised so ably by my fellow members on this side of the House. This place will shut, and we will not see its doors open until the spring. It is shameful. The members opposite should be ashamed, the Premier should be ashamed and the people of British Columbia should be ashamed for having given power to this government that would act in this way, notwithstanding a reform that was brought in with a fixed sitting schedule.

I say it is time for them to consider their position, consider the judgment of history in this place and reconsider what they wish to do by shutting down the opportunity for those of us elected to speak for the people of British Columbia — to speak on their behalf in this place — which is the result of hundreds of years of history.

J. Brar: The people of Surrey–Panorama Ridge elected me not for sitting in my office and attending ribbon-cutting ceremonies. The people of Surrey–Panorama Ridge elected me to stand up for them in this House and debate their issues. They elected me to ask tough questions on issues important to them. They elected me to hold this government to account. Therefore, I join the member of this side of the House to oppose this motion in front of this House.

Last Saturday I woke up at about five o'clock. When I looked out the window of my house, I saw a heavy snowfall. At five o'clock I went out and drove to the Front Room. The Front Room is a place where homeless people come just to stay for the night. I saw over 60 people sitting in that room on chairs just to spend the night. There were more people outside that room who had no place to even go in and sit on a chair that night.

This government is saying that there's no issue to debate; there's no issue to talk about. There are issues in the province.

The homelessness since this government took over has become a huge provincewide problem. As we know as per the last count, the number of homeless people in British Columbia has doubled, and in Surrey the number has gone up 140 percent.

I met the officials of the Surrey food bank. They told me they serve about 40,000 people every month, and 40 percent of those people are families with children. That's the situation out there, and this government is saying that they are not prepared to debate those issues.

Basically, this government is saying they don't care about the issues, about the most vulnerable people of the province — the poor, the children and the seniors.

The Premier had the courage to stand up at the UBCM convention and make a statement that the shelter allowance in fact is low and that something needs to be done. But the Premier is not in this House to debate this very important, timely, sensitive issue that we need to be talking about during the next three days to support those people who have no place to sleep.

The issue of income assistance is also very important. What we have been hearing from people across the province is that the rates for income assistance at this point in time are very, very low. They're not even close to what people need. One single person on income assistance gets only $6 per day. I want to know from any member of the other side of the House if they can survive for one single day on $6 per day. I need to know that answer. The answer will be no.

I met a single mother just two days ago. This mother is very talented, very pleasant, and has lots of skills and has one son who has a cancer. What she told me is that all the money she gets on income assistance goes for rent. She has nothing for food. That's the situation out there with not one family but thousands of families in the province. She has to go and beg for food from different places.

That's the situation. That's the issue we should be talking about. There are a lot of people out there who expect us, all the elected officials of this province, to talk about those issues and find creative ways to deal with those issues as quickly as possible.

Even during the UBCM, the mayor of Kelowna and the mayor of this city, Victoria, had the courage to stand up in a church that is just walking distance from this place and ask the provincial government to take action on income assistance, to take action to address the issue of homelessness. The government, which is actually responsible to deal with those issues, is shutting down this House and is not prepared to discuss and debate those issues.

What it means, basically, is that this government does not care about the poor people. This government does not care about the most vulnerable people in the province.

Just last week I visited a church in the riding of Surrey-Cloverdale. We have a member here who comes from that riding. That is a church where they provide a soup kitchen to people who can't afford food. What I've been told is that in that particular church, there are a number of people who come to that church as single mothers and people who are on income assistance. They don't have enough money to buy food. So that is happening in that riding. I wish the member from that riding would stand up in this House and speak for those people, rather than saying that we don't

have any issue and we need to shut down this House. That is a shame, Madam Speaker.

This government made significant legislative changes in 2001, particularly to save money on the backs of the most poor people in the province. What they did is change the rules of income assistance to make it tough, basically, for those people to access income assistance. One of the rules they made is that people can get only two years out of five years. I have a number of people who have become homeless because they have reached their time limit.

They also made the rule that they have to meet a two-year independence test before they go on income assistance. There are many young people in foster care homes who are not able to meet the test, and they are out there on the street and becoming homeless.

Surprisingly, this government supports people to go to work and find work. One of the rewards for that which was there already to assist those people was the earning exemptions, which were available to the people of British Columbia on income assistance. This government under that legislation even took that away from the people, which in my opinion is the key incentive for the people on income assistance to move to the next level, find a part-time job, start earning some money and then move on to full-time jobs. That is a shame on this government.

We need to be debating those issues. Again, by shutting down this House, this government is sending a clear message out there that they don't care about the most vulnerable people in British Columbia.

The other issue during the last month, a very important issue which we have been talking about, is the job placement program issue. Now, the job placement program was designed to assist people on income assistance to find meaningful jobs. That program has been going on for the last almost five years, and hundreds of millions of dollars have gone to, particularly, two Liberal-friendly firms under this program. It was very surprising and shocking for me to find out that this government paid $19 million just to close that program and hand over the same program to the same organizations the next day. In other words, they paid $19 million severance pay to those big companies that they have very good connections with.

We have been asking questions to the minister responsible, the Minister of Employment and Income Assistance, and the minister has absolutely refused to answer any questions. The people of British Columbia want answers. The opposition on this side wants answers, but the minister is refusing to answer. This is the only place we can ask those tough questions, and the government is shutting down this House basically to avoid all the questions opposition has to ask the minister and the other ministers as well.

There were two brave women who came forward. Let me tell you their story, Madam Speaker. One of them is a teacher who found a job herself. She was asked by one of the companies to sign a document which states that actually, the company found the job for her. If she signs that document, the company will get $4,300 as a bonus because they, in their turn, were helpful in finding a job for her.

That lady refused to sign the document. She was so courageous that she came out and spoke to the people of British Columbia about the situation, but the minister is silent about that. He is not providing any answer to the people of British Columbia.

Another young lady who came forward found a job herself, as well, but she was asked to sign the document. She was offered $100 to sign the document, which she signed. She got $100, and these companies got thousands of dollars because of that for the job they never did.

That's the program, and we have been asking questions and questions, and the media has been asking questions and questions. The only response we got from the minister is shutting the door when the media approached the minister. Those are the questions we want to ask the government, the Minister of Employment and Income Assistance. He needs to provide the answer to the people of British Columbia whether he has any respect for the money, the taxpayer dollars, the people of British Columbia or not. He is again hiding somewhere and not providing the answer to the people of British Columbia.

There are issues in my own riding we want to debate in this House, which are time-sensitive, important, urgent issues. The issue of Surrey Memorial Hospital we all know about. This government, during the middle of the election, came out and made the announcement that they were going to fast-track the study so that they could take quick action. That was the announcement the Premier of this province made during the middle of the election standing in the middle of the city of Surrey and showing his commitment.

After the election, the response was total inaction. They did fund a report to find out what needs to be done. The report was done, and recommendations were made. According to those recommendations, the construction of the ambulatory care centre was to start in the year 2007.

It was shocking for me, it was shocking for all the people of Surrey–Panorama Ridge and it was shocking for the people of Surrey that the Premier went from here to Surrey to announce that the construction of that project was being postponed for one year. We need answers to those questions as well as to why the people of Surrey are being ignored by this government time and again.

Now there's a new development. A private clinic, a private hospital, is coming up in Surrey. The private people are acting on it, but this government is sleeping on the issue when we know that Surrey Memorial Hospital, particularly the emergency room, is serving over capacity — 60 percent over capacity than the number of patients it can serve.

Just a few months ago I had my own experience. I took my mother, who is 86, to the hospital. I was sitting in the emergency for six hours. After six hours my mother told me: "I cannot sit any longer." So we had to come back without seeing any doctor.

This government and the members sitting on the other side of the House who also come from Surrey are saying that that issue is not important, that we don't need to debate that issue. Those are the issues we need to be debating in this House. That's why we need to continue until the term of this session, which is four more days.

Youth violence is another issue which is very important to the people of Surrey and the people of British Columbia. By the way, the government organized the provincial public safety congress about a year and a half ago. In that congress for half of the day, the debate was about the youth gangs. That is the size of the issue we're talking about.

Just two days ago the committee working on that issue, having reviewed all the reports, put together one report. I was present, and the hon. Attorney General was present at that meeting as well. They have made final recommendations to act on.

We need to ask through debate what will the action be of this government to act on those recommendations from which the community has collectively come together finally. We don't know at this point in time what the action of the government will be. We need to ask those questions. That's why we need to continue in this House for the next four days.

Seniors safety is another issue. As you know, two seniors were killed at Bear Creek Park. Just a few days ago that case went to trial, and there was a decision made. Of course, the families and the whole community were certainly not satisfied with the decision.

We the opposition stood up and asked the Crown to appeal that decision. We also asked the Attorney General. We also asked the Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General to act in the same way so that those families can finally get the justice they need. The government has been silent on those issues.

Again, this is the place where we want to ask those questions. The government is not allowing us to ask those questions by shutting down the House.

Similarly, domestic violence has been a huge issue in the Indo-Canadian community. About a month ago, as you know, two young ladies were killed. The whole community came out, and they spoke out very honestly. They talked about the issues we face in the community, and they spoke out very clearly about what the challenges are in the community. I was shocked, again, when I heard the Attorney General of this province saying the only way we can solve this problem is that the victims have to become witnesses, and then the problem will be solved.

I want to tell the hon. Attorney General that without providing them the appropriate support, those women will never come out and become witnesses because that is the environment they live in. The Attorney General has been silent about that. We need to ask those questions. That's why we need to continue the proceedings of this House so that we can ask those questions.

The Patullo Bridge is another issue which is very important. As you know, over a dozen people have been killed on that bridge because of heavy traffic. In the last session the opposition has been demanding to put speed cameras on that. The response from the minister has been no.

However, after the opposition brought this issue to this House, the city of Surrey's council supported the idea. The RCMP and the people of Surrey supported the idea, but this government says no action is needed. We need some rationale on that. We need to ask those questions to this government, and that's why we need to continue the proceedings of this House.

This nation supports global activities to establish democracy on the other side of the globe. I wholeheartedly support that initiative of this nation because we believe in democracy, because we love democracy, because we teach democracy to our kids. But it is shocking for me that this government is not respecting the democracy of this House, which has been established by their own rules. That is shocking for me as well.

I would like to conclude by saying that shutting down this House is nothing more than complete arrogance. It is nothing more than that they are not willing to listen to the people of British Columbia. It is nothing more than that they don't care about the important issues the people of British Columbia are facing. It is nothing more than that they are not prepared to listen to the people of British Columbia.

This side of the House wants to continue talking about people's issues. I am totally surprised that no one from the other side stood up and said anything about the issues that people are facing in their communities. That is shocking. They have been elected by the people of British Columbia to bring the issues of people, to talk in this House, to find solutions and help people so that we can build this beautiful province of British Columbia.

G. Gentner: I rise to speak against the motion to adjourn this sitting of the Legislature. Madam Speaker, the motion to adjourn is one of shackling the very nature of our democracy, a system that, though not perfect, allows representatives of this province to assemble and debate and bring forward bills, motions, budgets, petitions, statements and, above all, question period for the opposition.

I begin by thinking about what's lacking here today. It is the bright young faces of the Pages. They go through a training at school. They look forward to coming here. It's a learning process.

I also miss the children from my constituency who visit us when we're in session. They come here to see hollow chambers, asking questions: "Well, what does the government do?"

I miss some of the lobby groups that come visit the Legislature to talk to members opposite and, of course, ourselves. They even go through, many times, having a mini-convention or a meeting here because we are here as well.

It does have a direct economic benefit to Victoria as well. There is a multiplier effect with our presence here. The whole purpose of creating a fall session was that during the busy summer season when the vacationers were here, the prices were quite prohibitive when we were hosting long summer sessions. The idea was to move it into the fall — save some costs. But at the same time, there was a culture here that people looked forward to.

This is a very arrogant government, a government that holds in contempt the values that we hold so dear. I also recently attended a school in Surrey to listen to a debating contest with all the grades 4, 5, 6 and 7, and it was quite remarkable to see them debate. It was quite impressive, the oratorical skills.

I did get a question from one child. She asked why it is that we're not here. I blustered and really couldn't explain it properly. There is a culture within our children, within ourselves. Throughout British Columbia there is an expectation that we should be here.

This heartless government believes that there were no reasons really to call the Legislature back except, of course, to finally appoint the long-overdue child and youth protection officer. There are many pertinent issues that really need addressing, but the government lacks the fortitude to see this. That is the question which the government has been unwilling to answer.

It is an interesting concept, providing you accept the notion that history is motionless and change in our society is negligible and, therefore, intervention is needless. This government is an experiment. In its zealous ideology, it cut social services, deregulated, restructured, privatized, and in the midst of this nearsighted agenda, it wilfully dismantled our child protection system.

All members were called back to the Legislature last week because the government had to fix the chaos the Premier and his government had created by shutting down the independent office of the children's commissioner in June of 2002 and, by fall of the same year, repealing the Children's Commission Act and the Child, Youth and Family Advocacy Act. The responsibility for child death reviews was handed over to the coroner's office. However, that office was cut by 15 percent.

We are here today — and we quite rightly assisted the government, who finally saw the error of its own dogma — in order to fix its laissez-faire framework for social structures. It is as though this government was stuck in some kind of time warp, somewhere in 19th century non-interference policy-making, in a policy that applauded the notion that victims, including helpless children, could fend for themselves and everything is best left alone.

I bring this to your attention because this overwhelming attitude is still the prevailing creed of the present Liberal government. The minimalist approach pervades every action — or, I should say, inaction of this government. The government must take its head out of the sand and look at the landscape before it, because change is inevitable.

Change. Some is good and some is bad, but the world, and even British Columbia, is witnessing changes every day. Some change is so severe that this government has no social right to turn its back on it because of a lacklustre method to address the severe implications, such as what we've seen with the Ministry of Children and Family Development.

The government's lax and nonsensical approach is that when you let the cattle guzzle enough oats, something will go through for the sparrows. We know this philosophical notion has failed — countlessly. Every time it has been tried, it has been a recipe for disaster and, I may add, a messy one at that.

Let's put it this way. The rise in population and global warming, the acceleration of technology, the concentration of wealth and power, are all linked, forcing harsh changes not only for British Columbia but the world itself. I ask you: what smug government thinks that it can simply turn its back on history and reality itself, and has the audacity to say that there is no need to assemble the people's representative because it's busywork?

Where is the government going? Does it really know? This government is rudderless. Why wouldn't the government call the Legislature back on October 2? The opposition was here. We were waiting.

Does this government truly believe that there were no pertinent issues before us to face? Or could it be that this government has lost the tenacity? Or perhaps it has lost its own purpose? The government has no proclivity to take the lead. This side of the House is most willing to take the lead to address the issues, needs and policies of British Columbians.

How much longer can the government go on without an effective strategic plan for the pine beetle epidemic? The most immediate danger posed by climate change is weather instability, causing uncertainty in my community and the province. Droughts, floods, and fires are rising in frequency and severity. In February of last year many coastal communities experienced a significant storm combining a one-metre storm surge with a high tide that caused widespread damage to low-lying residential and agricultural communities.

On March 2 the Delta mayor, Lois Jackson, wrote the Premier and federal Minister of Environment regarding the need for enhanced flood protection in order to protect her community. She responded again on May 4. Still no response. However, she did hear, ironically enough, from the federal Minister of Environment, who responded with the strategic infrastructure fund as a program Delta and the province may want to consider. Unfortunately, on July 11 the Solicitor General of British Columbia officially denied Delta any financial assistance.

Now, before the flood season on September 20, the mayor tried once again, only to hear after this year's recent storm on November 9 that the Solicitor General was willing to "continue to keep the issue of flood mitigation moving forward towards, some day, a viable solution."

Now, those are empty words — empty words and empty deeds, with no opportunity to raise such important issues with a compressed question period. We've only had three. The government is inconvenienced to have had to extend the session so the opposition could raise questions in order to make British Columbia a better place.

Why must British Columbians wait till next year for any shred of hope that the government has a strategic plan to address flooding in coastal communities? How many people must lose their homes and wade in water and muck before this provincial government opens the doors to these chambers so we can have an open discussion on these changes — changes that the government does not want to discuss, changes that have forced a boil-water order for more than half a million people for one week?

When will this brutal government begin to recognize the inconvenient truth of climate change? How much more damage to property and people's lives must be endured before this government will begin to act? What catastrophic event will it take to trigger the obvious — that this government has to take leadership and stop relying on a strategy of downloading responsibilities onto local communities and municipalities that can no long afford it?

Not in my wildest dreams did I think that the number-one issue walking into my constituency office would be that of maltreated Workers Compensation claimants. We have a crisis in this province, and this vindictive government has to become aware of the repercussions of changing the act, which it did four years back.

Many of my constituents are enduring severe hardship. Had the doors of these chambers been open when they were supposed to be, on November 2, the victims of this horrible legislation — their voices, letters and stories — could have been heard. Contrary to what many on the government side of the House believe, WorkSafe B.C. has been a complete sham. There's no strong insurance for the injured, and there was no attempt to open the chamber doors this fall.

Again, the number-one case that walks into my office is Workers Compensation. I'm talking about hard-working, honest and proud individuals who have had the misfortune to suffer a work-related injury or disease. These individuals, who have tried everything and have exhausted all appeals, are now coming to their MLA as a last resort.

I'm quite certain that many of these cases are a direct result of the change that occurred in 2002 under the Liberal government. Most of these changes were based on recommendations of the Alan Winter report on Workers Compensation legislation and policy, which was commissioned in September of 2001.

We have another dilemma that has to be dealt with now, a situation where the Premier must come out of the woodwork and face the music. We need a session to discuss the systematic destruction of our public health system. The Premier created his dog-and-pony show, or what the throne speech described as the government's Conversation on Health. But did anyone except the executive council know that it meant suspending the Legislature to do so? The government wants to forgo real conversation in this House regarding its agenda and to privatize our medical system.

It is outrageous for the Minister of Health to suggest that he only heard of a private emergency clinic last Thursday, November 23. He blames his former deputy minister for not briefing him on the opening of the for-profit emergency facility called the urgent care centre at False Creek.

The Health Ministry was informed of the intent last January, and it could easily be construed why this callous government was reluctant to bring the House back for a fall sitting. Clearly, it does not want to talk about its agenda of credit card and cash register emergency rooms. It is simply unconscionable.

I bring this to our attention because this devious and sleazy government will tolerate more private emergency clinics, including Surrey Memorial Hospital. My constituents use Surrey Memorial Hospital.

Hon. T. Christensen: Point of order. The members on this side…. We're big boys and girls, and we can stand here and listen to the member. But there are rules around parliamentary language. The member is pushing the limits at best. I would certainly ask that the member withdraw his most recent remark in terms of the motives of the government. We all in this House come here with the best of motives in terms of serving our constituents. It is certainly unparliamentary, I would suggest, for the member to suggest otherwise.

Deputy Speaker: Member, I find the language unparliamentary. Would you like to withdraw it?

G. Gentner: Madam Speaker, I do so, with apologies to the offended member across.

G. Gentner: My constituents use Surrey Memorial Hospital. My neighbours are working people who already have unbearable waiting times, only to discover that the Liberal government's proposed two-tier health system will force those who cannot afford the front line to endure even longer waits in the public system. We know why the emergency expansion has been delayed for British Columbia's fastest-growing area. It is because of an agenda to enter into a P3 approach with a

My constituents say no. My constituents work very hard. They raise families. They spend time and money to bring up children, and they participate in their community. After a full day's work and financing a life within an ever-increasing suburban environment within one of the more expensive areas to live in North America, they find a way of getting by, paying taxes and increased utility bills. Those taxes are paid, expecting that health services will be delivered. They cannot afford much more.

Working people cannot continue to carry the weight of more incompetence caused by cuts to our number-one priority called public health care. It is time we acknowledged our hard-working citizens and stopped this extra tax called user fees and privatized health care. We have seen the British experiment into the market-style medical service. The government there has realized its own failures. The National Health Service suffered from decades of underfunding that began during the strangulation by deep cuts imposed by then Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. Critics were able to point to long wait-lists and aging hospitals.

The need there — and same with here as well — is for an increase in funding for front-line care. In Britain we've seen the establishment of private independent-sector treatment centres that cost 40 percent more than the public National Health Service. The private clinic cherry-picks the contracted government income-assistance patients that are the simple cases. They pass on the complicated and follow-up patients to the public service plan. After visiting Europe, the Premier has adopted the myth behind the European model.

In my community, Gateway is another reason we should be here. Gateway South Fraser perimeter road is a major focus point because it runs right through my constituency and because the outcomes will greatly change North Delta. The government doesn't see it that way, of course. It has blinders on. It is fixed on its position. It will not consider all viable options before it.

The assembly needs an open debate regarding what exactly the Premier has in mind for Delta, the Fraser Valley and beyond, throughout the province. He has just returned from the Orient, and his vision of globalization means building asphalt to accommodate the convoy of container trucks rolling off Deltaport. We need a larger discussion to explore what he has in store, what this thoughtless Liberal government is possibly headed towards.

Another reason why we should meet here for most of the session is not for busywork but for an opportunity to discuss what the Ministry of Transportation has in mind for my community. The government has a plan to spend $1 billion in infrastructure improvements, while the federal government is considering consolidating ports on the lower mainland — the eventual merging of the Vancouver Port Authority with that of the Fraser Port Authority, amalgamation that will move regional trucking not on the proposed South Fraser perimeter road that this government is going to be spending so much money on, per se, but along the Fraser River as its future highway.

True enough, national continental movements will be using Prince Rupert and the Vancouver Port Authority. This means improved rail capacity will pour concrete from Deltaport to Hope. This is not to suggest that there is a need for sustainable highway improvements. Without discussing the implications of what is proposed in this House, with all options available, the government plan is indeed shortsighted.

It is also what the outcomes of South Fraser perimeter road will do to our farmland. We'd like to discuss the 83 hectares or more that will be compromised and will be removed from the agricultural land reserve as a result of this proposal. This is heady stuff. This is the beginning of the end of a fragmented agricultural land base in Delta, and there has been no discussion of any compensation levels, any replacement, a two-for-one. It has certainly been wiped right off the map of discussion.

The local government has asked for proper overpasses for farmers to cross the new freeway being created by the government. The government has not responded. We have the road slicing off parts of Burns Bog — a commitment by this government to preserve in its entirety — and yet nothing at all has been brought forward in this House.

In my community there are 200 residential properties that will be impacted; 83 — or, the government can tell you, 150 — could be completely wiped right out. The heritage communities of Sunbury and Annieville will be nuked, and there has been no dialogue or discussion on the implications of what that means in this House.

The government, with the federal government, has partnered with the third-berth expansion at Deltaport. There is a harmonized framework of the two environmental assessment offices. There is really no assessment of all projects' cumulative approach and impacts to the region. It was as though it didn't matter what the impacts were going to be. There's no major discussion, per se, or guarantee that freighters and ships docking off Deltaport would be prohibited from using diesel bunker fuel, creating particulate for the GVRD airshed. None of this discussion has had its proper place in this House.

The environmental assessment of 1979 found that the significance of the Fraser River estuary was unique in North America and concluded that the plans for port expansion at Roberts Bank posed unacceptable threats to the ecosystem. No reminder in this House of what that means to the Fraser River or the Sand Heads. This area, together with Boundary Bay and Sturgeon Bank, ranks as the number-one site in Canada as an important bird area and is designated a hemispheric site in the Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve Network.

This critical habitat is Canada's most important stopover for the migratory birds of the Pacific Flyway and has the most important salmon river in the world. The area is used regularly by endangered, resident southern killer whales. It has been planned as the Roberts Bank wildlife management area for over ten years. Again, the government has kept its head in the sand.

Last spring I introduced an amendment to the B.C. Utilities Commission that could be called upon now, but it's been ignored. People are waiting, once again, with some resolve. They were promised that this bill or something like it could assist the people of Delta. Now the bill stipulates that proposed high-voltage transmission lines located within the vicinity of settled areas, parks, recreational areas, residential areas, private and public schools, child play facilities and playgrounds would come under immense scrutiny under provincial law.

The bill mandates the Utilities Commission to weigh adverse effects, including electromagnetic fields and all policies concerning public health and safety. The mandate of the B.C. Utilities Commission must move forward and reflect the 21st century with a strengthened triple-bottom-line approach. This bill spells out new stringent siting criteria for overhead electrical transmission lines with a capacity of 345 kilovolts within a residential neighbourhood.

We must recognize the threat of EMF to public health. In many jurisdictions legislation has tightened up EMF regs. The bill directs the Utilities Commission to consider keeping high-voltage transmission lines away from residential areas and states that any proposal to increase the voltage of transmission facilities within residential areas would automatically trigger a review to see if a viable alternative can be found.

There are many reasons why we should be here to discuss the issues of the province. In my constituency a major issue is victims of crime — something this government has got to address.

This Legislature operates on our parliamentary system of government in which the executive, the Premier and cabinet are constitutionally answerable to the parliament. This is not the United States, with a presidential system that is separate and does not form part of a legislature. Knowing this, I would like to welcome the Premier back to British Columbia, which has a chamber where he, like all of us, is answerable to the people of British Columbia through its representative assembly. During this debate we have heard the thoughts of the Premier, an office which is the largest of its kind per capita in the country.

I'll end by saying I am opposed to adjourning the Legislature because it is a suppression of opposition, and the suppression of opposition, I believe, is a conspiracy of silencing parliamentary democracy. Regarding squashing opposition in his 1950 message to the U.S. Congress, Harry Truman stated: "Once a government is committed to the principle of silencing the voice of opposition, it has only one way to go, and that is down the path of increasingly repressive measures, until it becomes a source of terror to all its citizens and creates a country where everyone lives in fear."

This Legislature operates under a parliamentary system of government in which the executive, the Premier and cabinet are constitutionally answerable to the parliament. This is, again, not the United States.

I want to end by going back to the children. I want to remind everybody in this House that when you look in the eyes of children and you tell them why we're here and what their expectations truly are, you can tell them why you did not hold a full session for this fall.

R. Austin: I rise today to speak against this motion and to register the anger in my riding from the many people who felt disgust that this House was not recalled according to the fixed calendar that this government brought into place. As I have stated before in this House, I believe that the fixed calendar is a better way to conduct the people's business, as both citizens and people who work in government and around here can know ahead of time how they can have their voices heard and how issues of importance to all regions of this province can be brought before the House.

In my riding of Skeena there are many issues that constituents expect me to talk about and, more importantly, expect this government to be acting on. Earlier today there were questions about rural school closures and the detrimental effect that this government has had on rural school districts, which have to enact the provisions of Bill 33 without any specific funding being added to the school districts' budgets.

Fully one in five classrooms in school district 82 is not in compliance with Bill 33, as there are more than three students with IEPs in those classes. Nothing is being done about this. The school district's response is: "We believe the current learning conditions present in our district are acceptable within the given parameters of resources available." One in five classes is out of compliance with the law, but that apparently is acceptable.

I'm not here to cast aspersions as to the competence of school district officials, as I do not believe this is in their ability to control. Note once again, hon. Speaker, that these learning conditions are only deemed acceptable by district staff given the parameters of resources available. In other words, they know they cannot comply with the law but are doing their very best with the money that has been sent from Victoria.

I cannot tell you how many individuals have confronted me with poor learning conditions in schools in school district 82. I hear from parents who have children with special needs, who wonder why their children have an IEP but not the services to fully comply with that IEP. I hear from parents of other children, who wonder how a teacher is supposed to provide all that is asked of teachers when they have to work with multiple students who have special needs, as well as taking care of providing the curriculum to those regular students. On top of this, we in Skeena all have to undergo a four-day school week — this in the best province to live on earth and the place where we can spend $600 million to widen a road to a ski hill for the 2010 Olympics.

We all want to be excited about the Olympics. But what do I say to people in my riding who question how it is that in a province that is undergoing an economic boom, we cannot find even an extra $1 million to put 7,000 children back into a five-day school week while at the same time we can spend hundreds of millions of dollars to put on a great Winter Games?

Of course, in northwest B.C. we are far from in an economic boom, and this government seems content to do nothing about it. Instead, this government decides to approve the softwood lumber agreement with the U.S., which allows them to keep a billion dollars of money that came from communities like Terrace so that the Americans can use this money to pay for lawyers to get the next legal challenge going. What percentage of that money could have been used to help communities that are struggling within the forestry sector?

Members of the Finance Committee recently visited Terrace, and many people spoke at that time. In particular, there was a presentation about what could be done to assist the forestry sector make investments until the profiles of our forests improve and recover. We know that the cost of removing wood from a forest sector that has a high profile of pulp-quality fibre is not economic, especially when having to compete with the bug wood that is being taken down in the interior.

Surely some of those dollars that are being returned as part of the softwood lumber agreement could be used to set up an intensive silviculture program to manage second-growth stands or to upgrade the roads that have not been maintained as a result of the downturn in the forest sector. I think that would be a good thing for this government to be working on, instead of closing down the Legislature after only three days of work.

We have been trying in my home community to get a shelter for youth going. We have a transition house for women and children who are escaping domestic violence, and we have a men's emergency shelter, but for youth under the age of 19 we have nothing. The emergency shelter was set up after the death of an individual, and my fear is that a youth will have to freeze to death on the streets of Terrace before this government acts in this regard.

There is support for this youth shelter from people of all walks of life and across all political boundaries. I've spoken in person to the Minister of Children and Family Development, but I have no answer. I would have liked to continue asking questions about where this proposal stands. This morning it was below minus 20 degrees in Terrace, so I would think that this issue is of great importance to local people and certainly, once again, would not fall under the category of busywork.

Not only has there been no support for our forestry sector, but I see another local public resource that is being given away at the expense of local citizens. I'm speaking about water, specifically the water that drives the generators of Kemano.

While this Legislature has been closed, it has been the fervent hope of this government that they could sneak through a deal between B.C. Hydro and Alcan that would allow Alcan to run to the bank with hundreds of millions of dollars in windfall profits by selling electricity back to British Columbians at $71 a megawatt for power that costs less than $5 to produce. We gave a river to a company, and then we buy electricity back from that company at 1,200-percent profit while allowing the company to break its long-held agreement to use that electricity for industrial purposes. Once again an important public resource is being squandered at the expense of people in the north who are desperate for jobs.

We started today to question this Hydro-Alcan agreement, and if this House were open, we would continue to do this. Frankly, the whole deal stinks. When you think of how much money is at stake, one wonders where the government is at as it sacrifices northwest B.C. to help out the shareholders of a private company.

Once again we are seeing a massive public resource being given away with no benefit to British Columbians. It isn't even good for all the customers of B.C. Hydro, who are going to be paying way too much for a product that is coming from a hydro project that was built over 50 years ago. Unlike the other electricity that is being offered from IPPs under Hydro's call for new power, the deal is not bringing on new electricity but is taking power that was designated for industrial purposes, thus reducing long-term employment in my riding.

My constituents would also like me to be questioning the government on health issues, as this is one of the greatest challenges for those who live in the northwest. Most decisions are now made in Prince George, and people feel that it is hard to get local matters brought into the equation when spending health dollars. Access continues to be a huge problem, as does the expense of medications for many, especially the elderly who are on fixed incomes.

If we were here in this House longer, I would like to add many questions to the debate on the changes that have been made to WCB — or WorkSafe B.C. as it is now known. Workers in Skeena have told me that the contract between workers and families and the companies that employ them has been turned on its head.

It appears that WCB payments that are taken off people's paycheques each week are like insurance premiums made to the Acme insurance company before the days when the insurance industry was regulated. You have to make a premium payment. It is, after all, the law. But when there is an accident, the insurance company has no intention of ever paying back any money to those who have been injured.

I have over 200 families being treated this way. Some have been bankrupted and had their lives literally destroyed. To me, this is not busywork but valuable work allowing ordinary people to have their voices heard.

I want to raise the issue of child care and the concern in my communities of day cares that are in danger

of closing due to the inability of this government to press the federal government to live up to its past obligations. Letters have gone out to parents letting them know that many of the day care centres will close in the new year or after this school year as there is no core funding to subsidize the running of these centres.

Finally, we have one of the highest rates of people living on social assistance, who have not seen a raise in years, yet the costs of living have gone up dramatically. If we were here, we could continue to press this government on making changes to income assistance which recognize that everybody deserves a basic level of living, even if it is a subsistence living as defined by this government — surely one of the most arrogant and heartless governments in B.C. history.

These and many more topics should be before the House, and this could only be done if we were here doing the people's business.

M. Sather: I rise in this House to speak against this motion to adjourn. As my colleagues have outlined, it's not the time yet for us to be adjourning this House. We're just getting started, thanks to this government who chose not to call the House into session this fall, for the first time since they've been elected, for the first time since they brought in the agenda. That is a good idea; a calendar is a good idea for the way that we conduct our business in this House. But for some reason this government chose not to meet this fall, this second fall since most of us have been elected.

This government did meet last fall — that was our first session — but not this time. Local press in my community asked me: "Why didn't the government call the Legislature into session this fall?" I said to them: "I think it's pretty simple. They were afraid. They didn't want to show up. They didn't have the jam to do it. They didn't have the intestinal fortitude to do it." Hey, I'm just glad they finally found that intestinal fortitude and brought this House back, albeit for an all-too-short period of time.

There is a lot of work to be done for the people of British Columbia, and this is the House where we do that work. This is the House where both sides need to come together to spar, to cooperate. The give-and-take of democracy is what happens here. Now we're going to have, as I understand it, the shortest period of meeting in years — if not forever — in this House. I don't think that's anything this government should be proud of in the least.

I predict that it won't happen next year. I predict that the members opposite will be here next fall. Let's hope so.

I wanted to talk about an issue of importance in my community. One of the many reasons why we need to be here is to talk about issues of importance in our communities. This particular issue I want to talk about is agriculture and the future of agriculture in Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadows, where I represent the citizens.

Agriculture is an important industry. Unfortunately, it doesn't get the respect it deserves. It doesn't get the support it deserves from this government. I think we've seen that all too often. I'm seeing it again this fall in my constituency with dire consequences for some of my constituents and, I would suggest, for us as a society, as a people, because agriculture is an important industry with $85 million in gross receipts from Pitt Meadows. Maple Ridge also has a viable agriculture industry, but it's under attack.

People are also coming to understand that our food is not necessarily secure. The subject has been brought up in the past that we need to protect our agricultural lands and that we need to protect our food sources because we may not have the capability of easily getting it from elsewhere or at all. In the past I don't think that really had a lot of resonance, unfortunately, with a lot of people, but today it does.

Today people are beginning to see the challenges of producing food. They're looking south across the border. They're seeing that the aquifers in the southwest and in the Midwest are starting to dry up. That's a serious consequence for an industry that depends a lot on irrigation. They're seeing the effects of global warming. They're seeing the cost of fuel skyrocketing and wondering if they will always be able to get those trucks rolling up to Save-On every day and what price we might have to pay for that, and what will happen if it comes to a choice between us and them for the food producers. Who are they going to choose if we're the "them"?

I think it's becoming really clear to British Columbians that we need to produce agriculture, we need to produce our own foods and we need to protect our agriculture. It's not just a nicety. Agriculture is not an anachronism or a pretty picture. It's not a romantic ideal. It's a significant industry in this province, and it needs to be treated as such.

There were some comments made earlier in this House about profit and some fingers pointing at our side, as I recall. We're not afraid of profit. I'm not afraid of profit. I'm not afraid of people making money. I don't care if people make a lot of money. I was in business. I know that if you want to be in business for very long, you've got to make money. You've got to make a profit. But what we on this side of the House don't want to see is all that profit going to the United States, to Germany, to Britain. We want to keep some of that profit right here in British Columbia.

I want to say something else about the function of agriculture too. It is primarily about food production.

But it's not just about food production. It's also about community-building. It's a way of life. It's an important way of life. I know that the farmers and the producers in my community are the rocks. They're the solid people in my community that help to hold us together and develop our sense of who we are. We need that. We need these folks, and we have to support

them in order to continue to have them as those building blocks of our community.

Unfortunately, the Premier of this province and this government don't seem to see it that way, don't seem to see agriculture that way. They seem to see everything along the corporate model and that alone. The bottom line counts, but nothing else counts. I don't see that the Premier of this province…. I don't see that the ministers…. I do not see their interest in standing up for the little person in this province. I see them standing up for the corporations — doing a pretty good job of it — but not doing much for average folks in British Columbia. That hurts a lot of people, and it's hurting people in my community right now.

I want to talk about one particular project in my community, and it's part of the Golden Ears Bridge construction that's happening. It's going to take people from my community over to Langley and bring folks from the other side over to our communities and on to the Tri-Cities. There's going to be a connector from it running to the northwest quadrant of Maple Ridge, and it's called the Abernethy connector. This connector, or one like it, needs to be there to take people from that part of Maple Ridge to the bridge. But did it have to go where it is? Where it is right now, it's going through the prime farmland in our communities.

I'd like to ask: where was the voice of this government or the past government to stand up for agriculture in this debate? There was a debate a couple of years ago about where this connector would go. That debate wasn't put forward by Ken Stewart, the former MLA. It wasn't put forward by the Premier or the Minister of Agriculture. All silent. Nothing was heard from them.

At that time I wasn't in government. I was the president of the Pitt Polder Preservation Society, which is an organization whose mandate is to protect agriculture and the environment in Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadows. The governmental body, if you will, that's building the connectors, TransLink — one of the Minister of Transportation's favourite subjects…. When I talked to them or tried to talk to them about the location of this connector and pointed out the downside of this going through agricultural land, there wasn't much interest in talking about it.

So we have it there now, and it's having a considerable impact. Some of that impact at this point, Mr. Speaker, not much can be done about. It's going through the Hampton farm, a hundred-year-old heritage farm where Bill Hampton and his sons still farm actively. He's a horse farmer. He's still out there farming his land by horse, doing a heck of a good job of it too.

It goes through the middle of Bill Laity's farm. And his son Matt and their family, who have also been out there farming for about the same length of time…. It's going to have a profound negative effect on those farms.

I wanted to talk about another farm that is going to be negatively affected by this connector. It's a blueberry farm primarily, and the property is called Formosa Nursery. The blueberry operation is a certified organic blueberry farm, the only one we have in Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadows.

An incredibly bad decision was made with regard to that farm. This farm has been there for 30 years. It's now operated by Mr. Ting Wu and his wife Risa Lin. Their mother and father founded the farm 30 years ago. They started from scratch. They built it from nothing. She used to work in neighbouring fields for the farmers for free. All she would get from it was the cuttings from their blueberries — thousands of them — which she and the kids planted, and slowly developed this farm.

Now, 30 years later, unfortunately, this family is looking at ruin, and nobody in this government is willing to stand up for them. Nobody in this government — certainly not the Minister of Agriculture and Lands, certainly not the Minister of Transportation — is willing to speak up and say that what happened there was wrong and to try to do something about it, because they're putting the connector right through the middle of his blueberry fields. Thirty-five metres — that's all it would take. That's all it would have taken, because I'm afraid it's not going to happen. I see no willingness whatsoever on the part of this government or the agencies underneath them to make it happen.

A 35-metre move could have saved his farm, could have saved his operation, could have saved a family farm. These folks work hard. They're the kind of people that we should be supporting in this province. They want to farm. It's so often the case when it comes to removals of land from the agricultural land reserve that it's people that want to get their land out of the agricultural land reserve. Ting and Risa are fighting tooth and nail to maintain their farm, to feed their two children, to continue to produce the high-quality organic blueberries that they've been producing, and they're not getting the support.

Why did that happen? That happened for the most bizarre of reasons, as far as I'm concerned — because a few people on the other side of their boundary in Maple Ridge complained that the road was going to be a little bit closer to their houses. They're not farmers. They're not involved in agriculture. They're not producing anything for sale. Instead of standing up for agriculture and the family farm, the decision was made by the Agricultural Land Commission, by TransLink, by local governments — nothing said from this government — to put that road in the middle of Ting and Risa's blueberry patch and destroy their operation.

The bottom line is that they didn't count. Ting and Risa just didn't count. They're little people. They don't show up on the radar of this government. They don't belong to Genstar. They don't have a fish farm. They're not the people that this government tends to listen to, and it's a shame. It's a shame to see what happens by this uncaring government.

I hope that's going to change in the next session. I hope the government is learning something from this because incredibly, another road is planned to go through this farm, which will probably be the death knell if it's allowed to happen. This time it's not a contract that was signed with a P3 contractor two years ago. It's ongoing, now.

I'm asking, Mr. Speaker, that this Minister of Agriculture and Lands and this Minister of Transportation will pay heed this time, will prove me wrong, will show that the little people actually do count to this government. I don't believe it, but I'm willing to be proven wrong by these ministers, and I look forward to them standing up and protecting agriculture in my community. It hasn't been happening.

We have the member for Delta South who frequently reminds us that we have to eat to live. There couldn't be truer words spoken.

Right on. But we also have to have agricultural land to produce the food on which we eat and live. Therein is the challenge for this government. I think agricultural land, from what I've seen, and the protection thereof, has had a very low priority for them.

Just in finishing up, I want to say a few words further about this family that's struggling hard to survive. Risa is a recent Taiwanese immigrant to Canada. Her husband has been here…. She came as an adult; he came as a child. She looks at me and says: "Michael, I don't understand how this could happen. This isn't China; this Canada." She cannot understand it. She cannot fathom it. She cannot grasp or comprehend how her and her family's livelihood would be torn away from them for no good reason.

It doesn't make sense to not only her; it doesn't make sense to a lot of people, to all the people who have come out and looked at it. They just shake their heads and say: "How could this mistake have been made?" But the Minister of Agriculture — what's he doing? He's hiding behind the skirts of the Agricultural Land Commission. That's what he's doing.

M. Sather: Yeah. I want the minister to stand up and be counted. I want him to stand up and say: "I am here to protect agriculture and the family farm."

Mr. Speaker, as far as the Minister of Transportation goes…. He also says that he's not going to interfere with TransLink. That's a new one. When we look back at what happened at the RAV line, the Canada line, where we had them vote over and over and over until he got the result he wanted…. But hey, as I say, he is only interested in the big stuff. He's not interested, unfortunately, in the little people, and that's who are really hurting. It's not just these folks. There are a lot of folks like them who are hurting in this province. Other members, colleagues of mine, have spoken about that eloquently earlier.

I have a lot more to say. I'd like to reserve my right to finish my speech before winding up proceedings. The one other thing I want to mention, Mr. Speaker….

Hon. M. de Jong: I move that the House recess until 9:05 and thereafter continue to sit unless otherwise ordered.

M. Farnworth: Well, once again we see that the government needs reminding that we have a calendar. We not only have a sessional calendar, but we have a daily calendar, which means that business begins in the morning on Mondays with private member's statements. It begins at ten and then proceeds to an afternoon session that begins at two. Then business continues on that basis. We adjourn at nine o'clock.

We could adjourn now and come back tomorrow and pick up the debate, which would be, you know, a civilized way of dealing with the issue and in accordance with the rules and the practices of this House. Or we can once again look at suspending the rules, not treating this place with the respect that it deserves and continuing on until who knows what.

I would put it to you that nine o'clock is a reasonable hour to adjourn. It will allow us to come back at ten o'clock tomorrow. People will have had a chance to think upon the remarks and the comments made in this chamber and to proceed forward on that basis.

Why the government doesn't want to do that and they feel the need to and want to just sort of sit until whatever hour…. Are they concerned about the possibility of question period? Are they concerned about having to come back another day? I don't know. What I do know is that there's a pattern here with this government that somehow the House is its personal plaything. "We will cancel a session when we want to cancel it. We will come in for a day, and we will get our business done in a day," and that's it, and wait a second, and they'll suspend the rules when it suits them.

We have a couple of minutes until nine o'clock. I would suggest that a better course of action, and why we will be voting against this motion, is that we ad-

journ at nine o'clock, and we come back tomorrow morning at ten o'clock. That is the way that we should be operating in this House, and that would be the message that I would give to the government. I would ask them to seriously consider that, because that is the appropriate way of doing things in this House.

A. Dix: I think the member from Port Coquitlam, the Opposition House Leader, has said it very well.

Mr. Speaker: Member, Member. The member for Vancouver-Kingsway has the floor.

A. Dix: As you know, one of the important elements of maintaining decorum and having, I think, reasonable and thoughtful debate in this House is the schedule that we put in the House every day. We have a schedule, and it actually has huge advantages for the government — more advantages for the government, I would argue, than for the opposition. One of the advantages that it has for the government is to know when things will happen and so on.

We are presently debating a motion to adjourn the Legislature of British Columbia. Presumably, the intent of the government is to adjourn for some time, if that motion were to pass. We think that there's more to do, and we believe profoundly that there's more to do. I think members of the Legislature, if you've heard them this evening, think there are significant things to be done. We believe that the reasonable thing would be for the House to return tomorrow at 10 a.m. to continue that significant debate and to invite all members of the House, all 79 members of the House, to participate in that debate, because it's an important debate about what we believe about parliamentary democracy and what we think about this session and where we think we should be going.

Instead, what we have here is a motion that, I would suggest, seems to be a very mild motion — seems to be a mild motion. It suggests that we just adjourn for a few minutes and that we return and we continue on and debate, so that if all Members of the Legislative Assembly — all of us here, all 79 Members of the Legislative Assembly — want to participate in that debate, rather than do so based on our daily calendar, where we do it starting again at ten tomorrow morning, we continue on this evening — hour after hour, late into the evening. All of the implications that has for us and staff and everyone else…. I say that's not the right approach.

The other advantage, though, of the Government House Leader's motion is that it denies us the opportunity to ask questions of the government in question period tomorrow, because what it says is that we will continue debating this motion, rather than doing it in the regular course of events and having a question period tomorrow. Listen, hon. Speaker. I must say that I have questions for the government. I have questions for the Minister of Health, and I think that other members here have questions. We have questions about Community Living B.C. We have questions about environmental protection. We have questions for the Attorney General. We have questions about agriculture. We have questions about forestry that we have not had the opportunity to ask.

The principle of the debate and the motion that the hon. Government House Leader has introduced here is to suggest that maybe we'll allow people an opportunity to speak on an adjournment motion, but we won't allow them to speak in question period. We disagree on this side of the House with that suggestion, because I'm telling you, hon. Speaker, that we're here. We're ready. We're ready to go. We're ready to have a debate. We're ready to have a question period tomorrow.

In fact, I can't wait. I can already think of questions. I know, for example, that the member for Cariboo South has more questions to ask about schools in his constituency, and he'd love to ask those questions tomorrow. I think the member for Cariboo South should be allowed to ask those questions in question period tomorrow.

The member for Cariboo North, our opposition Forest critic, has significant questions to ask of the Minister of Forests, who has been negligent in managing his portfolio. He has been negligent. We have not got the information that we need, that the people of British Columbia need, with respect to forestry. He has questions for the Minister of Forests, and he should be allowed to ask them.

My colleague from Nelson-Creston has questions for the Minister of Agriculture that he would like to ask, and I think those are questions and answers we would all like to hear. If this motion passes, we will not get to hear the questions that the member for Nelson-Creston has to ask, and we should hear those questions.

Hon. Speaker, we are living, I think, in a very significant period for everybody involved in the community living sector. I know that the minister responsible for ActNow would agree with this. There is a crisis at Community Living B.C. They've spent all the money. There are significant questions that we have for the Minister of Children and Family Development. The member from Esquimalt would like to ask those questions tomorrow, and we think she should be heard tomorrow in this House.

The member from Cowichan has raised significant issues in his community with respect to issues of homelessness. He has raised them in a courageous way, and he would like to ask questions about those tomorrow. He has more questions than that, though. He has many more questions than that. He has questions with respect to skills training and the government's reckless decisions to abandon our apprenticeship system, and he'd like to ask those questions tomorrow.

A. Dix: The member for Port Moody–Westwood has a question he'd like to ask on home inspectors. Be-

lieve it or not, if the Solicitor General introduced a bill tomorrow on home inspectors…. If he listened to home inspectors rather than threatening them, if he listened to home inspectors instead of saying, "Don't write the Premier of British Columbia. Oh, gosh, don't write the Premier of British Columbia…."

I think the member for Port Moody–Westwood is making a good point. If we gave a couple more days to this legislative session and we had questions in question period about home inspectors, maybe the Solicitor General would see the light and stop threatening people and answer questions with respect to home inspectors.

My colleague from Yale-Lillooet — you know he has questions he'd like to ask. My colleague from Yale-Lillooet has a very significant question to ask about the way this government responds to freedom of information, which is a fundamental law in our province, one that we proudly introduced in the 1990s and which this government is frittering away with its policies. It is impossible to get this government to respond within the time limits to freedom-of-information requests, and my colleague from Yale-Lillooet would like to ask about that tomorrow.

Hon. Speaker, my colleague from Surrey–Panorama Ridge would like to ask some questions about why it has taken so long to respond to the health care demands of the people of Surrey. He'd also like to ask why the Premier of British Columbia, in what has turned out to be a cold and snowy winter, announced a policy decision with respect to income assistance at the UBCM that he has failed to implement this winter. He'd like to ask that question, and we'd like to hear the answer to that question.

We on this side of the House are against this motion, this motion of legislation by exhaustion, this motion that says that if you want to give a speech against the adjournment of the House, you have to do it at three or four in the morning. We are against it. The Government House Leader, significantly, in response to requests for emergency debate, has said in those discussions this week: "Oh, no. You can't debate anything that I don't say you can debate." He said: "We brought the House back for only one reason."

Well, I got a letter from you, hon. Speaker, that said the House was coming back, and I'd like to read that letter. You said, hon. Speaker: "After consultation with the government of the province of British Columbia, I am satisfied that the public interest requires that the House shall meet."

We believe that the public interest includes people who are receiving services from Community Living B.C. We believe it includes people who believe in the agricultural land reserve. We believe it includes people who want a response to our homelessness issues. We believe that it includes people who are concerned about cuts in health care. We believe that it includes all those things. The Government House Leader can call the House back, but he doesn't get to decide what we debate. He doesn't get to.

We have, for example, provisions, such as the provisions in Standing Order 35, and if we can make the case for those motions — and you get to rule, hon. Speaker, on all our behalf on all those kinds of motions — then we have the right to do that. That's not the right of the Government House Leader. The Government House Leader can choose what he thinks, and he can use the majority in the House, but the majority in the House is not the Legislature. The Legislature speaks with its own voice.

If it is the case that the majority of the House thinks that because they have some ideas about what the agenda should be, it should only be these things and some other things, then they fundamentally believe that perhaps we should dispense with parliament. But we don't believe that. We believe that the accountability that will come tomorrow in question period and that will come the day after in question period and the day after that in question period is fundamental to what this House is all about.

That's why I will not only be rising, hopefully, after I've convinced the Government House Leader to withdraw this motion and bring us back at 10 a.m. tomorrow, but I'll be rising in opposition to the decision to adjourn the House, as well, later on.

This motion also speaks to our fundamental privileges as MLAs: question period, questions on the notice paper. By the way, we've put many questions on the notice paper.

The member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast has put written questions on the notice paper that should have been answered by this government and that they have not answered. When did the member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast put them on the notice paper? A long time ago. Many months ago.

Any reasonable government could have responded to those questions. They look at those questions on the notice paper, and they say: "Well, there's nothing obliging us to answer, so we won't. That provision of the standing orders doesn't count. The only provisions of the standing orders that count are the ones that are moved by the Government House Leader." We don't agree with that; we oppose that view.

We're opposing this motion to extend hours. We'd like to come back and to continue to debate the Government House Leader's adjournment motion tomorrow at 10 a.m. and continue to debate it until members of this House have had an opportunity to be heard fully and reasonably in that debate. We would like to have another chance, which seems reasonable in our parliamentary democracy, to ask questions of the executive tomorrow, because our parliamentary system is not the executive. It's parliament. The executive should be submitted to questions in question period. That's the way we function in our parliamentary democracy.

I ask all members of the House to oppose this motion, to have a regular adjournment of the House and to come back at 10 a.m. tomorrow. I'm asking all members of the House to do that today: to have this ad-

journment debate take place that is so important to our constituents. It's so important to them.

The hon. member for Burnaby-Edmonds has spent, I think, an extraordinary couple of months meeting with advocates for mental health. The issues we debate in this House are important to his constituents and to those people who are expecting answers from us on those questions — not answers that will all be provided on the opposition side, but answers that can be provided on the government side as well. Those are fundamental questions, and they want to be heard in the debate.

I'm asking all members of the House to oppose this motion and to allow us to go home and come back and have a reasonable debate about that tomorrow, to have that debate at a time when people might reasonably be allowed to watch the proceedings, to have that at a time when we can have a reasonable and thoughtful debate. I ask all members of the House to oppose this motion, and I look forward to support on both sides of the House for this opposition to this motion tonight.

D. Routley: I rise, also, in opposition to this motion, which adds to the cynicism that British Columbians must feel about this House during these days, as they see their 42 percent of this House struggle for means to bring the issues that they struggle with on a day-to-day basis to the table of this Legislature, to bring this government to account for its role in dismantling the public services of this province, in selling off in bailiff-like fashion the assets of this province, and then having the contemptuous gall not to allow this House to sit as it was scheduled.

The member for Vancouver-Kingsway has brought a very good point to the table. British Columbians will not stay up until 2 a.m. or until 4 a.m. to hear the words of this House and this side of the House. That is unfortunate, because they will be denied the opportunity to hear this as it takes place at a reasonable hour when we can do justice to the issues that they expect to have discussed in this House.

It is the height of arrogance for this government to put forward its set calendar and then to abuse it in this fashion. It's the height of abuse of the democratic process for this government to deny the opposition the opportunity to bring them to account. There are so many issues, both provincially and locally, that deserve the attention of this government, so many issues that this government has helped to despoil and to make worse, so many circumstances of British Columbians who struggle that have not been addressed by this government, so many obstacles placed in front of the success of vulnerable British Columbians that this government placed and refuses to remove.

I've made a list of issues in my own riding that need to be brought to the table of the Legislature. Unfortunately, giving each of these issues one or two minutes at this time will take up more than the 30 minutes I have allotted to me. That, again, is unfortunate. It's sad.

It's sad that an inquest into the death of a logger, which implicated this government and its changes to the Forest Act, cannot be discussed in this House adequately. It's sad. It's sad that the loggers of my community — even the one who was underneath a tree at the bottom of a hill and dead — cannot have the voice of this Legislature to bring justice to their circumstance.

This government dismantled an entire culture, an entire industry. It purposely severed the chain of responsibility. It purposely allowed companies to avoid their onus to protect workers. It purposely created a situation that has resulted in the deaths of scores of British Columbians, and it needs to be brought to account.

That inquest in my hometown of Duncan, B.C., pointed a very heavy finger at this government for its responsibility in severing that chain. The outcomes to the widow, Debbie Geddes — who sat through all those days of testimony, as I did — hardly seem busywork to this member and hardly seem busywork to this side of the House. These are life-and-death issues.

In my town we have witnessed the sad deaths of three homeless people over the last two years. One was burned in a fire. One died of exposure. One died crushed in a garbage container. These are the issues that this government doesn't want to face. Those are the faces and the names that they don't want repeated and shown in this House. Why? Because ultimately, they are responsible for the health, welfare, safety and prosperity of British Columbians, and they have failed.

I grew up in that community. I grew up in that industry of forestry. I, like many other members here, grew up with wood in our hands, either as loggers, as sawmill workers, as builders. We've been betrayed by this government.

Throughout the history of this province, British Columbians have recognized the advantages we have. We've recognized the opportunity that our water, our trees, our fish bring to us as British Columbians. Successive governments, both Socred and NDP, have resisted the temptation to liquidate that advantage.

It's often said that we inherit from our forefathers this world and the circumstances and benefits and wealth we have. I think it's far more appropriate that we view it in another light. I think it's far more appropriate that we see that we are, in fact, borrowing this world and all of those resources from our children. We are, in fact, borrowing that competitive advantage that our hydro resource offers us. We are borrowing the resource of our trees and our fish from our children.

At the rate of destruction, the rate of dismantling and the rate of desolation that this government has been bringing to this province, our children are being disenfranchised by increment. My young daughter, who voted for the first time in the last federal election, who will vote in the next provincial election…. I'm hoping I know who she'll vote for.

Her vote used to control and benefit and direct the assets of this province, like B.C. Rail, like B.C. Hydro. This government has set about to change all that. This

government has set about to reward its friends at the expense of our forests, to reward its friends at the expense of the competitive advantage that our public health care offers us.

Our public health care system, viewed in full value, is the greatest competitive advantage that we hold. In the United States, 16 percent of GDP is spent on medical services; in Canada, less than 10 percent. That's an advantage. In Canada a car costs $1,800 cheaper to build than it does in the United States because of public health care. That's a competitive advantage. Those competitive advantages — public services, health and education — are being traded off by this government for the profit of their friends and insiders, and British Columbians reject it.

British Columbians need those questions and those issues to be brought to this House, but this government doesn't want that to happen. This government wants this building, this beautiful House belonging to every British Columbian, to be nothing more than their tool, their plaything, their cover. We are expected to waltz in here, do the government's business in one day and waltz out, and to forget about the inquest in Duncan that implicated this government and to forget about the thousands upon thousands of British Columbians who are huddled in the cold out there tonight. We are meant to forget all that.

We are meant to forget that our water is being traded off. We are meant to forget that this government created a market of speculation on our rivers so that over 600 permits have been flooded into a market of speculation that was created by this government by their commitment to buy power at exorbitant rates — again, to trade off the advantages of this province to their friends. They have the arrogance not to allow those issues to be brought to this House in a timely manner.

Agriculture. What makes us what we are? What will maintain and make sustainable those qualities that make us what we are as British Columbians? Our agricultural land reserve is a jewel, but it won't survive as a museum piece or a pastoral landscape. It needs the support of this government to take measures to support agriculture, small-scale farming, small-scale meat production and all of the other value-added elements that our farmers bring to the land base. They need our support, and this government is not listening.

This government has failed to act to reverse the trend that we see in poverty in this province. The levels of poverty in this province amongst children: 23.5 percent of our children live below the poverty line. That is a disgrace. That is B.C. leading in the worst way, and this government doesn't think that's important enough to bring the House back, sit on a schedule, deal with business in the appropriate manner.

No. This government is too arrogant for that. This government won't be told what to do. This government won't listen to anyone. This government won't listen to the members on this side, and they think that's okay. They think it's all right to smirk. They think it's all right to dismiss. So be it.

Maybe we should welcome that. Maybe we should welcome the opportunity to paint this government in the arrogant fashion that it deserves. But that's not good enough for the people of British Columbia, because their matters are more urgent than that.

Their matters require a government that's prepared to sit to a schedule and be made accountable. Their issues are immediate. Their issues, for so many of them, are the difference between life and death tonight, finding a dry and warm place tonight. This government waves this flag of surplus while it slashes services, while it leaves the vulnerable freezing in the cold, while it lets our education system slip, while it allows our advantages to be traded off to the highest bidder.

Mr. Speaker, it's sad, and this is a sad government. It's sad because it refuses to listen. It's sad because it's forgotten who it governs for. It's sad because a beautiful province and a noble people have been disgraced by this arrogance. It's sad because the process that brought us here is being treated with such contempt.

I came here never having planned this as a piece of my life, but to do the best I can for my community. I assumed that's why we all came here. I assumed that we came here to do the best. You know, the old 100 percent; hell, no, 110 percent. "We're going to do it all for the people." I know I'm naive, but I didn't know I was that naive. I really thought we had come here to do our best, each one of us, collectively for this province. But it appears that this side of the House is the only side interested in pursuing that to its full extent.

This government refuses to allow the issues of British Columbia to come to the table. We have an Education Minister who constantly trumpets the same funding package over and over again. I ask the Minister of Education to come and manage my daughter's allowance for me. If she did, she could come and tell my daughter, who receives $15 a week, that now she receives $20 a week. It's the most she's ever received. It's the most allowance she's ever received.

I would be happy, because then the minister could also explain to my daughter that she could pay my increased MSP premiums, she could pay her teacher-mother's salary increase, she could pay the heating increases that my house has experienced with the cold and the increasing bills. I could download all sorts of costs to my daughter.

Hon. M. de Jong: God knows, discussions about allowances are always fascinating in this chamber, but I have actually reviewed much of the history of debates such as this. Contrary to what members might like to believe or want people to believe, it's not the first time something like this has arisen in this chamber.

I have noted the following. In the discussion around the adjournment motion that we were previously dealing with, there is great latitude to discuss some of the matters that members have brought to the floor of the Legislature. I've also noted, from a review of the history of those debates, that insofar as this particular motion is concerned, it is a very narrow discussion. It is a discussion about the recess to a particular hour. The Chair has in the past provided direction to the House to focus on that particular point, and I commend that history to you.

A. Dix: On the point of order, I think, very specifically, the member for Cowichan-Ladysmith has been doing this. The key question here for the House is whether the House should extend hours this evening and continue the debate. That has implications for a calendar and our ability to raise issues in this Legislature or not. Those are the issues, I would say in my submission, which the member for Cowichan-Ladysmith is addressing.

I'm sure the member for Cowichan-Ladysmith, who is in the midst of describing and raising it, will bring the issue back to the specific motion. The specific motion, as you know, hon. Speaker, is to extend hours this evening, which has the implication, as the Government House Leader well knows, of denying us an opportunity to ask questions of the Government House Leader and others in question period tomorrow.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Cowichan-Ladysmith continues, and I remind him of the relevance of what is being debated.

D. Routley: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I realize the debate is around adjournment to a certain hour, which will be well past my daughter's bedtime. As a result, I think this House ought to adjourn to ten o'clock and continue its business in a normal fashion. But I'll continue.

Mr. Speaker: Member, we are talking about the adjournment motion to 9:05, so let's keep it to the point.

I could ask the Education Minister then to explain to her that she has more money than she has ever had and should have no problem. It's important for the children of British Columbia to know that this House represents them adequately and properly — and at a reasonable hour as well.

It's unfortunate that the government has forced the people of British Columbia to see their issues diminished to the extent that we must find any opportunity to weave those issues into this narrow debate around adjournment. If we had had adequate time, if we had had a session, if that session had followed its calendar, all of these issues could have been brought forward in a regular and ordinary fashion in their own time. But they don't have their own time, and we don't have time because of this government's choice to not hold a full session and to attempt to drag this Legislature to do its business and its business only, without consideration of all of these many issues that confront us in our communities and across this province every day.

I believe it's important for us on this side of the House to stretch that envelope of procedure as we are doing in order to bring these issues that are life and death and that do matter to the hearts and souls of British Columbians to a government that isn't listening, that won't listen, that has never listened, that needs to be brought to account, that needs to hear its people and needs to remember whom it governs for, because those thousands of people huddled in the cold are citizens too.

Mr. Speaker: Member, I'm going to remind you again: stick to the point. You know the motion is the adjournment to 9:05. If we want to go into the next part of that motion, we can move there, but the motion is the adjournment to 9:05.

D. Routley: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I oppose the adjournment to 9:05. I recommend that the government members speak to their side, persuade their leaders to see that the regular course of business ought to be followed and that British Columbians expect no less of us as a whole.

Mr. Speaker: Member for Surrey-Whalley — reminding him what the motion is.

B. Ralston: This particular provision of the rules, or the adjournment to past the hour that we're scheduled to sit at, is born of a fixed sitting time on a daily basis. That schedule, which was adopted by the incoming government in 2001, was born of the experience that many members opposite had during their years in opposition. Perhaps a decision was made to approach government business in what they regarded as a more prudent manner.

One of the ways of doing that is to debate during the course of the day on a fixed schedule. One of the ways of ensuring that is to set those fixed hours and to adhere to them. It provides certainty as to what the order of business might very well be, and it provides some order and rationality to the decision-making process.

Democracy, in some respects, can be a fragile flower if it's not carefully nourished. To drive the House late into the night and early into the morning as members opposite were wont to do when they were in opposition…. They've obviously had that experience and thought better of it and sought to provide the House with a better way of doing its business. One of those ways was to adjourn at a regular hour so the decision-making process could be approached in a more orderly way.

I speak against the motion here for that very reason — that the House is engaged in a full day of business. If we come back tomorrow, at the usual hour, the House business will unfold according to the schedule that the government, after all, chose to set in motion. There will be a question period. If we don't adopt that procedure, if this motion passes, that opportunity for coming back here tomorrow in a relaxed and civil fashion with the opportunity to pose questions to the government will be lost to the opposition and, indeed, to the public of British Columbia.

As the last few days have proven, there are serious questions that have arisen out of public debate, not only in this chamber but across the province and, indeed, some issues that touch on national matters. So the importance of having a question period tomorrow is, I would submit, a strong reason to oppose the passing of this motion at this time.

The kinds of questions that can be asked obviously depend to some extent on the inclination of individual members and the issues that have arisen in debate and what the public wants to ask. In my particular riding people want me to…. They're not cynical about the House and the Legislature. They expect me, they ask me, to come to Victoria and raise issues on their behalf.

One of the mechanisms, the most well-known mechanism, which people see and watch on television and is excerpted sometimes in the news clips, is the question period. People also see it in the federal House. That question period forms an essential part of people's image of the Legislature. Their very image of democracy is the holding of those in power to account through a personal exchange under parliamentary rules on the floor of this chamber.

If this motion is passed as the Government House Leader has put it, then that opportunity for tomorrow — and indeed for a lengthy period of time — will not be available to members of the opposition, and that access will not be available to members of the public. For that reason, it's very important, I would argue, that this motion not pass at this time and that we come back tomorrow at ten o'clock.

There are bills on the order paper. I know that the Attorney General appeared to appreciate some of the comments that were made today, perhaps missing the point of what had taken place in the spring, but that's beside the point, I suppose. They're on the order paper, and it's open to the Attorney General to bring those bills forward tomorrow. They're on the order paper.

If we come back at ten o'clock, there'll be ample time to deal with the inquiries act. The Attorney General can elucidate the House as to what he had in mind with that particular bill and why it's important for the public of British Columbia and for the good order and running of the Legislature, and indeed the running of public policy, to have an inquiry act that's framed in the way it was framed.

The government has had some time to reflect upon some of the critical comments that were made in the spring. There's an army of talented lawyers to assist the Attorney General in forming those opinions. We have time available tomorrow, if we come back at ten o'clock, to begin that discussion. Again, it's another reason why I would say that the adjournment that's proposed and the terms that are proposed by the Government House Leader should be opposed at this time.

I would look forward to other questions being posed to various ministers. When one hears, certainly…. This is notwithstanding the pending ruling by the Speaker, but I would submit that the issue of the clinic that's proposed to be opened in Vancouver is of urgent and pressing public importance. Further questions ought to be asked of the Minister of Health on that very topic.

When you have a doctor who speaks publicly in a newspaper article, proposing that patients return to the process of barter in order to pay for medical services, things are in a very serious and parlous state in British Columbia. It's very, very serious indeed. People seem to have forgotten the lessons of the last 45 years of medicare. To seriously propose that as a public policy position for people in British Columbia, to say: let's return…. I'm paraphrasing, but this is what the doctor said: that we ought to return to….

Mr. Speaker: Again, I want to remind the member: I'm giving you broad parameters here. You started off very well, but you're reaching farther. Remember, it's the adjournment motion to 9:05.

B. Ralston: Yes, and perhaps I can return to my theme, then: the defeat of this adjournment motion will provide the opportunity, if we return to the regular order of House business tomorrow, for a question period. I am endeavouring to give what I hope are good and convincing reasons as to why we ought to have that opportunity to raise those kinds of questions.

One of the ways in which I'm hoping to persuade the House to adopt the position that I'm advocating is to demonstrate the importance of the public policy issues that can be raised in a question period tomorrow. These are not matters that should be lightly taken. I'm sure no member of the House would say that, Mr. Speaker. There are, I would say, significant issues that ought to be the subject of the kind of question period that is the very image of the Legislature and the very image of parliamentary democracy — that is, the give-and-take of a question period before this House.

That's the basis for those fixed hours. Indeed, the government at the outset of the new Legislature after the election in 2005, in a widely heralded and applauded move, extended the question period from 15 minutes to 30 minutes — thinking, no doubt, that this would improve the opportunity of the Legislature to probe areas of public policy. Given that extra 15 minutes — a doubling of the time, obviously — it would speak to the importance that the government placed upon the question period.

To propose this adjournment application that would deny the opposition the right to a question period tomorrow would seem to fly and contradict every-

thing that the government put forward when they talked about the new tone in the Legislature and proposed a change in the rules, lengthening the question period by a full 15 minutes.

I'm hoping, Mr. Speaker, that I'm convincing the other side that it's important to withdraw this motion, perhaps upon reconsideration of the situation that the House finds itself in at this hour and with a view to looking at the speakers list as to just why we ought not to adopt this motion and continue debate until who knows when — later in the night, early in the morning, to the dawn of the next day or whenever parliamentary rules permit us to go to. It's not, I would submit, a healthy and productive way to make decisions or debate issues.

To some extent it gives the public a more diminished view of the political process, not a favourable view. Our personal esteem may fluctuate, obviously, but the esteem in which the institution is held is of utmost importance in a democracy, and that kind of esteem is important if we are to be, I would submit, truly effective in doing our job. For the moment, having been elected — and obviously it is not a permanent position — we are guardians of that spirit of democracy as it's expressed in the parliamentary forum. We have an obligation, indeed a loyalty, to Her Majesty the Queen to see that the process is conducted in accordance with parliamentary tradition.

Not to follow the fixed calendar — as the members opposite know, and the Government House Leader will remember from experience when he was in opposition — can be a very debilitating process. Ultimately, there's unnecessary acrimony, bad decisions and just a general disrespect that it leads the House into. All members are taken with that plunge in respect down a notch, and it's simply not healthy for the institution.

So I would urge the House not to adopt this resolution. It simply seems to me that there is a better way of proceeding with the matter that's before this House. I think I am about to conclude my remarks, and I look forward to my colleagues joining me in expressing their views as to why this particular motion ought not to succeed, narrowly framed as it is.

I hope I have given ample reasons why this motion ought to be defeated and why I personally intend to vote against it on behalf of my constituents. I look forward to hearing my colleagues express their views before the House as to why they, too, might feel that this motion ought to be defeated. So at this point, I'll conclude my remarks.

Mr. Speaker: I want to remind the members that I gave the last member a lot of latitude. With a lot of repetition in what was being said, I think that we should get to the point and speak to the point of the adjournment motion to 9:05, and strictly to the point.

G. Coons: I rise again to discuss this adjournment motion. Again, I see that it totally flies in the face of an open, accountable and democratic government. It denies the opposition to represent their constituents; it denies the opposition to represent British Columbians by not allowing them to participate in a democratic question period; it denies us and the government from participating in members' statements; it denies putting motions and bills on the order paper for the next three days.

This motion — and I am opposed to it — flies, as I said, in the face of the democratic process. There are many issues out there that I came into this Legislature to bring forth. Not being allowed, because of this motion, to have the opportunity to bring forth issues from Haida Gwaii or Bella Coola puts me in a position of feeling that I am not representing my constituents. It's because of this government — this government that is taking the democratic process, throwing it in the face of British Columbians and not allowing us to have the debate.

During question period there are many things that we need to discuss. This motion does not allow that. We look at the forest industry, the coastal forest industry on Haida Gwaii, and why this government is not representing communities. We need to ask that in question period, and this motion denies that.

When we look at what's happening with the Great Bear rain forest…. My constituents sent me down here to speak in favour of sitting — Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday, during the scheduled time that we're supposed to be here, during question period, during a two-minute statement — to talk about why this government is not committing to the no-net-job-loss for the Great Bear rain forest and the memorandum of agreement signed by the North Coast LRMP and the government.

This motion denies that opportunity for me to represent my constituents. It denies me bringing out the concerns of all the proponents of the Great Bear rain forest and the proponents of EBM. When we've got the Premier going to his photo ops with his worldwide press releases extolling the benefits of the Great Bear rain forest, that is one reason that we need to extend this debate.

We need to have question period, we need to have written statements, and we need to have two-minute members' statements on what is happening in this province. When this government came into power, they broke many promises. Again, this motion highlights the legacy of broken promises and highlights the undemocratic, uncaring.…

Hon. M. de Jong: With the greatest respect to the hon. member, the motion — as the Chair has pointed out on several occasions — does none of those things. It is a motion to recess the House to 9:05 p.m.

G. Coons: I believe, Mr. Speaker, that when speaking to this motion, the whole purpose of the motion

that we have here is to deny the democratic process, to deny question period for the next three days when it was scheduled, to deny members' statements, to deny motions and bills on the order paper.

As I said, as I come into this House with issues, as both sides come into the House with issues that need to be discussed in the next three days, this motion denies that. I would like, with the indulgence of the Speaker, to continue and look at some of the issues that I would like to present, because this motion will potentially deny that.

Mr. Speaker: No, Member, you don't have the latitude to do that. You speak to the motion. Don't speak about the issues. Speak to the motion of adjournment.

G. Coons: I believe I was, in my mind, speaking to the motion to recess. In conclusion, I will say that I am opposed to this, because the democratic process is being denied to British Columbians and my constituents by this government.

B. Simpson: I, too, rise to oppose the motion of adjournment to 9:05 p.m. As I understand it, that motion does preclude us from continuing the schedule of this House. Therefore, it is a substantive part of our debate tonight to say: what does that mean? What does it mean if we simply continue on the debate through the evening and into the wee hours of the morning, versus voting against this motion and voting for the motion to adjourn until the normal hours of business, which would begin at 10 a.m. tomorrow morning?

If we do not vote down the 9:05 adjournment motion, as the member previous to me pointed out, then we lose the ability to continue on with the normal business of this House at 10 a.m., to continue the debate that we started this evening on why we should not adjourn this House, and to have the normal order of business that we should have a right to have if we continue on the normal schedule.

As an opposition member I do not have very many avenues at my disposal to bring forward the voices of British Columbians — not only in my riding, but in other ridings — to this Legislature without the ability for us to use question period — particularly in the fall session, because the fall session should be the legislative session. It should be the session in which we get to debate what the government's agenda is in the form of legislation.

In the spring session much of the time is taken up by the government's throne speech, by the government's budget speech and by estimates debate. There is ample opportunity for members of the opposition to rise in many different venues to ask the questions that we need to ask and to make the statements that we need to make on behalf of British Columbians.

But in the fall session we are not afforded those opportunities. Therefore in the fall session, question period becomes a critical component of the tools of the opposition to bring forward into this Legislature the voices of British Columbians that are not being heard by the government.

That's what parliamentary democracy is about. Parliamentary democracy recognizes the right of British Columbians, through the official opposition party, to have their voices heard. The failure of this government to allow that to occur is the failure to support parliamentary democracy. It is an undermining of the parliamentary democracy in this province.

Adjourning to 9:05. As much as the House Leader for the government wants to make out that this does not allow us to address the substantive issues, it does in fact, because it precludes us from bringing forward the questions that we need to ask on behalf of British Columbians — not only questions for our constituents but questions in the area that we have been given assignment to match the minister in a role that we call the critic's role.

I have many questions that I need to ask as the critic for the Minister of Forests and Range. This government, by its choice not to hold this fall session, has denied me that right. The motion to adjourn until 9:05 once again denies me that right.

I have questions from my riding. As Forests critic, I have questions that go across the province. I have questions on behalf of members in this House who will look to me to bring forward their questions and matters that I have expertise in. I have other members in this House who have much more expertise than I do in other areas that I have asked them to raise questions in, and this adjournment motion will deny us that right.

It is the fundamental obligation of the government to hear all the voices of British Columbians, even the voices that they don't want to hear. As we've seen in question period in this short period of time, we have brought to light a concern on behalf of citizens of this province about a minister's actions towards them for raising concerns directly to the Premier, not through the opposition.

I ask you, Mr. Speaker: what course of action do they have? If they cannot do that through us, if they cannot do that through the opposition in the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia, what recourse do they have but to write a letter to the Premier and then be reprimanded by the minister for doing so?

This government cannot reprimand us. It's our job. That's what the people of British Columbia elected us to do. That's what they sent us here to do. I believe that is what we have the right to do, and therefore we should be opposed to adjourning to 9:05. We should be for adjourning until the normal order of business tomorrow at 10 a.m., in which we will have the potential opportunity of having a question period to continue to raise British Columbians' concerns in this Legislature. Outside of the fall session, we do have other opportunities.

What strikes me as odd in all of this is that the government was elected on a platform of accountability and transparency. The government was elected on a platform of fixing the political interference in the legislative process. That's what they went to the people with. If you go back and look in the records, that's

They acted on that. You have to give the government credit for at least acting on that — in spirit, if not in intent and if not in action — by introducing a fixed calendar, by introducing a means by which British Columbians could be guaranteed that this Legislature would convene and that the opposition would be able to play a role in this Legislature on behalf of British Columbians. They've failed to do that.

They've failed to do that in this fall session, and they've once again failed to do that in tabling a motion to reconvene the debate at 9:05 rather than bringing us back into the Legislature at 10 a.m. tomorrow morning.

Now, as far as what I would like to ask in the Legislature tomorrow morning if we do not pass this adjournment motion…. If in fact we go back to the motion to adjourn until the normal business hour of 10 a.m. tomorrow morning and we get a question period, I have all kinds of questions. I have questions as to why, for example, there are….

I have, as far as I'm concerned, the right as a member of the opposition to have the ability to ask questions that hold a government to account.

B. Simpson: Thank you to the member who reminded me that it is my obligation to do that. But it's an obligation I cannot fulfil. It's an obligation I don't hold the ability to fulfil. That obligation and my ability to fulfil it rest in the hands of the government.

When the government chooses not to abide by the structures that they have established for accountability and transparency by not bringing this House back on the regular schedule that they had committed to and then, when they do choose to convene the House, decide that they're going to play with the rules to suit their purposes, I again remind the minister that that is not what they were elected on. We have to call into question the veracity of the words that they used to convince the people of British Columbia to make them government and not the opposition members of this House.

Adjourning to 9:05 forces us to continue on the debate that we have just now, forces us to continue down the path that we're on, where we will talk through the night. We will have members raise their legitimate concerns that they cannot raise.

B. Simpson: We will maybe even have one of our members sing and put the lights out again. That is quite a possibility.

If we pass this motion, continuing on in that vein, we will have the opportunity to raise substantive issues. We will have the opportunity, as one of our members pointed out already, to hear from all of the individual members on the substantive issues that we have. But that is not what we want, and that is not what we need.

The regular sitting of the House should continue until November 30. The regular sitting of the House should continue until we are done with the business, until we have completed all of the tasks that should be in front of us — including the bills addressed before this House; including some of the motions that could be brought forward; including hearing, from members, the members' statements that they wish to put forward and the questions that they wish to put forward.

In my estimation, that failure to withdraw the adjournment motion until 9:05 and not to go back to the motion to adjourn until 10 a.m. is the failure on the part of the government to fulfil its promise of transparency and accountability to the people of British Columbia, the promise on which they were elected as government and which they will fail to fulfil by not allowing the opposition to continue to fulfil its obligation in a parliamentary democratic process.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, before we continue, I do want to read the decision that was made earlier. Earlier this day the hon. Leader of the Official Opposition sought to move adjournment of the House to discuss a matter of urgent public importance under Standing Order 35 — namely, the need to send a clear unanimous message from this House to the government of Canada that British Columbia supports the United Nations declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples.

In her submission, the Leader of the Official Opposition argued that the matter was necessary for urgent attention by this House since the United Nations is scheduled to vote on the declaration tomorrow in New York. I note that the hon. member has provided me with the written documentation required by Standing Order 35, and I thank her for the courtesy of having given the Chair advance notice.

In his submission on this matter, the Government House Leader acknowledged that the United Nations declaration was a matter of importance and interest. However, he also correctly noted that the decision regarding this application must be based on not the urgency of the issue but rather the urgency of debate in this chamber.

The Chair has considered the application carefully in light of the arguments put forward by both sides. While there is no doubt about the seriousness of concern of upcoming events at the United Nations, it is clearly not a matter involving administrative responsibilities of any ministry of the province of British Co-

Jurisdictional issues involving Standing Order 35 are canvassed eloquently in Speaker Barnes's decision on May 24, 1994. In that decision the Chair upheld the well-established practice of the House to proceed to emergency debate only for matters under provincial jurisdiction. For these reasons, the Leader of the Official Opposition's application does not qualify under Standing Order 35.

Before we continue, I want to remind members that the point has been well canvassed about the fact that if we adjourn to 9:05, the implications of the continuous day….

R. Chouhan: Mr. Speaker, I don't understand why this government is so afraid to face people and British Columbians' concerns in question period tomorrow and the day after tomorrow and the day after that. At the most, we are left with three more days. In those three days we would have the opportunity to ask questions that we are asked, and we represent people in our constituencies.

I am against this motion of adjournment. It's important that we meet tomorrow under the normal hours so that we can continue and carry out the business of our constituents who have sent us here to represent them. In tomorrow's question period and the day after that, I would like to ask questions about homelessness in Burnaby-Edmonds. I want to ask questions about mental health. I want to ask questions to this government about the dismantling of the Human Rights Commission.

In the last session I moved a private member's bill about the Human Rights Commission. I can only do that if we meet tomorrow or the day after tomorrow or on Thursday. This government is so afraid of accountability and openness, because they know that they cannot answer what they have done to people of British Columbia in the last six years. We have to ask those questions, and we want the government to answer those questions.

In Burnaby-Edmonds the homelessness has doubled because of the policies of this government, and I want to ask that question about why. That's the question I want to ask tomorrow. It's important that we come back and meet tomorrow morning at ten o'clock and continue with the normal business of this House. Therefore, it's important that we must defeat this motion of adjournment. They're making a mockery of this parliamentary democracy.

It's so important that when we meet, when we discuss the issue that we are supposed to discuss…. We can only do that if we are allowed to meet and come back tomorrow morning. They are denying us that opportunity to represent people — in my case, people of Burnaby-Edmonds. In Burnaby-Edmonds the homelessness has doubled.

R. Chouhan: I am speaking on this motion to have that ability, so I can address those issues tomorrow. If I don't have that ability to come back tomorrow and ask those questions, I will not be able to ask those questions. That is part of this motion. They are denying us that opportunity. They should be ashamed of this. What are they afraid of? They're afraid because they don't want to face the people of British Columbia. Tomorrow morning when we come back, all people of the opposition are ready to ask those questions.

Mr. Speaker, if they have any respect left for any democracy in British Columbia, please withdraw this motion. It's the only way we can tell British Columbians that this House, this chamber, respects the sentiments of people of this beautiful province. Otherwise, we can't do our job. So I strongly urge all members to vote against this motion that they have moved to adjourn.

S. Simpson: I stand to oppose the motion to adjourn to 9:05. When we look at parliament where we are here, the Legislature, this is supposed to be a pretty civilized place. It is supposed to be a place where we can engage in vigorous and heated debate over issues, but it is supposed to be a place that functions in a responsible and civilized way and respects the role we all have here as representatives of the people of British Columbia.

So the question I have is: why is this happening? Why is the decision being taken by the government to move this motion to 9:05 rather than making the decision to follow the calendar, as it sits, and allow us to come back at ten o'clock and fully engage this debate around adjournment at ten o'clock? This is what would happen if we were to follow and respect the calendar. But what's happening is that we have this motion to adjourn to 9:05.

I guess the questions that we have to ask ourselves are: does this meet public expectation of what should occur in this place? Is this what the public thinks should be happening tonight? If we went out and had the opportunity to canvass our constituents and ask them whether this is their view of what their Legislature should be doing at this time….

If we were to go out and canvass the people of British Columbia and say, "Do you think the 79 legislators in British Columbia should be preparing to sit through the night in this debate, or do you believe as the people who put us here, as the people who are our bosses, that we should be going home, getting together with our families, coming back here at a reasonable time, as the calendar and the schedule states, at ten o'clock tomorrow morning and beginning the debate in earnest over whether we should or should not be adjourning this

Legislature…?" This is the debate — really, the substantive debate — that is on the table.

We need to ask ourselves, depending on what we believe of course, about what the public view is. My view, first and foremost, is that the public wouldn't be very happy with what they've seen here. They wouldn't be very happy with the motion of the Government House Leader to adjourn to 9:05. They wouldn't think this was respectful of this place. They would think this was an abuse of this place to do this. I do believe that. I believe that the majority of people in this province would say this doesn't meet the nod test, where you say: "Does this make sense to you?" It wouldn't make sense.

You know, our constituents bring us here. They send us here. They send us here with very clear expectations. They have expectations that we will come here, we will be committed and we will use all of our faculties, all of our abilities and all of our thoughtfulness to deal with the critical issues that face the people of British Columbia, and that we will do it in the way that best allows us to do it thoughtfully and in a clear-headed manner and in a way that respects their interests and respects the traditions of this place. The 9:05 motion simply takes us in a very different direction. It doesn't allow us to do that.

There is a good reason why we have the hours that we have, why we set hours to come here at ten o'clock in the morning, to debate, to have a question period at two o'clock, to have the breaks we do and to finish when we finish. Over the years in the development of that calendar, decisions were made that that was the way to get the work of the people done in a way that allowed all members to be engaged and be thoughtful about what they could do. It was decided by people who preceded us in this place that that was what we should do, and those are pretty smart people. I think they made wise choices.

Instead, we have this situation. We have a situation now where the public will see us talk through the night, and we will talk maybe for a number of more hours on the 9:05 motion. At some point, if that motion passes — if the government doesn't come to its senses over this and that motion passes — then we will talk to the adjournment motion after that to some time into the morning.

Well, I don't believe that's what we're looking for here. I believe that what the public really wants — and it should be the interests of the public that we most concern ourselves with — is to hear substantive debate on the issues. They want to be able to weigh the government's views and the opposition's views. They want to be able to turn on that television set….

They want to be able to turn it on at a time when they're up and about, not at three o'clock in the morning, and see where we're at.

They're looking for balanced, thoughtful discussion. The 9:05 motion removes that because hours from now, who knows how balanced and thoughtful we'll all be? It's a cynical strategy.

I would certainly encourage that the government reconsider this motion, the 9:05 motion, relent on this and bring us back at ten o'clock tomorrow morning. What I would encourage is that when we come back, I'd be very excited if some government members would engage in the debate we're on right now — the adjournment debate — because it'd be nice to hear the government members tell us why they think we shouldn't be here.

To use exhaustion, which is what the 9:05 motion essentially does, is to not engage in a meaningful debate. It is to abuse parliament. B.C.'ers want the opportunity to watch our deliberations, and mostly, because those folks who sit up there will talk about that, they want to hear question period.

As many of my colleagues have said before me, if we don't go back to the calendar, ten o'clock in the morning versus the 9:05 motion….

S. Simpson: We are discussing the 9:05 motion, but the implications of that are ten o'clock. If we don't come back at ten o'clock tomorrow, we don't have question period. That's the implication of the 9:05 motion. I think it's important we discuss those implications. That's fundamental, and question period is fundamental to our parliamentary democracy. We can sit around the clock, or we can respect that democracy.

It's hard to view this action as more than arrogant disrespect of our democracy. If the government uses its majority to pass its legislation, that's one thing. I respect their right and their prerogative to do that. But if the government uses its majority as nothing more than a bludgeon on the integrity and aspirations of this institution, that's something very, very different.

That's exactly what the 9:05 motion does. It says the traditions of this institution, the integrity of this institution, simply aren't important. They're not important to that side of the House, so they will do whatever is available to them to beat down that democracy. That's what the 9:05 motion does.

I would hope that the government would come to its senses over this one, relent on this, allow legitimate debate to happen and allow us to retire from this place for the evening and come back in the morning by withdrawing that 9:05 motion to have that discussion. We will tell the government why the adjournment motion is a bad idea. We will tell the government why we should continue to be here for the next few days, and I would hope they would tell us why they think it's a good idea for us to leave at this time.

I would hope the government would make the decision to step back from this motion at this time.

H. Lali: I rise at this hour, which is about 10:20 p.m., to oppose this 9:05 motion that the Liberal House Leader put on the floor.

It really does smack of arrogance on the part of the government to try to circumvent the rules of this House that this government put in place to begin with. Four years ago when they put these rules in place, they thought this was good enough for everybody. Now that we have 33 members on the opposition, all of a sudden the Liberals want to change their tune — this House Leader and this government.

It really does smack of arrogance because they know we want to have reasoned debate on the original motion that is on the floor. Everybody should get to go home at around nine, 9:15 or whatever at that time, and come back fresh in the morning. I'm sure the members on the government side want us to be coherent, and we on our side know that we don't want the members on the government side to be arrogant.

Unfortunately, they want to deny us a question period tomorrow. We have a lot of business on behalf of the constituents who put the members on the government side in place, put the opposition members in place. There is a lot of business that we want to discuss.

I know I can't ask that question now, but if I were allowed to ask a question, I'd be asking this government questions on freedom of information. But I can't ask that question, because what the Liberals want to do is go around the clock. They want to stay up all night and circumvent their own rules, and that's the height of arrogance.

Nobody on the government benches has gotten up, except for the House Leader in his initial remarks, to actually say why they want to go around the clock. We want to adjourn this House, and they don't. They want to go around the clock. Now, if there is a question period tomorrow, I have a question. I know I can't ask it here, but I have a question. I would ask a question on health care. My constituents….

Deputy Speaker: Member, would you please direct your comments to the motion to adjourn at 9:05.

H. Lali: Absolutely, hon. Speaker. That's why they put this motion on the floor — to have a recess so we can sit around the clock. They want to avoid a question period tomorrow so that the member for Yale-Lillooet can't get up to ask a question on health care. All the health care in my constituency is going down the tubes since the Liberals took office, but I can't ask that question.

Deputy Speaker: Member, I've asked you to please do your debate towards the motion to adjourn at 9:05. There is no room for latitude there. That's what we're discussing at the present time.

As I indicated, I can't ask that question, so I won't ask that question. I'm not allowed to ask that question because of this 9:05 motion about taking a bit of recess, going around the clock and obviously denying the opposition a chance for members like myself to ask questions that I would normally be able to ask in question period, had the government allowed that to happen — adjourned at a reasonable hour, come back in the morning at ten and have a question period in the afternoon, where I could probably raise questions on education. But I can't do that. I have a question, but I can't do that. I haven't asked the question. I haven't gone on that.

But it still bothers us on this side, and I know it bothers constituents out there, why the government is so afraid to come back tomorrow at a reasonable hour, at 10 a.m., to be able to do that.

Deputy Speaker: Excuse me, Member. May I remind all members in the House that they cannot make a comment unless they are in their seat.

H. Lali: So I continue, but I can't ask that question on education. Had there been a question period tomorrow, had the government allowed a question period, I'd be asking a question on tuition fees too. But I can't.

Deputy Speaker: Member, we have canvassed this three or four times now. I'm asking you to please respect the rules of the House. The latitude is the motion to adjourn at 9:05, so I'm asking you not to refer to the other areas you'd like to but to keep your comments specifically directed to that motion. It's the fourth time I have asked, Member.

H. Lali: Thank you. Again, the government wants to have a recess, wants to come back at 9:05 and continue debate around the clock — all in their efforts to avoid a question period and not allow us on the opposition side to actually do the business on behalf of the people who have put us here. But the government doesn't want to do that. They want to keep things secret and deny us that question period.

Obviously, there is a whole range of issues that we would normally raise, but we can't do that. The government still hasn't given an explanation. Nobody on their side will get up to actually debate this 9:05 motion that is before us, and one wonders why. Is there a gag order on the opposite benches? I don't know. Perhaps the House Leader, who is on the other side — he is grinning — might be able to tell us that, or some of the other folks.

Deputy Speaker: Member, if I can remind you again, you cannot comment about expressions or anyone in the House. It's a comment only on a member, so you cannot comment on any expression or any attitude that's expressed.

M. Farnworth: Point of order, hon. Chair. I would submit to the Chair that expressions used in debate are not covered by the standing orders. I do recognize that your points around being relevant to debate are important, but in the course of that debate I do think comments around…. They're not out of order.

In any case, the fact is that we have a lot of business we want to do. Under normal circumstances we would go…. The session would start at the beginning of October. I think it's the 2nd or 3rd. We would continue on. We would meet on a weekly basis.

I think we take every third week off so we can go back to our constituencies to do constituency work. Then we come back again for two or three weeks, and we take another week off to do constituency work. This would go on until the end of November. I think it's usually the last Thursday of November. We would have ample opportunity to be able to ask questions. But the government wants us to go around the clock to be able to avoid a question period.

Normally, we would sit until Thursday — I think it's November 30 — this week. So we would get in a question period Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday. Three more question periods. All the opposition is attempting to do is debate the motion of adjournment that is on the floor, and we want to be able to actually adjourn at a reasonable hour — say nine-ish — and then come back in the morning when everybody is fresh. The opposition members would get up in the House and be able to have reasonable debate on issues. The members opposite on the government side, whoever chooses, whether it's a minister or a backbencher, could get up and speak as well.

We would get a question period. One question period, probably, is what we would get. Normally, we would get three more. But for some reason the government wants to just go around the clock and deny the opposition their right to be able to ask a question tomorrow on a whole myriad of issues in our constituencies that I know members have raised here earlier and that I'm not allowed to raise, obviously.

Certainly, I think it behooves the members on the government side to get up and actually support the opposition on all of this, to make sure this 9:05 motion is defeated. We can come back, and everybody can go to sleep at a reasonable hour, get up in the morning and be here fresh at 10 a.m. to go on to continue to do the work of the people of British Columbia, who elected all 79 members to be here.

We were quite prepared to come here on October 2 and meet here week after week, except for the time we were legally allowed off to go back to our constituencies, and do the people's business right up until the end of November. But the government chose not to call the Legislature. They decided to just run away and call it busywork. The opposition is just talking about busywork.

Instead, they bring us back. The government actually brings us back. We got a letter from the Speaker. It said: "You all have to come up here. You have to come up here and debate." I'm going to read from it, hon. Speaker. I think it is a very nicely worded letter on your behalf.

Regarding the reconvening of the Legislature: "After consultation with the government of the province of British Columbia, I am satisfied that the public interest requires that the House shall meet." Fantastic. Absolutely nothing wrong with that. You know, hon. Speaker, we took your word, we took the government's word that was given to you, and we came back — all 33 of us — and we've got books and books of work that we want to do.

I know we didn't get a full session out of the government. What we had was a little truncated session. This is our — what? — third day. All we're asking for is another day. We could go until November 30 and have another two more days. We're asking for one more day, one more question period, but the government is denying us that opportunity, that we would get up here on behalf of our constituents and ask all sorts of questions which are listed here.

I have a lot of questions, but I guess I'm not allowed to raise them here because the government wants to actually go round the clock so that we're not allowed to ask all these questions that I've got listed here. I know members on this side of the House all have questions.

No, the Government House Leader might think it's busywork, but it's real work for the constituents that we represent. They send us here. They send us here to do their work on their behalf. They send us here with their cases so we can talk to the ministers and ask them questions. They send us over here in a normal session.

When the budget comes down, there are the estimates debates that take place. There are all sorts of bills that are presented by the government that we're allowed to debate, and we can ask all sorts of questions within the purview of that particular legislation. We can ask all sorts of questions in estimates, and the sky is virtually the limit. If the Minister of Transportation is debating his estimates in Transportation, I can get up and legitimately ask all sorts of questions under the Transportation Ministry. That's what the spring session is all about.

The fall session is all about whatever bills might be left over. There are a couple of bills that are on the order table right now that we can discuss, but the government has decided that 9:05…. They brought in…. They want us to go around the clock so that we don't get a chance to even ask questions in one more question period.

That's what we're really talking about, having — what? It's a 30-minute question period — 30 minutes. You know, we're not asking for a lot from the government — 30 minutes of questions. The constituents that we represent, the 33 of us on our side and a whole bunch of them — I think 46 — on the other side…. There are millions of British Columbians, and they have hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of questions that they want asked.

H. Lali: "Silent 46" is what the hon. member says of the opposite side. They may be silent, but we're not silent. We want to ask questions. We want to come back here tomorrow. We want to come back here the day after tomorrow and the day after that and adjourn according to the rules of the House, and we want the government to be able to afford us at least the opportunity to be able to do that.

They got rid of the session with all of those questions we would have had. Look at all this work that we have here, all of these questions that we want to ask, and they don't want us to even have a chance to ask these piddly questions — the piddly amount. They're not piddly questions. They are actually a piddly number of questions. That's what they want to deny us.

I think it's only fair that the Government House Leader actually get up and tell this House that he erred in saying that we were going to have a short recess and we're going to sit around the clock. I'm actually hoping that all of this reasoned debate that has taken place in the last couple of hours…. A number of members sitting here to my left have gotten up one after the other, on the opposition benches.

Mind you, nobody's gotten up on the government side, but we've all gotten up. We made some reasonable and passionate pleas to the Government House Leader to withdraw — or if not to withdraw, then to convince all of his colleagues that when the vote comes, it's to vote down 9:05 so we can actually have adjournment. Everybody goes home, goes to sleep at a reasonable hour. They come back in the morning. Nobody is incoherent on this side; nobody is arrogant on that side.

Then we can actually have a good debate, a valid debate, and we can have a question period. I'm sure the hon. member for Malahat–Juan de Fuca must have some good, legitimate questions that he's got to ask.

H. Lali: Oh, you do? There's a book full right here. A number of members sitting to my left — I know they have questions. The member for Surrey-Newton — he's got questions. We all have questions that we'd like to ask — and a number of other folks that are sitting here.

What we would like is to make sure that the government on the other side actually…. When they stated in the election that they wanted to be fair and balanced…. This is the time to start showing some fairness and balance instead of trying to cut and run and cut and hide and say: "Sit around the clock; exhaust the opposition" — to not even go home to have a shower; no places to sleep around here.

But, you know, it's not that we're afraid of debate. I think the members on the government side are afraid to debate. I think they are afraid to debate. That's what it is. Not a single one of them has gotten up here to actually say anything in the last — how many hours is it? A long time; a number of hours. They haven't even said a single thing. They might not have any busywork, but we've got piles and piles of work, people's work, that we want to talk about, and we want to be able to raise some of those issues in a question period tomorrow.

Mr. Speaker: Member, this has been going on and on. We are focused on the adjournment to 9:05. Now, the latitude that you have been given is greater than great, and I want you to take heed of that. The fact is you've been very repetitive and all the points have been well taken from other members of your caucus.

Come to the point of where we are. We don't need to continue repeating the same thing over. It is the adjournment debate to 9:05.

H. Lali: Thank you, hon. Speaker. I take your caution, and I will just wrap up and give the opportunity…. I know there's a member who is getting ready to speak.

As I said in the beginning, I rise to oppose the 9:05 motion for the recess that was put in place by the Government House Leader, because we want to be able to actually go home at a reasonable hour, and everybody comes back at ten in the morning to continue the debate that we had previously been debating.

I want to thank the Speaker for allowing me this opportunity, and I know other members have some debate that they're going to be following up with.

J. Kwan: I rise also to speak against the motion to recess the House at 9:05.

The reason why I rise to speak against this motion is for two reasons. I think that they are important reasons for us to consider. I think, more to the point, I also want to explain to the public what it is that we're doing here today and why this motion is so very essential to our democracy.

The first reason why I'm speaking against this motion is this. I have here with me the Parliamentary Practice in British Columbia, third edition. This is the bible, if

you will. It is the book that guides all of the conduct for the members in this House.

I have been around the Legislature since 1996, and I can't claim that I know or understand all of the rules that are dictated in this book. But I understand this, order number 2, which was adopted on February 10, 2004 — to which there was much fanfare when this rule was adopted in this Legislature — because I was here at that time.

At that time the then Government House Leader said this was essential to ensure that there's orderly business in this Legislature, that we know when members are coming into this House, when they're sitting and when they get to go home, under what months of the year we will engage in business in this House, under what week of the month we will engage in business in this House, under what day of the week we will engage in business in this House and under what hours of the day we will engage in business in this House.

Then it goes on to say: "Unless otherwise ordered, the House shall meet: (i) the second Tuesday in February to the last Thursday in May inclusive; and (ii) the first Monday in October to the last Thursday in November inclusive."

Then it goes on to say, "The House shall stand adjourned during the week of Spring Vacation as provided in the School Act, the week of Good Friday, the week of Easter Monday, the 4th week after Easter (if Easter falls in March), the week of Victoria Day, the week of Thanksgiving Day, and the week of Remembrance Day," and: "As soon as possible after New Year's Day, the Clerk of the House shall publish a calendar which shows the days on which the House shall meet, according to the Standing Orders."

Mr. Speaker, today is Monday. According to the standing orders of the House, the House shall sit until 9 p.m. The rules here are important, because they do provide some level of guidance of what the House business should be, as a rule of thumb, so that we can actually engage in a civilized manner to debate the business of the people.

Here we are today at 10:40 engaging in a debate to bypass this order, to go beyond nine o'clock, to continue on debate to go around the clock. What is the purpose of breaking the rules of the House which this government brought in on February 10, 2004, which they say are essential to bring organized debate into this Legislature? For what purpose are we breaking this rule today?

Well, aside from all the other issues that my good colleagues have already raised, the key issue is this: in this very thick book, how it defines a sitting of the House is that we actually have to adjourn the day for a new day to start. When a new day starts, it would then necessitate the government and the Speaker to follow the rules of this House again, and that is to ensure that there is a question period, because it would be deemed to be a new day as a new sitting day. It's kind of archaic. People at home, I'm sure, are sitting there going: what are they talking about? What are they talking about, and how do they understand this?

The Government House Leader's approach is this. By disallowing this House to actually stop its debate, to adjourn the debate until tomorrow, it would be deemed to be one sitting, continuously, even if we went until tomorrow morning at ten o'clock. Even if we went until two o'clock in the afternoon, it would be deemed to be one sitting. By doing that, it's as though we're in some sort of time warp — that we never actually stopped, and the new day never arrived, according to the rules of this House. That prevents a question period for the opposition.

Why are the members from the opposition side taking such strong views on this? Because we do have business that we need to bring to the attention of the government, questions that we need to ask of the government. If we did agree with the Government House Leader in continuing on debate beyond 9:05, then we would have no opportunity for a question period, many of which have already been lost, because the government has decided not to call the House back in October according to the standing rules of this bible. So we've already lost many question periods.

You know, I would have thought that this opportunity for the government to be open and accountable to British Columbians would have been important for them. After all, it was the Premier, who was then the opposition leader, who promised British Columbians that he would be open and accountable. What is the hallmark of openness and accountability in a democracy? In a democracy it is the opportunity for the opposition to hold the government to account.

What is one of the most important vehicles to do that in a parliamentary setting such as ours? Well, it happens to be question period. It happens to be question period because it is the only forum in which the opposition will gather in this Legislature, which is televised to the public, in which questions are put to the executive council, in which the government has to an-

That's why we're arguing this, and that's why at 10:45 we're speaking against a motion to recess at 9:05. It doesn't seem to make sense, does it? It's kind of, well, odd and weird unless you've been around this Legislature and understand those rules and why the colleagues from this side of the House have argued ever so passionately against this motion. The rules dictate that if we don't adjourn this House tonight, as the rules have set out in Parliamentary Practice in British Columbia, it would disallow the opposition the opportunity for a question period. The rule says so, even if we went around the clock. Never mind the notion that we might be debating around the clock and that people may well be incoherent. Never mind the fact that exhaustion in debate is not the best way to engage in debate. Never mind all of those matters.

More to the point, what is important here in our democratic system? What is important is that the government be open to the public, that the government actually faces the music, so to speak, when it comes to taking questions from the opposition. I have to ask the question: why is the government so insistent in wanting to truncate debate? What is the purpose of that?

Well, I can fathom no reason other than to stop question period. To stifle the opposition's opportunity to ask questions of the government — what purpose does it serve? Does it really serve democracy? Does it serve the constituents who voted for us and elected us to be their representatives to come to this House to do its work? Does it serve the notion that the Premier, who had promised the most open and accountable government…? Does it validate the point that the Premier had made, or does it dispute that point?

The Premier at one point said: "Openness is better than hiddenness." By shutting this debate down, by making this debate go on into the wee hours of the night against the standing orders rules, isn't that hiddenness, in the words of the Premier? Doesn't that equate hiddenness as opposed to openness, because it disallows the opposition to ask questions of the executive council during question period?

I have to wonder. The government is arguing so very much against another question period. Is the purpose, then, really so that the government doesn't have to answer questions? Isn't that the real reason why we're here today engaging in this debate at almost ten to 11? Isn't that the real reason — that the government doesn't want to answer the questions? They try to do that in every which way, by cancelling the Legislature and by trying to ram through the motion around the child and youth officer, which we dealt with earlier today, all in one day. The whole notion when the Government House Leader said that we'll be in and out of the Legislature — isn't that just to avoid debate at all costs?

That brings us right back to where we are today. It's as if we were back in time on Wednesday, when the Speaker called the House back, and the whole notion was to get in and out and get the business dealt with and be done with it. At every turn, when the opposition said no to that, the government fought us every step of the way, and for what reason other than this: that the government does not want questions asked, because they don't have good answers. They don't have good answers for British Columbians on their policies and decisions. They don't have good answers on their management of the affairs of this province. They don't want British Columbians to know; they don't want the opposition to hold their feet to the fire. Isn't that the reason why the Government House Leader is using every single tactic in this Legislature to stifle debate?

You will then understand, Mr. Speaker, why we on this side of the House want to fight that. It wasn't so long ago, certainly within my memory, that there were only two opposition members in this House. The government did that amply. You'd think that was sort of enough to fill them for the next few years.

We now have 33 opposition members here, and the government no longer can play that game. By sheer numbers, they cannot play that game. There is a role for the opposition to play in a democracy. There is a role for the government — to follow their own rules when they said that they would. They brought forward their own standing orders back in February of 2004 and said that these are the rules that we'll now follow. They made such a big fanfare about it, including the Premier and the current Government House Leader.

Then why are we here today breaking all of those rules? Once again, the government is using its majority in order to ram those rules through to benefit the only agenda, the agenda of hiding what really is going on in British Columbia….

J. Kwan: The agenda of secrecy, as my good colleague said. The agenda of not being held to account, the agenda of hiding behind rules so that the government does not have to answer questions to British Columbians.

You might ask: what are those questions? There are so many questions that one hardly knows where to begin, Mr. Speaker. There are so very many questions on which this government should be answering to British Columbians, whether it be over the issue around the Olympics, whether it be over the issue of the Premier, who just made an offhand comment around….

Deputy Speaker: Member, please direct your comments to the adjournment from 9:05.

J. Kwan: The adjournment of 9:05 is precisely that. It's so the government executive council would not have to answer questions. That is the only reason that they would break every rule of the House, including their own standing orders that they brought in back in February of 2004. It's the only tool they could use to stop the opposition, in this very Legislature, from ensuring that the questions from the public are put to

them so that they are put in a place where they actually have to face the music directly. That's why.

Let's just be honest for one moment about why we're really here. We have yet to hear from any government member, with the exception of the House Leader, about how they really feel about that. Do members really feel proud of the fact that, by sheer majority, they can use a tactic in the Legislature to shut down the House so that the opposition doesn't get to put questions to the government? I do wonder.

I challenge the government members, any of them, to have the courage to stand up and defend democracy — the time-honoured tradition of question period — to allow for the House to adjourn, to defeat the Government House Leader's motion to recess at 9:05 and to support the motion to adjourn the House until tomorrow so that we can get back here and engage in orderly business in a civilized way and in the way in which the government had committed to, a new tone in this Legislature, and get on with what is important in this House and allow the opposition to do its work.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, the motion is that this House stands adjourned until 9:05.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows continues with the debate on the original motion.

M. Sather: I wanted to take the remaining time that I had to conclude my remarks about the discussion regarding agriculture, which I know is also very important to the member for Kamloops–North Thompson. However, I don't think it's shared by a lot of his colleagues, unfortunately.

One of the issues with regard to the devastation that's happening to Formosa Nursery in my constituency…. As I mentioned earlier, to correct this issue would be a matter of moving a roadway 35 metres, which sounds like nothing. When parties, including myself, have tried to get this simple-seeming thing done, we've been informed that the problem is that a contract has already been signed. If the roadway were to be moved, the contractor would invoke significant charges in the millions of dollars, and that would be foisted upon municipalities. Naturally enough, they aren't keen on taking on such a liability.

The contractor for the Golden Ears Bridge is a P3 contract, a public-private partnership, which this government is very fond of, as we know. The Premier has even instituted further restrictions upon municipal governments recently in that they must make available any contracts they have over $20 million to a P3 contract.

Well, this is a P3 contract, and notwithstanding it's well over budget, that's not the issue I wanted to speak to this evening. I wanted to speak to the fact that there is no latitude, no possibility, no room for discussion with regard to a contractor who, quite frankly, is not closely attached to the community.

One has to wonder, in fact, how much concern a corporation from Germany — in this case Bilfinger Berger — actually has about agriculture in British Columbia and the survival of the family farm. I had the opportunity to speak to Mr. John McArthur. He's the president of Bilfinger Berger BOT Inc. of Canada, the Canadian subsidiary of the parent company, and he's a nice enough man. We had a couple of good conversations, I thought. But simply put, the interest and the motivation were not there to assist this family.

When I talked to TransLink directors about this issue and how absolutely insane it was that this farm was going to be destroyed as a result of a very bad decision, and couldn't something be done about it, I was told that had this contract been a TransLink contract — had it been one of their own, had they been financing it, had they been building it and had they been fulfilling the work that Bilfinger Berger is doing

or the Golden crossing joint venture with Bilfinger being the principal behind it — that would have been possible. There would have been flexibility to do what needs to be done for this family and for agriculture in British Columbia.

I wanted to point out again one of the drawbacks. There are many, but this is one of the other drawbacks with regard to the pet projects of the Premier being public-private partnerships. The flexibility isn't there. The motivation isn't there. Quite frankly, what does Bilfinger Berger care about Formosa Nursery or about the family farm, or about agriculture in Canada or in British Columbia?

I submit that there are many causes for the government to reconsider their boundless enthusiasm for P3 contracts. This is just another of the many drawbacks to such contracting that I know the government has deaf ears to. It's like some sort of religion. They have drunk the Kool-Aid of P3, and it's very difficult to get through to this government about anything that is a downside. As I said, there are many. Nonetheless, we keep on trying on this side.

Finally, I wanted to say that this connector itself will, as I said before, go through prime agricultural land in Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadows. Not only will it alienate agricultural land and disrupt the farming operations of two of our major and oldest dairy farms, not to mention the Formosa Nursery…. Not only will it disrupt their operations, but it's going to put a lot of pressure to develop the land that will lie between that connector and the urban boundary.

It's going to put a lot of pressure to develop that, to alienate that land from the agricultural land reserve. Some have even said that's part of the plan here. I wouldn't be paranoid about that, but I see what's happening.

Many in the communities see what's happening. They listen to the rhetoric. They see the developers lining up. They see the desire to convert viable agricultural land into what they consider a higher value. In this case the primary candidate is an industrial park in that particular area. I have to say that it's really galling to me. I have to also say that with the encouragement — tacitly, if nothing else — of this government, it's very disappointing to me to see the pattern of development that happens in my community.

I'm in a community of expanding population and tremendous growth in Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadows — particularly Maple Ridge, though. What I see happening is that one subdivision after another is built, and no provision is ever made during that time to set aside any land for an industrial or a business park. In fact, the land that we do have along the river, which has been industrial for a long time, is being alienated for residential use.

I see the developers going for the plum, which is residential development. They can make more money in that than they can in industrial. Then after all that is done, they're looking around and saying: "Oh my gosh, we have no industrial land. What are we going to do? Oh, look. There's some agricultural land over there. Why don't we just get some of that? It's cheap, after all." This is the pattern that's happening in my community.

This Minister of Agriculture has to stand up to the realities, has to show that there's meaning behind his words and of others, like the member for Delta North, who often talk in this House about the importance of agriculture. There has to be real meaning behind that. There has to be action behind the words. Unfortunately, all too often the government is about a lot of words and very little action. With that, I would like to conclude my remarks.

D. Routley: I rise again to speak now, this time on the motion to adjourn this House before the scheduled end date of the 30th of this month, and I rise again to implore all of us to do the best we can.

We have, in fact, come to this place to represent our communities, to bring the issues that they face on a day-to-day basis throughout the province to this House on a day-to-day basis, not only at the whim of this government and not purely for the conceited purpose of this government.

I believe we have come here to do our best for the people, to do our best for ourselves, and we're here to ensure on this side of the House that that side of the House is accountable for the choices they make. We're here to ensure that the outcomes of this government's policies are what they stand up to account for, and that is what this government is running from.

You're hearing from an opposition all of those issues that those millions of British Columbians face, those hundreds of issues that have not had the chance to be aired in this House properly. We've had three question periods this fall. This is sad. We've been called back to do one item of business, and we've agreed to do that business. Yes, we put it off a few days so that other issues could be brought to this House. But this government didn't want to hear any of that.

We saw them contemptuously and arrogantly adjourn this House from morning to afternoon, from afternoon to morning — all in an effort to avoid being brought to account by this side of the House and all in an effort to avoid the scrutiny of the people of British Columbia. I think it's absolutely disgraceful. I'm ashamed. I came here with the best intention to serve my community, and I am being denied that opportunity by this government that seeks to adjourn this House early. That is disgraceful.

This government is afraid to face the people. This government has a contempt for democracy that knows no bounds. This government employs bully tactics, whether it's towards municipal governments, teachers, children or the homeless. This government is heartless, hardhearted and relentless in assailing the conditions of ordinary British Columbians.

Ordinary British Columbians were treated to the insult of the House Leader describing these issues as

busywork. Busywork — the business of British Columbia. Busywork — the business of protecting our forests. The busywork of addressing aboriginal needs. The busywork of addressing a skill shortage that poses a great competitive threat. The busywork of homelessness. The busywork of housing. The busywork of poverty. The busywork of affordability. The busywork of global warming. The busywork of agriculture in this province.

This is disgraceful, contemptuous and an insult to British Columbians. The busywork of transportation issues — highways, ferries. The busywork of health — hospice care, ER crises, surgery wait-lists, home care cuts. Busywork.

The busywork of women's issues. The busywork of closing women's centres. The busywork of ignoring the people of British Columbia. The busywork of allowing the homeless to suffer. This government and its arrogance know no bounds.

A few issues from my riding, Cowichan-Ladysmith, ground zero of the forestry crisis and ground zero of the crisis of raw log export. We see this government trade away our future. We see them trade away our resources for minimum benefit to our communities. Raw log exports — how can we call that doing our best? How can we call that extracting full value for British Columbians? A softwood deal that condemns our value-added sector and that condemns our manufacturing to never being able to attract the capital investment needed to resurrect this fine and renewable industry.

In forestry the issue of worker safety, as we saw scores of British Columbians lose their lives in the woods this past year. Just a few weeks ago I was on a logging switchback between Lake Cowichan and Port Renfrew. We stopped the pickup truck we were in and took out a transit. We measured the grade at that point to be 34 percent.

The logging trucks along that road have to be hauled up backwards by winch from bulldozers so that they can then be released to shoot down the hill barely under control, in many cases not in control at all. They risk their lives on a day-to-day, hour-to-hour, minute-to-minute basis. I thought it was terrible. The road was shale; it was slimy and slick and slippery. I felt as though I was going to slide down the hill just standing there. I'm amazed that there is anyone in this province who would have the talent and the skill to be able to pilot a logging truck loaded with timber down that road.

Two days later a logging truck rolled over the bank at that very point and plummeted over 500 feet to the valley floor below, breaking into a million pieces. That driver jumped and saved himself, but over 80 percent of drivers who jump are killed by their own trailer. Yes, there have been fewer deaths, but the close calls mount, and but for luck, there would be so many more dead because this government has refused to take action, refused to hear the pleas of our communities.

In my community of Duncan, there was an inquest earlier this year into the death of a faller named Ted Gramlich. The recommendations of the coroner pointed directly to this government and the severing of the responsibility chain for safety that they carried out. This is not busywork. The widow of that faller, Debbie Geddes, would be horrified by that description of this issue. I've seen her cry. I sat through the hours and hours of testimony at that inquest. I've watched the executives squirm over responsibility. Everyone was there to hear her, except for the members on that side. Now I don't have adequate opportunity to bring that life-and-death issue to this House — that piece of busywork.

I come from Cowichan, the home of the largest aboriginal band by population in this province. In that community they know that off-reserve cuts equal on-reserve cuts. They know that the thousand-odd members of their community who live off reserve — when they face welfare cuts, when they are evicted because of the poor Residential Tenancy Act of this government, when they face cuts to services of health — go back to the reserve and seek help there. They overburden an already overburdened social safety net on reserve.

This government can't hide from the conditions on reserve because they don't feel it's their jurisdiction. The glass that overflows, overflows into the reserve, and it overflows from a content too heavy, placed there by this government. This government — cynical, uncaring, thoughtless.

Busywork, I suppose — the homelessness of the aboriginal people in my community. Busywork — their addictions and the services they require. Busywork — busy, busy, busywork.

This government's own Competition Council identified the skills shortage as the number-one threat to the sustainability of this economy — the number-one threat after this government dismantled the ITAC system and replaced it with a single sheet of paper describing how private sector would take over that responsibility. No means, no regulation, no resources — just a one-page description. That'll do it. The marketplace will take care of it. Exit stage right for this government and its role in our communities.

Well, it has given up its right to govern when it comes to homelessness, when it comes to forestry, when it comes to so many of the issues that confront people on a life-and-death basis every day in this province and that have been ignored by the members on that side — a side that has refused to hear. No matter what volume is brought to the issue, they don't listen. They don't hear, and they don't care because of course, Madam Speaker, this is busywork. Busywork — homelessness. Busy, busy, busywork. Busywork to count the homeless. Busywork to report on their deaths due to exposure, to fire. Busywork for coroners, for communities to pick up the pieces of a broken society — broken by this government that has fragmented the foundation stones that this province was built upon. That's busywork.

Busywork is poverty and 23.5 percent of the children in this province living below the poverty line.

	Monday:	Two distinct sittings: 10 a.m. to 12 noon 2 p.m. to 6 p.m. 2 p.m. to 9 p.m. effective the first week of March
	Tuesday:	Two distinct sittings: 10 a.m. to 12 noon 2 p.m. to 6 p.m.
	Wednesday:	2 p.m. to 6 p.m. 2 p.m. to 9 p.m. effective the first week of March
	Thursday:	Two distinct sittings: 10 a.m. to 12 noon 2 p.m. to 6 p.m.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY


	YEAS — 41

Falcon	Reid	Coell
Ilich	Chong	Christensen
Les	Richmond	Bell
Bennett	van Dongen	Roddick
Hayer	Lee	Nuraney
Whittred	Horning	Cantelon
Thorpe	Hagen	Oppal
de Jong	Taylor	Bond
Hansen	Penner	Neufeld
Coleman	Hogg	Sultan
Krueger	Lekstrom	Mayencourt
Polak	Hawes	Yap
Bloy	MacKay	Black
McIntyre		Rustad

	NAYS — 27

S. Simpson	Evans	Farnworth
Kwan	Brar	B. Simpson
Cubberley	Hammell	Coons
Thorne	Simons	Puchmayr
Gentner	Routley	Lali
Dix	Bains	Robertson
Karagianis	Ralston	Krog
Austin	Chouhan	Wyse
Sather	Macdonald	Conroy