Hansard -- Monday, September 19, 2005 p.m. -- Vol. 1, No. 9 (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


Introductions by Members		141

Tributes		141
	Robert James Shewfelt
	Hon. R. Thorpe

Statements (Standing Order 25B)		141
	Crystal meth
	R. Cantelon
	Carey Price
	C. Wyse
	Mount Polley mine
	J. Rustad
	Mann Cup win by Victoria Shamrocks
	J. Horgan
	Multiculturalism and immigration
	D. Hayer
	Assaults on seniors in Surrey park
	H. Bains

Oral Questions		144
	Government support for low-income seniors
	R. Fleming
	Hon. C. Taylor
	J. Kwan
	Review of death of Sherry Charlie
	C. James
	Hon. S. Hagen
	A. Dix
	Kith-and-kin agreement guidelines
	G. Robertson
	Hon. S. Hagen
	M. Karagianis
	M. Farnworth
	Future of Port Alice pulp mill
	C. Trevena
	Hon. C. Hansen

Reports from Committees		148
	Special Committee of Selection, first report
	Hon. M. de Jong

Motions without Notice		149
	Powers and role of Finance and Government Services Committee
	Appointment of Legislative Initiatives Committee
	Committee of Supply to sit in two sections
	Hon. M. de Jong

Second Reading of Bills		150
	Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Amendment Act, 2005 (Bill 4)
	Hon. M. de Jong
	M. Farnworth

Budget Debate (continued)		151
	Hon. O. Ilich
	J. Yap
	N. Simons
	C. Trevena
	B. Lekstrom
	G. Coons
	L. Mayencourt

Hon. S. Bond: It is a delight today to be able to introduce someone who is certainly no stranger to many of us. We've chatted a lot about being new to the Legislature or returning to the Legislature and some of the challenges that this job brings, but I think often we don't actually talk about the benefits. One of the benefits is getting to meet extraordinary British Columbians who truly want to serve the public in this province, whichever side of the House they sit on.

Today I want to welcome someone, a very good friend, a former colleague of all of ours. She's been described as someone who is innovative. She has endless energy. She brought an incredibly wonderful personality to this Legislature. She was first elected in a 1998 by-election to represent the riding of Parksville-Qualicum, and she was re-elected in 2001 in the Nanaimo-Parksville riding. She served as our Minister of Transportation from June 2001 until January of 2004. We are so glad to see you back today; we miss you a great deal. Please join me in welcoming Judith Reid.

Hon. O. Ilich: As many of you know, British Columbia is becoming known as the sports capital of Canada. We are hosting the Grey Cup this year as well as the World Junior Hockey Championship and the Nordic World Cup. We are hosting many, many more sporting events leading up to the Olympic Games in 2010. Adding to our sports reputation is the Victoria Shamrocks lacrosse team, which won the national championship Mann Cup this Friday in Victoria in a thrilling overtime game. Would the House join me in congratulating the Victoria Shamrocks for this outstanding accomplishment.

N. Simons: I just would like to bring the attention of the House to three guests plus a partner up in the members' gallery. In particular, I'd like to welcome Sharon Wood and Bill Forst, president of the Sunshine Coast Teachers Association, along with Steve Jones, the vice-president of the B.C. School Counsellors Association, who are all here to ensure that we continue a respectful dialogue and that our students get their education — and my partner Scott, of course.

D. MacKay: This afternoon, somewhere in the gallery, I'm pleased to introduce somebody from Smithers, in the beautiful Bulkley Valley in the northwest part of our province. Visiting today is Charlene Watts from Smithers. She's down here representing the Association of Educators of Gifted, Talented and Creative Children. I ask the House to please make her welcome.

V. Roddick: In the gallery this afternoon is a dedicated constituent, Dr. Beth Sparks. Dr. Sparks teaches children who need direct intervention to learn how to read and write at Cougar Canyon Elementary in North Delta. She is the provincial president of the Learning Assistance Teachers Association and the president of the Delta Learning Assistance Teachers Association. Her motto is: "Is it that I can't learn, or is it that you can't teach me?" Will the House please make her most welcome.

K. Conroy: Today I would like to welcome to the House William Schwark, a third-year law student from the University of Victoria, along with his mother Mary Schwark, who was born and raised in Trail and raised her family in Robson and is a teacher. As well, they have Mary's niece Marian Plotnikov with them. She's the operator of a travel agency in Grand Forks. Please join in welcoming them to the House.

L. Mayencourt: It seems we have developed a little bit of a theme for today's introduction of guests. We've left one person out, and I want to make sure we mention her. Jinny Sims, the president of the B.C. Teachers Federation, is here today. Would the House please make her welcome.

Hon. R. Thorpe: I rise with sad news today and would ask the House…. Robert "Bob" James Shewfelt, former mayor of Summerland, passed away, and we had a memorial service for him on Saturday. He was affectionately known as "Mayor Bob," and he served two terms in Summerland. Bob will be sadly missed by his family and all of those whose lives he touched, not only in Summerland but in the Okanagan and in British Columbia. Mr. Speaker, I would ask that your offices send the family the condolences on behalf of all the members of this House.

R. Cantelon: I'm speaking today on the issue of crystal meth, something that will be of interest to our members and also to the people in our gallery today. Last Thursday I attended a public meeting on crystal meth in the school gymnasium at McGirr School in Nanaimo. The room was full of anxious parents, homeowners, business people, community workers, volunteers, politicians and crystal meth survivors. And "survivors" is the right term, from what I heard from a Mr. Gordon Robson and from the rehabilitated users themselves.

Now, this session was put on by a man called Gord Robson of the Crystal Meth Task Force. I want to caution and warn the members of both sides of this House that it was a compelling and frightening evening in

many respects. I advise you: don't invite this man to your riding unless you want the truth about crystal meth. Don't ask him in unless you are ready to hear the damage that this vicious drug can inflict on your community, especially to our young people. Certainly don't ask him unless you are prepared to get involved and do something about this scourge.

There are not enough adjectives severe enough to describe the effects of this pernicious drug. It is the most destructive and compelling drug to attack our streets and schools ever. Apparently it only takes a few uses, and you're hooked. Once you are hooked on it, apparently nothing else matters but the next hit. As one recovered user expressed it, you lose your sense entirely of who you are as a person. It is a vicious drug that can inflict permanent brain damage, and it is cheap and easy to manufacture from things you can buy at your drug store off the shelf.

As I sat in front of the several hundred transfixed faces, everyone wanting to hear who had an answer, I wondered, sitting there: are they looking at me as a politician to solve the problem, or indeed, was I the one who was looking at the people who needed to solve the problem? The answer is that it will take both sides of that; it will take all of us. An all-hands-on-deck, flat-out community effort is required to solve this problem, and there can be no turf protecting in this war or political sides in tackling the problem. Every community needs to call on this task force, and you can reach them at crystalmethtaskforce.com. Nanaimo has joined Maple Ridge, Mission, North Vancouver, Victoria, Surrey and Parksville in this community-based approach. I call on the members of this House to support this and all other efforts to eradicate this terrible drug.

C. Wyse: It is with great pride I rise in the House today to claim bragging rights for the people of the Cariboo for having the highest NHL draft pick amongst the 79 constituencies of B.C. Carey Price of Anahim Lake in Cariboo South was chosen by the Montreal Canadiens in the first round of the NHL draft, fifth overall. He was drafted as a goalie.

Carey's parents were highly supportive of his hockey career. His father Jerry, a former NHL eighth-round draft pick, 126th overall, would drive Carey three and a half hours one way to Williams Lake for minor hockey practices and weekend games. His mother Linda, presently chief of the Ulkatcho First Nation band, assisted with the driving. Carey's peewee coaches, Niel Marshall and Bill McGinnis, are particularly proud of this achievement. Lenny Adolph of the Cariboo Coyotes would coach Carey after minor hockey season was completed, and this native teen played in tournaments in B.C. and Alberta.

At a recent event I attended at Anahim Lake, I was struck by Carey's presence amongst his home community. He patiently provided everyone that wished an autograph with one. He proudly claimed Anahim Lake as his home while recognizing Williams Lake support for his development in hockey.

To assist you with further insights to this 18-year-old and his family, I give you two quotes. Jerry on Carey, or father on son: "He is always willing to learn, he is a great listener, and he has a solid mental game." Carey on Jerry, or son on father: "He taught me to be tough mentally and coached me the whole way through. He helped me with the technical side like angles and positioning, and he taught me never to be arrogant."

Last night in his NHL debut Carey shut out the Atlanta Thrashers as he played the first half of the game. With that, I request the House to join me in recognizing Carey Price and his family and all those individuals who contribute to Carey's success.

J. Rustad: It is my great pleasure today to highlight the booming success of the growing mining industry over the past four years, success that is so critical to the people of our province that even a member of the NDP stood up and talked about it. But I found it amusing that the hon. member for Cariboo North talking about the Mount Polley mine in northern B.C. lectured us about how the mining industry works.

Now I could stand here and detail the NDP's destruction of the B.C. mining industry and how our government has worked tirelessly to revive this critical industry, but I think the words of Imperial Metals chairman spoken at the grand reopening of Mount Polley this past Friday, which I had the honour of attending, really tell the true story: "For my part I would say that much of the credit goes to a provincial government that has streamlined the permitting process and encouraged British Columbians to invest in mineral exploration by offering additional tax credits under the federal flow-through share financing program. The payback to the province has been remarkable."

The payback from the Mount Polley project has been incredible, with more than $6.5 million per month being put back into our economy. This is particularly significant considering that in 2003 the market capitalization of Imperial Metals was just $7.5 million. Today it's more than $120 million, employing more than 250 people.

The hon. member for Cariboo North would have you believe the success was due to commodity price increases, but once again, in the words of Imperial Metals chairman: "If the super flow-through shares financing had not been available, Imperial Metals would not have raised the money to explore in B.C., and this mine would not be reopening today."

This is the key that the NDP never seemed to understand, including the hon. member for Cariboo North. When done right, government policies can encourage growth, help create jobs and bring investment to our province. The NDP would like us to think that industries like mining are simply twigs in the stream,

J. Horgan: I just want to echo the comments of the member for Richmond Centre and advise this House that yet another Canadian championship has returned to British Columbia and particularly to the city of Victoria. After a 12-month absence, the Mann Cup has returned home. Members will know that Canada has two official national sports: one that we're aware of in the winter, and more importantly another one, the fastest game on two feet, in the summer.

When I was growing up as a lad here in Victoria, there was only one national sport and that was lacrosse. I spent my teen years at the Memorial Arena waiting — waiting in vain for the day that the Shamrocks would lift the Mann Cup high into the rafters of that venerable old institution. But year after year that coveted prize was elusive. We would lose in the western finals to the Shamrocks or the Adanacs and, periodically, to the dreadful Vancouver Burrards, as I was saying to my friend from Hastings. Nonetheless, it was elusive.

It wasn't until 1978 when I happened to be in the city of Toronto doing a tour of Canada looking for a university to go to, to broaden my horizons and get a view of the world away from Vancouver Island that the Shamrocks were in Peterborough for the Mann Cup. I couldn't miss the opportunity, so I went to Peterborough for game seven. They lost, regrettably, again, but I was there. The next day I went to Trent University, where I spent the next four years getting an undergraduate degree and meeting my wife.

It's with great enthusiasm that I remind this House and urge them to congratulate the Victoria Shamrocks for defeating the Peterborough Lakers at the heart of sport in the Western Communities, the Bear Mountain Arena. Will you please join me in recognizing and congratulating coach Walt Christianson and his staff; Shamrock management; all the hard-working volunteers who make lacrosse the game it is; and particularly the most valuable player, goalie Anthony Cosmo; and the entire Shamrock team. Make them welcome.

D. Hayer: I want to touch today on a topic that is very near and dear to my heart: multiculturalism and immigration. I am an immigrant, and like many of my colleagues in this House I appreciate the opportunities provided to us and provided to the rest of the people in this wonderful country of ours that we now call our home. The opportunities are boundless in a country that urges us to not only retain our culture but to celebrate it, encourages us to become citizens, and allows us to do anything and everything we want, even to seek and attain the highest office in the land.

We champion cultural diversity. We celebrate our differences. In Surrey alone we have one of the most diverse regions anywhere on this continent. More than 90 different languages are spoken. We celebrate that diversity, we encourage immigration, and we benefit from it immensely.

Without diversity we could not create nor pursue the offshore trade that is so vital to our economy. We would not welcome foreign-trained professionals who provide much-needed additions to our skilled workforce. Without total acceptance of multicultural diversity we could not attract foreign investment so vital to our economic strength.

I stand here as an example of the opportunity this country offers. I am a proud British Columbian and a proud Canadian. I am equally proud that this government is developing a new relationship with our first nations people. We can now stand and say we are proud to be among the most culturally diverse people on the globe.

H. Bains: In recent weeks seniors have been assaulted in Surrey parks. Two seniors, Mr. Shingra Singh Thandi and Mr. Mewa Singh Bains, were beaten and robbed at Surrey's Bear Creek Park. I'm sad to report here that both of them have died due to the injuries they suffered. First, I send my sincere condolences to the families of Mr. Thandi and Mr. Bains. The families are still wondering why their father, husband, brother, grandfather was taken away from them in such a violent way. Secondly, I applaud the RCMP and other members of the public, who moved in very quickly and helped arrest two youths in a very short period of time.

Seniors, who are our fathers and grandfathers, built this province and this country. They made sacrifices in their lifetimes so that we can have a better life. They went to wars and risked their lives so that we can enjoy freedom. But due to these ugly incidents, our seniors are afraid to walk our streets alone and do not feel safe to enjoy a stroll in our parks.

It is our responsibility and it's incumbent upon us to ensure their safety and well-being. We must ensure that they are treated with respect and dignity in our society, as they deserve. Therefore, I urge all members of this House to redouble our efforts to work with federal and municipal governments and in cooperation with police, with a goal to rule out violence in our neighbourhoods so that our seniors can enjoy their remaining lives with a sense of security and safety and enjoy a card game with their friends in our parks. A candlelight vigil is being held this coming Saturday,

September 24 at 7 p.m. at Bear Creek Park. I urge all of you who are in the area to join the family there.

R. Fleming: Will the Minister of Finance admit that her government's cuts to seniors programs over the last four years forced them to choose between rent and food?

Hon. C. Taylor: I'm pleased to speak to the budget which we presented last week, because we have a very strong focus on low-income seniors in our community. We have committed $242 million to help in assistance programs. We're bringing back the seniors supplement. We are increasing the SAFER grant, which, I will remind everyone, hadn't been improved since 1990. Even though we all know what has happened to rents in the past 15 years, that particular program hadn't been expanded, so we've expanded that and also now broadened it to allow low-income seniors who live in manufactured homes to also access it. We've also put 150 million new dollars into the Health Ministry, specifically to help ease the transition of our older seniors as they have health needs in the community.

R. Fleming: That didn't answer my question. The government made the choice in 2002 to eliminate the income supplement that made the seniors choose between rent or food. The B.C. Liberals have consistently denied the pain they've caused over the last four years.

Can the Minister of Finance tell us what evidence she now has that her government forced seniors to choose between paying the rent and buying groceries?

Hon. C. Taylor: In fact, seniors did not see their income go down. During that period the federal government supplement was increasing and ours was diminishing, so the level of income that seniors had stayed exactly the same. However, we do realize that pressures are great on seniors. That's why in this particular budget update, with the economy doing well, we decided that it was important to focus on those who are vulnerable in our community — namely, the low-income seniors.

We are taking very aggressive steps — $242 million in three years — to make sure that we bring back the income supplement. We're not hiding from that. We're bringing back the income supplement. We're also increasing the SAFER assistance program, which was never increased during all of the '90s as rents went up. We believe that that, plus expanding the program, will help many low-income seniors in this province.

R. Fleming: That was an explanation of how the province moved in and added their own cuts to what the federal government was making — initiatives in mid-2002. But last week the Minister of Finance told the media that some seniors in this province couldn't both pay the rent and afford to buy food. We've heard from seniors that some of them can't afford to buy cholesterol-lowering drugs and have to make that choice between life-saving drugs and rent. She said that some pensioners might be cutting back on chicken to make rent payments, in the media. That's why she restored the seniors income supplement in her budget last week.

Again to the minister: will she now admit to this House what she said last week — that over the last four years this government forced low-income seniors to squeeze their food budget and pay the rent?

Hon. C. Taylor: I believe there is no question in saying that seniors throughout history — but certainly in the last few decades, as we've seen cost of living go up so much — are often the ones that are the most vulnerable in our community. They work hard all their lives; they look after their children. In British Columbia they believe in this province, but when they get to their aging years, they often find that they haven't enough dollars to really look after themselves in the way we would all wish. I know stories — I'm sure everyone knows stories; I have heard them for the last 20 years — of seniors who, at the end of the month, have to make some choices that are very difficult.

That's why in this first budget of the mandate, first of five, we've moved aggressively to focus on seniors first — because I think that while there are many things in the community that we want to do, we're starting with seniors.

Hon. C. Taylor: There are many ways we have helped them, in fact. The Fair Pharmacare and also the MSP assistance premium improvements that were included in this budget will mean great benefits and reductions for many of our seniors in this area as well.

J. Kwan: By the minister's own admission, the cost of living has gone up and seniors had to suffer because they received cuts from this government. The supplement was cut by this government four years ago. Increased costs were imposed by this government, and seniors had to suffer because they couldn't pay for those increased costs. They have to choose between rent and food.

You know what? The federal government might have stepped up to the plate because of the cuts from this government. I might remind this House and this

minister that it was this very Premier, when he was in opposition, who actually said that we don't need more money from the federal government. How times have changed. Now this minister says: "Thank God the federal government was there to step up to the plate."

Let me say this, Mr. Speaker. The minister admitted last week that seniors had to choose between rent and food. Now she's back in her message box.

J. Kwan: What does this building do? B.C.'s richest corporations get a huge tax break that they weren't asking for, and seniors get to eat chicken.

To the minister: why did the government take away the seniors supplement in the first place, when it knew — and should have known — that it would make life so hard for so many low-income seniors when they have to be choosing between rent and food?

Hon. C. Taylor: As we have said so many times, the importance of turning the economy around was so that we would have the dollars…

Hon. C. Taylor: …to put towards programs that were important for our community, and that especially includes seniors. When this budget update came out and there was a chance to have enough dollars to focus on certain priorities, we said very strongly that it's our low-income seniors we're going to start with.

I also would remind the hon. member that the opposition, when they were in government, had many opportunities to do the same and increase the SAFER grant — which is shelter assistance for elderly renters — but they did not take that opportunity.

J. Kwan: Is the minister meaning to say that seniors in the last four years actually didn't matter? "Too bad for them that they had to choose between rent and food." Is that what the minister is saying? Because that's exactly what the government has done. They actually hoisted those cuts on the backs of seniors. The Minister of Finance wants British Columbians to believe that this budget is about caring for poor seniors. "It is about social justice," the Minister of Finance says. But what it's really about is a surprise tax cut for B.C.'s richest corporations and small relief for seniors.

Make no mistake about it, hon. Speaker. Budget is about priorities. This government chose to ignore the needs of the seniors four years ago, and what they give back in this budget doesn't even barely begin to make up for what they lost in the last four years.

Will the minister just admit that all her budget does for seniors is give back a very little of what this B.C. Liberal government took away in the first place? A simple answer, yes or no, will do.

Hon. C. Taylor: It would be a shame just to use one or two words when I can use so many more words to answer. That is to say once again…. It has been very important to have the economy turn around and make sure…

Hon. C. Taylor: …that we, in fact, had enough dollars to spend on our priorities. We're starting this mandate with the first budget that focuses on our seniors. In fact, there are 242 million new dollars put into the seniors supplement, to the SAFER program which we are expanding not only into terms of its definition but also in the assistance that it provides. We're also putting more money towards hospital beds to make sure that our seniors are well taken care of.

I will remind people, as well, that we have introduced in this budget the B.C. tax reduction, and that is for the lowest and next category of income earners. That also applies to seniors.

C. James: We've heard, over and over again, the Finance Minister talk about the fact that a budget is about making choices. We saw in this budget that a little bit was given back to seniors, but it gave nothing to children in need.

This summer we learned the details of a tragic case that I know is of deep concern to everyone in this House. Sherry Charlie was only 19 months old when she died in 2002. She died at the hands of a caregiver who later pleaded guilty to manslaughter and was sentenced to ten years in jail. It's a tragic case and one that I know we all find difficult, but we must learn from this young girl's death so that other tragedies can be prevented. Sherry died in September 2002. The ministry received a report on her case in March of 2004.

I would like to ask the Minister of Children and Families: why did this government hold on to that report until after the election?

Hon. S. Hagen: I'm happy to answer the question, but every time this is raised, the parents of Sherry Charlie have to go through the sorrow again. I will say again, as I have said publicly, that we are all sorry for the loss of Sherry Charlie. But for the member's information, I just want to outline the steps for you so that you're clear.

The summary is a high-level overview of the pertinent facts of the matter. The director's review is a complete story from start to finish. Rarely are these reviews released, and certainly never are they released without severing information to protect the families in these

matters. This review had to go back and forth to the person who was doing it, which took a lot of time. The director, who has the authority to release it, would not have held it back because of the election. It was a normal course of events that took place, and we got together with the three parties at the earliest possible time in Vancouver to release the summary.

C. James: I can assure the minister and others in this House that everyone sitting on this side of the caucus understands the pressures on Sherry Charlie's family. That's why we're raising the issue — because the best thing we can do for Sherry Charlie and for her family is to ensure that something like this does not occur again.

The purpose of these reports is to inform best practice. It's to avoid similar situations happening again. The government should have acted quickly to release the information and then worked with all parties to make change. It's not about blame; it's not about pointing fingers. It's about ensuring that this does not happen again. It was only after significant pressure from the opposition and the public that the government released the report in full.

I ask again to the minister: who made the decision to hold the report for over a year, and who made the decision to release the inadequate summary?

A. Dix: My question, as well, is for the Minister of Children and Family Development. Will the minister confirm that the original terms of reference for the director's review into the Sherry Charlie tragedy were changed in October 2002, deleting a reference as to whether the ministry's response to child protection concerns was adequate?

Hon. S. Hagen: I was not the minister at that time and am not aware of it, but I'm happy to follow it up for the member.

A. Dix: I ask the minister whether he will be prepared to return to the House today, table the original terms of reference for the review and explain why a full investigation into the ministry and his government's role was blocked as early as October 2002.

G. Robertson: The fact of the matter is that the ministry did make some serious and tragic mistakes that must be answered for. Those answers should have come months ago. Sherry Charlie had been placed in a home under one of the ministry's kith-and-kin agreements. The guidelines for this new form of child protection were faxed out in draft form to aboriginal agencies without any training whatsoever.

To the minister: why did the ministry send out draft guidelines on such an important new policy as kith and kin in a negligent manner and without any training?

Hon. S. Hagen: I can tell you that the delegated agency or the delegated authority, which is the Nuu-chah-nulth, and the ministry have worked very, very closely together since this tragedy to make sure that we've tightened things up so that they can't happen again.

It's always great to stand up when you're in opposition and pontificate, but let me remind the House that the NDP never released directors' reviews unless by FOI request. The NDP never held a press conference to go over any child deaths and subsequent reviews, and the NDP never put out a release with regard to any child's death — or reviews.

I can say categorically in this House that this ministry is more open and transparent than any other ministry of its kind in Canada and probably the United States and Europe as well. We release all the information that we can without violating the privacy of the family and without violating the Privacy Act, to make sure that we are in fact accountable and the public does know what's going on.

G. Robertson: Let me remind the minister that under the previous NDP governments, we had an independent child commissioner that your government did away with. To get back to the subject at hand, these kith-and-kin guidelines were deeply flawed. They included a checklist of criminal offences to be done before a child could be placed in a home.

However, 29 criminal offences — including abduction, assault, sexual assault, attempted murder and other very serious crimes that children are often the victims of — were left off the list. Why did the ministry leave these 29 offences off the list of crimes that social workers were supposed to do criminal-record checks for?

Hon. S. Hagen: I have said on the record that a mistake was made by one of our social workers, and we recognize that, but we also want to make sure we learn from this so that these sorts of things can't happen again. If you look at our website, you'll see the 12 recommendations that were made, and all of those either have been completed or will be completed early this fall.

At the same time, our desire is to work with the aboriginal community and work with delegated aboriginal agencies to make sure that aboriginal children can stay in aboriginal homes or in the home of a rela-

tive. We agree with the aboriginal community on that, and that's what we want to continue to work towards.

M. Karagianis: Several times in this questioning I've heard the minister put responsibility for this issue on someone else's shoulders. I say that the minister needs to own up to these mistakes and take responsibility.

When the ministry discovered the guidelines were flawed, that information should have been made public so that changes could have been made effective immediately. Why did the government not disclose the information it had about the flawed guidelines as soon as it was discovered there was a problem?

Hon. S. Hagen: There is a process we go through in government. It's controlled by the director. That process was carried out according to the act.

M. Karagianis: The guidelines were a significant part of the problem. The ministry's ability to manage its most important duty, the protection of children, was hampered by severe budget cuts. In 2002, the same year Sherry Charlie died, the government had tried to cut $360 million out of the budget for children and families at the same time that the ministry was going through massive restructuring. This was a dangerous combination that all the experts warned the B.C. Liberal government about several times.

However, the minister refuses to see the connection. In fact, he said on August 5 that Sherry Charlie's tragic case had nothing to do with budget or saving money. Is the minister still convinced that budget cuts and chaotic restructuring played no part in this tragic case?

Hon. S. Hagen: This occurred because of a tragic error made by one of our employees — okay? Having said that, I have a high level of confidence in our social workers. I believe they do their job professionally. I believe they do their job well.

The challenges that are faced every day by our front-line social workers in this ministry are the most difficult challenges we deal with in government. None of us would want to see this happen again. None of us do want to see it happen again. I can say it was a mistake that was made that was not related to budget cuts.

M. Farnworth: We agree with the minister's statement that the aboriginal community should take responsibility or should have responsibility. We also feel that in order to do that, they need to have the resources. Here in this House, it's not a social worker who has to take responsibility; it's the minister and the government.

It's government policy and decisions by the ministry that must be addressed here as well as the negligent way the government provided guidelines on kith-and-kin placements. There are also some troubling questions on how those agreements were designed.

It's not just what was left out of them that's troubling, but it's also what's in them that's the problem. For example, they state that a formal assessment of the care providers will not be conducted. In addition, they instruct social workers: "You are not monitoring the care providers' home or the care of the child." That's a fundamental flaw.

Eliminating safeguards such as formal assessments and ongoing monitoring saves money, but the minister has denied that saving money had anything to do with this ministry's errors. Why were kith-and-kin agreements designed without these important safeguards for children's safety?

Hon. S. Hagen: I can assure the member opposite that we require anyone in the proposed care provider's home who is 18 years or older to have a criminal-record check. The same checks and balances are there as in a foster home.

I might also add that it was the mother who asked that the child be placed in this home. That's a requirement under the kith-and-kin arrangement. The mother asks the social worker or the ministry to place the child in a home of a relative.

M. Farnworth: Yes, the mother has a say. But it's also not the mother's fault. It is the government who must ensure that the standards and regulations are there. In this case they weren't. Those two key areas were left out.

The questions we've had here today point to the critical lessons that need to be learned from this tragic incident. These lessons could have been shared and learned months ago, but instead the government chose not to release the report until after an election.

After everything we've heard today, how can the minister justify his government's decision to hold onto this report for 15 months and put political timing ahead of child protection?

Hon. S. Hagen: As my colleague said last week, there's a great deal of similarity between the lack of research or incorrect research of this NDP opposition and the last NDP opposition. I take a bit of offence that there is an accusation that this report was stalled because of the election. I've already made clear that the director of child welfare cannot do that under the law. It was not stalled.

The other important thing to note here is that as soon as the incident occurred and as soon as the facts were found out by the ministry, changes were then commenced. Over the three-year period changes have been taking place to make sure that practices are improved and to make sure that as soon as we know that

there is something wrong, those changes are made so that the child's life is safe.

C. Trevena: A year ago the specialty cellulose mill in Port Alice closed. For a year people have been hanging on, hoping that a deal would be brokered which would get them back to work and save their village. Now their EI has run out, and they're still waiting — now because negotiations are finally happening. But we all know that negotiations take time. Nobody can expect an overnight agreement.

I'd like to ask the Minister of Economic Development why his government waited almost a full year, until five minutes to midnight, to step in and start the negotiation process.

Hon. C. Hansen: In fact, government has been very active over the past year to try to find a private sector operator who would be willing to reactivate the mill. The government is not an owner of this property. It is a bankrupt mill, and it is in the hands of the trustee. The trustee has also been very active in trying to identify companies that might come to the table to reactivate this mill.

The fact of the matter is that a lot of the economics for starting up the mill weren't there, even as recently as a few months ago. As world prices have changed, it's actually once again made this mill viable in the eyes of some people. That's not a determination that government has to make. That is a determination that the private sector proponent needs to make. I'm pleased to report that there has been some considerable progress made over the weekend and on Friday towards getting an agreement in place.

C. Trevena: Yes, there have been buyers around talking about the mill since about December. I know that the trustee has been very vigilant, and they've been looking at all the potential buyers and making sure that whoever does come up, whether it's this buyer or another buyer, will actually be able to keep the mill going.

This is a profitable mill. It's a specialty cellulose mill. What it produces is produced in very few places, and what it manufactures goes into so many different products and creates so much money for the B.C. economy that it would be worthy to make sure that it does get up and running.

However, we are still talking about negotiations, and we've had close negotiations for the last month or so, where people have thought we are close to a deal. As the minister says, now we think that we're close to a deal again. I very much hope for the people of Port Alice that we are close to a deal. However, if we're not, I would like to know what the minister would do to help the people of Port Alice move on.

You said a couple weeks ago in a letter to the North Island Gazette that the province is committed to helping the community build a better future. I would like to know from the minister just what you envisage you would do to make sure that the village of Port Alice does have a future.

Hon. C. Hansen: We have made it quite clear that we are prepared to assist the residents of Port Alice. Our first hope, of course, is that the mill can be reactivated again, and there is a lot of work that's focused on trying to make that a reality. We've also made it quite clear over this period of time that if this were not to come together, if the mill were not to be reactivated, we are still going to be there for the community. The Minister of Community Services has looked at ways that her ministry can assist the community. Some of that has already been provided in a transitional sense.

If the mill were not to be reactivated, there are other programs that would roll out. But that's our second choice. Our first choice is to make sure we do everything possible to ensure that this mill is reactivated again so there can be a major employer, so that the major employer in that community can be there once again providing good jobs.

I think what's also important is that that's not done at all costs. We cannot forsake the responsibility that any mill operator in this province has towards ensuring that the environmental problems do not get triggered in the future — with any mill operator not having to take responsibility for those problems, should they manifest in the future.

That's the issue. We want the jobs. We want the mill reopened, but we also have to make sure that those environmental issues are protected.

Hon. M. de Jong: Mr. Speaker, I have a report to present. I have the honour to present the first report of the Special Committee of Selection for the first session of the 38th parliament.

I have that report. For the benefit of members, just let me alert them to the details of the report. The Special Committee of Selection — appointed on September 12, 2005, to prepare and report lists of members to compose the select standing committees of this House — reports the following lists of members to compose the select standing committees for the present session.

Select Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs: Ms. Polak, Convener; Mr. Horning; Mr. MacKay; Ms. McIntyre; Ms. Roddick; Ms. Whittred; Mr. Fraser; Mr. Austin; Mr. Coons; Mr. Lali.

Select Standing Committee on Crown Corporations: Mr. Black, Convener; Mr. Cantelon; Mr. Jarvis; Mr. Lekstrom; Mr. MacKay; Mr. Rustad; Mr. Evans; Mr. Chudnovsky; Mr. Puchmayr; Mr. Gentner.

Select Standing Committee on Education: Mr. Nuraney, Convener; Mr. Jarvis; Mr. Lee; Mr. Mayencourt; Ms. Polak; Mr. Rustad; Mr. Robertson; Mr. Horgan; Mr. Routley; Ms. Thorne.

Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services: Mr. Lekstrom, Convener; Mr. Bloy; Mr. Hayer; Mr. Hogg; Mr. Lee; Mr. Yap; Ms. Karagianis; Mr. Simons; Mr. Krog; Ms. Kwan.

Select Standing Committee on Health: Mr. Sultan, Convener; Mr. Hayer; Mr. Jarvis; Mr. Nuraney; Ms. Roddick; Ms. Whittred; Mr. Cubberley; Mr. Sather; Ms. Conroy; Mr. Wyse.

Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills: Mr. Horning, Convener; Mr. Bloy; Mr. Hawes; Mr. Hogg; Mr. Krueger; Mr. Mayencourt; Mr. Chouhan; Mr. Cubberley; Mr. Farnworth; Mr. Fleming.

Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts: Mr. Fleming, Convener; Mr. Black; Mr. Cantelon; Mr. Hawes; Ms. McIntyre; Ms. Polak; Mr. Rustad; Mr. Sultan; Mr. Yap; Mr. Bains, Mr. Dix; Mr. Ralston; Mr. Macdonald; and Ms. Thorne.

Hon. M. de Jong: I ask leave of the House to suspend the rules to permit the moving of the motion to adopt the report.

Hon. M. de Jong: All of my speeches won't be that interesting, I can assure members.

Hon. M. de Jong: Bill 4, which is the subject of second reading debate before the House, makes two specific amendments to the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. In short, what it does is bring the appointment process for this legislative officer into line with the appointment processes that are followed with respect to, I believe, all of the other legislative officers.

I should just take a moment to alert members specifically to what is occurring. The incumbent, Mr. Loukidelis, is coming to the end of his term. In fact, his term has ended and, I believe, did so around the middle of August.

Upon review of the act, we determined that the incumbent was precluded from being considered for reappointment by a very specific provision of the act. I should say that, based on my review of what took place at the time when the act was created, this wasn't an accidental thing, and members should know this. From my recollection, the government of the day made a conscious decision, which enjoyed support from both sides of the House, that for a variety of reasons this should be a single-term appointment.

That is not case with respect to similar officers elsewhere in the country where incumbents are afforded an opportunity to apply for reappointment to a second term. That was not an option that was available either to Mr. Loukidelis or to the members of this House who, I hope, following passage of this legislative initiative, will be in a position to form a committee of selection to consider who should be the next commissioner under the terms of the act.

The first part of the amendment makes it clear that the committee — and there will be a committee of selection staffed by members of the assembly — will have the option. It does not guarantee anything. It means that the members of the selection committee will have the option of considering an application from Mr. Loukidelis.

My sense is there has been some discussion. I have certainly had the benefit of discussions with members on the other side of the House, and there is a sense that the committee should have that option. At the end of the day, we will all be awaiting their recommendation. That's the first part of what Bill 4 does.

The second part of this two- or three-section piece of legislation is to confirm that, pending the work of the selection committee, Mr. Loukidelis can continue in a capacity as an acting commissioner. The advice we received also did not contemplate an incumbent being appointed to continue in an acting capacity. The concern there, for the benefit of members, is that absent the proper statutory authority, decisions that the acting commissioner might make in the interim might lack the necessary protection of law.

The second part of this bill ensures that that authority exists. It ensures that we, as a Legislative Assembly, have the authority to grant the incumbent the ability to continue as an acting privacy commissioner.

We think, then, that all of those authorities are there. We can appoint the committee and get on with the task of interviewing and making a recommendation to the House around who the next Information and Privacy Commissioner should be. Those would be my initial comments on second reading.

M. Farnworth: It's my pleasure to make some comments from the opposition's point of view on this bill, and I'd like to thank the House leader for raising and introducing this at this particular time. We support what's in the bill. We think it's a commonsense approach to dealing with the question that did plague the initial committee when seeking to draw up the terms of reference in the original act.

I was a member of that committee. It was felt at that time that a single-term appointment would be appropriate and that the individual would then probably be more inclined to perhaps not be concerned about a second-term appointment in the discharge of their duties. As time goes by, one of the benefits is that you get to see how an act is working. You get to see what's happening in other provinces, and British Columbia is alone from the other provinces in not allowing, at this time, the incumbent to re-apply for a position.

I think this brings us into line with other provinces, and it's something that we will be supporting. It does not mean that the current incumbent will get the position, but what it means is that they are able to apply. We expect that there will be considerable interest in this position, as it is a unique opportunity to be an independent officer of this Legislature. Therefore, we will be supporting the bill, and we look forward to a speedy passage.

Mr. Speaker: Seeing no other speakers, the Government House Leader closes debate.

Hon. M. de Jong: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Only to add — I think what I'm sure would be the comments of every member in the House — for the incumbent, Mr. Loukidelis, words of thanks for the work that he has done thus far in his term. I don't think I'm sharing any secrets. He has indicated a desire to continue in that work and will, I know, therefore, be submitting to the selection process. I know that all members are grateful for the work that he has done in his capacity as commissioner.

Hon. M. de Jong: I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 4, Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Amendment Act, 2005, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. O. Ilich: I appreciate this opportunity to make my inaugural address to this House and to comment on the September budget update which was tabled last Wednesday.

Before I begin, though, I'd like to express my sincere appreciation to the people of Richmond and my constituency of Richmond Centre for giving me the opportunity to represent them in this Legislature. I'd like to congratulate Minister Linda Reid and MLA John Yap for their election victories in Richmond. I know that the three of us will work hard to ensure the people of Richmond will be well represented in Victoria. I'd also like to thank my family and all the people who worked on my campaign and contributed throughout the campaign.

I grew up in Richmond, raised my family in Richmond and built a successful business there. I'm very proud of the accomplishments of my community. Richmond is a thriving multicultural and multifaceted city full of talented and compassionate people. I'm proud to call it home. I'm very committed to ensuring that the people of Richmond share in the benefits of this and future budgets.

I want to thank the Minister of Finance and her staff for their excellent work. Preparing the budget update required a tremendous effort by many dedicated people over a short period of time. I want to let the minister and her staff know that their efforts are appreciated.

The update forecasts a provincial surplus that is significantly larger than anticipated. This allows us to do more for the people in our communities who need help and, also, to continue to invest in the economy. We decided in this first budget of the new mandate to focus on helping seniors, strengthening our economic

competitiveness and supporting first nations. This focus will benefit my community of Richmond.

More than 20,000 people over the age of 65 live in Richmond, and that's 12 percent of our population, so I'm pleased that this budget will provide additional support to those seniors most in need in my community.

The September budget update provides an additional $242 million over three years for a range of programs and services to benefit seniors. We are renewing the seniors supplement to provide a monthly benefit to those seniors at the lowest income levels, and this will benefit some 40,000 seniors across the province.

We are also doubling the annual funding for shelter aid for elderly renters. This will improve subsidies for low-income seniors who rent. Also, we will expand coverage to those who own manufactured homes and pay pad rental. In addition, we are investing in updating existing seniors health facilities and modernizing the full range of services that will help seniors live as independently as possible. This will help achieve two of our great goals. These are to have B.C. lead the way in North America in healthy living and physical fitness, and to build the best system of support in Canada for seniors and those in need.

As Minister of Tourism, Sports and the Arts, I will work to ensure that residents in my community of Richmond and across the whole province receive the greatest benefit from increased investments in extra funding for seniors. The stated goal for my ministry is to bring British Columbians together, to build participation, celebrate excellence and increase the social and economic benefits of tourism, sport and the arts.

The vital ingredients to healthy living include physical activity, recreation and arts and culture. Ensuring that B.C. seniors have affordable access to facilities and programs they need to maintain and improve their fitness and health is a key goal for our government. We want to ensure that seniors have what they need to continue living full and rewarding lives.

We must be doing something right in Richmond. I'd like to note that according to Statistics Canada, people in Richmond have the greatest life expectancy in Canada, living an average of 83.4 years, which is almost four years longer than the normal average of 79.5 years. My community has launched a program called Getting Richmond Moving, a program that encourages people of all ages and abilities to get active and increase physical fitness.

Richmond seniors have been actively bicycling, walking, dancing, gardening — doing all manner of things — and they've been staying active and getting involved in the community, so I'm pleased to see that our seniors will benefit from this budget update. Seniors built our province. They deserve to benefit from a strong economy.

One reason I ran for office was this government's record of managing our finances to make sure that we have the economic basis to take care of those in need. We must also continue to ensure that we have sound fiscal policies in place to support businesses and help them prosper. Government does not create jobs by itself; businesses create jobs. This government has worked to encourage growth with a series of measures to keep British Columbia competitive, from income tax cuts across the board, to cutting red tape by one-third, to targeted investments in key economic sectors. We are building on that record.

The September budget update contains new measures to enhance B.C.'s competitiveness and support job creation. B.C.'s corporate income tax rate is cut by 1½ percent from 13½ percent to 12 percent, and this will save B.C. businesses $350 million over the next three years and make our province more attractive for investment.

Additional tax reductions and investments will have a direct impact on prosperity in my community, and I'm proud that this government recognizes the needs of business. In Richmond there are over 12,000 licensed businesses, and the people of Richmond are highly entrepreneurial. Richmond hosts a range of industries and associated business activities, including high-tech, aviation, transportation, tourism, manufacturing, agriculture and retail. I know they look to this government for sound fiscal management as well as appreciation of the challenges they face.

The budget update builds on the success of previous budgets. As the Minister of Finance reported last Wednesday, British Columbia is outpacing Canada in several key indicators, including retail sales, manufacturing, exports and housing. B.C. has created over 230,000 new jobs since 2001. Overall, our economic growth is again the best in the country, and this renewed economic activity and optimism is clearly evident in Richmond, which boasts more than 116,000 jobs.

Many of these jobs are at the Vancouver International Airport, which will benefit greatly from increased tourism. As the Minister of Tourism, Sports and the Arts, one of my mandates is to double tourism revenues.

I'm very happy to see that we have paid attention to first nations, because in order to achieve this vision of increasing tourism revenues, it is vital that first nations communities be our partners in consultation on the use of land and resources. Developing a new and stronger relationship with first nations is a priority for our government.

The need to move forward on this commitment was reaffirmed in the September budget update. We have set aside $100 million for a First Nations New Relationship fund. My ministry will take the lead in the tourism sector, working with the Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation, first nations groups and Tourism British Columbia.

Achieving greater certainty for resort developers and investors will help B.C. increase its economic competitiveness. First nations people need to be partners in this development, and our government wants to make sure that economic prosperity will benefit all of our citizens. I'm glad to see that the September budget update continues the prudent approach to fiscal management that has been a hallmark of this government.

It protects B.C. from revenue risks that might threaten our fiscal stability, and it ensures that all areas of government have the resources they need to achieve British Columbia's key priorities. A sound financial base enables government to address other areas of our society and culture. It enables key investments in community.

The 180,000 people in my community and the more than 50,000 families understand that a quality of life relies on good health and fitness and a rich culture and heritage. Last year through the B.C. Arts Council, which falls under my ministry, the government supported artistic and cultural programs in 225 communities throughout the province. These included everything from art galleries to symphony performances to literary festivals and book publishing.

Richmond is a community diverse in cultures and with a wealth of recreation facilities, heritage sites, parks, trails, libraries, galleries and performance spaces. I'm pleased that this budget update confirms an additional $9 million over three years for the British Columbia Arts Council.

Earlier today I had the honour to represent the province at the groundbreaking for the new Olympic speed skating oval in my community. The province is providing $30 million toward this new and exciting facility. This 8,000-seat, 33,000-square-metre facility will be a centrepiece of the 2010 Winter Olympics and Paralympics. The oval will also provide a lasting legacy for B.C. athletes and Richmond residents. The facility's permanent features include a wellness centre and fitness centre as well as community activity areas available for arts and cultural events. This is just one example of how our government is taking advantage of the opportunities that the upcoming Olympics represent to build substantial legacies for our communities.

Later this week I will also be presenting a cheque to assist the John Lecky UBC Boathouse build a permanent facility to train competitive rowers in Richmond. Through investments like this, we will build participation, celebrate excellence and increase the social and economic benefits for all to share.

Our government recognizes that the legacies we create will not only be in the area of sport. I'd also like to note the commitment made by government in the recent throne speech to establish a new Asia-Pacific museum of trade and culture to showcase our Pacific history and tell our story to the world. My ministry will take the lead in bringing this new museum to reality in the upcoming years.

Richmond is a community made up of nearly 60 percent immigrants, many from the Asia-Pacific. I'm proud to represent these hard-working individuals and families, and I share in their belief that this is a province where their culture can be recognized and celebrated. Thanks to the additional funding provided by the budget update, we can now invest more in building our cultural economy in communities throughout B.C.

As well as tourism, sport, art and culture, I'm also pleased to have the volunteer sector as part of my portfolio. In communities across the province volunteers demonstrate every day how vital they are to our society and to our quality of life. Richmond has a long tradition of volunteerism and a substantial and energetic workforce and volunteer force. British Columbia's volunteers today number nearly one and a half million, and collectively they contribute 114 million hours of volunteer service each year. The voluntary sector contributes $2.5 billion in benefits to the GDP of this province, and this is a substantial economic benefit.

Perhaps the greatest benefit from volunteering is that it makes people feel good. As well as helping and contributing to their communities, people who volunteer their time and expertise benefit in terms of their own health and well-being. My ministry will lead government's commitment to recognize, support and build a volunteer force.

Our province's amateur sport is built on the work of volunteers. There are more than 140,000 sport volunteers in B.C. They are at the heart of the 5,000 clubs and not-for-profit societies involved in sport and physical activity in our province. This coming Saturday I will be attending an event celebrating the 50th anniversary of the Richmond Youth Soccer Association. This group started with just six teams in Richmond and now boasts more than 160. It's run entirely by volunteers. Groups like Richmond Youth Soccer make a significant contribution to the well-being of our communities. We need to have our youth participating in sport and physical activities.

The province has an ambitious goal to dramatically improve the health and wellness of its citizens by encouraging them to act now and make positive lifestyle choices. This includes increased physical activity. Volunteers will play a big part in helping to achieve our goal to get British Columbians more active and fit.

Tourism is another of the pillars of the British Columbia economy. To increase competitiveness, our tourism industry needs improved transportation infrastructure. One of the most significant transportation investments we are making is the new RAV line, which will provide high-speed connections between downtown Vancouver, YVR and the city of Richmond. It will be completed in 2009. It will deliver significant benefits for those working in Vancouver and living in Richmond, and increase the flow of travellers in and out of the airport, increase hotel business and substantially reduce air pollution by getting people out of their cars.

This investment will pay off in future years for Richmond, for Vancouver and for the entire province. More than 15 million passengers pass annually through YVR in Richmond. It's the most vital gateway for our province, and it's a vital component of my community. Improved transportation and increased tourism traffic is not only good news for our province's 18,000 tourism enterprises; it's good news for all of the associated businesses that support them.

Our government has also placed increasing emphasis on strengthening our position as the Pacific gateway. In the tourism sector we are poised to see sub-

stantial increases in visitors from China as we pursue approved destination status with that huge market.

We have made economic development and service to our communities and stakeholders the focus for the new ministry. Our objective is to improve the B.C. economy by helping to grow these sectors and by exploring synergies between sectors. Cultural tourism is one example, and sport tourism is another.

This year we will host the Grey Cup, world snowboarding championships, world curling championships and the World Nordic Cup. At the end of the year it's the World Junior Hockey Championships and the 2007 World Youth Soccer Championships, to name a few. We'll also be hosting the Memorial Cup. In 2008 Cowichan will be hosting the North American Indigenous Games. This is great news for the B.C. tourism industry and business in general.

I know that the people in my riding of Richmond will be very pleased with the September budget update. In closing, I congratulate the Minister of Finance for delivering the September budget update. It confirms and builds on commitments made in February. In addition, it provides new tax relief and makes new investments targeted to key needs. We can do this because we have a stronger economy and a balanced budget with a surplus. This enviable situation provides us with more choices, and I believe we are making the right choices.

We are also increasing our financial commitment to health care, education and social programs, and we are building new infrastructure to support our growing province. I have made a commitment to the people of Richmond to work on their behalf. This budget provides a sound fiscal platform for me to be able to do that. Importantly, it also recognizes that our goal is not just to pursue economic growth for that purpose alone but to ensure that we do not leave behind those in our community who are most vulnerable and in need.

I thank my colleagues on both sides of the House for this opportunity to comment on our government's fiscal plan. I believe it moves us ahead in meeting the priorities of British Columbians, and I believe it establishes a basis for more great things to come.

J. Yap: Madam Speaker, I'd like to take this opportunity to congratulate you on your appointment as our Deputy Speaker and wish you well in this important role in this House.

It's an honour and a privilege to rise in this House to speak as the new member for Richmond-Steveston and to speak in support of the budget update as outlined by the hon. Minister of Finance.

I want to thank the people of Richmond-Steveston. I'm honoured that they chose me to be their representative in this House and look forward with enthusiasm to working with the members of my caucus, with our government and indeed with all members of the House, including members of the opposition, to continue to make our province an even better place to live in, to raise a family in, to invest in and to retire in.

I want to thank my family — my wife Suzanne, daughter Lisa and son Michael — for their love, understanding and support, which means so much to me as I embark on my new responsibilities in service to my constituents and this assembly. I also want to acknowledge the dedicated support of the many volunteers who helped me achieve my goal of getting elected as a member of this Legislature. There are so many who came forward to help me, and I believe I have thanked all of them. There are too many to name at this time, but I would like to acknowledge two people whose hard work, support and counsel really made a difference to me, and those are my campaign co-chairpersons Michael Chiu and Brian Petersen.

I'd also like to acknowledge the efforts and contributions to our province of my immediate predecessor as MLA for Richmond-Steveston, the hon. Geoff Plant, who served British Columbia with distinction and integrity as Attorney General and Minister Responsible for Treaty Negotiations. He also served Richmond-Steveston well as our MLA, and I wish him well in his new career path.

When I started my campaign to be elected to this Legislature, many people asked me why I wanted to take this step. It's probably a question that other members of this House get asked as well. I ran because I'm proud of the achievements of the B.C. Liberal government, and I wanted to be part of the continued rebuilding of British Columbia as the best place in Canada to live in. In four years our government has turned our province around. British Columbia has gone from last place to first place in terms of our economy. Our province has been restored to its rightful place as the leading provincial economy in Canada. By virtually every measure, B.C. is number one.

In job creation we are number one. There are 231,000 more jobs in B.C. than in December 2001. These jobs help British Columbians provide for their needs and support their families. Ninety-five percent of these jobs are full-time positions — jobs which allow people to save for their futures and achieve their dreams.

We've seen the lowest unemployment rates in 24 years. Our GDP growth is strong. We are projected to see 3½ percent growth this year and to achieve strong growth in the years to come. We see this growth in Richmond, my community, where new home construction is progressing at a brisk pace as more and more families move into our community to share in the quality of life that we enjoy in a unique environment.

Coming from a financial background, I know that businesses need to be encouraged to invest. But not everyone in this House is aware of the need for this encouragement. During the election we heard the NDP say that government has only a limited impact on making a difference to our economy. But British Columbians know better and in May of this year re-elected our government under the leadership of our Premier, something that had not happened in 22 years.

As a result of our economic strength, we are now able to reduce the general corporate income tax from

13½ percent to 12 percent. This tax cut will help all sectors of the economy grow. More and better jobs will be created for British Columbians. The strong economy allowed us to cut personal income taxes in February for those people who have the lowest incomes in our society, so 730,000 British Columbians will pay less provincial income tax or none at all.

Virtually all British Columbians who earn less than $16,000 a year will pay no income tax. Those who earn $26,000 a year or less will pay lower provincial income taxes than before. Now that we have a genuine surplus using generally accepted accounting principles, I am proud that the B.C. Liberal government is investing a significant portion, $242 million of the budget surplus, towards helping seniors who need help the most — those on fixed incomes.

I wholeheartedly support our goal of building the best support system in Canada for persons with disabilities, special needs, children at risk and seniors. Seniors are our priority. They are our mothers and fathers. They brought us into this world, built this province, are the pioneers and hold a special place in our hearts and lives.

I want to take a moment here to talk about what was said by the opposition. The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant said: "The government talks about a record surplus, but seniors are still waiting for long-term care beds." Unfortunately, the member is wrong. Across B.C. we have built more than 4,000 new, replacement or upgraded residential care and assisted-living units for seniors since 2001. Development and construction is continuing on 2,100 new units right now as we debate this budget.

As part of this commitment to create 5,000 new beds for seniors by 2008, my own riding of Richmond-Steveston looks forward to the construction of 50 new assisted-living units at the Austin Harris site right in the heart of Steveston, which just last month received approval from the city of Richmond to proceed. I look forward in the near future to the sod-turning ceremony and the official opening of this seniors care facility.

Five years ago, when the NDP was in power, seniors waited for as long as a year for residential care beds. Today we're doing much better. Average wait times for residential care are way down, between 30 and 90 days. This is real leadership for B.C.'s seniors.

The budget update will double the level of support under the SAFER, or Shelter Aid for Elderly Renters, program. This will help seniors in my riding and across B.C. find housing and live their lives.

Health and education are major priorities of the government. We will be investing $3.7 billion more per year in health care in 2007 and 2008 than in 2000 and 2001. Certainly, these are not the cuts that some groups have said the B.C. Liberal government inflicted on health. Every year the B.C. Liberal government increased funding to health care, and this has resulted in better health for all British Columbians.

In health care, our government has increased investment in programs which will better serve British Columbians, whether it is in reducing wait times for needed surgical procedures or expanding needed hospital services in the areas of our province most in need. The people of my community have benefited from this investment. For example, at Richmond Hospital the necessary resources have been provided to reduce wait times for hip and knee replacement procedures. This is happening as we speak.

The budget offers $77 million over three years for the recruiting and training of nurses. So far, this government has added 2,500 new nurse-training spots in B.C. so that we can hire the nurses we need to provide the health care our citizens need.

The Liberal government has nearly doubled the number of doctor-training spaces in B.C., opened new medical schools at UVic and UNBC, and a third medical training program will be added to UBC Kelowna. This is the first increase in more than 20 years.

We are committing $465 million over three years for Pharmacare, which will improve access to medical drugs for all British Columbians.

Our great goal to make B.C. the best-educated, most literate jurisdiction on the continent clearly is fundamental to our continued progress and our future. Literacy is the foundation of education, which in turn is the basis for an enlightened and progressing society. I'm pleased to see how this goal is being developed in my community. For example, in the Richmond Public Library, where two weeks ago I had the opportunity to hand a cheque of $57,000 over to the library…. These funds are to be applied towards additional resources which will help keep Richmond's public library one of the best in the province. This is part of the $12 million Libraries Without Walls initiative.

In education, we're investing more than we ever have in kindergarten to grade 12, as well as in advanced education. I'm proud of the strides our province has made in making our K-to-12 school system one of the best in the country as measured by graduation rates. The government is spending almost $900 more per student per year in K-to-12 education than in 2000-2001, in spite of declining student enrolment.

All parents want their children to receive a quality post-secondary education so that they will be prepared for their future. B.C.'s strong economy allows us to make investments in post-secondary education for our future.

Now, I'd like to revisit another quote from the speech from the hon. member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant. She stated: "Too many British Columbians have lost access to higher education because they cannot afford tuition, and the government has refused to honour its commitment to legislate a tuition cap." Well, Madam Speaker, she is ignoring reality. We are limiting tuition increases to the rate of inflation to ensure tuition levels remain affordable for B.C. students and their families.

Right now tuition levels remain at or below the national average. As this House is aware, the previous NDP government chose to freeze tuition fees while

underfunding institutions. Post-secondary schools could not keep up with the growing costs of delivering quality education. As a result, the education of many students suffered. In 2001 it was common to hear about students who could not get into classes that they needed to complete their studies. Often these students would have to wait significant periods of time for these courses, delaying the completion of their degrees by more than a year. This extra time of study increased their student loans and delayed their entry into their careers.

But times have changed. The provincial government continues to work on the goal of 25,000 new seats for post-secondary education by 2010. These are seats which will provide our children with the education they need in a timely fashion, preparing the future leaders of B.C.

I'm also proud of our government's new approach to the relationship with first nations, the new relationship which will be marked by an attitude of reconciliation. It's one which looks to help many of our first nations brothers and sisters transition from a struggling socioeconomic status to one which will be filled with hope for the future, where first nations people can participate in this economic success which we call British Columbia. I applaud the government for backing up its vision with the resources of the $100 million First Nations New Relationship fund.

As we pursue these great goals, turning them into action to improve the lives of British Columbians, we will be making great progress as a people — as a great province leading a great nation, Canada, forward. The people of my riding, Richmond-Steveston — indeed all people of British Columbia — expect us to move forward on these goals for the betterment of all.

I'd like to talk about my riding. My riding includes the historic village of Steveston, which over a century ago was the commercial heart of what we know of as Richmond today. Steveston has seen much change in the last 100 years as the fortunes of the commercial fishery changed over this period of time. As we have seen British Columbia's economy evolve, so has Steveston's. As we have seen the cultural mix of our province shift, so has the same happened in Steveston. Today my riding is truly a representative example of our multicultural society, with people from all ethnic and cultural groups living together in harmony and seeking to make our part of this great province a wonderful place to work and live and raise a family in.

This budget provides immigrants $15 million over three years for B.C. Skills Connect for Immigrants, to help them find work in their fields of expertise. Being an immigrant to Canada myself, I know how important immigrants are to my community and how B.C.'s continued success will hinge on their success.

In my travels throughout my riding, I have heard the many voices of people who want our government on both sides of the House to focus on a few key areas which they consider to be critical. I sense a strong desire on the part of the people of my riding for us to conduct ourselves in the best interests of the people rather than as is expedient or convenient politically.

The B.C. Liberal government has responded in several ways. The referendum on STV will happen again, this time giving more information to the voters, such as what ridings would look like under STV. There is an Assistant Deputy Speaker chosen from the ranks of the opposition. There is the expanded oral question period. And we should not forget the aquaculture committee, which will contain mostly opposition members and will be chaired by a member of the opposition. Our government has reached out and attempted to end the petty bickering and move forward to work in the best interests of all British Columbians.

I say this mindful that there will be differences of opinion on the how-to questions but that, by and large, we can have general agreement on what it is we want to see happen in our province as we move forward as a people. I would hope, I dare say, that all members can agree on the essence — the essence, if not the specifics — of the great goals for our province, as these goals individually and collectively can truly make a positive impact on our lives as British Columbians.

I look forward to the road ahead for our province. I know there will be many challenges, but I am confident we will be able to continue B.C.'s economic growth, creating more and better jobs for all British Columbians. This continued economic growth will allow the government to provide the health care and education that British Columbians expect. This growing economy will allow us to continue to do a great job in sustainable environmental management. I am proud to speak in favour of this budget, which will continue to move British Columbia forward.

N. Simons: I would just like to start by saying that I am humbled with the opportunity to speak in this Legislature, and I think of the 800-plus members who have gone before me and have tried their best to serve British Columbians in any way they could. I'm honoured to have the opportunity to do what I can to assist in furthering the goals of all British Columbians. I'm very fortunate indeed — and I echo the words of my colleagues in the House — to have a strong partner beside me, encouraging me and supporting me in the work that I do. I'm pleased to say that he's here today in the gallery.

I have the pleasure of representing what I think is the most beautiful constituency out of the 79, and I'm sure everyone else will agree.

Powell River and Sunshine Coast reflect the diversity that exists in our province. I'll give a tour to any member who wishes to enjoy the benefits of living in that area that I've learned in the last 20 years I've lived there.

I had the distinct pleasure of giving my parents a tour of my constituency, a small part of it anyway. It does extend from Keats and Gambier islands all the way up to Queen Charlotte Sound and east to Tweedsmuir Park, bordering on some of the northern ridings that I'm pleased to say are represented by my fellow New Democrats. They enjoyed their visit immensely because of the wonderful events and opportunities and just the physical beauty of the area.

I hope to do what I can to make sure the interests of the people, the fish and the animals, and the forests and the lakes of my constituency are protected so that they can be enjoyed by generations to come.

We're here now, and we have work to do. Nice to see the member for Nelson-Creston, the first constituency I ever memorized. There you go. I didn't call him by his name.

The four years ahead do excite me; they excite me a lot. I believe that a new tone — perhaps a new approach to politics and to governance — may seep its way through the thick marble of this chamber. Perhaps we'll have an opportunity to work together, whenever possible, to hold each other to account, as we've been doing for the last week and a half — I feel like a veteran — and to make sure that our interests are always, really, toward making sure that British Columbia is a healthy, safe and good place to live.

We all come from diverse backgrounds. We all bring to this House our specific interests and our personal experiences that, I hope, serve to inform the debate in this House. I hope that they increase the level of debate in this House, but that's not to say anything against a good row once in a while. I'm sure that when disagreements do come up — and they will; I'm just predicting that; we can check the Hansards later — we will always strive to find solutions, but holding the government to account is not the same as conflict for conflict's sake.

Earlier today in question period an issue close to my heart was raised. I think I'll raise it later.

Let me talk about the constituency. Let me talk about the wonderful opportunities that exist in Powell River–Sunshine Coast. We have wonderful tourism opportunities. We have a geography like no other.

I'd like to acknowledge the Minister of Tourism, Sports and the Arts. I have followed in her path as she's met with stakeholders around the province, and I've always heard good things. I do look forward to working with her. I believe there's a good opportunity to pursue and encourage the promotion of tourism, the promotion of sport and the promotion of arts in this province. We are a rich and diverse community, and I do look forward to that.

I was talking about the diversity in Powell River–Sunshine Coast. I'd like to come back to that just for a moment. Just recently, this past summer, there was a conflict of two events. Both were happening in Sechelt, actually. One was the Festival of the Rolling Arts, which was a vintage car show and shine that happened at the same time as the Festival of the Written Arts, which wasn't. It was about the promotion and encouragement of reading and literacy, of enjoyment of art for the sake of enjoyment.

I'm slightly troubled by the fact that so often the arts are relegated to a secondary or tertiary role in our societies when, in fact, they really form the cornerstone of our cultures. When you think of any place, when you think of any country, province or region, the first thing you think of is probably not economic development but probably the state of the culture of that community. Whether you meet with artists or musicians or you think of celebrations, festivals or events, that's the first thing we think about.

I'm really honoured to have the opposition portfolio of tourism, sports and the arts, and I look forward to pursuing the visiting and meeting with people involved in those fields.

I'd like to talk for a moment about the issues of importance to my constituents. The residents of Powell River and the Sunshine Coast, I think, have suffered in not having a member from this party represent them in the last number of years, and I'm pleased to offer them another voice in this Legislature. I have a number of goals, and they are all reflective of the interests of my communities.

The issue of a land and resource management plan for the Sunshine Coast forest district is crucial, not just for the residents and the tourists but for the businesses as well. We desperately need to have certainty over the use of the land. It represents 15 percent of British Columbia that doesn't have a land and resource management plan. I urge this government, and I'll be working with this government, to ensure that we can bring certainty to the people of Powell River–Sunshine Coast.

There are many reasons why we need a land and resource management plan in Powell River–Sunshine Coast. Just recently a mining company moved in on the Sechelt Inlet and began exploration. While we may applaud the increase of mining opportunities in B.C., I believe that in all cases we need to find balance. We need to find balance between industrial development and the other interests that exist in communities.

We saw some visual scarring on the Sechelt Inlet. Many people were concerned. Many people saw it from their homes. What concerned me most was the fact that there was no opportunity — no real opportunity — for public input, for public consultation, for the process of involving the community in decisions that affect the community. I believe that a management plan would benefit all of us, including those companies interested in exploring as well as the forest industry, which needs to have some certainty as well.

It brings up the issue of Mount Elphinstone, a beautiful recreational area very close to the community of Roberts Creek which has recently had some lots sold, to the consternation of many, many people in the community. It's my responsibility, I believe, as the representative of those people, to express my concern, to reflect the concern expressed to me about activities that have a long-term impact on the community. We're talk-

ing about protecting the watershed, ensuring that future generations have opportunities for healthy and safe drinking water.

That's the second reason I think we need to make sure that communities are consulted, that red tape, which we hear a lot from the government, cutting red tape…. What that really means is there are probably some places where bureaucracy was a bit of a quagmire. But in many cases it protected the interests of local communities. I believe we really need to make sure that communities have a say in the activities that take place within their boundaries. These are some of the local issues.

I'd like to bring up another issue that's a major concern to residents of both the lower Sunshine Coast, which interacts mostly with the lower mainland, and the upper Sunshine Coast, whose relationships are most often with northern Vancouver Island. That is the issue of ferries. I believe the Powell River residents are — what's the word? — saddled with three of the oldest ships in the fleet.

I have the fortune of being able to speak about the ferries without having much involvement in any previous history with ferries. I do believe that as a government, as people representing diverse communities, we really need to see the ferries as our highway system.

I can't get from Powell River to Victoria by car without taking a ferry. I can't get from Powell River to Sechelt without taking a ferry, and I can't get from Sechelt to Vancouver without taking a ferry.

So we are very, very heavily reliant on ferry service. My hope is that we make sure that communities that are being consulted to a certain degree — a little bit more than they have been in the past — have a say in how their ferry services are delivered. That's another example of an issue I will be working on.

There's been a huge influx of population into the area, into the Sunshine Coast in particular. Our roads are becoming more crowded and more dangerous. It's a concern because any sort of development that does occur is reliant on the same roads that we all count on to get up and down the coast — that's Highway 101.

In Powell River in the spring and through most of the summer and into the fall, there is the Powell River farmers' market. Many, many residents are very concerned that locally grown food, locally raised animals are not going to be able to be sold because of new regulations. It will be my goal to ensure that food security and access to local and locally grown organic or non-organic — but mostly organic — food is available to community members who want to take part.

Let me turn to the issue of Sherry Charlie. I think it's important that after a question period which brought the issue up a number of times…. I believe this is an issue that goes far beyond the specifics of this case.

As you may know, I was commissioned to do the study on the death of Sherry Charlie. It's not a partisan issue. It's an issue that cuts to the core of governance and our role in this chamber. It cuts to the question of why we are here. What is our role in government?

I have to say that I wasn't even a member of a political party before I started that investigation. I'm not going to talk about the investigation. I would rather talk about the broader impacts.

First of all, it prompted me to get involved, in order to make a difference, in order to make things better. I've felt somewhat frustrated in the last couple of years that the real truths of that report will only have a positive impact if they're understood. What we really need to look for, what we really need to look into in more depth is not where to point the blame, not where to find the fault, not to question the actions of individuals but to ask ourselves: "Is it right to make across-the-board cuts in funding, in personnel, to achieve an artificial goal of financial savings?"

I understand the philosophy, but I would ask that if the only thing I can have an effect on here is that programs to the most vulnerable among us are not slashed without careful and due consideration — so that a minister can get a bonus or a ministry can save a certain amount of money…. That's an abrogation of our responsibility as legislators.

I hope the issue is resolved in that way — that it goes away — but it will only go away when there is some truthfulness and honesty and openness. I worked in the Ministry of Children and Families, and I know what it felt like to be tarred with a brush that was inaccurately aimed, with a broad, blunderbuss approach. That's not where the answers lie.

Once we have identified children at risk, we've already gone beyond the place where action should have been taken. There are thousands of children at risk in this province — thousands of children at risk. Our government's responsibility, primarily, is not to coddle the most wealthy among us. They can handle themselves. It's to look after the ones without a voice.

Never during the election campaign did I hear any lobby group say they were going to endorse or not endorse a candidate due to their stand on child poverty. I became more and more cynical in the process of the election campaign, because I realized that everybody is out for their own interests.

I challenge those lobby groups to take stock of what they're asking of their politicians. Realize that it's an approach that's necessary, not a position on particular issues. If that approach is a progressive approach, an approach that's not exclusive, that counts on communication and consultation…. They're not values, but those are the things that are required in proper governance, in my humble opinion.

I'm here not to make enemies with people across the aisle. I'm not good at being an enemy. I would much rather, for the good of the province, find out where our common interests lie and pursue those common interests.

Let me turn to the issue of sport. You know, it's not without its controversy. It doesn't carry the same burden as issues facing children living in poverty, but it is

fundamentally linked. Sport and the arts are fundamentally linked to the health of our children.

I applaud the government for encouraging families and children to have a certain amount of carrots, of good food, every day. That's a good start. That's a very good start.

But we're nourished by much more than the food we eat. We're nourished by a community that is creative, has vitality, has artisans. Those are the foundations of our communities. Those, I believe, need to be encouraged and considered important at the least and extremely important at the most. That was eloquent, wasn't it, member for Nelson-Creston?

The Olympic Games will bring change to this province. I have long ago forgiven the previous NDP government for bringing that up in the first place. Let's hope….

N. Simons: The change, I believe, must be managed and directed in a way that will highlight British Columbia not simply as a developers' playground. I don't believe the residents of this province want to be left with a theme park. They want to be left with legacies.

I do applaud the government for emphasizing the importance of or the promotion of arts and culture in that context. I'm a little bit disappointed, to be honest, that existing cultural organizations weren't strengthened by the new funding but that, instead, parallel agencies were set up. The B.C. Arts Council, for example, could have used funding to increase their infrastructure. They haven't had an increase in quite a long time. Perhaps that's changing.

I'm back to the part about the food again. I would like to ask: what is the economic value of an educated, an informed and a creative society? Not everything is measurable in terms of financial gain and loss. We have to realize that having creative communities comes from the earliest time in our education. Promoting art and music in schools will light the little flames of creativity in the little children who may later become our greatest chefs, our greatest actors, our greatest orators, our greatest architects. That's what will strengthen our communities the most.

I would like to congratulate the Assistant Deputy Speaker for her appointment as Assistant Deputy Speaker.

I would like to thank my hon. friends for pounding their desks while I found my place.

I would like to ask this government if it might, at some point, consider analyzing the cost and the benefit of encouraging culture and arts in our communities. I don't agree with measuring our contribution to art simply in measure of revenue, because there are so many intangibles in that sphere. I do think that if it does help to indicate to this government the value of a string program in an elementary school, or a band in high school, or a theatre program, it will benefit us all. It invigorates our communities.

Art challenges the status quo and provides beauty for its own sake. All these things make us an interesting community, a caring community and a just community. With that I'll close.

Like my colleagues, I have to thank the people of the North Island for sending me to this House: my constituents, my campaign workers and also, like others, my spouse — my husband who is in the gallery watching my maiden speech. I am very, very honoured to be here to be representing the North Island.

During the election campaign, someone asked if I had ever thought that this is what I would be doing. The answer, quite simply, was no. I was a journalist, at times a political correspondent. I had occasionally wondered why anybody would ever give their lives over to politics. I came to Canada as a correspondent for the BBC in the early '90s after seeing the devastation wrought on a society by a right-wing government in Britain. I had seen brutal cuts in welfare; the sale of public housing; the shift to private education, as the public system was cash-starved and unable to meet the needs of children; the collapse of a national public health service; and the crushing of trade unions. These things, in my view, were fundamentally wrong.

In Canada I saw hope. I saw a one-tier public health service, a strong public education system and a society in which people looked after one another. Canada was a model to the world of a caring, civil society. I held tight to this image of our country as I worked overseas on Canadian government contracts and for the United Nations in societies coming out of war or trying to avoid collapse into further conflict, working in places where hate had become the norm and distrust was axiomatic. As I saw ethnic cleansing and lived in societies that had been rent apart, as I worked to explain human rights, legal rights and concepts of balance and respect, what motivated me was knowing that it didn't have to be that way. I knew that, because of Canada, because of our approach to our society, our communities and our neighbourhoods. Our approach was inclusive, not divisive.

Madam Speaker, like others who've spoken here, I'm a new Canadian, and maybe that brings with it the passion of a convert. So when I came home to B.C., I was appalled to see that the ideals and beliefs I hold dear — beliefs I thought inherent in Canada — were being degraded, exploited and even destroyed by an

uncaring government. I was shocked to realize the same basic rights that were at the core of my work abroad were in jeopardy at home, rights that are supposed to be inherent in Canada. These rights are embodied in the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, of which Canada is a signatory.

I'm referring specifically to article 25, which states in section 1: "Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care…and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control." Equally applicable is section 2 of the same article, which states: "Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection."

It is my view that through cuts, downsizing and restructuring, this Liberal government of B.C. has brought — and again, in this budget…. They have reneged on the legal and moral obligations under this article of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Instead of highlighting problems as a journalist, instead of going overseas again to try to assist people in other societies to improve their lives and help their countries, I decided it was necessary to try to make a difference here at home and to try to make sure, as my hon. friend from Powell River–Sunshine Coast said, that the most vulnerable in our society have rights which are protected; to make sure that children are protected, that children do not go to school hungry; to ensure we all have good quality, accessible, universal public health care; to stop people being forced into homelessness; to make sure children, single mothers, the elderly and the disabled receive adequate support; and to guarantee that everyone has equality of opportunity. After all, those who are suffering from the uncaring policies and cutbacks of this government are our neighbours living in our communities.

North Island — it's a region I have a visceral attachment to — is a place of very strong communities, communities which have been suffering. I promised the people in North Island that our voices, our problems, our concerns will be heard here in this House in Victoria.

Ours is a long and proud history. First nations have been living in the North Island for many hundreds of years. There are the relative newcomers — those who settled and built homes in communities on Cortes Island, on Quadra Island, on Malcolm Island, over a hundred years ago — and then, of course, the more recent arrivals — those who created new towns like Port McNeill or Gold River, which marked its 40th anniversary last month.

Those communities and the people who make their homes there — the first nations, the loggers, the fishers, the fish farm and fish plant workers, the nurses, the teachers, the seniors, children, single parents, the disabled — have suffered four years of neglect by the B.C. government. North Islanders, like others living in rural communities throughout this province, have felt the brunt of the cutbacks to social services, health delivery and education that were implemented by the B.C. Liberal government and look to be repeated with this new budget.

Neglect left the village of Port Alice in limbo for a year while the government failed to step in to help facilitate the reopening of the mill there. Today, while negotiations are still on, the future of the village and the services it provides are still question marks. I ask each member to try to imagine the psychological and emotional effects of seeing your community disintegrate. Imagine what it is like to have very specific skills but be unable to work for a year, to see your local school in jeopardy, to see your hospital downgraded to a clinic, to have no idea of your future. This is unacceptable. It did not have to be this way.

Nor are the people of Port Alice alone in this suffering. Elsewhere in the North Island, people have been forced from their homes because of the lack of jobs, in part because of government policies over the last four years and in spite of the often-stated commitment by the government to B.C.'s heartland, repeated by hon. members across the floor in this budget debate.

People leave because they have no choice. North Island is a wonderful place to live. But jobs go, and so people have to go. The infrastructure deteriorates, and they have no choice but to move away. Our classrooms are overcrowded, and our students do not have equality of education. North Island Secondary school in Port McNeill doesn't have the complete grade 12 curriculum this year. Among the subjects not available: grade 12 history. It shocks me, speaking in a historical place like this, that students cannot do grade 12 history at a high school in this province. There are so many kids in some of the phys ed classes that the only activity that can accommodate them all is walking around the block — so much for a healthy start to life.

There isn't enough money because of funding restructuring by the government, so there aren't enough teachers. This inequality puts young people wanting to go on to further education at a huge disadvantage. While their peers from larger centres move through their first year of post-secondary, students from North Island are largely playing catch-up.

It is different in rural areas. Kids who live in Wasa, Zeballos, Alert Bay, Sointula or in another of these small communities don't have a choice of the schools they can attend. In the last four years in some areas of the North Island, schools have lost librarians, special education teachers, counsellors and teaching assistants. Teachers try their best to keep up a high quality of education, but soon face burnout with classes of 30-plus students and no adequate support. Our classrooms have special needs youngsters without adequate assistance.

There are those schools, for example in Tahsis, where teachers are trying to provide a high quality of education to three or four grades in the same classroom. Why? Because the current funding mechanisms designed for larger communities don't work for small

rural schools. People won't want to come and live in North Island, one of the most beautiful places in the world with vast potential, if they know their children will be short-changed because there isn't the foresight in providing good education to smaller communities.

People won't want to come when they know that their kids will end up moving to Alberta because there is restricted opportunity for apprenticeships in their own backyard. In one program alone, the electricians apprenticeship program at North Island College, there are too many participants in each course to guarantee they get — in spite of the best efforts by overworked instructors — truly world-class training.

Nor will people want to come to North Island when they learn first babies can't be born in a hospital or a clinic a reasonable distance from their home. That's the case now if you live anywhere north of Campbell River. For people at the north end of my constituency, that means a drive of 265 kilometres or more. The hospital in Campbell River itself has been woefully neglected, the urgent need for investment ignored. People will wonder why they should come when they learn that recently, finally, one physiotherapist started working north of Campbell River. That was such a huge breakthrough it was front-page news in the North Island Gazette. Nor will people move to the smaller communities in the North Island when health care means travelling 60 kilometres on logging roads because the clinic in Tahsis, like rural clinics elsewhere, can't set a break or do diagnostic work.

What about those people who spent their lives working, helping to build this country, this province and our communities — people whose children and grandchildren live in those rural communities? If they require long-term care, it is nowhere near home. Seniors from Port Hardy are ending up in Campbell River. Those from Quadra Island go to Cumberland. Those from Campbell River are in Qualicum Beach. These are long and costly trips for families to visit them. Why? Because of broken promises by the B.C. Liberal government. This is nothing more than callous and uncaring.

In this budget, seniors get a special mention. Long-term care beds are once again being promised. Our seniors do need help and we do need those care beds, but we also need home support so moving into care is the last resort. But it is not just seniors who need help. Where in the budget is the support for children, who are our future? Where is the money to repair our social safety net to make sure that people in poverty can get their basic needs met? Where is the money for housing, so those people on the street, those people sleeping in their cars, those people moving from friend to friend to friend, can have affordable, safe housing?

I was very pleased to see the emphasis placed in the budget on first nations. It is a refreshing and overdue change of attitude on behalf of the Premier who, in his last term, was dividing first nations and non-aboriginal communities by holding a referendum on treaty negotiations. Our party and my colleagues will hold this government accountable to its stated commitments to forge a new relationship of reconciliation with first nations that is honourable and constructive and fully recognizes the constitutional rights of aboriginal Canadians. I will work with all people to overcome the neglect and social failures that plague first nations communities.

For the sake of all of us we must move forward to conclude treaties. If we are truly to have a strong future in this province, and especially in regions like North Island, then we must work together to overcome the inequities and injustices of the past. In this regard, the budget provisions are a first step, but only a first step. Much more will need to be done.

It is a priority of mine to ensure that all people in my constituency have equal access to social services, including adequate housing, health care and education. In rural communities, poverty is intimate. We know people who live in badly built, overcrowded housing on reserves. It is our neighbours who must go to the food bank or go hungry. It's a person you went to high school with who has had to resort to trying to turn tricks outside the logging operation gates as the shifts change. It's the women and children down the street who are forced to seek refuge from an abusive relationship — abuse often brought on by poverty. These problems are increasing. If this trend is to be reversed, there must be a new emphasis — not platitudes but a real emphasis — on social services and on job creation in rural areas.

North Island. As I say — and I think we will have a competition about this — I believe it to be the most beautiful constituency. It's rich in resources. The revenues from those resources help to build B.C. In the past some of the revenues flowed back into North Island communities. Now fewer and fewer dollars are returning to the areas that are creating the wealth. The populations of towns and villages at the north end of Vancouver Island continue to decline because of job losses.

Industry seems to be booming. Logging trucks are pounding up and down Highway 19 to the log sort at Menzies Bay, but the North Island isn't seeing the benefits. Logging companies have an almost free reign on their cut, yet local mills have closed. Instead, raw logs are shipped out of the province, and the jobs and the profit that could result from secondary industries are lost.

Tourists. We've talked about tourists. They're coming. Retirees are starting to move into some areas of the North Island. The service jobs that are created are essential to our communities, and the promotion of tourism must remain a priority for the government. But a diverse, sustainable economy cannot be built on seasonal service jobs when full-time jobs are disappearing. North Island needs and deserves to have a commitment from government to promote and assist economic diversification. The ideas are there on first nations reserves, among community groups and at councils, at regional districts, but they need support — support which can only come from government.

Allow me to share with this chamber some of the concepts that are being explored and developed in just one area: alternative energy. A biomass project planned for Gold River is just one example. The plan has some

of the energy that would be generated used to develop a closed containment, on-land fish farm. Another example is harnessing wind power. Feasibility studies are currently being conducted at the north end of the Island. Research is also being done into tidal power. This is some of the creativity at work in the North Island, but in some cases it will need a helping hand from the provincial government to become a reality.

The North Island has the potential to become a world leader in research and development on sustainable, environmentally sound aquaculture. This, too, will require industry and government working together. I'm pleased that the opportunity can come from the special committee on aquaculture, if that committee is adequately resourced.

Economic diversification requires creating value-added secondary industry to process some of the existing resources in the first industry. Timber is currently exported primarily as a raw material. It is imperative to the development of small business and to education that the government ensure that all rural communities can access high-speed Internet. This is a need which resonates with the same imperative as rural electrification did in years gone by.

The government must invest in North Island's infrastructure — our people, our schools, our hospitals, our care facilities, our ferries and our highways. Without good infrastructure people will not come, even if the jobs are there. Economic diversification, job creation, excellent service delivery and strong infrastructure are inseparable. It's good business logic, good for the North Island and good for B.C.

Last week the government stated it would be obliged to reach beyond the status quo in the delivery of services, environmental management and economic development. I agree. Creative new thinking is essential. We must develop new funding mechanisms for rural education to ensure that our young people are not at a disadvantage relative to their peers. We must develop new cost-efficient strategies for rural health care delivery, so some diagnostic and treatment can be done in clinics by skilled practitioners rather than paying to transport people long distances to overcrowded hospitals.

We must ensure that vital social services for our most vulnerable can be accessed in their communities, not remotely relying on 1-800 numbers and the Internet. For many of those who need those services cannot navigate telephone trees or work on line. We must transform the relationship with first nations communities and launch bold initiatives to right the wrongs of the past. We must look at tax-shifting, incentives and other means to accelerate rural economic development and diversification.

A number of times during the election campaign, people said to me that they are convinced that depopulation of rural areas was a deliberate policy of this B.C. Liberal government. That is a perception that resonates throughout rural B.C. It is now up to this government to prove that this perception is not correct. The government must invest in all of B.C.'s people, regardless of where they live.

I would ask this chamber to recall the prayer that opened this session. We were reminded that it's an obligation of this Legislature to protect the most vulnerable among us. I submit that that includes whole communities such as Port Alice or Tahsis.

It was a British Prime Minister, Benjamin Disraeli, a Conservative, who said: "Power has only one duty: to secure the social welfare of the people." On that basis, many of the policies of the last four years must be judged a failure — a failure that has violated the basic human rights of some citizens of this province. This must change. I will press this government to be inclusive and caring in its policy development.

I'm proud to call B.C. my home, and I'm honoured to represent the people of North Island. I will fight for them and for every one of our strong and resilient communities, as I will fight for the rights of people across this province.

B. Lekstrom: Madam Speaker, it is certainly a pleasure to stand here today to speak to parliament on our budget update, and I want to offer my congratulations to yourself and your hard-fought election for the Assistant Deputy Speaker position.

I want to start by congratulating all of my colleagues in this chamber here today for the work they've done on behalf of British Columbians. It's certainly clear, as we go through the political process, that we have philosophical differences in what we think is a vision for British Columbia in some cases, but I think we're here to make British Columbia a better place and to work towards what we believe will do that. I offer my heartfelt congratulations to yourselves and to your families.

I've been here for a little over four years now, and it has been, probably without question, the most interesting and rewarding four years. I learn something new every day. If you ever meet a politician — and I know many of us have met them through the years in our previous lives — that thinks they know everything about every ministry and the government they work for, that's the person I'd be very skeptical of, because without question, we have to learn and build on what we know each and every day.

I want to thank my family, to start, and the constituents of Peace River South for the honour they have given me to be their representative. It truly is something that I don't think any of us grow up thinking we're going to do when we're ten or 12 years old. But as you grow through life and do your different jobs and begin contributing to your communities, you can reach further. In this case we're reaching further to make British Columbia a better place, to make it the best place in Canada and the best place, I think, in the world to live and raise our family. I think that's a goal that we would all share. The issue is: how do we get there?

The budget update in September of 2005 that was presented last week, I think, is a positive update. There are many positives that occurred in the February

budget, and we could list those. Many of us have had the opportunity to speak to that budget.

It was unparalleled in our debt reduction for British Columbia, which I think is a priority. And I won't speak for everybody, but certainly for myself. The more we can pay down our debt, the more we save in debt repayment. It allows us to invest in education and health care and social programs. We have to begin that process of making sure that our debt-to-GDP is at a balanced rate, one that's sustainable and that will allow investment to look at British Columbia in a favourable manner.

In British Columbia we're going to spend $32.876 billion this year to deliver the services that British Columbians want, deserve and enjoy. Those services range from social programs to infrastructure to roads to hospitals to education, and the list is varied. That's a lot of money. We're going to bring in roughly $34.4 billion to deliver that, which has allowed us to have roughly a $1.3 billion surplus.

I've already had discussions with people in my constituency wondering if we will spend the full $1.3 billion delivering new programs and new services for the province. My answer is no, we can't. For the simple fact is that we've seen that happen in British Columbia before, where we may have a $1.3 billion surplus — and I'll use that number because that's what we're dealing with here today — and new programs are initiated. The money is spent on good programs, not bad programs. But come the following year, energy revenue could be down. Revenues could be dictated and somewhat different. Yet we've already allocated funding in a provincial budget that has to be there to spend. What we've done is allocate the money that we think is certainly sustainable with new programs — $242 million to our seniors, which I'll speak to in a moment. We're trying to do it in a balanced and sustainable way.

The remainder of that money will be used to lower our borrowing. It doesn't mean we're going to pay down the debt. It means that we project to borrow X amount of dollars for capital infrastructure every year. If we come through the budget year…. Whether we have enhanced revenue or spending is down, we can use that money to apply so that we don't have to borrow as much money. It means less debt repayment.

People look at the debt — and I'll speak to that briefly — and say: "You're increasing debt. We see that you're actually borrowing money." I believe that there is good debt. I don't believe that operational debt — debt incurred to operate a government or a household or a business for the day-to-day operations — is good debt. I believe capital investment in infrastructure is a solid investment in our future. We've seen it.

I'm proud to come from the northeast part of our province. Peace River South is my home — Dawson Creek. I've lived there all my life. I've watched what investment in infrastructure can do, and I can watch what a lack of investment in infrastructure has done. We did face that. I don't point the finger and say the previous government was bad. Their priorities were obviously different than mine.

I'll use simple examples. Road infrastructure. Our rural roads in the Peace area are very important, not just for industry but for the people and the families that live there — the farm families in our agricultural community that have been there for 40, 50, 60, 70 years — making sure they can get home, making sure their children can go to school, that the school bus can get down there.

The reality is that when not enough capital investment is invested in those roads, we start to lose the roadbase. Once the roadbase is gone, the capital investment to regain that road is three times the cost of what it would have been to keep it up. When I talk about rural roads in Peace River South — and I'm sure I can speak for my colleague from Peace River North — we're not talking about paved roads or seal-coated roads. We're talking about gravel — just gravel — a solid, good, high-grade gravel road so that we can get back and forth from home, get out to the farm, to a lease for an oilwell, to a mine. It's important for all of us.

I'm very proud that we've invested over $120 million in the last term in Peace River South alone into our rural roads and our highways. That's a significant amount of money. People — many of my colleagues — will say: "Wow, things must be going great. They must be all paved." You know, as good as it is, as busy as it is in the Peace area, I can tell you that it's a challenge. It's a challenge just to maintain the roads and the roadbases we have because of the increased activity. Our roads in the Peace — not unlike, I'm sure, many areas of this province that all of us call home — weren't built to withstand the loads and the equipment that we see today, whether it be from the agriculture community, the mining community or the oil and gas sector. They were built for much lighter loads. We have tri-drives. I could go on at length about our transportation system, but we've recognized that.

Would I like it to all be fixed tomorrow? I certainly would. I think my phone would probably be ringing with some thank-you's. I can tell you that it's a challenge. It's about choices, as we've heard in this chamber. It's not just choices on the government side but choices on the opposition side as well — choices on what they think their priorities are, what we think our priorities are and what we can do to make sure we make British Columbia a better place.

The budget update was positive. We have invested $242 million to enhance seniors programs in British Columbia. We brought back the seniors supplement. We've increased the SAFER, the shelter allowance to help low-income seniors, and we've invested $150 million — $75 million in each of the next two years — to help with the infrastructure for our seniors. That's very important.

We've heard a lot about seniors' beds and what it takes, and we've heard a lot about what we've had to do to existing beds, to the new ones that we've committed to developing. Finding that balance, I think it is fair to say — and I don't think anyone would disagree — is about a quality of life for seniors. It's not saying that we need X amount of long-term care beds because as soon

as somebody is at a certain age, they should be there. Our seniors are living longer. They're certainly living more vibrant lives. They're out there; they're more active. What we need is to make sure their quality of life is maintained.

How we go about that is through some options. Assisted living is a wonderful option for seniors. I think our complex care is delivering some of the finest services in the world in British Columbia. But what I hear — and I guess that sometimes I differ on what I hear — is that we want to make it even better. Not everything is bad, but we want to make it better than it is today. We're committed to doing that, and I'm proud to be part of that.

I want to talk about the surplus, again, that we're talking about. Going back, there's a huge issue here when people think that surplus should be spent. I'm always cautious, and I go back to this point, which I referred to earlier, that spending money you have today but may not have next year is not in the best interest of government. I don't believe it's in the best interest of the opposition, and I know it's not in the best interest of British Columbians.

Spending money that we know is sustainable…. If we raise the spending limit by $300 million this year, we have to be pretty sure with our forecasts and looking at the future and our economic growth that we are going to hold the amount of revenue we're bringing in to sustain that this year. We're going to hold it next year, and we're going to grow it, and so on.

There's nothing worse than having a government that would take some money, $1.3 billion, and invest some of it, possibly, in one-time grants or one-time capital improvements but then initiate programs that need year-after-year-after-year funding — only to find out that the next year or two years down the road they're back addressing it because the money is no longer there to accommodate those influxes that were originally put in.

Our seniors. We've done a number of wonderful things. I hear a lot about seniors, and I think we all care about seniors. What I don't accept sometimes when I hear it — and I'm sure it is not by choice — is that we don't care about seniors on this side of the House. Nothing could be further from the truth. With a little luck, all of us will be there one day. I'm not there yet. But I think that's our goal: to live a long and healthy life and enjoy a quality of life when we're in our later years. We're going to do that. We're going to do it for our seniors today, we're going to do it for our seniors tomorrow, and we're going to build on it to make it even better as the years go by.

I do want to give a couple of examples of just the brief benefit of what the September budget update has brought for our seniors. A single senior who is earning $12,500 a year and renting accommodation at $700 per month is going to see the following benefits. The SAFER grant that has been enhanced is going to increase that senior's income by $1,944 per year. That's very important. The seniors supplement will add an additional $592 to their income, for a total of $2,536.

For some people in British Columbia who may be earning $100,000 or $200,000 or more — which isn't anybody in this room, I'm sure, knowing our…. It's a significant amount of money, and it's welcome new funding. It helps them. It helps them enjoy the quality of life that I've talked about and that I'm sure we all want for our seniors — whether it's our mothers, our fathers, our friends, our family or every senior in British Columbia.

I want to talk a little bit more about a senior couple — what we have done in the budgets. I hear a lot about our MSP premiums and what we've done for seniors. I'm going to tell you what we've done, some of the changes we've made.

For a senior couple earning $25,000 or less, they pay no medical services premiums — zero. That's pretty positive. I'll bounce around here a bit. For a senior couple earning $25,000 to $27,000, they were paying $230. That's what their cost was. They now pay zero.

I'll bounce right up to a senior couple who makes $31,000 to $33,000, who previously paid $921.60 within that year for their MSP. They now pay $460.80, for a savings of $460.80. Those are good programs. Those are good decisions made by government to enhance the quality of life and allow people to enjoy their life without the burden of worry on a financial situation. That plays a big part in people's health.

We talk about seniors' health; we talk about the health of British Columbians. I can tell you that the financial stress and the burden that is on some families today is significant. Mothers and fathers want to provide the best for their children. They want to enhance the lives of their children. They want to be able to do what they can. They want to make sure that, first of all, they have a job so that they can afford to provide housing and some issues for their children — whether it be school, whether it be out-of-school-curricular activities such as sports. I think we're gaining on that. But every parent should have the same goal, and that's to provide a safe, comfortable environment for their children. That's where we're headed.

Going off seniors for a minute, a family of four under the MSP premiums who is earning $25,000 to $27,000 previously would pay $259.20 in MSP premiums. Today, as of July 1, they pay nothing. For a family that earns $35,000 to $37,000 — that's a family of four — that previously paid $1,296, today they pay $1,036, for a savings of $259.20. Those are positive directions.

We collect, and this comes as a great shock to many people…. When we talk about health care, many people believe MSP is what covers the cost of health care. I'll use a round number of $12 billion that we spend on health care a year, and we only collect $1.4 billion from all MSP premiums collected in British Columbia.

People ask: "Where does the rest come from?" It comes from a wide range of issues. It comes from oil and gas revenues. It comes from our mining sector. It comes from our forestry sector. We're a resource-rich province, and we extract those resources in a sustainable way to deliver the services that British Columbi-

ans want and deserve and, certainly and rightfully, need. We did a couple of other things in the budget update, and I stress "budget update" because that's what it was. We presented the budget in February of this year. This was a budget update because of new numbers that have come in, ones that allowed us to actually enhance services for British Columbia.

We changed our general corporate income tax rate from 13.5 percent down to 12 percent, and I heard some people put concern forward about why we're doing that. Well, whether we like it or not, we're in a global environment when it comes to investment and capital investment out there. Some people don't like that. Some people wish we were just within British Columbia, but whether we like that or not and whether we agree with it or not, we are in a globally competitive environment. Mining dollars can be invested all over the world, oil and gas dollars all over the world. Right now they're choosing British Columbia because we have a solid regulatory environment in which they can invest, and we have a solid tax system that allows them to invest and have a return. A return on investment is what it's about.

I've said this many times in the House before: a business needs to make money. That's the reality. If they don't make money, they won't create jobs, British Columbians won't be working, and we'll see a downward roll for British Columbia. I'm not prepared to let that happen.

My vision is that I want to create an environment where the business community can invest, knowing there is security there for their capital investment, and create jobs for our family, our friends and the people of British Columbia, which allows them to spend that money and generating more jobs and income for all of us. That's vitally important.

With a 1.5 percent reduction we're now down to 12 percent. That's still higher than our neighbours to the east. I can tell you that in Peace River South, where I live and come from, the border is but 15 minutes away. It's a major issue. It's a major issue when we've seen, over the years, workers coming from Alberta to do the work in British Columbia and going home to pay their income tax and people going across the border for products.

I can tell you what I've seen over the last number of years. I've seen more British Columbians working in every sector in the economy of northeast B.C. as well as all of British Columbia. I've seen new businesses starting up. I've seen the service sector enhance their ability to perform duties for oil and gas, mining and forestry. All of this creates jobs and opportunities for our children up there and children from all around British Columbia and, really, all around Canada.

What we used to see is a that child would grow up in Dawson Creek or Chetwynd or Tumbler Ridge or Taylor. Now when I start naming them, my other ones will wonder if I'll name their communities. We would see our children grow, go through our school system, graduate and either go off to university or college, if that was their choice. But if they wanted to go directly into the workforce, many of them left British Columbia and went to Alberta for jobs. That wasn't acceptable, I think, to the individual having to do that. Particularly, it hurt mom and dad when their child had to leave if what they really wanted was to be able to stay in British Columbia or stay in the area, maintain a job and start to raise a family.

I'm proud to say that we've made that change. We're seeing that more and more of our children who grow up in British Columbia and graduate and come out and want to get in the workforce are able to stay here and work. I think that's fair to say. I'll speak to the northeast. It's very, very evident what's going on there, but I think most of British Columbia is enjoying that trend now.

Again, can it be better? I think it can always be better. If we ever reach the day in British Columbia where we think everything is perfect, there's not going to be a need for any one of us in this chamber, because what we come here with is ideas on how we can make it better. We share those ideas, and the key issue is to debate the policy and not the personality.

I guess what I'm happiest about is…. We've all watched, I'm sure, the legislative channel and watched the goings-on over the years — I won't pick any particular year — with awe at how we treat each other sometimes in this chamber. We wouldn't let our kids act like that in school. I've watched it with my daughters. I have two wonderful daughters, aged 20 and 16. Over the years in my past life, when I was involved with municipal politics and so on…. You become very much more interested in what's happening on the provincial scene, so you watch the legislative channel, and many of my friends have heckled me about that. But it just wasn't right.

I'm happy. If we can keep the decorum that we're talking about in here, where…. You know what? We're going to have some good, hearty debate on the policies, because obviously, we differ on many policies. I don't think on every single one. But a good, sound, solid debate on policy is what it's all about — not on the individual who is delivering that message or the piece of legislation, whether it be a New Democrat, a B.C. Liberal or a Socred, as history would have it. We're going to be there. If we can deliver that out of this Legislative Assembly, the people of British Columbia, I think, are going to be pretty pleased and pretty proud. I won't speak to the others, because I can watch the federal channel as well and am equally discouraged, on many occasions, with what I see there.

The tax measures, I think, are important. I don't think it's a handout to large corporate donors, as some would think. At the end of the day, there is a reality that they create jobs. Government doesn't create the jobs. Government creates the environment in which the private sector wants to invest, thus creating jobs. That's what it's about. You have to be competitive.

The issue really isn't that you're right and you're wrong. I think the whole issue when we debate policy, when we debate a budget, is about where that money is allocated, because there is only so much money. I

will tell you — and I think most of us would agree — that I'm not prepared to spend money we don't have. That got us into a pretty tough situation years ago. Again, I don't point the finger and say people were bad, but we were spending money that our province didn't have. We dug a hole.

I believe that out of the budget right now — and I don't have the exact number, but I'll be very close — about $16 billion of our debt is operational debt not infrastructure debt. We didn't build roads with that. We didn't build hospitals or schools. We spent money we didn't have to deliver the day-to-day operations of government over the last number of years, particularly through the '90s. That's unacceptable.

Is there good debt, as I spoke about earlier? Yes. Building roads. Building hospitals. Building schools. The key factor in that is not particularly the number you hold as debt — whether it be $36 billion, $40 billion — it's your debt-to-GDP. Within our budget plan, which was released and we put forward last week, we see that our debt-to-GDP on provincial-supported debt is going to be down to 15.8 percent by '07-08. Those are pretty good numbers. Put that in comparison to your home debt. Are you running a debt ratio of 15.8 percent? I think most people would be pretty happy with that. I think most businesses, small or big, would be extremely happy with that.

I'm a big supporter of the tax measures that we've put in place — not just in the September budget but over the last four years — because to me, it's clear that they've worked. They've generated investment; they've generated opportunities. Again, I think we're going to see that continue to grow.

Capital investment in our infrastructure — I'm going to stress and really speak to this — is one of the most important things we have to do in British Columbia. I hear a lot and I've read a lot about W.A.C. Bennett, going back to the days of his investment in the infrastructure — whether it be roads, whether it be the W.A.C Bennett Dam, all important projects. But the key for all of us in this Legislature to remember is that as important as that capital infrastructure spending is, we have to maintain it. Because if you don't maintain it, you're throwing good money after bad and your costs will rise. So we will continue to invest.

Not only are we going to just spend surplus money on programs that we can afford, but we're also using it to invest in infrastructure. That infrastructure, what that means…. I want to go back, because this is an important point. People think you're going to take the excess money and pay down debt. We borrow money each and every year to invest in our infrastructure in British Columbia. What this increased revenue flow has allowed us to do is borrow less money. Our borrowing costs will be lower, thus allowing us to keep the money to invest in the programs that we all enjoy — again, sound business principles.

Many people I speak with…. I speak as government about business. The only fundamental difference I see…. We're a big business. Our return on investment is the services we provide to the people of British Columbia, unlike a private corporation, where their return on investment is to the shareholder. Our shareholder is each and every British Columbian. Madam Speaker, I can tell you that we're going to strive and do our best to make sure they're delivered — the best programs in all of Canada and in all of the world — and done in a sustainable manner. That's vitally important.

I won't speak at length on the entire budget because, as I indicated, the February budget, I thought, was a tremendous budget. We've seen the single largest paydown in history on our debt in British Columbia. It's seen increases in health care, in education. Those points can be debated. I certainly love debating the point that we've cut education funding, because when you pull the books out and you want to sit down and spend some time with people, it's quite easy to see that there's been no cut. We have the highest per-student funding in the history of British Columbia today. We have over 30,000 fewer students, while at the same time we're increasing spending. That's a positive.

The issue to me isn't that you've cut education spending, as some people would have said. It's the issue, obviously, that they differ on where that allocation of spending should have gone within the education system. We give autonomy to our school boards, and that's been vitally important to those elected boards saying, "Give us the autonomy. We know best how to spend the money" — in school district 59, in school district 60, as we have in the northeast part of our province. We've done that. I think they do a very good job of that.

Health care spending is up. Will there ever be enough? I'm not sure there'll ever be enough money for health care. The reality is: that isn't a question and a concern just in British Columbia but right across our country. And I'll speak to Canada. We've delivered health care, and it's been near and dear to all of our hearts, because we have an incredibly great health care system. Can it be better? Significantly better. I think it can be. Can we just keep pouring billions upon billions upon billions of dollars without looking at a system that, although it eats up more and more money, isn't moving ahead in the way some British Columbians would like? I don't think that's the answer either.

I think that by working together with the opposition and government, listening to the people of British Columbia, working through the committees that we have, we're going to move ahead on that front. But there will always be somebody that's waiting to have a hip replaced or a knee replaced. Whether the waiting list is three weeks or one week, the reality is that it's there. As we advance in technology — as we advance in our ability to keep people alive longer, living better-quality lives — we're going to see the challenges and try and keep pace with those.

We have some of the greatest health personnel in the world working right here in British Columbia. We lead the world, as a matter of fact. That's positive, and we're going to work to make it better.

This is about choices. This is not about: "You're right," and "You're wrong." This is about choices. This

is about debating policy, as I said, and talking about: "We agree with that choice," or "We don't agree with that choice." I've always prided myself that if I disagree with a decision, whether it be something that's brought here to the floor of the Legislature or in my previous life with local government, we bring something else to the floor. We don't just come and say, "You know what? I disagree with that, and it's wrong. You spent the money wrong," or: "You didn't add enough." If you say that, I think that's reasonable, but I'd also like to hear from the other side what you would do. Give me a solution to that. Give me an idea.

I can think of wages. People had talked about wage increases for the public sector. We're very fortunate that we've got the public sector that we have. They're the professionals. They're the people on the ground that do the work. But there is a reality, and I think we heard the Minister of Finance say earlier that for every 1 percent increase that we give the public sector in British Columbia, it's $160 million a year. So I'll just use some basic numbers on a three-year contract at $160 million, 1 percent a year for the next three years. We go $160 million, $320 million, $480 million. That's not one-time funding. That's forevermore.

The issue isn't, in my mind: are these people worth it? The issue is: do we as British Columbians have the ability to maintain the public sector and pay them a fair wage which we can sustain and afford? I believe we can, and we're going to work towards that.

The last four years have been wonderful. I'm looking forward to the next four years. I'm looking forward to working with my colleagues that have returned and new colleagues that were elected. I'm looking forward to working with the opposition, because I think the key to good government is listening to all British Columbians. I believe we've made a lot of significant changes, a lot of positive changes that have benefited British Columbians, and we're going to continue down that path.

But I can tell you as an elected official that whether the idea comes from one of my colleagues on this side of the House or from one of the elected members of the New Democratic Party, if it's a good idea, if it makes solid sense and moves British Columbia forward, I'm more than open to listening to it and investigating it.

Again, I'm always cautious not to speak for my colleagues, but I think that's what we're here for — to listen to each other, to learn from each other. We all bring a certain expertise to this House. If we utilize that little bit of expertise that each and every one of us has, there's no province in Canada and no jurisdiction in the world that will ever hold a candle to what we have in British Columbia.

G. Coons: It's a real honour to be here today. It was interesting preparing my first draft of the speech. I decided I'd maybe go check out previous speeches. I sort of developed my first draft on that, but it seemed they were all Liberal speeches. Until I saw the hon. member for Nelson-Creston do his, I sort of realized that we could be more freewheeling and speak from the heart. I hope to do that.

It's an honour and a great privilege to be standing before you at the opening of the 38th parliament as a new MLA representing the North Coast.

I'd like to offer my congratulations especially to you, Madam Speaker, on behalf of all of the constituents in the North Coast.

I'd like to congratulate all the elected members sitting here today. I plan to learn from everybody in this great hall and share my past experiences so that we can collectively serve the people of this great province, a province that holds limitless opportunities for those of us who live and work here. Our distinguished province has an immense prosperity that we must embrace, a prosperity that must be shared and enjoyed by all.

I'd like to thank everybody in the gallery. I saw some familiar faces today, but it's not the faces I'm looking at. It's their eyes. In the gallery what I've been seeing over the last couple of days is hope — hope for an opposition, hope for somebody who is going to speak for the vulnerable, who is going to have a province that we can hold accountable, and speak for the people.

I'd like to thank the Pages. Every day I walk in here, I bow to you, and I appreciate the faces coming in here.

I must express my gratitude to the voters on the North Coast for the opportunity to serve them.

I extend my utmost admiration for those representatives who have served the geographically diverse constituency of the North Coast before me. I pay tribute to the work and all the efforts they have done.

My election campaign was a rewarding and exciting one. I must not let this occasion go by without thanking the volunteers who worked tirelessly, with so much energy and enthusiasm, to make my campaign as successful as it was. I cannot leave this chamber without expressing my gratitude to one specific person, local campaign director Fred Beil, for leading the way on this election run. Literally, it was an election run. He forced me to run behind his car as we went door to door, so I thank him for that.

I must acknowledge a tireless and dedicated New Democrat worker, Jennifer Davies, who worked non-stop before and after the election. I was so pleased that so many young New Democrats were working on my campaign, young people who were involved in politics for the very first time. Going door to door, canvassing with them and having the fresh voice around was a real pleasure. I thank them for that.

I must pay tribute to my family, who put up with the many antics that come and go as one embarks on a political path. My youngest daughter Hannah just started at UNBC these past weeks, and I know she'll do well and have a great time. My oldest daughter Bretton graduated from UVic, and she's working in this wonderful city as we speak. My partner Lois, who is an ESL teacher in Prince Rupert, is the inspiration that kept and still keeps me going.

Over the last ten months I've heard from hundreds of people from all walks of life. Their stories are all

different, but they still reflect where we need to go as a society. We must remind ourselves that the true measure of a great nation is how it treats its most vulnerable citizens. We have not been great in this province for the last four years. It showed in election results, and I fear that the budget released last week will keep us below greatness.

I really thought it interesting how the media headline splashed out last week: "Liberals turn to social justice." I thought, what a forward-looking statement. Actually, it's an oxymoron — Liberals and social justice in the same sentence. I envisioned the Finance Minister in her newly resoled red shoes, and she's indicating that social justice is a priority for this province. I'm a bit confused. Did this entire Liberal caucus hold hands, have the Finance Minister click her heels together three times and repeat, "There's no place like social justice; there's no place like social justice," and they all flitted off to the land of social justice? Give us a break. Clearly, it would take some real resoling or complete resoling of the entire Liberal caucus to believe this fairy tale.

Now, perhaps through this budget, the Finance Minister could do what the B.C. Ferry Services president and CEO did regarding the future of B.C. ferry services in Powell River. At a town hall meeting, a public meeting, he posted a disclaimer entitled "Caution regarding forward-looking statements." I'll repeat that: "Caution regarding forward-looking statements."

Here's the disclaimer that I've reworded a bit, which surprisingly was not included in the budget speech last week. This budget and other information provided contain historical information as well as certain forward-looking statements. These statements relate to events or future performance and reflect government's current internal projections, expectations or beliefs and are based upon information currently available to government. In some cases, forward-looking statements can be identified by terminology such as "may," "will," "should," "expect," "plan," "anticipate," "intend," "continue," "potential" — and I've included "social justice" — or, as the disclaimer continues, the negative of these terms or other comparable terminology. A number of these factors could cause actual events or results to differ materially from those expressed in the forward-looking statements. These forward-looking statements are made as of today's date, and the government assumes no responsibility to update or revise them to reflect new events or circumstances except as required by law.

So this is the person who needs to have a disclaimer before they go to a public meeting to talk about our ferry system. They need a disclaimer. This is the person who's taken over our marine highway. Let's see: imported from another country; coming in on a work visa; no experience dealing with any ferry system; and with a specialty of restructuring, strategic planning, revitalized marketing, revenue growth, acquisitions and customer service. In other words, a person was placed in this position to break up, sell off and privatize our vital coastal transportation infrastructure — our marine highway. There was no search, no search at all, for somebody to be hired as an effective administrator. But someone who has a goal to disintegrate our public asset and its operations….

The anti-labour ideology festering throughout this new-era corporation that this government created needs to be altered. Bill 18, the Coastal Ferry Act, even exempts B.C. Ferries from complying with the B.C. Labour Code. The total assault against ferry staff who I have met and talked to, which comprise some of the most valuable workers on the west coast, including trades, ships' officers, seafarers, dock workers, specialized shore personnel…. The treatment of these workers is something this government should be ashamed of.

Also, our valued B.C. shipbuilders took a real hit when the contract for the three new ferries worth $325 million and providing 4,500 person-years of employment was cast over to a highly subsidized foreign corporation. Not only that, but during the election campaign it was revealed that B.C. Ferries awarded a contract to an overseas company with no public tendering process whatsoever. The $800,000 lifeboat contract went to an Australian company, beating out the traditional supplier from Richmond who had been supplying these for over 20 years. It doesn't make much sense to me.

The Coastal Ferry Act has many flaws that need to be fully analyzed and brought out into the open. One such example is section 69. The company must seek alternate service providers — meaning further privatization. Section 25: if a conflict exists between this act and the Labour Relations Code, this act prevails. Section 26: if there is a conflict between a collective agreement and the act, the collective agreement is void. Perhaps this government should have created a ministry of worker relations to work on improving relationships with ordinary working people.

Other major concerns involve the elimination of cross-subsidies that were fundamental guarantees for the minor routes that vital services would be there. Service to coastal communities can be terminated if the route is not profitable. We do not run a province as a business. A profit-over-service scheme will only lead to the decimation of our marine highway. Ferry routes moving to a user-pay system, which again will devastate small coastal communities and larger centres that depend on tourism.

The key to all of this…. This legislation exempts this quasi-privatized company from the province's Ombudsman Act, the freedom-of-information law and from any oversight by the Auditor General — and no scrutiny from the Standing Committee on Crown Corporations and with over 500 million in public tax dollars, subsidies, in the last four years.

This is what this government has done. It has entrusted Bill 18, our vital public marine highway, with no regards to ensuring that coastal communities have the required service levels that are safe, reliable, accountable and affordable — and no public input or debate. Our ferry service may have needed an adminis-

trative overhaul, but not to where it's driven by a business model in pursuit of profit over service.

We must restore public accountability to B.C. Ferries to ensure that the public has oversight over this creation and fares and oversight on how our fully integrated marine transportation network is being reduced to a flotilla of basically floating profit and loss centres. We need a public inquiry. We need a special committee dealing with our marine transportation network. We need to do something to save our ferries.

My beliefs and my values have been strongly influenced by my work as an educator working with the most valuable resource in this province: our children. For over 25 years I've been a proud member of the British Columbia Teachers Federation — a social justice union that has encouraged and inspired every teacher from every corner of this wondrous province to embrace multiculturalism, to combat racism wherever it may occur, to speak out and act against poverty, to preserve and safeguard our environment, to instil dignity and respect, and to fight against all issues that adversely affect women, working people, seniors and children. I subscribe strongly to these principles, which encompass a true sense of where we need to go as a province. We truly need to shift away from the one-sided approach to government where a Premier imposes his political agenda, no matter how many ordinary people are hurt along the way.

Whether you're from the scenic Nass Valley, where the Nisga'a Nation is rich in culture, diverse in ceremony and refined in their culture, and where the struggle for legal recognition of aboriginal rights and the concept of self-determination has catapulted the nation as a role model for the rest of the province; or you're from Stewart, where daily life includes watching grizzly bears feeding alongside the 20 hanging glaciers traversing Highway 37A; or from the developing region of Prince Rupert–Port Edward, where the struggle between nature and development unfolds among the world's most beautiful, unspoiled vistas….

Whether you're from the ancestral homeland of the Tsimshian Nation, which encompasses an enormous tract of territory including the unique villages of Laxkw'alaams, place of small roses; Metlakatla, where the wind dies down; Kitkatla, people of the salt; Kitkada, which is definitely a jewel on the coast; and Klemtu, where the Kitasoo have focused and diversified and embraced key environmental, cultural and ecological aspects within their territory…. Or even if you're from Waglisla, where the Heiltsuk strive to maintain with great resolve all the issues that are close to their heart, where sharing the land but never giving it away rings loud….

As most of us have seen or are reading in today's news, you can see that the Heiltsuk today have released their landmark resource use plan. I'd like to congratulate them on that effort. As mentioned, their resolve to manage their territory and ban such activities as open-net salmon farming and offshore oil and gas exploration is one that is echoed throughout the North Coast.

Whether you're from Bella Coola, with the Nuxalk Nation whose traditions are framed in their crusade for sovereignty with cries of "Nuxalk Strong — Nuxalk Forever" or from Hagensborg — a unique Norwegian-like community set along the Bella Coola Road that is a hop, skip and a jump from the Hill — or from Haida Gwaii, where Haida art is so powerful and so intrinsic to their history that it's impossible to talk about one without the other….

No matter where you're from, this budget that was released last week falls short of where we need to go. It was a real disappointment to ordinary British Columbians. Hopefully, after the change of seats, the promise of the five Liberal golden eggs does not have the Finance Minister clicking her heels together for the search for the goose that will lay those golden eggs.

We all know the moral of that story. Greed can overpower the sense of good. The shortsightedness of this Liberal budget is clearly evident — huge corporate tax cuts that were not even mentioned in their platform. These gifts to corporate friends will not meet the needs of those who are waiting for something different from this government.

No new money to deal with surgery wait-lists or to deal with bed shortages so that seniors such as Maxine Benson in Prince Rupert would not have been pressured out of a long-term situation and forced to live at home without any help.

No new provincial money to help communities with the mountain pine beetle. This government continues to bury its head in the sand and refuses to tackle this serious problem.

No new money for children at risk. Despite the ever-growing concerns about the status of child protection in British Columbia, this government refused to set aside some of its record resources to help children in need.

No relief for students facing skyrocketing tuition fees and graduating with debts that they'll never pay back — or, even worse, those students who couldn't even attend due to the lack of government foresight. No vision on how to deal with the major concern about skills shortages in British Columbia. No new money whatsoever to plan or to support our youth who are crying out for apprenticeship programs or at least some revelation that we need to do something.

Child care. No new provincial money for child care. Child care advocates are left shaking their heads as federal money that is being spent would only restore the child care that the provincial government had already cut.

Homelessness. Again, this government fails to address this issue. There needs to be a coordinated, comprehensive plan to address the root cause of individuals that are unable to find shelter. We can't forget that home is but a safe place where we can lay our heads down and sleep soundly. It's a shame. Clearly, this government and MLAs on the other

As the opposition, we will hold this government accountable. The job ahead of us is not an easy one. A lot of damage has been done, but I can guarantee one thing. This opposition party will work hard on behalf of all British Columbians to ensure that we have a fully funded public health care system that serves and meets the needs of everyone in all regions of province.

It will work hard to keep public assets public and not privatize the important services that British Columbians rely on, to protect and improve public education, and to ensure that post-education is affordable and accessible. We will promote appropriate economic development that works for all of us in all regions, development that produces good jobs — ones that you can raise your family on and still afford to send your kids to any post-secondary aspirations they have.

We will work hard to protect our wild stocks and the marine environment. Not only is this important for our fishing industries, but it's vital to maintain and respect the historical, diverse and distinct ocean-dependent cultural aspects of all first nations that make up this province.

We all know British Columbia is a province of majestic beauty, ancient forests and glaciers — untamed, wild and remote. It has an abundance of resources that fuel the economy, and we call it home. For the past four years we've had a "we versus them" mentality. There have been definite winners and, unfortunately, definite losers.

As a great province we win every time we reject the attacks against welfare and social assistance and stand for the rights of poor people. We win every time we remember that the prosperity of our society was gained through the exploitation of stolen land, and we work to recognize aboriginal rights and title. We win every time the environment and jobs are not presented as conflicting with each other.

We win when nobody crosses a picket line, whether you're the Prime Minister or the Governor General of Canada. We win every time nobody crosses a picket line, no matter his or her reason. We win every time we challenge racist, sexist and homophobic acts. We win when all workers have full collective bargaining rights. We win when collective agreements are honoured and workers are protected. And a key aspect: we win every time people are treated with dignity and respect. I hope that we can work with this government to create more wins than we've had in the past, and we will work hard to do that.

I'd like to take this opportunity and take a few minutes to reflect and share some of the special events or highlights that occurred during my election process. I thought I would put it in a format, Mr. Speaker, that you might find interesting. I'm going to look at the top ten election highlights from the North Coast.

Number ten on the list was the impressive visits that I had to the Nass Valley, home of the Nisga'a Nation. The youth, the welcoming atmosphere and the door-knocking really highlighted this for me. The Nass Valley is the home of Canada's most recent volcanic eruption and is now the home of the Nisga'a Memorial Lava Bed Park. No one should miss seeing this natural wonder. The hospitality of the people is renowned, as is their proud history. The Nisga'a Lisims government, which represents all four Nisga'a villages — and I must apologize in advance for any mispronunciations — Ginglox, Lakalzap, Gitlakdamiks, Gitwinksihlkw…. The Nisga'a Lisims Government represents these four villages and all Nisga'a throughout the province.

Mr. Speaker, you should see the government offices. They're situated in an impressive longhouse that would just blow you away. You should go up there and visit it some day, unless you've already been there. Maybe we can go on one of your business trips.

Another highlight for me was attending the second annual Ginglox Crab Fest, which obviously featured all the crab you could eat and musical entertainment from the likes of Trooper, Chilliwack, Tom Jackson, Redd Nation, Doc Walker, Lisa Brokop and, last but not least, the Chug a Lugs, a local group of Elvis impersonators. They were just fabulous.

Number nine on my top list of ten was an interesting election story that I thought summed up where I really wanted to be during the election campaign. My campaign manager suggested I spend my time and energy on the undecided voters. I dutifully complied for the most part, but there came a time three days prior to the vote when I decided I wanted to go to Metlakatla, a small first nations village of 130 residents 30 minutes away by boat. My manager thought I shouldn't go, as we always win the poll in Metlakatla, but that's the reason I had to go. I wanted to go there because we win the poll and those are the people that I need to go and talk to. I went and knocked on every door in the village, and they really appreciated that.

Number eight on the list was my trip to the Bellas with NDP MP Nathan Cullen two days after I was elected. I arrived a day early and was lucky enough to attend a potlatch at Asahltsah band school, where Chief Anthon Tsewalis warmly welcomed me. It was a highlight.

We shared stories, and I told him a story about the big city reporter that came to Prince Rupert and wanted to know how I was going to get out the first nations vote. My riding is 40 percent first nations — the highest in the province. This reporter was there after me to find out. Finally he said: "I still don't know, after 30 minutes, how you're going to get out the first nations vote." I said to this person, as I related this to the chief: "I don't differentiate between the voters; they differentiate between the candidates."

Number seven on my list was my trips to Haida Gwaii for the repatriation of remains in Skidegate and for the Haida Islands Spirit Rising, which is a campaign that was waged against the raping and pillaging of Haida land by corporate greed. I travelled there twice in support of this struggle, once again with my federal counterpart Nathan Cullen.

There was a time in the Sandspit Airport…. The Haida negotiators were coming back from Victoria, and we were there for an island fundraiser — a fund-

I was in awe as I was standing there in front of these six Haida leaders, being introduced to them by MP Cullen. Guujaaw, the infamous Haida leader, looked me in the eyes and asked me: "What's the answer?" I stood there. I swallowed hard. They seemed to enjoy my nervousness, Mr. Speaker. I replied: "The answer is here among you." I did continue to talk after that, unfortunately, and I continued to go on doing a phrase, and Guujaaw said: "Now you're sounding like a politician." I quickly recovered and pointed to MP Cullen and said: "He told me to say that." We had a good time at the Sandspit Airport, and I will cherish that moment.

Number six on the list is the support and encouragement I felt in my home town of Prince Rupert. We've been through some tough times, but as a community, we pulled together, and we're optimistic about the future. The port of Prince Rupert is well on its way. Kudos must go to all those involved: past provincial and federal governments, past MPs, all the past MLAs from all parties that worked so hard to get this going.

Number five on the top list of ten was going to be getting elected, but I decided it was actually going door to door in many of the communities I went to, hearing from those constituents before and after the election — whether it was an ongoing concern about the state of health care or the state of education or about the disregard for the hard-working employees that provide services in this province. Of the major concerns to me, the one that got to me the most was the mistreatment and disrespect first nations are finding in this province. Whatever the reason may be — short-staffed, overloaded with cases, budget cuts — the stress on our system and all our systems takes a real toll. As a government, we must do our very best to treat everyone — and I repeat, everyone — with dignity and respect.

Number four on my list was the swearing-in ceremony. I was humbled by the experience, and I was thrilled and proud to have my nephew Liam Elliot, my daughter Bretton and our good friend Kyle Hayley in attendance.

Number three on the list. This is it — my inaugural speech to the budget. Mr. Speaker, I'm sure glad you're still awake, because that was a determining factor of whether this would make it into the top ten.

L. Mayencourt: It's my pleasure to rise today in response to the budget. I'm going to start off by saying it's a heck of a good document. It's a great road map for British Columbia. It's consistent with the five goals that we set for British Columbia for the next decade.

The goals that we set are quite simply this: to provide the best level of supports for seniors, persons with disabilities, children at risk, and other groups that are experiencing hard times in our province — in other words, looking after those folks that are less fortunate than ourselves; to have the most literate population of any jurisdiction in North America; to have the best environmental standards — best fisheries, best land use, best land planning — of any jurisdiction; to make sure that we're healthy; and to create the most jobs per capita in Canada.

When I was listening to the previous speaker — and he talked a little bit about social justice — I was impressed. I think that as someone who has worked in the community for the last, I don't know, 15 years or so, I have a very strong belief in social justice. I believe that we have to do things that improve life for all British Columbians, that include all British Columbians.

I want to talk a little bit about who we're helping with this budget. We're helping seniors. It's very, very simple. Seniors in our communities have a need for safe, affordable housing. Despite being in government for ten long years in the '90s, those members didn't raise the rates for SAFER. We did.

This year we'll be spending an additional $14 million annually in each of the next three years on seniors housing, specifically the SAFER grant. This means that not only do we help the 12,000 people that are on there right now, but we help another 24,000 seniors in our communities. That's an important thing we're doing here, something I'm very proud of and something I know I worked on for many, many years in this House, because I believed it was important that we look after seniors. I believe that seniors in my community and the seniors in that member's community are valuable and that we should try and do what we can to assist them.

We're going to have different political fights in this House. We're going to have different views, but I haven't heard anybody on that side of the House say it was a good thing that we did when we increased SAFER. I haven't heard anyone on that side of the House say it was a good thing that we improved the guaranteed income supplement or that we're putting $75 million this year into improving long-term care facilities that exist already and $75 million next year. I didn't hear that, and I'm wondering why. To me, our whole purpose here is to do good things for people and, when we do good things for people, that we encourage each other — that we move forward in a very non-partisan way and do the right things.

We talked a few days ago about welfare and about people living on disability. This government was the first government in, I think, 15 or 20 years that actually

increased funding for persons living with disability — fully $300 a month in our first mandate alone. That's a good thing. That means that people have an ability to have safe, affordable housing; to eat well; to have access to medical treatments and needs that they have. Those are good things, but I didn't really hear any of that today from the members over there.

It's a little disappointing, because I think that's probably something that's really important to the thousands of people we have living on disability. It's probably really important to the seniors in our community who are now not paying for their MSP, who are now not paying taxes if they're earning under $16,000 a year. Those are good things, and they matter to people. They matter to people not just in my riding but in every member's riding. I wonder why we can't talk about that. I wonder why we can't acknowledge that in this House on both sides of this chamber.

Another area that we've worked on is, of course, our new relationship with first nations. I'm proud of the work that our ministry is working on and that our government is working on to bring about treaties, to bring about reconciliation with our first nations. Those are important things. I think that's a clear direction our government is going in.

If that's not social justice, what is? Looking after seniors, looking after first nations — if that's not social justice, what is it? This is something that we worked hard on. This is something that we fought. We went through awful, awful times trying to fix the damage of the 1990s in our first few years in the Legislature. It wasn't pleasant; it wasn't nice.

When we got some money, when we had a little extra — not before an election, after an election — we were able to help 36,000 seniors. We were able to help 80,000 people on disability. We were able to help first nations be at the table and have the resources and the skills that they needed in order to protect them. If that's not social justice, I don't know what we're doing here.

This is a very important thing that we've done in this government. We went from several billion dollars in debt, several billion dollars in the hole each and every year of the previous government's reign, and we now have budget surpluses. We have money to put into health care and education. We have money to put into day care. I was with the Minister of Children and Family Development the other day. We announced $632 million in spending for people with kids to get into day care. If that's not social justice, I don't know what it is.

We've come a long way on a lot of different fronts, and I'm proud of that. I just wish that on that side of the House there could be some acknowledgment that those things were worthwhile, that those things were good.

I've heard a lot from the other side of the House, and I actually went through Hansard today and yesterday to sort of go through…. What have we been hearing from the NDP? What have we been hearing in this chamber? We've heard that we cut health care. When we came to government, I think the budget for health care was, like, nine billion bucks.

Today we're spending $13 billion, and that's…. Is that a cut? It can't be a cut. It's more money. What about education? We started out at — what? — $4 billion, and we're at $5.6 billion. That's not a cut, no.

I wonder: are they just talking rhetoric, or did they actually read the budget? This is the budget. This is the document that tells you what we're going to spend money on. This is the document that you can look in and see exactly how much we put into seniors. This is a document that will show you exactly how much we put into education — the highest per-pupil funding of any government in the history of British Columbia, including the NDP.

Some people think that's dry reading, but I've got friends that really like this. They actually think it's pretty exciting that we're building 25,000 new post-secondary education spots in this province. People think that it's really good to invest in the youth of our province. They're really proud of the fact that we're building more seats in our universities than your government did in any number of decades that you might have been in power.

People are actually excited by this document. Some people have even read it. I do wish that members on that side would join them. Have a look. Take a look inside here. You know, what are we doing here? We're creating…. I don't know. Take seniors, for example. My colleague from Peace River South spoke a few minutes ago and said that the average senior who's going to benefit from this is going to have the SAFER grant, the GIS, the long-term care — all of that. The average senior was going to take home an additional $2,500 a year. That's not social justice?

I mean, guys, it doesn't take very long. Have a look. There's stuff here on provincial debt. There's stuff on the pine beetle. There's stuff on our health care system. There's stuff on the resource industry, on housing.

You guys talk a lot about housing over on that side of the House. You talk about housing for people that are disadvantaged. In the best year of your government you spent about $80 million on housing. You say that we cut housing. Last year we spent $170 million on housing. That's twice as much as you guys ever dreamed of doing, and it meant that more people got to be in housing that was safe and affordable. You guys don't even want to talk about that, but it's in here. It's in here.

You should take a few minutes to do that. I challenge the next speaker to have a look at this before they get up and see if they can show me where we cut education, where we cut health care, where we cut child care — all of those things that you say we've done.

I'll tell you something that we have done. We got our house in order. We paid our bills on time. We….

L. Mayencourt: We have paid down $1.7 billion in debt. That's something the NDP never even thought of. That's money off of our debt. We saved billions of dollars to make sure that we could look after the social programs that you say you like. You want all these things, but you don't say how you're going to pay for them.

We paid for them by making choices. We paid for them by deciding that we were going to live within our means and that we were going to get our economy going. Do you know that our economy is out of this world right now? Do you guys know that?

L. Mayencourt: Mr. Speaker, I don't think they noticed that there are more people in British Columbia working today than ever in the history of B.C. That means more people are paying taxes in B.C. That means the government is getting more revenue. That means the government is actually putting more money into women's services, into child care, into seniors services, into health care, into education, into universities, and they don't seem to like it.

Why? I don't know why they don't like it. I don't know why they think that we cut everything. I don't get it. I wish I could.

You see, I came to this House to speak my truth for the people in my riding, and I'm doing that today. What I don't understand is how you can sit over there and talk about a cut to health care when we've actually doubled the health care budget, when we've actually doubled the education budget. How can you say that?

I came here to speak my truth. What did you come here to speak about? Did you come here to speak your truth?

Mr. Speaker, I don't think they did, because they don't seem to want to talk about what's really in this budget. They don't even seem to want to read what's in the budget. They want to take us on a tour of their top ten ideas. They want to mix metaphors. They want to tell us that they've hung out crab fishing somewhere. I don't know what that's about.

I came here to work on things like social justice. I came here to make sure that we could increase the SAFER grant, that we could raise the disability rates, that we could build up our education system and that we could put more money into homelessness initiatives than any government in the history of British Columbia — twice as much as you did in your very best year.

Mr. Speaker, I don't know why they don't…. I just don't understand what it is — you know? I want very much to come into this House and talk about things that are important. I don't want to talk about the fact that, you know…. Well, it doesn't really matter.

I'll tell you what. I want to talk about what I believe here, and what I believe is that this government has taken a long, hard look at the challenges and the opportunities for British Columbians. This government has said: "Look, we can't afford to run a structural deficit." So we changed the way that we are doing government. We actually started to live within our means, and we started growing our economy.

We grew the economy, and we got it firing on all cylinders. In 2004 we finally did it. We had a balanced budget, the first one that B.C. has seen in decades. We put together a plan. What were we going to do? We were going to go out to British Columbians and ask them what their priorities were. We went out and spoke to people in towns that have been mentioned by the other members of the House today in many different locations and asked them what they wanted us to do. They came back to us and said: "We want money into seniors, and we want money into health care." They gave us the things that we did.

A few minutes ago I heard a member on the other side equating social justice to the right to strike. I'm sorry, but I don't think that's social justice. I think what's important is that when we have somebody who needs some help, we're there to do it. This government is. We have been, and we will continue to be. We're very, very serious about it.

If members opposite want to come up with some constructive ideas and help us with some of the choices…. Where would you like us to put the money if you had your choice? What would you like us to do?

I think we could probably have a really good dialogue. We could really talk about what is important in our communities. We could really talk about why we came here. We could really talk about what we want to accomplish. Then we'd go out and do it.

I have spent a lot of time talking about what they said over there. I'm getting the hook, I can see. I'm going to conclude my remarks here.

I knew I could get you guys to applaud. You want to go home already, don't you? No problem. We'll let you go home.

Mr. Speaker, I move adjournment of the debate until the next sitting of the House.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until ten o'clock tomorrow morning.

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