To watch video (2:50:36 - 3:20:42):

http://www.leg.bc.ca/hansard/video/archive-dougfir.asp?video=200911161345&time=14:40:00&toc=archive-dougfir-cmt-a

To read Hansard transcript:

http://www.leg.bc.ca/hansard/39th1st/D91116y.htm


2009 Legislative Session: First Session, 39th Parliament
COMMITTEE A 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.
________________________________________
DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY
(HANSARD)
________________________________________
COMMITTEE A BLUES
MONDAY, NOVEMBER 16, 2009
Afternoon Sitting
________________________________________
CSA - 20091116PM 006/LCG/1440

PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM
Committee of Supply
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT

G. Gentner: I'd like the minister, if he can, to confirm whether or not he attended a meeting on February 9, 2009, with intergovernmental relations and other cabinet ministers — a briefing meeting with delegation relative to Shankers Bend. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Hon. B. Penner: I don't recall. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

G. Gentner: Seven days after the meeting briefing cabinet members, the deadline for submission for intervener status, Shankers Bend, had expired. Can the minister explain why he did not pursue that matter and become an intervener on behalf of the province? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Hon. B. Penner: The member is referring to a proposal by the public utility district in a part of eastern Washington State to commission some studies looking at the potential for one of three options: a low head run-of-river-type project, a medium-sized dam or what is referred to as the high dam proposal. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Discussions around these various options are not new. I believe the first time it was entertained and seriously discussed was in the 1920s. So almost 90 years or so ago was the first time that these proposals were under active consideration. Interest on the U.S. side of the border has waxed and waned over the decades, with renewed interest in the late '30s, I think, as a part of economic stimulus; waned during the 1940s while interest was directed towards fighting and winning World War II; renewed interest again in the 1950s; not so much in the 1960s; a bit more in the '70s; a bit more in the '80s; and again a bit in the '90s, not so much; and then back again for more discussion. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

[H. Bloy in the chair.]

I have been involved in this matter for a couple years now, from when I first heard that the public utility district — I think it's called Okanogan County; pronounced the same but spelled differently from our Okanagan — in Washington State was requesting funding from the Department of Ecology in Washington State to pursue some studies. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

I've engaged with the now former Director of Ecology in Washington State, Jay Manning, to indicate that the B.C. government would not support the high dam proposal. We don't feel that that is an acceptable project, considering the impact that that project would have on our side of the border. I believe that's a position supported by local first nations and others. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

This spring we did retain legal counsel, because in order for the studies to be undertaken, approval had to be granted by the U.S. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, or FERC, headquartered in Washington, D.C. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

[1735]

I pause here to note that the U.S. regulatory process is considerably different [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

CSA - 20091116PM 041/BAH/1735

to be undertaken, approval had to be granted by the U.S. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, or FERC, headquartered in Washington, D.C. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

I pause here to note that the U.S. regulatory process is considerably different than the Canadian process. So we retained legal counsel in the United States that assisted us ably in fighting the Sumas 2 power project. It's the same lawyer that we hired in Seattle, David Bricklin, who provided us with advice about how to engage in this matter and helped us draft our intervention pleadings. Then he filed them on our behalf. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

We subsequently learned that FERC had already approved the study, and in their mind, the matter was closed. They said that there were no active proceedings at the moment. If there were to be an interest in proceeding further on the part of the public utility district, the utility district would have to come forward again to FERC to take any additional steps or studies. The B.C. Government, at that time, would be in its right to seek intervener status. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

I have subsequently written back to FERC, the U.S. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, and indicated it is the B.C. government's intention to seek intervener status if this matter should come up again. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Depending on who you ask south of the border, the studies won't be complete for either a short period of time or a much longer period of time. I've been given conflicting advice on that from people south of the border. But suffice to say, the B.C. government's position is very clear. We've articulated it to my counterpart in Washington State as well as to the U.S. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. I think just a few weeks ago I wrote a letter to the public utility district directly to explain our opposition to their high dam proposal. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

G. Gentner: Obviously, the government's on position now that it is opposed to the high dam proposal that would flood the Similkameen. But clearly, the minister's also on record that he's not necessarily opposed to the medium dam proposal or the low dam proposal, which could still have adverse habitat issues, particularly in the estuary of the Similkameen River. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

What I want to raise with the minister is the following. I read from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers that states: "Development of new water storage sites on Similkameen River in Canada has been considered. A new Canadian investigation for a Similkameen River dam is currently underw
ay. Coordinated operation of any of the above Washington sites, in conjunction with the Canadian water storage facility under consideration, shall be evaluated." [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Can I ask the minister what facility is being considered, north of the 49th, relative to damming on the Similkameen? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

[1740]
CSA - 20091116PM 042/KLM/1740

Hon. B. Penner: Just trying to find some of the information related to the member's second question. But just for the record, I can provide a bit more amplification of the B.C. government's position with respect to the Shankers dam proposals, and I did say plural. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Here's what I said in part to the person named Kimberly D. Bose, a secretary at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission on August 27, 2009, by way of a letter: [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

"There are three proposals for the construction of hydroelectric power under consideration at Shankers Bend. The government of British Columbia has concerns regarding the potential impacts to our province. Under one 'high dam' proposal" — which I believe would be up to 80 metres high or 250 feet high — "the resulting 9,000 acres of flooded land in B.C. could cover two first nations reserves, provincial protected areas, a potential national grasslands park, valuable agricultural land and some forested areas. This area includes 16 listed species at risk under the Canadian federal Species At Risk Act. There is further concern about flooding in the Great Basin Desert, which contains many endangered species. We have related concerns with the other two proposals.

"Therefore, the province of British Columbia has continued interest in Project 12804-000, particularly if there are further proceedings with respect to this matter. If the Okanagan PUD" — I'll add here that that stands for public utility district — "files a development licence application in the FERC process, the Ministry of Environment will submit a motion to intervene at the earliest opportunity."

It's because of the obvious impact that the high dam proposal would have on the B.C. side of the border, as enunciated in the letter that I just quoted from, that the B.C. government was comfortable saying that we don't need to wait for full environmental review of that project. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Knowing the amount of area that would be inundated on the Canadian side of the border and the sensitive habitat in that Okanagan Valley, we took the view that that project was a non-starter from our perspective and have communicated that clearly and directly to our counterparts in Washington State as well as to the U.S. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

I have also pointed out, though, that the British Columbia government supports the responsible use and development of hydro power when projects are appropriately sited and designed to avoid unacceptable environmental impacts. But, in our view, the high dam proposal does not fit that criteria. We know enough to say that clearly. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

[1745]

If there are other proposals, including on the Canadian side of the border, for power generation, those projects would have to meet our standards. That is something that would be subject to our review process. Depending on the size of the project, not only would it need [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

CSA - 20091116PM 043/AMM/1745

power generation, those projects would have to meet our standards. That is something that would be subject to our review process. Depending on the size of the project, not only would it need up to 50 different approvals and permits from 14 different government agencies, both federal and provincial, but it could also be subject to a complete B.C. environmental assessment process, something that we had some discussion about here a few minutes ago. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

G. Gentner: I gather from the minister that the high dam is out but the medium dam is in, and it perhaps hinges on whether or not it offers opportunities of further damming up on the Canadian side. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Since the minister is busy reading letters, I have a…. Hatch Energy completed a report for Fortis, and they suggested that they can dam somewhere up by Princeton, British Columbia, in order to contribute to maintain the water flow. It's in tandem with what Washington State wants to do south of the 49th. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

So I want to ask the minister a question. He obviously attended the B.C.-Washington cabinet meeting this fall, October 9, and was…. Well, my understanding is that Shankers Bend was part of the agenda with the joint cabinets. What type of agreement did B.C. come with Washington State at that meeting, and what was discussed relative to Shankers Bend? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Hon. B. Penner: I have already told the member not once but, I think, twice that the province of B.C. has clearly articulated to the State of Washington what our view is with respect to the Shankers Bend proposal. We have expressed our outright opposition to the high dam proposal and also expressed our concerns about the other two proposals. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

In fact, let me quote from the motion-to-intervene document, dated earlier this year; I think it was March 31, 2009. On page 4: "Under the low dam option, while there's no area within British Columbia anticipated to flood, the Province has concerns as to how the dam could impact British Columbia in years of high water. For this reason, we believe careful consideration and environmental scrutiny is required before any decision is made regarding the low dam proposal…. Similarly, we believe appropriate scrutiny should be given to the possible run-of-river option." [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

That's the third option that has been proposed by the public utility district or at least being studied. It is still very preliminary. I think it was a $300,000 study. Depending on what that study says…. And by the way, Washington State has committed to share with us the results of that study. That's something that I asked for, and director Jay Manning responded at the time and said that they would be more than happy to share that information with us. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

We'll see what that says, that may well be the end of the matter. As I've noted at the outset, this has been a topic of discussion in that area for almost 100 years now, and it hasn't come to fruition. Nevertheless, we think it is important for us to remain vigilant and that's why we have undertaken the work that we've done to date directly with Washington State as well as with the federal energy regulatory commission. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

If there is a proposal for a power generation facility on the Canadian side of the border, whether it's on the Similkameen River or any other watercourse in British Columbia, they would have to obtain numerous approvals and go through much scrutiny in order for that to happen. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

G. Gentner: Moving quickly, we'll talk briefly about the flathead. We had a United Nations delegation that met up with British Columbia. The overwhelming amount of people who attended were from the Ministry of Environment. My one quick question I have is: will the government agree to a non-staking reserve to all energy and mining activity in the entire Flathead River Valley? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

[1750]
CSA - 20091116PM 044/AJB/1750

Hon. B. Penner: When it comes to dealing with the United Nations delegation that was here a month or two ago and discussions with the state of Montana, it's the Minister of State for Intergovernmental Relations that is the lead on the file, and I know that she has been actively involved in this matter. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

I've had a chance to visit the Flathead Valley twice in my lifetime. The first time was 12 years ago. I think it was the summer of 1997. Again, I had a chance to go there — I believe in September of this year — so 12 years later. The Flathead Valley looked much the same. Very little had changed in 12 years. It continues to be an area where numerous people recreate. There's hunting and fishing and some ATV use. There are forestry operations, although I suspect they've been reduced somewhat, given the recent market for our export products in lumber currently. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

But the area looks much the same as it did when I was there 12 years ago. That is to say, it supports many forms of wildlife and much outdoor recreation. Certainly, that's something that we want to see continue. We want to continue to see the wildlife protected in a sustainable way, and also, we want to make sure that the water quality is protected. That's why we have stringent requirements and regulations in place for any forms of activity that are proposed in that area. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

G. Gentner: Now the minister can slough off the responsibility to the Intergovernmental Relations Minister all he wants, but I want to bring it to the attention just for the record. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Kathy Eichenberger, project assessment director, B.C. environmental assessment office, was there. Anthony Danks, executive director, strategic policy for B.C. Environment. He was there. Tom Ethier, director, fish and wildlife, Ministry of Environment. He attended. He was there at the meetings with the United Nations. Jody Frenette, hydrologist, environmental impact assessment biologist, Ministry of Environment. She was there. She gave a presentation. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

We have Doug Martin, senior ecosystem specialist, the Ministry of Environment. He was there. Kerrie Mortin, environmental impact assessment, Ministry of Environment. She was there. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Now, I'm counting the B.C. delegation, and it seems to me that 75 percent of the delegation representing B.C. were from this ministry. Yet the ministry refuses to talk about this issue. It sloughs it off to the minister. Now, I know time is limited, and boy, could we have fun with what's going on in the Flathead. The whole United Nations has decided to check it out because of the disgraceful attention this government has been placed and putting poor relationships with the state of Montana and others. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

I suppose with the little time, I have very little opportunity to pursue this matter which I was hopeful that we could be able to do here today. But I suppose that my question to you is this, hon. Chair — is that the province is on record. Mr. McClellan, who is an officer who works for the government, stated recently that he believes that there's a needed designation of this area to that of Purcell Wilderness Conservancy, and he believes that we better — than a national park. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

I'd like to ask the minister why the government feels that. Why would it would be better than a national park? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

[1755]
CSA - 20091116PM 045/LCG/1755

Hon. B. Penner: Just to back up a little bit as to how we came to have a UN-sponsored delegation from UNESCO come to visit a part of British Columbia, this spring a number of environmental groups signed a petition to UNESCO asking that they add the international peace park to a list of world heritage sites deemed to be "in danger." There was a meeting that was held — I think it was in Barcelona, Spain, either in May or June of this year — of UNESCO, and the petition asked at that meeting that such a designation be added by UNESCO, saying that this part of the Flathead Valley was in danger. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

It wasn't reported in the media, but in fact, UNESCO declined to make such a finding. It did not find that the area was considered to be in danger. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Alternatively, the government of Canada, I think, supported by the province of B.C., invited officials from UNESCO to come see the area for themselves. We're proud of our environmental record in British Columbia. As I've already indicated, I've been to the Flathead area two times now, and it is an area that is spectacular. There's no question about it. So we were quite interested in having officials from UNESCO visit British Columbia. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

But we also felt it was important that they take a look at what's happening south of the 49th parallel in the state of Montana. While the member here might want to pretend that Montana has got environmental standards that we should aspire to, I would choose to disagree. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

[1800]

One notable observation is that they have only about 5 percent of their land base protected in the form of parks or protected areas, whereas in British Columbia we have almost three times that percentage — but many more times that amount, or many millions of hectares, when you compare it [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

CSA - 20091116PM 046/EBP/1800

of their land base that's protected in the form of parks or protected areas, whereas in British Columbia we have almost three times that percentage but many more millions of hectares when you compare it in terms of actual amount of area covered by protected areas here in British Columbia. So I hardly think that we'll be in a position to take too many lectures from the conduct of officials south of the border. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

I note that at the very time that the UNESCO delegation was visiting Montana there was a U.S. federal court decision that had to do with grizzly bears. The judge specifically made comments that officials in Montana had to do more work to protect the grizzly bears in their state. By contrast, grizzly bear populations in British Columbia are much more healthy. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

We do have concerns in certain regions of the province, but the Flathead area is not one of them, when it comes to the overall health of wildlife. We want to make sure that that wildlife is maintained, but certainly, when we compare what's happening on our side of the border to what has happened in Montana, we can all conclude that things have been much better from an environmental perspective. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Our goal as a government is to make sure that that continues to be the case. We want to continue to learn. We welcome the UNESCO officials. I'm sure they'll be making some comments in the near future, certainly, but our environmental practices, I think, are top-rate. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Can we learn from others? Sure, we want to continue to learn from others, but we can also learn from others about how to not do things. I think some of the things that have taken place in the state of Montana are some of those things that we can learn not to do. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

To watch video (between 5:05:52 - 5:35:25):

http://www.leg.bc.ca/hansard/video/archive.asp?video=200911061830&time=18:58:20&toc=archive

To read the Hansard Transcript:

http://www.leg.bc.ca/hansard/39th1st/H91106y.htm


2009 Legislative Session: First Session, 39th Parliament
HOUSE 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.
________________________________________
DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY
(HANSARD)
________________________________________
HOUSE BLUES
FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 6, 2009
Afternoon Sitting

(debate continued)

G. Gentner: I rise in support of this hoist motion. I think the last time I rose to do so in the late evening, we had a member, Corky Evans, who stood up and actually broke into song. In fact, I think it was three o'clock in the morning, and the lights were turned off somehow. We got through that episode quite well. But, unfortunately, the government didn't listen to us that day, and here we are once again. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

I begin by thinking about earlier today and welcoming the Prince and his lovely wife here. It was a great day, and it's a great reminder, too, of how important our jobs are here and how important we fit in within the parliamentary system. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

I begin talking about the need to hoist the motion, this need to talk about the need to bring collective bargaining back, the need to give collective bargaining a chance. I'd like to thank the member for Port Coquitlam, who gave us today the hoist motion. It's sort of like: "Give collective bargaining a chance." It's kind of like John Lennon giving peace a chance. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

I can imagine that the member for Port Coquitlam probably had long, curly hair years ago, and he was, you know, into very positiveness. Here we are, and it's the same sort of thing. It's to give peace a chance; it's to give collective bargaining a chance. That's why I support what the member for Port Coquitlam brought forward here today. I certainly put forward and support this need for this hoist. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Interjections.

G. Gentner: Thank you, Hon. Member, or Chair. I think that it was probably much longer than the member would like to admit, but nevertheless. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

There are many issues in this province that come and go politically and that have a lasting impact on our social fabric. This is one issue — the erosion of collective bargaining, why we're here today on this motion — that we have to give time to, for reflection. We have to give time to be fair. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

In fact, Bill 21 is really a very hard-nosed bill. It's a bill that, I believe, is about to set the clock back on labour relations in this province. I think it's so serious a bill that we ask, as Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, and we implore to reconsider. I look across, and there is hope. The Minister of Labour is here with us this evening, and he is listening. He's giving us his ear, and so I plead to the minister and his government to seriously reconsider this, I believe, hasty Bill 21. That's why I support the member for Port Coquitlam's motion to hoist this thing. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

[0010]

It's a time to be reasonable, it's a time for fairness, and it's a time to be prudent. This is not a time to sledgehammer legislation through. This is a major dispute, and there's no agreement. Just on the title alone, what it's called, I think, gives the wrong impression. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

HSE - 20091106 PM 063/LRM/0010

sledgehammer legislation through. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

This is a major dispute, and you know, there's no agreement. So just on the title alone, what it's called, I think it gives the wrong impression. The B.C. government, I believe, is making a mockery of the process of collective bargaining. That is why the hoist motion is here. It is for this government to look at the decent side, I believe of collective bargaining — to refrain, take a deep breath and think about what they're doing. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Now, the government doesn't understand, I believe, the seriousness of these actions and where we're going to be going when we go into further collective bargaining coming up. You know, it's going to set us back. It's going to set us way back, and that is why I think we have to re-evaluate this position. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

You know, six months, I think, is sensible. It gives us the time to retract, a time to cool off, and it's a time for us to build a province when we come back here in the spring. When the motion was made today, I think it was done in the spirit of cooperation by the opposition, but I have to say that when the opposition House Leader made the hoist motion for six months, I thought: "Well, why six months?" [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

I mean, why not a year? Why not three months, four or five? Why was it six? You know, there's got to be some reason here. Knowing the House Leader, there's got to be some reason. Perhaps he's got some numerology here that I certainly don't understand. Maybe he knows something about numbers. He is, after all…. Maybe he's a numerologist. But why six months? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

That's what this hoist motion is all about. It's six months. How the planets and stars line up, I don't know. Maybe it's all of the above. Maybe it has something to do with anniversaries. Then you know — boom! — it hit me. We're dealing with, I think, a very sick B.C. Liberal government patient, a patient devoid of many things. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Six months from today, November 6…. Well, 15 minutes ago it was still November 6. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Interjections.

G. Gentner: It still is. In this world, yes. The Minister of Labour corrects me, and so he should. In this type of world over here in the Legislature, we are still behind the times, so yes, today is tomorrow. And tomorrow, hopefully, will be today. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Nevertheless, when you think about six months from November 6 is May 6, that's a reasonable time. Hopefully, by then, May 6, we'll get a deal done. But of course, how can anybody forget what May 6 is? May 6 is Sigmund Freud's birthday… [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Interjection.

G. Gentner: …and the member's son's birthday. That's maybe just a coincidence. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Deputy Speaker: Member, please direct all remarks through the Chair. If I could ask members to refrain from making comment without being in their own seat. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

G. Gentner: Absolutely, hon. Chair. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Siggy Freud's birthday is May 6. Now, we shouldn't extend this for six months. This is to commemorate Siggy's 154th birthday, but I really have to be serious. This is a very serious matter. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

But it brings to mind that it's time, for six months, to put the government on the proverbial couch and do a little analysis. That's what this motion does. A chance for re-examination, a time to recall. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

I mean, there's different methods of psychoanalytical aspects. I'm not necessarily a Freudian. I'm not neo-Freudian. There are Jungians, and there are existential psychoanalytical approaches. We can go down the gamut. I'm more, of course, in support of humanistic perspectives. But six months — that is what this is about. We could have extensive psychoanalytical views, analysis, and see what the problem is. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

I think that's fair. We can put this government under hypnosis for six months. That would really solve the problem, I think. Six months, psychopolitics. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

[0015]

Hoisting is a prescription so doctors can get back to work and find out [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

HSE - 20091106 PM 064/PML/0015

That would really solve the problem, I think. Six months of psycho politics, and hoisting is a prescription so that doctors can get back to work and find out what's really ailing this government. I mean, six months. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Could you imagine if Freud were here today, in this place created in the late, late Victorian setting here? Could you imagine what Sigmund Freud could do with the group over there? You know, I'd just love to read the case study, when he would be finished, about what he would find — a case study of B.C. Liberal anxiety and why they have to foist so quickly and ram this bill through instead of having a moment of reflection. But I also hate to think of the weird fantasies that could come out. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

But we've got to give the doctor and the patient time. I think six months is reasonable. They might get to the root of the problem, lose their reality, I think. Delusional and a propensity to tell untruths — that's what we've had. A decade of deceit. Giving them six months on this hoist motion not only will give them the time to look at what they're doing relative to this bill but will give them time to reflect where they're going — where they're going in a larger perspective. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

From a psychoanalytical perspective, why are they so hard on the paramedics? I think it's because they save lives. Freud would say: "Well, this is the death instinct. It's about anxiety." They fear their own mortality, and hopefully, by 2013 they'll be gone. But they fear it so much. There's something eating away at their own inner core, and therefore, they must project a sense of immortality and wield pain upon those who are more meaningful to society than they themselves. They're here in spite of death. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

It's those paramedics that save lives, and the rest of us in society look at our paramedics on a higher level, on a pedestal. That's why we need the hoist motion. It's going to take six months of counselling, true counselling on all sides, to get this done. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

The B.C. Liberals, I believe, are weak, and they must compensate for that weakness by projecting their sort of a brute-like strength upon others. It's the same way any bully picks on the others. It's usually with the do-gooders, the people who are trying to do their best for society. It's that inner core, where there is something eating away in their inner core. It's the worm inside, and because of it, because of their own insecurity, they lash out at others. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Six months. I think six months is very reasonable, because the government needs six months of therapy, good therapy. We look at this aggression, this need for hostility. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

I got a letter from Jennifer, who writes: [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

"I've been a paramedic for 14 years and served with pride and enthusiasm during this time. I worked hard and under stressful times to serve the citizens of British Columbia around the clock in all types of settings. This strike has left me feeling worthless and devalued.

"You know, that's what this government is trying to do, and that's why we need six months to rebuild that morale. There is constant discontent within the ranks and disputes with management. It troubles me that I cannot feel good going to work under such negative pressure from the B.C. Liberal government."

Pressure, Mr. Speaker, pressure, and we need the time to heal, to re-examine. We need those six months. That's why I support the hoist motion. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

She goes on:
"This, in turn, has affected my desire to care and has caused me for miss work due to stress and frustration. My family has suffered, and I battle my emotions to consider a career change. As a result of this, I have endured sick time above and beyond a reasonable amount, which ultimately costs the taxpayer."

[0020]

Let's hoist this thing, hon. Speaker. To the minister: let's hoist it, and let's go under intensive [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

HSE - 20091106 PM 065/IMG/0020

I've incurred sick time above and beyond a reasonable amount, which ultimately costs the taxpayer." [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Let's hoist this thing, hon. Speaker. To the minister: let's hoist it, and let's go under intensive therapy. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

You know, Ziggy said this about aggression: "Ja, he is the problem. The tendency to aggression is an innate, independent, instinctual disposition in man.… It constitutes the most powerful obstacle to culture." [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Now, he would have gone on, if he'd come back. He'd say: "In the case of B.C. Liberals, this is a very complex and difficult pathos that may not be reversible." Unfortunately, he is not here, but if he were to lay the patient out, I'm sure he would still insist that we have to go through thorough examination. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

May 6 is Ziggy's birthday, and of course a member here's child. It's an interesting coincidence. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

I don't know if he'd think that six months would be enough time, since this is Victoria. Maybe it would be, because it could be possible. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

I support this hoist motion. The actions of this government are based on something repressed. It's repressed inside. It's repression. And that is now suffering, and it is ugly. It's aggression. It's hostility. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

This is what a paramedic writes, relative to aggression and his own view. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

We trudge along, though, because deep down, as much as we cry and become despondent after particularly gruelling physical and emotional calls, we love this job, and you, Mr. Premier, know this. You have exploited our love and commitment to our job, and all I can say is "Shame on you."

All citizens of this beautiful province are deserving of respect. So why have you singled out the B.C. Ambulance Service paramedics and continue to treat us with such contempt and disrespect? I am at a loss. I will be leaving the BCAS after almost 20 years of full-time service, and I am leaving due solely to the disrespect shown to all BCAS paramedics by our employer.
Chad Swanson

Exploited, disrespected and being singled out. That is how a victim feels from a bully. It's that aggression that is pent up inside. It's pent up so severely that it has to find a whipping post. Unfortunately, it is our paramedics who are now feeling the stick. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Why such contempt and disrespect to our paramedics? Why? It's because of guilt, because of their own impotence. They have to be the tormentor. Perhaps after six months they will step back and re-examine what their actions are and why they are doing this. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

It doesn't make sense. It really doesn't. I don't see the decency in this. What's the big rush? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

You talk about anxiety. They said one thing during the election. They said: "No HST. Hardly will there be a deficit." We're now looking at a deficit that is almost structural. They knew. We're hearing from the letters that people are starting to hate this government. They're starting to hate them. All of this anxiety is now lashing out at others. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

They're running hard and long since the election — angry, and they're taking it out on workers. That's why I support the hoist motion. It goes beyond just simply the paramedics, which we have to address. It's the general, ingrained passion. It's not a very healthy passion. Striking out, lashing out — it's hurtful. That's why I agree in six months. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

[0025]

It's deep-ridden. It's eating their insides. I would say it has been the guilt that has built up for almost a decade. We're calling it "decade of deceit." Others are questioning their inner selves [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
HSE - 20091106 PM 066/DOT/0025

you know, it's been a guilt that's been built up for almost a decade, and we're calling it a decade of deceit. Others are questioning their inner selves. I think many members on that side are starting to question themselves. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]


Of course, I'm not going to get into the ego versus the id, and all that stuff. That was all 19th century stuff. But all this guilt is projected on victims. It's time to heal and it's time to deal with some anger management. I mean, that's reasonable. That's human nature with all of us, I suppose. Sometimes we get caught in our work, and we're so pent up, we're driving an agenda, that we don't step back. That's why I support the hoist motion. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

On the same line, I have another letter that I want to read out from another paramedic. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

"I've been doing this job, serving the public of British Columbia, for the last 38 years. When I started we didn't have any protective gear. Over the years I've been exposed to many contagious diseases. My dear wife sat alone many times over the years eating a meal she had prepared, while I responded to an emergency call. There were many disappointments for my wife and three children, as I couldn't say no to helping someone in trouble.

"I'm not blaming anyone. I chose this profession. Please don't use the flu scare to pass this bill. My fellow paramedics and I have worked through the strike, caring for people in trouble, and we will not stand by and let anyone die. We've worked through the flu many times over the years. The flu doesn't scare us. What does is abuse of power in a free country.
"Remembrance Day is up, and let us not forget what my two uncles died for — freedom and to stop a tyrant."

Passion. There's passion in there. That's the thing, hon. Speaker, that I'm reading in all these letters. There's a sense of passion here. It goes beyond just a political agenda. People are genuinely upset. There whole lives are being stepped on. So support the hoist motion. It's not that hard to do. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

I'll go on:
"This bullying…." And the word "bullying" is coming up all over the place in the correspondence. I'm sure the members opposite are receiving the same kind of letters. I'm sure when they go back into their constituency…. Maybe it's a godsend that they're here right now, I don't know, to get away from the pressures. Maybe that's how they're thinking. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

I go on:
"This bullying of one of the weaker unions, by ramming this bill through before the vote is counted, is an arrogant act. All the unions in B.C. and Canada should rally behind us, as they could be the next one. How about a little respect?
"Signed Bob Copp, paramedic."

Now, Bob Copp also holds an exemplary service medal of honour. I mean, how can you treat our front line that way? It's despicable — absolutely despicable. But I plead and I ask, again, for a little rationality here, to be a little reasonable and support this hoist motion. A little respect: that's what the paramedics are asking. We need a little time for the government to reconsider. What's wrong with six months? It gives us all November to negotiate, a month of sober reflection. November — well, we're going to have a little rain. I think of Shakespeare: "The quality of mercy is not strained. It droppeth as the gentle rain from heaven upon the place beneath. It is twice blessed. It blesseth him that gives and him that takes" — a month of mercy and compassion, November. What's wrong with that? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Next week, in rain, we'll stand by the cenotaph remembering and reflecting, November. That is what the hoist motion is about — giving us November, a time to reflect and work towards peace. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

[0030]

I have another letter to read here. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

"My name is Vanessa Howard. I am a primary care paramedic. I love helping people and enjoy working as a paramedic. In order to do so in British Columbia, however, I work for PCAS. When I applied I was told that I could only apply to work as a part-time paramedic and would only be able to get hired on to a remote station. My husband I decided to make the sacrifice financially to enable me to work at something I loved."
These people love their job. They love what they're doing. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

HSE - 20091106 PM 067/LLM/0030
get hired onto remote station. My husband and I decided to make the sacrifice financially to enable us to work at something I loved."

These people love their job. They love what they're doing. It's a workplace that could be filled with real worth, and it's being ripped apart. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

She goes on: "Helping people…." I won't go further. There's so many letters here, hon. Speaker. But helping people…. Give us November. At least give us November so the government and the union can come and work together. That is why I support this motion. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

I support the motion because it also gives us December, a joyous time. Think about it — three good weeks to resolve this dispute in December. While many of us are entering Christmas parties and cheer, the paramedics will be out there in the snow. Many of them won't even see Christmas eve or Christmas day. They're there for you and me. Give them December. Let's get this thing done. We can work together. Hoist this motion. Join us. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

That's why I support this motion — out of respect for our paramedics. They should get a break at a time when everyone else gets one at Christmas. They're working long weary nights, giving up their family at a very special time. You know, we get December to hopefully go through the spirit of goodwill. We have a chance for a resolution. That's why I support…. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

January is another month. Janus, according to the Romans, is the god representing opening the door. Well, here's an opportunity. We can do something in January. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Samantha Wilbur writes: [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

"Quesnel is where I had my first critical incident stress. I was almost blown up by someone who made a makeshift bomb to kill himself. Although I was unhurt, I was just messed up. Taking time off work as a part-time employee means you get no pay until WCB approves your injury. After just a week and a half of being off work with no pay, sleepless nights and no appetite, I lost ten pounds and forced myself to get back to work so I could pay my bills."

To all the Samantha Wilburs out there…. Imagine a homemade bomb. That's what these people have to deal with. We owe Samantha her January. That's why I support giving six months to build the goodwill and to say thank you. February — well, that's kind of a tease during the early spring, isn't it? It's also the games. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

I have another letter. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

"We're not against the Olympics. We don't have any issue with the Olympics. We think the employers are the ones who haven't been negotiating, have been stalling, have brought this fight to the Olympic doorstep, so to speak. There's no plan that we've been made aware of for the paramedics during the Olympic games. We don't know how many ambulances we have to provide. We're going to, coming from…. How many paramedics will be working or where they're going to stay and eat — we don't know."

That's from Steve Brenner, paramedic. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

I want to wrap this up with an appeal again. I don't think it's very unreasonable at all, what we've asked here today. I don't think it's unreasonable at all. I think it's very reasonable. I think it's principled, and I think it's a decent thing to do. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

I started quoting Sigmund Freud. I was having a little fun with it, but this is a very serious issue. Like I said, I'm not a Freudian. I'm a humanist. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

In the neo-Freudian genre, another famous psychologist once said: "The great question that has never been answered, which I have not yet been able to answer despite my 30 years of research into the human condition, is: if the patient is unwilling to seek analysis or any type of counselling in order to deal with his or her aggression to others, if he or she is unwilling to take sufficient time to consider what is behind their motives, the patient is completely beyond hope and will continue to hurt others." [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Six months, Mr. Speaker, is not that much to ask for. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

To watch video (between 22:19 - 52:00):

http://www.leg.bc.ca/hansard/video/archive.asp?video=200911050930&time=09:58:35&toc=archive

To read transcript from Hansard:

http://www.leg.bc.ca/hansard/39th1st/H91105x.htm


2009 Legislative Session: First Session, 39th Parliament
HOUSE 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.
________________________________________
DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY
(HANSARD)
________________________________________
HOUSE BLUES
THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 5, 2009
Morning Sitting
________________________________________

Second Reading of Bills
BILL 21— AMBULANCE SERVICES
COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT ACT
(continued)


G. Gentner: I rise to speak relative, of course, to Bill 21. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

I begin my comments premised on my childhood. I have to think about, you know, those early years of my life, what kids did and how they played. You know, we would act out those jobs that represented our heroes. Many of us wanted to grow up to be a firefighter, others thought we'd be a police officer, and there were some of us who acted out the idea of being an ambulance driver or being a paramedic working for the Ambulance Service. It was kind of good play, but it went to show that in my childhood, being a lifesaver was something that was dear to all of us. It was respected. They were the heroes, hon. Speaker. They were the heroes that a child aspired to and wanted to grow up to become. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]


It is concerning to me that here we are today after, I'd have to say, four years of mistreatment, I believe, from this government — at least four years, on how they've been dealing with this issue. Of course, it all started in many ways with Bill 29 — there's a relationship to Bills 29 and 21 — and how this government with its heavy hand came down on all health care workers. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

How did this all begin? We had a great legacy. It really began many years ago with Tommy Douglas, who years ago in the '40s and '50s reconstituted and reorganized an ambulance system within his own province. They created an air ambulance, and it was something very novel, inventive and ingenious that the rest of North America was watching. He was able to consolidate and put together a triage that worked effectively, and it was the model that all other governments were aspiring towards. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Of course, in the '70s, we had a very progressive government led by one Dave Barrett, and Dave Barrett reorganized and put together the Ambulance Service itself, and that was a government that looked at the pitfalls of privatization, what happens when you don't have a public entity that could work triage and work all the emergency care systems together. Here we are today, and it seems to me that there's been an erosion of the health care system. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

[1025]

It also begins from your doorstep — preventative, but a doorstep — when you're in the unfortunate position or situation where you've called upon those first care responders. You put, literally, your life and limb on hold, in a situation where it's dependent on the good work of those heroes, those heroes that all of us had aspired to become when we were little children. You know, there [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

HSA - 20091105 AM 006/DAG/1025

and your limb on hold. It's a situation where it's dependent on the good work of those heroes, those heroes that all of us had aspired to become when we were little children. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

I can get very emotional on this issue, and I'm going to try and stick to a script, because I can get off focus on this one in so many ways — the emotions in the letters I have received very recently. But there are so many issues in this province that come and go politically and that have a lasting impact on our social fabric. I believe Bill 21 is one. It's a bellwether of more to come, of what this government represents. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

In fact, this Bill 21, the Ambulance Services Collective Agreement Act, is really, I believe, the employer's thug bill, because it's a big stick. You take it, and you have no recourse. In fact, it's a bill that is about to set the clock back on labour relations in this province. We are going backwards. It is a position that…. I call it a big stick. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

We saw with Bill 29, when this government took control, a position that changed a long-standing relationship, a good working relationship, with working people, the labour movement, unions and those who really were giving their lives, giving their worth and jeopardizing their lives, whether it be health care workers, nurses — and above all, of course, the paramedics, who are the front line. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

They were literally giving their time, their effort and perhaps their lives within a livelihood that is now suddenly shaken. It's being destroyed by something that I believe is very arrogant and pretentious. I think arrogant is a very soft word for this piece of legislation — in my estimation. I mean, it is only a brute with a big stick that would put forward such an onerous bill. That is what we are seeing here today. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

That is what Bill 29 was: the kill the health employees union act — when this government first took over. It was scornful of the relationship over the years, the development that we had with labour and management and the understanding of collective bargaining, a proud history we built in this province that is now being destroyed. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

It's now suddenly ripped apart, just like what was attempted with Bill 29, as though some scrap of paper…. A social fabric, a social contract has been put together — so many toilful long years on picket lines in this province — built on a social and labour history where many people…. In fact, some people gave up their lives — when you talk about the mining industry and what happened on Vancouver Island many years ago. It's a long litany to get here, and here we have today a situation where it's all for naught. Here we are again now with Bill 21. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

You know, the government had to eat crow with Bill 29. It had to repeal sections of Bill 29 that prohibited those collective agreements from including provisions that seek the limit and restrict or in any way regulate the contracting out of non-clinical services. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

I have no doubt in my mind that this is where this government would love to go: contracting out ambulatory services in small towns. It's almost like they're looking forward to perhaps a post office…. The post master would be a multitude of many things, and the postmaster, probably, in a small hamlet would also have an old beat-up car and run around and pick people up and submit his invoices whenever he was called upon. We have to ask ourselves, of course: what does that mean when it comes to training? I want to talk about that as well. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

[1030]

It took many years to put together an argument, and I'm happy to say that Bill 29 did go to the courts. It went before the courts, and the Supreme Court of Canada in June 2007 ruled parts of Bill 29 illegal and established collective bargaining as a right protected by the Canadian Charter of Rights. It's enshrined [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

HSA - 20091105 AM 007/ACR/1030

Bill 29 illegal, and established collective bargaining as a right — as a right protected by the Canadian Charter of Rights. It's enshrined. Every chance this government has, it's going to test it. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

This Bill 21, I believe, is a fundamental shift that, in its hastiness and almost belittling attempt on the paramedics of British Columbia.... I believe it's somewhat contemptuous, and that is what Bill 21, I really think, is all about. That is why it's important to address the aspects of Bill 21 — which does not try and reconcile, if you will. It is somewhat representative of a government that's conceited, big-headed, selfish. That is what we see in Bill 21. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

We've witnessed the untruthfulness of this government before the election — the promise that there would be a smaller debt and it mushroomed by three to four times. We heard the aspect that there would be no HST, and after the election — here we go — there it is. It's this deceitfulness, the falsehood where it said one thing during the election and did something very different after the election. And here we are again with Bill 21. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

On that side, there's no credibility or trust by the people of British Columbia and certainly by those who are on the front line of delivering our emergency services. And now we have this propaganda or distrust enshrined in this Bill 21. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

We can look right at its title. Let's look at its title. Right from its title it's called the Ambulance Services Collective Agreement Act — collective agreement act. Can you believe that they would come up with the audacity to refer to it as a collective agreement? This is an absolute sham. This is imposing the will of the employer on to the employee. They have the audacity.... [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

We talked about, of course, this deceitfulness that we've seen from this government, the way to gloss things over, and right there on the bill — the title, the subject — there it is: collective agreement act. What a farce. It's an absolute sham. It's trickery, and only the B.C. Liberal government would come up with the audacity to call it that. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

What a collective agreement. There's no collective agreement here. Collective? Not. It's forcing, again, the will of the employer over a defenceless group of citizens who are there for you and me. They should be held in the highest regard, the pedestal of our employees in this province, and they are completely tossing about as though they're a ragbag of disposable entities. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

This bill is absolutely outrageous — absolutely outrageous. Collective bargaining is sitting down and working out your differences. It's not running around with a piece of paper and saying: "We're calling it collective bargaining. We're calling it a collective agreement." It's about negotiating. It's about what makes this province wonderful — to sit together and work our differences out and continue to deliver the services that the people of British Columbia need. That's the nature of collective bargaining. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

That is also the nature of parliamentary democracy itself, a system where we sit around and yes, there are amendments and yes, there are times listening to the opposition. Above all, you listen to those you're about to hurt the most — those who have mortgages, those who, in my estimation, should be seen as the highest esteemed of the province in the delivery of our health care systems. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

This is a government that believes in conflict. I believe it should be the other way around. It should be about open discussion, something that's transparent, something we can sit down and work out with people. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

But that it what Bill 21 is doing: it's here to rip apart that decent way of dealing with our differences in a collective bargaining scenario. Collective agreement act? Agreement? Where's the agreement? There's no agreement here. None. Nada. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

[1035]

I'll tell you what the agreement really is all about. It's about the inability of this government, that cannot bargain in good faith. That is what this agreement [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
HSA - 20091105 AM 008/LCG/1035

agreement? Where is the agreement? There's no agreement here — none; nada. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I'll tell you what the agreement is really all about. It's about the inability of this government, which cannot bargain in good faith. That is what this agreement's all about. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

It's interesting. We recently discovered, thanks to the good member — our Labour critic here, the MLA for Burnaby-Edmonds — who exposed the marching orders from VANOC that are forcing the hands of our paramedics. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

An agreement is a contract, but I have to ask you: "What contract?" There's no contract here. This is not a contract. This is a major dispute, and there is no agreement. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Just on the title alone, this falsehood, the B.C. Liberal government is making, I believe, a mockery of the process of collective bargaining. They are absolutely deliberately rubbing salt in the wounds of our working people. That is what this bill is all about. It is a vicious, malicious act. There's no other way to call it. And what a joke. Any rightful-minded citizen will call it the "big stick act." That is what it is. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

The members on the other side don't get it. They jeer the working people. They hold them in contempt. And the hold our paramedic of this province in such a disdainful and disrespectful view. I just don't understand it. I'll be honest. This is how they view the world. They are the captains of industry, and everyone else must come cap in hand. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

We see all the bureaucrats and the benefits, the bonuses, the Crown corp executives get. We can talk about all the wonderful tickets we're going to see passed out to friends and insiders for VANOC. Of course, we're talking about the Olympics and all the great venues. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

And we know what our paramedics will be doing. Yes, they will be doing their best for the Olympics, and yes, they deserve an opportunity to put their message and their case forward. When you think of public health and safety, isn't that what the Olympics should be built on — that kind of security? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

We know they don't care about working conditions. We can talk about working…. You've heard it here before. I think of the hours and hours. The moments where I've talked to paramedics…. They're running every which way. We have the statistics to show where there are various garages. In my area in North Delta there are 41 calls a day, just in my area alone. The working conditions… [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

I couldn't do that job. I couldn't. When I was a child I thought I could. I had a different job a while back, and I used to see some of the stuff that's on the road, and how they can do it is beyond me. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

This government doesn't care about their working conditions or decent wages. I don't think they care about pensions or better health care for all or equity in this province — where we're all treated equally. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Hon. Speaker, I don't think they care about you or me, your family, and they certainly don't care about the paramedics of the province of British Columbia. They don't care. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

This was the vindictive nature of the government of its day. This is the vindictive nature. It was very clear upon winning the election that they don't care. They say one thing, and they do something else. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

These are workers who are willing to risk their lives for you and me. They should be held in the highest esteem. They are our heroes. But the pompousness and the rashness of this government turns its back on them. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

I can tell you that on this side we are willing to stand up for the fundamental rights of workers in collective bargaining in the province of B.C. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

So what's in a name? Bill 21, the Ambulance Services Collective Agreement Act. Collective agreement act. It has as much credibility as what happened in the implementation of Bill 29. It, too, masqueraded itself as something different. It was called the Health and Social Services Delivery Improvement Act. Well, improvement it did not do. Another untruth. But it mimicked what was to come. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

[1040]

Here we are seven years later. How this Liberal government tries to gloss over its dirty deeds. The shoddy mess took us [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

HSA - 20091105 AM 009/BJM/1040

But you know in a minute what was to come. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Here we are seven years later. How this Liberal government tries to gloss over its dirty deeds. The shoddy mess took us to the Supreme Court — a national embarrassment, a national disgrace, if you will. B.C. was once the proudest province of some of the most progressive collective bargaining processes and legislation in Canada. Now we are the laughingstock. It's all this sneakiness that comes to mind. All the sneakiness of how they implement this nefarious type of legislation. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Friday nights are a typical example of how they try to sneak it through. The press releases, you know, and here we are. We'll probably see the same type of sneakiness during the Olympics. Everybody will be out with their tickets while attentions will be elsewhere and the midnight oil will be burning over there. Some of their specialized hit teams will be with their hired guns finding another way to screw the working person. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Deputy Speaker: Would you be careful of your use of language. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

G. Gentner: I'm sorry. I withdraw, hon. Speaker. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

How they demoralize and upset the people of the province, those who work for a living. That's what's going to happen. Keep your ears to the ground, because we're going to see more Bill 21s being invented while everybody else is celebrating the games. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

You can watch the Premier smiling like some Suharto, waving at the crowds, and the OICs — the orders-in-council — will keep churning out. That's how they work. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

But I've got to ask the question: why won't the Liberal MLAs stand up now to a very arrogant Premier. Why don't they stand up and put their life-saving paramedics before the despot? Stand up. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Where is Carole Taylor when you need her most? I had respect for, but I had great disagreements with, the then-Finance Minister. TILMA — I could go on and on. But she came up with a $6 billion package that included signing bonuses to public sector workers, ensuring labour peace and security through the Olympics. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Where is former Minister Olga Ilich. No wonder the moderates, if you want to call them that, left. The extreme right over there is in control. There is not one MLA who is willing to stand up. Stand up. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

When the boss finally walks into your caucus room, I'm sure the henchmen slink their way into the room and stare for any discontentment. They're frightened over there. They're not going to stand up for the workers or the people of the province. They're going to let a special group of people within cabinet dictate to them what it's all about. It's about their friends, insiders and corporatism. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

There's no real small-l liberal left over there. This government is exposed for what it really is. This Bill 21 clearly demonstrates that. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

We know what happens when you basically shake your head and get in line with what's going on with the extreme right wing over there. Just ask the former Attorney General. For four years he ducked; he hid. "It's before the courts. It's before the courts." And where is Wally Oppal now. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Deputy Speaker: I'd remind you that we are talking about Bill 21. We are on second reading of Bill 21. So I would ask you to discuss that bill. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

G. Gentner: Absolutely, hon. Speaker. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

That's what Bill 21 brings to mind. Bill 21 comes to mind how those members are unwilling to stand up. An apologist will get you nowhere. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

There's no improvement in this bill here at all. It's going to create great chaos. It's bombastic. I think it's brassy. It's shameless. It's a condescending view of a government over those who are trying to fetter out a better way of life — a better and decent wage. They deserve better than what this government is offering. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

[1045]

How can anyone over there sit and agree with this Bill 21? Many of them will turn their backs as we speak here. Many will somehow shut down their ears. They don't want to listen to it. They don't want at all to hear what's going on. They're part of the jet set [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

HSA - 20091105 AM 010/JBP/1045

many of them will turn their back as we speak here. Many will somehow shut down their ears. They don't want to listen to it. They don't want at all to hear what's going on. They're part of the jet set, will fly around, spend lots of money for parades and everything else — hundreds of thousands of dollars. But they still through it will turn their back to what's happening in this room here, with total disrespect to the paramedics and people working in this Health Ministry. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

You know, it sums up this government to a T. It does — the arrogance. Bill 21 strips the union of its right to negotiate. It still amazes me today that this government has the audacity and thoughtlessness to think that it can get away with it, that they can somehow…. I don't know how to suggest it, and correct me if you have to, hon. Speaker, but they think they can just sort of goose-step their way over anything that tramples over people's rights. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

The government had recanted its Bill 29. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Interjection.
Deputy Speaker: Member. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Hon. B. Penner: Point of order. The member knows the bounds of the debate, and he is clearly exceeding them with his ridiculous comments. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

G. Gentner: I withdraw that, hon. Speaker. Government thinks it can march its way — it can march its way. I won't describe the type of marching. But they can continue and stomp their way over rights people have held very dear in this province. If there was no Charter in this country, constitutional rights in this country, where would we be with this government? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

This government would continue to rip and tear collective agreements apart like never before at its own convenience and, of course, for their friends. I don't think they've learned a thing since they had to recant Bill 29. It's quite obvious here with this legislation. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

I know that the government opposite doesn't believe in the notion of security for the workplace, which builds a strong community, knowing you're going to be there, not having to uplift your family at a whim of a government and try and find schooling somewhere else, go into a new community because the job's no longer there. That security, that stability, is an instrument that government should be upholding, and they're ripping it apart with Bill 21. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Stability, I believe, is what the Olympics…. It's what the government uses as its flagship. It's there for the future. It's there for stimulus. It's there for our security. There's no security with this bill. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Unlike Carole Taylor, this group couldn't negotiate a dust-off at a preschool birthday party. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Interjection.

G. Gentner: Deep thoughts indeed. They're deep thoughts, because I harken back to when I was a child. As a child…. Even today, I still hold the paramedics in this province with the high esteem that most people should be holding them or looking at them with. They should deserve that kind of respect. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

You know, we can talk about the recruitment that goes in, the disease, the germs, the horrific situations. They deal with severed arms, accidents. They witness accidents that most of us would never get over, and there's all the stress and the high suicide rates that go with that job. And they've got to be defused. Those services are not being provided. When you are involved with that type of stress-related job…. There's more related stress than for most of us, certainly most of us in this room. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

In recruitment, in the absence of long-term training, there's a need for retention of that training. It's no longer there. It's reflected in the increasing frequency of remote stations. They've got to move back and forth — a lack of staff. It goes on and on. Let's not talk about the care they provide at hospitals, when we've seen the complete collapse of acute care hospitals and emergency systems and a province. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Who's there to care for you in the hallways — the hallway medicine created by this government? It's the paramedic. We're so far behind that instead of getting back on the road, our paramedics have got to stay with their emergency patient. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

[1050]

These are self-starters. They have a work ethic, but I want to end with the notion about morale. You know [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

HSA - 20091105 AM 011/AGE/1050

our paramedics have got to stay with their emergency patient. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

You know, these are self-starters. They have a work ethic. But I want to end with a notion about morale. This is a type of job that when you lose morale, you lose everything, because not only is it a system of caring for those who are in dire need; it is a system whereby you count on the team. You're dealing with triage, call systems. You count on that team. When morale is gone and it's dissipated because of an uncaring government — it does not respect them — it's a system that fails. It fails. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

I have to tell you, it's a download, also, on municipal government. When you don't have the proper paramedic systems in place and the ambulatory systems, it's up to our firefighters to be the first responders. That's another example of downloading by this government, by the uncertainty created by Bill 21 and the lack to have bargained in good faith. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

I'm going to conclude with those remarks, and I have to tell you again that I believe in a province that believes in collective agreements. I believe in a province whereby people are treated with equal rights. I believe in a province that believes that care for our citizens should be above all other needs, all other needs. I believe in a compassionate province that believes in people and cares for people. I don't believe in a province that puts certain friends and corporate interests ahead of the general population of British Columbia. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Every Monday and Tuesday evening from 7:00 - 8:00 pm, and on Wednesday mornings from 10:00 - 11:00 am.

On Mondays, join Guy for "North Delta Public" Radio, where Guy will be joined by local guests to discuss the issues that impact North Delta and other issues south of the Fraser River.

On Tuesday night and Wednesday mornings, join Guy for "Live from the Leg" as Guy, his guests and other MLAs discuss the issues affecting British Columbians and the goings on in the Legislature.

Also on Tuesday nights - enjoy "Corky's Corner", where the incomparable Corky Evans, fmr MLA for Nelson-Creston, discusses topics that affect us all.

Go to Guy’s webpage www.guygentner.ca, click onto the “Live from the Leg” player and you’re in. If you want to post questions to Guy and his guests, phone: (250) 953-4712 or (250) 953-4736 or email Guy by clicking the email box below the play button on the player.

THIS WEEK ON “Live from the Leg”

Monday, November 2, from 7:00-8:00 pm, North Delta Public Radio, join Guy and his guests as they discuss the South Fraser Perimeter Road and the recent cuts to the arts and the impact on the Delta Arts Council.

Tuesday, November 3, from 7:00 - 8:00 pm on "Live from the Leg", join Guy and Michael Sather, MLA for Maple Ridge-Pitt Meadows as they discuss hot issues in the environment and the Incomappleux Valley and the call to protect the park; as well, join Guy, Scott Fraser, MLA for Alberni-Pacific Rim and Wayne McCrory, bear biologist, as they discuss the bear rehabilitation facility proposed for Grouse Mountain; and don't miss "Corky's Corner".

Wednesday, November 4, from 10:00 am - 11:00 am, Guy will be joined by Lana Popham, MLA for Saanich South, and Michael Sather to discuss the Agricultural Land Reserve.

Link to Response to Budget Measures Implementation Act (No. 2), 2009: http://www.leg.bc.ca/hansard/39th1st/h90922p.htm#682

To view video of Response to Budget Measures Implementation Act (No. 2), 2009: http://bcleg-ds1.insinc.com/ibc/mp/md/open/f/8/8/20090922wv150en?f=w&m=v&l=en&w=16:37:57&d=00:16:25

2009 Legislative Session: First Session, 39th Parliament
HANSARD
________________________________________

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.
The printed version remains the official version.

________________________________________
Official Report of
DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY
(Hansard)
________________________________________
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 22, 2009
Afternoon Sitting
Volume 3, Number 2

Orders of the Day

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 2 — BUDGET MEASURES
IMPLEMENTATION ACT (NO. 2), 2009
(continued)

G. Gentner: Madam Speaker, it was interesting to note how the Minister of Finance went off script — became quite defensive, actually — in his justification of this piece of legislation. He has a right to be defensive because, of course, despite all the rhetoric of the Minister of Finance, this government, the Premier and the Minister of Finance have introduced legislation that greatly weakens legislation that is already in force and is the law of the land here in B.C.

They weaken legislation. Isn't that a surprise? They weaken legislation on accountability. They weaken legislation on balancing budgets. The Minister of Finance has the gall to stand up and say: "It's what we promised. Shouldn't we be patted on the back for doing what we've promised?" In fact, that's not the case.

Throughout the tenure of the Minister of Finance, he has committed, over and over again, to ideology that deficits are anathema. Deficits are a disaster to the economy, no exception. Not one exception has this Minister of Finance ever labelled as a justification for a deficit. Deficits are bad. Balanced budgets are good. That has been the ideological mantra of the Minister of Finance, supported 100 percent by the Premier of this province.

What we have here today is a bill that says that the law of the land, which now requires a reduction in deficits continuously, is out the window. It's out the window, in fact. "We're not even going to tell you what we're going to do."

[1640]

So all of the great rhetoric about the great sacrifice that the ministers on the opposite side are going to make about their salary…. Well, guess what, British Columbia. They're not going to be affected one iota. All the bravado of the ministers opposite, and their paycheques keep coming in.

I'm sure British Columbia will be overwhelmed with the contribution this government is making, and they're doing it in the context of repealing such stronger balanced-budget legislation.

The next thing they try to do is to use the trickle-down theory. They say to voters during the election that tax cuts will stimulate the economy so vigorously that they'll pay for themselves. When asked if those tax cuts would pay in some fiscal year so the programs wouldn't be affected, they don't have an answer.

So there we are. They actually don't even trust their own theory. They can't even trust themselves to deliver on their theory, so they have to give themselves leeway. They have to say: "Oops, you know what? The theory of massive tax cuts for the wealthiest and the corporate backers won't actually restore the revenue. So we have to have a deficit."

"We have to have a deficit, and we are actually going to allow ourselves a deficit, so we have to repeal that terrible previous legislation that required us to balance the books. We have to repeal this legislation, give ourselves a lot more room. Because you know what? Maybe we're not so sure our theory will work — our very risky agenda of massive tax cuts actually delivering back to the taxpayers of British Columbia."

What we have is a schedule that required governments to reduce the deficit each and every year, a mandated, legislated, law-of-the-land schedule requiring reduced deficits and balancing the budget. Mind you, let's keep

[ Page 683 ]

in mind that the previous government actually did balance the books and delivered a surplus.

But that wasn't good enough for this government. They actually had to say: "Yikes, we're really taking a huge risk on behalf of British Columbia, and we don't want to be tied down to legislation that would test the risk or prove how risky we are, or we are going to repeal that legislation and really water it down."

It is interesting to note that the government sits there and pats itself on the back. Maybe one day next year or in a few years they'll take a pay cut, if they don't actually balance the consolidated revenue fund — another difference, an absolute other difference. They only have to balance the consolidated revenue fund. Not even the Crown corporations have to be taken into account within the Budget Measures Implementation Act.

Here is the great government that used to say that you have to look at government broadly, that you have to take into account all the Crown corporations, that you have to use the summary accounts to determine your balanced budget. The legislation has been watered down even further so the ministers opposite don't have to be held accountable at all for the Crown corporations. That goes against every single statement made by the Minister of Finance in this Legislature over the last ten years.

You know what? Maybe they think in their arrogance — and the fact that they have a hidden, extreme agenda — that they can get away with this. In fact, they're keeping everybody so busy in their haste that the media are not able to keep up.

We know that this is an extreme measure moving British Columbians backwards in terms of fiscal responsibility. I expect the reason why the Liberal government doesn't want to hold itself accountable, wants to weaken legislation, is because they secretly know, and are keeping it from the voters, that their risky economic agenda will not work.

I hope it does. I actually hope their risky economic agenda does work, because if it doesn't, all the hard work of British Columbians, through an economic downturn and putting the budget and the fiscal house in order, is at risk. Beyond that, our social programs are at risk as well.

The government plays chicken with the voters, the patients, the people needing child care, the people needing employment standards protection, the people needing environment protection. The government plays chicken with their needs, with their families' needs, the province's greatest strength.

That's why this legislation is here. That's why this legislation is weakening the standards that are already on the books.

I know that there will be much discussion about this legislation as the government uses its massive majority to pass it. I know, as British Columbians pay closer and closer attention to who this government represents and who loses because of this government's economic agenda, that people will turn to the Legislature and say: "Oh my God, what happened there? What happened that we are now put in a situation where we don't have the protection that we did before to keep our fiscal house in order?" That is what British Columbians will do.

I know there will be very little discussion of it in the next couple of months, very little discussion about it at all. But rest assured that the elimination of the need to take responsibility across the summary accounts will come back to haunt British Columbians.

The lack of accountability, in any form whatsoever, of this government for the next seven months will come back to haunt British Columbians. I can pretty much predict that it will be in the form of British Columbians saying: "Oh my God, what have we voted for? Why were we not told that this economic agenda was hidden?"

[1645]

The budget is risky. It gets no scrutiny whatsoever. There's no accountability for this budget they just introduced — zero, nada. I'm very saddened that the people of British Columbia are having to take a step backward today, that their fiscal protection is less today and that the risk under which they are now being governed has increased.

No matter how much this Liberal government wants to rise here today and defend their actions, they've got to come clean to British Columbians that they stepped backwards today. They took a step backward. I'm very, very sad.

I would just remind British Columbians that the budget brought in by this Liberal government a few weeks ago is a risky agenda. It has an economic forecast that exceeds anything anyone else is predicting. It has massive, massive tax cuts for large corporations and the wealthiest that were not contemplated nearly three months ago. There's no recognition by this government that health and education spending requires increased funding as the population demands more, as it increases and as people grow older.

Deputy Speaker: Member, we're not discussing the budget. We're discussing the Budget Measures Implementation Act (No. 2).

G. Gentner: Thank you, hon. Speaker.

"As our education demands the best and most highly skilled workforce…it requires extra funding." I've plagiarized everything. Those were the words of Joy MacPhail, August 8, 2001. She called it then, when she was addressing this ridiculous budget…. On August 8, 2001, Joy MacPhail talked about the Budget Measures Implementation Act, and she called it a farce then, and it's a farce today.

Back then, of course, it was Bill 4. It was of great importance. The government rammed it through. Today the repealing of this legislation is Bill 2. It's even of greater importance. It just comes after Bill 1, which recognizes the supremacy of democracy.

[ Page 684 ]

You know, they have got to rescind or postpone the need for balanced budgets. Seven out of 12 have been deficits. They went around with this scrap of paper, this ridiculous thing, this bill that we're now once again having to rescind, or at least amend, because it's a farce. I have to suggest to you, hon. Speaker, that when you do the comparison, Manitoba doesn't have to rescind its bills relative to balanced budgets, because they've had ten consecutive balanced budgets.

I'll leave it here, knowing that the House Leader wants….

Interjection.
G. Gentner: I can continue some time? Okay. Thank you for that encouragement.

When we started talking about not balancing the budget and the need to put this through….

We started this way back. The Liberal government, when it came out with this legislation in 2001, had a rider on it that they would run deficits till 2004 — for four consecutive budgets. It just shows you how ludicrous this legislation was. They introduced the legislation to balance the budget, but they were unwilling or unable to come forward with a Budget Measures Implementation Act until 2004.

And here we are. Once again going back on their word, they're now going to have to do it again and again and again. It's simply because this government is unable to run the economy, which they think they can.

We've seen a deficit here of 2009-2010. The Premier told us that it was only going to be $495 million maximum. He told us that on April 23. Lo and behold, with the stroke of a pen, magic just sort of evolves here, and suddenly we're into a $2.8 billion deficit.

The first time this government had to amend the Budget Measures Implementation Act, I remember very well. The Premier basically told everybody that he couldn't sleep at night. He was pacing the west wing. He had insomnia. He had sleep deprivation. How horrible this situation had become. He had lost sleep, and it would never happen again. Here we are eight months later, and they're having to eat crow once again. This act really is very ineffective.

[1650]

It's interesting too — as Joy MacPhail said, interestingly enough — that the Budget Measures Implementation Act doesn't address Crown corporations and all their budgets. It's all right and good when it comes down to dealing with the immediate ministries, but the ministries that are responsible to budgets somehow seem to be exempt from all this closed accounting system and the ability to be transparent.

Interestingly enough, the budget transparency and accountability act itself has become a farce. That was also introduced a day after this bill in 2001 was introduced.

But I have to say that when you look at why we have a deficit and why we have to amend this act, it's because the government doesn't have a handle on its finances. One example…. I mentioned Crown corporations. We can look at Partnerships B.C.

Partnerships B.C. — interesting, that one. Salaries and benefits, 2008-09, $5.9 million in bonuses. It's jumped up to $7.194 million. You know, there are no cuts there. There's no need to tighten your belt with this legislation on Partnerships B.C. Not a chance, hon. Speaker — not a chance.

There's a different rule for some, and there's a different rule for others. When you look at Mr. Blain, the chief executive officer, with all compensation, he's making well in excess of half a million dollars. For heaven's sake, he even has a car allowance worth $9,999.96. On top of it, he has a parking allowance of $2,670.

When you look at this largesse and you look at the select few, they certainly aren't tightening their belts, and they don't have to follow the dictates of this budget that we're hearing today. I'm sure we will try and bring forward over and over again the incredible high salaries of many who, in my estimation, are causing, part and parcel, some of the difficulties of balancing the books.

When you look at the need to deal with this Bill 2, it's in part because Warren Buckley, the president and CEO of the B.C. Pavilion Corporation, $597,000 per annum…. Bob Elton, president and CEO of B.C. Hydro, $549,000. Douglas Hyndman, chair of the B.C. Securities Commission, $549,000 per annum. Larry Blain. Oh, this is the guy who gives the store away. He gets paid to do this.

They're increasing their salaries and bonuses every year. So $509,000, the CEO of Partnerships B.C. — incredible. Everybody else in the province is told to tighten their belts. And we're going to have to rescind the Budget Measures Implementation Act because of it. But we certainly are going to honour big CEO fat-cat contracts.

Of course, we've talked about it before. The CEO of B.C. Rail, $489,810 per annum. It's incredible — absolutely incredible.

Just to wrap, hon. Speaker. I have to tell you, I did spend some time this summer visiting some of the border towns as part of my critic role — Grand Forks, Kingsgate. I had a lot of fun in Midway. I have to tell you, I did the tourist check. It was quite interesting, the vacancy rate on this side of the border, and they're all filled up on the other side. We're at risk here.

We have legislation here today where we're going to cut, cut to the bone, destroy Tourism British Columbia. It was a proud gem that was actually put together by the NDP. It's done some great work. It's been able to sell this province, market it internationally. The Americans…. I went to a conference in Boise, Idaho, and they quickly talked about how they're marketing their western states abroad. But that is being eliminated and destroyed by

[ Page 685 ]

this government in order to fulfil their need of the HST — in other words, the loss of the hotel room tax.

So with that, I will be voting against this bill.

Link to Response to Motion 8 – Government Action on Gang Violence: http://www.leg.bc.ca/hansard/39th1st/h90921a.htm#555


To view video of Response to Motion 8 – Government Action on Gang Violence: http://bcleg-ds1.insinc.com/ibc/mp/md/open/f/8/8/20090921wv150en?f=w&m=v&l=en&w=11:22:22&d=00:08:00

2009 Legislative Session: First Session, 39th Parliament
HANSARD
________________________________________

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.
The printed version remains the official version.

________________________________________
Official Report of
DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY
(Hansard)
________________________________________
MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 21, 2009
Morning Sitting
Volume 2, Number 8

Private Members' Motions

MOTION 8 — GOVERNMENT ACTION
ON GANG VIOLENCE

G. Gentner: Everybody deserves to feel safe in their own community neighbourhoods and at their place of work. It's time to take real measures to bring gang violence under control.

In my community, North Delta, it's interesting…. In a suburban community you wouldn't think this would be such a major issue, but it's hit us all — every community. I remember six years ago I had a guest in from California to stay with us. I called him a granola cruncher; he was a bike racer. He was from Sacramento, and he said to me how safe it was in Canada. He was quite overwhelmed with how safe he felt on the streets.

Ironically, that night about midnight the semiautomatics just down the street in my suburban, Sleepy Hollow bedroom community rang out, and I was embarrassed. The front door of the neighbour down the street was shot right out. It brought home the fact that gang violence is everywhere.

We also must recognize in this discussion that violence goes beyond gang violence. We sometimes forget the other part that's hitting our communities hard, and that's domestic violence.

Violence has been around and gang warfare has been around for some time — the Bindy Johal situation, his murder in the late '90s. During this particular decade it seemed to culminate. We know about the chronology and over these many years how gang violence has escalated. Even during the early part of this decade criminologists had warned of the consequences.

By the summer of 2007 the city of Vancouver prompted one of the largest police investigations in the city's history against gang-related violence, amidst fears that perhaps bystanders that were narrowly missed would soon be caught in gang-related violence.

[1125]

The Premier was quoted at the time of the situation in 2007, and he said: "It's a concern for all of us." And that was it. You know, what was the result by the fall, by November? We had a dispute by then–police chief of West Vancouver, now the Solicitor General, with the then–Solicitor General with no result. The bell rang, the clarion rang, but we had no action.

This was not simply confined to Vancouver or just gang members. Innocents were to be victims. A couple of months later the predictions came true, with innocent bystanders being Ed Schellenberg and, of course, Chris Mohan. Two innocent bystanders were killed while they were busy doing what they do best — working. Of course, there were four others with criminal backgrounds who were also shot and killed.

It took almost two years since that incident before there seemed to be any action from this government to act. Today family members still mourn. The question is: where was the action then?

Miraculously, 2½ months before an election this government seemed as though it was concerned. We were involved with the slaughter on the streets of the Bacon brothers' foray, and suddenly, we also knew that the Schellenberg and Mohan families were going to go to Ottawa and, there, talk to the Justice Committee on March 11. Just a month before then, the government decides and announces it's going to do something about it. Yes, the Attorney General did wind up going to Ottawa and joining the family, but it almost seemed too little too late.

Here we are today with a rise of gang violence in our streets that is truly appalling, and certainly it has to stop, but we also need a comprehensive plan. It doesn't excuse this government, the province, to simply walk away and say: "It's an Ottawa problem."

Since coming to office with this government in 2001, this government closed ten jails, 24 courthouses and the Vancouver Pretrial Centre. In my community of Delta it shut down our courthouse, and it moved the family courthouse elsewhere, and jails were impacted.

While this government inflicted these cuts, the number of gangs grew from ten to 129. Who's counting? I hear the members opposite say it's much higher today. The House Leader from this side was talking briefly about…. There's no initiative in the throne speech. There's nothing in the February throne speech. Frankly, I didn't read anything in this throne speech, not one mention, about gang violence.

Perhaps this is being reinvented because the government is in trouble politically. It's in trouble because of its cuts to social services, family, kids, sports. We know through the

[ Page 556 ]

peer pressure that bully groups, bullying, is on the rise. We've got to go beyond simply agreeing with a plan with that of the federal government. We've got to inveigh a plan that is far more comprehensive.

It is a culture that has grown and is out of control today. The major problems with fighting gangs is that you are also fighting against drug trafficking. It seems to be the fire behind the furnace within the gang problem. It's driving the issue. It is the heart of the turf wars. We know that drugs are well beyond a $6 billion item per annum. We know that's traded in the U.S. for cocaine, which comes back to Canada, and it's traded for guns.

I have to quote Sgt. John Ward, who said: "Organized crime has stretched into every corner of B.C. and onto most city streets. It is not an exaggeration to say that organized crime is a cancer eating away at the social and moral fabric of British Columbia." Sergeant Ward was talking about every corner, including the Legislature. Let's not forget that it was a drug deal that led investigators in the raid in this Legislature.

You know, it's all amongst us. Jasmohan Singh Bains, a 33-year-old who recently went down, was fined $242,000…. It was his connection with the drug war that led to the investigation here. I'm not going to drive any aspersions on the government relative to this. I know it's before the courts. But I'm bringing to view that….

[1130]

Interjection.
G. Gentner: No, of course not.

It brings to view that it's all around us. The drug culture is all around us. It's on every corner, every street. We have got to fully understand that, yes, we have to make a pitch to the federal government. We have to work with the federal government. But this is out of hand, and we've got to certainly do something about it from a comprehensive….

I leave that with you, hon. Speaker, with the knowledge that we've got to stop the rhetoric and talk, and we've got to work together and solve this gang violence situation in the province.

http://bcleg-ds1.insinc.com/ibc/mp/md/open/f/8/8/20090831wv150en?f=w&m=v&l=en&w=16:29:07&d=00:29:35

2009 Legislative Session: First Session, 39th Parliament
HOUSE 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.
________________________________________
DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY
(HANSARD)
________________________________________
HOUSE BLUES
MONDAY, AUGUST 31, 2009
Afternoon Sitting
________________________________________
MONDAY, AUGUST 31, 2009

Throne Speech Debate
(continued)

G. Gentner: I rise, and listening to what is being said in the House from members opposite, it's as though they're on Liberal crack. I don't know what else…. It's a different world over there. It's sort of a different dimension completely, but reality is on this side of the House. I can assure you that, hon. Speaker. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

I rise to speak…. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[H. Bloy in the chair.]

Point of Order
Deputy Speaker: Member, point of order. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Hon. B. Penner: I ask that the member withdraw that comment. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

G. Gentner: I withdraw that. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Debate Continued

G. Gentner: I say that they're delusional over on that side of the House in the way they pronounce these types of ridiculous positions by their party. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

[1630]

I rise to speak on this late-summer version of a throne speech beginning with a quote from that speech. It says the government "will dedicate its efforts to improving B.C. families' prospects and economic circumstances. It will not happen overnight, and it will not be easy, but government will work tirelessly so that B.C. comes out of this economic maelstrom stronger." [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

I remember, not so long ago, when this government almost cancelled the session because they said it was busywork. The speech says that recovery will not happen overnight, and yet it has known of the recession since last October. It says it will work tirelessly, but here we are — the last week of August, 3½ months after the election. So give me a break. Give me a break. We could have started the people's business last June. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

It has been working tirelessly? It's been working towards historical revision. It is spending its time with spin and deception — government that has lost its trust, that has misled people. If you're going to be guided by what's true and what's right and what's honourable, you tell the truth, and this government hasn't done that. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

I address this throne speech as a returning MLA for a second term, and I have to say that this throne speech is the worst throne speech I have witnessed, now entering my fifth year in the Legislature. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Before addressing it fully, I would like to congratulate all members of the House, the oldies and the newbies. I would like to thank supporters over the past year. They invested their confidence in me, and especially, I'd like to thank my wife, Shirley. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

I want to recognize all MLAs' family members who, as well as members themselves, have had to alter their own personal lives with undaunted support for all of us here in the House. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Deputy Speaker: Member, can you take your seat, please. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Debate Continued

G. Gentner: I do remember when that motion came before the House, and it was the member on this side from Port Alberni that raised the question. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

I take the opportunity to acknowledge the candidates in my constituency during the last provincial election who, unfortunately for them, came up short but were willing to put their names forward. In particular, I'd like to acknowledge Jeannie Kanakos, who served Delta council as well. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Also, congratulations to Delta's newest member for Delta South. I look forward to working along with her, our new constituent of Delta. The throne speech refers to "new investments in transmission," and I can't wait to hear what the member for Delta South can share with this House — that Liberal record of a bulldozing approach to consultation. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

I'd like to thank all my election workers and supporters and voters who came to the polls and exercised their franchise. There are so many I'm indebted to and too many to name here today, but I'd be remiss if I didn't mention the tireless work of Bob Turner over these many years and his dedication to the NDP. Without that kind of support I would not be here today. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

I want to welcome the new members, but I have to acknowledge that I will miss many of the members no longer here from the previous Legislature: Val Roddick; and on this side in particular, my very dear friend Charlie Wyse, without question in my estimation the hardest-working NDP MLA; David Chudnovsky; Chuck Puchmayr; and of course, my very special friend, and I'd have to say mentor, Corky Evans. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

To say that there are alarming issues in this throne speech for my community of North Delta is an understatement. Not enough time here to address the impact, but I'll strive to do my best. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

[1635]

This throne speech sets out the groundwork for what's known as a new comprehensive Asia gateway authority to "redouble its efforts to open up the critical northern corridor with its massive potential of trade and transportation." [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

I'm glad it's finally listening — the government — to what we've been saying for many years, but tell that to my community in North Delta, where a $1.13 billion road is being constructed, wiping out farmland, impacting Burns Bog, destroying sensitive habitats along the Fraser River, nuking neighbourhoods while all along the government expounds the virtues of the northern corridor option. It's turned its back on other alternatives. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Now, this weekend I was on the Fraser River escarpment talking to residents, witnessing the survey markings for the total expunging or expropriation of an incredible piece of natural history and heritage. Oh, what a freeway this government has for Delta. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

This government talks about the seismic shifts in the global economy, how everything is changing, how necessary it is to suspend a retractable roof at B.C. Place, saving $365 million; the need to close hospital beds; deny seniors their dignity; closing libraries and selling off surplus school properties. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

In fact, the Premier said today we all must do our part, and yet it recklessly pursues a road to nowhere in my community, a road that is counter to any attempt to address climate change, a road that has no accountability, a road that takes to a different set of priorities — that based on asphalt and speculation. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

There's nothing in this throne speech that takes a practical solution, a position that takes a fresh breath of air to reassess the situation with a comprehensive transportation plan south of the Fraser River. The world, indeed, is changing, but this government is stuck in a 1960 time warp. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Now, I want to talk briefly about the impacts of this throne speech, in particular about advanced education, because there is very little mentioned in the throne speech, and it says very little about advanced education. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

There are no commitments to increase or even maintain funding during a time when many people will likely be returning to school wanting to find some stable employment. In the February throne speech, this government promised to increase per-capita student funding, but it has actually dropped from $9,400 in 2007-08 to $8,800 last year. In their platform this government promised to add more than $800 million in additional annual funding for education by 2011-12, but there's no mention of that in this throne speech. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

In 2008 the post-secondary institutions expected an increase but instead received a 2.6 percent cut. I want to talk about the cuts to education, advanced education, because in North Delta it's the main topic today as families and children are getting ready to go back to school. And who gets the cut? The class of '09. For 25 years the government of B.C. honoured its Premier's Excellence Awards to 16 of B.C.'s top high school graduates, worth $240,000. What's that worth? Half of what one fat-cat CEO makes for a liquidated Crown corporation like B.C. Rail. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

B.C. now has one of the highest tuition rates in the country, $7,000 to $8,000 a year, and then the costs of residence and meals, the high cost of living in Canada — high as anywhere else in this country — and what do they do? They cut our very brightest students, our very own future. In North Delta we see the waste, the wastefulness of this government. Over-budget South Fraser perimeter road freeways mowing along to help international shipping companies, and yet our very brightest students are denied funding, funding that has been entrenched in B.C. scholarship programs for years. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Sands Secondary graduate Linda Liu stated in a local newspaper: "I'm extremely upset by the broken promises to applicants, students and taxpayers by cutting funds to student aid and not giving this year's scholarship winners their due." No wonder young people are becoming cynical about the need to vote and what politicians really stand up for. You can't trust them, they think. You can't even trust the Premier's own award for students. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

[1640]

I have another North Delta student who applied. He is so afraid of our so-called open society that he's fearful of retribution if I even mention his name here today because he may, after all, feel that he could be blackballed from future scholarship opportunities. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

We know that whistle-blowers fear for their jobs in this province. But high school graduates with their whole optimistic life ahead of them worried to stand up on the side of justice because of a heavy-handed, brutal government? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

The Premier's Excellence Award program should never have been thought about being cut, but within the Liberal cranium — a very small and empty place, I might add…. If you must cut, you don't cut in midstream. What kind of a government, knowing in full view the severity of its financial situation, cuts a program after an election, after the top students had already applied for it? Hanging on to the hope all summer that they will be able to afford post-secondary education, waiting for the June notification, and then they finally receive a letter during the August long weekend. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

The letter reads the following: "Due to the current economic downturn, government has had to make some difficult decisions with respect to the program it offers. I regret to advise you that the Premier's Excellence Award program is no longer available. As a result, your application will not be processed. I wish you continued success in your future studies." That's the kind of letter my students have received this summer. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

The Premier's Excellence Award is now the Premier's cheap trick award. What cheap, deceitful mindset of a government would do such a thing, to string students, our very best students, along all summer and, at the last possible moment, shut down a program? It's a baneful government, a cruel government, a government that's lost the trust of its citizens, a government that's in control by the B.C. Liberals. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

It is a government that doesn't care about our seniors, the sick, our students, our children, a government that doesn't really care about you or me or our families. Such infamy and such contempt. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Now, this young guy who waited all summer had a straight-A GPA: chemistry 11 — 99 percent, A; strategies for learning 12, A; calculus 12 — 96 percent, A; chemistry 12 — 97 percent, A; applied digital communications — 93 percent, A; physics 12 — 95 percent, A; principles of mathematics 12, A. Such a sad situation. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

We're seeing health care and nurses' education bursaries cut despite the need to recruit more nurses. Loan breaks for students studying to be residential care aides and home support workers have been chopped. A 15 percent cut to student assistance programs, to now a total of $100 million, while Alberta, with an extremely huge deficit of its own and with a much smaller population, devotes $170 million to student aid. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Many students enrolled in universities across this province — some students who receive minimum wage; some students even without a job — are still waiting for their Liberal "Dear John or Mary" rejection letter. During economic times you don't give our youth, our future, a prefrontal lobotomy. You don't do that. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Now is the time to invest in brains, not the opposite. If we believe in economic stimulus as a means to creep out of this recession, you invest in brains. But that is something, I'm afraid to say, that this dim-witted Liberal government really has very little of. It doesn't have a brain, and it's very clear that it also doesn't have a heart. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

It only understands this: if you have the money, you can go to school. If you are a child of a parent who may be a CEO of a large corporation — a large corporation, by the way, that's probably going to be subsidized through the shifting of taxes to consumers, called the HST…. The CEO and the upper management, the upper crust of large corporations who are rewarded with higher bonuses — it's their children who will be able to afford post-secondary education. It's their children with a future in this province. The rest of us and our children, well, they can go flip hamburgers for the rest of their lives. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

[1645]

That's what this government's ideal of equal opportunity is in this province. After all, their view is that someone's got to flip the burgers. It certainly won't be the privileged. What a sham. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

I talked to the mother of this young lad, a straight-A student. You know, this is a family that's no different than anyone else. It's a normal, average, everyday, working family that happens to have a very, very bright kid. They pinched. They scraped. They are frugal — not extravagant at all. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Where is this cold-hearted Liberal government taking us? B.C.'s education strategy should be the heart of our economic recovery strategy. We should be committed to a plan that will expand the skill base of the B.C. economy, opening new opportunities for youth and increasing our long-term competitive advantage. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Investing in the skilled trades is crucial to addressing one of the barriers to growth in B.C. and increasing opportunities for B.C.'s youth. You know, there are no targets in the throne speech for expanding skills, skill sets, apprenticeship training. They're not even addressing the need for new placements. This government is rudderless. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

I want to talk about the HST briefly. I'm sure we'll be talking about it for many weeks to come. The Liberal HST is really the harmful shifting of taxes. The thinking is really one of placing the burden on poor people and what is left of the middle class. The HST is regressive. In other words, the less you earn, the more you're going to pay. It is why, on this side, we oppose it. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

We oppose it because we believe in a fair society where there is balance, where society grasps the notion that equality and equity are somehow related, that we have a moral obligation to ensure that the basic essentials are part of our shared safety net, that everyone has the right to social justice. Everyone has the right to health care, food and shelter, regardless of income, hardship or disabilities. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Call it social gospel if you want. You can call it democratic socialism if you want. But over the many years of the B.C. Liberal mismanagement, we have seen the deterioration of social justice and universal rights to education. We've seen the rise of child poverty, hallway medicine and now record levels of unemployment. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

We've seen the other side of regressive taxation this government has been pushing over the years. It was called user fees. There's becoming an ever-growing abyss between the rich and poor in this province. The HST is a fundamental difference between this side of the House and that side. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

On that side, they believe in corporatism or raw, unfettered capitalism. It is elitist, and it is crass, and it is dishonest. On this side, we believe that if there's a member of the family that needs a little help, we will be there. On that side, it's all about one thing: greed. Another major difference is that on this side, we tell the truth. We will tell the truth. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Now, there are so many aspects of this throne speech that I'd like to deliver. We can talk about: "Government will introduce a new residents' bill of rights to set out clear commitments to care and to the rights of residents living in residential care facilities." But you know, it's interesting. Finally, we might see something coming from this government where seniors will be guaranteed at least one bath a week in the long-term care homes. That will be interesting to see. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

We see that a "new wood-first policy will be legislated this session to require all public buildings to use wood first as their default building material, inside and out." However, the wood may be logged in British Columbia, but — you know what? — it's probably going to go down to the States to be milled, and it's probably going to be an American firm that's going to come up here and build the place — the infrastructure. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

We saw that with the Gateway — the Gateway signs during the election. They exposed what was going on. They were putting up all this propaganda — these huge signs everywhere — but the wood was logged, milled, produced and erected by a firm outside the province. That's what this policy is all about. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

They're looking at a "species-at-risk task force." Well, we know what that's all about. The Liberal government wants to be red-listed because they will be on the threatened species list. After this session, they will all need to be protected. They all will need some protection. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

[1650]

Now, I want to talk about this new green energy advisory task force that will be appointed. This will be a select Premier's task force. It will complement the work of the BCUC. It will complement it because there won't be a BCUC when this government is finished. It's sad, sad. It will be stripped of its power. Here we had a government that believed in independent Crown corporations, and what does it see? It sees interference, although we haven't seen before. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

You know, this throne speech is a tragic, dreadful narrative of a very bullheaded government, and it has a plan. It has a plan of debt, deception, exploitation and the most unabashed grab in B.C. history for the hearts, minds, souls and resources of the people of British Columbia. It's a government that will cut social services while managing — we'll find out tomorrow — $3 billion, give or take a billion here or there, of debt and increased taxes. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

This throne speech is the shameful story of a Liberal government that refused to disclose the severity of our economy and the mess we're in, refused to come up and be honest about its terrifying mandate. They try to gloss it and hide it. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

This throne speech is about protecting the alliance between big corporations, international banks and the Liberal government. Abuse, neglect, maltreatment of this mandate — these are the operative words behind this true decade of deceit. British Columbians have, within a few months after an election, lost their faith in this government. However defined by this government of abandonment, the ship of state is no longer seaworthy. It's listing. In 12 years, when it's finished, we will have more deficits than we will surplus. This government has exercised a brutal, selfish and ultimately self-destructive resource giveaway. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Do we believe the myth in the celebration of 150 years of this province that we have finally perfected the ideal economic system under the Liberals? No, no chance. The Liberal throne speech is the best there is? I hope not. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

We are facing the fact that we cannot buy into a false concept and accept everything this government says as gospel. The government for years has been carping about how it has perceived economic growth and how it benefits British Columbians and that the greater the growth, the more widespread the benefits. The braggarts across the way have been professing how well everything was, and here we are today with a throne speech gearing us up for gloom and doom. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

This throne speech is about those that excel during hardship times, the insiders — that somehow they should be exalted, while everyone else is available for exploitation. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

This throne speech is a veneer that hides what is underneath: record deficits; record unemployment and poverty; child poverty; record levels of tuition fees; continued closures of public schools; record levels of taxes; increasing deterioration of our safety and our safety net; increasing crime and gang warfare; erosion of our health care system; complete neglect of our seniors, those that have helped build this province; and a court case that's exposing the stench of corruption in government. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

In their heart of hearts, British Columbians are feeling the pain, and it's not too late to rise. The throne speech is quite clear. There's no conspiracy here. The throne speech lays it out. Yes, you have to sometimes read between the lines, but it's all there. It may seem like it's fluff, just like previous throne speeches, but the people voted for this government on May 12, 2009, and we must live with it. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

I have to tell you that I can even apologize for the fact that we didn't come through and win that election and that we have to be here now and convince a very defiant, smug, despicable Liberal government to change its ways and consult with people before unleashing needless hardship on our people. The throne speech gives me the opportunity to confess that we did not deliver our message to instill the confidence within British Columbia that we on this side could govern. Forty percent of those voted for our party, but the majority did not. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

[1655]

During the next four years every day in these chambers I will regret and ponder what went wrong on May 12 — with every word in the throne speech and the reminder with every tax being paid for the next four years through the HST, the B.C. Rail corruption scandal, the cutbacks to health services, the Lottery Corporation pick-pocketing those who are down on their luck, the privatization of B.C. Hydro, inflated energy prices. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Every day of the remaining 1,300 or so left in this government, I will do everything in my power to defeat this despicable, disdainful Liberal government. By golly, we will do it with a viable, practical option that will put people first in a free and open society, a government that will respect the dignity of all British Columbians regardless of income, gender and age. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Step by step we will rebuild a party, indeed a movement with a conscience and the confidence of all the people of British Columbia. The cynicism, the years of shady governance…. People will suddenly realize and know that it's time to rise again and make sure that this party will do what it started out to do and make sure there's fair, equitable equality in this province of ours. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

We saw in this last election a political culture of skepticism whereby almost 50 percent of eligible voters didn't cast their rightful franchise — a wariness that the system is broken beyond repair. This framework of political irrelevance can only be eradicated when a viable alternative is embraced by the public. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Clearly, with this throne speech we know where this government is headed. In four years there will not be the cynicism or despair. In less than four years there will be a change. There will be hope and a new government that will not be afraid, because British Columbians cannot afford another throne speech like this one or subsequent throne speeches like it. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

We do live in terrible economic times. The government must be prevented from using its mandate to blame and punish our citizens for tough times as a result of its misguided ideological, unfettered capitalism, the very reason we're in this mess. And what do we see in the throne speech? More deregulation. Well, it's deregulation that caused the credit crunch. We must stop the procrastination. On this side we must finish what we started years ago before it's too late, before there is no B.C. left. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

But the blame can't be wholly placed on the throne speech. On this side we, in the next four years, will come clean and discuss openly what the future should be. We will be ready to govern. We will be ready with a choice that will be palatable not to huge corporations and special interests but for all British Columbians. That is what we will be standing up for. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

We will be accountable and once again make this province proud, proud in the federation. We will stand with our brothers and sisters, our families and all workers, and we will show the type of prosperity and compassion that will build a province that will be the envy of any other province in the federation of Canada. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

http://www.bchealthcoalition.ca/

Help us reach our goal of 5000 letters by April 14th!

The BCHC needs your to help in sending 5000 letters to Premier Campbell by April 14th - the day the provincial election campaign begins, demanding quality and accessible health care for seniors and people with disabilities!

The BC government has broken its promise to build 5,000 new not-for-profit residential care beds by 2006.

Instead, they continue to drive us towards private for-profit care despite clear evidence that for-profit facilities maintain lower patient-to-staff ratios and quality of care.

Official Report of
DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY
(Blues)
________________________________________
HANSARD BLUES DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 19, 2009

Afternoon Sitting

Committee of Supply
SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES:
MINISTRY OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
(continued)
G. Gentner: Thank you to the minister and his staff who are here today. I'll just start off by saying to the member, the minister, from the Thompson watershed that what happens up in your neck of the woods ominously can find its way to the shores of Delta. We have had [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
HSE - 20090219 PM 021/BAH/1510
member, the minister from the Thompson watershed, that what happens up in your neck of the woods honestly can find its way to the shores of Delta. We have had quite a concern in my community for some time relative to the dredging concerns, the flooding, etc. I'm wondering: out of this $186 million supplementary budget, how much is going to be devoted to those type of programs, and to which community? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Hon. K. Krueger: The issue of flood control funding is not a matter that is dealt with in this $186 million supplemental estimate. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

There is an agreement under the Building Canada fund, and that'll be through the Solicitor General's ministry. You'll have an opportunity to deal with that in the budget debate. It's a $25 million program. As I understand it, each of the three levels of government will put in $25 million. But that's a separate issue from this. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

These programs, including things like Towns for Tomorrow, LocalMotion, are funded by application from municipalities, according to their choice of priorities. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

G. Gentner: To the minister: how many applications did the ministry receive, then, for financial help from municipalities and regional districts? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Hon. K. Krueger: Currently in the system are over 100 applications from municipalities for the Towns for Tomorrow program and also more than 100 other applications under the LocalMotion program. The sum of the amounts applied for with regard to Towns for Tomorrow is $37 million in active applications right now and, under LocalMotion, $26 million. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

G. Gentner: So we're looking at about 200 applications. How many were approved? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Hon. K. Krueger: The approval process is actively underway. The commitment was approval decisions within 60 days, and the 60 days is up March 16. We're very much on track to meet that deadline, and I'm actually very confident we will make those decisions weeks before that. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

G. Gentner: So we in effect, Minister, are going to approve the expenditure of these grants without knowing where they're going. Is that correct? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Hon. K. Krueger: What we're dealing with here is approving the overall funding for the grants. The grants themselves…. As they're decided, it'll be very public and certainly available to the opposition. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

G. Gentner: How many agencies outside of municipalities and districts are going to receive money out of this $186 million supplementary budget? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

[1515]
Hon. K. Krueger: The answer is none. This funding is all for local governments. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]HSE - 20090219 PM 022/HBW/1515
budget? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Hon. K. Krueger: The answer is none. This funding is all for local governments. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

G. Gentner: So if I have the math right — hopefully the minister can correct me — we're looking at close to $60 million allocated through these various applications. What is the difference going to be spent towards? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Hon. K. Krueger: Beyond the specific infrastructure programs, the municipalities have a lot of autonomy. Our hope is that the funds will substantially be spent on community safety measures, whether it be policing, crime prevention programs. But the communities will decide, as they have in the past. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

G. Gentner: So for community safety. Would the minister suggest that some of that money will also be used, indirectly or directly, towards security of the Olympics? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. K. Krueger: The answer is no. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

G. Gentner: I'm just wondering what is the largest grant that will be awarded under this budget. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Hon. K. Krueger: The largest assured funding allocation is to the city of Vancouver: $15,723,893. That's all of these different aspects, cumulative. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

G. Gentner: So $15 million-plus for the city of Vancouver. Just out of interest, what else, on top of it, do you expect to be granting the city of Vancouver beyond the $15 million? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Hon. K. Krueger: I wasn't sure if I heard the member correctly, or he might not have heard me correctly. The number was $15,723,893. I thought he might have said 50, but 15 is what I was saying. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

The other question has really no relevance to the supplemental estimates. That's Vancouver's allocation out of this $186 million. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

G. Gentner: I'm just wondering how much of the $186 million will be awarded to the village of Whistler in this budget. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Hon. K. Krueger: The answer is $678,821. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

G. Gentner: That is exclusively based on the LocalMotion grants and the other grants, the so-called 200 applications? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1520]HSE - 20090219 PM 023/DAG/1520

Hon. K. Krueger: The member's crossing over from one aspect to the another here. These numbers we're talking about right now are not specific grant allocations for the infrastructure programs, because as we discussed a few minutes ago, those aren't decided yet. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

This is a combination of the small communities grants and the traffic fine revenues. Not all communities qualify, of course, for the small communities grants, but that's the number that we were just discussing, not specific allocations under the infrastructure program, which haven't been decided yet. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

G. Gentner: To the minister: so how many applications are still outstanding for the village of Whistler relative to these infrastructure projects that are forthcoming? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Hon. K. Krueger: We don't have that number at our fingertips, but we'll provide it to the member in writing. The Towns for Tomorrow program only applies to communities of 15,000 population or less. We're certain that Whistler has at least one application into the LocalMotion infrastructure program. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

G. Gentner: I'm just wondering when I'll receive that information. Can we put a date on it, please? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Hon. K. Krueger: As I mentioned, the deadline is March 16, and we'll let the member know very shortly after that. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

G. Gentner: So a time frame would be before April 12. Is that correct? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Hon. K. Krueger: The answer is yes. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

G. Gentner: I'm just curious as well: how much of this $186 million will be allocated towards the funding of any P3s? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Hon. K. Krueger: That's entirely up to the local governments. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

G. Gentner: So there are no criteria for how you award this money? P3.... You're quite indifferent to where the money is spent? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Hon. K. Krueger: Of course there are criteria around the programs. As I mentioned earlier, Towns for Tomorrow…. The essential rule is that whatever the community's priority is, we're happy to accept an application for that. We'll also happily give the member the criteria for LocalMotion. I think that answers the question. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

[1525]
G. Gentner: I'm curious. Obviously, the minister is either being evasive or doesn't know about the role-playing of P3s in the funding of the $186 million. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

HSE - 20090219 PM 024/AGE/1525
G. Gentner: I'm curious. Obviously, the minister is either being evasive or doesn't know about the role-playing of P3s in the funding of the $186 million. So my question, therefore, would be: what kind of discourse has the minister had with Partnerships B.C. relative to any projects that are associated with the funding coming out of this budget? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Hon. K. Krueger: I wasn't meaning to be evasive at all. I said that it's up to the municipalities what sort of construction arrangements they want to make. The maximum grant under Towns for Tomorrow is $400,000. These projects are probably not large enough that people would spend time canvassing whether to do them as public-private partnerships. But if they wanted to, for reasons of their choosing, municipalities certainly could. We have not given any direction whatsoever on that subject. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

G. Gentner: I'd like to direct my questions towards my community, Delta, which is probably within the top ten most populated areas of the province. My understanding is that the municipality has made some applications for various projects. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

I have to clear something up, because the terminology has been around for some time. We hear the concept shovel ready. Could the minister explain to me: what is shovel ready? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Hon. K. Krueger: I think when people use that term they mean a project that is already through its planning stages and budgeting, and the community is actually ready to start construction. I don't know if the member specifically asked, but the community of Delta's share is $1,922,102. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

G. Gentner: That was $1.922. So $183 million and less than $2 million for Delta. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Can the minister explain…. I know Delta made an application for a new sewer line, a trunk line, to serve all of south Delta. It has a capacity, I believe, for 50,000 people, and it is by all definitions shovel ready. The shovels are moving as we speak. How much money did Delta receive for this project? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Hon. K. Krueger: Applications for infrastructure money for large projects such as that come through the Building Canada fund, which these supplemental estimates are not involved with at all. That's a separate matter. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

We don't know offhand what the amount was, but we'd be happy to give the member that answer regardless. We'll correspond with him about that. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

G. Gentner: So if I have it correct, the minister is saying there is no money allocated towards this project? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Hon. K. Krueger: No. What I said was the Building Canada fund is not a subject of this discussion. The $186 million we're dealing with in supplemental estimates doesn't touch on the Building Canada fund. That's a partnership with the federal government and communities. Federal government and the province work through the applications, and it just isn't something we have with us today, because it really has nothing to do with this particular allocation. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

G. Gentner: The minister mentioned a new criteria here — the difference between what constitutes a large project and what constitutes a small project. Can the minister explain to us what is meant by a large project and what is the criteria to fund a small project? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

[1530]
Hon. K. Krueger: The two programs we're discussing here — Towns for Tomorrow, the maximum amount that can be granted for a project is $400,000 and LocalMotion, the maximum is a million dollars. The size and scope of the [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
HSE - 20090219 PM 025/AJB/1530
two programs we're discussing here. Towns for Tomorrow — the maximum amount that can be granted for a project is $400,000. And LocalMotion — the maximum is $1 million. The size and scope of the project the member is describing, of course, would be far beyond that. But it would presumably be a project where the application would be to the Building Canada fund. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

G. Gentner: Another shovel-ready project Delta has applied for is the Sungod expansion project. Can the minister draw some light on how we're making out with that one? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Hon. K. Krueger: We'll take a step back to try and make sure that we didn't miss something fundamental in this exchange. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Towns for Tomorrow is for communities of 15,000 population or less, which Delta isn't. Delta would certainly be able to submit applications to LocalMotion, but that doesn't sound like a LocalMotion project either. So there may be some confusion here about the different infrastructure programs. I'm not familiar with that project, but LocalMotion is about cycling trails, walking trails — those sorts of projects. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

G. Gentner: The Sungod recreation expansion project is exactly, in part, that. It is to provide recreation for children and families in my community. As a former chair of the parks and rec commission, you know, I was very proud of a project then that was on time and on budget, because it had been very, very successful. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

The project is looking to expand the fitness area from 3,500 square feet to 7,000. They've been to various levels of governments and various agencies, and I was led to believe that they're quite hopeful that Delta would not necessarily be punished because it's over 15,000 population capacity. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

So I just want to make sure, for the record: Delta will not receive any funding, a shovel-ready project such as Sungod expansion project? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

[K. Whittred in the chair.]

Hon. K. Krueger: That is not what was said. Delta may well have an application in the process under the Building Canada fund, which is not the subject of these supplemental estimates. The 15,000 number pertains to the Towns for Tomorrow program, which I think the critic is presently explaining to the member. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

G. Gentner: Another shovel-ready project, the Delta Archives, is ready to go. It needs seismic- and flood-proofing for all its records, municipal records that are very vulnerable. They've had floods there before, and it needs to be refitted. The total cost there — my understanding — is only $600,000. Can the minister explain how much grant money Delta will receive for this project? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Hon. K. Krueger: Clearly, out of the two programs that we are discussing in the supplemental estimates infrastructure programs, one — Towns for Tomorrow — doesn't pertain to a city of that size. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

The other one, as I just covered in the last answer, is called LocalMotion, and it has to do with cycling paths, walking paths — not archives. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

But the Building Canada infrastructure fund is a separate fund, and there may well be applications before that. We don't have those materials with us, because the Building Canada fund has nothing to do with these supplemental estimates. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

[1535]
G. Gentner: The minister mentioned that, over and above these different applications, a large part of this money will be dedicated towards community safety. Delta has a project here that fits that, and that is relative to the Boundary Bay Airport. There has been discussion — my understanding — regarding this, not only with the federal…. My understanding…. I don't think it is a Canada — it is a shared, but it's not under the construction program the minister has been referring to. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

How much money will Delta [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
HSE - 20090219 PM 026/MSP/1535
regarding this, not only with the federal…. My understanding…. I don't think it is a shared…. It is a shared, but it's not under the construction program the minister has been referring to. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

How much money will Delta receive for the securement of a fence — $2 million worth, I believe — and camera security that is supposed to be in place pre-Olympics? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. K. Krueger: As we mentioned earlier, Delta is receiving $1,922,102. Our hope is that communities will use that funding for community safety issues. They make the decision. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

G. Gentner: So the minister is saying that you write a blank cheque for a community like Delta for close to $2 million for community security purposes, and you don't know what you're getting out of it? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Hon. K. Krueger: It's hardly a blank cheque. It's $1,922,102 — a very specific amount. But, yes, the municipalities have autonomy as to decisions that they make for allocation of these funds. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

G. Gentner: So, hypothetically, I'd say a community like Delta can take the $1,922,000 gift and put it towards security costs at Boundary Bay Airport? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Hon. K. Krueger: We covered earlier the fact that municipalities are required to report to their citizens on how they spend these allocations. We have been providing this traffic revenue–sharing money for some years now, and they have been reporting to us. Most of them, quite faithfully, spend the money on community safety issues. Many spend it directly on policing. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

G. Gentner: I'm sorry. I just don't understand the criteria now. You're telling me, Minister, that Delta is going to receive $1.922 million. You have no idea where that money is going. You don't know the criteria for how it's going to be awarded. Yet there could be another municipality that could be awarded $5 million for something that could be related to community safety. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

How do you judge that Delta is allowed or should be worthy of $1.922 million and another community could be getting less with an even greater population? If you just sign out a cheque and not find out what the benchmarks are, what's driving the bus here? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Hon. K. Krueger: The formula is the percentage of the particular community's expenditures on policing costs of the total spent in the province, that percentage being applied to the total traffic fine revenues received. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

We don't have the number with us presently, but whatever the percentage is that Delta spent on policing costs compared to the provincial total is the percentage of the total traffic fine revenues they'll receive. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

G. Gentner: As minister, do you think that's fair? Is the minister telling me that a municipality that may have spent more money in policing than another one…? The grant is awarded on the percentage of how much that community spends? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

[1540]
Does the minister think that's fair, that there should be an area in the province that may not have the same amount of policing level, and therefore if that's [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
HSE - 20090219 PM 027/CMC/1540
than another one, and the amount of money, the grant, is awarded on the percentage of how much that community spends? Does the minister thinks that's fair — that there should be an area in the province that may not have the same amount of policing level and therefore, if that's the formula, will receive less money per capita? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Hon. K. Krueger: Yes. Certainly, we are distributing these funds on the basis of expenditures that communities are making on community safety through policing expenditures. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

G. Gentner: It's obvious the ministry is supporting the status quo, and frankly, we know what status quo in this province is like when it comes down to gang wars and everything else we're seeing on the street. I would think that this government was going to be proactive in how it's going to do its policing. It would certainly look at those areas in the province that need special attention, but they certainly won't get it through this type of grant. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Hon. Chair, I'm about going to wrap up here, just to give a heads-up to my colleagues that they can be willing to stand up. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Since there is no criteria of how this money is going to be spent, I'm wondering…. There is one other program here that — I don't know — doesn't seem to come under this ministry, but it's involved with the Union of B.C. Municipalities. I know it's called the school community connections program. It's there to use schools in order to benefit communities at large. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

One of the projects that's been bandied about in Delta was the improvement to some of the track fields in my community, which are woefully underfunded and need improvements. In fact, they were built years ago during a B.C. Summer Games — grant money. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

I'm wondering if the ministry — through this $163 million, of which Delta will only receive less than $2 million — is considering putting money into our track and field facilities that need improvements. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Hon. K. Krueger: A project like that would not be in the scope of the supplemental estimates. There is a fund administered by the UBCM and, we believe, the B.C. School Trustees Association, but it's not a subject of these supplemental estimates. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

G. Gentner: I'll conclude with this, hon. Chair. I'm pleading with the minister to consider the following. Because we're now going to allocate all this money, and we don't know how it's going to be spent…. With due respect, we know that there is an election coming. Hopefully, that will not play on how you're going to allocate the money, where you have yet decided to where it's going to go. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

I have to tell you that when I talk about Delta, I'm talking about south Delta as well. It's a shared community. I hope you will consider looking…. There will be times between now and when you make your decision at the end of March that you will be heavily lobbied by municipalities and lobby groups — that you will give Delta a fair shake. With that I'll pass the baton. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]