Hansard -- Thursday, September 15, 2005 a.m. -- Vol. 1, No. 6 (HTML)

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

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY


CONTENTS

	Routine Proceedings
		Page

Budget Debate (continued)		77
	J. Kwan
	Hon. P. Bell
	H. Lali
	Hon. R. Thorpe

J. Kwan: Yesterday I outlined the opposition's first response to the minister's new budget, the budget update, before adjourning debate. I would now like to continue with some more remarks about the details of the budget.

Yesterday I asked a question: does government have the message sent to them during the election? We have to remember that this is the first budget tabled after the election. The voters, I think, were clear in the message they wanted to send to the government. They wanted change from this government, not the status quo.

The minister's budget update was the government's first opportunity to prove that the message the voters sent would be listened to and respected. Unfortunately, I have to say that the voters of B.C. got a status quo budget from this government. Yes, there were some new additions, little tidbits here and there, but it is for the most part the same budget that was tabled in February, which this government did not allow the opposition to debate line by line.

Where there are differences and new commitments, let me be very clear that they do not begin to add up for all the cuts this government had imposed in the last four years. Let me just take seniors, for example. The minister claims that seniors are at the heart of this budget. Why? Because the government finally decided to give back some of the things it took away. Let me just say I'm not sure what kind of heart it is when the government gave only a small portion of what they took away four years ago. Seniors are still struggling with Pharmacare costs. Seniors are still trying to figure out how they're going to make ends meet. They're still trying to figure out if they're going to put food on the table or buy the medication they so desperately need.

I heard in the last four years as I toured the province…. Seniors told me they had to go to food banks for the first time in their lives, because of the cuts this government made. Seniors told me that they could not afford to get food on the table and that they were scrounging to scrape together to feed themselves. Seniors told me this government took away from them the services to help them live independently.

Home care support. During the campaign trail I was on in my own riding, there was a senior I spoke with, and I could not believe my ears. Here's what she told me. She had just come out of surgery — the second surgery she had suffered — and in the first week she was back from the hospital, her home care support was reduced by half. That's what this government has done in the last four years.

Now the government wants to say: "Oh, but hey, we really have heart. We really care, and we're socially conscious because we gave back in this new budget after the election some of the things we took away from seniors." You know what, Mr. Speaker? It's not good enough. It's simply not good enough.

When we look at the new items around first nations and a new relationship, it's another example of the government trying to cover up the last four years. They're trying to shift the debate, trying to get British Columbians, I think, to forget that they — this government, this very same Premier and many of the government MLAs — were the ones that endorsed and went out with the referendum on minority rights, on aboriginal rights, allowing for the majority to vote on minority rights.

Can you imagine? Then, in that process, the government took away a fundamental piece of aboriginal rights: the right to self-govern. Was there anything there in the throne speech or the budget speech that dealt with that? No.

Now, don't get me wrong, Mr. Speaker. I applaud the government's new commitment to deliver a better relationship with B.C.'s many first nations, the first people of this province. I do not dispute that at all, but I have to say, and we have to remember, that it was this government that forced B.C. into a divisive and hurtful referendum in 2002.

This government has a lot of work ahead of it to make up for that decision. The new funding for first nations is welcome, but as I said yesterday, the government must make sure this commitment is more than a one-time injection of funds. If we want to move forward to ensure that the healing process has opportunities to succeed, government must make sure it builds on this commitment every single year. Our MLAs on this side of the House and the leader of the NDP will be there to pressure the government and hold it to account every step of the way.

There is nothing more fundamental in the hearts and minds and souls of many of us than to address the fundamental issue of fairness and to begin the healing process in such a way that we give hope to those who have suffered not because of their own fault but because of someone else imposing decisions on them that destroyed communities.

Thank goodness for the aboriginal communities' resilience, I might say, for they still exist today, and they continue the fight. Their cultures continue to exist, and their languages continue to exist. Thank goodness they never gave up. In spite of how they were treated over the many years through many different administrations, they persist to survive another day so that they could be here.

Let us make sure this government delivers on the fancy words they have said in the throne speech. The

budget is a small piece in this beginning, but let us be very clear: it cannot and must not be the end.

The only other new commitment that was made yesterday was around tax incentives — tax incentives for the biotech industry and life sciences industry, and a corporate tax cut. Let me just say this. I know that since I had my daughter, I've lost many nights of sleep, and some things I forget. I will readily admit that. My memory…. Maybe it's an age thing too, although I'm just going to attribute it to my daughter for the moment, because she's not here to tell me: "That's not true, Mom."

Let me just say this. Something I don't remember being featured in the Liberal platform…. The Minister of Finance and the government clearly made a choice in this new post-election budget — an across-the-board tax cut worth millions of dollars over essential priorities like health care and education.

During the campaign, our platform supported the use of targeted tax cuts in industries to stimulate certain sectors, like the film industry, and I will say the NDP administration actually started that approach. We want to grow our economy. We want to be innovative, and we want to get in there for a piece of the pie. Make no mistake about that. Our leader has been very clear right from the get-go that that's important.

The small business community sector. They're equally important. They should get relief when we can afford it and when it is needed. Having said that, I have to ask the question: why is a broad corporate tax cut the first priority for this government in this first post-election budget when emergency rooms are overcrowded, students cannot afford to go to school, parents' pockets are being picked, they are having to pay extra fees — that I might add are actually illegal — and communities are wondering what will happen once the pine beetle is done with their forests?

There are priorities that British Columbians wanted the government to address during the election, but instead, the government has chosen more for relief for corporate industry. They get some relief, I say — some British Columbians — but I have to ask this question: is the average British Columbian who is struggling with increased energy costs getting anything from this government, from this budget? No. Not a penny. Not a cent.

Seniors are going to be hurt. When the winter months are looming, the heating bills are going to go up. Where will the seniors get the kind of relief they deserve? As the Minister of Finance admitted yesterday, seniors are the people who built this province. Giving them a pittance back on the seniors supplement does not do it. It doesn't even begin to cover what they lost in the last four years.

Increased costs are looming. Heating bills are going to go up. Average citizens are not getting any relief, and the Minister of Transportation seems to be very happy about that. He's waving. He's giving a thumbs-up. Maybe he's very happy that those seniors and the children, who are going to be cold and hungry this winter…. Maybe the minister feels good about that. But you know what? On this side of the House, we care about people. We care about the average person.

The campaign in the election was about caring for the people who are in greatest need. It was a campaign on trust. The government, the Premier and the Minister of Finance claim they heard that message. Well, let me say this: where is it in this budget to show they really heard the message? That they actually care about the average British Columbian out there? That they actually want to make a difference in the everyday life of the average person in the streets?

There was very little, Mr. Speaker, and I'm very sad to say that. I was hoping for change. I was hoping that the people in Vancouver–Mount Pleasant, the poorest neighbourhood in all of Canada, would actually get some relief. I'm sad to say I didn't see anything there in this budget that would really help them. I'm really sad to say that.

Let me just say this. Terasen Gas, soon to be Kinder Morgan, is asking for an additional rate hike. Just think about that for one moment. The government has got to be aware of that, but where is it in the budget that sends a signal to British Columbians that the government cares, that they've heard and that, most importantly, they're going to respond? The Minister of Finance has decided that individuals will not get any benefits from the government's energy windfall but that the corporate sector will. That's the priority this government made, and I think a lot of British Columbians will be very disappointed with the decision.

I want to focus back on seniors, because they were the heart of the budget. They're supposed to be the heart of the budget. They got what this government once took away, but they're still waiting for this government to fulfil its commitment on long-term care beds.

The corporate tax cut is worth $71 million this year and $143 million in 2006-2007 and 2007-2008. Here's something for members to think about. The tax cut is worth more to this government than the total new funding for seniors. That includes the seniors supplement, the extra funding for SAFER grants and the added dollars for long-term care, assisted living and home care. That's the priority of this government. Maybe that's where their real heart is, not really caring for the people who need it the most; not really caring for the people who built this province, as the Minister of Finance has claimed.

The budget is about priorities. The opposition campaigned on a balanced budget that supported the economy and supported our social and environmental systems. The public wants that balanced approach, and there are many things this government missed that could have moved B.C. forward and brought balance back to British Columbia: things like health care, education, child protection, pine beetle response and skills training. I want to talk about those things for just a few moments here today.

Health care, perhaps one of the number one priorities during the election campaign. One would have thought that with all the issues around Surrey Memorial — with patients having to be sent home when they needed an emergency bed and not getting access to one, and then tragedy happening when someone's life is lost because of that…. You would think the government would have figured that one out and would have brought in new moneys to address the critical need.

Guess what? No new moneys to deal with surgical wait-lists. No new moneys for Surrey Memorial. No new moneys in the crisis that this government has created around long-term care senior beds. How could that be? I fail to understand: exactly what message did this government hear? Maybe they were too busy kayaking during the election campaign and missed it all. I find it shocking.

Let me just put some facts on the table around surgery wait-lists. Despite the ministry's new website, surgery wait-lists and wait times have not decreased. Wait-lists continue to grow, and British Columbians continue to wait several weeks. In some instances, wait-lists are even going up.

The solution, and there is a solution…. During the election, we suggested that $75 million be targeted to reducing wait-lists for surgery and diagnostic procedures. Why wasn't that in the budget if the government really wants to ensure that wait-lists begin to go down?

Long-term care beds: $150 million over two years for assisted living, supportive housing and long-term care beds — $75 million in '05-06 and $75 million in '06-07. The Liberals are promising 5,000 new long-term care beds by the end of 2008 and 2,700 by the end of 2006.

In their last term they promised 5,000 new long-term care beds and didn't deliver on those beds. So now I ask the question: what's changed? They said they heard the message. They said they were going to deliver on those promises. What's changed?

Well, let me say this. The lack of long-term care beds is overcrowding our hospitals, and as a result, wait-lists are not getting any relief. In fact, they are growing. I'll give you one example; 13 percent of the 909 beds in Victoria's hospitals are getting filled by seniors waiting for long-term care. Where is the government's priority? Where is the Health Minister? Why aren't they at the table advocating for more long-term care beds so that we could free up the room in the hospitals, so that we can deal with those surgical wait-lists? Nowhere — nowhere in this budget.

After months and months of problems at the Surrey ER, New Democrats called for action in the House. My colleague from Surrey–Panorama Ridge, after the by-election, was first in the House raising these issues, and he got some action.

Finally, I have to say that the Premier then went out to Surrey to take a look during the election. During the election he thought: hmm, I'd better show that I really care. So he went out during the election. But instead of taking immediate action, he asked for yet another review of the hospital situation — this despite the fact that the Fraser health region and the Surrey Memorial Hospital Foundation know exactly what is needed and what needs to be done, and they have voiced that loud and clear to the government. You would have thought that the government and the Premier and the Minister of Finance, who shadowed the Premier every step of the way during the campaign…. There was no photo op where the now Minister of Finance wasn't behind the Premier. You would have thought that they heard the message. Not so.

Surrey is Canada's fastest-growing city. When the hospital opened in 1959, it served 75,000 people. Today over 500,000 people depend on Surrey Memorial Hospital. Why didn't this budget have the dollars earmarked for Surrey Memorial?

I remember that in previous budgets and throne speeches, the government talked about the heartlands. There was not a day that went by, after that speech, where the word "heartlands" didn't appear somewhere, until it became apparent that the government had forgotten what exactly that meant. Heartlands then disappeared. I hope it's not the case, because the word "heart" seems to somehow resonate with the government bench. It appeared with the heartlands analogy: "Now seniors are the heart of things." I hope it doesn't mean that the government is following exactly the same track that they went down with the heartlands strategy where seniors, at the heart of this budget, will just simply be forgotten. I hope that's not the case.

Let me just focus on our communities in the interior, across the province, on a critical issue. I don't remember, since I've been elected, that we have ever had a situation quite like this — the pine beetle epidemic. It is impacting our communities across the province, and it definitely would have huge ramifications for our economy across the province. More than that, it would impact individual families in a significant way. This has been going on for some time, hon. Speaker.

I went to look in the budget to see what the government was going to do around this issue. Is it a priority for them to address those communities that they conveniently said they weren't going to forget and highlighted but then turned around and forgot? There's no new provincial funding around this issue. The provincial spending is the least amount in the years that the epidemic is projected to peak.

The Liberals are supposed to be competent — competent management, competent managers. They're supposed to be the people who, they say, have a vision. They're forward-thinking. They do these three-year plans, ten-year plans, 20-year plans and so on. How could it be that in the years when the epidemic is to peak, this government is not taking any action?

Thank goodness for the federal government. The federal government is going to come in and bail them out with $100 million in one-time funding spread over three years. But you know what? As our critic has al-

ready highlighted, there are still no clear plans for the federal government aid package — what this government is going to do with it. Not only is there lack of commitment from the provincial side, but they actually don't know what they're going to do with the federal aid.

Maybe this government will want to talk about it some more, but communities who see this going on in their neighbourhoods — communities that see this happening and see the crisis looming over them — want to know what the government's vision is. They want to know what the game plan is, and they want to be in on the game plan. This government should have taken up the NDP's proposal to strike a bipartisan committee to bring people together — experts in the field — so that we can put our heads together and think about how we can best deal with this and act on it. The government refused that committee.

I was shocked that in the delivery of the budget speech there was nothing, no committees, on the forestry sector. How could that be when we have perhaps one of the most significant epidemics that's going to hit our industries? How could it be that the government has just forgotten?

Now, practical solutions from the NDP. We proposed a mountain pine beetle fund, a trust fund for communities that get hit hard by this issue, to help them transition during the after-effects of the epidemic. That would have given some communities and families, I think, some comfort. Was there anything in the budget around that? No.

We have routinely called for an all-party, non-partisan committee. As I mentioned, the government just stepped over that as well. Here's the government that says it truly wants to have a new beginning and that we're going to work together to address the concerns of British Columbians. On this issue they've certainly failed to act on that promise.

Let me turn to child protection for a moment. I recall when the Premier was on this side of the House, and he railed against the then government about not protecting the most vulnerable people in our communities — namely, children who need protection. The now Premier said, when he was in opposition, that we needed to invest in children, that we needed to ensure that the resources are there to meet their needs. Funny how things are, because that was then, and this is now. Let's see what is going on now.

In this budget I looked to see whether or not there are new moneys to protect children at risk. I'm sad to say, Madam Speaker, that the Minister of Children and Family Development has been plagued by heartless cuts that led to chaos in the ministry. Children have been put further at risk. Unfortunately, with this budget this government has shown that they have learned nothing. They have learned nothing, and they did not hear the message, nor are they going to honour the words that they spoke.

The issue is about trust. The campaign was about trust. How could British Columbians trust this Premier and this government that the most vulnerable people in our society are taken care of, that children who need protection would have the resources they need so that we know and have the comfort in knowing they are safe? We cannot, with this budget.

There's nothing in the speech, I was dismayed to find, to deal with the issue around an independent children's commissioner. Some will say, and the government will say: "Yeah, well, you're in the opposition. You will talk about how we're not doing all sorts of things." Well, then let the independent children's commissioner speak — if there were one.

The NDP, not just to criticize, actually have suggestions in this regard. During the election we proposed an additional $30 million to be put back in the ministry as a first step. We also proposed to restore the independent children's commissioner so that we can have an independent eye watching the system and to make sure that it is doing its job and that children who are at risk are being taken care of.

Let me turn to another area: skills training. With all of the language the very able Minister of Finance has said around concerns with capital cost spending, I would have thought that it's not a big leap to go from there to making sure there are investments in skills training for this province to ensure that some of those capital costs actually come down because of labour shortage demands, to ensure that the Olympics, which is going to be huge in terms of commitments from this province because….

I will remind everybody in this House that the province has indemnified the city of Vancouver, the municipalities, from risks around the Olympics. So I would have thought that there would have been some measure to actually move in that direction to make sure we addressed the issue around skills training. I look to the budget, and what do I find? Nothing. No new moneys for skills training, despite how British Columbia is going to be faced with a massive skills shortage.

The industry training budget is frozen, and the government is spending $10 million a year less on skills training than they spent in 2001, despite the growing shortage. There's forward thinking for you. There's vision for you. Not. British Columbia is in the midst of a growing skills shortage. Retiring workers combined with technological change and major projects are contributing to this growing shortage. One would have thought that the government would have taken the opportunity to act on that and to signal that they know this is a major issue impacting our communities and that they will be dealing with it.

I should also just put this fact on the record. The problem is not getting better. In fact, the problem is getting worse. There are now 44 percent fewer British Columbians completing apprenticeship programs than in 2001. You will hear the government say: "Oh, we invested in apprenticeship, and everything is just fine and hunky-dory." Guess what. Not. If you look at the facts and you see the truth, the truth of the matter is that there are 44 percent fewer British Columbians

completing apprenticeship programs than in 2001. There's nothing in this budget to address that, and the problem is going to get worse and worse under this government.

The independent Economic Forecast Council and the Business Council of British Columbia have both identified the skill shortage as a major risk to B.C.'s economy. Did the government listen not just to the opposition — not just to us — but did the government listen to their friends? No, they didn't. And that, I find shocking — even more shocking. Practical solutions, not just to hammer the government, but to offer solutions where it could actually address these issues….

The NDP have solutions. We propose to immediately invest more resources in skills training and in supports for students, so that they could actually complete their programs. We're proposing to work with employers to encourage them to take on apprentices and to make it easier for them to do so.

Now, you would have thought that those would have been priorities for the government, because it deals with the economy. But instead, what was a priority that I found in the budget? And I didn't hear British Columbians call for this during the campaign — the priority for this government centred around the Premier's budget. Lo and behold — small little line item, I might add — but the Premier's budget went up in this little mini-budget, where a few other priority areas like health care, education, children's protection, skills shortage, apprenticeship, post-secondary education, pine beetle and so on got little.

But guess what. The Premier's budget went up some 30 percent. So I guess they figure they need more spin doctors. They are worried. I read it somewhere in the press; they are quite worried with 33 MLAs on the opposition side. What to do? Oh, better hire more spin doctors, because we can't let the NDP hold us to account. No, no, cannot do that. But we can't do it with the huge resources we already have. Let's add to that. That's priority number one, and that's what we got in this budget from this government. You think that we'll hear the Minister of Finance talk about that? Not on your life, because the heart is with seniors, but the cash is with the Premier. That's where it's going.

There are a lot of choices that this government and this Minister of Finance could have made to make life better for average British Columbians. The fact is that they chose not to. They chose to betray the trust of British Columbians once again. It's a new beginning, and it's a new start after the election. This is the first budget post-election. People were looking for change. They were looking for those signals that the government actually heard British Columbians, the way in which they were dealt with in the last four years. They did not want to have a repeat performance.

People were looking to this government to show that they really care about the most vulnerable. Fancy words are good. It's all well and good, and it was there, let me tell you. It was there in the throne speech. It was there in the budget speech, and they said it all very nicely. It was delivered almost without a fault. But you know what? You've got to look beyond the words, and you've got to look at the details to see whether or not the actions that this government's going to do are actually going to be matched with the words. Based on the budget, the commitments are not there. It shows misplaced priorities from this government, and sadly, those who were left behind in the last four years are still going to be left behind because of the priorities this government chose.

The government has a lot to answer for since 2001. I say this with sincerity. With a stronger opposition, we will work hard to ensure that we put questions, and tough questions, to the government, and we expect answers. Gone are the days when the government could just shut down debate. Gone are the days when the government could just roll over a few opposition MLAs — three, to be exact, prior to the election. Gone are the days that government could think they could just walk away and continue to betray British Columbians on promises they had made.

We are going to be there every step of the way, and we are going to hold the government to account. When promises are made, we expect those promises to be delivered. When government misplaces its priorities in key areas, we will be there to point out where the government's missteps are.

We will be there to offer solutions as well. We'll continue to extend a hand, under the leadership of our leader, to the government side to say: "Let's work together in a bipartisan way. Let's work together so that we make sure we come up with the best solutions for all British Columbians."

We will continue to work in the direction of our leader, where we know…. It is at the heart of the practice of our leader — that is, reaching out to build consensus rather than to be confrontational and to divide. This is what this government has done in their first opportunity to show that they learned a lesson instead of picking winners and losers. They chose once again to engage in that practice to pick winners and losers, and it's not good enough. It is simply not good enough.

This session is going to be exciting. There's going to be a lot of debate, a lot of questions. And you know what? We hope — and I hope, with all sincerity — that the ministers will be prepared to give us a lot of answers. I remain and will continue to reach out, along with my colleagues, to all the government MLAs to offer our solutions and our goodwill to work with them. We hope that the government will respond.

Hon. P. Bell: It's a real pleasure for me today to present, I believe, my sixth response to the budget speech. I'd like to start out by welcoming all new members to the House. It is a real challenge, I think, for anyone to put their name forward for an election in any office — whether it be provincial, federal, municipal or school board. Certainly, it's a great opportunity for us to welcome all new incoming members, both opposition and government members alike.

I'd also like to congratulate all of the folks that stood for re-election and were successful in their re-election efforts. I'm not always sure why we do that. In fact, I note that some of the colleagues on the opposite side actually wanted to come back for a little bit more pain and punishment in this wonderful House we live in here. But certainly, welcome back to all those members who were members previously and chose to run again.

I'd really like to congratulate the people of British Columbia, because something historic happened on May 17, 2005, that has not occurred for over 20 years in the province. That is that the people chose to re-elect a Premier of British Columbia for the first time in a long time. That is historic.

You know, Madam Speaker, I think it's important for us to look back at all the people who make significant sacrifices for all the members of this House. I'm speaking, of course, of our families. It's a huge commitment, as everyone…. If you don't know that yet, you're certainly going to know that in a very short period of time. To be a member from Cariboo South or a member from Cariboo North and have to travel down to Victoria every week and represent their constituents in this House…. It is incredibly challenging work. There will be very great days in this House. There will be criticism. But at the end of the day we're all working for the same objective, and that is to make British Columbia a better place. I think everyone understands that.

For me, I wouldn't be here without the support of my wife Brenda. She's been incredibly committed as have, I know, all of the spouses of our members. The member for Prince George–Mount Robson and I have been good friends for four years, and I know both my wife and her husband tend to probably spend more time together than we get to with our respective spouses.

I know that all of the members will find that over time, our spouses make an incredible effort to allow us to go through this challenging period of time. But it is a real opportunity, and I think we need to congratulate all of our spouses, regardless of the political party that we come from, and thank them for the work that they do.

That holds true for all of our families. We've all got children. I understand that the member for Yale-Lillooet, in his four-year absence, was able to find the opportunity to have another child. Congratulations to that member. It's good to know that he hasn't forgotten how to do that in the period of time.

Again, all of our kids are very important to us. I think it's incumbent on all of us to remember…. And I certainly never forget about my three children — Donna, Diana and Doug; the three Ds as we refer to them. I'm happy to be able to inform the House that our oldest daughter Donna is going to be getting married on December 31 this year, so it's a great day for us as well.

I know all of us, in order to get to this chamber, have a huge team behind us. I heard some comments from the member for Nelson-Creston about the hundreds and hundreds of people in the support structure. I would be remiss if I didn't mention some of the key players on my campaign team: both Jim Blake and Terry Kuzma, who co-chaired my campaign and committed literally hundreds and hundreds, if not thousands, of hours to the campaign. I wanted to thank them formally for the work they did, because they did a tremendous job.

Also, I would be remiss for not thanking my E-day chair, Mary Chen. She's done an incredible job for me over the last two elections. I think it's very important to recognize the work that she does. She has brought her son Stephan into the political fold now, and he has been working hard as well.

Also, I wanted to particularly thank a friend of mine who has worked hard on my campaigns over the last two elections, and that's Russell Perry. Russell has just recently been informed that he has cancer. It's a challenge that I know you faced last year, Madam Speaker, with great difficulty. Congratulations certainly to you.

Russell — all the best to you, guy. All of our hearts go out to you, and we know you're going to fight this thing with everything you've got. So all the best to you as well, Russell.

Just to wrap up on the thank-yous, I have to mention my three constituency assistants who have just done an incredible job for me over the last four years and continue to do a great job for me representing the interests of my constituents. Those would be Charlotte Groot, Kathy Offet and Cecile Boughner up in Mackenzie. They have done a great job, and without their hard work I know it would be very difficult for me to do the type of job I think I've done representing my constituents.

To wrap up, I have to give special thanks to my colleague the Minister of Education and Deputy Premier from the great riding of Prince George–Mount Robson. She's been there every step of the way for us. We've been a great team in Prince George, and certainly we'd like to welcome our new colleague, the new member for Prince George–Omineca, to the team. We think Prince George is a great place to be, and we're going to continue to do the job representing that area.

It's worth mentioning to all members that since 1871, there's only been 854 Members of the Legislative Assembly. So this is a very small group of folks, and it's a real honour for us to represent all the constituents in the province of British Columbia. I think it's important for us to bring the real efforts of civility that we've tried to manage, certainly for the last couple of months, and that leaders on both sides of the House have talked about.

I think we have an opportunity to make a significant change in the way the Legislature works, and we've certainly taken some substantial steps forward in terms of the development of the first opposition member to be an Assistant Deputy Speaker. I think that is a significant move and a very positive one and a real step in the right direction to demonstrate that we're trying to make significant change in this House.

I think the change to a 30-minute question period is a very positive innovation. I think it's a real opportunity to have some good, constructive dialogue moving

back and forth. I know it's going to be a challenge some days to fill that 30 minutes. I saw an interesting comment from the media the other day. I think one of our House Leaders said that we knew it was going to be a challenge to have to be there for 30 minutes some days, and the House Leader from the opposition said that it was going to be a challenge to try and fill that 30 minutes. A member of the press gallery said: "It was just a challenge watching it for 30 minutes." So that was an interesting comment.

Another great innovation, and I as the minister responsible for aquaculture am really looking forward to working with the special legislative committee on aquaculture in terms of finding good, long-term sustainable solutions. This has been a challenge for both our governments over previous years, and I think there are positive solutions out there. We need to work collectively on it, and I think the fact that we have this new committee that we're establishing really demonstrates that this is a non-partisan issue. We have to find the right solutions for British Columbians, and it's a real demonstration and a commitment on our part to work collectively with the opposition.

I think those are all critical things that we need to continue to work forward on, and it's a real innovation from this government's perspective to try and embrace the opposition and have us work collectively together. There are days that it will be challenging for us, and there are days that we'll want to stand up and perhaps throw the odd jab back and forth across the assembly. But I really encourage all of us to try and resist that and maintain the type of decorum in the House that we're all working for.

I think there is, as I started out saying in this segment of my speech, a real opportunity for us to make a change this time in the House. I am afraid that if we don't make the change this time, I'm not sure that it will occur in the province. I think we want to rid ourselves of the reputation we've had in the past and really move forward, and here's our opportunity to do that.

With that all said, I want to move on to some of the substance of the budget speech and the real opportunities that I think exist out in front of us around the budget and specifically around the state of the economy. I for one am very proud of what we've been able to accomplish over the last four years in terms of turning the economy of the province around.

Let's just think about that a bit: a $2.6 billion surplus last year — the largest-ever surplus in the province of British Columbia, the largest-ever debt repayment. What does that mean to the province? Let's recognize that we have a significant provincial debt that we have to deal with. If we look to our neighbours just to the east of us in the province of Alberta, what have they been able to accomplish? That $2 billion we have to pay out in interest every year that could be spent on education, that could be spent on health care, that could be spent on capital infrastructure and social services…. Those are all critical components. We need to learn how to manage that. It's difficult, and it's complex, and it's challenging.

Yesterday we all heard that we're on track to have another great year in the province, with a potential surplus of $1.3 billion with forecast allowances and contingencies in place to ensure that we can meet our targets and our objectives. We're very confident in that number moving forward. That's a significant shift, because it means that we're actually looking at long-term planning and strategizing. How do we do that? You do that by delivering long-term budgets, by delivering long-term service plans, by actually looking out in front and making long-term decisions — not making them based on one-time revenues or short-term decisions, because there could be a burst in the bubble here. There is no question about that. We have to manage this carefully. We have to manage expectations, and we have to invest strategically.

That's what funds like this hundred million dollars for the first nations fund around building a new relationship are all about. I heard some criticism about this, as being one-time funding. But strategically, that's important, because what happens if natural gas prices fall? What happens if there's a downfall in world commodity prices? We're seeing record-high copper prices. It's a very exciting time to be in the mining industry in B.C. right now. But what happens if that changes? We have to think through that. If there is an opportunity to create funds like this that create long-term benefits for first nations, let's embrace and utilize those challenges. Let's not criticize them, because it makes a tremendous amount of sense to invest strategically now but to get benefits down the road for those investments.

That's what this first nations trust is about, and it's been a challenging time. Let's look back historically. It has been very difficult for all governments to try and really build a firm relationship with first nations. I think the efforts by this government have been exceptional. When you look at the work we've done in terms of land-use planning, creating real certainty around the land base, actually getting to agreements-in-principle — one of them being in my part of the province with the Lheidli-T'enneh first nation…. They've worked very hard to get there.

My colleague from Prince George–Omineca recently had an agreement-in-principle signed in his riding with the Yekooche first nation. The Yekooche first nation is a tremendous success story. They have great partnerships that they're evolving with different private sector companies both on the mining side and the forestry side. It's very, very positive. They're in the heart of the mountain pine beetle devastation, which I am going to make some comments on in my speech today. But you know what? They're working through those challenges. They're taking one-time funding sources. They're creating capacity in their community.

Chief Allan Joseph. I've got to tell you that that guy deserves a lot of credit for the work he's done. He's shown real leadership. He's taken a step out of the box, and he's providing benefits to his community.

There are good-news stories around there. I embrace the new relationship with first nations. I believe

leaders like Ed John need to have the supports and the structures, and we need to work collectively together to get to that end destination, because at the end of the day, when first nations benefit, we all benefit in this province. We're all part of one big family, and we need to understand that for our resource sectors to be successful, we have to work collectively in order to get to that destination. It is a very exciting time.

I've heard some criticism around the room about the heartlands and the economy and the way things have changed. But I'm from Prince George, and that's part of the heartlands. I represent the great city of Mackenzie. That's part of the heartlands too. It's a different story than I'm hearing from some of the opposition members. Lowest unemployment rate in decades. We went from 16.6 percent in 1998 — 16.6 percent. We haven't seen double digits for three years, and this year we're on pace to see one of the lowest unemployment rates we've seen literally ever.

In fact, in the Cariboo we had 5.7 percent just two months ago. I think the member for Cariboo South will report that. That's not a growing population. Why is that occurring? It's because mills are reinvesting. Mines are reopening. It's because there are all kinds of new economic activity on the land base, and that's significant.

Where are those investments taking place? In the Husky oil refinery in Prince George — $75 million. That's a significant investment. You don't make that type of investment in a refinery if you're not certain you're going to have long-term certainty around your oil supply and the right economic environment to work in.

Dunkley Lumber, just to the south of Prince George — a family-owned operation, not a big corporate entity — spent over $60 million doubling the size of their operation, a really significant investment.

Brink Forest Products, a name that already came up earlier on in a reply to the Speech from the Throne. He's taken his operation from one that employed under 100 people, and I think he's got about 250 to 300 direct employees — tripled the size of his operation. He shifted his operation a bit into finger-jointing more than remanufacturing. A huge new employer of people in the Prince George region — a very exciting operation.

Housing starts in Prince George continue to increase at record levels. Last year Prince George had the fastest-growing housing market in all of British Columbia, and this year is up 74 percent over last year — significant growth going on in the community. All kinds of new and innovative things are happening in and around Prince George, and it's a very exciting place to be.

I visited TerraCan during the election period. There's an operation that used to have 25 direct employees servicing the forest industry. They're now up to almost 50 employees, almost double the employment they had before. They've branched out and are now serving the mining industry as well.

The oil and gas industry is starting to look in the Nechako basin now. Big potential in that particular basin. The Canadian energy entity of the federal government estimates that there are 5.1 billion barrels of oil that have been locked away for a long time — a big opportunity for the ridings of Cariboo South, Cariboo North and the three Prince George ridings. It's certainly one that we look forward to trying to move forward.

The economy has really never been better in our region. It is very, very strong. I want to ensure that everyone understands that. The housing starts are up, housing prices are way up, jobs are back, and we're seeing people moving back to Prince George — unlike what occurred through the latter part of the '90s.

Why is that taking place? I think it's that, strategically, you need to make sure you provide the right tax environment for businesses to come back to the province. That is, in fact, what's happening today. You are starting to see businesses moving back, and part of our strategy in the throne speech was about building in tax credits for intellectual properties.

What's been occurring in the province over the years is that people would put all the initial work into developing intellectual properties in British Columbia and take advantage of the nucleus and the centre of excellence that we have around that. But as soon as they started making money and paying taxes, they would move offshore, where they could find a fiscal and taxation environment that was more attractive than they were able to find here in British Columbia.

By implementing this new life sciences taxation strategy, we think we're going to be able to retain those dollars and those intellectual properties in British Columbia, and that's very important from my perspective.

This really speaks to something, and I want to actually take a quote out of a member's speech from the day before yesterday. It was this, and I'm quoting from the member for Nelson-Creston's speech: "The hardest thing for them to figure out was that after the vote, the guys that lost…. You didn't get to shoot them or put them in jail or in exile. You had to give them wages and go off and actually pay them to oppose the state."

We have taken that a step further, and I made that point earlier. We're actually extending question period. We're creating statutory select committees that the opposition can sit on and actually chair. We're doing innovative things in the House that really make a substantial difference.

The member also said something that I think was kind of interesting. He said: "Remember the legislative session of 1982? That would be Operation Solidarity. It was tough times." And he tried to compare that to today. Well, I'm not sure there are too many comparables between 1982 and today. In 1982 the economy was in the tank. In 1982 you had 20 percent interest rates. In 1982 people were really challenged across this province. The economy is booming today. So to try and say that there's a link between 1982 and 2005 — I'm sorry — is flawed philosophically; it's tough to find the link there.

That member went on to challenge a number of kind of interesting things. He said later on that he was interested to note he's advised that the gross value of agricultural products in British Columbia has increased by 5 percent. So I'm not sure where the linkage is. He's

saying we should act like a government that's in a period that's very challenging economically, and yet he's saying agriculture is doing okay.

He also said that the Socreds actually took up responsibility for the softwood fight that was going on back in the '80s. Let's think about the last softwood lumber agreement that was signed in 1996. Hmm, let's think about that for a second. Now, if memory serves me correctly, B.C. had a market share of about 18 percent of the U.S. marketplace in 1996 when that lumber agreement was signed. But the then provincial government thought: "No, this looks like a good deal. We'll set up a quota system. That makes a lot of sense." What did they do? We went from an 18 percent market share in British Columbia down to 15 percent market share, and there was no investment through the 1990s — no investment in the forest sector through the 1990s. Why would you invest? You're only allowed to ship so much product to the U.S., so why would you invest?

I hear some criticism from that member of this government for sticking to our guns and saying: "You know what? We're going to stand up for NAFTA. We're going to stand up for what's right in terms of softwood lumber. We're going to challenge this thing right through to the end." And what's happened? Our market share has gone from 15 percent in 2001, when the last softwood agreement wrapped up, to 19 percent, and there are literally hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars being invested in British Columbia by forest product companies. That's the way you manage a successful forest industry. You don't manage it by going back to the old days of the quota system, like the member for Nelson-Creston would have you think.

Then they started talking about some interesting things. They understood that the job of working over there on the government side was to use resources of the people to intercede to make jobs for citizens. So that's what the member for Nelson-Creston would like us to do. He'd like us to take government resources and intercede to try and build jobs.

That's an interesting philosophy, and I wonder how that worked with the jobs and timber accord. Hmm, let me think about that. I don't think that was that successful, if memory serves me correctly. In fact, it was an economic disaster.

So what did we do in our power industry last year? The member for Peace River North, the Minister of Energy and Mines, actually created an infrastructure, a taxation structure that allowed for private sector investment in the electrical industry, in the supply industry. What did we get? We got $800 million in private sector investment — not government investment — creating jobs in British Columbia. That's how you build an economy in the province, not by government subsidies. That's not how it works.

We've watched the failures of the past. We know what occurred when you put $500 million into a bunch of aluminum things that were supposed to float but didn't work very well. We saw previous governments invest heavily in other business subsidies, and we made a very clear decision on the part of this government that we were not going to subsidize business, that we were going to create the right taxation structure, the right initiatives for businesses to be successful in the province, and what do you get? You get the strongest economy in Canada, leading in virtually every economic indicator and leading in job creation in all of Canada. In fact, for the first time we're edging in on 50,000 jobs in the community of Prince George.

Interesting question here, too, Madam Speaker. The member went on to say that she should have addressed offshore oil and gas. "What's your position? What are you going to do? Do you have a vision?" — asking about our position on offshore oil and gas. Interesting. My recollection is the position of the opposition on offshore oil and gas is…. Was it not now, not ever? Pretty sure that was the comment. It was something along those lines.

We have made a very clear strategic commitment to offshore oil and gas. We think there is big potential to offshore oil and gas. We've made some very significant moves in order to move offshore oil and gas forward in British Columbia. We embrace that opportunity. We think we need to move that strategy forward over time, and we're working very hard to make that happen. I am very confident in the work that the Minister of Energy and Mines does.

You know, for the member for Nelson-Creston to suggest: what's our position…? I think we know what our position is. I'm pretty sure we know what their position is. It's a bit hypocritical in my view, I suppose.

Let's talk about mountain pine beetle for a few minutes. You know what? In 1994 and 1995, I logged mountain pine beetle, and I saw what was occurring out of Tweedsmuir Park. There was a key strategic decision made by the previous government that it did not make sense from their perspective to harvest the few trees that were necessary in order to have some management control.

What do we have today? I think it's pretty hypocritical for people to stand on the other side of the House and talk about this as if it's our problem. We inherited a very challenging problem.

But you know what, Madam Speaker? This wave that's been coming at us is a devastating wave to the forests in the interior part of the province. We do need to be very focused on how we manage our way through this, and there have been significant key strategies put in place.

I was part of the MLA committee that went out and toured the land base shortly after the 2001 election and started developing strategies. I chaired the committee that developed the small-scale salvage strategy that has had significant impact and results on employment.

In fact, I remember my colleague for Kamloops–North Thompson used to go begging to the previous government to try and just allocate one FTE to work on small-scale salvage in his communities up the North Thompson River Valley. Finally, after he was able to do that, he was able to just make a little bit of headway in terms of creating some employment.

Well, I can tell you that last year there were 600,000 cubic metres harvested in the Prince George district in small-scale salvage. This is very environmentally friendly, very focused salvage on single-tree extraction, removing the infested trees and really doing it the right way.

This government has been incredibly proactive. We assigned a beetle boss, someone who's in charge of the mountain pine beetle area and all the challenges. We have a map that very clearly identifies the different strategies that are used. We've put out 2.5 million cubic metres in sales of various types to encourage additional harvesting in the region. We've looked at developing alternate uses for mountain pine beetle fibre, whether it be for oriented strand board — there are two plants in the process of being developed around that — cogeneration or all kinds of other different products. We have worked very, very hard at this.

This is a devastating attack that has occurred. We all need to work on the same team, and certainly we support whatever the opposition wants to bring forward. We'd love to look at their issues. But the time for committees is over. The time for action is here. I know that in speaking with the Minister of Forests, we have some very, very real opportunities moving forward.

I want to shift my comments for a few minutes — I know I'm nearing the end of my time here — and talk a little bit about agriculture. I think there are just tremendous opportunities for us out there. There was an interesting question asked by the member for Cariboo North the other day — some suggestion that I'd said forestry was a sunset industry and that we should create farmland out of all the pine beetle land. Well, if the member would read into the record…. If he'd take the time to read into the record what was actually said in the transcript, what he'll find I said is that I think there's an opportunity for us to diversify our economy and look at creating employment in a variety of industries such as agriculture, mining and energy as we move through this, so that we really do have sustainable communities.

We are resource-dependent in the heartlands. It's important for us to keep in mind that we're resource-dependent. We have an opportunity out in front of us, and I do think there is an opportunity for us to look strategically at agricultural development areas, areas of high value, areas currently in the agricultural land reserve that we know have good soil types, and look at doing some conversions and create some opportunities for agriculture to expand into that.

Agriculture is a vibrant industry in the province. We have over 200 different products that we produce commercially and $2.2 billion in direct farm-gate sales — growing every single year against the national average, which is declining every year. We're the only province that is seeing consistent improvements, and we've got a real variety in our industry. So it's very exciting.

We've got a tremendous winery industry that's developed in the Okanagan. It has increased just in the last year by 22.5 percent, the winery industry, with some real strategic changes that this government made over the last couple of years. But you know, we've worked our way through challenging times with BSE. We've worked our way through the issues with avian flu. We've been continuing to grow the industry, so there are huge opportunities for us.

I am really down to my last minute or so here. I'm going to wrap up now, but I want to say that this province is a tremendous place to be. It has been very good to my wife and our children and me and to most of the members of this House. As I started my speech, I want to congratulate everyone on their election to the House. I want to congratulate everyone who did run for office and was not successful. It is extremely challenging to put your name forward any time, and I think it's a real commitment on everyone's part. I look forward to working constructively with the opposition on the aquaculture committee and other roles. I think we really do have an opportunity, perhaps the only opportunity, to make a difference in this House.

H. Lali: Hon. Speaker, I would like to start by congratulating the member from Penticton, who has become the Speaker of this House, on his election as the Speaker.

I would also like to congratulate you on your position as Deputy Speaker of this House. It's a great challenge, as you know. I also want to congratulate you on the fact that you are the first Indo-Canadian woman to become Deputy Speaker of this House. Congratulations to you.

As I stand here before you, I would like to say that it's a great honour and privilege to be a member of this assembly once again. As most of you folks know, I was a member here from 1991 to 2001. These duties that we do — I know all of us do not take them lightly. We're all here because we want to make our communities better and want to work on behalf of our constituents. I want to congratulate each and every one of you on your victories in this last election and to all of those hundreds of folks who were unsuccessful but had the courage enough to put their name on a ballot. Congratulations go out to them and a big thank you as well.

I also want to take this opportunity to thank all of my supporters in Yale-Lillooet who gave me this great honour and privilege by putting me back into this House, and all of those hundreds and hundreds of supporters who were out there working in my campaign during the election. I want to thank all my constituents, even the ones who didn't vote for me. This democracy of ours works, because we have government and we have opposition, and we have the right and the freedom to choose to support who we want and not support who we don't want.

Most important of all, I want to thank my family. All of us, obviously, would not be here if we hadn't had the support of our families in the way that we did.

I want to thank my mom. She's going to be 87 in a few months. She's always been there for me and also for my brothers and sisters, whenever we needed her. I want to thank my son Ajhmair. He's 14 now. He's going to high school. My daughter Suman has just turned 12.

She's in middle school, just starting this year. Of course, our newborn…. Well, actually, he's about two years old — little Sajjin. It's really a joy to have him as part of the family. It kind of makes me feel young all over again.

Finally but not least, there is my wife Roni. She's always been there. As the previous member said quite eloquently about spouses, we would not be here if it weren't for all of the support that we got from our spouses and partners in our efforts to be here. Really, when we're over here, they're the ones who are looking after the home front. Often they get forgotten or don't get recognized. I want to take this opportunity and join the previous member from Prince George in recognizing the support and the effort of our spouses and our partners.

I mentioned a little earlier how I feel it is a great honour to be here. You know, a lot of folks serve one term in this Legislature, and quite a few folks actually spend more time in this House — a couple of terms or more. Usually, it's consecutively. A few — very, very few — actually get a second chance to make a first impression.

H. Lali: The member opposite obviously doesn't realize or appreciate the honour and privilege that goes with being a member out here. I think he might want to rethink his remarks afterwards.

As I was rudely interrupted, I was going to point out a few members here. The Minister of Employment and Income Assistance, from Kamloops, made a comeback in this Legislature. I'm sure he knows the courage it takes, after being out of politics for a number of years, to actually come back and win a seat in this House. Not too many people actually can get to do that. The Minister of Children and Family Development is another member from the opposite side who has done that — from the Comox area.

Of course, from the opposition side there's the member for Nelson-Creston and the member for Port Coquitlam–Burke Mountain, as well as the member for Surrey–Green Timbers. All of these folks have been ministers in past governments of the Legislature. Of course, not to forget, there's also the member for Nanaimo. Yes, I have him on my sheet here. He's sitting here. After a nine-year hiatus, he's back here in the Legislature. Of course, there's myself as well, who got a chance.

If I've forgotten anybody on both sides, I apologize. I'm sure somebody will point them out to me.

It takes real courage, actually, to be out of politics and then make a comeback and be successful. There are so many members here from the government side and the opposition side who have been able to do that. The people of our constituencies, respectively, have afforded us that honour. They have put a lot of faith and trust in us to go out there and do the job. As I mentioned, it's indeed an honour to be here once again.

Yale-Lillooet. I just want to talk a few minutes about my riding. It's a historic riding. It's one of the original constituencies when British Columbia became a province. I have 56 small and large communities spread out over 31,000 square kilometres. I have 27 first nations bands in my constituency — more than any other constituency in this province — represented by six tribal councils — again, more tribal councils than any other constituency.

I have seven municipalities — Merritt, Princeton, Hope, Keremeos, Logan Lake, Lillooet and Lytton — in my constituency as well, and also four regional districts in the constituency. We also have all the major highways in British Columbia run through there: the Trans-Canada Highway 1; the Yellowhead Highway 5; the Coquihalla Highway, which is also number five; Hope-Princeton Highway 3 and the Crowsnest Highway; Highway 99 as well as Highway 97C, which is actually part of the longest highway system in the world stretching all the way from Alaska through the Yukon and British Columbia, through the United States, Mexico and across Latin America to the tip of South America. It's part of the longest continuous highway system in the world.

All major railways in British Columbia run through my constituency as well. Actually, there used to be three. Now there are two. As you know, B.C. Rail was sold off to CN. Major rivers such as the Thompson River and Fraser River are also part of this constituency, as well as the Nicola, Similkameen, Coquihalla and Bridge rivers in my constituency.

It's a multicultural constituency, perhaps not as large in numbers as in the lower mainland, but we have people from all continents living in my constituency — people from the various European countries, the British Isles as well as from Germany and Spain and Portugal and all of those communities. Italian Canadians live in my constituency as well as Indo-Canadians. We have a few Pakistani Canadians living in my constituency, and Chinese Canadians and people from all continents are represented.

Of course, not to forget, 19 percent of my constituency is comprised of aboriginal people. I think that's either the third- or fourth-largest population of aboriginal people compared to all other constituencies in this province.

Rugged mountain terrain. We have the world-famous Stein Valley Park that was protected by the former NDP government, as well as Spruce Lake in the southern Chilcotins, which both the New Democrats and Liberals had a hand in. Manning Park has been there…. It's world-renowned, as you know. We have some great parkland in the constituency.

Endless rivers and streams. As a matter of fact, in the Nicola Valley there's a saying: "A lake a day as long as you stay." That's a motto that we've had for a long, long time. Of course, it has quite diverse industries as well, forestry being number one in my constituency as a mainstay. There is mining and agriculture up in Keremeos, and fruit farming. There's ranching all over the constituency, whether you're in Princeton or Merritt or up in Lillooet or towards Logan Lake.

Tourism is also fast becoming a big industry in this constituency because of the beauty of Yale-Lillooet, with its rivers, its streams, its lakes, its mountains and the greenery that is there, with the farmlands and the ranchlands and the high mountains. There is very, very good heliskiing and cross-country skiing, as well, in the winter for folks to enjoy.

As most of you folks can tell, I'm making a pitch on behalf of my constituency so that all of you and all of your friends and relatives and people listening out there will come out to Yale-Lillooet and spend a few dollars. Lord knows, we need it, especially after the last four years of the devastation that's taken place by the Liberal government there.

We heard the budget that was announced in the House yesterday by the Finance Minister. The government has been saying, as part of the throne speech and all of the formalities around the budget, that they want to work with the opposition and that they want to work with British Columbians, that they want to make things work — that they actually want to govern for all British Columbians. We're going to hold their feet to the fire on that from the opposite side of the House.

The Finance Minister also stood up in this House and said that she was proud of this budget and that the Liberals were bringing in some sort of a golden decade. Well, my friends, let's talk about the golden decade. Let's talk about all of the broken promises of this Liberal government over the four years that they have been in office. They have had a history of broken promises, my friends. Nay, they have had a litany of broken promises for the last four years that they have been in government.

Their budget talks about seniors, how they're going to look after seniors. You know, it's a little hard to take coming from that government, seeing as how for four years they have done nothing but hurt seniors in this province. Their cuts to Pharmacare coverage hit thousands of seniors in this province. Now they want to say that they're increasing the supplement for rent for seniors and GAIN and that. But wasn't it this Liberal government that took the supplement away from seniors in the first place?

They had promised 5,000 long-term care beds when they got elected in 2001. Well, they delivered zero in those four years. As a matter of fact, their own internal reports showed that they had, indeed, cut hundreds and hundreds of long-term care beds. That's how they're going to look after seniors.

Then the budget talks about how they're going to work with aboriginal people, that they're going to build a new relationship. They've named their ministry Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation. Well, you know, in terms of reconciliation, how are they building a new relationship? Let's talk about how they built a new relationship with aboriginal people when they had four years to do this. They had four years to build a new relationship.

There was a time in this province when aboriginal people were not welcome in this House, or to come and meet a minister was a big chore. When we were doing the Nisga'a treaty with the aboriginal people…. There was a time when aboriginal people had to come in the side door. We opened the front gates of this building, where aboriginal and non-aboriginal people were able to walk together side by side, up the stairs and into this House, to show to aboriginal people that it's their House as much as it's anybody else's House in this province. They were very proud of that fact. It was the first time, they said, that any government had treated them with the kind of respect they deserve.

This government across the way has shut the door on aboriginal people for the four years they were in office, the very door that previous NDP premiers had opened, the front doors of this Legislature. That Liberal government shut the doors on aboriginal people, and now they talk about reconciliation and new relationships.

Well, let's see. What has building a new relationship got to do with putting on a referendum on aboriginal rights, a referendum on minority rights where the majority can vote on it? That's what this Liberal government did when they were in office. They also categorically denied aboriginal people the right to self-government. That's what the Liberals opposite believe, that aboriginal people don't have the right to self-government, when courts across the country have said that they do.

How was cutting funding for treaty-making going to help aboriginal people? How was that building a new relationship? How is cutting funding for capacity-building for aboriginal people — over the four years that they were in office — building a new relationship and reconciling with aboriginal people? How was cutting legal aid services in this province — most aboriginal people used legal aid when they had to go to court, when they had some legal issues they had to deal with — building a new relationship and reconciliation with the aboriginal people of this province?

That Liberal government cut funding for aboriginal education, aboriginal funding in schools. How is that building a new relationship? How was that going to help aboriginal students get a better, decent education, so they can go out there and actually get a job rather than having to rely on income assistance? How is that helping aboriginal people?

We also heard the Finance Minister say that they're going to make British Columbia the education province. Well, folks on this side of the House will tell you that when the New Democrats were in office, we were the education province in this country. We had frozen tuition fees for seven years. They were the highest in the country at one time; when we left, they were the lowest in the country. We had the lowest participation rate in post-secondary education when the Social Credit Party was in office, and by the time the NDP left office, we had the highest participation rate in post-secondary education of all provinces in this country.

We were the education province. We built 289 new schools and refurbished half of them in that particular number and lowered class sizes and eliminated hundreds and hundreds of portables and hired new teachers to lower the class sizes. We became the education province.

What the Liberals did in the last four years was gut education in this province. How did they do that? They closed 113 schools, arbitrarily — a number of them in my constituency — and fired 2,500 teachers.

Class size increased under the Liberals. Tuition has increased. ESL funding has been cut. Special education funding has been cut. The ministry funding during those four years actually went down, as much as they like to say that it went up. They didn't take into account inflation. They didn't take into account all of the extra bills that were being paid by school boards for heating and for all of the other items that had gone up or for any wage increases, if there were any, in the system. All of that ate away any minute amount of funding they put in.

Now they'd like to claim that they're putting in some money and that they're making this an education province, when the reality is that they have not made education a priority when they were in office.

The minister also talked about tax cuts in the budget earlier, yesterday. When you take a closer look, most of those tax cuts, again, have gone to big business, to the corporate buddies of the Premier. They're the ones who are benefiting from these huge tax cuts. It's not the average lower- and middle-income earner. It's big business who is actually benefiting — the very people who financed the campaigns for all of those people on the government side of the House. They're the ones who are making a windfall out of this budget. It's not lower- and middle-income earners; it's their friends, the top 2 percent of the population in British Columbia who are benefiting from those tax cuts.

They want to say that this is a golden decade, a land of prosperity and a land of milk and honey. That's what they like to say. Well, how do they help the lower- and middle-income earners? I'm going to point that out. How do they help average folks?

H. Lali: Well, they don't, as the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway says. They don't. They haven't done that for years. They're not going to do that now. Well, look at their record.

ICBC rates went up in record amounts in the four years that they were in office, and it hurt the pocketbooks of the very lower- and middle-income earners of this province.

B.C. Hydro rates went up under that administration across the way — in record amounts, in record increases. Again, it hit those very consumers in all of those small communities all across this province, especially out in the north, where they have these huge heating bills.

They increased, as well, the gas tax by three cents a litre during this time of record gas prices. My friends across the way, that's what you've done.

You know, you tried to take credit a couple of years ago to say that you lowered the sales tax. Well, the reality is: you raised it in the first place. First you took the money out of their pockets, and then you tried to give it back. They should be feeling thankful for that, because at least you've given it back.

Look at all the fees and licences that have been increased — 600 of them or more that the folks across the way have raised. That's their idea of helping lower- and middle-income earners. In reality, what they have done is taken money out of the pocketbooks of lower- and middle-income earners and given it to their rich friends on Howe Street and the 2 percent of this province. That's how they've looked after lower- and middle-income earners, my friends. Their golden decade is just another big golden goose egg, my friends. That's what they've done.

We talk about the litany of broken promises by that government. Let's look at the agenda of privatization. First, it had a failed attempt to privatize the Coquihalla Highway for 100 years or for whatever it was they were going to give it away. They backed off because there was an outcry in the Thompson-Okanagan, when the member for Kamloops and the member for Kamloops–North Thompson and all of those Okanagan members in this House realized they were going to lose their own seats. It was then, and only then, that the Premier decided to back down on that.

But you know what? He was going to go on with his privatization agenda no matter what the public had said, because he got hauled into the offices at Howe Street, and he got smacked around by all the big corporate entities. They told him: "You are going to continue the privatization agenda, but from now on you are going to do it in secret. You're not going to tell people."

That's what happened with B.C. Rail. That's exactly what happened with B.C. Rail, because he got read the riot act. The Premier got read the riot act by his corporate buddies on Howe Street. He was told that from now on he was going to start privatizing, but he was going to do it in secret so that only a few people would be bidding on something. The public had no right to look at the tender. As you know, that whole deal was marred with corruption and an unprecedented raid on senior ministers' offices in the Legislature.

They still didn't back off. Why did the Premier not back off? Because his corporate buddies wouldn't let him. Otherwise, he's out of the Premier's chair, and he wouldn't have a job. That's why he continued on with that.

Then there was the MSP premium administration to Maximus, or whatever the name is, from the United States, so that under the USA Patriot Act, Mr. Bush, the President of the United States, could access our medical records here in British Columbia. They didn't even bother to check the résumé for Maximus to see what kind of an entity they were before they privatized.

You know, we've also had so many of our services in our hospitals that have been privatized by the Liberals, which put so many of those folks who have decent-paying, family-supporting jobs out on the street or to go work for minimum wage somewhere else.

It's the same thing that they've done with liquor stores. First they came out and publicly said: "We're going to designate a few liquor stores that we're going

to privatize." When there was an uproar in the member for Kamloops–North Thompson's riding, they backed off. Now, the Valleyview store and others across the province were done in a clandestine way, where they quietly let the lease run out and then blamed it on the lease running out and the owner of the building having jacked up the rents and "we couldn't pay the rents." That's their way of privatizing, to do it in a clandestine and secret way.

I will tell you what's also not in the budget. They never talk about health care. The number-one issue during the last election, and they said nothing about health care. Of course, that's because they closed, I don't know, 70 hospitals or major portions of hospitals, pulled out services in hospitals — especially if you happen to live in rural B.C. They fired 1,200 nurses. They said nothing about surgery wait-lists. There's no extra money in there to reduce surgery wait-lists, because this government doesn't think it is a priority.

Women's equality is another area. You don't find the Finance Minister talking about putting in money for new shelters where they're needed in British Columbia — the very shelters that they closed or cut funding for. They won't say anything about that.

Of course, they won't talk about rural British Columbia either. They won't talk about all of the services that they pulled out. They won't talk about all of the courthouses they closed arbitrarily — five of them in my constituency alone, in Yale-Lillooet — or the government agents that were closed or the services pulled out. They won't talk about all of the social services offices in those small communities that they closed.

The Liberal Finance Minister will not talk about the cuts to legal aid. She won't talk about the cuts to the Ministry of Forests offices — Merritt TSA had 109 people who used to look after the forestry in that riding, in that particular area; now there are only 49 people who are doing it — or the cuts to the Ministry of Environment offices all across rural British Columbia or all of those cuts to the Ministry of Health.

Normally, the Liberals talk about how much money they are putting into health. Maybe they'd like to tell that to Mr. Gordon Cox in Merritt, who spent 17 hours on a stretcher in a hallway. He told me that he ended up urinating all over himself and that he had never felt more ashamed in his life. Maybe they want to tell Gordon Cox how their supposed prioritization of health care is supposed to help him or other people across this province.

They'll not talk about their cuts to the Ministry of Education; they won't even talk about the cuts to the Ministry of Agriculture or the cuts to the Ministry of Transportation. The Coquihalla Highway system was supposed to get a $42 million uplift, facelift, when I was the Minister of Transportation. I left that portfolio in 2001, and that was part of the plan. They shelved that plan. They haven't even done anything with that or any other of the major highways and secondary highways throughout this province of ours. Take a look in the interior, up in the north. They haven't done any work there.

The cuts to municipal affairs. You know, they won't talk about the cuts they made to municipal affairs over the four years — and all the funding they used to get for their projects, whether they were water or sewers or sidewalks or roads within their communities — or some of the other programs they cut.

They put no money into pine beetle infestation. As a matter of fact, it's supposed to be $7 million in next year's budget. When we've got a crisis taking place which requires hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars, they're putting in $7 million. That's their way of looking after rural B.C.

Rural communities in this province have been abandoned by this government. Rural communities are suffering from a Liberal-imposed death by a thousand cuts, and there isn't a constituency or a community in this province that hasn't been hurt. As much about their ballyhooed heartland strategy…. What this Liberal Premier, this Liberal government, has done has cut the heart out of the heartlands. That's what they've done.

In this budget the Liberal government continues to thumb its nose at rural British Columbia, because there's nothing in the budget for rural B.C. Once again they're being left out in the cold. They're being left out literally in the cold again. We know that gas prices are going up. We also know that the fuel prices for heating folks' homes have gone up — electricity prices as well. Energy prices are going up. The prediction is for a long, cold winter.

How is this budget supposed to help those people, especially if they're on a lower income or on a fixed income? How are they supposed to pay their bills? How has this government found at least $200 million to $250 million to give away to corporate buddies in a corporate tax cut? For those folks — lower- and middle-income earners, especially in rural British Columbia — who are going to pay exorbitant heating bills, how is this government helping them? Where is the money for them? Where is the money for pine beetle infestation? Where's the money for legal aid? Where is the money in this budget for all of those folks — all of the seniors, all the women, all the youth — who are looking forward to this budget and supposedly the new way of business that this government is going to do? What's in it for them? There is nothing in it for them, my friends. Once again they're being left out in the cold.

This government has continued to abandon the people of rural British Columbia, because they don't consider them a priority. That's a real shame. I thought the Premier was going to listen, especially after he lost nearly half of those rural constituencies. They're being represented by this side of the House. You would think there would be a big message that would have been picked up by the Premier and the Finance Minister and that Liberal cabinet, but it seems to have once again fallen on deaf ears.

They just don't care for those people in rural British Columbia. But they do care about those people who pay for their campaign finances during election times,

because they're the ones who reap those big dividends to the tune of hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars.

Hon. Speaker, I want to thank you, and I want to thank my colleagues on this side of the House and on the opposite side of the House. Again, in closing, I want to thank all of my supporters for getting me back into this House to make sure this government is going to be held accountable in the next four years.

Hon. R. Thorpe: Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to rise in this House to speak on behalf of the constituents of Okanagan-Westside. Before I get into the detail of my comments, let me pass along from the constituents of Okanagan-Westside their congratulations to you on being appointed and being elected the Speaker of this House.

I would also like to congratulate all of the members of this House on their election, to wish them all the very best. Of course — and I'm sure the members on the other side of the House will give me this — I'm particularly pleased to be back in this House with 45 of my colleagues. I'm also very, very pleased that for the first time in 22 years a Premier has been re-elected by the people of British Columbia, and we're very pleased to be forming this government.

I want to thank very much all of those in Okanagan-Westside who have worked tirelessly on my behalf, the communities up and down Westside Road, the folks and the team in Westbank, the community of Peachland and all of those people that have worked so hard for me over the years, and in Summerland.

I would really like to sincerely thank my family: my wife Yasmin, married 32 years, who is my best friend and is always there for me — unfortunately, most of the time it's by telephone, like most other members in this House; and of course, my son and my two daughters.

In particular, watching today, I'd like to thank my grandson Evan, who's two and a half years old and has brought unbelievable excitement and pleasure to my life. In fact, last week when it was my birthday, my grandson picked out this tie for me to wear in this House. They're getting smarter every….

Hon. R. Thorpe: There's the member over there, making fun of the tie that my grandson…. You can say a lot of things about me, the member for Vancouver-Kingsway, but you'd better be very, very careful about what you say about my grandson. But we won't go there.

British Columbia has come a long way. We can remember when some of us came here for the first time in 1996 and saw our great province go from number one on a slide to number ten. But you know, since 2001 a lot of people in British Columbia have worked very, very hard to return British Columbia to one of the very, very best provinces, if not the very best, in the entire country of Canada.

I must make some comments on some of the statements that have been made by the Finance critic, the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant, and the member for Yale-Lillooet, who said it's his second time for his first impression. Well, we know how he did. It's the same old.

I'm particularly concerned about their comments with respect to our seniors. Under the former administration, the NDP, wait times for residential care exceeded a year. Now they're down in different parts of the province from 30 days to 90 days. Between 1993 and 1999 the NDP reduced the number of care beds by 18 percent in the province. And they say they care.

When we did an inventory of our care facilities in British Columbia, we found that about 50 percent of them were not of a standard that any of us would want any other British Columbian to have to live in. In their recent campaign they promised that in their first year they'd open a thousand beds in their first year. Right now we have 2,100 beds under construction in the province of British Columbia.

Also, when they were the government, with the SAFER program for ten years, they did not put one increased cent into SAFER. Now we are increasing SAFER so more and more people are eligible than ever before. We've increased it so those who live in manufactured homes, who live on rental pads, are now eligible. For them to say that members of this House don't care about seniors, quite frankly, is very, very questionable.

Then I have to listen as they talk — the member from Nelson — about mining. When they ran for re-election, there wasn't one comment in their plans about how they were going to boost mining in British Columbia. On forestry revitalization: not one word in their plan on how they're going to revitalize their forests. In technology: not one word in their plans on how they were going to help our technology and biotech industry. On crime: no action plan.

They said they were going to hire and train and recruit more nurses, but they had no plan. In fact, we know that they cut training spaces for nurses in the province in their reign. We've increased over 2,500…. Mr. Speaker, as you know very well, at Okanagan College we now have an LPN program where very soon 25 new LPN nurses are going to graduate.

The NDP caused a doctor shortage here in British Columbia. They did not add one — not one — new training space for doctors in British Columbia in ten years. The word "Pharmacare" was not mentioned once in their election campaign platform.

You know, it becomes very, very difficult to try to sit here and watch this magical Disney presentation of the repackaging of the same old NDP, which was just characterized by the member for Yale-Lillooet in his comments. People will see the NDP for what they are. Once again they want to stand in this House and take British Columbia backwards.

British Columbians don't want to go backwards. British Columbians want to lead in Canada. British

Columbia is leading in Canada. We are going to continue to lead in British Columbia.

They talk about not caring for those at the lowest income levels in British Columbia. Well, the facts of the matter are that those making $16,000 a year in British Columbia pay no provincial income taxes. That was a B.C. Liberal government that did that, not an NDP government.

We see that those families that are making $83,000 pay the lowest tax rate of any jurisdiction in the entire country right here. That was not the NDP who did that. That was the B.C. Liberal government. We have actually taken money and given it back to families and to individuals so that they can make the choices.

Apparently, the folks on the other side of the House think that big government is actually better for making decisions for individuals and families. If that's what they feel, they should stand up and say that they're smarter, they're wiser, and they have better fiscal management skills than the hard-working citizens of British Columbia. I happen to believe and believe strongly, as does our government, that individuals should be making the decisions about how their hard-earned money is spent and where it is spent.

It also seems that for some of the members over there the election campaign is not over. They talk about reductions in schools and reductions in teachers, but have you ever noticed that they always forget to tell British Columbians that there are 30,000 less students? Now, why would they forget to tell British Columbians that? Do they actually want British Columbia taxpayers to leave empty schools open? I don't think so.

With respect to health care, our government has led on the national stage in transfers back to British Columbia from federal dollars that have been invested in health care. We have increased health care spending by $3.8 billion in the time that we've been in government.

British Columbia is moving forward. We are paying down debt. The province has been returned to financial stability. British Columbia is the best place to live, to work and to raise your family.

Noting the hour, first of all, I'd like to reserve the remaining speaking time that I have, and I would now move adjournment of debate.

Hansard Services publishes transcripts both in print and on the Internet. Chamber debates are broadcast on television and webcast on the Internet.