2006 Legislative Session: Second Session, 38th Parliament
HANSARD BLUES
This is a DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY of debate in one sitting of the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia. This transcript is subject to corrections, and will be replaced by the final, official Hansard report. Use of this transcript, other than in the legislative precinct, is not protected by parliamentary privilege, and public attribution of any of the debate as transcribed here could entail legal liability.
(Blues)
HANSARD BLUES DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
MONDAY, NOVEMBER 27, 2006
From 2 p.m. to 9 p.m.
H052/hlg/1400
MONDAY, NOVEMBER 27, 2006
The House met at 2:04 p.m.
[DRAFT
TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]
Tributes
PRINCE GEORGE HOCKEY CHAMPIONS
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 actually 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 would recognize them today. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
DIRK MEISSNER
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
H053/img/1405
presented him with the International
Association of Fire Fighters award for the best column or editorial in North
America. He received the honour — a prestigious honour — for his piece on
amendments to the Workers Compensation Act to recognize the increased cancer
risk faced by professional firefighters.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
The International Association of Fire Fighters media awards contest
is conducted annually. It honours reporting and photography that best portrays
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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Tributes
FRANK CALDER
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 6. Of course, I'm referring to Dr. Frank
Calder. Members of the chamber, some of them here, were in attendance for his
memorial service.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I think it is only fitting that this House take that time to do that,
and we send our condolences as well.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
Introduction and
First Reading of Bills
PARLIAMENTARY CALENDAR ACT, 2006
C. James:
I move that a bill intituled Parliamentary Calendar Act, 2006 be introduced and
read now a first time.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
Motion approved.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
C. James: The Parliamentary Calendar Act, 2006 establishes a
set parliamentary schedule for the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia.
[DRAFT
TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Many members of this House will recall that when the significant amendments to standing orders were introduced in the last
H054/mrg/1410
Introduction and
First Reading of Bills
PARLIAMENTARY CALENDAR ACT, 2006
C. James presented a bill
intituled Parliamentary Calendar Act, 2006.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
Motion approved.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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 invoke closure on business by a fixed date in the spring, a
fall session was added to the calendar.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
Somewhere along the way that principle was abandoned, much to the
detriment of 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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second
reading at a sitting after today.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
WORKERS COMPENSATION
AMENDMENT ACT, 2006
G. Gentner presented a bill
intituled Workers Compensation Amendment Act, 2006.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
Motion approved.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
The number one case that walks into my office is workers compensation
cases. I'm talking about hardworking, honest and proud individuals who have had
the misfortune to suffer a work related injury or disease.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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.
[DRAFT
TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
I move the bill be tabled to the next sitting of the House.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
Motion approved.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
Statements
(Standing Order 25B)
GLOBAL CENTRE FOR PLURALISM
J. Nuraney: I had the honour and the privilege to attend a signing ceremony between the Prime Minister, honourable 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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
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
H055/clm/1415
the centre will function as a global
repository. The centre will also function 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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
I am very proud to be a member of Shia Ismaili Muslim community,
which is partnering this lofty project, a true tribute to Canada and its values.
[DRAFT
TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Mr. Speaker: Member for Cariboo
North. You might want to have moved now.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
VALUE-ADDED AND REMANUFACTURING
SECTORS IN FOREST INDUSTRY
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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
DAWSON CREEK FALL FAIR
AND EXHIBITION
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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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 traveling through our region during the time that it's
put on. All, without exception, are truly amazed at the quality of this
exhibition.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
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
H056/ljg/1420
It takes 1,000 volunteers to put this
together, including the service sector that contributes time and equipment to
host this event, and my thanks goes out to each and every one of those people.
[DRAFT
TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
It encompasses cattle shows, horse shows, a world-class rodeo that
rivals the Calgary Stampede. The World Professional Chuckwagon Association runs
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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
In closing, my heartfelt thanks goes 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
to this event. Please visit.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
INVESTIGATION INTO
SULLIVAN MINE ACCIDENT
N. Macdonald:
On Monday, May 15th of this year a contractor, as this House knows, was killed
in a small shed at Sullivan mine reclamation site. It would be two days before
he was missed, and on the morning of May 17th 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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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. Kimberly has since dedicated an
ambulance to the memory of the two lost paramedics.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
Now, a commitment was made repeatedly by government that they would
find out what happened and that they would work to see 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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
The first report of the accident was presented on Monday, October
30th 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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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 17th and at the
memorial service will be tested. We simply cannot let them down. Kimberly 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.
[DRAFT
TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
CYPRESS MOUNTAIN
OLYMPIC VENUE
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 the 16th
for everyone to use, and it was well over three years before the games are set
to begin and only six or seven months after construction began.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
Cypress Mountain will play host to ten events, including men's and
women's aerials and moguls as well as the snowboard halfpipe and snowboard
cross. Thanks to the recent additions and upgrades, such as an in-ground
halfpipe, 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 backyard.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
But the 2010 Olympics are more than just games. They're about opportunity — opportunities for tourism, opportunities for athletics, opportunities for
H057/exl/1425
an advantage when it comes to showing
their stuff to the world in 2010.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
Mr. Speaker: Thank you, Member.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
WORKPLACE DEATHS AND
INJURIES
C. Puchmayr: There have been 11 deaths so far this year in the
B.C. forest sector. Some would 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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
We need to understand that this was a year that 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 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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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 — 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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Let's work together to ensure that the 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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Oral Questions
HEALTH MINISTER ACTION
ON PRIVATE HEALTH CARE SERVICES
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. Golbey, "lets us go back to the old days when people bartered for medical
services."
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
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?
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
I would 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 advisor to the government of British Columbia — didn't say a word. I know where the opposition
H058/jbp/1430
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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the
Opposition has a supplemental.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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?
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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: the Boardwalk
Surgery Centre, the Delbrook Surgical Centre, Broadmead Surgery Centre, the
Metrotown Surgical Centre, the Parklane Surgical Centre, the Seafield Surgical
Centre, the Okanagan Surgical Centre, the Valley Surgery Centre and about 20
other private surgery centres that were put in place during the tenure of the
NDP during the 1990s.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
I noted with some interest the Leader of the Opposition calling for
my resignation last Friday.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
Interjections.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
Mr. Speaker: Members.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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.
[DRAFT
TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Mr. Speaker: Members. The Leader of
the Opposition has a further supplemental.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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, and 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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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?
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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 that is an outrage. She does not
H059/lgb/1435
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 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?
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
Every time, in every case…
Interjections.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
Mr. Speaker: Members. Let's listen
to the answer.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Interjections.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
Hon. G. Abbott: …where we have received a complaint, we have
followed up that complaint appropriately, thoroughly and properly.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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, and 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."
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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, and 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. [DRAFT
TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Mr. Speaker: The member has a
supplemental.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
A. Dix: So, 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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
Interjection.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
Mr. Speaker: Member.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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?
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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.
Perhaps the member can tell me, as the chief political adviser when he was the…
Interjections.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
Mr. Speaker: Members.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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….
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
Interjections.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
Mr. Speaker: Members.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
Interjections.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
Mr.
Speaker: Minister, when there's quiet, you can continue. Government members,
please.
[DRAFT
TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
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?
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
K. Conroy:
H060/bah/1440
it not?
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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. Thirty years or 30 days.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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.?
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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. [DRAFT
TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I would gladly receive it, and 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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
Mr. Speaker: The member has a
supplemental.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
K. Conroy: Yes, I do. 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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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. [DRAFT
TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
What is the minister going to do about this to put an end to this
blatant queue jumping?
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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 with all of the information we have to the College of Physicians
and Surgeons for follow-up on that.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
H061/dot/1445
FUNDING FOR LIMITS TO
CLASS SIZE AND
COMPOSITION
D. Cubberley:
Bill 33, the 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, and for good measure this summer, she quietly withheld the annual
facilities grants owed school districts for work already done.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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?
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
Hon. S. Bond: In fact, 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, and 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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
Interjections.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
Mr. Speaker: Members. The member has
a supplemental.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
D. Cubberley: The minister has a very elastic concept of
school funding. Elastic money: one allocation fits all needs.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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? [DRAFT
TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
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, that even at a time with 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.
[DRAFT
TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
POTENTIAL SCHOOL CLOSINGS
IN CARIBOO AREA
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?
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
Hon. S. Bond: You know, it's simple to stand up and say all
the time as the members opposite do, it's all about the money. Well, in fact,
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, in Australia, in Ireland, all across the world. Schools have to
adjust to that.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
Mr. Speaker: The member has a
supplemental.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
C. Wyse: In fairness, 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 shows 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
H062/tsw/1450
27's financial report shows 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?
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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.
[DRAFT
TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
FUNDING FOR NORTHERN
AND RURAL SCHOOLS
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. So 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?
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
Hon. S. Bond: I think it's ironic that the member opposite
stands up and talks about funding level. How simple is it? Let's look at the
answer. We have 37,000 less children in the school system. We are projected to
continue to see that decline take place — another 30,000 students less 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.
[DRAFT
TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Mr. Speaker: The member has a
supplemental?
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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.
[DRAFT
TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
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?
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
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
H063/klm/1455
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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
ALCAN POWER SALES TO B.C. HYDRO
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 —1,000 percent.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
My question is a 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?
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
Hon. R. Neufeld: Well, again, we see that the opposition now
is 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, www.bcuc.com, have a look, and the deal's there. That's all
they have to do. I'll help you with the research, Member.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
Mr. Speaker: Member has a
supplemental.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
J. Horgan: I thank the hon. Minister of Energy, but what we
object to is profits from a public resource….
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
Interjections.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
J. Horgan: Profits…. Wait for it. Bring it on. Bring it on.
[DRAFT
TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Interjections.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.
[DRAFT
TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
J. Horgan: When the knuckle draggers are finished, hon.
Speaker. [DRAFT
TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
What we object to….
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
Interjections.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
Mr. Speaker: Member,
just wait.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Members from the government side, let's listen to the question.
[DRAFT
TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
Interjections.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
Mr. Speaker: Members.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
Interjections.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
Mr. Speaker: Member, just wait. Just
take your seat.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
Interjections.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
Government Members, please, let's listen to the question.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
Member proceeds.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
J. Horgan: Thank you, hon. Speaker. 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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
So 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?
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
Interjections.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
Mr. Speaker: Government members, we
want to listen to the answer now.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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 the province of British Columbia.
Well, I tell him, that's the difference between that side of the House and this
side of the House.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
Secondly, I look at a map in my mind, and I don't know about
H064/cam/1500
not acceptable in the province of
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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The other thing that we're well aware of on this side of the House is
we actually use the BCUC. We actually empowered the BCUC unlike the members over
there, when he was an adviser, to actually bypass the BCUC at all times.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
I want to tell you that what has happened is there is a deal between
Alcan and B.C. Hydro to actually 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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
[End of question period.]
Petitions
M. Sather: I have a petition from 1,259 residents calling on government to move the Abernathy connector and Formosa Nursery to save this viable organic blueberry farm. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Standing Order 35
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.
[DRAFT
TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
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's become the driving force against it.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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."
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
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."
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
It was that very Leader of the Opposition and her caucus who were
chastising the Premier and playing politics with his….
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
Interjections. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
H065/ebp/1505
chastising the Premier and playing
politics, playing politics with his….
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
Interjections.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
To
the motion.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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 — the appointment of the commissioner, the child
and youth commissioner."
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
Interjections.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
Mr. Speaker: Member.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
Hon. M. de Jong: Yes, the submissions from Yale-Lillooet are
always helpful, even when they contradict themselves.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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. [DRAFT
TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
So whilst, as I said previously, I appreciate the fact that members
have interests 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….
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
Interjections.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
Mr. Speaker:
Members. Members.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
Continue.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Mr. Speaker: I'll take it under
advisement.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
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, because the vote tomorrow, Mr. Speaker, 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
H066/hlg/1510
this motion, urgent debate of this
motion, because the vote tomorrow is at the United Nations, and 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…
Interjections.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
Mr. Speaker: Members.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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 able to debate this and the motion that's important
on the children's advocate.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
Mr. Speaker: I'll take the motion
under advisement.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
Orders of the Day
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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Motions on Notice
ADOPTION OF REPRESENTATIVE
FOR
CHILDREN AND YOUTH
SELECTION COMMITTEE REPORT
J. Rustad: I move:
[That the Report of the Special Committee to Appoint a Representative for Children and Youth for the Second Session of the Thirty-eighth Parliament be adopted.]
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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
I'd also like to thank the committee members on the committee for
their hard work in helping to bring forward this recommendation and making this
exciting opportunity in the province become a reality.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
Mr. Speaker, this report constitutes the unanimous recommendation for
the appointment to the first Representative for Children and Youth of British
Columbia. The committee is very pleased to recommend Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond to
the House.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond is a leader in that community. For more than
24 years she has worked to address the problems facing the children 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.
[DRAFT
TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
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 responsibilities that come by default to people in authority. That
is the responsibility to set an example for young people.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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."
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
C. James: 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.
[DRAFT
TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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
H067/img/1515
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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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.
[DRAFT
TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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
H068/clm/1520
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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
The Premier wants British Columbians to believe that he's learned his lesson, but when you look at everything that has taken
H069/jbp/1525
for this government to admit its
failure, and their choices put children at risk.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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 questioning 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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
I'd like to reiterate again 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. [DRAFT
TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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.
[DRAFT
TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
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.
[DRAFT
TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
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 get on the list…." I think it's important
to remember those words, especially as subsequent events unfolded over time.
[DRAFT
TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
In the 2001 election Gordon Campbell made the promises to the
citizens of British Columbia….
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
Mr. Speaker: Member, no names,
please. [DRAFT
TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
Interjections.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
Mr. Speaker: Member,
please take your seat. Just to remind
H070/exl/1530
He said we need to make children the
number one priority and devote adequate resources, but the Campbell government
did the complete opposite.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
Interjections.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
Continue.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
M. Karagianis: I will guard my language.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
But 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 will benefit and there would be better
services for children, families and first nations.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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 that the changes may be unsettling for staff and people who
rely on government programs, but that 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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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 for Children
and Family Development — $360 million.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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 that the elimination of the children's commissioner was a
good news day for the protection of children at risk in British Columbia.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
In truth, since that transfer in September 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
an 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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
[H. Bloy in the chair.]
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.
[DRAFT
TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
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's failing 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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
In addition, the discovery of hundreds of unfinished child-death reviews, shoved into storage and forgotten by the Coroners Service,
H071/ljg/1535
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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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 children's death.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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."
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
In Penticton recently I spent two days going to the Liberal
convention, and 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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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 nonaboriginal 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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
But first, I'd like to actually talk about
H072/lgb/1540
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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
First, I'd like to actually talk about a young woman from Quesnel by
the name of Kayla O'Flynn. In January of 2002 young 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…
K. Krueger:
Here we go again.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
M. Karagianis:
Sorry, I beg your pardon.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
…against the unfolding events of the government's cuts and
restructuring, this child and her family were let down by the system.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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. Then, 18 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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
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.
CLBC was started under a cloud and has been plagued with problems ever since.
[DRAFT
TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
Kathleen Moore is another mother who has been denied adequate
H073/bah/1545
that's a case that our new children's
representative will take on, and I will certainly be urging her to do that.
[DRAFT
TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
Deputy Speaker: Member, please make all your comments through
the Chair.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
M. Karagianis: Yes, I will.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
That is 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've been 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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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 and families and first nations.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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.
[DRAFT
TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
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 assistance for their health conditions. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
H074/dot/1550
young people, young aboriginal people
often, with FASD who are being treated as criminals when, in fact, they should
be given support systems for their health conditions.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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 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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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.
[DRAFT
TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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.
[DRAFT
TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
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, but 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.
[DRAFT
TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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
H075/tsw/1555
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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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, and I suspect she's
going to put British Columbia far beyond anything we might have expected or
planned for and, in fact, there may be many surprises in this House in the days
to come. So 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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
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, because 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 and the qualifications and the integrity that have been sorely
lacking in the ministry and in this government.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
I have to just say, on a personal note, this represents a day that is
an end of a chapter, in a way. In fact, I think that the events of September
2002, culminating today, are a sorry chapter for the government, a sorry chapter
for the ministry, and a very, very sad — in fact, tragic — chapter for the
people of Ahousat and Nuu-chah-nulth, and my thoughts
and feelings of goodwill are with them.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
I think it would be important for us to remind ourselves why we got
here 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.
[DRAFT
TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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."
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
As it turns out, I was chosen perhaps because of some brave person in
the ministry who knew that I'd be objective and that I'd look at ways of
improving the system, and 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."
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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 for 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 child in there, before you place a vulnerable
child in there, before you place a child who has absolutely no adult figure
looking after their best interest….
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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 it wasn't necessarily to reduce the number of children in care. The kith-and-kin program
H076/klm/1600
consulted once on the implementation of
this new piece of legislation?
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
The Premier said that it wasn't to save money, and 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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
The Premier said: "I want child welfare decisions to be made openly
so you can see why those decisions are being made, and you 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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
There's another reason, besides the abject failure of this government
to operate the ministry properly. Because we've realized that under this system,
the current system — the best place to live since 2001 — that, in fact,
government is unable to look at itself objectively. In fact, this government's
response to the report that was released condemning it for the actions that it
took was itself taken to task.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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.
[DRAFT
TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
They decided to change their focus and questioned 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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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."
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
It wouldn't have looked very good on this government to see that the
first time they implement a kith-and-kin program that it results in the death of
a child. They didn't foresee that, because they didn't plan ahead, and because
they weren't managing properly. Child welfare deserves more than policy written
on the side of a desk.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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."
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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 and 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
H077/img/1605
16 years of life they should have more
than just a handshake and a pat on the head and saying: "Good luck with you." It
should be more than that. It will help families. It will help foster parents. It
will 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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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 urban, off-reserve population.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
This comes right back down to the essential element which underscores
all of this. That is the abject poverty which first nations children are born
into and are raised in. We have all failed. We have 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
are 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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
I think that 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 will have an independent — a
truly independent — voice for children in B.C.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
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 services to children and
families.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Now, because of this continued political heat, we finally can stand here today
H078/clm/1610
budget cuts did in fact hurt children,
child protection and especially services to children and families.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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, because 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, that must be there for the children of British
Columbia.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Also, I would like to add that I believe that this appointment and
other key Hughes recommendations should have been and could have been
implemented before today, almost the end of November. I want to say that just
because we have this motion, I don't think it means that this opposition is
finished looking at this government, holding it accountable for leaving
vulnerable children and their families behind and not letting that happen again
in the future.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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. [DRAFT
TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]
I want to acknowledge the work of my colleague from Esquimalt, my
colleague from Coquitlam-Maillardville, the member from Prince George 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, in fact, 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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
I think that 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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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, I think, such a distinguished legal scholar and a distinguished
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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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, who have suffered some of the worst
H079/ebp/1615
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, I think 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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
There, at the same time as 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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
Frequently in the debate…. 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, with confidentiality. The privacy which children do not control — the
confidentiality which is intended to protect children — is in fact used to
protect those who have not done what they needed to do.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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, 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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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 to commit ourselves
to providing the new representative with the resources and the 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 — because 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. [DRAFT
TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
So, 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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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 of the people who are in the MCFD system, is
a program that should be reviewed and should be under the purview of the child
representative, and that program is not.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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, to provide the ministry with the resources and, most
importantly, to 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. [DRAFT
TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
So, 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
H080/hlg/1620
especially children in care and children
known to the ministry. We have to do all of those things.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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, 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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
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, said that we must have an independent commissioner back, and we must
reverse the cuts that were made to the Ministry of Children and Family. I want
to thank them.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
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 of the children of British Columbia.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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, I think, 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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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 the opportunity, all the opportunities they need, to have a happy life.
[DRAFT
TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Mr. Speaker: Seeing no further
speakers, the member for Prince George–Omineca closes debate.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
Today is the day that the work that had been undertaken more than a
year ago, now, 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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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 of the political
perspectives to truly celebrate the opportunity to move forward an agenda, to
move forward the ability to be able to improve the system for children and
youth. [DRAFT
TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
With that, I'd like to thank, once again, the members of the
committee for their hard work, and 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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
Motion approved.
H081/cam/1625
for their hard work, and I look forward
to the work that the children and youth representative will be doing in the
coming months and years for the improvement of the system in general.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
Motion approved.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
Hon. M. de Jong: I call Motion 73, standing in the name of the
member for Prince George–Omineca.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
APPOINTMENT OF
REPRESENTATIVE
FOR CHILDREN AND YOUTH
J. Rustad: I move that the Legislative Assembly appoint Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond as the Representative for Children and Youth for the province of British Columbia for a term of five years pursuant to section 2 of the Representative for Children and Youth Act, SBC 2006, chapter 29, Bill 34. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
H082/jbp/1630
Motion approved unanimously
on a division. [See Votes and Proceedings.]
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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
M. Farnworth: Normally, we would be dealing with this motion
on the last day of a session. In this case, going by the calendar….
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
Interjection.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
Interjections.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
Mr. Speaker: Members. The Opposition
House Leader has the floor.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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
H083/exl/1635
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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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. So 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 2nd or 3rd of October — we would have looked forward to a full
legislative session that would have ended on the 30th of November.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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 members' 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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
You know, the Attorney General of this province tabled two pieces of
legislation, the Public Inquiries 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 — why they needed to
be part of the government's program — little did he expect that they would, in
fact, become just busywork — just busywork.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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, by the
media and for the public to understand why the Attorney General of this province
and his entire ministry would go to such efforts because getting legislation on
the agenda is not an easy thing to do — having sat in executive council and
knowing how difficult it is.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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 is to
be done. [DRAFT
TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
There is time. There is time between now and the 30th of December or
the 30th of November. The 30th of November.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
Interjections.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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, the opposition, 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? And that it once again will not be deemed busywork? It may well be
legislation that the opposition is in favour of and thinks that with proper
scrutiny, proper examination, it would add to the security. It would add to the
well-being of the people of this province.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
The example that has been set in this session
H084/ljg/1640
and thinks that with proper scrutiny,
proper examination, it would add to the security and well-being of the people of
this province.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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 on
the 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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
Sessions would last for months on end. They would start in March and
they would go sometimes….
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
Interjection.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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 23rd, we were still sitting.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
But 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, and we will do the people's business according to a calendar."
[DRAFT
TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
It's a very civilized way to do things, but part and parcel to 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 papers; we could have dealt with
legislation regarding other issues that are of importance to this House.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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 30th, with 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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
Here I will beg the indulgence of the House and members from both sides 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 for the very best of reasons: because he and his wife are celebrating the birth on the weekend of their first child, a baby girl
H085/bah/1645
presence or absence of members, but my
colleague the member for Victoria-Hillside is absent today for the very best of
reasons because he and his wife are celebrating the birth on the weekend of
their first child, a healthy baby girl at seven pounds, six ounces.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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.
[DRAFT
TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
There are issues around health care, some of which have been
canvassed in question period. But a lot more questions remain, and they could be
dealt with in other question periods over the next few days.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
We could debate emergency motions. The bottom line is the people's
business should be our first concern, and the people's business is never
busywork. It's important work.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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. But part of that is rigorous examination. That's
another issue we could be addressing and dealing with.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
So 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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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.
[DRAFT
TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
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, and yet there's still more work to do.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
That's what this is about: doing the people's business. I ask the government
H086/dot/1650
and yet there's still more work to do.
That's what this is about: doing the people's business.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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, that it's their duty to stand by their Attorney
General and make sure those legislative changes take place and the public of
British Columbia benefits from his wisdom and hard work.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
Finally….
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
Interjection.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
M. Farnworth:
And we do, hon. Member. You will not be surrendering your rights.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
I am just making the case that the good members opposite recognize
the hard work and dedication of their colleagues and think about the mistake
that 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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
So with that, hon. Speaker, and that 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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
Think, hon. Members, 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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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 that it
is scrutinized.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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.
[DRAFT
TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
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 a House if there was
an opposition with the numbers that we have today.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
H087/lgb/1655
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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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?
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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. [DRAFT
TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
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 that he would ask me to pass 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….
This 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. [DRAFT
TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
What tools does an ordinary person have? Well, what I would put to
you today — and it's 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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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 4-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. [DRAFT
TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Sullivan mine, I remind you, was closed in 2001 after a century of
H088/jbp/1700
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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
[S. Hammell in the chair.]
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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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, as I
indicated earlier, very clearly that they do not accept this report is
definitive in any way. The line from the mine inspector and 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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
But in Kimberley, throughout the community, it is not only the
families themselves, but it is people writing to me, people sending e-mails,
people 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. 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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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 that needs to be explored.
[DRAFT
TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
Was any consideration given to the possibility that this would concentrate gases towards the system used to concentrate and
H089/clm/1705
glacial till was used to cover the mine
waste area. It was packed to seal the mine waste.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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?
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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?
[DRAFT
TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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?
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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?
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
Does the fact that this wasn't done impact the events that
consequently unfolded? Because 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.
[DRAFT
TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
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. Then, 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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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.
[DRAFT
TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
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. Part of his closure…. This was what he really wanted to say to me.
H090/img/1710
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. He was talking about it. He made the point
that part of the closure for him was getting all the information.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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….
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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 they
wanted, 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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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. [DRAFT
TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
D. Chudnovsky: I'm pleased and proud to stand with my colleagues this afternoon to speak against the motion before us. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
H091/klm/1715
D. Chudnovsky:
I'm pleased and proud to stand with my colleagues this afternoon to speak
against the motion before us.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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
H092/tsw/1720
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, and 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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
I would have — and I would be happy to, tomorrow or the next day; I'm
here, ready to go — wanted to talk with the Minister of Transportation who acted
as if he was 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."
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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 would 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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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. 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 would 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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
I'm against this motion, but those on the other side, it seems to me,
think 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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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.
Travelled up with my dear friend, the member for Cariboo North. We met in
Williams Lake with a number of ranchers.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
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 Columbia…. That was the one that was never
going to be privatized. Remember that one? During that time, their rights and
their interests were protected, and things have changed, and they want some
questions asked.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
I would have liked to have 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
the 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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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
H093/dot/1725
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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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 1 on the list of priorities in the
lower mainland, consensus number 1. Everybody agreed that was the thing that had
to be done first — rapid transit to the Tri-Cities.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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. But 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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
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 governments, 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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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 was what I was elected to do.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
Those on the other side of the aisle, they 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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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've got real problem 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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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
H094/ebp/1730
all kinds of roads, in the rural areas
especially, that are in need of capital improvements and of 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. So 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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
Since the closure, 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 an
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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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's 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, Madam Speaker.
[DRAFT
TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
In my constituency in Vancouver homelessness and poverty are
important issues. In my constituency we have neighbours. 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."
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
Well, they're new numbers, Madam Speaker. 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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
We're ready to do that, Madam Speaker. On this side of the House the opposition is prepared, is prepared, was prepared from the time that this session was supposed to start, continues to be prepared
H095/hlg/1735
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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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. They're unprepared to do that — breath-taking arrogance.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
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.
[DRAFT
TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I want to say, with the greatest of seriousness, that this government
has made a terrible mistake, 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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
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:
there are issues to discuss so the Speaker calls us back.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
Maybe it is a government that, now, after six years, five-and-a-half
years, is completely devoid of ideas, has absolutely nothing to offer the people
of British Columbia, which is another reason to stand against this motion,
because it would be very nice to continue to ask questions and continue to bring
the issues up 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
H096/ljg/1740
nice to continue to ask questions and
continue to bring the issues up 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 bring these issues up, discuss them, debate them and work on
them. [DRAFT
TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
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."
[DRAFT
TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
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 for Columbia River–Revelstoke
and my colleague for 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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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."
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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 and 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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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?
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
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
H097/jbp/1745
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, whether it is women who are simply just 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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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?
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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 an
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 so decides
to shut down the House instead of answering questions.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
There is no one to answer a very simple question of: where is a child
care plan? This is a very big issue but not such a hard question. The government
promised to bring this to the House back in January. Still we're waiting for
that to be answered.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
As my colleague from Vancouver-Kingsway said, last week we saw once
again, not all 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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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 that 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. It is washing,
again, its hands of the serious issues that we have in our communities.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
Again, in Campbell River, recently, about three weeks ago, the report
came out showing the level of youth exploitation. Madam Speaker, this isn't
because young people want to go into sex trade — the fact that youth
exploitation is rising in some of our communities, including my own. It's
because of poverty, and 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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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 issues on income assistance, the two-year independence test, the two out of five years. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
H098/clm/1750
looking seriously at addressing issues
that we do bring up quite regularly — issues 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?
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
"We're just back for a couple 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.
[DRAFT
TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
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 it is incumbent on all of us as
legislators to address them.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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, 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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]
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.
[DRAFT
TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
There are other issues that I would like to bring up. Health care.
We've had some discussion on health care in question period. There are always
questions about health care.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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; 40 kilometres in that sort of weather
is treacherous.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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 our constituents.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
I would also like 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."
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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.
[DRAFT
TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
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
H099/ebp/1755
a house sitting where we can raise these
questions. These are some of the questions I'd have liked to have brought. I
would also have liked to have brought questions of economics, questions of
what's happening in the forest industry.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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 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, what sort of precautions are there to
make sure 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. [DRAFT
TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
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. [DRAFT
TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Motion approved.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
Mr. Speaker: This House stands recessed
until 6:35.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The House recessed from 5:57 p.m. to 6:34 p.m.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
H106/alw/1830
The House recessed from 5:57 p.m. to 6:34 p.m.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]
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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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
H107/ebp/1835
I've also just been
discussing the issue that I'd have liked 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. But
unfortunately, because we haven't had a session for the last two months; because
we are being asked to adjourn this session three days early, 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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
[H. Bloy in the chair.]
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 have liked
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….
[DRAFT
TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Deputy Speaker: Member, you cannot refer to members in
the House, whether they're present or not.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
C. Trevena: My apologies. My apologies.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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 ferries. 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.
[DRAFT
TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
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. But, 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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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,
again — 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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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. But again, the arrogance of this government means
that we can't ask any questions.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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
H108/rss/1840
that I see only three days left on the
set legislative calendar, after having only been here for three days.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
To hear the government adjourn or 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, and
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
traveled 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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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 that almost a million people in the
lower mainland were having to boil, or they 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, the big
storm November 14, 15, 16 that hit the province. Clearly, we were not prepared
in the least for that kind of weather and that kind of disruption to our fragile
drinking water systems.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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 B.C., 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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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.
[DRAFT
TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
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, to be asking that question: is now the time to be accelerating the
H109/alw/1845
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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
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….
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
Even our 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 acknowledge
now have been wrong-headed and have done more to radically accelerate climate
change on this planet than anyone would have guessed.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
This government has no targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
That would have been a fantastic subject to tackle. I wonder how the members
opposite, their grandchildren, will look back and look at us here in 2006,
November 2006 — after massive flooding and drinking water disruption, after the
biggest cold snap of a November…. And we have no targets for reducing our
greenhouse gas emissions to mitigate the impacts of climate change.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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.
[DRAFT
TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
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 away from the House, 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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
I hearken back to my last estimates debates in the spring with the
Energy Minister. The questions that I had for him it would have been great to
have followed up on 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 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.
[DRAFT
TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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
H110/jsb/1850
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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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., and all
kinds of issues come up every day.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
I hear about them in my constituency office, whether it's emergency
room conditions at VGH, where 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 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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
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 of B.C., to see what their
input is. We don't have to be challenged by that. We can kick back."
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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?
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
It's interesting that we
H111/lrm/1855
it defies the imagination that so much
could be done, and 85 percent don't even notice.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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 five years
ago. Let's talk about four years ago and the cuts that this government made to
apprenticeship and training, to the increases this government presided over on
tuition, to 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?
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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." [DRAFT
TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
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 make sure that there isn't an ongoing shortage. We're in big
trouble on the front, and I hear it 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.
[DRAFT
TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
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?
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
These, by the way…. 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 creating opportunities for the friends of the
government.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Speaking of friends of the government, we should be talking about the
softwood deal — softwood sellout. I've heard from all kinds of businesses around
this province: value-added business, lumber remanufacturers who 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."
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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
H112/clm/1900
we're for it, it's a good deal for B.C.
[DRAFT
TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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.
[DRAFT
TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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?
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
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.
[DRAFT
TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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
H113/rxr/1905
relevance. There's got to be a balance
of the resource economy here in B.C. and the knowledge-based economy that has to
happen, that's bursting at the seams. You go around the province right now, and
the kind of innovation that you see, the kind of genius that you see…. That
should be supported in every which way. That 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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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, of oil, of methane,
of coal only increases. It gets more and more scarce on this planet.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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 that will catch up to them. Time waits for no one.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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 Health about
the decisions that this government made to close Hampton Court.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
The opposition asked questions last spring about the future of
Hampton Court, 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 16 residents have died, tragically. There are eight
residents left at Hampton Court, wondering what their future holds.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
Whether they have multiple barriers or just have had a tough time in
life, this government is not responsive, 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, 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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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, thankfully, who showed up to pay attention and bring the story forward.
We didn't have the opportunity to bring it to the government, and that is
atrocious.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
In
closing, I would like to thank the Speaker….
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Member.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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
H114/rss/1910
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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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
school child learns about, things changed. But 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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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
forced 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: "It is
accordingly our wish and command that the English church shall be free and that
men in our kingdom shall have and keep all these liberties, rights and
concessions well and peaceably in their fullness and entirety for them and their
heirs, of us and our heirs, in all things and in all places forever. Both we and
the barons have sworn that all of this shall be observed in good faith and
without deceit."
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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. But 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, we ran into another king, and he was forced to abdicate politely — Charles II. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
H115/exl/1915
It led to his beheading. Monarchy
returned. The people weren't ready to give it up.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
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 earlier today said: "A
tutorial is necessary for that member opposite. A tutorial is necessary for that
member opposite."
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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?
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
So 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 that there will be no fall
session 'cause it's busywork.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
This is a government that does not want to operate within the bounds
of democracy. It is 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. But 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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
You know, the way politics works in this province is kind of like
kids with a toy box. 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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
That's
H116/jlm/1920
and 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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
So 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."
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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 in the most recent statistics
that came out that say that 23.5 percent of children in British Columbia are
raised below the poverty line, which as the member for Vancouver-Quilchena spoke
earlier…. I believe it's Quilchena; I could be wrong. Who said that means 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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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. [DRAFT
TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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
better protection for employees at gas stations. So 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?
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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 a motion even surrounding the home inspection industry.
[DRAFT
TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Here we are
H117/ebp/1925
It's a pretty non-partisan thing to do,
isn't it?
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
We could have done something as basic as bring legislation before
this House for debate or a motion, even, surrounding the home inspection
industry. Here we are in the midst of a real estate boom. With thousands of
homes changing hands in British Columbia every month, the government is reaping
the reward of the sales tax on homes but is 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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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 — 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. 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 this Christmas
to celebrate Christmas with them.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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 either in this session, because we're not
going have to have a session.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
I'm conscious of the fact — and I say this with a tremendous sense of
resignation — that there's 33 of us in opposition. The government's got 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, which they happily open to welcome a sports trophy to — 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, who are being asked to pay extra money to acquire reasonable
health services that should be provided under the medical care that this
province is so proud of.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
The real arrogance of it is, 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
H118/cam/1930
is brought in.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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. [DRAFT
TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
In the introduction to a wonderful book called The Story of
Parliament there is a quote by the Rt. Hon. Baroness Boothroyd, 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."
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
[S. Hammell in the chair.]
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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
J. Brar:
The people of Surrey–Panorama Ridge elected me not for
sitting in my office and attending ribbon-cutting ceremonies; 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.
[DRAFT
TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Last Saturday I woke up at about five o'clock. When I looked out the window of my house I saw a heavy snowfall, and at five o'clock
H119/bah/1935
Last Saturday I woke up about five
o'clock. When I looked out the window of my house I saw heavy snowfall. At five
o'clock I went out and I 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 the room who had no place to even go in and sit on a chair on that
night. [DRAFT
TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
This government is telling that there is no issue to debate. There's
no issue to talk about. There are issues in the province.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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. [DRAFT
TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I met the officials of the Surrey food bank, and 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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
Basically, this government is saying they don't care about these
issues, about the most vulnerable people of the province — the poor, the
children and seniors.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
The Premier had the courage to stand up at the UBCM convention and to
make a statement that the shelter allowance in fact is low, and something needs
to be done. But the Premier is not in this House to debate this very important,
timely, sensitive issue, which is an issue we need to be talking about during
the next three days to support those people who have no place to sleep.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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 for $6 per day. I need to know that answer. The answer will
be no. [DRAFT
TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I met a single mother just two days ago. This mother is very
talented, very pleasant, 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 with thousands of families in the province. She has to go and beg for
food from different places.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
Even during the UBCM, the mayor of Kelowna and the mayor of this
city, Victoria, had the courage to stand up in a church, which is just a 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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
Just last week I visited a church in the riding of Surrey-Cloverdale. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
H120/img/1940
in the province.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
This government made significant legislative changes in 2001,
particularly to save money at 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.
[DRAFT
TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
Surprisingly, this government supports people to go to work and find
work, and 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 is, in my opinion, 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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
We need to be debating those issues, and 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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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 a program 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, 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. So in other words, they paid $19 million severance pay to those big
companies that they have very good connections with.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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, and she
was asked by one of the companies to sign a document which states that actually,
the company found the job for her, because if she signs that document, the
company will get $4,300 dollars as a bonus, because they, in their term, were
helpful to find a job for her.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
H121/dot/1945
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, is not providing any
answer to the people of British Columbia.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
Another young lady who came forward found a job herself as well. But
she was asked to sign the document, and 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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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, for 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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
There are issues in my own riding which we want to debate in this
House, which are time sensitive, which are important, which are urgent issues.
The issue of Surrey Memorial Hospital, we all know about that. The Surrey
Memorial Hospital, 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 actions. 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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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; recommendations
were made. According to those recommendations the construction of the ambulatory
care centre was to start in the year 2007.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
It was shocking for me, it was shocking for all the people of
Surrey–Panorama Ridge, 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.
[DRAFT
TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
Just a few months ago I had my own experience. I took my mother, who
is 86, to the hospital, and I was there 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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
This government is saying, 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 other 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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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 just 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, they have reviewed all the reports and they put
together one report. I was present and the hon. Attorney General was present as
well at that meeting. They have made final recommendations to act on.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
We need to ask this government through debate what will be the action of this government to act on those recommendations which the community collectively has come together, finally. We don't know at this point in time what the action of the
H122/lcg/1950
to ask this government, through debate,
what will be the action of this government to act on those recommendations, for
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. [DRAFT
TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
Again, this is the place where we want to ask those questions. By
shutting down the House, the government is not allowing us to ask those
questions.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
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 that the only way we
can solve this problem is that the victims have to become witnesses and that
then the problem will be solved.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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, and that's why we need to
continue the proceedings of this House so that we can ask those questions.
[DRAFT
TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
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 proceeding of this House.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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 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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
This side of the House wants to continue talking about people's
issues, and 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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
H123/iaw/1955
build this beautiful province of British
Columbia.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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?"
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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.
[DRAFT
TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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. [DRAFT
TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
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. But there is a
culture within our children, within ourselves. Throughout British Columbia there
is an expectation that we should be here.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
All members were called back to 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, repealed 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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
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 policy-making of
H124/tsw/2000
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.
[DRAFT
TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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.
[DRAFT
TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
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?
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
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 which caused widespread
damage to low-lying residential and agricultural communities.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Now, before the flood season on September 20, the mayor tried once
again, only to hear after this year's recent storm in 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."
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
Now, those are empty words — empty words and empty deeds. With no opportunity to raise such important issues with a compressed question period, and we've only had three, in which the government is inconvenienced to have had
H125/clm/2005
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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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?
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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?
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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.
[DRAFT
TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
Deputy Speaker:
Excuse me, member.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
G. Gentner: My neighbours are working people.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
Deputy Speaker: Member, take your seat, please.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
Member, point of order.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
Point of Order
Hon. T. Christensen: Point of order. The
H126/exl/2010
are working people.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
Deputy Speaker: Member, take your seat, please.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
Member, point of order.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
Point of Order
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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
Deputy Speaker: Member, I find the language unparliamentary.
Would you like to withdraw it?
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
G. Gentner: Madam speaker, I do so, with apologies to the
offended member across.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
Deputy Speaker: Thank you.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
Debate Continued
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 for-profit
emergency centre at Surrey Memorial Hospital.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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 hardworking citizens and stopped this extra
tax called user fees and privatized healthcare. 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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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.
[DRAFT
TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
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 Delta port. We
need a larger discussion to explore what he has in store, what possibly this
thoughtless Liberal government is headed towards.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
Another reason why we should meet here
H127/ljg/2015
to explore what he has in store, what
possibly this thoughtless Liberal government is headed towards.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
Another reason why we should meet here for most of the session is not
for busywork but 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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
True enough, national continental movements will be using Prince
Rupert and the Vancouver Port Authority. This means improved rail capacity will
pour concrete from Delta port 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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
[H. Bloy in the chair.]
It is also what the outcomes of South Fraser perimeter road will do
to our farmland. We 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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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 — commitment by this
government to preserve in its entirety — and yet nothing at all has been brought
forward in this House.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The government with the federal government has partnered with the
third berth expansion at Delta port. 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 is no major discussion, per se, or
guarantee that freighters and ships docking off Delta port 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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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, is designated a
hemispheric site in the Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve Network.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
H128/hlg/2020
southern killer whales, has been planned
as the Roberts Bank wildlife management area for over ten years. Again, the
government has kept its head in the sand.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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, and 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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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 separated 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 of the thoughts of the
Premier, an office which is the largest of its kind per capita in the country.
[DRAFT
TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I will end by saying I am opposed to adjourning the Legislature,
because it is suppression of opposition, and 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."
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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 the children and you
tell them why we're here and what their expectations truly are, you can tell
them, tell them why you did not hold a full session for this fall.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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
H129/llm/2025
this House was not recalled according to
the fixed calendar, which this government brought into place.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
As I have stated before in this House, I believe that the fixed
calendar is a better way to conduct the people's business. 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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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 district's budget.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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.
[DRAFT
TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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 with special needs, as
well as taking care of providing the curriculum to those regular students.
[DRAFT
TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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?
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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 gives them
back or 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? [DRAFT
TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
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 to make investments until the
profiles of our forests improve and recover. We know that the cost of removing
wood from a forest sector that is a high profile of pulp-quality fibre is not
economic, especially when having to compete with bug wood that is being taken
down in the interior.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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. 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
H130/bah/2030
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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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, and specifically, the water that drives the
generators of Kemano.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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 of windfall profits by selling electricity back to British Columbians at
$71 a megawatt for power that costs less than $5 to produce.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
We started today to question this Hydro-Alcan agreement, and if this
House were open, we would continue to do this. But 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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
Workers in Skeena have told me that the contract between workers and
families and the companies that employ them has been turned on their 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 because 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.
[DRAFT
TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I have over 200 families being treated this way. Some have been
bankrupted and had their lives literally destroyed.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
To me, this is not
busywork but valuable work allowing ordinary
people to have their voices heard.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
Finally, we have one of the highest rates of people living on social
assistance, who have not seen a raise in years, and yet the costs of living have
gone dramatically up.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
If we were here, we could
continue to press this government on making changes to income assistance that
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.'s history.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
These and many more topics should be before the House, and this could
only be done
H131/ebp/2035
level of living, even if it is a
subsistence living as defined by this government. It's surely one of the most
arrogant and heartless governments in B.C.'s 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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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 that this government should be proud of in the least.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
I predict that it won't happen next year. I predict that the members
opposite will be here next fall. Let's hope so; let's hope so.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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, and 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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
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, and I'm seeing it again this
fall in my constituency, with dire consequences for some of my constituents —
and dire consequences, 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; it's under attack.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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 getting it from elsewhere easily 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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
They're seeing the effects of global warming. They're seeing the cost of fuel skyrocketing and wondering if they will
H132/rxr/2040
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"?
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
I want to say something else about the function of agriculture too.
It is primarily about food production.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
Interjection.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
M. Sather:
Thank you, Member.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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 to 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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I want to talk about one particular project in my community, and it's
a 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. Part of that bridge….
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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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 and
H133/jlm/2045
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, and
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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]
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. It's
going through the Hampton farm, a hundred-year-old heritage farm where Bill
Hampton and his sons still farm actively there. 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.
[DRAFT
TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
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 affect on those farms.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
But 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.
[DRAFT
TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
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, and all she would get from it was the cuttings
from their blueberries, which she and the kids planted, thousands of them, and
slowly developed this farm.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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.
[DRAFT
TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
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. [DRAFT
TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Why did that happen? That happened for the most bizarre of reasons,
as far as I'm concerned: because a few people 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 to destroy their
operation.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
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
H134/lrm/2050
and to destroy their operation.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
I hope that's going to change in the next session. I hope that 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. So I'm asking, Mr. Speaker, that
this Minister of Agriculture and Lands, this Minister of Transportation will pay
heed this time, will say, 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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
We have the member for Delta South that frequently reminds us that we
have to eat to live. There couldn't be truer words spoken.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
[Applause.]
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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
Just in finishing up, Mr. Speaker, 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 says oftentimes…. She looks at me, and she 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. She cannot
comprehend how her and her family's livelihood would be torn away from them for
no good reason.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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 head 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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
Hon. R. Neufeld:
Skirts? [DRAFT
TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
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."
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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 is interested in the big stuff. He's not interested,
unfortunately, in the little people, and that's what's really hurting. It's not
just these folks, Mr. Speakers. 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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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….
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Interjection.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
M. Sather:
Hey, I'm learning this business.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
At this time, Mr. Speaker, I would like to….
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
Interjection.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
M. Sather:
Yes, thank you, House Leader. I was going to say that, actually.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
At this time I would like to move adjournment of the debate
H135/dot/2055
I would like to….
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
Interjection.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
M. Sather:
Yes, thank you, the House Leader. I was going to say that actually. At this
time, I would like to move adjournment of the debate.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, you've
all heard the motion.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
Motion approved.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
Hon. M. de Jong: I move that the House recess until 9:05 and
thereafter continue to sit unless otherwise ordered.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, you've
all heard the motion.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
Opposition House Leader.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
So 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 continue on until who knows what.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
Why the government doesn't want to do that and they feel the need
that they 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. But what I do know is that there's a
pattern here with this government that somehow the House is their 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 suspend rules when it suits them.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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 adjourn 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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
A. Dix: I think the member from Port Coquitlam, the Opposition
House Leader, has said it very well.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
Interjection.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
Mr. Speaker: Member, Member. The
member for Vancouver-Kingsway has the floor.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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 one of the advantages of that…. 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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
We are debating presently 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. [DRAFT
TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
We believe that the reasonable thing would be for the House to return
tomorrow at 10 a.m. and 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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
Instead what we have here is a motion that, I would suggest, seems to be a very mild motion. It 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 we debate and so that
H136/img/2100
Instead, what we have here is a motion
that seems, I would suggest, 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 we 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 hourly calendar, our
daily calendar, where we do it starting again at 10 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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
Hon. Speaker, we are living, I think, in this period, 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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
The member for Port Moody–Westwood has a question he'd like to ask on home inspectors. Believe 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 of more days to this legislative session
H137/jbp/2105
home inspectors and 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 allow us and answer
questions with respect to home inspectors.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
We on this side of the House are against this motion, this motion of
legislation by exhaustion, this motion that says if you want to give a speech
against the adjournment of the House that you have to do it at three or four in
the morning. We are against it. The Government House Leader, who significantly
this week, in response to requests for emergency debate, has said in those
discussions this week: "Oh no. 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."
[DRAFT
TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
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, that
:"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 it includes all those things, and that the
Government House Leader can call the House back, but he doesn't get to decide
what we debate. He doesn't get to.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
If it is the case that the majority of the House thinks they have
some ideas about what the agenda should be — that it should only be these things
and some other things — then they fundamentally believe 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 come the day after that in question period is
fundamental to what this House is all about.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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, I'll be rising in opposition to the decision to adjourn the House as
well later on.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
This motion also speaks to our fundamental privileges as MLAs. Question period, questions on the notice paper…. By the way,
H138/cam/2110
later on. This motion also speaks to our
fundamental privileges as MLAs.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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 in that debate fully and reasonably. We would
like to have another chance, which seems reasonable in our parliamentary
democracy, to ask questions to 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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
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 adjournment
debate take place that is so important to our constituents — so important to
them. [DRAFT
TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
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 fashions the assets of this province, and then having the
contemptuous gall not to allow this House to sit as it was scheduled.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
ONLY]
The membe